text:
# Non-Stabilizer Quantum Codes from Abelian Subgroups of the Error Group

## 1 Introduction

Let $`A`$ be a finite abelian group with operation denoted by $`+`$ and identity 0. We identify $`A`$ with the alphabet of symbols transmitted on a classical communication channel. Consider the $`n`$-fold cartesian product $`A^n`$ of copies of $`A`$. Elements of $`A^n`$ are called words of length $`n`$. A commonly used group is $`\{0,1\}`$ with addition modulo 2. Let $`\widehat{A}`$ denote the character group of $`A`$, the multiplicative group of all homomorphisms from $`A`$ into the multiplicative group of complex numbers of modulus unity. For $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n)^TA^n`$ we define its weight $`w(𝐚)`$ to be $`\mathrm{\#}\{ia_i0\}`$. We say that a subgroup $`𝒞_n`$ of $`A^n`$ is a *$`t`$-error correcting group code* if for every non-zero element $`𝐱=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)^T`$ in $`𝒞_n`$, $`w(𝐱)2t+1`$. In other words, if messages transmitted through a noisy channel are encoded into words from $`𝒞_n`$ and during transmission of a word errors at the output occur in at most $`t`$ positions, then the message can be decoded without any error. There is a vast literature on the construction of $`t`$-error correcting group codes and the reader may find an introduction to this subject and pointers to literature in \[MS78, vL98\].

A broad class of quantum error correcting codes known as stabilizer codes was introduced by Gottesman \[Got96\] and Calderbank et al \[CRSS98\] (also see \[CMP<sup>+</sup>98, RHSN97, Rai99\]). To the best of our knowledge, apart from one computer-generated example of a code proposed by Rains et al \[RHSN97\], all known quantum error-correcting codes are stabilizer codes.

In this paper we develop a theory of *nonstabilizer* codes based on the Weyl commutation relations. The nonadditive code of Rains et al \[RHSN97\] is an instance of our theory and we derive it directly from the theory. Furthermore, we give a general strategy of constructing good nonstabilizer codes from good stabilizer codes and give some explicit constructions and asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes. For a rich family of nonstabilizer codes, we also give elegant and efficient encoding circuits. We also give a simple effective decoding procedure for these nonstabilizer codes.

First we introduce some definitions. We choose and fix an $`M`$-dimensional complex Hilbert space $``$ and consider the unit vectors of $``$ as pure states of a finite level quantum system. If $`A`$ is a finite abelian group with $`M`$ elements and $`\{e_xxA\}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $``$ indexed by elements of $`A`$ we express it in the Dirac notation as $`|x=e_x`$. If $`𝐱=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)^TA^n`$ is a word of length $`n`$, we write

$$|𝐱=|x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=e_{x_1}e_{x_2}\mathrm{}e_{x_n}$$

where the right-hand side is a product vector in the $`n`$-fold tensor product $`^^n`$ of $`n`$ copies of $``$. Thus, with the chosen orthonormal basis, every word $`𝐱`$ in $`A^n`$ is translated into a basis state $`|𝐱`$ of $`^^n`$.

A *quantum code* is a subspace $`𝒞_n`$ of$`^^n`$. Note that a pure state in $`^^n`$ described by a unit vector $`|\psi `$ in $`^^n`$ has density matrix $`|\psi \psi |`$. A density matrix $`\rho `$ in $`^^n`$ is a non-negative operator of unit trace. In quantum probability, a projection operator $`E`$ in $`^^n`$ is interpreted as an event concerning the quantum system and a density matrix $`\rho `$ as a state of the quantum system. The probability of the event $`E`$ in the state $`\rho `$ is given by $`\text{Tr}\rho E`$. Messages to be transmitted through a quantum channel are encoded into pure states in $`^^n`$. When a pure state $`|\psi `$, or equivalently, a density matrix $`|\psi \psi |`$ is transmitted the channel output is hypothesized to be a state of the form

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}L_i|\psi \psi |L_i^{}`$ (1)
where the operators $`\{L_i\}`$ belong to a linear subspace $`𝒜`$ of the algebra of all operators on $`^^n`$. The operators $`\{L_i\}`$ may depend on $`\rho `$, but in order to ensure that $`\rho `$ is a density matrix it is assumed that $`\psi \left|_iL_i^{}L_i\right|\psi =1`$. By the spectral theorem $`\rho `$ can be expressed as

$$\rho =\underset{j}{}p_j|\psi _j\psi _j|$$

where $`\psi _j`$ is an orthonormal set in $`^^n`$ and $`\{p_j\}`$ is a probability distribution with $`p_j>0`$ for each $`j`$. In other words, the output state $`\rho `$ is not necessarily pure even though the input state is pure. The operators $`L_i`$ are called *error operators* and the linear space $`𝒜`$ from which they come is called the *error space*.

Let $`P`$ be the projection operator corresponding to a quantum code $`𝒞_n`$. The subspace $`𝒟(P)`$ of *error operators detected* by $`P`$ is defined as

$$𝒟(P)=\{L(^^n)PLP=c.P\text{ for some }c\}.$$

It is evident that there is a complex-valued functional $`\varphi :𝒟(P)`$ so that we can write $`PLP=\varphi (L)P`$ for all $`L𝒟(P)`$.

A finite family $`\{M_j\}(^^n)`$ constitutes a set of *decoding operators* for the code $`𝒞_n`$ and error space $`𝒜`$ if the following conditions are satisfied.

* $`_jM_j^{}M_j=I`$.
* For any pure state $`|\psi C_n`$ let $`\rho `$ be the output corresponding to a subset $`\{L_i\}𝒜`$,

$$\underset{j}{}M_j\rho M_j^{}=\underset{i,j}{}M_jL_i|\psi \psi |L_i^{}M_j^{}=|\psi \psi |.$$

In this case we say that $`𝒞_n`$ is an *$`𝒜`$-error correcting quantum code*.

We have the following fundamental theorem of Knill and Laflamme \[KL00\] which characterizes the errors that a quantum code can correct. It essentially states that errors coming from a family $`𝒜`$ of operators can be corrected for a quantum code with projection $`P`$ if and only if

$$\{L_1^{}L_2L_1,L_2,𝒜\}𝒟(P).$$

###### Theorem 1.1

\[KL00\] Let $`𝒜`$ be a family of operators in $`^^n`$ and let $`𝒞_n^^n`$ be a quantum code with an orthonormal basis $`\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _d`$. Let $`P`$ be the projection corresponding to the code $`𝒞_n`$. Then $`𝒞_n`$ is an $`𝒜`$-error correcting quantum code if and only if

$$𝒜^{}𝒜=\{L_1^{}L_2L_1,L_2𝒜\}𝒟(P).$$

###### Remark 1.2

The proof of the above theorem is constructive and yields the decoding operators in terms of $`𝒜`$ and the basis $`\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _d`$ of $`𝒞_n`$.

Now we specialize the choice of $`𝒜`$. Consider all unitary operators in $`^^n`$ of the form $`U=U_1U_2\mathrm{}U_n`$ where each $`U_i`$ is a unitary operator on $``$ and all but $`t`$ of the $`U_i`$’s are equal to $`I`$. Such a $`U`$ when operating on $`\psi =\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n^^n`$ produces $`U|\psi `$ which is an $`n`$-fold tensor product that differs from $`\psi `$ in at most $`t`$ places. Denote by $`𝒜_t`$ the linear span of all such unitary operators $`U`$. A quantum code $`𝒞_n`$ is called a *$`t`$-error correcting quantum code* if $`𝒞_n`$ is an $`𝒜_t`$-correcting quantum code.

## 2 Quantum Codes and Projections in a Group Algebra

Let $`(A,+)`$ be a finite abelian group with $`M`$ elements and identity denoted by 0. By the fundamental theorem of finite abelian groups, $`A`$ is isomorphic to $`_{i=1}^k_{n_i}`$ via the isomorphism $`\tau `$. For every $`m`$, let $`\omega _m=e^{2\pi i/m}`$. Define the *canonical bicharacter* of the group $`A`$ as the following complex-valued function on $`A\times A`$.

$$a,b=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\omega _{n_j}^{x_jy_j},\text{ where }\text{}\tau (a)=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)\text{ and }\tau (b)=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_k).$$

Notice that for all $`a,b,cA`$ we have $`a,b=b,a`$, $`a+b,c=a,cb,c`$, and $`a,b=1`$ for all $`bA`$ if and only if $`a=0`$. Denote by $`\widehat{A}`$ the character group of $`A`$. For each fixed $`aA`$, the bicharacter $`a,b`$, as a function of $`b`$, is a distinct element $`\chi _a`$ of $`\widehat{A}`$ and the correspondence $`a\chi _a`$ is a group isomorphism between $`A`$ and the multiplicative character group $`\widehat{A}`$.

Denote by $``$ the $`M`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`L^2(A)`$ of all complex-valued functions on $`A`$, spanned by $`\{|x\}_{xA}`$ (where the vector $`|x`$ denotes the indicator function $`1_x`$ of the singleton $`\{x\}`$). Define the unitary operators $`U_a`$ and $`V_a`$ on $``$ for every $`aA`$ by

$$U_a|x=|x+a,V_a|x=a,x|x$$

where $`xA`$. Then we have

$$U_aU_b=U_{a+b}V_aV_b=V_{a+b},\text{ and }\text{}a,bU_aV_b=V_bU_a\text{ }\text{ }a,bA.$$

These are the Weyl commutation relations between the unitary operators $`U_a`$ and $`V_a`$ on $``$. The family of operators $`\{U_aV_ba,bA\}`$ is irreducible.

The canonical bicharacter on $`A`$ gives rise to the following bicharacter on $`A^n`$. For two elements $`𝐚=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ and $`𝐛=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ in $`A^n`$, $`𝐚,𝐛`$ is defined as

$$𝐚,𝐛=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i,b_i.$$

Put $`U_𝐚=U_{a_1}\mathrm{}U_{a_n}`$ and $`V_𝐛=V_{b_1}\mathrm{}V_{b_n}`$. Then $`\{U_𝐚V_𝐛𝐚,𝐛A^n\}`$ is again an irreducible family of unitary operators such that $`U_𝐚U_𝐛=U_{𝐚+𝐛}`$ and $`V_𝐚V_𝐛=V_{𝐚+𝐛}`$, and they satisfy the Weyl commutation relations

$$𝐚,𝐛U_𝐚V_𝐛=V_𝐛U_𝐚\text{ }\text{ }𝐚,𝐛A^n.$$

In the Hilbert space $`(^^n)`$ of all linear operators on $`^^n`$ with the scalar product $`X|Y=\text{Tr}X^{}Y`$ the set $`\{M^{n/2}U_𝐚V_𝐛𝐚,𝐛A^n\}`$ is an orthonormal basis. In particular

$$\text{Tr}U_𝐚V_𝐛=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{if }(𝐚,𝐛)(0,0),\\ M& \text{otherwise,}\end{array}$$

The weight $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐚,𝐛)`$ of a pair $`(𝐚,𝐛)A^n\times A^n`$ is defined to be $`\mathrm{\#}\{i1in,(a_i,b_i)(0,0)\}`$, where $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ and $`𝐛=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$. The irreducibility of $`\{U_𝐚V_𝐛𝐚,𝐛A^n\}`$ implies that $`\{U_𝐚V_𝐛𝐚,𝐛A^n,\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐚,𝐛)t\}`$ spans $`𝒜_t`$. As a result, the Knill-Laflamme theorem for $`𝒜_t`$-correcting quantum codes takes the following form which is easy to derive from Theorem 1.1.

###### Theorem 2.1

$`𝒞_nL^2(A)^^n`$ is a $`t`$-error correcting quantum code if and only if

$$\{U_𝐚V_𝐛𝐚,𝐛A^n,\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐚,𝐛)2t\}𝒟(P),$$

where $`P`$ is the projection corresponding to $`𝒞_n`$.

Let $`N`$ be the least positive integer such that $`Na=0`$ for all $`aA`$. Let $`\omega =e^{2\pi i/N}`$, We define the error group $``$ as follows.

###### Definition 2.2

The *error group* $``$ is defined as

$$=\{\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛0iN1,𝐚,𝐛A^n\},$$

with the group operation defined by

$$\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛\omega ^jU_𝐜V_𝐝=\omega ^{i+j}𝐛,𝐜U_{𝐚+𝐜}V_{𝐛+𝐝}.$$

Let $`𝒮`$ be a subgroup of the error group. In the theory of stabilizer codes we are interested in subspaces of $`L^2(A)^^n`$ that are left invariant under the action of $`𝒮`$. It turns out that the invariant subspace is nontrivial if and only if $`𝒮`$ is abelian with the property that $`\omega ^iI𝒮`$ for all $`1iN1`$.

###### Definition 2.3

An abelian subgroup $`𝒮`$ of $``$ is said to be a *Gottesman subgroup* of $``$ if $`\omega ^iI𝒮`$ for all $`1iN1`$. The *closure* of a Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ is the abelian subgroup $`\overline{𝒮}`$ of $``$ defined as

$$\overline{𝒮}=\{\omega ^igg𝒮,0iN1\}.$$

###### Remark 2.4

For any Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of the error group $``$ the element $`\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛𝒮`$ for at most one $`i:0iN1`$.

Let $`[𝒮]`$ be the group algebra of formal sums $`_{s𝒮}T_ss`$, $`T_s`$ where the plus and product (convolution) are defined as follows

$$T+T^{}=\underset{s}{}(T_s+T_s^{})s,$$

$$T^{}T^{\prime \prime }=T,\text{where }T_s=\underset{g}{}T_g^{}T_{g^1s}^{\prime \prime }.$$

Since any Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ is a set of linearly independent elements of $`(^^n)`$, the identity map is a natural injective linear embedding from $`[𝒮]`$ into $`(^^n)`$. In other words, $`[𝒮]`$ is a subalgebra of $`(^^n)`$ under operator addition and composition, where the convolution operation “$``$” in $`[𝒮]`$ coincides with composition operator.

Every subspace (i.e. quantum code) in $`^^n`$ is defined by its corresponding projection operator in $`(^^n)`$. In this paper we are interested in the projection operators in $`[𝒮]`$ for a Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of $``$. In the following easy proposition we characterize the elements in $`[𝒮]`$ which are projection operators in $`^^n`$. Then our goal will be to seek for projections whose range is a good $`t`$-error correcting quantum code.

###### Proposition 2.5

The element $`T[𝒮]`$ is a projection operator on $`^^n`$ if and only if $`\overline{T_s}=T_{s^1}`$ and $`TT=T`$.

We use the Fourier transform over $`[𝒮]`$ and the above proposition to describe projection operators in $`[𝒮]`$. We recall the Fourier transform and some of its properties.

Let $`𝒮`$ be an abelian group and let $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ denote the character group of $`𝒮`$. For each $`s𝒮`$ we can associate the element $`\alpha _gg`$ in the algebra $`[𝒮]`$ where, $`\alpha _s=1`$ and $`\alpha _g=0`$ for $`gs𝒮`$. Similarly, to $`\chi \widehat{S}`$ we associate the element $`\chi (g)g`$ of $`[𝒮]`$. Fix an isomorphism $`s\chi _s`$ between the groups $`𝒮`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}`$. The Fourier transform over $`[𝒮]`$ is now defined as follows.

###### Definition 2.6 (Fourier Transform)

The linear transformation that maps $`s[𝒮]`$ to $`\chi _s[𝒮]`$ is called the *Fourier transform* over $`[𝒮]`$. The Fourier transform $`\widehat{T}`$ of $`T`$ in $`[𝒮]`$ is given by the formula

$$\widehat{T}_u=\underset{s𝒮}{}\chi _u(s)T_s.$$

The *inverse Fourier transform* is given by the following formula:

$$T_s=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}\underset{u𝒮}{}\overline{\chi }_u(s)\widehat{T}_u.$$

Let $`TT^{}`$ denote the component-wise product of $`T,T^{}[𝒮]`$. I.e.

$$TT^{}=\underset{s𝒮}{}T_sT_s^{}s.$$

We now recall some useful properties of the Fourier transform.

$`\widehat{T_1T_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{T_1}\widehat{T_2},T_1,T_2[𝒮].`$
$`\widehat{gT}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _g\widehat{T},g𝒮,T[𝒮].`$
We can characterize projection operators in $`[𝒮]`$ using the Fourier transform.

###### Theorem 2.7

An element $`T[𝒮]`$ is a projection (and hence a code) iff $`\widehat{T}=1_B=_{gB}g`$ for some subset $`B`$ of $`𝒮`$.

Proof. $`T`$ is a projection iff $`TT=T`$ and $`T^{}=T`$. On taking Fourier transforms on both sides of the equation $`TT=T`$ we get

$$\widehat{T}\widehat{T}=\widehat{T}.$$

This implies $`\widehat{T}_s^2=\widehat{T}_s`$ for every $`s𝒮`$. Thus, $`\widehat{T}_s\{0,1\}`$ for every $`s𝒮`$ which gives the desired result.

Conversely, note that if $`\widehat{T}=1_B`$ then by inverse Fourier transform we get

$$T=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}\underset{s𝒮}{}\underset{uB}{}\overline{\chi _u}(s)s.$$

From the above equation it is clear that the condition $`T^{}=T`$ is automatically satisfied.

From Theorem 2.7 it is clear that the code defined by a projection $`T`$ in $`[𝒮]`$ is completely specified by the subset $`B`$ of $`𝒮`$. We will call $`B`$ the Fourier description of the quantum code and denote the corresponding projection by $`P(B)`$.

Next, we give a formula for the dimension of a quantum code defined by a projection $`T`$ in $`[𝒮]`$.

###### Lemma 2.8

Let $`𝒞_n^^n`$ be a quantum code defined by a projection $`T`$ in $`[𝒮]`$ with Fourier description $`B𝒮`$. Then $`𝒞_n0`$ if and only if $`\omega ^iI𝒮`$ for $`i:1iN1`$ (i.e. $`𝒮`$ is a Gottesman subgroup), and if $`𝒞_n0`$ the dimension of the code $`𝒞_n`$ is given by

$$dim(𝒞_n)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}A^n\mathrm{\#}B}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}.$$

Proof. If $`B`$ is the Fourier description of the code then the projection corresponding to the code is given by

$$P=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}\underset{s𝒮}{}\underset{uB}{}\overline{\chi _u}(s)s.$$

The dimension is given by $`\text{Tr}(P)`$. Observe that $`\text{Tr}(U_𝐚V_𝐛)=0`$ if $`U_𝐚V_𝐛I`$, and $`\text{Tr}(\omega ^iI)=\omega ^i\mathrm{\#}A^n`$, for $`\omega ^iI𝒮`$. Now, since $`\omega `$ is a nontrivial root of unity, $`_{\omega ^iI𝒮}\omega ^i\mathrm{\#}A=0`$ if $`\omega ^iI𝒮`$ for some $`i`$ such that $`1iN1`$. Thus, we have $`\text{Tr}(P)=0`$ if $`\omega ^iI𝒮`$ for some $`i:1iN1`$, and otherwise $`\text{Tr}(P)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}B}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}\mathrm{\#}A^n`$. This proves the lemma.

###### Proposition 2.9

Let $`g=\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛`$ and $`h=\omega ^jU_𝐜V_𝐝`$ be elements in the error group $``$. Then

$$ghg^1h^1=\gamma (g,h)I$$

where $`\gamma (g,h)=b,c\overline{a,d}`$. In particular we have

$$\gamma (g_1g_2,h)=\gamma (g_1,h)\gamma (g_2,h)$$

$$\gamma (g,h_1h_2)=\gamma (g,h_1)\gamma (g,h_2)$$

and

$$\gamma (g,h)=\overline{\gamma (h,g)}$$

Proof. Straightforward from the Weyl commutation relations.

###### Remark 2.10

When $`h`$ is fixed and $`s`$ varies in $`𝒮`$ the map $`s\gamma (s,h)`$ is a character of $`𝒮`$ which we will denote by $`\gamma _h`$.

Let $`𝒞_n^^n`$ be a code with Fourier description $`B`$. In the next theorem we derive a condition on $`B`$ such that $`𝒞_n`$ is a $`t`$-error correcting quantum code. We introduce a convenient notation: For $`g=\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛`$ in the error group $``$, let $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)`$ denote the number $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐚,𝐛)`$.

###### Theorem 2.11

A quantum code $`𝒞_n^^n`$ with Fourier description $`B`$ is $`t`$-error correcting iff the following two conditions hold.

1. For each $`g𝒮`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$

$$\chi _g(u_1^1u_2)=1\text{ for all }u_1,u_2B.$$

(i.e. every $`uB`$ is in the same coset of the kernel of $`\chi _g`$.)
2. For each $`g𝒮`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$, and for every $`uB^1B`$ we have

$$\underset{s𝒮}{}\gamma _g(s)\chi _u(s)=0.$$

(i.e. the character $`\gamma _g`$ is different from $`\chi _{u^1}`$ for every $`uB^1B`$.)

Proof.

Let $`𝒞_n`$ be a $`t`$-error correcting code and let $`T=_{s𝒮}T_ss`$ be the corresponding projection. Recall that if $`B`$ is the Fourier description for the code then

$$T_s=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}\underset{uB}{}\overline{\chi }_u(s).$$

By Theorem 1.1, $`𝒞_n`$ is $`t`$-error correcting if and only if there is a scalar-valued function $`\varphi `$ such that for every $`g`$ with $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$

$$TgT=\varphi (g)T.$$

This is equivalent to the following condition.

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{s_1𝒮}{}}T_{s_1}s_1\right)g\left({\displaystyle \underset{s_2𝒮}{}}T_{s_2}s_2\right)=\varphi (g){\displaystyle \underset{s𝒮}{}}T_ss.`$
### Case 1 $`g𝒮`$ :

In this case Equation 2 yields $`gTT=\varphi (g)T`$. Taking Fourier transform on both sides we get

$$\chi _g\widehat{T}\widehat{T}=\varphi (g)\widehat{T}.$$

Since $`\widehat{T}=1_B`$, we have $`\chi _g(u)=\varphi (g)`$ for all $`uB`$. Thus, $`\chi _g`$ is constant on $`B`$ for every $`g𝒮`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$. This is true precisely when $`B`$ is contained in some coset of the kernel of $`\chi _g`$.

### Case 2 $`g𝒮`$ :

In this case the Knill-Laflamme condition takes the following form

$$\underset{s𝒮}{}\underset{s_1s_2=s}{}T_{s_1}T_{s_2}\gamma (s_1,g)gs_1s_2=\varphi (g)\underset{s𝒮}{}T_ss.$$

Since the operators on the two sides of the above equation have disjoint support, each side of the equation should to be $`0`$. Consequently, $`\varphi (g)=0`$ and for all $`s𝒮`$

$$\underset{s_1s_2=s}{}T_{s_1}T_{s_2}\gamma (s_1,g)=0.$$

This yields

$$\underset{s_1s_2=s}{}\left(\underset{u_1B}{}\overline{\chi }_{u_1}(s_1)\right)\left(\underset{u_2B}{}\overline{\chi }_{u_2}(s_2)\right)\gamma (s_1,g)=0.$$

On simplification we get

$$\underset{u_1,u_2B}{}\underset{s_1s_2=s}{}\gamma _g(s_1)\overline{\chi }_{u_1}(s_1)\overline{\chi }_{u_2}(s_2)=0,$$

which gives

$$\underset{u_1,u_2B}{}\overline{\chi }_{u_2}(s)\underset{s_1𝒮}{}(\gamma _g\chi _{u_2}\overline{\chi }_{u_1})(s_1)=0.$$
(2)
Note that the inner summation in equation 2 is summing up of a character of $`𝒮`$, namely, $`\gamma _g\chi _{u_1^1}\chi _{u_2}`$, over the whole group $`𝒮`$. Therefore, the inner summation evaluates to either $`0`$ or $`\mathrm{\#}𝒮`$. Hence, the necessary and sufficient condition for equation 2 to hold is

$$\underset{s𝒮}{}\gamma _g(s)\chi _u(s)=0uB^1B.$$

###### Remark 2.12

If the Fourier description of a code, $`B`$, is a subgroup of $`𝒮`$ then the code is actually a stabilizer code with stabilizer group $`B^{}`$, where $`B^{}`$ is the annihilator of $`B`$ in $`𝒮`$ defined by

$$B^{}=\{a𝒮:bBa,b=0\}.$$

In particular if we set $`B=\{I\}`$, where $`I`$ is the identity element, the code $`𝒞_n`$ with Fourier description $`B`$ is the stabilizer quantum code:

$$𝒞_n=\{|\psi s|\psi =|\psi s𝒮\}.$$

Thus the stabilizer codes of \[Got96\] are a subclass of the class of codes defined in this paper.

At this point we recall some useful facts from the theory of stabilizer codes as developed in \[AP02\],

Let $`𝒮`$ be a Gottesman subgroup of $``$

$$𝒞(𝒮)=\{\psi L^2(A)^^nU\psi =\psi \text{ }\text{ }U𝒮\}.$$

Let $`Z(𝒮)`$ denote the centralizer of $`𝒮`$ in $``$, that is,

$$Z(𝒮)=\{UUU^{}=U^{}U\text{ }\text{ }U^{}𝒮\}.$$

For Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ recall that the closure of $`𝒮`$ (denoted by $`\overline{𝒮}`$) is defined as

$$\overline{𝒮}=\{\omega ^iU_xV_y:0iN1\text{ and }j0jN1\text{ and }\omega ^jU_xV_y𝒮\}.$$

###### Theorem 2.13

\[AP02\] Let $`𝒮`$ be an Gottesman subgroup of the error group $``$ and $`\overline{𝒮}`$ be the closure of $`𝒮`$. Then $`𝒞(𝒮)`$ is a $`t`$-error correcting quantum code if $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐚,𝐛)>2t`$ for each $`\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛Z(𝒮)\overline{𝒮}`$.

We introduce a useful notation for describing quantum stabilizer codes. Let $`𝒮`$ be a Gottesman subgroup of $``$ with centralizer $`Z(𝒮)`$. The *minimum distance* $`d(𝒮)`$ is defined to be the minimum of

$$\{\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐚,𝐛)\omega ^iU_𝐚V_𝐛Z(𝒮)\overline{𝒮}\}.$$

When $`A`$ is the additive abelian group of the finite field $`𝔽_q`$ we define an $`[[n,k,d]]_q`$ quantum stabilizer code to be a $`q^k`$-dimensional subspace $`𝒞(𝒮)`$ of $`L^2(𝔽_q)^^n`$, where $`𝒮`$ is a Gottesman subgroup of $``$ with $`d(𝒮)d`$ and cardinality $`q^{nk}`$.

By Theorem 2.13 it follows that an $`[[n,k,d]]_q`$ quantum stabilizer code is a $`(d1)/2`$-error correcting quantum code.

## 3 Nonstabilizer codes over finite fields

We focus our attention to the case when the abelian group $`A`$ is the field $`𝔽_q`$. Recall that the additive group $`𝔽_q^n`$ is a vector space over $`𝔽_q`$. If $`\omega `$ is a nontrivial character then the characters of the additive group $`𝔽_q^n`$ is the set $`\{\omega _𝐚|𝐚𝔽_q^n\}`$ where $`\omega _𝐚(𝐛)=\omega (𝐚.𝐛)`$, $`𝐚.𝐛=a_ib_i`$.

The set of operators $`\{\omega _p^iU_𝐚V_𝐛|𝐚,𝐛𝔽_q^n\}`$, $`\omega _p`$ is a $`p^{th}`$ root of unity, where $`p`$ is the characteristic of the field $`𝔽_q`$ forms an irreducible representation of associated error group. It is shown in \[AP02\] that any Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ is of the following form

$`\{\omega (\rho (𝐚))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}𝐚𝔽_q^r\},`$
where $`L`$ and $`M`$ are $`n\times r`$ matrices over $`𝔽_q`$ such that $`L^TM`$ is symmetric and $`\rho (.)`$ satisfies the condition that

$$\rho (𝐯_1+𝐯_2)\rho (𝐯_1)\rho (𝐯_2)=𝐯_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}L^TM𝐯_1.$$

Our goal in this section is to seek for nonstabilizer codes with the help of Theorem 2.11.

###### Definition 3.1

A Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of the error group $``$ is said to be *$`d`$-pure* if $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)d`$ for every $`gZ(𝒮)`$.

By the theory of stabilizer codes, it follows that the corresponding stabilizer code $`𝒞(𝒮)=\{\psi L^2(A)^^nU\psi =\psi \text{ }\text{ }U𝒮\}`$ is a $`(d1)/2`$-error correcting quantum code.

More precisely, our aim is to start with the stabilizer code $`𝒞(𝒮)`$ of distance $`d`$, and use Theorem 2.11 to construct nonstabilizer codes of the same distance but larger dimension.

Observe that if $`𝒮`$ is a $`2t`$-pure Gottesman subgroup of $``$, the first condition in Theorem 2.11 is vacuously true. Thus, we only need to ensure that the second condition in Theorem 2.11 is satisfied. For a $`d`$-pure Gottesman code we define the *forbidden set* as follows

###### Definition 3.2

Let $`𝒮`$ be a $`d`$-pure Gottesman subgroup of the error group $``$. We define the *$`d`$-forbidden subset* of $`𝒮`$, denoted by $`_d(𝒮)`$, to be the subset

$$_d(𝒮)=\{u𝒮:g𝒮wt(g)<d\text{ and }\underset{sS}{}(\gamma _g\chi _u)(s)=\mathrm{\#}𝒮\}.$$

We have the following theorem that is straight forward consequence of Theorem 2.11.

###### Theorem 3.3

Let $`𝒮`$ be a $`d`$-pure Gottesman subgroup of the error group $``$ then $`B𝒮`$ is the Fourier description of a distance $`d`$ code *iff* $`B^1B_d(𝒮)`$ is empty.

Let $`s_𝐚`$ denote $`\omega _p(\rho (a))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}𝒮`$. Observe that $`\tau :s_𝐚𝐚`$ is a group isomorphism from $`𝒮`$ to $`𝔽_q^r`$, and $`\chi _{s_𝐚}\omega _𝐚`$ is an isomorphism from $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ to $`\widehat{𝔽_q^r}`$.

Let $`g=\omega ^iU_𝐱V_𝐲𝒮`$ with $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$. By applying the Weyl commutation relations we get $`\gamma _g(s_𝐚)=\omega (𝐚^TM^T𝐱𝐚^TL^T𝐲)=\omega _𝐚(M^T𝐱L^T𝐲)`$. We have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.4

If $`𝒮=\{\omega (\rho (𝐚))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}:a𝔽_q^r\}`$ is $`d`$-pure Gottesman subgroup of the error group $``$ over $`𝔽_q^n`$. The $`d`$-forbidden subset of $`𝒮`$ is given by

$$_d(𝒮)=\{s_𝐮:𝐱,𝐲𝔽_q^nwt(𝐱,𝐲)<d\text{ and }𝐮=L^T𝐲M^T𝐱\}$$

Proof.

$$\underset{s𝒮}{}\gamma _g(s)\chi _u(s)=\underset{𝐚𝔽_q^r}{}\omega _a(𝐮+M^T𝐱L^T𝐲)$$

Note that the right hand side of the equation is the sum over all character of $`𝔽_q^r`$ and hence is nonzero iff $`𝐮+M^T𝐱L^T𝐲=0`$. Hence

$$_d(𝒮)=\{s_𝐮:𝐱,𝐲𝔽_q^nwt(𝐱,𝐲)<d\text{ and }𝐮=L^T𝐲M^T𝐱\}$$

###### Remark 3.5

In the above setting we will call the set

$$F_d(𝒮)=\{u:𝐱,𝐲𝔽_q^nwt(𝐱,𝐲)<d\text{ and }𝐮=L^T𝐲M^T𝐱\}$$

the forbidden set. Note that $`_d(𝒮)=\{s_𝐮:𝐮F_d(𝒮)\}`$.

## 4 Bounds on the dimension of codes

We now give upper and lower bounds on the dimension of nonstabilizer codes built from pure Gottesman subgroups of $``$. Let the encoding space be $`L^2(A)^^n`$, and $`N(n,q,d)`$ denote the number $`_{i=0}^d\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ i\end{array}\right)(q^21)^i`$. We have the following upper bound on the dimension of the code.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`𝒞_nL^2(A)^^n`$ be a $`d`$-error correcting quantum code such that its corresponding projection $`P`$ has support in a $`2d+1`$-pure Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of the error group $``$. Let $`B`$ be the Fourier description of $`𝒞_n`$. Then the dimension of the code $`𝒞_n`$ satisfies the inequality

$$dim(𝒞_n)\frac{\mathrm{\#}A^n}{N(n,\mathrm{\#}A,d)}.$$

Proof. Since $`𝒮`$ is $`2d+1`$-pure, $`\{g\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2d\}𝒮`$. By Theorem 2.11 we have:

$$PgP=0$$

for all $`g`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2d`$. Let $`P_g`$ denote the projection $`g^1Pg`$. The range of $`P_g`$ has dimension $`dim(𝒞_n)`$ for every $`g`$. Furthermore, for all $`g_1,g_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_1)d`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_2)d`$, we have

$$P_{g_1}P_{g_2}=g_1^1Pg_1g_2^1Pg_2=0,$$

since $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_1g_2)2d`$ implies $`Pg_1g_2P=0`$. Thus, $`\{P_gg,\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)d\}`$ is a collection of mutually orthogonal projections in $`L^2(A)^^n`$. Furthermore, the range of each $`P_g`$ is $`dim(𝒞_n)`$. Since there are $`N(n,\mathrm{\#}A,d)`$ elements $`g`$ in $``$ with $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)d`$, it follows by adding dimensions that

$$N(n,\mathrm{\#}A,d)dim(𝒞_n)dimL^2(A)^^n=\mathrm{\#}A^n.$$

We now show a lower bound for the code dimension for codes satisfying the conditions of Theorem 3.4.

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`A=𝔽_q^n`$, and $`𝒮=\{\omega (\rho (𝐚))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}|𝐚𝔽_q^r\}`$ be a $`2d+1`$-pure Gottesman subgroup of the error group $``$ for the encoding space $`L^2(A)^^n`$. Then there is a $`d`$-error correcting code $`𝒞_n`$ such that its corresponding projection has support in $`𝒮`$ and

$$dim(C_n)\frac{q^n}{N(n,q,2d)}.$$

Proof. For the $`2d+1`$-pure Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮=\{\omega (\rho (𝐚))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}|𝐚𝔽_q^r\}`$, let $`X`$ be the corresponding forbidden set. By Theorem 3.4, $`X`$ is the image of the set $`\{(𝐱,𝐲)|𝐱,𝐲𝔽_q^n,wt(𝐱,𝐲)d1\}`$ under the map $`(𝐱,𝐲)L^T𝐲M^T𝐱`$. The number of $`𝐱,𝐲𝔽_q^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(𝐱,𝐲)2d`$ is $`N(n,q,2d)`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\#}XN(n,q,2d)`$. We prove the existence of the code $`𝒞_n`$ by constructing its Fourier description $`B𝒮`$ using the following “greedy” strategy to pick elements from $`𝒮`$:

1. initially, let $`B=\{\}`$ and let $`A=𝒮`$.
2. Pick any $`𝐮A`$ and include in $`B`$.
3. Remove from $`A`$ all elements $`𝐯`$ such that difference $`𝐮𝐯`$ is in $`X`$, where $`u`$ is the element picked in the previous step.
4. If $`A=\mathrm{}`$ stop. Otherwise, return to Step 2.

Note that this strategy will eliminate at most $`\mathrm{\#}X`$ elements from $`A`$ every time we include a new element in $`B`$. Thus, the number of elements picked into $`B`$ will be at least $`\frac{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}{\mathrm{\#}X}\frac{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}{N(n,q,2d)}`$. Applying Lemma 2.8 yields the desired lower bound.

We can now easily argue about the existence of asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes. The following theorem is a paraphrase of a result we proved in \[AP02\] about the existence of $`d`$-pure maximal Gottesman subgroups of the error group $``$ for large $`d`$, for encoding space $`L^2(A)^^n`$ for large $`n`$ ($`A=𝔽_2`$).

We first need the following technical definition.

###### Definition 4.3

\[AP02\] An $`n\times n`$ matrix $`R`$ over $`𝔽_2`$ is said to be $`\alpha `$-*good* if the following conditions are true.

1. The sum of every $`\alpha n`$ columns of $`R`$ has weight at least $`\alpha n`$.
2. The sum of every $`\alpha n`$ rows of $`R`$ has weight at least $`\alpha n`$.
3. The sum of every $`\alpha n`$ columns of $`R`$ has weight at most $`(1\alpha )n`$.
4. The sum of every $`\alpha n`$ rows of $`R`$ has weight at most $`(1\alpha )n`$.

It is shown in \[AP02\] that there is a constant $`\alpha >0`$ and a corresponding positive integer $`n_\alpha `$ such that

$$\mathrm{Pr}[R\text{ is }\alpha \text{-good }]>0.$$

###### Theorem 4.4

\[AP02\] For $`0<\alpha <1`$, suppose $`R`$ is an $`n\times n`$ $`\alpha `$-good matrix over $`𝔽_2`$. Let $`L`$ be the following $`2n\times 2n`$ symmetric matrix over $`𝔽_2`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& R\\ R^T& 0\end{array}\right)$$

If we write $`L=D+D^T`$, where $`D`$ is the upper triangular matrix with zeros on the principal diagonal, then $`𝒮=\{\stackrel{~}{\omega }(𝐚^TD𝐚)U_𝐚V_{L𝐚𝐛}𝐚C,𝐛C^{}\}`$, is an $`\alpha n`$-pure maximal Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of the error group $``$.

Now, applying Theorem 4.2 we immediately get the following family of asymptotically good nonstabilizer codes.

###### Corollary 4.5

For $`0<\alpha <1`$, suppose $`R`$ is an $`n\times n`$ $`\alpha `$-good matrix over $`𝔽_2`$ and $`𝒮`$ is the $`\alpha n`$-pure maximal Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of the error group $``$ (defined in the above theorem). Then there is an $`\alpha n1/2`$-error correcting quantum code of dimension $`\frac{2^n}{N(n,2,\alpha n)}`$, whose projection has support in $`𝒮`$.

## 5 Explicit construction of Non-stabilizer codes

We now give an explicit construction of a family of distance $`2`$ code. Recall that any abelian group of the error group is of the form

$$𝒮=\{\omega (\rho (𝐚))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}:𝐚𝔽_q^r\}$$

where $`L`$ and $`M`$ are $`r\times n`$ matrices over $`𝔽_q`$ such that $`L^TM`$ is symmetric and $`\rho `$ satisfies the condition

$$\rho (𝐚_1+𝐚_2)\rho (𝐚_1)\rho (𝐚_2)=𝐚_1^TL^TM𝐚_2.$$

Given an odd integer $`n=2m+1`$, we give the explicit construction of a $`((n,1+n(q1),2))_q`$ code. Note that if $`q=2`$ and $`n=5`$ we get a $`((5,6,2))_2`$ code. In \[RHSN97\] a $`((5,6,2))_2`$ code is given which is generated by a computer search. They have also shown that for distance 2 this is the best possible code. We also show that there is a code of dimension greater than $`\frac{q^n}{n(q^21)}`$.

Let $`𝐱𝔽_q^n`$ is all zeros except at positions $`m+1`$ and $`m+2`$ where it is $`1`$. Define the matrices $`S`$ and $`L`$ as follows

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐱\\ \sigma 𝐱\\ \mathrm{}\\ \sigma ^i𝐱\\ \mathrm{}\\ \sigma ^{n1}𝐱\end{array}\right)L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 0\\ I_{n1}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0\\ & \\ & \\ 1\mathrm{}1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\sigma `$ is the cyclic shift on $`n`$ elements and $`I_{n1}`$ is the $`n1\times n1`$ identity matrix. Let $`J`$ be the $`n\times n`$ matrix, all of whose entries are $`1𝔽_q`$. Note that $`JL=0`$ and hence $`M^TL=L^TSL`$ is symmetric. As a result $`L`$ and $`M`$ gives rise to a Gottesman subgroup

$$𝒮=\{\omega (\rho (a))U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}:𝐚𝔽_q^n\}$$

Let $`𝐞_i,0in1`$ be the standard basis for $`𝔽_q^n`$. $`𝐞_i`$ is the vector with a $`1`$ in the $`i^{th}`$ position and $`𝐞_0`$ is the vector with a $`1`$ at the $`n^{th}`$ position. Let $`\underset{¯}{1}=(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ then we have the following observation.

###### Observation 5.1

$$S𝐞_j=𝐞_{j+m}+𝐞_{j+m+1}(\text{ index addition mod n}).$$

$$L^T𝐞_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝐞_0\underset{¯}{1}& j=0\\ 𝐞_j& otherwise\end{array}$$

$$M^T𝐞_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝐞_{j+m}+𝐞_{j+m+1}+\underset{¯}{1}& \text{if }j+m0\text{ and }j+m+10(\text{mod n})\\ 𝐞_0+𝐞_1& j+m0(\text{mod n})\\ 𝐞_0+𝐞_{n1}& j+m+10(\text{mod n})\end{array}$$

Note that for $`L`$ and $`M`$ defined as above $`𝒮`$ will be a maximal abelian subgroup (because its cardinality is $`2^n`$) and is $`2pure`$. More over the 2-forbidden set is given by

$$F_2=\{L^T𝐲M^T𝐱:wt(x,y)=1\}=\{aM^T𝐞_j+bL^T𝐞_j:(a,b)(0,0);a,b𝔽_q1jn\}$$

We have the following asymptotic result.

###### Theorem 5.2

Let $`n=2m+1`$ be an odd integer. There exists a $`((n,\frac{q^n}{n(q^21)},2))_q`$ quantum code.

Proof. $`\mathrm{\#}F_2=n(q^21)`$. Applying a greedy algorithm similar to the one in theorem 4.2 we get the required result.

Consider the subset $`B`$ of $`𝒮`$ defined as

$$B=\left\{\underset{¯}{0}\right\}\{\alpha 𝐞_0:\alpha 𝔽_q^{}\}\{𝐞_0+\alpha \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}𝐞_i\right)𝐞_j:\alpha 𝔽_q^{};j=1,2,\mathrm{}n1\}.$$

We have $`\mathrm{\#}B=1+n(q1)`$. We also have the following theorem

###### Theorem 5.3

The set $`B`$ as defined above is the Fourier description of a $`((n,1+n(q1),2))_q`$ code.

Proof. Let $`D=(BB)\{\underset{¯}{0}\}`$. Since $`F_2`$ does not contain the zero vector it is sufficient to prove that $`F_2D`$ is empty. Let $`𝐮_i=\left(_{j=1}^{n1}𝐞_j\right)𝐞_i,1in1`$. Now $`D=A_1A_2A_3A_4`$ where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_1& =& \{\alpha 𝐞_0,\alpha 0\}\hfill \\ A_2& =& \{𝐞_0+\alpha 𝐮_i:\alpha 0\}\hfill \\ A_3& =& \{\alpha 𝐞_0+\beta 𝐮_i:\beta 0;\alpha 1;1in1\}\hfill \\ A_4& =& \{\alpha 𝐮_i+\beta 𝐮_j:\alpha ,\beta 0;1i,jn1;\alpha \beta \text{ or }ij\}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta 𝔽_q`$. The elements of the forbidden set $`F_2`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_1& =& \{a(𝐞_m+𝐞_{m+1})+b𝐞_0+(ab)\underset{¯}{1}:(a,b)(0,0)\}\hfill \\ R_2& =& \{a(𝐞_0+𝐞_1)+b𝐞_{m+1}:(a,b)(0,0)\}\hfill \\ R_3& =& \{a(𝐞_0+𝐞_{n1})+b𝐞_m:(a,b)(0,0)\}\hfill \\ R_4& =& \{a(𝐞_{j+m}+𝐞_{j+m+1})+b𝐞_j+a\underset{¯}{1}:(a,b)(0,0);j0,jm,jm+1\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Now it can be verified that $`A_iR_j`$ is empty for every $`1i,j4`$.

## 6 Examples of 1-error correcting nonstabilizer codes

In this section we give explicit constructions of a $`((33,155,3))`$ code and a $`((15,8,3))`$ code. The codes we construct will be over the field $`𝔽_2`$.

Let $`n=2m+1`$ be any odd integer. Let $`𝐱`$ be the vector in $`𝔽_2^n`$ with zeros at all positions except $`m+1`$ and $`m+2`$. As in the previous section, let

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐱\\ \sigma 𝐱\\ \mathrm{}\\ \sigma ^i𝐱\\ \mathrm{}\\ \sigma ^{n1}𝐱\end{array}\right)L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 0\\ I_{n1}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0\\ & \\ & \\ 1\mathrm{}1& 0\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\sigma `$ is the cyclic shift. Let $`J`$ be the $`n\times n`$ matrix all of whose entries are 1’s. Recall that the generalized Laflamme code is the stabilizer code associated with stabilizer group given by

$$𝒮=\{U_{L𝐚}V_{M𝐚}:𝐚𝔽_2^n\},$$

where $`M=SL+J`$. The corresponding 1-forbidden set is given by

$$F_1=\{aM^Te_i+bL^Te_i:a,b𝔽_2\}.$$

It can be easily verified that $`F_{d+1}=F_d+F_1`$. Now, let $`W_d=\{wt(𝐚):𝐚F_d\}`$. It can be easily checked that $`W_1=\{1,2,3,n3,n2,n1\}`$ and $`W_2=\{1,2,3,4,5,6,n6,n5,n4,n3,n2,n1\}`$.

If $`B`$ is a subset of $`𝔽_2^n`$ such that for $`uBB`$ we have $`wt(u)W_2`$ then $`B`$ is the Fourier description of a 1-error correcting quantum code. A natural approach to finding large Fourier descriptions $`B`$ is to solve the following combinatorial problem.

###### Problem 6.1

Construct a family of subsets $`𝔉`$ of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that for all $`S_1,S_2𝔉`$, $`S_1S_2`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\#}(S_1S_2)+\mathrm{\#}(S_2S_1)W_2.$$

Given such a collection of subsets $`𝔉`$, it is clear that the set $`B`$ defined as

$`B=\{{\displaystyle \underset{iS}{}}e_i:S𝔉\}`$ (3)
will yield the Fourier description of a 1-error correcting quantum code by Theorem 2.11. For, the condition on the family of subsets $`𝔉`$ will ensure that the weight of any element in $`BB`$ does not lie in the set $`\{1,2,3,4,5,6,n6,n5,n4,n3,n2,n1\}`$ and hence $`(BB)F_2=\mathrm{}`$.

As our first example we describe a $`((15,8,3))`$ code. For $`n=15`$ it suffices to construct a family of $`8`$ subsets $`𝔉`$ such that for any two distinct subsets $`S_1,S_2𝔉`$ we have $`\mathrm{\#}(S_1S_2)+\mathrm{\#}(S_2S_1)\{7,8\}`$. Then, $`B`$ defined by Equation 3 will be the Fourier description of a $`((15,8,3))`$ code. The eight subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},15\}`$ that we pick are as follows:

1. $`S_1=\{1,2,3,4,13\}`$, $`S_2=\{5,6,7,8,13\}`$, $`S_3=\{9,10,11,12,13\}`$,
2. $`S_4=\{1,2,5,6,9,10\}`$, $`S_5=\{1,2,7,8,11,12\}`$, $`S_6=\{3,4,7,8,9,10\}`$,
3. $`S_7=\{3,4,5,6,11,12\}`$, $`S_8=\{14,15\}`$.

In order to construct such nonstabilizer codes for general $`n`$ we need to construct explicit set families $`𝔉`$ as a solution to Problem 6.1. To this we describe a general method and use it to construct a $`((33,155,3))`$ code. More precisely, we will seek a special solution of Problem 6.1 in which all the sets in $`𝔉`$ are of the same cardinality.

Consider the case $`n=33`$. In our explicit construction we consider only subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},32\}`$. Consider the vector space $`𝔽_2^5`$. As sets, $`𝔽_2^5`$ and $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},32\}`$ are of the same size and can be identified using any 1-1 correspondence. Our goal is essentially to find a family of subsets of $`𝔽_2^5`$ satisfying the above conditions. Let $`𝔉`$ be the family of all 3 dimensional subspaces of $`𝔽_2^5`$. Since any $`S𝔉`$ is a vector space over $`𝔽_2`$ of dimension three, we have $`\mathrm{\#}S=2^3=8`$. Moreover any two distinct subspaces can have at most 4 vectors in common. Hence for every pair of distinct sets $`S_1,S_2𝔉`$ we have $`\mathrm{\#}S_1S_24`$. Consequently, for distinct sets $`S_1,S_2𝔉`$ we have

$$8\mathrm{\#}(S_1S_2)+\mathrm{\#}(S_2S_1)14.$$

Thus, for distinct sets $`S_1,S_2𝔉`$ $`\mathrm{\#}(S_1S_2)+\mathrm{\#}(S_2S_1)W_2`$ and hence the corresponding Fourier description $`B`$ gives rise to a 1-error correcting code.

Now, to find the size of the set $`B`$ which is the dimension of the code we have to find the size of $`𝔉`$. The following general theorem gives the exact size.

###### Theorem 6.2

Consider the vector space $`𝔽_q^m`$. The number of subspace of dimension $`r`$ is given by

$$N(n,q,r)=\frac{(q^m1)(q^{m1}1)\mathrm{}(q1)}{(q^r1)(q^{r1}1)\mathrm{}(q1)(q^{mr}1)(q^{mr1}1)\mathrm{}(q1)}$$

Proof. Let $`𝐞_1,𝐞_2,\mathrm{},𝐞_m`$ be the standard basis for $`𝔽_q^m`$. Let $`𝔗`$ be the family of all $`r`$ dimensional subspaces of $`𝔽_q^m`$. We want to find $`\mathrm{\#}𝔗`$. Let $`R`$ be the subspace of $`𝔽_q^m`$ spanned by the vectors $`𝐞_1,𝐞_2,\mathrm{},𝐞_r`$. Consider the group $`G=GL_m(𝔽_q)`$. $`G`$ acts on $`𝔗`$ transitively and hence the orbit of $`R`$ under the $`G`$ action is the whole of $`𝔗`$. Hence the number of element in $`𝔗`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\#}𝔗=\frac{\mathrm{\#}G}{\mathrm{\#}G_R}$$

where $`G_R`$ is the subgroup of $`G`$ that leaves $`R`$ invariant.

Any element of $`G_R`$ is of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& \\ & \\ 0& B\end{array}\right)$$

where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`r\times r`$ and $`(mr)\times (mr)`$ nonsingular matrices respectively and $``$ is any $`r\times (mr)`$ matrix. If $`g(m)=\mathrm{\#}GL_m(𝔽_q)`$ then we have

$$\mathrm{\#}G_R=g(r)g(mr)q^{(mr)r}.$$

So the problem reduces to finding $`g(m)`$. Let $`A`$ be any matrix in $`GL_m(𝔽_q)`$. The first column of $`A`$ can be any one of the nonzero vectors is $`𝔽_q^m`$. The are $`q^m1`$ nonzero vectors. Having fixed the first column $`𝐚_1`$, we have $`q^mq`$ choices for the second column $`𝐚_2`$. Similarly there are $`q^mq^2`$ choices for the third column and so on. Therefore the number of elements in $`GL_m(𝔽_q)`$ is given by

$$g(m)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}(q^mq^i).$$

Therefore the size of $`𝔗`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\#}𝔗`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g(m)}{g(r)g(mr)q^{(mr)r}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(q^m1)(q^{m1}1)\mathrm{}(q1)}{(q^r1)(q^{r1}1)\mathrm{}(q1)(q^{mr}1)(q^{mr1}1)\mathrm{}(q1)}}`$
From Theorem 6.2 we have

$$\mathrm{\#}𝔉=N(5,2,3)=155$$

and hence the set $`B`$ defined as

$$B=\{\underset{iS}{}e_i:S𝔉\}$$

gives a $`((33,155,3))`$ code.

###### Remark 6.3

We can actually obtain a $`((31,155,3))`$ code as follows: construct the same family of 3-dimensional subspaces of $`𝔽_2^5`$ which are 155 in number. Now, drop the extra coordinate, which will still result in 155 distinct subsets such that the symmetric difference of any pair of these has weight in the range 7 to 13. Thus, we have a $`((31,155,3))`$ nonstabilizer code. We can easily extend this puncturing argument to other nonstabilizer codes.

## 7 Encoding circuits for a class of nonstabilizer codes

In this section we discuss the encoding algorithm for the class of non-stabilizer codes defined in Section 5 and the asymptotically good codes of Corollary 4.5. Recall that given an Gottesman subgroup, a code can be specified by giving its Fourier description. We fix our encoding space to be $`L^2(𝔽_q^n)`$. Let $`C=\{𝐚|_ia_i=0\}`$ and $`C^{}`$ the set $`\{𝐛|𝐛^T𝐚=0\text{ for all }𝐚C\}`$ We restrict attention to maximal Gottesman subgroups of the form

$$𝒮=\{s_{a,b}=\omega (𝐚^TD𝐚)U_𝐚V_{L𝐚+𝐛}|𝐚C,𝐛C^{}\}$$

where $`D`$ is an upper triangular matrix and $`L=D+D^T`$. Consider a code $`𝒞_n`$ with Fourier description $`B𝒮`$. Recall that the dimension of the code is $`\mathrm{\#}B`$. Due to the isomorphism $`𝒮C\times C^{}𝔽_q^n\times 𝔽_q^n`$ we have the character group of $`𝒮`$ as

$$\chi _{s_{𝐜,𝐝}}(s_{𝐚,𝐛})=\chi _{𝐜,𝐝}(𝐚,𝐛)=\omega (𝐚^T𝐜+𝐛^T𝐜).$$

For $`u𝒮`$ define $`𝒮_u`$ to be the abelian group $`\{\chi _u(s)s|s𝒮\}`$. It is easy to see that $`𝒮_u`$ is also a maximal Gottesman subgroup. In this notation we have $`𝒮_1=𝒮`$. Let $`𝒞_{𝒮_u}`$ denote the stabilizer (one dimensional) code corresponding to the Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮_u`$. Let $`\{|\phi _u\}`$ denote a (singleton) orthonormal basis for $`𝒞_{𝒮_u}`$ for each $`u𝒮`$.

###### Theorem 7.1

The vectors $`|\phi _u,uB`$ forms an orthonormal basis for the code with Fourier description $`B`$.

Proof. The projection operators for the code with Fourier description $`B`$ is given by

$$P=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}S}\underset{uB}{}\underset{s𝒮}{}\chi _u(s)s=\underset{uB}{}P_u$$

where $`P_u=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}_{s𝒮}\chi _u(s)s`$. Note that $`P_u`$ is nothing but the projection operator corresponding to the stabilizer code $`𝒞_{𝒮_u}`$. To prove that $`\{|\phi _u|uB\}`$ forms an orthonormal basis for the code given by $`B`$ it suffices to show that

$$P_uP_v=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{if }uv,\\ P_u& \text{otherwise,}\end{array}$$

which is an immediate consequence of the following:

$$P_uP_v=P_{\chi _u\chi _v}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{if }uv,\\ P_u& \text{otherwise.}\end{array}$$

It follows that $`\{|\phi _uuB\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`𝒞_n`$.

For $`s_{𝐚,𝐛}𝒮`$ instead of writing $`𝒮_{s_{\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}}}`$ we will write $`𝒮_{𝐚,𝐛}`$. Similarly $`|\phi _{𝐚,𝐛}`$ will be used to denote $`|\phi _{s_{𝐚,𝐛}}`$. It is easy to see that

$$|\phi _{𝐜,𝐝}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}C}}\underset{𝐱C}{}\omega ((𝐱+𝐝)^TD(𝐱+𝐝))\overline{\omega }(𝐱^Tc)|𝐱+d.$$

Since the code has dimension $`\mathrm{\#}B`$, we will assume that the encoding message space is a Hilbert space of dimension $`\mathrm{\#}B`$ with basis are indexed by elements of $`B`$ viz. $`\{|𝐜,𝐝|s_{𝐜,𝐝}B\}`$. To summarize we have the following observation.

###### Proposition 7.2

For a code with Fourier description $`B`$ then the encoding procedure is given by linear map with the following property $`|𝐜,𝐝|\phi _{𝐜,𝐝}`$ for all $`s_{𝐜,𝐝}B`$.

We give encoding circuits for the codes over $`𝔽_q`$. We assume that some basic gates over $`L^2(𝔽_q)`$, which we will define in a moment, are given as black boxes. It is to be noted that for a fixed $`q`$ these gates are easily implementable using the standard set of gates. The most basic of the gates which we require is the inverter gate defined as follows

$$|a=|a;a𝔽_q.$$

Let $`CU`$ and $`CV`$ stand for the unitary transformation define as follows

$$CU|a|b=|a|a+b.$$

and

$$CV|a|b=\omega (ab)|a|b;a,b𝔽_q.$$

Note that for $`q=2`$ the gate $`CU`$ is just the $`CNOT`$ gate and the gate $`CV`$ is the $`Z`$ gate. We also assume that the operator $`CCU`$ defined as is available:

$$CCU|a,b,c=|a,b,c+ab.$$

For $`𝔽_2`$ it is the $`CCNOT`$ gate. Note that $`CCV`$ defined as

$$CCV|a,b,c=\omega (c+ab)|a,b,c$$

can be defined using $`CCU,`$ and $`CV`$. See Figure 1 for a pictorial description.

We need one more operator which is the Fourier transform operator over $`𝔽_q`$ which we will denote by $`F`$. It is defined as follows

$$F|a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\underset{x𝔽_q}{}\omega (ax)|x.$$

Note that if $`q=2`$ then $`F`$ is nothing but the Hadamard operator. Consider any gate $`Cf`$ of two arguments $`a,b𝔽_q`$ defined as

$$Cf|a|b=|a|f(a,b).$$

We extend it to an operator $`Cf_n`$ acting on two arguments $`𝐚,𝐛𝔽_q^n`$ in a natural way as follows (see Figure 2)

$$Cf_n|𝐚|𝐛=Cf_n|a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_n|b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n=|𝐚|f(a_1,b_1),f(a_2,b_2),\mathrm{},f(a_n,b_n).$$

In a similar fashion we extend the gate $`CCf`$ acting on $`a,b,c𝔽_q`$ to $`CCf_n`$ acting on $`𝐚,𝐛,𝐜𝔽_q^n`$. In the circuits we draw a $`Cf_n`$ gate with thick wires to indicate that it takes a tuple from $`𝔽_q^n`$.

From these gates we can construct a circuit that computes for any $`𝐚,𝐛𝔽_q^n`$ the dot product $`_ia_ib_i`$ (see Figure 3). The second circuit in the figure is a symbolic representation of the circuit (note the thick lines). Using this inner product circuit we can also define the circuit that takes a $`n\times n`$ matrix $`D`$ and a vector $`𝐚𝔽_q^n`$ and computes the vector $`D𝐚`$ (see Figure 4 note the thick lines and the cut).

We also need a circuit which will take the vector $`|0^n`$ and generate the uniform superposition $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^{n1}}}_{xC}|x`$. This circuit is given in Figure LABEL:figC.

Given the message $`𝐜,𝐝`$, we can describe the main steps of the encoding algorithm as follows.

1. Initialize $`|R:=|0^n`$
2. Apply $`C`$ on $`R`$ so that

$$|R=\sqrt{\frac{1}{q^{n1}}}\underset{𝐱C}{}|𝐱.$$
3. Apply $`CV_n`$ on $`|c|R`$ so that

$$|c|R|c(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^{n1}}}\underset{𝐱C}{}\omega (c^Tx)|x).$$
4. Apply $`CU_n`$ on $`|𝐝|R`$

$$|𝐝|R|d(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^{n1}}}\underset{𝐱C}{}\omega 𝐜^Tx|𝐱+𝐝.$$
5. Apply the circuit in Figure 4 on $`|R|D|0^n`$

$$|R|D|0^n\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^{n1}}}\underset{𝐱C}{}\omega (𝐜^T𝐱)|𝐱+𝐝,D(𝐱+𝐝)|D.$$
6. Apply $`CV_n`$ on $`|R_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^{n1}}}_{𝐱C}\omega (𝐜^T𝐱)|𝐱+𝐝,D(𝐱+𝐝)`$ to get

$$|R_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^{n1}}}\underset{𝐱C}{}\omega ((𝐱+𝐝)^TD(𝐱+𝐝)+𝐜^T𝐱)|𝐱+𝐝,D(𝐱+𝐝).$$

## 8 Decoding for a class of nonstabilizer codes

Let $`𝒞^^n`$ be a $`t`$-error correcting quantum code satisfying the conditions of Theorem 2.11, with Fourier description $`B`$, and such that its projection $`P`$ has support in the Gottesman subgroup $`𝒮`$ of the error group $``$. The two conditions that $`𝒞`$ satisfies are:

1. For each $`g𝒮`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$

$$\chi _g(u_1^1u_2)=1\text{ for all }u_1,u_2B.$$
2. For each $`g𝒮`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)2t`$, and for $`sS`$ we have

$$\underset{u_1,u_2B}{}\chi _{u_2}(s)\underset{s_1}{}\gamma (g,s_1)\chi _{s_1}(u_1^1u_2)=0,$$

where $`\gamma (g,s)`$ is the scalar such that $`\gamma (g,s)sg=gs`$.

For $`u𝒮`$ let $`𝒮_u`$ be the Gottesman group $`\{\chi _u(s)s|s𝒮\}`$.

The projection operator for the code $`𝒞_n`$

$$P=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}\underset{uB}{}\underset{s𝒮}{}\chi _u(s)s=\underset{uB}{}P_u,$$

where $`P_u=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}𝒮}_{s𝒮}\chi _u(s)s`$. Note that $`P_u`$ is the projection operator corresponding to the stabilizer code $`𝒞_u`$ with $`𝒮_u`$ as stabilizer group for each $`uB`$. As argued in Theorem 7.1, $`P_uP_v=0`$ for $`uvB`$. Let $`D_u`$ denote an orthonormal basis for $`𝒞_u`$, $`uB`$. Then $`D=_{uB}D_u`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`𝒞`$.

It suffices to describe the decoding procedure for the encoded message as a basis element from $`D`$ and error $`g`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)t`$. W.l.o.g. let $`|\psi D_u`$ for some $`uB`$ be the encoded message, and let $`g`$ of weight at most $`t`$ be the error operator. The decoding procedure takes $`g|\psi =|\psi ^{}`$ as input and outputs $`|\psi `$. Let $`\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_k\}`$ be an independent generator set for $`𝒮`$. Notice that for $`1ik`$

$$s_ig|\psi =\overline{\gamma (s_i,g)}\chi _u(s_i)g|\psi .$$

Thus, $`g|\psi `$ is an eigen vector for operator $`s_i`$ with eigen value $`\overline{\gamma (s_i,g)}\chi _u(s_i)`$.

The decoding procedure will carry out the following steps. It uses as subroutine the phase estimation algorithm of Kitaev (c.f \[NC99\]).

1. Let $`|\psi ^{}`$ be the received state.
2. Apply $`s_i`$ successively, for each $`1ik`$, and when $`s_i`$ is applied run Kitaev’s phase estimation algorithm to compute the eigen value $`\alpha _i=\overline{\gamma (s_i,g)}\chi _u(s_i)`$. Let $`|\rho `$ be the resulting state.
3. If $`g=I`$ and some $`uB`$ constitute a solution to the system of $`k`$ group equations (using a classical algorithm that searches through $`B`$):

$$\alpha _i=\overline{\gamma (s_i,g)}\chi _u(s_i),1ik,$$

then apply $`s_i^1`$ for each $`1ik`$ to the state $`|\rho `$ and output that as the decoded state.
4. If $`g=I`$ does not give a solution to the $`k`$ equations, find (using a classical algorithm that searches through $`B`$) a $`gI`$ and the corresponding unique $`uB`$ which are a solution to the $`k`$ equations. Apply $`g^1`$ to the current state. Then apply $`s_i^1`$ for each $`1ik`$, and output that as the decoded state.

We now argue the correctness of the procedure. Firstly, notice that if the error operator is $`g𝒮`$ such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)t`$, then by assumption $`\chi _g(u_2)=\chi _g(u_1)`$ for all $`u_1,u_2B`$. Denote this scalar by $`\lambda `$. Notice that for any state $`|\phi 𝒞`$, $`g|\phi =\lambda |\phi `$. Which means that $`g`$ introduces only an overall phase. We establish the following claim from which the correctness of the procedure follows.

###### Claim 8.1

1. If $`g=I`$ and $`uB`$ is a solution to the $`k`$ group equations given above, then $`uB`$ is the unique solution, and there is no $`g𝒮`$ which is a solution to the equations.
2. If $`g=I`$ is not part of a solution to the $`k`$ equations, then there is a unique $`uB`$ and some $`g𝒮`$ that form a solution such that $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)t`$.

Proof of Claim. For the first part, assume that $`g=I`$ and $`uB`$ is a solution to the $`k`$ group equations, and some $`g𝒮`$ and $`u^{}B`$ is another solution. Then we have $`\gamma (g,s_i)\chi _u(s_i)\overline{\chi _u^{}(s_i)}=1,1ik`$. Since $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_k`$ generate $`𝒮`$, it implies $`\gamma (g,s_i)\chi _u(s)\overline{\chi _u^{}(s)}=1`$ for all $`s𝒮`$. It is easy to see that this contradict the second condition of Theorem 2.11 for the element $`g𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)t`$.

For the second part, notice that any solution $`g`$ of $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g)t`$ to the equations is not in $`𝒮`$. For, if $`g^{}𝒮`$ and $`uB`$ are a solution then so is $`g=I`$ and $`uB`$, because $`\gamma (g^{},s)=1`$ for all $`s𝒮`$. Assume to the contrary that there are two distinct solutions $`g_1𝒮`$ and $`uB`$ and $`g_2𝒮`$ and $`u^{}B`$, where $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_1)t`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_2)t`$. Then, as before, the $`k`$ equations will yield

$$\gamma (g_1,s)\chi _u(s)=\gamma (g_2,s)\chi _u^{}(s),s𝒮.$$

By rearranging terms we get $`\gamma (g_1^1g_2,s)\chi _s(u^{}u^1)=1`$ for all $`s𝒮`$.

Now, if $`g_1^1g_2𝒮`$, then this again contradicts the second condition of Theorem 2.11 for the element $`g_1^1g_2𝒮`$ of $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_1^1g_2)2t`$.

Next, suppose that $`g_1^1g_2𝒮`$. Then we get $`\chi _s(u^{}u^1=1`$ for all $`s𝒮`$ implying that $`u=u^{}`$. Thus $`u`$ is unique. Notice that by the first condition of Theorem 2.11, since $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑡}(g_1^1g_2)2t`$, the effect of applying the error $`g_1^1g_2`$ to a state in $`𝒞`$ only introduces an overall phase. Thus, decoding with either $`g_1^1`$ or $`g_2^1`$ will coincide upto an overall phase. This completes the proof of the claim and correctness of the decoding procedure.

To analyze the efficiency of the decoding procedure, we recall from \[NC99\] that the phase estimation quantum circuit is efficient (polynomial size in $`n`$). However, solving the $`k`$ group equations involves exhaustive enumeration. This takes time $`O(n^{O(d)}.\mathrm{\#}B)`$, which is also the dominant term in the entire time bound.

See Figure 6 for a complete circuit. The other figures are the building blocks. Note that the extra$`|D(𝐱+𝐝)`$ can be removed by inverting it and then applying the circuit in fig 4 on $`|𝐱+𝐝,D(𝐱+𝐝)|D`$.


format: text

text:
# On the Mumford-Narasimhan problem

## 1  Trinion decompositions and holomorphic flat connections on smooth algebraic curves

For an oriented compact surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`g`$ a trinion decomposition is given by a maximal set of disjoint, isotopy inequivalent circles

$$(C_1,\mathrm{},C_{3g3})\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(1.1)
(see \[HT\]). Removing these circles we get

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\{C_1,\mathrm{},C_{3g3}\}=_{i=1}^{2g2}\stackrel{~}{v_i}$$
(1.2)
the finite set of trinions (or ”pairs of pants”) that is a trinion decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Such decomposition defines dual trivalent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that

1. the set of its vertices

$$V(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{v_i\}=\{\stackrel{~}{v_i}\}$$
(1.3)
is the set of trinions;
2. and with the set of edges

$$E(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{e\}=\{C_e\};$$
(1.4)
3. and two vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are joined by edge $`e`$ iff there exists the corresponding circle

$$C_e=\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{v^{}}.$$
(1.5)

Actualy we can start with any 3-valent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the set of edges $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, then $`|E(\mathrm{\Gamma })|=3g3`$, and with the set of vertices $`V(\mathrm{\Gamma }),|V(|\mathrm{\Gamma })|=2g2`$ where $`|S|`$ is the cardinality of a finite set $`S`$.

Topologically it is equivalent to a 3-dimensional handlebody $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with boundary $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Riemann surface given by the pumping up trick (see \[T2\]): we pump up every edge of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to a tube and every vertex to a trinion (= 2-sphere with 3 holes). By the construction our Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a trinions (or ”pair of pants”) decomposition given by removing all tubes.

For a visualization we can input our graph

$$i:\mathrm{\Gamma }H_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(1.6)
in the handlebody by the natural way. Then we can see that

1. an orientation $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ of an edge $`eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ gives the orientation $`\stackrel{}{C}_e`$ of the corresponding circle from the collection (1.1);
2. sending any 1-cycle on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the cycle on the handlebody $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we get an epimorphism of the fundamental groups:

$$r:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\pi _1(H_\mathrm{\Gamma })1$$
(1.7)
the kernel of which is the free group with $`g`$ generators

$$kerr=F_g.$$
(1.8)
3. According to the corresponding exact sequence

$$1kerr\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\pi _1(H_\mathrm{\Gamma })1$$
(1.9)
we can choose standard generators of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$

$$\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })=<a_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_1,\mathrm{},b_g|\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}[a_i,b_i]=1>$$

such that

$$kerr=F_g=<a_1,\mathrm{},a_g>$$
(1.10)
and

$$\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=<r(b_1),\mathrm{},r(b_g)>;$$
4. obviously whole the collection of cycles $`\{[C_e]\}`$ (1.1) lies in $`kerr`$ and moreover

$$kerr=F_g=<[C_1],\mathrm{},[C_{3g3}]>;$$
(1.11)

Recall that a path of lenth 1 on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is just an oriented edge $`\stackrel{}{e}`$. Let the set $`P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\stackrel{}{E}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the set of 1-paths on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Every such path $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ has vertices of two types

$$v_s(\stackrel{}{e}),v_t(\stackrel{}{e})V(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(1.12)
\- the source and the target \- which are equal for loops.

A path of length $`d`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an ordered sequence $`(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)`$ of oriented edges such that for every $`i`$

$$v_t(\stackrel{}{e}_i)=v_s(\stackrel{}{e}_{i+1}).$$
(1.13)
If $`\stackrel{}{e}_{d+1}=\stackrel{}{e}_1`$, then our path is a loop. A path $`(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)`$ (or a loop) is called irreducible if $`e_ie_{i+1}`$ for every $`i`$ (including $`i=d+1`$ for a loop).

Every path $`(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ defines two vertices

$$v_s((\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)),v_t((\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d))V(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(1.14)
\- the source and the target and the coincidence of which shows that our parth is a loop.

Let

$$L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(1.15)
be the set of oriented irreducible loops of length $`d`$. For every vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ we have the set of irreducible loops marked by $`v`$

$$L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=\{lL_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })|vl\}.$$
(1.16)
The union

$$L_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v$$
(1.17)
admits a group structure

$$\pi _1^C(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=L_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v.$$
(1.18)
if we consider only irreducible fragments of the compositions.

Obviously, this group depends on the marking point $`v`$.

Let $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the standard fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (as a 1-complex). Then the natural epimorphism $`r:\pi _1^C(\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is an isomorphism. Obviously, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a 3-valent graph of genus $`g`$ then $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=F_g`$ is a free group with $`g`$ generators.

Now let us fix a point $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (suppose it coincides with $`i(v)`$ (1.6)) and join all circles with $`p`$ by any system of paths. Then we can consider the oriented circles $`\stackrel{}{C}_e`$ as elements of the group $`kerr`$ (1.9) that is as elements of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Sending every combinatorial loop

$$l=(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)L_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v$$

to the ordered product

$$Int(l)=\stackrel{}{C}_{e_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{C}_{e_d}kerr\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(1.19)
we get a homomorphism

$$Int:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\pi _1(H_\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(1.20)
Recall that both of these groups are free groups with $`g`$ generators and it is easy to see that $`Int`$ is an isomorphism.

Our surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ doesn’t carry any ”natural” complex structure. Moreover after the fixing of the previous basis of the fundamental group (1.9)- (1.10) the space of complex structures on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ turns to be the Teichmuller space $`\tau _g`$. If we fix such a structure $`I\tau _g`$ then we can consider the space of classes of representations

$$A^{na}=CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),SL(2,))$$
(1.21)
as the full space $`A^{na}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)`$ of all holomorphic flat connections on topologicaly trivial vector bundle on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$. Any representation $`\rho `$ with class

$$[\rho ]CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),SL(2,))$$
(1.22)
defines a holomorphic vector bundle just by the standard construction

$$E=U\times ^2/(\pi _1,\rho )$$
(1.23)
where $`U`$ is the universal cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$ with the natural action of the fundamental group of the base.

Of course, in the set of such bundles there are non-stable but indecomposable vector bundles and even semi-stable decomposable ones. Let us remove the representations corresponding to non-stable bundles and get the space

$$CLRep^{Iss}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I),\mathrm{SL}(2,))CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.24)
of classes of representations which give stable, semi-stable and decomposable semi-stable bundles.

Obviously this Zariski dense (=containing a Zariski open set) subspace depends on the complex structure $`I\tau _g`$. Moreover we have the holomorphic forgetful map

$$f:A_{Iss}^{na}=CLRep^{Iss}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),SL(2,))M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)$$
(1.25)
where the target space is the moduli space of semi-stable topologicaly trivial vector bundles. This is the affine bundle over the cotangent bundle of $`M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)`$. Indeed, any fiber $`f^1(E)`$ is the affine space of holomorphic flat connections on $`E`$ and the difference of any two connections is a traceless Higgs field

$$\varphi :EE(K_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_I})T_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_I}^{}M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)$$
(1.26)
that is a covector to $`M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)`$ at $`E`$.

Every affine bundle is given by a 1-cocycle of the vector bundle (see \[T1\]). In our case this is a cocycle

$$\epsilon _{na}H^1(M^{ss},\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(1.27)
and

$$H^1(M^{ss},\mathrm{\Omega })=H^{1,1}(M^{ss},)$$

by the Dolbault theorem. In our case this class is precisely the class of the polarization that is the class of theta divisor:

###### Proposition 1.1

The cohomology class (1.27) is given by the formula

$$\epsilon _{na}=[\mathrm{\Theta }_{na}]=[\omega _{na}]$$
(1.28)
where $`\omega `$ is the standard symplectic structure on the moduli space.

###### Corollary 1.1

The forgetful projection $`f`$ (1.25) doesn’t admit any holomorphic section.

That is, the answer is precisely the same as in the abelian case.

###### Remark

By the Narasimhan-Sesadri theorem there exists the non-holomorphic section

$$M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })=CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SU}(2))CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.29)
Now let us perform the trinion decomposition corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (1.1)- (1.2). We can construct the space of holomorphic flat bundles $`CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ gluing the spaces of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-flat connections over the trinions $`\{\stackrel{~}{v_i}\}`$ (1.2).

For one trinion $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ (which is 2-sphere with 3 holes) the space of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-flat connections is given as the classes representations space

$$A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v})=CLRep(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.30)
where $`\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})=F_2`$ is the free group with 2 generators.

###### Definition 1.1

For the free group $`F_g`$ with $`g`$ generators the classes representations space

$$S_g=CLRep(F_g,\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.31)
is called the Schottki space of genus $`g`$.

So $`A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v})=S_2`$ is the Schottki space of genus 2.

If two vertices $`v_i`$ and $`v_j`$ are joined by edge $`e_l`$ that is if the circle $`C_l`$ corresponding to $`e_l`$ is a boundary component of trinions $`\stackrel{~}{v_i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v_j}`$:

$$C_l=\stackrel{~}{v_i}\stackrel{~}{v_j}$$
(1.32)
then we can glue $`A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v_i})`$ and $`A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v_j})`$ along the boudary component $`C_l`$ by just the same way as we do this for $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ representations (see for example \[JW\]): let $`Conj(\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ be the set of conjugation classes of elements of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. Then we have the natural map

$$conj:\mathrm{SL}(2,)Conj(\mathrm{SL}(2,)).$$
(1.33)
Two representations $`\rho _i,[\rho _i]A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v_i})`$ and $`\rho _j,[\rho _j]A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v_j})`$ are glued iff

$$conj(\rho _i([C_l]))=conj(\rho _j([C_l])).$$
(1.34)
The ambiguity of such gluing is the stabilizer $`Z(\rho _i([C_l]))`$ of the monodromy around this loop. For example for a semi-simple element $`m\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ the stabilizer $`Z(m)=^{}`$. The result of such gluing is

$$A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v_i})A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v_j})=S_3$$
(1.35)
if $`C_l=\stackrel{~}{(}v_i)\stackrel{~}{(}v_j)`$. Gluing all trinions $`\stackrel{~}{v_i}`$ we get our surface and gluing all spaces of flat bundles $`A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ we get the space $`CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ of flat bundles on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The exact sequence (1.9) defines the canonical embedding of the Schottki space (1.31)

$$i:S_gCLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.36)
such a way that the image is in a sense a complete intersection. Namely, consider the space of representations $`Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ ( without the diagonal adjoint factorization), such that

$$\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))=Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))/PGL(2,)$$
(1.37)
where the last action is the natural diagonal adjoint action of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ on the space of representations. So, let

$$p:Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.38)
be the natural projection to the factor by this action.

Geometrically this means that we fixed a point $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$ and a trivialization $`E_p=^2`$ of the fiber of vector bundle $`E`$ over this point. The moduli space of vector bundles with such additional structure $`\stackrel{~}{M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)}`$ admits the structure of principal $`PGL(2,)`$-bundle over $`M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)`$:

$$\varphi :\stackrel{~}{M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)}M^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)$$
(1.39)
where the group $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ modulo $`\pm 1`$ acts on $`E_p=^2`$ as (2 X 2)-matrices with determinant 1.

The moduli space of flat vector bundles with such additional structure is $`Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ and it admits the structure $`p`$ (1.38) of a principal $`PGL(2,)`$-bundle over $`\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$.

Now every element $`\gamma \pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ defines regular functions

$$c_{ij}(\gamma ):Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(1.40)
by the formula

$$c_{ij}(\gamma )(\rho )=(\rho (\gamma ))_{ij}$$

where $`ij`$ is the matrix element of the corresponding matrix.

Then the half basis $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_g)`$ (1.10) defines $`3g`$ functions

$$c_{11}(a_1),c_{12}(a_1),c_{21}(a_1),\mathrm{},c_{11}(a_g),c_{12}(a_g),c_{21}(a_g)$$
(1.41)
and a system of divisors

$$D_{ij}(a_l)=\{c_{ij}(a_l)=0,\text{ if }ij,\}$$
(1.42)
and

$$D_{11}(a_l)=\{c_{11}(a_l)=1\}.$$

These divisors are not invariant with respect to the diagonal adjoint action of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. But the complete intersection

$$\underset{ij,l}{}D_{ij}(a_l)=\varphi ^1(i(S_g))$$
(1.43)
is the preimage of the Schottki space (1.36).

Returning to the affine bundle (1.25) consider a bundle $`EM^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)`$ and the fiber

$$f^1(E)=_E^{3g3}$$
(1.44)
Such affine subspace of $`CLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ is called a packet of classes of representations. This is an affine space over the space of Higgs fields $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I,adET^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)`$.

Now consider the restriction of the principal $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-bundle (1.38) to this affine space

$$p:p^1(_E^{3g3})_E^{3g3}.$$
(1.45)
Obviously the space $`p^1(_E^{3g3})`$ is an affine algebraic variety.

Restricting the functions (1.40) to this affine variety we get the complete intersection

$$\varphi ^1(i(S_g))p^1(_E^{3g3})$$
(1.46)
and $`E`$ admits a Schottki representation iff this complete intersection is non empty.

Non emptyness is an (Zariski) open condition thus to solve the Mumford-Narasimhan problem for general curve and general vector bundle we need to find one curve with this property.

That is our strategy is the same as C. Ciliberto, A. Lopez and R. Miranda in \[CLM\] for the computation of corank of the Gaussian-Wahl map for general curve. Moreover, the probe curves are the same.

## 2 3-valent graphs and ll-curves

Sending every vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to the complex Riemann sphere $`P_v=^1`$ with a triple of points $`(p_{e_1},p_{e_2},p_{e_3})`$ corresponding to edges of the star $`S(v)`$ of the vertex (= the set of edges incident to $`v`$) and gluing two components $`P_v`$ and $`P_v^{}`$ such that $`e=v,v^{}`$ along the points $`p_eP_v,P_v^{}`$ we obtain a reducible algebraic curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the following properties:

1. arithmetical genus of the connected reducible curve $`P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}`$ is equal to $`g`$;
2. for any 3-valent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ the curve $`P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}`$ is Deligne - Mumford stable
3. hence the curve $`P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}`$ defines a point of the Deligne-Mumford compactification $`\overline{_g}`$ (with the same notation);

So in the Deligne-Mumford compactification $`\overline{_g}`$ of the moduli space $`_g`$ of smooth curves of genus $`g`$ we get a finite configuration of points

$$𝒫\overline{_g}$$
(2.1)
enumerated by the set of 3-valent graphs $`TG_g`$ \- the set of large limit curves.

In the algebraic geometry framework these curves were described by Artamkin in \[A\]:

1. on every curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the canonical class $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a line bundle for which the restriction to every component $`P_v,vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the sheaf of meromorphic differentials $`\omega `$ with simple poles at $`p_{e_1},p_{e_2},p_{e_3}`$ where $`e_1e_2e_3=S(v)`$:

$$K_\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{P_v}=K_{P_v}(p_{e_1}+p_{e_2}+p_{e_3})=𝒪_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1);$$
(2.2)
2. thus every holomorphic section $`s`$ of $`K_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a collection of meromorphic differentials $`\{\omega _v\}`$ on the components $`P_v`$ with poles at $`_{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}p_e`$ with constraints: for every $`e`$ such that $`e=v,v^{}`$ one has

$$res_{p_e}\omega _v+res_{p_v^{}}\omega _v^{}=0;$$
(2.3)
3. beside of these equalities we have 2g-2 linear relations: for every $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with $`(e_1,e_2,e_3)=S(v)`$

$$res_{p_{e_1}}\omega _v+res_{p_{e_2}}\omega _v+res_{p_{e_3}}\omega _v=0;$$
(2.4)
4. from here we have the right number $`g`$ for the dimension of holomorphic differential space $`H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma }),𝒪(K_\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$;
5. but the properties of the canonical complete linear system $`|K_\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ depend on the topology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Definition 2.1

The minimal number of edges that may be removed to make the graph disconnected is called the thickness $`th(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of the graph.

Obviously for a 3-valent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the number $`th(\mathrm{\Gamma })3`$.

In \[A\] Artamkin proved the following

###### Proposition 2.1

The canonical linear system $`|K_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}|`$ is

1. base points free iff $`th(\mathrm{\Gamma })2`$;
2. very ample iff $`th(\mathrm{\Gamma })3`$.

The double canonical systems on ll-curves are much more regular:

1. every holomorphic section $`s`$ of $`𝒪(2K_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a collection of meromorphic quadratic differentials $`\{\omega _v\}`$ on the components $`P_v`$ with poles of degree 2 at $`_{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}p_e`$;
2. every such quadratic differential defines biresidue $`bires_{p_e}`$ at every pole ($`Res_{p_e}^2`$ in notations of \[T1\]) and
3. the constraints in this case are the following: for every $`e`$ such that $`e=v,v^{}`$

$$bires_{p_e}\omega _v+bires_{p_v^{}}\omega _v^{}=0;$$
(2.5)
4. thus the system of nodes $`\{p_e\}`$ of our ll-curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defines the decomposition

$$H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒪(2K_\mathrm{\Gamma }))^{}=^{E(\mathrm{\Gamma })}$$
(2.6)
where for every quadratic differential $`\omega `$ the value of the linear form $`H_e`$ is given by the formula

$$H_e(\omega )=bires_{p_e}\omega ;$$
(2.7)
5. thus for a 3-valent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ the large limit curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{_g}`$ is a smooth point of $`\overline{_g}`$ as orbifold.

Recall that the fiber of the tangent bundle of the moduli space at a point $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by the equality

$$T_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}\overline{_g}=H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒪_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(2K_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }})$$
(2.8)
and the decomposition (2.6) is given by the following geometrical way: the double canonical map of $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by the complete linear system $`|2K_\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$

$$\varphi _{2K_\mathrm{\Gamma }}:P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3g4}$$
(2.9)
has as the target space the projectivization of the tangent space of the moduli space $`\overline{_g}`$ at the point $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Then the images of nodes

$$\{\varphi _{2K_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}p_e)\}$$
(2.10)
define the configuration of

$$3g3=rkH^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },𝒪(2K_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}))$$

linear independent points ( since the components are coming to irreducible conics and every conic is defined by any triple of points on it). Thus this configuration of points gives a decomposition of the tangent space

$$T_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}\overline{_g}=\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}_e$$
(2.11)
where $`_e=\varphi _{2K_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p_e)`$ coincides with the decomposition (2.6).

Let $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an edge of a 3-valent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with two vertices $`v,v^{}=e`$ and with two stars $`S(v)=e,e_1,e_2`$ and $`S(v^{})=e,e_1^{},e_2^{}`$. From this we can get a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e^{}`$ of genus $`g1`$ by the following construction:

1. remove $`e`$ and get two 2-valent vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ with stars $`S(v)=e_1,e_2`$ and $`S(v^{})=e_1^{},e_2^{}`$;
2. consider the pair $`e_1,e_2`$ as the first new edge $`e_{new}`$ and $`e_1^{},e_2^{}`$ as the second new edge $`e_{new}^{}`$;
3. so, we get a new graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ with fixed pair of (a priori) disjoint edges $`(e_{new}e_{new}^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$;
4. obviously genus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is equal to $`g1`$.

Coming to ll-curves we have the correspondence:

$$(p_eP_\mathrm{\Gamma })(p_{e_{new}},p_{e_{new}^{}}P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})$$
(2.12)
and vice versa.

Obviously this operation corresponds to the projection of the canonical curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{g1}`$ from the node $`p_e`$ to the canonical curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{g2}`$.

###### Remark

This projection is an analog of the Fano double projection for Fano threefolds.

So, we have the correspondence

$$C𝒫_g\times 𝒫_{g1}$$
(2.13)
with two projections:

$$p_g:C𝒫_g$$
(2.14)
with the fiber

$$p_g^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=E(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$

and

$$p_{g1}:C𝒫_{g1}$$
(2.15)
with the fiber

$$p_{g1}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})=S^2(E(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})).$$

Now we blow down this edge in our graph. We get a new graph with 4-valent vertex $`v_{new}=v=v^{}`$ with the star $`S(v_{new})=e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{}`$. There are 3 partitions of this set to pairs: the old one $`(e_1,e_2)|(e_1^{},e_2^{})`$ and two new ones:

$$(e_1,e_2^{}|e_2,e_1^{})\text{ and }(e_1,e_1^{}|e_2,e_2^{}).$$
(2.16)
Now we can blow up the vertex $`v_{new}`$ to the edge $`e_{new}`$ with vertices $`e_{new}=v_{new},v_{new}^{}`$ and stars

1. $`S(v_{new})=e_{new},e_1,e_2`$ and $`S(v_{new}^{})=e_{new},e_1^{},e_2^{}`$. This is our starting graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
2. $`S(v_{new})=e_{new}^{},e_1,e_2^{}`$ and $`S(v_{new}^{})=e_{new}^{},e_1^{},e_2`$. This is the first new graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.
3. $`S(v_{new})=e_{new}^{\prime \prime },e_1,e_1^{}`$ and $`S(v_{new}^{})=e_{new}^{\prime \prime },e_2^{},e_2^{}`$. This is the second new graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$.

As a result of this construction every obtained graph has distinguished edge that is we have a triple of flags

$$(e\mathrm{\Gamma }),(e_{new}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}),(e_{new}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }).$$
(2.17)
Such triple we call a nest of flags.

The correspondence (2.14) gives a nest of graphs of genus $`g1`$

$$(e_1,e_1^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1),(e_2,e_2^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2),((e_3,e_3^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_3))$$
(2.18)
Every nest is defined uniquely by any flag $`(e)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`(e_i,e_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ from the triple.

Moreover, let $`S(e)`$ be the star of an edge $`e`$ that is the union of stars of the boundary $`v,v^{}=e`$

$$S(e)=S(v)S(v^{}).$$
(2.19)
Then we have the canonical identification of graphs

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }S(e)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}S(e_{new})=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }S(e_{new}).$$
(2.20)
###### Remark

It is easy to see that if $`e`$ is a loop this construction gives the same graph with the same loop $`e`$ again.

## 3 Special 1-parameter deformations of large limit curves

Now we are ready to construct 1-parameter family of reducible curves with $`2g3`$ rational components.

For our flag $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consider two componets $`P_v,P_v^{}`$ of the curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with common point $`p_e`$ where $`v,v^{}=e`$. Remove this point and glue $`P_v`$ and $`P_v^{}`$ by a tube that is, consider the connected sum

$$P_v\mathrm{\#}_{p(e)}P_v^{}=P_{v,v^{}}=S^2.$$
(3.1)
This is a 2-sphere with two pairs of points $`(p_{e_1},p_{e_2})`$ and $`(p_{e_1^{}},p_{e_2^{}})`$ where $`(e,e_1,e_2)=S(v)`$ and $`(e,e_1^{},e_2^{})=S(v^{})`$. If we fix a complex structure on $`S^2`$ and consider the double cover

$$\varphi :E^1$$
(3.2)
with ramification points

$$W=p_{e_1}p_{e_2}p_{e_1^{}}p_{e_1^{}}$$
(3.3)
we obtain an elliptic curve $`E`$ with a point of second order

$$\sigma =p_{e_1}+p_{e_2}p_{e_1^{}}p_{e_2^{}}Pic(E)_2.$$
(3.4)
So the moduli space of complex structures on $`S^2`$ with quadruple of points divided in two pairs is equal to $`_1^2`$ \- the moduli space of smooth elliptic curves with fixed point of order 2.

Every such complex structure $`\tau _1^2`$ on $`S^2`$ with quadruple of points divided in two pairs and the standard complex structures on all others components glued as before define a stable algebraic reducuble curve $`P_{e\mathrm{\Gamma },\tau }`$. Thus we obtain an embedding

$$\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}:_1^2\overline{_g}.$$
(3.5)
The moduli space

$$_1^2=^1(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{\prime \prime })$$
(3.6)
is the projective line without 3 points. These 3 points correspond to 3 possibility to divide 4 points $`p_{e_1},p_{e_2},p_{e_1^{}},p_{e_2^{}}`$ in 2 pairs that is a choice of a point of order 2 on an elliptic curve.

It is easy to see that

###### Proposition 3.1

1. The map $`\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ (3.5) can be extended to a map

$$\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}:^1\overline{_g};$$
(3.7)
2. $$\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\sigma )=p_eP_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(3.8)
where $`\sigma `$ is given by (3.4) and $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a large limit curve with fixed node corresponding to the edge $`e`$,
3. $$\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\sigma ^{})=P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{};$$
(3.9)
and
4. $$\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\sigma ^{\prime \prime })=P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }};$$
(3.10)
where the triple

$$(e\mathrm{\Gamma }),(e_{new}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}),(e_{new}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime })$$
(3.11)
is a nest of flags (2.17).
5. Now we can identify the tangent direction

$$T\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}(^1)_{P_\mathrm{\Gamma }}=_e$$
(3.12)
from the decomposition (2.11) with the corresponding node of the double canonical curve. We obtain the uniquely defined 2-canonical model.

This identification of images of nodes under the double canonical embedding and the directions of special deformations cancels the projective transformation ambiguity.

###### Remark

If edge $`e`$ is a loop with a vertex $`v`$ such that the star $`S(v)=e,e^{}`$ then $`P_v`$ is a rational curve with one double point $`p_e`$ and the smooth point $`p_e^{}`$. The operation of connected summing around double point $`p_e`$ gives a smooth 2-torus $`T^2`$ with fixed point $`p_e^{}`$ and the isotopy class $`aH_1(T^2,)`$ which is the class of the neck of gluing tube. The class $`a`$ mod 2 gives a point of order 2 on $`T^2`$. The space $`_1^2`$ of complex structures on $`T^2`$ with such additional data is $`^{}1`$ that is $`^1`$ without 3 points again. In this case the rational curve $`\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}(_1^2)`$ admits the compactification by the double point corresponding to $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

So, the Deligne-Mumford compactification $`\overline{_g}`$ contains the configuration $`𝒞`$ of rational curves

$$\{C\}=𝒞,\text{ where every }C=\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}(^1)$$
(3.13)
for some flag $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For three flags from the same nest (2.17) the curve $`C`$ is the same. We can consider this configuration of rational curves as a reducible curve

$$𝒞=C$$
(3.14)
that is the union of all components. It is easy to see that

###### Proposition 3.2

1. for every component $`C`$ of $`𝒞`$

$$C𝒫_g=P_\mathrm{\Gamma }+P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}$$
(3.15)
where $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime })`$ is a nest of graphs (2.17);
2. for a pair $`C,C^{}`$ of componets either the intersection $`CC^{}`$ is empty or it is transversal and

$$CC^{}𝒫$$
(3.16)
3. the set $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of components through every point $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒫`$ is enumerated by the set $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$;

Now let $`ETG_g`$ be the set of 3-valent flags of genus $`g`$ with the projection to the set of graphs

$$\gamma :ETG_gTG_g,\gamma ^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=E(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.17)
and $`Com(𝒞)`$ be the set of components of the reducible curve $`𝒞`$. Then we have 3-cover

$$c:ETG_gCom(𝒞)$$
(3.18)
with remification along flags $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`e`$ is a loop in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`LTG_g`$ be the set of such loop flags. Then one has

$$3|Com(𝒞)||LTG_g|=3(g1)|TG_g|.$$
(3.19)
Thus, roughly speaking, the cardinality of $`Com(𝒞)`$ is equal to $`(g1)`$ times the cardinality of $`𝒫_g`$.

We saw that if an edge $`eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is not a loop then the map $`\psi _{e\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ (3.7) is an embedding and the corresponding component $`C`$ of the reducible curve $`𝒮\overline{_g}`$ is a smooth rational curve with fixed 3 points $`(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }})`$ such that the corresponding 3 graphs can be equipped with flags structures forming the nest (2.17). Over every of such points the tangent space admits decomposition (2.11).

Geometry of the other curves from the family of curves parametrized by $`C`$ is very near to the geometry of large limit curves: let $`eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`v,v^{}=e`$ and $`P_{E,\sigma }`$ is the point of $`C`$ corresponding to the elliptic curve (3.2) with a point of order 2 (3.4). Then $`P_{E,\sigma }`$ has 2g-4 old components

$$\underset{v^{\prime \prime }v,v^{}}{}P_{v^{\prime \prime }}$$
(3.20)
with triples of points and 3g-1 nodes $`p_e^{},ee^{}`$ and one new component $`P_{v,v^{}}`$ with the quadruple of points (see (3.1). Then

1. the canonical class $`K_{P_{E,\sigma }}`$ is a line bundle: a restriction of it to every component $`P_{v^{\prime \prime }},v^{\prime \prime }v,v^{}`$ is the sheaf of meromorphic differentials $`\omega `$ with simple poles at $`p_e,p_e^{},p_{e^{\prime \prime }}`$ where $`\{e,e^{},e^{\prime \prime }\}=S(v)`$;
2. the restriction of the canonical class to the component $`P_{v,v^{}}`$ is the sheaf of meromorphic differentials $`\omega `$ with simple poles at $`p_{e_1},p_{e_2},p_{e_1^{}},p_{e_2^{\prime \prime }}`$ (see (3.1) and (3.3)).
3. Thus

$$c(K_{P_{E,\sigma }})=(2,1,\mathrm{},1)NS_{P_{E,\sigma }}$$
(3.21)
where the first coordinate corresponds to $`P_{v,v^{}}`$.
4. Again every holomorphic section $`s`$ of the canonical class is a collection of meromorphic differentials $`\{\omega _{v^{\prime \prime }}\}`$ on the components $`P_{v^{\prime \prime }}`$ with poles at $`p_e,p_e^{},p_{e^{\prime \prime }}`$ where $`\{e,e^{},e^{\prime \prime }\}=S(v)`$ and a meromorphic differential $`\omega _{v,v^{}}`$ on the component $`P_{v,v^{}}`$ with poles at the quadruple with the same constraints (2.3) and (2.4).
5. The canonical map defined by the complete linear system $`|K_{P_{E,\sigma }}|`$

$$\varphi _K:P_{E,\sigma }^{g1}$$
(3.22)
sends $`P_{v^{\prime \prime }}`$ to a configuration of lines and $`P_{v,v^{}}`$ to a conic in $`^{g1}`$.
6. Again the dimension of the space of quadratic differentials on $`P_{E,\sigma }`$ is equal to 3g-3 and this curve is an orbifold smooth point of $`\overline{_g}`$.
7. The double canonical map of $`P_{E,\sigma }`$ given by the complete linear system $`|2K_\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ is an embedding

$$\varphi _{2K_{P_{E,\sigma }}}:P_{E,\sigma }^{3g4}=T\overline{_g}_{P_{E,\sigma }}.$$
(3.23)
(see (2.11)).
8. The images of nodes

$$\{\varphi _{2K_{P_{E,\sigma }}}(p_e^{})\},ee^{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.24)
define the decomposition of the restriction of the tangent bundle

$$T\overline{_g}|_C=TC(\underset{ee^{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}L_e^{})$$
(3.25)
where the fiber of the line bundle $`L_e^{}`$ over a point is the component of the decomposition (2.11).
9. Thus every line bundle $`L_e^{}`$ from the previous decomposition is the tautological line bundle

$$L_e^{}=𝒪_C(1),$$
(3.26)
10. hence the previous decomposition is

$$T\overline{_g}|_C=𝒪_C(2)(3g4)𝒪_C(1).$$
(3.27)
11. The restriction to $`C`$ of the canonical class of $`\overline{_g}`$ is

$$K_{\overline{_g}}|_C=𝒪_C(3(g2)).$$
(3.28)

For a singular curve the moduli spaces of vector bundles are not compact. These moduli spaces admit the compactifications by torsion free sheaves. These sheaves are not local free only over nodes and the theory of the compactification is very close to the theory for algebraic surfaces. All details of this theory can be found in forthcoming Artamkin paper \[A\]. All constructions are very close to the complex gauge theory on smooth compact Riemann surfaces. We will see this in the following section where we apply the main constructions of the complex gauge theory from section 1 to ll-curves.

## 4 The complex gauge theory on ll-curves

A vector bundle $`E`$ on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called topologicaly trivial if the restrictions $`E|_{P_v}`$ are trivial for all $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. We begin with the description of the moduli spaces of topologicaly trivial

1. line bundles $`Pic_0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$,
2. rk 2 semi-stable bundles $`M_{vb}^{ss}`$.

Since each component $`P_v`$ is projective line the restriction of any topologicaly trivial line bundle equals

$$L|_{P_v}=𝒪_{P_v}.$$
(4.1)
To describe a line bundle on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consider a collection of any trivializations of $`L`$ on all components $`P_v`$ of $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and denote the line bundle with such addition structure by $`L_0`$.

Now to get a line bundle $`L`$ on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we have to concord every pair of line bundles $`𝒪_{P_v},𝒪_{P_v^{}}`$ at common point $`p_e`$ if $`v,v^{}=e`$. Under our trivializations such concordance is given by a multiplicative constant $`a(\stackrel{}{e})^{}`$ of oriented edge such that under the orientation reversing involution $`i_e`$

$$a(i_e(\stackrel{}{e}))=a(\stackrel{}{e})^1.$$
(4.2)
Thus $`L_0`$ defines a map

$$a:\stackrel{}{E}(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}.$$
(4.3)
subjecting (4.2).

The changing of trivialization is given by a function

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }:V(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}$$
(4.4)
which acts on the functions $`a`$ by the formula

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(a(\stackrel{}{e}))=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(v_s)a(\stackrel{}{e})\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(v_t)^1$$
(4.5)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}=v_sv_t`$ and $`v_s`$ is the source of arrow and $`v_t`$ is the target.

Geometrically the construction of a concordance $`a(\stackrel{}{e})`$ at a point $`p_e`$ for ll-curve plays the role of the period (monodromy) $`\rho ([C_e])`$ of a flat connection $`[\rho ]\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }),^{})`$ along the cycle $`\stackrel{}{C}_e`$ for non-singular curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the previous section.

Hence if $`𝒜_{}`$ is the space of trivialized topologicaly trivial line bundles that is the space of functions $`a`$ (4.2) subjecting (4.3) and $`𝒢_{}`$ be the group of changing of trivializations (4.4). Then the moduli space of line bundles on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$$Pic_0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=Hom(kerr,^{})=(^{})^g$$
(4.6)
is the abelian Schottky space.

For rk 2 bundle $`E`$ on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we have the same type description: consider a collection of trivializations of restrictions $`E|_{P_v}=𝒪𝒪`$ on all components of $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and denote the bundle with such addition structure by $`E_0`$.

Now we have to glue every pair of bundles $`𝒪_{P_v}𝒪_{P_v},𝒪_{P_v^{}}𝒪_{P_v^{}}`$ at common point $`p_e`$ if $`v,v^{}=e`$. Such gluing is given by a function

$$a:\stackrel{}{E}(\mathrm{\Gamma })SL(2,)$$
(4.7)
subjection to the equation

$$a(i_e(\stackrel{}{e}))=a(\stackrel{}{e})^1.$$
(4.8)
The changing of the trivialization is given by the function

$$\stackrel{~}{g}:V(\mathrm{\Gamma })SL(2,)$$
(4.9)
which acts on the functions $`a`$ by the formula

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(a(\stackrel{}{e}))=\stackrel{~}{u}(v_s)a(\stackrel{}{e})\stackrel{~}{g}(v_t)^1$$
(4.10)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}=v_sv_t`$.

We would like to emphisize again that geometrically the construction of a concordance $`a(\stackrel{}{e})`$ at a point $`p_e`$ for ll-curve plays the role of the period (monodromy) $`\rho ([C_e])`$ of a flat connection $`[\rho ]\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ along the cycle $`\stackrel{}{C}_e`$ for non-singular curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the previous section.

Again if $`𝒜_{}`$ is the space of trivialized topologicaly trivial rk 2 bundles with the group of trivializations $`𝒢_{}`$ acting by the formula (4.10) then the moduli space of semi-stable topologicaly trivial vector bundles on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the quotient

$$M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜_{}/𝒢_{}.$$
(4.11)
Again it is easy to see that

$$M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{CLRep}(kerr,SL(2,))=S_g$$
(4.12)
(see (1.31)) is the Schottky space of genus $`g`$.

Now we would like to describe the space of holomorphic flat connections on vector bundles over this moduli space.

To do this let us draw the trinion decomposition corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (1.1)- (1.2) again. We can construct the space of holomorphic flat bundles gluing the spaces of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-flat connections on the every component $`P_v_{eS(v)}p_e`$ that is on $`^1`$ without 3 points.

Such spaces of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-flat connections are given as the classes of representations spaces

$$A^{na}(P_v\underset{eS(v)}{}p_e)=CLRep(\pi _1(P_v\underset{eS(v)}{}p_e),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(4.13)
where $`\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})=F_2`$ is the free group with 2 generators. Thus we can identify the spaces

$$A^{na}(P_v\underset{eS(v)}{}p_e)=A^{na}(\stackrel{~}{v})=S_2$$
(4.14)
(see (1.30)) where the last one is the Schottki space of genus 2.

If two vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are joined by the edge $`e`$ that is if the components $`P_v`$ and $`P_v^{}`$ intersect at $`p_e`$ then we can glue $`A^{na}(P_v_{eS(v)}p_e)`$ and $`A^{na}(P_v^{}_{eS(v^{})}p_e)`$ along this intersection point $`p_e`$ just in the same way as we do this for the smooth case (1.32)- (1.35). Again for a semi-simple element $`m\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ the stabilizer $`Z(m)=^{}`$. The result of such gluing is

$$A^{na}(P_v\underset{eS(v)}{}p_e)A^{na}(P_v^{}\underset{eS(v^{})}{}p_e))=S_3$$
(4.15)
if $`P_vP_v^{}=p_e`$. Gluing all components we get our ll-curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and gluing all spaces of flat bundles $`A^{na}(P_v_{eS(v)}p_e))`$ we get the same space $`\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ of flat bundles on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as for the smooth case:

$$A^{na}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))=A^{na}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.16)
The direct interpretation gives the following coincidence:

###### Proposition 4.1

1. The forgetful map (1.25) for ll-curve $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$$f:A^{na}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=$$
(4.17)
$$=\mathrm{CLRep}(kerr,\mathrm{SL}(2,))=S_g$$

is the natural map induced by the restriction of representations to the kernel $`kerr\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (see (1.7)- (1.9)).
2. This forgetful map admits a holomorphic section

$$s:\mathrm{CLRep}(kerr,\mathrm{SL}(2,))=S_gCLRep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$
(4.18)
induced by epimorphism $`r`$ (1.7) and isomorphism $`Int`$ (1.20).
3. Thus the affine bundle (4.17) is the Higgs fields vector bundle (or the Hitchin bundle from \[H\]), which we may consider as the cotangent bundle to the singular variety $`M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=S_g`$.
4. For every complex structure $`I\tau _g`$ (see the text between formula (1.20) and (1.21)) we have the rational map

$$F_{(\mathrm{\Gamma },I)}:M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=S_gM^{ss}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_I)$$
(4.19)
which is the composition of section $`s`$ (4.18) and forgetful map $`f`$ (1.25).

Again consider the space of representations $`Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ ( without the diagonal adjoint factorization) (1.37) with the projection $`p`$ (1.38). The geometrical meaning of this procedure is almost the same as before: we fixed a component $`P_v`$ and a trivialization $`E|_{P_v}=^2`$ of the vector bundle $`E`$ over this component. The moduli space of vector bundles with such additional structure

$$\stackrel{~}{M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })}=(\mathrm{SL}(2,))^g$$
(4.20)
is a non singular algebraic variety with the structure of principal $`PGL(2,)`$-bundle over $`S_g`$:

$$\varphi (\mathrm{SL}(2,))^gS_g$$
(4.21)
where the group $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ modulo $`\pm 1`$ acts on $`E|_{P_v}=^2`$ as (2 X 2)-matrices with determinant 1.

The moduli space of flat vector bundles on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with such additional structure is $`Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ with the structure $`p`$ (1.38) of a principal $`PGL(2,)`$-bundle. The moduli space of flat bundles $`Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))`$ can be described as the preimage of 1 for the algebraic map

$$com:(\mathrm{SL}(2,))^{2g}=\mathrm{SL}(2,)_{a_i}\times \mathrm{SL}(2,)_{b_i}\mathrm{SL}(2,)$$
(4.22)
$$com(g(a_1),\mathrm{},g(a_g),g(b_1),\mathrm{},g(b_g))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}[g(a_i),g(b_i)]$$

(see (1.9)):

$$com^1(1)=Rep(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mathrm{SL}(2,))$$

which is an algebraic variety obviously.

Again regular functions (1.40)-(1.41) defines the divisors (1.42) with the intersection (1.43).

But now the affine bundle (4.17) over $`M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a vector bundle because it admits the holomorphic section (4.18). It has as the fiber over a point $`EM_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ the space

$$f^1(E)=H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },adE\times K_\mathrm{\Gamma })=_E^{3g3}$$
(4.23)
which is a packet of classes of representations of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (see (1.2), (1.6)).

Again consider the restriction of the principal $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$-bundle (1.38) to this affine space

$$p:p^1(H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },adE\times K_\mathrm{\Gamma }))H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },adE\times K_\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.24)
Restricting the functions (1.40) to this affine variety we get the complete intersection

$$i(S_g)(H^0(P_\mathrm{\Gamma },adE\times K_\mathrm{\Gamma }))=E$$
(4.25)
as a point of the moduli space $`M_{vb}^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })=S_g`$. That is for every vector bundle $`E`$ on $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

1. this complete intersection is non empty, and
2. there exists unique class of the Schottki representation.

From this we get immideately our final result:

###### Theorem 4.1

On general curve general stable vector bundle admits the Schottki representation.

###### Remark

Of course all our constructions are valid for vector bundle of any rank. For simplicity we worked with rk 2.

In this paper we uses only direct ”classical” arguments. But obviously these results can be refined by using the Higgs bundles technique for ll-curves. In particular we know (see \[H\]) that the Higgs pairs space $`T^{}M^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ admits a partial compactification $`\overline{T^{}M^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ completing the fibers of the holomorphic moment map. This partial compactification defines a compactification

$$\overline{S_g}\overline{T^{}M^{ss}(P_\mathrm{\Gamma })}.$$
(4.26)
of the moduli space of vector bundles on ll-curves by torsion free sheaves. Now we postpone this beautifull subject to the next paper of the serie refining \[T3\].