text:
# Algebras of generalized functions through sequence spaces algebras. Functoriality and associations

## Introduction

Schwartz  proved that differential algebras of generalized functions with the ordinary product of continuous functions and containing the delta distribution, do not exist. But with the ordinary multiplication of smooth functions, such algebras exist as it was proved by Colombeau. Nowadays the theory of such algebras is well-established and it is affirmed through many applications especially in nonlinear problems with strong singularities. We refer to the books  and to the numerous papers given in the references.

We have shown in  that Colombeau type algebras can be reconsidered as a class of sequence space algebras and have given a purely topological description of Colombeau type algebras. In fact, all these classes of algebras are simply determined by a locally convex algebra $`E`$ and a sequence $`r:_+`$ (or sequence of sequences) which serves to construct an ultrametric on subspaces of $`E^{}`$. Such sequences are called weight sequences.

Distribution, ultradistribution and hyperfunction type spaces can be embedded into corresponding algebras of sequences of this class. This is done in . Note, the embeddings of Schwartz’ spaces into the Colombeau algebra $`𝒢`$ are very well known, but for ultradistribution and hyperfunction type spaces this is quite different problem, especially because of multiplication of regular enough functions (smooth, ultradifferentiable or quasianalytic), embedded into corresponding algebras.

In this paper we continue to develop the foundations of our approach as well as the general framework for considering various linear problems with singular coefficients and nonlinear ones.

We recall in Section 1 our construction of algebras of sequence spaces, defined by a decreasing null sequence, used as exponential weight. Taking $`r_n=1/\mathrm{log}n`$, $`n`$, we get the simplified and the full Colombeau algebras.

In Section 2 we introduce sequences of scales, construct new algebras and relate them to known algebras as Egorov algebras  and asymptotic algebras .

This justifies to turn in Section 3 to nowadays classical questions like functorial aspects of Colombeau type algebras  in order to apply the following scheme in standard applications: if a classical differential problem for regular data has a unique solution such that the map associating the solution to the initial data verifies convenient growth conditions (with respect to the chosen scale of weights), then this problem can be transferred to corresponding sequence spaces, where it also allows for a unique solution. That way, differential problems with singular data can be solved in such spaces ad hoc.

Finally, exact solutions may not exist at all or, even more frequently, may not be needed. For this reason, in spaces of generalized functions the notion of weak solutions has often be used, in the sense of different types of associations. These concepts can nicely be described in our sequential approach, which is done in Section 4. Indeed, we give a generalized and unified scheme of a large number of tools of this kind, including those which can already be found in various places in existing literature \[5, 15, 16, 17, and others\].

## 1 The basic construction

### 1.1 Locally convex vector spaces and algebras

Consider an algebra $`E`$ which is a locally convex vector space over $``$, equipped with an arbitrary set of seminorms $`p𝒫`$ determining its locally convex structure. Assume that

$$p𝒫\overline{p}𝒫C_+:x,yE:p(xy)C\overline{p}(x)\overline{p}(y).$$

Let $`r_+^{}`$ be a sequence decreasing to zero. Put, for $`fE^{}`$,

$$|f|_{p,r}:=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}p(f_n)^{r_n}.$$

This is well defined for any $`fE^{}`$, with values in $`\overline{}_+:=_+\{\mathrm{}\}`$. With this definition, let

$$_{𝒫,r}=\{fE^{}p𝒫:|f|_{p,r}<\mathrm{}\},$$

$$𝒦_{𝒫,r}=\{fE^{}p𝒫:|f|_{p,r}=0\}.$$

###### Remark 1

The space $`E`$ is given as domain of the elements $`p𝒫`$. When we write $`_{||,r}`$ in the sequence, it means $`E=`$ and $`𝒫=\{||\}`$.

###### Proposition 2

1. $`_{𝒫,r}`$ is a (sub-)algebra of $`E^{}`$, and $`𝒦_{𝒫,r}`$ is an ideal of $`_{𝒫,r}`$, thus $`𝒢_{𝒫,r}=_{𝒫,r}/𝒦_{𝒫,r}`$ is an algebra.
2. For every $`p𝒫`$, $`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill d_{p,r}:E^{}\times E^{}& & \overline{}_+,\hfill \\ \hfill (f,g)& & |fg|_{p,r}\hfill \end{array}`$
is an ultrapseudometric on $`_{𝒫,r}`$, and the family $`\left(d_{p,r}\right)_{p𝒫}`$ makes $`_{𝒫,r}`$ a topological algebra (over $`(_{||,r},d_{||,r})`$).
3. For every $`p𝒫`$, $`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{d}_{p,r}:𝒢_{𝒫,r}\times 𝒢_{𝒫,r}& & _+,\hfill \\ \hfill ([f],[g])& & d_{p,r}(f,g)\hfill \end{array}`$
is an ultrametric on $`𝒢_{𝒫,r}`$, where $`[f],[g]`$ are the classes of $`f,g_{𝒫,r}`$.
The family of ultrametrics $`\left\{\stackrel{~}{d}_{p,r}\right\}_{p𝒫}`$ defines a topology, identical to the quotient topology, for which $`𝒢_{𝒫,r}=_{𝒫,r}/𝒦_{𝒫,r}`$ is a topological algebra over $`_r=𝒢_{||,r}`$.

###### Example 3 (Colombeau generalized numbers)

The setting considered here is used to define rings of generalized numbers. For this, $`E`$ is the underlying field $``$ or $``$, and $`p=||`$ the absolute value. The resulting factor algebra $`𝒢_{||,r}`$, with topology given by $`|||_{}|||||,r`$, will be noted $`_r`$ or $`_r`$. As already explained in the introduction, for $`r=1/\mathrm{log}`$, we get the ring of Colombeau’s numbers $`\overline{}`$. More precisely, let

$`n+2:r_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}n}}.`$ (1.1)
This gives back Colombeau’s algebras of elements with polynomial growth modulo elements of more than polynomial decrease, because

$`lim\; sup|x_n|^{1/\mathrm{log}n}<\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`C:limsup|x_n|^{1/\mathrm{log}n}=C`$
$``$ $`B,n_0,n>n_0:|x_n|B^{\mathrm{log}n}=n^{\mathrm{log}B}`$
$``$ $`\gamma :|x_n|=o(n^\gamma ).`$
On the other hand, $`lim\; sup=0`$ (for the ideal) corresponds to $`C=0`$ and thus $`B>0`$ and $`\gamma `$ in the last lines.

###### Example 4

Take $`E=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`𝒫=\left\{p_\nu \right\}_\nu `$, with

$$p_\nu (f):=\underset{|\alpha |\nu ,|x|\nu }{sup}|f^{(\alpha )}(x)|,$$

and $`r=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}}`$. Then, $`𝒢_{𝒫,r}=_{𝒫,r}/𝒦_{𝒫,r}`$ with

$`_{𝒫,r}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(f_n)_n𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}\right|\nu :\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}p_\nu (f_n)^{1/\mathrm{log}n}<\mathrm{}\},`$
$`𝒦_{𝒫,r}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(f_n)_n𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })^{}\right|\nu :\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}p_\nu (f_n)^{1/\mathrm{log}n}=0\}.`$
is just the simplified Colombeau algebra.

###### Example 5

With a slight generalization, we can consider the “full” Colombeau algebra based on these definitions. Following Colombeau, let

$$q:𝒜_q=\left\{\varphi 𝒟(^s)\right|\varphi =1\text{and}n\{1,\mathrm{},q\}:x^n\varphi =0\}$$

and $`p_\nu `$, $`\nu `$ as above. Then, for fixed $`\nu ,N`$ and $`\varphi 𝒜_N`$ let

$`_{\nu ,N,\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\left(f_{\varphi _n}\right)_nE^{}|\left(f_{\varphi _n}\right)_n|_{p_\nu ,r}<N\},`$
$`𝒦_{\nu ,N,\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\left(f_{\varphi _n}\right)_nE^{}|\left(f_{\varphi _n}\right)_n|_{p_\nu ,r}=0\},`$
where $`\varphi _n=n^s\varphi (n)`$.
(Here $`(f_{\varphi _n})_n`$ are the “extracted sequences” of the elements $`(f_\varphi )_\varphi E^{𝒟()}`$).
Now define

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}_\nu ,_\nu ={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}_{\nu ,N},_{\nu ,N}={\displaystyle \underset{\varphi 𝒜_N}{}}_{\nu ,N,\varphi },`$
$`𝒦`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}𝒦_\nu ,𝒦_\nu ={\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}𝒦_{\nu ,N},𝒦_{\nu ,N}={\displaystyle \underset{\varphi 𝒜_N}{}}𝒦_{\nu ,N,\varphi }.`$
Then again, $``$ is an algebra and $`𝒦`$ an ideal of $``$, and $`𝒢=/𝒦`$ is the “full” Colombeau algebra.

### 1.2 Projective and inductive limits

We consider again a positive sequence $`r=(r_n)_n(_+)^{}`$ decreasing to zero and we use the notations introduced above.

Let $`(E_\nu ^\mu ,p_\nu ^\mu )_{\mu ,\nu }`$ be a family of semi-normed algebras over $``$ or $``$ such that

$`\mu ,\nu :E_\nu ^{\mu +1}E_\nu ^\mu \text{ and }E_{\nu +1}^\mu E_\nu ^\mu \text{ (resp. }E_\nu ^\mu E_{\nu +1}^\mu ),`$
where $``$ means continuously embedded. Then let $`\stackrel{}{E}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{proj\; lim}\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{proj\; lim}E_\nu ^\mu =\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{proj\; lim}E_\nu ^\nu `$, (resp. $`\stackrel{}{E}=\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{proj\; lim}\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{\mathrm{ind}\mathrm{lim}}E_\nu ^\mu )`$. Such projective and inductive limits are usually considered with norms instead of seminorms, and with the additional assumption that in the projective case sequences are reduced, while in the inductive case for every $`\mu `$ the inductive limit is regular, i.e. a set $`A\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{\mathrm{ind}\mathrm{lim}}E_\nu ^\mu `$ is bounded iff it is contained in some $`E_\nu ^\mu `$ and bounded there.

Define (with $`p\left(p_\nu ^\mu \right)_{\nu ,\mu }`$)

$`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ $`=\left\{f\stackrel{}{E}^{}\right|\mu ,\nu :|f|_{p_\nu ^\mu ,r}<\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$ $`=\left\{f\stackrel{}{E}^{}\right|\mu ,\nu :|f|_{p_\nu ^\mu ,r}=0\}`$
$`\text{(resp.}\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}^\mu ,\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}^\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\left\{f\left(E_\nu ^\mu \right)^{}\right||f|_{p_\nu ^\mu ,r}<\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}^\mu ,\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}^\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\left\{f\left(E_\nu ^\mu \right)^{}\right||f|_{p_\nu ^\mu ,r}=0\}\text{)}.`$
###### Proposition–Definition 6

1. Writing $`\stackrel{}{}`$ for both, $`\stackrel{}{}`$ or $`\stackrel{}{}`$, we have that $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ is an algebra and $`\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$ is an ideal of $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$; thus, $`\stackrel{}{𝒢}_{p,r}=\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}/\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$ is an algebra.
2. For every $`\mu ,\nu ,d_{p_\nu ^\mu }:(E_\nu ^\mu )^{}\times (E_\nu ^\mu )^{}\overline{}_+`$ defined by $`d_{p_\nu ^\mu }(f,g)=|fg|_{p_\nu ^\mu ,r}`$ is an ultrapseudometric on $`(E_\nu ^\mu )^{}`$. Moreover, $`(d_{p_\nu ^\mu })_{\mu ,\nu }`$ induces a topological algebra111 over $`(^{},||||||_{||})`$, not over $``$: scalar multiplication is not continuous. structure on $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ such that the intersection of the neighborhoods of zero equals $`\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$.
3. From (ii), $`\stackrel{}{𝒢}_{p,r}=\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}/\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$ becomes a topological algebra (over generalized numbers $`_r=𝒢_{||,r}`$) whose topology can be defined by the family of ultrametrics $`(\stackrel{~}{d}_{p_\nu ^\mu })_{\mu ,\nu }`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{d}_{p_\nu ^\mu }([f],[g])=d_{p_\nu ^\mu }(f,g)`$, $`[f]`$ standing for the class of $`f`$.
4. If $`\tau _\mu `$ denote the inductive limit topology on $`_{p,r}^\mu =_\nu ((\stackrel{~}{E_\nu ^\mu })^{},d_{\mu ,\nu })`$, $`\mu `$, then $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ is a topological algebra11footnotemark: 1 for the projective limit topology of the family $`(_{p,r}^\mu ,\tau _\mu )_\mu `$.

We have proved in :

###### Proposition 7

1. $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ is complete.
2. If for all $`\mu `$, a subset of $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}^\mu `$ is bounded iff it is a bounded subset of $`\left(E_\nu ^\mu \right)^{}`$ for some $`\nu `$, then $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ is sequentially complete.

We showed that various definitions of Colombeau algebras $`\overline{}`$ and $`𝒢`$ correspond to the sequence $`r_n=1/\mathrm{log}n`$, $`n`$. The embedding of Schwartz distributions and of smooth functions into $`𝒢`$ is well-known. Also it is well-known that the multiplication of smooth function embedded into $`𝒢`$ is the usual multiplication. In  we have constructed sequence spaces forming algebras which correspond to Colombeau type algebras of ultradistributions and periodic hyperfunctions. The main objective of  was to realise the embeddings of ultradistribution spaces and periodic hyperfunction spaces into such algeberas and realise the multiplication of regular elements embedded into corresponding sequence spaces.

In the definition of our sequence spaces $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$), we assumed that $`r_n`$ tends to $`0`$ as $`n`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. One could consider more general sequences of weights. But, for example, if $`r_n`$ is contained in some compact subset of $`(0,+\mathrm{})`$ then $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ can be embedded in the set-theoretical sense via the canonical map $`f(f)_n`$ ($`f_n=f`$).

If $`r_n\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is no more included in $`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$.

In order to have an appropriate topological algebra containing “$`\delta `$”, we need “divergent” sequences; this justifies the choice of $`r_n0`$. Then, our generalized topological algebra induces the discrete topology on the original algebra $`\stackrel{}{E}`$.
In some sense, it is an analogy to Schwartz’ impossibility statement for multiplication of distributions .

## 2 Sequences of scales and asymptotic algebras

### 2.1 Sequences of scales

We can consider a sequence $`\left(r^m\right)_m`$ of positive sequences $`\left(r_n^m\right)_n`$ such that

$$m,n:r_{n+1}^mr_n^m;\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}r_n^m=0.$$

In addition to this, we request either of the following conditions :

$`m,n:`$ $`r_n^{m+1}r_n^m`$ (2.1)
$`\text{or }m,n:`$ $`r_n^{m+1}r_n^m.`$ (2.2)
Then let, in the first (resp. second) case:

$`\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{}_{p,r^m},\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r^m}`$
$`\text{( resp. }\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{}_{p,r^m},\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r^m}\text{)},`$
where $`p=\left(p_\nu ^\mu \right)_{\nu ,\mu }`$.

###### Proposition 8

With the previous notations, $`\stackrel{}{𝒢}_{p,r}=\stackrel{}{}_{p,r}/\stackrel{}{𝒦}_{p,r}`$ is an algebra.

Proof. Let us start with the first case (2.1). $`r^{m+1}r^m|f|_{r^{m+1}}|f|_{r^m}`$ if $`p(f_n)<1`$, hence $`𝒦_{m+1}𝒦_m`$. Conversely, $`_{m+1}_m`$. Thus, intersection for $`𝒦`$ and union for $``$ makes sense. Moreover, because of this inclusion property, $``$ is indeed a subalgebra. To prove that $`𝒦`$ is an ideal, take $`(k,f)𝒦\times `$, i.e. $`m^{\prime \prime }:k𝒦_{m^{\prime \prime }}`$, and $`m^{}:f_m^{}`$. We have to show that $`m:kf𝒦_m`$. So let $`m`$ be given.
If $`m<m^{}`$, then $`𝒦_m^{}𝒦_m`$, thus $`kf𝒦_m^{}_m^{}𝒦_m^{}𝒦_m`$.
If $`m^{}<m`$, then $`_m^{}_m`$, thus $`kf𝒦_m_m^{}𝒦_m_m𝒦_m`$.
Now turn to the the second case (2.2). The same reasoning gives now $`𝒦_{m+1}𝒦_m`$ and $`_{m+1}_m`$, justifying definitions of $``$ and $`𝒦`$. $``$ is obviously a subalgebra. To see that $`𝒦`$ is an ideal, take $`(k,f)𝒦\times `$. Then $`m:k𝒦_m`$, but also $`f_m`$, in which $`𝒦_m`$ is an ideal. Thus, $`kf𝒦_m𝒦`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 9

$`r_n^m=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }nm\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }n>m\hfill \end{array}`$ (with the convention that $`0^0=0`$) gives Egorov–type algebras, where the “subalgebra” contains everything and the ideal contains only stationary null sequences.

###### Example 10

$`r_n^m=1/|\mathrm{log}a_m(n)|`$, where $`(a_m:_+)_m`$ is an asymptotic scale, i.e. $`m:a_{m+1}=o(a_m)`$, $`a_m=1/a_m`$, $`M:a_M=o(a_m^2)`$. This gives back the asymptotic algebras of , cf. Section 2.2.

### 2.2 Asymptotic algebras

Let us recall that $`(𝒞,,𝒫)`$–algebras  are based on a vector space $``$ with a filtering family $`𝒫`$ of seminorms, and a ring of generalized numbers $`𝒞=A/I`$. Here, $`I`$ is an ideal of $`A`$, which is a subring of $`𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`𝕂=`$ or $``$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is some indexing set. Both $`A`$ and $`I`$ must be solid as a ring, i.e. $`s𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }:(rA:\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }:|s_\lambda ||r_\lambda |)sA`$, and idem for $`I`$. Then, the $`(𝒞,,𝒫)`$–algebra is defined as $`𝒢_{𝒞,,𝒫}=_A/_I`$, with

$$_X=\{f^\mathrm{\Lambda }p𝒫:pfX\}$$

(where $`pf\left(\lambda p(f_\lambda )\right)=\left(p(f_\lambda )\right)_\lambda (_+)^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$): In other words, the function spaces $`_A`$ and $`_I`$ are determined by $`𝒞=A/I`$, by selecting the functions with the same respective growth properties than the “constants”.

It is clear that this is too general to be written in the previously presented setting of sequence spaces, mainly because there are almost no restrictions on $`I`$.

So let us consider the interesting subclass of asymptotic algebras . Here, $`A`$ and $`I`$ are defined by an asymptotic scale222 The set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is supposed to have a base of filters $``$, to which the $`o()`$ notation refers to.
In the preceding paragraph, $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ could also be replaced by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.  $`𝐚=(a_m:\mathrm{\Lambda }_+)_m`$ :

$`A_𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`\{s𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }m:s=o(a_m)\}`$
$`I_𝐚`$ $`=`$ $`\{s𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }m:s=o(a_m)\}`$
Recall that $`𝐚`$ must verify: $`m:a_{m+1}=o(a_m)`$, $`a_m=1/a_m`$, $`M:a_M=o(a_m^2)`$. Some examples that have proved to be useful are:

1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ and $`a_m(\lambda )=1/\lambda ^m`$ : This leads to Colombeau’s generalized numbers and algebras.
2. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$ and $`a_m(\lambda )=1/\mathrm{exp}^m(\lambda )`$ for $`m^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{exp}^m`$ is the $`m`$-fold iterated $`\mathrm{exp}`$ function: This gives the so-called exponential algebras .
3. $`r_n^m=1/n^{\frac{m}{m1}}`$: This is related to ultradistribution spaces, and is discussed in .

###### Proposition 11

Asymptotic algebras can be recovered in our formulation by choosing the sequence of weights $`r^m=1/|\mathrm{log}a_m|`$ (i.e. $`r_\lambda ^m=1/|\mathrm{log}a_m(\lambda )|`$).

Proof. We will show that $`_I=𝒦_{𝒫,r}`$ and $`_A=_{𝒫,r}`$, for $`r^m=1/|\mathrm{log}a_m|`$.
In view of the definitions, this amounts to show the equivalences

$$p,\underset{()}{}a_m:pf=o(a_m)p,\underset{()}{}r^m:|f|_{p,r^m}\underset{(<\mathrm{})}{=0}.$$

Let us start with $`_A_{𝒫,r}:`$ Let $`f_A`$. Thus, $`p𝒫`$, $`m:pf=o(a_m)`$. We can assume $`a_m>1`$, such that $`r^m=1/\mathrm{log}a_ma_m=e^{1/r^m}`$. Thus $`pf=o(e^{1/r^m})`$. But $`pf<e^{1/r^m}(pf)^{r^m}<e`$, thus $`lim\; sup(pf)^{r^m}<\mathrm{}`$ and $`f_{𝒫,r}`$.

Conversely, $`_{𝒫,r}_A:`$ We have $`p𝒫`$, $`\overline{m}:lim\; sup(pf)^{1/|\mathrm{log}a_{\overline{m}}|}<\mathrm{}`$. With

$$(pf)^{1/|\mathrm{log}a_m|}Cpf\left(a_m\right)^{\mathrm{log}C},(a_m,C>1)$$

we have: $`C>0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0:\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_0:p(f_\lambda )(a_{\overline{m}}(\lambda ))^{|\mathrm{log}C|}`$. Thus, using the 3rd property of scales, $`m:pf=o(a_m)`$.

Now turn to $`_I𝒦_{𝒫,r}:`$ We have $`\overline{m}:pf=o(a_{\overline{m}})`$.
Take $`m`$. Now, for any $`q`$, $`\widehat{m}:a_{\widehat{m}}=o(a_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{q})`$. and $`pf=o(a_{\widehat{m}})`$.

Using $`a_m=e^{1/r^m}`$, $`a_{\widehat{m}}=o(a_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{q})=o((e^{1/r_m})^q)=o((e^q)^{1/r^m})`$, i.e., $`(pf)^{r^m}e^q`$ for $`\lambda `$ “large enough”. As $`q`$ was arbitrary, we have $`(pf)^{r^m}0`$ and thus $`f𝒦`$.

Finally, $`𝒦_{𝒫,r}_I:`$ We have $`\overline{m}:lim\; supp(f_\lambda )^{1/|\mathrm{log}a_{\overline{m}}|}=0`$, i.e.,

$$C>0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_0:p(f_\lambda )^{1/|\mathrm{log}a_{\overline{m}}|}<C.$$

With $`a_m,C<1`$, this gives $`p(f_\lambda )C^{|\mathrm{log}a_{\overline{m}}|}=a_{\overline{m}}^{}{}_{}{}^{|\mathrm{log}C|}`$. Now, to show that $`f_I`$, take any $`m`$. Let $`\overline{m}=m+1`$ and $`C=1/e`$: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_0:p(f_\lambda )<a_{\overline{m}}(\lambda )`$. But $`a_{\overline{m}}=a_{m+1}=o(a_m)`$, thus $`pf=o(a_m)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.3 Algebras with infra-exponential growth

A second interesting subclass of $`(𝒞,,𝒫)`$–algebras are of the form

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\{s𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma <0:s=o(a_\sigma )\}`$
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\{s𝕂^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma >0:s=o(a_\sigma )\}`$
where $`𝐚=\left(a_\sigma \right)_\sigma `$ is again a scale (i.e. $`\sigma >\rho ,a_\sigma =o(a_\rho )`$, etc.), but indexed by a real number. (Note that here $`A`$ is given as intersection and $`I`$ as union of sets, that’s why this case is not covered by the previous one.)

For example (again with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$),

$$a_\sigma :=\lambda 1/\mathrm{exp}\left(\sigma \lambda \right)$$

gives the so-called algebras with infra–exponential growth , pertaining to the embedding of periodic hyperfunctions in $`(𝒞,,𝒫)`$–algebras.

These algebras can be obtained by taking $`=\{f|f|_r1\}`$ and $`𝒦=\{f|f|_r<1\}`$, with $`r_n=\frac{1}{n}`$. (As the norm is compared to 1, all scales $`r_\sigma =1/|\mathrm{log}a_\sigma |`$ (i.e. $`r_\sigma (\lambda )=1/|\sigma \lambda |`$ are equivalent. More details on this “dual” construction, where the conditions $`<\mathrm{}`$ and $`=0`$ are replaced by $`1`$ and $`<1`$, will be given in a forthcoming publication.)

## 3 Functorial properties

In this section, we want to investigate on conditions sufficient to extend mappings on the topological factor algebras constructed as before. Consider for example

$$\phi :EF$$

where $`(E,P)`$ and $`(F,Q)`$ are spaces equipped with families of seminorms $`P`$ and $`Q`$. We shall note in this section $`_{\mathrm{\Pi },r}()`$, $`𝒦_{\mathrm{\Pi },r}()`$ and $`𝒢_{\mathrm{\Pi },r}()`$ the spaces defined as above, where stands for $`E`$ or $`F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ stands for $`P`$ or $`Q`$.

Suppose that $`\phi `$ satisfies the following hypotheses:

$`(F_1):`$ $`f_{P,r}(E)`$ $`\phi (f)_{Q,r}(F)`$
$`(F_2):`$ $`f_{P,r}(E),h𝒦_{P,r}(E)`$ $`\phi (f+h)\phi (f)𝒦_{Q,r}(F)`$
where we write $`\phi (f):=\left(\phi \left(f_n\right)\right)_n`$. Then we can consider the following

###### Definition 12

Under the above hypothesis, we define the $`r`$–extension of $`\phi `$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=𝒢_r(\phi ):=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒢_{P,r}(E)& & 𝒢_{Q,r}(F)\hfill \\ \hfill [f]& & \phi (f)+𝒦_{Q,r}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

where $`f`$ is any representative of $`[f]=f+𝒦_{P,r}(E)`$.

The above consideration is of course a very general condition for a map to be well defined on a factor space. In fact, it does not depend on details of how the spaces $`_{P,r}(E)`$ and $`𝒦_{P,r}(E)`$ are defined. In particular, here $`r`$ can also be a family of sequences $`\left(r^m\right)_m`$, and $`E`$ can be of proj-proj or ind-proj type.

###### Example 13

Consider a linear mapping $`u(E,F)`$, continuous for $`(P,Q)`$. Fix $`qQ`$. As $`u`$ is continuous, there exists $`p=p_{(q)}`$ such that

$$c:xE:q\left(u(x)\right)cp_{(q)}(x).$$

Thus, $`f,hE^{}:`$

$`lim\; sup\left(p_{(q)}\left(f_n\right)\right)^{r_n}<\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`lim\; sup\left(q\left(u\left(f_n\right)\right)\right)^{r_n}<\mathrm{}`$
$`lim\; sup\left(p_{(q)}\left(h_n\right)\right)^{r_n}=0`$ $``$ $`lim\; sup\left(q\left(u\left(h_n\right)\right)\right)^{r_n}=0`$
This example shows how we can define moderate or compatible maps with respect to the “scale” $`r`$. In fact, the concrete definitions will depend on the monotony properties of the family $`(r^m)`$ of sequences of weights, according to which $`=_m`$ and $`𝒦=𝒦_m`$ (for $`r^{m+1}r^m`$), or $`=_m`$ and $`𝒦=𝒦_m`$ (for $`r^{m+1}r^m`$).

The analysis of continuity (in the sense of $`||||||_{p,r}`$) shows that the following definitions are convenient:

###### Definition 14 (for $`r^{m+1}r^m`$)

The map $`g:_+_+`$ is said to be $`r`$–moderate iff it is increasing and

$$mMx_+:\underset{n}{sup}\left(g\left(x^{1/r_n^m}\right)\right)^{r_n^M}<\mathrm{}$$

The map $`h:_+_+`$ is said to be $`r`$–compatible iff it is increasing and

$$Mm:\left(h\left(x^{1/r_n^m}\right)\right)^{r_n^M}\underset{x0}{}0\text{ uniformly in }n.$$

###### Proposition 15

The above definition of an $`r`$–moderate map $`g`$ is equivalent to

$$g\text{ increasing, and }mM:g(_{r^m}^+)_{r^M}^+.$$

where $`_{r^m}^+=_+^{}_{||,r^m}`$ are “moderate” sequences of nonnegative numbers.
The definition of an $`r`$–compatible map $`h`$ can be written as

$$h\text{ increasing, and }Mm:|h(C)|_M0\text{ when }|C|_m0.$$

or, equivalently

$$h\text{ continuous at 0, increasing, and }Mm:h(𝒦_{r^m}^+)𝒦_{r^M}^+.$$

Proof. (writing $`_m`$ for $`_{r^m}^+`$): We have $`g(_m)_M`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc}& \hfill C_+^{}:C_m& g(C)_M\hfill & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & \hfill C_+^{}:|C|_m<\mathrm{}& |g(C)|_M<\mathrm{}\hfill & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & \hfill (x>0,n:C_n<x^{1/r_n^m})& sup_ng(C_n)^{r_n^M}<\mathrm{}\hfill & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & \hfill x_+:sup_ng(x^{1/r_n^m})^{r_n^M}& <\mathrm{}.\hfill & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

For $`h`$, again take $`C_n=x^{1/r_n^m}`$, such that $`x0|C|_m0`$.
Clearly, the first form implies that $`h`$ is continuous at 0, thus “$`0`$” can be replaced by “$`=0`$”. Thus we have $`Mm:C𝒦_mh(C)𝒦_M`$, i.e. $`h(𝒦_m)𝒦_M`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 16 (for $`r^{m+1}r^m`$)

The map $`g:_+_+`$ is said to be $`r`$–moderate iff it is increasing and

$$Mmx_+:\underset{n}{sup}\left(g\left(x^{1/r_n^m}\right)\right)^{r_n^M}<\mathrm{}$$

The map $`h:_+_+`$ is said to be $`r`$–compatible iff it is increasing and

$$mM:\left(h\left(x^{1/r_n^m}\right)\right)^{r_n^M}\underset{x0}{}0\text{ uniformly in }n.$$

###### Proposition 17

The condition of $`r`$–moderateness can be written

$$g\text{ increasing and }M,m:g(_{r^m}^+)_{r^M}^+.$$

The condition of $`r`$–compatibility can be written

$$h\text{ increasing and }m,M:|h(C)|_M0\text{ for }|C|_m0$$

or equivalently

$$h\text{ continuous at 0, increasing, and }m,M:h(𝒦_{r^m}^+)𝒦_{r^M}^+.$$

Proof. The previous proof applies, mutatis mutandis: supremum is to be replaced by the corresponding ultranorm, and uniform convergence by convergence of the ultranorm. The definition implies continuity at $`h(0)=0`$, so “$`0`$” can be replaced by “$`=0`$”, and thus $`h𝒦_M`$ (resp. $`𝒦_m`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 18

If $`g`$ is $`r`$–moderate, then $`g(_r^+)_r^+`$; if $`h`$ is $`r`$–compatible, then $`h(𝒦_r^+)𝒦_r^+`$.

Proof. Start with the first case, $`=_m`$ and $`𝒦=𝒦_m`$: We have $`mM:g(_m)_Mm:g(_m)_M_M=_mg(_m)=g()`$.
Similarly, $`Mm:h(𝒦_m)𝒦_MM:_mh(𝒦_m)=h(𝒦)𝒦_Mh(𝒦)_M𝒦_M=𝒦`$.
Turn to the second case, $`=_m`$ and $`𝒦=𝒦_m`$: The proofs for $`g()`$, $`h(𝒦)`$ are identical to the proofs for $`h(𝒦)`$, $`g()`$ in the first case. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we give the definition (valid for both of the above cases) characterizing maps that extend canonically to $`𝒢_r`$:

###### Definition 19

The map $`\phi :(E,P)(F,Q)`$ is said to be continuously $`\mathrm{r}`$–temperate iff

$`(\alpha )`$ $`r\text{–moderate }g`$ $`,qQ,pP,fE:q(\phi (f))g(p(f))`$
$`(\beta )`$ $`r\text{–moderate }g`$ $`,r\text{–compatible }h:qQ,pP,`$
$`fE`$ $`,kE:q(\phi (f+k)\phi (f))g(p(f))h(p(k))`$
###### Proposition 20

Any continuously $`r`$–temperate map $`\phi `$ extends canonically to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒢_r(\phi ):𝒢_{P,r}(E)𝒢_{Q,r}(F).$$

Furthermore, this canonical extension is continuous for the topologies
$`(𝒢_{P,r}(E),(||||||_{p,r})_{pP})`$ and $`(𝒢_{Q,r}(F),(||||||_{q,r})_{qQ})`$.

Proof. The proof has two parts: first, the well-definedness of the extension; secondly, the continuity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As a preliminary remark, observe that $`_{P,r^m}=\{fpP:p(f)_{r^m}^+\}`$, and idem for $`𝒦`$. This, and the fact that $`𝒦_{r^m}`$ is an ideal in $`_{r^m}`$ (and $`_{r^m}^+𝒦_{r^m}^+𝒦_{r^m}^+`$) helps us to write the proof using the preceding two characterizations of moderate and compatible maps.
First part of the proof: We will show that $`(\alpha )`$ implies $`(F_1)`$ and $`(\beta )`$ gives $`(F_2)`$. Using respective definitions of moderateness and compatibility, the proof will be different for the two cases $`r^{m+1}r^m`$ and $`r^{m+1}r^m`$.
First case, $`r^{m+1}r^m`$, where $`=_m`$ et $`𝒦=𝒦_m`$:
$`ad(F_1):`$ Take $`f_{P,r}(E)`$, i.e. $`mp:p(f)_m^+`$. By $`(\alpha )`$, there is $`g`$ such that $`M:g(_m^+)_M^+`$, and $`q:q(\phi (f))g(p(f))g(_m^+)`$, thus $`Mq:q(\phi (f))_M^+`$, i.e. $`\phi (f)_{Q,r}(F)`$.
$`ad(F_2):`$ Take $`f`$ and $`k𝒦`$, i.e. $`m,p:p(f)_m^+`$ and $`m^{},p:p(k)𝒦_m^{}^+`$. Now fix $`M`$ and $`q`$. With $`(\beta )`$, $`gmM^{}:g(_m^+)_M^{}^+`$, and $`hM^{\prime \prime }m^{}:h(𝒦_m^{}^+)𝒦_{M^{\prime \prime }}^+`$. We use this for $`M^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{max}(M,M^{})`$, such that $`𝒦_{M^{\prime \prime }}^+𝒦_M^{}^+`$ and $`𝒦_{M^{\prime \prime }}^+𝒦_M^+`$. Finally, $`p:q\left(\phi (f+k)\phi (f)\right)g(p(f))h(p(k))g(_m^+)h(𝒦_m^{}^+)_M^{}^+𝒦_{M^{\prime \prime }}^+`$. Now distingush two cases: if $`M^{}M`$, this is in $`_M^{}^+𝒦_M^+_M^+𝒦_M^+𝒦_M^+`$. Conversely, if $`M<M^{}`$, then this is subset of $`_M^{}^+𝒦_M^{}^+𝒦_M^{}^+𝒦_M^+`$, because the $`𝒦_m^+`$ form a decreasing sequence. Thus, $`\phi (f+k)\phi (f)𝒦_{Q,r}(F)`$.
Second case, $`r^{m+1}r^m`$, where $`=_m`$ and $`𝒦=𝒦_m`$:
$`ad(F_1):`$ $`f_{P,r}(E)mp:p(f)_m^+`$. By $`(\alpha )`$,

$`gMm:g(_m^+)_M^+`$, and $`qp:q(\phi (f))g(p(f))g(_m^+)`$.
Thus, $`Mq:q(\phi (f))_M^+`$, i.e. $`\phi (f)_{Q,r}(F)`$.
$`ad(F_2):`$ Take $`f`$ and $`k𝒦`$, i.e. $`m,p:p(f)_m^+`$ and $`m^{},p:p(k)𝒦_m^{}^+`$. Now fix $`q`$. With $`(\beta )`$,

$`hm^{}M:h(𝒦_m^{}^+)𝒦_M^+`$ and $`gMm:g(_m^+)_M^+`$,
and there exists $`p`$ such that

$`q\left(\phi (f+k)\phi (f)\right)g(p(f))h(p(k))g(_m^+)h(𝒦_m^{}^+)_M^+𝒦_M^+𝒦_M^+`$,
thus $`\phi (f+k)\phi (f)𝒦_{Q,r}(F)`$.
Second part of the proof : continuity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We must show that

$$qQ:|\phi (f+k)\phi (f)|_{q,r^M}0\text{ when }pP:|k|_{p,r^m}0$$

for all $`M`$ (resp. for some $`M`$), in respective cases. The proof goes analogous to the above proof of $`(F_2)`$, by replacing $`p(f)_m^+`$ with $`|f|_{p,m}K`$, and $`p(k)_m^+`$ with $`|k|_{p,m}\epsilon `$, etc. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Association in $`𝒢`$

We will introduce different types of association, according to what has already been considered in the literature on generalized function spaces. Generally speaking, we will adopt the following terminology: strong association is expressed directly on the level of the factor algebra, while weak association will be defined in terms of a duality product, and thus with respect to a certain test function space.

#### Association in Colombeau type generalized numbers.

To start with, recall that Colombeau generalized numbers $`[x]`$ and $`[y]`$ are said to be associated, $`[x][y]`$, iff

$$x_ny_n\underset{n\mathrm{}}{}0\text{ ( in }\text{ ) .}$$

This can also be expressed by considering the subset of null sequences, $`N=\{x^{}limx_n=0\}`$, and by defining $`[x][y]xyN`$

As any element $`j`$ of the ideal verifies $`j_n0`$, this is clearly independant of the representative. In other words, it is well defined because $`IN`$.

### 4.1 The general concept of $`𝒥,X`$–association

The following general concept of association allows to recover all known notions of association, as well as the the types we shall consider below.

###### Definition 21 ($`𝒥,X`$–association)

Let $`𝒥`$ be an additive subgroup of $``$ containing the ideal $`𝒦`$, and $`X`$ a set of generalized numbers. Then, two elements $`F,G𝒢=/𝒦`$ are called $`𝒥,X`$–associated,

$$F\underset{𝒥,X}{}G\text{ iff }xX:x(FG)𝒥/𝒦.$$

For $`X=\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right\}`$, we simply write

$$F\underset{𝒥}{}GFG𝒥/𝒦.$$

###### Remark 22

As $`𝒥`$ is not an ideal, association is not compatible with multiplication in $``$ (not even by generalized numbers, only by elements of $`E`$). However, in the case of differential algebras, $`𝒥`$ is usually chosen such that $`\underset{𝒥,X}{}`$ is stable under differentiation.

###### Example 23

Usual association of generalized numbers, as recalled above, is obtained for $`𝒥=N`$, the set of null sequences:

$$[x][y][x]\underset{𝑁}{}[y].$$

As already mentioned, all elements of the ideal $`𝒦`$ tend to zero, i.e. $`𝒦N`$, as needed for well-definedness at the level of the factor algebra.

### 4.2 Strong association

As mentioned, strong association is defined directly in terms of the ultranorm (or ultrametric) of elements of the factor space.

###### Definition 24

For $`s_+`$, strong $`s`$–association is defined by

$$F\stackrel{𝑠}{}GF\underset{𝒥_{𝒫,r}^{(s)}}{}G$$

with

$`𝒥_{𝒫,r}^{(s)}=\{fp𝒫:|f|_{p,r}<e^s\},`$ (4.1)
which is equivalent to say

$$F\stackrel{𝑠}{}G\stackrel{~}{d}_{p,r}(F,G)<e^s.$$

For $`s=0`$, we write $`FG`$ and simply call them strongly associated.

If one has $`F\stackrel{𝑠}{}G`$ for all $`s0`$, then $`F=G`$. Indeed, this means that $`FG`$ is in the intersection of all balls of positive radius, which is equal to $`𝒦=0_𝒢`$.

### 4.3 Weak association in $`\stackrel{}{𝒢}_{p,r}`$

In contrast to the above, weak association is defined by comparing sequences of numbers (not functions), obtained by means of a duality product

$$,:\stackrel{}{E}\times \text{D},$$

where D is a test function space such that $`E\text{D}^{}`$ (as for example $`\text{D}=𝒟`$ for $`E=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$). The subset $`𝒥`$ defining the association will then be of the form

$`𝒥=𝒥_M=\{f\stackrel{}{E}^{}\psi \text{D}:\left(f_n,\psi \right)_nM\},`$ (4.2)
where $`M`$ is some additive subgroup of $`^{}`$ (like e.g. $`M=N`$, the null sequences).

###### Example 25

For the choices given above, $`\text{D}=𝒟`$, $`E=𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M=N`$, in the case of Colombeau’s algebra, we get the usual, so-called weak association $`[f][g]f_ng_n0`$ in $`𝒟^{}`$.

Again, this is independent of the representatives, because $`𝒥𝒦_{r,p}`$. To see this, consider $`j𝒦_{r,p}`$. Then for any $`\epsilon >0`$ there is $`n_0`$ such that for $`n>n_0`$,

$$|j_n,\psi |\epsilon ^{1/r_n}|\varphi |\underset{n\mathrm{}}{}0.$$

Thus, $`f_n,\psi \underset{n\mathrm{}}{}0f_n+j_n,\psi \underset{n\mathrm{}}{}0`$.

This is a special case of the following definition.

###### Definition 26

$`s\text{D}^{}`$–association is defined by

$$F\underset{\text{D}}{\overset{𝑠}{}}GF\underset{𝒥_N,X_s}{}G$$

with $`X_s=\left\{\left[\left(e^{s/r_n}\right)_n\right]\right\}`$ for $`s`$.

Note that this generalized number is always of the same form, but depends in each case on the sequence $`\left(r_n\right)_n`$ defining the topology.

###### Example 27

In Colombeau’s case, $`r=1/\mathrm{log}`$, we have $`X_s=\left\{\left[\left(n^s\right)_n\right]\right\}`$. For $`s=0`$ ($`X_0=\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right\}`$), we get the already mentioned weak association.

For $`s0`$, $`[f]\underset{𝒟}{\overset{𝑠}{}}[g]n^s(f_ng_n)0`$ in $`𝒟^{}`$. This also has already been considered (with $`\text{D}=𝒟`$), for example in  (where it had been denoted by $`\underset{𝑠}{}`$). This association is of course stronger than the simple weak association (again, because association is not compatible with multiplication even only by generalized numbers).

As an extension of this example, consider $`𝒥`$ as above, and
$`X=\left\{\left[\left(n^s\right)_n\right]\right\}_s`$. This means that

$$[f][g]s:limn^s(f_ng_n)=0\text{ in }𝒟^{}$$

In Colombeau’s algebra, this amounts in fact to strict equality.

###### Definition 28

Weak $`\mathrm{s}`$–association is defined for any $`\mathrm{s}`$ by

$$F\stackrel{(s)}{}GF\underset{𝒥_{(s)}}{}G$$

where

$`𝒥_{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{fE^{}\psi \text{D}:|\left(f_ng_n,\psi \right)_n|_{||,r}<e^s\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{fE^{}\psi \text{D}:\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left|f_ng_n,\psi \right|^{r_n}<e^s\}.`$
It is obtained from the general setting (4.2) by observing that $`𝒥_{(s)}=J_M`$ with (cf. eq. (4.1))

$$M=𝒥_{||,r}^{(s)}=\{c^{}|c|_{||,r}<e^s\}.$$

For $`s=0`$, we write $`F\stackrel{sw}{}\mathrm{G}`$ and call $`F`$ and $`G`$ strong–weak associated.

Weak $`s`$–association implies $`s\text{D}^{}`$–association, but conversely $`s\text{D}^{}`$–association only implies weak $`s^{}`$–association for all $`s^{}<s`$.

Let us consider some details concerning the structure of strong-weak association. In the following we will note $`||_r=|||_{}|||||,r`$, i.e.

$$|c|_r=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}|c_n|^{r_n}.$$

To start with, let us remark that $`_{||,r}=\{c^{}|c|_r<1\}`$ is an ideal in the subalgebra $`_{||,r}=\{c^{}|c|_r1\}`$ of $`^{}`$.

Let us now consider the topology on $`^{}`$ induced by the $`||_r`$–norm. We have

$$|c|_rab>a,n_0,n>n_0:|c_n|b^{1/r_n}.$$

But now observe that for $`b>1`$, $`b=1`$ and $`b<1`$, the limit of the last expression is respectively $`\mathrm{}`$, $`1`$ and $`0`$. This means that

1. $`|c|_r<1limc_n=0`$
2. $`limc_n=0b>1n_0nn_0:`$ $`|c_n|b^{1/r_n}\mathrm{},|c|_r1`$
3. $`|c|_r=1:`$ any value in $`_+\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}`$ (or none at all) is possible as limit for $`c_n`$. Indeed, whatever be the null sequence $`(r_n)`$, the sequences $`c_n=r_n`$ (resp. $`c_n=1/r_n`$) have limits $`0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}`$), but

$$|c_n|^{r_n}=\mathrm{exp}(\pm r_n\mathrm{log}r_n)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{}1(\text{ because }x\mathrm{log}x\underset{x0}{}0)$$

i.e. $`|c|_r=1`$.

Thus, all elements of the open unit ball are weakly associated to zero. This is very similar to classical results related to ultrametric spaces and weak topology.

###### Proposition 29

Weak $`s`$–association implies $`s\text{D}^{}`$–association, but the converse is not true.

Proof. This follows from $`|c|_{||,r}<1\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}c_n=0|c|_{||,r}1`$, with $`c_n=f_n,\psi e^{s/r_n}`$. (As already seen, for $`|c|_{||,r}=1`$, nothing can be concluded about the limit of $`(c_n)`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

Antoine Delcroix: IUFM de la Guadeloupe et Laboratoire A.O.C.,

Morne Ferret, BP 399, 97159 Pointe à Pitre cedex (Guadeloupe, F.W.I.)

Tel.: 00590 590 21 36 21, Fax : 00590 590 82 51 11,

E-mail: Antoine.Delcroix@univ-ag.fr

Maximilian Hasler: Université des Antilles et de la Guyane,

Laboratoire A.O.C., Département Scientifique Interfacultaire,

BP 7209, 97275 Schoelcher cedex (Martinique, F.W.I.)

Tel.: 00596 596 72 73 55, Fax : 00596 596 72 73 62,

e-mail : Maximilian.Hasler@martinique.univ-ag.fr

Stevan Pilipović: University of Novi Sad, Institute of Mathematics,

Trg D. Obradovića 4, 21000 Novi Sad (Yougoslavia)

Tel.: 00381 21 58 136, Fax: 00381 21 350 458,

e-mail: pilipovic@im.ns.ac.yu

Vincent Valmorin: Université des Antilles et de la Guyane,

Laboratoire A.O.C., Département de Mathématiques,

Campus de Fouillole, 97159 Pointe à Pitre cedex (Guadeloupe, F.W.I.)

Tel.: 00590 590 93 86 96, Fax: 00590 590 93 86 98,

e-mail: Vincent.Valmorin@univ-ag.fr


format: text

text:
# Theoretical Search for Nested Quantum Hall Effect of Composite Fermions

## I Introduction

If electrons did not interact, only the integral quantum Hall effect (IQHE)  would occur in nature. The discovery of the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE)  signaled the existence of a new correlated state of matter, the essence of which lies in the formation of quantum particles called composite fermions,  which are bound states of electrons and an even number of quantized vortices. Electrons avoid each other most efficiently by turning into composite fermions, which, in turn, interact much more weakly than electrons. For a large number of phenomena, it is a valid first approximation to neglect the interaction between composite fermions altogether, indicating that the interaction between composite fermions can often be treated perturbatively and does not cause any phase transitions.

The fundamental property of composite fermions, which is responsible for the dramatic phenomenology of two-dimensional systems in high magnetic fields, is that as they move about, the Aharonov Bohm phase is partly canceled by the phase produced by the vortices tied to other composite fermions and as a result they experience an effective magnetic field $`B^{}`$ given by

$$B^{}=B2p\rho \varphi _0$$
(1)
where $`B`$ is the external magnetic field, $`\rho `$ is the electron density (in two dimensions), the even integer $`2p`$ is the vorticity of composite fermions (CF’s), and $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$. (The composite fermion with vorticity $`2p`$ is denoted by 2pCF or CF-$`2p`$.) They form Landau-like levels in this reduced magnetic field, with their filling factor ($`\nu ^{}`$) related to the electron filling factor ($`\nu `$) by

$$\nu =\frac{\nu ^{}}{2p\nu ^{}\pm 1}$$
(2)
The wave functions for composite fermions are given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =P_{LLL}\underset{j<k}{}(z_jz_k)^{2p}\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{}$$
(3)
where $`z_j=x_jiy_j`$ denotes the position of the $`j`$th particle, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{}`$ is an antisymmetric wave function for fermions at the effective filling $`\nu ^{}`$, and $`P_{LLL}`$ is the lowest Landau level (LLL) projection operator. The wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ is of course the wave function of correlated electrons at $`\nu `$, but can also be interpreted as the wave function of composite fermions at filling factor $`\nu ^{}`$, because on the right hand side, each electron has $`2p`$ vortices bound to it through the multiplicative factor $`_{j<k}(z_jz_k)^{2p}`$, which converts each electron in into a composite fermion.

Let us begin by neglecting the interaction between composite fermions. In this case, a gap opens up when the composite fermions fill an integral number of levels, i.e., when $`\nu ^{}=n`$, which corresponds to electron filling factors given by

$$\nu =\frac{n}{2pn+1}$$
(4)
where $`n`$ is a positive or negative integer. \[The negative values of $`n`$ give $`\nu =|n|/(2p|n|1)`$, and correspond to the situation in which the effective field $`B^{}`$ is opposite to the external field $`B`$.\] The model of non-interacting composite fermions thus predicts quantum Hall effect (QHE) of electrons at these fractions, and also at

$$\nu =1\frac{n}{2pn+1}$$
(5)
due to particle hole symmetry in the lowest Landau level. (The fractions in Eq. 5 can be obtained by formulating the problem in terms of holes rather than electrons in the lowest Landau level, and then making composite fermions out of them.) The QHE at these filling factors will be termed “CF-$`2p`$ QHE.” CF-2 QHE and CF-4 QHE are routine, and CF-6 QHE and CF-8 QHE have also been observed . These sequences exhaust most of the more than 50 observed fractions to date in the lowest Landau level. The wave functions have been tested in detail for finite systems, and are very accurate, without involving any adjustable parameter.

In short, most of the QHE can be understood as the integral QHE of appropriate fermions. It ought to be noted that the QHE of higher order composite fermions can be viewed as a consequence of interactions between lower order composite fermions. For example, the CF-4 QHE originates from interactions between CF-2’s. Nonetheless, the physics of all states at filling factors of Eqs. (4) and (5) is correctly described in terms of non-interacting composite fermions of the appropriate kind.

While the above fractions are obtained most immediately in the CF theory, it has been known since the very beginning of the composite fermion theory that other fractions are not ruled out. New QHE between two successive integral Hall states of composite fermions will be called NQHE, where N stands for “nested.” A simple scenario for NQHE is as follows. Consider electrons in the filling factor range

$$\frac{n+1}{2p(n+1)+1}>\nu >\frac{n}{2pn+1}$$
(6)
which map into 2pCF’s in the range

$$n+1>\nu ^{}>n,$$
(7)
containing $`n`$ levels fully occupied and the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ level partially occupied. It is a natural conjecture that inter-CF interaction can possibly cause gaps at

$$\nu ^{}=n+\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}$$
(8)
which will produce new fractions between the familiar fractions $`\frac{n}{2pn+1}`$ and $`\frac{n+1}{2p(n+1)+1}`$. Here, the 2pCF’s in the topmost partially filled level capture $`2\overline{p}`$ vortices (as a result of the residual 2pCF-2pCF interaction) to turn into higher order composite fermions ($`^{2p+2\overline{p}}`$CF’s) and condense into $`\overline{n}`$ levels, thereby opening a gap and producing quantum Hall effect. This QHE state is a nested state with higher order composite fermions forming in the background of the original composite fermions.

Certain qualitative consequences of the above scenario are as follows. The NQHE of composite fermions is analogous to QHE of electrons between two successive IQHE states of electrons, that is, to FQHE in higher electronic Landau levels. It is known that FQHE is rare in second electronic Landau levels (i.e., in the range $`4>\nu >2`$, including spin degeneracy) and non-existent in third or higher Landau levels; by analogy, NQHE is expected to be rare. Extending the analogy further, the strongest NQHE states for fully spin polarized composite fermions are expected to be at $`\nu ^{}=1+1/3`$ and $`\nu ^{}=1+2/3`$, which correspond to electron filling factors $`\nu =4/11`$ and $`\nu =5/13`$; these are expected to be the strongest nested CF states .

Recently, Pan et al.  have reported observation of 4/11 and 5/13, heralding a new generation of quantum Hall effect that cannot be understood as the IQHE of composite fermions. This discovery has given fresh impetus to the issue of NQHE, especially because it is possible that more NQHE states will be observed in the future as the sample quality improves and the temperature drops, reminiscent of how the FQHE appeared on top of the IQHE. What other nested states are possible? What is the true nature of these states? Such questions have motivated us to investigate this topic further.

Even though the theoretical scenario described above is plausible, and indeed natural, there is no a priori guarantee that it actually occurs, and it is important to carry out quantitative tests to ascertain its applicability to the real world. It is worth recalling here that not all fractions that can occur in principle do really occur in nature. For example, FQHE can occur for some hypothetical interaction at very small filling factors, but is preempted by Wigner crystal for the Coulomb interaction, and in higher Landau levels, the FQHE is often believed to be unstable to charge-density-wave type state. Therefore, it would require further theoretical work before one could claim with any degree of confidence that NQHE based on the physics described above is actually possible.

The quantitative theoretical investigations so far suggest that there should be no FQHE at fractions other than those in Eqs. (4) and (5) for fully spin-polarized electrons. An exact diagonalization study  of $`N=8`$ electrons at 4/11 finds a non-uniform ground state, which is an evidence against FQHE liquid. In another approach , a model has been developed for the effective interaction between composite fermions in the second level. In Ref.  it was argued that no new FQHE is obtained . Ref.  found that the form of this interaction favors a “bubble crystal” of composite fermions at filling factors like 4/11 rather than the quantum Hall effect. These studies indicate that the effective interaction between composite fermions is not sufficiently strongly repulsive to stabilize FQHE at 4/11 and several other fractions. Both approaches have their problems. In exact diagonalization, the system is effectively small, with only $`3`$ composite fermions in the second level, and one may question if the conclusion based on this system will hold up as $`N`$ increases. The effective interaction model involves several assumptions, because of which the results are plausible but not conclusive.

In Ref.  showed that FQHE at 4/11 is very likely possible for a partially spin polarized system or a spin unpolarized system. It is not yet known for sure if the FQHE states at 4/11 and 5/13 are partially or fully polarized in the experiments of Pan et al.,  but given the relatively high magnetic fields at which these states have been observed, it is quite possible that they are fully spin polarized, and therefore it is worth revisiting the issue of whether fully polarized incompressible states can be found theoretically at these filling fractions. That is the prime motivation behind our present study. In this work, we will look for FQHE at several filling fractions in the range between 1/3 and 2/5.

We will study finite systems of $`N`$ particles at total flux $`2Q`$ (in units of the flux quantum $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$), where the relation between $`N`$ and $`Q`$ for a given filling factor will be derived from the physics described above. The most reliable theoretical method would be exact diagonalization. However, because of the exponentially growing Hilbert space, exact diagonalization is possible only for very small systems, and very few filling factors. For example, for $`\nu =4/11`$, exact diagonalization has been possible for $`N=8`$ electrons. The next system contains $`N=12`$ (in the spherical geometry, discussed below), for which the lowest Landau level Hilbert space contains a total of $`8.6\times 10^7`$ Slater determinant basis states; the diagonalization of matrices of such sizes is beyond the reach of present day computers. We have developed a powerful new method, namely diagonalization in low-energy composite-fermion basis (LECFB), which we believe gives accurate results. It exploits the fact that the composite fermion theory allows us to directly identify low-energy states of the full Hilbert space, which lets us work within a sub-space much smaller than the full Hilbert space. For example, we have been able to obtain the low-energy spectrum for the 4/11 state with as many as 24 electrons, where the dimension of the full Hilbert space is $`10^{17}`$.

A brief outline of the method is as follows. Consider the filling factor range given in Eq. (6). Given that the two ends of this range are well described as $`n+1`$ and $`n`$ filled levels of composite fermions, it is natural to expect that the low energy states at $`\nu `$ contain $`n`$ composite fermion levels completely occupied, and the remaining composite fermions in the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ level. The configurations that involve promotion of composite fermions to higher kinetic energy levels are expected to cost substantially higher energy and are neglected. In other words, we include all configurations of type shown in Fig. (1) but neglect configurations of the type shown in Fig. (2). This neglect of composite-fermion Landau level mixing is the only assumption in our approach, which can be tested for consistency at the end of the calculation. Other than that the method is exact. The most important point here is that we do not make any assumption with regard to the interaction between composite fermions, or their structure in the partially filled level. In our calculation, we first construct all states of composite fermions at $`\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }`$, with the lowest $`n`$ levels fully occupied and the next one with filling factor $`\overline{\nu }`$, and then diagonalize the Coulomb Hamiltonian within this sector to obtain the spectrum of low energy states. The calculation is rather involved, requiring extensive Monte Carlo, but still numerically stable, and yields reliable results.

The present method is a significant advance over the variational method of Ref. . It is much more reliable because it eliminates several approximations made in that work. In Ref. , the problem of composite fermions at $`\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }`$ was mapped into that of fermions at $`\overline{\nu }`$. Further, it was assumed that the interaction energy of the system of composite fermions in the partially filled level can be approximated by a sum of two-body interactions. The interaction between composite fermions was obtained by keeping only two composite fermions in the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ level and integrating out the composite fermions of the lower filled levels. In general, when there are many composite fermions in the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ level, the integrating out of the lower-level composite fermions will produce a quite complex interaction, with two-, three-, and $`n`$-body terms, because the full system is strongly correlated. The hope was that the $`n`$-body terms do not cause any phase transitions, in which case the two-body terms will produce the correct state. However, this approximation was untested. Finally, the method was a variational study, in which the energies of certain wave functions were compared to determine which had the lowest energy; there was of course no guarantee that this state would describe the true ground state. In contrast, in the present study, we work with the full composite fermion system and do not assume anything about the form of the interaction between composite fermions or the nature of their ground state.

The following section contains a discussion of how we construct the low-energy composite fermion basis and how we carry out the Gram-Schmid orthogonalization and diagonalization. The reader not interested in the technical details can skip this section and directly proceed to the subsequent section, wherein the results are given and their implications are discussed.

## II Diagonalization in low-energy composite-fermion basis

We first summarize certain relevant facts from the introduction. The electron filling factor $`\nu `$ given by

$$\nu =\frac{\nu ^{}}{2p\nu ^{}\pm 1}$$
(9)
corresponds to composite fermion filling factor $`\nu ^{}`$. We will be interested below in the specific values of $`\nu ^{}`$ given by

$$\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }=n+\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}$$
(10)
Here, composite fermions fill $`n`$ levels completely and occupy $`\overline{\nu }`$ fraction of the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ level. If the 2pCF’s in the partially occupied level capture $`2\overline{p}`$ additional vortices and condense into $`\overline{n}`$ filled Landau level state, then a gap would open up and NQHE would be obtained. The question is whether this mechanism really occurs in nature.

In the composite fermion theory, there are several possible approaches for constructing a low energy basis. In this work, we construct a LECFB of all states at $`\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }`$ in which $`n`$ 2pCF levels are fully occupied and the next level has filling $`\overline{\nu }`$. We do not make any approximation regarding the structure of 2pCF’s in the partially filled level. This basis is in principle straightforward: we simply need to take all electronic states at $`\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }`$ and attach $`2p`$ vortices to obtain the composite fermion states. The method, however, is technically rather demanding, and the present section is devoted to it.

### A Wave functions

We will employ the spherical geometry in which $`N`$ electrons move on the surface of a sphere under the influence of a radial magnetic field $`B`$ created by a magnetic monopole at the center. The magnitude of the $`B`$ field is given by $`2Q\varphi _0/4\pi R^2`$ where $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$ is known as the flux quantum, $`R`$ is the radius of the sphere, and $`Q`$ is called the monopole strength which should be either an integer or a half-integer because of Dirac’s quantization condition.

The interacting electron system at monopole strength $`Q`$ maps into a system of weakly interacting composite fermions at an effective monopole strength $`q^{}=Qp(N1)`$. The wave functions for interacting electrons at $`Q`$ are given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Q=P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2p}\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the wave function for the fully occupied lowest Landau level, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}`$ are antisymmetric wave functions at $`q^{}`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in general a linear superposition of Slater-determinant basis states made up of the monopole harmonics, $`Y_{q^{},s,m}`$, given by :

$`Y_{q^{},s,m}(\mathrm{\Omega }_j)=N_{q^{}sm}(1)^{q^{}+sm}e^{iq^{}\varphi _j}u_j^{q^{}+m}v_j^{q^{}m}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{s}{}}}(1)^r\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2q^{}+s}{q^{}+smr}}\right)(v_j^{}v_j)^{sr}(u_j^{}u_j)^r,`$ (13)
where

$$N_{q^{}sm}=\left(\frac{(2q^{}+2s+1)}{4\pi }\frac{(q^{}+sm)!(q^{}+s+m)!}{s!(2q^{}+s)!}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(14)
$`s`$=0,1,2,… is the Landau level (LL) index, to be differentiated from $`n`$, the number of filled Landau levels. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ represents the angular coordinates $`\theta _j`$ and $`\varphi _j`$ of the $`j`$th electron, and

$$u_j\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _j/2)$$
(15)
$$v_j\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _j/2).$$
(16)
It was shown in Ref.  that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Q`$, the wave function of interacting electrons at $`Q=q^{}+p(N1)`$, is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}`$ by replacing $`Y_{q^{},s,m}`$ by $`Y_{q^{},s,m}^{CF}`$, defined as:

$`Y_{q^{},s,m}^{CF}(\mathrm{\Omega }_j)=N_{q^{}sm}(1)^{q^{}+sm}{\displaystyle \frac{(2Q+1)!}{(2Q+s+1)!}}u_j^{q^{}+m}v_j^{q^{}m}`$ (17)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{s}{}}}(1)^r\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2q^{}+s}{q^{}+smr}}\right)u_j^rv_j^{sr}`$ (18)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{u_j}}\right)^r\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{v_j}}\right)^{sr}J_j^p\right]`$ (19)
where

$$J_j=\underset{k}{\overset{^{}}{}}(u_jv_kv_ju_k)$$
(20)
Here the prime denotes the condition $`kj`$.

### B Low-energy composite-fermion basis

For $`\overline{\nu }=0`$, that is at the special filling factors

$$\nu =\frac{n}{2pn\pm 1}$$
(21)
the wave function for the ground state has the simple form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{n}{2pn\pm 1}}^{GS}=P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2p}\mathrm{\Phi }_n$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is the Slater determinant wave function for $`n`$ filled Landau levels. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is unique, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{n}{2pn\pm 1}}`$ also contains no adjustable parameters. It has been tested in the past and was found to be remarkably accurate .

Of interest in this work is the situation when $`\overline{\nu }0`$. Here, we obtain the low energy spectrum through the following steps.

1. We perform exact diagonalization for $`\overline{N}`$ particles at filling factor $`\overline{\nu }`$ in the lowest Landau level to get all eigenstate. The form of the interaction used for the diagonalization is of no significance, because its only role is to produce basis wave functions, but we work with the Coulomb interaction. Let us denote these states by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}^\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ labels different states.
2. We then promote each eigenstate to the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ Landau level, and fill the lower $`n`$ Landau levels completely with additional particles to get the $`N`$ particle state at $`\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }`$. This gives all wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{}^\alpha `$ for which the lowest $`n`$ Landau levels are fully occupied and the next Landau level has filling $`\overline{\nu }`$. These states are denoted by $`L_n\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}^\alpha `$, where $`L_n`$ denotes addition of $`n`$ Landau levels. It ought to be remembered that the operator $`L_n`$ changes the number of particles.
3. We then multiply each wave function by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2p}`$ and carry out the lowest Landau level projection by the method discussed above. This gives us correlated basis functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^\alpha `$ at $`\nu `$. These steps are summarized as

$$\overline{\nu }\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }\nu =\frac{\nu ^{}}{2p\nu ^{}+1}$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^\alpha =P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2p}L_n\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}^\alpha $$
(24)
The advantage of constructing basis states in this way is that it directly gives us basis functions with well defined orbital angular momentum $`L`$, which is a good quantum number in the spherical geometry. We can work within each $`L`$ sector independently, because they are not coupled by the interaction. (Note that in the above equation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}^\alpha `$ is a wave function for $`\overline{N}`$ electrons only.)
4. The basis thus obtained is not orthogonal. We obtain an orthogonal basis following the Gram-Schmid procedure. Some relevant details are outlined below.
5. We construct the Hamiltonian matrix.
6. Diagonalization of the Hamiltonian gives the low energy eigenspectrum at $`\nu `$.

If an incompressible state is obtained, the ground state wave function is likely to be well approximated by

$$P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2p}L_n\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}^{GS}P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2p}L_n[P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2\overline{p}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{n}}]$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}^{GS}P_{LLL}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2\overline{p}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{n}}`$ is the wave function for the ground state for $`\overline{N}`$ particles at $`\overline{\nu }=\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}`$.

### C NQHE states on sphere

Since our goal is to look the feasibility of NQHE described above, we do our calculations at those values of $`Q`$ where it is possible for 2pCF’s in the partially filled level to condense into a standard type of FQHE state. For that, we first need to determine the relation between $`Q`$ and $`N`$ for a given filling factor. Clearly, in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ we must have

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{N}{2Q}=\nu $$
(26)
where $`2Q`$ is the number of flux quantum. For finite systems, however, the ratio $`N/2Q`$ is not exactly equal to $`\nu `$, and the identification of what filling factor a finite system corresponds to requires additional theoretical input.

Let us first consider the incompressible states at filling factor $`\overline{\nu }=\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}`$, the wave function for which is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2\overline{p}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{n}}`$. For these states, the relation between $`Q`$ and $`N`$ can be obtained by noting that the product of two monopole harmonics at $`q^{}`$ and $`q^{\prime \prime }`$ gives a monopole harmonic at $`q^{}+q^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e. the monopole strengths add. For reasons that will become clear below, let us denote the number of particles by $`\overline{N}`$ and the monopole strength by $`\overline{q}`$. The lowest LL projection is unimportant for the question of the relationship between $`\overline{N}`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, as it does not alter $`\overline{q}`$. In the spherical geometry, for monopole strength $`q`$ the degeneracy of the lowest Landau level is $`2q+1`$, for the next LL it is $`2q+3`$, and so on. From that, it is clear that the $`\overline{n}`$ filled LL state is obtained for $`q_{\overline{n}}`$ given by

$$q_{\overline{n}}=\frac{\overline{N}\overline{n}^2}{2\overline{n}}$$
(27)
In particular, one filled LL is obtained at

$$q_1=\frac{\overline{N}1}{2}$$
(28)
From the addition rule, the monopole strength of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{2\overline{p}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{n}}`$ is given by

$$\overline{q}=2\overline{p}q_1+q_{\overline{n}}=\left(\overline{p}+\frac{1}{2\overline{n}}\right)\overline{N}\left(\overline{p}+\frac{\overline{n}}{2}\right)$$
(29)
It can be verified that $`2\overline{q}/\overline{N}`$ gives the filling factor $`\overline{\nu }`$ in the thermodynamic limit.

Now we ask what is the monopole strength $`q^{}`$ for the state at $`\nu ^{}=n+\overline{\nu }=n+\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}`$ for $`N`$ electrons. Let us denote by $`\overline{N}`$ the number of fermions in the $`(n+1)^{st}`$ partially filled Landau level. In order for $`\overline{N}`$ fermions to form the $`\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}`$ state, the degeneracy in this level must satisfy:

$$2q^{}+2n+1=2\overline{q}+1$$
(30)
which implies that

$$q^{}=\overline{q}n$$
(31)
The total number of fermions, including the fermions in the lowest $`n`$ fully occupied Landau levels is

$$N=\overline{N}+2nq^{}+n^2$$
(32)
Eliminating $`\overline{N}`$, one gets the following relation between $`N`$ and $`q^{}`$:

$$N=2q^{}\left(n+\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}\right)+\frac{\overline{p}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{n}+n}{\overline{p}+\frac{1}{2\overline{n}}}+n^2$$
(33)
The state at $`\nu ^{}=n+\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{p}\overline{n}+1}`$ is obtained for all vaules of ($`N`$,$`q^{}`$) related by the above equation, provided $`N`$ is an integer and $`q^{}`$ is an integer or a half integer. The state at $`\nu =\frac{\nu ^{}}{2p\nu ^{}+1}`$ in turn is obtained for all values of ($`N`$,$`Q`$) with $`Q=q^{}+p(N1)`$.

We have considered in this work the following filling factors.

* $`\nu =\frac{4}{11}`$: Here, $`\nu ^{}=1+\frac{1}{3}`$. The parameters are: $`p=\overline{p}=n=\overline{n}=1`$, which gives

$$q^{}=\frac{3N8}{8},Q=\frac{11N16}{8}$$
(34)
* $`\nu =\frac{5}{13}`$: Here, $`\nu ^{}=1+\frac{2}{3}`$. The parameters are: $`p=\overline{p}=n=1`$ and $`\overline{n}=2`$, which gives

$$q^{}=\frac{3N7}{10},Q=\frac{13N17}{10}$$
(35)
* $`\nu =\frac{7}{19}`$: Here, $`\nu ^{}=1+\frac{2}{5}`$. The parameters are: $`p=\overline{p}=n=1`$ and $`\overline{n}=2`$, which gives

$$q^{}=\frac{5N17}{14},Q=\frac{19N31}{14}$$
(36)
* $`\nu =\frac{6}{17}`$: Here, $`\nu ^{}=1+\frac{1}{5}`$. The parameters are: $`p=n=\overline{n}=1`$ and $`\overline{p}=2`$, which gives

$$q^{}=\frac{5N12}{12},Q=\frac{17N24}{12}$$
(37)

Of course, only integer values are allowed for $`N`$, $`2q^{}`$, and $`2Q`$. The table I explicitly lists the systems that we have studied below.

### D Matrix elements

The basis obtained in the way described above is not orthogonal for a given angular momentum sector $`L`$. We orthogonalize these using the Gram-Schmid procedure and than diagonalize the Coulomb Hamiltonian in the orthogonal basis. These require the knowledge of matrix elements of the type $`<\varphi _l|\varphi _m>`$ and $`<\varphi _l|H|\varphi _m>`$, where $`\varphi _l`$ and $`\varphi _m`$ ($`lm`$) are unorthonormalized wave functions, which we obtain by Monte Carlo. Since the Monte Carlo evaluation is most efficient when the integrand is positive definite, we determine these using the equations

$$<\varphi _l|\varphi _m>=\frac{<\varphi _l+\varphi _m|\varphi _l+\varphi _m><\varphi _l|\varphi _l><\varphi _m|\varphi _m>}{2},$$
(38)
and

$$<\varphi _l|V|\varphi _m>=\frac{<\varphi _l+\varphi _m|V|\varphi _l+\varphi _m><\varphi _l|V|\varphi _l><\varphi _m|V|\varphi _m>}{2},$$
(39)
where $`V`$ denotes the Coulomb interaction Hamiltonian.

### E Orthogonalization

We denote $`\{u_l\}`$ as the unorthogonal but normalized basis set obtained from the set $`\{\varphi _l\}`$, and define

$$u_{ij}<u_i|u_j>=\frac{<\varphi _i|\varphi _j>}{|\varphi _i||\varphi _j|}$$
(40)
and

$$V_{ij}<u_i|V|u_j>=\frac{<\varphi _i|V|\varphi _j>}{|\varphi _i||\varphi _j|};$$
(41)
these are real numbers.

We then follow the Gram-Schmid procedure to construct an orthogonal basis set $`\{\psi _i\}`$ in terms of the unorthogonal basis set $`\{u_i\}`$. The former can be expressed as

$`\psi _j`$ $`=`$ $`u_j{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_i^2}}<\psi _i|u_j>\psi _i,`$ (42)
$``$ $`u_j{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}f_{ij}\psi _i,`$ (43)
with $`N_i^2=<\psi _i|\psi _i>`$ and $`f_{ij}=<\psi _i|u_j>/N_i^2`$. While the above relation allows an iterative evaluation of $`\{\psi _i\}`$, we find it more convenient to work with the following expressions:

$$N_i^2=<\psi _i|\psi _i>=1\underset{k=1}{\overset{i1}{}}f_{ki}^2N_k^2$$
(44)
and

$`f_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<\psi _i|u_j>}{N_i^2}}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_i^2}}\left[<u_i{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{i1}{}}}f_{ki}\psi _k|u_j>\right]`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_i^2}}\left[u_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{i1}{}}}f_{ki}f_{kj}N_k^2\right],`$ (47)
Eq. (43) was used to obtain these expressions, as well as the fact that $`u_{ij}`$ and $`f_{ij}`$ are real. The Hamiltonian matrix elements

$$V_{ij}=\frac{<\psi _i|V|\psi _j>}{N_iN_j}$$
(48)
in the basis set $`\{\psi _i\}`$ are thus obtained as

$`V_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_iN_j}}[V_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}f_{kj}E_{ik}N_iN_k`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{i1}{}}}f_{li}\{E_{lj}N_lN_j+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}f_{kj}E_{lk}N_lN_k\}]`$
which are again obtained iteratively. We finally diagonalize the matrix $`V_{ij}`$ to obtain the eigenvalue spectrum for a given $`L`$ sector.

### F Computation

The major computation time is spent in calculating the matrix elements $`<\varphi _l|\varphi _m>`$ and $`<\varphi _l|V|\varphi _m>`$ in the Monte Carlo method, because at each step we must evaluate $`M`$ Slater determinants, $`M`$ being the size of the LECFB. To give an example, at $`(N,Q)=(24,31)`$ we have $`M=1656`$. To minimize the computational time, we sample all the states relative to the $`L=0`$ state, which is obtained from the lowest energy state at $`\nu ^{}`$. We typically perform six to ten Monte Carlo runs for each $`(N,Q)`$ with (0.6 - 1.0)$`\times 10^6`$ Monte Carlo iterations in each run. For larger systems, we use parallel computers. (We divide all of the Monte Carlo steps into several configurations with each configuration placed on a single node of a Beowolf class PC cluster. One node consists of a dual 1 GHZ Pentium III Processor. To obtain one data point, at a particular $`N`$, we use as many as 30 nodes repeatedly until the standard deviation in energies is sufficiently low to produce the desired accuracy.) Approximately 80 CPU days were needed for the calculation of the spectrum for $`(N,Q)=(24,31)`$. The computation time increases very quickly with $`N`$, approximately as $`N^{12}`$.

It is difficult to ascertain how the statistical error in each element of the matrix would propagate into the eigenvalues. We instead obtain the spectrum in several different runs, and use the eigenvalues from those different runs to obtain the average and the standard deviation for each eigenvalue.

## III Results and discussion

We have obtained the low energy spectra at several values of $`(N,2Q)`$ which were identified earlier with systems at special filling factors 4/11, 5/13, 7/19, and 6/17. Figs. (3), (4), (5), and (6) show results for 4/11; Figs. (7), and (8) for 5/13; Figs. (9), and (10) for 7/19; and Figs. (11), (12), and (13) for 6/17. The energy spectrum for $`(8,18)`$ have been given in the past both from exact diagonalization and the composite fermion theory . The accuracy of the energies is good enough to be able to state whether the ground state has $`L=0`$ or not. The error increases with increasing $`L`$, which is a consequence of our use of an $`L=0`$ state for sampling; in principle, the error at large $`L`$ can be reduced by sampling with another reference state, but we do not see any need for it for the question of interest in this work.

The orthogonalization makes a qualitative difference in the spectrum. Figs. (14) and (15) show the energies of the basis states prior to orthogonalization, which ought to be compared to the spectra in Figs. (5) and (6), respectively.

The results explicitly confirm that our method indeed gives very low energy states. For example, consider 4/11. The ground state energy is approximately $`0.419e^2/ϵl_0`$ per particle, which compares very favorably with $`0.420e^2/ϵl_0`$, which is what one would get from a linear extrapolation between the energies  at 1/3 ($`0.410e^2/ϵl_0`$) and 2/5 ($`0.433e^2/ϵl_0`$). Further, a large fraction of the states obtained here are within an energy band less than the effective cyclotron gap at 1/3, which is on the order of 0.1 $`e^2/ϵl_0`$. In other words, most of the states considered here lie within the 1/3 gap. This justifies our approximation of neglecting the states that involve transitions between composite fermion Landau levels, which are expected to cost energy of order 0.1 $`e^2/ϵl_0`$.

Now we ask whether the spectra imply incompressibility. A characteristic feature of all incompressible states known to date is that they have an $`L=0`$ ground state, which is separated by a gap from other states; in addition, there is also a well defined branch of neutral excitation. The ground state is extremely well described as a filled Landau level state of composite fermions, and the excitation as a particle hole pair excitation of composite fermion . This is the case, with no exception, for for systems with $`(Q,N)`$ related by $`Q=(1\pm 1/2n)N(1\pm n/2)`$, which are identified with $`\nu =n/(2n\pm 1)`$.

None of the spectra have these standard features of an incompressible state. Even in cases when the ground states has $`L=0`$, there is no well defined CF-exciton branch. The final spectrum at $`\nu `$ thus bears little resemblance to the spectrum at $`\overline{\nu }`$ that we started out with, implying that the interaction between composite fermions in the partially filled level is quite different from that of electrons at $`\overline{\nu }`$ in the lowest Landau level. The scenario described in the introduction for NQHE is thus not borne out.

The ground states at the flux values considered above are in general not incompressible uniform states with $`L=0`$. Consider 4/11 for example. It has been known  that for $`N=8`$ particle system at $`Q=9`$, which is identified above with 4/11, the ground state does not have $`L=0`$. However, the system is effectively very small here, with only $`\overline{N}=3`$ composite fermions in the second level, and one may question if the conclusion will hold up as $`N`$ increases. We find that for $`N=12`$ and 20 the ground state has $`L=0`$, but for $`N=16`$ and 24 it does not. This provides an illustration for why a study of several values of $`N`$ is crucial; if one had only studied $`N=12`$, that would have led one to exactly the opposite conclusion. Another example is the 12 particle system at 6/17, which has an $`L=0`$ ground state and might suggest FQHE at 6/17; however, the spectra for $`N=18`$ and 24 at 6/17 explicitly clarify that this is only a finite size effect that does not survive in the thermodynamic limit.

Our study implies that even though the ground state sometimes has $`L=0`$, it does not describe an incompressible state at any of the filling factors considered here. The following observations support this statement:

1. When the ground state has $`L0`$, the $`L=0`$ state is a rather highly excited state.
2. In the plot of the ground state energy with $`1/N`$, the energies of the $`L=0`$ ground states are not particularly low. See Fig. (16) for 4/11.
3. The ground state at $`\overline{\nu }`$ generally produces an excited state at $`\nu `$, even in the $`L=0`$ sector (prior to orthogonalization), which indicates a breakdown of analogy between $`\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\nu `$.
4. The energy per particle is not a smooth function of $`1/N`$, but instead shows fluctuations characteristic of a compressible state. See Fig. (16).
5. It is not inconceivable for a compressible state to have $`L=0`$, because a uniform state avoids Hartree energy cost, but it would be difficult to understand how an incompressible state might have $`L0`$.

As a result, the physical mechanism, in which some of the composite fermions turn into higher order composite fermions and condense into Landau levels to exhibit QHE, does not appear to be relevant for fully spin polarized electrons. The interaction between composite fermions in the second level is thus not of a form to produce NQHE. It must be stressed, however, that the results do not rule out NQHE through some hitherto unknown mechanism, which would imply a different relation between $`2Q`$ and $`N`$ for a given filling factor than the one assumed above.

In Ref. , which also investigated some of the above fractions, it was predicted that the ground state is a bubble crystal of composite fermions, similar to what was found in Hartree Fock studies of corresponding electronic states in higher Landau levels. Aside from several approximations, the results of that study were also predicated upon the quantitative validity of certain trial wave functions, making an independent confirmation worthwhile. Unfortunately, the spherical geometry used here is not convenient for the study of charge density wave states. We do note in passing that a crucial step in Ref.  was to model the states at $`\nu =n+\overline{\nu }`$ in terms of fermions at $`\overline{\nu }`$ with an effective two-body interaction. A close similarity between our Fig. (11) and Fig. (5) of Ref. , obtained from the two-body interaction model \[both for $`(N,2Q)=(12,30)`$\] provides support to the validity of this model.

In the end, we note that the above calculations assume a strictly two dimensional system (with zero width), no disorder, and no mixing with higher electron Landau levels. These approximations represent an idealization of the actual experimental system. It is expected that the idealized model, while not accurate quantitatively, should give the correct qualitative behavior.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge partial support by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9986806. We are grateful to Horst Stormer, Wei Pan, and Chia-Chen Chang for valuable discussions, to David Weiss for suggesting the name ”NQHE,” to the High Performance Computing (HPC) group led by V. Agarwala, J. Holmes, and J. Nucciarone, at the Penn State University ASET (Academic Services and Emerging Technologies) for assistance and computing time with the LION-XE cluster, and acknowledge NSF DGE-9987589 for computer support.


text:
# Calculation of Expectation Values of Sz and S2 operators for spin-1 and spin-3/2 particles

## I Introduction

The electron is a fundemantal particle in the nature and its understanding is based on the construction of electrodynamics. First studies concerning electrons were made by Lorentz at 1905’s. Dirac contributed these studies extended Lorentz equation to contain radiative processes, and is now known as the Lorentz-Dirac equation. In these studies, the electron was considered in classical, point-like spinless particle. This classical picture changed with the development of quantum mechanics giving new degrees of freedom to the electron, the fundamental among which being spin. In his equation, Pauli considered the electron as a non-relativistic particle and quantum spin described with his exclusion principle. In the two quantum mechanical descriptions proposed by Schrödinger, one assumes the electron to be a spinless point-like particle with non-relativistic energies and described by Schrödinger equation, while the other allows relativistic energies and described by the Klein-Gordon equation. However the best description of the electron is given by the Dirac equation. All of these equations contains a spin concept which can not be understood by classical mechanics and it is not obvious how the correspondence principle would operate.

In recent years, there has been an increasing effort to understand both the classical meaning of spin and the behaviour of a classical system according to the rules of quantum mechanics. In these works, in addition to usual the coordinate and momentum degrees of freedom, the electron’s internal degrees of freedom is also included. Though a classical system both orbital momentum and spin angular momentum may have any value, in quantum mechanics spin angular momentum may assume only integer multiples of $`\mathrm{}/2`$.Similar situations apply in vector-field equations of $`\mathrm{}`$-spin and Rarita-Schwinger equations of $`3\mathrm{}/2`$-spin.

In this work we obtained a wave function by quantizing the classical model and then expand this function in terms of the eigenvalues of spin operator. Finally it is seen that this quantized wave function, which has spin eigenvalues $`0,1/2,1,3/2,2,\mathrm{},n/2`$ is a generalized wave function. It is seen that from this quantized wave function, we can obtain the expectation values of $`S_z`$ and $`S^2`$ operators for spin-1 and spin-3/2 particles..

## II Equation of Motion for the Classical System

The action of a classical spinning particle is given by Barut and Zhanghi  as

$$I=𝑑\tau \left[i\overline{z}\stackrel{}{z}+P_\mu \stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{x}}\pi _\mu \overline{z}\gamma ^\mu z\right].$$
(1)
Here, $`x^\mu `$ are the space-time coordinates, $`z,i\overline{z}C^4`$ are internal dynamics variables, and $`\pi _\mu `$ are general momentum. In this case, the complete phase space has four sets of variables: $`(x^\mu ,P_\mu ,z,i\overline{z}).`$ We use a proper time formalism as $`z=z(\tau )`$ and $`x^\mu =x^\mu (\tau ),`$ where $`\tau `$ being the proper time of center of mass. Altough the mass term does not enter into the Lagrangian it exist due to integral motion. The classical theory already contains the notion of anti-particles in the form of positive and negative internal frequencies for a given momentum P.

The equations of motion for the classical system are

$`\stackrel{}{z}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi _\mu \gamma ^\mu z`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{}{\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{z}\gamma ^\mu \pi _\mu `$ (3)
$`\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`v^\mu \overline{z}\gamma ^\mu z`$ (4)
$`P^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`eA_{\alpha ,\mu }v^\alpha \pi _\alpha \overline{z}\gamma _\mu ^\alpha z`$ (5)
and the Hamiltonian of the classical system, which is equal to the proper mass, takes the form

$$H=iz\overline{z}+P_\mu \stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{x}}L=\pi _\mu \overline{z}\gamma ^\mu z.$$
(6)
The variation of the Hamiltonian is

$$\delta H=\frac{H}{(i\overline{z})}\delta (i\overline{z})+\frac{H}{P_\mu }\delta P_\mu +\frac{H}{z}\delta z+\frac{H}{x^\mu }\delta x^\mu +\frac{H}{\tau }\delta \tau .$$
(7)
We obtain Hamilton equations of motion from the Hamiltonian in Eq.(6) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{P_\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }},`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{(i\overline{z})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{d\tau }},`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d(i\overline{z})}{d\tau }},`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x^\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dP^\mu }{d\tau }}.`$ (11)
We can rewrite Eq.(7) by using this equations of motion as

$$\delta H=\frac{dz}{d\tau }\delta (i\overline{z})+\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }\delta P_\mu \frac{d(i\overline{z})}{d\tau }\delta z\frac{dP^\mu }{d\tau }\delta x^\mu +\frac{H}{\tau }\delta \tau .$$
(12)
Using this expression we can write variation of action in Eq.(1) as

$$\delta I=(P_\mu dx^\mu +i\overline{z}dzHd\tau ).$$
(13)
## III Quantization

The phase function, which is defined by quantum mechanics, depends on classical action as

$$S=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}I.$$
(14)
The Hamilton-Jacobi, or phase function S, describes a family of possible classical trajectories $`(z(\tau ),x^\mu (\tau ))`$ with momentum $`P_A=(i\overline{z},P_\mu ).`$ In quantum theory, these possible classical trajectories are the rays which belong to a wave with a definite momentum $`P_A`$ and proper mass $`H=m`$ described by the wave function as $`(\mathrm{}=1)`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_P(z,x;\tau )=Ae^{iS(z,x;\tau )},$$
(15)
where

$$S(z,x^\mu ;\tau )=\{\begin{array}{c}(i\overline{z}dz+P_\mu dx^\mu Hd\tau );P_A\text{ depends on }z,x^\mu \\ i\overline{z}z+P_\mu x^\mu H\tau \text{ };i\overline{z},P_\mu \text{ are constants}\end{array}$$
(16)
By the substitution of $`S`$ (in the special case of constants $`+i\overline{z},P_\mu )`$ into Eq.(15), it takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{P_A}(z,x;\tau )=Ae^{i\left(+i\overline{z}z+P_\mu x^\mu H\tau \right)}.$$
(17)
The wave function that represents the particle will be a superposition of eigenfunctions. This general situation must be solution of Schrödinger wave equation. For a given wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{z},x;\tau )`$ covariant Schrödinger equation is

$$i\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\tau }=H\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(18)
where $`\overline{z}`$ is the canonical conjugate of $`z.`$ It is possible to obtain excited states of Zitterbewegung by expanding a general wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{z},x;\tau )`$ power series of $`\overline{z}`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{z},x;\tau )=\psi (x;\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1!}}\overline{z}^\alpha \psi _\alpha (x;\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \psi _{\alpha \beta }(x;\tau )+`$

$$\frac{1}{3!}\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \overline{z}^\nu \psi _{\alpha \beta \nu }(x;\tau )+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
If we substitute this expansion into Eq.(18) and separate the terms in ordered form we get

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}[\psi (x;\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}\gamma ^\mu z\pi _\mu \psi _\alpha (x;\tau ),`$ (20)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}[\overline{z}^\alpha \psi _\alpha (x;\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}^\eta \gamma _{(\eta \sigma )}^\mu z^\sigma \pi _\mu \overline{z}^\alpha \psi _\alpha (x;\tau ),`$ (21)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}[\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \psi _{\alpha \beta }(x;\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}^\eta \gamma _{(\eta \sigma )}^\mu z^\sigma \pi _\mu \overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \psi _{\alpha \beta }(x;\tau ),`$ (22)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}[\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \overline{z}^\nu \psi _{\alpha \beta \nu }(x;\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}^\eta \gamma _{(\eta \sigma )}^\mu z^\sigma \pi _\mu \overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \overline{z}^\nu \psi _{\alpha \beta \nu }(x;\tau ),`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}[\overline{z}^{\alpha _1}\overline{z}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}\overline{z}^{\alpha _n}\psi _{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}\alpha _n}(x;\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}^\eta \gamma _{(\eta \sigma )}^\mu z^\sigma \pi _\mu \overline{z}^{\alpha _1}\overline{z}^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}\overline{z}^{\alpha _n}\psi _{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}\alpha _n}(x;\tau ).`$ (25)
Starting from Eq.(20) we can obtain explicit form of these equations. It is known that from Euler-Lagrange equations of classical system

$$\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{.}{x}}=v^\mu =\overline{z}\gamma ^\mu z.$$
(26)
Using this and introducing wave function $`\psi (x;\tau )`$ as

$$\psi (x;\tau )=U(x)e^{im\tau }$$
(27)
Eq.(20) takes the form

$$[v^\mu \pi _\mu m]U(x)=0.$$
(28)
In the spinless case it is seen that

$$v^\mu v_\mu =1$$
(29)
and

$$\pi ^\mu \pi _\mu =m^2.$$
(30)
Comparing these two conditions we obtain

$$v^\mu =\frac{1}{m}\pi ^\mu .$$
(31)
Substituting Eq.(31) in Eq.(28) we get the following equation, and is known as Klein-Gordon equation:

$$[\pi ^\mu \pi _\mu m^2]U(x)=0.$$
(32)
In Eq.(21), if choose the dynamics variable $`\overline{z}^\alpha `$ as time independent and use Eq.(27) we obtain

$$[\gamma ^\mu \pi _\mu m^2]U(x)=0.$$
(33)
This is known as the Dirac equation describing spin-$`1/2`$ particles.

Similarly for Eq.(22) we can simplify calculations using

$$\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \psi _{\alpha \beta }(x;\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta (\psi _{\alpha \beta }+\psi _{\beta \alpha }),$$
(34)
where $`\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta =\overline{z}^\beta \overline{z}^\alpha .`$ Then Eq.(22) takes the form

$$i\frac{}{\tau }[\psi _{\alpha \beta }+\psi _{\beta \alpha }]=[\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu \text{I}+\text{I}\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu ]\pi ^\mu (\psi _{\alpha \beta }+\psi _{\beta \alpha }).$$
(35)
Here, if we introduce

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }=(\psi _{\alpha \beta }+\psi _{\beta \alpha })$$
(36)
and

$$\beta ^\mu =[\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu \text{I}+\text{I}\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^\mu ],$$
(37)
and use Eq.(27), Eq.(35) gives

$$[\beta ^\mu \pi _\mu m]U_{\alpha \beta }(x)=0.$$
(38)
This is the Kemmer equation and describes spin-1 particles. The $`\beta ^\mu `$ are $`16\times 16`$ Hermitian matrices and are known as Kemmer matrices.

If we use in Eq.(24) the following expression

$$\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \overline{z}^\nu \psi _{\alpha \beta \nu }(x;\tau )=\frac{1}{6}\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \overline{z}^\nu (\psi _{\alpha \beta \nu }+\psi _{\alpha \nu \beta }+\psi _{\beta \alpha \nu }+\psi _{\beta \nu \alpha }+\psi _{\nu \alpha \beta }+\psi _{\nu \beta \alpha })$$
(39)
we get

$$i\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta \nu }=[\gamma ^\mu \text{I}_{\alpha \nu }\text{I}_{\nu \alpha }+\text{I}_{\beta \nu }\gamma ^\mu \text{I}_{\nu \beta }+\text{I}_{\alpha \nu }\text{I}_{\nu \alpha }\gamma ^\mu ]\pi _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta \nu }.$$
(40)
If we introduce

$`\alpha ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`[\gamma ^\mu \text{I}_{\alpha \nu }\text{I}_{\nu \alpha }+\text{I}_{\beta \nu }\gamma ^\mu \text{I}_{\nu \beta }+\text{I}_{\alpha \nu }\text{I}_{\nu \alpha }\gamma ^\mu ],`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\psi _{\alpha \beta \nu }+\psi _{\alpha \nu \beta }+\psi _{\beta \alpha \nu }+\psi _{\beta \nu \alpha }+\psi _{\nu \alpha \beta }+\psi _{\nu \beta \alpha }),`$ (42)
and use Eq.(27) we obtain the following equation which is known as Rarita-Schwinger equation describing spin-3/2 particles:

$$[\alpha ^\mu \pi _\mu m]U_{\alpha \beta \nu }(x)=0.$$
(43)
Now, general term Eq.(25) gives

$$[\alpha ^\lambda \pi _\lambda m]U_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}\alpha _n}(x)=0,$$
(44)
where

$$\alpha ^\lambda =[\gamma ^\lambda \text{I}\mathrm{}\text{I}+\text{I}\gamma ^\lambda \mathrm{}\text{I}+\text{I}\text{I}\mathrm{}\gamma ^\lambda ].$$
(45)
These $`n\times n`$ matrices satisfies

$$\underset{(P)}{}\alpha _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\mu _L}(\alpha _{\mu _L+1}\alpha _{\mu _L+2}\delta _{\mu _L+1,\mu _L+2})=0,$$
(46)
where the sum $`\underset{(P)}{}`$ is performed over all possible permutations of $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},`$ $`\mu _{L+1},\mu _{L+2\text{ }}`$indices. Equation (44) describes the dynamics of spin-$`n/2`$ particles.

## IV
Calculation The Expectation Values of SZ and S2 for Spin-1 Particle

The series expansion terms of the wave function in terms of the internal variables describe the spin-$`0`$, $`\frac{1}{2}`$, $`1`$, $`\frac{3}{2}`$, …, $`\frac{n}{2}`$ states respectively. Here, we only discuss the spin-$`1`$ and spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ particle states.

From the definition of the spin tensor

$$S_{\mu \upsilon }=\frac{i}{4}\overline{z}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\upsilon ]z$$
(47)
we can write

$$S_z=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{z}_+z_+\overline{z}_{}z_{}\right)$$
(48)
where $`\mu ,\upsilon =0,1,2,3`$ . $`\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\upsilon `$ are usual Dirac matrices and

$`z_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}`$ (49)
$`z_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}}\text{ .}`$ (50)
With the aid of the operator definitions we can write

$$S_z=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{z}_+\frac{}{\overline{z}_+}\overline{z}_{}\frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}\right)$$
(51)
Considering the spin orientations if we define the wave function of the spin-1 particle as

$$\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta }(x;\tau )=\left\{\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\right\}$$
(52)
we find the these expectation values;

$`S_z_+=\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}})\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )=1$$
(53)
$`S_z_0=\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))`$

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}}\right)\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))=0$$
(54)
$`S_z_{}=\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}})\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )=1$$
(55)
where +, 0, - subscripts describe the +1, 0 and -1 eigenvalues of the $`S_{z\text{ }}`$operator.

Then we can calculate the expectation value of the $`S^2`$ by using the wave function of the spin-1 particle. As in the standart quantum mechanics we first write the $`S^2`$ in terms of the annihilation and creation operators as

$$S^2=S_+S_{}+S_z^2S_z$$
(56)
where

$`S_{}`$ $`=`$ $`S_xiS_y`$ (57)
$`S_+`$ $`=`$ $`S_x+iS_y\text{ .}`$ (58)
If we write every terms of $`S^2`$ in terms of internal variables,

$`S_+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}_+z_{}`$ (59)
$`S_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}_{}z_+`$ (60)
$`S_+S_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z}_+z_++\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}z_{}z_+`$ (61)
$`S_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\overline{z}_+z_++\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+z_+z_++\overline{z}_{}z_{}+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}z_{}z_{}\right)`$ (62)
and use the Eq.(50) definition of $`S_z`$ we obtain the expectation value of $`S^2`$ as

$`S^2=\{\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))`$

$`+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\}\overline{z}_+z_++\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}z_{}z_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{z}_+z_+\overline{z}_{}z_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{z}_+z_++`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+z_+z_++\overline{z}_{}z_{}+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}z_{}z_{})\{\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+`$

$$\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\}=2$$
(63)
This is the same value we obtain from the eigenvalue equation

$$S^2\chi =s\left(s+1\right)\chi $$
(64)
so, the $`\overline{z}^\alpha \overline{z}^\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }(x;\tau )`$ wave function can be interpreted as an eigenstate of eigenvalue 2 of $`S^2`$ operator.

## V Calculation The Expectation Values of SZ and S2 for Spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ Particle

The third term of the series expansion of the general wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{z},x;\tau )`$ represants the spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ particle. This term is

$$\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \overline{z}_\upsilon \mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta \upsilon }(x;\tau )\text{.}$$
(65)
$`\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \overline{z}_\upsilon `$ corresponds to internal dynamics of the particle ultemitaly to spin motion. Each $`\overline{z}`$ is related to spin with $`\frac{1}{2}`$ value. If we choose the spin up orientations (+) and spin down orientations (-) then;

$`\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \overline{z}_\upsilon \mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta \upsilon }(x;\tau )=\{\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{+++}(x;\tau )+`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau ))+`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))+`$

$$\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\}$$
(66)
Expectation values of $`S_z`$ due to spin orientations are

$`S_z_{+++}=\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{+++}(x;\tau )\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}})\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{+++}(x;\tau )=\frac{3}{2}$$
(67)
$`S_z_{++}=\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau ))`$

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}}\right)\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau ))=\frac{1}{2}$$
(68)
$`S_z_+=\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))`$

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}}\right)\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))=\frac{1}{2}$$
(69)
$`S_z_{}=\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{z}_+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+}}\overline{z}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}}})\right|`$

$$\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )=\frac{3}{2}$$
(70)
where $`+++`$, $`++`$, $`+`$, $``$ subscripts describe the eigenstates of +$`\frac{3}{2}`$, +$`\frac{1}{2}`$, -$`\frac{1}{2}`$ and -$`\frac{3}{2}`$ eigenvalues of the $`S_{z\text{ }}`$operator. At the same time these results are the projection of the spin vector on the z-axis due to $`m_s=s,s+1,\mathrm{},s1,+s`$ .

Again as in the spin-1 case we can also calculate the expectation value of the $`S^2`$ by using the wave function of the spin-3/2 particle:

$`S^2=\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \overline{z}_\upsilon \mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta \upsilon }(x;\tau )\left|S^2\right|\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \overline{z}_\upsilon \mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta \upsilon }(x;\tau )`$

$`=\{\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{+++}(x;\tau )+`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau ))+`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\}`$

$`\overline{z}_+z_++\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}z_{}z_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{z}_+z_+\overline{z}_{}z_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{z}_+z_++`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+z_+z_++\overline{z}_{}z_{}+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}z_{}z_{})\{\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\mathrm{\Psi }^{+++}(x;\tau )+`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^{++}(x;\tau ))+`$

$`\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau )+\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x;\tau ))+\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x;\tau )\}`$

$$=\frac{15}{4}\text{ .}$$
(71)
This is the same value we obtain from the eigenvalue equation

$$S^2\chi =s\left(s+1\right)\chi $$
(72)
so, the $`\overline{z}_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta \overline{z}_\upsilon \mathrm{\Psi }^{\alpha \beta \upsilon }(x;\tau )`$ wave function can be interpreted as an eigenstate of eigenvalue $`\frac{15}{4}`$ of $`S^2`$ operator.

## VI Conclusion

In this work, to understand the Schrödinger equation, after quantizing the classical system with spin, a generalized wave function was expanded into a power series in terms of internal coordinates of the system. Then it was shown that this expansion includes zero and positive integer values h  /2, hence containing all fermion states (odd integer of h  /2) and all boson states (even integer of h  /2). Also by using the expanded wave function terms we calculated the expectation values of Sz and S2 operators for spin-1 and spin-3/2 particles and saw that the results are in agrement with the results of standart quantum mechaincs.

###### Acknowledgement 1

The authers thank to Prof Nuri Unal for helpfull discussions.