text:
# The universal Kolyvagin recursion implies the Kolyvagin recursion

## 1. Introduction

Let $`𝔽`$ be a finite real abelian extension of $``$. Let $`M`$ be an odd positive integer. For every squarefree positive integer $`r`$ the prime factors of which are congruent to $`1`$ modulo $`M`$ and split completely in $`𝔽`$, the corresponding Kolyvagin class $`\kappa _r𝔽^\times /𝔽^{\times M}`$ satisfies a remarkable and crucial recursion which for each prime number $`\mathrm{}`$ dividing $`r`$ determines the order of vanishing of $`\kappa _r`$ at each place of $`𝔽`$ above $`\mathrm{}`$ in terms of $`\kappa _{r/\mathrm{}}`$. In the note , Anderson and Ouyang gave the recursion a new and universal interpretation with the help of the double complex method. Namely, the recursion satisfied by Kolyvagin classes is shown to be the specialization of a universal recursion independent of $`𝔽`$ satisfied by the universal Kolyvagin classes in the group cohomology of the universal ordinary distribution.

In the note , the question of whether such kind of Kolyvagin recursion holds or not for the universal Euler systems is raised. The goal of this paper to answer this question.

Let $`X`$ be a totally ordered set(in application, elements in $`X`$ are often prime ideals in a number field $`K`$). Let $`Z`$ be the set of formal products of elements in $`X`$. Let $`𝒪`$ be the integer ring of a number field or a local field with characteristic $`0`$ and $`𝒯`$ a free $`𝒪`$-module. For every element $`zZ`$, let $`x^n`$ be the $`x`$-part of $`z`$ for $`xX`$ and $`xz`$. We associate $`z`$ with a group $`G_z=_{xz}G_{x^n}`$ and a $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module $`𝒰_z`$, a universal model satisfying certain distribution relations. This module $`𝒰_z`$ is called the *universal norm distribution* of level $`z`$, a generalization of the *universal ordinary distribution* of Kubert  and the *universal Euler system* of Rubin . A special case of the universal norm distribution was first introduced in Ouyang . The more general case was defined and studied in Ouyang . Suppose $`M`$ is a nonzero element in $`𝒪`$ dividing the order of all $`G_{x^n}`$, then the double complex method(see for example Anderson  and Ouyang ) produces a canonical basis for the cohomology group $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ as a free $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-module. In particular, the canonical basis of $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ can be given as $`\{c_y:yz,y\text{squarefree}\}`$. Moreover, one can consider $`H^0(G_{z/x^n},𝒰_{z/x^n}/M𝒰_{z/x^n})`$ as a subgroup of $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ with $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-basis $`\{c_y:y\frac{z}{x^n},y\text{squarefree}\}`$.

In this paper, we first find a natural and well defined map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ from $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ to $`H^0(G_{z/x^n},𝒰_{z/x^n}/M𝒰_{z/x^n})`$. We then show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ maps $`c_{xy}`$ to $`c_y`$ and $`c_y`$ to $`0`$ for $`xy`$ a squarefree factor of $`z`$ by the double complex method. Acting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_i}`$ consequently, we thus obtain a sequence of elements in $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$. We thus say that the family consisting of classes $`\{c_y\}`$ satisfies the *universal Kolyvagin recursion*. In addition, we show that the family of the original Kolyvagin classes(i.e., the cocycles which map to $`D_r\xi _r`$ as in Rubin ) also satisfies the universal Kolyvagin recursion.

Now given a number field $`K`$ and a $`p`$-adic representation $`T`$ of $`G_K`$ with coefficients in $`𝒪`$, the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$ in this situation becomes the universal Euler system, for which Rubin introduced and studied extensively in Chapter $`4`$ of , resulting the proof of the celebrated Theorem 4.5.4 there. If let $`\xi `$ be a $`G_K`$-homomorphism from $`𝒰_z`$ to $`H^1(F(z),T)`$ for $`F(z)`$ a certain extension of $`K`$. Let $`W_M=M^1T/T`$, then $`\xi `$ induces a map from $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ to $`H^1(F,W_M)`$. Theorem 4.5.4 then states that the family of the Kolyvagin classes satisfies an important recursive relation, which is essential to the effectiveness of Euler system. We call this recursion the *Kolyvagin recursion*. We show that the universal Kolyvagin recursion implies the Kolyvagin recursion in Theorem 4.7.

The author sincerely thanks Professor Greg W. Anderson for his continuous support and for his many ideas that lead to this paper. He also deeply thank Professor Kumar Murty for his support. Part of this research is supported by the Ganita lab of University of Toronto.

## 2. Review about the universal norm distribution

We first give a brief review of the results in Ouyang .

### 2.1. The universal norm distribution

Let $`X`$ be a given totally ordered set. Let $`Y`$ be the set of all squarefree formal products of elements in $`X`$, Let $`Z`$ be the set of all (finite or infinite) formal product of elements in $`X`$. Elements in $`X`$ will be denoted by $`x,x^{}`$ and be called *primes*, elements in $`Y`$ will be denoted by $`y,y^{}`$ etc and elements in $`Z`$ will be denoted by $`z,z^{},w`$ and $`𝐳`$. Moreover, $`y`$, $`y^{}`$ and $`w`$ will usually assumed to be *finite* (i.e., finite product of $`xX`$) and $`𝐳`$ will assume to be *infinite*.

For every $`zZ`$, the *support* of $`z`$ is the unique element $`\overline{z}Y`$ such that if $`xz`$ then $`x\overline{z}`$. For every $`zZ`$, a stalk of $`z`$ is a factor $`z^{}z`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{gcd}(z^{},z/z^{})=1`$ and is denoted by $`z^{}_sz`$. Fix $`z`$, for each $`y\overline{z}`$, let $`z(y)`$ be corresponding stalk of $`z`$ whose support is $`y`$. Let $`v_x(z)`$ be the integer $`n`$ such that $`x^n=z(x)`$.

For every $`zZ`$, $`G_z`$ is an abelian group which is the direct product of $`G_{z(x)}`$ for all $`xz`$. Furthermore, for every $`z^{}z`$, $`G_z^{}`$ is a subgroup of $`G_z`$ and hence also a quotient of $`G_z`$. For any $`z^{}z`$ and $`gG_z`$, Let $`g_z^{}`$ denote the restriction of $`g`$ to $`G_z^{}`$. For each pair $`xX`$ and $`zZ`$, the Frobenius element $`\mathrm{Fr}_x`$ is a given element in $`G_z`$ whose restriction to $`G_x`$ is the identity.

Let $`𝒪`$ be an integral domain and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be its fractional field. Let $`𝒯`$ be a fixed torsion free finitely generated $`𝒪`$-module. For each $`xX`$, a polynomial

$$p(x;t)𝒯[t]$$

is chosen corresponding to $`x`$.

For every finite $`zZ`$, $`_z`$ is the free $`𝒯`$-module $`𝒯[G_z]=B_z_𝒯`$ generated by

$$B_z=\{[gz]:gG_z\}.$$

For every $`zZ`$, finite or not, let

$$A_z=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}B_z^{}$$

and let

$$𝒜_z=A_z_𝒯=\underset{z^{}_sz}{}_z^{}=[gz^{}]:z^{}_sz,z^{}\text{finite},gG_z^{}_𝒯.$$

For every pair $`z^{}_sz`$, the group $`G_z`$ acts on $`𝒜_z^{}`$ by

$$g[g^{\prime \prime }z^{\prime \prime }]=[g_{z^{\prime \prime }}g^{\prime \prime }z^{\prime \prime }],z^{\prime \prime }\text{finite},z^{\prime \prime }_sz^{}$$

and by this way $`𝒜_z^{}`$ becomes a $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module.

Let $`\lambda _{z(x)}`$ be the $`𝒯[G_z]`$-homomorphism given by

$$\lambda _{z(x)}:[z^{}]\{\begin{array}{cc}p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[z^{}]N_{z(x)}[z(x)z^{}],\hfill & \text{if}xz^{},\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}xz^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`𝒟_z`$ be the submodule of $`𝒜_z`$ generated by the images of $`\lambda _{z(x)}(𝒜_{z/z(x)})`$ for all $`xz`$. The *universal norm distribution* $`𝒰_z`$ is then defined to be the quotient $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module $`𝒜_z/𝒟_z`$.

From Ouyang , for any $`z^{}_szZ`$, the map

$$𝒰_z^{}𝒰_z$$

induced by the inclusion $`𝒜_z^{}𝒜_z`$ is an injective $`G_z`$-homomorphism of free $`𝒯`$-modules with free cokernel and hence the induced map

$$H^0(G,𝒰_z^{}/M𝒰_z^{})H^0(G,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)$$

is also injective. Thus we henceforth identify $`𝒰_z^{}`$ (resp. $`H^0(G,𝒰_z^{}/M𝒰_z^{})`$) with a subgroup of $`𝒰`$ (resp. $`H^0(G,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$). Note that we have

$$𝒰_z=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}𝒰_z^{},H^0(G,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}H^0(G,𝒰_z^{}/M𝒰_z^{}).$$

### 2.2. Anderson’s resolution $`_z`$

For every $`zZ`$, $`_z`$ is the free $`𝒯`$-module generated by

$$\{[a,y]:[a]A_{z/z(y)},y\overline{z}\}$$

We equip $`_z`$ with a grading by declaring that

$$\mathrm{deg}[a,y]=\mathrm{deg}y=(\text{number of primes }xy).$$

For any $`gG_z`$ and $`[g^{}z^{}]A_{z/z(y)}`$, We equip $`_z`$ with a $`G_z`$-action by the rule

$$g[g^{}z^{},y]:=[g_z^{}g^{}z^{},y],$$

then $`_z`$ becomes a graded $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module. $`_z`$ is bounded above and is bounded if and only if $`z`$ is finite. We equip $`_z`$ with a $`G_z`$-equivariant differential $`d`$ of degree $`1`$ by the rule

$$d[a,y]=\underset{xy}{}\omega (x,y)(p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[a,y/x]N_{z(x)}[az(x),y/x])$$

where $`\omega `$ is as defined as

$$(x,y)\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{\mathrm{\#}\{x^{}y:x^{}<x\}},\hfill & \text{if }xy;\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }xy\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the complex $`(_z^{},d)`$ is acyclic for degree $`n0`$ and $`H^0(_z^{},d)𝒰_z`$ induced by

$$𝐮:[a,y]\{\begin{array}{cc}[a],\hfill & \text{if}y=\mathrm{𝟏};\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}y\mathrm{𝟏}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We call the complex $`(_z^{},d)`$ (or simply $`_z^{}`$) *Anderson’s resolution* of the universal norm system $`𝒰_z`$.

### 2.3. The double complex $`𝐊_z^,`$

Assume that $`G_{z(x)}`$ is acyclic. Let $`\sigma _{z(x)}`$ be a generator of $`G_{z(x)}`$. Let $`𝐊_z^,`$ be the free graded $`𝒯`$-module with basis

$$\{[a,y,w]:y\overline{z},aA_{z/z(y)},\overline{w}\overline{z}\}$$

and with the double grading given by

$$\mathrm{deg}[a,y,w]=(\mathrm{deg}y,\mathrm{deg}w).$$

where $`\mathrm{deg}w=_{xw}v_x(w)`$. We equip $`𝐊_z^,`$ with a $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module structure by the rule

$$g[a,y,w]=[ga,y,w],gG_z$$

For every $`xz`$, we equip $`K_z^,`$ with $`G_z`$-equivariant differentials $`d_x`$ of bidegree $`(1,0)`$ by the rule

$$d_x[a,y,w]=\omega (x,y)(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}(w)}\left(p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[a,y/x,w]N_{z(x)}[az(x),y/x,w]\right),$$

and with $`G_z`$-equivariant differentials $`\delta _x`$ of bidegree $`(0,1)`$ by the rule

$$\delta _x[a,y,w]=(1)^{_{x^{}x}v_x^{}(y)}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}(w)}a_{z(x)}[a,y,wx]$$

where $`a_{z(x)}`$ is equal to $`1\sigma _{z(x)}`$ if $`v_x(w)`$ even and $`N_{z(x)}`$ if $`v_x(w)`$ odd. Any two distinct differentials in the family $`\{d_x\}\{\delta _x\}`$ anticommute. If let

$$d=\underset{x}{}d_x,\delta =\underset{x}{}\delta _x,$$

then $`d`$ is a differential of bidegree $`(1,0)`$ and $`\delta `$ is of bidegree $`(0,1)`$ and $`d`$ and $`\delta `$ are anticommute. $`(𝐊_z;d,\delta )`$ is a double complex of $`G_z`$-modules. Let $`𝐊_z^{}`$ be the single total complex of this double complex.

Let $`\overline{𝐊}_z^{}`$ be the quotient of free $`𝒯`$-module generated by

$$\{[a,w],aA_z,\overline{w}\overline{z}\}$$

modulo relations generated by

$$p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[a,w]N_{z(x)}[az(x),w],aA_{z/z(x)},\overline{w}\overline{z},xz.$$

With the grading given by the rule

$$\mathrm{deg}[a,w]=\mathrm{deg}w$$

and the differential $`\delta `$ given by the rule

$$\delta [a,w]=\underset{xz}{}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}w}a_{z(x)}[wx],$$

$`\overline{𝐊}_z^{}`$ is a complex of $`G_z`$-modules whose cohomology is nothing but the group $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z)`$. The homomorphism

$$𝐮:𝐊_z^{}\overline{𝐊}_z^{},[a,y,w]\{\begin{array}{cc}[a,w],\hfill & \text{if}y=\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}y\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \end{array}$$

is a quasi-isomorphism. Thus it induces isomorphisms between $`H^{}(𝐊_z^{},d+\delta )`$ and $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z)`$(resp. $`H^{}(𝐊_z^{}/M𝐊_z^{})`$ and $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ for $`0M𝒪`$). In particular, for any $`0`$-cocycle $`c`$ in $`𝐊_z^{}/M𝐊_z^{}`$, the map $`𝐮`$ sends its bidegree $`(0,0)`$-component $`[a,\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}]`$ to $`[a,1]\overline{𝐊}_z^0/M\overline{𝐊}_z^0`$ and then to $`[a]𝒰_z/M𝒰_z`$, the resulting element is fixed by $`G_z`$ and hence is a cocycle in $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/𝒰_z)`$.

For every $`z^{}_sz`$, let $`𝐊_z^{}`$ be the submodule of $`𝐊_z`$ generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:yz^{},aB_{z^{}/z(y)},\overline{w}z^{}\}$$

and let $`𝐊_z(z^{})`$ be the submodule generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:yz^{},aB_{z^{}/z(y)},\overline{w}z\}$$

Then $`𝐊_z^{}`$ and $`𝐊_z(z^{})`$ are compatible with differentials $`d_x`$ and $`\delta _x`$. The $`(d+\delta )`$-cohomology of $`𝐊_z^{}`$(resp. $`𝐊_z^{}/M𝐊_z^{}`$) is just $`H^{}(G_z^{},𝒰_z^{})`$(resp. $`H^{}(G_z^{},𝒰_z^{}/M𝒰_z^{})`$) and the $`(d+\delta )`$-cohomology of $`𝐊_z(z^{})`$(resp. $`𝐊_z(z^{})/M𝐊_z(z^{})`$) is $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z^{})`$(resp. $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z^{}/M𝒰_z^{})`$).

### 2.4. The canonical basis for $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$

Suppose now that $`M`$ is a common divisor of $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ and $`p(x;1)`$ for every $`xz`$. Let $`𝐒_z`$ be the $`𝒯`$-submodule of $`𝐊_z`$ generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:aB_{z/z(y)},yz,\overline{w}z,aB_\mathrm{𝟏}\text{if}yw\}.$$

Then $`𝐒_z/M𝐒_z`$ is a submodule of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ which is also $`d`$ and $`\delta `$ stable and thus is a subcomplex of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ with respect to the multi-complex structure of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$. Let $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ be the quotient of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ by $`𝐒_z/M𝐒_z`$. Then $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ is a free $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-module generated by

$$\{[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]:y\overline{w}z\}$$

with all induced differentials $`d=\delta =0`$. Write the quotient map from $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ to $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ as $`\rho _M`$. The homomorphism $`\rho _M`$ is a quasi-isomorphism as claimed in Ouyang . Every element $`[\mathrm{𝟏},y,y]`$ for $`y`$ finite and dividing $`z`$ in $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ thus induces a $`0`$-cocycle in $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ and henceforth induces a cocycle in $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$. Write this cocycle $`\overline{c}_y`$, then

$$\{\overline{c}_y:y\text{finite},yz\}$$

forms a basis for $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$. We call it the *canonical basis*.

## 3. The universal Kolyvagin Recursions

### 3.1. The Kolyvagin conditions

In this section, we fix an infinite $`𝐳Z`$. we write $`𝒰_𝐳`$($`_𝐳`$, $`G_𝐳`$ and $`𝐊_𝐳`$ etc.) as $`𝒰`$($``$, $`G`$ and $`𝐊`$ etc.). For any $`x𝐳`$, let $`r_x(t)𝒪[t]`$ and

$$\gamma _{𝐳(x)}=p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)|G_{𝐳(x)}|.$$

Assume the following *Kolyvagin conditions* hold:

* There exists $`M𝒪`$ such that $`M|G_x|`$ and $`Mp(x;1)`$ for every $`x𝐳`$. We fix $`M`$ here after.
* The group $`G_{𝐳(x)}`$ is cyclic for every $`x𝐳`$.
* The homomorphism $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}:𝒰_{𝐳/z(x)}𝒰_{𝐳/z(x)}`$ has a trivial kernel for every $`x𝐳`$.

Following the first two assumptions, we can and hence will apply the results in § 2. If we let $`n_x=\text{Norm}(x)`$ and let

$$r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)=\frac{p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)p(x;n_x\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)}{|G_{𝐳(x)}|},$$

then $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}=p(x;n_x\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)`$. When $`p(x;t)`$ is coming from certain characteristic polynomial in a $`p`$-adic representation, then $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}`$ can be shown to satisfy the last assumption. See Lemma 4.6 in § 4 for more details.

### 3.2. The submodule $`I_x`$ of $`𝒰`$

Let $`x𝐳`$ be given. We define

$$I_x𝒰$$

to be the $`𝒯[G]`$-submodule generated by all elements of $`𝒰`$ represented by the expressions of the form

$$[z𝐳(x)]g[z𝐳(x)]\text{or}r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[z]g[z𝐳(x)](gG_{𝐳(x)},z\text{finite}z_s𝐳,xz).$$

When the dependence on $`𝐳`$ is needed to emphasize, we write $`I_x`$ as $`I_{x,𝐳}`$. Note that

$$(\sigma _{𝐳(x)}1)𝒰I_x,$$

the quotient $`𝒰/I_x`$ can be viewed as a $`G/G_{𝐳(x)}`$-module.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The sequence

$$0𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}\stackrel{\gamma _{𝐳(x)}}{}𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰/I_x0$$

is exact where the map $`𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰/I_x`$ is that induced by the inclusion of $`𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰`$.

###### Proof.

We consider the complex homomorphism

$$\gamma _{𝐳(x)}:_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{}_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{}$$

The mapping cone of $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}`$ is just the complex

$$Cone^{}(\gamma _{𝐳(x)})=(_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{n+1},_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^n)$$

with the differential given by

$$d(a,b)=(da,\gamma _{𝐳(x)}(a)+db),\text{for}(a,b)Cone^n(\gamma _{𝐳(x)}).$$

From homological algebra, we know there exists the following exact sequence

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:0_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{}Cone^{}(\gamma _{𝐳(x)})_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{}[1]0.$$

Let

$$s_x:(𝐳/𝐳(x))$$

be the unique homomorphism such that

$$s_x[a,y]\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega (x,y)[a,y/x]\hfill & \text{if }xy\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

for all symbols $`[a,y]`$ in the canonical basis of $``$. The homomorphism $`s_x`$ is of degree $`1`$ and satisfies the relation

$$s_xd=ds_x$$

as can be verified by a straightforward calculation. Now consider the sequence

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{}^{}/^{}\stackrel{s_x}{}_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{}[1]0$$

where $`^{}`$ is the $`𝒯[G]`$-submodule of $``$ generated by all elements of the form

$$[z𝐳(x),y][gz𝐳(x),y]\text{or}r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[z,y][gz𝐳(x),y](𝐳(y)z𝐳(x)𝐳,gG_{𝐳(x)}).$$

and the map $`_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}/^{}`$ is that induced by the inclusion $`_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$. It is easy to verify that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is short exact. The two complexes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are actually isomorphic: just let the two side maps be the identities and let the middle map from $`^{}/^{}`$ to $`Cone^{}`$ be given by

$$[a,yx](\omega (x,xy)[a,y],0),[a,y](0,[a,y]),y𝐳/𝐳(x).$$

Since $`^{}`$ is a graded $`d`$\- and $`G`$-stable subgroup of $`^{}`$ and $`(\sigma _{𝐳(x)}1)^{}`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ can be viewed as a short exact sequence of complexes of $`G/G_𝐳`$-modules. Because $`H^{}(_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}^{},d)`$ is concentrated in degree $`0`$, the long exact sequence of $`G/G_{𝐳(x)}`$-modules deduced from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by taking $`d`$-cohomology has at most four nonzero terms and after making the evident identifications takes the form

$$\mathrm{}0H^1(^{}/^{},d)𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}\stackrel{\gamma _{𝐳(x)}}{}𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰/I_x0\mathrm{}$$

where the map $`𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰/I_x`$ is that induced by the inclusion $`𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰`$. By the assumption of the Kolyvagin conditions, we have

$$H^1(/^{},d)=\mathrm{ker}\left(𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}\stackrel{\gamma _{𝐳(x)}}{}𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}\right)=0,$$

whence the result. ∎

###### Theorem 3.2.

For every prime number $`x`$ dividing $`𝐳`$ there exists a unique homomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x:H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)H^0(G,𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}/M𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)})$$

such that

$$\frac{(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})a}{M}\frac{\gamma _xb}{M}modI_x\mathrm{\Delta }_x(amodM𝒰)=bmodM𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}$$

for all $`a𝒰`$ representing a class in $`H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)`$ and $`b𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$ representing a class in $`H^0(G,𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}/M𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)})`$. Moreover one has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xH^0(G,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)H^0(G,𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}/M𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)})$$

for all finite $`z_s𝐳`$ and divisible by $`x`$.

###### Proof.

Put

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& :=& \{a𝒰a\text{ represents a class in }H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)\},\hfill \\ \hfill B& :=& \{b𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}\gamma _x(b)M𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}\},\hfill \\ \hfill C& :=& \left\{(a,b)X\times Y\right|\frac{(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})a}{M}\frac{\gamma _x(b)}{M}modI_x\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Fix a finite $`z_s𝐳`$ and divisible by $`x`$. To prove the proposition it is enough to prove the following three claims:

1. $`C(M𝒰\times B)=M𝒰\times M𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$.
2. $`(\sigma 1)CM𝒰\times M𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$ for all $`\sigma G`$.
3. For all $`aA𝒰_z`$ there exists $`bB𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}`$ such that $`(a,b)C`$.

We turn to the proof of the first claim. Only the containment $``$ requires proof; the containment $``$ is trivial. Suppose we are given $`(a,b)C(M𝒰\times B)`$. Then $`\frac{\gamma _x(b)}{M}I_x𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$ and hence by Proposition 3.1 there exists $`c𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$ such that $`\gamma _x(b)=M\gamma _x(c)`$. It follows that $`b=Mc`$. Thus the first claim is proved. The second claim follows immediately from the first.

We turn finally to the proof of the third claim. Let

$$\beta _{𝐳(x)}:𝒜_z𝒜_{z/𝐳(x)}$$

be the unique homomorphism such that

$$\beta _{𝐳(x)}[z^{}]=r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[z^{}/𝐳(x)]$$

for all $`xz^{}_sz`$. For each prime number $`x`$ dividing $`z`$, recall that

$$\lambda _{𝐳(x)}:𝒜_{z/𝐳(x)}𝒜_z$$

is the unique homomorphism such that

$$\lambda _{𝐳(x)}[z^{}]:=p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[z^{}]N_{𝐳(x)}[z^{}𝐳(x)]$$

for all $`xz^{}`$. Note that $`\beta _{𝐳(x)}`$ commutes with $`\lambda _{𝐳(x^{})}`$ for $`x^{}x`$ and that the composite homomorphism $`\beta _{𝐳(x)}\lambda _{𝐳(x)}`$ induces the endomorphism $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}`$ of $`𝒜_{z/𝐳(x)}`$. Choose a lifting $`𝐚𝒜_z`$ of $`a`$. By hypothesis there exists an identity

$$(\sigma _{𝐳(x)}1)𝐚=M𝐛+\underset{xz}{}\lambda _{𝐳(x)}𝐛_x(𝐛𝒜_z,𝐛_x𝒜_{z/𝐳(x)}),$$

and hence also an identity

$$0=M\beta _{𝐳(x)}𝐛+\gamma _{𝐳(x)}𝐛_x+\underset{x^{}\frac{z}{𝐳(x)}}{}\lambda _{𝐳(x^{})}\beta _{𝐳(x)}𝐛_x^{}.$$

Then the element $`b𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}`$ represented by $`𝐛_x`$ has the desired property, namely that $`(a,b)C`$. Thus the third claim is proved and with it the result. ∎

### 3.3. The universal Kolyvagin recursion

We say that a family of classes

$$\{c_yH^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)\}_{y\overline{𝐳}}$$

indexed by finite $`y\overline{𝐳}`$ satisfies the universal Kolyvagin recursion if the following conditions hold for all finite $`y\overline{𝐳}`$ and primes $`x𝐳`$:

* $`c_yH^0(G_{𝐳(y)},𝒰_{𝐳(y)}/M𝒰_{𝐳(y)})=H^0(G,𝒰_{𝐳(y)}/M𝒰_{𝐳(y)})H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)`$.
* $`xy\mathrm{\Delta }_xc_y=c_{y/x}`$.

### 3.4. The diagonal shift operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$

For each $`x`$ dividing $`𝐳`$, we define the corresponding diagonal shift operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ on $`𝐊`$ of bidegree $`(1,1)`$ by the rule

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x[a,y,w]:=\{\begin{array}{cc}[a,y/x,w/x],\hfill & \text{if }xy\text{ and }xw\text{,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

One has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xd_x^{}=d_x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_x,\mathrm{\Delta }_x\delta _x^{}=\delta _x^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_x$$

for all primes $`x^{}𝐳`$ distinct from $`x`$. One has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xd_x=d_x\mathrm{\Delta }_x=0,(\delta _x\mathrm{\Delta }_x\mathrm{\Delta }_x\delta _x)𝐊M𝐊.$$

For every finite $`z`$ dividing $`𝐳`$ one has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x𝐊_z\{\begin{array}{cc}𝐊_{z/𝐳(x)},\hfill & \text{if }xz\text{,}\hfill \\ \{0\},\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The action of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ therefore passes to

$$H^0(𝐊_z/M𝐊_z,d+\delta )=H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)$$

and in the limit to

$$H^0(𝐊/M𝐊,d+\delta )=H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰).$$

###### Proposition 3.3.

For each $`x𝐳`$, the endomorphism of $`H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)`$ induced by the diagonal shift operation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ defined in Theorem 3.2.

###### Proof.

Fix a finite $`z_s𝐳`$ divisible by $`x`$. Fix a class

$$cH^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z).$$

It suffices to show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ and the endomorphism of $`H^0(G,U/MU)`$ induced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ applied to $`c`$ give the same result. Let $`𝐜`$ be a $`0`$-chain in $`𝐊_z`$ reducing modulo $`M𝐊_z`$ to a $`0`$-cycle representing $`c`$. Write

$$0=(d+\delta )𝐜+M𝐛$$

where $`𝐛`$ is a $`1`$-chain of $`𝐊_z`$. For any finite $`yz`$ and finite $`w`$ such that $`\overline{w}z`$, let

$$(𝐚𝐚[y,w]):𝒜_{z/𝐳(y)}𝐊_z$$

be the unique homomorphism such that

$$[a][y,w]:=[a,y,w]$$

for all $`aA_{z/𝐳(y)}`$. Write

$$𝐜=𝐜_{y,w}[y,w],\mathrm{\Delta }_x𝐜=𝐜_{yx,wx}[y,w](𝐜_{y,w}𝒜_{z/𝐳(y)})$$

and

$$𝐛=𝐛_{y,w}[y,w](𝐛_{y,w}𝒜_{z/𝐳(y)})$$

where all the sums are extended over pairs $`(y,w)`$ consisting of finite $`yz`$ and $`w`$ with $`\overline{w}z`$. Let $`\beta _{𝐳(x)}:𝒜_z𝒜_{z/𝐳(x)}`$ be as in the proof of Proposition 3.2. By hypothesis one has an identity

$$0=\underset{\begin{array}{c}x^{}z\\ x^{}<x\end{array}}{}\lambda _{𝐳(x^{})}𝐜_{x^{},x}+\lambda _{𝐳(x)}𝐜_{x,x}\underset{\begin{array}{c}x^{}z\\ x^{}>x\end{array}}{}\lambda _{𝐳(x^{})}𝐜_{x^{},x}+(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})𝐜_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}}+M𝐛_{\mathrm{𝟏},x}$$

and hence also an identity

$$0=\underset{\begin{array}{c}x^{}z\\ x^{}<x\end{array}}{}\lambda _{𝐳(x^{})}\beta _{𝐳(x)}𝐜_{x^{},x}+\gamma _{𝐳(x)}𝐜_{x,x}\underset{\begin{array}{c}x^{}z\\ x^{}>x\end{array}}{}\lambda _{𝐳(x^{})}\beta _{𝐳(x)}𝐜_{x^{},x}+M\beta _{𝐳(x)}𝐛_{\mathrm{𝟏},x}.$$

Let $`a𝒰_r`$ be the element represented by $`𝐜_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ and let $`b𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}`$ be the element represented by $`𝐜_{x,x}`$. One the one hand, the class of $`H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ represented by the $`0`$-cocycle $`𝐜modM`$ of the complex $`(𝐊_z/M𝐊_z,d+\delta )`$ is $`amodM𝒰_z`$ and the class of $`H^0(G_{z/𝐳(x)},𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}/M𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)})`$ represented by the $`0`$-cocycle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x𝐜modM`$ of the complex $`(K_{z/𝐳(x)}/MK_{z/𝐳(x)},d+\delta )`$ is $`bmodM𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}`$. But on the other hand, one has

$$\frac{(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})a}{M}\frac{\gamma _{𝐳(x)}b}{M}modI_x$$

and hence

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x(amodM𝒰)bmodM𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}$$

by Theorem 3.2. Therefore the results of applying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ and the endomorphism of $`H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)`$ induced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ to the class $`amodM𝒰`$ indeed coincide. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

The canonical basis $`\{\overline{c}_y:y\text{finite},y𝐳\}`$ satisfies the universal Kolyvagin recursion.

###### Proof.

Clear. ∎

###### Corollary 3.5.

Any system of classes $`\{b_y\}`$ satisfying the universal Kolyvagin recursion and the normalization $`b_\mathrm{𝟏}=\overline{c}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is a $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-basis of $`H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)`$.

###### Proof.

Fix a finite $`y𝐳`$, let $`z=𝐳(y)`$. Let

$$y=x_1\mathrm{}x_n$$

be the prime factorization of $`y`$. One then has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_n}b_y=b_\mathrm{𝟏}=\overline{c}_\mathrm{𝟏}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_n}\overline{c}_y$$

and hence

$$b_y\overline{c}_y\mathrm{ker}\left(H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x_n}}{}H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)\right)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}y^{}y\\ y^{}y\end{array}}{}𝒯/M𝒯\overline{c}_y^{},$$

whence the result. ∎

### 3.5. The original Kolyvagin classes

For any $`x𝐳`$, we let

$$D_{𝐳(x)}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{|G_{𝐳(x)}|1}{}}k\sigma _{𝐳(x)}^k.$$

Then one has

$$(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})D_{𝐳(x)}=N_{𝐳(x)}|G_{𝐳(x)}|.$$

For any finite $`z_s𝐳`$, let

$$D_y=\underset{xy}{}D_{𝐳(x)}.$$

In particular, $`D_\mathrm{𝟏}=1`$. Let $`c_y^{}=D_y[𝐳(y)]𝒰`$. One sees that for $`xy`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})c_y^{}=& (N_{𝐳(x)}|G_{𝐳(x)}|)D_{y/x}[𝐳(y)]\hfill \\ \hfill =& p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)D_{y/x}[𝐳(y/x)]|G_{𝐳(x)}|D_{y/x}[𝐳(y)]\hfill \\ \hfill =& \gamma _{𝐳(x)}c_{y/x}^{}+|G_{𝐳(x)}|D_{y/x}\left(r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[𝐳(y/x)][𝐳(y)]\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The above identity tells us two things. First, by induction, we see that $`(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})c_y^{}M𝒰_{𝐳(y)}`$ for every $`xy`$, thus the image $`\overline{c}_y^{}`$ of $`c_y^{}`$ in $`𝒰_{𝐳(y)}/M𝒰_{𝐳(y)}`$ is fixed by $`G_{𝐳(y)}`$ and hence is a $`0`$-cocycle. Secondly, we see that

$$\frac{(1\sigma _{𝐳(x)})c_y^{}}{M}=\frac{\gamma _{𝐳(x)}c_{y/x}^{}}{M}(modI_x),$$

thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x\overline{c}_y^{}=\overline{c}_{y/x}^{}.$$

Hence $`\{\overline{c}_y^{}:y\text{finite},y𝐳\}`$ satisfies the universal Kolyvagin recursion. In particular, one sees that $`\overline{c}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}=\overline{c}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. By Corollary 3.5, we thus have

###### Theorem 3.6.

The set of classes

$$\{\overline{c}_y^{}=D_y[𝐳(y)]modM𝒰:y\text{finite},y𝐳\}$$

constitutes a $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-basis of $`H^0(G,𝒰/M𝒰)`$.

###### Remark 3.7.

1. The classes $`\overline{c}_y^{}`$ are the original classes used in the study of Euler system. The above Theorem 3.6 is a generalization of Theorem B in Ouyang . The proof here is following the proof of Theorem B given at the end of Anderson-Ouyang .

2. Apparently the definitions of $`D_x`$, $`D_y`$ and $`c_y^{}`$ depend on the choice of $`𝐳`$. We shall use $`D_{𝐳(x)}`$, $`D_{𝐳(y)}`$ and $`c_{𝐳(y)}^{}`$ when emphasis of the dependence is needed.

## 4. The Kolyvagin recursion in Euler systems

In this section, we apply the results in the previous section to show that a family satisfying the universal Kolyvagin recursion maps to a family satisfying the Kolyvagin recursion in an Euler system. We shall follow heavily Chapter $`4`$ of Rubi’s book , which is actually the main motivation for this paper. Many results there will be introduced here without proof. We first give a brief review of the definition of the universal Euler system according to Rubin.

### 4.1. The universal Euler system and the Euler system

Let $`K`$ be a fixed number field. Let $`p`$ be a fixed rational prime number. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a finite extension of $`_p`$ and let $`𝒪`$ be the ring of integer of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Let $`T`$ be a $`p`$-adic representation of $`G_K`$ with coefficients in $`𝒪`$. Assume that $`T`$ is unramified outside a finite set of primes of $`K`$. Let $`W=(T_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi })/T`$. Fix a nonzero $`M𝒪`$ and let $`W_M`$ be the $`M`$-torsion in $`W`$. Let $`𝕎_M=Ind_{\{1\}}^{G_K}W_M`$. The exact sequence

$$0W_M𝕎_M𝕎_M/W_M0$$

thus induce a canonical (surjective) map

$$\delta _L:(𝕎_M/W_M)^{G_L}H^1(G_L,W_M)$$

for every finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$.

Fix an ideal $`𝔑`$ of $`K`$ divisible by $`p`$ and by all primes where $`T`$ is ramified. Let $`X`$ be the set of all primes $`x`$ of $`K`$ which is prime to $`𝔑`$ and $`K(x)K(\mathrm{𝟏})`$, where $`K(x)`$ is the ray class field of $`K`$ modulo $`x`$ and $`K(1)`$ is the Hilbert class field of $`K`$. Then $`Y`$ is the set of squarefree products of primes in $`X`$ and $`Z`$ is the set of formal products of primes in $`X`$. Let $`K(x^n)`$ be the ray class field of $`K`$ modulo $`x^n`$. Class field theory tells us that $`G_{x^n}=\mathrm{Gal}(K(x^n)/K(\mathrm{𝟏}))`$ is a cyclic group and $`K(x_1^{n_1})K(x_1^{n_1})=K(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ for $`x_1x_2`$. Let $`\sigma _{x^n}`$ be a generator of $`G_{x^n}`$. For every finite $`z=x_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}x_k^{n_k}Z`$, let $`K(z)`$ be the composite

$$K(z)=K(x_1^{n_1})\mathrm{}K(x_k^{n_k}).$$

Fix a $`_p^d`$-extension $`K_{\mathrm{}}/K`$ which no finite prime splits completely. We write $`K_fFK_{\mathrm{}}`$ to indicate $`F/K`$ a finite subextension of $`K_{\mathrm{}}/K`$. For $`K_fFK_{\mathrm{}}`$, we let $`F(z)=FK(z)`$. Let $`G_z=\mathrm{Gal}(F(z)/F(\mathrm{𝟏}))\mathrm{Gal}(K(z)/K(\mathrm{𝟏}))`$. We see that for any $`z^{}_sz`$, $`G_z=G_z^{}\times G_{z/z^{}}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{Fr}_x`$ denote a Frobenius of $`x`$ in $`G_K`$, and let

$$p(x;t)=det(1\mathrm{Fr}_x^1t|T^{})𝒪[t].$$

Let $`𝒯=𝒯(F)=𝒪[\mathrm{Gal}(F(\mathrm{𝟏})/K)]`$. With the above $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$, $`𝒪`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`p(x;t)`$, the corresponding universal norm distribution $`𝒰_{F,z}`$ (related to $`F`$) is called the *universal Euler system* of level $`(F,z)`$. In application, we only need a certain infinite subset $`X_{F,M}`$ of $`X`$ with elements $`x`$ satisfying the following conditions:

* $`M|G_x|`$ (hence $`M|G_{x^n}|`$);
* $`Mp(x;1)`$;
* $`x`$ splits completely in $`F(\mathrm{𝟏})/K`$.

Hereafter, the pair $`(F,z)`$ will always mean that $`z`$ is finite and every $`xz`$ is inside $`X_{F.M}`$. An *Euler system* is now a $`G_K`$-homomorphism

$$\xi :\underset{F,z}{}𝒰_{F,z}\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_{F,z}H^1(F(z),T).$$

The following Proposition is crucial to the definition of Kolyvagin classes:

###### Proposition 4.1.

Suppose $`\xi `$ is an Euler system. Then there exists a family of $`𝒪[G_K]`$-module maps $`\{d_F\}`$ such that the following diagrams are commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒰_{F,z}& \stackrel{d_F}{}& (𝕎_M/W_M)^{G_{F(z)}}\\ \xi & & \delta _{F\left(z\right)}& & \\ H^1(F(z),T)& & H^1(F(z),W_M)\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}𝒰_{F^{},z}& \stackrel{d_F^{}}{}& (𝕎_M/W_M)^{G_{F^{}(z)}}\\ N_{F^{}\left(z\right)/F\left(z\right)}& & N_{F^{}\left(z\right)/F\left(z\right)}& & \\ 𝒰_{F,z}& \stackrel{d_F}{}& (𝕎_M/W_M)^{G_{F(z)}}\end{array}$$

and $`d_F`$ is unique up to $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝒪[G_K]}(𝒰_{F,z},𝕎_M)`$.

###### Proof.

See Rubin , Proposition 4.4.8, page $`87`$. ∎

From Proposition 4.1, for any element $`cH^0(G_z,𝒰_{F,z}/M𝒰_{F,z})`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ be a lifting of $`c`$ in $`𝒰_{F,z}`$. Then $`d_F(N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F})\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is an element in $`(𝕎_M/W_M)^{G_F}`$ and $`\delta _Fd_F(N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F})\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is a well defined element in $`H^1(F,W_M)`$, independent of the choice of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. We denote by $`\kappa `$ the map $`c\delta _Fd_F(N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F})\stackrel{~}{c}`$. Let $`\widehat{d}_F`$ be a lifting of $`d_F`$ in $`𝕎_M`$, then one can see immediately $`\kappa (c)(\gamma )W_M`$ is exactly $`(\gamma 1)\widehat{\delta }_Fd_F(N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\stackrel{~}{c})`$.

### 4.2. The Kolyvagin recursion

Fix a number field $`F`$ of $`K`$ inside $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$. Fix a infinite $`𝐳Z`$ with $`xX_{F.M}`$ for $`x𝐳`$. For every $`x𝐳`$, one see that

$$p(x;t)p(x;1)=Q_x(t)(t1),$$

for some polynomial $`Q_x(t)𝒪[t]`$, thus $`p(x;t)Q_x(t)(t1)(modM)`$, and $`Q_x(t)`$ is uniquely determined by the congruence relation since $`t1`$ is not a zero divisor in $`𝒪/M𝒪[t]`$. Fix $`Q_x(t)`$.

We say that a family of classes

$$\{\kappa _yH^1(F,W_M):y\text{finite},y\overline{𝐳}\}$$

satisfies the *Kolyvagin recursion* if for every finite $`y\overline{𝐳}`$ and $`xy`$, the following formula

$$Q_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)\kappa _{y/x}(\mathrm{Fr}_x)=\kappa _y(\sigma _{𝐳(x)})W_M$$

holds. We see that Theorem 4.5.4 in Rubin  essentially showed that the family $`\{\kappa (D_y[𝐳(y)])\}`$ satisfies the Kolyvagin recursion.

### 4.3. The universal Kolyvagin recursion implies the Kolyvagin recursion

We first gather a few lemmas from Rubin :

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`xX_{F,M}`$, then $`p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)`$ annihilates $`W_M`$.

###### Proof.

See Rubin , Lemma 4.1.2(iv), page $`77`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`\widehat{d}_F([z])𝕎_M`$ be a lifting of $`d_F([z])𝕎_M/W_M`$. Then for any $`x𝐳`$, $`\omega `$ a prime in $`\overline{K}`$ above $`x`$, $`g`$, $`g^{}`$ elements in the decomposition group $`𝒟`$ of $`\omega `$, and $`\gamma G_K`$, then

$$gg^{}\gamma \widehat{d}_F([z])=g^{}g\gamma \widehat{d}_F([z]).$$

###### Proof.

See Rubin , Lemma 4.7.1, page $`98`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`\widehat{d}_F`$ be a lifting of $`d_F`$ in $`𝕎_M`$, then for every $`\gamma G_K`$ and $`z_s𝐳`$ and $`xz`$,

$$N_{G_{𝐳(x)}}\gamma \widehat{d}_F([z])=p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)\gamma \widehat{d}_F([z/𝐳(x)]).$$

###### Proof.

See Rubin , Lemma 4.7.3, page $`99`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`n_x`$ be the number of elements in $`𝒪_K/x`$. Let $`r_x(t)=\frac{p(x;t)p(x;n_xt)}{|G_{𝐳(x)}|}`$. Then

$$\xi (I_{x,z})H^1(F(z)_\omega ,W_M)$$

for every prime $`\omega `$ in $`F(z)`$ above $`x`$.

###### Proof.

See Rubin , Corollary 4.8.1, page $`102`$. ∎

With the choice of $`r_x(t)`$ in Lemma 4.5, one then has $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}=p(x;n_x\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)`$ and

###### Lemma 4.6.

The map $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}:𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}𝒰_{𝐳/𝐳(x)}`$ is injective, thus the Kolyvagin conditions are satisfied.

###### Proof.

We only need to show that for any finite $`z_s𝐳`$, $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}:𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}`$ is an injection. In this case, $`\mathrm{Fr}_x^1`$ induces a linear transformation from $`𝒰_{z/𝐳(x)}_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to itself, whose eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ has (logarithmic) discrete value $`0`$ at every places above $`x`$. Since $`p(x;t)𝒪[t]`$, then except the constant term $`1`$, other terms in $`p(x;n_x\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)`$ have discrete value no less than the discrete value of $`n_x`$, which is bigger than $`0`$. Thus any eigenvalue of $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}`$ can’t be zero and the linear transformation $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}`$ is injective. ∎

Finally we have

###### Theorem 4.7 (Kolyvagin recursion).

Let $`r_x`$ be given as Lemma 4.5. Let $`\{c_y:yY,y𝐳\}`$ be a family of classes in $`H^0(G_𝐳,𝒰_𝐳/M𝒰_𝐳)`$ satisfying the universal Kolyvagin recursion related to $`\gamma _{𝐳(x)}`$. Then the family $`\{\kappa (c_y):yY,y𝐳\}`$ satisfies the Kolyvagin recursion, i.e.,

$$Q_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)\kappa (c_{y/x})(\mathrm{Fr}_x)=\kappa (c_y)(\sigma _{𝐳(x)})W_M.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\widehat{d}`$ be a lifting of $`d_F`$ in $`𝕎_M`$. By the definition of the connecting homomorphism $`\delta _{F(z)}`$, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \kappa (c_{y/x})(\mathrm{Fr}_x)=(\mathrm{Fr}_x1)N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_{y/x})W_M,\hfill \\ & \kappa (c_y)(\sigma _{𝐳(x)})=(\sigma _{𝐳(x)}1)N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_y)W_M.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then by Lemmas 4.2— 4.6, with the universal Kolyvagin recursion satisfied by $`c_y`$ and $`c_{y/x}`$, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_x& (\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)\kappa (c_{y/x})(\mathrm{Fr}_x)\kappa (c_y)(\sigma _{𝐳(x)})\hfill \\ & =Q_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)\mathrm{Fr}_x^1\kappa (c_{y/x})(\mathrm{Fr}_x)\kappa (c_y)(\sigma _{𝐳(x)})\hfill \\ & =Q_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)(1\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_{y/x})(\sigma _{𝐳(x)}1)N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_y)\hfill \\ & =P(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_{y/x})+\gamma _{𝐳(x)}N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_{y/x})\hfill \\ & =|G_{𝐳(x)}|r_x(\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)N_{F(\mathrm{𝟏})/F}\widehat{d}(c_{y/x})\hfill \\ & =0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which finishes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 4.8.

The proofs of the above Lemmas don’t require the use of the original Kolyvagin classes. Hence we indeed succeed to generalize Theorem 4.5.4 in . We sincerely hope that our more abstract construction could lead to pursue new Euler systems.

###### Remark 4.9.

In the special case $`T=_p(1)`$, we see first that $`p(x;t)=1t`$ for every prime $`x`$. The elements $`\kappa (c)H^1(F,W_M)`$ for $`cH^0(G,𝒰_𝐳/M𝒰_𝐳)`$ are elements inside $`F^\times /F^{\times M}`$. Anderson and Ouyang have studied this case thoroughly in the note .


format: text

text:
# Algebras and universal quantum computations with higher dimensional systems

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The models discussed here only recently were introduced in theory of quantum computation  for description of $`d`$-dimensional quantum systems ($`d>2`$), but they have rather long history. Initially some special matrices were introduced by Arthur Cayley more than 100 years ago , and 30 years later similar construction was used by Hermann Weyl for building of fundament of quantum theory . It is so-called Weyl pair of matrices (or elements of infinite dimensional operator algebra, last case is not considered here in details for simplicity and only briefly discussed due to applications to quantum computations with continuous variables). The Weyl approach seems very important in theory of quantum computation, because it is only way to write an equivalent of Heisenberg relations for finite-dimensional systems used there. In addition algebra has important technical applications. It is widely used in quantum computation community after reintroducing few years ago with new name “generalized Pauli algebra.”

## 2 Universal Quantum Gates and Lie Algebras

“Quantum gate” is special name for arbitrary unitary transformation. “Quantum networks”  may be constructed using many quantum gates and corresponds to some unitary evolution, “quantum computation.” It is reasonable to consider some sets of elements that may be used for construction (or approximation) of any unitary transformation. It is similar with using universal set of logical gates (Boolean functions) like AND, NOT in classical networks and theory of computations.

In many models of quantum computations an elementary system is described by finite-dimensional Hilbert space, but more difficult continuous case is also may be considered. Quantum gates act on some composite system with Hilbert space described as tensor product (see Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) below). For schemes of quantum networks each “wire” corresponds to such system and it corresponds to exponential growth of dimension of space of states with number of such “quantum wires.”

In simplest case the Hilbert space of the elementary quantum system, qubit, is two-dimensional. More general case with higher-dimensional systems is also used sometimes  and considered in present paper. For $`n`$ qubits Hilbert space has dimension $`2^n`$ and most general quantum evolution may be described by $`2^n\times 2^n`$ unitary matrix.

The problem of universality is existence of some set or family of unitary matrices $`U_\kappa `$ with possibility of decomposition of any unitary matrix $`U\mathrm{U}(2^n)`$

$$U=U_{\kappa _1}U_{\kappa _2}\mathrm{}U_{\kappa _p}$$
(1)
or approximation $`UU_{k_1}U_{k_2}\mathrm{}U_{k_p}`$ with necessary or arbitrary precision, if the set is finite $`k=1,\mathrm{},K`$.

It should be mentioned, that formally the same gate acting on different “wires” corresponds to different matrices, but the additional indexes are omitted in Eq. (1) in sake of simplicity. Situation may be more difficult in real applications, then system may not be simply presented as tensor product111For example in theory of decoherence free subspaces, it is more known, but rather specific example., but it is not considered in present work.

For quantum computation with $`n`$ qubits the Hilbert space $``$ has special structure due to representation as tensor power of $`n`$ two-dimensional spaces $`_2`$

$$=\underset{n}{\underset{}{_2\mathrm{}_2}}.$$
(2)
Due to such structure any unitary transformation of some subsystem with $`m<n`$ qubits, $`U_{\mathrm{sub}}\mathrm{U}(2^m)`$ can be expressed as transformation that acts only on $`m`$ elements (indexes) in tensor product with $`n`$ terms Eq. (2) used for representation of the Hilbert space for $`n`$ qubits. Such transformations are called $`m`$-qubit gates.

The constructions may be simply extended to higher-dimensional quantum systems. Let $`d>2`$ is dimension of Hilbert space $`_d`$ for one “qu$`d`$it”, then $`n`$ systems may be described by $`d^n`$-dimensional space

$$=\underset{n}{\underset{}{_d\mathrm{}_d}},$$
(3)
and unitary group U$`(d^n)`$. Non-binary quantum $`m`$-gates correspond to elements of U$`(d^m)`$, $`mn`$.

An important result of quantum theory of computation is existence of universal set with two-qubit quantum gates .

There is so-called infinitesimal approach to construction of universal set of quantum gates. It was discussed in original papers  and described here only briefly. From physical point of view it can be considered as using Hamiltonian approach with Hermitian operators $`H_k`$ (Hamiltonian), instead of $`S`$-matrix-like approach with unitary gates (see also Eq. (4) below).

The infinitesimal approach uses Lie algebra $`𝔲(N)`$ of Lie group U$`(N)`$ of unitary matrices222Here $`N=2^n`$ for quantum computation with $`n`$ qubits and $`N=d^n`$ for higher-dimensional case. together with finite set of elements $`A_k`$ of this algebra represented as some anti-Hermitian matrices $`A_k=A_k^{}`$. It is possible also to write $`iA_kH_k`$ for some Hermitian matrices $`H_k=H_k^{}`$. Quantum gate may be expressed as

$$U_k^\tau =\mathrm{exp}(iH_k\tau )$$
(4)
with some real parameter $`\tau `$. Now instead of universal set of elements of Lie group U$`(N)`$ used in Eq. (1) it is possible to work with elements $`A_k=iH_k`$ of Lie algebra $`𝔲(N)`$.

Lemma If the elements $`A_k`$ generate full Lie algebra $`𝔲(N)`$ by commutators, then it is possible to use set of gates described by Eq. (4) as universal set of gates .

Subtleties of transition from Lie algebra to Lie group of gates based on Eq. (4) is not discussed with more detail and may be found in original works. Description of specific mathematical problems may be found also in Ref. .

In physical applications $`H_k=iA_k`$ correspond to Hamiltonian and real parameter $`\tau `$, may be infinitesimal , irrational  or it is possible to consider Eq. (4) as one-parametric family, where $`\tau `$ is time .

## 3 Clifford Algebras

If there is some associative algebra $`𝒜`$, then it is possible to introduce structure of Lie algebra by using commutators $`[A,B]=ABBA`$. Due to relation with universal set of gates discussed above, it is reasonable to look for algebras with “simple commutation law” with purpose to have appropriate tools for construction and description of universal quantum gates.

As an example of such a commutation law it is possible to mention

$$AB=\zeta BA(A,B𝒜,\zeta )$$
(5)
It is commutative algebra for $`\zeta =1`$ and anticommutative one for $`\zeta =1`$. It is useful also to consider more general case, then $`\zeta `$ is arbitrary complex number and not all elements of algebra satisfy equation Eq. (5), but only different generators of the algebra.

Well known examples for $`\zeta =1`$ are algebra of all $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices with generators are Pauli matrices333Formally only two Pauli matrices are enough. Here is some subtlety, because 3D real Clifford algebra uses all three Pauli matrices as generators and it is not some pure mathematical trick, because may be used in description of real NMR experiments .

$$𝝈_𝗑=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),𝝈_𝗒=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill i\\ \hfill i& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),𝝈_𝗓=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
and algebra of all $`4\times 4`$ complex matrices with generators are four Dirac matrices

$$\gamma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝟏}& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),𝜸=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 𝝈\\ \hfill 𝝈& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
Both algebras are Clifford algebras  defined by (anti)commutation law

$$𝐞_k𝐞_j+𝐞_j𝐞_k=2\delta _{jk},$$
(8)
where $`𝐞_k`$ are generators of the algebra.

Main property of Clifford algebras used in mathematical and physical application is algebraic decomposition of square root

$$\left(_kc_k𝐞_k\right)^2=_kc_k^2,c_k.$$
(9)
Really Eq. (9) often used for definition of Clifford algebra instead of Eq. (8). For example, the property is used for representation of Dirac equation as square root of Klein-Gordon equation. On the other hand, Eq. (9) seems not related directly with applications of Clifford algebras in quantum computations discussed in present paper.

The Clifford algebras with even number of generators $`2n`$ are especially convenient for description of quantum computation with $`n`$ qubits due to so-called product operator formalism  and some other applications . It is enough to look on standard presentation for generators of such algebra

$`𝐞_{2k}`$ $`=`$ $`i\underset{nk1}{\underset{}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}𝝈_𝗑\underset{k}{\underset{}{𝝈_𝗓\mathrm{}𝝈_𝗓}},`$
$`𝐞_{2k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`i\underset{nk1}{\underset{}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}𝝈_𝗒\underset{k}{\underset{}{𝝈_𝗓\mathrm{}𝝈_𝗓}},`$ (10)
where $`k=0,\mathrm{},n1`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is unit matrix.

There are $`2^{2n}`$ different products of $`2n`$ generators $`𝐞_k`$ Eq. (10) and it corresponds to presentation of the Clifford algebra via $`2^n\times 2^n`$ complex matrices. Such representation is useful both for quantum $`n`$-gates as elements of Lie group U$`(2^n)`$ and Hamiltonians as elements of Lie algebra $`𝔲(2^n)`$ of that group.

Jordan-Wigner representation of fermionic creation and annihilation operators via

$$a_k^{}=\frac{1}{2}(𝐞_{2k}+i𝐞_{2k+1}),a_k=\frac{1}{2}(𝐞_{2k}i𝐞_{2k+1})$$
(11)
with standard properties

$$\{a_k,a_j\}=\{a_k^{},a_j^{}\}=0,\{a_k^{},a_j\}=\delta _{kj}$$
(12)
provides useful links with fermionic quantum computation 444In Ref.  were considered some points relevant to present consideration, but terms “local” and “spinless fermion” seem not very appropriate. For example, fermionic commutation relations Eq. (12) have representation with two-matrices and it corresponds to two-component wave vectors of particle with spin-1/2, so spin may not be “omitted.” It is also not a model of spatially localized particles. If coordinate part of wave function is taken into account, only particles with definite momentum satisfy simpler expression like Eq. (12) and it corresponds to maximal “spreading,” $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$..

It should be mentioned, that an approach with creation and annihilation operators was used for description of universal quantum simulators and computers already in first works of Feynman , but the question again has some subtleties, because for description of quantum computation it is also possible to use other operators produced via Eq. (11) from slightly changed $`𝐞_k`$ with $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ instead of any $`𝝈_𝗓`$ in tensor product Eq. (10). Sometime they are called now parafermionic operators, but the special term may be a bit misjudged, because such operators even simpler and more natural in formal theory of quantum computation, than “usual” fermionic operators. Formally, both kind of operators may be used equally in most constructions with creation and annihilation operators used in Refs. .

Let us return to theory of universal quantum gates. It can be shown,  that the commutators of elements Eq. (10) generate only $`(2n^2+n)`$-dimensional space and so set of gates based on these elements via Eq. (4) produces only $`(2n^2+n)`$D subgroup in $`2^{2n}`$D group of all unitary gates . It is interesting counter-example of widespread belief about “omnipresent universality.” Anyway, appending of only one element of third order like $`i𝐞_0𝐞_1𝐞_2`$ produces universal set of gates . For fermionic quantum computation sometime is used representation with even number of operators Eq. (11) and so the result is in agreement with necessity of elements of second and fourth order for universality in such a case .

The representation Eq. (10) is good for general algebraic approach or fermions, but in usual theory of quantum computation more useful elements have minimal amount of non-unit terms in tensor product. Formally Eq. (10) produces universal set of $`k`$-gates with $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, but it is very simple to construct universal set of two-gates. It is enough to consider elements of second order $`𝐞_k𝐞_{k+1}`$, because any such element is one- or two-gate. So universal set of $`2n+1`$ two-gates may be based on following elements of Lie algebra $`𝔲(2^n)`$ (Hamiltonians)

$$𝐞_0,𝐞_{k,k+1}i𝐞_k𝐞_{k+1}(k=0,\mathrm{},n2),𝐞_{012}i𝐞_0𝐞_1𝐞_2.$$
(13)
It may be checked, the last element of third order corresponds to one-gate.

## 4 Generalization with Weyl Pair

The construction with Clifford algebra described above may not be applied directly for non-binary quantum circuits, when each system described by $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space, $`d>2`$. Hilbert space of composite system with $`n`$ qu$`d`$its is $`d^n`$-dimensional and gates belong to U$`(d^n)`$. But even in such a case the general principles are very close .

First, let us consider instead of Pauli matrices Weyl pair  described by Eq. (5) with $`\zeta =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/d)`$:

$$UV=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/d)VU,VV^{}=UU^{}=\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(14)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are $`d\times d`$ complex matrices

$$U=(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}),V=(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \zeta & 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \zeta ^2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \zeta ^{d1}\end{array}).$$
(15)
Lately it is called sometime “generalized Pauli group” .

It is possible to consider three elements

$$𝝉_𝗑=U,𝝉_𝗒=\zeta ^{(d1)/2}UV,𝝉_𝗓=V,$$
(16)
with properties

$$𝝉_𝗑𝝉_𝗒=\zeta 𝝉_𝗒𝝉_𝗑,𝝉_𝗒𝝉_𝗓=\zeta 𝝉_𝗓𝝉_𝗒,𝝉_𝗑𝝉_𝗓=\zeta 𝝉_𝗓𝝉_𝗑,𝝉_\mu ^d=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(17)
Let us introduce set of complex $`d^n\times d^n`$ matrices similar with construction Eq. (10) above:

$`𝐭_{2k}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{nk1}{\underset{}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}𝝉_𝗑\underset{k}{\underset{}{𝝉_𝗓\mathrm{}𝝉_𝗓}},`$
$`𝐭_{2k+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{nk1}{\underset{}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}𝝉_𝗒\underset{k}{\underset{}{𝝉_𝗓\mathrm{}𝝉_𝗓}},`$ (18)
where $`k=0,\mathrm{},n1`$.

The $`2n`$ elements $`𝐭_k`$ itself meet to analogue of commutation law Eq. (5):

$$𝐭_j𝐭_k=\zeta 𝐭_k𝐭_j(j<k),(𝐭_k)^d=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(19)
As it was suggested earlier, the rule makes test of universality simpler and the elements are really useful for construction of universal quantum gates for higher dimensional case ($`d>2`$) .

It is interesting, an analogue of Eq. (9) is also valid

$$\left(_kc_k𝐭_k\right)^d=_kc_k^d,c_k.$$
(20)
So the elements may be used for expression of algebraic $`d`$-th root, but it is not relevant to present work.

The elements Eq. (18) are not Hermitian, but for construction of universal gates via Eq. (4) it is possible to use

$$𝐭_k^+=i(𝐭_k+𝐭_k^{}),𝐭_k^{}=(𝐭_k𝐭_k^{}).$$
(21)
Commutators of the elements generate whole Lie algebra and so exponents Eq. (4) of elements Eq. (21) may be used as universal set of quantum gates .

Formally initial expressions Eq. (18) represent $`k`$-gates ($`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$), but it is again possible to use pairwise products of the elements

$$𝐭_0,𝐭_{k,k+1}𝐭_k𝐭_{k+1}(k=0,\mathrm{},n2)$$
(22)
to construct universal set of two-gates. It is also necessary to use generators Eq. (4) with Hermitian operators expressed as sums

$$𝐭_{k,k+1}^+=i(𝐭_{k,k+1}+𝐭_{k,k+1}^{}),𝐭_{k,k+1}^{}=(𝐭_{k,k+1}𝐭_{k,k+1}^{}).$$
(23)
It should be emphasized, that for higher-dimensional quantum systems with $`d>2`$ it is enough only $`2n`$ elements Eq. (18) and $`4n`$ elements Eq. (21) of first order and it is not necessary to add some generator of fourth or third order for $`d=2`$ (qubits and fermionic quantum computation). Such point may be essential, for example elements of high order have difficulties of implementation for fermionic quantum computation  and even in more general case such elements may have specific properties .

If to recall that without such additional element quantum gates generate only state of space with quadratic dimension (“complexity”) instead of exponential , then it is possible to suggest, that for $`d=2`$ the question about additional element of third order may be essential from point of view of universality, correspondence between classical and quantum complexity, etc.. So absence of such subtleties with one additional element for higher-dimensional system $`d>2`$ maybe not so formal, as it could be suggested at first sight.

It was mentioned earlier relations of different standard techniques with theory of quantum computation: unitary gates (S-matrix), Hamiltonian, occupation numbers (annihilation and creation operators). The approach discussed in present section has relation with yet another standard model, Weyl quantization . The Weyl pair $`U,V`$ Eq. (15) has many other applications in theory of quantum computations , but specific new terminology used in some papers sometimes hides it.

The Eq. (14) is Weyl representation of Heisenberg commutation relation. The Weyl approach may be even more significant in area or research under consideration, because Heisenberg relation itself may not be satisfied in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces used in many applications of quantum computations.

## 5 Universal Quantum Processors

Formally, the quantum network approach used above (and in many other papers) resembles classical situation, then some chosen set of logical gates (“chips”) are fastening on some board to build networks with necessary functions, on the other hand, usual electronic computers have fixed structure and different functioning is ensured by programmability.

An analogue of such classical computer is programmable quantum gate arrays  or, simply, quantum processors . Here are exists two different designs “stochastic”  and “deterministic” . Formally “deterministic” and “stochastic” processors initially have very different design and only recently was found possibility of some confluence in continuous limit .

Anyway only first kind of processors will be discussed in present paper, so word “deterministic” is omitted further for simplicity. Such quantum processor uses some version of “controlled” or “conditional” quantum dynamics . In such approach some quantum “wire(s)” are used for encoding of operations on second set of “wires.” Quantum processor is special network with quantum system represented as tensor product of two subsystem: “program bus” and “data bus,” but there is some specific difficulties, because different states of “program bus” should be orthogonal  and so in some meaning all valid programs are “pseudo-classical,” i.e., a superposition may not be used and would produce “malfunction” of quantum processor (entanglement of data and program, more details may be found in original works ).

Let us consider a particular design of quantum processors . There are three buses: quantum data bus, there any superposition are possible, intermediate bus used for choice of particular quantum gate applied to data bus on current state. Intermediate bus is also some quantum system, but only fixed number of orthogonal basic states may be used to produce proper work of quantum processor. And, finally, there is (pseudo-)classical bus necessary to programming of changes in intermediate bus for performing necessary sequence of quantum gates on quantum data bus.

In simplest case the pseudo-classical bus is simply “cyclic ROM,” but sequences of universal gates used for implementation of some quantum algorithms may be too long for realistic implementations using the ROM based approach. So it is better, if sequence of gates may be described by some simple law and processor may use some program of minimal size, i.e. it should be set of instructions like

repeat { repeat $`U_5`$ 10 times; repeat $`U_7`$ 20 times } 3 times,

but these issues related with application of reversible classical programming are out of scope of present work.

It is clear, that theory of (deterministic) universal quantum processors resembles theory of universal quantum networks, but sequence of quantum gates is not implemented statically, and each next operation is dynamically chosen on each step of evolution, accordingly with program.

At present time a statement, that some particular set of gates is universal, has limited significance, because property of universality is already proved for very general sets of quantum gates. Discussed algebraic approach is important due to constructivity, i.e., there are described concrete and not very difficult algorithms  for decomposition or approximation of arbitrary unitary operators.

It may be not very actual for some standard quantum algorithms, when construction of quantum networks is already developed and optimized during many years in works of different researchers, but universality of quantum processors suggests existence of algorithm for decomposition of arbitrary unitary matrix with given precision. Maybe realistic applications are related with mixed approach, when the universal algorithm of decomposition is used for $`k`$-gates with not very big $`k`$ (i.e., $`d^k`$ has appropriate order) and the gates are used as building blocks for more difficult quantum algorithms.

## 6 Continuous Case

The Eq. (14) is Weyl representation of Heisenberg commutation relations and valid both in finite and continuous (infinite) case . For $`d\mathrm{}`$ two families of operators with property Eq. (5) may be expressed as

$$U_a:\psi (q)\psi (q+a),V_b:\psi (q)e^{ibq}\psi (q),$$
(24)
where $`a,b`$ are two real parameters and $`\zeta =\mathrm{exp}(iab)`$ in Eq. (5). It is possible also to write the operators in exponential form

$$U_a=e^{ia𝐩},V_b=e^{ib𝐪},$$
(25)
where p, q are operators of coordinate and momentum .

All necessary construction used for finite $`d`$ above may be generalized on continuous case , but such universal gates for continuous case have “bi-exponential” structure, like

$`e^{(U_aU_a^{})\tau }=\mathrm{exp}\left([\mathrm{exp}(ia𝐩)\mathrm{exp}(ia𝐩)]\tau \right),`$
$`e^{i(U_a+U_a^{})\tau }=\mathrm{exp}\left(i[\mathrm{exp}(ia𝐩)+\mathrm{exp}(ia𝐩)]\tau \right).`$
Such approach not only produces universal set of gates for one quantum continuous variable like in some other works , but for arbitrary amount of such variables. It is only necessary instead of $`𝐭_k`$ Eq. (19) in all expressions uses their continuous analogues described in Ref. . All constructions are based on straightforward change of $`U`$, $`V`$ Eq. (15) to $`U_a`$, $`V_b`$ Eq. (24). Here infinite-dimensional Hilbert space is represented as space of complex function with $`n`$ real variables.

Most difficult part of proof used in Ref.  related with consideration of different nonstandard cases with $`\zeta ^k=1`$, but it becomes trivial in infinite-dimensional case, because it is possible to choose $`\zeta ^k1`$ for any integer $`k`$. Here is again possible to construct set of universal two-gates for arbitrary finite number of continuous quantum variables.

Physical meaning may depend on choice of particular conjugated variables p, q. For example, if q is usual coordinate, expressions

$$e^{(V_bV_b^{})\tau }=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{sin}(bx)\tau \right),e^{i(V_b+V_b^{})\tau }=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{cos}(bx)\tau \right),$$

look more realistic as Hamiltonian for particle in periodic potentials, but more difficult analogues of operators Eq. (23) maybe look more strange. On the other hand, the continuous generalizations of $`𝐭_k`$ are based on some non-canonical form of Weyl commutation relations  and so may be relevant to description of real systems via Weyl quantization (and analogues of Wigner functions).


text:
# Analysis of Scanning Tunneling Spectroscopy Experiments from First Principles: the Test Case of C60 Adsorbed on Au(111) ∗∗

## Methods

Here we give a brief overview of our method; the interested reader is referenced to our earlier work. Our procedure aims at a first-principles implementation of Landauer’s conductance formula:

$$𝒢=\frac{2e^2}{h}\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L\widehat{G}^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_R\widehat{G}^a].$$
(1)
In this equation, the operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_R`$ are built from the corresponding retarded, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^r`$, and advanced $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^a`$, self-energy operators of the left (L) and right (R) electrodes according to:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{L(R)}=i(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{L(R)}^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{L(R)}^a),$$
(2)
while $`\widehat{G^r}`$ and $`\widehat{G^a}`$ denote the retarded and advanced Green’s functions operators, respectively, of the whole system and where Tr represents the trace over the pertinent orbitals. Simple as it looks, Landauer’s formalism poses a challenging problem since the calculation of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ involves the electronic structure of a semi-infinite non-periodic metallic electrode while $`\widehat{G}`$ must deal with the intricacies of the metal-molecule interaction which, in turn, largely depends on the type and positions of the atoms involved.

Our approach to the problem consists of a divide-and-conquer scheme. First, we perform a DFT calculation of the molecule including part of the leads with the desired geometry: see Figures 3 and 4, where the two clusters representing the relevant part of the bridge and on-top geometries discussed above are depicted. We mention in passing that the DFT calculations were performed by using the GAUSSIAN98 code with the B3LYP exchange-correlation functional and the basis sets and Pseudopotentials of Christiansen et al. This is also the case for the DFT calculations that led to the PES of Figure 5 where clusters similar to those in Figures 3 and 4 were used, but with the five tip atoms removed. Additional clusters with the five-fold axis perpendicular to the surface were also used to derive the corresponding PES of Figure 5 but are not shown for convenience.

Since the Hamiltonian of the cluster representing the nanobridge, $`\widehat{H}`$, is finite, its associated Green’s functions are unsuitable for any current determination. In order to transform this finite system into an effectively infinite one we must include the self-energy of the electrodes:

$$[(ϵ+i\delta )\widehat{I}\widehat{H}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^r(ϵ)]\widehat{G}^r(ϵ)=\widehat{I}$$
(3)
where

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^r=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^r+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^r.$$
(4)
The added self-energy is determined through a Bethe lattice tight-binding model which is constrained to reproduce the electrode bulk density of states and to have the same Fermi energy as that of the system on which the DFT calculation was initially performed. The advantage of choosing a Bethe lattice resides in that the self-energies can be easily calculated through a well-known iteration procedure. For each atom in the outer planes of the cluster we choose to add a branch of the Bethe lattice in the direction of any missing bulk atom. Once the Green’s functions have been calculated we proceed to self-consistency by recalculating the elements of the density matrix $`P_{kl}`$ according to:

$$P_{kl}=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{ϵ_F}\mathrm{Im}\left[\underset{mn}{}S_{km}^1G_{mn}^r(ϵ)S_{nl}^1\right]dϵ$$
(5)
where $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi level fixed by ensuring neutrality in the cluster, with $`S`$ and $`G^r`$ being the overlap and retarded Green’s function matrices evaluated in a non-orthogonal atomic basis set. The new density matrix is used to recalculate the finite cluster Hamiltonian matrix, and the whole process is repeated until self-consistency is achieved.

A final remark regarding the comparison between the experimental conductance profile and the one calculated by us must be made. Strictly speaking only the conductance at the Fermi level should be comparable with the experimental one, but the weak tip-C60 interaction guarantees that the conductance profile will not vary strongly with the applied voltage within the bias range used in the STM experiments. This fact allows for a comparison between curves in the left panel of Figure 1 and those of Figure 2, although at contact tip-fullerene distances the applied bias may produce non-trivial voltage drops. Extension of our method to cope with generic non-equilibrium situations is currently being implemented.

FIG. 1: Left panel: Normalized conductance derived from CITS measurements by Rogero et al. for the two types of C60 adsorption sites on Au(111). Right panel: CITS image by Rogero et al. at a bias of +0.6V, where the difference in brightness between on-top and bridge sites is clearly seen. The circle and triangle indicate the points where the curves shown in the left panel were obtained. The Fermi level is set to zero. The above pictures are reprints of Figs. 4d) and 4c) appearing in The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 832-836.
FIG. 2: Conductance spectra calculated with our method for the on-top and bridge adsorption sites in the region around the Fermi level (here set to zero). The inset shows the same data for the on-top geometry on a wider energy range, where the fullerene gap can be clearly appreciated.
FIG. 3: Cluster model used to represent the relevant part of the tip-C60-surface system. The fullerene is oriented with an hexagon facing a bridge site of the Au(111) surface.
FIG. 4: Same as in Figure 3 for the on-top geometry.
FIG. 5: DFT Potential Energy Scan of a C60 molecule approaching the two types of Au(111) surface sites (On-top and Bridge). Results with an hexagon and a pentagon of the fullerene facing the surface are included for completeness. The energy of the separated C60 \+ surface is set to zero.
FIG. 6: Top panel: Conductance profile from tunneling to contact regime of a C60 molecule adsorbed on top of a gold atom in a Au(111) surface. Bottom panel: Same as above for the C60 molecule adsorbed on a bridge site in a Au(111) surface. Distance (in Angstrom) between gold surface and tip displayed in the legend. The Fermi level has been set to zero in both sets of curves. The inset in both panels plots the same data on a wider energy range at tip-surface distances of 13.5 and 14.5 Å.
FIG 7: Maximum conductance from the second peak of Figure 6 for both geometries. The tunneling regime can be distinguished by the exponential decay in the conductance beyond 13Å. The inset shows the same data with a logarithmic scale for the conductance.