text:
# Vortex matter in layered superconductors without Josephson coupling: numerical simulations within a mean-field approach

## I Introduction

The vortex state in type-II superconductors is a complex physical system. Within the layered high-temperature materials, such as Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 (BSCCO) or YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO), vortex lines can be understood as wiggling stacks of pancake vortices.Artemenko and Kruglov (1990); Feigel’man et al. (1990); Buzdin and Feinberg (1990); Clem (1991); Blatter et al. (1994) The thermodynamic properties of the vortex state are determined by the interaction between pancake vortices. There are two mechanisms of pancake interaction: (i) electromagnetic interaction and (ii) Josephson coupling. The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by supercurrents circulating around each pancake, whereas the Josephson coupling results from the energy cost due to a phase shift between the superconducting order parameters in the neighboring layers.

To understand the phase diagram of high-temperature superconductors and in particular the melting line of the vortex lattice,Zeldov et al. (1995); Schilling et al. (1996) we need to gain an insight into the behavior of vortex matter under a variety of experimental conditions. In moderately anisotropic materials, such as YBCO, the short-range Josephson coupling is the dominant inter-layer interaction, and the vortices are well described as elastic strings.Ryu and Stroud (1996); Nordborg and Blatter (1997); Wilkin and Jensen (1997); Nordborg and Blatter (1998); van Otterlo et al. (1998); Olson et al. (2000a) In very anisotropic materials on the other hand, such as BSCCO, the Josephson coupling is weak, and the long-range electromagnetic interaction between the pancakes should be taken into account. In this paper we consider very anisotropic materials in the absence of Josephson coupling, and neglect pinning. Even after keeping only the electromagnetic coupling, the problem remains a challenging one, due to the long range of the interactions: the energy of electromagnetic interaction between two pancakes depends logarithmically on the separation along the layers and decays exponentially with the number of layers between the pancakes. More specifically, the interaction is repulsive between pancakes in the same layer, and attractive between pancakes in different layers, and the decay length of the exponential dependence is the London penetration depth $`\lambda `$, which is typically $`100`$ times larger than the layer spacing $`s`$. Approximately, this system has been investigated within the density-functional theory. Sengupta et al. (1991); Menon et al. (1996); Cornaglia and Balseiro (2000)

For a numerical investigation of the system, one can in principle simulate directly a stack of two-dimensional (2D) pancake systems taking into account all of the interlayer interactions. However, the computational challenge is that the interlayer attraction between pancakes extends over a range of $`2\lambda /s100150`$ layers. In addition, realistic simulation of the melting transition requires at least several hundred point vortices per layer. So far, direct numerical investigations have been performed only on small systems using about 10 layers and of the order of 100 vortices. Reefman and Brom (1991); Kolton et al. (2000a, b); Olson and Grønbech-Jensen (2000); Olson et al. (2000b, 2001) This is not sufficient to describe realistically the vortex state in BSCCO. With today’s computational resources, it is not feasible to perform realistic direct three-dimensional (3D) simulations of this system because the necessary computational effort grows quadratically with the number of layers.

Fortunately, one can benefit from the long range of the interlayer coupling. As the interlayer force on a pancake is the result of a sum of a large number ($`2\lambda /s`$) of small contributions, it can be calculated by a mean-field approach. The exact value of this force is determined by the instantaneous pancake densities in the large number of layers. In the crystal state the instantaneous density can be decomposed into the average density, which is a periodic function of the in-plane coordinates, and a fluctuating contribution. In the mean-field approach to the interlayer interactions, one replaces the instantaneous densities in the other layers by the average density. This approach gives a quantitatively correct description of the system, because due to the law of large numbers, the neglected force from the fluctuating densities is typically smaller than the average interlayer force by the factor $`\sqrt{s/\lambda }1`$. The calculation then takes the form of independent layers, with the pancakes in each layer feeling an effective “substrate potential”.Dodgson et al. (2000a) This substrate potential is the cumulative affect of the attraction of pancakes in all other layers as illustrated in Fig. 1. Pancakes within one layer interact directly with each other, whereas the interaction with pancakes in other layers is mediated via the substrate potential. Thus, each layer is treated individually, until a new substrate potential can be computed. This process is iterated, until the substrate has converged to a steady solution. In this paper, we present the first numerical implementations of this substrate model and show results which we compare with the semi-analytic approximations given in Ref. \[Dodgson et al., 2000a\].

We summarize this work in Fig. 2. On the left the central idea is visualized: pancakes experience attractive inter-layer interactions through the substrate potential which stabilizes the pancake crystal. On the right we show the computed melting line separating a 3D pancake vortex lattice from decoupled 2D liquids. We express magnetic induction in units of $`B_\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_0/\lambda ^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the magnetic flux quantum, such that the pancake-spacing in a triangular lattice is $`a_0=\sqrt{2/\sqrt{3}}\lambda 1.07\lambda `$ at $`B=B_\lambda `$. We use a dimensionless temperature, $`t`$, which is the ratio of the thermal energy $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$ to the prefactor $`2sϵ_0`$ of the logarithmic pancake-pancake interaction,

$$t\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2ϵ_0s},$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2/(4\pi \mu _0\lambda ^2)`$, $`\mu _0`$ is the vacuum permeability, and $`s`$ is the layer spacing. This allows to compare our results with outcomes from 2D one-component Coulomb plasma simulations,de Leeuw and Perram (1982); Caillol et al. (1982); Choquard and Clerouin (1983) where frequently $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1/t`$ is used to express temperatures. At low fields, the electro-magnetic attraction of range $`\lambda s`$ between pancakes in different layers stabilizes the 3D pancake-vortex lattice. Increasing the magnetic field decreases the relative strength of the inter-layer coupling. At high fields, $`BB_\lambda `$, the long-range repulsive interaction within the layer dominates, and the 3D pancake lattice melts at a temperature close to the 2D melting temperature.

In Sec. II we describe the substrate model in detail, including three different methods for the efficient computation of the substrate potential (Sec. II.3). The results, including the equilibrium phase diagram, are shown in Sec. III before we conclude in Sec. IV. The appendix gives a derivation of the correlation correction to the free energy, and shows that our mean-field approach should be accurate to order $`s/\lambda `$.

## II Mean-field approach (Substrate model)

### II.1 The mean-field inter-layer coupling

The in-layer energy $`^{\text{in}}`$ and the inter-layer energy $`^{\text{inter}}`$ of a system of electromagnetically interacting pancakes in a layered superconductor is, respectively,

$$^{\text{in}}=\underset{n}{}E_n^{\mathrm{in}}=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{2}\underset{j^{}j}{}U(𝐑_j^n𝐑_j^{}^n,0)$$
(2)
and

$$^{\text{inter}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n^{}n}{}\underset{j,j^{}}{}U(𝐑_j^n𝐑_j^{}^n^{},nn^{}).$$
(3)
Indices $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ count over layers, and $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$ over pancakes in the layers, $`𝐑_j^n`$ is the (2D) position of pancake $`j`$ in layer $`n`$, and $`U(𝐑,n)`$ is the coupling energy for two pancakes separated by a vector $`(𝐑,z)`$, where $`z=ns`$, with $`s`$ being the layer spacing. The $`z`$-axis is chosen perpendicular to the layers.

The in-layer pancake interactionClem (1991) is

$`U(𝐫,0)`$ $`=2ϵ_0s`$ $`((1{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2\lambda }})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{r}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2\lambda }}{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{d}r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(r^{}/\lambda )}{r^{}}})`$
and the inter-layer interaction ($`n0`$) is

$`U(𝐫,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_0s^2}{\lambda }}(\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{ns}{\lambda }})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{r}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{d}r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{r^2+(ns)^2}/\lambda )}{r^{}}}).`$
Using

$$\rho _n(𝐫)=\underset{j}{}\delta (𝐫𝐑_j^n)$$
(6)
we rewrite

$$^{\text{inter}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{nn^{}}{}\text{d}^2r\text{d}^2r^{}\rho _n(𝐫)\rho _n^{}(𝐫^{})U(𝐫𝐫^{},nn^{}).$$
(7)
We separate pancake density fluctuations from the layer-average density

$`\rho (𝐫)`$ $``$ $`\rho _n(𝐫),`$ (8)
$`\rho _n(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (𝐫)+\delta \rho _n(𝐫),`$ (9)
and obtain from (7)

$`^{\text{inter}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2r\mathrm{d}^2r^{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},nn^{})}`$
$`\times \left[\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{})+2\rho (𝐫^{})\delta \rho _n(𝐫)+\delta \rho _n(𝐫)\delta \rho _n^{}(𝐫^{})\right].`$
Because the difference $`nn^{}`$ in the last sum extends over a very large number of layers ($`\lambda /s`$), a typical value of the sum $`_n^{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},nn^{})2\rho (𝐫^{})`$ is larger than a typical value of the sum $`_n^{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},nn^{})\delta \rho _n^{}`$ by the factor $`\sqrt{\lambda /s}`$. Again, the law of large numbers allows us to neglect the last term in (II.1) leading to the mean-field description of the interlayer interactions. A more precise justification is given in the Appendix, where the free energy correction due to the correlation term is shown to be smaller than the mean-field free energy by the factor $`s/\lambda `$.

Separating the pancake density into the average value $`\rho =\rho _n(𝐫)`$ and a modulating part, we can split the total magnetic coupling energy into two parts, each with a quite different meaning. The part containing the average density does not depend on temperature and formally diverges due to the logarithmic term in (II.1). This divergence exactly compensates a similar divergence in the in-plane energy. Within the mean-field approach the part of the coupling energy sensitive to density variations is finite only in the crystal state. In the liquid state it vanishes.

For the mean-field interlayer energy $`^{\mathrm{MF}}`$ we obtain from (II.1)

$`^{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}E_n^{\mathrm{MF}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nn^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2r\mathrm{d}^2r^{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},nn^{})}`$
$`\times \left[\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{})+2\rho (𝐫^{})\delta \rho _n(𝐫)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)\rho (𝐫)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)\delta \rho _n(𝐫)}`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{9})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)\rho (𝐫)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)\rho _n(𝐫)}.`$
The last term describes fluctuations in the fixed substrate potential $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}`$,

$`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2r^{}\left[\underset{n0}{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},n)\right]\rho (𝐫^{})}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2r^{}𝒰(𝐫𝐫^{})\rho (𝐫^{})}`$ (15)
$``$ $`(𝒰\rho )(𝐫)`$ (16)
with

$$𝒰(𝐫)\underset{n0}{}U(𝐫,n).$$
(17)
$`𝒰(𝐫)`$ is the interaction potential of a pancake separated by $`𝐫`$ from a stack of pancakes minus the interaction of the (missing) pancake in the same layer and is given byClem (1991)

$$𝒰(𝐫)=2ϵ_0sK_0\left(\frac{r}{\lambda }\right)U(𝐫,0)$$
(18)
with $`K_0(x)`$ being a modified Bessel function of the second kind. Ignoring terms of the order of $`s/2\lambda `$, the pancake-pancake repulsion (II.1) simplifies to

$$U(𝐫,0)=2ϵ_0s\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{L}{r}\right).$$
(19)
In our calculations we find it useful to use the form in Fourier space,Fou

$`𝒰(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ϵ_0s\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2+q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`4\pi ϵ_0s{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{q^2(\lambda ^2+q^2)}}.`$ (21)
### II.2 Algorithm

In principle, the substrate model can be implemented as follows:

1. Assume initial pancake densities $`\rho _n(𝐫)`$, for example a hexagonal lattice in each layer $`n`$.
2. Average the pancake density $`\rho _n(𝐫)`$ over all layers to obtain $`\rho (𝐫)`$, (8).
3. Compute the substrate potential $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)`$, (16), by convoluting the substrate interaction kernel $`𝒰(𝐫)`$, (18), with the average pancake density $`\rho (𝐫)`$

$$V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)=(𝒰\rho )(𝐫).$$
(22)
4. For each layer $`n`$ compute the pancake distribution $`\rho _n(𝐫)`$ using Monte Carlo or Langevin dynamics simulations. The total energy for layer $`n`$ contains the direct pancake-pancake interaction within the layer (2)

$$E_n^{\mathrm{in}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j^{}j}{}U(𝐑_j^n𝐑_j^{}^n,0),$$
(23)
and the relevant interaction with pancakes in other layers via the substrate potential (LABEL:eq:E-MF)

$`E_n^{\mathrm{MF}}`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{LABEL:eq:E-MF})}{=}`$ $`\underset{E^{\mathrm{coup}}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)\rho (𝐫)}}}+{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)\rho _n(𝐫)}`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{(\text{6})}{=}`$ $`E^{\mathrm{coup}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐑_j^n),`$
$`E^{\mathrm{coup}}`$ is constant for a given $`\rho (𝐫)`$ and can therefore be ignored within the Monte Carlo/Langevin simulation as it only shifts the energy scale.
5. Go to 2, until $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ (or $`\rho `$) has converged.

Since the substrate potential $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ in step 4 is the same for all layers, we can compute $`\rho _n(𝐫)`$ for many Langevin-dynamics time-steps (or Monte-Carlo sweeps) rather than many layers. Therefore, in order to obtain the averaged pancake density $`\rho (𝐫)`$ in step 2, we average over time-steps (or sweeps) computed in one layer rather than averaging over layers.

Using the substrate potential, we reduce the solution of the 3D problem to performing one 2D simulation in the presence of the iteratively refined substrate potential.

### II.3 Numerical implementation

We exploit the convolution theorem and compute the substrate potential in Fourier-spaceFou

$`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{16})}{=}`$ $`(𝒰\rho )(𝐫)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2q}{(2\pi )^2}𝒰(𝐪)\rho (𝐪)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐫)}`$ (26)
using the analytical Fourier transform $`𝒰(𝐪)`$ as given in (21), and the numerically computed

$$\rho (𝐪)=\mathrm{d}^2r\rho (𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐫).$$
(27)
This has two advantages: firstly, we do not cut off the interaction kernel $`𝒰`$ within the simulation cell as would be the case in the real-space convolution. Secondly, this is numerically more efficient than performing the convolution (15) directly.

We have used three different methods for computing $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)`$ numerically.

#### II.3.1 The full method

The “full method” computes the substrate potential $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ using the full spectrum $`\rho (𝐪)`$ of Fourier-components of the average pancake density $`\rho (𝐫)`$ as shown in (26). In our simulations we use a resolution of $`100^2`$ grid-cells per pancake in order to compute $`\rho (𝐫)`$ as an average over time-steps/sweeps. This results in reciprocal lattice vectors up to magnitudes of $`100Q_0`$, where $`Q_0=4\pi /(\sqrt{3}a_0)`$, because $`|𝐐_{\mathrm{max}}|/Q_02\pi /(\mathrm{\Delta }xQ_0)a0/\mathrm{\Delta }x100`$. The necessary discrete Fourier-transform of $`\rho (𝐫)`$, and the inverse transform of $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐪)=𝒰(𝐪)\rho (𝐪)`$ can be done efficiently using an implementation of the Fast Fourier Transform.Frigo and Johnson (1998)

We pre-compute the substrate potential $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)`$ on a mesh and interpolate subsequently for intermediate pancake positions while performing Langevin dynamics in the fixed substrate. We compute a new substrate every 200,000 time-steps. It is important to average over so many time-steps to reduce density fluctuations (due to poor statistics) in the pancake histogram, which would result in a deformed substrate potential.

Note that $`\rho (𝐫)`$ and $`\rho (𝐪)`$ are discretized out of numerical necessity to compute a histogram but not for conceptual reasons.

#### II.3.2 The Fourier-filtered method

The average density $`\rho (𝐫)`$ should be a periodic function, which can be represented by a discrete set of Fourier components. Therefore, the second method uses only a subset $`𝐐_\mu `$ of the Fourier components $`𝐪`$ to represent $`\rho (𝐪)`$

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{FF}}(𝐪)=(2\pi )^2\underset{\mu }{}\rho _{𝐐_\mu }\delta ^2(𝐪𝐐_\mu )$$
(28)
which we determine from the maxima of the structure factor and

$$\rho _𝐐=\frac{1}{L_xL_y}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐑_j^c𝐐)_c$$
(29)
with $`L_xL_y`$ being the area of the simulation cell. We average over a set of configurations $`c`$ of pancake positions $`𝐑_j^c`$ (either sweeps or time-steps) to compute $`\rho _𝐐`$.

Using $`\rho ^{\mathrm{FF}}(𝐫)=(2\pi )^2\mathrm{d}^2q\rho ^{\mathrm{FF}}(𝐪)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐫)`$ to present $`\rho (𝐫)`$, we Fourier-filter $`\rho (𝐫)`$, and keep only the relevant components for the computation of the periodic substrate. We can write

$`V_{\mathrm{MF}}^{\mathrm{FF}}(𝐫)`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{26})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2q}{(2\pi )^2}𝒰(𝐪)\rho ^{\mathrm{FF}}(𝐪)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐫)}`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{(\text{28})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}𝒰(𝐐_\mu )\rho _{𝐐_\mu }\mathrm{exp}(i𝐐_\mu 𝐫)`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{(\text{21})}{=}`$ $`4\pi ϵ_0s{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{𝐐_\mu }\mathrm{exp}(i𝐐_\mu 𝐫)}{Q_\mu ^2(1+\lambda ^2Q_\mu ^2)}}.`$ (32)
This is equivalent to using the full-method, but setting $`\rho (𝐐)=0`$ if $`𝐐\{𝐐_\mu \}`$.

The advantage of the Fourier-filtered method is that we need to average over less iterations before we can compute a new pancake density, and subsequently a new substrate, because the substrate is per construction periodic. Using the Fourier-filtered method we use 500 time-steps/sweeps for each substrate iteration.

It turns out that it is not necessary to take the average (29) over different configurations but it is sufficient to use just one configuration (*i.e.* one time step or sweep):

$$\rho _𝐐=\frac{1}{L_xL_y}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐑_j𝐐).$$
(33)
Nevertheless, we run a simulation for 500 time-steps/sweeps with the same fixed substrate potential to reduce re-computation of $`\rho _𝐐`$, and to give the pancakes some time to explore the system with a new substrate potential.

#### II.3.3 The small-harmonics (Fourier-filtered) approximation

In addition to Fourier-filtering $`\rho (𝐫)`$ we can speed up the computation further because close to the melting temperature, $`\rho _{𝐐_\mu }`$ decays quickly for higher-order $`𝐐_\mu `$ due to the Debye-Waller factor. We can estimate the reduction of $`\rho _𝐐`$ due to the Debye-Waller factor

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u^2Q^2}{4}}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{a_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2Q^2}{Q_0^2}}\right)`$ (34)
where $`Q_0=4\pi /(\sqrt{3}a_0)`$ and $`u^2`$ is the mean-squared fluctuation displacement. Depending on $`u^2`$ we can ignore all $`\rho (𝐐_\mu )`$ with $`|𝐐_\mu |>Q^{}`$. For all but the smallest fields, we find close to the melting transition $`u^2/a_0^20.020.03`$ (see Section III.5), and it is sufficient to include up to $`3^{\mathrm{rd}}`$-order vectors $`𝐐_\mu `$ in the summation in (32) as shown in Fig. 3.

For the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered method it is more efficient to evaluate (32) for each pancake position occurring in the Langevin/Monte-Carlo simulation rather than pre-computing $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}`$ on a mesh.

We demonstrate the equivalence of the full and the Fourier-filtered method for the determination of the instability line in Sec. III.1, and we compare with the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered method in Sec. III.3.

### II.4 Monte Carlo and Langevin dynamics simulations

We have two independent implementations of the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered method: AEK has written a Monte Carlo simulation that is based on energy evaluations, and HF has implemented a Langevin dynamics simulation based on force calculations. The results of both implementations agree perfectly.

We follow standard vortex-state simulation techniques,Koshelev and Vinokur (1994); Fangohr et al. (2001) including periodic boundary conditions for the in-plane interactions. We use a smooth cut-off for the vortex in-plane interactions. Koshelev and Vinokur (1994); Fangohr et al. (2000) For the Langevin dynamics simulations, we compute the substrate forces numerically from the pre-computed mesh (Sec. II.3.1) for the full method and the Fourier-filtered method. For the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered method we use the analytical derivative of (32). The Monte Carlo simulations were only implemented with the small-harmonics method. If not stated otherwise we use a system with 1020 pancakes.

## III Results

### III.1 Time convergence of the substrate potential

As described in Sec. II.2, we start each run with a hexagonal pancake distribution corresponding to zero temperature. Fig. 4 shows results for the Fourier-filtered method at $`B=B_\lambda `$ and at a temperature $`t=1/590.017`$. The top plot shows a one-dimensional slice of the 2D pancake histogram $`n(x,y_0)`$ taken along $`x`$ at $`y=y_0`$. The histogram relates to the pancake density via $`n(x,y)=\rho (x,y)\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ are the spacings of the grid used to create the histogram. For the $`0^{\mathrm{th}}`$ substrate-iteration we set the histogram to have narrow and high peaks at the pancake equilibrium positions corresponding to delta-peaks in a zero-temperature pancake density $`\rho (𝐫)`$. Based on this initial pancake distribution, we compute the substrate potential, $`V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)`$, for the first substrate-iteration, of which a one-dimensional slice at $`y=y_0`$ is shown in the lower part of Fig. 4. Using this substrate potential, we run the Langevin dynamics simulation for 200,000 steps which results in the histogram for iteration 1 as shown in the upper plot of Fig. 4. Based on these data, we compute the substrate potential for iteration 2. We iterate the substrate re-computation until the substrate potential has reached a steady state (after typically than 10 substrate-iterations). The figure demonstrates that the system converges quickly to a pancake solid at this temperature below melting.

The dotted line in the lower part of Fig. 4 shows a comparison substrate potential for iteration 10 computed using the full method. While the amplitude and width of the wells (and thus the resulting force) are virtually identical to the Fourier-filtered data, the magnitude of the substrate from the full method varies slightly. This is due to (long wavelength) density fluctuations in the histogram data and reduces further if one uses more time-steps for each substrate iteration.

Fig. 5 shows data for $`B=B_\lambda `$ and a higher temperature $`t=1/50=0.02`$ which is above the melting temperature. Here, the pancake distribution broadens and consequently the substrate potential flattens quickly within the first few substrate iterations. Eventually, the system has become a disordered liquid with an approximately constant pancake density and the substrate is virtually flat, as shown for iteration 10. We conclude that for this temperature and magnetic field the pancake lattice is unstable to melting into a pancake liquid.

For Fig. 4 and 5 we have used 200,000 time-steps for each substrate-iteration in order to be able to compare the full and the Fourier-filtered method, but it would be sufficient to use much less time-steps per substrate-iteration for the Fourier-filtered methods. For production purposes, we use the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered method and update the substrate every 500 time-steps (Sec. II.3.2). Although more substrate-iterations than with the full method are required before the system reaches a steady state, the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered approach is more efficient. The full method and both Fourier-filtered methods find that at $`B=B_\lambda `$ the pancake lattice becomes unstable for $`0.017t0.018`$.

Fig. 6 shows how the instability temperature varies as a function of system size. For small numbers of vortices, $`N_\mathrm{p}`$, the temperature oscillates slightly and for larger systems it becomes constant. Most importantly, there is no general trend visible although the data ranges from $`N_\mathrm{p}=90`$ to $`N_\mathrm{p}=1512`$. This insensitivity to the system size demonstrates the local nature of the melting transition at this field.

### III.2 Hysteresis loop

Rather than starting from a hexagonal crystal for every temperature, a better approach to determine the instability temperature is to subsequently increase $`t`$ until the system melts. We also find that by starting from a liquid configuration and lowering $`t`$, the system jumps into the crystal state at a certain freezing temperature. We expect the true melting temperature to lie within the instability and the freezing temperature. Such a hysteretic run is shown in Fig. 7.

In order to estimate the thermodynamic melting temperature at which the free energy of the solid and the liquid phase cross, we proceed as follows. Firstly, we store a vortex configuration taken from 2D melting-transition simulations. We chose a configuration from a time-step/sweep where the system was previously a solid but just starts melting, *i.e.* the defect density starts shooting up and the structure factor peaks start decaying. This vortex configuration is “intermediate” between a solid and a liquid. Secondly, we start the computation from this intermediate configuration (IC) for every temperature. The results for the IC simulations are shown in Fig. 7 (rhombs). We use the temperature at which the IC melts as a best approximation to the melting temperature of the physical 3D pancake-vortex lattice.

### III.3 Temperature dependence of substrate curvature and pancake fluctuation width

We can quantify the strength of the substrate potential with

$$\alpha _\mathrm{s}=\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{p}}\underset{j}{}\frac{^2}{x^2}V_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐑_j𝐑_j^0).$$
(35)
This is the curvature of the potential evaluated at deviations $`𝐑_j𝐑_j^0`$ from the equilibrium lattice positions $`𝐑_j^0`$ and averaged over pancake positions $`𝐑_j`$. The second derivative can be taken analytically from (32).

Fig. 8 shows in the upper plot how $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ varies with temperature. The solid line is an analytical prediction from treating the substrate softening due to thermal fluctuations within the self-consistent harmonic approximation (SCHA).Dodgson et al. (2000a) All other data are simulation results from the Fourier-filtered method. The stars show $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ computed using the small-harmonics Fourier-filtered method with $`𝐐_\mu `$-vectors up to 20th order. For low temperatures the data nearly coincide with the SCHA-solution. Close to melting the SCHA-$`\alpha _s`$ is larger than the numerical result. Therefore the simulations give a softer substrate and the lattice has larger thermal displacements. This difference could be due to the inadequacies of the SCHA which does not include the thermal softening of the 2D lattice. The more complex two-vertex self-consistent harmonic approximation (2VSCHA) does include these effects.Dodgson et al. (2000a) The circles in Fig. 8 show results using $`𝐐_\mu `$-vectors up to 3rd order, as shown in Fig. 3. Close to the transition from solid to liquid around $`t0.0175`$ these data agree perfectly with the higher-order data. At lower temperatures the 3rd order results deviate from the 20th order because $`u^2`$ becomes smaller in the Debye-Waller factor (34). However, as long as we are interested in temperatures close to the transition, the 3rd order approach is sufficient.

The square boxes are computed using the 3rd order approach, but instead of smoothly reducing the pancake interactionFangohr et al. (2000) at a distance of $`7a_0`$, we use an infinite lattice summation technique for the logarithmic interaction.Grønbech-Jensen (1996) This demonstrates that it is sufficient to use a (smooth) cut-off for the in-layer pancake interactions.

We compute the average pancake fluctuation width $`u^2`$ by fitting to a distribution where each pancake is normally smeared around its equilibrium position $`𝐑_j^0`$

$$\rho (𝐫)=\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma ^2}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|𝐫𝐑_𝐣^\mathrm{𝟎}|^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right).$$
(36)
The Fourier transform of $`\rho (𝐫)`$ is

$`\rho (𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2q^2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐑_j^0)`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi )^2n_0\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2q^2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\delta ^2(𝐪𝐐_\mu ).`$
The Fourier components $`\rho (𝐐_\mu )`$ have the Debye-Waller factor as an envelope, and by fitting a Gaussian to it, we can determine $`u^2=2\sigma ^2`$.

The lower part of Fig. 8 shows computed values for $`u^2`$. We express $`u^2`$ in units of $`a_0^2`$ and it increases from 0 at zero temperature towards 0.028 close to the transition, which corresponds to a Lindemann number of $`0.168`$ at $`B=B_\lambda `$. In agreement with an over-estimation of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ by the SCHA, $`u^2`$ is underestimated in comparison with the numerical results close to the melting transition.

### III.4 Phase diagram

As demonstrated in Sec. III.1, we can determine for each parameter pair $`(B,T)`$ whether the pancake system remains a 3D pancake lattice, or whether it is unstable towards the liquid phase which consists of decoupled 2D liquids. (This is sometimes called a pancake gas, even though there are still very strong in-plane correlations in the decoupled layers. In the absence of Josephson coupling, a line-like liquid regime is expected only at extremely small magnetic fields. Blatter et al. (1996))

We probe parameter space in the $`B`$-$`T`$-plane as described in Sec. III.1 and compute an instability line for the phase diagram of the system, which is shown in Fig. 9 (circles on dashed line). We also show an estimate of the instability line that has been computed using the two-vertex self-consistent harmonic approximation (2VSCHA, dash-dotted) for the substrate model.Dodgson et al. (2000a, b) Since in this work we explicitly compute the pancake positions without using approximations (within the substrate model), we expect our result to be more accurate than the 2VSCHA. It can be seen that the 2VSCHA slightly overestimates the temperature for the instability line.

Our numerical estimates for the melting points at certain fields (see Section III.2) are shown as the crosses in Fig. 9. Also shown as the solid line is the melting line calculated semi-analytically in Ref. Dodgson et al., 2000a. In this work the melting temperature was estimated by comparing approximate free energies $`F=UTS`$ for the solid and liquid phases. The solid free energy was calculated from the SCHA, which gives a variational upper bound on the free energy. The liquid free energy was taken from earlier simulations of a single layer,Caillol et al. (1982) *i.e.*  it was assumed that the layers are completely uncoupled in the liquid state. Remarkably, our melting points from simulations lie on top of the semi-analytic line (to within our error bars).

For increasing fields $`B`$, the substrate becomes weaker and weaker and the melting temperature drops. In the limit of $`B\mathrm{}`$ we recover a 2D system with logarithmic interactions for which melting has been estimatedde Leeuw and Perram (1982); Caillol et al. (1982); Choquard and Clerouin (1983) to occur at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}^{2\mathrm{d}}140\pm 10t_\mathrm{m}^{2\mathrm{d}}0.007`$, which is consistent with our results.

At low fields the pancake stacks are widely separated and interact only weakly with each other. In this limit the system melts below the evaporation transition of an isolated stack of pancakesClem (1991); Bulaevskii et al. (1991) at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=4t=0.25`$. In agreement with this, we find that the instability line approaches $`t0.25`$ for $`B0`$ (see Fig. 2).

### III.5 Latent heat and jump in entropy

We compute the latent heat per pancake, $`L_\mathrm{p}`$, by taking the difference of internal energy between the solid and the liquid phase at the melting temperature $`T_\mathrm{m}`$

$`L_\mathrm{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{p}}}\left(U_{\mathrm{liquid}}U_{\mathrm{solid}}\right)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{p}}}\left(E_{\mathrm{liquid}}^{\mathrm{in}}(E_{\mathrm{solid}}^{\mathrm{in}}+E^{\mathrm{coup}})\right).`$ (38)
The internal energy $`U`$ of one layer in the solid phase consists of the in-plane energy $`E^{\mathrm{in}}`$ (23) and the inter-layer coupling energy $`E^{\mathrm{coup}}`$, whereas $`E^{\mathrm{coup}}=0`$ in the liquid phase in our model. In order to compute $`E^{\mathrm{coup}}`$ for the solid phase, we use (LABEL:eq:E-MF-version2) where the second sum vanishes due to the definition of $`\delta \rho _n`$:

$$E^{\mathrm{coup}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}^2rV_{\mathrm{MF}}(𝐫)[\rho (𝐫)\overline{\rho }],$$
(39)
where $`\overline{\rho }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/B`$ is the mean density. For the Fourier-filtered methods

$`E^{\mathrm{coup}}`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{31})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2r\underset{\mu 0}{}𝒰(𝐐_\mu )\rho _{𝐐_\mu }\mathrm{exp}(i𝐐_\mu 𝐫)\rho (𝐫)}`$ (40)
$`\stackrel{(\text{27})}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L_xL_y{\displaystyle \underset{\mu 0}{}}𝒰(𝐐_\mu )|\rho _{𝐐_\mu }|^2.`$
For the full method, we have $`\rho (𝐫)`$ as a histogram available, and we can integrate (39) numerically.

The top plot of Fig. 10 shows how the latent heat varies as a function of field. We have shown the jump in inter-layer coupling energy normalized by the latent heat in the bottom part to demonstrate the contribution of the inter-layer coupling to the latent heat. This plot shows that the substrate contribution to the latent heat dominates at low fields, and becomes less and less important towards high fields.

Fig. 11 shows the entropy jump across the transition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{p}L_\mathrm{p}/T_\mathrm{m}`$, as a function of field. We find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{p}`$ monotonically decreases with increasing field, as the system approaches the 2D regime. An important issue is the crossover to the 2D melting regime at very large $`B`$. Two melting scenarios are possible in two dimensions: a usual 1st order melting and continuous dislocation-mediated melting via the intermediate hexatic phase.Nelson and Halperin (1979); Young (1979) In the first case $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{p}`$ has to approach a finite value at $`B\mathrm{}`$ and in the second case it should vanish. Early simulations for a relatively small number ($`500`$) of logarithmically interacting particles suggested a 1st order phase transition. Caillol et al. (1982); de Leeuw and Perram (1982); Choquard and Clerouin (1983) However, it is known that to resolve a continuous melting transition in two dimensions, very large systems are required (see, e.g., Ref. Udink and van der Elsken, 1987). Therefore, the nature of the melting transition of 2D particles with logarithmic interactions is an open issue. Resolving this issue is beyond the scope of this paper.

At low fields the entropy weakly diverges for $`B0`$. We understand this as follows: the possible configurations scale as $`A/\xi ^2`$, where $`\xi ^2`$ is the size of a pancake, and $`A`$ is the space it can occupy. For the solid state close to the transition the reduced configuration space is $`u^2/\xi ^2`$, because the pancake is confined to an area $`Au^2`$. In the liquid the reduced configuration space grows to $`a_0^2/\xi ^2`$, where $`a_0`$ is the average spacing between pancakes. We get thus an entropy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{ln}(a_0^2/u^2)`$. Since $`u^2`$ approaches at low fields a finite field-independent value of the order of $`\lambda ^2`$, this explains the observed divergence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_\mathrm{p}`$ at $`B0`$.

For a precise comparison with the experimentally extracted latent heat of vortex-lattice meltingZeldov et al. (1995) one should be careful to include the temperature dependence of $`\lambda `$, which was shown in Ref. Dodgson et al., 1998 to give extra terms in the observable entropy jump.

## IV Conclusions

In this work we have applied a numerical simulation to the suggestion of Ref. Dodgson et al., 2000a to treat the 3D layered pancake system with a mean-field approach for the inter-layer interactions, turning the problem into a 2D system in the presence of a self-consistent substrate potential. In Ref. Dodgson et al., 2000a this substrate model was studied with semi-analytic methods. The 2-vertex self-consistent harmonic approximation (2VSCHA) was used to estimate the instability line of the pancake lattice. Also the melting line was estimated by comparing the elastic free energy of the lattice within the substrate model to the free energy of independent 2D liquids, taken from numerical simulations.

Here we have presented results from full numerical simulations of the substrate model. We have directly calculated both the instability and melting lines. Our result for the instability line has a very similar field-dependence to that of the 2VSCHA, which we find to slightly overestimate the instability temperature. The melting line from the semi-analytic approach agrees within error bars to our simulation results for the melting of an intermediate configuration. This implies that the approximations used in Ref. Dodgson et al., 2000a for the free energies of solid and liquid must be extremely good. We have computed the pancake fluctuation width $`u^2`$ and showed how it varies as a function of temperature: the variation is significantly non-linear below the melting transition, as predicted in Ref. Dodgson et al., 2000a. We also calculate the entropy jump across the melting transition, which diverges weakly towards small fields and large melting temperatures.

While we have found a satisfying agreement between our results here and the earlier approximate work of Ref. Dodgson et al., 2000a, the true motivation of this project are the possible extensions that can be studied. There is now the exciting prospect to study this pancake vortex system in the presence of pinning disorder. This has been a controversial topic in recent years Khaykovich et al. (1996); Giamarchi and Le Doussal (1997); Horovitz and Goldin (1998); Koshelev and Vinokur (1998) that our method should bring some clarity to.

Our results cannot be directly compared with experiments in available layered superconductors because even in the most anisotropic BSCCO the Josephson coupling is not negligible. However, the position of the melting line without the Josephson coupling provides a convenient reference allowing one to understand the role of the Josephson coupling in stabilizing the crystalline phase. In particular, it seems that at low fields even a very small Josephson coupling such as in BSCCO gives a large upward shift to the melting temperature. We also note that it is possible to suppress the effective Josephson coupling by applying a strong in-plane field, as was done in Ref. Mirkovic et al., 2001, bringing the melting line closer to the “Josephson-free” location. By extending the model to use several layers, it is possible to include Josephson coupling between them, which would realistically describe an anisotropic layered high-temperature superconductor.

## V Acknowledgements

HF thanks Jacek Generowicz for helpful discussions and EPSRC for financial support. In Argonne this work was supported by the U.S. DOE, Office of Science, under contract # W-31-109-ENG-38. MJWD is supported by an EPSRC Advanced Fellowship AF/99/0725.

## Appendix A Correlation correction to free energy

The correlation correction to the pancake energy, neglected within the mean-field approach, is given by

$$\delta =\frac{1}{2}\underset{nn^{}}{}\mathrm{d}^2r\mathrm{d}^2r^{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},nn^{})\delta \rho _n\left(𝐫\right)\delta \rho _n^{}\left(𝐫^{}\right)$$
(41)
The correction to the free energy due to this term is given up to second order by

$$\delta \delta _0\frac{\delta ^2_0\delta _0^2}{2T}$$

where $`\mathrm{}_0`$ implies the mean-field averaging. Substituting Eq. (41) in the last equation and noting that $`\delta _0=0`$ we derive for the free energy correction per pancake, $`\delta fa^2\delta /(L_xL_yN)`$,

$`\delta f{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4TL_xL_y}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2r\mathrm{d}^2r^{}\mathrm{d}^2r_1\mathrm{d}^2r_1^{}U(𝐫𝐫^{},n)}`$
$`\times U(𝐫_1𝐫_1^{},n)\delta \rho \left(𝐫\right)\delta \rho \left(𝐫_1\right)_0\delta \rho \left(𝐫^{}\right)\delta \rho \left(𝐫_1^{}\right)_0`$
where $`N`$ is the total number of layers, $`L_xL_y`$ is the layer area, and $`\delta \rho \left(𝐫\right)\delta \rho \left(𝐫_1\right)_0\delta \rho _n\left(𝐫\right)\delta \rho _n\left(𝐫_1\right)_0`$ is the density correlation function inside one layer. In the next step we introduce notation for the sum

$$W(𝐫,𝐫_1)\underset{n0}{}U(𝐫,n)U(𝐫_1,n),$$

for which, using the mixed representation for the interlayer magnetic interaction, $`U(k_{},n)=\frac{2\pi s^2\epsilon _0}{\lambda ^2k_{}^2}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(ns\sqrt{\lambda ^2+k_{}^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\lambda ^2+k_{}^2}}`$, we obtain the formula

$$W(𝐫,𝐫_1)=\frac{s^3\epsilon _0^2}{2\pi ^2\lambda }\mathrm{d}^2k\mathrm{d}^2k_1\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐫+i𝐤_1𝐫_1\right)}{k^2k_1^2\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2k^2}\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2k_1^2}\left(\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2k^2}+\sqrt{1+\lambda ^2k_1^2}\right)},$$

allowing us to represent $`W(𝐫,𝐫_1)`$ in a scaling form

$$W(𝐫,𝐫_1)=\frac{s^3\epsilon _0^2}{\lambda }w(𝐫/\lambda ,𝐫_1/\lambda ).$$

By also using a scaling representation for the in-plane density correlation function, $`\delta \rho \left(𝐫\right)\delta \rho \left(𝐫_1\right)_0=\frac{1}{a^4}h(𝐫/a,𝐫_1/a)`$, we derive the scaling representation for the free energy correction

$$\delta f=s\epsilon _0\frac{s\epsilon _0}{4T}\frac{s}{\lambda }𝒢[\frac{a}{\lambda },\frac{2s\epsilon _0}{T}]$$
(42)
where

$$𝒢[\frac{a}{\lambda },\frac{2s\epsilon _0}{T}]\frac{1}{L_xL_ya^6}\mathrm{d}^2r\mathrm{d}^2r^{}\mathrm{d}^2r_1\mathrm{d}^2r_1^{}w(\frac{𝐫𝐫^{}}{\lambda },\frac{𝐫_1𝐫_1^{}}{\lambda })h(𝐫/a,𝐫_1/a)h(𝐫^{}/a,𝐫_1^{}/a)$$
(43)
is a dimensionless function of the order unity. The mean-field free energy per pancake, $`f_{\mathrm{MF}}`$, has the scaling property,

$$f_{\mathrm{MF}}=s\epsilon _0G[\frac{a}{\lambda },\frac{2s\epsilon _0}{T}].$$

Therefore the free energy correction due to interlayer correlations (42) is smaller than the main term by the factor $`s/\lambda `$. In particular, the correlation correction shifts the melting temperature up as

$$\delta T_\mathrm{m}=\frac{\delta f_{\mathrm{liq}}\delta f_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }S}$$
(44)
where $`\delta f_{\mathrm{liq}}`$ ($`\delta f_{\mathrm{cr}})`$ is the correlation correction to the liquid (crystal) free energy at the melting point and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ is the melting entropy jump. In principle, the mean-field simulations allow to compute the correlation correction and the corresponding shift of the melting temperature. However this computation includes the numerical evaluation of a quite cumbersome integral in Eq. (43).


format: text

text:
# On HNN-extensions in the class of groups of large odd exponent

## 1. Introduction

In this paper, we will generalize one of technical ideas of article \[I02\] which seems to be of independent interest and could be used for future references.

Consider the following construction. Let $`Q`$ be a group of exponent $`n`$ (that is, elements of $`Q`$ satisfy the identity $`x^n1`$), $`𝒴=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m\}`$ be an alphabet and $`m1`$. Let $`P_{k,1}`$, $`P_{k,2}`$ be two subgroups of $`Q`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$, such that $`P_{k,1}`$ is isomorphic to $`P_{k,2}`$ and

$$\rho _k:P_{k,1}P_{k,2}$$

be a fixed isomorphism. Then the standard HNN-extension $`𝒢`$ of $`Q`$ with stable letters $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_m`$ and isomorphisms $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _m`$ is defined by the following relative presentation

$$𝒢=Q,y_1,\mathrm{},y_my_kpy_k^1=\rho _k(p),pP_{k,1},k=1,\mathrm{},m.$$
(1)
One might inquire whether there is a group $`𝒦`$ of exponent $`n`$ which contains an isomorphic copy of $`Q`$ and some elements $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_m`$ so that $`y_kpy_k^1=\rho _k(p)`$ for all $`pP_{k,1}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$, that is, there is an analog $`𝒦`$ of HNN-extension of $`Q`$ with stable letters $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_m`$ and isomorphisms $`\rho _k:P_{k,1}P_{k,2}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$, in the class of groups of exponent $`n`$. Clearly, the existence of such a group $`𝒦`$ is equivalent to the natural embedding of $`Q`$ into the quotient $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$.

It is also clear that in general the quotient $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$ need not contain the natural copy of $`Q`$. For example, let $`n`$ be prime, $`m=1`$, let $`P_{1,1}=P_{1,2}`$ be a subgroup of order $`n`$ and $`\rho _1(p)p`$, where $`pP_{1,1}`$, $`p1`$. Then $`y_1^npy_1^n=\rho _1(p)p`$, whence $`p𝒢^n`$. Here is another example. Let $`P_{1,1}=P_{1,2}=Q`$, that is, $`\rho _1\text{Aut}Q`$ and $`\rho _1^n1`$ in $`\text{Aut}Q`$. Then it is clear that $`Q𝒢^n\{1\}`$.

The aim of this paper is to give a sufficient condition for the embedding $`Q𝒢/𝒢^n`$. To do this, for every element $`A𝒢`$ we consider the maximal subgroup $`(A)Q`$ which is normalized by $`A`$ (clearly, such an $`(A)Q`$ is unique). For example, if $`AQ`$ then $`(A)=Q`$. Let $`\tau _A`$ denote the automorphism of $`(A)`$ which is induced by conjugation by $`A`$. Using this notation, it is easy to state and prove (see Sect. 3) the following necessary condition for the embedding $`Q𝒢/𝒢^n`$.

###### Proposition.

Suppose that $`Q`$ is a group of exponent $`n`$, an HNN-extension $`𝒢`$ of $`Q`$ is given by presentation $`(1)`$ and $`Q`$ naturally embeds in the quotient $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$. Then for every $`A𝒢`$ the subgroup $`\tau _A,(A)`$ of $`\text{Hol}(A)`$ has exponent $`n`$.

A sufficient condition for the embedding $`Q𝒢/𝒢^n`$ given in the following Theorem is our main result and is as close to the necessary condition stated above as we can get (in the statement of Theorem, $`[r]`$ denotes the integer part of a real number $`r`$).

###### Theorem.

Suppose that $`Q`$ is a group of odd exponent $`n>2^{48}`$ and an HNN-extension $`𝒢`$ of $`Q`$ is given by presentation $`(1)`$. Furthermore, assume that for every $`A𝒢`$, which is not conjugate to an element of $`Q`$, the subgroup $`\tau _A,(A)`$ of $`\text{Hol}(A)`$ has exponent $`n`$ and, in addition, equalities $`A^kq_0A^k=q_k`$, where $`q_kQ`$ and $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},[2^{16}n]`$, imply that $`q_0(A)`$. Then the group $`Q`$ naturally embeds in the quotient $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$.

To prove this Theorem, we will make use of the machinery of article \[I94\] (but first we will have to adjust it to the new situation which is similar to \[I02\]). Interestingly, most of the machinery of article \[I94\], created to solve the Burnside problem for even exponents $`n1`$, is ”recycled” in this paper which, in particular, explains why we use the estimate $`n2^{48}`$ of \[I94\].

As examples of application of this Theorem, we will state a couple of immediate corollaries (other applications will be given elsewhere). Note that these examples are similar to classical applications of standard HNN-extensions proposed by Higman, B. Neumann and H. Neumann \[HNN49\].

###### Corollary 1.

Suppose that $`G`$ is a group of odd exponent $`n>2^{48}`$. Then $`G`$ embeds into a group of exponent $`n`$ in which every maximal cyclic subgroup has order $`n`$.

###### Corollary 2.

Suppose that $`G`$ is a group of prime exponent $`n>2^{48}`$. Then $`G`$ embeds into a group of exponent $`n`$ with $`n`$ classes of conjugate elements.

Recall that a subgroup $`H`$ of a group $`G`$ is called antinormal if for every $`gG`$ the inequality $`gHg^1H\{1\}`$ implies that $`gH`$. Note that earlier Mikhajlovskii \[M94\] established the embedding $`Q𝒢/𝒢^n`$, where odd $`n1`$, under the following assumptions: $`m=1`$, the subgroups $`P_{1,1}`$, $`P_{1,2}`$ are both antinormal in $`Q`$ and $`qP_{1,1}q^1P_{1,2}=\{1\}`$ for every $`qQ`$. We also remark that this result follows from our Theorem (because, under these assumptions, the subgroup $`(A)`$ is trivial for every $`A𝒢`$ which is not conjugate to an element of $`Q`$).

## 2. Proving Theorem

According to the presentation (1), our basic alphabet is

$$𝒴_Q=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m,Q\}$$

and, from now on (unless stated otherwise), all words will be those in the alphabet $`𝒴_Q^{\pm 1}=\{y_1,y_1^1,\mathrm{},y_m,y_m^1,Q\},`$ called $`𝒴_Q`$-words. Let

$$U_1=S_{0,1}y_{k_{1,1}}^{\epsilon _{1,1}}S_{1,1}\mathrm{}y_{k_{\mathrm{}_1,1}}^{\epsilon _{\mathrm{}_1,1}}S_{\mathrm{}_1,1},U_2=S_{0,2}y_{k_{1,2}}^{\epsilon _{1,2}}S_{1,2}\mathrm{}y_{k_{\mathrm{}_2,2}}^{\epsilon _{\mathrm{}_2,2}}S_{\mathrm{}_2,2},$$

be $`𝒴_Q`$-words, where

$$\epsilon _{1,1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{\mathrm{}_1,1},\epsilon _{1,2},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{\mathrm{}_2,2}\{\pm 1\},$$

$$k_{1,1},\mathrm{},k_{\mathrm{}_1,1},k_{1,2},\mathrm{},k_{\mathrm{}_2,2}\{1,\mathrm{},m\},$$

$`S_{0,1},\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}_1,1}`$ are $`Q`$-syllables of the word $`U_1`$ (that is, maximal subwords of $`U_1`$ all of whose letters are in $`Q`$; if $`S_{0,1}`$ is, in fact, missing in $`U_1`$, then we assume that $`S_{0,1}=1Q`$ and set $`S_{\mathrm{}_1,1}=1`$ if $`S_{\mathrm{}_1,1}`$ is not present in $`U_1`$) and $`S_{0,2},\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}_2,2}`$ are $`Q`$-syllables of the word $`U_2`$.

We will write $`U_1=U_2`$ if $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2`$, $`\epsilon _{j,1}=\epsilon _{j,2}`$, $`k_{j,1}=k_{j,2}`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_1`$, and $`S_{j,1}=S_{j,2}`$ in the group $`Q`$ for all $`j=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_1`$.

The length $`|U_1|`$ of a word $`U_1`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$, that is, the number of occurrences of letters $`y^{\pm 1}`$ in $`U_1`$, where $`y𝒴=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m\}`$.

If the (images of) words $`U_1,U_2`$ are equal in the group $`𝒢(0)=𝒢`$ given by the presentation (1) then we will write $`U_1\stackrel{0}{=}U_2`$.

By induction on $`i0`$ we will construct groups $`𝒢(i)`$. Assume that the group $`𝒢(i),i0`$, is already constructed as a quotient of the group of $`𝒢(0)`$ by means of defining relations. Define $`𝒳_{i+1}`$ to be a maximal set of all $`𝒴_Q`$-words of length $`i+1`$ (if any) with respect to the following three properties.

1. Every word $`A𝒳_{i+1}`$ begins with $`y`$ or $`y^1`$, where $`y𝒴=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m\}`$.
2. The image of every word $`A𝒳_{i+1}`$ has infinite order in the group $`𝒢(i)`$.
3. If $`A,B`$ are distinct elements of $`𝒳_{i+1}`$ then the image of $`A^n`$ is not conjugate in $`𝒢(i)`$ to the image of $`B^n`$ or $`B^n`$.

Note that it follows from the analog of Lemma 18.2 in rank $`i0`$ that the set $`𝒳_{i+1}`$ is nonempty.

Similar to \[O82\], \[O89\], \[I94\], we will call a word $`A𝒳_{i+1}`$ a period of rank $`i+1`$.

Now we define the group $`𝒢(i+1)`$ by imposing all relations $`A^n=1`$, $`A𝒳_{i+1}`$, called relations of rank $`i+1`$, on the group $`𝒢(i)`$:

$$𝒢(i+1)=𝒢(i)A^n=1,A𝒳_{i+1}.$$

It is clear that

$$𝒢(i+1)=𝒢A^n=1,A_{j=1}^{i+1}𝒳_j.$$

We also define the limit group $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$ by imposing on the free product

$$Qy_1_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}y_m_{\mathrm{}}$$

of all relations of all ranks $`i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒢(\mathrm{})=Q,y_1,\mathrm{},y_my_kpy_k^1=\rho _k(p),pP_{1,k},k=1,\mathrm{},m,\hfill \\ \hfill A^n=1,A_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒳_j.\end{array}$$
(2)
The main technical result relating to the group $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$ is the following. (Observe that Lemma A obviously implies Theorem.)

###### Lemma A.

Suppose that the hypothesis of Theorem holds. Then the group $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$ given by presentation $`(2)`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$ and the group $`Q`$ naturally embeds in $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$.

We will make use of the machinery of article \[I94\] to prove Lemma A (more applications of this machinery can be found in \[IO96\], \[IO97\], \[I00\], \[I02\]). In order to do this we will have to make necessary changes in definitions, statements of lemmas of \[I94\] and their proofs.

First of all, diagrams over the group $`𝒢(0)=𝒢`$ given by presentation (1) (or, briefly, over $`𝒢`$), called diagrams of rank 0, are defined to be maps that have two types of 2-cells.

A 2-cell $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of the first type, called a 0-square, has four edges in its counterclockwise oriented boundary (called contour) $`\mathrm{\Pi }=e_1e_2e_3e_4`$ and

$$\phi (e_1)=\phi (e_3)^1=y_k,\phi (e_2)=g,\phi (e_4)=\rho _k(g)^1,$$

where, as in \[I94\], $`\phi `$ is the labelling function, $`gP_{k,1}`$ (perhaps, $`g=1`$) and $`y_k\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m\}`$. Observe that we use Greek letters with no indices exactly as in \[I94\] (in particular, see table (2.4) in \[I94\]).

A 2-cell $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ of the second type, called a 0-circle, has $`\mathrm{}2`$ edges in its contour $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=e_1\mathrm{}e_{\mathrm{}}`$ so that $`\phi (e_1),\mathrm{},\phi (e_{\mathrm{}})Q`$ and the word

$$\phi (\mathrm{\Pi }^{})=\phi (e_1)\mathrm{}\phi (e_{\mathrm{}})$$

equals 1 in $`Q`$.

Note that this definition of 2-cells in a diagram of rank 0 is analogous to the corresponding definitions of \[I02\].

Furthermore, we take into account that there are multiple periods of rank $`i`$ and the symbol $`A_i`$ will denote one of many periods of rank $`i`$ (note that the length $`|A_i|`$ of $`A_i`$ is now $`i`$).

In the definition of an $`A`$-periodic word, it is now assumed that $`A`$ starts with $`y`$ or $`y^1`$, where $`y𝒴`$, and $`A`$ is not conjugate in $`𝒢`$ to a power $`B^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`|B|<|A|`$.

In addition to cells of positive rank, we also have (as in \[O89\], \[IO96\], \[I02\]) cells of rank 0 (which are now either 0-squares or 0-circles). The equality $`r(\mathrm{\Delta })=0`$ now means that all cells in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ have rank 0.

If $`p=e_1\mathrm{}e_{\mathrm{}},`$ where $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_{\mathrm{}}`$ are edges, is a path in a diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of rank $`i`$ (that is, a diagram over the group $`𝒢(i)`$) then the $`y`$-length $`|p|`$ of $`p`$ is $`|\phi (p)|`$, that is, $`|p|`$ is the number of all edges of $`p`$ labelled by $`y^{\pm 1}`$, where $`y𝒴`$. The (strict) length of $`p`$, that is, the total number of edges of $`p`$, is $`\mathrm{}`$ and denoted by $`p`$.

In the definition (A1)–(A2) of $`j`$-compatibility (p.13 \[I94\]) we eliminate the part (A2) because $`n`$ is odd and, similar to \[I94\] in the case when $`n`$ is odd, it will be proven in a new version of Sect. 19 \[I94\] that there are no $`(A_j)`$-involutions and there is no $`j`$-compatibility of type (A2).

We can also drop the definition of self-compatible cells (p.13 \[I94\]) because they do not exist when $`n`$ is odd (which is again analogous to \[I94\] in the case when $`n`$ is odd). Thus all lemmas in \[I94\] whose conclusions deal with self-compatible cells, compatibility of type (A2) actually claim that their assumptions are false (e.g., see lemmas of Sect. 12 \[I94\]). On the other hand, the existence of self-compatible cells in assumptions of lemmas of \[I94\] is now understood as the existence of noncontractible $`y`$-annuli which we are about to define.

A $`y`$-annulus, where $`y𝒴`$, is defined to be an annular subdiagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in a diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of rank $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of 0-squares $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_k`$ so that if

$$S_{\mathrm{}}=f_{1,\mathrm{}}e_{1,\mathrm{}}f_{2,\mathrm{}}e_{2,\mathrm{}},$$

where $`e_{1,\mathrm{}},e_{2,\mathrm{}}`$ are $`y`$-edges (that is, labelled by $`y`$ or $`y^1`$, where $`y𝒴`$) of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`1\mathrm{}k`$, then $`e_{2,\mathrm{}}=e_{1,\mathrm{}+1}^1`$, where the second subscript is $`\text{mod}k`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},k`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is contractible into a point in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then we will call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a contractible $`y`$-annulus. Otherwise, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a noncontractible $`y`$-annulus. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is contractible in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and bounds a simply connected subdiagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\phi (\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)=1`$ in $`Q`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is termed a reducible $`y`$-annulus.

In the definition of a reduced (simply connected or not) diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of rank $`i`$ (p.13 \[I94\]), we additionally require that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contain no reducible $`y`$-annuli.

As in \[I94\], we can always remove reducible pairs and reducible $`y`$-annuli in a diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of rank $`i`$ to obtain from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a reduced diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ of rank $`i`$. Note that in general it is not possible to get rid of noncontractible $`y`$-annuli (in non-simply connected diagrams of rank $`i`$).

In the definition of a 0-bond E between $`p`$ and $`q`$ (p.15 \[I94\]) we now require that E consist of several 0-squares $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_k`$ so that if

$$S_{\mathrm{}}=f_{1,\mathrm{}}e_{1,\mathrm{}}f_{2,\mathrm{}}e_{2,\mathrm{}},$$

where $`e_{1,\mathrm{}},e_{2,\mathrm{}}`$ are $`y`$-edges of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`1\mathrm{}k`$, then $`e_{1,1}^1p`$, $`e_{2,\mathrm{}}=e_{1,\mathrm{}+1}^1`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},k1`$, and $`e_{2,k}^1q`$.

The standard contour of the 0-bond E between $`p`$ and $`q`$ is

$$\text{E}=e_{1,1}^1(f_{1,1}^1\mathrm{}f_{1,k}^1)e_{2,k}^1(f_{2,k}^1\mathrm{}f_{2,1}^1)$$

and the edges $`e_{1,1}^1,e_{2,k}^1`$ are denoted by $`\text{E}p`$, $`\text{E}q`$, respectively.

In the definition of a simple in rank $`i`$ word $`A`$ (p.19 \[I94\]), we additionally require that $`|A|>0`$ and $`A`$ start with $`y^{\pm 1}`$, where $`y𝒴`$. Observe that it follows from Lemma 18.2 (in rank $`i1`$) and definitions that a period of rank $`i`$ is simple in rank $`i1`$ (and hence in any rank $`ji1`$).

In the definition of a tame diagram of rank $`i`$ (p.19 \[I94\]), we make two changes. First, in property (D2), we require that if 0-squares $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_k`$ form a subdiagram E as in the definition of a 0-bond and $`p=q=\mathrm{\Pi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a cell of rank $`j>0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then E is a 0-bond between $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Second, we add the following property.

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contains no contractible $`y`$-annuli.

In the definition of a complete system (p.23 \[I94\]) we require in (E3) that $`e`$ be a $`y`$-edge.

In Lemma 4.2, the strict length $`s_1,s_2`$ of $`s_1,s_2`$ is meant.

In the definition of the weight function $`\nu `$ (p.28 \[I94\]), we require in (F1) that $`e`$ be a $`y`$-edge. In (F2), we allow that $`e`$ is not a $`y`$-edge.

In the beginning of the proof of Lemma 6.5, we note that the lemma is obvious if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contains no cells of positive rank. In general, repeating arguments of \[I94\], we always understand ”cells” as cells of positive rank and keep in mind the existence of cells of rank 0.

In the definition of the height $`h(W)`$ of a word $`W`$ (p.89 \[I94\]), we additionally set $`h(W)=\frac{1}{2}`$ if $`W\stackrel{𝑖}{}1`$ and $`W`$ is conjugate in rank $`i`$ to a word $`U`$ with $`|U|=0`$ (that is, $`UQ`$ and $`U\stackrel{𝑖}{}1`$).

In Lemma 10.2, we allow the extra case when $`h(W)=\frac{1}{2}`$.

Here is a new version of Lemma 10.4.

###### Lemma 10.4.

$`(a)`$ If a word $`W`$ has finite order $`d>1`$ in the group $`𝒢(i)`$ then $`n`$ is divisible by $`d`$.

$`(b)`$ Every word $`W`$ with $`|W|i`$ has finite order in rank $`i`$.

Proof. (a) By Lemma 10.2, either $`h(W)=\frac{1}{2}`$ (and then our claim is immediate from $`Q`$ being of exponent $`n`$) or, otherwise, $`W`$ is conjugate in rank $`i`$ to a word of the form $`A^kF`$, where $`A`$ is a period of rank $`ji`$, $`0<k<n`$ and $`F(A)`$. In the latter case, it follows from Lemma 18.5(c) in rank $`j1<i`$ that $`(A^kF)^n\stackrel{j1}{=}A^{kn}.`$ Therefore, $`(A^kF)^n\stackrel{j1}{=}A^{kn}\stackrel{𝑗}{=}1,`$ whence $`W^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1`$ as required.

(b) By induction, it suffices to show that every word $`W`$ with $`|W|=i`$ has finite order in rank $`i`$ (for $`i=0`$ this is obvious). It follows from the definition of periods of rank $`i1`$ that if $`W`$ has infinite order in rank $`i1`$ then $`W^n`$ is conjugate in rank $`i1`$ to $`A^{\pm n}`$, where $`A`$ is a period of rank $`i`$. Therefore, $`W^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1`$ as desired.

Lemma 10.4 is proved. ∎

In Lemma 10.8, we drop part (b) of its conclusion (and keep in mind that the term ”reducible cell” now means ”$`y`$-annulus”). Note that the height of $`\phi (q_1t_1)`$ in Lemma 10.8 is at least $`1`$ hence noncontractible $`y`$-annuli in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^r`$ are impossible (for otherwise, the height $`h(\phi (q_1t_1))`$ of $`\phi (q_1t_1)`$ would be at most $`\frac{1}{2}`$).

Lemma 10.9 is no longer needed for no path $`q`$ is (weakly) $`j`$-compatible with itself.

In the definition of a $`U`$-diagram of rank $`i`$ (p.134 \[I94\]), we allow in property (U3) that the height $`h(\phi (e))`$ of $`\phi (e)`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

Lemma 12.3 now claims that there are no $`U`$-diagrams of rank $`i`$. Recall that this agrees with our convention that if the conclusion states the existence of self-compatible cells or $`j`$-compatibility of type (A2) then the assumption is false.

The analogs of Lemmas 13.1–16.6 are not needed.

In the hypothesis of Lemma 17.1, we now suppose that one can obtain from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ an annular reduced diagram of rank $`i`$ which contains no noncontractible $`y`$-annuli by means of removal of reducible pairs and reducible $`y`$-annuli.

According to our convention, in the statement of Lemma 17.2, we replace the phrase ”one has to remove a reducible cell to reduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$” by ”one encounters a noncontractible $`y`$-annulus when reducing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$”. In the conclusion of Lemma 17.2 and in its proof, we disregard reducible cells, $`(A_j)`$-involutions and consider, instead, noncontractible $`y`$-annuli and their 0-squares.

The new version of Lemma 17.3 is stated as follows.

###### Lemma 17.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a disk reduced diagram of rank $`i`$ whose contour is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=bpcq`$, where $`\phi (p)`$ and $`\phi (q)^1`$ are $`A`$-periodic words and $`A`$ is a simple in rank $`i`$ word with $`|A|=i+1`$ (in particular, $`A`$ is a period of rank $`i+1`$). Suppose also that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself is a contiguity subdiagram between $`p`$ and $`q`$ with $`\mathrm{min}(|p|,|q|)>L|A|`$. Then, in the notation of Lemmas 9.1–9.4, there exists a rigid subdiagram of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_1,m_2)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`(=\mathrm{\Delta }(1,k))`$ such that

$$r(\mathrm{\Delta }(m_1,m_2))=0$$

and the following analogs of inequalities (17.25)–(17.26) (p.222 \[I94\]) hold.

$`|q(m_2,m_1)|`$ $`>|q(k,1)|4.4|A|>(L4.4)|A|,`$
$`|p(m_1,m_2)|`$ $`>|p(1,k)|4.4|A|>(L4.4)|A|,`$
$`|x_{m_1}|`$ $`=|y_{m_2}|=0.`$
Proof. To prove this new version of Lemma 17.3, we repeat the argument of the beginning of the proof of Lemma 17.3 \[I94\]. As there, making use of Lemma 17.2, we prove Lemma 17.3.1. After that, arguing as in the proof of Lemma 17.3.2, it is easy to show, using Lemma 12.3, that

$$r(\mathrm{\Delta }(m_1,m_2))=0,$$

as required. ∎

When proving the analog of Lemma 18.2, we pick a word $`B=B(a_1,a_2)`$ in the alphabet $`\{a_1,a_2\}`$ of length $`i+1`$ so that $`B`$ has the same properties as those in \[I94\] and, in addition, first and last letters of $`B`$ are distinct (the existence of such a word easily follows from Lemma 1.7 \[I94\]). Next, consider a word $`B(a_1,a_2,q)`$ in the alphabet $`\{a_1,a_2,q\}`$ which is obtained from $`B(a_1,a_2)`$ by plugging in an element $`qQ,q1`$, between each pair of consecutive letters of the word $`B(a_1,a_2)`$. Then we replace each occurrence of the letter $`a_1`$ in $`B(a_1,a_2,q)`$ by $`y`$, $`y𝒴`$, and each occurrence of the letter $`a_2`$ in $`B(a_1,a_2,q)`$ by $`y^1`$. Clearly, we have a word $`B(y,y^1,q)`$ with $`|B(y,y^1,q)|=i+1`$. Now, in view of Lemmas 10.2, 10.4, we can repeat the arguments of the proof of Lemma 18.2 without any changes.

Let $`A`$ be a period of rank $`i+1`$. As in Sect. 1, by

$$(A)$$

denote a maximal subgroup of $`Q𝒢(0)`$ with respect to the property that $`A`$ in rank $`0`$ normalizes this subgroup $`(A)`$. Observe that $`Q`$ naturally embeds in $`𝒢(i)`$ by Lemma 6.2 and so we can also consider $`(A)`$ as a subgroup of $`𝒢(i)`$.

Here is a new version of Lemma 18.3.

###### Lemma 18.3.

Suppose that $`A`$ is a period of rank $`i+1`$. Furthermore, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a disk reduced diagram of rank $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=bpcq`$, where $`\phi (p),\phi (q)^1`$ are $`A`$-periodic words with $`\mathrm{min}(|p|,|q|)>\frac{1}{2}\beta n|A|`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself be a contiguity subdiagram between sections $`p`$ and $`q`$. Then there exists a $`0`$-bond E in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the standard contour $`\text{E}=b_\text{E}p_\text{E}c_\text{E}q_\text{E}`$, where $`p_\text{E}=\text{E}p`$, $`q_\text{E}=\text{E}q`$, $`(p_\text{E})_{}`$, $`(q_\text{E})_+`$ are phase vertices of $`p,q`$, respectively, such that

$$\phi (b_\text{E})(A),A^n\phi (b_\text{E})A^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}\phi (b_\text{E})$$

and for every integer $`k`$ one has

$$(A^k\phi (b_\text{E}))^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}A^{kn}.$$

Proof. Lemma 17.3 enables us to assume that

$$r(\mathrm{\Delta })=0,\mathrm{min}(|p|,|q|)>(\frac{1}{2}\beta n5)|A|,|b|=|c|=0.$$

In particular, there are $`|p|`$ 0-bonds between $`p`$ and $`q`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let E be a 0-bond between sections $`p`$ and $`q`$ and

$$\text{E}=b_\text{E}p_\text{E}c_\text{E}q_\text{E}$$

be the standard contour of E, where $`p_\text{E}=\text{E}p`$, $`q_\text{E}=\text{E}q`$. It is clear that $`\text{div}((p_\text{E})_{},(q_\text{E})_+)`$ does not depend on E. Suppose that

$$\text{div}((p_\text{E})_{},(q_\text{E})_+)0.$$
(3)
$`A`$-Periodically extending $`p`$ or $`q^1`$ on the left as in the beginning of the proof of Lemma 17.3 (see Fig. 17.4(a)–(b) in \[I94\]), we will get a diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=b^{}p^{}c^{}q^{}`$ such that both $`\phi (p^{})`$ and $`\phi (q^{})^1`$ begin with a cyclic permutation $`\overline{A}`$ of $`A`$ such that $`\overline{A}`$ starts with $`y^{\pm 1}`$, where $`y𝒴`$.

As in the proof of Lemma 17.1, we can easily get, making use of (3), that the annular diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ (obtained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ as in Lemma 17.1) contains no $`y`$-annuli, in particular, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ is already reduced. Therefore, Lemma 17.1 applies to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and yields that $`\phi (b^{})\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1`$. It follows from (3) that $`|b^{}|>0`$ and so $`\overline{A}`$ is not cyclically reduced in rank $`i`$. This contradiction proves that (3) is false and $`\text{div}((p_\text{E})_{},(q_\text{E})_+)=0.`$

Without loss of generality, we may assume that words $`\phi (p)`$, $`\phi (q)^1`$ start with $`A`$ and the word $`A`$ starts with $`y^1`$, where $`y𝒴`$.

Using the notation of Lemma 9.1, let $`\text{E}_1,\mathrm{},E_{|p|}`$ be all (consecutive along $`p`$) 0-bonds between $`p`$ and $`q`$ with standard contours

$$\text{E}_{\mathrm{}}=b_{\mathrm{}}p_{\mathrm{}}c_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}},$$

where $`p_{\mathrm{}}=\text{E}_{\mathrm{}}p`$, $`q_{\mathrm{}}=\text{E}_{\mathrm{}}q`$ and $`1\mathrm{}|p|`$.

Next, consider words

$$V_0=\phi (b_1),V_1=\phi (b_{|A|+1}),\mathrm{},V_t=\phi (b_{t|A|+1}),\mathrm{},V_{[2^{16}n]+1}=\phi (b_{([2^{16}n]+1)|A|+1}).$$

Recall that $`|p|>(\frac{1}{2}\beta n5)|A|>([2^{16}n]+2)|A|`$.

It is clear that

$$A^1V_tA=V_{t+1}$$

and $`V_t,V_{t+1}`$ are words in $`Q`$, where $`t=0,\mathrm{},[2^{16}n]`$.

By definitions, $`A`$ is simple in rank $`i`$ and so $`A`$ is not conjugate in rank $`i`$ to an element of $`Q`$. Therefore, it follows from Theorem’s hypothesis that the word $`V_0=\phi (b_1)`$ belongs to the subgroup $`(A)Q`$. Since the group $`\tau _A,(A)`$ has exponent $`n`$, it follows that

$$A^n\varphi (b_1)A^n\stackrel{0}{=}\tau _A^n(\phi (b_1))\stackrel{0}{=}\phi (b_1)$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}(A^k\varphi (b_1))^n\stackrel{0}{=}(A^kV_0)^n\stackrel{0}{=}A^kV_0A^kA^{2k}V_0A^{2k}\mathrm{}A^{kn}V_0A^{kn}A^{kn}\stackrel{0}{=}\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{0}{=}\tau _A^kV_0\tau _A^k\tau _A^{2k}V_0\tau _A^{2k}\mathrm{}\tau _A^{nk}V_0\tau _A^{nk}A^{kn}\stackrel{0}{=}(\tau _A^kV_0)^n\tau _A^{nk}A^{kn}\stackrel{0}{=}A^{kn},\end{array}$$

as required. Lemma 18.3 is proven. ∎

Lemma 18.4 is not needed.

###### Lemma 18.5.

Let $`A`$ be a period of rank $`i+1`$ and $`(A)`$ be the maximal subgroup of $`Q𝒢(0)`$ with respect to the property that $`A`$ normalizes $`(A)`$ in rank $`0`$. Then the following are true.

$`(a)`$ The subgroup $`(A)`$ is defined uniquely.

$`(b)`$ Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a disk reduced diagram of rank $`i`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=bpcq`$, where $`\phi (p)`$, $`\phi (q)^1`$ are $`A`$-periodic words with $`\mathrm{min}(|p|,|q|)>\frac{1}{2}\beta n|A|`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself is a contiguity subdiagram between $`p`$ and $`q`$. Then there is a $`0`$-bond E between $`p`$ and $`q`$ with the standard contour $`\text{E}=b_\text{E}p_\text{E}c_\text{E}q_\text{E}`$, where $`p_\text{E}=\text{E}p`$, $`q_\text{E}=\text{E}q`$, such that $`(p_\text{E})_{}`$, $`(q_\text{E})_+`$ are phase vertices of $`p,q`$, respectively, and $`\phi (b_\text{E})(A)`$.

$`(c)`$ $`A^n`$ centralizes the subgroup $`(A)`$ and if $`F(A)`$, $`k`$ is an integer then

$$(A^kF)^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}A^{kn}.$$

$`(d)`$ The subgroup $`(A),A`$ of $`𝒢(i)`$ has the property that a word $`X`$ belongs to $`(A),A`$ if and only if there is an integer $`m0`$ such that $`XA^mX^1\stackrel{𝑖}{=}A^m`$.

Proof. (a) This is obvious from definitions.

(b) This follows from Lemma 18.3.

(c) These claims can be proved as similar claims of Lemma 18.3.

(d) By part (c), it suffices to show that an equality

$$XA^mX^1\stackrel{𝑖}{=}A^m,$$

where $`m0`$, implies that $`XA,(A)`$. Arguing exactly as in the proof of part (c) of Lemma 18.5 \[I02\], we can show that

$$XA\phi (b_\text{E})A𝒢(i),$$

where $`\phi (b_\text{E})(A)`$ by Lemma 18.3. Thus $`X(A)`$ and Lemma 18.5 is proven. ∎

Let us state a new version of Lemma 19.1.

###### Lemma 19.1.

There is no disk diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of rank $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=bpcq`$, where $`p`$, $`q`$ are $`A`$-periodic sections with $`|p|,|q|>\frac{1}{3}\beta n|A|`$, $`A`$ is a period of rank $`i+1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself is a contiguity subdiagram between $`p`$ and $`q`$.

Proof. Arguing on the contrary, we assume the existence of such a diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and, replacing the coefficient $`N`$ ($`N=484`$ as defined in (17.1) on p.212 \[I94\]) by $`\frac{1}{3}\beta n`$, repeat the proof of Lemma 19.1 \[I94\] up to getting equality (19.23) (p.290 \[I94\]) which now reads

$$\phi (d)A^n\phi (d)^1\stackrel{𝑖}{=}A^n.$$
(4)
###### Lemma 19.1.3.

The equality $`(4)`$ is impossible.

Proof. Arguing on the contrary, we note that it follows from (4) that

$$\phi (d)^2A^n\phi (d)^2\stackrel{𝑖}{=}A^n.$$
(5)
Recall that $`|A|=i+1`$ and, by Lemma 19.1.1, $`\phi (d)`$ is conjugate in rank $`i`$ to a word $`W`$ with

$$|W|<(0.5+\xi )|A|<|A|.$$

Hence, by Lemma 10.4(b), $`\phi (d)`$ has finite order in rank $`i`$ and, by Lemma 10.4(a),

$$\phi (d)^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1.$$

This means that $`\phi (d)\phi (d)^2`$ in rank $`i`$ and so equalities (4) and (5) imply that

$$A^{2n}\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1.$$

A contradiction to the definition of a period of rank $`i+1`$ completes proofs of Lemmas 19.1.3 and 19.1. ∎

Analogues of Lemmas 19.2–19.6 are no longer needed.

The statements and proofs of Lemmas 20.1–20.2 are retained.

Having made all necessary changes, we can now turn to the group $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$ given by presentation (2).

It follows from Lemma 10.4(b) that every word $`W`$ has finite order in rank $`i|W|`$. Then, by Lemma 10.4(a), $`W^n\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1`$ provided that $`i|W|`$. Thus, the group $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$ has exponent $`n`$. Now it is clear that the group $`G(\mathrm{})`$ is naturally isomorphic the quotient $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$.

Suppose that $`W`$ is a word with $`|W|=0`$, that is, $`WQ`$. Let $`W=1`$ in the group $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$. Then there is an $`i`$ such that $`W\stackrel{𝑖}{=}1`$. Consider a reduced diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of rank $`i`$ for this equality. Since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=0`$, it follows from Lemma 6.2 that $`r(\mathrm{\Delta })=0`$, that is, $`\phi (\mathrm{\Delta })=1`$ in $`Q`$. Thus $`Q`$ naturally embeds in $`𝒢(\mathrm{})`$.

The proofs of Lemma A and Theorem are complete. ∎

## 3. Proofs of Proposition and Corollaries

First we prove Proposition. Arguing on the contrary, assume that for some $`A𝒢`$ the subgroup $`\tau _A,A`$ of $`\text{Hol}(A)`$ has no exponent $`n`$. Then either $`\tau _A^n1`$ in $`\text{Aut}(A)`$ or $`\tau _A^n=1`$ and there is a $`qQ`$ so that $`(\tau _A^kq)^n1`$ in $`\text{Hol}(A)`$ for some $`k`$.

In the first case, there are $`q_1,q_2`$ in $`Q`$ such that $`q_1q_2`$ and $`A^nq_1A^n=q_2`$. Hence, in view of $`A^n𝒢^n`$, we have that $`q_1^1q_2𝒢^n`$, contrary to $`𝒢^nQ=\{1\}`$.

Now suppose that $`\tau _A^n=1`$ and $`(\tau _A^kq)^n1`$ in $`\text{Hol}(A)`$ for some $`qQ`$ and $`k`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}(A^kq)^n=A^kqA^kA^{2k}qA^{2k}\mathrm{}A^{kn}qA^{kn}A^{kn}=\hfill \\ \hfill =\tau _A^kq\tau _A^k\tau _A^{2k}q\tau _A^{2k}\mathrm{}\tau _A^{nk}q\tau _A^{nk}A^{kn}=(\tau _A^kq)^n\tau _A^{nk}A^{kn}.\end{array}$$

Then it follows from $`\tau _A^{nk}=1`$ and $`(\tau _A^kq)^n1`$ that $`(A^kq)^n=q^{}A^{nk},`$ where $`q^{}Q`$, $`q^{}1`$. Hence, $`q^{}𝒢^n`$, contrary to $`𝒢^nQ=\{1\}`$. Proposition is proved. ∎

Let us prove Corollary 1. Let $`G`$ be a group of odd exponent $`n>2^{48}`$. By the standard induction argument (see similar applications of HNN-extensions in \[HNN49\] or \[LS77\]), it suffices to show that if $`gG`$ then $`G`$ embeds in a group $`H`$ such that $`H`$ has exponent $`n`$ and $`H`$ contains an element $`z`$ of order $`n`$ with $`gz`$. To do this, consider a cyclic group $`x_n`$ of order $`n`$ generated by $`x`$ and let

$$Q=G_nx_n=Gx_n/(Gx_n)^n$$

be the free Burnside $`n`$-product of $`G`$ and $`x_n`$ (which is the quotient of the free product $`Gx_n`$ by $`(Gx_n)^n`$). Recall that, by Lemma 34.10 \[O89\], if $`n`$ is odd and $`n1`$ (say, $`n>10^{10}`$) then the factors of a free Burnside $`n`$-product are antinormal in the product.

Let $`x^k`$ have the same order as that of $`g`$ and consider the following HNN-extension of $`Q`$

$$𝒢=Q,yygy^1=x^k.$$

Assume that $`A𝒢`$, $`A`$ is not conjugate in $`𝒢`$ to an element of $`Q`$, and $`A^1q_0A=q_1`$, $`A^1q_1A=q_2`$ in $`𝒢`$, where $`q_0,q_1,q_2Q`$. Then it is not difficult to see that for every $`\mathrm{}>0`$ it is true that $`A^{\mathrm{}}q_0A^{\mathrm{}}Q`$ and, more specifically, $`A^{\mathrm{}}q_0A^{\mathrm{}}=q_A^{\mathrm{}}q_0q_A^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`q_AQ`$ is the result of deletion in $`A`$ of all occurrences of $`y^{\pm 1}`$ and $`x`$-syllables (we assume here that $`A`$ is a reduced in $`𝒢`$ word, that is, $`|A|`$ is minimal). Therefore, $`q_0(A)`$, $`\tau _A^n=1`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}(\tau _A^{\mathrm{}}q_0)^n=\tau _A^{\mathrm{}}q_0\tau _A^{\mathrm{}}\tau _A^2\mathrm{}q_0\tau _A^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\tau _A^n\mathrm{}q_0\tau _A^n\mathrm{}\tau _A^n\mathrm{}=\hfill \\ \hfill =q_A^{\mathrm{}}q_0q_A^{\mathrm{}}q_A^2\mathrm{}q_0q_A^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}q_A^n\mathrm{}q_0q_A^n\mathrm{}\tau _A^n\mathrm{}=(q_A^{\mathrm{}}q_0)^nq_A^n\mathrm{}\tau _A^n\mathrm{}=1.\end{array}$$

Since $`q_0`$ is an arbitrary element of $`(A)`$, this implies that the group $`\tau _A,(A)`$ has exponent $`n`$ and so Theorem applies to $`𝒢`$. Hence, $`Q`$ naturally embeds in $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$ and $`(y^1xy)^k=g`$ in $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$, as required. Corollary 1 is proved. ∎

The proof of Corollary 2 is similar. Let $`Q`$ be a group of prime exponent $`n>2^{48}`$. As before, by induction, it suffices to show that if $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ are two nontrivial cyclic subgroups of $`Q`$, which are not conjugate in $`Q`$, and

$$𝒢=Q,yyp_1y^1=p_2$$

then $`Q`$ embeds in $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$.

Let $`A𝒢`$, $`A`$ not conjugate in $`𝒢`$ to an element of $`Q`$, and $`A^1q_0A=q_1`$, $`A^1q_1A=q_2`$ in $`𝒢`$, where $`q_0,q_1,q_2Q`$. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that $`A`$ is a word of minimal length (that is, $`A=B`$ in $`𝒢`$ implies $`|A||B|`$). Then, using the assumption that subgroups $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ are not conjugate in $`Q`$ and the remark that an equality of the form $`qp^kq^1=p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ in $`Q`$ implies $`p^k=p^{\mathrm{}}`$, we can obtain from the equalities $`A^1q_0A=q_1`$, $`A^1q_1A=q_2`$ that $`q_0=q_1`$. Therefore, $`q_0(A)`$, the automorphism $`\tau _A`$ is trivial and the group $`\tau _A,(A)=(A)`$ has exponent $`n`$. By Theorem, $`Q`$ naturally embeds in $`𝒢/𝒢^n`$ and Corollary 2 is proved. ∎

Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to the referee for finding a mistake in the proof of Corollary 1 and bringing K.V. Mikhajlovskii’s paper \[M94\] to author’s attention. The author also wishes to thank A.Yu. Ol’shanskii for his kind comments on results of this article and for pointing out that some of them could also be proved using the techniques developed in his joint with M.V. Sapir paper \[OS02\] (see \[OS02\] for details).