text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Throughout this paper let $`F`$ denote a field of characteristic zero. Let $`V`$ be a vector-space, $`\text{dim }V=k`$, $`T^n(V)=V\mathrm{}V`$ $`n`$-times, and $`T(V)`$ is the tensor algebra:

$$T(V)=\underset{n}{}T^n(V).$$

Both the Lie group $`GL(V)`$ (or the Lie algebra $`gl(V)`$) and the symmetric group $`S_n`$ act naturally on $`T^n(V)`$, yielding the isotypic decomposition

$`T^n(V)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda H(k,0;n)}{}}W_\lambda ,`$ (1)
where $`H(k,0;n)=\{\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})\lambda _{k+1}=0\}`$. In fact, $`W_\lambda V_k^\lambda S^\lambda `$, where $`S^\lambda `$ is the Specht module (with character $`\chi ^\lambda `$), and $`V_k^\lambda `$ is the corresponding $`GL(V)`$ (or $`gl(V)`$) irreducible module, which is unique - up to an isomorphism.

Recall the symmetric algebra $`Sym(V)`$ and the wedge algebra $`(V)`$:
$`Sym(V)=T(V)/I_C`$, where $`I_C`$ is the two sided ideal in $`T(V)`$ generated by the elements $`xyyx`$, $`I_C=xyyxx,yV`$;

similarly, $`(V)=T(V)/I_E`$ where $`I_E=xy+yxx,yV`$. We show in 4.1 that

$`I_C={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ;(1^2)\lambda }{}}W_\lambda ,\text{and}I_E={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ;(2)\lambda }{}}W_\lambda .`$ (2)
This leads to the following construction: Let $`𝕐(n)=Par(n)`$ be the partitions of $`n`$ and let $`Par=𝕐=_n𝕐(n)`$ be all the partitions ($`𝕐`$ is the so called Young graph). A subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ which is closed under inclusions of partitions is called a filter. Given a subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$, define

$$I_\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }}{}W_\lambda $$

It is shown in Section 3 that the Littlewood-Richardson-rule (LR-rule) implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter if and only if $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }}W_\lambda `$ is a two-sided ideal in $`T(V)`$. In such a case this yields the quotient algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)=T(V)/I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These algebras - as well as the analogue superalgebras - are studied in this paper, mostly in the case when the dimension of $`V`$ is finite.
In the ‘super’ case, $`V=V_0V_1`$ with $`\text{dim }V_0=k`$ and $`\text{dim }V_1=\mathrm{}`$; again $`T(V)=_nT^n(V)`$ and $`S_n`$ has a new sign-permutation action $``$ on $`T^n(V)`$; also the general-linear-Lie superalgebra $`pl(V_0,V_1)=pl(k,\mathrm{})`$ acts on $`T^n(V)`$, see  for the details. This yields the following new isotypic decomposition:

$`T^n(V)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda H(k,\mathrm{};n)}{}}W_\lambda ,`$ (3)
where $`H(k,\mathrm{};n)=\{\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})\lambda _{k+1}\mathrm{}\}`$, see Section 3 of . Note the difference between $`W_\lambda `$ in Equations (1) and (3): in (3) $`W_\lambda V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda S^\lambda `$, where $`V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda `$ is the corresponding $`pl(V)`$ irreducible module, which is again unique - up to an isomorphism, see . The corresponding construction of the algebras is unchanged: given a filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$, again let $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }}W_\lambda `$; by Theorem 3.1, again $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a two sided ideal in $`T(V)`$, yielding the quotient algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=T(V)/I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In this paper we study some of the properties of these algebras, mostly when $`\text{dim }V<\mathrm{}`$.

## 2 The main results

In the next section we study the correspondence between subsets $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ and subspaces $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }T(V)`$. Proposition 3.6 shows that such $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter (i.e. closed under inclusions of partitions) if and only if $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a two sided ideal in $`T(V)`$. In Section 9 it is proved that filters in $`𝕐`$ are always finitely generated, see Theorem 9.2.
The filtration $`T(V)=_nT^n(V)`$ induces the filtration $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)=A_\mathrm{\Omega }=_nA_\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$. By considering the dimensions $`\text{dim }A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ we can talk about the rate of growth of $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. When the dimension of $`V`$ is finite, it is shown in Section 5 that $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ has an exponential growth - which is an integer:

###### Theorem 2.1

(See Theorem 5.2). Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ be finite dimensional and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ be a filter with the corresponding algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$. Then $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ has an exponential rate of growth $`\alpha `$\- which is an integer, and $`0\alpha \text{dim }V`$.

When $`\alpha =1`$, that rate of growth is polynomial. In Sections 67 and 8 we characterizes the algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ which are p.i., namely which satisfy polynomial identities. We prove

###### Theorem 2.2

The algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ is p.i. if and only if it has a polynomial rate of growth.

Section 6 treats the ‘classical’ case, namely the case $`V_1=0`$, so $`V=V_0`$. Theorem 6.1 gives necessary and sufficient conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ \- for $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ to be p.i., in which case $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ always satisfies $`[x,y]^r=0`$ for some $`r`$. Sections 7 and 8 treat the ‘super’ case. Theorem 7.1 gives necessary and sufficient conditions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ \- for $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be p.i., in which case $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ always satisfies $`h(x)^r=0`$ for some $`r`$. Here $`h(x)`$ is any polynomial identity of $`EE`$, and $`E`$ is the infinite dimensional Grassmann algebra. In this case it is possible to choose $`h(x)=[x,y]^3`$ hence, again, in the case of p.i., $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ satisfies a power of the commutator $`[x,y]`$.
We remark that the Littlewood-Richardson rule (LR-rule) is applied, in a rather essential way, in the proofs of Proposition 3.6 and of Theorems 6.1 and 7.1.
In Section 4 we examine few special cases of such algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For the classical symmetric algebra $`Sym(V)`$ we show that $`Sym(V)A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is generated by the partition $`(1,1)=(1^2)`$. Similarly for the wedge algebra: $`(V)A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is generated by the partition $`(2)`$. It is well known that $`Sym(V)`$ is the associated graded algebra $`gr(U(gl(V)))`$ of the enveloping algebra $`U(gl(V))`$ of $`gl(V)`$. In the ‘super’-case $`V=V_0V_1`$, and example 4.2 shows that the associated graded algebra $`gr(U(pl(V_0V_1)))`$ of the enveloping algebra of the Lie superalgebra $`pl(V_0,V_1)`$ is also of the form $`gr(U(pl(V_0V_1)))A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$, where here $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)Sym(V_0)(V_1)`$ (see for example ), and again $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is generated by the partition $`(1,1)=(1^2)`$.

## 3 Filters in $`𝕐`$ and ideals in $`T(V)`$

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$, $`\text{dim }V_0=k`$ and $`\text{dim }V_1=\mathrm{}`$, and let $`pl(V_0,V_1)=pl(k,\mathrm{})`$ denote the corresponding Lie superalgebra . Notice that the ‘classical’ case is obtained by letting $`V_1=0`$: $`pl(k,0)=pl(V_0,0)=gl(V_0)`$.

Start with Equation (1), let $`\mu m`$ and $`\lambda r`$ and in $`T(V)`$ consider $`W_\mu W_\lambda W_\mu W_\lambda `$; it is a $`pl(k,\mathrm{})`$ module in a natural way, and we are interested in the $`pl(k,\mathrm{})`$-module-decomposition of that module. The precise decomposition is given by the LR-rule, a rule which arises from the outer multiplication of characters of symmetric groups:

Let $`\chi ^\mu \widehat{}\chi ^\lambda `$ denote the outer-product of the characters $`\chi ^\mu `$ and $`\chi ^\lambda `$, then

$$\chi ^\mu \widehat{}\chi ^\lambda =\underset{\nu m+r}{}c_{\mu ,\lambda }^\nu \chi ^\nu ,$$

where the coefficients $`c_{\mu ,\lambda }^\nu `$ are given by the LR–rule, see for example . In particular it follows from that rule that if $`c_{\mu ,\lambda }^\nu 0`$ then $`\mu ,\lambda \nu `$.

###### Theorem 3.1

As $`pl(k,\mathrm{})`$ modules,

$$W_\mu W_\lambda (V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\mu V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda )^{(f^\mu f^\lambda )},$$

and

$$V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\mu V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda \underset{\nu H(k,\mathrm{};m+r)}{}(V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\nu )^{c_{\mu ,\lambda }^\nu }.$$

In particular, if $`V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\nu `$ appears in $`W_\lambda W_\mu `$ then $`\lambda ,\mu \nu `$.

Proof. The first claim follows since, as $`pl(k,\mathrm{})`$ modules, $`W_\mu (V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\mu )^{f^\mu }`$ and similarly for $`W_\lambda `$, see the remark after Equation (1). We prove the second statement.

Let $`M=V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\mu V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda `$, let $`n=\mu +\lambda `$ and let $`P`$ be the matrix $`P=\text{diag}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}})`$. Then

$`tr_M(P^n)=HS_\mu (x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}})HS_\lambda (x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (4)
By the proof of Theorem 6.30 in  it suffices to show that

$`tr_M(P^n)={\displaystyle \underset{\nu H(k,\mathrm{};n)}{}}c_{\mu ,\lambda }^\nu HS_\nu (x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (5)
By 5.1 of  the right-hand-sides of Equations (4) and (5) are equal, which completes the proof.

###### Definition 3.2

Recall that $`𝕐=_n𝕐(n)`$ denote the set of all the partitions. Given a subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$, define $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }T(V)`$ by

$`I_\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }}{}}W_\lambda .`$ (6)
A subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ is called a filter if it is closed under inclusions of partitions: if $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mu \lambda `$ then $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$.
Given partitions $`\mu ^1,\mu ^2,\mathrm{}𝕐`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mu ^1,\mu ^2,\mathrm{}`$ denote the filter generated by these partitions:

$$\mu ^1,\mu ^2,\mathrm{}=\{\lambda 𝕐\mu ^i\lambda \text{for some }i\}.$$

###### Remark 3.3

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ with $`\text{dim }V_0=k`$ and $`\text{dim }V_1=\mathrm{}`$ finite. Let $`\mu `$ denote the $`k+1\times \mathrm{}+1`$ rectangle: $`\mu =((\mathrm{}+1)^{k+1})`$. By Equation (3), if $`\mu \lambda `$ then $`W_\lambda =0`$. Given a filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ be the filter obtained by adding all $`\mu \lambda `$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }=I_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}`$. When $`\text{dim }V`$ is finite, we shall therefore always assume that that rectangle $`\mu `$ is in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

A basic and obvious property of such a subspace $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }T(V)`$ is the following.

###### Proposition 3.4

If $`V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\nu `$ appears in $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ then $`W_\nu I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The proof of Proposition 3.6 below requires the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.5

Let $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ be partitions such that $`\mu \nu `$. Then there exists a partition $`\lambda `$ such that $`\chi ^\nu `$ appears in $`\chi ^\mu \widehat{}\chi ^\lambda `$. Moreover, if $`\mu ,\nu H(k,\mathrm{})`$ then also $`\lambda H(k,\mathrm{})`$. Here $`H(k,\mathrm{})=_nH(k,\mathrm{};n)`$.

Proof. Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ be the lengths of the rows of $`\nu /\mu `$, then $`\nu `$ appears in $`\chi ^\mu \widehat{}\chi ^{(a_1)}\widehat{}\mathrm{}\widehat{}\chi ^{(a_k)}`$. Therefore there is a $`\chi ^\lambda `$ in $`\chi ^{(a_1)}\widehat{}\mathrm{}\widehat{}\chi ^{(a_k)}`$ such that $`\chi ^\nu `$ appears in $`\chi ^\mu \widehat{}\chi ^\lambda `$. The second statement follows from the last statement of Theorem 3.1.

###### Proposition 3.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ be a subset with corresponding subspace $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }T(V)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter if and only if $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a two-sided ideal in $`T(V)`$.

Proof. First, assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter and show that $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an ideal. It suffices to show the following: Let $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`\lambda `$ be any partition, then $`W_\mu W_\lambda I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This follows from the last statement of Theorem 3.1. Next, assume $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an ideal and show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter. Let $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`\mu \nu `$ and show $`\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Recall that $`T(V)=_\lambda W_\lambda `$. By definition, $`W_\mu I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By Lemma 3.5 there exist a partition $`\lambda `$ such that $`\chi ^\nu `$ appears in $`\chi ^\mu \widehat{}\chi ^\lambda `$ (i.e. $`c_{\mu ,\lambda }^\nu 0`$). It follows that $`V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\nu `$ appears in $`W_\mu W_\lambda I_\mathrm{\Omega }W_\lambda I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By Proposition 3.4 $`W_\nu I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and by the definition, $`\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$.
The algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ can now be introduced.

###### Definition 3.7

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ with the corresponding $`W_\lambda `$’s as in Equation (3). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ with the corresponding subspace $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }=I_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ as in Equation (6). Let $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ be the quotient space:

$$A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)=T(V)/I_\mathrm{\Omega }(V).$$

Clearly, $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ can be identified with the subspace

$`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }}{}}W_\lambda .`$ (7)
###### Remark 3.8

1. In particular, the identification (7) implies that if $`VV^{}`$ then $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V^{})`$.
2. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter, $`I_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ is a two-sided ideal and $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ is an associative algebra.

These algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$ are the subject of this paper.

## 4 Some examples

Few examples of algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are given below. We show that in the ‘classical’ case (namely $`V=V_0,V_1=0`$), both the symmetric algebra $`Sym(V)`$ and the wedge algebra $`(V)`$ are of the form $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$: $`Sym(V)A_{(1^2)}(V)`$ and $`(V)A_{(2)}(V)`$. In the general case, when $`V=V_0V_1`$, $`A_{(1^2)}Sym(V_0)(V_1)`$. Note that the associated graded algebra $`gr(U(pl(V_0V_1)))`$ of the enveloping algebra of the Lie superalgebra $`pl(V_0,V_1)`$ is also of that form: $`gr(U(pl(V_0V_1)))Sym(V_0)(V_1)`$

###### Example 4.1

Let $`V=V_0`$, $`V_1=0`$.

1. Let $`Sym(V)`$ be the symmetric algebra of the vector space $`V`$. Then $`Sym(V)A_{(1^2)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(1^2)=\{\lambda (1^2)\lambda \}`$. Thus, as vector spaces, $`Sym(V)_nW_{(n)}`$.
2. Let $`(V)`$ be the wedge algebra of the vector space $`V`$. Then $`(V)A_{(2)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(2)=\{\lambda (2)\lambda \}`$. Thus, as vector spaces, $`(V)_nW_{(1^n)}`$.

Proof. We prove part 2. The proof of part 1 is similar. Recall that $`(V)=T(V)/I_E`$ where $`I_E=xy+yxx,yV`$. We show that $`I_E=_{\lambda ;(2)\lambda }W_\lambda `$. Denote $`I_E(n)=I_ET^n(V)`$. $`S_n`$ acts on $`T^n(V)`$ \- hence on $`I_E(n)`$ \- (from the right, as in ) by permuting places, and we show first that it maps $`I_E(n)`$ into itself. $`I_E(n)`$ is spanned by elements of the form $`x_1\mathrm{}x_{r1}(x_rx_{r+1}+x_{r+1}x_r)x_{r+2}\mathrm{}x_{r_n}`$ (here $`x_1x_2=x_1x_2`$, etc). It suffices to verify for the transpositions $`(i,i+1)`$, and after some obvious reduction, to verify that $`(1,2)`$ maps $`x_1(x_2v_3+v_3x_2)`$ into $`I_E`$ (and similarly, that $`(2,3)`$ maps $`(x_1v_2+v_2x_2)x_3`$ into $`I_E`$). This is clear, since

$$(1,2):x_1(x_2x_3+x_3x_2)x_2x_1x_3+x_3x_1x_2=$$

$$(x_2x_1+x_1x_2)x_3x_1(x_2x_3+x_3x_2)+(x_1x_3+x_3x_1)x_2I_E.$$

Let $`T_\lambda `$ be a tableaux of shape $`\lambda `$. To $`T_\lambda `$ corresponds the semi-idempotent $`e_{T_\lambda }=R_{T_\lambda }^+C_{T_\lambda }^{}FS_n`$. Here $`R_{T_\lambda },C_{T_\lambda }S_n`$ are the subgroups of the $`T_\lambda `$-row and column permutations, with

$$R_{T_\lambda }^+=\underset{pR_{T_\lambda }}{}p\text{and}C_{T_\lambda }^{}=\underset{qC_{T_\lambda }}{}sgn(q)q.$$

We apply the following property of the $`W_\lambda `$’s, which is well known: Let $`T_\lambda `$ be any tableaux of shape $`\lambda `$, with the corresponding semi-idempotent $`e_{T_\lambda }`$, then $`W_\lambda =T^n(V)e_{T_\lambda }FS_n`$. As usual, write $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})`$. We verify that $`_{\lambda _12}W_\lambda I_E`$. Let $`\lambda _12`$ and let $`T_\lambda `$ be a standard tableaux whose first row starts with $`1`$ and $`2`$. Write $`e_{T_\lambda }=R_{T_\lambda }^+C_{T_\lambda }^{}`$, then $`e_{T_\lambda }=(1+(1,2))a`$ for some $`aFS_n`$. Given $`\overline{x}=x_1\mathrm{}x_nT^n(V)`$, we have $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n(1+(1,2))=(x_1x_2+x_2x_1)x_3\mathrm{}x_nI_E(n)`$. Since $`I_E(n)`$ is closed under the $`S_n`$ action, it follows that $`\overline{x}e_{T_\lambda }FS_n=\overline{x}(1+(1,2))aFS_nI_E(n)`$, which clearly implies that $`W_\lambda I_E`$. Next, verify that $`I_E_{\lambda _12}W_\lambda `$. Let $`\lambda =(2)`$ with $`T_{(2)}`$ standard, then $`e_{T_{(2)}}=1+(1,2)`$. Given $`x_1x_2T^2(V)`$, $`x_1x_2e_{T_{(2)}}=x_1x_2+x_2x_1W_{(2)}`$. By the LR-rule it follows that

$$x_1\mathrm{}x_{r1}(x_rx_{r+1}+x_{r+1}x_r)x_{r+2}\mathrm{}x_{r_n}\underset{\lambda ;\lambda _12}{}W_\lambda .$$

Since these are the generators of $`I_E`$, the above inclusion follows. This completes the proof of the second example, and the proof of the first is similar. Next we consider the ‘super’ analogues of the previous examples.

###### Example 4.2

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=(1,1)`$ be the filter given by the partition $`\mu =(1,1)`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=(2)`$ be the filter given by the partition $`\nu =(2)`$. We show that

$$A_{(1,1)}(V_0,V_1)Sym(V_0)(V_1),$$

and similarly

$$A_{(2)}(V_0,V_1)Sym(V_1)(V_0).$$

It follows from some basic facts in p.i. theory that both $`A_{(2)}(V_0,V_1)`$ and $`A_{(1^2)}(V_0,V_1)`$ satisfy the identity $`[[x_1,x_2],x_3]=0`$.

Proof. Fix bases (either finite or infinite) $`t_1,t_2\mathrm{}V_0`$ and $`u_1,u_2\mathrm{}V_1`$. By abuse of notation, $`t_i,u_jA_{(1,1)}`$. Also, $`t_it_j:=t_it_j+I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`T(V)/I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and similarly for other products. These basis elements satisfy the following three commutation-relations in $`A_{(1,1)}`$:

1. $`t_it_j=t_jt_i`$;
2. $`t_iu_j=u_jt_i`$; and
3. $`u_iu_j=u_ju_i`$.

For example we prove 3. Note that here, the $`S_n`$ action on $`T^n(V)`$ is the same as in , and is denoted by $``$. Now,

$$u_iu_j+u_ju_i=(u_iu_j)e_{(1,1)}V^2e_{(1,1)}W_{(1,1)}I_\mathrm{\Omega },$$

hence $`u_iu_j=u_ju_i`$ in $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here $`e_{(1,1)}`$ is the semi-idempotent $`e_{(1,1)}=1(1,2)`$. Similarly for the other two relations 1 an 2.

These commutation-relations imply the isomorphism $`A_{(1,1)}Sym(V_0)(V_1)`$. Similar arguments show that

$$A_{(2)}(V_0,V_1)Sym(V_1)(V_0).$$

We consider the classical case (namely $`V_1=0`$), and denote $`_nW_{(n)}=A_C`$ and $`_nW_{(1^n)}=A_E`$. As vector spaces, $`Sym(V)A_C`$ and $`(V)A_E`$, and these isomorphisms make $`A_C`$ and $`A_E`$ into algebras. Notice that if the sum $`_n`$ starts with $`n=0`$ then these algebras have $`1`$, while if it starts with $`n=1`$, these algebras are without $`1`$. For the next example we introduce the following notation:

$$A_C^{}=\underset{n2}{}W_{(n)}\text{and}A_E^{}=\underset{n2}{}W_{(1^n)}.$$

These are ideals in their respective algebras.

###### Example 4.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(2,1)`$, then we have the following algebra-isomorphisms:

$`A_{(2,1)}A_CA_E^{}\text{and also}A_{(2,1)}A_C^{}A_E.`$ (8)
This follows since, as vector spaces,

$$A_{(2,1)}\left(\underset{n}{}W_{(n)}\right)\left(\underset{n2}{}W_{(1^n)}\right)=A_CA_E^{},$$

and similarly

$$A_{(2,1)}\left(\underset{n2}{}W_{(n)}\right)\left(\underset{n}{}W_{(1^n)}\right)=A_C^{}A_E.$$

We conclude with few more examples of ‘classical’ algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, namely, $`V_1=0,V=V_0`$.

###### Example 4.4

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(a)`$ where $`a>0`$. Recall that when $`a=2`$, $`A_{(2)}(V)`$.

1. $`\text{dim }V=k<\mathrm{}`$. If $`n>k(a1)`$ then $`T^n(V)I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This follows since if $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)n>k(a1)`$ then $`\lambda _1a`$. It follows that $`\text{dim }A_\mathrm{\Omega }<\mathrm{}`$. Thus, if $`1A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ then $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is nilpotent: $`(A_\mathrm{\Omega })^{k(a1)+1}=0`$.
2. $`\text{dim }V=\mathrm{}`$. Assume $`1A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By Remark 3.8.1 and by case 1 above, any finitely generated subalgebra is nilpotent. In particular, $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is nil.

###### Remark 4.5

When $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(2)`$, $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=A_{(2)}E`$, where $`E=E(V)`$ is the corresponding Grassmann (Exterior) algebra. In particular, $`E`$ is p.i., satisfying $`[[x,y],z]=0`$ (even when $`\text{dim }V=\mathrm{}`$). Note that $`A_{(1^3)}`$ is not p.i. since it does not satisfy the condition $`(b^2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of Theorem 6.1.
Question:

1. Let $`dimV=\mathrm{}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(3)`$. Is the algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=A_{(3)}`$ a p.i. algebra?
2. Again $`\text{dim }V=\mathrm{}`$, and now $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(2^2)`$. Is $`A_{(2^2)}`$ a p.i. algebra? Note that if $`\text{dim }V<\mathrm{}`$ then $`A_{(2^2)}`$ is p.i. by Theorem 6.1.

## 5 The growth of $`\text{dim }(A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n))`$

It is shown here that for any filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has an exponential rate of growth and with an integer exponent. This is Theorem 5.2 below.

###### Definition 5.1

We say that the sequence $`d_n`$ has exponential rate of growth $`\alpha `$ if there exist a polynomial $`p`$ such that for large enough $`n`$, $`0<p(n)`$ and $`d_np(n)\alpha ^n`$. In such a case we denote $`Exp(d_n)\alpha `$. Define $`Exp(d_n)\alpha `$ similarly, and define $`Exp(d_n)=\alpha `$ if both conditions hold. Also denote $`Exp(d_n)=0`$ if $`d_n=0`$ for all $`n`$ large enough. Denote $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })=Exp(d_n)`$ where $`d_n=\text{dim }(A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n))`$.

###### Theorem 5.2

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ be finite dimensional and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ be a filter with the corresponding algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=A_\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$. Then $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has an exponential rate of growth - which is an integer. More precisely, denote $`d_n=\text{dim }(A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n))`$, then there exists an integer $`0\alpha \text{dim }(V_0)+\text{dim }(V_1)`$ such that $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })=Exp(d_n)=\alpha `$.

Proof. The proof is given below, see Theorem 5.7.

###### Definition 5.3

1. Let $`a_1,a_2,b0`$ be integers such that $`ba_1,a_2`$. Denote by $`D(a_1,a_2,b)`$ the following hook-rectangular diagram (i.e. partition)

$$D(a_1,a_2,b)=(b^{a_1},a_2^{ba_1}).$$

For example, $`(7^3,2^4)=D(3,2,7)`$. Note that both the arm-length and the leg-length of $`D(a_1,a_2,b)`$ equal $`b`$. Also, $`(b^{a_1},a_2^{ba_1})=(a_1+a_2)ba_1a_2`$.
2. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ be a filter and let $`a0`$ be an integer. We say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`a`$-th hook-rectangular condition if there exist a large enough integer $`b>0`$ such that

$$D(a,0,b),D(a1,1,b),\mathrm{},D(0,a,b)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

###### Remark 5.4

1. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`a`$-th hook-rectangular condition (with $`b`$) then it also satisfies the $`a+1`$-th hook-rectangular condition (with $`b+1`$). Thus, for any non-empty filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there exists $`0a`$ minimal such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`a`$-th \- but not the $`a1`$-th - hook-rectangular condition; we denote it by $`a=h_r=h_r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.
2. By definition, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`0`$-th hook-rectangular condition exactly when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝕐`$, in which case $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`1`$-th hook-rectangular condition if and only if $`(b),(1^b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for some $`b>0`$, hence if and only if $`\text{dim }A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is finite, in which case $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is nilpotent if $`1A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
4. By Theorem 7.1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`2`$-th hook-rectangular condition if and only if $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is p.i.
5. Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ with $`\text{dim }V_0=k`$ and $`\text{dim }V_1=\mathrm{}`$, then by assumption $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contains the $`k+1\times \mathrm{}+1`$ rectangle $`\mu ^0`$: $`\mu ^0=((\mathrm{}+1)^{k+1})\mathrm{\Omega }`$, see Remark 3.3. We show that $`h_r(\mathrm{\Omega })k+\mathrm{}+1`$. We show in Remark 5.8 that $`h_r(\mathrm{\Omega })=k+\mathrm{}+1`$ exactly when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mu ^0`$. Check that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`k+\mathrm{}+1`$-th hook-rectangular condition: If $`a_1+a_2=k+\mathrm{}+1`$ then either $`a_1>k`$ or $`a_2>\mathrm{}`$, so for large enough $`b`$, $`\mu ^0D(a_1,a_2,b)`$, hence $`D(a_1,a_2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It follows that for any filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mu ^0\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$, there exists $`0ak+\mathrm{}+1`$ such that $`a=h_r=h_r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

###### Lemma 5.5

Given the integers $`a_1,a_20`$, assume $`D(a_1,a_2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for all integers $`ba_1,a_2`$. Then $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })a_1+a_2`$.

Proof. Let $`n=(b^{a_1},a_2^{ba_1})`$. Since $`D(a_1,a_2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this implies that

$$\text{dim }(A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n))\text{dim }W_{D(a_1,a_2,b)}f^{D(a_1,a_2,b)}.$$

The proof now follows from the asymptotic estimates in Section 7 in , which show that for some polynomial $`p`$,

$$f^{D(a_1,a_2,b)}p(n)(a_1+a_2)^n$$

and $`p(n)>0`$ if $`n=(b^{a_1},a_2^{ba_1})`$ is large enough. This completes the proof.
The converse is given by the next lemma.

###### Lemma 5.6

Let $`a>0`$ be an integer, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a filter, and assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the $`a`$-th - hook-rectangular condition: there exists an integer $`b>0`$ such that

$$D(a,0,b),D(a1,1,b),\mathrm{},D(0,a,b)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Then $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })a1`$.

Proof. Here is a sketch of the proof.

Let $`\lambda n`$. If $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$ then $`W_\lambda `$ does not contribute to $`\text{dim }A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$. Hence assume $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`r_1`$ (resp. $`r_2`$) denote the number of rows (resp. columns) of $`\lambda `$ whose length is $`b`$, then $`D(r_1,r_2,b)\lambda `$. If $`r_1+r_2a`$ then by assumption and by Remark 5.4.1 $`D(r_1,r_2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$, hence also $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$, a contradiction. Since $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`r_1+r_2a1`$.
By the choice of $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ it follows that except for its $`b\times b`$ initial-corner-part, such $`\lambda `$ is contained in the $`(r_1,r_2)`$-hook. Since $`r_1+r_2a1`$, it follows that for some polynomial $`q`$, independent of $`\lambda `$, $`f^\lambda q(n)(r_1+r_2)^nq(n)(a1)^n`$ for all $`n`$: this follows by a slight extension of the asymptotic estimates in Section 7 of . Recall that here $`W_\lambda V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda S^\lambda `$ (see Equation (3)), hence $`\text{dim }W_\lambda =\text{dim }(V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda )f^\lambda `$. By , $`\text{dim }(V_{k,\mathrm{}}^\lambda )`$ is polynomialy bounded, and also the total number of $`\lambda `$’s in the above $`(r_1,r_2)`$-extended-hook, is polynomialy bounded - as a function of $`\lambda =n`$. It therefore follows that for some polynomial $`p`$,

$$\text{dim }(A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n))p(n)(a1)^n.$$

This completes the proof.
We can now reformulate and prove Theorem 5.2.

###### Theorem 5.7

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ be finite dimensional, with $`\text{dim }V_0=k`$ and $`\text{dim }V_1=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ be a filter with the corresponding algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`a=h_r=h_r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ as in Remark 5.4.1. Assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$, hence $`a1`$. Then $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })=a1`$.

Proof. As was explained in Remark 5.4, such $`a=h_r=h_r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ exists, and $`a1`$ since $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. By definition there exist integers $`a_1,a_20`$ and $`a_1+a_2=a1`$, such that for all integers $`b>a_1,a_2`$, $`D(a_1,a_2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By Lemma 5.5 deduce that $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })a1`$.
Conversely, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does satisfy the $`a`$-th hook-rectangular condition, and by Lemma 5.6 $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })a1`$, which completes the proof.

###### Remark 5.8

Clearly, $`Exp(T(V))=\text{dim }V_0+\text{dim }V_1=k+\mathrm{}`$. The converse is also true: if $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })=k+\mathrm{}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Omega }=((\mathrm{}+1)^{k+1})`$ and $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=T(V)`$. Indeed let $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, a proper inclusion, and show that $`Exp(A_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1})k+\mathrm{}1`$. Let $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`\eta H(k,\mathrm{})`$. Now $`\eta D(k,\mathrm{},\eta _1+\eta _1^{})`$, therefore $`D(k,\mathrm{},\eta _1+\eta _1^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. Consider $`\lambda `$’s such that $`W_\lambda `$ contribute to $`A_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}`$, namely $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. If $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, it follows that either $`\lambda _k\eta _1+\eta _1^{}`$ or $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}\eta _1+\eta _1^{}`$. The asymptotics of $`f^\lambda `$ for such $`\lambda `$’s is $`(k+\mathrm{}1)^\lambda `$; again, this follows by a slight extension of the asymptotic estimates in Section 7 of . As in the previous lemma, this implies that $`Exp(A_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1})k+\mathrm{}1`$.

## 6 The ‘classical’ algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which are p.i.

Next we characterize those algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that are p.i., namely satisfy polynomial identities. Recall that $`V=V_0V_1`$. In this section we consider the case $`V_1=0`$. Recall that $`[x,y]=xyyx`$. We prove:

###### Theorem 6.1

Let $`V_1=0`$, so $`V=V_0`$, and let $`\text{dim }V=k<\mathrm{}`$. let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a non-empty filter with the corresponding algebra $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }=T(V)/I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then the following three conditions are equivalent.

1. $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is p.i.
2. $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a polynomial rate of growth.
3. There exist $`c>0`$ such that $`(c^2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In that case $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the identity $`[x_1,x_2]\mathrm{}[x_{2\mathrm{}1},x_2\mathrm{}]=0`$ (hence also $`[x,y]^{\mathrm{}}=0`$) where $`\mathrm{}=c(\text{dim }V1)+1`$.

Proof. By Theorem 4.13 of , 1 implies 2. Show that 2 implies 3: Assume $`(c^2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for all $`c>0`$ and show that $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })2`$, namely, that the growth of $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is larger than polynomial. Indeed, as in the proof of Lemma 5.5, that assumption implies that

$`\text{dim }A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)n}{}}f^\lambda p(n)2^n`$ (9)
for some polynomial $`p(x)`$, hence $`Exp(A_\mathrm{\Omega })2`$. Finally, show that 3 implies 1 - with the above polynomial identity. So, assume that $`(c^2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and show that $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the identity $`[x_1,x_2]\mathrm{}[x_{2\mathrm{}1},x_2\mathrm{}]=0`$, where $`\mathrm{}=c(\text{dim }V1)+1`$.

Let $`s_1,s_2T(V)`$, then

$`[s_1,s_2]{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ;|\lambda |\lambda _11}{}}W_\lambda .`$ (10)
Indeed, fix a basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_kV`$, and without loss of generality let $`s_1=v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_p}(=v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_p})`$ and $`s_2=v_{j_1}\mathrm{}v_{j_q}`$.

Now, $`[v_i,v_j]W_{(1^2)}`$ while, for example, $`[v_{i_1}v_{i_2},v_j]=[v_{i_1},v_j]v_{i_2}+v_{i_1}[v_{i_2},v_j]_{\lambda ;|\lambda |\lambda _11}W_\lambda `$, etc. This verifies (10).

By the LR-rule, for $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_2\mathrm{}T(V)`$,

$`[s_1,s_2]\mathrm{}[s_{2\mathrm{}1},s_2\mathrm{}]{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ;|\lambda |\lambda _1\mathrm{}}{}}W_\lambda .`$ (11)
If $`\lambda `$ has more than $`k`$ parts then by assumption $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$ hence $`W_\lambda I_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Assume now that $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)`$, with $`|\lambda |\lambda _1\mathrm{}`$ and show that $`\lambda _2>c`$. Assume not, then since $`c\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _k`$ therefore $`|\lambda |\lambda _1=\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _k(k1)c<\mathrm{}`$, a contradiction (recall: $`\mathrm{}=c(\text{dim }V1)+1`$). It follows that in that case $`\lambda _2>c`$ hence, by assumption, $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }`$, so $`W_\lambda I_\lambda `$, which is zero in $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Following equation (11) we see that $`[s_1,s_2]\mathrm{}[s_{2\mathrm{}1},s_2\mathrm{}]=0`$ in $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This proves part 2.

## 7 The ‘super’ algebras $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which are p.i.

Let $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)`$ be a multilinear polynomial which is an identity of $`EE`$, where $`E`$ is the infinite-dimensional Grassmann (Exterior) algebra. At the end of Section 8 we discuss such polynomials $`g(x)`$ of low degrees.

Here we prove

###### Theorem 7.1

Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ where $`\text{dim }V_0,\text{dim }V_1<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a filter. Then the following three conditions are equivalent.

1. $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is p.i.
2. $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a polynomial rate of growth.
3. $`D(2,0,b),D(1,1,b),D(0,2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for some $`b>0`$. In that case $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies the identity

$$q_{tr}(x)=g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)g(x_{r+1},\mathrm{},x_{2r})\mathrm{}g(x_{(t1)r+1},\mathrm{},x_{tr})=0$$

where $`t=b^2`$ and $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)`$ is any multilinear identity of $`EE`$.

Proof. The proof is similar to, but more elaborate than that of Theorem 6.1.
As in the proof of Theorem 6.1, 1 implies 2.
Show that 2 implies 3: Assume $`(a,1^b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for all positive integers $`a,b`$. Repeating the analogue argument in the proof of Theorem 6.1, we conclude that

$`\text{dim }A_\mathrm{\Omega }(n){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda H(1,1;n)}{}}f^\lambda =2^{n1},`$ (12)
hence $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not p.i. Similarly if all $`(b^2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or if all $`(2^b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This shows that if $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is p.i. then for some $`b>0`$, $`D(2,0,b),D(1,1,b),D(0,2,b)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The proof that 3 implies 1 - and with that identity - is similar but more elaborate than the proof of the analogue part in Theorem 6.1. The proof follows from the following claims.

###### Lemma 7.2

Denote $`c(\lambda )=\lambda \lambda _1=\lambda _2+\lambda _3+\mathrm{}`$

Write $`T(V)=_\lambda W_\lambda `$. Let $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)`$ as above and let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_rT(V)`$, then

$$g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)\underset{\lambda ;\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{}2}{}W_\lambda =\underset{\lambda ;c(\lambda ),c(\lambda ^{})1}{}W_\lambda .$$

The proof of this lemma is given in the next section, see Corrolary 8.3. Together with the LR-rule, Lemma 7.2 implies that for any $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{rt}T(V)`$,

$$q_{rt}(m)=g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)g(m_{r+1},\mathrm{},m_{2r})\mathrm{}g(x_{(t1)r+1},\mathrm{},x_{tr})\underset{\lambda ;c(\lambda ),c(\lambda ^{})t}{}W_\lambda .$$

###### Lemma 7.3

Let $`tb^2`$ and let $`\lambda `$ be a partition satisfying $`c(\lambda ),c(\lambda ^{})t`$. Then either $`(b,1^{b1})\lambda `$ or $`(b^2)\lambda `$ or $`(2^b)\lambda `$.

Proof. Assume $`(b^2),(2^b),(b,1^{b1})\lambda `$. Since $`(b^2)\lambda `$, $`\lambda _2<b`$. Similarly, $`(2^b)\lambda `$ implies that $`\lambda _2^{}<b`$, while $`(b,1^{b1})\lambda `$ implies that either $`\lambda _1<b`$ or $`\lambda _1^{}<b`$, say $`\lambda _1^{}<b`$. In such a case, $`\lambda _{b+1}=0`$ and deduce that

$$c(\lambda )=\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _b(b1)^2<b^2,$$

which is a contradiction.

The proof that 3 implies 1 (in Theorem 7.1).
This last lemma implies that

$$\underset{\lambda ;c(\lambda ),c(\lambda ^{})t}{}W_\lambda \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }}{}W_\lambda ,$$

which, by Lemma 7.2 implies that $`q_{rt}(x)=0`$ in $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and therefore is an identity of $`A_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
This completes the proof of Theorem 7.1.

## 8 A property of the polynomial identities of $`EE`$

Recall that

$$e_{(n)}=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}\sigma \text{and}e_{(1^n)}=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}(1)^\sigma \sigma .$$

In this section we prove

###### Theorem 8.1

Let $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ be a multi-linear polynomial identity of $`EE`$, where $`E`$ is the infinite-dimensional Grassmann (Exterior) algebra. Let $`V=V_0V_1`$ and let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_d`$ be monomials in $`T(V)`$ such that $`m_1\mathrm{}m_dT^n(V)`$. Also, recall that the group algebra $`FS_n`$ has the super-action $``$ on $`T^n(V)`$ . Then

$$g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(1^n)}=g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(n)}=0.$$

By Corollary 8.3 below, this implies that

$$g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)\underset{\lambda ;c(\lambda ),(\lambda ^{})1}{}W_\lambda .$$

The proof is given below.
The functions $`f_I(\sigma )`$. First, recall the functions $`f_I(\sigma )`$ from Definition 1.1 of : let $`E=E_0E_1`$ be the usual decomposition of $`E`$, let $`I\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ and let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_dE_0E_1`$ such that $`a_iE_1`$ if and only if $`iI`$; then $`f_I(\sigma )=\pm 1`$ is given by the equation

$`a_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}a_{\sigma (d)}=f_I(\sigma )a_1\mathrm{}a_d.`$ (13)
The functions $`f_I(\sigma )`$ also appear naturally in the following context. Let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_d`$ be monomials in $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ such that $`m_1\mathrm{}m_d=x_1\mathrm{}x_n`$. Given $`\sigma S_d`$, there is a unique permutation $`\eta =\eta _\sigma S_n`$ such that $`m_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}m_{\sigma (d)}=x_{\eta (1)}\mathrm{}x_{\eta (n)}`$. Let $`I=\{1id\mathrm{deg}m_i\text{is odd}\}`$. Then

$`sgn(\eta )=sgn(\eta _\sigma )=f_I(\sigma ).`$ (14)
###### Lemma 8.2

Let

$$p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)=\underset{\sigma S_d}{}\alpha _\sigma x_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma (d)}.$$

Then $`p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ is a polynomial identity of $`EE`$ if and only if for any pair of subsets $`I_1,I_2\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$,

$$\underset{\sigma S_d}{}\alpha _\sigma f_{I_1}(\sigma )f_{I_2}(\sigma )=0.$$

Proof. The proof follows straightforward from Equation (13), since

$$a_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}a_{\sigma (d)}b_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}b_{\sigma (d)}=f_{I_1}(\sigma )f_{I_2}(\sigma )(a_1\mathrm{}a_db_1\mathrm{}b_d).$$

The proof of Theorem 8.1. Let $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ be a multi-linear polynomial identity of $`EE`$ and write

$`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_d}{}}\alpha _\sigma x_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma (d)}.`$ (15)
Let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_d`$ be monomials in $`T(V)`$ such that $`m_1\mathrm{}m_dT^n(V)`$, namely, $`m_1\mathrm{}m_d=z_1\mathrm{}z_n`$ with $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_nV`$. By embedding $`V`$ in a large enough vector-space we may assume w.l.o.g. that $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ are linearly independent, as well as super-homogeneous, namely $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_nV_0V_1`$. If $`m_i=z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_r}`$, then $`m_i`$ is super-homogeneous of degree $`\delta (m_i)=1`$ if the number of $`z_{i_j}`$’s which are in $`V_1`$ is odd; otherwise $`\delta (m_i)=0`$. It follows that $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_d`$ are also super-homogeneous, and we let $`I_1`$ be the indices $`i`$ with $`m_i`$ having super-degree 1: $`I_1=\{1id\delta (m_i)=1\}`$. As a monomial, each $`m_i`$ has a degree, and we let $`I_2`$ denote the $`i`$’s with $`m_i`$ of odd degree: $`I_2=\{1id\mathrm{deg}(m_i)\text{is odd}\}`$. For example, let $`xV_0`$, $`yV_1`$, and let $`m=xyyxy`$, then $`\delta (m)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(m)=5`$.
For each $`\sigma S_d`$ let $`\eta =\eta _\sigma `$ be the unique permutation in $`S_n`$ such that $`m_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}m_{\sigma (d)}=z_{\eta (1)}\mathrm{}z_{\eta (n)}`$ (see Equation (14)). It follows from the definition of $`f_I(\sigma )`$ (namely, from Equation (13)) that for $`\sigma S_d`$,

$`m_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}m_{\sigma (d)}=f_{I_1}(\sigma )(m_1\mathrm{}m_d)\eta _\sigma =(m_1\mathrm{}m_d)(f_{I_1}(\sigma )\eta _\sigma ).`$ (16)
By Equation (14)

$`sgn(\eta )=sgn(\eta _\sigma )=f_{I_2}(\sigma ).`$ (17)
By Equation (15) and Equation (16)

$`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)=(m_1\mathrm{}m_d)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_d}{}}\alpha _\sigma f_{I_1}(\sigma )\eta _\sigma \right).`$ (18)
To calculate $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(1^n)}`$, note that $`e_{(1^n)}=_{\theta S_n}sgn(\theta )\theta `$. Since $`(m\tau )\pi =m(\tau \pi )`$ (see Lemma 1.5 of ), we have

$`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(1^n)}=(m_1\mathrm{}m_d)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_d}{}}\alpha _\sigma f_{I_1}(\sigma )\eta _\sigma {\displaystyle \underset{\theta S_n}{}}sgn(\theta )\theta \right).`$ (19)
But by Equation (17)

$`\eta _\sigma {\displaystyle \underset{\theta S_n}{}}sgn(\theta )\theta =sgn(\eta _\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{\theta S_n}{}}sgn(\theta )\theta =f_{I_2}(\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{\theta S_n}{}}sgn(\theta )\theta ,`$ (20)
hence

$`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(1^n)}=(m_1\mathrm{}m_d)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_d}{}}\alpha _\sigma f_{I_1}(\sigma )f_{I_2}(\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{\theta S_n}{}}sgn(\theta )\theta \right)`$ (21)
which equals zero by Lemma 8.2. This shows that $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(1^n)}=0`$. The proof that $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_d)e_{(n)}=0`$ is essentially the same, but with $`I_2`$ empty, i.e. $`f_{I_2}(\sigma )=1`$ for all $`\sigma S_d`$.

###### Corollary 8.3

Let $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)`$ be a multilinear polynomial which is an identity of $`EE`$, where $`E`$ is the infinite dimensional Grassmann algebra. Let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_rT(V)`$ such that $`m_1\mathrm{}m_rT^n(V)`$, then

$$g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)\underset{\lambda n;\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{}2}{}W_\lambda $$

Proof. We need to show that the components of $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)`$ in both $`W_{(n)}`$ and in $`W_{(1^n)}`$ are zero. By , $`W_{(n)}=(T^n(V))e_{(n)}`$, and similarly $`W_{(1^n)}=(T^n(V))e_{(1^n)}`$. Thus, $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)`$ has a component $`0`$ in $`W_{(n)}`$ if and only if $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)e_{(n)}0`$, and similarly for $`g(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)e_{(1^n)}`$. This implies the proof.

###### Remark 8.4

We conclude this section with two remarks about the identities of $`EE`$.

1. A. Popov  showed that $`EE`$ satisfies the following two identities: $`[[x,y]^2,x]=0`$ and $`[[[x_1,x_2],[x_3,x_4]],x_5]=0`$. Thus, in Theorem 8.1 we can choose $`g(x)`$ to be either the multilinearization of $`[[x,y]^2,x]`$ (which is of degree 5) or the polynomial $`[[[x_1,x_2],[x_3,x_4]],x_5]`$. Moreover, Popov also showed that these identities are of minimal degrees (i.e. $`EE`$ satisfies no identity of degree four), and the above two identities generate all the identities of $`EE`$.
2. Explicit identities of $`EE`$ can also be obtained via cocharacters. The cocharacters of $`E`$ are contained in the (1,1) hook, . Hence, by , the cocharacters of $`EE`$ are contained in the (2,2) hook. It follows that any element of the two sided ideal $`I_{(3,3,3)}FS_9`$, when realized as a polynomial, is an identity of $`EE`$. This allows the construction of explicit such identities \- of degree 9. For example, $`s_3^3[x_1,x_2,x_3]=0`$ is such an identity, where $`s_3[x_1,x_2,x_3]`$ is the standard polynomial of degree 3. Since $`s_3[x_1,x_2,1]=[x_1,x_2]`$, it follows that $`EE`$ satisfies $`[x_1,x_2]^3=0`$, and in Theorem 8.1 we can choose $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)=g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_6)`$ to be the multilinearization of $`[x_1,x_2]^3`$.

## 9 Filters in $`𝕐`$ are finitely generated

The following is obvious: let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2𝕐`$ be two filters, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ is a filter, and $`I_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2}=I_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}+I_{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}`$. Similarly for more filters. For example let $`\mu `$ be a partition and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\lambda 𝕐\mu \lambda \}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter, which we denote by $`<\mu >`$. Similarly $`<\mu ,\eta >=\{\lambda 𝕐\mu \lambda \text{or}\eta \lambda \}`$ is a filter, and $`<\mu ,\eta >=<\mu ><\eta >`$, etc. We prove below that every filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ is finitely generated, i.e. there exist $`r`$ and partitions $`\mu ^1,\mathrm{},\mu ^r`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=<\mu ^1,\mathrm{},\mu ^r>`$. By standard arguments, this is equivalent to proving a.c.c. (ascending chain condition) on filters.

###### Definition 9.1

Recall the notation $`H(k,\mathrm{};n)`$ for the partitions of $`n`$ in the $`(k,\mathrm{})`$ hook:

$$H(k,\mathrm{};n)=\{\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})\lambda _{k+1}\mathrm{}\}\text{and}H(k,\mathrm{})=_nH(k,\mathrm{};n).$$

Thus $`𝕐_k=H(k,0)`$ is the “strip” of the partitions with at most $`k`$ parts. Clearly, $`𝕐_k`$ is the complement of the filter $`\mathrm{\Omega }=<(1^{k+1})>`$. Therefore a filter that contains $`(1^{k+1})`$ is called ‘a filter in $`𝕐_k`$’. Similarly, a filter in the hook $`H(k,\mathrm{})`$ is any filter that contains the $`(k+1)\times (\mathrm{}+1)`$ rectangle, i.e the partition $`((k+1)^{\mathrm{}+1})`$.

###### Theorem 9.2

Any filter in $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕐`$ is finitely generated.

Proof. Let $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`\mu `$ is contained by some $`(k+1)\times (\mathrm{}+1)`$ rectangle. It follows that the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is contained by the $`(k,\mathrm{})`$-hook $`H(k,\mathrm{})`$. We prove the theorem under the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a filter in $`𝕐_k`$, namely the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is contained in the ‘strip’ $`𝕐_k=H(k,0)`$. The proof of the general (i.e. ‘hook’)-case is similar.

The proof of the $`k`$-strip case is by induction on $`k1`$.

The case $`k=1`$ is obvious: The complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is contained in

$$𝕐_1=\{(n)n=1,2,\mathrm{}\}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, then $`(n)\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ for $`n`$ large enough. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ is a filter, it follows that its complement is a subset of the finite set $`\{(1),(2),\mathrm{},(n1)\}`$, and the proof follows.

Next, assume that the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is contained in $`𝕐_k`$ (namely $`(1^{k+1})\mathrm{\Omega }`$), and that the theorem is true for filters whose complements are contained by the strips $`𝕐_r`$ when $`r<k`$.

Assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ contains a partition $`\mu `$ with at most $`k`$ parts: $`\mu =(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)`$. Denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}=\mu ,(1^{k+1})`$, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ . It is therefore suffices to prove a.c.c. on chains of filters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_3\mathrm{\Omega }_4\mathrm{}`$ i.e. that start with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}`$. Hence we consider the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}`$.

Let $`B=B(\mu )`$ denote the following finite-union of sets of partitions

$$B(\mu )=\underset{r=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(\underset{0b_k\mathrm{}b_{r+1}a_{r+1}1}{}\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r,b_{r+1},\mathrm{},b_k)x_1\mathrm{}x_kb_{r+1}\}\right)$$

(when $`r=0`$ the corresponding set $`\{(b_1,\mathrm{},b_k)0b_k\mathrm{}b_1a_11\}`$ is finite). Let $`\lambda 𝕐_k`$. It is not difficult to see that $`\lambda B(\mu )`$ if’f $`\mu \lambda `$, namely $`a_i\lambda _i`$ for all $`i`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}`$ is a filter, if’f $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}`$ . Thus, if $`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}`$ then $`\lambda B(\mu )`$, so for some $`0rk1`$ and some $`0b_k\mathrm{}b_{r+1}a_{r+1}1`$,

$$\lambda \{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r,b_{r+1},\mathrm{},b_k)x_1\mathrm{}x_rb_{r+1}\}.$$

Note that $`\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r,b_{r+1},\mathrm{},b_k)x_1\mathrm{}x_rb_{r+1}\}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝕐_r`$ under the correspondence

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r,b_{r+1},\mathrm{},b_k)(x_1b_{r+1},\mathrm{},x_rb_{r+1}),$$

and this isomorphism preserves inclusions of partitions. Also, here $`r<k`$.

By induction, each such set satisfies a.c.c (for filters), hence the above finite union $`B(\mu )`$ also satisfies that condition, and the proof of the theorem follows.


format: text

text:
# Quark spin coupling in baryons - revisited

## I Introduction

The spin-spin coupling between two fermions has two terms: a “tensor” term and a “contact” term. In atoms, electron spins interact with the nuclear spin and this explains the hyperfine structure: the tensor term is ordinary magnetic dipole-dipole interaction, and the contact term is part of the same interaction when the dipoles are at the same point. In nuclei, nucleon spins interact through pion exchange and there is a similar coupling with a different weight for the contact term. For constituent quarks in baryons there is a controversy in the literature between “gluon exchange” (OGE) which mimics the magnetic coupling and “pion exchange” (OPE). In the early days of constituent quarks OGE was applied to ground state georgi  and excited baryons gromes ; karl ; isgur  with some success. Pion exchange was also tried particularly in the context of bag models brown . More recently it has been argued that the entire spin dependent coupling between constituent quarks is due to Goldstone Boson Exchange glozman , a generalization of OPE. This proposal was criticized nathan ; gloz .

We deal here with a single issue: the mixing of states in the lowest mass negative parity nucleons. These negative parity nucleons have internal orbital angular momentum L=1, which couples with an overall quark spin of S = 1/2 or 3/2 to give the total angular momentum J. The physical states of J = 1/2 (or 3/2) are mixtures of doublet and quartet spin states, and this mixing can be determined from decay data. This issue has been discussed already nathan ; gloz . However, we find that the discussion has been flawed since nathan  used the estimates of glozman  and the estimates of glozman  are based on fitting the experimental mass spectrum. However, as we show below, these mixing angles are independent of the mass spectrum and depend only on the coupling and wavefunctions. We re-evaluate these angles and find significant changes from those appearing in glozman ; nathan . The differences between OPE and OGE become larger and the data favors more clearly OGE, the same coupling as between electrons and nuclei (ie., magnetic dipole type hyperfine interactions). All this will be discussed in detail below, as well as some items in the literature.

## II Quark-Quark Hyperfine Interactions

Our discussion here follows karl , although for the sake of clarity we repeat some of the material.

### II.1 One Gluon Exchange (OGE)

This effective hyperfine interaction between two quarks in a baryon has the form of magnetic dipole-dipole interaction in Electrodynamics, (with dipoles produced by current loops, see jackson ):

$$H_{\mathrm{OGE}}=A\{(8\pi /3)\stackrel{}{S_1}\stackrel{}{S_2}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\rho })+(3\stackrel{}{S_1}\widehat{\rho }\stackrel{}{S_2}\widehat{\rho }\stackrel{}{S_1}\stackrel{}{S_2})\rho ^3\}.$$
(1)
Here $`S_1,S_2`$ are the spins of the two quarks, $`\sqrt{2}\stackrel{}{\rho }=\stackrel{}{r_1}\stackrel{}{r_2}`$ is a vector joining them and $`\widehat{\rho }=\stackrel{}{\rho }/|\stackrel{}{\rho }|`$ is a unit vector and A is an overall constant which determines the strength of the interaction. We do not need the value of A in what follows, since we do not engage in fitting spectra (but A$`>0`$). Nor does it matter if the value of A is too large to be interpreted as single gluon exchange. The first term is called the (Fermi) contact term and the second is the “tensor” term, but these names obscure the origin of the second term which is the ordinary dipole-dipole interaction for two separated dipoles of spin one half. Recall that the contact term only contributes when the two dipoles are in an orbital s-wave state ($`l_{12}=0`$), while the tensor term only contributes when the two dipoles are in an orbital state with $`l_{12}`$ different from zero (unity here). It is also important to note that these two terms are parts of the same physical interaction. In Eq. (1) one assumes that the quarks are point-like.

### II.2 One Pion Exchange (OPE)

Here we assume that the two quarks interact by exchanging a massless pseudoscalar, the “pion”, and the coupling takes the form glozman :

$$H_{\mathrm{OPE}}=B\{(4\pi /3)\stackrel{}{S_1}\stackrel{}{S_2}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\rho })+(3\stackrel{}{S_1}\widehat{\rho }\stackrel{}{S_2}\widehat{\rho }\stackrel{}{S_1}\stackrel{}{S_2})\rho ^3\}\stackrel{}{\lambda }_1^f\stackrel{}{\lambda }_2^f,$$
(2)
where B is another constant and $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }_{1,2}^f`$ are the eight $`3\times 3`$ Gell-Mann SU(3) flavor matrices for quarks number 1 and 2. If we consider strictly pion exchange we should replace these $`3\times 3`$ matrices by isospin matrices $`\stackrel{}{\tau }_{1,2}`$. For a pair of nonstrange quarks the difference between the two is small (see below). As noted already in the previous section, if one is interested only in the mixing angles (and not in fitting mass spectra) the value of the constant B is immaterial, as we shall see. The main difference between Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) is the extra factor of $`\stackrel{}{\lambda _1}\stackrel{}{\lambda _2}`$ in $`H_{\mathrm{OPE}}`$ and the coefficient of the contact term relative to the tensor term $`(8\pi /3`$ versus $`4\pi /3`$, a factor of minus one half to go from OGE to OPE). It is interesting to note that the coefficient of $`(4\pi /3`$) in the pion exchange case is the same as for the interaction of two electric dipoles jackson . For finite mass pions there are corrections to Eq. (2) which will be discussed elsewhere (J. Chizma, to be published).

### II.3 Negative Parity Eigenstates

The low mass negative parity baryons are assigned to a 70-plet of $`SU(6)`$ which means that the spatial wavefunctions have mixed permutational symmetry (see karl ; isgur ; close ). In the notation we use karl , the spatial wavefunction $`\psi `$ has two components $`\psi ^\lambda `$ and $`\psi ^\rho `$ which transform under permutations of the three quarks as a two dimensional irreducible representation. The notation is explained for example in close . The total wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a sum of products of spatial $`\psi `$, spin $`\chi `$ and flavor $`\varphi `$ wavefunctions. For spin 3/2, the spin wavefunction is totally symmetric under permutations while for spin 1/2 there are again two states of mixed symmetry $`\chi ^\lambda `$ and $`\chi ^\rho `$. The flavor wavefunctions for I=1/2, also have mixed symmetry. Ignoring the color wavefunction (which is antisymmetric) the total wavefunction is totally symmetric under all permutations, and has the following forms:

$`S=3/2:`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(^4P)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\chi ^s\{\psi ^\lambda \varphi ^\lambda +\psi ^\rho \varphi ^\rho \},`$ (3a)
$`S=1/2:`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(^2P)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\chi ^\lambda \psi ^\rho \varphi ^\rho +\chi ^\rho \psi ^\lambda \varphi ^\rho +\chi ^\rho \psi ^\rho \varphi ^\lambda \chi ^\lambda \psi ^\lambda \varphi ^\lambda \}.`$ (3b)
## III Computations

The spin angular momentum S=1/2, 3/2 has to be coupled with the orbital angular momentum L=1 to give the total angular momentum J=L+S. As a result there are two states each at J=1/2 and J=3/2, namely spin doublet and spin quartet: $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{},^4P_{1/2}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{},^4P_{3/2}`$. The physical eigenstates are linear combinations of these two states, and can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian ($`H_{\mathrm{OGE}}`$ or $`H_{\mathrm{OPE}}`$) in this space of states. For example, the $`J^\mathrm{P}=3/2^{}`$ states are eigenstates of the matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^4P_{3/2}|H|^4P_{3/2}& \hfill ^4P_{3/2}|H|^2P_{3/2}\\ \hfill ^2P_{3/2}|H|^4P_{3/2}& \hfill ^2P_{3/2}|H|^2P_{3/2}\end{array}\right)_,$$
(4)
where H is either $`H_{\mathrm{OGE}}`$ or $`H_{\mathrm{OPE}}`$, which are given in Eq. (1) or Eq. (2) for a single pair of quarks. The total Hamiltonian sums over all three quark pairs, and since the wavefunctions in Eq. (3) are symmetric under all permutations, we can pick a single pair of quarks $`H^{(12)}`$ and multiply the result by three. The computation of these matrix elements are simple but a little tedious. We illustrate the computation for the case of $`J^\mathrm{P}=3/2^{}`$ given above, successively for both gluon and pion exchange. Before we start, we comment that the doublet-doublet matrix elements only receive contributions from the contact terms, while the doublet-quartet matrix elements only come from tensor terms. The quartet-quartet matrix element receives contributions from both tensor and contact terms. Thus the relative size of contact and tensor terms come into play. We find

$$^4P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OPE}}|^4P_{3/2}=(\frac{3}{2})\{\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda |H^{12}|\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda \varphi ^\lambda |\stackrel{}{\lambda _1}\stackrel{}{\lambda _2}|\varphi ^\lambda +\chi ^s\psi ^\rho |H^{12}|\chi ^s\psi ^\rho \varphi ^\rho |\stackrel{}{\lambda _1}\stackrel{}{\lambda _2}|\varphi ^\rho \},$$
(5)
where the leading factor of 3/2 comes from the number of pairs and the normalization in Eq. (3). We further take note that

$`\varphi ^\lambda |\stackrel{}{\lambda _1}\stackrel{}{\lambda _2}|\varphi ^\lambda =4/3`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`\varphi ^\rho |\stackrel{}{\lambda _1}\stackrel{}{\lambda _2}|\varphi ^\rho =8/3.`$ (6)
It is amusing that these flavor matrix elements have coefficients similar to the contact interaction in pion or gluon exchange, but this is a simple numerical coincidence. We also assume harmonic oscillator spatial wavefunctions $`\psi _{1M}^{\rho ,\lambda }`$ in common with karl ; glozman . Then there is a further simplification: the contact term which contains a delta function $`\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\rho })`$ vanishes in the state $`\psi ^\rho `$ and only receives a contribution in the state $`\psi ^\lambda `$. The tensor term only survives in $`\psi ^\rho `$, which has unit orbital angular momentum $`l_\rho =1`$. As a result we can write:

$$H_{\mathrm{OGE}}(^4P)=(3/2)\{\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda |H_{\mathrm{contact}}^{12}|\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda +\chi ^s\psi ^\rho |H_{\mathrm{tensor}}^{12}|\chi ^s\psi ^\rho ,$$
(7)
where for one gluon exchange

$`\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda |H_{\mathrm{contact}}^{12}|\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`A(8\pi /3)\chi ^s|\stackrel{}{S_1}\stackrel{}{S_2}|\chi ^s\psi ^\lambda |\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\rho })|\psi ^\lambda ,`$
$`=`$ $`(2/3)A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}.`$
Here $`\alpha `$ is an oscillator parameter; the corresponding tensor term is

$$\chi ^s\psi ^\rho |H_{\mathrm{tensor}}^{12}|\chi ^s\psi ^\rho =(8/15)A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}.$$
(9)
Inserting Eqs. (III), (9) into Eq. (7) we obtain, (in agreement with karl )

$`^4P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OGE}}|^4P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`(3/2)\{(2/3)+(8/15)\},`$
$`=`$ $`(9/5)(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{units}A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}).`$
Similarly for pion exchange one obtains

$`^4P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OPE}}|^4P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`(3/2)\{(1/2)(2/3)(4/3)+(1)(8/15)(8/3)\},`$
$`=`$ $`(14/5)(\mathrm{in}\mathrm{units}B\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}).`$
Where the factor of (-1/2) is the change in contact term from Eq. (1) to Eq. (2). There are only two more matrix elements (for each of pion and gluon exchange), and they are

$`^2P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OGE}}|^4P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`(10)^{1/2}A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2},`$ (12a)
$`^2P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OGE}}|^2P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2},`$ (12b)
$`^2P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OPE}}|^4P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`(8/3)(10)^{1/2}B\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2},`$ (12c)
$`^2P_{3/2}|H_{\mathrm{OPE}}|^2P_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`(7/3)B\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}.`$ (12d)
With these matrix elements we find for OGE, the Hamiltonian for J=3/2 to have the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}9/5\hfill & \hfill 10^{1/2}\\ 10^{1/2}\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{4}P_{3/2}^{}& \\ {}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}& \end{array}\right)_,$$
(13)
where we have omitted the common units $`A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}`$. We now find the mixing $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{d}(10^{1/2})/(14/5)=0.11`$ corresponding to a mixing angle of $`\theta _\mathrm{d}=6.3^{}`$, in agreement with karl ; isgur . The definition we follow has the lowest energy state (“$`E_{\mathrm{low}}=1.035`$”) with composition: $`|E_{\mathrm{low}}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _\mathrm{d}|^4P_{3/2}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{d}|^2P_{3/2}`$. This means that the lowest eigenstate of the matrix above is: $`|J^\mathrm{P}=3/2^{};\mathrm{OGE}=0.110|^4P_{3/2}+0.994|^2P_{3/2}`$. We emphasize that this mixing is the same for all possible values of the constant $`A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}`$, whether they fit the masses or not. Similarly for $`H_{\mathrm{OPE}}`$ we have to diagonalize the matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}14/5\hfill & \hfill (8/3)10^{1/2}\\ (8/3)10^{1/2}\hfill & \hfill 7/3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{4}P_{3/2}^{}& \\ {}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{}& \end{array}\right)_,$$
(14)
With this matrix, the mixing angle $`\theta _\mathrm{d}`$ is found to be $`\theta _\mathrm{d}=52.7^{}`$. This means that the lowest eigenstate of $`H_{\mathrm{OPE}}`$ has the composition: $`|J^\mathrm{P}=3/2^{};\mathrm{OPE}=0.796|^4P_{3/2}+0.606|^2P_{3/2}`$. This is very different from the composition of the state with OGE coupling, given above. Whereas with OPE coupling the lowest $`3/2^{}`$ state is about 63% spin-quartet, with OGE it is about 1% spin quartet. The decay data favors a 1% contamination hey . Furthermore, nathan ; glozman  quote a mixing angle $`\theta _\mathrm{d}=\pm 8^{}`$ for OPE which differs substantially from $`53^{}`$. Note that had we used a coupling $`\stackrel{}{\tau _1}\stackrel{}{\tau _2}`$ instead of $`\stackrel{}{\lambda _1}\stackrel{}{\lambda _2}`$ the OPE composition would change slightly to $`0.78|^4P_{3/2}+0.63|^2P_{3/2}`$.

We give now briefly the corresponding numbers in the $`J^\mathrm{P}=1/2^{}`$ sector, referring to the lowest energy states in units of $`A\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}`$ (for OGE) and $`B\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}`$ (for OPE):

$`\mathrm{OGE}:|E=1.62`$ $`=`$ $`0.526|^4P_{1/2}+0.85|^2P_{1/2};\theta _\mathrm{s}=32^{},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{OPE}:|E=3.60`$ $`=`$ $`0.43|^4P_{1/2}+0.903|^2P_{1/2};\theta _\mathrm{s}=+25.5^{}.`$ (16)
References glozman  and nathan  quote a mixing angle $`\theta _\mathrm{s}=\pm 13^{}`$. The data hey  supports a composition close to OGE and a mixing angle of $`32^{}`$. For reference we quote the OPE Hamiltonian in the $`1/2^{}`$ sector in matrix form, (in units $`B\alpha ^3\pi ^{1/2}`$)

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \hfill 8/3\\ 8/3\hfill & \hfill 7/3\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{4}P_{1/2}^{}& \\ {}_{}{}^{2}P_{1/2}^{}& \end{array}\right)_.$$
(17)
Note that for OPE coupling the lowest lying state is predominantly (81%) spin doublet, while for OGE coupling the ground state is 72% spin doublet.

## IV Summary and Discussion

In addition to the spin-spin couplings of Eqn’s (1) or (2) discussed above, spin in the negative parity baryons also couple to the orbital angular momentum. This is the spin-orbit coupling ($`\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}`$). It is an empirical observation that this coupling is rather weak in negative parity nucleons, and as a result it has been neglected in some of the literature karl ; isgur ; glozman . There is a great deal of discussion about the physical origin of this effect nathan ; gloz . If some spin orbit coupling is included it will contribute to the diagonal matrix elements of the two by two matrices which we diagonalize, and can shift the mixing angles. The inclusion of this effect will however negate a parameter free determination of the mixing angles. That is, one must use the spectroscopic mass data in order to find the relative strengths of the hyperfine interaction (Eqn’s 1,2) and the spin orbit interaction. This was done in a very preliminary manner, and we find the changes to the mixing angles to be small - less than the experimental error of $`10^{}`$. The spectroscopic data utilized was the nucleon, delta ($`P_{33}`$ resonance) and the $`D_{13}`$ (low), $`D_{15}`$ mass splitting. With these splittings, we find that the OGE mixing angle changes from $`32^{}`$ to $`36^{}`$, while for OPE the angle changes from $`25.5^{}`$ to $`27.5^{}`$ (both for the $`J^P=1/2^{}`$ sector). For more complete results, one should attempt a reasonable fit to all states in the multiplet and this has not yet been done.

We summarize in Table 1 the results quoted in section III. We emphasize again that these results are independent of spectral fits to the masses of these states. The results depend only on the couplings and the wavefunctions assumed. The strength of the coupling (either A or B here) factorizes from the mixing matrices and the same mixing is obtained regardless of this coupling strength. The wavefunctions were assumed to be harmonic oscillator - appropriate for these states since they are the ground state in the negative parity sector. Moreover this assumption is common to karl ; isgur  and glozman . We further assumed in the couplings for OPE that the pion mass is zero; results for non-zero pion masses will be given elsewhere. They do not change significantly the numbers given in Table 1.

Table 1 shows a substantial change from the values for OPE in the literature glozman ; nathan ; this change is relevant since the error of the “experimental” value is of the order of $`10^{}`$ hey , and the preference for the OGE solution is now unambiguous. It has been argued gloz  that the addition of vector meson exchange to pseudoscalar exchange will remedy this problem. That may indeed be the case, but one should recall that the primary controversy is whether the quark coupling in baryons is OGE or OPE, and the data answers this question unequivocally. One may just as well argue that atomic hyperfine interactions - which has the same form as Eq. (1) \- is really due to the superposition of a pseudoscalar and massive vector field, rather than a massless gauge field. Similar mixings for OPE have also been obtained elsewhere arima , however the emphasis on the independence from spectral data is missing.

Finally, there have been comments on the issue of color versus flavor exchange. In particular, collins  fits the mass spectrum in the L=1 sector in a rather ingenious way, using only permutation symmetry and SU(6), with a number of free parameters, essentially reduced matrix elements. But by treating the matrix elements corresponding to the contact and tensor terms as independent parameters, one sidesteps the controversy between vector exchange georgi ; karl ; isgur  and pseudoscalar exchange glozman . In addition, as noted, if one has well defined Hamiltonians and wavefunctions these mixings are independent of mass fits. Although not in these precise words, similar conclusions are stated by the authors of collins .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Prof. Victor Novikov for comments on the manuscript. We also thank Masanori Morishita and Masaki Arima for pointing out a sign error in the first version of this manuscript.