format: text

text:
# Invariants of Legendrian Knots

## 1 . Introduction

### 1.1 . Legendrian knots

A smooth knot $`L`$ in the standard contact space $`(^3,\alpha )=(\{(q,p,u)\},dupdq)`$ is called Legendrian if it is everywhere tangent to the $`2`$-plane distribution $`\mathrm{ker}(\alpha )`$ (or, in other words, if the restriction of $`\alpha `$ to $`L`$ vanishes). Two Legendrian knots are Legendrian isotopic if the they can be connected by a smooth path in the space of Legendrian knots (or, equivalently, if one can be sent to another by a diffeomorphism $`g`$ of $`^3`$ such that $`g^{}\alpha =\phi \alpha `$, where $`\phi >0`$). In order to visualize a knot in $`^3`$, it is convenient to project it to a plane. In the Legendrian case, the character of the resulting picture will depend on the choice of the projection. The useful two are: the Lagrangian projection $`\pi :^3^2,(q,p,u)(q,p)`$, and the front projection $`\sigma :^3^2,(p,q,u)(q,u)`$. In Figure 1, two projections of the simplest Legendrian knot (unknot) are shown.

We say that a Legendrian knot $`L^3`$ is $`\pi `$-generic if all self-intersections of the immersed curve $`\pi (L)`$ are transverse double points. We can represent a $`\pi `$-generic Legendrian knot $`L`$ by its (Lagrangian) diagram: the curve $`\pi (L)^2`$, at every crossing of which the overpassing branch (the one with the greater value of $`u`$) is marked. Of course, not every abstract knot diagram in $`^2`$ is a diagram of a Legendrian knot, or is oriented diffeomorphic to such (it requires a bit of extra work to check whether a given diagram corresponds to a Legendrian knot, cf. ).

Given a Legendrian knot $`L^3`$, its $`\sigma `$-projection, or front, $`\sigma (L)^2`$ is a singular curve with nowhere vertical tangent vectors. Its singularities, generically, are semi-cubic cusps and transverse double points. We say that $`L`$ is $`\sigma `$-generic if, moreover, all self-intersections of $`\sigma (L)`$ have different $`q`$-coordinates. Every closed planar curve with these types of singularities and nowhere vertical tangent vectors is a front of a Legendrian knot. Note that there is no need to explicitly indicate the type of a crossing of a front: the overpassing branch (the one with the greater value of $`p`$) is always the one with the greater slope.

### 1.2 . Classical invariants

The so-called classical invariants of an oriented Legendrian knot $`L`$ are defined as follows. The first of them is, formally, just the smooth isotopy type of $`L`$. The Thurston–Bennequin number $`\beta (L)`$ of $`L`$ is the linking number (with respect to the orientation defined by $`\alpha d\alpha `$) between $`L`$ and $`s(L)`$, where $`s`$ is a small shift along the $`u`$ direction. The Maslov number $`m(L)`$ (which actually is an invariant of Legendrian immersion) is twice the rotation number of the projection of $`L`$ to the $`(q,p)`$ plane (or, equivalently, the value of the Maslov $`1`$-cohomology class on the fundamental class of $`L`$). The change of orientation on $`L`$ changes the sign of $`m(L)`$ and preserves $`\beta (L)`$. The Thurston-Bennequin number of a $`\pi `$-generic Legendrian knot $`L`$ can be computed by counting the crossings of its Lagrangian diagram $`\pi (L)`$ with signs:

$$\beta (L)=\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right)$$

(where the $`q`$ axis is horizontal and the $`p`$ axis is vertical). In terms of the front projection, the classical invariants can be computed as follows. The Maslov number of a $`\sigma `$-generic oriented Legendrian knot $`L`$ is the number of the right cusps of the front $`\sigma (L)`$, counted with signs depending on the orientations:

$$m(L)=\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\right).$$

The Thurston-Bennequin number of $`L`$ is the number of crossings of $`\sigma (L)`$ counted with signs minus half the total number of cusps (= the number of right cusps):

$$\beta (L)=\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right)+\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(\text{ }\text{}\right).$$

For the Legendrian knot shown in Figure 1, we have $`m=0`$, $`\beta =1`$.

### 1.3 . New invariants and classification results

It is easy to show that every smooth knot admits a Legendrian realization. A natural question to ask is whether there exists a pair of Legendrian knots which have the same classical invariants but are not Legendrian isotopic. The answer is positive:

###### Theorem 1.1.

 There exist Legendrian knots $`L,L^{}`$ (see Figure 2 on p. 2, Figure 6 on p. 6) that have the same classical invariants (smooth knot type $`5_2`$, $`m=0`$, $`\beta =1`$) but are not Legendrian isotopic.

In the next two sections, we present two combinatorial constructions of Legendrian knot invariants. The first one associates to the Lagrangian projection of a Legendrian knot a differential graded algebra (DGA). The second construction deals with decompositions of the front projection into closed curves. Each of the two provides a proof of Theorem 1.1. The invariants do not change when the orientation of the knot reverses, so essentially they are invariants of non-oriented Legendrian knots. It should be mentioned that these constructions also produce, with minor modifications, invariants of Legendrian links.

The number of Legendrian knots with given classical invariants is known to be finite . Eliashberg and Fraser gave a classification of Legendrian realization for smooth unknots . It turned out that smooth unknots are Legendrian simple in the sense that the Legendrian isotopy types of their Legendrian realizations are determined by the classical invariants. Etnyre and Honda obtained a classification of Legendrian realization for torus knots and the figure eight knot . Again, these smooth knot types proved to be Legendrian simple. The $`5_2`$ is the simplest knot type for which the classification is not known. By Theorem 1.1, the type $`5_2`$ is not Legendrian simple. Conjecturally, two Legendrian knots of smooth type $`5_2`$ with the same classical invariants are Legendrian isotopic unless they form the pair $`L,L^{}`$ from Theorem 1.1. Several interesting examples of knots with coinciding classical invariants but not Legendrian isotopic were constructed by Ng .

## 2 . DGA of a Legendrian knot

### 2.1 . Definitions

In this section, we associate with every $`\pi `$-generic Legendrian knot $`L`$ a DGA $`(A,)`$ over $`/2`$ (; a similar construction was also given by Eliashberg). This DGA is related to the symplectic field theory introduced by Eliashberg, Givental, and Hofer in  (see ).

Let $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ be the set of crossings of $`Y=\pi (L)`$. Define $`A`$ to be the tensor algebra (free associative unital algebra) $`T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ with generators $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$. The grading on $`A`$ takes values in the group $`/m(L)`$ and is defined as follows. Given a crossing $`a_j`$, consider the points $`z_+,z_{}L`$ such that $`\pi (z_+)=\pi (z_{})=a_j`$ and the $`u`$-coordinate of $`z_+`$ is greater than the $`u`$-coordinate of $`z_{}`$. These points divide $`L`$ into two pieces, $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$, which we orient from $`z_+`$ to $`z_{}`$. We can assume, without loss of generality, that the intersecting branches are orthogonal at $`a`$. Then, for $`\epsilon \{1,2\}`$, the rotation number of the curve $`\pi (\gamma _\epsilon )`$ has the form $`N_\epsilon /2+1/4`$, where $`N_\epsilon `$. Clearly, $`N_1N_2`$ is equal to $`\pm m(L)`$. Hence $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ represent the same element of the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=/m(L)`$, which we define to be the degree of $`a_j`$.

We are going to define the differential $``$. For every natural $`k`$, fix a (curved) convex $`k`$-gon $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k^2`$ whose vertices $`x_0^k,\mathrm{},x_{k1}^k`$ are numbered counter-clockwise. The form $`dqdp`$ defines an orientation on $`^2`$. Denote by $`W_k(Y)`$ the collection of smooth orientation-preserving immersions $`f:\mathrm{\Pi }_k^2`$ such that $`f(\mathrm{\Pi }_k)Y`$. Note that $`fW_k(Y)`$ implies $`f(x_i^k)\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$. Consider the set of nonparametrized immersions $`\stackrel{~}{W}_k(Y)`$, which is the quotient of $`W_k(Y)`$ by the action of the group $`\{g\mathrm{Diff}_+(\mathrm{\Pi }_k)|g(x_i^k)=x_i^k\}`$. The diagram $`Y`$ divides a neighbourhood of each of its crossings into four sectors. We call positive two of them which are swept out by the underpassing curve rotating counter-clockwise, and negative the other two (the sectors are marked in Figure 1). For each vertex $`x_i^k`$ of the polygon $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$, a smooth immersion $`f\stackrel{~}{W}_k(Y)`$ maps its neighbourhood in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ to either a positive or a negative sector; we shall say that $`x_i^k`$ is, respectively, a positive or a negative vertex for $`f`$. Define the set $`W_k^+(Y)`$ to consist of immersions $`f\stackrel{~}{W}_k(Y)`$ such that the vertex $`x_0^k`$ is positive for $`f`$, and all other vertices are negative. Let $`W_k^+(Y,a_j)=\{fW_k^+(Y)|f(x_0^k)=a_j\}`$. Denote $`A_1=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}/2A`$, $`A_k=(A_1)^k`$. Then $`A=_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}A_l`$. Let $`=_{k0}_k`$, where $`_k(A_i)A_{i+k1}`$. Define

$$_k(a_j)=\underset{fW_{k+1}^+(Y,a_j)}{}f(x_1)\mathrm{}f(x_k)$$

(for $`k=0`$, we have $`_0(a_j)=\mathrm{\#}(W_1^+(Y,a_j))`$, and extend $``$ to $`A`$ by linearity and the Leibniz rule. The following theorem says that $`(A,)`$ is indeed a DGA:

###### Theorem 2.1.

The differential $``$ is well defined. We have $`\mathrm{deg}()=1`$ and $`^2=0`$.

Define the ($`l`$-th, where $`l\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) stabilization of a DGA $`(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n),)`$ to be the DGA $`(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,a_{n+1},a_{n+2}),)`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}(a_{n+1})=l`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_{n+2})=l1`$, $`(a_{n+1})=a_{n+2}`$, and $``$ acts on $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ as before. An automorphism of $`T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ is called elementary if it sends $`a_i`$ to $`a_i+v`$, where $`v`$ does not involve $`a_i`$, and fixes $`a_j`$ for $`ji`$. Two DGAs $`(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n),)`$, $`(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n),^{})`$ are called tame isomorphic if one can be obtained from another by a composition of elementary automorphisms; they are called stable tame isomorphic if they become tame isomorphic after (iterated) stabilizations.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`(A,)`$, $`(A^{},^{})`$ be the DGAs of ($`\pi `$-generic) Legendrian knots $`L,L^{}`$. If $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are Legendrian isotopic then $`(A,)`$ and $`(A^{},^{})`$ are stable tame isomorphic. In particular, the homology rings $`H(A,)=\mathrm{ker}()/\mathrm{im}()`$ and $`H(A^{},^{})=\mathrm{ker}()/\mathrm{im}()`$ are isomorphic as graded rings.

The hard part in the proof of Theorem 2.1 is to show that $`^2=0`$. The proof of this fact mimics, in a combinatorial way, the classical gluing–compactness argument of the Floer theory (cf. ). The proof of Theorem 2.2 involves a careful study of the behaviour of the DGA associated with a Legendrian knot when its Lagrangian diagram goes through elementary bifurcations (Legendrian Reidemeister moves).

It turns out that one cannot replace the coefficient ring $`/2`$ by $``$: in some sense, our homology theory is not oriented. However, the construction described above can be modified to associate with a Legendrian knot $`L`$ a DGA graded by $``$ and having $`[s,s^1]`$ (where $`\mathrm{deg}(s)=m(L)`$) as a coefficient ring . After reducing the grading to $`/m(L)`$, and applying the homomorphism $`[s,s^1]/2`$ sending both $`s`$ and $`1`$ to $`1/2`$, this $`[s,s^1]`$-DGA becomes the $`/2`$-DGA of the knot $`L`$.

### 2.2 . Poincaré polynomials

Homology rings of DGAs can be hard to work with. We are going to define an easily computable invariant $`I`$, which is a finite subset of the group monoid $`_0[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$, where $`_0=\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=/m(L)`$. Assume that $`_0=0`$. Then $`_1^2=0`$. Since $`(A_1)A_1`$, we can consider the homology $`H(A_1,_1)=\mathrm{ker}(_1|_{A_1})/\mathrm{im}(_1|_{A_1})`$, which is a vector space graded by the cyclic group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Define the Poincaré polynomial $`P_{(A,)}_0[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ by

$$P_{(A,)}(t)=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}dim\left(H_\lambda (A_1,_1)\right)t^\lambda ,$$

where $`H_\lambda (A_1,_1)`$ is the degree $`\lambda `$ homogeneous component of $`H(A_1,_1)`$. Define the group $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(A)`$ to consist of graded automorphisms of $`A`$ such that for each $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we have $`g(a_i)=a_i+c_i`$, where $`c_iA_0=/2`$. (of course, $`c_i=0`$ when $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)0`$). Consider the set $`U_0(A,)`$ consisting of automorphisms $`g\mathrm{Aut}_0(A)`$ such that $`(^g)_0=0`$ (where $`^g=g^1g`$). Define

$$I(A,)=\{P_{(A,^g)}|gU_0(A,)\}.$$

Since $`\mathrm{Aut}_0(A)`$ has at most $`2^n`$ elements, this invariant is not hard to compute. We can associate with every ($`\pi `$-generic) Legendrian knot $`L`$ the set $`I(L)=I(A_L,_L)`$. Note that $`P(1)=\beta (L)`$ for $`PI(L)`$. One can show that $`I`$ is an invariant of stable tame DGA isomorphism. Hence Theorem 2.2 implies the following

###### Corollary 2.3.

If $`L`$ is Legendrian isotopic to $`L^{}`$ then $`I(L)=I(L^{})`$.

The set $`I(L)`$ can be empty (cf. Section 4) but no examples are known where $`I(L)`$ contains more than one element. Also, for all known examples of pairs $`L,L^{}`$ of Legendrian knots with coinciding classical invariants we have $`P(1)=P^{}(1)`$, where $`PI(L)`$, $`P^{}I(L^{})`$. Other, more complicated invariants of stable tame isomorfism were developed and applied to distinguishing Legendrian knots in .

### 2.3 . Examples

1a. Let $`(A,)=(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_9),)`$ be the DGA of the Legendrian knot L given in Figure 2. We have $`m(L)=0`$, $`\beta (L)=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=1`$ for $`i4`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_5)=2`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_6)=2`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=0`$ for $`i7`$, $`(a_1)=1+a_7+a_7a_6a_5,`$ $`(a_2)=1+a_9+a_5a_6a_9,`$ $`(a_3)=1+a_8a_7,`$ $`(a_4)=1+a_8a_9,`$ $`(a_i)=0`$ for $`i5`$.

1b. Let $`(A^{},)=(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_9),)`$ be the DGA of the Legendrian knot $`L^{}`$ given in Figure 2. We have $`m(L^{})=0`$, $`\beta (L^{})=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=1`$ for $`i4`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=0`$ for $`i5`$, $`(a_1)=1+a_7+a_5+a_7a_6a_5+a_9a_8a_5,`$ $`(a_2)=1+a_9+a_5a_6a_9,`$ $`(a_3)=1+a_8a_7,`$ $`(a_4)=1+a_8a_9,`$ $`(a_i)=0`$ for $`i5`$.

An explicit computation shows that $`I(L)=\{t^2+t^1+t^2\}`$, $`I(L^{})=\{2t^0+t^1\}`$ and hence Theorem 1.1 follows from Corollary 2.3.

2. Let $`(A,)=(T(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{11}),)`$ be the DGA of the Legendrian knot $`K`$ given in Figure 3. We have $`m(K)=0`$, $`\beta (K)=7`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=1`$ for $`i\{1,2,7,9,10\}`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=0`$ for $`i\{3,4\}`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=1`$ for $`i\{5,6,8,11\}`$; $`(a_1)=1+a_{10}a_5a_3,`$ $`(a_2)=1+a_3+a_3a_6a_{10}+a_3a_{11}a_7,`$ $`(a_4)=a_5+a_{11}+a_{11}a_7a_5,`$ $`(a_6)=a_{11}a_8,`$ $`(a_7)=a_8a_{10},`$ $`(a_9)=1+a_{10}a_{11},`$ $`(a_i)=0`$ for $`i\{3,5,8,10,11\}`$. Denote by $`\widehat{K}`$ the ‘Legendrian mirror’ of $`K`$ — the image of $`K`$ under the map $`(q,p,u)(q,p,u)`$. The Legendrian knots $`K,\widehat{K}`$ have the same classical invariants. However, they are not Legendrian isotopic, and it is possible to distinguish them by means of their DGAs. There exist homology classes $`\xi _+,\xi _{}`$ in the graded homology ring $`H(A,)`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(\xi _+)=1,`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\xi _{})=1`$, and $`\xi _+\xi _{}=1`$ (choose $`\xi _+=[a_{10}],`$ $`\xi _{}=[a_{11}]`$). It follows from the definitions that the DGA for $`\widehat{K}`$ is obtained from $`(A,)`$ by applying the anti-automorphism reversing the order of generators in all monomials. Thus, if $`K`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ are Legendrian isotopic then the graded homology ring $`H(A,)`$ is anti-isomorphic to itself, and there exist $`\xi _+^{},\xi _{}^{}H(A,)`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(\xi _+^{})=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(\xi _{}^{})=1`$, $`\xi _{}^{}\xi _+^{}=1`$. But one can check that such classes do not exist (see  for details) and hence $`K`$ and $`\widehat{K}`$ are not Legendrian isotopic. Note that ‘first order invariants’ such as Poincaré polynomials are useless in distinguishing Legendrian mirror knots.

## 3 . Admissible decompositions of fronts

### 3.1 . Definitions

In this section, we present the invariants of Legendrian knots constructed in . These invariants are defined in terms of the front projection.

Given a $`\sigma `$-generic oriented Legendrian knot $`L`$, denote by $`C(L)`$ the set of its points corresponding to cusps of $`\sigma (L)`$. The Maslov index $`\mu :LC(L)\mathrm{\Gamma }=/m(L)`$ is a locally constant function, uniquely defined up to an additive constant by the following rule: the value of $`\mu `$ jumps at points of $`C(L)`$ by $`\pm 1`$ as shown in Figure 4. We call a crossing of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sigma (L)`$ Maslov if $`\mu `$ takes the same value on both its branches.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sigma (L)`$ is a union of closed curves $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ that have finitely many self-intersections and meet each other at finitely many points. Then we call the unordered collection $`\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n\}`$ a decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. A decomposition $`\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_n\}`$ is called admissible if it satisfies certain conditions, which we are going to define. The first two are as follows:

* Each curve $`X_i`$ bounds a topologically embedded disk: $`X_i=B_i`$.
* For each $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`q`$, the set $`B_i(q)=\{u(q,u)B_i\}`$ is either a segment, or consists of a single point $`u`$ such that $`(q,u)`$ is a cusp of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, or is empty.

Conditions (1) and (2) imply that each curve $`X_i`$ has exactly two cusps (and hence the number of curves is half the number of cusps). Each $`X_i`$ is divided by cusps into two pieces, on which the coordinate $`q`$ is a monotone function. Near a crossing $`xX_iX_j`$, the decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ may look in one of the three ways represented in Figure 5. Conditions (1) and (2), in particular, rule out the decomposition shown in Figure 5a. We call the crossing point $`x`$ switching if $`X_i`$ and $`X_j`$ are not smooth near $`x`$ (Figure 5b), and non-switching otherwise (Figure 5c).

* If $`(q_0,u)X_iX_j`$ ($`ij`$) is switching then for each $`qq_0`$ sufficiently close to $`q_0`$ the set $`B_i(q)B_j(q)`$ either coincides with $`B_i(q)`$ or $`B_j(q)`$, or is empty.
* Every switching crossing is Maslov.

We call a decomposition admissible if it satisfies Conditions (1)-(3), and graded admissible if it also satisfies Condition (4). Denote by $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Adm}_+(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) the set of admissible (resp. graded admissible) decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Given $`D\mathrm{Adm}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, denote by $`\mathrm{Sw}(D)`$ the set of its switching points. Define $`\theta (D)=\mathrm{\#}(D))\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Sw}(D))`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

If $`\sigma `$-generic Legendrian knots $`L,L^{}^3`$ are Legendrian isotopic then there exists a one-to-one mapping $`g:\mathrm{Adm}(\sigma (L))\mathrm{Adm}(\sigma (L^{}))`$ such that $`g(\mathrm{Adm}_+(\sigma (L)))=\mathrm{Adm}_+(\sigma (L^{}))`$ and $`\theta (g(D))=\theta (D)`$ for each $`D\mathrm{Adm}(\sigma (L))`$. In particular, the numbers $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}(\sigma (L)))`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}_+(\sigma (L)))`$ are invariants of Legendrian isotopy.

### 3.2 . Remarks

1. Decompositions of fronts were first considered by Eliashberg in  (only Conditions (1) and (2) were involved).

2. No examples are known where the total number of admissible decompositions $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}(\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$ is different for two Legendrian knots with coinciding classical invariants.

3. The proof of Theorem 3.1 goes as follows: we connect $`L`$ with $`L^{}`$ by a generic path in the space of Legendrian knots and define a canonical way to extend admissible decompositions through the points where the front is not $`\sigma `$-generic. The mapping $`g`$ depends on the choice of the path: a loop in the space of Legendrian knots lifts to an automorphism of $`\mathrm{Adm}(\sigma (L))`$ which can be non-trivial even when the loop is contractible. The meaning of this phenomenon is not clear.

4. It would be interesting to understand the relation between admissible decompositions and DGAs of Legendrian knots. The first result in this direction is that if $`\mathrm{Adm}_+(\sigma (L))`$ is nonempty then the set $`I(L)`$ defined in the previous section is also nonempty .

### 3.3 . Examples

Note that every admissible decomposition $`D`$ of a front $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is uniquely defined by its set of switching points. Indeed, denote by $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ the set of crossings of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then each subset $`EX(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ defines a decomposition $`D(E)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which near $`xX(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has the form shown in Figure 5b if $`xE`$, and the form shown in Figure 5c otherwise. Clearly, if $`E=\mathrm{Sw}(D)`$ then $`D=D(E)`$.

The Legendrian knots represented by the fronts $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in Figure 6 are respectively Legendrian isotopic to the Legendrian knots $`L,L^{}`$ defined in Figure 2. We are going to show that $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}_+(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=1`$, $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}_+(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))=2`$, and hence Theorem 1.1 is a consequence of Theorem 3.1. Assume that $`D\mathrm{Adm}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Consider the curve $`X_1D`$ containing the piece of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ indicated by the lower arrow. Being applied to $`X_1`$, Conditions (1) and (2) imply that $`c_2,c_3\mathrm{Sw}(D)`$. Similarly, looking at the curve $`X_2D`$ containing the piece of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ indicated by the upper arrow, we conclude that $`c_4,c_5\mathrm{Sw}(D)`$. If one of the crossings $`c_1,c_6`$ is switching, so is the other. Then either $`\mathrm{Sw}(D)=\{c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5\}`$ or $`\mathrm{Sw}(D)=\{c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6\}`$. It is not hard to check that both decompositions are admissible but only the first one is graded. Thus $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}_+(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=1`$. Arguing similarly, one can find that $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{Adm}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}))=2`$, where the admissible decompositions $`D_1,D_2`$ are defined by $`\mathrm{Sw}(D_1)=\{c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5\}`$, $`\mathrm{Sw}(D_2)=\{c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6\}`$, and are both graded.

## 4 . Instability of invariants

There are two stabilizing operations, $`S_{}`$ and $`S_+`$, on Legendrian isotopy classes of oriented Legendrian knots, defined as follows. Given an oriented Legendrian knot $`L`$, we perform one of the operations shown in Figure 7 in a small neighbourhood of a point on $`L`$. One can check that, up to Legendrian isotopy, the resulting Legendrian knot $`S_\pm (L)`$ does not depend on the choices involved, and the operations $`S_{},S_+`$ commute. An important observation is that two Legendrian knots $`L,L^{}`$ have the same classical invariants if and only if they are stable Legendrian isotopic in the sense that there exist $`n_{},n_+_0`$ such that $`S_{}^n_{}(S_+^{n_+}(L))`$ is Legendrian isotopic to $`S_{}^n_{}(S_+^{n_+}(L^{}))`$ .

Thus the invariants constructed in Sections 2 and 3 cannot be stable. In fact, they fail already after the first stabilization. The homology ring $`H`$ of the DGA corresponding to $`S_\pm (L)`$ vanish, and the set $`I(S_\pm (L))`$ is empty. This can be easily derived from the fact that the DGA of $`S_\pm (L)`$ can be obtained from the DGA of $`L`$ by adding a new generator $`a`$ such that $`(a)=1`$. The front of $`S_\pm (L)`$ has no admissible decompositions because Conditions (1) and (2) cannot hold for the curve $`X_i`$ containing the newly created cusps.

Studying Legendrian realizations of non-prime knots, Etnyre and Honda constructed, for each $`m`$, examples of Legendrian knots that have the same classical invariants but are not Legendrian isotopic even after $`m`$ stabilizations . Their proof uses the classification of Legendrian torus knots given in . It is an open problem to find invariants distinguishing those knots, or any pair of stabilized knots with the same classical invariants.


text:
# Instabilities of interacting electrons on the triangular lattice

## I Introduction

The triangular lattice has gained interest in modern condensed matter physics due to several reasons. First the triangular lattice continues to be important in the study of frustration effects in spin models, and is a promising candidate for the occurrence of spin-liquid phases. Then there are organic superconductors like the $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF) materials that may be described by an anisotropic triangular lattice and whose phase diagrams show some resemblance to those of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Very recently superconductivity was discovered at critical temperatures of 5K in Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}1.3`$H2O. In this compound edge-sharing octahedra of CoO2 form two-dimensional layered triangular networks. A one-band Hubbard model on the two-dimensional triangular lattice may be the simplest approach to describe the motion of the charge carriers in the layers.

In the cobalt oxides there are signs of electronic correlations like weak ferromagnetism and high temperature Curie behavior of the susceptibility. Therefore it is natural to ask whether the superconductivity in these materials arises due to electron-electron interactions. The experimental findings have immediately spurred several theoretical suggestions that RVB (resonating valence bond) superconductivity might be realized in these materials. The RVB theories in the framework of the $`t`$-$`J`$-model consider the case of strong on-site repulsion on the Co sites. An alternative approach is to start from weak coupling. A very flexible way to investigate superconductivity arising from weak to moderate electron-electron interactions is to use renormalization group (RG) techniques. Modern functional RG studies have proved useful in the analysis of the Hubbard model on the two-dimensional square lattice and give results that are in agreement with experiments and other theoretical approaches. In particular, on the square lattice for densities close to one electron per site, various strong coupling approaches and weak coupling RG calculations agree on the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter.

The Hubbard model on the triangular lattice has been analyzed using RG techniques by Tsai and Marston. These authors were mainly concerned with the half-filled case and could not find any relevant superconducting tendencies for the isotropic triangular lattice. Vojta and Dagotto studied superconducting instabilities due to paramagnon-exchange and found that the $`d_{xy}`$ channel dominates for most densities less than 1 electron/site. In addition they obtained an odd-frequency $`s`$-wave pairing as dominant channel close to half band filling. The fluctuation-exchange (FLEX) method was also applied to search for superconductivity on the anisotropic triangular lattice. In this paper we study two cases:

a) We analyze the parameter case that is, based on LDA (local density approximation) calculations for NaCo2O4, currently believed to be relevant for the CoO2 compound where superconductivity was found. NaCo2O4 has 1.5 electrons per Co site in the $`A_{1g}`$-$`t_{2g}`$ band close to the Fermi energy. For more details see the papers of Singh and Wang et al.. The superconducting samples (Na0.35CoO$`{}_{2}{}^{}1.3`$H2O) should have 0.15 electrons less per Co atom than in the NaCo2O4-layer, i.e. $`n1.35`$/Co site. If we want to describe the LDA band structure with a tight binding dispersion, the hopping amplitude $`t`$ should be chosen negative. Then the Fermi surface (FS) is hole-like and closed around the origin, in agreement with photoemission data on NaCo2O4. In our model calculation we choose $`t>0`$. The case $`t<0`$ is obtained by interchanging particles and holes. Then the superconducting samples correspond to $`n0.65`$/site. We also study the half-filled band, $`n=1`$/site, as this is interesting to make contact with other work. Furthermore we discuss the effect of exchange interactions between nearest neighbors.

b) The triangular lattice for $`t>0`$ at $`3/4`$ band filling ($`n=1.5`$/site) has a van Hove singularity in the density of states at the Fermi level, and the hexagon-shaped Fermi surface is nested. Thus we expect some kind of infrared instability of the Landau-Fermi liquid state. $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space resolved $`N`$-patch RG may be the appropriate method for an unbiased description of the flow to strong coupling.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we describe the $`N`$-patch renormalization group scheme and its implementation, in Sec. III we discuss case a) with small to medium band filling, and in Sec. IV we treat b), i.e. the density region near the van Hove filling. We conclude with some remarks on a possible relation to the cobalt oxides in Sec. V.

## II The model and the method

The Hamiltonian of the Hubbard model on the 2D triangular lattice is

$`H=t{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left[c_{i,s}^{}c_{j,s}+c_{j,s}^{}c_{i,s}\right]+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{i,}n_i.`$

Here $`t`$ is the amplitude for hopping between nearest neighbors $`ij`$ on the triangular lattice and $`U>0`$ is the on-site repulsion. We choose the reciprocal lattice to be spanned by the vectors $`(2\pi ,\pm 4\pi /\sqrt{3})`$ where we have set the lattice spacing to unity. Then the first Brillouin zone (BZ) is a regular hexagon (see Fig. 1). The non-interacting kinetic energy reads

$`ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})=2t\left[\mathrm{cos}k_x+2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}k_y\right]\mu ,`$

where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential regulating the particle density. The total bandwidth is $`9t`$. For the cobalt oxides $`t<0`$ according to LDA calculations. In this paper we will take $`t>0`$. In order to treat the case $`t<0`$ we have to interchange particles and holes.

Next we briefly describe the RG formalism that is used to obtain the effective interactions at low temperatures. We apply the so-called temperature-flow RG scheme introduced recently  in a $`N`$-patch implementation that covers the full Fermi surface. Similar to the approaches in Refs.  the $`T`$-flow scheme is derived from an exact RG equation. However, no low energy cutoff is introduced. Instead of integrating out modes we use the temperature $`T`$ itself as flow parameter and follow the evolution of the fermionic vertex functions as $`T`$ is varied. As was argued recently the procedure allows an unbiased comparison between AF and FM tendencies. In contrast with that, RG schemes with a flowing IR cutoff artificially suppress particle-hole excitations with small wave vectors, e.g. long wavelength density fluctuations. For a derivation and discussion of the $`T`$-flow RG scheme the reader is referred to Ref. .

The RG formalism produces a hierarchy of differential equations for the one-particle irreducible $`n`$-point vertex functions, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(n)}`$, as functions of the temperature. Integration of this system of equations gives the temperature-flow. As initial condition we assume that at a high temperature $`T_0`$, the single-particle Green’s function of the system is simply $`G_0(i\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})=[i\omega ϵ(\stackrel{}{k})]^1`$ and the interaction vertex is given by a local repulsion, $`U`$, or some other short range interaction. The initial conditions are justified if $`T_0`$ is sufficiently large. We truncate the infinite system of equations by dropping all vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(n)}`$ with $`n>4`$. In the present treatment we also neglect selfenergy corrections and the frequency dependence of the vertex functions. This restricts the scheme to one–loop equations for the spin-rotation invariant four-point vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(4)}`$. Starting with weak to moderate interactions, we follow the $`T`$-flow of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(4)}`$ as $`T`$ decreases.

The four-point vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{(4)}`$ is determined by a coupling function $`V_T(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,`$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ (see Refs. ). The initial condition for pure on-site repulsion is $`V_{T_0}(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)U`$. The numerical implementation follows the work of Zanchi and Schulz  and was already explained in Refs.  and . We define elongated phase space patches around straight lines from the origin to the boundaries of the BZ. Next we approximate $`V_T(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ by a constant for all wave vectors in the same patch. We calculate the RG flow for the discrete subset of interaction vertices with each FS patch represented by a single wave vector. Most calculations were performed using 48 patches. We have checked the consistency of the discretization by comparing with up to 96 patches. Together with the flow of the interactions we calculate the flow of several static susceptibilities, as described below. This allows us to analyze which classes of coupling functions and which susceptibilities become important at low $`T`$. In many cases we observe a flow to strong coupling, i.e. at sufficiently low temperature some components of the coupling function $`V_T(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ become larger than the bandwidth. The approximations mentioned above fail when the couplings become too large. Therefore we stop the flow when the largest coupling exceeds a high value larger than the bandwidth, e.g. $`V_{T,\mathrm{max}}=18t`$. This defines a characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$ of the flow to strong coupling. For superconducting and magnetic instabilities $`T^{}`$ can be interpreted as estimate of the transition temperature if ordering is made possible, e.g. by including coupling in the third lattice direction.

As in previous papers we discuss the temperature flow at fixed chemical potential and not at fixed particle density. Since the relevant part of the flow only occurs at low temperatures we do not expect significant qualitative differences between the two possibilities.

## III Results at half filling and less

First let us consider band fillings where the Fermi surface is well inside the first BZ with particle densities around half filling and less. We start the temperature-flow RG at higher initial temperatures $`4t`$ with local on-site interactions $`U=3.5t`$ or $`4t`$ and follow the flow down to low scales. In Figs. 2 and 3 we display the behavior of the most repulsive and most attractive coupling constants. Although there is some flow, the coupling functions remain within the oder of the bandwidth $`9t`$, even if we go down to very low scales. Above $`T10^5t`$ no tendency towards a flow to strong coupling, i.e. a divergence of the coupling constants, is observed.

Quite generally, for a non-nested Fermi surface away from van Hove singularities, superconductivity is the only possible instability at low scales in a weakly coupled system. Kohn and Luttinger gave an argument why superconductivity arises even in the presence of repulsive interactions. Although in our case we do not find a singularity over a wide scale range, it is still interesting to investigate which pair-scattering channel is most attractive. This channel can in principle become unstable at even lower temperatures. However in real systems these weak instabilities with non-$`s`$-wave pairing symmetries may be wiped out easily by impurity scattering.

For the two different densities in Figs. 2 and 3 we plot the pair scattering $`V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$ at low temperatures together with basis functions of the most attractive pairing channels. We have calculated the temperature-flow of the pairing susceptibilities with angular dependence $`\mathrm{sin}m\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}m\theta `$ for $`m=1,2,3,\mathrm{},N`$ around the FS. For the half-filled case in Fig. 2 there are two harmonics that grow together more strongly than all other pairing channels. The dominant channels are $`d_{xy}=\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ and $`d_{x^2y^2}=\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$. These two $`d`$-wave functions form the basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6^+`$, which is one of the two two-dimensional even-parity representations of the $`D_{6h}`$ symmetry of the hexagonal lattice. We expect that a possible superconducting pair amplitude will be proportional to a time-reversal symmetry-breaking superposition $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ of these two basis functions as this maximizes the condensation energy. Lee and Feng applied the Gutzwiller approximation scheme and variational Monte Carlo to the Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice. Among the paired paramagnetic states they found the $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$-wave state to have the lowest energy. Remarkably this is the pairing symmetry as the one suggested - albeit with extremely low $`T_c`$ \- by the weak coupling RG at small to moderate $`U/t`$. The same type of superconducting pairing was also found near half band filling by various RVB theories.

We note that in this perturbative treatment of the on-site repulsion no precursors of a Mott transition at stronger $`U`$ are visible. This is different from the Hubbard model on the square lattice close to half filling, where for a certain parameter range the flow to strong coupling reveals tendencies towards incompressibility.

Next let us consider the case $`n0.65`$/site that might, as explained in Sec. I, correspond to the superconducting cobalt oxide compounds. Here again no flow to strong coupling occurs down to very low temperatures $`T10^5t`$ (see Fig. 3). The dominant pair scattering is in an odd-parity triplet pairing channel with angle dependence $`\mathrm{sin}3\theta `$, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^4`$ representation of Ref. . Comparing the basis function with the actual pair scattering rendered by the RG scheme, we notice that only two of the three repulsive portions of the $`\mathrm{sin}3\theta `$ around the FS are reflected in the pair scattering. Thus even though this representation is the most attractive pairing channel, is does not fully match the effective interactions which mix in other symmetries at this scale. The second strongest components are $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`d_{xy}`$, the first component is clearly visible for $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ close to a maximum of $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ in the right plot in Fig. 3. Again, a possible $`T_c`$ in this case may be extremely low.

We repeat that for our parameters and purely local interactions $`0<U4t`$ we do not observe flows to strong coupling in the density range around and less than half filling. From the weak coupling perspective the reason simply is that the FS is relatively round and in the lack of nesting or van Hove singularities near the FS the one-loop corrections to the pair scattering do not generate any sufficiently attractive component in the pair scattering. Similar low energy scales for Kohn-Luttinger superconducting instabilities are found in the weakly repulsive Hubbard model on two-dimensional square lattice for a poorly nested Fermi surface away from the van Hove filling.

We note that with our RG scheme which neglects the frequency dependence of the interaction vertices, it is difficult to investigate odd-frequency pairing. This unconventional type of pair formation was suggested by calculations by Vojta and Dagotto for the Hubbard model on a triangular lattice for larger $`U/t`$. Although we cannot rule out this possibility for the time being, it is difficult to see how this type of instability should arise for the given rather generic situation unless drastic strong coupling effects are at work.

As has become clear, on-site repulsion alone does not give rise to superconductivity at reasonable energy scales for these band fillings. Therefore we extend our analysis and consider exchange interactions between nearest neighbors,

$`H_J=J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$

with $`\stackrel{}{S}_i=\frac{1}{2}_{s,s^{}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{s,s^{}}c_{i,s}^{}c_{i,s^{}}`$. In principle these interactions will be generated by virtual hopping processes for local repulsion $`Ut`$. Since we treat all interactions perturbatively, this regime is not accessible with our RG method. We will therefore just assume that the initial action contains such an exchange term and analyze the consequences.

First let us consider the case $`U=0`$ and $`J=t`$ at half band filling. Now the interactions flow to strong coupling at $`T0.02t`$, and an analysis of the coupling functions and susceptibilities shows that the divergence is a very clean Cooper instability with again dominant $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ character. This is shown in Fig. 4. In the upper right plot we can see that only the coupling functions $`V_T(\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3)`$ with total incoming wavevector $`\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2=0`$ grow rapidly towards low $`T`$. All other couplings remain smaller than the bandwidth. The pair scattering $`V(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{})`$ follows a $`(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _k\mathrm{cos}2\theta _k^{}+\mathrm{sin}2\theta _k\mathrm{sin}2\theta _k^{})`$ form when the angles $`\theta _k`$, $`\theta _k^{}`$ are varied around the Fermi surface. This means that $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`id_{xy}`$ components, which belong to the same representation on the triangular lattice, get amplified in equivalent ways in a BCS gap equation with this pair scattering.

The same picture occurs for general band fillings. It turns out that at least for $`J=t`$, $`U=0`$, the $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$-wave instability occurs over a wide density range from $`n=0.6`$/site up to $`n=1.8`$/site (see lower right plot of Fig. 4). The temperature scale for this instability is maximal near the van Hove filling. For $`J=t`$ it gets smaller than $`10^5t`$ for densities less than $`n=0.6`$/site, i.e. close to the density range $`n0.65`$ relevant for the superconductivity in the cobalt oxides. Note however that this temperature scale depends exponentially on $`J`$ and the density of states close to the Fermi level. We expect that an additional $`U>0`$ does not change the leading instability for these densities. We have checked this for $`U=2t`$, $`J=0.5t`$. Of course, our weak coupling analysis is not capable of describing a Mott state at half filling for large $`U/t`$.

It is interesting to observe the difference between the square lattice and the triangular lattice with nearest neighbor hoppings near half-filling. On the square lattice the flows to strong coupling and the suggested phases, mainly antiferromagnetic order and $`d_{x^{}y^2}`$-wave superconductivity come out of the weak coupling RG very similarly for pure on-site $`U`$ or nearest neighbor exchange $`J`$. On the triangular lattice the Fermi surface is not nested and no particle-hole symmetry exists. The flows for pure $`U`$ or pure $`J`$ interactions differ strongly in the energy scales and, further away from half filling, also in the dominant pair scattering.

Ferromagnetic exchange $`J=t`$ induces a weak tendency towards $`p`$-wave superconductivity of $`k_+ik_y`$-wave symmetry at 1/2 and 1/3 band filling. Around the van Hove filling we find a ferromagnetic instability.

## IV Around the van Hove filling

For chemical potential $`\mu =2t`$ or $`3/4`$ band filling, the non-interacting Fermi surface forms a hexagon. Its corners coincide with the van Hove singularities at the center points of the 6 flat sides of the BZ. Therefore we may expect some kind of infrared instability giving rise to a flow to strong coupling of a certain class of coupling constants. In addition to the diverging density of states, the flat sides of the Fermi surface are perfectly nested, and this can cause a RG flow to strong coupling as well. The situation is reminiscent of the simple nearest-neighbor-hopping Fermi surface of the 2D square lattice at half filling, where two pairs of nested FS sides meet at the van Hove points at $`(\pm \pi ,\pm \pi )`$. However on the triangular lattice we expect that the nesting between the three pairs of opposite flat sides is somewhat less effective. The three nesting wavevectors (after addition of a reciprocal lattice vector) point to the three inequivalent centers of the BZ sides. Thus they do not correspond to the same wavevector as in the square lattice case. Therefore the low energy phase space weight gets distributed on three different spots in the BZ.

In Fig. 5 we summarize the flow at the van Hove filling for $`N=96`$ patches. In the middle plot one observes several nesting features, i.e. bright, mainly vertical lines that correspond to fixed wave vectors transfer $`\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ between first outgoing and second incoming particles (the spin indices of first incoming and first outgoing have to be the same). The most divergent processes belong to umklapp scattering processes between the vicinity of (but not directly at) the van Hove singularities at the points where the FS touches the BZ boundary. The $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_3`$ corresponding to the most divergent processes are connected by dashed lines in the left plot of Fig. 5. These processes drive the spin susceptibility, and correspondingly the spin susceptibility seems to diverge at these wavevectors. In the right plot of Fig. 5 we show the $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ dependence of the static spin susceptibility along the line $`q_x=0`$, $`q_y=0\mathrm{}2\pi /\sqrt{3}`$. Compared to other regions in $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-space, it is enhanced along the whole line $`q_x=0`$, $`q_y>0`$ when the temperature is decreased, but shoots up most rapidly very close to $`q_y=2\pi /\sqrt{3}3.63`$ at the edge of the BZ. This point and the other two symmetry-related points where the spin susceptibility diverges with equal strength are marked by crosses in the left plot in Fig. 5. Since these wavevectors are equal to the three nesting vectors between the flat FS sides, we will denote them $`\stackrel{}{Q}_N`$. Due to the limited $`\stackrel{}{q}`$-space resolution of the $`N`$-patch discretization we are not able to decide clearly whether the peak occurs directly at or somewhat away from the BZ boundary. Going from $`N=48`$ to $`N=96`$ patches moves the peak a bit closer to the BZ edge, but for a clear answer not only the angular but also the radial dependence of the coupling constants must be considered. The susceptibility for ferromagnetism at $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$ grows as well towards $`T0`$, but the combination of large density of states and nesting makes the instability at $`\stackrel{}{Q}_N`$ far stronger.

A divergence of the spin susceptibility at a given wave vector signals strong ordering tendencies at the given wave vector, either in the ground state or, if possible, at finite temperatures. In our case each of the $`\stackrel{}{Q}_N`$ would correspond to antiferromagnetic ordering along two directions of the triangular lattice and ferromagnetic ordering along the third lattice direction. From our calculation we cannot tell whether the system will choose one of these possibilities, a certain superposition the three or whether ordering occurs at all. An analysis of the fluctuations around each of these orderings may give an answer to this question.

Next we decrease the particle density away from the van Hove filling. This reduces the density of states at the Fermi surface and cuts off the nesting. If the filling is sufficiently away from the van Hove filling we observe a saturation of the spin susceptibility at all wave vectors before the interactions get larger than twice the bandwidth, which is our criterion for stopping the flow and beyond which the approximations may fail. For $`U=4t`$ this happens roughly for densities $`\pm 0.03`$/site and further away from the van Hove filling of 1.5 electrons/site. Obviously, like in the RG studies of the Hubbard model on the 2D square lattice, the precise boundaries of the spin density wave instability region depend somewhat on the scale where the susceptibilities are compared and on how far we trust the one-loop flow.

The pairing channels are not cut off, and if the flow in the particle-hole channel above the saturation is still strong enough, it generates a sizable attractive component in the pair scattering. This component will flow in the particle-particle and eventually diverge in a Cooper instability at low temperatures. In Fig. 6 we plot the flow of the extremal coupling constants. We clearly observe the run-away flow of the coupling constants at $`T2.510^5t`$ that is solely due to the Cooper pair scattering processes. All other couplings, including those in the spin density wave channel, saturate at higher temperatures, as can be seen from the long plateau in the flow of the most repulsive coupling constant before the Cooper processes take off. In the right plot of Fig. 6 we display the pair scattering around the Fermi surface. It has even parity in $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space and roughly follows a $`\mathrm{sin}6\theta `$ behavior, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^+`$ representation of $`D_{6h}`$ according to Ref. . The 12 nodes of the gap function are at the van Hove points and in the centers of the flat FS sides. The second strongest component in the pair scattering varies like $`\mathrm{sin}12\theta `$ around the Fermi surface. The scale of the instability towards this unconventional $`i`$-wave state depends strongly on the vicinity to the van Hove filling. This is shown in Fig. 7. For larger on-site repulsion $`U`$, the density region with relevant values for $`T^{}`$ becomes wider.

As we have seen at the end of the last section, an antiferromagnetic exchange interaction $`J`$ leads to a superconducting instability towards a time-reversal symmetry breaking state even at the van Hove density. Obviously there will be a change in the flow to strong coupling near the van Hove density when we change the initial interaction from $`U>0`$, $`J=0`$ to $`U=0`$, $`J>0`$. For $`U=2t`$ and $`J=0.5t`$, the instability is of $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$-wave type. Here we do not attempt to determine the boundary between the spin density wave instability in the first case and the superconducting instability in the latter. Note however that this may be an interesting question for an approach that is capable of describing how the exchange term is generated by the Hubbard interaction.

## V Conclusions

We have analyzed the effective scattering processes at low temperatures of interacting electrons on the two-dimensional triangular lattice. We have used a $`N`$-patch temperature-flow renormalization group scheme in the one-loop approximation that has been found useful in the analysis of the weakly coupled Hubbard model on the 2D square lattice. Starting with a weak to moderate on-site repulsion $`U3\mathrm{}4t`$ at high temperatures, we have investigated possible magnetic and superconducting instabilities when the temperature is lowered. For most fillings and purely local initial interactions, especially for densities less than $``$1.4 electrons per lattice site (for hopping parameter $`t>0`$), the interactions remain within the order of the bandwidth. Down to very low temperatures $`T10^5t`$ no flows to strong coupling are observed. Replacing the pure on-site Hubbard interaction by an antiferromagnetic exchange interaction $`J`$, the RG flow leads to a superconducting instability towards a time-reversal symmetry breaking $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$-wave state at sensible scales for a wide density range between $`n>0.6`$/site and $`n>1.8`$/site. This state has the same pairing symmetry as the superconducting RVB states found in recent theories for strong on-site repulsion. It may also be obtained by ordinary mean-field theories that do not invoke spin-charge separation.

Near the van Hove density $`n=1.5`$/per site, we observe a flow to strong coupling also for purely local Hubbard interactions. The rapid growth of the interactions at low temperatures is driven by umklapp processes between the van Hove regions and nesting between the flat parts of the (nearly) hexagon-shaped Fermi surface. In the immediate vicinity of the van Hove filling the spin susceptibility near the wavevector $`\stackrel{}{q}=(0,2\pi /3)`$ and two symmetry-related wavevectors diverges most strongly, signalling magnetic ordering tendencies at these wavevectors. It may be interesting to investigate whether the systems tends to order (if we allow coupling between layers) by choosing one wavevector or by forming a superposition of the three. Slightly away from the van Hove filling (outside the range $`1.5\pm 0.03`$/site for $`U=4t`$), the flow in the spin density wave channel is cut off, and the dominant instability occurs in a singlet pairing channel with symmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )\mathrm{sin}6\theta `$, having 12 nodes and 12 extrema when the angle $`\theta `$ moves around the Fermi surface. This superconducting instability occurs on both sides of the van Hove filling and the characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$ falls of rapidly with increasing distance to the van Hove density. Since the superconducting state has nodes in the vicinity of the van Hove points, it may be susceptible to further instabilities at lower temperatures which try to remove the large density of states at zero energy.

Turning to the reported superconductivity in the layered cobalt oxides, we have to keep in mind that it is far from settled that these materials can be described by a simple one-band Hubbard model on the triangular lattice. Neither is it clear that they can be treated using weak-coupling techniques. In fact estimates of the bandwidth and Hubbard $`U`$ for NaCo2O4 seem to show that the material is strongly correlated. Nevertheless it may be helpful to know the weak coupling picture. Band structure calculations for NaCo2O4 by Singh  indicate that the main Fermi surface is hole-like and centered around the $`(0,0)`$ point. Angular resolved photoemission data support this picture. Translated into the language of a tight-binding model this case corresponds to a negative hopping parameter $`t<0`$ for electrons. The superconducting samples may be at $``$1.35 electrons/Co site, or, with our sign convention $`t>0`$ that interchanges electrons and holes $`n=0.65`$/site. This case is investigated in Section III. For a purely local Hubbard repulsion $`U>0`$ without additional exchange interactions no sizable superconducting tendencies can be detected with our weak coupling technique. Antiferromagnetic exchange interactions $`J>0`$ generate a superconducting instability towards a $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$-wave state over a wide density range. In this respect, weak coupling RG and RVB theories for the strongly correlated $`t`$-$`J`$ model give similar predictions at least as far as the symmetry of the pairing is concerned. Thus the time-reversal symmetry breaking $`d+id^{}`$ state may be the primary candidate for experimental checks. This state has a fully gapped single-particle excitation spectrum. The phase structure of the order parameter may give rise to observable effects such as subgap Andreev bound states at surfaces similar to those in $`p`$-wave superconductors.

The main purpose of the present work was to investigate possible superconducting states on the triangular lattice at weak to moderate interactions. Further work is needed in order to clarify the relevance of the weak coupling physics to real materials like the cobalt oxides.
I thank P.A. Lee, V. Liu, O. Motrunich, T.M. Rice, T. Senthil, and A. Vishwanath for helpful discussions. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) is acknowledged for financial support.


text:
# Contact angle for immersed surfaces in 𝑆^{2𝑛+1}

## 1. Introduction

The K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angle was introduced by Chern and Wolfson in  and  and it is the most fundamental invariant for minimal surfaces in complex manifolds. Using the technique of moving frames Wolfson obtained equations for the Laplacian and Gaussian curvature for an immersed minimal surface in $`^n`$.

Later, Kenmotsu in , Ohnita in  and Ogata in  classified minimal surfaces with constant Gaussian curvature and constant K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angle.

A few years ago, Zhenqui in  gave a counterexample for the Bolton’s conjecture, in , that says that a minimal immersion (non-holomorphic, non anti-holomorphic, non totally real) of two-sphere in $`^n`$ with constant K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angle have constant Gaussian curvature.

In  we introduced the contact angle and it has can be consider a new geometric invariant in order to investigate immersed surfaces in $`S^3`$. Geometrically, the contact angle is the complementary angle between the contact distribution and the tangent space of the surface. Also in , we deduced Gaussian curvature and Laplacian formulae for an immersed minimal surface in $`S^3`$ and gave a characterization of the Clifford Torus as the only minimal surface in $`S^3`$ with constant Contact angle.

In this work, a corresponding statement to Bolton’s conjecture (see ) for an odd dimmensional sphere has been proved. We deduce Gaussian curvature and Laplacian formulae for an immersed minimal surface in $`S^{2n+1}`$:

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sec}^2\beta |\beta |^2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }\beta 2\mathrm{cos}\alpha (1+2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )\beta _1`$
$`+2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \alpha _14\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{tan}^2\beta (|\beta |^2+4\mathrm{cos}\alpha \beta _1)+2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \alpha _1`$
$`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (4\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1)+(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )|{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{2}}+w_1^2|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =3}{\overset{2n}{}}}(h_{11}^\lambda h_{22}^\lambda (h_{12}^\lambda )^2)`$
Using Gaussian curvature, we characterize the Clifford Torus in $`S^5`$:

Theorem 1 The Clifford Torus is the only non-legendrian minimal surface in $`S^5`$ with constant Contact and K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angles.

When the K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angle is null, we have an interesting characterization of the Clifford Torus without suppose that the Contact angle is constant:

Theorem 2 The Clifford Torus is the only non-legendrian minimal surface in $`S^5`$ with Contact angle $`0\beta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and null K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angle.

## 2. Preliminaries

Consider in $`C^{n+1}`$ the Hermitian product:

$`(z,w)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}z^j\overline{w}^j`$
The inner product is given by:

$`z,w=Re(z,w)`$
The unitary sphere

$`S^{2n+1}=\{z^{n+1}|(z,z)=1\}`$
The Reeb field in $`S^{2n+1}`$ is given by:

$`\xi (z)=iz`$
The usual contact distribution in $`S^{2n+1}`$ is orthogonal to $`\xi `$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_z=\{vT_zS^{2n+1}|\xi ,v=0\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is invariant by the complex structure of $`^{n+1}`$.
A unitary frame $`(f_0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ of $`^{n+1}`$ induces an adapted frame of $`S^{2n+1}`$, where $`f_0=z`$ is the position vector in $`S^{2n+1}`$ and $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ is the complex basis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
Structure equations of $`𝕌(n+1)`$, $`df_j=\psi _j^kf_k`$ where $`\psi _j^k+\overline{\psi }_k^j=0`$, can be interpreted as a mobile frame in $`S^{2n+1}`$

$`dz=\psi _0^1f_1+\mathrm{}+\psi _0^nf_n+\theta \xi `$
where $`\theta =i\psi _0^0`$ is a real form.
$`(\psi _0^j,\theta )`$ constitute a coframe in $`S^{2n+1}`$ and unitary in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
Taking:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\psi _0^j\hfill & =& w^j+iw^{j+n}\hfill \\ w^{2n+1}\hfill & =& \theta \hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
we obtain a coframe $`(w^\lambda )_{\lambda =1,\mathrm{},2n+1}`$.
($`\psi _j^k`$) forms satisfy structure equations of $`𝕌(n)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}d\psi _j^k\hfill & +& \psi _r^k\psi _j^r\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ \psi _j^k\hfill & +& \overline{\psi _k^j}\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Taking $`j=0`$ in (1), we obtain that:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}dw^j\hfill & +& w_k^jw^k\hfill & & w_k^{j+n}w^{k+n}\hfill & & w^{j+n}w^{2n+1}\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ dw^{j+n}\hfill & +& w_k^{j+n}w^k\hfill & +& w_k^jw^{k+n}\hfill & +& w^{j+n}w^{2n+1}\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ dw^{2n+1}\hfill & & 2w^jw^{j+n}\hfill & =& 0\hfill & & & & \end{array}$$

Therefore Riemannian conexion forms satisfy:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}w_{k+n}^{j+n}=w_k^j\hfill & & \\ w_{k+n}^j=w_k^{j+n}\hfill & & \\ w_{2n+1}^j=w^{j+n}\hfill & & \\ w_{2n+1}^{j+n}=w^j\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(3)
For $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ the equation ( 2 ) gives second structure equations:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}dw_k^j\hfill & +& _{r=1}^{2n+1}w_r^jw_k^r\hfill & =& w^jw^k\hfill \\ dw_k^{j+n}\hfill & +& _{r=1}^{2n+1}w_r^{j+n}w_k^r\hfill & =& w^{j+n}w^k\hfill \\ dw_j^{2n+1}\hfill & +& _{r=1}^{2n+1}w_r^{2n+1}w_j^r\hfill & =& w^{2n+1}w^j\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore we conclude that curvature forms of $`S^{2n+1}`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_j^i=w^iw^j\hfill & & \end{array}$$

Note that in this adapted frame conexion forms of maximum degree $`w_j^{2n+1}`$ and $`w_{j+n}^{2n+1}`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}w_j^{2n+1}=w^{j+n}\hfill & & \\ w_{j+n}^{2n+1}=w^j\hfill & & \end{array}$$

## 3. Contact Angle for Immersed Surfaces in $`S^{2n+1}`$

Consider $`S`$ an immersed surface in $`S^{2n+1}`$.
The $`𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕔𝕥`$ $`\mathrm{𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞}`$ $`\beta `$ is the complementary angle between the contact distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the tangent space $`TS`$ of the surface.
Consider $`(e_1,e_2)`$ a local frame of $`TS`$, where $`e_1TS\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then:

$`\mathrm{cos}\beta =\xi ,e_2`$
Let $`v`$ the projection of unitary vector field $`e_2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$`e_2=\mathrm{sin}\beta v+\mathrm{cos}\beta \xi `$
We define $`\alpha `$ as the angle given by:

$`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =ie_1,v`$
The angle $`\alpha `$ is the corresponding to the K$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$hler angle and it was introduced by Chern and Wolfson in .
Consider $`(f_j)`$ an adapted frame to the distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
The $`(f_j)`$ is given by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_1\hfill & =& \frac{e_1i\upsilon }{2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}}\hfill \\ f_2\hfill & =& \frac{e_1+i\upsilon }{2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}}\hfill \\ f_j\hfill & & \mathrm{\Delta }\hfill \\ f_{n+j}\hfill & =& if_j,j=1,\mathrm{},n\hfill \\ f_{2n+1}\hfill & =& \xi \hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore $`(e_1,e_2)`$ can be written, as:

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}f_1+\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}f_2`$
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta (\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}f_{n+1}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}f_{n+2})+\mathrm{cos}\beta \xi `$
Consider normal vector fields:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}e_{n+1}\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}f_1\mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}f_2\hfill \\ e_{n+2}\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}f_{n+1}+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}f_{n+2}\hfill \\ e_{2n+1}\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta (\mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}f_{n+1}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}f_{n+2})+\mathrm{sin}\beta \xi \hfill \\ e_\lambda \hfill & =& f_\lambda ;3\lambda n,n+3\lambda 2n\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`(e_\lambda )_{\lambda =1,\mathrm{},2n+1}`$ constitute a Darboux frame of $`S`$.
Let $`(w^j)`$, $`(\theta ^j)`$ respective coframes of $`(f_j)`$ and $`(e_j)`$.
When we restrict to $`S`$, we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}w^1\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}\theta ^1\hfill \\ w^2\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}\theta ^1\hfill \\ w^{n+1}\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{sin}\beta \theta ^2\hfill \\ w^{n+2}\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{sin}\beta \theta ^2\hfill \\ w^{2n+1}\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta \theta ^2\hfill \\ w^\lambda \hfill & =& 03\lambda n,n+3\lambda 2n\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
## 4. Equations for curvature and Laplacian of a minimal surface in $`S^{2n+1}`$

Consider $`D`$ the covariant derivative of Riemannian metric in $`S^{2n+1}`$. Then:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Df_j& =& w_j^kf_k\end{array}$$

where $`(w_j^k)`$ satisfy (3).
Consider conexion forms $`(\theta _k^j)`$ associate to the Darboux frame $`(e_j)`$. Then:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}De_j=\theta _j^ke_k& & \end{array}$$

Second fundamental forms in this frame are given by:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}II^{n+1}\hfill & =& \theta _1^{n+1}\theta ^1\hfill & +\hfill & \theta _2^{n+1}\theta ^2\hfill \\ II^{n+2}\hfill & =& \theta _1^{n+2}\theta ^1\hfill & +\hfill & \theta _2^{n+2}\theta ^2\hfill \\ II^{2n+1}\hfill & =& \theta _1^{2n+1}\theta ^1\hfill & +\hfill & \theta _2^{2n+1}\theta ^2\hfill \\ II^\lambda \hfill & =& \theta _1^\lambda \theta ^1\hfill & +\hfill & \theta _2^\lambda \theta ^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Using formulae (4) and (5), we deduce:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _{n+1}^1\hfill & =& \frac{d\alpha }{2}+w_1^2\hfill \\ \theta _{n+1}^2\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta (\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}w_1^{n+1}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_1^{n+2}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_2^{n+1}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}w_2^{n+2})\hfill \\ \theta _{n+2}^1\hfill & =& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}w_{n+1}^1+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_{n+1}^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_{n+2}^1+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}w_{n+2}^2\hfill \\ \theta _{n+2}^2\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta (\frac{d\alpha }{2}w_{n+1}^{n+2})\hfill \\ \theta _{2n+1}^1\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta (\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_{n+1}^1+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}w_{n+1}^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}w_{n+2}^1\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_{n+2}^2)\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2(\beta )\theta ^2\hfill \\ \theta _{2n+1}^2\hfill & =& d\beta +\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\theta ^1\hfill \end{array}$$

Minimallity and symmetry conditions are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _1^\lambda \theta ^1+\theta _2^\lambda \theta ^2\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ \theta _1^\lambda \theta ^1\theta _2^\lambda \theta ^2\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
From (7), we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _{n+1}^1& =& \frac{d\alpha }{2}+w_1^2\hfill \\ \theta _{n+1}^2& =& \frac{d\alpha J}{2}+w_1^2J\hfill \\ \theta _{n+2}^1& =& \mathrm{sin}\beta (\frac{d\alpha J}{2}w_1^2J)\hfill \\ \theta _{n+2}^2& =& \mathrm{sin}\beta (\frac{d\alpha }{2}+w_1^2)\hfill \\ \theta _{2n+1}^1& =& d\beta J+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \theta ^2\hfill \\ \theta _{2n+1}^2& =& d\beta +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \theta ^1\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where the complex structure $`J`$ of $`S`$ is given by $`Je_1=e_2`$ and $`Je_2=e_1`$.
Gauss equation is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}d\theta _2^1+\theta _k^1\theta _2^k\hfill & =& \theta ^1\theta ^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
We define:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _j^\lambda \hfill & =& h_{jk}^\lambda \theta ^k\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Then using (8), (9) and (10), we obtain that:

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`1|(\beta )|^22\beta _1\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha `$ (11)
$`(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )({\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2}{4}}+w_1^2(e_1)\alpha _1+w_1^2(e_2)\alpha _2+|w_1^2|^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =3}{\overset{2n}{}}}(h_{11}^\lambda h_{22}^\lambda (h_{12}^\lambda )^2)`$
Or, to be equivalent to:

$`K=`$ $`1|\beta +\mathrm{cos}\alpha e_1|^2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )|{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{2}}+w_1^2|^2`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =3}{\overset{2n}{}}}(h_{11}^\lambda h_{22}^\lambda (h_{12}^\lambda )^2)`$
Taking the differential of $`(\theta ^1,\theta ^2)`$, we have:

$`d\theta ^1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta [\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_1^{n+1}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}(w_2^{n+1}w_1^{n+2})`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_2^{n+2}]\theta ^2=0`$
$`d\theta ^2`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta [\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_1^{n+1}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}(w_2^{n+1}w_1^{n+2})\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_2^{n+2}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \theta ^2]\theta ^1=0`$
Therefore:

$`\theta _2^1=\mathrm{sin}\beta [\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_1^{n+1}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2}(w_2^{n+1}w_1^{n+2})\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha }{2}w_2^{n+2}\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \theta ^2]`$
Using the symmetry and minimalitty and the complex structure of $`S`$, we obtain that:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _2^1\hfill & =& \mathrm{tan}\beta (d\beta J2\mathrm{cos}\alpha \theta ^2)\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Computing the differential of (13), we can get:

$`d\theta _2^1=`$ $`(\mathrm{sec}^2\beta |\beta |^2\mathrm{tan}(\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )2\mathrm{cos}\alpha \beta _1(1+2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )`$ (14)
$`+2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \alpha _14\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha )\theta ^1\theta ^2`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =trd\beta `$.
Therefore the Gaussian curvature is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}K=& & \mathrm{sec}^2\beta |\beta |^2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )2\mathrm{cos}\alpha \beta _1(1+2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )+\hfill \\ & & +2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \alpha _14\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Jointing (11) and (15), we obtain a new Laplacian equation:

$`\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )=`$ $`1\mathrm{tan}^2\beta (|\beta |^2+4\mathrm{cos}\alpha \beta _1)+2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \alpha _1`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (4\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1)+(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )|{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{2}}+w_1^2|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =3}{\overset{2n}{}}}(h_{11}^\lambda h_{22}^\lambda (h_{12}^\lambda )^2)`$
## 5. Minimal Surfaces in $`S^5`$

In this section, we compute Contact angle for examples of minimal torus given by Kenmotsu, in .

### 5.1. Contact Angle of Legendrian Minimal Torus

Consider the torus in $`S^5`$ defined by:

$`T^3=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3)C^3|z_1\overline{z_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},z_2\overline{z_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},z_3\overline{z_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\}`$
We consider the immersion:

$`f(u_1,u_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},e^{i(u_1+u_2)})`$
Then the line vector fields are:

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}i(e^{iu_1},0,e^{i(u_1+u_2)})`$
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{i(u_1+u_2)})`$
The normal vector field is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\xi \hfill & =& i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},e^{i(u_1+u_2)})\hfill \end{array}$$

The Contact angle is :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\beta \hfill & =& e_2,\xi \hfill \\ & =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\beta \hfill & =& \frac{\pi }{2}\hfill \end{array}$$

### 5.2. Contact Angle of Generalized Clifford Torus

Consider the torus in $`S^5`$ defined by:

$`T^3=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3)C^3|z_1\overline{z_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},z_2\overline{z_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},z_3\overline{z_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\}`$
We consider the immersion:

$`f(u_1,u_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},e^{i(u_2u_1)})`$
Then the line vector fields are:

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}(e^{iu_1},0,e^{i(u_2u_1)})`$
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{i(u_2u_1)})`$
The normal vector field is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\xi \hfill & =& i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},e^{i(u_2u_1)})\hfill \end{array}$$

The Contact angle is :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\beta \hfill & =& e_2,\xi \hfill \\ & =& \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\beta \hfill & =& arccos(\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3})\hfill \end{array}$$

### 5.3. Contact Angle of Clifford Torus

Consider the torus in $`S^5`$ defined by:

$`T^2=\{(z_1,z_2,0)C^3|z_1\overline{z_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},z_2\overline{z_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\}`$
We consider the immersion:

$`f(u_1,u_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},0)`$
Then the line vector fields are:

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},0)`$
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},0)`$
The normal vector field is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\xi \hfill & =& i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(e^{iu_1},e^{iu_2},0)\hfill \end{array}$$

The Contact angle is :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\beta \hfill & =& e_2,\xi \hfill \\ & =& 1\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\beta \hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$

## 6. Main Results

### 6.1. Proof of the Theorem 1

Suppose that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants, then equation (15 ) reduces to:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}K=& & 4\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
As the line field determined by $`e_1`$ is globally defined, we have therefore that $`S`$ is parallelizable and by equation (17) Gaussian curvature is constant.
Therefore, using Gauss-Bonnet theorem, we have that Gaussian curvature of $`S`$ is null everywhere.
Using the work of Kenmotsu, in , we have that $`S`$ is the generalized Clifford Torus in $`S^5`$. q.e.d.

### 6.2. Proof of the Theorem 2

When the surface is immersed in $`S^5`$, equation (12) is :

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`1|\beta +\mathrm{cos}\alpha e_1|^2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )|{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{2}}+w_1^2|^2`$ (18)
In $`S^5`$ equation (16) is given by :

$`\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )=`$ $`1\mathrm{tan}^2\beta (|\beta |^2+4\mathrm{cos}\alpha \beta _1)+2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \alpha _1`$
$`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha (4\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1)+(1+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )|{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{2}}+w_1^2|^2`$
Suppose that $`\alpha =0`$, then the adapted frame $`(f_j)`$ is given by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_1\hfill & =& e_1\hfill \\ f_3\hfill & =& ie_1\hfill \\ (f_2,f_4)\hfill & & \mathrm{\Delta }\hfill \\ f_5\hfill & =& \xi \hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore $`(e_1,e_2)`$ can be written, as:

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`f_1`$
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta f_3+\mathrm{cos}\beta \xi `$
Normal vector fields are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}e_3\hfill & =& f_2\hfill \\ e_4\hfill & =& f_4\hfill \\ e_5\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta f_3+\mathrm{sin}\beta \xi \hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Restrict to $`S`$, we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}w^1\hfill & =& \theta ^1\hfill \\ w^2\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ w^3\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta \theta ^2\hfill \\ w^4\hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ w^5\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta \theta ^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Taking the differential of $`e_1`$, we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}De_1\hfill & =& Df_1\hfill \\ & =& w_1^2f_2+w_1^3f_3+w_1^4f_4+w_1^5f_5\hfill \\ & =& (\mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^3+\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}\theta ^2)e_2w_1^2e_3+w_1^4e_4+(\mathrm{cos}\beta w_1^3+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \theta ^2)e_5\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Therefore:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _1^2\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^3+\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}\theta ^2\hfill \\ \theta _1^3\hfill & =& w_1^2\hfill \\ \theta _1^4\hfill & =& w_1^4\hfill \\ \theta _1^5\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta w_1^3+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \theta ^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Taking the differential of $`e_2`$, we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}De_2\hfill & =& \mathrm{cos}\beta d\beta f_3\mathrm{sin}\beta d\beta f_5+\mathrm{sin}\beta Df_3+\mathrm{cos}\beta Df_5\hfill \\ & =& w_1^2f_2+w_1^3f_3+w_1^4f_4+w_1^5f_5\hfill \\ & =& (\mathrm{sin}\beta w_3^1\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}\theta ^2)e_1\mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^4e_3+\mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^2e_4(d\beta +\theta ^1)e_5\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Therefore:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _2^1\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta w_3^1\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}\theta ^2\hfill \\ \theta _2^3\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^4\hfill \\ \theta _2^4\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^2\hfill \\ \theta _2^5\hfill & =& (d\beta +\theta ^1)\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Equivalently to minimallity and symmetry conditions, we have:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _1^3J\hfill & =& \theta _2^3\hfill \\ \theta _1^4J\hfill & =& \theta _2^4\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Substituing (23) and (25) at the equations (26), we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}w_1^2J\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^4\hfill \\ w_1^4J\hfill & =& \mathrm{sin}\beta w_1^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
Therefore:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(1\mathrm{sin}^2\beta )w_1^2J\hfill & =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
The surface $`S`$ is non-legendrian, we conclude that $`w_1^2=0`$. Then the equation (6.2 ) reduces to:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )& =& \mathrm{tan}(\beta )|\beta +2e_1|^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
Suppose that $`0\beta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$, then using  Hopf ’s lemma we obtain that $`\beta `$ is constant and using equation (18), we obtain that K=0, and therefore $`S`$ is the Clifford torus. q.e.d.


text:
# Slow area-preserving diffeomorphisms of the torus

## Abstract.

We construct area-preserving real analytic diffeomorphisms of the torus with unbounded growth sequences of arbitrarily slow growth.

###### Key words and phrases:

Area-preserving diffeomorphisms, growth sequences.
$`2000`$ Mathematical Subject Classification 37C05, 26A18, 28D05, 58D05.
E-mail: borichev@math.u-bordeaux.fr

Given a smooth compact manifold $`M`$, consider the group $`Diff(M)`$ of diffeomorphisms of $`M`$. For every $`fDiff(M)`$ we define the growth sequence of $`f`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)=\mathrm{max}(\underset{xM}{\mathrm{max}}d_xf^n,\underset{xM}{\mathrm{max}}d_xf^n),n,$$

where $`f^n`$ is the $`n`$-th iteration of $`f`$, $`f^n`$ is the $`n`$-th iteration of $`f^1`$, and $`d_xf`$ is the operator norm of the differential of $`f`$ at the point $`xM`$. Conjugations of $`f`$ in the group $`Diff(M)`$ generate equivalent growth sequences:

$$c(g)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(g^1fg)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)C(g)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(g^1fg),gDiff(M),n.$$

The asymptotics of the growth sequence is a basic dynamic invariant (see ). D’Ambra and Gromov \[1, 7.10.C\] proposed to study the behavior of growth sequences for various classes of diffeomorphisms. In particular, it is interesting to find examples of unbounded growth sequences of slow growth (see also the references in \[1, 7.10.C\]). We call the diffeomorphisms generating such growth sequences the slow diffeomorphisms.

Recently, Polterovich and Sodin  obtained several results on the growth sequences of smooth order-preserving diffeomorphisms of the interval $`[0,1]`$. In particular, they proved \[5, Theorem 1.7\] that for any sequence $`\{a_n\}`$ of positive numbers tending to infinity, there exists a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth diffeomorphism $`f`$, $`fId`$, such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)}{a_n}1.$$

On the other hand, a simple argument (see ) shows that for any diffeomorphism $`fId`$,

$$\underset{n1}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)}<\mathrm{}.$$

Furthermore, Polterovich proved \[4, Theorem 1.3\] that for every $`0<\beta <1`$, there exists an area-preserving real analytic diffeomorphism $`f`$ of the torus such that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)Cn^\beta \mathrm{log}n,$$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)}{n^\beta }>0.$$

In this note, we improve somewhat the result by Polterovich by producing area-preserving real analytic diffeomorphisms of the torus with arbitrarily slowly growing unbounded growth sequences.

###### Theorem.

Let $`\phi `$ be a positive increasing (unbounded) function on $`_+`$ such that $`\phi (x)=o(x)`$, $`x\mathrm{}`$. There exists an area-preserving real analytic diffeomorphism $`f`$ of the torus such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)\phi (n),\\ \underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(f)}{\phi (n)}>0.\end{array}\}$$
(1)
For some related questions on the asymptotics of diffeomorphisms with fixed points see . Other recent results on the behavior of the growth sequences are in , .

###### Proof of the Theorem.

We represent the torus as the product $`[0,1)\times [0,1)`$, and define, as in ,

$$f(x,y)=(\{x+\alpha \},\{y+cF(x)\}),x,y[0,1),$$

for $`\alpha `$, $`c(0,+\mathrm{})`$, and a real analytic $`1`$-periodic function $`F:`$; here $`\{\}`$ stands for the fractional part. Then

$$d_xf=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ cF^{}(x)& 1\end{array}\right),$$

and $`f`$ is an area-preserving real analytic diffeomorphism of the torus.

Define the Weyl sums

$$W(N,x,\alpha )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}F^{}(x+n\alpha ).$$
(2)
We have

$$d_xf^N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ cW(N,x,\alpha )& 1\end{array}\right),N1,$$

and

$$d_xf^N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ cW(N,xN\alpha ,\alpha )& 1\end{array}\right),N1.$$

Therefore, for (1) to hold it suffices that $`F`$ and $`\alpha `$ satisfy the following condition:

$$0<\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\underset{0x<1}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{W(N,x,\alpha )}{\phi (N)}<\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
Up to now our proof repeated that of Polterovich in . The main difference of our argument is in the way of estimating the Weyl sums (2).

We are going to choose a sequence $`\{q_k\}_{k1}`$, $`q_1=1`$,

$$\frac{q_{k+1}}{100q_k},k1,$$
(4)
and a sequence $`\{r_k\}_{k1}`$,

$$0<r_k<\mathrm{exp}(q_k),k1,$$
(5)
and define

$$F(x)=\underset{k1}{}\frac{r_k}{2\pi q_k}\mathrm{sin}[2\pi q_kx],x.$$

Then $`F`$ is real analytic and $`1`$-periodic,

$$F^{}(x)=\underset{k1}{}r_k\mathrm{cos}[2\pi q_kx],x.$$

For $`\alpha `$ denote

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi iq_kn\alpha },`$ (6)
$`S(N,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}r_kRe\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha ),`$
$`T(N,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}r_k|\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )|.`$
Then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\pi iq_kN\alpha }}{1e^{2\pi iq_k\alpha }}},q_k\alpha ,`$
$`W(N,x,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}r_kRe\left[e^{2\pi iq_kx}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{2\pi iq_kn\alpha }\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}r_kRe\left[e^{2\pi iq_kx}\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )\right],`$
and the property (3) follows from the inequalities

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{S(N,\alpha )}{\phi (N)}}`$ $`>0,`$ (7)
$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{T(N,\alpha )}{\phi (N)}}`$ $`<\mathrm{}.`$ (8)
To get (7) and (8), we should first study the behavior of the sums $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )`$. Essentially, if the fractional part of $`q_k\alpha `$ is of order $`1/M`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )`$ behaves like $`N/M`$ for $`N`$ smaller than $`M`$, and is bounded by a constant times $`M`$ for all $`N`$. After that, in an inductive process we approximate $`\phi `$ from below on an infinite sequence of points by a weighted sum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(N,\alpha )`$ with a lacunary sequence $`q_k`$ and a suitable $`\alpha `$.

Our first observation is as follows. Fix $`n1`$, suppose that the numbers $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{n+1}`$ satisfy condition (4), and define

$$k_n=\underset{1sn}{}\frac{q_n}{q_s}.$$

###### Claim.

Suppose that $`\beta `$ belongs to the interval

$$𝒜_n=\{\beta :\frac{q_n}{q_{n+1}}q_n\beta k_n\frac{2q_n}{q_{n+1}}\}.$$
(9)
Then

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta )}{N}}1\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1N{\displaystyle \frac{q_{n+1}}{100q_n}},`$ (10)
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta )|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_{n+1}}{q_n}},N1.`$ (11)
###### Proof.

Applying the Taylor formula to the function $`x\mathrm{exp}ix`$, and using that $`\beta 𝒜_n`$ and $`q_n/q_{n+1}1/100`$, we obtain

$$\left|\frac{e^{2\pi i(q_n\beta k_n)}1}{2\pi i(q_n\beta k_n)}1\right|\left|\frac{(2\pi )^2(q_n\beta k_n)^2}{4\pi (q_n\beta k_n)}\right|\frac{1}{10}.$$
(12)
Furthermore, if $`1Nq_{n+1}/(100q_n)`$, then

$$\begin{array}{c}\left|\frac{e^{2\pi iN(q_n\beta k_n)}1}{2\pi iN(q_n\beta k_n)}1\right|\left|\frac{(2\pi )^2N^2(q_n\beta k_n)^2}{4\pi N(q_n\beta k_n)}\right|\hfill \\ \hfill =\pi N(q_n\beta k_n)\frac{1}{10}.\end{array}$$

Hence,

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta )}{N}1\right|=\left|\frac{1e^{2\pi iN(q_n\beta k_n)}}{N(1e^{2\pi i(q_n\beta k_n)})}1\right|\frac{1}{2},1N\frac{q_{n+1}}{100q_n},$$

and (10) is proved.

Next,

$$|1e^{2\pi iNq_n\beta }|2,N1.$$

Therefore,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta )|=\left|\frac{1e^{2\pi iNq_n\beta }}{1e^{2\pi iq_n\beta }}\right|\frac{2}{|1e^{2\pi i(q_n\beta k_n)}|}.$$

Using (12), we get

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta )|\frac{3}{2\pi (q_n\beta k_n)}\frac{q_{n+1}}{q_n},N1,$$

and (11) is proved. ∎

Now, to obtain (7) and (8), we define $`q_k`$, $`r_k`$, and $`\alpha `$ in an inductive process. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\phi (1)2`$. Set $`S^0(N,\beta )=T^0(N,\beta )=0`$, $`q_1=1`$, $`N_0=M_0=1`$, $`𝒜_0=(0,1)`$. On the induction step $`p1`$ we start with sequences $`\{q_j\}_{1jp}`$, $`\{r_j\}_{1j<p}`$, $`\{N_j\}_{0j<p}`$, $`\{M_j\}_{0j<p}`$, and the interval $`𝒜_{p1}`$ (defined by $`\{q_j\}_{1jp}`$), such that for every $`\beta 𝒜_{p1}`$, the function $`S^{p1}`$,

$$S^{p1}(N,\beta )=\underset{1n<p}{}r_nRe\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta ),$$

satisfies

$$S^{p1}(N_j,\beta )\frac{1}{100}\phi (N_j)+2^p,1j<p,$$
(13)
and for every $`\beta 𝒜_{p1}`$ the function $`T^{p1}`$,

$$T^{p1}(N,\beta )=\underset{1n<p}{}r_n|\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N,\beta )|,$$

satisfies

$`T^{p1}(N,\beta )`$ $`200\phi (N)2^p,N1,`$ (14)
$`T^{p1}(N,\beta )`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{100}}\phi (M_{p1}),N1.`$ (15)
By (6), for any $`\beta `$, $`N`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(N,\beta )|N,$$
(16)
and we can choose $`r_p`$ satisfying (5) such that for all $`\beta 𝒜_{p1}`$,

$$r_p(N+|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(N,\beta )|)2^{p1},1N\mathrm{max}(M_{p1},N_{p1}).$$
(17)
Since $`\phi `$ is increasing and $`lim_N\mathrm{}\phi (N)/N=0`$, we can find

$$N_p>\mathrm{max}(M_{p1},N_{p1})$$

such that

$$r_pN\phi (N),N<N_p,$$
(18)
$$\phi (N_p)r_pN_p\phi (N_p)+1.$$
(19)
Set $`q_{p+1}=100q_pN_p`$. Then we define $`𝒜_p𝒜_{p1}`$ by the formula (9). In the estimates to follow we assume that $`\beta 𝒜_p`$, and hence, by the Claim, (10) and (11) hold with $`n=p`$.

By (10) and (19),

$$r_pRe\mathrm{\Delta }_p(N_p,\beta )\frac{1}{2}r_pN_p\frac{1}{2}\phi (N_p).$$
(20)
By (16) and (18),

$$r_p|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(N,\beta )|r_pN\phi (N),N<N_p,$$

and by (11) and (19),

$$r_p|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(N,\beta )|100r_pN_p100(\phi (N_p)+1),NN_p.$$
(21)
Thus,

$$r_p|\mathrm{\Delta }_p(N,\beta )|100(\phi (N)+1),N1.$$
(22)
Now, by (13) and (17),

$$S^p(N_j,\beta )\frac{1}{100}\phi (N_j)+2^{p1},1j<p,$$

and by (15) and (20),

$$S^p(N_p,\beta )\frac{1}{100}\phi (N_p)+2^{p1}.$$

Thus,

$$S^p(N_j,\beta )\frac{1}{100}\phi (N_j)+2^{p1},1jp.$$

Furthermore, by (14) and (17),

$$T^p(N,\beta )200\phi (N)2^{p1},1NM_{p1},$$

and by (15) and (22),

$$T^p(N,\beta )200\phi (N)1,N>M_{p1}.$$

Thus,

$$T^p(N,\beta )200\phi (N)2^{p1},N1.$$

Finally, by (15), (21), and by the condition that $`\phi `$ is unbounded, there exists $`M_p`$ such that

$$T^p(N,\beta )\frac{1}{100}\phi (M_p),N1.$$

This completes the induction step.

The intervals $`𝒜_n`$ constitute a nested family,

$$\underset{n0}{}𝒜_n=\{\alpha \},$$

$$\alpha =\underset{k1}{}\frac{1}{q_k},$$

and all the inequalities in the induction process are valid with $`\beta =\alpha `$.

We have

$$S(N,\alpha )=\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}S^p(N,\alpha ),T(N,\alpha )=\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}T^p(N,\alpha ).$$

Then the properties (13) and (14) imply that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S(N_j,\alpha )}{\phi (N_j)}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{100}},j1,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T(N,\alpha )}{\phi (N)}}`$ $`200,N1,`$
and (7) and (8) follow. The theorem is proved. ∎

The author is thankful to Leonid Polterovich and Misha Sodin for helpful remarks.

Alexander Borichev, Department of Mathematics,
University of Bordeaux I, 351, cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence, France