text:
# Untitled Document

Structure of the Lie algebras related to those of block

(Appeared in Comm. Alg. 30 (2002), 3205-3226)

Yucai Su

Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, China

and

Jianhua Zhou

Department of Applied Mathematics, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

ABSTRACT

We determine the isomorphism classes of the first family of infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras recently introduced by Xu. The structure space of these algebras is given explicitly. The derivations of these algebras are also determined.

AMS Classification: Primary: 17B05, 17B40, 17B65

Key Words: Block algebra, derivation, isomorphism class, structure space.

1. INTRODUCTION

Block (1) introduced a class of infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras over a field of characteristic zero. Recently there have appeared many papers (see, for example, Refs. (2)-(4), (6), (10)-(14)) on infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras which can be viewed as generalizations of Block algebras. These Lie algebras are constructed from pairs $`(𝒜,𝒟)`$ consisting of a commutative associative algebra $`𝒜`$ with an identity element and a finite dimensional Abelian derivation subalgebra $`𝒟`$ such that $`𝒜`$ is $`𝒟`$-simple. Such pairs $`(𝒜,𝒟)`$ with $`𝒟`$ being locally finite were classified in Ref. (8). Based on this classification it was very natural for Xu (12) to give generalizations of Block algebras.

In this paper, we shall determine the derivation algebras and the isomorphism classes of the first family of infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras introduced by Xu (12). Below we shall introduce the normalized form of these algebras. Let $`IF`$ be a field of characteristic 0. Denote by $`ZZ`$ the ring of integers and by $`IN`$ the non-negative integers $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$.

Pick $`J_p\{\{0\},IN\}`$ for $`p=1,2`$, and set $`J=J_1\times J_2`$. Denote by $`\pi _p`$ the projection from $`IF^2`$ to the $`p`$th coordinate, that is, $`\pi _p(\alpha )=\alpha _p`$ for $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)IF^2,p=1,2.`$ Take an additive subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`IF^2`$ such that

$$\pi _p(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}\text{ if }J_p=\{0\}\text{for}p=1,2.$$
$`(1.1)`$
For $`aIF`$, we denote

$$a_{[1]}=(a,0),a_{[2]}=(0,a)IF^2.$$
$`(1.2)`$
Let $`𝒜_2=𝒜_2(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ be the semigroup algebra with a basis $`\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J\}`$ and the algebraic operation $``$ defined by:

$$x^{\alpha ,𝐢}x^{\beta ,𝐣}=x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}\text{for}(\alpha ,𝐢),(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J.$$
$`(1.3)`$
Then $`𝒜_2`$ forms a commutative associative algebra with an identity element $`1=x^{0,0}`$. We define the derivations $`_p`$ of $`𝒜_2`$ by

$$_p(x^{\alpha ,𝐢})=\alpha _px^{\alpha ,𝐢}+i_px^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[p]}}\text{for}(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J,p=1,2,$$
$`(1.4)`$
where we adopt the convention that if a notion is not defined but technically appears in an expression, we always treat it as zero; for instance, $`x^{\alpha ,1_{[1]}}=0`$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We define the following algebraic operation $`[,]`$ on $`𝒜_2=𝒜_2(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$:

$$[u,v]=_1(u)_2(v)_1(v)_2(u)+u_1(v)v_1(u)\text{for}u,v𝒜_2.$$
$`(1.5)`$
Denote

$$\sigma _1=(0,1),\sigma _2=(0,2).$$
$`(1.6)`$
We treat $`x^{\sigma _i,0}=0`$ if $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`i=1,2.`$ Then $`x^{\sigma _1,0}`$ is a central element of $`𝒜_2`$. Form a quotient Lie algebra

$$_2=_2(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)=𝒜_2/IFx^{\sigma _1,0},$$
$`(1.7)`$
whose induced Lie bracket is still denoted by $`[,]`$.

Theorem 1.1. The Lie algebra $`(_2,[,])`$ is simple if $`J\{0\}`$ or $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`J=\{0\}`$ and $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`_2^{(1)}=[_2,_2]`$ is simple and $`_2=_2^{(1)}(IFx^{\sigma _1,0}+IFx^{\sigma _2,0})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above theorem was due to Block (1) when $`J=\{0\}`$ and $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, due to Dokovic and Zhao (2) when $`J=\{0\}`$ and $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and due to Xu (12) when $`J\{0\}`$.

We shall simply denote the simple Lie algebra mentioned in Theorem 1.1 by $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$. The Lie algebras $``$ are the normalized forms of the first family of the simple Lie algebras introduced by Xu (12). We shall use notation $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$ again to denote elements in $``$. In particular, we have $`x^{\sigma _1,0}=0`$. We set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if $`J\{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$ otherwise, then $``$ has a basis

$$B=\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J,(\alpha ,𝐢)(\sigma _1,0)\}.$$
$`(1.8)`$
Denote by $`GL_2`$ the group of invertible $`2\times 2`$ matrices with entries in $`IF`$. Define an action of $`GL_2`$ on $`IF^2`$ by $`g(\alpha )=\alpha g^1`$ for $`\alpha IF^2,gGL_2`$. For any additive subgroup $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ of $`IF^2`$ and $`gGL_2`$, the set

$$g(\mathrm{{\rm Y}})=\{g(\alpha )\alpha \mathrm{{\rm Y}}\},$$
$`(1.9)`$
also forms an additive subgroup of $`IF^2`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ the sets of subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`IF^2`$ satisfying $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}\pi _2(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`\pi _2(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$ and $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$ respectively, by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ the sets of subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`IF^2`$. Denote by $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ the groups of invertible $`2\times 2`$ matrices of the forms $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ respectively. We define the moduli space $`_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_1/G_1`$, which is the set of $`G_1`$-orbits in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ under the action (1.9), and define $`_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_2/G_2`$, $`_3=\mathrm{\Omega }_3/G_1`$, $`_4=\mathrm{\Omega }_4/G_1.`$ The main theorem of this paper is the following.

Theorem 1.2. The Lie algebras $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ and $`^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J^{})`$ are isomorphic if and only if $`J=J^{}`$ and there exist $`a,bIF,a0`$ such that $`b=0`$ if $`J_1\{0\}=J_2`$ and the map $`\varphi :(\beta _1,\beta _2)(a\beta _1,\beta _2+b\beta _1)`$ is a group isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ (in particular, if $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\}`$, then $`^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J^{})`$). Thus there is a bijection between the isomorphism classes of the simple Lie algebras in Theorem 1.1 and the following set:

$$=\{(i,\omega )|i=1,2,3,4,\omega _i\}.$$
$`(1.10)`$
In other word, $``$ is the structure space of these simple Lie algebras.

Remark 1.3. We can drop the condition $`\pi _2(\mathrm{\Gamma })+J_2\{0\}`$, since if $`\pi _2(\mathrm{\Gamma })=J_2=\{0\}`$, then the Lie algebra $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ is a known rank-one simple Lie algebra of generalized Witt type in Refs. (5), (8), (9). In this case, the structure space is the set which is the union of two copies of $`_3`$ and two copies of $`_4`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

2. STRUCTURE OF THE DERIVATION ALGEBRAS

In this section, we shall determine the structure of the derivation algebra of the Lie algebra $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$. Recall that a derivation $`d`$ of the Lie algebra $``$ is a linear transformation on $``$ such that

$$d([u_1,u_2])=[d(u_1),u_2]+[u_1,d(u_2)]\text{for}u_1,u_2.$$
$`(2.1)`$
Denote by $`\text{Der}`$ the space of the derivations of $``$, which is a Lie algebra. Moreover, $`\text{ad}_{}`$ is an ideal. Elements in $`\text{ad}_{}`$ are called inner derivations, while elements in $`\text{Der}\backslash \text{ad}_{}`$ are called outer derivations. Note that $`=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha `$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded Lie algebra with

$$_\alpha =\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|𝐢J\}\text{for}\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
$`(2.2)`$
Define a total order on $`J`$ such that $`𝐢>𝐣`$ if $`|𝐢|>|𝐣|`$ or $`|𝐢|=|𝐣|`$ but $`i_1>j_1`$, where $`|𝐢|=i_1+i_2`$ is called the level of $`𝐢`$. Denote

$$_\alpha ^{[𝐢]}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐣}|𝐣𝐢\},_\alpha ^{(𝐢)}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐣}|𝐣<𝐢\},$$
$`(2.3)`$
for $`(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J`$. For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we set

$$(\text{Der})_\alpha =\{d\text{Der}d(_\beta )_{\alpha +\beta }\text{for}\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Fix an element $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Consider a nonzero element

$$d(\text{Der})_\alpha \text{ such that }d(^{[𝐣]})^{[𝐢+𝐣]}\text{ for any }𝐣J,$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`𝐢ZZ^2`$ is a fixed element. Define the order in $`ZZ^2`$ similarly as in $`J`$. We assume

$$𝐢\text{ in (2.5) is the minimal element satisfying the condition}.$$
$`(2.6)`$
For any $`(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$ with $`(\beta ,𝐣)(\sigma _1,0)`$, we define $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}IF`$ by

$$d(x^{\beta ,𝐣})e_{\beta ,𝐣}x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}(\mathrm{mod}^{(𝐢+𝐣)}),$$
$`(2.7)`$
where if $`(\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣)=(\sigma _1,0)`$, we shall assume that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=0`$. We rewrite (1.5) as

$$\begin{array}{cc}[x^{\alpha ,𝐢},x^{\beta ,𝐣}]=& (\alpha _1(\beta _21)\beta _1(\alpha _21))x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}\\ & +(i_1(\beta _21)j_1(\alpha _21))x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}}\\ & +(\alpha _1j_2\beta _1i_2)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[2]}}+(i_1j_2j_1i_2)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}1[2]},\end{array}$$
$`(2.8)`$
for $`x^{\alpha ,𝐢},x^{\beta ,𝐣}B`$. Then we have

$$[x^{\beta ,𝐣},x^{\gamma ,𝐤}](\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))x^{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤}(\mathrm{mod}^{(𝐣+𝐤)}),$$
$`(2.9)`$
for $`(\beta ,𝐣),(\gamma ,𝐤)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$ with $`(\beta ,𝐣),(\gamma ,𝐤),(\beta +\gamma ,𝐢+𝐤)(\sigma _1,0)`$ (we shall always assume that this condition is satisfied in the following discussion). Applying $`d`$ to (2.9), we get

$$\begin{array}{c}((\alpha _1+\beta _1)(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\alpha _2+\beta _21))e_{\beta ,𝐣}\\ +(\beta _1(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)(\alpha _1+\gamma _1)(\beta _21))e_{\gamma ,𝐤}\\ =(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
Lemma 2.1. If $`\alpha _10`$, then the derivation $`d`$ in (2.5) is an inner derivation of $``$.

Proof. Taking $`\gamma =0,𝐤=0`$ in (2.10), we obtain $`(\alpha _1+\beta _1)e_{\beta ,𝐣}+(\beta _1(\alpha _21)\alpha _1(\beta _21))e_{0,0}=\beta _1e_{\beta ,𝐣}`$, i.e.,

$$e_{\beta ,𝐣}=\alpha _1^1(\beta _1(\alpha _21)\alpha _1(\beta _21))e_{0,0}.$$
$`(2.11)`$
This shows that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}`$ does not depend on $`𝐣`$ for any $`\beta `$. Letting $`𝐣=0`$ in (2.7), we obtain that $`𝐢J`$ by the assumption (2.6). Set $`u=\alpha _1^1e_{0,0}x^{\alpha ,𝐢}`$ and let $`d^{}=d\text{ad}_u.`$ By (2.8) and (2.11), we obtain that $`d^{}(x^{\beta ,𝐣})^{(𝐢+𝐣)}`$ for all $`(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$. By induction on $`𝐢`$ in (2.6), $`d^{}`$ is an inner derivation. Hence $`d`$ is an inner derivation. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ is a subalgebra of $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },IN^2)`$. If $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`J_p=\{0\}`$ for some $`p=1,2`$, then $`x^{\sigma _1,1_{[p]}}`$ but $`[x^{\sigma _1,1_{[p]}},]`$. Thus we can define outer derivations $`d_1,\overline{d}_1`$ as follows:

$`\begin{array}{cc}d_1=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[2]}}}|_{}:x^{\beta ,𝐣}\beta _1x^{\sigma _1+\beta ,𝐣}j_1x^{\sigma _1+\beta ,𝐣1_{[1]}}& \text{if }\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma },J_2=\{0\},\\ \overline{d}_1=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,1_{[1]}}}|_{}:x^{\beta ,𝐣}(\beta _21)x^{\sigma _1+\beta ,𝐣}+j_2x^{\sigma _1+\beta ,𝐣1_{[2]}}& \text{if }\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma },J_1=\{0\}.\end{array}`$ (2.12)

We have another outer derivation $`d_2`$ defined by

$$d_2=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _2,0}}|_{}:x^{\beta ,0}\beta _1x^{\sigma _2+\beta ,0}\text{ if }\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma },J=\{0\}.$$
$`(2.12)^{}`$
We set $`d_1,\overline{d}_1,d_2`$ to be zero whenever they are not defined.

Lemma 2.2. If $`\alpha _1=0`$ and $`\alpha _20`$, then the derivation $`d`$ in (2.5) has the form $`d=\text{ad}_u+c_1d+c_1^{}\overline{d}_1+c_2d_2`$ for $`u,c_1,c_1^{},c_2IF`$.

Proof. Now (2.10) take the following form

$$\begin{array}{c}(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\alpha _2+\beta _21))e_{\beta ,𝐣}+(\beta _1(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_{\gamma ,𝐤}\\ =(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.10)^{}`$
We consider the following cases.

Case 1. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$ and $`\alpha _21`$.

In the following, we take $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be arbitrary with $`\beta _10`$. First by letting $`\gamma =𝐤=0`$ in $`(2.10)^{}`$, we obtain $`e_{0,0}=0`$. Now take $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be arbitrary such that $`\gamma _1=0,\gamma _20,1`$ (such $`\gamma `$ must exist, for example, we can take $`\gamma `$ to be a multiple of $`\alpha `$). Letting $`𝐤=0`$, then in $`(2.10)^{}`$, by canceling the common factor $`\beta _1`$, we obtain

$$(\gamma _21)(e_{\beta ,𝐣}e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣})+(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)e_{\gamma ,0}=0.$$
$`(2.13)`$
Substituting $`\beta `$ by $`\beta +\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$ by $`\gamma `$, we obtain $`(\gamma _2+1)(e_{\beta ,𝐣}e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣})+(\alpha _2\gamma _21)e_{\gamma ,0}=0.`$ From this and (2.13), we obtain

$$(\gamma _2+1)(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)e_{\gamma ,0}=(\gamma _21)(\alpha _2\gamma _21)e_{\gamma ,0}.$$
$`(2.14)`$
Substituting $`\gamma `$ by $`\beta +\gamma `$ in $`(2.10)^{}`$ and letting $`𝐣=𝐤=0`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\gamma _2+\alpha _22)(e_{\beta ,0}+e_{\beta +\gamma ,0})& =(\gamma _22)e_{\gamma ,0},\\ (\gamma _2+\alpha _22)(e_{\beta ,0}+e_{\beta \gamma ,0})& =(\gamma _22)e_{\gamma ,0}.\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(2.15)\\ (2.16)\end{array}`$
where (2.16) is obtained from (2.15) by replacing $`\gamma `$ by $`\gamma `$.

Claim 1. $`e_{\gamma ,0}=0`$ if $`\alpha _2=2`$ or $`2\gamma _2^2+3\alpha _250`$.

First assume that $`\alpha _2=2`$. Adding (2.15) to (2.16) and re-denoting $`\beta \gamma `$ by $`\beta `$ gives $`\gamma _2(e_{\beta ,0}e_{\beta +2\gamma })=(\gamma _2+2)e_{\gamma ,0}(\gamma _22)e_{\gamma ,0}.`$ Multiplying it by $`(\gamma _21)^2`$ and using (2.14) (noting that $`\alpha _2=2`$) to substitute $`e_{\gamma ,0}`$, we obtain

$$\gamma _2(\gamma _21)^2(e_{\beta ,0}e_{\beta +2\gamma })=((\gamma _2+2)(\gamma _2+1)^2+(\gamma _22)(\gamma _21)^2)e_{\gamma ,0}.$$
$`(2.17)`$
Replacing $`\beta `$ by $`\beta +\gamma `$ in (2.13) and adding the result to (2.13), we obtain $`(\gamma _21)(e_{\beta ,𝐣}e_{\beta +2\gamma ,𝐣})=2(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)e_{\gamma ,0}.`$ Comparing this with (2.17), since the determinant

$$\left|\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _2(\gamma _21)^2& (\gamma _2+2)(\gamma _2+1)^2+(\gamma _22)(\gamma _21)^2\\ (\gamma _21)& 2(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)\end{array}\right|=12\gamma _2(\gamma _21)0,$$
$`(2.18)`$
we obtain $`e_{\gamma ,0}=0`$. Now assume that $`\alpha _22`$. Setting $`\gamma `$ to be zero in (2.15) gives $`e_{\beta ,0}=e_{\beta ,0}`$. Thus (2.15) becomes $`(\gamma _2+\alpha _22)(e_{\beta ,0}e_{\beta \gamma ,0})=(\gamma _22)e_{\gamma ,0}.`$ Replacing $`\gamma `$ by $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta `$ by $`\beta \gamma `$ gives $`(\gamma _2\alpha _2+2)(e_{\beta ,0}e_{\beta \gamma ,0})=(\gamma _2+2)e_{\gamma ,0}.`$ From these two formulas, we obtain $`(\gamma _2\alpha _2+2)(\gamma _22)e_{\gamma ,0}.=(\gamma _2+\alpha _22)(\gamma _2+2)e_{\gamma ,0}.`$ Comparing this with (2.14), since

$$\left|\begin{array}{cc}(\gamma _2+1)(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)& (\gamma _21)(\alpha _2\gamma _21)\\ (\gamma _2\alpha _2+2)(\gamma _22)& (\gamma _2+\alpha _22)(\gamma _2+2)\end{array}\right|=2\alpha _2\gamma _2(2\gamma _2^2+3\alpha _25)0,$$

we obtain $`e_{\gamma ,0}=0`$. This proves Claim 1.

Claim 1 and (2.13) show that $`e_{\beta ,𝐢}=e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐢}`$ under the condition in Claim 1, and from this, we can easily deduce that $`e_{\beta ,𝐢}=e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐢}`$ holds for all $`\gamma `$ with $`\gamma _1=0,\gamma _20,1`$ (and thus condition in Claim 1 can be removed). Then by substituting $`\gamma `$ by $`\beta +\gamma `$ in $`(2.10)^{}`$, we obtain that $`e_{2\beta ,2𝐢}=2e_{\beta ,𝐢}`$. Induction on $`mIN`$ gives $`e_{m\beta ,m𝐢}=me_{\beta ,𝐢}`$. Let $`\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\beta _1^{}0`$. In $`(2.10)^{}`$, by replacing $`\beta ,𝐢,\gamma ,𝐤`$ by $`m\beta ,m𝐢,m\beta ^{},m𝐤`$ respectively, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(\beta _1(m\beta _2^{}1)\beta _1^{}(\alpha _2+m\beta _21))e_{\beta ,𝐣}\\ +(\beta _1(\alpha _2+m\beta _2^{}1)\beta _1^{}(m\beta _21))e_{\beta ^{},𝐤}\\ =(\beta _1(m\beta _2^{}1)\beta _1^{}(m\beta _21))e_{\beta +\beta ^{},𝐣+𝐤}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.19)`$
Computing the coefficient of $`m`$ implies $`e_{\beta +\beta ^{},𝐣+𝐤}=e_{\beta ,𝐣}+e_{\beta ^{},𝐤}`$. Using this in (2.19) gives $`\beta _1^{}e_{\beta ,𝐣}=\beta _1e_{\beta ^{},𝐤}.`$ Fixing $`\beta ^{}`$ and $`𝐤`$ shows that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=f\beta _1`$ for some $`fIF`$ and for all $`(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$. Thus as in the proof of Lemma 2.1, $`𝐢J`$, and by setting $`d^{}=df\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}}|_{}`$ (note that if $`J=\{0\}`$ and $`\alpha =\sigma _2`$, then $`\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}}|_{}=d_2`$ is not inner) and induction on $`𝐢`$, we see that $`d`$ has the required form.

Case 2. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$ and $`\alpha _2=1`$.

Then $`(2.10)^{}`$ becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1\beta _2)e_{\beta ,𝐣}+(\beta _1\gamma _2\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_{\gamma ,𝐤}\\ =(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.10)^{\prime \prime }`$
Setting $`\gamma =0`$, we see that $`e_{\beta ,𝐢}`$ does not depend on $`𝐢`$ if $`\beta _10`$, and then $`(2.10)^{\prime \prime }`$ also shows that $`e_{\beta ,𝐢}`$ does not depend on $`𝐢`$ if $`\beta _1=0`$. Thus $`𝐢J`$. Denote $`e_\beta =e_{\beta ,𝐢}`$.

First assume that $`e_00`$. If $`i_20`$, taking $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\beta _10`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}i_2\beta _1e_0x^{\beta +\sigma _1,𝐢1_{[2]}}& [e_0x^{\sigma _1,𝐢},x^{\beta ,0}][d(1),x^{\beta ,0}]\\ & =d([1,x^{\beta ,0}])[1,d(x^{\beta ,0})]\\ & (\beta _1_1)d(x^{\beta ,0})0(\text{mod}^{[𝐢1_{[1]}]}),\end{array}$$
$`(2.20)`$
a contradiction. Thus $`i_2=0`$. Let $`d^{}=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,𝐢+1_{[1]}}}|_{}`$. Note that $`d^{}`$ is either an inner derivation if $`J_1\{0\}`$ or else $`d^{}=\overline{d}_1`$ (cf. (2.12)), and $`d^{}(^{[𝐣]})^{[𝐢+𝐣]}`$. Thus by replacing $`d`$ by $`dfd^{}`$ for some $`fIF`$, we can suppose $`e_0=0`$. Now exactly as in Case 1, we have $`e_\beta =f\beta _1`$ for some $`fIF`$ and by setting $`d^{}=dfd^{\prime \prime }`$ and induction on $`𝐢`$, we see that $`d`$ has the required form, where $`d^{\prime \prime }=\text{ad}_{x^{\sigma _1,𝐢+1_{[2]}}}|_{}`$ is either inner or equal to $`d_1`$.

Case 3. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\}`$.

Then by (1.1), $`J_1\{0\}`$. By (2.8), we have

$$[x^{\beta ,𝐣},x^{\gamma ,𝐤}](j_1(\gamma _21)k_1(\beta _21))x^{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤1_{[1]}}(\mathrm{mod}^{(𝐣+𝐤1_{[1]})}),$$
$`(2.21)`$
for $`(\beta ,𝐣),(\gamma ,𝐤)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$. Applying $`d`$ to (2.21), we get

$$\begin{array}{c}((i_1+j_1)(\gamma _21)k_1(\alpha _2+\beta _21))e_{\beta ,𝐣}\\ +(j_1(\alpha _2+\gamma _21)(i_1+k_1)(\beta _21))e_{\gamma ,𝐤}\\ =(j_1(\gamma _21)k_1(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤1_{[1]}}.\end{array}$$
$`(2.22)`$
Letting $`\gamma =0,𝐤=0`$ gives

$$(i_1+j_1)e_{\beta ,𝐣}+(j_1(\alpha _21)i_1(\beta _21))e_{0,0}=j_1e_{\beta ,𝐣1_{[1]}}.$$
$`(2.23)`$
Assume first that $`i_10`$. Since $``$ is generated by $`\{x^{\beta ,𝐣}|j_12\}`$, we must have $`i_12`$. Assume that $`i_1=2`$. Then by (2.7), $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=0`$ if $`j_11`$. In (2.22), let $`\gamma =0,𝐤=1_{[1]}`$, we get $`\alpha _2=2`$. Let $`𝐣=1_{[1]},k_1=2`$ in (2.22), we get $`(\gamma _2+1)e_{\gamma ,𝐤}=(\gamma _22\beta _2+1)e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐤}`$. Using this in (2.22), we can easily deduce $`e_{\beta ,𝐤}=0`$ if $`k_12`$. Thus we obtain $`d=0`$. Assume that $`i_1>0`$. By setting $`j_1=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ in (2.23), we obtain that

$$e_{\beta ,𝐣}=((i_1+1)(\beta _21)j_1(\alpha _21))(i_1+1)^1e_{0,0},$$
$`(2.24)`$
for $`(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$. Thus (2.24) shows that $`e_{0,0}0`$ by (2.6). Then setting $`𝐣=0`$, by (2.7), we see $`𝐢J`$. Thus we can take $`u=(i_1+1)^1e_{0,0}x^{\alpha ,𝐢+1_{[1]}}`$ and let $`d^{}=d\text{ad}_u`$ and use induction on $`𝐢`$. If $`i_1=1`$, then as above, we obtain $`e_{\beta ,0}=0`$ and (2.22), (2.23) give $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=j_1f`$ for some $`fIF`$ and so $`d=f\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,0}}`$. Finally assume that $`i_1=0`$. Letting $`\gamma =0,𝐤=1_{[1]}`$ in (2.22) gives $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=((\beta _21)j_1(\alpha _21))\alpha _2^1e_{0,1_{[1]}}.`$ Thus the arguments after (2.24) can be used to complete the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we shall describe homogeneous derivations of degree 0. Denote by $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ the set of additive group homomorphisms from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`IF`$. For any $`\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$, we can define a homogeneous derivation $`d_\mu `$ of degree 0 by:

$$d_\mu (x^{\beta ,𝐣})=\mu (\beta )x^{\beta ,𝐣}\text{for}(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J.$$
$`(2.25)`$
In this way, we regard $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ as a subspace of $`\text{Der}`$. If $`J_2\{0\}`$, one can verify that $`_{t_2}:x^{\beta ,𝐣}j_2x^{\beta ,𝐣1_{[2]}}`$ is a derivation. If $`J_2=\{0\}`$, we set $`_{t_2}=0`$.

Lemma 2.3. Let $`d0`$ be a derivation satisfying (2.5) with $`\alpha =0`$. Then $`d=ad_u+d_\mu +f_{t_2}`$ for some $`u_0,\mu \text{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF),fIF`$.

Proof. We consider two cases.

Case 1. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$.

In (2.10), since $`\alpha =0`$, all coefficients are the same, thus we obtain

$$e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤}=e_{\beta ,𝐣}+e_{\gamma ,𝐤}\text{ if }\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21)0.$$
$`(2.26)`$
Take $`\beta _10`$. By (2.26), $`e_{m\beta +n\beta ,𝐣+𝐤}=e_{m\beta ,𝐣}+e_{n\beta ,𝐤}`$ if $`mn`$. From this we get

$$e_{m\beta ,m𝐣}=me_{\beta ,𝐣}\text{for}mIN\text{ if }\beta _10.$$
$`(2.27)`$
From this and (2.26), one obtains that (2.26) holds for all $`\beta ,\gamma `$.

First assume that $`i_10`$. Then $`J_1\{0\}`$. Let $`𝐦`$ be the leading degree of $`d(1)`$, that is, $`d(1)`$ can be written as $`c_0x^{0,𝐦}+`$ a linear combination of $`x^{0,𝐤}`$ with $`𝐤<𝐦`$, where $`c_00`$, i.e., $`d(1)_0^{[𝐦]}\backslash _0^{(𝐦)}`$. If $`𝐦>𝐢1_{[1]}`$, then by (2.8), we see that the leading degree of $`[d(1),x^{\beta ,0}]`$ is $`𝐦`$ if we take $`\beta `$ with $`\beta _10`$, but $`d([1,x^{\beta ,0}])[1,d(x^{\beta ,0})]=(\beta _1_1)d(x^{\beta ,0})^{[𝐢1_{[1]}]}`$, a contradiction. Thus $`𝐦𝐢1_{[1]}`$ and we can suppose $`d(1)c_1x^{0,𝐢1_{[1]}}^{(𝐢1_{[1]})}`$ for some $`c_1IF`$. Now applying $`d`$ to $`[1,x^{\beta ,𝐣}]=\beta _1x^{\beta ,𝐣}+j_1x^{\beta ,𝐣1_{[1]}}`$ and computing the coefficient of $`x^{\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}}`$, we obtain $`c_1\beta _1+(i_1+j_1)e_{\beta ,𝐣}=j_1e_{\beta ,𝐣1_{[1]}}.`$ Setting $`j_1=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ gives $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=i_1^1c_1\beta _1`$. Thus again $`𝐢J`$. Then taking $`u=i_1^1c_1x^{0,𝐢}`$ and letting $`d^{}=d\text{ad}_u`$ and by induction on $`𝐢`$, we obtain the result.

Now assume that $`i_1=0`$. Then using the arguments for $`i_10`$ gives $`e_{0,0}=0`$ (note that $`e_{0,0}=0`$ the leading degree of $`d(1)`$ is $`<𝐢`$). We claim that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}`$ does not depend on $`j_1`$. For this, assume that $`J_1\{0\}`$. For any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}`$ with $`\gamma _1=0`$, we apply $`d`$ to $`[1,x^{\gamma ,𝐤}]=k_1x^{\gamma ,𝐤1_{[1]}}`$ and calculate the coefficient of $`x^{\gamma ,𝐢+𝐤1_{[1]}}`$. Noting that the leading term of $`[x^{0,𝐣},x^{\gamma ,𝐤}]`$ is $`𝐣+𝐤1_{[1]}`$ and that the leading term of $`d(1)`$ is $`<𝐢`$, we see that $`[d(1),x^{\gamma ,𝐤}]^{(𝐢+𝐤1_{[1]})}`$. Thus we obtain $`k_1e_{\gamma ,𝐤}=k_1e_{\gamma ,𝐤1_{[1]}}`$. So $`e_{\gamma ,𝐤}`$ does not depend on $`k_1`$. In particular, $`e_{0,𝐤}=0`$ if $`k_2=0`$. Using this in (2.26) also gives that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}`$ does not depend on $`j_1`$ for all $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}`$. If $`J_2=\{0\}`$, then $`𝐢=0`$ and $`e_\beta =e_{\beta ,𝐣}`$ does not depend on $`𝐣`$, thus by (2.26), the map $`\mu :\beta e_\beta `$ defines an element $`\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$; let $`d^{}=dd_\mu `$, then using induction on $`𝐢`$ we see that $`d^{}`$, and so, $`d`$ has the required form. Assume that $`J_2\{0\}`$. By (2.26), we obtain

$$e_{m\beta ,𝐣}=me_{\beta ,0}+j_2e_{0,1_{[2]}}\text{for}mZZ,(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J.$$
$`(2.28)`$
Let $`\beta _10`$. Suppose

$$d(x^{\beta ,𝐣})=e_{\beta ,𝐣}x^{\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}+\underset{𝐦<𝐢+𝐣}{}e_{\beta ,𝐣}^{(𝐦)}x^{\beta ,𝐦}.$$
$`(2.29)`$
Then applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\beta ,0},x^{\beta ,1_{[2]}}]=\beta _1x^{2\beta ,0}`$ and calculating the coefficient of $`x^{2\beta ,𝐢}`$, and noting that $`[x^{\beta ,𝐣},x^{\beta ,k_{[2]}}](kj_2)\beta _1x^{2\beta ,𝐣+(k1)_{[2]}}(\mathrm{mod}^{(𝐣+(k1)_{[2]})}),`$ we obtain $`(1i_2)e_{\beta ,0}+(i_2+1)e_{\beta ,1_{[2]}}=e_{2\beta ,0}`$. Using (2.28), this gives $`e_{0,1_{[2]}}=0`$ if $`i_21`$.

If $`i_2=1`$, then (2.7) shows that $`e_{\beta ,0}=0`$ for all $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so (2.28) means that $`d(x^{\beta ,1_{[2]}})=e_{0,1_{[2]}}x^{\beta ,0}`$, and one can prove by induction on $`𝐣`$ that $`d(x^{\beta ,𝐣})=j_2e_{0,1_{[2]}}x^{\beta ,𝐣1_{[2]}}`$; this proves that $`d=e_{0,1_{[2]}}_{t_2}`$. Assume that $`i_21`$. Then $`e_{0,1_{[2]}}=0`$ and (2.28) shows that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}`$, denoted now by $`e_\beta `$, does not depend on $`𝐣`$. Thus as before, $`i_20`$. If $`i_2=0`$, then by replacing $`d`$ by $`dd_\mu `$ for some $`\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$, we see that $`d`$ has the required form as before. Thus suppose $`i_2>0`$. Suppose the coefficient of $`x^{\beta ,(i_21)_{[2]}}`$ in $`d(x^{\beta ,0})`$ is $`e_\beta ^{}`$. Applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\beta ,0},x^{\gamma ,0}]=(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))x^{\beta +\gamma ,0}`$, and noting that

$$[x^{\beta ,𝐣},x^{\gamma ,0}](\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))x^{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣}\gamma _1j_2x^{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣1_{[2]}}(\mathrm{mod}^{(𝐣1_{[2]})}),$$
$`(2.30)`$
by calculating the coefficient of $`x^{\beta +\gamma ,(i_21)_{[2]}}`$, we obtain

$`\begin{array}{c}i_2\gamma _1e_\beta +(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_\beta ^{}\\ +i_2\beta _1e_\gamma +(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_\gamma ^{}=(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma }^{}.\end{array}`$ (2.31)

That is

$$i_2(\beta _1e_\gamma \gamma _1e_\beta )+(\beta _1(\gamma _21)\gamma _1(\beta _21))(e_\beta ^{}+e_\gamma ^{}e_{\beta +\gamma }^{})=0.$$
$`(2.32)`$
Let $`\beta _10`$. Taking $`\gamma =m\beta `$, by (2.27), we can deduce $`e_{m\beta }^{}=me_\beta ^{},mZZ.`$ Replacing $`\beta `$ by $`\beta +\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$ by $`\gamma `$ in (2.32) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}i_2((\beta _1+\gamma _1)e_\gamma +\gamma _1(e_\beta +e_\gamma ))\\ +((\beta _1+\gamma _1)(\gamma _21)+\gamma _1(\beta _2+\gamma _21))(e_{\beta +\gamma }^{}e_\gamma ^{}e_\beta ^{})=0.\end{array}$$
$`(2.33)`$
Adding (2.33) to (2.32) gives $`(2\beta _1\gamma _2(2\beta _23)\gamma _1)(e_{\beta +\gamma }^{}e_\gamma ^{}e_\beta ^{})=0.`$ From this and the fact that $`e_{m\beta }^{}=me_\beta ^{}`$, we deduce that $`\beta e_\beta ^{}`$ is an additive function. Using this, (2.32) now gives that $`e_\beta =f\beta _1`$ for some $`fIF`$. Now applying induction to $`d^{}=df\text{ad}_{x^{0,(i_2)_{[2]}}}`$ gives the result. This proves Case 1.

Case 2. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\}`$ (thus $`J_1\{0\}`$).

Then we have (2.21), and (2.22) becomes

$`\begin{array}{c}((i_1+j_1)(\gamma _21)k_1(\beta _21))e_{\beta ,𝐣}+(j_1(\gamma _21)(i_1+k_1)(\beta _21))e_{\gamma ,𝐤}\\ =(j_1(\gamma _21)k_1(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+𝐤1_{[1]}}.\end{array}`$ (2.34)

Letting $`\gamma =𝐤=0`$ gives $`(i_1+j_1)e_{\beta ,𝐣}(j_1+i_1(\beta _21))e_{0,0}=j_1e_{\beta ,𝐣1_{[1]}}.`$ If $`i_1<0`$, the arguments are similar to those given after (2.23). If $`i_1>0`$, by setting $`j_1=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, we obtain that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=((i_1+1)(\beta _21)+j_1)(i_1+1)^1e_{0,0}`$ for $`(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J`$, which shows that $`e_{0,0}0`$ by (2.6), and then setting $`𝐣=0`$, by (2.7), we see $`𝐢J`$; thus we can take $`u=(i_1+1)^1e_{0,0}x^{0,𝐢+1_{[1]}}`$ and let $`d^{}=d\text{ad}_u`$ and use induction on $`𝐢`$. Assume that $`i_1=0`$. Then setting $`\gamma =𝐤=0`$ in (2.34) gives

$$e_{\beta ,𝐣}=e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}+(j_2)_{[2]}}(j_11)e_{0,0}=e_{\beta ,(j_2)_{[2]}}j_1e_{0,0}.$$
$`(2.35)`$
Using this in (2.34) with $`i_1=0`$, we obtain

$$e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}+j_{[2]}}+e_{\gamma ,1_{[1]}+k_{[2]}}=e_{\beta +\gamma ,1_{[1]}+(j+k)_{[2]}}\text{for}j,kIN.$$
$`(2.36)`$
If $`J_2=\{0\}`$, then $`𝐢=0`$, and the map $`\mu :\beta e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}}`$ defines an element $`\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ by (2.36); replacing $`d`$ by $`dd_\mu ^{}`$, where $`\mu ^{}=\mu e_{0,0}\pi _2\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ (recall that $`\pi _2`$ is the projection $`\alpha \alpha _2`$), we can suppose $`e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}}=\beta _2e_{0,0}`$; then (2.35) gives $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=(\beta _21+j_1)e_{0,0}`$ and thus by letting $`d^{}=de_{0,0}\text{ad}_{x^{1_{[1]}}}`$ and by induction on $`𝐢`$ we see that $`d^{}`$, and so, $`d`$ has the required form. Assume that $`J_2\{0\}`$. By (2.35), (2.36), we obtain

$`\begin{array}{cc}e_{m\beta ,𝐣}& =e_{m\beta ,1_{[1]}+(j_2)_{[2]}}(j_11)e_{0,0}=e_{m\beta ,1_{[1]}}+e_{0,1_{[1]}+(j_2)_{[2]}}(j_11)e_{0,0}\\ & =me_{\beta ,1_{[1]}}+j_2e_{0,11}(j_11)e_{0,0}\text{for}mIN,(\beta ,𝐣)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J,\end{array}`$ (2.37)

where $`11=(1,1)`$. Write $`d(x^{\beta ,𝐣})`$ as in (2.29). We shall apply $`d`$ to $`[x^{\beta ,1_{[1]}},x^{\beta ,11}]=x^{2\beta ,1_{[1]}}`$ and calculate the coefficient of $`x^{2\beta ,𝐢+1_{[1]}}`$. First note that

$$[x^{\beta ,𝐣},x^{\beta ,𝐤}]=(\beta _21)(j_1k_1)x^{2\beta ,𝐣+𝐤1_{[1]}}+(j_1k_2k_1j_2)x^{2\beta ,𝐣+𝐤11}.$$
$`(2.38)`$
We see that if $`x^{2\beta ,𝐢+1_{[1]}}`$ appears in the term $`[e_{\beta ,𝐣}^{(𝐦)}x^{\beta ,𝐦},x^{\beta ,11}],`$ which is a term in $`[d(x^{\beta ,1_{[1]}}),x^{\beta ,11}]`$, then by (2.38), either $`𝐦+111_{[1]}=𝐢+1_{[1]}`$, or $`𝐦+1111=𝐢+1_{[1]}`$. In the first case, $`m_1=1`$ and the coefficient is zero (cf. the first term of the right-hand side of (2.38)). In latter case, $`𝐦=𝐢+1_{[1]}`$ and the coefficient is $`(1i_2)e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}}`$ (cf. the second term of the right-hand side of (2.38)). Similarly, the coefficient of $`x^{2\beta ,𝐢+1_{[1]}}`$ appears in $`[x^{\beta ,1_{[1]}},d(x^{\beta ,11})]`$ is $`(1+i_2)e_{\beta ,11}`$. Thus we obtain that $`(1i_2)e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}}+(1+i_2)e_{\beta ,11}=e_{2\beta ,1_{[1]}}`$. Using (2.37), this gives $`e_{0,11}=0`$ if $`i_21`$.

If $`i_2=1`$, (2.7) shows that $`e_{\beta ,0}=0`$ for all $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and so (2.37) means that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=j_2e_{0,11}`$; then one can prove by induction on $`𝐣`$ that $`d=e_{0,11}_{t_2}`$. Assume that $`i_21`$. Then $`e_{0,11}=0`$ and (2.37) gives $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=e_{\beta ,1_{[1]}}(j_11)e_{0,0}`$. As before, $`i_2`$ must be $`0`$. If $`i_2=0`$, then as the arguments after (2.36) by replacing $`d`$ by $`dd_\mu f\text{ad}_{x^{1_{[1]}}}`$ for some $`\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF),fIF`$, we see that $`d`$ has the required form as before. Thus suppose $`i_2>0`$. Suppose the coefficient of $`x^{\beta ,j_{[1]}+(i_21)_{[2]}}`$ in $`d(x^{\beta ,j_{[1]}})`$ is $`e_{\beta ,j}^{}`$. Noting that

$$[x^{\beta ,𝐣},x^{\gamma ,k_{[1]}}]=(j_1(\gamma _21)k(\beta _21))x^{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+(k1)_{[1]}}kj_2x^{\beta +\gamma ,𝐣+(k1)_{[1]}1_{[2]}},$$

by applying $`d`$ to $`[x^{\beta ,j_{[1]}},x^{\gamma ,k_{[1]}}]=(j(\gamma _21)k(\beta _21))x^{\beta +\gamma ,(j+k1)_{[1]}}`$, and computing the coefficient of $`x^{\beta +\gamma ,(j+k1)_{[1]}+(i_21)_{[2]}}`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}i_2ke_{\beta ,j_{[1]}}+(j(\gamma _21)k(\beta _21))e_{\beta ,j}^{}+i_2je_{\gamma ,k_{[1]}}+(j(\gamma _21)k(\beta _21))e_{\gamma ,k}^{}\\ =(j(\gamma _21)k(\beta _21))e_{\beta +\gamma ,j+k1}^{}.\end{array}$$

That is

$$i_2(je_{\gamma ,k_{[1]}}ke_{\beta ,j_{[1]}})+(j(\gamma _21)k(\beta _21))(e_{\beta ,j}^{}+e_{\gamma ,k}^{}e_{\beta +\gamma ,j+k1}^{})=0.$$
$`(2.39)`$
Taking $`\gamma =0,k=1`$ gives $`i_2(je_{0,1_{[1]}}e_{\beta ,j_{[1]}})+(j(\beta _21))e_{0,1}^{}=0\text{ for all }jIN.`$ By computing the coefficients of $`j`$ and $`j^0`$, using $`e_{0,1_{[1]}}=0`$ (by setting $`\beta =0,𝐣=1_{[1]}`$ in (2.35)) and $`e_{\beta ,j_{[1]}}=e_{\beta ,0}je_{0,0}`$, we obtain that $`i_2e_{0,0}e_{0,1}^{}=0,i_2e_{\beta ,0}(\beta _21)e_{0,1}^{}=0.`$ Thus we have $`e_{\beta ,0}=(\beta _21)e_{0,0}`$ and finally we obtain that $`e_{\beta ,𝐣}=(\beta _21+j_1)e_{0,0}`$ by (2.35), (2.37) and that $`e_{0,11}=0`$. Thus if we let $`u=e_{0,0}x^{0,1_{[1]}+𝐢}`$ and set $`d^{}=d\text{ad}_u`$, we obtain the result by induction on $`𝐢`$. This completes the proof of the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that if $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$ and $`J_1=\{0\}`$, then $`\text{ad}_1=d_{\pi _1}\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$. In this case, we choose a subspace $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ $`=IFad_1\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$ as vector spaces. Otherwise we set $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)=\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$.

Lemma 2.4. Every homogeneous derivation $`d(\text{Der})_\alpha `$ satisfies condition (2.5).

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}`$ be a maximal $`IF`$-linearly independent subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (which has at most two elements). Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}(\{\alpha ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}`$. Let $`^{}`$ be the Lie subalgebra of $``$ generated by $`M_0=\{x^{\beta ,𝐣}|\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{},𝐣J,|𝐣|4\}.`$ Then it is straightforward to check that $`^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J)`$, and $`d^{}=d|_{^{}}`$ is a homogeneous derivation of $`^{}`$ of degree $`\alpha `$. Since $`M_0`$ is a finite set and a derivation is determined by its action on generators, we see that the derivation $`d^{}`$ of $`^{}`$ satisfies the condition in (2.5).

By Lemmas 2.1-3, there exist $`u^{}_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},IF),f_1^{},\mathrm{},f_4^{}IF`$ such that

$$d^{}=d_{u^{},\mu ^{},f_1^{},f_2^{},f_3^{},f_4^{}}=\text{ad}_u^{}+d_\mu ^{}+f_1^{}d_1+f_2^{}\overline{d}_1+f_3^{}d_2+f_4^{}_{t_2},$$
$`(2.40)`$
where $`(\mu ^{},f_4^{})=0`$ if $`\alpha 0`$ and $`f_1^{}=f_2^{}=0`$ if $`\alpha \sigma _1`$ and $`f_3^{}=0`$ if $`\alpha \sigma _2`$. One can immediately verify that for $`u,\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF),f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4IF`$, $`d_{u,\mu ,f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4}|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,J)}=0`$ if and only if $`(u,\mu |_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1},f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is any subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Hence for any $`u_\alpha ,\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$, $`d_{u,\mu ,f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4}|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,J)}=0`$ implies $`(u,\mu |_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1},f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)=0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ be the maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that there exists $`u^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,IF),\mu ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,IF)`$, $`f_1^{\prime \prime },f_2^{\prime \prime },f_3^{\prime \prime },f_4^{\prime \prime }IF`$ and $`d|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,J)}=d_{u^{\prime \prime },\mu ^{\prime \prime },f_1^{\prime \prime },f_2^{\prime \prime },f_3^{\prime \prime },f_4^{\prime \prime }}`$ with $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }|_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mu ^{}`$.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Take $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`\beta `$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ is finitely generated. Thus there exist $`u_3,\mu _3,f_1^{(3)},f_2^{(3)},f_3^{(3)}`$, $`f_4^{(3)}`$ such that $`d|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3,J)}=d_{u_3,\mu _3,f_1^{(3)},f_2^{(3)},f_3^{(3)},f_4^{(3)}}`$. Then we have

$$d_{u_3u^{},\mu _3\mu ^{},f_1^{(3)}f_1^{},f_2^{(3)}f_2^{},f_3^{(3)}f_3^{},f_4^{(3)}f_4^{}}|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J)}=d|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J)}d|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},J)}=0.$$
$`(2.41)`$
Thus $`u_3=u^{},f_i^{(3)}=f_i^{},i=1,2,3,4`$ and $`\mu _3|_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mu ^{}|_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Similarly, $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}=\mu _3|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\beta `$. Define $`\mu \mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_4,IF)`$ as follows. For any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$, we can write $`\gamma =\tau +n\beta `$ with $`nZZ`$ and $`\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Define $`\mu _4(\gamma )=\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\tau )+n\mu _3(\beta )`$. Suppose $`\tau +n\beta =0`$ for some $`nZZ`$. Then $`\tau =n\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$. Since $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}=\mu _3|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3}`$, we have $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\tau )=\mu _3(\tau )=\mu _3(n\beta )`$. But obviously, $`\mu _3(n\beta )=n\mu _3(\beta )`$. Hence $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }(\tau )+n\mu _3(\beta )=0`$. This shows that $`\mu _4\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_4,IF)`$ is uniquely defined. So $`d|_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_4,J)}=d_{u^{},\mu _4,f_1^{},f_2^{},f_3^{},f_4^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. This contradicts the maximality of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`d=d_{u^{\prime \prime },\mu ^{\prime \prime },f_1^{\prime \prime },f_2^{\prime \prime },f_3^{\prime \prime },f_4^{\prime \prime }}`$ satisfies the condition in (2.5). $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 2.5. Let $`d`$ be any derivation of $``$. Write $`d=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}d_\alpha `$ with $`d_\alpha (\text{Der})_\alpha .`$ Then $`d_\alpha =0`$ for all but a finite $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

Proof. By Lemmas 2.1-4, for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0,\sigma _1,\sigma _2\}`$, if $`d_\alpha 0`$, there exists $`u_\alpha _\alpha `$ with the leading degree, say, $`𝐢_\alpha `$ such that $`d_\alpha =\text{ad}_{u_\alpha }`$. Fix $`v=x^{\beta ,𝐣}`$ with $`\beta _10`$ or $`j_10`$. Then $`d(v)`$ is contained in a sum of finite number of $`_\alpha `$. Thus $`[x^{\alpha ,𝐢_\alpha },v]=0`$ for all but a finite number of $`\alpha `$. But by (2.8), we see that $`[x^{\alpha ,𝐢},v]0`$ for all but a finite number of $`\alpha `$. Thus $`\{\alpha |d_\alpha 0\}`$ is finite. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2.6. (1) $`\text{Der}=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}(\text{Der})_\alpha ,`$ where each $`(\text{Der})_\alpha `$ consists of derivations of the form (2.40). (2) The set $`(\text{Der})_f`$ of locally finite elements of $`\text{Der}`$ is

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{F}\text{ad}_1+\mathrm{𝐻𝑜𝑚}_{ZZ}^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)+IF_{t_2},\text{ or}\\ \mathrm{𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛}_{IF}\{\text{ad}_{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}}|i_1=0\text{ or }(\alpha ,𝐢)=(0,1_{[1]})\}+\mathrm{𝐻𝑜𝑚}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)+IFd_1+IF_{t_2},\end{array}`$ (2.42)

if $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$ or $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\}`$ respectively.

Proof. (1) follows from Lemma 2.5, and clearly elements in (2.42) are locally finite. Case (i): $`\pi (\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$. Suppose $`d=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_0}d_\alpha `$ is locally finite, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is a finite subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that all $`d_\alpha 0,\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Choose a total ordering compatible with the group structure on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`\beta `$ be the maximal element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. If $`\beta 0`$ by reversing the ordering if necessary, we can suppose $`\beta >0`$, and also by (2.40), we can suppose $`d_\beta =\text{ad}_{u_\alpha }|_{}`$ for some $`u_\alpha `$. If $`\beta _10`$, then $`d_\beta =\text{ad}_{u_\alpha }`$ is inner, let $`𝐢`$ be the leading degree of $`u_\alpha `$ and say the coefficient of the leading term is $`1`$, then we have

$`d^k(x^{2\beta ,0})\text{ad}_{x^{\beta ,𝐢}}^k(x^{2\beta ,0})k!\beta _1x^{(k+2)\beta ,k𝐢}0(\mathrm{mod}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha <(k+2)\beta }{}}_\alpha +_{(k+2)\beta }^{(k𝐢)}),(2.43)`$

which shows that $`d`$ is not locally finite. Suppose $`\beta _1=0`$. Choose $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\gamma _10`$, then

$$d^k(x^{\gamma ,0})\text{ad}_{x^{\beta ,𝐢}}^k(x^{\gamma ,0})((\beta _21)\gamma _1)^kx^{k\beta +\gamma ,k𝐢}0(\mathrm{mod}\underset{\alpha <k\beta +\gamma }{}_\alpha +_{k\beta +\gamma }^{(k𝐢)}),$$

which again shows that $`d`$ is not locally finite if $`\beta _20`$. If $`\beta _2=1`$, then $`𝐢0`$ (since $`x^{\sigma _1,0}=0`$ from the statement before (1.8)), say $`i_2>0`$, then

$`\begin{array}{cc}d^k(x^{\gamma ,0})& \text{ad}_{x^{\beta ,𝐢}}^k(x^{\gamma ,0})\\ & (i_2\gamma _1)^kx^{k\beta +\gamma ,k(𝐢1_{[2]}}0(\mathrm{mod}_{\alpha <(k+2)\beta }_\alpha +_{k\beta +\gamma }^{(k(𝐢1_{[2]}))}).\end{array}(2.44)`$

Thus suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\{0\}`$. If $`d`$ is not in (2.42), write $`d=d^{}+d^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`d^{}`$ is in (2.42) and $`d^{\prime \prime }=\text{ad}_{u_0}`$ is inner with the leading degree of $`u_0`$ being $`𝐢>0`$. Say again, $`i_2>0`$, then (2.44) again shows that $`d`$ is not locally finite. This proves the theorem in this case. Case (ii): $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\}`$. We give a filtration on $`:_{[0]}_{[1]}\mathrm{}`$ by defining

$$_{[m]}=\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}\times J\text{ with }i_1m\}\text{for}mIN.$$
$`(2.46)`$
Suppose $`d`$ is a derivation not in (2.42). Write $`d=d^{}+d^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`d^{}`$ in (2.42) and $`d^{\prime \prime }=\text{ad}_u`$ for some $`u`$. Let $`m`$ be the smallest number such that $`u_{[m]}`$. Write $`u=u_1+u_2`$ such that $`u_1`$ is in the space $`\mathrm{span}\{x^{\alpha ,𝐢}|i_1=m\}`$ and $`u_2_{[m1]}`$. Them $`m>1`$ or $`m=1`$ but $`u_1IFx^{0,1_{[1]}}`$. Using arguments as before for $`u_1`$ we can deduce that $`d`$ is not locally finite. $`\mathrm{}`$

3. PROOF OF THEOREM 1.2

Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.2. As for the second statement, observe that $`_1,\mathrm{},_4`$ correspond to the isomorphism classes of $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },J)`$ with $`J=\{0\},IN\times \{0\},\{0\}\times IN,IN^2`$ respectively. So, we shall prove the first statement below. We shall ALWAYS use the same notations with a prime to denote elements associated with $`^{}`$.

$``$”: For convenience, we denote $`t_1=x^{0,1_{[1]}},t_2=x^{0,1_{[2]}}`$, and $`x^\alpha =x^{\alpha ,0}`$. Define another algebra structure on $`(𝒜_2,)`$ (not necessarily associative) by: $`uv=_1(u)(_2(v)v).`$ Then we have

$`x^{\alpha ,𝐢}x^{\beta ,𝐣}=\{\begin{array}{c}x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣11}(\alpha _1t_1+i_1)((\beta _21)t_2+j_2)\text{ if }𝐢+𝐣11J,\\ \alpha _1x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[2]}}((\beta _21)t_2+j_2)\text{ if }i_1+j_1=0,i_2+j_2>0,\\ (\beta _21)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣1_{[1]}}(\alpha _1t_1+i_1)\text{ if }i_1+j_1>0,i_2+j_2=0,\\ \alpha _1(\beta _21)x^{\alpha +\beta ,𝐢+𝐣}\text{ if }i_1+j_1=0,i_2+j_2=0,\end{array}`$ (3.1)

Then the Lie bracket $`[,]`$ is given by $`[u,v]=uvvu.`$ Obviously, using $`\varphi :(\beta _1,\beta _2)(a\beta _1,\beta _2+b\beta _1)`$, we see that $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if and only if $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`\varphi (\sigma _i)=\sigma _i`$ if it is in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

Suppose $`b=0`$. We shall verify that $`\psi :x^{\beta ,𝐣}a^1x^\beta ^{}(at_1^{})^{i_1}(t_2^{})^{i_2},`$ is an isomorphism $`(𝒜_2,)(𝒜_2^{},)`$, where we use the notation $`\beta ^{}=\varphi (\beta )`$. Say, we have the most complicated case, $`𝐢+𝐣11J`$. Using (3.1), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}x^{\beta ,𝐣})=a^1x^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}}(at_1^{})^{i_1+j_11}(t_2^{})^{i_2+j_21}(\alpha _1at_1^{}+i_1)((\beta _21)t_2^{}+j_2),\\ \psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢})\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})=a^2x^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}}(at_1^{})^{i_1+j_11}(t_2^{})^{i_2+j_21}(\alpha _1^{}at_1^{}+ai_1)((\beta _2^{}1)t_2^{}+j_2),\end{array}$$

where in the second equation, $`a`$ must appears before $`i_1`$ because it is arisen from $`_1^{}((at_1^{})^{i_1})`$. It is immediately to check that $`(\alpha _1at_1^{}+i_1)((\beta _21)t_2^{}+j_2)=a^1(\alpha _1^{}at_1^{}+ai_1)((\beta _2^{}1)t_2^{}+j_2),`$ since $`\alpha _1^{}=a\alpha _1,\beta _2^{}=\beta _2`$. Thus $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism $`(𝒜_2,)(𝒜_2^{},)`$, which induces an isomorphism of $`^{}`$.

Suppose $`b0`$. We define $`\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})=a^1x^\beta ^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})^{j_1}(t_2^{})^{j_2}.`$ We claim that it is an isomorphism $`^{}`$ (but not necessarily an isomorphism from $`(𝒜,)`$ to $`(𝒜^{},)`$), i.e., we want to prove

$$[\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}),\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})]=\psi ([x^{\alpha ,𝐢},x^{\beta ,𝐣}]).$$
$`(3.2)`$
Again say, $`𝐢+𝐣11J`$. First we calculate $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢}x^{\beta ,𝐣})`$, which is the term

$$a^1x^{\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})^{i_1+j_12}(t_2^{})^{i_2+j_21},$$
$`(3.3)`$
where if $`i_1+j_12<0`$ the corresponding factor does not appear, multiplied by the term

$$(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})(\alpha _1(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+i_1)((\beta _21)t_2^{}+j_2).$$
$`(3.4)`$
Similarly, $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,𝐢})\psi (x^{\beta ,𝐣})`$ is (3.3) multiplied by

$$a^1(\alpha _1^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+ai_1)(((\beta _2^{}1)t_2^{}+j_2)(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+j_1bt_2^{}),$$
$`(3.5)`$
where the factor $`(\alpha _1^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+ai_1)`$ is arisen from $`_1^{}(x^\alpha ^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})^{i_1})`$ and the last factor is arisen from $`(_2^{}1)(x^\beta ^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})^{j_1}(t_2^{})^{j_2})`$. Thus (3.2) is equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{c}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})((\alpha _1(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+i_1)((\beta _21)t_2^{}+j_2)(\beta _1(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+j_1)((\alpha _21)t_2^{}+i_2))\\ =a^1((\alpha _1^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+ai_1)(((\beta _2^{}1)t_2^{}+j_2)(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+j_1bt_2^{})\\ (\beta _1^{}(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+aj_1)(((\alpha _2^{}1)t_2^{}+i_2)(at_1^{}+bt_2^{})+i_1bt_2^{})),\end{array}$$

which is straightforward to verify.

$``$”: The isomorphism induces an isomorphism $`\psi :\text{Der}\text{Der}^{}`$, which maps locally nilpotent, semi-simple, locally finite elements to locally nilpotent, semi-simple, locally finite elements respectively. We consider in two cases.

Case 1. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\{0\}`$.

By Theorem 2.6, $``$ has no ad-locally nilpotent element, and $`IF1`$ are the only ad-locally finite elements of $``$, thus $`^{}`$ has no ad-locally nilpotent element, and $`IF\psi (1)`$ are the only ad-locally finite elements of $`^{}`$. Hence $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})\{0\}`$ and $`\psi (1)IF1^{}.`$ Note that $`IF1`$ is the set of ad-semi-simple elements of $``$ if and only if $`J_1=\{0\}`$. Thus $`J_1=J_1^{}`$. Define $`_{t_1}=\text{ad}_1\pi _1:x^{\alpha ,𝐢}i_1x^{\alpha ,𝐢1_{[1]}}`$ if $`J_1\{0\}`$ and $`_{t_1}=0`$ if $`J_1=\{0\}`$. Then by (2.42), we see that $`IF_{t_1}+IF_{t_2}`$ is the set of locally nilpotent element of $`\text{Der}`$, since the dimension of $`IF_{t_1}+IF_{t_2}`$ is the number of $`p=1,2`$ with $`J_p\{0\}`$, thus $`J_2=J_2^{}`$. This proves that $`J=J^{}`$. We may assume that $`J\{0\}`$ since the result follows from Refs. (1) and (2) if $`J=\{0\}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (cf. statements before (1.8)).

Since the nonzero vectors in $`_{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}_\alpha `$ are the only common eigenvectors for the derivations in $`\mathrm{Hom}_{ZZ}(\mathrm{\Gamma },IF)`$, which is the set of semi-simple derivations of $`\text{Der}`$ (cf. (2.42)). It follows that there exists a bijection $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ such that $`\psi (_\alpha )=_{\varphi (\alpha )}^{}`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },`$ and $`\varphi (0)=0.`$ Thus also $`\psi ((\text{Der})_\alpha )=(\text{Der}^{})_{\varphi (\alpha )}`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (cf. (2.4)). Since $`0[(\text{Der})_\alpha ,(\text{Der})_\beta ](\text{Der})_{\alpha +\beta }`$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we obtain that $`\varphi (\alpha +\beta )=\varphi (\alpha )+\varphi (\beta )`$, i.e., $`\varphi `$ is a group isomorphism. Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1\}`$ be such that $`\alpha ^{}=\varphi (\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\backslash \{\sigma _1\}`$. Then since $`IFx^{\alpha ,0}=\{u_\alpha |(IF_1+IF_2)(u)=0\}`$, we obtain that $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,0})=a_\alpha x^{\alpha ^{},0}`$ for some $`a_\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}.`$ Applying $`\psi `$ to $`[x^{\alpha ,0},x^{\beta ,0}]=(\alpha _1(\beta _21)\beta _1(\alpha _21))x^{\alpha +\beta ,0}`$, we obtain

$$a_\alpha a_\beta (\alpha _1^{}(\beta _2^{}1)\beta _1^{}(\alpha _2^{}1))=a_{\beta +\alpha }(\alpha _1(\beta _21)\beta _1(\alpha _21)),$$
$`(3.6)`$
for $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{},\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}\sigma _1`$. Take $`\beta =0`$, this gives

$$\alpha _1^{}=a\alpha _1\text{ for all }\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma },\text{ where }a=a_0^1.$$
$`(3.7)`$
Assume that $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`J_1=\{0\}`$ or $`J_2=\{0\}`$, then $`\overline{d}_1`$ or $`d_1`$ is an outer derivation in $`(\text{Der})_{\sigma _1}`$ and $`(\text{Der})_\alpha =\text{ad}__\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0,\sigma _1\}`$, thus $`\sigma _1`$ must be in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`\varphi (\sigma _1)=\sigma _1`$. If $`J_1\{0\}J_2`$, then $`\sigma _1`$ is the only $`\alpha `$ such that $`\{u_\alpha |(IF_{t_1}+IF_{t_2})(u)=0\}`$ has dimension 2 (spanned by $`x^{\sigma _1,1_{[p]}},p=1,2`$). We must have $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`\varphi (\sigma _1)=\sigma _1`$. This proves that $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma _1=\varphi (\sigma _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Suppose $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ but $`\gamma =\varphi ^1(\sigma _2)\sigma _2`$. By (3.7), $`\gamma _1=0`$, and so $`\gamma _22`$ since $`\gamma \sigma _2`$ (cf. (1.6)). Take $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{0\}`$ with $`\alpha _10`$, then by applying $`\psi `$ to $`[x^{\alpha ,0},x^{\gamma \alpha ,0}]=\alpha _1(\gamma _22)x^{\gamma ,0}0,`$ we obtain that $`[x^{\alpha ^{},0},x^{\sigma _2\alpha ^{},0}]0`$, but by (2.8) it is zero, a contradiction. Thus $`\varphi (\sigma _2)=\sigma _2`$. This proves that $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma _2=\varphi (\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. In (3.6), let $`\beta =m\alpha ,m2,\alpha _10`$, then we obtain $`a_0a_{(m+1)\alpha }=a_\alpha a_{m\alpha }`$, from this we obtain

$$a_0^{m1}a_{m\alpha }=a_\alpha ^m\text{ for }mZZ.$$
$`(3.8)`$
We define $`a_{\sigma _1}=a_0^2a_{\sigma _1}^1`$ if $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`a_{\sigma _2}=a_0^2a_{\sigma _2}^1`$ if $`\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Using (3.8), we can prove that (3.6) holds for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For example, if $`\alpha =\sigma _1`$, then (3.6) holds trivially. Suppose $`\alpha ,\beta \sigma _1`$ and $`\alpha +\beta =\sigma _1`$, then $`\beta _1=\alpha _1,\beta _2=\alpha _2+1`$ and (3.6) is equivalent to $`a_\alpha a_\beta =a_0a_{\sigma _1}`$ which is equivalent to $`a_0^4a_\alpha ^1a_\beta ^1=a_0a_0^2a_{\sigma _1}^1`$ which indeed holds by setting $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ to be $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in (3.6). Now as proved in Ref. (2), or as an exercise by using (3.7) to prove it, we have $`a_\alpha a_\beta =a_0a_{\alpha +\beta }`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ Fix any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\alpha _10`$ and set $`b=\alpha _2\alpha _1^1(\alpha _2^{}\alpha _2^11)`$, then this, together with (3.6), (3.7), shows that $`\beta _2^{}=\beta _2+b\beta _1`$. This proves that $`\varphi :(\beta _1,\beta _2)(a\beta _1,\beta _2+b\beta _1)`$ has the required form.

Suppose $`J_1\{0\}=J_2`$. Then we have $`\psi (x^{\alpha ,1_{[1]}})=b_\alpha x^{\alpha ^{},1_{[1]}}+c_\alpha x^{\alpha ^{},0}`$ for some $`b_\alpha ,c_\alpha IF`$ and all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1\}.`$ This follows from that $`IFx^{\alpha ,1_{[1]}}+IFx^{\alpha ,0}`$ is the subspace $`\{u_\alpha |_{t_1}^2(u)=0\},`$ and that $`IF_{t_1}`$ are the only locally nilpotent derivations of $``$. Applying $`\psi `$ to $`[x^{\alpha ,1_{[1]}},x^{\beta ,0}]=(\alpha _1(\beta _21)\beta _1(\alpha _21))x^{\alpha +\beta ,1_{[1]}}+(\beta _21)x^{\alpha +\beta ,0},`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}b_\alpha a_\beta (\alpha _1^{}(\beta _2^{}1)\beta _1^{}(\alpha _2^{}1))=b_{\alpha +\beta }(\alpha _1(\beta _21)\beta _1(\alpha _21))\\ b_\alpha a_\beta (\beta _2^{}1)+c_\alpha a_\beta (\alpha _1^{}(\beta _2^{}1)\beta _1^{}(\alpha _2^{}1))\\ =a_{\alpha +\beta }(\beta _21)+c_{\alpha +\beta }(\alpha _1(\beta _21)\beta _1(\alpha _21)),\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(3.9)\\ \\ (3.10)\end{array}`$
for all $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1\}.`$ Let $`\alpha =0`$ in (3.9) and let $`\beta =\alpha `$ in (3.10), we obtain

$$b_0a_\beta \beta _1^{}=b_\beta \beta _1,b_\alpha a_\alpha (\alpha _2^{}1)=a_{2\alpha }(\alpha _21).$$
$`(3.11)`$
Thus we have $`b_0=1`$ by letting $`\alpha =0`$ in the last equation of (3.11) and hence by the first of (3.11), $`b_\alpha =\alpha _1^{}\alpha _1^1a_\alpha =a_0^1a_\alpha `$ by (3.7) and $`b_\alpha a_\alpha =a_0^1a_\alpha ^2=a_{2\alpha }`$ by (3.8). Thus the last equation of (3.11) gives $`\alpha _2^{}=\alpha _2`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus $`b=0`$ because $`\varphi :\alpha \alpha ^{}=(a\alpha _1,\alpha _2+b\alpha _1)`$. This proves the theorem in this case.

Case 2. $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\}`$.

By Case 1, $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})=\{0\}`$. So $`J_1=J_1^{}=IN`$. Using notation (2.46), by (2.42), the set of ad-locally nilpotent elements of $``$ is $`_{[0]}`$, thus $`\psi (_{[0]})=_{[0]}^{}.`$ Note that the common eigenvectors for the derivations in (2.42) are the nonzero elements of the set

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}IFx^{\alpha ,0},& \text{if }\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma },\\ \underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1\}}{}IFx^{\alpha ,0}\mathrm{span}\{x^{\sigma _1,𝐢}||𝐢|1\},& \text{if }\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }.\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}^{\left(3.12\right)}\\ (3.13)\end{array}`$
First assume that $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ but $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Then we must have $`J_2=\{0\}`$, otherwise if $`J_2=IN`$, we would have that $`\mathrm{span}\{x^{\sigma _1,𝐢}||𝐢|1\}`$ in (3.13) were two dimensional but all $`IFx^{\alpha ,0}`$ in $`^{}`$ corresponding to (3.12) are one dimensional; this is a contradiction. Furthermore we have $`J_2^{}\{0\}`$, otherwise if $`J_2^{}=\{0\}`$, then $`d_1^{}=_{t_2}^{}=0`$ and by (2.42), the set $`(\text{Der}^{})_\mathrm{f}`$ of locally finite elements of $`^{}`$ would be spanned by inner locally finite derivations and semi-simple derivations, but this is not true for $`(\text{Der})_\mathrm{f}`$, again we get a contradiction. Now we have an outer locally nilpotent derivation $`d_1`$ of $``$ which kills the set $`_{[0]}`$ (since by (2.12), $`d_1(x^{\beta ,𝐣})=j_1x^{\beta ,𝐣1_{[1]}}`$ in this case), but we do not have an outer locally nilpotent derivation of $`^{}`$ which kills $`_{[0]}^{}`$ (since $`J_2^{}\{0\}`$, $`_{t_2}^{}`$ does not kill $`_{[0]}^{}`$), again a contradiction. This proves that $`\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.

Thus by (3.12) or (3.13), there exists a bijection $`\varphi :\alpha \alpha ^{}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ such that

$$\psi (x^{\alpha ,0})=a_\alpha x^{\alpha ^{},0}\text{ for some }a_\alpha IF\backslash \{0\}\text{ and }\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash \{\sigma _1\}.$$
$`(3.14)`$
If $`J_2=\{0\}J_2^{}`$, then $`_{[0]}`$ is spanned by (3.12) or (3.13), but $`_{[0]}^{}`$ which contains $`x^{0,2_{[2]}}`$, is not spanned by the corresponding set of (3.12) or (3.13) in $`^{}`$. Thus we obtain that $`J_2=\{0\}J_2^{}=\{0\}`$. This proves that $`J=J^{}`$.

Applying the action of (2.42) to (3.12) or (3.13), if we denote by $`N_\alpha `$ the elements of (2.42) which kill $`x^\alpha `$ if $`\alpha \sigma _1`$, or which kill $`\{x^{\sigma _1,𝐢}||𝐢|1\}`$ if $`\alpha =\sigma _1`$, then $`N_\alpha `$ has codimension 1 in (2.42), mainly $`x^{0,1_{[1]}}N_\alpha `$, if $`\alpha =0`$; or has codimension at least 2, mainly $`x^{0,1_{[1]}}N_\alpha `$ and $`d_\mu N_\alpha `$ for all $`\mu `$ satisfying $`\mu (\alpha )0`$, if $`\alpha 0`$. Thus we can suppose $`\psi (1)=b_01^{}`$ for some $`b_0IF\backslash \{0\}`$. Observe from (2.42) that all ad-semi-simple elements must take the form $`a_0x^{0,1_{[1]}}+_{(\alpha ,𝐢)G_0}c_{\alpha ,𝐢}x^{\alpha ,𝐢},`$ where $`a_00`$ and $`G_0`$ is a finite subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times J`$ such that $`i_1=0`$ if $`(\alpha ,𝐢)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ or $`|𝐢|1`$ if $`\alpha =\sigma _1`$. Thus, we can suppose $`\psi (x^{0,1_{[1]}})=a_0^{}x^{0,1_{[1]}}+_{(\alpha ^{},𝐢)G_0^{}}c_{\alpha ^{},𝐢}x^{\alpha ^{},𝐢}.`$ Applying $`\psi `$ to $`[1,x^{0,1_{[1]}}]=1`$ we obtain $`[b_01^{},a_0^{}x^{0,1_{[1]}}+_{(\alpha ^{},𝐢)G_0^{}}c_{\alpha ^{},𝐢}x^{\alpha ^{},𝐢}]=b_01^{},`$ thus $`a_0^{}=1`$. Finally applying $`\psi `$ to $`[x^{0,1_{[1]}},x^{\beta ,0}]=(\beta _21)x^{\beta ,0}`$ using (3.14), we obtain $`[x^{0,1_{[1]}}+_{(\alpha ^{},𝐢)G_0^{}}c_{\alpha ^{},𝐢}x^{\alpha ^{},𝐢},a_\beta x^{\beta ^{},0}]=(\beta _21)a_\beta x^{\beta ^{},0}.`$ This shows that $`(\beta _2^{}1)=\beta _21`$, i.e., $`\beta _2^{}=\beta _2`$, and so, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is the identity isomorphism. This completes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Part of this work was conducted during the first author’s visit to The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He would like to thank Dr. Xiaoping Xu for hospitality and help. This work is supported by a NSF Fund of China and a Fund from National Education Ministry of China.

REFERENCES

1. Block, R. On torsion-free abelian groups and Lie algebras. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1958, 9, 613-620.

2. Dokovic, D.; Zhao, K. Derivations, isomorphisms and second cohomology of generalized Block algebras. Algebra Colloquium 1996, 3, 245-272.

3. Dokovic, D.; Zhao, K. Some infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras related to those of Block. J. Pure Appl. Alg. 1998, 127, 153-165.

4. Dokovic, D.; Zhao, K. Some simple subalgebras of generalized Block algebras. J. Alg. 1997, 192, 74-101.

5. Mazirchuk, V. Verma modules over generalized Witt algebra. Compositio Mathematica 1999, 115, 21-35.

6. Osborn, J. M.; Zhao, K. Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras of generalized Block type. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1999, 127, 1641-1650.

7. Su, Y.; Xu, X. Structure of divergence-free Lie algebras. J. Alg., 2001, 243, 557-595.

8. Su, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhang, H. Derivation-simple algebras and the structures of Lie algebras of Witt type. J. Alg. 2000, 233, 642-662.

9. Xu, X. New generalized simple Lie algebras of Cartan type over a field with characteristic 0. J. Alg. 2000, 224, 23-58.

10. Xu, X. On simple Novikov algebras and their irreducible modules. J. Alg. 1996, 185, 905-934.

11. Xu, X. Novikov-Poisson algebras. J. Alg. 1997, 190, 253-279.

12. Xu, X. Generalizations of Block algebras. Manuscripta Math. 1999, 100, 489-518.

13. Xu, X. Quadratic conformal superalgebras. J. Alg. 2000, 224, 1-38.

14. Zhao, K. A Class of infinite dimensional simple Lie algebras. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 2000, 62, 71-84.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Density functional theory (DFT) and its time-dependent variant (TDFT) are powerful methods to derive phase diagrams and the kinetics of phase transformations  in condensed matter systems, in particular in the presence of confinement effects. Particularly useful are these theories for lattice systems , allowing us to deal with the discrete nature of structures encountered e.g. in the description of metallic alloys, adsorbate layers, and complex pattern formation on atomic scales.

In the case where many ordered phases can coexist one is lead to include internal degrees of freedom into the DFT approach. As a prominent model we will consider in this work the $`q`$-state Potts model, which has a $`q`$-fold degenerate ground state . The non-equilibrium dynamics of that model reflects the coarsening of domains following a quench from the disordered homogeneous phase to a system with long–range order seen in binary alloys, liquid crystals, magnetic bubbles, Langmuir films and soap bubbles . The Potts model (in the limit $`q1`$) is isomorphic to a site-bond percolation problem  and for $`q=2`$ it corresponds to the Ising model . There are interesting experimental realizations for $`q=3`$ (e.g. Kr on Graphite ), $`q=4`$ and $`q=\mathrm{}`$  (froths and metallic grains).

In this paper, based on the exact density functional for the one–dimensional $`q`$-state Potts model , we investigate the quality of various approximations often employed in DFT and TDFT. After presenting a general scheme for treating systems with internal degrees of freedom, we first consider the mean spherical approximation (MSA) for the equilibrium properties, and show how it compares with a mean-field approach and the exact solution. We then derive the TDFT  for the one–dimensional Potts model and, as an application, study the smoothening of an initial sharp-kink density profile. Let us note that this TDFT differs in many respects from the Runge-Gross theory  for electronic systems in a time-varying external field, one major difference being that the present approach assumes stochastic, overdamped dynamics. The basic techniques to set up a TDFT for classical systems are reviewed in . By comparison with Monte–Carlo simulations we show that the TDFT provides a significant improvement over kinetic mean field theory. Moreover, since in our case the TDFT is based on an exact density functional, the differences between the simulated and DFT results allow us to perform a specific test of the local equilibrium approximation used in the TDFT. Finally, we discuss principal limitations of the TDFT, where only the density profile is used to specify a non-equilibrium state of the system. This amounts to an incorrect account of correlations.

## 2 DFT for Lattice Gases with Internal Degrees of Freedom

We consider a lattice gas where each site $`i`$ is either vacant ($`x_i^\alpha =0`$ for all $`\alpha `$) or singly occupied by a particle in one of $`q`$ internal states (note that this corresponds to a generalized Potts model with $`q+1`$ states). If state $`\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},q\}`$ is realized, $`x_i^\alpha =1`$ and $`x_i^\beta =0`$ for $`\beta \alpha `$. Occupation numbers therefore satisfy $`x_i^\alpha x_i^\beta =x_i^\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }`$. The Hamiltonian including two particle interactions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^{\alpha \beta }`$ and site energies $`ϵ_i^\alpha `$ due to an external potential is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,j}^{\alpha \beta }x_i^\alpha x_j^\beta +\underset{i,\alpha }{}ϵ_i^\alpha x_i^\alpha $$
(1)
The formal steps of DFT for fluids or lattice gases without internal degrees of freedom can be carried over to the case considered here. One arrives at a variational principle based on the functional for the grand canonical potential

$$\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]=F[𝐩]+\underset{i,\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i^\alpha p_i^\alpha $$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i^\alpha =ϵ_i^\alpha \mu _\alpha `$, $`\mu _\alpha `$ being the chemical potential fixing the mean total occupation $`\overline{p}_\alpha `$ of state $`\alpha `$, $`𝐩=\{p_i^\alpha \}`$ and $`p_i^\alpha =x_i^\alpha `$ are the average occupation numbers. The free energy functional is decomposed into an ’ideal’ part describing a non-interacting lattice gas,

$$F_{\mathrm{id}}[𝐩]=\left[\underset{i,\alpha }{}p_i^\alpha \mathrm{ln}p_i^\alpha +\underset{i}{}\left(1\underset{\alpha }{}p_i^\alpha \right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\underset{\alpha }{}p_i^\alpha \right)\right]$$
(3)
and an excess part $`F_{\mathrm{ex}}[𝐩]`$ due to interactions (for convenience we set $`k_BT=1`$). The equilibrium occupation is then obtained by minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]`$ with respect to the $`p_i^\alpha `$. The corresponding equations $`\mathrm{\Omega }/p_i^\alpha =0`$ determining the equilibrium profile are called structure equations. The minimum value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]`$ is the grand-canonical potential at equilibrium.

Higher order derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]`$ with respect to the $`p_i^\alpha `$ taken at the equilibrium profile yield a hierarchy of direct correlation functions . In particular, by differentiating the structure equation, the inhomogeneous Ornstein–Zernike equation

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }+\underset{k,\gamma }{}\stackrel{~}{c}_{ik}^{\alpha \gamma }p_k^\gamma h_{kj}^{\gamma \beta }=h_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }$$
(4)
can be derived , which relates the direct correlation function $`c_{i\alpha ,j\beta }^{(2)}=^2F_{\mathrm{ex}}[𝐩]/p_i^\alpha p_j^\beta `$ entering $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=c_{i\alpha ,j\beta }^{(2)}\delta _{ij}/[1_\mu p_i^\mu ]`$ to the pair correlation function $`h_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }1=(1\delta _{ij})x_i^\alpha x_j^\beta /x_i^\alpha x_j^\beta `$. In the limit $`q=1`$ the known result for systems without internal degrees of freedom is recovered.

## 3 Application to the 1D Potts model

In the following, standard approximation schemes used in DFT are tested based on the one-dimensional Hamiltonian ($`1iM`$)

$$H=\underset{i,\alpha ,\beta }{}v_i^{\alpha \beta }x_i^\alpha x_{i+1}^\beta +\underset{i,\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i^\alpha x_i^\alpha ,$$
(5)
which for $`v_i^{\alpha \beta }=V\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ reduces to the standard Potts model .

### 3.1 Exact density functional

For one-dimensional lattice gases with short range interactions, a general scheme for deriving exact density functionals based on Markov chains has recently been developed in . This approach in particular provides an exact functional for the Potts model, which has been derived earlier by Percus . The functional can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{q}{}}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i^\alpha p_i^\alpha +{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{q}{}}}v_i^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }}{p_{i1}^\beta }}+\left(p_{i1}^\beta {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }\right)\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }}{p_{i1}^\beta }}\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left(p_i^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }\right)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_i^\alpha _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }}{1_\beta p_{i1}^\beta }}\right)`$
$`+(1{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(p_{i1}^\beta +p_i^\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta })\mathrm{log}(1{\displaystyle \frac{_\beta p_i^\beta _{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }}{1_\beta p_{i1}^\beta }})\},`$
where the correlators

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }=x_{i1}^\alpha x_i^\beta $$
(7)
have to be expressed by the mean occupation numbers $`\{p_k^\gamma \}`$. This is achieved by solving the correlator equations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }=e^{v_i^{\alpha \beta }}\frac{(p_i^\alpha _\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \gamma })(p_{i1}^\beta _\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\delta \beta })}{1_\gamma (p_{i1}^\gamma +p_i^\gamma )+_{\gamma ,\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\delta \gamma }}.$$
(8)
A simpler expression for the functional is obtained if the vacancies are considered as an additional Potts state with index $`\alpha =0`$ (and $`v_i^{\beta 0}=v_i^{0\beta }=0`$), whereby the lengthy entropic part reduces to $`_{i=1}^M_{\alpha ,\beta =0}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }/p_i^\alpha )`$. In the fully occupied case ($`_\alpha x_i^\alpha =1`$) the solution of eqs. (8) requires a careful limiting procedure by letting the vacancy concentration go to zero.

The structure equations read

$$e^{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i^\alpha }=\frac{(1{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}p_i^\beta )\left(p_i^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \gamma }\right)\left(p_i^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\delta \alpha }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_i^\alpha }}}{\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(p_{i1}^\beta +p_i^\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\delta \gamma }\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(p_i^\beta +p_{i+1}^\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\delta \gamma }\right)}.$$
(9)
By solving this equation numerically we obtain the exact density profiles. (For the example of eq. (15), results are shown in Fig. 1.)

### 3.2 Mean spherical approximation (MSA)

In the following the excess density functional will be expanded around a homogeneous reference state, $`p_i^\alpha =\overline{p}_\alpha `$ . For simplicity, we here consider the standard Potts case $`v_i^{\alpha \beta }=V\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$, and set $`\overline{p}_\alpha =\overline{p}`$ for all $`\alpha `$.

Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_i^\alpha =p_i^\alpha \overline{p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]=\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]\mathrm{\Omega }[\{\overline{p}\}]`$, etc., we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]=\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{id}}[𝐩]+\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ex}}[𝐩]+\underset{i,\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }p_i^\alpha .$$
(10)
When retaining only terms up to second order in the excess free energy functional, we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{ex}}[𝐩]=\underset{i,\alpha }{}c^{(1)}(\overline{p})\mathrm{\Delta }p_i^\alpha \frac{1}{2}\underset{i,\alpha ,j,\beta }{}c_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}(|ij|,\overline{p})\mathrm{\Delta }p_i^\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }p_j^\beta ,$$
(11)
where $`c^{(1)}(\overline{p})`$ can be subsumed into the chemical potential. For our choice of interactions with translational symmetry, $`g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }(|ij|)`$, and the direct correlation function $`c_{i\alpha ,j\beta }^{(2)}`$ can be split into two parts,

$$c_{i\alpha ,j\beta }^{(2)}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }c_1(|ij|)+(1\delta _{\alpha \beta })c_2(|ij|).$$
(12)
where in the MSA approximation,

$$c_1(|l|)=\{\begin{array}{cc}V,\hfill & |l|=1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & |l|2\hfill \end{array}\text{and}c_2(|l|)=0\text{for}|l|1$$
(13)
and $`g_{\alpha \beta }(l=0)=0`$. The two unknowns $`c_1(0)`$ and $`c_2(0)`$ are found using the Ornstein–Zernike equation (4), which yields

$`c_1^{(2)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{p}q\overline{p}}{\overline{p}(1q\overline{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\left[A+(q1)B\right]`$
$`c_2^{(2)}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q\overline{p}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\left[AB\right]`$
$`\text{with}A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+[2V\overline{p}(1q\overline{p})]^2}}{\overline{p}(1q\overline{p})}},B={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+(2V\overline{p})^2}}{\overline{p}}}.`$ (14)
As an example, we now consider the special case of zero external energies for the Potts states $`\alpha =2,\mathrm{},q`$ and alternating external energies for the Potts state $`\alpha =1`$,

$$ϵ_i^\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ,\hfill & i\text{even and}\alpha =1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
and assume $`\mu _\alpha =\mu `$ independent of $`\alpha `$. Due to the symmetry of this external potential, each occupation number $`p_i^\alpha `$ is equal to one of the four representatives $`p_0^1,p_0^2,p_1^1,p_1^2`$, and the mean particle density per site is

$$\overline{n}=\frac{1}{2}\left[p_0^1+p_1^1+(q1)(p_0^2+p_1^2)\right].$$
(16)
We consider the functional

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }[𝐩]& \frac{1}{M}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]+F_{\mathrm{id}}[\overline{p}]\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{1}{2}[p_0^1\mathrm{ln}p_0^1+p_1^1\mathrm{ln}p_1^1+(q1)(p_0^2\mathrm{ln}p_0^2+p_1^2\mathrm{ln}p_1^2)\hfill \\ & +\left(1p_0^1(q1)p_0^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1p_0^1(q1)p_0^2\right)\hfill \\ & +(1p_1^1(q1)p_1^2)\mathrm{ln}(1p_1^1(q1)p_1^2)]\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{4}[c_1(0)((\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^1)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^1)^2+(q1)((\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^2)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^2)^2))\hfill \\ & +c_2(0)(q1)\{2(\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^1\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^1\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^2)\hfill \\ & +(q2)((\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^2)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^2)^2)\}\hfill \\ & 4V(\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^1\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^1+(q1)\mathrm{\Delta }p_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }p_1^2)]\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{4}ϵ\left[p_0^1p_1^1(q1)(p_0^2+p_1^2)+2(q1)\overline{p}\right]\hfill \\ & \mu _{\mathrm{eff}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p_0^1+p_1^1+(q1)(p_0^2+p_1^2)\right)\overline{n}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
with $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=\mu ϵ/2+c^{(1)}(\overline{p})`$. The structure equations are obtained by setting the derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Psi }[𝐩]`$ with respect to $`p_0^1,p_0^2,p_1^1,p_1^2`$ equal to zero. These equations are solved numerically subject to a fixed $`\overline{n}`$ in eq. (16) (which is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Psi }/\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$). Ordinary mean field theory can be recovered from the functional by setting $`c_1(0)=c_2(0)=0`$.

In Fig. 1 the occupation numbers for the MSA approximation and the mean field theory are compared with the exact results based on eq. (9). Without interactions ($`V=0`$) the external potential yields mean occupation numbers $`p_0^1<p_1^1=p_1^2<p_0^2`$, $`p_0^1=e^ϵp_0^2`$. When a repulsive interaction $`V>0`$ is switched on, the fact that $`p_1^1>p_1^2`$ induces an increasing occupation difference. For larger $`q`$ this effect becomes less pronounced due to the increasing contribution of the entropy to the free energy per site.

As expected, the MSA is an improvement over the simple mean field approximation especially for higher values of the interaction parameter and high overall densities $`\overline{n}`$. Moreover, the quality of the MF-results can be shown to improve when $`ϵ`$ is decreased. A notable result is the improvement of the two approximations for larger $`q`$, reflecting the fact that mean-field descriptions should become exact in the limit $`q\mathrm{}`$.

### 3.3 Kinetics of density profiles

So far we have considered density profiles at equilibrium. In order to account for the time evolution of non-equilibrium profiles we will make use of the local equilibrium approximation for the probability distribution $`P(𝐱,t)`$ to find a configuration $`𝐱=\{x_i^\alpha \}`$ at time $`t`$. In this time-dependent density functional theory (TDFT) , the deviations of $`P(𝐱,t)`$ from the Boltzmann equilibrium distribution are described by a one-particle time-dependent effective potential $`h_i^\alpha (t)`$,

$$P(𝐱,t)=\frac{1}{Z(t)}\mathrm{exp}\left[H(𝐱)\underset{i,\alpha }{}h_i^\alpha (t)x_i^\alpha \right].$$
(18)
The effective potential is the unique potential, which yields the instantaneous density profile $`p_i^\alpha (t)`$ according to the equilibrium DFT. Accordingly, the unknown field $`𝐡`$ in eq. (18) can be determined by the “structure equation” $`h_i^\alpha (t)=\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]/p_i^\alpha `$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }[𝐩]`$ from eq. (2). It is then clear that in this approach all equilibrium relations between occupational correlators $`x_i^\alpha x_j^\beta \mathrm{}`$ and the density $`𝐩`$ also apply at each time instant to the non-equilibrium situation \[in particular eq. (8)\].

To test the quality of the TDFT, we consider a lattice with all sites being occupied ($`\overline{n}=1`$) and a nonconserved dynamics, where a given Potts state $`\alpha `$ on lattice site $`i`$ can change to any other state $`\beta \alpha `$ with a rate $`w_i^{\alpha \beta }(𝐱)`$ that depends on the current state $`𝐱`$ due to interactions. From the master-equation describing this stochastic process, we derive the equation of motion for the occupation profile,

$$\frac{dp_i^\alpha }{dt}=\underset{\beta }{}(x_i^\beta x_i^\alpha )w_i^{\alpha \beta }_t$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{}_t`$ denotes an average with respect to the non-equilibrium distribution $`P(𝐱,t)`$. For the rates we choose a generalized Glauber form,

$`w_i^{\alpha \beta }(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\mathrm{tanh}\left[(x_{i1}^\beta x_i^\beta x_{i1}^\alpha x_i^\alpha )V/2\right]\right)`$ (20)
$`\times \left(1\mathrm{tanh}\left[(x_{i+1}^\beta x_i^\beta x_{i+1}^\alpha x_i^\alpha )V/2\right]\right),`$
which satisfies the condition of detailed balance .

When substituting eq. (20) in (19) further evaluation is made possible by noting that the factor in front of $`V/2`$ in the argument of $`\mathrm{tanh}`$ is always $`1,0`$ or $`1`$, so that it can be taken out from the $`\mathrm{tanh}`$ function. With the help of the Markov property, three-point correlators can exactly be reduced to two-point correlators, e.g. $`x_{i1}^\alpha x_i^\beta x_{i+1}^\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\beta \gamma }/p_i^\beta `$. After some algebra we then find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_i^\alpha }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`1qp_i^\alpha +\mathrm{tanh}(V/2)[2p_i^\alpha p_{i1}^\alpha p_{i+1}^\alpha `$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\beta \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \alpha }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\beta \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\alpha \alpha })]`$
$`+\mathrm{tanh}^2(V/2){\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_i^\beta }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\beta \beta })(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\beta \alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\beta \beta })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_i^\alpha }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\beta \alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \alpha })(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}^{\alpha \alpha })].`$
Equations (21) together with the correlator equations (8) form a complete set of equations for the time evolution of density profiles and can be solved numerically for a given initial condition.

As an example, we consider an initially sharp kink profile at time $`t=0`$, where the left part of the system is in Potts state $`\alpha =1`$ and the right part in Potts state $`\alpha =q`$ with fixed boundary sites $`i=1`$ and $`M`$ in Potts states $`\alpha =1`$ and $`q`$, i.e. $`x_1^\alpha =\delta _{\alpha ,1}`$ and $`x_M^\alpha =\delta _{\alpha ,q}`$. In Figure 2a we compare the time evolution of the profile with the results from continuous-time Monte-Carlo simulations. The agreement is excellent for all times until for large times the TDFT solution and the simulations both yield the correct equilibrium profile. In order to obtain this agreement, it was necessary to adjust the time scale according to $`t_{\mathrm{TDFT}}=0.85t_{\mathrm{MC}}`$. The significant improvement over a simple mean-field treatment corresponding to factorization of all correlators in eq.(21), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\alpha \beta }=p_{i1}^\alpha p_i^\beta `$, etc., can be seen by comparing Fig. 2a with Fig. 2b. The mean-field approximation is insufficient from the beginning and does not provide the correct equilibrium profile for long times.

### 3.4 Basic Limitations of TDFT

Since in the kinetic equation of the TDFT only the densities (mean occupation numbers) enter, the TDFT can not distinguish between states with the same density profile but different correlations. As a consequence, the time evolution of a non-equilibrium state with the equilibrium density profile cannot be captured. This issue may become important when considering memory effects in systems with slow relaxations, as for example glassy systems. The observables used to characterize the thermodynamic states of such systems (as e.g. density) may have equal values initially, but very different time evolutions depending on the systems’ history.

To illustrate this principal failure of the TDFT, we generate states of the Potts model with the same mean occupation numbers but different correlations for the same system as in the previous chapter. To achieve this, we first determine the equilibrium profile $`p_i^\alpha `$ for a system with interactions from the structure equations (9). This profile is also the equilibrium profile for a system without interactions ($`V=0`$) and external potential $`ϵ_i^\alpha =\mathrm{log}p_i^\alpha `$. Hence by taking the equilibrium state of the non-interacting system as initial non-equilibrium state for the interacting system, we can study by Monte-Carlo simulations the time development of a density profile that according to TDFT cannot change.

Figure 3 shows the effect for $`V=4`$ and $`q=4`$. Although the mean occupation numbers at time $`t=0`$ are the same as in the equilibrium state reached for $`t1024`$, there is a pronounced change in the occupation profile at intermediate times. These changes are due to the fact that in the initial state the correlations between occupation numbers are not the equilibrium ones. The configurations with large statistical weights in the initial state exhibit stronger short-wavelength fluctuations and in order for the correlations to build up, the system has to pass through intermediate states with a non-equilibrium profile.

### 3.5 Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Sonderforschungsbereich 513 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.