text:
# Maximizing the Hilbert space for a finite number of distinguishable quantum states.

## Abstract

We consider a quantum system with a finite number of distinguishable quantum states, which may be partitioned freely by a number of quantum particles, assumed to be maximally entangled. We show that if we partition the system into a number of qudits, then the Hilbert space dimension is maximized when each quantum particle is allowed to represent a qudit of order $`e`$. We demonstrate that the dimensionality of an entangled system, constrained by the total number quantum states, partitioned so as to maximize the number of qutrits will always exceed the dimensionality of other qudit partitioning. We then show that if we relax the requirement of partitioning the system into qudits, but instead let the particles exist in any given state, that the Hilbert space dimension is greatly increased.

Quantum computation bib:NielsenBook  has, in remarkably short time, become one of the most interesting fields in applied quantum physics today. There are numerous suggestions for implementing quantum computers. One common feature of all scalable quantum computers, is their use of entangled particles bib:Blume-Kohout2002 .

Most quantum computer proposals focus on qubits (quantum bits) as the fundamental element of computing. These are two state quantum systems that can be entangled. Further work has begun to examine the possibility of performing computations with qudits (quantum digits) bib:QuditRef . Qudits are an extension of qubits, that are systems with any (integer) number of states greater than 1. The qubit is therefore the two-state qudit, and the qutrit is the three-state qudit. For convenience we will refer to the $`x`$-state qudit as an x-qudit.

Investigations into qudits have shown many significant results. Entanglement between two qutrits was first discussed by Caves and Milburn bib:QutritEntanglement . Bell inequalities for systems of qudits are more strongly violated than analogous systems of qubits bib:BellViolation , and recent experiments have shown entanglement of two qutrits, realized using the orbital angular momentum as the quantum state bib:VaziriPRL2002 . A quantum-communication protocol using qutrits has also been proposed bib:QutritCommunication . Universal quantum gates and gate fidelity have been studied for qudit systems bib:QuditGates , a readout method based on quantum state tomography has been proposed bib:QST  and the extension of infinite-dimensional qudits to continuous-variable quantum computation has also been made bib:SandersPreprint2002 .

The Hilbert-space dimension of a quantum computer has been identified as the primary resource for any physical realization of such a device bib:Blume-Kohout2002 . To that end it is necessary to consider how best to maximize the Hilbert-space dimension for a given quantum computer geometry. It is obvious that for a given number of particles, the dimensionality of the Hilbert space, $`𝒟`$, will be increased by increasing the dimensionality of the particles, although it is not, in general, trivial to increase the dimensionality of the fundamental particles being used for the computation; nor is the added complexity involved necessarily favorable. However there are proposals for quantum computing which involve a number of quantum particles having available a finite number of distinguishable quantum states. Examples include the charge-qubit scheme bib:EkertRMP1996 ; bib:Hollenberg , superconducting Cooper-pair boxes bib:CooperPairBox , quantum computing based on photons in interferometers joined by lossless nonlinear optical elements bib:QNLO  and the linear optics implementation bib:KLM . In all these proposals the fundamental quantum particles (electrons, Cooper-pairs or photons) may be in a finite number of distinguishable quantum states (positions, interferometer arms). These quantum states are grouped together and we term such groupings quantum elements. For qudits we have one particle per quantum element, which can be in a superposition of all states within the element. Ideally every particle will be entangled with every other particle.

For concreteness, we will consider the charge scheme of Hollenberg et al. bib:Hollenberg , although the generalization to other schemes is straightforward. Without examining issues related to operational complexity or physical architecture we will show ways in which to optimize the Hilbert-space dimensionality for a system where the number of accessible quantum states is unchanging, although the logical groupings of those states into quantum elements, and the number of particles shared between those states is varied.

Consider a linear array of $`N`$ donor impurities, with controllable tunnelling probabilities and individual energy levels. If we partition the space into $`x`$-qudits, as shown in Fig. 1 for $`x=2,3,4`$, then we must introduce $`N/x`$ electrons. The dimension of the Hilbert space obtained by maximally entangling these N/x electrons is therefore:

$`𝒟_x=x^{N/x}.`$ (1)
Simply differentiating Eq. 1 allows us to determine the value of $`x`$ which maximizes $`𝒟`$ for a given $`N`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒟}{dx}}=Nx^{\frac{N}{x}2}(\mathrm{ln}x1)=0,`$
$`x=e.`$
As each particle needs to have an integer number of levels, we note that for identical qudits, the dimensionality is optimized for qutrits. The Hilbert-space dimensionality for qutrits over qubits will be larger by a factor $`𝒟_3/𝒟_2=\mathrm{exp}\left[N\left(\mathrm{ln}3/3\mathrm{ln}2/2\right)\right]`$.

In Fig. 2 we show the Hilbert-space dimensionality of a twelve-state system as a function of the size of each quantum element. Each different case is explained through the text. The $`+`$ symbols in Fig. 2 show the dimensionality associated with qudit arrangements. As expected, the dimensionality is maximized by a qudit size of 3 (note that we are only showing integer qudit sizes). For the system with 12 quantum states, $`𝒟_2=64`$ whereas $`𝒟_3=81`$.

Conceivably, it may be possible to realize a quantum computer which uses a mixture of qubits and qutrits so as to optimize the total dimensionality of the Hilbert space, as recently discussed by Daboul et al. bib:DaboulPreprint2002 . For instance, suppose we partition the space into $`y_2`$ qubits and $`y_3`$ qutrits such that $`2y_2+3y_3=N^{}`$ where $`N^{}N`$. One might guess that the dimensionality of the Hilbert space would be increased by mixing qubits and qutrits such that the average dimensionality of the system $`(2y_2+3y_3)/(y_2+y_3)`$ is closer to the optimal value $`e`$. However, this is not the case. To see why, note that the dimensionality of the Hilbert space of a system partitioned as suggested is given by $`2^{y_2}3^{y_3}=2^{(N^{}3y_3)/2}3^{y_3}`$. With $`𝒟_e=exp(N^{}/e)`$ this leads to

$`𝒟/𝒟_e=\mathrm{exp}(my_3+b),`$
where $`m=\mathrm{ln}(3)\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2)>0`$ and $`b=(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(2)}{2}e^1)N^{}`$. Note that $`\mathrm{exp}(my_3+b)=1`$ if $`y_3=b/m0.36N^{}`$. Since $`y_3N^{}/3`$ on physical grounds, this implies $`my_3+b<0`$, i.e., the exponential is always less than one. Furthermore, since $`m>0`$, the value of the exponential *increases* with the number of qutrits $`y_3`$. Thus, the dimensionality of the Hilbert space is optimized if we partition the system into the largest available number of qutrits, except where adding a single qubit would more efficiently use all of the available quantum states.

Allowing the number of particles to vary within each quantum element changes the system dimensionality and generalizes the qudit scheme. We consider quantum elements which are groupings of $`x`$ quantum states (modes), with $`k`$ particles per quantum element and at most $`l`$ particles per state. Such an arrangement is shown schematically in Fig. 3. We term these structures $`(k,l)`$ packing x-qudits and use the shorthand notation $`Q_x(k,l)`$, writing the dimensionality of these structures as $`dim[Q_x(k,l)]`$. In essence, this approach reverses the work of Abrams and Lloyd bib:AbramsPRL1997  where an algorithm for efficient simulation of many-body Fermi systems on a quantum computer was presented, by proposing a many-body system as a quantum computer in its own right, and is in keeping with Bravyi and Kitaev’s work on fermionic quantum computation bib:BravyiPreprint2000 . Blume-Kohout et al. bib:Blume-Kohout2002  calculated the dimensionality of Fermionic and Bosonic systems, which in our notation would correspond to $`Q_x(k,1)`$ and $`Q_x(k,k)`$ respectively. We note that analysis of two electrons in a polygonal dot ($`Q_x(2,1)`$), has been performed by Creffield et al. bib:Creffield . Creffield and Platero studied two electrons in a square dot bib:CreffieldPRB2002 , considering the possibility of double occupancy ($`Q_4(2,2)`$). This system (without double occupancy) has also been proposed as a scalable quantum element by Jefferson et al. bib:JeffersonPRA2002  ($`Q_4(2,1)`$).

We first consider the case that there can be no more than one particle per quantum state, but the number of particles per element is chosen to maximise the Hilbert-space dimensionality, i.e. the $`Q_x(k,1)`$ partition, or Fermionic system. In order to maximize the total Hilbert-space dimensionality, it is clear that the number of particles per quantum element must be equal to the number of sites divided by 2, i.e. $`k=x/2`$ for $`x`$ even, or $`k=(x\pm 1)/2`$ for $`x`$ odd, where the $`\pm `$ is due to symmetry between particles and holes. The total dimensionality for a system with $`N`$ sites, partitioned into $`N/x`$ elements will therefore be (assuming $`x`$ even and $`N/x`$ an integer)

$`𝒟=\{dim[Q_x(x/2,1)]\}^{N/x}=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{x/2}}\right)^{N/x}.`$
where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)`$ is the number of possible identifiably different permutations of $`n`$ elements of two different types, $`m`$ of which are of type 1 (eg. particles) and $`nm`$ of which are of type 2 (eg. holes or empty sites). The Hilbert-space dimensionality showing this form of partitioning is represented by the open circles $``$ in Fig. 2. The total dimensionality, $`dim[Q_x(x/2,1)]`$, is clearly maximized when $`x=N`$, which corresponds to the case that all particles are allowed to roam freely in the lattice, which is the case of local fermionic modes discussed by Bravyi and Kitaev bib:BravyiPreprint2000  and is scalable, as discussed by Blume-Kohout bib:Blume-Kohout2002 . In a twelve state configuration, for example, Fig. 3(e) shows the configuration which maximizes the dimensionality of the Hilbert-space, with $`dim[Q_{12}(6,1)]=924`$, an order of magnitude larger than case of qutrits. Despite this maximization, it is important to realize that there may well be advantages to partitioning into smaller subspaces (i.e. $`x<N`$) - for example it is not possible to do error correction without some degree of redundancy in coding.

The next obvious extension is to allow the maximum number of particles per site to increase to two. This could physically correspond to an electron based quantum computer, where the charging energy of two particles per dot can be overcome bib:CreffieldPRB2002 . In this case the dimensionality of the system will be

$`𝒟=\{dim[Q_x(k,2)]\}^{N/x}=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j_2=0}{\overset{k/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{j_2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{xj_2}{k2j_2}}\right)\right]^{N/x},`$
where $`j_2`$ indexes the number of sites with two electrons per site and is allowed to range from $`0`$ to $`N/2`$ for $`x`$ even, or $`0`$ to $`(N1)/2`$ for $`x`$ odd. It is straightforward to show that the dimensionality of each partition is maximized when $`k=x`$, i.e. the number of particles per element is equal to the number of sites per element. The dimensionality in this case is shown by the crosses, $`\times `$, in Fig. 2, which is significantly larger than the case where at most one particle is allowed per site.

Another alternative is where we have an extra quantum number (for example spin), which would double the number of accessible quantum states. In this case the system returns to the standard Fermionic case and the dimensionality becomes simply

$`𝒟=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2x}{k}}\right)^{N/x}.`$
This dimensionality is shown by the asterisks, $``$, in Fig. 2 which represents the largest dimensionality of all the cases under consideration.

In general, we note that if we allow the number of particles per site to be at most $`z`$, then the total Hilbert-space dimensionality is

$`\{dim[Q_x(k,z)]\}^{N/x}=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j_z=0}{\overset{x/z}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{j_z}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j_{z1}=0}{\overset{(kzj_z)/(z1)}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{xj_z}{j_{z1}}}\right)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{j_2=0}{\overset{(k_{r=3}^zrj_r)/2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x\underset{r=3}{\overset{z}{}}j_r}{j_2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x\underset{r=2}{\overset{z}{}}j_r}{k_{r=2}^zrj_r}}\right)\right]^{N/x}.`$
Note that if there is no restriction on the number of particles per site we retrieve the Bosonic case. We would then be looking to extend familiar bosonic quantum computing schemes to the multiple-particle limit, for example linear optical bib:KLM , nonlinear optical bib:QNLO  or superconducting bib:CooperPairBox  quantum computing schemes. The dimensionality is considerably simplified and is bib:Blume-Kohout2002 ; bib:MayerText

$`dim[Q_x(k,k)]=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+k1}{x1}}\right).`$
This dimensionality can greatly exceed the fermionic case, for the same number of accessible quantum states, for a large enough number of particles. Furthermore this dimensionality monotonically increases with increasing particle number. This suggests that a quantum computing architecture based around bosons may be easier to upgrade than any other architecture.

We note in closing that there is far more to quantum computers than optimizing the Hilbert space dimension. Here we have not entered into issues of operational complexity, which will be specific to particular architectures, as well as decoherence which is expected to differ substantially between implementations. However, comparing qudit implementations, a system comprising qubits alone will maximize the amount of information that can be obtained in a single measurement step. This is because an optimum measurement would be to measure the state of every quantum particle. For qubits, that would yield $`N/2`$ values; for qutrits, it would only yield $`N/3`$ values. As a rough measure, we may say that to equalize the amount of information gained about the state of the computer, we would need to perform $`(N/2)/(N/3)=1.5`$ times as many measurements on a qutrit-based quantum computer as a qubit-based quantum computer. The dimensionality of the qutrit Hilbert space exceeds that of the qubit Hilbert space by $`1.5`$ when

$`\mathrm{exp}\left[N({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{2}})\right]>1.5,N>20.65.`$
Therefore when the number of quantum sites exceeds 20.65, the increase in dimensionality of the Hilbert space should more than compensate for the increased measurement complexity.

We have shown, using basic arguments, that for a quantum computer with a finite number of distinguishable states to be shared between a finite number of quantum particles arranged in qudits, the Hilbert space is maximized when the system is partitioned into the largest possible number of qutrits. Given that quantum computers suffer many limitations, this kind of optimization for a given geometry may make the difference between a practical and impractical implementation of quantum computing, despite the fact that both qubit and qutrit based quantum computers are scalable. The Hilbert-space dimensionality can be increased substantially by both relaxing the requirement that the particles be partitioned into qudits, and by implementing what we have termed a packing geometry where the particles are allowed to be present in any site, up to some maximum which would be determined by the physical properties of the quantum system.

ADG would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with Dr Stephen Bartlett of Maquarie University, Australia, and Dr Andrew White of the University of Queensland, Australia. SGS would like to acknowledge financial support from the CMI project on Quantum Information. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The number of rotation-powered pulsars with detected emission at X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray energies has been steadily growing (Thompson 2001, Becker & Aschenbach 2002). Although the theory of pulsar acceleration and high-energy emission has been studied for over twenty-five years, the origin of the pulsed non-thermal emission is a question that remains unsettled. The observations to date have not been able to clearly distinguish between an emission site at the magnetic poles (Daugherty & Harding 1996) and emission in the outer magnetosphere (Cheng, Ho & Ruderman 1986, Hirotani & Shibata 2001). In the case of polar cap (PC) models, while the energetics and pair-cascade spectrum have had success in reproducing the observations, the predicted beam size of radiation emitted near the neutron star (NS) surface is too small to produce the wide pulse profiles that are observed (Thompson et al. 2001). However, Arons (1983) first noted the possibility of a high-altitude acceleration region or “slot gap” (near the PC rim, based on the finding of Arons & Scharlemann (1979, hereafter AS79) that the pair formation front, above which the accelerating field is screened, occurs at increasingly higher altitude as the magnetic colatitude approaches the last open field line where the electric field vanishes. We have re-examined the slot-gap model with the inclusion of two new features: 1) the acceleration due to inertial-frame dragging (Muslimov & Tsygan 1992) and 2) the additional decrease in the electric field near the boundary at the edge of the polar cap due to the narrowness of the slot gap. These two effects combine to enable acceleration to altitudes of several stellar radii in the slot gap at all azimuthal angles around the polar cap. These features result in the production of a larger high-energy emission beam at smaller magnetic inclination angles, both necessary for widely spaced double-peaked pulse profiles.

## 2 Formation of the Slot Gap

In the space-charge limited flow acceleration model (Arons & Scharlemann 1979), electrons are freely emitted from the neutron star surface near the magnetic poles and accelerated in steady-state. When the electrons achieve a sufficient Lorentz factor they radiate curvature and inverse Compton photons that can produce electron-positron pairs in the strong magnetic field. Some of the positrons turn around and accelerate downward toward the neutron star, while the electrons accelerate upward. This pair polarization screens the electric field above a pair formation front (PFF). These models assume a boundary condition that the accelerating electric field and potential are zero at the last open field line. Since near the boundary, a larger distance is required for the electrons to accelerate to the Lorentz factor needed to radiate photons energetic enough to produce pairs, the PFF occurs at higher and higher altitudes as the boundary is approached. The PFF thus curves upward, approaching infinity and becoming asymptotically tangent to the last open field line. If the electric field is effectively screened above the PFF, then a narrow slot surrounded by two conducting walls is formed (see Figure 1). Within this slot gap, the electric field is further screened by the presence of the second conducting boundary and acceleration occurs at a reduced rate. Pair production and pair cascades therefore do not take place near the neutron star surface in the slot gap, as do the pair cascades along field lines closer to the magneic pole (core), but occur at much higher altitudes.

There are several important differences between our revised slot-gap model and the original slot-gap model of Arons & Sharlemann (1979). The inclusion of general relativistic frame dragging enables particle acceleration on both “favorably” and “unfavorable” curved field lines and also at all inclination angles. We also consider the radiation from pair cascades occurring along the interior edge of the slot gap. The cascade radiation emission beam from the slot gap is thus a full hollow cone centered on the magnetic axis. A narrower emission beam from field lines interior to the slot gap will form a core component of pairs and high-energy emission.

## 3 Slot Gap Energetics

The electrodynamics of the slot gap is primarily dependent on a single parameter, the slot gap width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}`$. The ratio of the electric field in the slot gap to the electric field in the core region of the PC is $`E_{_{\mathrm{SG}}}/E_{\mathrm{core}}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}^2/4`$ and the luminosity of particles accelerated in the slot gap is $`L_{\mathrm{prim}}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}^3L_{\mathrm{SD}}`$ where $`L_{\mathrm{SD}}`$ is the spin-down luminosity of the pulsar (for full details see Muslimov & Harding 2003). One can estimate the width of the slot gap as defined by the magnetic colatitude where the variation of the curvature radiation PFF becomes comparable to a fraction $`\lambda `$ of the stellar radius, or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\xi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}\{\begin{array}{cc}0.2P_{0.1}(\lambda B_{12})^{4/7}I_{45}^{3/7}.\hfill & \hfill B\stackrel{<}{}0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}\\ 0.1P_{0.1}(\lambda B_{12}^{3/4})^{4/7}I_{45}^{3/7}\hfill & \hfill B\stackrel{>}{}0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`P_{0.1}=P/0.1`$ s, $`B_{12}=B_0/10^{12}`$ G, and $`I_{45}=I/10^{45}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, are the NS rotation period, surface magnetic field and moment of inertia. The emission solid angle of radiation from the slot gap can be estimated by integrating over the thin annulus defined by the slot gap width (Eqn ).

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma \frac{9}{2}\pi \theta _0^2\eta \mathrm{\Delta }\xi _{_{\mathrm{SG}}}\mathrm{ster},\eta \eta __\gamma .$$
(2)
where $`\eta r/R`$ is the dimensionless radius of emission and $`\theta _0=\mathrm{sin}^1(2\pi R/Pc)^{1/2}`$ is the PC half-angle. Based on the luminosity of the primary electrons and the above solid angle estimate, we may derive the quantity,

$$L_\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma )=\frac{\epsilon _\gamma L_{\mathrm{prim}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma }=3\times 10^{34}\epsilon _\gamma L_{\mathrm{sd},35}^{3/7}P_{0.1}^{5/7}R_6^{17/7}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta __\gamma )\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{ster}^1.$$
(3)
where $`R_6=R/10^6`$ cm is the neutron star radius, $`\epsilon _\gamma `$ is the radiation efficiency and $`L_{\mathrm{sd},35}L_{\mathrm{sd}}/10^{35}\mathrm{ergs}^1`$ is the spin-down luminosity. The above expressions for $`L_\gamma (\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma )`$ are equivalent to the observed quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma d^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma `$ is the high-energy bolometric flux observed at the Earth, and $`d`$ is the distance to the pulsar. Figure 2 shows the pulsar empirical (solid circles with error bars) and theoretical (upside-down triangles) values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma d^2`$ as a function of spin-down luminosity, $`L_{\mathrm{sd}}`$. The theoretical values are calculated for the parameters $`\epsilon _\gamma =0.3`$ and $`\lambda =0.1`$ (see eq. ). Note that parameter $`\epsilon _\gamma `$ can range from 0.2 to 0.5 in cascade simulations, and $`\eta _\gamma =3`$. In Figure 2 the dashed line represents the absolute upper limit, where the spin-down luminosity is radiated into the unit solid angle, i.e. where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma d^2=L_{\mathrm{sd}}/1\mathrm{ster}`$. One can see that there is good agreement for most high-energy pulsars except several of the pulsars, Geminga and PSR B0656+14, having low $`L_{\mathrm{sd}}`$, and for J0218+4232, which is a millisecond pulsar. These pulsars are near or below the death line for pairs from curvature radiation (see Harding & Muslimov 2002, and next Section), and therefore have either very wide slot gaps or no slot gaps at all. All other high-energy pulsars depicted in Figure 2 are above their curvature radiation death lines and are expected to have slot gaps.

## 4 Geometry of Emission and Pulse Profiles

In order to explore the characteristics of high-energy emission produced by particles accelerated in the slot gap, we have carried out Monte Carlo simulations of the pair cascades initiated by primary electrons accelerated by the $`E_{}`$ in the gap. These pair cascade simulations are based on those of Daugherty & Harding (1996), but using the electric field of the slot gap (see Mulsimov & Harding 2003). To illustrate the features of the SG acceleration and cascades, we use the period ($`P_{0.1}=0.33`$) and surface magnetic field ($`B_{12}=5`$) of the Crab pulsar for the case $`B<0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. A stellar radius of 16 km is assumed. Figure 3 shows examples of pulse profiles for different inclination angles $`\alpha `$ and seen at various viewing angles $`\zeta `$ to the rotation axis. It is evident that widely spaced double-peaked profiles can result at relatively small inclination by slicing through the middle of the hollow cone. Profiles with two pulses separated by more than 100 degrees, as are seen from the Crab, Vela and Geminga, can be formed when the inclination angle is comparable to the beam opening angle (about 20 degrees in this model for the Crab). Broad single pulses, as seen from PSR B1509-58, may be produced when the observer cuts along the edge of the cone. As the inclination angle increases, the maximum pulse separation decreases and the pulses themselves also become narrower. Bridge emission as seen in Vela and Geminga high-energy profiles (and in the Crab profile around 1 MeV) is not produced in this calculation since we have modeled only cascades and emission from the slot gap, which produces a pure hollow cone beam. The core cascades will produce additional emission on field lines interior to the slot gap which will fill in the profile between the two pulses and produce bridge emission.

## 5 Summary

The revised picture of acceleration and radiation from pulsar slot gaps makes several observational predictions that seem to agree with some of the properties of the known high-energy pulsars. Although the total luminosity produced by the slot gap is lower than that from the whole polar cap, the small solid angle of the slot gap allows for fluxes that are in agreement with those observed. The opening angle of the high-energy emission beam from the slot gap is much larger than that of emission from near the neutron star surface. This naturally allows for wider, double-peaked pulse profiles as observed in several $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars. However, this type of profile still requires small magnetic inclination angles that are comparable to the emission beam opening angle. Even for the fast pulsars, the slot gap beam opening angles are only $`10^020^0`$. Applying this model to the observed $`\gamma `$-ray pulsars would therefore require that these, and probably most, pulsars have inclination angles smaller than $`20^0`$ and our viewing angle cannot be much larger. This may be problematic in light of the Chandra X-ray image of the Crab nebula; if the plane of the torus is really orthogonal to the spin axis, then our viewing angle is $`60^0`$. However, a number of other, more recently discovered, young pulsars seem to have small magnetic inclination (Harding et al. 2003) and slot-gap radiation may be visible at X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray energies.


text:
# 𝐶¹-Generic Dynamics:Tame and Wild Behaviour

## 1. Introduction

In order to give a global description of a dynamical system (diffeomorphism or flow) on a compact manifold $`M`$, the first step consists in characterizing the parts of $`M`$ which are, in some sense, indecomposable for the dynamics. This kind of description will be much more satisfactory if these indecomposable sets are finitely many, disjoint, isolated, and not fragile (that is, persistent in some sense under perturbations of the dynamics).

For non-chaotic dynamics, this role can be played by periodic orbits, or by minimal sets. However many (chaotic) dynamical systems have infinitely many periodic orbits and a uncountable number of minimal sets. In order to structure the global dynamics using a smaller number of (larger) sets, we need to relax the notion of indecomposability. A weaker natural notion of topological/dynamical indecomposability is the notion of transitivity.

### 1.1. Maximal and saturated transitive sets

An invariant compact set $`K`$ of a diffeomorphism $`f`$ is transitive if there is a point in $`K`$ whose positive orbit is dense in $`K`$. An equivalent definition is the following: for any open subsets $`U,V`$ of $`K`$ there is $`n>0`$ such that $`f^n(U)V\mathrm{}`$.

One easily verifies that the closure of the union of an increasing family of transitive sets is a transitive set. Then Zorn’s Lemma implies that any transitive set is contained in a maximal transitive set (i.e. maximal for the inclusion).

However, maximal transitive sets are not necessarily disjoint. For this reason, we also consider the stronger notion of saturated transitive sets: a transitive set $`K`$ is saturated if any transitive set intersecting $`K`$ is contained in $`K`$. So two saturated transitive sets are always equal or disjoint.

These notions are motivated by Smale’s approach for hyperbolic dynamics, and more specifically for his spectral decomposition theorem (see ):

### 1.2. Smale’s spectral decomposition theorem

For an Axiom A diffeomorphism $`f`$ on a compact manifold $`M`$, the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }(f)`$ of the non-wandering points is the union of finitely many compact disjoint (maximal and saturated) transitive sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, called the basic pieces, which are uniformly hyperbolic.

If furthermore $`f`$ as no cycles, there is a filtration $`\mathrm{}=M_{k+1}M_k\mathrm{}M_1=M`$ adapted to $`f`$, that is: the $`M_i`$ are submanifolds with boundary, having the same dimension as $`M`$, and are strictly $`f`$-invariant: $`f(M_i)`$ is contained in the interior $`\underset{i}{\overset{o}{M}}`$ of $`M_i`$. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is the maximal invariant set of $`f`$ in $`M_i\underset{i+1}{\overset{o}{M}}`$, that is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=_nf^n(M_i\underset{i+1}{\overset{o}{M}})`$.

Finally this presentation is robust: the same filtration remains adapted to any diffeomorphism $`g`$ in a $`C^1`$-neighborhood of $`f`$, and the maximal invariant sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(g)=_ng^n(M_i\underset{i+1}{\overset{o}{M}})`$ are the basic pieces of $`g`$.

### 1.3. A global picture of $`𝑪^\mathrm{𝟏}`$-generic diffeomorphisms

It is known from the sixties (see ) that Axiom A diffeomorphisms are not $`C^1`$-dense in $`Diff^1(M)`$ if $`dim(M)>2`$ and, of course, general dynamical systems do not admit such a nice global presentation of their dynamics. One would like to give an analogous description for as large as possible a class of diffeomorphisms.

In this paper I will present a collection of works, trying to give a coherent global picture of the dynamics of $`C^1`$-generic diffeomorphisms. There are two types of generic behaviours:

\- either the manifold contains infinitely many regions having independent dynamical behaviours (we will speak of a wild diffeomorphism, and in Section 4. will give examples of such behaviours),

\- or one has a description of the dynamics identical to those given by the spectral decomposition theorem: we speak of a tame diffeomorphism. In this case the role of basic pieces is played by the homoclinic classes (see the definition in Section 2.2.).

An important class of examples of tame dynamics are the robustly transitive dynamics and in Section 3.2. we summarize the known examples of robustly transitive dynamics. The basic pieces of a tame diffeomorphism present a weak form of hyperbolicity called dominated splitting and volume partial hyperbolicity (see Section 3.3. and 3.4.). In Section 3.5. we try to summarize the dynamical consequences of the dominated splittings.

## 2. Tame and wild dynamics

### 2.1. $`𝑪^\mathrm{𝟏}`$-generic diffeomorphisms

In this paper, we will consider the set of diffeomorphisms $`Diff^1(M)`$ endowed with the $`C^1`$-topology. The choice of the topology comes from the fact that most of the perturbating results (Pugh’s closing Lemma , Hayashi’s connecting Lemma and its generalizations ) are only known in this topology.

Recall that a property $`𝒫`$ is generic if it is verified on a residual subset $``$ of $`Diff^1(M)`$ (i.e. $``$ contains the intersection of a countable family of dense open subsets). In this work we will often use a practical abuse of language; we say:

Any $`C^1`$-generic diffeomorphism verifies $`𝒫`$

instead of:

There is a residual subset $``$ of $`Diff^1(M)`$ such that any $`f`$ verifies $`𝒫`$.

Let me first recall a famous and classical example, relating Pugh’s closing lemma to generic dynamics:

###### Theorem

 Let $`f`$ be a diffeomorphism on a compact manifold and $`x\mathrm{\Omega }(f)`$ be a non-wandering point. There is $`g`$ arbitrarily $`C^1`$-close to $`f`$ such that $`x`$ is periodic for $`g`$.

Using a Kupka-Smale argument (genericity of hyperbolicity of the periodic points and the transversality of invariant manifolds) one get:

###### Corollary

The non-wandering set $`\mathrm{\Omega }(f)`$ of a generic diffeomorphism $`f`$ is the closure of the set of periodic points of $`f`$, which are all hyperbolic.

### 2.2. Homoclinic classes

Let $`f`$ be a diffeomorphism on a compact manifold and $`p`$ be a hyperbolic periodic point of $`f`$ of saddle type. Let $`W^s(p)`$ and $`W^u(p)`$ denote the invariant manifold of the orbit of $`p`$. The homoclinic class $`H(p,f)`$ of $`p`$ is by definition the closure of the transverse intersection points of its invariant manifold:

$$H(p,f)=\overline{W^s(p,f)W^u(p,f)}.$$

The homoclinic class $`H(p,f)`$ is a transitive set canonically associated to the orbit of the periodic point $`p`$.

There is an other way to see the homoclinic class of $`p`$: we tell that a periodic point $`q`$ of saddle type and of same Morse index as $`p`$ is homoclinically related to $`p`$ if $`W^u(q)`$ cuts transversally $`W^s(p)`$ in at least one point and reciprocally $`W^s(q)`$ cuts transversally $`W^u(p)`$ in at least one point. The $`\lambda `$-lemma (see ) implies that this relation is an equivalence relation and $`H(p,f)`$ is the closure of the set of periodic points homoclinically related to $`p`$.

For Axiom A diffeomorphisms, the homoclinic classes are precisely the basic pieces of Smale’s spectral decomposition theorem. However, one easily build examples of diffeomorphisms whose homoclinic classes are not maximal transitive sets. Moreover, B. Santoro  recently build examples of diffeomorphisms on a $`3`$-manifold having periodic points whose homoclinic classes are neither disjoint nor equal.

### 2.3. Homoclinic classes of generic dynamics

Conjectured during a long time, Hayashi’s connecting lemma allowed the control the perturbations of the invariant manifolds of the periodic points, opening the door for the understanding of generic dynamics.

###### Theorem 1

 Let $`p`$ and $`q`$ be two hyperbolic periodic points of some diffeomorphism $`f`$. Assume that there is a sequence $`x_n`$ of points converging to a point $`xW_{loc}^u(p)`$ and positive iterates $`y_n=f^{m(n)}(x_n)`$, $`m(n)0`$, converging to a point $`yW_{loc}^s(q)`$.

Then there is $`g`$, arbitrarily $`C^1`$-close to $`f`$, such that $`x`$ and $`y`$ belong to a same heteroclinic orbit of $`p`$ and $`q`$; in other words:

$`xW_{loc}^u(p,g)`$, $`yW_{loc}^s(q,g)`$ and there is $`n>0`$ such that $`g^n(x)=y`$.

If the periodic points $`p`$ and $`q`$ in Theorem 1 belong to a same transitive set, then the sequences $`x_n`$ and $`y_n`$ are given by a dense orbit. In , using in an essential way Hayashi connecting lemma, we proved:

###### Theorem 2

For any $`C^1`$-generic diffeomorphism, two periodic orbits belong to the same transitive set if and only if their homoclinic classes coincide.

Motivated by this result we conjectured:

The homoclinic classes of a generic diffeomorphism coincide with its maximal transitive sets.

We know now that this conjecture, as stated above, is wrong: in  (see Section 4.) we show that any manifold $`M`$ with dimension $`>2`$ admits a non-empty $`C^1`$-open subset $`UDiff^1(M)`$ on which generic diffeomorphisms have an uncoutable family of maximal (an saturated) transitive sets without periodic points.

However, one part of the conjecture is now proved. Generalizations of Hayashi Connecting Lemma (see ) recently allowed to show:

###### Theorem 3

For any $`C^1`$-generic diffeomorphism, the homoclinic class of any periodic point is a maximal (see ) and saturated (see ) transitive set.

The proof of this theorem is decomposed in two main steps: first,  shows that for a generic diffeomorphism $`f`$ the homoclinic class of a point $`p`$ coincides with the intersection of the closure of its invariant manifolds:

$$H(p,f)\stackrel{def}{=}\overline{W^s(p,f)W^u(p,f)}=\overline{W^s(p,f)}\overline{W^u(p,f)}.$$

Then  shows that for a generic diffeomorphism $`f`$ the closure $`\overline{W^u(p,f)}`$ is Lyapunov stable (and so admits a base of invariant neighborhoods) and $`\overline{W^s(p,f)}`$ is Lyapunov stable for $`f^1`$. As a consequence a dense orbit of a transitive set $`T`$ intersecting $`H(p,f)`$ is capted in arbitrarilly small neighborhoods of $`\overline{W^u(p,f)}`$ and of $`\overline{W^u(p,f)}`$, proving that $`T`$ is contained in $`\overline{W^s(p,f)}\overline{W^u(p,f)}`$, finishing the proof of the theorem.

### 2.4. Tame and wild diffeomorphisms

Using Theorem 2 and the fact that the homoclinic class $`H(p,f)`$ of a periodic point varies lower semi-continuously with $`f`$,  shows the existence of a $`C^1`$-residual subset $``$ of diffeomorphisms (or flows), such that the cardinality of the set of homoclinic classes is locally constant on $``$: for any Kupka-Smale diffeomorphism $`f`$ let $`n(f)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ denote the cardinal of the set of different homoclinic classes $`H(p,f)`$ where $`p`$ is an hyperbolic periodic point of $`f`$; then any $`f`$ has a $`C^1`$-neighborhood $`U_f`$ such that any $`gU_f`$ verifies $`n(g)=n(f)`$.

This result induces a natural dichotomy the residual set $``$:

\- a diffeomorphism $`f`$ is tame if it has finitely many homoclinic classes.

\- a diffeomorphism $`f`$ is wild if it has infinitely many homoclinic classes.

## 3. Tame dynamics

### 3.1. Filtrations, robust transitivity and generic transitivity

 shows that the global dynamics of tame diffeomorphisms admit a good reduction to the dynamics of the transitive pieces (up to reduce the residual set $``$). Let $`f`$ be a tame diffeomorphism, then :

1. as in the Axiom A case, the non-wandering set is the union of finitely many disjoint homoclinic classes $`H(p_i,f)`$.
2. there is a filtration $`\mathrm{}=M_{k+1}M_k\mathrm{}M_1=M`$ adapted to $`f`$ such that $`H(p_i,f)`$ is the maximal invariant set in $`M_i\underset{i+1}{\overset{o}{M}}`$.
3. moreover (up to reduce the open neighborhood $`U_f`$ defined above) this filtration holds for any $`gU_f`$, and for $`gU_f`$ the maximal invariant set of $`g`$ in $`M_i\underset{i+1}{\overset{o}{M}}`$ is the homoclinic class $`H(p_{i,g},g)`$.
4. there is a good notion of attractors: either a homoclinic class is a topological attractor (that is, its local basin contains a neighborhood of it) or its stable manifold has empty interior. Then the union of the basin of the attractors of $`f`$ is a dense open set of $`M`$ (see ).

The item 3 above shows that the transive sets $`H(p_i,f)`$ are not fragil. In a previous work,  introduced the following notion:

###### Definition 1

Let $`f`$ be a diffeomorphism of some compact manifold $`M`$. Assume that there is some open set $`UM`$ and a $`C^1`$-neighborhood $`𝒱`$ of $`f`$ such that, for any $`g𝒱`$, the maximal invariant set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=_ng^n(\overline{U})`$ is a compact transitive set contained in $`U`$.

Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f`$ is called a robustly transitive set of $`f`$.

In the definition above, if one has $`U=M`$ (and so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=M`$ for any $`g𝒱`$), then $`f`$ is called a robustly transitive diffeomorphism.

This notion is slightly stronger that the property given by the item 3 above; so we have to relax Definition 1: we say that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f`$ is generically transitive if, in the notations of Definition 1, the maximal invariant set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_g`$ is transitif for $`g`$ in a residual subset of $`𝒱`$.

At this moment, there are no known examples of generic transitive sets which are not robustly transitive. So it is natural to ask if this two notions are equivalent:

Generic transitivity $`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}`$ robust transitivity ?

### 3.2. Examples of robust transitivity

The Axiom A dynamics are obvious examples of tame dynamics. On compact surfaces, tame diffeomorphisms are, in fact, Axiom A diffeomorphisms, but there are many non-hyperbolic examples in higher dimensions.

Even if this talk is mostly devoted to diffeomorphisms, let us observe that the most famous robustly transitive non-hyperbolic attractor is the Lorenz attractor (geometric model, see ) for flows on $`3`$-manifolds. There are many generalizations of this attractor, called singular attractors, for flow on $`3`$-manifolds, see for instance . See also  for robust singular attractors in dimension greater ou equal than $`4`$, having a singular point with Morse index (dimension of unstable manifold) greater than $`2`$.

The first example of non-Anosov robustly transitive diffeomorphism is due to Shub : it is a diffeomorphisms on the torus $`T^4`$ which is a skew product over an Ansov map on the torus $`T^2`$, such that the dynamics on the fibers is dominated by the dynamics on the basis.

Then Mañé  built an example of robustly transitive non-hyperbolic diffeomorphism on the torus $`T^3`$ by considering a bifurcation of an Anosov map $`A`$ having $`3`$ real positive different eigenvalues $`\lambda _1<1<\lambda _2<\lambda _3`$ : he performs a saddle node bifuraction creating a (new) hyperbolic saddle of index $`1`$ (breaking the hyperbolicity) in the weak unstable manifold of a fixed point (of index $`2`$) of the Anosov map $`A`$.

Then  shows that a diffeomorphism $`f`$ admits $`C^1`$ perturbations which are robustly transitive, if $`f`$ is:

1. the time one diffeomorphism of any transitive Anosov flow.
2. the product $`(A,id)`$ where $`A`$ is some Anosov map and $`id`$ is the identity map of any compact manifold.

The second case can be easily generalized to any skew product of an Anosov map by rotations of the circle $`S^1`$. The same technique also allows  to build example of robustly transitive attractors, by perturbating product maps of any hyperbolic attractors by the identity map of some compact manifold.

Each of these previous example was partially hyperbolic (see the definitions in Section 3.3.): they admits a splitting $`TM=E^sE^cE^u`$ where $`E^s`$ is uniformly contracting and $`E^u`$ is uniformly expanding, and it was conjectured that partial hyperbolicity was a necessary condition for robust transitivity. Then  generalizes Mañé example above and exhibits robustly transitive difeomorphisms on $`T^3`$ having a uniformly contracting $`1`$-dimensional bundle, but no expanding bundle (there is a splitting $`TM=E^sE^{cu}`$), and robustly transitive difeomorphisms on $`T^4`$ having no hyperbolic subbundles (neither expanding nor contracting): there just admits an invariant dominated splitting $`TM=E^{cs}E^{cu}`$).

We do not known what are the manifolds admitting robustly transitive diffeomorphism. For instance:

###### Conjecture 1

There is no robuslty transitive diffeomorphism on the sphere $`S^3`$.

This conjecture has been proved in  assuming the existence of a codimension $`1`$ (center stable or center unstable) foliation, using Novikov Theorem. Notice that all the known examples of robustly transitive diffeomorphisms on $`3`$-manifolds admits an invariant codimension $`1`$ foliation. However this conjecture remains still open.

### 3.3. Dominated splitting and partial hyperbolicity: definitions

Let $`f`$ be a $`C^1`$-diffeomorphism of a compact manifold and let $``$ be an $`f`$-invariant compact subset of $`M`$. Let $`TM_x=E_1(x)\mathrm{}E_k(x)`$, $`x`$, be a splitting of the tangent space at any point of $``$. This splitting is a dominated splitting if it verifies the following properties:

1. For any $`i\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$, the dimension $`E_i(x)`$ is independent of $`x`$.
2. The splitting is $`f_{}`$-invariant (where $`f_{}`$ denots the differential of $`f`$): $`E_i(f(x))=f_{}(E_i(x))`$.
3. There is $`\mathrm{}`$ such that , for any $`x`$, for any $`1i<jk`$ and any $`uE_i(x)\{0\},vE_j(x)\{0\}`$ one has:

$$\frac{f_{}^{\mathrm{}}(u)}{u}\frac{f_{}^{\mathrm{}}(v)}{2v}.$$

###### Remark 1

\- (Continuity) Any dominated splitting on a set $``$ is continuous and extend in a unique way to the closure $`\overline{}`$.

\- (Extension to a neighborhood) There is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\overline{}`$ on which the maximal invariant set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{U},f)`$ has a dominated splitting extending those on $``$.

\- (Robust) There is a $`C^1`$-neighborhood $`𝒰_f`$ of $`f`$ such that, for any $`g𝒰_f`$, the maximal invariant set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{U},g)`$ has a dominated splitting varying continuously with $`g`$.

\- (Unicity) If $``$ has a dominated splitting, then there is a (unique) dominated spliting $`TM|_{}=E_1\mathrm{}E_k`$, called the finest dominated splitting, such that any other dominated splitting $`F_1\mathrm{}F_l`$ over $``$ is obtained by grouping the $`E_i`$ in packages.

One of the $`E_i`$ is uniformly contracting if (up to increase $`\mathrm{}`$ in the definition above) $`\frac{f_{}^{\mathrm{}}(u)}{u}\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`x`$ and all $`uE_i(x)\{0\}`$. In the same way $`E_i`$ is uniformly expanding if $`\frac{f_{}^{\mathrm{}}(u)}{u}\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`x`$ and all $`uE_i(x)\{0\}`$.

An $`f`$-invariant compact set $`K`$ is hyperbolic if it has a dominated splitting $`TM|_K=E^sE^u`$ where $`E^s`$ is uniformly contracting and $`E^u`$ is uniformly expanding. The compact $`f`$-invariant set $`K`$ is partially hyperbolic if it has a dominated splitting and if at least one of the bundles $`E_i`$ of its finest dominated splitting is uniformly contracting or expanding. Let $`E^s`$ and $`E^u`$ be the sum of the uniformly contracting and expanding subbundles, respectively, and let $`E^c`$ be the sum of the other subbundles. One get a new dominated splitting $`E^sE^c`$, $`E^cE^u`$ or $`E^sE^cE^u`$, and these bundles are called the stable, central et unstable bundles, respectively.

An $`f`$-invariant compact set $`K`$ is called volume hyperbolic if there is a dominated splitting whose extremal bundles $`E_1`$ and $`E_k`$ contracts and expands uniformly the volume, respectively. Notice if one of these bundle has dimension $`1`$, it is uniformly contracting or expanding. In particular, a volume hyperbolic set in dimension $`2`$ is a uniformly hyperbolic set, and in dimension $`3`$ it is partially hyperbolic (having at least one uniformly hyperbolic bundle).

### 3.4. Volume hyperbolicity for the robust transitivity

Generalizing previous results by Mañé  (in dimension $`2`$) and by  in dimension $`3`$,  (for robustly transitive set) and  for generically transitve sets show:

###### Theorem 4

Any robustly (or generically) transitive set is volume hyperbolic.

Then any robustly transitive set in dimension $`2`$ is a hyperbolic basic set (result of Mañé) and in dimension $`3`$ is partially hyperbolic (). In higher dimension, the dominated splitting may have all the subbundles of dimension greater than $`2`$, so the expansion or contraction of the volume does no more imply the hyperbolicity of the bundle, see the example in .

The proof of Theorem 4 has two very different steps (as in ). The first one consists in showing that the lake of dominated splitting allows to “mixe” the eigenvalues of the periodic orbits, creating an homothecy; a periodic orbit whose differential at the period is an homothecy is (up to a small perturbation) a sink or a source, breaking the transitivity. For that we just perturb the linear cocycle defined by the differential of $`f`$, and then we use a Lemma of Franks () for realizing the linear perturbation as a dynamical perturbation. Let state precisely this result:

###### Theorem 5

 Let $`f`$ be a diffeomorphism of a compact manifold $`M`$, and let $`p`$ be a hyperbolic periodic saddle. Assume that the homoclinic class $`H(p,f)`$ do not have any dominated splitting . Then, given any $`\epsilon >0`$, there is a periodic point $`x`$ homoclinically related to $`p`$, with the following property:

Given any neighborhood $`U`$ of the orbit of $`x`$, there is a diffeomorphism $`g`$, $`\epsilon `$-$`C^1`$-close to $`f`$, coinciding with $`f`$ out of $`U`$ along the orbit of $`x`$, such that the differential $`g_{}^n(x)`$ is a homothecy, where $`n`$ is the periode of $`x`$.

The second step consists in proving the uniform contraction and expansion of the volume in the extremal bundles. As in , one uses Mañé’s Ergodic Closing Lemma to realize a lake of uniform expansion (or uniform expansion) of the volume in the extremal bundle by a periodic orbit $`z`$ of a $`C^1`$-perturbation of $`f`$: if furthermore, the differential of this point restricted to the corresponding extremal bundle is an homothecy (as in Theorem 5) one get a sink or a source, breaking the transitivity.

For flows, the existence of singular point lies to additional difficulties. In dimension $`3`$,  show that a robustly transitive set $`K`$ of a flow on a compact $`3`$-manifold is a uniformly hyperbolic set if it does not contain any singular point. If $`K`$ contains a singular point then all the singular points in $`K`$ have the same Morse index and $`K`$ is a singular attractor if this index is $`1`$ and a singular repellor if this index is $`2`$ (see also ).

### 3.5. Topological description of the dynamics with dominated splittings

The dynamics of diffeomorphisms admitting dominated splitting is already very far to be understood.

In dimension $`2`$, Pujals and Sambarino (see ) give a very precise description of $`C^2`$-diffeomorphism whose non-wandering set admits a dominated splitting.

\- the periods of the non-hyperbolic periodic points is upper bounded.

\- $`\mathrm{\Omega }(f)`$ is the union of finitely many normally hyperbolic circles on which a power of $`f`$ is a rotation, (maybe infinitely many) periodic points contained in a finite family of periodic normally hyperbolic segments and finitely many pairwise disjoint homoclinic classes, each of them containing at most finitely many non-hyperbolic periodic orbits.

This result is close to Mañé ’s result, in dimension $`1`$, for $`C^2`$-maps far from critical points (see ). We hope that this result can be generalized in any dimension, for dynamics having a codimension $`1`$ strong stable bundle:

###### Conjecture 2

Let $`f`$ be a $`C^2`$-diffeomorphism and $`K`$ be a compact locally maximal invariant set of $`f`$ admitting a dominated splitting $`TM|_K=E^sF`$ where $`F`$ has dimension $`1`$ and $`E^s`$ is uniformly contracting.

Then $`K`$ is the union of finitely many normally hyperbolic circles on which a power of $`f`$ is a rotation, of periodic points contained in a union of finitely many normally hyperbolic periodic intervals and finitely many pairwize disjoint homoclinic classes each of them containing at most finitely many non-hyperbolic periodic points.

In this direction S. Crovisier  obtained some progress in the case where there is a unique non-hyperbolic periodic point.

General dominated splitting cannot avoid wild dynamics: multiplying any diffeomorphism by a uniform contraction and a uniform expansion, we get a normally hyperbolic and partially hyperbolic set. However a dominated splitting give some information of the possible bifurcations and on the index of the periodic point: see  which investigate in this direction. In particular a diffeomorphism cannot present any homoclinic tangency if it admits a dominated splitting whose non-hyperbolic bundles are all of dimension $`1`$. We hope that this kind of dominated splitting avoid wild behaviours, but this is unknown, even in dimension $`3`$:

###### Conjecture 3

Let $`M`$ be a compact $`3`$-manifold and denote by $`𝒫(M)`$ the $`C^1`$-open set of partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms of $`M`$ admitting a dominated splitting $`E^sE^cE^u`$ where all the bundles have dimension $`1`$.

The open set $`𝒫(M)`$ does not contain any wild diffeomorphism: in other word any generic diffeomorphism in $`𝒫(M)`$ is tame.

For partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism (having a splittin $`E^sE^cE^u`$), Brin and Pesin () show the existence of unique foliations $`^s`$ and $`^u`$, $`f`$-invariant and tangent to $`E^s`$ and $`E^u`$ respectively. The dynamics of the strong stable and the strong unstable foliations play an important role for the understanding of the topological and ergodical properties of a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms. Let mention two results on these foliations:  shows that a dense open subset of partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms (having strong stable and strong unstable foliaitons) verify the “accessibility property”, that is, any two points can be joined by a concatenation of pathes tangent successively to the strong stable or the strong unstable foliations. When the center direction has dimension $`1`$,  shows the minimality of at least one of the strong stable or strong unstable foliations for a dense open subset of the robustly transitive systems in $`𝒫(M)`$, where $`M`$ is a compact $`3`$-manifold.

However there is no general result on the existence of invariant foliations tangent to the central bundle even if it has dimension $`1`$. When a partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism presents an invariant foliation $`^c`$ tangent to the center bundle $`E^c`$ and which is plaque expansive,  shows that this foliations is structurally stable: any $`g`$ close to $`f`$ admits a foliation $`_g^c`$ topologically conjugated to $`f`$ and such that (up to this conjugacy of foliation) $`g`$ is isotopic to $`f`$ along the center-leaves. This gives a very strong rigidity of the dynamics. This deep result was a key step for the construction of the examples of robustly transitive examples in  (there is now new proofs which do not use the stabilitity of the center foliation (see)). So an important problem is:

###### Problem

(1) Does it exist robustly transitive partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms having an invariant center foliation which is not plaque expansive?

(2) If a transitive partially hyperbolic diffeomorphism admits an invariant center foliation, is it dynamically coherent? that is, does it admit invariant center-stable and center unstable foliations which intersect along the center foliation?

(3) If the center bundle is $`1`$-dimensional, is there an invariant center foliation?

## 4. Wild dynamics

Very little is known on wild diffeomorphisms: for surfaces, it is not known whether $`C^1`$-wild diffeomorphisms exist (recall that the Newhouse phenomenon is a $`C^2`$-generic phenomenon, see ).

In dimension $`3`$, the known examples are all of them due to the existence of homoclinic classes which do not admit, in a persistent way, any dominated splitting (see the first examples in ). Then following the same ideas,  present wild diffeomorphisms exhibiting, in a locally generic way, infinitely many hyperbolic and non-hyperbolic non-periodic attractors . The same example will present maximal transitive sets without any periodic orbits. The rest of this section is devoted to a short presentation of these examples:

Consider an open subset $`𝒰Diff^1(M)`$ such that for any $`f`$ in $`𝒰`$ there is a periodic point $`p_f`$ depending continuously on $`f`$ and verifying:

\- For all $`f𝒰`$ the homoclinic class $`H(p_f,f)`$ contains two periodic points of different Morse indices, and having each of them a complex (non-real) eigenvalue (this eigenvalue is contracting for one point and expanding for the other).

\- For all $`f𝒰`$ there are two periodic points having the same Morse index as $`p_f`$ and homoclinically related to $`p_f`$ such that the jacobian of the derivative of $`f`$ at the period is strictly greater than one for one off this point and stricly less than one for the other point.

First item means that the homoclinic class $`H(p_f,f)`$ do not have any dominated splitting, and that this property is robust. So Theorem 5 shows that $`H(p_f,f)`$ admits periodic points whose derivative can be perturbated in order to get an homothecy. Second item above allows to choose this point having a jacobian (at the period) arbitrarily close to $`1`$. Then a new pertubation allows to get a periodic point whose derivative at the period is the identity. Considering then perturbations of the identity map, we get:

###### Theorem 6

 There is a residual part $``$ of the open set $`𝒰`$ defined above, such that any $`f`$ admits an infinite family of periodic disks $`D_n`$ (let $`t_n`$ denote the period), whose orbits are pairwize disjoint, and verifying the universal following property:

Given any $`C^1`$-open set $`𝒪`$ of diffeomorphisms from the disk $`D^3`$ to its interior $`\stackrel{o}{D^3}`$, there is $`n`$ such that the restriction of $`f^{t_n}`$ to the disk $`D_n`$ is smoothly conjugated to an element of $`𝒪`$.

Notice that the set of diffeomorphisms $`g:D^3\stackrel{o}{D^3}`$ contains an open subset $`𝒰_0`$ verifying the property of $`𝒰`$ described above, one get some kind of renormalisation process: there is a residual part of $`𝒰`$ containing infinitely many periodic disks $`D_n`$ containing each of them infinitely many periodic subdisks themself containing infinitely many periodic subdisks and so on… In that way one build a tree such that each branch is a sequence (decreasing for the inclusion), of strictly periodic orbits of disks whose periods go to infinity, and whose radius go to zero. The intersection of this sequence is a Lyapunov stable (and so saturated) transitif compact set, conjugated to an adding machine (see for instance  for this notion) and so without periodic orbits. The set of the infinite branches of this tree is uncountable, given the following result :

###### Theorem 7

 Given any compact manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`3`$, there is an open subset $`𝒱`$ of $`Diff^1(M)`$ and a residual part $`𝒲`$ of $`𝒱`$, such that any $`f𝒲`$ admits an uncountable family of saturated transitif sets without periodic orbits.


text:
# Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system with rank four

## 1 Introduction

We will study a homogeneous quadratic nonlinear differential equation

$$\frac{dX_i}{dt}=\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{jk}^iX_jX_k.$$
(1)
This type of equations contains many important examples such as Euler’s spinning top motion equation or the Lotka-Volterra equation (see Example 2.1 and 2.3).

In recent years, another class of quadratic equations called Halphen’s first equation \[H1\]

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_2}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dX_3}{dt}}`$ $`=2X_2X_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_1}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dX_3}{dt}}`$ $`=2X_1X_3,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_1}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dX_2}{dt}}`$ $`=2X_1X_2`$
is studied in many areas, such as the Atiyah-Hitchin metrics, modular forms, moonshine \[HM\], or the Painlevé analysis. Halphen’s first equation is satisfied by the null values of elliptic theta functions \[O\]. Since the null values of elliptic theta functions are related to the hypergeometric equations, Halphen also studied Halphen’s second equation in 1881 \[H2\]:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX}{d\tau }}`$ $`=X^2+c(XY)^2+b(ZX)^2+a(YZ)^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dY}{d\tau }}`$ $`=Y^2+c(XY)^2+b(ZX)^2+a(YZ)^2,`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{d\tau }}`$ $`=Z^2+c(XY)^2+b(ZX)^2+a(YZ)^2,`$
which is solved by hypergeometric functions. Halphen’s second equation is the simplest example of the Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system \[O1\] (see the section 4).

In this paper we will study the condition when quadratic equations are reduced to the Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system. We will write this condition in terms of non-associative algebras, which are found by L. Markus \[M\].

In the case of rank three, this condition is completely determined in \[O2\]. In this case the corresponding Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system is related to hypergeometric equations or confluent hypergeometric equations.

The rank four case is important in the study of Painlevé equations, since the Painlevé sixth equations represent isomonodromic deformations of linear differential equations with four regular singularities. Moreover one of the simplest Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system with rank four is related to modular forms of level three \[O3\]. This system is also related to the quantum cohomology of $`^2`$.

The first author (Y. O.) thanks to Professor John Harnad and Professor John McKay for fruitful discussions.

## 2 Homogeneous Quadratic Differential Equations

We take a homogeneous quadratic nonlinear differential equations

$$\frac{dX_i}{dt}=\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{jk}^iX_jX_k,$$
(4)
where $`a_{jk}=a_{kj}`$. This type of equations contains many important examples.

###### Example 2.1

Euler’s spinning top motion equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_1}{dt}}`$ $`=2X_2X_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_2}{dt}}`$ $`=2X_1X_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_3}{dt}}`$ $`=2X_1X_2.`$
###### Remark 2.2

Even if a quadratic equation is not homogeneous, we can interpret it into homogeneous equation with dummy variables.

###### Example 2.3

The Lotka-Volterra equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_1}{dt}}`$ $`=aN_1bN_1N_2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_2}{dt}}`$ $`=cN_1dN_1N_2,`$
is an inhomogeneous equation, but, with a dummy variable $`N_3`$, it can be represented as a homogeneous equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_1}{dt}}`$ $`=aN_1N_3bN_1N_2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_2}{dt}}`$ $`=cN_1N_3dN_1N_2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_3}{dt}}`$ $`=0.`$
We define a non-associative algebra $`𝒜`$

$$𝒜=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_k,x_jx_k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{jk}^ix_i,$$

which is associated with the homogeneous equation (1). Since $`a_{jk}=a_{kj}`$, $`𝒜`$ is commutative.

###### Remark 2.4

A relation between non-associative algebra and homogeneous equation is found by L. Markus in 1960 \[M\]. That is used in the study of classification of topological behavior of solution orbits near the origin, which is a critical point of (1) .

From now on, we use uppercase letters for independent variables of a homogeneous quadratic equation, and lowercase letters for basis of the corresponding commutative non-associative algebra. The independent variables are dual to bases of the corresponding algebra:

###### Lemma 2.5

The commutative non-associative algebra $`𝒜`$ and the homogeneous quadratic nonlinear differential equation admits a one to one correspondence. Moreover, $`𝒜`$ determines a structure of homogeneous quadratic equation. If and only if two homogeneous quadratic nonlinear differential equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_i}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a_{jk}^iX_jX_k,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dY_i}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}b_{jk}^iY_jY_k,`$
are interchanged by a linear transformation

$$Y_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{jk}X_k,$$

then the corresponding commutative non-associative algebras are equivalent:

$$x_k=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_{jk}y_j.$$

The lemma above is easily verified.

## 3 Halphen’s Equation and Hypergeometric Function

The Halphen’s second equation (1) is solved by a hypergeometric functions.

###### Remark 3.1

If $`a=b=c=1/8`$, then the equation (1) turns into the Halphen’s first equation (1), and then it is solved by theta functions.

In \[O2\] we demonstrated the condition that a third order quadratic system is solved by hypergeometric functions.

###### Theorem 3.2

If and only if a three dimensional commutative non-associative algebra admits the unit, then the corresponding quadratic system is solved by (confluent) hypergeometric functions or elementary functions.

If the automorphism group of the non-associative algebra is a finite group, the quadratic equation is solved by (confluent) hypergeometric functions. If the automorphism group of the non-associative algebra is an infinite group, the quadratic equation is solved by elementary functions.

###### Example 3.3 (Matrix Riccati equation)

Let $`A`$, $`X`$ be $`2\times 2`$ symmetric matrices which satisfy

$$\frac{dX}{dt}=XAX.$$

If $`A`$ is a constant matrix, then the equation is a third order quadratic system, and then the associated commutative non-associative algebra is a Jordan algebra. Since the algebra admits the unit and the automorphism is $`O(2)`$, the equation is solved by elementary functions. This algebra is independent of $`A`$ upto an isomorphism, if $`detA0`$.

###### Example 3.4

For the Halphen’s second equation (1), we take the basis of the associated algebra as

$`e_1`$ $`=x+y+z,`$ $`e_2`$ $`=xy+z,`$ $`e_3`$ $`=x+yz.`$
Then the multiplication is as follows.

$`e_1e_1`$ $`=(1+4(b+c))e,`$ $`e_1e_2`$ $`=e_34ce,`$
$`e_2e_2`$ $`=(1+4(a+c))e,`$ $`e_2e_3`$ $`=e_14ae,`$
$`e_3e_3`$ $`=(1+4(a+b))e,`$ $`e_1e_3`$ $`=e_24be,`$
where $`e=e_1+e_2+e_3`$. This algebra has the unit $`e`$. Then (1) is solved by the hypergeometric function $`F(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,z)`$, where

$`a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\alpha \beta \gamma \alpha \gamma \beta \gamma +\gamma ^2),`$
$`b`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2+\gamma \alpha \gamma \beta \gamma 1),`$
$`c`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\alpha \beta \gamma +\alpha \gamma +\beta \gamma ).`$
Let $`p,q,r`$ be an exponents of hypergeometric equation at singular points

$`p`$ $`=1\gamma ,`$ $`q`$ $`=\alpha \beta +\gamma ,`$ $`r`$ $`=\alpha \beta ,`$
then

$`1+4(a+c)`$ $`=p^2,`$ $`1+4(a+b)`$ $`=q^2,`$ $`1+4(b+c)`$ $`=r^2.`$
If

$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k+9}{12k}},`$ $`\beta `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k9}{12k}},`$ $`\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
then by the transformation given by Chazy \[C\], Halphen’s second equation (1) turns into

$$y^{\prime \prime \prime }=2y^{\prime \prime }3(y^{})^2+\frac{4}{36k^2}(6y^{}y^2)^2.$$
(5)
Moreover, if $`k=0`$, then the equation (5) is equivalent with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX}{dt}}`$ $`=X^2+(VX)(WX),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dW}{dt}}`$ $`=W^2(XW)^2+(VX)(WX),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dt}}`$ $`=V^2+(WX)^2(XV)^2+(VX)(WX),`$
which is solved by Airy functions \[O1\]. This is also commented in \[CO\].

## 4 Generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi System

For a Fuchsian equation

$$\frac{d^2y}{dz^2}+Q(z)y=0,$$

$$Q(z)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\alpha _j}{\left(za_j\right)^2}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{\beta _j}{\left(za_j\right)\left(za_{j+1}\right)},$$

if we set

$`\tau `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}},`$ $`X_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\mathrm{log}y_1,`$ $`X_j={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{xa_j}},`$
then

$$\frac{dX_k}{d\tau }=X_k^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _j\left(X_jX_0\right)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m1}{}}\beta _j\left(X_jX_0\right)\left(X_{j+1}X_0\right),$$
(6)
$$(X_j,X_k,X_l,X_n)=(a_j,a_k,a_l,a_n),$$

where $`(a,b,c,d)`$ is an anharmonic ratio

$$(a,b,c,d)=\frac{ab}{cd}\frac{cb}{ad}.$$

We call (6) the generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system (together with the algebraic relations) \[O2\]. The variable $`X_j`$ is called the Brioshi variable.

###### Remark 4.1

If $`m=2`$, there is no algebraic relation. In this case the generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system is the same as Halphen’s second equation.

The generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system was found in the study of differential relations of modular forms \[O3\]. It plays an important role in the study of moonshine \[HM\].

###### Example 4.2 (The level-three Halphen equation)

The equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W^{}+X^{}+Y^{}& =WX+XY+YW,\hfill \\ \hfill W^{}+Y^{}+Z^{}& =WY+YZ+ZW,\hfill \\ \hfill W^{}+X^{}+Z^{}& =WX+XZ+ZW,\hfill \\ \hfill X^{}+Y^{}+Z^{}& =XY+YZ+ZX,\hfill \\ \hfill e^{\frac{4}{3}\pi i}(XZ+YW)& +e^{\frac{2}{3}\pi i}(XW+YZ)+(XY+ZW)=0\hfill \end{array}$$

is called the level-three Halphen equation. This is a generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system given by the Picard-Fuchs equation

$$(1t^3)y^{\prime \prime }3t^2y^{}ty=0$$
(7)
of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(3)`$-modular surface

$$x^3+y^3+z^33txyz=0.$$

The equation (7) is the Laplace transform of a linear equation

$$\left(z\frac{d}{dz}\right)^3\varphi =27z^3\varphi ,$$

which appear in the Frobenius structure \[D\] which turns up in the quantum cohomology of $`^2`$.

Now, we will study a quadric homogeneous equation with rank four

$$(𝒟_3)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{dX_i}{d\tau }=\underset{j,k=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_{jk}^iX_jX_k,\hfill & \\ Q(X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3)=\underset{j,k=0}{\overset{3}{}}b_{jk}X_jX_k,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`a_{jk}=a_{kj},b_{jk}=b_{kj}`$. We assume a compatibility condition

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }Q(X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3)=L(X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3)Q(X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3).$$

This condition means that the hypersurface $`Q=0`$ is invariant under the vector field defined by $`(𝒟_3)`$. If $`L=0`$ then $`Q`$ is a first integral. From now on, we assume $`L0`$. Moreover, we assume that $`Q`$ is irreducible.

We define a commutative non-associative algebra $`𝒜_3(c)`$ with a parameter $`c=(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4)`$, which is associated with $`𝒟_3`$, as

$$𝒜_3(c)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}x_j,$$

$$x_jx_k=\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_{jk}^ix_i+b_{jk}x,x=\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}c_ix_i.$$

We use this algebra $`𝒜_3(c)`$ to study the condition that the system $`𝒟_3`$ is a generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system.

###### Theorem 4.3

The system $`𝒟_3`$ is a generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system, if and only if there exist basis $`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3`$ of $`𝒜_3(c)`$ which satisfies the following conditions:

1. $`e=x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3`$ is the unit for any $`c`$.
2. $`(\pm x_0\pm x_1\pm x_2\pm x_3)^2`$ is proportional to the unit $`e`$ for some $`c`$.
3. $`(x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3)^2`$, $`(x_0x_1+x_2+x_3)^2`$, $`(x_0+x_1x_2+x_3)^2`$, $`(x_0+x_1+x_2x_3)^2`$ are proportional to the unit $`e`$ for any $`c`$.

In the light of the algebra associated with Halphen’s second equation, this theorem is an extension of theorem 3.2.

Proof.
We set a basis of the algebra $`𝒜_3(c)`$ associated with the system $`𝒟_3`$:

$`e_0`$ $`=x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3,`$
$`e_1`$ $`=x_0x_1+x_2+x_3,`$
$`e_2`$ $`=x_0+x_1x_2+x_3,`$
$`e_3`$ $`=x_0+x_1+x_2x_3.`$
Since $`e=e_0`$ is the unit for any $`c`$, we obtain $`Q=Q(E_1,E_2,E_3)`$. Moreover, $`e_j^2`$ and $`(x_0x_1x_2x_3)^2`$ are proportional to the unit $`e`$ for any $`c`$, therefore we obtain

$$Q=\gamma _1E_1E_2+\gamma _2E_2E_3+\gamma _3E_1E_3,$$

where $`\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\gamma _3=0`$. Since $`Q`$ is irreducible, we obtain $`\gamma _j0(j=1,2,3)`$. We set

$$e_j^2=\stackrel{~}{\alpha _j}e_0(j=1,2,3).$$
(8)
Then, since we have

$$(x_0+x_1x_2x_3)^2=(e_2+e_3e_0)^2e_2e_3(e_2+e_3)(mode_0),$$

we obtain

$$e_2e_3e_2+e_3(mode_0).$$

In the same way, we obtain

$`e_1e_2e_1+e_2(mode_0),`$
$`e_1e_3e_1+e_3(mode_0).`$
Therefore, we obtain

$`e_1e_2`$ $`=e_1+e_2+\stackrel{~}{\beta _1}e_0,`$ (9)
$`e_2e_3`$ $`=e_2+e_3+\stackrel{~}{\beta _2}e_0,`$ (10)
$`e_1e_3`$ $`=e_1+e_3+\stackrel{~}{\beta _3}e_0,`$ (11)
for some $`\stackrel{~}{\beta _j}(j=1,2,3)`$. Let $`𝒜`$ be a algebra determined by (8), (9), (10), (11). Here, we set

$`\alpha _j`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\stackrel{~}{\alpha _j})(j=1,2,3),`$
$`c_1`$ $`=c_2=c_3=c_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma _3}}(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta _3}),`$
$`\beta _1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta _1}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{2\gamma _3}}(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta _3}),`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta _2}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{2\gamma _3}}(1+\stackrel{~}{\beta _3}),`$
and we determine a algebra $`𝒜_3(c)`$ associated with generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system (6). Then $`𝒜_3(c)`$ is equivalent with $`𝒜`$. Therefore $`𝒟_3`$ is a generalized Darboux-Halphen-Brioshi system.

The converse is proved by a straightforward calculation.