text:
# Structure constants for Hecke and representation rings

## 1. Introduction

Let $`G`$ denote a connected reductive group over an algebraic closure $`k`$ of a finite field $`𝔽_q`$. We assume $`G`$ is defined and split over $`𝔽_q`$. Let $`T`$ denote an $`𝔽_q`$-split maximal torus of $`G`$. Let $`B=TU`$ denote an $`𝔽_q`$-rational Borel subgroup containing $`T`$. Let $`X_{}(T)`$ denote the set of cocharacters of $`T`$, and let $`X_+^{}`$ denote the set of $`B`$-dominant elements of $`X_{}(T)`$. Let $`\rho `$ denote half the sum of the $`B`$-positive roots for $`G`$. Let $`,:X^{}(T)\times X_{}(T)`$ denote the canonical pairing.

Fix a prime $`\mathrm{}`$ different from the characteristic of $`k`$, and let $`\widehat{G}=\widehat{G}(\overline{}_{\mathrm{}})`$ denote the Langlands dual of $`G`$ over the field $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (an algebraic closure of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$). Each dominant cocharacter $`\mu X_+^{}`$ can be thought of as a dominant weight for $`\widehat{G}`$, hence such a cocharacter gives rise to a unique irreducible $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$-linear representation $`V_\mu `$ of $`\widehat{G}`$ having highest weight $`\mu `$. Let $`\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{G})`$ denote the category of rational representations of $`\widehat{G}`$ over $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

We will work with the spherical Hecke algebra of $`G`$ in the function-field setting. Let $`𝒪=k[[t]]`$ and $`F=k((t))`$. Also, let $`𝒪_q=𝔽_q[[t]]`$ and $`F_q=𝔽_q((t))`$. Let $`K:=G(𝒪)`$ denote the “maximal compact” subgroup of $`G(F)`$. Let $`K_q=G(𝒪_q)`$. We let $`_q`$ denote the Hecke algebra for $`G`$ over $`F_q`$, i.e., the convolution algebra of compactly-supported $`K_q`$-bi-invariant $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$-valued functions on $`G(F_q)`$ (convolution is defined using the Haar measure on $`G(F_q)`$ which assigns measure one to the compact open subgroup $`K_q`$). For $`\mu X_+^{}`$, define an element $`f_\mu _q`$ by

$$f_\mu =\mathrm{char}(K_qt_\mu K_q)$$

where $`t_\mu :=\mu (t)T(F_q)`$. By the Cartan decomposition, the elements $`f_\mu `$ form a $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$-basis for $`_q`$. For later use let us recall that the convolution operation $``$ is defined, for $`f_1,f_2_q`$, by

$$(f_1f_2)(g)=_{G(F_q)}f_1(x)f_2(x^1g)𝑑x.$$

Now let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ and $`\lambda `$ be dominant coweights for $`G`$. Denote $`\mu _{}=(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r)`$ and $`|\mu _{}|=\mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _r`$. We consider the decomposition in $`\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{G})`$

$$V_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}V_{\mu _r}=\underset{\lambda X_+^{},\lambda |\mu _{}|}{}V_\lambda V_\mu _{}^\lambda ,$$

where $`V_\mu _{}^\lambda `$ denotes the multiplicity vector space. Here $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$ means that $`\lambda _2\lambda _1`$ is a sum of $`B`$-positive coroots. (It follows from the discussion in section 2 that if $`V_\lambda `$ occurs as a summand, then $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$ necessarily holds.) The numbers $`\mathrm{dim}(V_\mu _{}^\lambda )`$ are the structure constants for the representation ring of $`\widehat{G}`$.

In a parallel manner, for $`\mu _{}`$ and $`\lambda `$ as above, we write

$$f_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}f_{\mu _r}=\underset{\lambda }{}c_\mu _{}^\lambda f_\lambda ,$$

for certain constants $`c_\mu _{}^\lambda `$; in this paper these are referred to as the structure constants for the Hecke algebra $`_q`$. It is known and easy to see that the structure constants all belong to $``$. In fact, as $`q`$ varies, they are given by polynomial functions in $`q`$ with integer coefficients: $`c_\mu _{}^\lambda =c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q)`$. (See Lemmas 9.15, 9.18 of \[KLM\]).

The purpose of this paper is to study the relation between the following two properties of a collection $`(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ of dominant cocharacters:

$`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$: The irreducible representation $`V_\lambda `$ occurs with non-zero multiplicity in $`V_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}V_{\mu _r}`$. That is, $`\mathrm{dim}(V_\mu _{}^\lambda )>0`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$: The function $`f_\lambda `$ appears with non-zero coefficient in $`f_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}f_{\mu _r}`$. That is, $`c_\mu _{}^\lambda 0`$. Equivalently, $`K_qt_\lambda K_qK_qt_{\mu _1}K_q\mathrm{}K_qt_{\mu _r}K_q`$.

The following result was first proved for general groups $`G`$ by M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, and J. Millson in \[KLM\], Theorem 9.19. In this paper we give another approach, based on the geometry of affine Grassmannians.

###### Theorem 1.1 (KLM).

If $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ holds, then $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ also holds. More precisely, we have the following description of the Hecke algebra structure constants

$$c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q)=\mathrm{dim}(V_\mu _{}^\lambda )q^{\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda }+\{\text{terms with lower }q\text{-degree}\}.$$

For the general linear group, the converse implication also holds, and is originally due to P. Hall, using the combinatorics of Hall polynomials (cf. \[KLM\], section 9.6, and \[Mac\], part II, Theorem (4.3)). We present a geometric proof here, again using affine Grassmannians.

###### Theorem 1.2 (P. Hall).

Let $`G=\mathrm{GL}_n`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$.

The approach of this paper is to reformulate the two properties $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ in terms of properties of the “multiplication” morphism

$$m_\mu _{}:\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{}\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}$$

used to define the convolution of $`K`$-equivariant perverse sheaves on the affine Grassmannian. Here the domain is a twisted product of the closures $`\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _i}`$ of $`K`$-orbits $`𝒬_{\mu _i}`$ in the affine Grassmannian for $`G`$. The morphism $`m_\mu _{}`$ is given by forgetting all but the last factor in the twisted product. It is a (stratified) semi-small, proper, and birational morphism (cf. section 2). One can view it as a partial desingularization of $`\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$, directly analogous to the Bott-Samelson partial desingularizations of Schubert varieties. (When the coweights $`\mu _i`$ are all minuscule, the domain is smooth, so in that case $`m_\mu _{}`$ is a genuine resolution of singularities.) The semi-smallness of $`m_\mu _{}`$ means that the fiber over any point $`y`$ in a $`K`$-orbit stratum $`𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$ has dimension bounded above by $`\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda `$.

The two properties can be translated into properties of the fibers of $`m_\mu _{}`$. The geometric Satake isomorphism (cf. \[Gi\], \[MV\], \[NP\]) plays a key role in this step.

###### Proposition 1.3.

Suppose $`(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ is such that $`𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$ (equivalently, $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$). Fix $`y𝒬_\lambda `$. Then:

1. $`V_\mu _{}^\lambda 0`$ if and only if $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ has an irreducible component of dimension $`\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda `$. Moreover, such a component necessarily meets the open stratum $`𝒬_\mu _{}`$.

2. Suppose $`y`$ is $`𝔽_q`$-rational. Then $`f_\lambda `$ occurs in $`f_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}f_{\mu _n}`$ if and only if $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ meets the open stratum $`𝒬_\mu _{}`$. In that case, we have

$$c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q)=\mathrm{\#}(m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{})(𝔽_q)>0.$$

The first part of Theorem 1.1 follows immediately from Proposition 1.3. We deduce the second part concerning $`c_\mu _{}^\lambda `$ with little additional effort, by using the Weil conjectures to approximate the number of points on the algebraic varieties $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{}`$.

We also have the following partial converse to Theorem 1.1, valid for every group $`G`$. It is an easy and purely combinatorial consequence of the P-R-V conjecture (now a theorem due independently to S. Kumar and O. Mathieu, cf. \[Lit\]).

###### Proposition 1.4.

If $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ holds, then there exist dominant coweights $`\mu _i^{}\mu _i`$ ($`1ir`$), such that $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{}^{},\lambda )`$ holds.

To prove Theorem 1.2, we need finer information about the fibers of $`m_\mu _{}`$ in the $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$ case. The first ingredient is the following proposition valid for all groups having minuscule coweights (recall that a coweight $`\mu `$ is minuscule provided that $`\alpha ,\mu \{1,0,1\}`$, for every root $`\alpha `$ of $`G`$). It is also a consequence of the P-R-V conjecture.

###### Proposition 1.5.

If $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ are all minuscule coweights for $`G`$, and $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$, then both $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ hold.

In view of Proposition 1.3, this implies:

###### Corollary 1.6.

Let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ let be minuscule coweights for $`G`$, and let $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$. Then for any $`y𝒬_\lambda `$, we have

$$\mathrm{dim}(m_\mu _{}^1(y))=\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda .$$

In particular, every stratum of $`\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$ is relevant for the semi-small morphism $`m_\mu _{}`$.

We make essential use of the further information that in the $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$ case, the fibers above are equidimensional.

###### Proposition 1.7.

Let $`G=\mathrm{GL}_n`$. Let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ be minuscule coweights. Suppose $`𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$, and let $`y𝒬_\lambda `$. Then every irreducible component of the fiber

$$m_\mu _{}^1(y)$$

has dimension $`\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda `$.

The proof of Proposition 1.7 proceeds by reduction to a theorem of N. Spaltenstein \[Sp\] concerning partial Springer resolutions of the nilpotent cone for $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$. The lack of an analogous result for other groups is one reason Proposition 1.7 can be proved (at the moment) only for $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$.

In fact for the general linear group, Proposition 1.7 can be used to prove a seemingly stronger result.

###### Proposition 1.8.

Let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ be dominant coweights for $`G=\mathrm{GL}_n`$. Let $`y𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$. Let $`𝒬_\mu _{}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{}`$ be the stratum indexed by $`\mu _{}^{}=(\mu _1^{},\mathrm{},\mu _r^{})`$ for dominant coweights $`\mu _i^{}\mu _i`$ ($`1ir`$). Then any irreducible component of the fiber $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ whose generic point belongs to $`𝒬_\mu _{}^{}`$ has dimension $`\rho ,|\mu _{}^{}|\lambda `$.

As we explain in section 8, Proposition 1.8 quickly implies Theorem 1.2.

Proposition 1.8 appears to be special to $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$. Indeed, it is actually somewhat stronger than the implication $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$, which is known to fail in general (e.g. for $`\mathrm{SO}(5)`$ or $`G_2`$, cf. \[KLM\], section 9.5). But Proposition 1.7 could remain valid if $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$ is replaced with an arbitrary group $`G`$, and it would be interesting to clarify the situation. Such a generalization of Proposition 1.7 would have applications to proving a type of “Saturation theorem” for a general reductive group (along the same lines as the new proof in \[KLM\] of the Saturation theorem for $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$, originally proved by Knutson-Tao \[KT\]).

Remark. Suitably reformulated, the main results of this paper hold if the coefficient field $`k=\overline{𝔽}_q`$ is replaced by any algebraically closed field $`\kappa `$ (e.g. $``$). We let now $`𝒪=\kappa [[t]]`$, $`K=G(𝒪)`$, etc., and replace $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ with

$`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}^{}(\mu _{},\lambda ):Kt_\lambda KKt_{\mu _1}K\mathrm{}Kt_{\mu _r}K.`$

Then the arguments of this paper prove that $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}^{}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ for every $`G`$, and that $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}^{}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ for $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$. The statements concerning dimensions of fibers and their equidimensionality also remain valid. Thus, here we avoid the hypothesis that $`F_q`$ have finite residue field, essential for Hall’s proof of Theorem 1.2 using Hall polynomials, and for the proof of Theorem 1.1 in (\[KLM\], Theorem 9.19).

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasure to thank John Millson for several stimulating conversations, and for delivering a series of lectures on \[KLM\] at the University of Maryland which sparked my interest in this subject. My intellectual debt to B.C. Ngô and P. Polo will be clear to the reader familiar with \[Ngo\] or \[NP\], where several of the ideas in this paper appear, at least implicitly. I also thank J.K. Yu for some helpful conversations, and M. Rapoport for his comments on the paper. Finally, I am grateful to R. Kottwitz for suggesting some significant improvements in exposition, and for making detailed comments on the first version of this paper.

## 2. Review of affine Grassmannians

In this section we recall some well-known notions relating to affine Grassmannians. The reader can find further details in \[Gi\], \[MV\], and \[NP\].

We will work with the affine Grassmannian

$$𝒬=G(F)/K,$$

which can be thought of as the $`k`$-points of an ind-scheme defined over $`𝔽_q`$. The group scheme $`K=G(𝒪)`$ acts naturally on $`𝒬`$ (on the left). By the Cartan decomposition, the $`K`$-orbits are parametrized by dominant coweights $`\lambda X_+^{}`$. Indeed, let $`e_0`$ denote the base point of $`𝒬`$ corresponding to the coset $`K`$, and let $`e_\lambda =t_\lambda e_0`$. Then $`𝒬_\lambda =Ke_\lambda `$ is the $`K`$-orbit corresponding to $`\lambda `$. It is well-known that $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is a smooth quasi-projective variety of dimension $`2\rho ,\lambda `$, defined over $`𝔽_q`$. Its closure $`\overline{𝒬}_\lambda `$ in $`𝒬`$ is projective, but in general is not smooth.

Let $`j_\lambda :𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_\lambda `$ denote the open immersion into the closure, and let us define the intersection complex

$$𝒜_\lambda :=\mathrm{IC}_\lambda (\overline{}_{\mathrm{}})=j_{\lambda ,!}(\overline{}_{\mathrm{}})[2\rho ,\lambda ].$$

Here we are applying $`j_{\lambda ,!}`$, the Goresky-MacPherson middle extension functor (for the middle perversity, cf. \[GM\], \[BBD\]), to the shifted constant sheaf on the smooth variety $`𝒬_\lambda `$. The cohomological shift by the dimension of $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is to ensure the result is a perverse sheaf. It is known that $`𝒜_\lambda `$ is a self-dual $`K`$-equivariant simple perverse sheaf on $`𝒬`$.

Let $`P_K(𝒬)`$ denote the category of $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$-linear $`K`$-equivariant perverse sheaves on $`𝒬`$. This is a semi-simple abelian category (cf. \[Ga\]), whose simple objects are precisely the intersection complexes $`𝒜_\lambda `$, for $`\lambda X_+^{}`$. In fact there exists a tensor (or “convolution”) operation

$$:P_K(𝒬)\times P_K(𝒬)P_K(𝒬)$$

(defined below) which gives $`P_K(𝒬)`$ the structure of a neutral Tannakian category over $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The following theorem which identifies the corresponding algebraic group as the Langlands dual plays a key role in this paper. We refer the reader to \[Gi\],\[MV\], \[NP\], and the appendix of \[Nad\], for details of the proof.

###### Theorem 2.1 (Geometric Satake Isomorphism).

There is an equivalence of tensor categories

$$(P_K(𝒬),)\stackrel{~}{}(\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{G}),),$$

under which $`𝒜_\lambda `$ corresponds to the irreducible representation $`V_\lambda `$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$.

### 2.1. Definition of the twisted product

To define the operation $``$, we need some more preliminaries. First, recall that any ordered pair of elements $`L,L^{}𝒬`$ gives rise to an element $`\mathrm{inv}(L,L^{})X_+^{}`$ (the “relative position” of $`L,L^{}`$). The map $`\mathrm{inv}:𝒬\times 𝒬X_+^{}`$ is defined as the composition

$$\mathrm{inv}:G(F)/K\times G(F)/KG(F)\backslash \left[G(F)/K\times G(F)/K\right]=K\backslash G(F)/K\stackrel{~}{}X_+^{},$$

where $`G(F)`$ acts diagonally on $`G(F)/K\times G(F)/K`$. For $`G=\mathrm{GL}_n`$, $`\mathrm{inv}(L,L^{})`$ is just the usual relative position of two $`𝒪`$-lattices in $`F^n`$ given by the theory of elementary divisors.

The usual partial ordering $``$ on the set of dominant coweights corresponds to the closure relation in $`𝒬`$: $`𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_\mu `$ if and only if $`\lambda \mu `$. It follows that $`\mathrm{inv}(L,L^{})\mu `$ if and only if there exists $`gG(F)`$ such that $`gL=e_0`$ and $`gL^{}\overline{𝒬}_\mu `$. Thus, for $`L𝒬`$ and $`\mu X_+^{}`$ fixed, the set of $`L^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{inv}(L,L^{})\mu `$ can be thought of as the $`k`$-points of a projective algebraic variety, isomorphic to $`\overline{𝒬}_\mu `$.

Now let $`\mu _{}=(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r)`$, where $`\mu _iX_+^{}`$ for $`1ir`$. We define the twisted product scheme

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{}=\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _1}\stackrel{~}{\times }\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\times }\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _n}$$

to be the subscheme of $`𝒬^n`$ consisting of points $`(L_1,\mathrm{},L_r)`$ such that $`\mathrm{inv}(L_{i1},L_i)\mu _i`$ for $`1ir`$ (letting $`L_0=e_0`$). Projection onto the last coordinate gives a proper surjective birational map

$$m_\mu _{}:\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{}\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}.$$

The birationality follows from the more precise statement that the restriction of $`m_\mu _{}`$ to the inverse image of the open stratum $`𝒬_{|\mu _{}|}\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$ is an isomorphism. This in turn can be deduced from the corresponding statement for an analogous Demazure resolution of an affine Schubert variety in the affine flag variety. We omit the details.

### 2.2. Semi-small morphisms

We shall make use of the notion of semi-small morphisms. Let $`f:X=_\alpha X_\alpha Y=_\beta Y_\beta `$ be a proper surjective birational morphism between stratified spaces. Suppose each $`f(X_\alpha )`$ is a union of strata $`Y_\beta `$. We say $`f`$ is semi-small if, whenever $`yY_\beta f(X_\alpha )`$, then

$$\mathrm{dim}(f^1(y)X_\alpha )\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{dim}(X_\alpha )\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta )).$$

(In \[MV\], this notion is termed “stratified semi-small”. In the usual terminology (\[GM\]), the domain of a semi-small morphism is assumed to be smooth.)

We say $`f`$ is locally trivial (in the stratified sense) if whenever $`Y_\beta f(X_\alpha )`$, the restriction of $`f:f^1(Y_\beta )Y_\beta `$ to $`X_\alpha f^1(Y_\beta )`$ is Zariski-locally a trivial fibration. In this case we have, for every $`yY_\beta f(X_\alpha )`$:

$$\mathrm{dim}(f^1(y)X_\alpha )+\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta )=\mathrm{dim}(f^1(Y_\beta )X_\alpha ).$$

The target $`\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$ of $`m_\mu _{}`$ is stratified by the locally-closed subschemes $`𝒬_\lambda `$ ($`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$), and the domain $`\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _1}\stackrel{~}{\times }\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\times }\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _n}`$ is stratified by the locally-closed subspaces $`𝒬_\mu _{}^{}=𝒬_{\mu _1^{}}\stackrel{~}{\times }\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\times }𝒬_{\mu _n^{}}`$, where $`\mu _{}^{}=(\mu _1^{},\mathrm{},\mu _n^{})`$ satisfies $`\mu _i^{}\mu _i`$, for every $`i`$. (The definition of the subspace is the same as that of the ambient space, except that the inequalities $`\mathrm{inv}(L_{i1},L_i)\mu _i`$ are replaced by the equalities $`\mathrm{inv}(L_{i1},L_i)=\mu _i^{}`$.) With respect to these stratifications, we have the following result.

###### Proposition 2.2 (\[MV\], \[NP\]).

The morphism $`m_\mu _{}`$ is a semi-small and locally trivial morphism.

Remark. The proof of semi-smallness over $`𝔽_q`$ does not appear explicitly in the literature in precisely this generality. The proof of Lemme 9.3 in \[NP\] for the special case where all $`\mu _i`$ are minuscule or quasi-minuscule works as well for the general case, modulo the inequality $`\mathrm{dim}(S_\nu 𝒬_\lambda )\rho ,\lambda +\nu `$, where $`\nu X_{}(T)`$ and $`S_\nu :=U(F)e_\lambda `$. In fact the equality $`\mathrm{dim}(S_\nu 𝒬_\lambda )=\rho ,\lambda +\nu `$ can be deduced (as Ngô and Polo remark), from their Theoreme 3.1. This indirect method to prove the dimension equality is not circular, since Ngô and Polo use the equality $`\mathrm{dim}(S_\nu 𝒬_\lambda )=\rho ,\lambda +\nu `$ only in the special case mentioned above in their proof of Theoreme 3.1, and they prove this special case by direct means.

### 2.3. Convolution of perverse sheaves

If $`𝒢_i`$ ($`1ir`$) are elements of $`P_K(𝒬)`$, choose coweights $`\mu _i`$ such that $`\mathrm{supp}(𝒢_i)\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _i}`$, for every $`i`$ (technical aside: this is possible, as we can assume with no loss of generality that each $`𝒢_i`$ is supported on only one connected component of $`𝒬`$). There is a unique “twisted product” perverse sheaf $`𝒢_1\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{}𝒢_r`$ on the twisted product $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\mu _{}`$, which is locally isomorphic to the usual exterior product $`𝒢_1\mathrm{}𝒢_r`$ on the product space $`\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _1}\times \mathrm{}\times \overline{𝒬}_{\mu _r}`$. (See 7.4 of \[HN\], or \[NP\], section 2, for another construction). We then define

$$𝒢_1\mathrm{}𝒢_r=Rm_{\mu _{},}(𝒢_1\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{}𝒢_r).$$

This belongs to $`P_K(𝒬)`$ by the semi-smallness of $`m_\mu _{}`$, and is independent of the choice of $`\mu _{}`$.

The important lemma below follows directly from the definitions and the following characterization of the intersection complex (\[BBD\], 2.1.17): Let $`X^0`$ denote the open (smooth) stratum in a stratified variety $`X=_\alpha X_\alpha `$. Then $`\mathrm{IC}(X)`$ is the unique self-dual perverse extension of $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{dim}(X)]`$ on $`X^0`$ which satisfies, for each stratum $`X_\alpha X^0`$, the property $`^i\mathrm{IC}(X)|_{X_\alpha }=0`$ for $`i\mathrm{dim}(X_\alpha )`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

$`𝒜_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{\mu _r}=Rm_{\mu _{},}\mathrm{IC}(\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{})`$.

We are going to use this to give a geometric description of the multiplicity space $`V_\mu _{}^\lambda `$, which will be the key step to proving Proposition 1.3.

## 3. Proof of Proposition 1.3, Part (1)

The key result is the following well-known proposition. It has appeared without proof in several published articles (e.g. \[NP\]). We provide a proof here for the convenience of the reader.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Fix $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$, and $`y𝒬_\lambda `$. Then the space $`V_\mu _{}^\lambda `$ has a basis in canonical bijection with the set of irreducible components of $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ having maximal possible dimension, that is, $`\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda `$.

Let us assume Proposition 3.1 and deduce Proposition 1.3, Part (1). The first statement is obvious, so we verify the second. But it is clear that an irreducible component $`C`$ of $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ with dimension $`\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda `$ meets the open stratum $`𝒬_\mu _{}`$ (if not, then $`C`$ meets only strictly smaller strata $`𝒬_\mu _{}^{}`$, and then by Proposition 2.2, the dimension of $`C`$ would be bounded above by

$$\mathrm{dim}(m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{}^{})\rho ,|\mu _{}^{}|\lambda <\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda .)$$

Proof of Proposition 3.1: By Theorem 2.1 we have

$$𝒜_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝒜_{\mu _r}=\underset{\lambda |\mu _{}|}{}𝒜_\lambda V_\mu _{}^\lambda .$$

Let $`d=\mathrm{dim}(𝒬_\lambda )`$. Now apply $`_y^d`$ (take the $`d`$th cohomology stalk at $`y`$) to both sides of this equation.

The right hand side gives the vector space $`V_\mu _{}^\lambda `$, since $`𝒜_\lambda `$ restricted to $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{dim}(𝒬_\lambda )]`$ (the constant sheaf placed in degree $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒬_\lambda )`$) and since by definition of intersection complexes, $`_y^d𝒜_\lambda ^{}`$ is zero if $`\lambda <\lambda ^{}`$. (In general, $`^i\mathrm{IC}(\mathrm{X})|_{X_\alpha }=0`$ if $`i>\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{X}_\alpha )`$ and also for $`i\mathrm{dim}(X_\alpha )`$ if $`X_\alpha `$ is not the open stratum in $`X`$.)

By Lemma 2.3, on the left hand side we get

$$H^d(m_\mu _{}^1(y),\mathrm{IC}(\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{})).$$

The result now follows by virtue of the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`f:X=_\alpha X_\alpha Y=_\beta Y_\beta `$ be a semi-small morphism between proper stratified schemes, and suppose $`yY_\beta `$. Let $`d=\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta )`$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism

$$H^d(f^1(y),\mathrm{IC}(X))=\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}^{C_{max}(y)},$$

where $`C_{max}(y)`$ is the set of irreducible components of $`f^1(y)`$ having the maximal possible dimension $`\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{dim}(X)\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta ))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X^0`$ denote the open (smooth) stratum of $`X`$; recall that $`\mathrm{IC}(X)|_{X^0}=\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{dim}(X)]`$.

Suppose we fix $`X_\alpha X^0`$. We claim that

$$H^d(f^1(y)X_\alpha ,\mathrm{IC}(X))=0.$$

Indeed, if not, then the “local-global” spectral sequence

$$H^p(f^1(y)X_\alpha ,^q\mathrm{IC}(X))H^{p+q}(f^1(y)X_\alpha ,\mathrm{IC}(X))$$

shows that there exists $`q`$ and $`p=dq`$ such that the initial term is non-zero. We have therefore $`q<\mathrm{dim}(X_\alpha )`$, which together with the semi-smallness of $`f`$ gives

$$p2(\mathrm{dim}(f^1(y)X_\alpha ))\mathrm{dim}(X_\alpha )\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta )<q\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta ),$$

which is clearly impossible since $`p+q=d=\mathrm{dim}(Y_\beta )`$.

The same argument shows that $`H^d(f^1(y)(X\backslash X^0),\mathrm{IC}(X))=0`$.

Since $`f^1(y)`$ and $`f^1(y)(X\backslash X^0)`$ are proper, their cohomology and compactly-supported cohomology agree. It follows from the above remarks that

$$H^d(f^1(y),\mathrm{IC}(X))=H_c^d(f^1(y)X^0,\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}[\mathrm{dim}(X)])=H_c^{d+\mathrm{dim}(X)}(f^1(y)X^0,\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}),$$

from which the lemma follows easily. ∎

## 4. Proof of Proposition 1.3, Part (2)

The next lemma follows from the definition of convolution in $`_q`$, and is left to the reader.

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q)=\mathrm{\#}(m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{})(𝔽_q)`$.

Therefore, if $`f_\lambda `$ occurs in $`f_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}f_{\mu _r}`$, we obviously have $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{}\mathrm{}`$.

Conversely, suppose that $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{}\mathrm{}`$. It follows from this that $`c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q^n)>0`$ for $`n>>0`$. Using the definition of convolution, this means that

$$t_\lambda K_{q^n}t_{\mu _1}K_{q^n}\mathrm{}K_{q^n}t_{\mu _r}K_{q^n}.$$

But by the discussion below, this condition can be expressed purely in terms of the extended affine Weyl group, and in particular, it is independent of $`n`$. Therefore, it holds for $`n=1`$ and thus $`c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q)>0`$.

To complete the argument proving independence of $`n`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{W}=X_{}(T)W`$ denote the extended affine Weyl group. Denote the translation element in $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ corresponding to $`\mu X_{}(T)`$ also by the symbol $`t_\mu `$. Let $`I_{q^n}K_{q^n}`$ be the Iwahori subgroup defined to be the inverse image of $`B`$ under the homomorphism $`G(𝔽_{q^n}[[t]])G(𝔽_{q^n})`$ given by $`t0`$. For simplicity, write $`K=K_{q^n}`$ and $`I=I_{q^n}`$.

Then $`K=IWI:=_{wW}IwI`$ and $`G(𝔽_{q^n}((t)))=I\stackrel{~}{W}I:=_{w\stackrel{~}{W}}IwI`$. Furthermore, standard results for BN pairs yield the identity

$$IxIyI\underset{\stackrel{~}{y}y}{}Ix\stackrel{~}{y}I,$$

for $`x,y\stackrel{~}{W}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ ranges over elements preceding $`y`$ in the Bruhat order on $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Using this we see

$`t_\lambda Kt_{\mu _1}K\mathrm{}Kt_{\mu _r}K`$ $`t_\lambda IWt_{\mu _1}WI\mathrm{}IWt_{\mu _r}WI`$
$`x_iWt_{\mu _i}W\text{such that}t_\lambda Ix_1I\mathrm{}Ix_rI.`$
But by standard facts for BN-pairs, the set $`𝒮\stackrel{~}{W}`$ appearing in the union

$$Ix_1I\mathrm{}Ix_rI=\underset{w𝒮}{}IwI$$

depends only on the elements $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_r\stackrel{~}{W}`$ (and not on the power $`q^n`$ in $`I=I_{q^n}`$).

## 5. End of proof of Theorem 1.1

It remains to prove the formula

$$c_\mu _{}^\lambda (q)=\mathrm{dim}(V_\mu _{}^\lambda )q^{\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda }+\{\text{terms of lower }q\text{-degree}\}.$$

Clearly we may prove this after base extension (enlarging $`q`$), so that we may assume the irreducible components of $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)𝒬_\mu _{}`$ are defined over $`𝔽_q`$. But then taking Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 3.1 into account, the formula follows immediately from the following lemma, itself a consequence of Deligne’s paper \[Weil2\].

###### Lemma 5.1.

If $`X`$ is a geometrically irreducible $`𝔽_q`$-variety, then the function $`\mathrm{\#}X(𝔽_q)`$ is of the form $`q^{\mathrm{dim}(X)}+r(q)`$, where $`|r(q)|O(q^{\mathrm{dim}(X)1/2})`$.

## 6. The P-R-V conjecture and Propositions 1.4 and 1.5

The Parthasarathy-Ranga-Rao-Varadarajan (P-R-V) conjecture has been proved independently by S. Kumar and O. Mathieu. See \[Lit\], section 10, for a short proof using the Littelmann path model.

###### Theorem 6.1 (P-R-V Conjecture).

For $`1ir`$, let $`\mu _i`$ be a dominant coweight, and let $`w_iW`$ be an element of the finite Weyl group. Suppose $`\nu =w_1\mu _1+\mathrm{}+w_r\mu _r`$ is dominant. Then $`V_\nu `$ occurs with multiplicity at least one in the tensor product

$$V_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}V_{\mu _r}.$$

(This is usually stated only in the case $`r=2`$, but the above version follows easily by induction on $`r`$.)

Theorem 6.1 is the main ingredient to proving Proposition 1.4 and the assertion $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ in Proposition 1.5. Indeed, for the latter we only need to verify the following lemma to be able to take $`\nu =\lambda `$ in Theorem 6.1.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Suppose that each dominant coweight $`\mu _i`$ is minuscule, and that $`\lambda `$ is dominant and satisfies $`\lambda \mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _r`$. Then there exist elements $`w_iW`$ ($`1ir`$), such that

$$\lambda =w_1\mu _1+\mathrm{}+w_r\mu _r.$$

For $`V\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{G})`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(V)X^{}(\widehat{T})=X_{}(T)`$ denote the set of its weights with respect to the dual torus $`\widehat{T}`$. Recall that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(V_\mu )=\{\nu X^{}(\widehat{T})|w\nu \mu ,wW\}.$$

The following well-known lemma is left to the reader.

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$ be dominant coweights (also viewed as weights for $`\widehat{G}`$). Then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(V_{|\mu _{}|})=\mathrm{\Omega }(V_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}V_{\mu _r})=\{\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _r|\nu _i\mathrm{\Omega }(V_{\mu _i}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ir\}.$$

Note that any dominant $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$ is necessarily a weight for $`V_{|\mu _{}|}`$. Also, $`\mu `$ minuscule implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(V_\mu )=W\mu `$. Thus, Lemma 6.3 implies Lemma 6.2.

In the same way, we get the following result, proving Proposition 1.4.

###### Proposition 6.4.

Suppose $`\lambda |\mu _{}|`$ is dominant. Then there exist dominant coweights $`\mu _i^{}\mu _i`$ and elements $`w_iW`$ ($`1ir`$) such that $`\lambda =w_1\mu _1^{}+\mathrm{}+w_r\mu _r^{}`$. Consequently, the P-R-V conjecture implies that $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{}^{},\lambda )`$ holds. In particular, we have

$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}(\mu _{}^{},\lambda ).$$

As for the assertion $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐞}(\mu _{},\lambda )`$ of Proposition 1.5, at this point one could appeal to Theorem 1.1, but we prefer to give a direct proof. Indeed, the assertion is obvious from the remark that $`m_\mu _{}(𝒬_\mu _{})=\overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$. This in turn follows from the surjectivity of $`m_\mu _{}`$, since $`\mu _i`$ minuscule for every $`i`$ means $`\overline{𝒬}_{\mu _i}=𝒬_{\mu _i}`$ and thus $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{}=𝒬_\mu _{}`$.

## 7. Spaltenstein-Springer varieties and Proposition 1.7

We begin with the statement of a crucial theorem of Spaltenstein \[Sp\]. Let $`V`$ denote a $`k`$-vector space of dimension $`d`$, and let $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_r)`$ denote an ordered $`r`$-tuple of non-negative integers such that $`d_1+\mathrm{}+d_r=d`$. The $`r`$-tuple $`d_{}`$ determines a standard parabolic subgroup $`P\mathrm{GL}(V)`$. Let us consider the variety of partial flags of type $`P`$:

$$𝒫=\{V_{}=(V=V_0V_1\mathrm{}V_r=0)|\mathrm{dim}(V_{i1}/V_i)=d_i,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}ir\},$$

which is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{GL}(V)/P`$.

For any nilpotent endomorphism $`T\mathrm{End}(V)`$, let $`𝒫^T`$ denote the closed subvariety of $`𝒫`$ consisting of partial flags $`V_{}`$ such that $`T`$ stabilizes each $`V_i`$. This is simply the fiber over $`T`$ of the partial Springer resolution

$$\pi :\stackrel{~}{N}^P𝒩,$$

where $`𝒩\mathrm{End}(V)`$ is the nilpotent cone, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^P=\{(T,V_{})𝒩\times 𝒫|V_{}𝒫^T\}`$, and the morphism $`\pi `$ is the obvious forgetful one.

Inside $`𝒫^T`$ we may consider the closed subvariety $`𝒫_{\mathrm{min}}^T`$ consisting of partial flags $`V_{}𝒫^T`$ such that

$$T\text{ acts by zero on}V_{i1}/V_i(1ir).$$

We call such varieties $`𝒫_{\mathrm{min}}^T`$ the Spaltenstein-Springer varieties.

We have the following fundamental result of N. Spaltenstein (\[Sp\], final Corollary).

###### Theorem 7.1 (Spaltenstein).

The irreducible components of a Spaltenstein-Springer variety $`𝒫_{\mathrm{min}}^T`$ all have the same dimension.

Now we turn to the proof of Proposition 1.7, which we will reduce to Theorem 7.1.

Recall that $`\mu _{}=(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r)`$, where each $`\mu _i`$ is a dominant minuscule coweight for $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$. Working in the affine Grassmannian for $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$ and fixing $`y𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_{|\mu _{}|}`$, we want to show that all the irreducible components of $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ have the same dimension. Without loss of generality, we may assume $`\mu _i=(1^{d_i},0^{nd_i})`$, where $`1d_in1`$. Write $`d:=d_1+\mathrm{}+d_r`$. Suppose the point $`y𝒬_\lambda `$ corresponds to the $`𝒪`$-lattice $`LF^n`$. We have $`L𝒪^n`$. Let $`T`$ denote the nilpotent endomorphism of the $`d`$-dimensional $`k`$-vector space $`V:=𝒪^n/L`$ induced by multiplication by $`t`$. Then the fiber $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ consists of chains of $`k`$-vector spaces

$$𝒪^n=L_0L_1\mathrm{}L_r=L$$

satisfying

* $`\mathrm{dim}(L_{i1}/L_i)=d_i,\text{for each }i`$,
* $`T\text{preserves each }L_i`$,
* $`T\text{acts by zero on each }L_{i1}/L_i`$.

In other words, $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ is a Spaltenstein-Springer variety for the $`d`$-dimensional $`k`$-vector space $`V`$ and the nilpotent operator $`T`$. Thus, Proposition 1.7 follows from Theorem 7.1.

## 8. Proofs of Proposition 1.8 and Theorem 1.2

Proof of Proposition 1.8: We need the following set-up in order to bring Proposition 1.7 into play. Write each coweight $`\mu _i`$ as a sum of dominant minuscule coweights

$$\mu _i=\nu _{i1}+\nu _{i2}+\mathrm{}$$

We consider the following diagram

where $`\eta =m_{\nu _1}\stackrel{~}{\times }\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\times }m_{\nu _r}`$. The composition $`m_\nu _{}=m_\mu _{}\eta `$ is just the usual forgetful morphism, once the domain is identified with the twisted product of the varieties $`𝒬_{\nu _{ij}}`$. In particular, all three morphisms $`m_\mu _{}`$, $`\eta `$, and $`m_\nu _{}`$ are semi-small, proper, birational, surjective, and locally trivial in the stratified sense. Moreover, the conclusion of Proposition 1.7 applies to $`m_\nu _{}`$. Note that $`|\nu _{}|=|\mu _{}|`$.

Let $`y𝒬_\lambda \overline{𝒬}_\mu _{}`$. Suppose $`C^{}`$ is an irreducible component of $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ such that $`C^{}𝒬_\mu _{}^{}`$ is an open dense subset in $`C^{}`$, so that $`\mathrm{dim}(C^{}𝒬_\mu _{}^{})=\mathrm{dim}(C^{})`$. Let $`C`$ be any irreducible component of $`\eta ^1(C^{})`$ which dominates $`C^{}`$. Then $`C\eta ^1(𝒬_\mu _{}^{})`$ is non-empty, hence is an open dense subset of $`C`$. Thus, using the semi-smallness and local triviality of $`\eta `$, we get

$`\mathrm{dim}(C)`$ $`=\mathrm{dim}(C\eta ^1(𝒬_\mu _{}^{}))`$
$`\mathrm{dim}(\eta ^1(C^{}𝒬_\mu _{}^{}))`$
$`\rho ,|\nu _{}||\mu _{}^{}|+\mathrm{dim}(C^{}𝒬_\mu _{}^{})`$
$`=\rho ,|\mu _{}||\mu _{}^{}|+\mathrm{dim}(C^{}).`$
Now $`C`$ is an irreducible component of $`m_\nu _{}^1(y)`$, hence by Proposition 1.7 has dimension $`\rho ,|\mu _{}|\lambda `$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{dim}(C^{})\rho ,|\mu _{}^{}|\lambda ,$$

and the desired equality follows from the semi-smallness of $`m_\mu _{}`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.2:

This follows immediately from Proposition 1.3, Proposition 1.8 and the remark that since $`𝒬_\mu _{}`$ is open in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_\mu _{}`$, any irreducible component $`C`$ of the fiber $`m_\mu _{}^1(y)`$ which meets $`𝒬_\mu _{}`$ has $`C𝒬_\mu _{}`$ as a dense open subset. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

Mathematics Department
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-4015
USA
tjh@math.umd.edu


format: text

text:
# References

Noncommutative deformation and essence of a postulate of isotropy Iliusin

Trinh V.K.

Department of physics of polymer and crystal, MGU

1. We shall consider non-uniform continuous environment. It is known, that under influence limiting force this environment will pass in a plastic status. To the present time many models of plastisity with different determining ratio. One of phenomenology approaches to these models is that from microstructural mechanism it is reasonable to keep only main and to correct determining ratio by the data of experiments. However, all experiments on plasticity show, that in a plastic status the field of deformation and stress has strong fluctuation. Besides the diagram $`\sigma =f(e)`$ for a stress and deformation is similar to the diagram $`P=f(V)`$ for pressure and volume of liquid , and in \[2-4\] the phase transition in a end of a crack was already observed. So, we can consider process of plastic deformation critical (phase transition), in which the structure is spontaneously formed . Density of distributions of probability of transition to plasticity is the solution of the equations Fokker - Planck. However, taking into account potential character of process of deformation, instead of the equation Fokker - Planck we can use the equation Schrodinger. It means, that process of plastic deformations can consider as process with supersymmetry. Here tensor of deformation is considered as the parameter of order. In work  A.A. Iliusin has presented on discussion of konseption of trajectory of deformation in the space $`E_5`$. Actually, the space $`E_5`$ -it is layer in bundles of deformation . It means, that a field of deformation we can consider as a gauge field, in which the generalized trajectory of deformation Iliusin is a section of a bundles of deformation. With the help of the identification of generalized trajectory of deformation with a knots we have shown topological characters of process of deformations connected with invariant Witten. Thus, we have received density of distributions of probability of transition to plasticity

$$Z=\mathrm{exp}\left[kS_{cs}\left(e\right)\right]𝒟e,$$

here $`k`$ it factor of elasticity, $`S_{cs}`$ action Chern - Simomse as

$$S_{cs}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cs},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cs}`$ \- form Chern - Simonse for variety of deformation.

2. The space of deformation $`P=\{E_n(x,t)\}`$, with most general points of view, is noncommutative. A. Connes in work  has constructed noncommutative geometry, in which instead of researches of character of point space it is considered properties of a ring of function. Further we shall build model plastic deformation within the framework of this geometry. It means, that we should construct noncommutative bundles of deformation . Two basic objects in geometry Connes are associative algebra $`A`$ and universal algebra of the forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ over algebra $`A`$. Here space of deformation $`P=\{E_n(x,t)\}`$ plays a role of associative algebra. The following problem is choice of universal algebra Connes. Because of that, each choice of this algebra there corresponds the certain type of differential calculations, in work  we have chosen $`\mathrm{\Omega }(P)`$ in quality of algebras Hoof, using, thus, differential calculation such as Woronowicz. It is known, that space of deformation $`P=\{E_n\}`$ is associative algebra, in frameworks of which can be determined derivative and the differential form. So, we choose universal algebra Connes $`\mathrm{\Omega }(P)`$ as algebra of the differential forms over the space of deformation $`P`$. Thus, differential calculation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(P)`$ has a type similar to such in work , according to which least differential algebra of algebras of cocycle $`C(Der(P),P)`$, containing space $`P`$, is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(P)`$, being algebra $`C(Der(P),P)`$, where $`Der(P)`$ \- algebra of derivative on $`P`$. In the space $`P=\{E_n\}`$ the basis $`\{1,E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_{n^21},n+1\mathrm{}9\}`$ is defined . We consider $`P`$ Hermite space with the following commutative rules

$$E_kE_l=\delta _k+C_{kl}^m\frac{i}{2}C_{kl}^mE_l,[E_k,E_l]=2iC_{kl}^mE_m$$

Where $`\delta _{kl}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(E_kE_l),S_{kl}^m=S_{lk}^m,C_{kl}^m=C_{lk}^m,C_{kl}^m`$ \- constants of structure, $`S_{kl}^m`$ \- invariant of group $`sl(n)`$ . In space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1(P)`$ following basis is defined $`\theta ^k,k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n^21\}`$, with properties $`\theta ^k(_l)=\delta _l^k\mathrm{𝟏},\theta ^k\theta ^l=\theta ^l\theta ^k,E_k\theta ^=\theta ^lE_k`$. So, differential calculation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1(P)`$ is to usual external differentials:

$$dE_k=C_{kl}^mE_m\theta ^l,d\theta ^k=\frac{1}{2}C_{kl}^m\theta ^l\theta ^m,$$

$$d\left(\theta ^k\theta ^j\right)=d\theta ^k\theta ^j\theta ^kd\theta ^j,d^2=0$$

.

Let’s recollect, that the bundles of deformation gives us section being a field of deformation or generalized trajectory of deformation Iliusin . In conformity with noncommutative geometry Connes, vector bundle on noncommutative space of deformation $`P`$ will be either left, or right module, in which a trivial bundle of deformation is the free module, and the nontrivial bundle represents factorization of the free module above space $`P`$. Actually it is the cotangent bundle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1(P)`$.

Now we shall construct action for process of noncommutative plastic deformation. According to procedure Connes, first of all we choose Hermite module $`H`$ above the space of deformation $`P`$. It means, that on Hermite $`P`$ -module $`H`$ there is such Hermite structure $`h`$, that for all $`\alpha ,\beta H,h(\alpha ,\beta )P`$ and $`h(\alpha A,\beta B)=A^{}h(\alpha ,\beta )B`$ for all $`A,BP`$. Further it is necessary to choose connection $``$, being transformation $`H`$ on $`H\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1`$, for which the folowing conditions are carried out $`(\varphi A)=(\varphi )A+\varphi dA`$ $`dh(\varphi ,\psi )=h(\varphi ,\psi )+h(\varphi ,\psi )`$ for all $`\varphi ,\psi H,AP`$.

Connection $``$ is extended to linear maps of a rank 1 $`D_v:H\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1H\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1`$ so that $`D_v(\varphi \alpha )=(\varphi )\alpha +\varphi d\alpha `$ for all $`\varphi H,\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_D^1`$. Thus, the curvature on $``$ is determined as maps $`^2:HH\mathrm{\Omega }_D^2`$, $`^2(\varphi B)=(^2\varphi )B,\varphi H,BP`$. Then action of process of noncommutative plastic deformation on connection $``$ will be submitted in the form:

$$S=^2^2=<\phi ,\phi >,$$

where $`\phi a`$ -component connection on calibration with scalar product

$$<\phi ,\phi >=\phi (\phi )=Tr\left[\phi (\phi )\right].$$

So, we have received distribution of probability of transition to plasticity

$$Z=\mathrm{exp}\left(kS\right),$$

and $`k`$ it is factor of elasticity of environment. Distribution $`Z`$ depends from connection $``$, determined on any calibration. With the purpose of reception of the obvious form $`Z`$ let’s consider the following example. First of all we shall choose calibration , being the unit in Hermite space $`H`$. Then we shall choose connection as $`e=e\alpha ,`$ where $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_D^1,\alpha =\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha }`$ \- interface. The form $`\alpha `$ is a complex matrix in sense Muschelishvili. However in 3-dimention case, in the frameworks of symplectic geometry, it will have complex structure. Thus, each element $`\varphi H`$ looks like $`\varphi =eB`$, where $`BP`$. Then by definition we shall receive $`\varphi =(e)B+edB`$. In differential geometry $`B`$ and $`\alpha `$ refer to as elements $`\varphi `$ and $``$ on calibration $`e`$. A component $`\phi `$ of the curvature $`^2`$ on calibration $`e`$ is chosen as $`\phi =d\alpha +(\alpha )^2`$, then in result we shall receive $`^2=e\phi `$. If we shall present the form $`\alpha `$ in a usual complex kind $`\alpha =B_k\theta s^k+iE_l\theta ^l,B,EP`$, that after action of the operator $`d`$ and $`\alpha `$, after calculation $`\alpha ^2`$ and putting results in expression for $`\phi `$ we shall receive

$$\phi =\frac{1}{2}\left([B_k,B_l]C_{kl}^mB_m\right)\theta ^k\theta ^l.$$

So, the action has the form

$$S=\frac{1}{8}\underset{k,}{}Tr\left\{\left([B_k,B_l]C_{kl}^mB_m\right)^2\right\}$$

It is necessary to notice, that this integral on Hermite module $`H`$ \- it is a $`K`$ \- cycle Connes. However, Connes has not defined the concept of ” secondary calculation ”, therefore we shall calculate integral $`Z`$ by a usual method.

3. In work  A.A. Iliusin has offered idea, according to which determining ratio for continuous initial isotropy environments in area of rather small deformations will be coordinated to a postulate isotropy: it is invariant concerning orthogonal transformations in $`E_5`$. In work  it is described determining ratio even for final deformation. Nevertheless, within the framework of model of noncommutative plastic deformation in a formalism of potential of deformation this postulate would become the theorem, which it is possible to prove. Really in everyone cotangent bundle always there is symplectic structure . As shown above, cotangent space to space of deformation $`P=\{E_n(x,t)\}`$ is the space $`Der(P)`$; cotangent space to space $`P`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1(P)`$. If Hamilton vector field in a point $`AP`$ is designated through $`H(A)`$, the symplectic structure will be the 2-form $`\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_D^2(P)`$ so, that for all $`AP`$ the equation $`\omega ^2(X,H(A))=XA`$, at all $`XDer(P)`$ has the unique solution $`H(A)Der(P)`$. If $`I`$ is isomorfism : $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1(P)Der(P)`$, the Hamilton vector field will look like $`IdH`$, and $`H`$ is function Hamilton and the symplectic 2-form will be as $`\omega ^2=dH`$. We designate the symplectic variety as $`M^{2n^2},\omega ^2`$, then for each vector field $`H(A)`$ there is an one-parametrical group diffeomorphism $`g^t:M^{2n^2M^{2n^2}}`$, which is named as a phase flow Hamilton :

$$\frac{d}{dt}_{t=0}g^tA=IdH\left(A\right)$$

It is necessary to notice, that the orthogonal transformation is a special case of diffeomorphism . So, it is possible to formulate a postulate of isotropy in a formalism of potential by the following way . A determining ratio is invariant concerning a flow Hamilton , or, as a special case, it is invariant concerning orthogonal transformations. In frameworks of commutative geometry in work  V.I. Arnold has rendered, that the Hamilton phase flow keeps the symplectic structure $`(g^t)^{}\omega ^2=\omega ^2`$. In ours noncommutative case also it is possible to use a method Arnold with only one difference, that the dimention of symplectic space above $`P`$ is equal $`2n^2`$ and points of the spaces are matrixes. However, when the space $`P`$ satisfies still to axioms of algebra Hoof, it is impossible to use above mentioned method because of unusual differential calculations such as Woronowicz . Further, by definition, we have $`\omega ^2=dH=\frac{H}{e_i}de_i`$ and this form is invariant concerning a flow $`g^t`$. It means, that in a condition of additivity the quantity $`\frac{H}{e_i}`$ is also invariant concerning transformations $`g^t`$.

In work  in singular model determining ratio is submitted as:

$$d\sigma _i=\frac{f_l}{e_i}dk_l$$

where $`f_l`$ \- the current limiting surface. Here those $`dk_l`$ are not zero, for which on the appropriate surface $`f_l`$ the infringements are performed, i.e are made $`(\frac{f_l}{e_i})d\sigma 0`$. Now, if we use the concept of potential $`H`$ (free energy) , we shall receive

$$\sigma _i=\frac{f_l}{e_i}$$

In our model the plastic deformation is the fluctuation process, in which the free energy plays a role of the function Hamilton of system . Really, determining ratio in a formalism of potential is invariant concerning orthogonal transformation.

4. Thus, general model of plastic deformation is following . The process of deformation Iliusin is given. For construction of the general theory it is necessary, first of all, to refuse from traditional performance of the elastic theory of field, within the framework of which the static processes with commutative quantities are described only. The space of deformation should be considered as noncommutative . Under action of any forces this space will proceed in cotangent bundle. When the action will achieve limiting value the status of deformation will be in strong fluctuation . Then we receive distribution of probability of transition to plasticity. Besides thanking noncommutativity we shall receive the symplectic structure. Symplectic space, constructed above noncommutative space of deformation, it is more than traditional space of the classical theories. Only in this case it is possible to understand the essence of a postulate of isotropy Iliusin. And, may be, all other results of the classical theory can be received as special cases of this general model. One of such results is the essence of the sectors Koiter , about what will be informed in following clause.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years there have been much effort to analyze the different aspects of two dimensional Yang-Mills (YM2) theory \[1-9\]. The YM2 theory is defined by the Lagrangian $`\mathrm{tr}(\frac{1}{4}F^2)`$ on a Riemann surface, where $`F`$ is the field strength tensor. This theory is equivalent to the so-called $`𝐁`$\- $`𝐅`$ theory, which characterized by the Lagrangian $`i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+\mathrm{tr}(B^2)`$, such as invariance under area preserving diffeomorphisms and lack of any propagating degrees of freedom . These properties are also shared by a large class of theories, called the generalized two dimensional Yang-Mills (gYM2’s) theories. These theories, however, are defined by replacing an arbitrary class function of $`B`$ instead of tr$`(B^2)`$ . Several aspect of this theories such as, partition function, generating functional and large -N limit on an arbitrary two dimensional orientable and non-orientable surfaces has been discussed in \[16-22\]. There is another way to generalize YM2 and gYM2 and that is to use a nonlocal action for the auxiliary field, leading to the so-called nonlocal YM2 (nlYM2) and nonlocal gYM2(nlgYM2) theories, respectively . Several aspects of nlYM2 nlgYM2, such as, classical behavior, wave function, partition function, generating functional, and also large- $`N`$ limit of it, have been studied on orientable surfaces in \[11-15\]. In all of these theories, the solution appear as some infinite summations over the irreducible representations of the gauge group. In the large - N limit, however, these summations are replaced by suitable path integrals over continuous parameters characterizing the Young tableaux, and saddle-point analysis shows that the only significant representation is the classical one, which minimizes some effective action. This continuous parameters characterizing the representation is a constrained, as the length of the rows of the Young tableau is non-increasing. So for small values of the surface area, the classical solution satisfies the constraint; for large values of the surface area, it dose not. Therefore the dominating representation is not the one, which minimizes the effective action. This introduces a phase transition between these two regime. Some problem has been studied for special cases of YM2, gYM2 , nlYM2, nlgYM2 in  on sphere. In this paper I investigate this problem ( large-N limit) of nlgYM2 theories on arbitrary non-orientable surface.

The scheme of this paper is the following. In sect. 2, I briefly review the large-N limit of nlgYM2 theories of $`U(N)`$ gauge group on any arbitrary non-orientable surface and obtain effective action of theory at large-N limit. In sect. 3, I study the phase structure of nlgYM2 for $`\varphi ^{2k}`$ model in all order on an arbitrary surface. In sect. 4, I study the phase structure of theory for $`\varphi ^2+\frac{\gamma }{4}\varphi ^4`$ models on any arbitrary non-orientable surface.

## 2 Preliminaries

In , a non-local generalized two dimensional Yang-Mills (nlgYM2’s) theories was defined as:

$$e^S:=DB\mathrm{exp}\{i\mathrm{tr}(BF)d\mu +\omega [\mathrm{\Lambda }(B)d\mu ]\},$$
(1)
where B is an auxiliary field at the adjoint representation of gauge group, F is the field strength, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a similarity-invariant function, $`d\mu `$ is the invariant measure of the surface; $`d\mu :=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$. It was further shown that the partition function for this theory on a closed non-orientable manifold, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,s,r}`$, with area $`A`$, genus $`g`$, $`s`$ copies of Klein bottle, and $`r`$ copies of projective plane ($`RP^2`$), is given by the exact formula  as:

$$Z_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,s,r}}(A)=\underset{R=\overline{R}}{}d^{2(2g+2s+r)}\mathrm{exp}\{\omega [A\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)]\},$$
(2)
where $`R`$’s label the irreducible representation of the gauge group, which the sum is only over self-conjugate representation, and also $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)`$ is:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{\alpha _k}{N^{k1}}C_k(R).$$
(3)
Here $`C_k`$ is the k’th Casimir of gauge group, $`\alpha _k`$’s are arbitrary constant. The representation of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group are labelled by $`N`$ integers $`n_i`$ satisfying $`n_in_j`$ ($`ij`$) and it is found that:

$`d_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1ijN}{}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n_in_j}{ji}}),`$ (4)
$`C_k(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[(n_i+Ni)^k(Ni)^k].`$ (5)
One defines a function $`V`$ by

$$N^2V[A_{k=1}^p\alpha _k\widehat{C}_k(R)]:=\omega [A\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)],$$
(6)
where

$$\widehat{C}_k(R)=\frac{1}{N^{k+1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(n_i+Ni)^k.$$
(7)
At the large-N limit of the gauge group, I use the following definitions

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}(in_i\frac{N}{2}),$$
(8)
where

$$0x:=\frac{i}{N}1\mathrm{and}n(x):=\frac{n_i}{N}.$$
(9)
Then, apart some unimportant constant, the partition function takes the form:

$$Z_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,s,r}}(A)=^{^{}}D\varphi (x)\mathrm{exp}\{N^2S(\varphi )\},$$
(10)
where

$$S[\varphi ]=V(A_0^1W[\varphi (x)]dx)(1(g+s+r/2))_0^1dx_0^1dy\mathrm{log}|\varphi (x)\varphi (y)|,$$
(11)
and

$$W[\varphi ]:=\underset{k=1}{}(1)^k\alpha _k\varphi ^k(x).$$
(12)
Note that the sum in (2) is only over self-conjugate representations, which $`^{}`$ in (10) shows this constraint also. This requirement in $`U(N)`$ means that there is the additional constraint to the sum as:

$$n_i=n_{Ni+1}.$$
(13)
In the large-N limit, this implies that the continuum variables, $`\varphi (x)`$, satisfy:

$$\varphi (x)=\varphi (1x).$$
(14)
So one can define a new function such as:

$$\varphi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi (x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}x1/2& \\ \psi (1x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}/2x1& \end{array}$$
(15)
Here the function $`\psi (x)`$ being defined on the interval \[0, 1/2\], in which $`\psi (1/2)=0`$. Then, by institute (15) in (11), it is seen that these models have interesting solution, only for even values of $`k`$ and therefore one can arrive at:

$$S[\psi ]=V(2A_0^{1/2}W[\psi (x)]dx)2(1(g+s+r/2))_0^{1/2}dx_0^{1/2}dy\mathrm{log}|\psi ^2(x)\psi ^2(y)|.$$
(16)
Introducing the density function as $`u(\psi ):=\frac{dx(\psi )}{d\psi }`$ . Thereof $`W[\psi ]`$ is an even function of $`\psi `$, thus $`u[\psi ]`$ is even, then the interval corresponding to values of $`Z[\psi ]`$ ($`u(\psi )`$) is \[$`a,a`$\]. It is seen that the condition $`n_in_j`$ demands $`u(\psi )1`$, and also

$$_a^au(z)𝑑z=1.$$
(17)
The saddle point that dominates this path integral is given by the equation of motion. It is found that:

$`h(z)`$ $`=`$ $`P{\displaystyle _a^a}{\displaystyle \frac{zu(z^{})dz^{}}{z^2z^2}},`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`P{\displaystyle _a^a}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z^{})dz^{}}{zz^{}}},`$
where $`P`$ indicates the principal value of integral and

$`h(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta W^{}(z)`$ (19)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{4(1gsr/2)}}V^{}\{A{\displaystyle }_0^{1/2}W[\psi (x)]dx\},`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{4(1gsr/2)}}V^{}\{A{\displaystyle }_a^aW(z)u(z)dz\}.`$
A part from some coefficient, this equation is the same as that obtained in , which obtained for this theory on orientable surface, and can be solved in the same manner. the density function, $`u(z)`$, found from (18) depend on the modified area $`\eta `$ and therefore $`A`$, in which as $`A`$ increases, a situation is encountered where $`u`$ exceeds 1. So the solution of (18) is valid only for $`A`$ less than some critical value $`A_c`$. $`A_c`$ is the value of $`A`$ at which the maximum of $`u`$ becomes 1, $`u_{max}(A_c)=1`$. The region $`A<A_c`$ is called the weak coupling phase (WCP) regime and the region $`A>A_c`$ is called the strong coupling phase (SCP) regime. By the same procedure which used in , I can expand the density function in WCP regime, $`u_w(z)`$, around absolute maxima, $`z_0`$, and it is found that for the points which are adjacent of critical point, $`A_c`$, the difference of free energy in SCP and WCP regime is:

$$F_sF_w\xi ^3,$$
(21)
where the free energy of the theory is defined as:

$$F:=S|_{\varphi _{cla.}},$$
(22)
and

$$\xi =u_w(z_0)1.$$
(23)
By considering $`\xi `$ as a function of $`A`$ and expand it around $`A=A_c`$, one can arrive at:

$$\xi (A)=\xi ^{}(A)(AA_c)+\mathrm{}$$
(24)
where

$$\xi ^{}=(\frac{\xi }{\eta })_{\eta =\eta _c}\frac{d\eta }{dA}|_{A=A_c}.$$
(25)
So for the case which $`\frac{\xi }{\eta }|_{\eta =\eta _c}`$ and $`\frac{d\eta }{dA}|_{A=A_c}`$ are nonzero, we have

$$F_sF_w\beta (AA_c)^3+\mathrm{}$$
(26)
Here $`\beta `$ is a constant which is independent of modified area of manifold, $`\eta `$ (or $`A`$). Thus, almost all models which, the density function of that have some absolute maxima, and exist the proper quantity $`\xi (A)`$ in which, $`\frac{d\xi }{dA}0`$, has a third order phase transition on any arbitrary non-orientable surface.

## 3 $`W(\varphi )=\varphi ^{2k}(k>1)`$ models.

In this case $`W(\varphi )`$ is an even function of $`\varphi `$, then we can use of (18). So by solving (18), it is found that:

$$u_w(z)=\frac{k\eta }{\pi }\sqrt{a^2z^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^nn!}a_k^{2n}z^{2k2n2},$$
(27)
where $`a_k`$ is obtained from (17) as:

$$a_k=[\frac{2^k(k1)!!}{(2k1)!!\eta }]^{\frac{1}{2k}}.$$
(28)
It has been shown that (27) has three extremum points at $`z=0`$ and $`z_{1,2}=\pm \alpha _k\sqrt{\zeta _k}`$ , in which $`\zeta _k`$ is independent of $`a_k`$ and is determined from

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^{n+1}(n+1)!}\zeta _k^{(n+1)}=1.$$
(29)
Using $`u_w^{}(z_k)=0`$, (where $`z_k`$’s are extremum points), one can see:

$$u_w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)=\frac{k\eta a^{2k2}(2k1)}{\pi \sqrt{a^2z_0^2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{k2}{}}\frac{(2n1)!!z_0^{2k2n4}}{2^nn!a^{2k2n4}}.$$
(30)
So when $`z_k=z_0=0`$, then $`u_w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)=0`$, so that for $`\psi ^{2k}`$($`\varphi ^{2k}`$) models the density function $`u_w(z)`$ is minimum at $`z_0=0`$ but for $`z_k=z_{1,2}`$ the density function is maximum only for cases which $`\eta >0`$ or

$$1>g+s+r/2,$$
(31)
therefore , we see that the density function of these theories is maxima at $`z_k=z_{1,2}`$, when (31) has been satisfied. By substitute (28) in (27), we obtain:

$$u_w(z_{1,2})=\eta ^{\frac{1}{2k}}f(k)$$
(32)
where $`f(k)`$ is independent of $`\eta `$(or $`A`$). Using (24) and (25), we have

$$\xi (A)=\{\frac{d}{dA}\mathrm{ln}\eta ^{\frac{1}{2k}}\}_{A=A_c}(AA_c)+\mathrm{}$$
(33)
where, we use of $`\xi (A_c)=0`$. Thus if $`\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\eta ^{\frac{1}{2k}}}{dA}|_{A=A_c}`$ is nonzero, these theories has a third order phase transition. Note that for the case which $`g=s=r=0`$, the relation (31) is satisfied and this means that these theories has third order phase transition on sphere, also if $`g=s=0`$ and $`r=1`$, the order of phase transition of theory on projective plane (RP2) is 3 for all order of $`\psi ^{2k}`$, but if $`g=r=0`$ and $`s=1`$, the condition (31) is not satisfied, then the theory has no phase transition on Klien bottle and other non-orientable surfaces.

## 4 the $`\psi ^2+\frac{\gamma }{4}\psi ^4`$ models.

I now consider $`\psi ^2+\frac{\gamma }{4}\psi ^4`$ with arbitrary $`\gamma `$. At the first I assume that $`\gamma >0`$. So by solving (18), one can obtain:

$$u_w(z)=\frac{\eta }{4\pi }\sqrt{a^2z^2}(4+\gamma a^2+2\gamma z^2),$$
(34)
and from (17),

$$\eta a^2(8+3\gamma a^2)=16.$$
(35)
The shape of $`u_w(z)`$ depends on $`\eta `$. It is seen that

$$u_w^{\prime \prime }(0)=\frac{\eta }{4\pi }(3\gamma a^24).$$
(36)
So for $`3\gamma a^2<4`$, $`u_w(z)`$ has only one extremum point at $`z=0`$, if $`\eta >0`$, and also

$`\xi ^{}(A_c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d(u_w(0)1)}{dA}}|_{A=A_c},`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{108\pi ^2\gamma }}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{12\gamma /\eta _c+\sqrt{1+48\gamma /\eta _c}1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{1+48\gamma /\eta _c}1}}}\right\}.`$
Thus, the density function is maximum at $`z=0`$ ($`u_w^{\prime \prime }(0)<0`$) for the case which $`\eta >0`$ ($`1gsr/2>0`$), and this is satisfied only on sphere and projective plane. However the order of phase transition of this model is three on sphere and projective plain and on other orientable and non-orientable surface has no phase transition. For $`3\gamma a^2>4`$ this model has three extremum point at $`z=0`$ and $`z=\pm z_0`$, where

$$z_0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3\gamma }(\sqrt{1+\frac{48\gamma }{\eta }}2}).$$
(38)
From this for the case which $`\eta >0`$, one can obtain that $`u_w(z_0)`$ is minimum at $`z=0`$ and has two maxima at $`\pm z_0`$. So by obtaining $`u_w(z_0)`$ and use of (23-25) , one can arrive at:

$$\xi ^{}(A_c)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3\gamma }}\times \frac{4\eta _c+3\gamma }{6\pi \eta ^{3/4}(\eta _c+3\gamma )^{1/4}}\times \frac{d\eta }{dA}|_{A=A_c}>0.$$
(39)
So according with (25) and (26), this theory has phase transition only on S2 and RP2 and the order of it is 3. For the case which $`\gamma <0`$(for all value of $`\gamma `$), the density function $`u_w(z)`$ has three extremum point at $`z=0`$ and $`\pm z_0`$, where

$$z_0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3|\gamma |}(2+\sqrt{1+3|\frac{\gamma }{\eta }|})}.$$
(40)
It is clearly seen that this model of theory has phase transition on all surfaces which $`\eta <0`$. Indeed, it is not difficult to check that $`u_w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ is negative, and also, from (40), one can obtain $`u_w(z_0)`$, and then:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{dA}}|_{A=A_c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dA}}(u_w(z_0)1)|_{A=A_c},`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3|\gamma |}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{dA}}|_{A=A_c},`$
so according with (25) and (26), it is found that if $`\frac{d\eta }{dA}|_{A=A_c}0`$, then the $`\psi ^2+\frac{\gamma }{4}\psi ^4`$ model whit $`\gamma <0`$ has a third order phase transition on all closed orientable and non-orientable manifold except on sphere, torus, projective plain and Klein bottle.

## 5 conclusion

I study the large-N limit of nlgYM2 theories on arbitrary non-orientable surface. By obtaining the effective action of these theories at the large-N limit, it is shown that apart some coefficient, the saddle point equation is the same as that obtain for these theories on orientable surface. I study the phase structure of $`\varphi ^{2k}`$ model and it is seen that all order of this model has third order phase transition only on projective plane. Also, by considering the $`\varphi ^2+\frac{\gamma }{4}\varphi ^4`$ model of nlgYM2, I found that, for the case $`\gamma >0`$, this theory has third order phase transition on $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and on other non-orientable surface has no phase transition, whereas for the case $`\gamma <0`$ this model has phase transition on all closed non-orientable surfaces except projective plane and Klein bottle, and the order of phase transition is 3. It is clearly seen that all order of $`\varphi ^2+\alpha \varphi ^{2k+1}`$ model on any arbitrary closed non-orientable surfaces has the same phase structure of $`\varphi ^2`$ model of nlYM2.
Note that the whole reasoning is independent of the number of points as $`u_w`$ attains its absolute maximum. It is clear that a similar situation prevails for the cases which $`u_w`$ has many absolute maximum, and also in this case, one can realize the WCP regime and obtain the phase structure of theory in the multi-critical points. It is remarkable that there might be cases which $`u_w^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$ is zero (not negative). At this state the theory has phase transition, but the order of phase transition is not 3.