text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In two-dimensional quantum integrable models, the quantum inverse scattering method (QISM)  provides a powerful tool for investigating physical quantities. Among them, the correlation functions have been studied extensively. In order to calculate the correlation functions, it is necessary to deal with states and local operators. At the early stages of the development of QISM, the problem of constructing states was solved by means of the Bethe ansatz.

Recently, a great progress was made for constructing local operators in a large class of spin chain models  which contain the XXX and XXZ spin chains with spin $`1/2`$. Simple inverse mappings from the matrix elements of the monodromy matrix to the local spin variables were found . The inverse mappings help the calculations of form factors and correlation functions of the spin variables in the framework of QISM .

The XXX and XXZ spin chains with spin $`1/2`$ are fundamental models, i.e. the auxiliary space and the quantum space at a site are isomorphic and the elementary monodromy matrix has a special point at which it becomes the permutation operator for the auxiliary and quantum spaces. The construction of the inverse mapping depends deeply on the existence of the permutation operators. Some non-fundamental models such as higher spin XXX chains were solved by means of the fusion procedure . One characteristic property of these models is that the matrix elements of the elementary monodromy matrix are numerical.

But for some non-fundamental integrable models, such as the lattice nonlinear Schrödinger (LNS) models  and the lattice sine-Gordon (LSG) model , the problem of constructing the inverse mapping is not solved. The LNS and LSG models are closely related to the XXX and XXZ spin chains respectively. Their elementary monodromy matrices are realized by quantum operators and the quantum space at each site is related to an infinite-dimensional representation of the Lie algebra $`sl_2`$ or its quantum deformation $`U_q(sl_2)`$. Only at very specific values of the coupling constant, the infinite dimensional representations are truncated into finite-dimensional ones. The approach by the fusion procedure is possible only at these special points and is very artificial. Moreover, we should take the infinite-dimensional representation limit which has many difficulties.

Therefore, it is better to consider the inverse mapping in more direct way. This paper is an attempt toward the construction of the inverse mapping.

The form factor bootstrap  is one of approaches to obtain the correlation functions and was applied to the (continuum limit of) LNS models and LSG models. In this approach, creation operators of the states are Zamolodchikov-Faddeev (ZF) creation operators. The ZF creation-annihilation operators are constructed by using the quantum reflection operators $`B(\lambda )A^1(\lambda )`$ and their conjugate $`D^1(\lambda )C(\lambda )`$. The local operators are treated by means of the quantum Gel’fand-Levitan equations . The calculation procedure for the form factors are summarized into the axioms by Smirnov . (See also  for the approach by the quantum Gel’fand-Levitan equation in case of quantum nonlinear Schrödinger model).

In contrast to the Gel’fand-Levitan method, we use the reflection operators to construct local operators. The elementary monodromy matrices of LNS and LSG models have special points at which they factorize into quantum projectors. The constructed operators are closely related to these quantum projectors. In this paper, a basis of states is chosen to be the Bethe eigenstates. We show that the form factors of the operators can be calculated by using the algebraic relations in the framework of QISM.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the main idea for constructing the local operators is explained. In section 3, we show that form factors of these local operators can be calculated in the framework of the standard algebraic Bethe ansatz method. Some properties of these local operators are discussed in section 4. The explicit form of the operators are given for LNS and LSG models in sections 5 and 6 respectively. Section 7 is devoted to discussion.

## 2 Local operators from quantum projectors

Let $`L_n(\lambda )`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) be an infinitesimal monodromy matrix of lattice models with the intertwining property:

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )(L_n(\lambda )L_n(\mu ))=(L_n(\mu )L_n(\lambda ))R(\lambda ,\mu ).$$
(2.1)
Here the numerical $`R`$-matrix has the form:

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& & 0& & 0& & 0\\ 0& & b(\lambda ,\mu )& & c(\lambda ,\mu )& & 0\\ 0& & c(\lambda ,\mu )& & b(\lambda ,\mu )& & 0\\ 0& & 0& & 0& & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2.2)
The functions $`b(\lambda ,\mu )`$ and $`c(\lambda ,\mu )`$ are rational for LNS model

$$b(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{i\kappa }{\lambda \mu i\kappa },c(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\lambda \mu }{\lambda \mu i\kappa },$$
(2.3)
and are trigonometric for LSG model

$$b(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{i\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu +i\gamma )},c(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\lambda \mu +i\gamma )}.$$
(2.4)
The monodromy matrix of the lattice model is given by

$$T(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A(\lambda )& & B(\lambda )\\ C(\lambda )& & D(\lambda )\end{array}\right)=L_N(\lambda )L_{N1}(\lambda )\mathrm{}L_1(\lambda ).$$
(2.5)
At the points $`\lambda =\nu `$ where the quantum determinant vanishes, the elementary monodromy matrix factorizes into quantum projectors:

$$\left(L_n(\lambda )\right)_{ij}|_{\lambda =\nu }=P_i(n)Q_j(n),i,j=1,2.$$
(2.6)
Then the monodromy matrix at $`\lambda =\nu `$ can be written as

$$\left(T(\nu )\right)_{ij}=P_i(N)WQ_j(1),$$
(2.7)
where

$$W=w(N|N1)w(N1|N2)\mathrm{}w(2|1),w(n+1|n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}Q_i(n+1)P_i(n).$$
(2.8)
So far, these quantum projectors have been used mainly for constructing the conserved quantities. A simple observation is that these quantum projectors can be used for constructing a certain class of local operators of the lattice models. For example, if $`D(\nu )`$ is invertible then we have two operators which depend on field variables of site $`1`$ or site $`N`$ only:

$$D^1(\nu )C(\nu )=\left(Q_2(1)\right)^1Q_1(1),B(\nu )D^1(\nu )=P_1(N)\left(P_2(N)\right)^1.$$
(2.9)
For simplicity, we impose the periodic boundary condition : $`L_{n+N}(\lambda )=L_n(\lambda )`$. Then the shift operator $`U`$ can be defined by

$$UL_n(\lambda )U^1=L_{n+1}(\lambda ),U|\mathrm{\Omega }=|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(2.10)
Here $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the reference state: $`C(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. Using this shift operator, we can relate certain local operators to the matrix elements of the monodromy matrix:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_n& :=(Q_2(n))^1Q_1(n)=U^{n1}D^1(\nu )C(\nu )U^{n+1},\hfill \\ \hfill P_n& :=P_1(n)(P_2(n))^1=U^nB(\nu )D^1(\nu )U^n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
Off-shell properties of these operators can be extracted from the form factors:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)𝒪_n\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M^{}}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪_n=Q_n\text{or}P_n.$$
(2.12)
Here we assume that the sets of spectral parameters $`\{\mu _k\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _l\}`$ satisfy the Bethe equations respectively.

We call a state $`_kB(\lambda _k)|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ Bethe state for generic $`\{\lambda _k\}`$. When we emphasize that $`\{\lambda _k\}`$ satisfy the Bethe equations, we call the state Bethe eigenstate.

Let us denote the eigenvalues of diagonal part of the monodromy matrix on the reference state by

$$\left(L_n(\lambda )\right)_{11}|\mathrm{\Omega }=a_1(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega },\left(L_n(\lambda )\right)_{22}|\mathrm{\Omega }=d_1(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(2.13)
It is known that the Bethe eigenstates are also eigenstates for the shift operator with the following eigenvalues\[11, Theorem 3\]

$$U\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}r_1(\lambda _j)\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(2.14)
where $`r_1(\lambda )=a_1(\lambda )/d_1(\lambda )`$.

Thus, the form factors of $`Q_n`$ (resp. $`P_n`$) are easily represented by the form factors of $`D^1(\nu )C(\nu )`$ (resp. $`B(\nu )D^1(\nu )`$). These form factors can be calculated by using the algebraic commutation relations.

The time evolution of these operators is controlled by the Hamiltonian operators of the models. The Hamiltonian operator is also diagonalized on the Bethe eigenstates. The form factors of operators at any time can be easily expressed by those of the operators at a time (e.g. at $`t=0`$). We do not discuss the time evolution in this paper.

Consideration for other points at which $`A(\nu )`$ is invertible is quite similar. Therefore we omit these cases.

## 3 Form Factors

In this section, we calculate the form factors of $`D^1(\nu )C(\nu )`$ in general setting. The calculation for $`B(\nu )D^1(\nu )`$ is similar. So we omit the case of $`B(\nu )D^1(\nu )`$.

We forget the lattice structure (2.5) for a while and treat the matrix elements $`A(\lambda )`$, $`B(\lambda )`$, $`C(\lambda )`$ and $`D(\lambda )`$ as abstract objects. Let

$$A(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega }=a(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega },D(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega }=d(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(3.1)
We assume that there is at least one zero for $`a(\lambda )`$: $`a(\nu _A)=0`$. Also, we assume that $`D(\nu _A)`$ is an invertible operator.

The action of $`A(\lambda )`$ on the Bethe states is well known:

$$A(\mu )\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega }=a^{(M)}(\mu |\{\lambda _l\})\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega }+\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}b^{(M)}(\mu |\lambda _j|\{\lambda _l\}_{lj})B(\mu )\underset{\stackrel{l=1}{lj}}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(3.2)
where

$$a^{(M)}(\mu |\{\lambda _l\})=a(\mu )\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}f(\lambda _l,\mu ),b^{(M)}(\mu |\lambda _j|\{\lambda _l\}_{lj})=a(\lambda _j)g(\mu ,\lambda _j)\underset{\stackrel{l=1}{lj}}{\overset{M}{}}f(\lambda _l,\lambda _j).$$
(3.3)
Here $`f(\lambda ,\mu )=1/c(\lambda ,\mu )`$ and $`g(\lambda ,\mu )=b(\lambda ,\mu )/c(\lambda ,\mu )`$.

For generic $`\mu `$, $`\lambda `$, we have the following lemma:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D^1(\mu )C(\mu )B(\lambda )& =f(\lambda ,\mu )B(\lambda )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )g(\lambda ,\mu )A(\lambda )\hfill \\ & +g(\lambda ,\mu )D^1(\mu )D(\lambda )\left(A(\mu )B(\mu )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
The proof is simple:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& D^1(\mu )C(\mu )B(\lambda )\hfill \\ & =D^1(\mu )[C(\mu ),B(\lambda )]+D^1(\mu )B(\lambda )D(\mu )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )\hfill \\ & =D^1(\mu )g(\lambda ,\mu )\left(D(\lambda )A(\mu )D(\mu )A(\lambda )\right)\hfill \\ & +D^1(\mu )\left(f(\lambda ,\mu )D(\mu )B(\lambda )g(\lambda ,\mu )D(\lambda )B(\mu )\right)D^1(\mu )C(\mu )\hfill \\ & =f(\lambda ,\mu )B(\lambda )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )g(\lambda ,\mu )A(\lambda )\hfill \\ & +g(\lambda ,\mu )D^1(\mu )D(\lambda )\left(A(\mu )B(\mu )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
Then using this lemma and by induction, we can prove that $`D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)`$ acts on the right Bethe states as follows:

$$D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}b^{(M)}(\nu _A|\lambda _j|\{\lambda _l\}_{lj})\underset{\stackrel{l=1}{lj}}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(3.6)
This is quite similar to the action of the nonlinear Schrödinger field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ on the Bethe states . Therefore, the calculation procedure for the form factors of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$  can be also applied to the following form factors:

$$F_M:=\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(3.7)
Here $`\{\mu _k\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _l\}`$ are solutions of the Bethe equations respectively.

After some calculations which are a slight modification of , we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_M& =\underset{k=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}h(\lambda _k,\lambda _l)\underset{1k<lM}{}g(\mu _l,\mu _k)\underset{1k<lM+1}{}g(\lambda _k,\lambda _l)\hfill \\ & \times \underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}d(\mu _l)\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}d(\lambda _l)\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}(1)^{j1}g(\nu _A,\lambda _j)\mathrm{det}_MS^{(j)}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.8)
Here $`S^{(j)}`$ ($`j=1,2,\mathrm{},M+1`$) is an $`M\times M`$ matrix obtained by removing $`j`$-th row from an $`(M+1)\times M`$ matrix $`S`$ whose matrix elements are defined by

$$S_{kl}=t(\lambda _k,\mu _l)\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}h(\lambda _k,\mu _m)}{{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}}h(\lambda _k,\lambda _m)}t(\mu _k,\lambda _k)\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}h(\mu _m,\lambda _k)}{{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}}h(\lambda _m,\lambda _k)},$$
(3.9)
($`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M+1`$, $`l=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$). Also, $`t(\lambda ,\mu )=b^2(\lambda ,\mu )/c(\lambda ,\mu )`$ and $`h(\lambda ,\mu )=1/b(\lambda ,\mu )`$.

In the following, we will show that the sum in the right hand side of eq.(3.8) can be rewritten by using a single determinant.

By using the Cauchy determinant identity or by evaluating the residues, we can prove the following identity:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}g(\eta ,\lambda _j)\xi _j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}g(\eta ,\lambda _j)\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{1}{g(\eta ,\mu _i)},$$
(3.10)
where

$$\xi _k:=\underset{\stackrel{l=1}{lk}}{\overset{M+1}{}}g(\lambda _l,\lambda _k)\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{1}{g(\mu _l,\lambda _k)}.$$
(3.11)
With help of this identity, it is possible to check that the $`(M+1)`$-dimensional vector $`\xi _k`$ is a left null vector of the matrix $`S`$: $`_{k=1}^{M+1}\xi _kS_{kl}=0`$. The substitution of $`S_{M+1,l}=_{k=1}^M(\xi _k/\xi _{M+1})S_{kl}`$ into $`\mathrm{det}_MS^{(j)}`$ leads to

$$(1)^{j1}\mathrm{det}_MS^{(j)}=(1)^M\frac{\xi _j}{\xi _{M+1}}\mathrm{det}_MS^{(M+1)}.$$
(3.12)
In other words, the combination of $`(1)^{j1}\mathrm{det}_MS^{(j)}/\xi _j`$ is $`j`$-independent quantity:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\mathrm{det}_MS^{(1)}\right)/\xi _1=\left(\mathrm{det}_MS^{(2)}\right)/\xi _2=\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & =(1)^{j1}\left(\mathrm{det}_MS^{(j)}\right)/\xi _j=\mathrm{}=(1)^M\left(\mathrm{det}_MS^{(M+1)}\right)/\xi _{M+1}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.13)
By virtue of eq.(3.12) and eq.(3.10) for $`\eta =\nu _A`$, we have the final result for the form factors:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _l)\right)D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ & =(1)^M\mathrm{det}_M(S_{kl})_{1k,lM}\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}d(\mu _l)\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}d(\lambda _l)\underset{k=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}h(\lambda _k,\lambda _l)\hfill \\ & \times \underset{1k<lM}{}g(\mu _l,\mu _k)\underset{1k<lM}{}g(\lambda _k,\lambda _l)\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}g(\mu _l,\lambda _{M+1})\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}}g(\nu _A,\lambda _j)}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}g(\nu _A,\mu _i)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.14)
Here we have used the relation $`\mathrm{det}_MS^{(M+1)}=\mathrm{det}_M(S_{kl})_{1k,lM}`$.

## 4 Some properties of $`Q_n`$ and $`P_n`$

In this section, we discuss some properties of the local operators $`Q_n`$ and $`P_n`$.

For a spectral parameter $`\mu `$, let us define $`\mu ^{}:=\mu +i\kappa `$ for the rational case and $`\mu ^{}:=\mu i\gamma `$ for the trigonometric case. Then

$$T(\mu )\sigma _2T^t(\mu ^{})\sigma _2=\mathrm{det}_q(T(\mu ))I_2.$$
(4.1)
Here $`t`$ denotes the transpose for the auxiliary space and $`\mathrm{det}_q(T(\mu ))`$ is a central element called quantum determinant.

The lemma (3.4) can be rewritten as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D^1(\mu )C(\mu )B(\lambda )& =f(\lambda ,\mu )B(\lambda )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )g(\lambda ,\mu )A(\lambda )\hfill \\ & +g(\lambda ,\mu )D(\lambda )D^1(\mu )D^1(\mu ^{})\mathrm{det}_q(T(\mu )).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.2)
At $`\mu =\nu _A`$, the quantum determinant vanishes in the module constructed over the reference state. Without loss of generality, we can set $`\mathrm{det}_q(T(\nu _A))=0`$.

The following relation comes from the intertwining property:

$$D^1(\mu )C(\mu )D(\lambda )=f(\lambda ,\mu )D(\lambda )D^1(\mu )C(\mu )g(\lambda ,\mu )C(\lambda ).$$
(4.3)
Now let us recall the lattice structure (2.5) and the definition of the local operator $`Q_1=D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)`$. From eqs.(4.2) and (4.3), we immediately have

$$Q_1B(\lambda )=f(\lambda ,\nu _A)B(\lambda )Q_1g(\lambda ,\nu _A)A(\lambda ),$$
(4.4)
$$Q_1D(\lambda )=f(\lambda ,\nu _A)D(\lambda )Q_1g(\lambda ,\nu _A)C(\lambda ).$$
(4.5)
It turns out that these relations arise as a consequence of

$$Q_1(L_1(\lambda ))_{i2}=f(\lambda ,\nu _A)(L_1(\lambda ))_{i2}Q_1g(\lambda ,\nu _A)(L_1(\lambda ))_{i1},i=1,2.$$
(4.6)
Applying the shift operator to this equation, we have

$$Q_n(L_n(\lambda ))_{i2}=f(\lambda ,\nu _A)(L_n(\lambda ))_{i2}Q_ng(\lambda ,\nu _A)(L_n(\lambda ))_{i1}.$$
(4.7)
Compare to the action of $`Q_1=D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)`$ on the right Bethe states (3.6), the action on the left Bethe states are complicated. For a spectral parameter $`\mu `$, let $`\mu ^{(m)}:=\mu +im\kappa `$ for LNS model and $`\mu ^{(m)}:=\mu im\gamma `$ for LSG model. (Note that $`\mu ^{(1)}=\mu ^{}`$). From

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)D(\lambda )=d^{(M)}(\lambda |\{\mu _k\})\mathrm{\Omega }|\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}c^{(M)}(\lambda |\mu _j|\{\mu _k\}_{kj})\mathrm{\Omega }|C(\lambda )\underset{\stackrel{k=1}{kj}}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k),$$
(4.8)
$$d^{(M)}(\lambda |\{\mu _k\})=d(\lambda )\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}f(\lambda ,\mu _k),c^{(M)}(\lambda |\mu _j|\{\mu _k\}_{kj})=d(\mu _j)g(\mu _j,\lambda )\underset{\stackrel{k=1}{kj}}{\overset{M}{}}f(\mu _j,\mu _k),$$
(4.9)
we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)D^1(\lambda )& =\left(d^{(M)}(\lambda |\{\mu _k\})\right)^1\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)\hfill \\ & \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{c^{(M)}(\lambda |\mu _j|\{\mu _k\}_{kj})}{d^{(M)}(\lambda |\{\mu _k\})}\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{\stackrel{k=1}{kj}}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)D^1(\lambda ^{(1)})C(\lambda ^{(1)}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.10)
Here we have used $`C(\lambda )D^1(\lambda )=D^1(\lambda ^{(1)})C(\lambda ^{(1)})`$. If we use these relations recursively, we can see that the result of the action of $`D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)`$ on the left Bethe state yields terms which contain operators $`C(\nu _A^{(m)})`$ for $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},M`$.

The origin of these complicated action is the following commutation relation

$$C(\mu )D^1(\lambda )=c(\lambda ,\mu )D^1(\lambda )C(\mu )+b(\lambda ,\mu )D^1(\lambda )D(\mu )D^1(\lambda ^{(1)})C(\lambda ^{(1)})$$
(4.11)
which can be derived from the intertwining properties.

To conclude, the local operator $`Q_n`$ has nice commutation relations with the half of the matrix elements of the infinitesimal monodromy matrix.

Similarly, from

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C(\lambda )B(\mu )D^1(\mu )& =f(\lambda ,\mu )B(\mu )D^1(\mu )C(\lambda )g(\lambda ,\mu )A(\lambda )\hfill \\ & +g(\lambda ,\mu )\mathrm{det}_q(T(\mu ))D^1(\mu ^{})D^1(\mu )D(\lambda ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.12)
$$D(\lambda )B(\mu )D^1(\mu )=f(\lambda ,\mu )B(\mu )D^1(\mu )D(\lambda )g(\lambda ,\mu )B(\lambda ),$$
(4.13)
we can derive the following property of the local operator $`P_n=U^nB(\nu _A)D^1(\nu _A)U^n`$:

$$(L_n(\lambda ))_{2j}P_n=f(\lambda ,\nu _A)P_n(L_n(\lambda ))_{2j}g(\lambda ,\nu _A)(L_n(\lambda ))_{1j},j=1,2.$$
(4.14)
The operator $`P_N`$ acts nicely on the left Bethe states and has complicated action on the right Bethe states.

## 5 Lattice Nonlinear Schrödinger model

The Hamiltonian of the quantum nonlinear Schrödinger model is given by

$$H^{(\text{NLS})}=𝑑x\left(\frac{\psi ^{}}{x}\frac{\psi }{x}+\kappa \psi ^{}\psi ^{}\psi \psi \right).$$
(5.1)
Various types of LNS models have been proposed .

For simplicity, we use the LNS model of  as an example. Let put the system in a box of length $`2L`$: ($`L<xL`$), and discretize it to the lattice with $`N`$-sites: $`x_n=L+n\mathrm{\Delta }`$, ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$). Here the lattice spacing is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2L/N`$. The elementary operators for this lattice model are constructed from original fields as follows:

$$\psi _n=_{x_n\mathrm{\Delta }}^{x_n}\psi (x,0)𝑑x,\psi _n^{}=_{x_n\mathrm{\Delta }}^{x_n}\psi ^{}(x,0)𝑑x.$$
(5.2)
They satisfy the canonical commutation relations: $`[\psi _m,\psi _n^{}]=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{m,n}`$.

The infinitesimal monodromy matrix is given by

$$L_n(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1i(\lambda /2)\mathrm{\Delta }+(\kappa /2)\psi _n^{}\psi _n& & \sqrt{\kappa }\psi _n^{}(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n)^{1/2}\\ \sqrt{\kappa }(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n)^{1/2}\psi _n& & 1+i(\lambda /2)\mathrm{\Delta }+(\kappa /2)\psi _n^{}\psi _n\end{array}\right).$$
(5.3)
For example, at $`\lambda =\nu _A:=2i/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the infinitesimal monodromy matrix factorizes into the quantum projectors: $`(L_n(\nu _A))_{ij}=P_i(n)Q_j(n)`$ where

$$P_1(n)=\sqrt{\kappa /2}\psi _n^{},P_2(n)=\sqrt{2}\left(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n\right)^{1/2},$$
(5.4)
$$Q_1(n)=\sqrt{\kappa /2}\psi _n,Q_2(n)=\sqrt{2}\left(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5.5)
Thus, for generic coupling constant $`\kappa `$,

$$w(n+1|n)=2\left(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _{n+1}^{}\psi _{n+1}\right)^{1/2}\left(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n\right)^{1/2}+(\kappa /2)\psi _{n+1}\psi _n^{}$$
(5.6)
is an invertible operator. There exists $`D^1(\nu _A)`$.

The corresponding local operators are

$$Q_n=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2}\left(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n\right)^{1/2}\psi _n,P_n=\frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2}\psi _n^{}\left(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5.7)
In the continuum limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, they become the field operators of the quantum nonlinear Schrödinger model:

$$Q_n\frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (x,0),P_n\frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi ^{}(x,0),x=L+n\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(5.8)
and the form factors (3.14) give consistent results with .

## 6 Application to the lattice sine-Gordon model

The Hamiltonian of the quantum sine-Gordon model is given by

$$H^{(\text{SG})}=𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u}{x}\right)^2+\frac{m^2}{\beta ^2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\beta u\right)\right).$$
(6.1)
The infinitesimal monodromy matrix is given by

$$L_n(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _n^{1/2}\phi (u_n)\pi _n^{1/2}& & i(m\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\mathrm{sin}((\beta /2)u_n+i\lambda )\\ i(m\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\mathrm{sin}((\beta /2)u_ni\lambda )& & \pi _n^{1/2}\phi (u_n)\pi _n^{1/2}\end{array}\right),$$
(6.2)
$$\pi _n=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{4}\beta p_n\right),\phi (u_n)=\left(1+2r\mathrm{cos}\beta u_n\right)^{1/2},r=\left(\frac{m\mathrm{\Delta }}{4}\right)^2.$$
(6.3)
Here $`\gamma =\beta ^2/8`$ and the lattice operators $`u_n`$ and $`p_n`$ ($`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) satisfy the canonical commutation relations: $`[u_n,p_m]=i\delta _{nm}`$. In the continuum limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, $`u_nu(x)`$, $`p_n\pi (x)\mathrm{\Delta }`$, ($`L<x=L+n\mathrm{\Delta }L`$).

In order to construct the reference state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the elementary monodromy matrix should be taken as a composite of the infinitesimal monodromy matrices of two-adjacent sites :

$$_k(\lambda )=L_{2k}(\lambda )L_{2k1}(\lambda ),k=1,2,\mathrm{},N/2.$$
(6.4)
Here we assume the number of sites $`N`$ is even. Then

$$(_k(\lambda ))_{11}|\mathrm{\Omega }=a_1(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega },(_k(\lambda ))_{22}|\mathrm{\Omega }=d_1(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(6.5)
$$a_1(\lambda )=1+2r\mathrm{cosh}(2\lambda i\gamma ),d_1(\lambda )=1+2r\mathrm{cosh}(2\lambda +i\gamma ).$$
(6.6)
Thus, the shift operator is defined by

$$U_kU^1=_{k+1},U|\mathrm{\Omega }=|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(6.7)
In other words, it acts as two-site shift for the local variables: $`Uu_nU^1=u_{n+2}`$, $`Up_nU^1=p_{n+2}`$. In general, the periodic boundary condition has the form: $`u_{n+N}=u_n+(2\pi /\beta )𝒬`$, $`p_{n+N}=p_n`$ where $`𝒬`$ is the topological charge. In this paper, we only consider the sector with $`𝒬=0`$ for simplicity.

Let us introduce a positive “momentum cutoff” parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`2r\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$.

At $`\lambda =\nu _A^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}:=(1/2)(i\gamma +ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }+iϵ^{}\pi )`$, $`(ϵ,ϵ^{}=\pm 1)`$, $`a_1(\lambda )`$ vanishes and the infinitesimal monodromy matrix factorizes into the quantum projectors:

$$\left(L_n(\nu _A^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})})\right)_{ij}=P_i^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(n)Q_j^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(n).$$
(6.8)
These quantum projectors are proportional to unitary operators. From $`(_k(\lambda ))_{21}|\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, we can see that the operator

$$w^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(2k|2k1)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}Q_i^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(2k)P_i^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(2k1)$$
(6.9)
has a zero eigenvalue. So, $`w^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(2k|2k1)`$ is not invertible and consequently, $`D(\nu _A^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})})`$ is also not invertible. The assumption in section 3 that $`D(\nu _A)`$ has the inverse does not hold. We should modify the argument of section 3.

Although $`D^1(\nu _A^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})})`$ does not exist, we can define the following unitary operators:

$$P_n^{(ϵ)}:=ϵ^{}P_1^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(n)\left(P_2^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(n)\right)^1,Q_n^{(ϵ)}:=ϵ^{}\left(Q_2^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(n)\right)^1Q_1^{(ϵ,ϵ^{})}(n).$$
(6.10)
The left hand sides of the above equations do not depend on a choice of $`ϵ^{}=\pm 1`$. Without loss of generality, we set $`ϵ^{}=1`$. Let $`\nu _A^{(ϵ)}:=\nu _A^{(ϵ,+1)}`$.

Let us introduce the following unitary operators:

$$𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}:=\pi _n^{1/2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{cos}(1/2)(\beta u_niϵ\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{cos}(1/2)(\beta u_n+iϵ\mathrm{\Lambda })}\right]^{1/2}\pi _n^{1/2},ϵ=\pm 1.$$
(6.11)
Then $`P_n^{(ϵ)}=i𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}`$ and $`Q_n^{(ϵ)}=i𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}`$.

By using the explicit expressions, we can check that these operators satisfy eqs.(4.7) and (4.14).

Therefore, in place of $`D^1(\nu _A)C(\nu _A)`$, we can use the well-defined operator $`Q_1^{(ϵ)}`$. Because the unitary operator $`Q_1^{(ϵ)}`$ does not annihilate the reference state, the action of $`Q_1^{(ϵ)}`$ on the Bethe state has an “anomalous” term:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_1^{(ϵ)}\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega }& =\underset{j=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}b^{(M+1)}(\nu _A^{(ϵ)}|\lambda _j|\{\lambda _l\}_{lj})\underset{\stackrel{l=1}{lj}}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)|\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ & +\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}f(\lambda _k,\nu _A^{(ϵ)})\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)Q_1^{(ϵ)}|\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.12)
But because of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)=0,$$
(6.13)
the anomalous term gives no contribution to the form factors

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)Q_1^{(ϵ)}\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(6.14)
The formula (3.14) gives the correct result even for $`Q_1^{(ϵ)}`$.

It may seem that the anomalous term would contribute to the form factors for the same numbers of $`C(\mu )`$ and $`B(\lambda )`$. If we recall

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)=𝒩^{(M)}(\{\lambda _l\})\delta _{\{\mu _k\},\{\lambda _l\}}\mathrm{\Omega }|,$$
(6.15)
where $`𝒩^{(M)}(\{\lambda _l\})`$ is the norm of the Bethe eigenstate:

$$𝒩^{(M)}(\{\lambda _l\})=\mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\lambda _k)\right)\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(6.16)
(for the explicit form, see ), then

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Omega }|\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C(\mu _k)\right)Q_1^{(ϵ)}\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}B(\lambda _l)\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill \\ & =\delta _{\{\mu _k\},\{\lambda _l\}}𝒩^{(M)}(\{\lambda _l\})\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}f(\lambda _l,\nu _A^{(ϵ)})\right)\mathrm{\Omega }|Q_1^{(ϵ)}|\mathrm{\Omega }=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.17)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }|Q_1^{(ϵ)}|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes due to the factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i(\beta /4)p_1)`$ in $`Q_1^{(ϵ)}`$.

We conclude that although $`D^1(\nu _A^{(ϵ)})`$ does not exist, the result of section 3 is still correct for the LSG model. Thus, as a mnemonic, we can write:

$$Q_1^{(ϵ)}=D^1(\nu _A^{(ϵ)})C(\nu _A^{(ϵ)}).$$
(6.18)
By means of this mnemonic, we can make clear that the operators (6.11) have different character depending on whether $`n`$ is even or not:

$$𝒪_{2k}^{(ϵ)}=iU^kB(\nu _A^{(ϵ)})D^1(\nu _A^{(ϵ)})U^k,𝒪_{2k+1}^{(ϵ)}=iU^kD^1(\nu _A^{(ϵ)})C(\nu _A^{(ϵ)})U^k.$$
(6.19)
The operators at even sites (resp. odd sites) are creation-type (resp. annihilation-type) operators.

## 7 Discussion

In this paper, we showed that a certain class of local operators can be constructed by using the quantum projectors. The form factors of these operators were calculated by using the techniques of the algebraic Bethe ansatz.

For LNS model, these local operators (5.7) are lattice analogues of the continuum nonlinear Schrödinger fields $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(x)`$. Because the inputs are the elementary monodromy matrix $`L_n(\lambda )`$ (5.3), the “dressing” of the output by a factor $`(1+(\kappa /4)\psi _n^{}\psi _n)^{1/2}`$ seems unavoidable if one try to keep simplicity of the inverse mapping.

For LSG model, we considered the local operators $`𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}`$ in the sector of the zero topological charge $`𝒬`$. Consideration for the sector $`𝒬0`$ is necessary. Moreover, in order to make connection with the quantum sine-Gordon model, we should consider the thermodynamic limit. Notice that

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }0}{lim}e^{iϵ\gamma }𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}\left(𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}\right)^1=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }0}{lim}e^{iϵ\gamma }\left(𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}\right)^1𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}=e^{iϵ\beta u(x)}.$$
(7.1)
Therefore, in principle, the form factors of the exponential operators $`e^{\pm i\beta u(x)}`$ can be evaluated using those of $`𝒪_n^{(ϵ)}`$. Also, the results may be used to consider the form factors in the finite volume.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank M. Bellacosa and F. Ravanini for helpful discussions and INFN for financial support. This work is partially supported by the EU network EUCLID, no. HPRN-CT-2002-00325.


format: text

text:
# Reply to Comment on “Quantum Force in a Superconductor”

\[

## Abstract

A reply is made to Comment by D.P.Sheehan in which he takes notice that the quantum force introduced in my earlier paper A.V.Nikulov, Phys. Rev. B 64, 012505 (2001) challenges to the absolute status of the second law of thermodynamics. It is shown that the introduction of the quantum force explains only an experimental challenge to the second law. The observation of the persistent current at non-zero resistance $`R>0`$ is experimental evidence of violation of the postulate saving the second law in the beginning of the 20 century. According to this postulate any Brownian motion is absolutely random whereas the persistent current at $`R>0`$ is a regulated Brownian motion.

PACS numbers: 74.20.De, 73.23.Ra, 64.70.-p

\]

D.P.Sheehan writes in the Comment  that some statements of  would seem to pit some of the central predictions of quantum mechanics against the absolute status of the second law of thermodynamics. He has paid heed that ”the combination of the persistent currents and voltages in the presence of dissipation, particularly if they are driven by thermal fluctuations, is troublesome since it would appear to allow for the performance of work solely at the expense of heat energy under equilibrium conditions”. These remarks are correct.

Indeed the combination of the persistent currents and voltages is the persistent power (i.e. the dc power in the equilibrium state). It is written in  that the inhomogeneous superconducting loop with a nonzero persistent voltage $`V_{p.v.}0`$ is an electric circuit in which the $`l_a`$ segment with higher $`T_c`$ is a power source and the $`l_b`$ segment with lower $`T_c`$ is a load. The existence of such persistent power source threatens the second law although its violation can not be without any external load, when all power induced in the $`l_a`$ segment is dissipated in the $`l_b`$ segment. Real violation of the second law will take place when an external load with a resistance $`R_l`$ is linked up the $`l_a`$ segment and the power $`W_l=V_{p.v.}^2R_l/(R_l+R_b)^2`$ can be used for an useful work. $`R_b`$ is the resistance of the $`l_b`$ segment.

If the external load is an electricmotor then violation of the Thomson’s formulation takes place, if it is a resistance at higher temperature then the Clausius’s formulation is broken. The total entropy might be systematically reduced, contrary to the second law, when the power $`W_l`$ is transformed to an ordered energy, for example when an electricmotor turns a fly-wheel. In this process the chaotic energy of thermal fluctuations, i.e. the heat energy $`Q`$, is transformed in the ordered energy of the revolving fly-wheel, i.e. the total heat energy is systematically reduced with the velocity $`dQ/dt=W_l`$ (for the ideal case) and the total entropy is reduced with the velocity $`dS/dt=W_l/T`$.

In order to solve the found contradictions of  with the second law of thermodynamics D.P. Sheehan proposes two alternatives: 1) the theoretical description of quantum force system published in Phys.Rev.B  is incomplete, or 2) either our tradition understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete or the second law is violable. Because of the predominant belief in the inviolability of the second law and of the strong internal consistency and experimental support for traditional quantum mechanics D.P.Sheehan has chosen the (1) alternative and implies the existence of a compensating counterforce which exactly offsets the quantum force introduced in .

Any theoretical description may be incomplete and/or incorrect. And if a description contradicts to the second law almost everyone decides without any reflection that it can not be correct. Arthur Eddington wrote in 1948 : The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but collapse in deepest humiliation. Nevertheless I propose to do not conclude without a careful investigation of the problem.

Even if we pass a resolution that the theoretical description published in Phys.Rev.B  is incomplete or incorrect the challenge to the second law could not be removed. D.P.Sheehan writes that the dissipation of the $`I^2R`$ power during indefinite time threatens the absolute status of the second law. It is correct statement. Indeed, any power dissipation during indefinite time can not exist without a power source with $`W_s=I^2R`$. The existence of such power source is the real challenge to the second law if the current $`I`$ is not chaotic. The persistent current is not chaotic and it is observed at $`R>0`$ according to the Little-Parks experiment .

Thus the initial challenge to the second law is the Little-Parks experiment . According to the universally recognized explanation  of this experiment the resistance oscillations are observed  because of the oscillations of the persistent current. The work  explains only why the persistent current can be observed in a loop  at non-zero resistance $`R>0`$ and zero Faraday’s voltage $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt=0`$. The Little-Parks experiment is not only experimental evidence of the persistent current at $`R>0`$. The persistent current at $`R>0`$ was predicted  and observed  also in normal metal mesoscopic loops. But the Little-Parks experiment is first and most reliable evidence.

The quantum force $`F_q`$ introduced in  takes the place of the Faraday’s voltage $`(1/c)d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt`$ which maintains the screening current in a conventional loop with $`R>0`$. The current $`j`$ is stationary $`dj/dt=0`$ in a conventional loop if the electric force $`F_e=eE=(e/cl)d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt`$ offsets the dissipation force $`F_e=eE=F_{dis}=e\rho j`$. Because the dissipation force should act at $`\rho >0`$ and $`j0`$ the persistent current can exist only if a force offsets the dissipation force. Therefore the introduction of the quantum force in  is well-grounded. D.P.Sheehan assumes the existence of a compensating counterforce which exactly offsets the quantum force. This compensating counterforce can be only the dissipation force. In the opposed case the balance of the forces would be broken. If an other compensating counterforce exactly offsets the quantum force then we should introduce an additional force in order to explain the observation of the persistent current at $`R>0`$.

According to  the persistent current $`j_{p.c.}`$ does not go out slowly at $`R>0`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt=0`$ since the momentum circulation of superconducting pairs $`_l𝑑lp=_l𝑑l(2mv_s+(2e/c)A)`$ should change at each closing of the superconducting state in the loop from $`(2e/c)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`n2\pi \mathrm{}`$ because of the quantization. The velocity of the momentum change equals a force inducing this change. Therefore the circulation of the quantum force $`_l𝑑lF_q=2\pi \mathrm{}(n\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\omega _{sw}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\pi \mathrm{}c/e`$ is the flux quantum; $`\omega _{sw}`$ is the average frequency of switching of the loop between superconducting states with different connectivity.

The quantum force is not connected somehow with the $`T_c`$-inhomogeneity. It can act in both inhomogeneous and homogeneous loops. But the persistent voltage can be observed only in an inhomogeneous loop. The possibility of the persistent voltage predicted in  is obvious from an analogy with a conventional inhomogeneous loop. According to the Ohm’s law $`\rho j=E=V(1/c)dA/dt=V(1/cl)d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt`$ the potential difference $`V=(<\rho >_{l_s}<\rho >_l)l_sj`$ should be observed on a segment $`l_s`$ of an inhomogeneous loop at $`j0`$ if the average resistivity along this segment $`<\rho >_{l_s}=_{l_s}𝑑l\rho /l_s`$ differs from the one along the loop $`<\rho >_l=_l𝑑l\rho /l`$. Therefore the existence of the persistent current implies a possibility of the persistent voltage which can be observed on segments of an inhomogeneous loop. The value and sign of this voltage, as well as of the persistent current, should depend in a periodic way on a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ inside the loop: $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$. Such voltage oscillations were measured recently on segments of an asymmetric Al loop . This experimental result corroborate that the quantum force as well as the Faraday’s voltage is distributed uniformly among the loop and can not be localized in any loop segment .

D.P.Sheehan proposes the interesting comparison with the case of semiconductor diodes, which from time to time have been invoked in possible scenarios for second law violation . Indeed, what difference is between the loop with the persistent current at $`R>0`$ and an conventional electric circuit with semiconductor diodes. It is well known that any resistance at nonzero temperature is the power source of the thermally induced voltage called the Nyquist’s (or Johnson’s) noise. This phenomenon was described theoretically by Nyquist  and was observed by Johnson  as long ago as 1928 year. The Nyquist’s noise is a dynamic phenomenon in the equilibrium state at nonzero dissipation. Such phenomena are called Brownian motion .

The persistent current at $`R>0`$ is also a dynamic phenomenon in the equilibrium state at nonzero dissipation. Therefore it is natural that the maximum power of the persistent current $`(k_BT)^2/\mathrm{}`$  is close to the total power of the Nyquist’s noise. But there is an important difference between these two Brownian motions. The power of the Nyquist’s noise is chaotic. In the classical limit $`\mathrm{}\omega k_BT`$ it is ”spread” on all frequencies $`\omega `$, $`W_{Nyq}=k_BT\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ , is proportional to the frequency band $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ and $`W_{Nyq}=0`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =0`$. As opposed to this the power of the persistent current is not chaotic. It is not equal zero $`0<W_{p.c.}(k_BT)^2/\mathrm{}`$ at $`\omega =0`$. Because of this difference the persistent current at $`R>0`$ is the challenge to the second law whereas the Nyquist’s noise is not the one.

The investigations of the Brownian motion in the beginning of the 20 century were very important for the history of physics. Thanks to these investigations the atomistic-kinetic ideology has prevailed once and for all the thermodynamic-energetic one prevailing in 19 century . The Brownian motion is clear and monosemantic evidence of the perpetual motion which was considered as impossible according to the interpretation of the second law prevailing in 19 century. It ought be emphasized that the Brownian motion is evidence not only of the perpetual motion but also of a perpetual driving force because no motion is possible without a driving force at non-zero friction. Therefore this phenomenon was interpreted as the challenge to the second law in the beginning of 20 century .

The second law was rescued in that time by the postulate of absolute randomness of any Brownian motion and it has become the law of chaos increase. According to the belief prevailing during 20 century the perpetual motion exists but it is random and therefore can not be used for an useful work. In order any Brownian motion (for example the Nyquist’s noise) can be used it should be put in a order (for example to be rectified). The possibility of the Nyquist’s noise rectification has been considered in  referred by D.P.Sheehan and in other works . Electric diodes can rectify the Nyquist’s noise only if a temperature difference is in the electric circuit . The rectified Nyquist’s noise can be used to perform work. But this is not the challenge to the second law because the work is extracted owing to a temperature difference as well as in any other existing heat engine .

The rectification of the Nyquist’s noise  appertains to the numerous challenges to the second law authors of which consider any possibility to put in a order the chaotic Brownian motion . The best known one - the Maxwell’s demon was posed by Maxwell in 1867. As opposed to these known challenges the persistent current at $`R>0`$ is already regulated Brownian motion and therefore can be used to perform work without any rectification. This phenomenon is possible since the postulate of absolute randomness of any Brownian motion is not correct according to the quantum mechanics. According to the classical mechanics the average velocity of any Brownian motion equals zero: if spectrum of permitted states is continuous then for any state with a velocity $`v`$ a permitted state with opposite velocity $`v`$ and the same probability $`P(v^2)`$ exists, therefore $`\overline{v}=_{per.st.}vP(v^2)+(v)P(v^2)0`$. But according to the quantum mechanics no all states are permitted. Therefore the average velocity of some quantum Brownian motion can be non-zero $`\overline{v}0`$.

The introduction of the quantum force in  for the description of the persistent current at $`R>0`$ is reminiscent the introduction of the Langevin force $`F_{Lan}`$ for the description of the classical Brownian motion. The quantum force induced by the fluctuations is the Langevin force with non-zero average value. The latter is very important. The Langevin equation

$$m\frac{dv}{dt}+\gamma v=F_{Lan}$$
$`(1)`$
can be used for the description both of the Brownian motion and the motion of an automobile. The only qualitative difference consists in the character of the driving force: the average force driving an automobile should be non-zero, whereas it was postulated that the Langevin force $`F_{Lan}`$ is absolutely random and its average value equals zero $`\overline{F_{Lan}}=0`$ in all cases. But if $`\overline{F_{Lan}}0`$ then the Brownian motion does not differ qualitatively from the motion of an automobile and it can be used in order to drive the automobile in violation of the second law.

The quantum force induced by the fluctuations as well as any Langevin force is the balancing counterforce to the dissipation force $`F_{dis}=\gamma v`$: $`\overline{F_{Lan}}=\overline{F_{dis}}=\overline{\gamma v}`$. This balance differs qualitatively from the one of the electrostatic and ”diffisive” forces in the p-n junction of semiconductor diodes considered in . The first balance is dynamic $`\overline{v}0`$ and consequently both $`\overline{F_{Lan}}`$ and $`\overline{F_{dis}}`$ perform the work whereas the second balance is static and the work is not performed. As it is well known the work performed by the dissipation force $`\overline{F_{dis}}`$ increases the entropy. Consequently the work performed by its counterforce $`\overline{F_{Lan}}0`$ decreases the entropy in violation of the second law.

In summary, D.P.Sheehan raises the correct and important question. Some statements published in Phys.Rev.B  contradict definitely to the second law of thermodynamics. But it is not correct to conclude without careful consideration that the analysis made in  is incomplete. The main threat for the absolute status of the second law is the experimental observation of the nonchaotic Brownian motion. There is repeated the situation which was in the beginning of 20 century when the classical Brownian motion was interpreted as the challenge to the second law. The quantum force is introduced  in order to explain the observation of the persistent current at $`R>0`$ just as the Langevin force was introduced in order to explain the observation of the motion of the Brownian particles under equilibrium conditions. In order to save the second law from the new appearing threat an alternative (to ) explanation of the persistent current at $`R>0`$ should be proposed.


text:
# Restricted Partition Functions as Bernoulli and Euler Polynomials of Higher Order

## 1 Introduction

The problem of partitions of positive integers has long history started from the work of Euler who laid a foundation of the theory of partitions , introducing the idea of generating functions. Many prominent mathematicians contributed to the development of the theory using the Euler idea.

J.J. Sylvester provided a new insight and made a remarkable progress in this field. He found  the procedure enabling to determine a restricted partition functions, and described symmetry properties of such functions. The restricted partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)W(s,\{d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_m\})`$ is a number of partitions of $`s`$ into positive integers $`\{d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_m\}`$, each not greater than $`s`$. The generating function for $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ has a form

$$F(t,𝐝^m)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{1t^{d_i}}=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W(s,𝐝^m)t^s,$$
(1)
where $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ satisfies the basic recursive relation

$$W(s,𝐝^m)W(sd_m,𝐝^m)=W(s,𝐝^{m1}).$$
(2)
Sylvester also proved the statement about splitting of the partition function into periodic and non-periodic parts and showed that the restricted partition function may be presented as a sum of ”waves”, which we call the Sylvester waves

$$W(s,𝐝^m)=\underset{j=1}{}W_j(s,𝐝^m),$$
(3)
where summation runs over all distinct factors in the set $`𝐝^m`$. The wave $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ is a quasipolynomial in $`s`$ closely related to prime roots $`\rho _j`$ of unit. Namely, Sylvester showed in  that the wave $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ is a coefficient of $`t^1`$ in the series expansion in ascending powers of $`t`$ of

$$F_j(s,t)=\underset{\rho _j}{}\frac{\rho _j^se^{st}}{_{k=1}^m\left(1\rho _j^{d_k}e^{d_kt}\right)}.$$
(4)
The summation is made over all prime roots of unit $`\rho _j=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in/j)`$ for $`n`$ relatively prime to $`j`$ (including unity) and smaller than $`j`$. This result is just a recipe for calculation of the partition function and it does not provide explicit formula.

Using the Sylvester recipe we find an explicit formula for the Sylvester wave $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ in a form of finite sum of the Bernoulli polynomials of higher order  multiplied by a periodic function of integer period $`j`$. The periodic factor is expressed through the generalized Euler polynomials of higher order .

A special symbolic technique is developed in the theory of polynomials of higher order, which significantly simplifies computations performed with these polynomials. A short description of this technique required for better understanding of this paper is given in Appendix A.

## 2 Sylvester wave $`W_1(s,𝐝^m)`$ and Bernoulli polynomials
of higher order

Consider a polynomial part of the partition function corresponding to the wave $`W_1(s,𝐝^m)`$. It may be found as a residue of the generator

$$F_1(s,t)=\frac{e^{st}}{_{i=1}^m(1e^{d_it})}.$$
(5)
Recalling the generating function for the Bernoulli polynomials of higher order :

$$\frac{e^{st}t^m_{i=1}^md_i}{_{i=1}^m(e^{d_it}1)}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_n^{(m)}(s|𝐝^m)\frac{t^n}{n!},$$
(6)
and a transformation rule

$$B_n^{(m)}(s|𝐝^m)=B_n^{(m)}(s+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i|𝐝^m),$$

we obtain the relation

$$\frac{e^{st}}{_{i=1}^m(1e^{d_it})}=\frac{1}{\pi _m}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_n^{(m)}(s+s_m|𝐝^m)\frac{t^{nm}}{n!},$$
(7)
where

$$s_m=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i,\pi _m=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i.$$

It is immediately seen from (7) that the coefficient of $`1/t`$ in (5) is given by the term with $`n=m1`$

$$W_1(s,𝐝^m)=\frac{1}{(m1)!\pi _m}B_{m1}^{(m)}(s+s_m|𝐝^m).$$
(8)
The polynomial part also admits a symbolic form frequently used in theory of higher order polynomials

$$W_1(s,𝐝^m)=\frac{1}{(m1)!\pi _m}\left(s+s_m+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B\right)^{m1},$$
(9)
where after expansion powers $`r_i`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{i}B`$ are converted into orders of the Bernoulli numbers

$${}_{}{}^{i}B_{}^{r_i}B_{r_i}.$$
(10)
It is easy to recognize in (8) the explicit formula reported recently in , which was obtained by a straightforward computation of the complex residue of the generator (5).

Note that basic recursive relation for the Bernoulli polynomials

$$B_n^{(m)}(s+d_m|𝐝^m)B_n^{(m)}(s|𝐝^m)=nd_mB_{n1}^{(m1)}(s|𝐝^{m1})$$
(11)
naturally leads to the basic recursive relation for the polynomial part of the partition function:

$$W_1(s,𝐝^m)W_1(sd_m,𝐝^m)=W_1(s,𝐝^{m1}),$$
(12)
which coincides with (2). This indicates that the Bernoulli polynomials of higher order represent a natural basis for expansion of the partition function and its waves.

## 3 Sylvester wave $`W_2(s,𝐝^m)`$ and Euler numbers
of higher order

In order to compute the Sylvester wave with period $`j>1`$ we note, that the summand in the expression (4) can be rewritten as a product

$$F_j(s,t)=\underset{\rho _j}{}\frac{e^{st}}{_{i=1}^{\omega _j}(1e^{d_it})}\times \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i}e^{d_it})},$$
(13)
where the elements in $`𝐝^m`$ are sorted in a way that $`j`$ is a divisor for first $`\omega _j`$ elements (we say that $`j`$ has weight $`\omega _j`$), and the rest elements in the set are not divisible by $`j`$.

Then a 2-periodic Sylvester wave $`W_2(s,𝐝^m)`$ is a residue of the generator

$$F_2(s,t)=\frac{e^{st}}{_{i=1}^{\omega _2}(1e^{d_it})}\times \frac{(1)^s}{_{i=\omega _2+1}^m(1+e^{d_it})},$$
(14)
where first $`\omega _2`$ integers $`d_i`$ are even, and the summation is omitted being trivially restricted to the only value $`\rho _2=1`$. Recalling the generating function for the Euler polynomials of higher order  and corresponding recursive relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2^me^{st}}{_{i=1}^m(e^{d_it}+1)}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}E_n^{(m)}(s|𝐝^m){\displaystyle \frac{t^n}{n!}},`$ (15)
$`E_n^{(m)}(s+d_m|𝐝^m)+E_n^{(m)}(s|𝐝^m)=2E_n^{(m1)}(s|𝐝^{m1}),`$
we may rewrite (14) as double infinite sum

$$\frac{(1)^s}{2^{m\omega _2}\pi _{\omega _2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_n^{(\omega _2)}(s+s_{\omega _2}|𝐝^{\omega _2})\frac{t^{n\omega _2}}{n!}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_l^{(m\omega _2)}(s_ms_{\omega _2}|𝐝^{m\omega _2})\frac{t^l}{l!}.$$
(16)
The coefficient of $`1/t`$ in the above series is found for $`n+l=\omega _21`$, so that we end up with a finite sum:

$$W_2(s,𝐝^m)=\frac{(1)^s}{(\omega _21)!\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{m\omega _2}\pi _{\omega _2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _21}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _21}{n}\right)B_n^{(\omega _2)}(s+s_{\omega _2}|𝐝^{\omega _2})E_{\omega _21n}^{(m\omega _2)}(s_ms_{\omega _2}|𝐝^{m\omega _2}).$$
(17)
This expression may be rewritten as a symbolic power similar to (9):

$$W_2(s,𝐝^m)=\frac{(1)^s}{(\omega _21)!\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{m\omega _2}\pi _{\omega _2}}\left(s+s_m+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\omega _2}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B+\underset{i=\omega _2+1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}E(0)\right)^{\omega _21},$$
(18)
where the rule for the Euler polynomials at zero $`E_n(0)`$ similar to (10) is applied. It is easy to rewrite formula (18) in a form

$$W_2(s,𝐝^m)=\frac{(1)^s}{(\omega _21)!\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{m\omega _2}\pi _{\omega _2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _21}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _21}{n}\right)B_n^{(\omega _2)}(s+s_m|𝐝^{\omega _2})E_{\omega _21n}^{(m\omega _2)}(0|𝐝^{m\omega _2}),$$
(19)
where $`E_n^{(m)}(0|𝐝^m)`$ denote the Euler polynomials of higher orders computed at zero as follows:

$$E_n^{(m)}(0|𝐝^m)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}E(0)\right]^n.$$
(20)
The formula (19) shows that the wave $`W_2(s,𝐝^m)`$ can be written as an expansion over the Bernoulli polynomials of higher order with constant coefficients, multiplied by a 2-periodic function $`(1)^s`$.

## 4 Sylvester waves $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)(j>2)`$ and Euler
polynomials of higher order

Frobenius  studied in great detail the polynomials $`H_n(s,\rho )`$ satisfying the generating function

$$\frac{(1\rho )e^{st}}{e^t\rho }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_n(s,\rho )\frac{t^n}{n!},(\rho 1),$$
(21)
which reduces to definition of the Euler polynomials at fixed value of the parameter $`\rho `$

$$E_n(s)=H_n(s,1).$$

The polynomials $`H_n(\rho )H_n(0,\rho )`$ satisfy the symbolic recursion ($`H_0(\rho )=1`$)

$$\rho H_n(\rho )=(H(\rho )+1)^n,n>0.$$
(22)
The generalization of (15) is straightforward

$$\frac{e^{st}_{i=1}^m(1\rho ^{d_i})}{_{i=1}^m(e^{d_it}\rho ^{d_i})}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_n^{(m)}(s,\rho |𝐝^m)\frac{t^n}{n!},(\rho ^{d_i}1),$$
(23)
where the corresponding recursive relation for $`H_n^{(m)}(s,\rho |𝐝^m)`$ has the form

$$H_n^{(m)}(s+d_m,\rho |𝐝^m)\rho ^{d_m}H_n^{(m)}(s,\rho |𝐝^m)=\left(1\rho ^{d_m}\right)H_n^{(m1)}(s,\rho |𝐝^{m1}).$$
(24)
The generalized Euler polynomials of higher order $`H_n^{(m)}(s,\rho |𝐝^m)`$ introduced by L. Carlitz in  can be defined through the symbolic formula

$$H_n^{(m)}(s,\rho |𝐝^m)=\left(s+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}H(\rho ^{d_i})\right)^n,$$
(25)
where $`H_n(\rho )`$ computed from the relation

$$\frac{1\rho }{e^t\rho }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_n(\rho )\frac{t^n}{n!},$$

or using the recursion (22). Using the polynomials $`H_n^{(m)}(s,\rho |𝐝^m)`$ we can compute Sylvester wave of arbitrary period.

Consider a $`j`$-periodic Sylvester wave $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$, and rewrite the summand in (13) as double infinite sum

$$\frac{\rho _j^s}{\pi _{\omega _j}_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_n^{(\omega _j)}(s+s_{\omega _j}|𝐝^{\omega _j})\frac{t^{n\omega _j}}{n!}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_l^{(m\omega _j)}(s_ms_{\omega _j},\rho _j|𝐝^{m\omega _j})\frac{t^l}{l!}.$$
(26)
The coefficient of $`1/t`$ in the above series is found for $`n+l=\omega _j1`$, so that we have a finite sum:

$`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}\times `$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{n}}\right)B_n^{(\omega _j)}(s+s_{\omega _j}|𝐝^{\omega _j})H_{\omega _j1n}^{(m\omega _j)}(s_ms_{\omega _j},\rho _j|𝐝^{m\omega _j}).`$
This expression may be rewritten as a symbolic power similar to (18):

$$W_j(s,𝐝^m)=\frac{1}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}}\underset{\rho _j}{}\frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}\left(s+s_m+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\omega _j}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B+\underset{i=\omega _j+1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}H(\rho _j^{d_i})\right)^{\omega _j1},$$
(28)
which is equal to

$`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{n}}\right)B_n^{(\omega _j)}(s+s_m|𝐝^{\omega _j})\times `$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}H_{\omega _j1n}^{(m\omega _j)}[\rho _j|𝐝^{m\omega _j}],`$
where

$$H_n^{(m)}[\rho |𝐝^m]=H_n^{(m)}(0,\rho |𝐝^m)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}H(\rho ^{d_i})\right]^n,$$
(30)
are generalized Euler numbers of higher order and it is assumed that

$$H_0^{(0)}[\rho |\mathrm{}]=1,H_n^{(0)}[\rho |\mathrm{}]=0,n>0.$$

It should be underlined that the presentation of the Sylvester wave as a finite sum of the Bernoulli polynomials with periodic coefficients (29) is not unique. The symbolic formula (28) can be cast into a sum of the generalized Euler polynomials

$`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{n}}\right)B_n^{(\omega _j)}[𝐝^{\omega _j}]\times `$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}H_{\omega _j1n}^{(m\omega _j)}(s+s_m,\rho _j|𝐝^{m\omega _j}),`$
where

$$B_n^{(m)}[𝐝^m]=B_n^{(m)}(0|𝐝^m)$$

are the Bernoulli numbers of higher order.

Substitution of the expression (29) into the expansion (3) immediately produces the partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ as finite sum of the Bernoulli polynomials of higher order multiplied by periodic functions with period equal to the least common multiple of the elements in $`𝐝^m`$

$`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{n}}\right)B_n^{(\omega _j)}(s+s_m|𝐝^{\omega _j})\times `$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}H_{\omega _j1n}^{(m\omega _j)}[\rho _j|𝐝^{m\omega _j}].`$
The partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ has several interesting properties. Analysis of the generating function (1) shows that the partition function is a homogeneous function of zero order with respect to all its arguments, i.e.,

$$W(ks,k𝐝^m)=W(s,𝐝^m).$$
(33)
This property appears very useful for computation of the partition function in case when the elements $`d_i`$ have a common factor $`k`$, then

$$W(s,k𝐝^m)=W(\frac{s}{k},𝐝^m).$$
(34)
The case of $`m`$ identical elements $`𝐩^m=\{p,\mathrm{},p\}`$ appears to be the simplest and is reduced to the known formula for Catalan partitions : the Diophantine equation $`x_1+x_2+...+x_m=s`$ has $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s+m1}{s}\right)`$ sets of non-negative solutions.

Using (34) for $`s`$ divisible by $`p`$ we arrive at

$$W(s,𝐩^m)=W(\frac{s}{p},\mathrm{𝟏}^m)=W_1(\frac{s}{p},\mathrm{𝟏}^m)=\frac{B_{m1}^{(m)}(s/p+m|\mathrm{𝟏}^m)}{(m1)!}.$$

The straightforward computation shows that

$$B_{m1}^{(m)}(s+m|\mathrm{𝟏}^m)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{m1}{}}(s+k)=\frac{(s+m1)!}{s!},$$

so that

$$W(s,𝐩^m)=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{k=1}^{m1}\left(1+\frac{s}{kp}\right),\hfill & s=0(modp),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & s0(modp).\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
In the end of this Section we consider a special case of the tuple $`\{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{}p_m\}`$ of primes $`p_j`$ which leads to essential simplification of the formula (32). The first Sylvester wave $`W_1`$ is given by (8) while all higher waves arising are purely periodic

$$W_{p_i}(s;\{p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_m\})=\frac{1}{p_i}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p_i1}{}}\frac{\rho _{p_i}^{ks}}{_{ji}^m\left(1\rho _{p_i}^{kp_j}\right)}.$$
(36)
The further simplification $`m=2,s=ap_1p_2`$ makes it possible to verify the partition identity

$`W(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=a+1,`$ (37)
which follows from the recursion relation (2) for the restricted partition function and its definition

$`W(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})W(ap_1p_2p_1,\{p_1,p_2\})=W(ap_1p_2,\{p_2\}),`$
$`W(ap_1p_2,\{p_2\})=1,W(ap_1p_2p_1,\{p_1,p_2\})=W((al)p_1p_2+(lp_21)p_1,\{p_1,p_2\})=a,`$
where $`a`$ solutions of the Diophantine equation $`p_1X+p_2Y=(al)p_1p_2+(lp_21)p_1`$ correspond to $`l=1,\mathrm{},a`$. The relation (37) has an important geometrical interpretation, namely, a line $`p_1X+p_2Y=ap_1p_2`$ in the $`XY`$ plane passes exactly through $`a+1`$ points with non-negative integer coordinates.

The verification of (37) is straightforward (see Appendix B for details):

$`W_1(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_2}}\right),`$
$`W_{p_1}(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_1}},W_{p_2}(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_2}},`$ (38)
which produces the required result.

A generalization of (37) is possible using the explicit form of the partition function

$$W(s,\{p_1,p_2\})=\frac{1}{p_1p_2}\left(s+\frac{p_1+p_2}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{p_1}\underset{\rho _{p_1}}{}\frac{\rho _{p_1}^s}{1\rho _{p_1}^{p_2}}+\frac{1}{p_2}\underset{\rho _{p_2}}{}\frac{\rho _{p_2}^s}{1\rho _{p_2}^{p_1}}.$$
(39)
Setting here $`s=ap_1p_2+b,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}b<p_1p_2`$ and noting that the value of two last terms in (39) don’t depend on the integer $`a`$, one can easily see that

$$W(ap_1p_2+b,\{p_1,p_2\})=a+W(b,\{p_1,p_2\}),$$
(40)
which reduces the procedure to computation of the first $`p_1p_2`$ values of $`W(s,\{p_1,p_2\})`$. Recalling that $`W(0,\{p_1,p_2\})=1`$ we immediately recover (37) as a particular case of (40).

## 5 Recursive Relation for Sylvester Waves

In this Section we prove that the recursive relation similar to (2) holds not only for the entire partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ and its polynomial part $`W_1(s,𝐝^m)`$ but also for each Sylvester wave

$$W_j(s,𝐝^m)W_j(sd_m,𝐝^m)=W_j(s,𝐝^{m1}).$$
(41)
When $`j`$ is not a divisor of $`d_m`$, the weight $`\omega _j`$ doesn’t change in transition from $`𝐝^{m1}`$ to $`𝐝^m`$. Denoting for brevity

$$A(s)=s+s_{m1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\omega _j}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B+\underset{i=\omega _j+1}{\overset{m1}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}H(\rho _j^{d_i}),B_{\omega _j}=\frac{1}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}},$$

we have

$`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}\left(A(s)+d_m[1+H(\rho _j^{d_m})]\right)^{\omega _j1}`$
$`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{l}}\right)A^{\omega _j1l}(s)d_m^l[1+H(\rho _j^{d_m})]^l.`$
Now using (22) we have

$`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}\left\{A^{\omega _j1}(s)+\rho _j^{d_m}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{l}}\right)A^{\omega _j1l}(s)d_m^lH_l(\rho _j^{d_m})\right\}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}\left\{(1\rho _j^{d_m})A^{\omega _j1}(s)+\rho _j^{d_m}\left(A(s)+d_mH(\rho _j^{d_m})\right)^{\omega _j1}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^{(sd_m)}}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}\left(A(s)+d_mH(\rho _j^{d_m})\right)^{\omega _j1}+B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^sA^{\omega _j1}(s)}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^{m1}(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}`$
$`=`$ $`W_j(sd_m,𝐝^m)+W_j(s,𝐝^{m1}).`$
In case of $`j`$ being divisor of $`d_m`$ the weight of $`j`$ for the set $`𝐝^{m1}`$ is equal to $`\omega _j1`$, and we have

$$W_j(s,𝐝^{m1})=\frac{(\omega _j1)d_m}{(\omega _j1)!\pi _{\omega _j}}\underset{\rho _j}{}\frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j}^{m1}(1\rho _j^{d_i})}\left(s+s_{m1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B+\underset{i=\omega _j}{\overset{m1}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}H(\rho _j^{d_i})\right)^{\omega _j2}.$$
(43)
Denoting

$$A(s)=s+s_{m1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B+\underset{i=\omega _j}{\overset{m1}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}H(\rho _j^{d_i}),D(s,\rho _j)=\frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})},$$

and using the symbolic formula for the Bernoulli numbers

$$(B+1)^n=B^n=B_n(n1),$$

we obtain

$`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}D(s,\rho _j)[A(s)+d_m(B+1)]^{\omega _j1}`$
$`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}D(s,\rho _j){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{l}}\right)A^{\omega _j1l}(s)d_m^l(B+1)^l`$
$`=`$ $`B_{\omega _j}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}D(s,\rho _j)[A(s)+d_mB]^{\omega _j1}+B_{\omega _j}d_m(\omega _j1){\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}D(s,\rho _j)A^{\omega _j2}(s)`$
$`=`$ $`W_j(sd_m,𝐝^m)+W_j(s,𝐝^{m1}),`$
which completes the proof.

## 6 Partition function $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ for a set of natural
numbers

Sylvester waves for a set of consecutive natural numbers $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}=\{\overline{m}\}`$ was under special consideration in . An importance of this case based on its relation to the invariants of symmetric group $`S_m`$ (see next Section) and, second, $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ form a natural basis to utilize the partition functions for every subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$. This case is also important due to the famous Rademacher formula  for unrestricted partition function $`W(s,\{\overline{s}\})`$, but the latter already belongs to the analytical number theory.

The representation for $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ in terms of higher Bernoulli polynomials comes when we put into (32)

$$\omega _j=\left[\frac{m}{j}\right],\pi _{\omega _j}=\omega _j!j^{\omega _j},s_{\omega _j}=\frac{\omega _j(\omega _j+1)}{2},$$
(45)
where $`[x]`$ denotes integer part of $`x`$. The partition function in this case reads

$`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j^{\omega _j}}{(\omega _j1)!\omega _j!}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\omega _j1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega _j1}{n}}\right)B_n^{(\omega _j)}(s+{\displaystyle \frac{m(m+1)}{2}}|𝐝^{\omega _j})\times `$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j^s}{_{i=\omega _j+1}^m(1\rho _j^{d_i})}}H_{\omega _j1n}^{(m\omega _j)}[\rho _j|𝐝^{m\omega _j}],`$
where $`𝐝^{\omega _j}=j\{\overline{\omega }\}`$, so that for each $`j`$ we have elements divisible by $`j`$ at first $`\omega _j`$ positions. The expression for the Sylvester wave of the maximal period $`m`$ looks particularly simple

$$W_m(s,\{\overline{m}\})=\frac{1}{m^2}\underset{\rho _m}{}\rho _m^s.$$
(47)
The straightforward calculations show that the expression (46) produces exactly the same formulas for $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},12`$ which were obtained in .

It needs to be noted that typically the argument $`s`$ in all formulas derived above is assumed to have integer values, but it is obvious that all results can be extended to real values of $`s`$, though such extension is not unique. Continuous values of the argument provide a convenient way to analyze the behavior of the partition function and its waves. In this work we choose the natural extension scheme based on the trigonometric functions

$$\rho _j^s=e^{2\pi ins/j}=\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi ns}{j}+i\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi ns}{j}.$$

We finish this Section with a brief discussion of a phenomenon better observed in graphics of $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ with large $`m`$ rather from the explicit expressions (see formulas (52) and Figures of restricted partition functions in ).

In the range $`[\frac{m(m+1)}{2},0]`$ where $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ has all its zeroes, one can easily assume an existence of a function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ which envelopes $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ or approximates it in some sense. The decomposition of $`W(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$ into the Sylvester waves shows that this role may be assigned to the wave $`W_1(s,\{\overline{m}\})`$. The Figures 1, 2 show that $`W_1(s,\{\overline{21}\})`$ serves as a good approximant for $`W(s,\{\overline{21}\})`$ in this range as well as for large $`s`$.

## 7 Application to invariants of finite groups

The restricted partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ has a strong relationship to the invariants of finite reflection groups $`G`$ acting on the vector space $`V`$ over the field of complex numbers. If $`M^G(t)`$ is a Molien function of the finite group, $`d_r`$ and $`m`$ are degrees and a number of the basic homogeneous invariants respectively, then its series expansion in $`t`$ gives a number $`P(s,G)`$ of algebraically independent invariants of the degree $`s`$. The set of natural numbers $`\{\overline{m}\}`$ corresponds to the symmetric group $`S_m:W(s,\{\overline{m}\})=P(s,S_m)`$. The list of $`P(s,G)`$ for all indecomposable reflections groups $`G`$ acting over the field of real numbers and known as Coxeter groups is presented in . It is easy to extend these formulas over indecomposable pseudoreflections groups acting over the field of complex numbers using the list of 37 groups given by Shepard and Todd . In this Section we extend the results of Section 4 to all finite groups.

First, we recall an algebraic setup of the problem. The fundamental problem of the invariant theory consists in determination of an algebra $`𝖱^G`$ of invariants. Its solution is given by the Noether theorem : $`𝖱^G`$ is generated by a polynomial $`\vartheta _k(x_j)`$ as an algebra due to action of finite group $`GGL(V^q)`$ on the $`q`$-dimensional vector space $`V^q(x_j)`$ over the field of complex numbers by not more than $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|G|+q}{q}\right)`$ homogeneous invariants, of degrees not exceeding the order $`|G|`$ of group

$$k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|G|+q}{q}\right),jdimV^q=q,\mathrm{deg}\vartheta _k(x_j)|G|.$$
(48)
To enumerate the invariants explicitly, it is convenient to classify them by their degrees (as polynomials). A classical theorem of Molien  gives an explicit expression for a number $`P(s,G)`$ of all homogeneous invariants of degree $`s`$

$$M^G(t)=\frac{1}{|G|}\underset{l=1}{\overset{|G|}{}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\widehat{g}_l)}{det(\widehat{I}t\widehat{g}_l)}=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(s,G)t^s,P(0,G)=1,$$
(49)
where $`\widehat{g}_l`$ are non–singular $`(n\times n)`$–permutation matrices with entries, which form the regular representation of $`G`$, $`\widehat{I}`$ is the identity matrix and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is the complex conjugate to character $`\chi `$. The further progress is due to Hilbert and his syzygy theorem . For our purpose it is important that $`M^G(t)`$ is a rational polynomial

$$M^G(t)=\frac{N^G(t)}{_{l=1}^n\left(1t^{d_l}\right)},N^G(t)=\underset{k=0}{}Q(k,G)t^k.$$
(50)
The formula (50) is very convenient to express the function $`P(s,G)`$ through the Sylvester waves $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$. Recalling the definition (1) of the generating function $`F(t,𝐝^m)`$ consider a general term $`t^kF(t,𝐝^m)`$ of the Molien function (50)

$`t^kF(t,𝐝^m)={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}W(s,𝐝^m)t^{s+k}={\displaystyle \underset{s=k}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}W(sk,𝐝^m)t^s,`$ (51)
so that the corresponding partition function is $`W(sk,𝐝^m)`$, which implies that the number $`P(s,G)`$ of all homogeneous invariants of degree $`s`$ for the finite group $`G`$ can be expressed through the simple relation

$$P(s,G)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}Q(k,G)W(sk,𝐝^m).$$
(52)
We consider several instructive examples for which the explicit expression of the Molien function $`M^G(t)`$ and the corresponding number of homogeneous invariants $`P(s,G)`$ are given.

1. Alternating group $`𝖠_n`$ generated by its natural $`n`$–dimensional representation, $`|𝖠_n|=n!/2`$.

$`M_{𝖠_n}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+t^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1t^k}}.`$
$`P(s,𝖠_n)`$ $`=`$ $`W(s,\{\overline{n}\})+W(s{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}},\{\overline{n}\}).`$ (53)
The group $`𝖠_n`$ is acting on Euclidean vector space $`^n`$.

2. Group $`𝖦_2`$ generated by matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _n& 0\\ 0& \rho _n^1\end{array}\right)`$, where $`\rho _n=e^{2\pi i/n}`$ is a primitive $`n`$–th root of unity, $`|𝖦_2|=n`$.

$`M_{𝖦_2}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+t^n}{(1t^2)(1t^n)}}.`$
$`P(s,𝖦_2)`$ $`=`$ $`W(s,\{2,n\})+W(sn,\{2,n\}).`$ (54)
$`𝖦_2`$ is isomorphic as an abstract group to the cyclic group $`𝖹_n`$ acting on Euclidean vector space $`^2`$.

3. Group $`𝖦_3`$ generated by the matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _n& 0\\ 0& \rho _n^1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`|𝖦_3|=2n`$.

$`M_{𝖦_3}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1t^2)(1t^n)}},P(s,𝖦_3)=W(s,\{2,n\})`$ (55)
$`𝖦_3`$ is isomorphic as an abstract group to the dihedral group $`𝖨_n`$ acting on Euclidean vector space $`^2`$.

4. Group $`𝖦_4`$ generated by $`(n\times n)`$–diagonal matrix diag$`(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$, $`|𝖦_4|=2`$.

$`M_{𝖦_4}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1t^2)^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2k}}\right)t^{2k}.`$
$`P(s,𝖦_4)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}_{k=0}^{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2k}\right)W(s2k,\mathrm{𝟐}^n)=W(s,\mathrm{𝟏}^n),\hfill & s=0(mod2),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & s0(mod2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (58)
$`𝖦_4`$ is isomorphic as an abstract group to the cyclic group $`𝖹_2`$ acting on Euclidean vector space $`^n`$.

It is easy to see that both groups $`𝖦_2`$ and $`𝖦_4`$ acting on $`^2`$ give rise to the same Molien function and corresponding number of invariants

$`M_{𝖹_2}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1+t^2}{(1t^2)^2}},P(s,𝖹_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}W(s,\mathrm{𝟏}^2),\hfill & s=0(mod2),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & s0(mod2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (61)
5. Group $`𝖰_{4n}`$ generated by the matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{2n}& 0\\ 0& \rho _{2n}^1\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`|𝖰_{4n}|=4n`$.

$`M_{𝖰_{4n}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+t^{2n+2}}{(1t^4)(1t^{2n})}},`$ (62)
$`P(s,𝖰_{4n})`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}W(\frac{s}{2},\{2,n\})+W(\frac{s}{2}n1,\{2,n\}),\hfill & s=0(mod2),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & s0(mod2).\hfill \end{array}`$
In the case of quaternion group $`𝖰_8`$ formula (62) is reduced to

$`M_{𝖰_8}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+t^6}{(1t^4)^2}},P(s,𝖰_8)=\{\begin{array}{cc}W(s,\mathrm{𝟏}^2)/2,\hfill & s=0(mod4),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & s0(mod4).\hfill \end{array}`$ (67)
More sophisticated examples of the finite groups one can find in Appendices A, B of the book .

## 8 Conclusion

1. The explicit expression for restricted partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$ and its quasiperiodic components $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ (Sylvester waves) for a set of positive integers $`𝐝^m=\{d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_m\}`$ is derived. The formulas are represented as a finite sum over Bernoulli and Euler polynomials of higher order with periodic coefficients.

2. Every Sylvester wave $`W_j(s,𝐝^m)`$ satisfies the same recursive relation as the whole partition function $`W(s,𝐝^m)`$.

3. The application of restricted partition function to the problem of counting all algebraically independent invariants of the degree $`s`$ which arise due to action of finite group $`G`$ on the vector space $`V`$ over the field of complex numbers is discussed.

## Appendices

## Appendix A Symbolic Notation

The symbolic technique for manipulating sums with binomial coefficients by expanding polynomials and then replacing powers by subscripts was developed in nineteenth century by Blissard. It has been known as symbolic notation and the classical umbral calculus . This notation can be used  to prove interesting formulas not easily proved by other methods. An example of this notation is also found in  in section devoted to the Bernoulli polynomials $`B_k(x)`$.

The well-known formulas

$$B_n(x+y)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)B_k(x)y^{nk},B_n(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)B_kx^{nk},$$

are written symbolically as

$$B_n(x+y)=(B(x)+y)^n,B_n(x)=(B+x)^n.$$

After the expansion the exponents of $`B(x)`$ and $`B`$ are converted into the orders of the Bernoulli polynomial and the Bernoulli number, respectively:

$$[B(x)]^kB_k(x),B^kB_k.$$
(A1)
We use this notation in its extended version suggested in  in order to make derivation more clear and intelligible. Nörlund introduced the Bernoulli polynomials of higher order defined through the recursion

$$B_n^{(m)}(x|𝐝^m)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)d^kB_k(0)B_{nk}^{(m1)}(x|𝐝^{m1}),$$
(A2)
starting from $`B_n^{(1)}(x|d_1)=d_1^nB_n(\frac{x}{d_1})`$. In symbolic notation it takes form

$$B_n^{(m)}(x)=\left(d_mB(0)+B^{(m1)}(x)\right)^n,$$

and recursively reduces to more symmetric form

$$B_n^{(m)}(x|𝐝^m)=\left(x+d_1{}_{}{}^{1}B(0)+d_2{}_{}{}^{2}B(0)+\mathrm{}+d_m{}_{}{}^{m}B(0)\right)^n=\left(x+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i{}_{}{}^{i}B(0)\right)^n,$$
(A3)
where each $`[{}_{}{}^{i}B(0)]^k`$ is converted into $`B_k(0)`$.

## Appendix B Partition function for two primes

The polynomial part is computed according to (8)

$$W_1(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=\frac{1}{p_1p_2}B_1^{(2)}(ap_1p_2+p_1+p_2|\{p_1,p_2\})=a+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}\right).$$
(B1)
Two other waves read

$$W_{p_1}(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=\frac{1}{p_1}\underset{r=1}{\overset{p_11}{}}\frac{1}{1\rho _{p_1}^r},W_{p_2}(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=\frac{1}{p_2}\underset{r=1}{\overset{p_21}{}}\frac{1}{1\rho _{p_2}^r}.$$
(B2)
where we use trivial identity $`\rho _{p_1}^{ap_1p_2}=\rho _{p_2}^{ap_1p_2}=1`$. Computation of the sums in (B2) we start with the identity (see )

$$\underset{r=0}{\overset{m1}{}}(x\rho _m^r)=x^m1,$$
(B3)
and differentiation it with respect to $`x`$, and division by $`x^m1`$

$$\underset{r=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{1}{x\rho _m^r}=\frac{mx^{m1}}{x^m1}.$$
(B4)
Subtracting $`1/(x1)`$ from both sides of (B4) and taking a limit at $`x1`$ we obtain

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{1}{1\rho _m^r}=\frac{m1}{2}.$$
(B5)
Using this result we have for the periodic waves in (B2)

$$W_{p_1}(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=\frac{p_11}{2p_1},W_{p_2}(ap_1p_2,\{p_1,p_2\})=\frac{p_21}{2p_2}.$$
(B6)
## Acknowledgment

We thank I. M. Gessel for information about Ref. . The research was supported in part (LGF) by the Gileadi Fellowship program of the Ministry of Absorption of the State of Israel.


text:
# Intraplanar couplings in the CuO2 lattice of cuprate superconductors

## Abstract

We have investigated the doping dependencies of the basal areas in single-layer high-$`T_c`$ cuprates La2-xSrxCuO4 and HgBa2CuOx, as well as in two-layer Y1-yCayBa2Cu3Ox and HgBa2CaCu2Ox. The basal areas not only tend to shrink on hole doping, as expected from single electron quantum chemistry, but exhibit also a “bulge” around optimum doping. We attribute the “bulge” to the effects of the strongly correlated quantum liquid on the CuO2 lattice, rendering it nearly incompressible around optimum doping, but highly compressible in the weakly overdoped regime. Inhomogenous doping cannot account for this anomaly in the electronic compressibility of the CuO2 lattice.

url\]www.uni-koeln.de/$``$abb12

The detailed geometry and the dimensions of the Cu–O layers in the superconducting cuprates are controlled by extrinsic and intrinsic effects. The extrinsic effects arise mainly from the complex stereochemistry of the structural blocks outside the planes doping the holes into the Cu–O layers. Mixed valent cations, oxygen defects, disorder, structural misfit and strongly polarizing bonds induce various types of strain, displacing the copper and oxygen atoms in-plane and out-of-plane. The intrinsic effects are connected with the generic properties of the quantum liquid created by the hole doping into a Mott insulator . In this short note we present experimental evidence for that the strong electron-electron correlations inherent in this quantum liquid affect significantly the area of the CuO2 lattice.

Hole doping removes electrons from the antibonding $`\sigma ^{}`$Cu$`3d_{x^2y^2}`$O$`2p_{x,y}`$ band, increases the amount of covalent character in the Cu–O bonds, and is thus expected to shorten them. Strain from the chemically complex extrinsic properties, in particular anisotropies, may however mask or even invert the expected shortening of the individual bond lengths, $`e.g.`$ in YBa2Cu3Ox where the $`a`$-axis contracts as the $`b`$-axis expands on hole doping . The basal area, $`B`$, defined by the square of the basal Cu–Cu distances, turns out to be almost unaffected by externally driven changes of the crystal symmetry, and hence allows for comparisons between various systems with very different doping chemistries.

Fig. 1 displays as a function of doping the basal areas of the one-layer systems La2-xSrxCuO4 ($`T_{cmax}=36`$ K)  and HgBa2CuOx ($`T_{cmax}=96`$ K) , Fig. 2 of the two-layer systems Y1-yCayBa2Cu3Ox ($`T_{cmax}=92`$ K)  and HgBa2CaCu2Ox ($`T_{cmax}=127`$ K) . $`B`$ is derived from the lattice parameters as reported by Radaelli $`et`$ $`al.`$  (LSCO), Fukuoka $`et`$ $`al.`$  (HBCO, HBCCO), and Kaldis $`et`$ $`al.`$  (YBCO). The thick drawn out lines connecting the data points are a guide to the eye. The overall behavior of $`B(x)`$ exhibits surprisingly strong similarities in all systems under comparison: $`i.`$ As expected from the increaseing covalency with hole doping the basal areas shrink appreciably (by about 1%) between the insulator–metal transition and the strongly overdoped regime. $`ii.`$ $`B(x)`$ exhibits a “bulge” around optimum doping. The “bulge” is weakest in La2-xSrxCuO4 and strongest in HgBa2CaCu2Ox. The thin dashed straights are fitted to the data points at the strongly under- and overdoped ends and, extrapolated towards the underdoped-overdoped phase boundary, turn out to intersect around optimum doping, $`x_{opt}`$. We use them as rough approximations defining the single electron quantum chemical “background” $`B_0(x)`$. The change of slope around $`x_{opt}`$ indicates that the Cu–O bonding changes from a nearly ionic character in the lightly doped regime to covalency in the strongly overdoped regime.

Thus the “bulge” may be seen to ride on the single electron quantum chemical background. We attribute it to the effect of strong electron-electron correlations on the CuO2 lattice of the doped Mott insulator. Its basic physics may be described in terms of the competition between the magnetic exchange energy $`J`$ and the kinetic energy per hole $`xt`$, underlying a no-double-occupant constraint. Here the doped holes appear as vacancies in the background of a spin singlet liquid in the CuO2 lattice. The strong repulsive interaction set by $`J1500`$ K is expected to render the underlying lattice almost incompressible, at least much less compressible than a liquid of noninteracting holes residing in the same grid. Defining a electronic compressibility by $`\kappa _e(BB_0)/\mu `$, where the pressure exerted by the holes, $`\mu xt`$, we find $`\kappa _e0`$ close to optimum doping. Apparently the strongly correlated quantum liquid renders the lattice almost incompressible where $`T_c`$ achieves its maximum.

The disappearence of the “bulge” in the weakly overdoped regime may be accompanied by a structural phase transformation of a martensitic type as recently reported for YBa2Cu3Ox .

We can however exclude that the “bulge” is connected with the formation of stripes or related nano-scale domains caused by inhomogenous doping. First, La2-xSrxCuO4, due to its relatively high structural compliance  $`the`$ system most susceptible to stable long range ordered stripes, exhibits the weakest “bulge”. Second, the Hg-cuprates, due to their almost flat CuO2 lattices (zero structural compliance) almost unable to accomodate stripes, exhibit the strongest “bulges”. We conclude that homogenous doping governs the doping dependence of the basal area.


text:
# Laser ablation of Co:ZnO films deposited from Zn and Co metal targets on (0001) Al2O3 substrates.

## Abstract

We report on the synthesis of high-quality Co-doped ZnO thin films using the pulsed laser deposition technique on (0001)-Al2O3 substrates performed in an oxidizing atmosphere, using Zn and Co metallic targets. We firstly optimized the growth of ZnO in order to obtain the less strained film. Highly crystallized Co:ZnO thin films are obtained by an alternative deposition from Zn and Co metal targets. This procedure allows an homogenous repartition of the Co in the ZnO wurzite structure which is confirmed by the linear dependance of the out-of-plane lattice parameter as a function of the Co dopant. In the case of 5% Co doped, the film exhibits ferromagnetism with a Curie temperature close to the room temperature.

Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors (DMS) of III-V or II-VI types have been obtained by doping semiconductors with magnetic impurities (Mn for example). These materials are very interesting due to their potential applications for spintronics. However, the low Curie temperature ($`T_C`$) has limited their interest. Based on the theoretical works of Dietl et al., several groups  have studied the growth of Co-doped ZnO films which is a good candidate having a high $`T_C`$ . Using pulsed laser depositions (PLD), Ueda et al. reported ferromagnetism (FM) above room temperature, while Jin et al. found no indication of FM by utilizing laser molecular beam epitaxy. This controversy between research teams may result from the growth method used and/or from the growth conditions (oxygen pressure, deposition temperature, etc…). In the particular case of the PLD technique, it may also arise from the targets preparation and this parameter has never been considered up to now. One of the reason is that the control of the dopant incorporation would be quite difficult to obtain using a pre-doped ceramic oxide target. This is a crucial point since the properties of the DMS are very sensitive to the percentage of dopant. The homogenity of dopant incorporation as well as the precise control of the growth might be responsible for the changes in the physical properties of the films obtained by the different groups.

Therefore, the objective of this investigation is two fold : first to develop an accurate method to grow the Co:ZnO films with a precise doping and second to understand their properties. To achieve such a goal, Co-doped ZnO films were deposited from two pure metal targets of Zn and Co and our results are reported in this letter.

The Co:ZnO films were grown using the pulsed laser deposition technique. Zinc (99.995%) and Cobalt (99.995%) targets were used as purchased (NEYCO, France) without further preparations. The films are deposited using a KrF laser ( $`\lambda =248mm`$) on (0001) Al2O3 substrates. The substrates were kept at a constant temperature in the range 500C-750C during the deposition which was carried out a pressure around $`0.1Torr`$ of pure oxygen. After deposition, the samples were slowly cooled to room temperature at a pressure of $`300mTorr`$ of O2. The deposition rate is $`3Hz`$ and the energy density is close to $`2J/cm^2`$. The composition of the film was checked and corresponds to the nominal one in the limit of the accuracy.

The structural study was done by X-Ray diffraction (XRD) using a seifert XRD 3000P for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ scans and an X’Pert Phillips for the in-plane measurements (Cu, K$`\alpha 1`$, $`\lambda =0.15406nm`$).

In order to grow Co:ZnO films, we firstly need to deposit high quality ZnO films. The resulting XRD pattern of ZnO is show in Fig.1. The two diffractions peaks observed around $`34.48^{}`$ and $`72.66^{}`$ are characteristic of the hexagonal ZnO wurzite, the $`c`$-axis being perpendicular to the substrate plan. The out-of-plane lattice parameter is calculated to be 0.52mm which corresponds to the theoretical bulk one . The sharp and intense peaks observed indicate that the films are highly crystallized which is confirmed by the low value of the full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of the rocking curve recorded around the $`002`$ reflexion (see inset of Fig1). The epitaxial relationships between ZnO films and Al2O3 substrates are determined using asymmetrical XRD. Fig.2 displays the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$scan of the ZnO films obtain from the ($`103`$) planes. The peaks are separated by 60, indicating a six-fold symmetry with a rotation of 30 of the ZnO symmetry in the plane, with respect to the sapphire substrate. The averaged in-plane lattice parameter of ZnO is 0.325mm and the FWHM of the peaks in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$scan of ZnO is small ($`0.68^{}`$). This value is close to previous value reported in the literature. In order to obtain additionnal information, on the structural properties of the ZnO films, we have determined the thin film strains. This technique used the distance between atomic plane of a crystalline specimen as an internal strain gage. The plane spacing $`d_{hkl}`$ is normal to the diffraction vector $`\stackrel{}{L}`$. One can define a strain $`\epsilon `$ , along this diffraction vector $`d_{hkl}`$, $`\epsilon =(d_{hkl}d_0)/d_0`$ where $`d_0`$ is the unstressed plane spacing of the ($`hkl`$) planes (i.e the value of the bulk). To measure the stress, we used the sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ technique. Briefly, in this model, the strain is defined as follows: $`\epsilon =\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$+$`\beta `$ (where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constantes that depends on the strain along the the surface direction, the Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and the stress along the direction, for details see Ref.15). Fig.3 shows the evolution of the strain $`\epsilon `$ as a function of $`sin^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for ZnO films grown at different temperatures. The strain increases with the temperature, indicating that the film is more strained along the in-plane direction (since the out-of-plane lattice parameter is practically constant whatever the growth conditions). A similar conclusion is obtained when $`\epsilon `$ is plot for various oxygen pressure (not shown). To minimize the substrate-induced strain of the ZnO, we deposited the film at 600$`{}_{}{}^{}C`$ under $`0.1Torr`$ of O2 (under these conditions $`\epsilon `$ is almost constant as a function of $`sin^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$).

These conditions will be used hereafter to synthesise Co-doped ZnO films. We used the following procedure. For example, in order to grow a Co-doped ZnO film, we fired $`m`$ pulse on Co and $`n`$ pulses on Zn. The sequence is repeated until the desired thickness is obtained. Various compositions have been grown with different $`m/n`$ ratios given the same results and indicating a good reproducibility of the films. Moreover, in each case the film is a single phase, highly crystallized (the FWHM is always around $`0.25^{}`$). In the XRD patterns, only the diffraction peaks corresponding to the Co:ZnO phase are observed suggesting that the Co clusters are not present. This is confirmed by the x-rays topography recorded in a scanning transmission electron microscopy (JEOL 2010F) of the Co:ZnO films where an homogenous repartition of the Co is observed. The details of the structural and microstructural characterizations will be present elsewhere. Moreoever, it has been shown that the high pressure of oxygen ($`0.1Torr`$ in the present case) reduces the Co clusters formation. The out-of-plane lattice parameter of the Co:ZnO films increases almost lineraly as a function of the Co doping and nearly obeys the Vergard’s law (Fig.4). Reagrding this curve, it seems that the limit of the solution is close to 9%, since for higher Co content, the lattice parameter do not change.

We investigated the magnetic properties of these thin film samples using a SQUID magnetometer. Fig.5 shows the $`M(T)`$ recorded for a 5% Co-doped ZnO film. The ferromagnetic behavior is observed on the $`M(H)`$ in the whole temperature range between 5-300K (inset of Fig.5). The hysteresis of the magnetization is very small (about few Gauss). $`M(T)`$ curves (Fig.5) clearly evidences that the film is ferromagnetic with a Curie temperature around 300K. The transition from the ferromagnetic state to the paramagnetic state is clearly seen, suggesting that the mettalic Co clusters (the $`T_C`$ of the metal Co clusters is above 1000K) are not responsible for the effect observed at 300K . Moreover, the saturation moment (0.7 $`\mu _B`$/mole Co) is very weak compared to $`1.7\mu _B`$ of metallic Co, suggesting that the Co state should be close to Co2+. The increase of the out-of-plane lattice parameter as the cobalt content increases is also in favor of Co2+ . We believe that this is due to the technique used in the study where not only the conditions of the deposition minimize the strains but also the alternately deposition from the two targets favors the homogeneity of the doped films. Moreover, it has been seen that the low temperature of deposition leads to homogenous films.

In conclusion, we have developped an alternative method for the growth of pulsed laser deposited thin films. This method permits an accurate control of the dopant in the matrix. To illustrate this procedure, we firstly synthesized high quality ZnO thin films on Al2O3 (0001) substrates and minimized the substrate-induced strain by optimizing the growth conditions. Secondly, we utilized this process to deposit high quality Co-doped ZnO films with a Curie temperature close to room temperature. The growth of these ferromagnetic films opens the route for the fabrication of spin-based electronics since this original method can be used to grow various oxide thin films.

We acknowledge Nicole Prellier in the preparation of the manuscript.

Figures Captions:

Figure 1: Room temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ XRD pattern of typical ZnO film. The inset depicts the rocking curve ($`\omega `$-scan) of (002) reflection of the film. Note the sharpness and the high intensity of the peaks.

Figure 2: $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-scan of the {103} family peaks of a typical ZnO film showing a very good in-plane orientation of the film.

Figure 3: $`\epsilon `$ vs. $`sin^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for a ZnO films grown at different deposition temperatures. The values of $`(hkl)`$ planes corresponding to the measured $`sin^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is indicating. The dot lines are only a guide for the eyes.

Figure 4: Evolution of the $`d_{002}`$ in Co:ZnO films as a function of the Co content. The line is a guide for the eyes. The plateau above 15% indicates that thee limit of the solid solution is around 9%.

Figure 5: $`M(T)`$ of the Co:ZnO films (5% of Co) recorded under $`2000G`$. The inset depicts the $`M(H)`$ at 30K and 350K. The 350K signal is due to the background component of the substrate. The anomaly at 30K $`\pm 7000G`$ corresponds to the difficulty in fitting the signal when crosses zero.