text:
# Metal-Induced Gap States at Well Defined Alkali-Halide/Metal Interfaces

## Abstract

In order to search for states specific to insulator/metal interfaces, we have studied epitaxially grown interfaces with element-selective near edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS). An extra peak is observed below the bulk edge onset for LiCl films on Cu and Ag substrates. The nature of chemical bonds as probed by X-ray photoemission spectroscopy and Auger electron spectroscopy remains unchanged, so we regard this as evidence for metal-induced gap states(MIGS) formed by the proximity to a metal, rather than local bonds at the interface. The dependence on the film thickness shows that the MIGS are as thin as one monolayer. An ab initio electronic structure calculation supports the existence of the MIGS that are strongly localized at the interface.

Introduction While there is mounting interest in the nature of the “heterointerface” (solid-solid interfaces between very dissimilar materials), insulator/metal interfaces are especially intriguing, since they provide fascinating possibilities such as metal-insulator transition, band gap narrowing  and superconductivity  as well as technological ones such as catalysis, magnetic tunneling junctions, etc. Despite the interest, electronic structures characteristic of the insulator/metal interface have not been studied satisfactorily, for good reasons. First, well-defined interfaces are hard to prepare due to the different nature of chemical bonds. Second, signals from the interface are obscured by significant contribution from the substrate in conventional experimental methods such as ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy(UPS), inverse photoemission spectroscopy, or electron energy loss spectroscopy(EELS).

Recently, an interesting experimental result was reported for insulator/metal systems. Muller et al. studied {222}MgO/Cu interfaces in fine particles (rather than in a film) with transmission EELS, and succeeded in observing metal-induced gap states (MIGS) for the first time. The concept of MIGS was first introduced for semiconductor/metal junctions in discussing the Schottky barrier at the interface, and subsequently applied to insulator/metal interfaces. MIGS are thought to accompany metal wave functions whose (exponential) tails penetrate into the insulating side of the interface. Schintke et al. studied MgO/Ag(001) with scanning tunneling spectroscopy and found a state in the band gap. However, the first point raised above remains: Since {222}MgO is a polar (hence presumably metallic) surface, whether the pre-peak observed for {222}MgO/Cu originates from the polar surface or from the MIGS has not been definite, although their study is pioneering. Furthermore, {222} MgO/Cu is not a well-defined interface due to a large lattice mismatch. For MgO/Ag(001), the strong hybridization between the O 2p band and the Ag 5sp band is expected to dominate the interface. All these should obscure the identification of the MIGS in its proper sense, i.e., states formed solely by the proximity to a metal rather than by local bonds.

In order to clarify this, we propose here to prepare well-defined interfaces by exploiting our recent studies, in which we have revealed that some alkali halides grow heteroepitaxially on metal substrates in a layer-by-layer fashion, so we end up with atomically well-defined insulator/metal interfaces . Being epitaxially grown, the number of atomic layers can also be controlled, which helps to probe the nature of the interface state. In a previous study we have examined the epitaxially grown LiCl/Cu(001), but were unable to find an indication for the interface state, presumably because the methods employed (UPS and EELS) pick up signals from the substrate.

Here we adopt near edge x-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) to study electronic structures at the LiCl/metal interfaces, where the second point raised above comes in. Namely, we adopt Cl $`K`$-edge NEXAFS, which is based on X-ray absorption by Cl atoms, and hence provides information on the LiCl film with negligible influences of the substrate. Furthermore, NEXAFS, with its high-energy photons, can probe very deep interfaces, so suited for obtaining the dependence of the interface states on the thickness of the insulating layer.

The results obtained here for LiCl thin films on Cu(001) and Ag(001) indeed exhibit clear evidence for the electronic states intrinsic to the insulator/metal interface which are as thin as one monolayer(ML)\[1 ML$`=2.6`$ Å\]. We have then compared the experimental result with an ab-initio density functional calculation, which supports the existence of the MIGS that are strongly localized at the interface.

Experimental Epitaxial LiCl films were grown on metal substrates at 300 K using a Knudsen cell. Cl-$`K`$ edge NEXAFS was carried out at the soft X-ray double-crystal monochromator station BL-11B in the Photon Factory in Institute of Materials Structure Science. The Cl-$`K`$ NEXAFS provides information on the unoccupied Cl-p states.

Figure 1 shows the Cl-$`K`$ edge NEXAFS spectra for LiCl/Cu(001) and LiCl/Ag(001) taken at grazing X-ray incidence(15) for various thicknesses of the LiCl layer. All the spectra are normalized by their edge-jumps. Two NEXAFS peaks are observed at 2827 eV (p1) and 2829 eV (p2) for bulk LiCl. Now, a new finding here is a pronounced pre-peak (p3) appears just below the bulk edge onset, which is clearly visible for thinner LiCl layers. Hereafter we will focus on the pre-peak.

There are two points to note. First, the pre-peak exists even for a 10 ML LiCl on Cu(001). Namely, although the peak may seem more prominent with decreasing the film thickness in Fig. 1, this is an artifact of the normalizing the curve by the edge-jump. As we shall elaborate below in Fig. 1(c), the pre-peak appears at 1ML and its intensity rapidly saturates. Second, the pre-peak is observed for both LiCl/Cu(001) and LiCl/Ag(001). For LiCl/Cu(001), LiCl grows with the  axis rotated by 45 away from that of the Cu substrate, where both Li and Cl atoms sit on the fourfold hollow sites due to matched Li-Cl and Cu–Cu distances. On the other hand, LiCl on Ag(001) grows without an azimuthal rotation, for which a commensurate structure becomes impossible . Despite the difference in the interface structure between Cu and Ag, the pre-peak is observed in both systems, which precludes local structures at the interface as the origin of the pre-peak.

We next confirm whether the nature of chemical bonds are modified around the interface by making use of X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) and Auger electron spectroscopy (AES). For LiCl/Cu(001), the Cu MMM AES peak does not shift from that of the clean Cu(001) within 0.1 eV, which implies that the interfacial Cu atoms remain almost neutral. Figure 2 shows the Cl 1s XPS spectra for LiCl/Cu(001) for various thicknesses of LiCl. For comparison, the spectrum for a bulk LiCl crystal and the peak position of a bulk CuCl crystal are also measured, which shows that the Cl 1s binding energy in LiCl is larger by 2 eV than that of CuCl. If the LiCl film interacted with the Cu substrate to form new chemical bonds at the interface, a satellite peak at the lower binding energy side or the broadening of the peak would arise. However, both the binding energy and the width of the Cl 1s peak do not change with the film thickness, nor does a satellite peak appear in LiCl/Cu(001). These show that the chemical state of Cl in LiCl/Cu(001) is virtually the same as that of bulk LiCl with no chemical bonds formed at the interface. The similar results are obtained from Cl 1s XPS spectra for LiCl/Ag(001).

Given the above NEXAFS, XPS, and AES results indicating that the pre-peak originates not from chemical bonds at the LiCl/metal interface, the gap states arise from the proximity to a metal, so we can regard them as MIGS . We can also note that the position of the Fermi level, which can be estimated from the binding energy of Cl 1s XPS spectra as indicated in Fig. 1, is seen to be located right in the pre-peak. So a finite density of states at EF implies that LiCl is metallized at the interface.

Let us discuss the character of the MIGS in more detail from the NEXAFS data. First, we can exploit the epitaxy-grown samples to estimate the decay length of the MIGS into the insulating side from the dependence of the intensity of the pre-peak on the thickness of the insulating layer. Since the probing depth of NEXAFS is orders of magnitude greater (typically $``$ 10000 Å) than the atomic scale, NEXAFS intensity should directly reflect the decay of the MIGS into the insulator. If we assume an exponential decay to fit the experimental data, we end up with the decay length $`2.6\pm 0.3`$ Å for LiCl/Cu(001) and $`2.9\pm 0.7`$ Å for LiCl/Ag(001) (Fig. 1(c)). So the MIGS are indeed localized within a few Å($``$ as small as one monolayer) of the interface.

Second, we have probed the geometry of the MIGS wave function from the polarization dependence of NEXAFS. The pre-peak has turned out to be greater for grazing X-ray incidence (Fig. 3), which clearly shows that the MIGS are p$`{}_{z}{}^{}(z`$ surface)-like.

Ab-initio calculaton Formation of MIGS with a thickness $``$ 1 ML is theoretically intriguing, since a simple model for the interface (e.g., tight-binding insulator/jellium) would predict a negligible ($`1`$ ML) penetration (for the gap of the insulator $``$ several eV) and would completely fail. So we have performed a first-principles calculation based on the local density functional theory (LDF) with pseudopotentials and plane-wave basis. We have adopted two models, one for LiCl/Cu(001) and the other for LiCl/jellium, to examine whether the MIGS come from the specific metallic substrate (copper here) or a general property of the proximity to an electron gas. The calculation for LiCl/Cu is performed on periodically repeated slabs with five Cu layers sandwiched from top and bottom by one LiCl layer each with the slabs separated by a vacuum of height 50 Å. The in-plane unit cell contains only two Cu atoms and one LiCl, which is a virtue of the commensurate structure.

Figure 4 (a) shows the band structure of 1 ML LiCl/Cu(001). For comparison we have also obtained the band structure of an isolated 1 ML LiCl film without the metallic substrate. The isolated LiCl has a large band gap, although the size of the gap is, as usually the case with LDF, underestimated by 2-3 eV. When the 1 ML LiCl is put on Cu(001), new bands appear in the gap. We have characterized their nature by looking at the amplitude of the LDF wave functions.

If we look at the three states just above EF at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point, the two in-gap bands closest to EF have indeed amplitudes that are localized at the interfacial Cl and Cu atoms (Fig. 4 (b)). Existence of such states is, theoretically, remarkable, given the fact that LiCl is a very good insulator. They are pz-like, in agreement with the polarization dependence seen in NEXAFS. So we identify that the MIGS observed by NEXAFS should correspond to these states.

Another theoretical observation is that the new state is by no means a result of a charge transfer across Cu and LiCl. This can be seen in the inset of Fig. 4, which displays the difference in the charge density between LiCl/Cu(001) and the isolated LiCl film. If there were a charge transfer, the charge difference would have an amplitude on the LiCl side as well, while the result shows that it is entirely confined to the Cu side. The absence of charge transfer can explain the absence of core level shifts at the interface in Cl 1s XPS result(Fig. 2).

In order to theoretically estimate the decay length of the MIGS into the insulator, we have then performed an LDF calculation for 3 ML LiCl attached to a jellium of thickness 80 Å(from top and bottom). The replacement of the Cu substrate with a jellium also enables us to examine whether a simplest possible model for the electron gas would already exhibit MIGS. Figure 5(a) shows the band structure of 3 ML LiCl/jellium, where the jellium has $`r_s`$=2.5. We have again new in-gap states whose wave functions (Fig. 5(b)) just extend to the interfacial (i.e., the first -layer from the jellium) Cl atoms. This result for LiCl/jellium endorses that (i) MIGS are characteristic of insulator/metal interfaces rather than of local chemical bonds, and (ii) $``$ 1ML penetration depth of the MIGS is rather general.

To systematically confirm how the MIGS appear, we have then varied the density of electrons in the metallic side by varying $`r_s`$, which is the sole parameter characterizing the jellium. In the LDF result shows that MIGS appear with its penetration depth only weakly dependent on $`r_s`$. This accounts for the experimental result that MIGS are observed for both Cu(with $`r_s=2.7`$) and Ag($`r_s=3.0`$) substrates.

Finally, let us point out that the electronic structure specific to insulator/metal interfaces can possibly have interesting implications for superconductivity. Discussions on superconductivity at interfaces have a long history. A well-known proposal is by Ginzburg et al.  for the possibility of superconductivity by exciton mechanism at metal/semiconductor interfaces. The presence of excitons requires a wide-gap insulator, which will, however, prevent the metallic carriers to penetrate into the insulator, so that the coexistence (in real space) of excitons and metallic carriers are difficult. To circumvent this they had to consider a hypothetical density of states that has two closely separated peaks in a wide band gap, where the former are required to enable the carriers in the metallic side to easily tunnel into the semiconductor side.

By contrast, in the present MIGS in insulator/metal interfaces we automatically have a coexistence of excitations (associated with the wide band gap ($`9`$ eV for LiCl) of the insulator) and carriers. To realize a high $`T_C`$ we have further to realize strong interaction between the carriers and excitons, which should also be fulfilled due to the penetration of MIGS into the insulating layer. So we may envisage that the insulator/metal interface as discussed here may provide a possible ground for superconductivity.

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research and Special Coordination Fund from the Ministry of Education of Japan. (Creative Scientific Research Project, No. 14GS0207). The present work was performed under the approval of Photon Factory Program Advisory Committee. The numerical calculation was performed with SR8000 in ISSP, University of Tokyo.


format: text

text:
# A Direct Ultrametric Approach to Additive Complexity and the Shub-Smale Tau Conjecture

## 1 Introduction

We show how ultrametric geometry can be used to give new sharper lower bounds for the additive complexity of polynomials. As a consequence, we advance further a number-theoretic approach toward an analogue of the $`𝐏\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ conjecture for the BSS model over $``$. Let us now clarify all these notions. (Simple explicit examples of our constructions appear in Section 1.1 below.)

The Blum-Shub-Smale (BSS) model over $``$ can be thought of roughly as a Turing machine augmented with additional registers that perform arithmetic operations on complex numbers at unit cost. (See \[BCSS98\] for a much more complete description.) This model of computation possesses a natural analogue of the classical $`𝐏\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ question: the $`𝐏_{}\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$ question. This new analogue was introduced with the hope of (a) enabling researchers to enlarge their usual bag of tricks with the arsenal of number theory and analysis and (b) gaining new information on the original $`𝐏\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ question.

Indeed, it is now known (see, e.g., \[Shu93, SS95, BCSS98\]) that $`𝐏_{}=\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$. Since the latter containment is widely disbelieved, this makes it plausible that $`𝐏_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$. The implications of $`𝐏_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$ for classical complexity are still not clear. However, via an examination of the Boolean parts of $`𝐏_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$ one can see that $`𝐏_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$ would provide some evidence that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}\mathrm{𝐀𝐌}`$ \[Koi96, Roj03b\]. Better still, Mike Shub and Steve Smale were able to obtain an elegant number-theoretic statement that implies $`𝐏_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$ (see \[SS95\] or \[BCSS98, Thm. 3, Pg. 127\]). Recall that $``$ denotes the integers.

###### Definition 1

Suppose a polynomial in one variable $`f[x_1]`$ is expressed as a sequence of the form $`(1,x_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_N)`$, where $`f_N=f(x_1)`$, $`f_0:=1`$, $`f_1:=x_1`$, and for all $`i2`$ we have that $`f_i`$ is a sum, difference, or product of some pair of elements $`(f_j,f_k)`$ with $`j,k<i`$. Such a computational sequence is a straight-line program (SLP). We then let $`𝛕\mathbf{(}𝐟\mathbf{)}`$ denote the smallest possible value of $`N1`$, i.e., the smallest length for such a computation of $`f`$. $``$

###### The Shub-Smale $`𝝉`$-Conjecture

There is an absolute constant $`\kappa 1`$ such that for all
$`f[x_1]\{0\}`$, the number of distinct roots of $`f`$ in $``$ is no more than $`(\tau (f)+1)^\kappa `$.

It is easily checked that $`\mathrm{deg}f2^{\tau (f)}`$ so we at least know that $`f`$ has no more than $`2^{\tau (f)}`$ integral roots. However, little else is known about the relation of $`\tau (f)`$ to the number of integral roots of $`f`$: as of mid-2003, the $`\tau `$-conjecture remains open, even in the special case $`\kappa =1`$. The polynomial $`(x2^1)(x2^2)\mathrm{}(x2^{2^j})`$ easily shows that the $`\tau `$-conjecture fails if we allow $`\kappa <1`$.

To state our first main result, let us introduce a family of weaker hypotheses depending on an integer parameter $`p`$.

###### The $`p`$-adic Digit Conjecture

There is an absolute constant $`c_p>0`$ such that for all $`f[x_1]\{0\}`$, the number of distinct roots $`x`$ of $`f`$ with $`x1(\mathrm{mod}p)`$ is no more than $`(\tau (f)+1)^{c_p}`$.

Clearly, the $`\tau `$-conjecture implies the $`p`$-adic Digit Conjecture for any integer $`p`$. However, a strong converse holds as well.

###### Theorem 1

Suppose the $`p`$-adic Digit Conjecture is true for some fixed prime $`p`$. Then $`𝐏_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$. In particular, if the $`p`$-adic Digit Conjecture is true for some fixed prime $`p`$, then the $`\tau `$-conjecture is true.

The last implication follows easily from our next main theorem.

###### Definition 2

Letting $`R`$ be any ring, we say that $`fR[x_1]`$ has additive complexity $`\mathbf{}s`$ (over $`R`$) iff there exist constants $`c_1,d_1,\mathrm{},c_s`$, $`d_s,c_{s+1}R`$ and arrays of nonnegative integers $`[m_{i,j}]`$ and $`\left[m_{i,j}^{}\right]`$ with $`f(x)=c_{s+1}\underset{i=0}{\overset{s}{}}X_i^{m_{i,s+1}}`$, where $`X_0=x`$, $`X_1=c_1X_0^{m_{0,1}}+d_1X_0^{m_{0,1}^{}}`$, and $`X_j=c_j\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{j1}{}}X_i^{m_{i,j}}\right)+d_j\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{j1}{}}X_i^{m_{i,j}^{}}\right)`$ for all $`j\{2,\mathrm{},s\}`$. We then define the additive complexity (over $`R`$) of $`f`$, $`𝛔_𝐑\mathbf{(}𝐟\mathbf{)}`$, to be the least $`s`$ in such a presentation of $`f`$ as an algebraic expression. Finally, additive complexity without appellation, and $`\sigma (f)`$ will be understood to mean $`\sigma _{}(f)`$. $``$

Note in particular that repeated additions or subtractions in different sub-expressions are thus not counted, e.g., $`\sigma (9(x7)^{99}(2x+1)^{43}11(x7)^{999}(2x+1)^3)3`$. Recall that for any prime number $`p`$, the symbols $`_p`$, $`_p`$, and $`_p`$ respectively denote the $`p`$-adic integers, the $`p`$-adic rational numbers, and the $`p`$-adic complex numbers (cf. Section 2).

###### Definition 3

Given any $`p`$-adic integer $`x_p`$ define its $`𝐩`$-adic valuation, $`\mathrm{ord}_px`$, to be the largest $`s`$ such that $`p^s`$ divides $`x`$ (so $`\mathrm{ord}_p0:=+\mathrm{}`$). We then extend $`\mathrm{ord}_p`$ to $`_p`$ by setting $`\mathrm{ord}_p\frac{m}{n}:=\mathrm{ord}_pm\mathrm{ord}_pn`$, for any nonzero $`m,n_p`$. Finally, we define the $`𝐩`$-adic norm of any $`p`$-adic rational number $`x`$, $`|x|_p`$, to be $`p^{\mathrm{ord}_px}`$. $``$

###### Theorem 2

Let $`p`$ be any prime number and let $`\mathrm{\#}`$ denote the operation of taking set cardinality. Also, following the notation above, let $`N_p(s):=\underset{\begin{array}{c}f[x_1]\\ \sigma (f)s\end{array}}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\#}\left\{|x|_p|x_p\{0\}\text{ is a root of }f\right\}`$. Then

$$sN_p(s)s(s+1)/2.$$

Furthermore, the lower bound can be realized even if one restricts to roots in $``$. In particular, the number of possible locations for the first nonzero base-$`p`$ digit of an integral root of $`f`$ is no more than $`s(s+1)/2`$.

###### Remark 1

Alternatively, the quantity $`N_p(s)`$ can be thought of as the $`p`$-adic analogue of the maximum number of distinct absolute values that can occur for the roots of a fixed polynomial of bounded additive complexity. Note in particular that $`(x+1)^d1`$ has additive complexity $`2`$ but exactly $`\frac{d}{2}`$ distinct absolute values for its complex roots. So, differing radically from the analogous situation over $``$, the maximum number of distinct absolute values over $`_p`$ is not only a finite function of $`s`$ and $`p`$, but sub-quadratic and independent of $`p`$. $``$

Since $`_p_p`$, we can thus think of Theorem 2 as a weakening of the $`\tau `$-conjecture where we count $`p`$-adic absolute values of roots instead of roots. The author believes that a lower bound quadratic in $`s`$ is also possible.

Theorem 2 in turn implies the truth of another weak version of the $`\tau `$-conjecture: Theorem 3 below, which may also be of independent interest in arithmetic circuit complexity.

###### Theorem 3

Any polynomial $`f[x_1]\{0\}`$ of additive complexity $`s`$ has no more than $`O\left(pe^{s\mathrm{log}s}\right)`$ roots in $`_p`$. More precisely, $`1+(p1)s^2(7.5)^ss!N_p(s)`$ suffices as an upper bound. In particular, the number of rational roots of an $`f[x_1]\{0\}`$ with additive complexity $`s`$ over $``$ is no more than $`1+s^3(s+1)(7.5)^ss!`$.

###### Remark 2

Note that $`\tau (f)`$ is already unbounded for polynomials of the form $`a+bx^d`$, which clearly have additive complexity $`1`$. So $`\sigma (f)`$ can be tremendously smaller than $`\tau (f)`$. Our theorem above can thus be interpreted as a weak, but definitely non-trivial version of the $`\tau `$-conjecture. $``$

Theorem 3 can be sharpened further (see Section 6 for the details) and even the coarse bound on rational roots above is the best to date in terms of additive complexity.

Theorem 3 follows easily from a weakening of the $`p`$-adic Digit Conjecture that we actually can prove: Theorem 4 below gives an upper bound on the number of roots of $`f`$ with “first $`p`$-adic digit $`1`$” which, while not polynomial in $`\tau (f)`$, is exponential in $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒇\mathbf{)}`$, explicit, and applies to $`p`$-adic complex roots as well.

###### Theorem 4

For any $`r>0`$, let $`C_p^{}(s,r)`$ denote the maximum, over all $`f[x_1]`$ with $`\sigma (f)s`$, of

$$\mathrm{\#}\left\{\text{Roots of }f\text{ in the closed complex }p\text{-adic disk of radius }\frac{1}{p^r}\text{ about }1\right\}.$$

Then $`C_p^{}(s,r)s^2s!\left(3+\frac{3}{r}\mathrm{log}_p\left(\frac{2}{r\mathrm{log}p}\right)\right)^s`$.

Theorem 4 can also be sharpened even further and the details are in Section 5. The author suspects that the bound above can even be improved to $`\left(1\frac{\mathrm{log}r}{r}\right)^{O(s)}`$.

The proofs of Theorems 1, 2, 3, and 4 appear respectively in Sections 3, 4, 6, and 5. In closing this introduction we note that all our preceding results admit natural extensions to $`𝔭`$-adic fields (i.e., finite algebraic extensions of the usual $`p`$-adic numbers), roots of bounded degree over number fields (finite algebraic extensions of the ordinary rational nubmers), and even systems of multivariate polynomial equations. These extensions will be detailed in the full version of this paper.

Let us now further detail earlier work on these problems as well as some background on $`p`$-adic numbers.

### 1.1 Related Work and More Examples

Let us first point out that there are examples showing that we must avoid $``$ if we are to use field arithmetic tricks to solve the $`\tau `$-conjecture.

###### Example 1

Consider the recurrence $`g_{j+1}:=4g_j(1g_j)`$ with $`g_1:=4x(1x)`$. It is then easily checked111 This example is well-known in dynamical systems, and the author thanks Gregorio Malajovich for pointing it out.  that $`g_j(x)x`$ has exactly $`2^j`$ roots in the open interval $`(0,1)`$, but $`\tau (g_j(x)x)=O(j)`$. $``$

The existence of an analogous example over the $`p`$-adic rationals is still an open question.

That the $`\tau `$-conjecture is still open is a testament to the fact that we know far less about the complexity measures $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ than we should. For example, there is still no more elegant method known to compute $`\tau `$ for a fixed polynomial than brute force enumeration. Also, the computability of additive complexity is still an open question, although a more efficient variant (allowing radicals as well) can be computed in triply exponential time \[GK98\].

As for earlier earlier approaches to the $`\tau `$-conjecture, some investigations into $`\tau `$ were initiated by de Melo and Svaiter \[dMS96\] (in the special case of constant polynomials) and Moreira \[Mor97\]. Unfortunately, not much more is known than (a) $`\tau (f)`$ is “usually” bounded below by $`h(f)/\mathrm{log}h(f)`$ (where $`h(f)`$ is $`(1+\mathrm{deg}f)\mathrm{max}\mathrm{log}|c|`$ and the maximum ranges over all coefficients $`c`$ of $`f`$) and (b) $`\tau 1.1h(f)/\mathrm{log}h(f)`$ for $`h(f)`$ sufficiently large \[Mor97, Thm. 3\].

So information relating the integral roots of $`f`$ with $`\tau (f)`$ was essentially non-existent, at least until independent work of Dima Yu. Grigoriev \[Gri82\] and Jean-Jacques Risler \[Ris85\] that related additive complexity with the number of real roots. (This was also preceded by important seminal work of Allan Borodin and Stephen A. Cook \[BC76\] first proving the surprising fact that one could indeed bound the number of real roots in terms of additive complexity.) In particular, they showed that an $`f[x_1]`$ with $`\sigma _{}(f)s`$ could have no more than $`(s+2)^{3s+1}2^{\left(9s^2+5s+2\right)/2}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left((22.6)^{s^2}\right)`$) real roots \[Ris85, Pg. 181, Line 6\].

It was then discovered around 2001 that one could derive even sharper bounds by working $`p`$-adically. In particular, \[Roj02\] gives an upper bound of $`1+s^2(22.5)^ss!`$ for the number of $`2`$-adic rational roots of an $`f_2[x_1]`$ with $`\sigma __2(f)s`$, and states explicit generalizations to $`_p`$, algebraic extensions, roots of bounded degree over number fields, and systems of multivariate polynomial equations. Our results thus improve the last bound by a factor close to $`3^s`$ and isolates the portion where the (necessary?) exponentiality is coming from.

Historically, the results of \[Roj02\] were derived as a consequence of a higher-dimensional result, also due to the author, relying on a less efficient encoding: monomial term expansions. For completeness, we paraphrase the most relevant special case of the result below.

###### Arithmetic Multivariate Descartes’ Rule (Special Case)

\[Roj03a, Cor. 1 of Sec. 3\]
Let $`p`$ be any prime and let $`_p^{}:=_p\{0\}`$. Suppose $`𝐟_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},𝐟_𝐤_p[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}]\{0\}`$, $`F:=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)`$, $`𝐦_𝐢`$ is the total number of distinct exponent vectors appearing in $`f_i`$ (assuming all polynomials are written as sums of monomials), and $`N_i`$ is the number of variables occuring in $`f_i`$. Finally, let $`m:=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_n)`$, $`N:=(N_1,\mathrm{},N_n)`$, and define $`𝐁\mathbf{(}𝓛\mathbf{,}𝐦\mathbf{,}𝐍\mathbf{)}`$ to be the maximum number of isolated roots in $`(_p^{})^n`$ of such an $`F`$, counting multiplicities.222 For the sake of simplicity, one can safely assume that the multiplicity of any isolated root is always a positive integer.  Then
$`𝐁\mathbf{(}𝓛\mathbf{,}𝐦\mathbf{,}𝐍\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\underset{𝐢\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{𝐧}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}𝐩\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝐦_𝐢\mathbf{(}𝐦_𝐢\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{}\underset{𝐢\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{𝐧}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left\{}𝐜\mathbf{(}𝐦_𝐢\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝐍_𝐢\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}_𝐩\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝐦_𝐢\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝐩}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}`$, where $`c:=\frac{e}{e1}1.582`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

This result generalized earlier work of Lenstra for the case of sparse polynomials in one variable \[Len99\], and was derived via an analogous result counting $`p`$-adic complex roots close to the point $`(1,\mathrm{},1)`$.

The latter result, which provided the first effective version of earlier model-theoretic work of Denef, Lipshitz, and van den Dries \[DvdD88, Lip88\], can also be viewed as an arithmetic extension \[Roj03a\] of Khovanski’s Theorem on Complex Fewnomials \[Kho91\].

###### $`p`$-adic Complex Fewnomial Theorem

\[Roj03a, Thm. 2 of Sec. 1.1\]
Following the notation above, suppose instead now that $`k=n`$ and that the coefficients of $`F`$ can lie in $`_p`$. Let $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_n>0`$, $`r:=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_n)`$, and let $`C_p(m,N,r)`$ denote the maximum number of geometrically isolated roots $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)_p^n`$ of $`F`$ with $`\mathrm{ord}_p(x_i1)r_i`$ for all $`i`$, counting multiplicities. Then $`C_p(m,N,r)=0`$ (if $`m_i1`$ for some $`i`$) and
$`𝐂_𝐩\mathbf{(}𝐦\mathbf{,}𝐍\mathbf{,}𝐫\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐜^𝐧{\displaystyle \underset{𝐢\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{𝐧}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathbf{(}𝐦_𝐢\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐣\mathbf{}𝐍_𝐢}{\mathbf{}}}𝐫_𝐣\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}_𝐩\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}𝐦_𝐢\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{\#}𝐍_𝐢}}{\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}_{𝐣\mathbf{}𝐍_𝐢}𝐫_𝐣\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}^{\mathbf{\#}𝐍_𝐢}𝐩}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{/}𝐫_𝐢\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}`$
(if $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n2`$), where $`\mathrm{\#}`$ denotes the operation of taking set cardinality. $`\mathrm{}`$

In essence, our approach replaces the use of Arithmetic Multivariate Descartes’ Rule in \[Roj03a\] by simple and direct combinatorial argument. Furthermore, we need the $`p`$-adic Complex Fewnomial Theorem only for Theorem 4.

## 2 Background and Useful Tools

Let $`p`$ be any prime number in the ring of ordinary integers $``$ and recall that $`_p`$, the ring of $`𝒑`$-adic integers, can be identified with the set of all “leftwardly infinite” sequences of the form $`\mathrm{}d_2d_1d_0`$, where $`d_i\{0,\mathrm{},p1\}`$ for all $`i0`$. (In particular, $``$ embeds naturally in $`_p`$ as the set of all $`p`$-adic integers having a finite $`p`$-adic expansion.) Addition and multiplication are then performed just as with base $`p`$ integers, noting that the carries may propagate infinitely. Put another way, the last $`n`$ digits of any $`p`$-adic integer calculation can be determined simply by working in the ring $`/p^{n+1}`$.

The $`p`$-adic rational numbers are then obtained by allowing finitely many (base $`p`$) digits “after the decimal point”. For instance, the ordinary rational number $`\frac{12345}{49}`$ can be considered a $`7`$-adic rational by expressing it as the sequence of $`7`$-adic digits $`506.64`$, which in turn should be interpreted as $`57^2+6+\frac{6}{7}+\frac{4}{49}`$.

Following the notation of Definition 3 of the last section, it is then easy to show that $`|xy|_p`$ defines a metric on $`_p`$ and that $`_p`$ is complete with respect to this metric.333This means that all Cauchy sequences converge, i.e., if $`\{a_i\}`$ satisfies $`\underset{i,jN}{\mathrm{max}}\{|a_ia_j|_p\}0`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$ then $`\{a_i\}`$ has a well-defined limit. \[Kob84\] So the fields $`_p`$ form an alternative collection of metric completions of $``$; the real numbers $``$ being the completion of $``$ we usually see first in school.

It is also convenient to define the $`p`$-adic analogue of the complex numbers: We let $`_p`$ denote the completion, with respect to the obvious extensions of $`||_p`$, of the algebraic closure of $`_p`$. It turns out that $`_p`$ is itself algebraically closed, so no further closures or completions need be taken. In particular, $`\mathrm{ord}_p_p=`$ \[Kob84\].

One of the most amusing facts about the $`p`$-adic numbers is that their behavior as roots of polynomials can be described quite elegantly in terms of polyhedral geometry.

###### Definition 4

Given any polynomial $`f(x_1)=\underset{aA}{}c_ax_1^a_p[x_1]`$, its $`p`$-adic Newton polygon, $`\mathrm{Newt}_p(f)`$, is the convex hull of444i.e., smallest convex set containing… $`\{(a,\mathrm{ord}_pc_a)|aA\}`$ in $`^2`$. Also, given any polygon $`Q^2`$ and $`w=(w_1,w_2)^2`$, we let its face with inner normal $`w`$, $`Q^w`$, be the set $`\{(a_1,a_2)Q|a_1w_1+a_2w_2\text{ minimal}\}`$. In particular, we call $`Q^w`$ a vertex (resp. improper, an edge) iff $`^w`$ is a point (resp. $`Q`$, not $`Q`$ or a point). Finally, the lower hull of $`Q`$ is the union of all faces of $`Q`$ with an inner normal of the form $`(v,1)`$. $``$

###### Proposition 1

(See, e.g., \[Kob84\].) Following the notation above, the number of roots $`\zeta _p`$ of $`f`$ with $`\mathrm{ord}_p\zeta =v`$ is exactly the length of the orthogonal projection of $`\mathrm{Newt}_p(f)^{(v,1)}`$ onto the $`x`$-axis. $`\mathrm{}`$

By exploiting the definition of a vertex one can easily prove the following useful facts on Newton polygons.

###### Definition 5

For any polygon $`Q^2`$, let $`E_+(Q)`$ — the unit lower edge normal locus — denote the set of $`w`$ in the unit circle that are inner normals of a lower edge of $`Q`$. $``$

###### Proposition 2

Given any prime $`p`$ and $`f,g_p[x_1]`$, we have $`\mathrm{Newt}_p(fg)=\mathrm{Newt}_p(f)+\mathrm{Newt}_p(g)`$ and $`\mathrm{Newt}_p(f+g)\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{Newt}_p(f)\mathrm{Newt}_p(g))`$. In particular, any vertex of $`\mathrm{Newt}_p(f+g)`$ must be a vertex of $`\mathrm{Conv}(\mathrm{Newt}_p(f)\mathrm{Newt}_p(g))`$ and $`E_+(\mathrm{Newt}(fg))=E_+(\mathrm{Newt}(f))E_+(\mathrm{Newt}(g))`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to prove our main theorems.

## 3 The Proof of Theorem 1

That the truth of the $`\tau `$-conjecture implies $`𝐏_{}\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}_{}`$ was proved by Shub and Smale in \[SS95\]. So we need only prove the last implication of our theorem.

Toward this end, suppose that the $`p`$-adic Digit Conjecture were true for some fixed prime $`p`$. Note that any nonzero integral root $`x`$ of $`f`$ must have its first nonzero base-$`p`$ digit in $`\{1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$. Furthermore, by Theorem 2, there are clearly no more than $`N_p(\sigma (f))N_p(\tau (f))\tau (f)(\tau (f)+1)/2`$ possible locations for this first digit of $`x`$. Therefore, there are at most $`pN_p(\tau (f))(1+\tau (f))^{c_p}(1+\tau (f))^{c_p+1+\mathrm{log}_2p}`$ possibilities for $`x\{0\}`$. Since $`0`$ is the only remaining possibility for a root of $`f`$, we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The Proof of Theorem 2

The first fundamental lemma for our approach to additive complexity is the following.

###### Lemma 1

Following the notation of Theorem 2, $`N_p(s)s(s+1)/2`$.

Proof: Recalling the notation of Definition 2, note that we can define $`f(x)`$ via a sequence $`(X_0,\mathrm{},X_s)`$ where $`X_{i+1}`$ is a binomial or monomial in $`X_0,\mathrm{},X_i`$ for all $`i\{0,\mathrm{},s\}`$, with $`X_0=x`$, $`X_{s+1}=f(x)`$, and $`s=\sigma (f)`$. In particular, letting $`L_i`$ denote the number of edges on the lower hull of $`\mathrm{Newt}_p(X_i)`$, Proposition 2 immediately yields a recursive inequality for $`L_i`$: $`L_{i+1}2_{j=1}^iL_j`$ for all $`i1`$. (That $`L_0=0`$ and $`L_1=1`$ is easily verified directly.) This recurrence easily yields $`L_s=O(3^s)`$ and thus the same upper bound on $`N_p(s)`$ by Proposition 1. However, with a little extra effort, we can do far better.

In particular, let $`F_i:=E_+(X_i)`$ for all $`i0`$. Then

$$F_{i+1}=E_+\left(\mathrm{Newt}_p\left(c_{i+1}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}X_j^{m_{j,i+1}}\right)+d_{i+1}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}X_j^{m_{j,i+1}^{}}\right)\right)\right),$$

which by Proposition 2 is $`E_+(\mathrm{Conv}(PQ))`$ where $`P:=\mathrm{Newt}_p\left(c_{i+1}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}X_j^{m_{j,i+1}}\right)\right)`$ and $`Q:=\mathrm{Newt}_p\left(d_{i+1}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}X_j^{m_{j,i+1}^{}}\right)\right)`$. In particular, note that any edge of the lower hull of $`\mathrm{Conv}(PQ)`$ must be either (a) an edge of the lower hull of $`P`$, (b) an edge of the lower hull of $`Q`$, or (c) a line segment connecting a vertex of the lower hull of $`P`$ with a vertex of the lower hull of $`Q`$. Moreover, since we can order the vertices of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ in, say, counter-clockwise order, no more than $`1+\mathrm{\#}(F_0\mathrm{}F_i)`$ edges can occur in case (c).

Put another way, this means that $`\mathrm{\#}(F_{i+1}(F_0\mathrm{}F_i))1+\mathrm{\#}(F_0\mathrm{}F_i)`$. So by induction, we easily obtain that $`L_{i+1}L_i+i+1`$. So we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to prove Theorem 2.
Proof of Theorem 2: Thanks to Lemma 1, we need only prove that $`N_p(s)s`$. In particular, we need only exhibit a polynomial $`f[x_1]`$ of additive complexity $`s`$ with at least $`s`$ different valuations for its roots in $``$. Considering $`(x1)(xp)\mathrm{}(xp^{s1})`$, we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3

Note that we could have instead worked over any ring $`R_p`$ containing $``$ by replacing $`\sigma (f)`$ with $`\sigma _R(f)`$. The obvious generalization of Theorem 2 then clearly holds. $``$

## 5 The Proof of Theorem 4

First note that by the definition of additive complexity, $`x_p`$ is a root of $`f(X_0,\mathrm{},X_s)_p^{s+1}`$ is a geometrically isolated root of the polynomial system $`G=𝐎`$, where the corresponding equations are exactly

$$c_{s+2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s+1}{}}X_i^{m_{i,s+2}}=0$$

$$X_2=c_2X_1^{m_{1,2}}+d_2X_1^{m_{1,2}^{}}$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$X_{s+1}=c_{s+1}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}X_i^{m_{i,s+1}}\right)+d_{s+1}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}X_i^{m_{i,s+1}^{}}\right),$$

where $`s:=\sigma (f)`$, $`X_1=x`$, $`f(x)=c_{s+1}_{i=1}^{s+1}X_i^{m_{i,s+2}}`$, and the $`c_i`$, $`d_i`$, $`c_i^{(j)}`$, $`m_{i,j}`$, and $`m_{i,j}^{}`$ are suitable constants. This follows easily from the fact that corresponding quotient rings $`_p[x]/f`$ and $`_p[X_1,\mathrm{},X_{s+1}]/G`$ are isomorphic, thus making $`_p[x]/f`$ and $`_p[X_1,\mathrm{},X_{s+1}]/G`$ isomorphic.

So we now need only count the geometrically isolated roots $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{s+1})_p^{s+1}`$ of $`G`$, with $`|X_11|_p\frac{1}{p^r}`$, precisely enough to conclude. Toward this end, note that by a simple rescaling (and since the $`p`$-adic Complex Fewnomial Theorem is independent of the underlying coefficients) that it suffices to count roots of $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{s+1})_p^{s+1}`$ of $`G`$ with $`|X_i1|_p\frac{1}{p^r}`$ for all $`i`$.

Note then that the first equation of $`G=𝐎`$ imply that at least one $`X_i`$ must be $`0`$. Note also that if one of the variables $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ is $`0`$, then the first $`1+\mathrm{}`$ equations of $`G`$ completely determine $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{\mathrm{}+1})`$. Furthermore, by virtue of the last $`s\mathrm{}`$ equations of $`G`$, the value of $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{\mathrm{}+1})`$ uniquely determines the value of $`(X_{\mathrm{}+2},\mathrm{},X_{s+1})`$. So it in fact suffices to find the total number of geometrically isolated roots (with all coordinates nonzero) of all systems of the form $`G^{}=𝐎`$, where the equations of $`G^{}`$ are exactly $`(0=0)`$ or

$$X_2=c_2X_i^{m_{1,2}}+d_2X_i^{m_{1,2}^{}}$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$X_{\mathrm{}}=c_{\mathrm{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}X_i^{m_{i,\mathrm{}}}\right)+d_{\mathrm{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}1}{}}X_i^{m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{}}\right)$$

$$0=c_{\mathrm{}+1}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X_i^{m_{i,\mathrm{}+1}}\right)+d_{\mathrm{}+1}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}X_i^{m_{i,\mathrm{}+1}^{}}\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ ranges over $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Note in particular that the $`j^{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{th}}}`$ equation above involves no more than $`j+1`$ variables for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}1\}`$, and that the $`\mathrm{}^{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{th}}}`$ equation involves no more than $`\mathrm{}`$ variables.

Recalling the notation of the $`p`$-adic Complex Fewnomial Theorem, we then see that $`G`$ has no more than

$$1,1+C_p(2,1,r),\rho :=1+C_p(2,1,r)+(C_p(2,1,r)C_p(3,1,r)),\text{or}$$

$`\rho +\underset{\mathrm{}=3}{\overset{s}{}}C_p((2,\underset{\mathrm{}1}{\underset{}{3,\mathrm{},3}}),(2,3,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),\{r\}^{\mathrm{}})`$ geometrically isolated roots in $`_p^{s+1}`$ satisfying $`|x_i1|_p\frac{1}{p^r}`$ for all $`i`$, according as $`s`$ is $`0`$, $`1`$, $`2`$, or $`3`$. So, by our earlier observations, these quantities are upper bounds for $`C_p^{}(0,r)`$, $`C_p^{}(1,r)`$, $`C_p^{}(2,r)`$, and $`C_p^{}(s,r)`$ respectively. So by an elementary calculation, we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 The Proof of Theorem 3

Note that any nonzero $`p`$-adic rational root $`x`$ of $`f`$ must have its first nonzero digit in $`\{1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$. Furthermore, by Theorem 2, there are clearly no more than $`N_p(s)s(s+1)/2`$ possible locations for this first digit of $`x`$. Therefore, by Theorem 4, there are at most $`1+pN_p(s)C_p^{}(s,1)`$ possibilities for $`x`$, so we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# Perturbed Einstein field equations using Maple

## 1 Introduction

The description of the observed universe is considered an homogeneous and isotropic background with inhomogeneities. For large scale the smoothness of the universe is described by the Friedmann model, while the small scale structure are considered as small deviations from homogeneity. These small deviations can be treated in the Newtonian or General Relativity framework. The first procedure is applicable to the scales where the effects of the spacetime curvature can be negligible. Although, the Newtonian analysis provides insight into the behavior, the involved scales are smaller than the Hubble radius.

The relativistic treatment of cosmological perturbations is necessary since that all the relevant scales involved stay outside of the horizon at early time. Therefore, there is a narrow relation among the cosmological perturbations in the framework of the general relativity and structure formation .

In another hand, a new branch in astronomy can emerge in a next future, gravitational radiation astronomy. The gravitational radiation is considered as tensorial perturbations produced from the cosmological background oscillations or by pulsation of astrophysical objects (black hole, strange stars, neutron stars),, , , . So, the perturbative analyses is important for the study of large scale structure in the universe (scalar perturbation) and stellar objects (tensorial perturbation).

Our interest in this work is to obtain the perturbed field equations taking into account small perturbations in the metric tensor, using algebraic computation. More explicitly, Maple software and GRtensor package. With the help of algebraic computation we can not only to make a check up of the published perturbed equations, but also to obtain new results to superior order than one.

The perturbed Einstein field equations have been deduced in the literature in several occasions  ,, , , ,, . Generally, to obtain these equations expend a considerable quantity of work. We give a maple worksheet that calculates the perturbed tensorial components of the Ricci tensor. Consequently, this enable us to write the perturbed field equations for the vacuum.

## 2 Basic equations

The background considered is homogeneous and isotropic, given by

$$ds^2=dt^2+R(t)^2(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2).$$
(1)
Consequently, the non vanishing affine connections are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^t`$ $`=`$ $`R(t)\dot{R}(t)\delta _{ij}`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tj}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R(t)}}{R(t)}}\delta _{ij},`$
where the dot means time derivative and the latin indices assumes the values 1,2,3.

The disturbance in the metric is defined by $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }`$, with $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ small. We use a hat to denote the perturbations. So, the perturbed affine connections are given by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}\{h_{ij;k}+h_{ik;j}h_{jk;i}\},`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{h_{tj;k}+h_{tk;j}h_{jk;t}\},`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tj}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}\{h_{it;j}+h_{ij;t}h_{tj;i}\}.`$
The semicolon denotes the covariant derivative. The perturbed Ricci tensor can be obtained using Palatini formula:

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \kappa }=(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \lambda }^\lambda )_{;\kappa }(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \kappa }^\lambda )_{;\lambda }.$$
(3)
Consequently, the perturbed Einstein field equations  can be written as:

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G\widehat{S}_{\mu \nu },$$
(4)
where

$$S_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T_\lambda ^\lambda ,$$
(5)
and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor.

Generally, to obtain the perturbed high side of the equation (4) is straightforward and this do not expend a lot quantity of time. Otherwise, the same do not happens with the left hand where it is necessary a considerable quantity of attention and time.

## 3 Using maple and the grtensor

We use the GRtensor package version 1.77 (R4)  and maple release VII for the calculus. In this section we summarize the commands that we must insert in the prompt of maple to obtain the perturbed tensorial quantities, namely:

$`>`$ grtw();

This first input run the Grtensor package.

$`>`$ makeg(cod);

The last input is necessary to give a name for the spacetime metric (I call by cod) of the background, that we will define in the next lines.

Now we must provide the data of the background.

Do you wish enter a:

1) metric \[g(dn,dn)\],

2) line element \[ds\],

3) non-holonomic basis \[e(1)…e(n)\], or

4) NP tetrad \[l,n,m,mbar\]?

$`>`$ 1;

Enter with the coordinates

$`>`$ \[t,x1,x2,x3\];

Is the metric

1) Diagonal, or 2) Symmetric?

$`>`$ 1;

Now, define the components of the metric tensor

Enter g\[t,t\]:

$`>`$ -1;

Enter g\[x1,x1\]:

$`>R(t)^2`$;

Enter g\[x2,x2\]:

$`>R(t)^2`$;

Enter g\[x3,x3\]:

$`>R(t)^2`$;

In this point the GRtensor inquires about the existence of the complex variables, if you do not have complex variables in the spacetime than write { } and press ENTER.

The next step given us the last opportunity in this maple section to modify the background data.

0) Use the metric WITHOUT saving it,

1) Save the metric as it is,

2) Correct an element of the metric,

3) Re-enter the metric,

4) Add/change constraint equations,

5) Add a text description, or

6) Abandon this metric and return to Maple.

$`>`$0;

Now, the definition of the background is finish.

$`>`$grcalc(Einstein);

Note that, before we defining the perturbed quantities we calculate the components of the Einstein tensor for the background in the last input. With this procedure we have calculated all important tensorial quantities of order zero, for any eventuality.

The first step is to define the perturbations in the metric tensor.

$`>`$grdef(‘g1{a b}:= h11(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x1}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x1}+h22(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x2}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x2}+h33(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x3}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x3}+h12(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x1}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x2}+h13(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x1}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x3}+h23(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x2}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x3}+h12(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x2}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x1}+h13(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x3}\*kdelta{b

$`\$`$x1}+h23(t,x1,x2,x3)\*kdelta{a $`\$`$x3}\*kdelta{b $`\$`$x2}‘);

$`>grcalc(g1(dn,dn));`$

$`>grdisplay(g1(dn,dn));`$

The next input define the perturbed components of the affine connections

$`>`$grdef(‘Gamma1{b c $`\widehat{}`$ a}:=-g{$`\widehat{}`$a $`\widehat{}`$ b}\*g1{d q}\*Chr{b c

$`\widehat{}`$q}+1/2\*g{ $`\widehat{}`$ a $`\widehat{}`$ d}\*(g1{c d ,b}+g1{b d ,c}-g1{b c ,d})‘);

$`>`$grcalc(Gamma1(dn,dn,up));

$`>`$grdisplay(Gamma1(dn,dn,up));

Finally, we define the perturbed components of the Ricci tensor.

grdef(‘R1{a b}:=Gamma1{a e /, $`\widehat{}`$e ;b}-Gamma1{a b $`\widehat{}`$q ;q}‘);

$`>`$grcalc(R1(dn,dn));

$`>`$grdisplay(R1(dn,dn));

In the definitions of perturbations in the affine conection and in the Ricci tensor components we use Gamma1 and R1, respectively. In the other sections we maintain the perturbations denoted by a hat.

## 4 Perturbed field equations

In this section we write the results obtained for the perturbated quantities.

### 4.1 The metric perturbations

$$\widehat{g}_a{}_{b}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& \mathrm{h}_{11}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})& \mathrm{h}_{12}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})& \mathrm{h}_{13}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})\\ \hfill 0& \mathrm{h}_{12}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})& \mathrm{h}_{22}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})& \mathrm{h}_{23}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})\\ \hfill 0& \mathrm{h}_{13}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})& \mathrm{h}_{23}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})& \mathrm{h}_{33}(t,x_\mathit{1},x_\mathit{2},x_\mathit{3})\end{array}\right)$$

### 4.2 Perturbed affine connections

The components of the perturbed affine connections different from zero are given below. Note that we do not write the perturbed components that can be obtained by symmetry properties.

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_1}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{11})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_3t}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{13})R(t)2h_{13}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_2}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{12})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_1}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{11})R(t)2h_{11}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_2}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{22})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_2}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{12})R(t)2h_{12}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_3}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{13})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_3}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{13})R(t)2h_{13}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_3}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{23})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_3}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{x_3}h_{12})+(\frac{}{x_2}h_{13})(\frac{}{x_1}h_{23})}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_3x_3}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{33})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_2}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\frac{}{x_2}h_{12})(\frac{}{x_1}h_{22})}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_1}^{x_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_1}h_{11}}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_3x_3}^{x_1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\frac{}{x_3}h_{13})(\frac{}{x_1}h_{33})}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_2}^{x_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_2}h_{11}}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_1}^{x_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{12})R(t)2h_{12}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_3}^{x_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_3}h_{11}}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_1}^{x_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\frac{}{x_1}h_{12})+(\frac{}{x_2}h_{11})}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_2}^{x_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_1}h_{22}}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_2}^{x_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{22})R(t)2h_{22}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_2}^{x_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_2}h_{22}}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_3}^{x_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{23})R(t)2h_{23}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_3}^{x_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{x_3}h_{12})+(\frac{}{x_1}h_{23})(\frac{}{x_2}h_{13})}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_3}^{x_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_3}h_{22}}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_3x_3}^{x_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\frac{}{x_3}h_{23})(\frac{}{x_2}h_{33})}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_1}^{x_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{13})R(t)2h_{13}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_1}^{x_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\frac{}{x_1}h_{13})+(\frac{}{x_3}h_{11})}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_2}^{x_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{23})R(t)2h_{23}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_2}^{x_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{x_2}h_{13})(\frac{}{x_1}h_{23})+(\frac{}{x_3}h_{12})}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_2}^{x_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\frac{}{x_2}h_{23})+(\frac{}{x_3}h_{22})}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{tx_3}^{x_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{}{t}h_{33})R(t)2h_{33}(\frac{}{t}R(t))}{R(t)^3}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_1x_3}^{x_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_1}h_{33}}{R(t)^2}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_2x_3}^{x_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_2}h_{33}}{R(t)^2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{x_3x_3}^{x_3}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{}{x_3}h_{33}}{R(t)^2}}`$
### 4.3 Perturbed Ricci components

The perturbed Ricci components different from zero are:

$`\widehat{R}_t_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^4}}[({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{11})R(t)^2+2R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))+2R(t)h_{11}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}R(t))`$
$``$ $`2h_{11}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{22})R(t)^2+2R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{22})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$`+`$ $`2R(t)h_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}R(t))2h_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{33})R(t)^2+2R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{33})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$`+`$ $`2R(t)h_{33}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}R(t))2h_{33}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_1}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^3}}[({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1t}}h_{22})R(t)+2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}h_{22})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2t}}h_{12})R(t)`$
$``$ $`2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}h_{12})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))+2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}h_{33})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1t}}h_{33})R(t)`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3t}}h_{13})R(t)2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_3}}h_{13})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_2}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^3}}[({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2t}}h_{11})R(t)2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1t}}h_{12})R(t)`$
$`+`$ $`2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}h_{12})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}h_{33})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2t}}h_{33})R(t)`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3t}}h_{23})R(t)+2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_3}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_3}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^3}}[({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3t}}h_{11})R(t)2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_3}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R)({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1t}}h_{13})R(t)`$
$`+`$ $`2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}h_{13})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_3}}h_{22})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R)+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3t}}h_{22})R`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2t}}h_{23})R(t)+2({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_1}_{x_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}[2h_{11}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{11})R(t)^2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{22})+R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{22})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$``$ $`2h_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2x_1}}h_{12})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{33})`$
$`+`$ $`R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{33})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))2h_{33}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_1}}h_{13})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{11})].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_2_{x_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}[4h_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(R(t))^2+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}})h_{12})R(t)^2R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{12})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2x_1}})h_{33})+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_2}}h_{13})+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_1}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{12})].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_3}_{x_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}[4h_{13}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{13})R(t)^2R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{13})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_1}}h_{22})+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_2}}h_{12})+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2x_1}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{13})].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_2}_{x_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}[2h_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{22})R(t)^2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{11})`$
$`+`$ $`R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))2h_{11}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2x_1}}h_{12})`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{22})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{33})+R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{33})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$``$ $`2h_{33}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_2}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{22})].`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_3}_{x_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}[4h_{23}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{23})R(t)^2+R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_2}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_1}}h_{12})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_2x_1}}h_{13})+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{23})]`$
$`\widehat{R}_{x_3}_{x_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R(t)^2}}[2h_{33}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}h_{33})R(t)^2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{11})+R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{11})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))`$
$``$ $`2h_{11}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_1}}h_{13})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{33})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{22})`$
$`+`$ $`R(t)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}h_{22})({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R)2h_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}R(t))^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_3x_2}}h_{23})({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}h_{33})].`$
## 5 Conclusions and final remarks

The perturbed Einstein field equations have been deduced in the literature in several occasions. Generally, to obtain these equations expand a considerable quantity of time. This work intent give an introductory worksheet that calculates the perturbed tensorial components of the Ricci tensor. Consequently, this enable us to write the perturbed field equations in vacuum ($`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }=0`$).

Comparing the perturbed components of the Ricci tensor and of the affine connections in this work with the published in Weinberg’s book , note that they are identical.

This procedure can be extended to study perturbations of superior orders and gauge invariant perturbations. Taking into account the vacuum or perturbations in the energy momentum tensor.