text:
# Compact operators and nest representations of Limit Algebras

## 1. Introduction

One of the central themes in the representation theory of $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras is the consideration of representations that contain non-zero compact operators in their ranges. For instance, it is a deep result of Glimm  that characterizes the type I $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras as those $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras whose irreducible representations always contain non-zero compact operators in their ranges. Other classes of $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras relating to this line of thought are the CCR, GCR and residually finite $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras, to mention but a few.

Recently there has been an interest in the representation theory of non-selfadjoint algebras and in particular triangular subalgebras of AF $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras . In the case of non-selfadjoint operator algebras, the irreducible representations are not always sufficient to capture the structure of the algebra and therefore appropriate substitutes have been introduced. A representation $`\rho `$ of an operator algebra $`𝒜`$ is said to be a nest representation if the closed invariant subspaces of $`\rho (𝒜)`$ are linearly ordered, i.e., form a nest. Lamoureux  coined the term n-primitive ideal for the kernel of a nest representation and showed  that in various contexts of non-selfadjoint operator algebras the n-primitive ideals play a role analogous to the primitive ideals in $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebras. For instance, one can equip the set of n-primitive ideals with the hull-kernel topology, and for every (closed, two-sided) ideal $`𝒥`$ in the algebra, $`𝒥`$ is the intersection of all n-primitive ideals containing $`𝒥`$.

In this paper we study nest representations whose ranges contain non-zero compact operators. The algebras under consideration are the strongly maximal TAF algebras, i.e., direct limits of sums of upper triangular matrices so that the corresponding embeddings are \*-extendable and regular . Perhaps surprisingly, there is little in the literature concerning representations of strongly maximal TAF algebras with compact operators in the range. One reason may be that the ranges of the faithful representations of such algebras fail to contain any compact operators, provided that the enveloping $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra is simple. This applies to all motivating examples of the theory, such as the standard, refinement and alternation limit algebras. The situation changes dramatically however if one allows the representation to have non-zero kernel. To begin with, every multiplicative linear form on the algebra generates a representation on an one-dimensional Hilbert space and so its range consists of rank one operators. (We call these representations trivial, for the obvious reasons.) More interestingly, the standard limit algebra has sufficiently many finite dimensional representations to separate the points. (See  for a characterization of the residually finite TUHF algebras.) It is not obvious at all however that other algebras, such as the refinement or alternation limit algebras, admit non-trivial nest representations with non-zero compact operators in the range. It is this question that initially motivated the research in this paper. It turns out that this question is related to a different open problem in representation theory which we now describe.

An ideal $`𝒥`$ of a Banach algebra $`𝒜`$ is said to be  meet irreducible iff it cannot be expressed as the intersection of a finite collection of ideals of $`𝒜`$ properly containing $`𝒥`$. The meet irreducible ideals are related to the n-primitive ideals and this relationship was exploited in . In  it was shown that for a strongly maximal TAF algebra every meet irreducible ideal is n-primitive. The converse question, whether every n-primitive ideal is meet irreducible was left open in  and was answered affirmatively in .

Another problem that was left open in  was the characterization of completely meet irreducible ideals using representation theory. An ideal $`𝒥`$ of a Banach algebra $`𝒜`$ is called completely meet irreducible if, for any collection of ideals $`𝒥_a`$, $`a𝔸`$, containing $`𝒥`$, the relation $`𝒥=_{a𝔸}𝒥_a`$ implies $`𝒥=𝒥_a`$, for some $`a𝔸`$. It is easily seen that this definition is equivalent to the existence of a unique successor $`𝒥^+`$ of $`𝒥`$ in the ideal lattice of $`𝒜`$. The completely meet irreducible ideals have played a fundamental role in the classification theory of strongly maximal TAF algebras . Motivated by this, and their study of nest representations, the five authors of  attempted a characterization of the completely meet irreducible ideals of a strongly maximal TAF algebra in terms of its nest representations (Corollary 5.7). In \[5, Example 5.8\] it was realized that the order type of the nest alone is not sufficient for such a characterization and therefore the problem was left open. The solution of this problem is contained in Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.5. It turns out that the missed point in  was the use of finite rank operators. Here we identify a special class of nest representations whose ranges contain compact operators, the essential nest representations (Definition 2.4), and we show that the completely meet irreducible ideals coincide with the kernels of the essential nest representations. A key element in the proof of Theorem 2.3 is our recent characterization of the meet irreducible ideals as the kernels of the nest representations .

Utilizing the connection between compact operators and completely meet irreducible ideals, we subsequently show that every strongly maximal TAF algebra admits sufficiently many contractive representations, with compact operators in the range, to separate the points and actually capture the norm (Theorem 2.10). This answers affirmatively the question that stimulated this work.

Motivated by the significance of nest representations with compact operators in the range, we undertake a general study of such representations in the second section of the paper. A first result shows that if the range of a nest representation $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ of a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜`$ contains compact operators, then the nest $`𝒩`$ is similar to a completely atomic one. Having established that the nests involved in our considerations are completely atomic (up to a similarity), we subsequently consider the simplest possible case. In Theorem 3.3 we show that the range of an $``$-ordered nest representations $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ contains finite rank operators if and only if $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ fails to be a prime ideal. (It is worth mentioning that the proof of this result works for any complex algebra.) The second section concludes with a result which shows that if the range of a nest representation $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ is closed then the compact operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ form a closed ideal in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. This allows us to make use of the theory in  and strengthen several of the results of this section, provided that $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is norm closed. Finally, note that Example 2.6 shows that it is possible that the only non-zero compact operators in the range of a nest representation are rank one operators. Therefore we cannot expect stronger approximation results by utilizing strong operator topology. (Compare with Corollary 3.8.)

In the final section of the paper we use representation theory to give a coordinate-free description of the fundamental groupoid for a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$, i.e., a description that does not depend on the ascending sequence of finite dimensional subalgebras $`𝒜_i`$, $`i`$. Our approach is influenced from the definition of the projective space from Algebraic Geometry.

###### Remark 1.1.

The results of Section 4 have influenced subsequent work on the classification problem for non-selfadjoint operator algebras. In , the first author and D. Kribs classify the quiver and free semigroupoid algebras of Muhly  and Kribs and Power  using a variant of the projective dual (Definition 4.2).

## 2. Compact operators, representations and completely meet irreducible ideals

In this section we characterize the completely meet irreducible ideals as kernels of nest representations of a special kind. Subsequently we show that for every strongly maximal TAF algebra there exist sufficiently many nest representations, containing finite rank operators in their ranges, to separate the points.

The following was also observed in  and will be repeatedly used in the sequel.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation of a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ on a Hilbert space $``$. Assume that $`\rho `$ is a $``$-representation on the diagonal of $`𝒜`$. If $`p`$ is an atom for $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ then $`dimp()=1`$.

Proof. If $`gp()`$, then $`[\rho (𝒜)g]𝒩`$ and satisfies

$$[\rho (𝒜)g]=[g]M_g,$$

for some closed subspace $`M_gp()^{}`$. Clearly any two such subspaces $`M_g,M_h`$ cannot be comparable unless $`g=\lambda h`$, $`\lambda `$, and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`𝒩`$ is a nest then $`0_+`$ denotes the minimal non-zero element of $`𝒩`$ with the understanding that if such an element does not exist then $`0_+=0`$. Similarly, $`I_{}`$ denotes the largest element of $`𝒩`$ not equaling $`I`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation of $`𝒜`$ on a Hilbert space $``$. Assume that $`R\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ is a non-zero rank one operator so that

$$R\rho (𝒜)=\rho (𝒜)R=R.$$

Then there exist non-zero vectors $`g,h`$ so that $`0_+=[g]`$, $`I_{}^{}=[h]`$ and $`R=gh`$.

Proof. Let $`R=gh`$ for suitable vectors $`g,h`$. Now $`\rho (𝒜)R=R`$ implies that $`[\rho (𝒜)g]=[g]`$, i.e., the subspace $`[g]`$ is invariant by $`\rho (𝒜)`$. Since $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ is a nest representation, we obtain $`[g]𝒩`$. Therefore, $`0_+=[g]`$. A similar argument shows that $`I_{}^{}=[h]`$ and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 5.7 of  shows that for a certain class of nest representations whose kernels are completely meet irreducible ideals, $`0`$ has an immediate sucessor in the nest, and $`I`$ has an immediate predecessor. In the following theorem we require merely that the nest representation be a star representation on the diagonal.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation of $`𝒜`$ on a Hilbert space $``$. If $`\rho `$ is a $``$-representation on the diagonal of $`𝒜`$, then the following are equivalent:

* $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal.
* There exist non-zero vectors $`g,h`$ so that $`0_+=[g]`$, $`I_{}^{}=[h]`$ and $`R=gh\rho (𝒜)`$.

Proof. Assume that $`𝒥=\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal. Lemma 3.1 in  implies now that there exists a closed ideal $`𝒥^+`$ containing $`𝒥`$ so that $`dim\left(𝒥^+/𝒥\right)=1`$. Since closed ideals of limit algebras are inductive, there exists a matrix unit $`e𝒜_n`$, $`n`$, so that $`e𝒥^+𝒥`$. Furthermore, all but one of the subordinates of $`e`$ in $`𝒜_i`$, $`in`$, are mapped by $`\rho `$ to zero, or otherwise $`dim\left(𝒥^+/𝒥\right)1`$. Therefore we produce decreasing sequences $`\{p_i\}_{in}`$, $`\{q_i\}_{in}`$ of diagonal matrix units, $`p_i,q_i𝒜_i`$, $`in`$, so that $`p_ieq_i`$ is a subordinate of $`e`$ and

(1)
$$\rho (p_ieq_i)=\rho (e).$$

Note that the sequences $`\{\rho (p_i)\}_{in}`$, $`\{\rho (q_i)\}_{in}`$ are decreasing sequences of selfadjoint projections and therefore converge strongly to projections $`p`$ and $`q`$ respectively.

We claim that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are one-dimensional projections commuting with $`𝒩`$.

First note that (1) shows that $`p\rho (e)q=\rho (e)`$ and so both $`p`$ and $`q`$ are non-zero projections. Now for a fixed $`i`$,

$$p_{i+k}𝒜_ip_{i+k}=p_{i+k}p_i𝒜_ip_ip_{i+k}=p_{i+k},$$

for all $`k`$. Hence, $`p\rho (𝒜_i)p=p`$ and so $`p\rho (𝒜)p=p`$. In particular, $`p`$ is an atom for $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ and so Lemma 2.1 shows that $`p`$ is a rank one projection commuting with $`𝒩`$. A similar argument proves the claim for $`q`$

Since $`p\rho (e)q=\rho (e)`$ the above claim shows that $`\rho (e)`$ is a rank one operator and so there exist vectors $`g,h`$ so that $`\rho (e)=gh`$. Furthermore notice that given any matrix unit $`a𝒜`$, we have $`ae𝒥^+`$ and so either $`ae=\lambda e+f`$, $`\lambda ,f𝒥`$, or $`ae𝒥`$ (and $`f=0`$). In any case, $`\rho (a)\rho (e)=\lambda \rho (e)`$ for some $`\lambda `$. Hence, $`\rho (𝒜)\rho (e)=\rho (e)`$ and similarly $`\rho (e)\rho (𝒜)=\rho (e)`$, i.e., $`\rho (e)`$ satisfies the condition of Lemma 2.2 and the conclusion follows.

We now show that (ii) implies (i). A moment’s reflection shows that $`R`$ is an ideal in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ and therefore in $`\rho (𝒜)`$. Hence, $`\widehat{𝒥}=\rho ^1(R)`$ is a norm closed ideal of $`𝒜`$ containing $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$. Since $`dim\left(\widehat{𝒥}/\mathrm{ker}\rho \right)=1`$, there exists $`a𝒜`$ so that

(2)
$$\widehat{𝒥}=a+\mathrm{ker}\rho .$$

Let $``$ be any ideal properly containing $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$. Then

$$\mathrm{ker}\rho \widehat{𝒥}\widehat{𝒥},$$

with one of the above two containments being an equality because of (2). However, $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is the kernel of a nest representation and so Theorem 2.4 in  implies that $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a meet irreducible ideal. Hence, $`\widehat{𝒥}=\widehat{𝒥}`$ and so $`a`$. This shows that any closed ideal containing $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ also contains $`a`$ and so the intersection of all such ideals properly contains $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$. Conclusion: $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal. $`\mathrm{}`$

The statement of Theorem 2.3 suggests the following definition.

###### Definition 2.4.

A nest representation $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ of an operator algebra $`𝒜`$ is said to be essential if the following conditions are satisfied:

* $`dim0_+=dimI_{}^{}=1`$.
* The rank one operator from $`I_{}^{}`$ into $`0_+`$ belongs to $`\rho (𝒜)`$.

We have arrived at the desired characterization of completely meet irreducible ideals.

###### Corollary 2.5.

A closed ideal of a strongly maximal TAF algebra is completely meet irreducible ideal if and only if it is the kernel of an essential nest representation.

Proof. Observe that the proof of (ii) implies (i) in Theorem 2.3 is applicable to any essential nest representation. (The requirement that $`\rho `$ is a $``$-homomorphism on the diagonal is used in the proof of the other direction.) Therefore, the kernels of the essential nest representations are completely meet irreducible ideals. Conversely, any meet irreducible ideal $`𝒥`$ of a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜`$ is the kernel of a nest representation $`\rho `$, which is a $``$-representation on the diagonal . If $`𝒥`$ is completely meet irreducible then the above theorem shows that $`\rho `$ is an essential nest representation and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

In \[5, Example 5.8\] it is shown that the above result fails if one does not require the range of the essential nest representation to contain the designated rank one operator. On the other hand, it is easy to see that for the refinement algebras, the order type of the nest alone implies the existence of the rank one operator in Definition 2.4. It would be interesting to know which are precisely the algebras which satisfy that property.

The following examples show that the finite rank operators contained in the range of an essential nest representation may not be sufficient to describe the range of the representation in any reasonable topology. To give the examples, we require the theory of $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-envelopes as developed in .

Let $`𝔄=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔄_i,\phi _i)`$ be the enveloping $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra for a TAF algebra $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ and let $`𝒥𝒜`$ be a closed ideal; let $`𝒥_i:=𝒥𝒜_i`$. For each $`i1`$, $`𝒮_i`$ denotes the collection of all diagonal projections $`p`$ which are semi-invariant for $`𝒜_i`$, are supported on a single summand of $`𝔄_i`$ and satisfy $`(p𝒜_ip)𝒥=\{0\}`$. We form finite dimensional C\*-algebras

$$𝔅_i:=\underset{pS_i}{}(\mathrm{Ran}p)$$

where $`(\mathrm{Ran}p)`$ denotes the bounded operators on $`\mathrm{Ran}p`$; of course, $`(\mathrm{Ran}p)`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔐_{\mathrm{rank}p}`$. Let $`\sigma _i`$ be the map from $`𝔄_i`$ into $`𝔅_i`$ given by $`\sigma _i(a)=_{pS_i}^{}pap|_{\mathrm{Ran}p}`$. The map $`\sigma _i|_{𝒜_i}`$ factors as $`\rho _iq_i`$ where $`q_i`$ is the quotient map of $`𝒜_i`$ onto $`𝒜_i/𝒥_i`$ and $`\rho _i`$ is a completely isometric homomorphism of $`𝒜_i/𝒥_i`$ into $`𝔅_i`$. Notice that $`𝔅_i`$ equals the $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra generated by $`\rho _i(𝒜_i/𝒥_i)`$.

We then consider unital embeddings $`\pi _i`$ of $`𝔅_i`$ into $`𝔅_{i+1}`$ defined as follows. For each $`q𝒮_{i+1}`$ we choose projections $`p𝒮_i`$ which maximally embed into $`q`$ under the action of $`\phi _i`$. This way, we determine multiplicity one embeddings of $`(\mathrm{Ran}p)`$ into $`(\mathrm{Ran}q)`$. Taking into account all such possible embeddings, we determine the embedding $`\pi _i`$ of $`𝔅_i`$ into $`𝔅_{i+1}`$.

Finally we form the subsystem of the directed limit $`𝔅=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔅_i,\pi _i)`$ corresponding to all summands which are never mapped into a summand $`(\mathrm{Ran}p)`$ where $`p`$ is a maximal element of some $`𝒮_i`$. Evidently this system is directed upwards. It is also hereditary in the sense that if every image of a summand lies in one of the selected blocks, then it clearly does not map into a maximal summand and thus already lies in our system. By \[2, Theorem III.4.2\], this system determines an ideal $``$ of $`𝔅`$. The quotient $`𝔅^{}=𝔅/`$ is the AF algebra corresponding to the remaining summands and the remaining embeddings; it can be expressed as a direct limit $`𝔅^{}=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔅_i^{},\pi _i^{})`$, with the understanding that $`𝔅_i^{}=_j𝔅_{ij}`$ for these remaining summands $`𝔅_{ij}`$ of $`𝔅_i`$. It can be seen that the quotient map is isometric on $`A/𝒥`$ and that $`𝔅^{}`$ is the $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-envelope of $`A/𝒥`$.

###### Example 2.6.

There exists an infinite dimensional essential nest representation $`\rho `$ of a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜`$ so that the only compact operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ are rank one operators.

Let $`𝒜`$ be the $`2^{\mathrm{}}`$-refinement algebra and let $`𝒥`$ be the ideal of $`𝒜`$ determined by the sequence

$$e_{1,2}^{(1)},e_{1,3}^{(2)},e_{1,5}^{(3)},e_{1,9}^{(4)},\mathrm{}$$

of subordinates of the matrix unit $`e_{1,2}^{(1)}𝒜_1`$. Therefore, the ideal $`𝒜𝒥_i`$ is generated by all the matrix units in $`𝒜_i`$ except from the ones in the ”wedge” whose top right corner is $`e_{1,2^{i1}+1}^{(i)}`$. Following the construction of the $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-envelope described earlier, the $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-envelope $`𝔅^{}=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔅_i^{},\pi _i^{})`$ of $`𝒜/𝒥`$ is given by the inductive limit

$$M_2M_1M_3M_2M_5M_4\mathrm{}$$

where $`M_{2^i}`$ embeds in $`M_{2^{i+1}}`$ with the refinement embedding and $`M_{2^i+1}M_{2^i}`$ embeds in $`M_{2^{i+1}+1}`$ with the embedding that sends

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_{1,1}& a_{1,2}& \mathrm{}& a_{1,k+1}\\ a_{2,1}& a_{2,2}& \mathrm{}& a_{2,k+1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{k+1,1}& a_{k+1,2}& \mathrm{}& a_{k+1,k+1}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}b_{1,1}& b_{1,2}& \mathrm{}& b_{1,k}\\ b_{2,1}& b_{2,2}& \mathrm{}& b_{2,k}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ b_{k,1}& b_{k,2}& \mathrm{}& b_{k,k}\end{array}\right)$$

to the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}a_{1,1}& 0& a_{1,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& a_{1,k}& 0& a_{1,k+1}\\ 0& b_{1,1}& 0& b_{1,2}& \mathrm{}& 0& b_{1,k}& 0\\ a_{2,1}& 0& a_{2,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& a_{2,k}& 0& a_{2,k+1}\\ 0& b_{2,1}& 0& b_{2,2}& \mathrm{}& 0& b_{2,k}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{k,1}& 0& a_{k,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& a_{k,k}& 0& a_{k,k+1}\\ 0& b_{k,1}& 0& b_{k,2}& \mathrm{}& 0& b_{k,k}& 0\\ a_{k+1,1}& 0& a_{k+1,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& a_{k+1,k}& 0& a_{k+1,k+1}\end{array}\right).$$

We therefore have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}𝒜_1/J_1& \stackrel{\phi _1}{}& 𝒜_2/J_2& \stackrel{\phi _2}{}& 𝒜_3/J_3& \stackrel{\phi _3}{}& \mathrm{}\\ \sigma _1& & \sigma _2& & \sigma _3& & & & \\ M_2M_1& \stackrel{\pi _1^{}}{}& M_3M_2& \stackrel{\pi _2^{}}{}& M_5M_4& \stackrel{\pi _3^{}}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

where the vertical maps $`\sigma _i`$ are defined as follows. Given $`a𝒜_i`$,

(3)
$$\sigma _i(a+𝒥)=\widehat{a}\stackrel{~}{a},$$

where $`\widehat{a}`$ is the ”wedge” of $`a`$ determined by $`a+𝒥_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ results from $`\widehat{a}`$ when its last row and column are removed.

Consider the representation $`\tau :𝔅^{}()`$ of Theorem 2.4 in . This is a faithful irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{C}_{\text{env}}^{}(𝒜/𝒥)`$ because $`𝒥`$ is meet irreducible. It also maps $`𝒜/𝒥`$ densely in a nest algebra $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. Let $`\rho =\tau \pi `$, where $`\pi :𝒜𝒜/𝒥`$ is the quotient map.

Since $`𝒥`$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal, there exist non-zero vectors $`g,h`$ so that $`0_+=[h]`$, $`I_{}^{}=[g]`$. We claim that the only compact operators in $`\rho (𝒜)=\tau (𝒜/𝒥)`$ are of the form $`gh^{}`$, $`h^{}`$.

We identify first the rank one operators in $`\tau \left(_i𝔅_i^{}\right)`$. Let $`e_i𝔅_i^{}`$. Since $`\tau `$ is an irreducible representation, $`\tau (e)`$ has rank one iff

$$e𝔅^{}e=e,$$

i.e., $`e`$ has only one subordinate in any $`𝔅_i^{}`$. Therefore, $`eM_{2^{i+1}+1}`$, for some $`i`$. If in addition $`e`$ belongs to $`𝒜/𝒥`$ then (3) shows that all columns of $`e`$ are $`0`$ except the last one. For such a $`e`$, $`\tau (e)`$ has the claimed form.

Finally, we look at $`𝒜`$ and consider $`v_i𝒜_i`$ so that $`\rho (v)`$ is a rank one operator. Then $`\pi (v)`$ is mapped by $`\tau `$ to a rank one operator and therefore $`\rho (v)=\tau (\pi (v))`$ has the claimed form. By Theorem 3.7, sums of these operators approximate all compacts in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ and the conclusion follows.

With some additional work, one can obtain the following.

###### Example 2.7.

There exists an infinite dimensional essential nest representation $`\rho `$ of a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜`$ so that the only compact operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ are the scalar multiples of the rank one operator $`R`$ appearing in Theorem 2.3.

Let $`𝒜`$ be the $`2^{\mathrm{}}`$-refinement algebra and this time let $`𝒥`$ be the ideal of $`𝒜`$ determined by the sequence

$$e_{1,2}^{(1)},e_{2,4}^{(2)},e_{3,7}^{(3)},e_{6,14}^{(4)},\mathrm{}$$

of subordinates of the matrix unit $`e_{1,2}^{(1)}𝒜_1`$.

We now show that for a strongly maximal TAF algebra $`𝒜`$, the nest representations whose ranges contain finite rank operators separate the points. First we need a lemma.

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`e𝒜_i`$, $`i`$, be a matrix unit. Then there exists a completely meet irreducible ideal $`𝒥𝒜`$ so that $`e𝒥`$.

Proof. Recall from \[8, Corollary 2.2\] that every element of the spectrum of $`𝒜`$ can be identified with a norm one linear functional which maps all matrix units onto $`\{0,1\}`$. In \[8, Proposition 3.5\] it is shown that for every meet irreducible ideal $`𝒥`$ there exists a unique functional $`\phi _𝒥`$ in the spectrum such that $`\phi _𝒥`$ annihilates $`𝒥`$ but does not annihilate $`𝒥^+`$. The proof follows from that of \[8, Theorem 3.7\]. There it is shown that if $`e𝒜_i`$, $`i`$, is a matrix unit, then there exists a completely meet irreducible ideal $`𝒥`$ so that $`\phi _𝒥(e)=1`$. Since $`\phi _𝒥`$ annihilates $`𝒥`$, the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following result depends essentially on an application of Arveson’s distance formula.

###### Lemma 2.9.

 Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`𝒥𝒜`$ be a closed ideal. If $`a𝒜_i`$, $`i`$, then

$$\mathrm{dist}(a,𝒜_i𝒥)=\mathrm{dist}(a,𝒥)$$

Proof. In \[3, Corollary 2.5\] we show that the injection of $`𝒜_i/(𝒜_i𝒥)`$ into $`𝒜_{i+1}/(𝒜_{i+1}𝒥)`$ is a complete isometry. Therefore, if $`a𝒜_i`$, then

$$\mathrm{dist}(a,𝒜_i𝒥)=\mathrm{dist}(a,𝒜_{i+k}𝒥),$$

for all $`k`$. The above equality passes to closed unions and since $`𝒥`$ is inductive, the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.10.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra. If $`a𝒜`$, then

$$a=\mathrm{sup}\left\{\rho (a)\rho \text{ is a contractive essential nest representation}\right\},$$

Proof. Let $`𝔄=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔄_i,\phi _i)`$ be the enveloping $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra of $`𝒜`$. First we prove the result in the case where $`𝔄`$ is primitive.

Let $`a_i𝒜_i`$ so that $`aa_iϵ`$ and so $`a_iaϵ`$. Since $`𝔄`$ is primitive there exists a single summand $`𝒜_j^{(k_j)}`$ in some $`𝒜_j`$, $`j>i`$, so that all summands of $`𝒜_i`$ are embedded in $`𝒜_j^{(k_j)}`$. Let $`e`$ be the top right matrix unit in $`𝒜_j^{(k_j)}`$ and let $`𝒥𝒜`$ be a completely meet irreducible ideal as in Lemma 2.8 so that $`e𝒥`$. By construction, none of the matrix units in $`𝒜_i`$ belongs to $`𝒥`$ or otherwise $`e𝒥`$. Therefore, $`𝒜_i𝒥=\{0\}`$ and so Lemma 2.9 shows that

$$\mathrm{dist}(a_i,𝒥)=a_i.$$

Consider now an isometric nest representation $`\widehat{\rho }`$ of $`𝒜/𝒥`$ \[4, Theorem 2.4\]. Then the induced representation $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ is a contractive essential nest representation and satisfies

$$\rho (a_i)=\mathrm{dist}(a_i,𝒥)=a_iaϵ.$$

Hence

$`\rho (a)`$ $``$ $`\rho (a_i)\rho (aa_i)`$
$``$ $`a2ϵ.`$
Since $`ϵ`$ is arbitrary, the conclusion follows.

In order to prove the result in the general case, notice that there exists a primitive ideal $`𝔍`$ of $`𝔄`$ so that $`a=a+𝔍`$. The natural map $`\pi :𝔄𝔄/𝔍`$ sends $`𝒜`$ on a strongly maximal TAF algebra with primitive enveloping $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra $`𝔄/𝔍`$. From what we proved earlier it follows that there exists a contractive essential nest representation $`\widehat{\rho }`$ of $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ so that

$$\widehat{\rho }(a+𝔍)a+𝔍ϵ=aϵ$$

Considering the representation $`\widehat{\rho }\pi `$, the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Structure for nest representations with compact operators in the range

In this section we study arbitrary nest representations with compact operators in the range. The central result of the section is the dichotomy of Theorem 3.3; either the kernel of an $``$-ordered nest representation is a prime ideal or else the range of the representation contains non-zero finite rank operators. We also obtain some approximation results, Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.8, which are similar in spirit to those of .

We begin with a result that limits the types of nests involved in representations of strongly maximal TAF algebras with non-zero compact operators in the ranges. We need the following.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation on a Hilbert space $``$. Assume that $`\rho `$ is a $``$-representation on the diagonal $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$ of $`𝒜`$. If $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero compact operators then $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ has atoms.

Proof. Notice that the elements of $`𝒜`$ that are mapped to compact operators form a closed ideal in $`𝒜`$. Since closed ideals of limit algebras are inductive, there exists an $`n`$ and a matrix unit $`e𝒜_n`$ so that $`\rho (e)`$ is a non-zero compact operator. Now $`e`$ can be expressed as a sum

$$e=\underset{l}{}e_l^{(n+1)}$$

of matrix units $`e_l^{(n+1)}𝒜_{n+1}`$ whose initial and final spaces are orthogonal. Hence, the operators $`\rho (e_l^{(n+1)})`$ act on orthogonal subspaces of $``$ and have orthogonal ranges. Since their sum equals $`\rho (e)`$ there exists at least one of them, say $`e_{n+1}`$, so that $`\rho (e_{n+1})=\rho (e)`$. Arguing as above we now produce a subordinate $`e_{n+2}𝒜_{n+2}`$ of $`e_{n+1}`$ so that $`\rho (e_{n+2})=\rho (e)`$. Inductively, we define a sequence $`\{e_i\}_{in}`$, $`e_i𝒜_i`$ of matrix units each of which subordinates the previous one, so that $`\rho (e_i)=\rho (e)`$. for all $`i`$. Equivalently, we produce decreasing sequences $`\{p_i\}_{in}`$, $`\{q_i\}_{in}`$ of diagonal matrix units, $`p_i,q_i𝒜_i`$, $`in`$, so that $`\rho (p_ieq_i)=\rho (e)`$. Note that the sequences $`\{\rho (p_i)\}_{in}`$, $`\{\rho (q_i)\}_{in}`$ are decreasing sequences of selfadjoint projections and therefore converge strongly to projections $`p`$ and $`q`$ respectively. We will show that the desired atom for $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ is the projection $`p`$.

First we prove that $`p`$ is a non-zero projection. Indeed, the sequence $`\{\rho (p_i)\rho (e)\rho (q_i)\}_{in}`$ converges strongly to $`p\rho (e)q`$. Since $`\rho (e)`$ is compact, the sequence $`\{\rho (p_i)\rho (e)\rho (q_i)\}_{in}`$ converges to $`p\rho (e)q`$ in norm. However,

$$\rho (p_i)\rho (e)\rho (q_i)=\rho (e_i)=\rho (e)$$

for all $`i`$ and so $`p\rho (e)q=\rho (e)`$, i.e., $`p`$ is a non-zero projection.

Finally, notice that for a fixed $`i`$, $`p_{i+k}𝒜_ip_{i+k}=p_{i+k}`$, for all $`k`$. Hence, $`p\rho (𝒜_i)p=p`$ and so $`p\rho (𝒜)p=p`$. In particular, $`p`$ is an atom for $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation. If $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero compact operators then $`𝒩`$ is similar to a completely atomic nest. Furthermore, $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is w\*-dense in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$.

Proof. Recall that any bounded representation of $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$ is completely bounded \[23, Theorem 8.7\], and a completely bounded representation is similar to a completely contractive one \[23, Theorem 8.1\]. Therefore $`\rho `$ is similar to a nest representation $`\widehat{\rho }`$ so that $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is a $``$-representation on the diagonal of $`𝒜`$. Let $`S`$ be the invertible operator implementing that similarity, i.e., $`\widehat{\rho }(A)=S\rho (A)S^1`$, for all $`A𝒜`$. The previous lemma shows that $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ contains an atom. Proposition 3.5 in  shows now that $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ is a totally atomic von Neumann algebra. By Lemma 2.1, the atoms of $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ are one dimensional and so $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ is a masa. Since $`S𝒩S^1`$ commutes with $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$, it is a completely atomic nest.

To prove the last sentence, notice that since $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ is a totally atomic masa in $`()`$, the w\*-closure $`\overline{\widehat{\rho }(𝒜)}^\text{w}^{}`$ of $`\widehat{\rho }(𝒜)`$ contains a masa and satisfies $`\mathrm{Lat}\overline{\widehat{\rho }(𝒜)}^\text{w}^{}=S𝒩S^1`$. Therefore, $`\overline{\widehat{\rho }(𝒜)}^\text{w}^{}=\mathrm{Alg}S𝒩S^1`$, by \[1, Corollary 15.12\] and so $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is w\*-dense in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Having established that the nests involved in our considerations are completely atomic (up to a similarity), we now undertake the simplest possible case. Recall that in  we proved that the kernel of any nest representation is a meet irreducible ideal. A particular class of meet irreducible ideals, the primitive ideals, were characterized in  as the closed and prime ones. The proof of the result below works for any complex algebra, not just strongly maximal TAF algebras. We therefore state it in that generality

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a complex algebra and let $`𝒩`$ be a maximal nest which is ordered as $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Let $`\rho `$ be a representation of $`𝒜`$ so that $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is w\*-dense in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. Then the following are equivalent:

* $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero finite rank operators.
* $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ fails to be a prime ideal.

Proof. Assume first that (ii) is valid and by way of contradiction assume that $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains no non-zero finite rank operators.

Let $`𝒥_1,𝒥_2`$ be ideals in $`𝒜`$ so that $`𝒥_1,𝒥_2\mathrm{ker}\rho `$. Therefore the closed subspaces $`[\rho (𝒥_i)()]`$, $`i=1,2`$, are non-zero invariant subspaces for $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. Since $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains no finite rank operators, any non-zero operator in $`\rho (𝒥_i)`$ has infinite dimensional range and so we necessarily have

$$[\rho (𝒥_1)()]=[\rho (𝒥_2)()]=.$$

Let $`a𝒥_1`$ and $`h`$ so that $`\rho (a)h0`$. Since $`[\rho (𝒥_2)()]=`$ there exist sequences $`\{b_n^{(i)}\}_{n,i}`$ and $`\{h_n^{(i)}\}_{n,i}`$ so that $`lim_n\mathrm{}_i\rho (b_n^{(i)})h_n^{(i)}=h`$. Hence,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{i}{}\rho (ab_n^{(i)})h_n^{(i)}=\rho (a)h0$$

and therefore at least one of the terms $`\rho (ab_n^{(i)})h_n^{(i)}`$ is non-zero. Hence $`𝒥_1𝒥_2\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ and so $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is prime, a contradiction.

We now prove that (i) implies (ii). Assume that $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains a non-zero finite rank operator $`G`$.

Claim 1. $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains a non-zero finite rank operator $`F`$ with zero diagonal.

If $`G`$ has zero diagonal, then let $`F=G`$. Otherwise, the finite rank operator $`G`$ has non-zero eigenvalues $`\lambda `$. The corresponding Riesz idempotents $`E(\lambda )`$, $`\lambda `$ have finite rank and belong to the algebra generated by $`G`$ and hence to $`\rho (𝒜)`$. Choose any such non-zero $`E(\lambda )`$ and let $`S=\left[E(\lambda )^{}E(\lambda )(IE(\lambda ))^{}(IE(\lambda ))\right]^{1/2}`$ be the normalizer of $`E(\lambda )`$. Thus $`PSE(\lambda )S^1`$ is a selfadjoint projection that belongs to the diagonal of the nest $`S𝒩`$. (By a result of Larson $`S𝒩`$ is unitarily equivalent to $`𝒩`$ and therefore an $``$-ordered nest.) Note that a similarity preserves the Jacobson Radical and therefore finite rank operators with zero diagonal. Hence it is enough to prove the claim for $`S\rho (𝒜)S^1`$. We distinguish two cases.

If $`dimP2`$, then $`PS\rho (𝒜)S^1P`$ is w\*-dense and therefore equal to $`P(\mathrm{Alg}S𝒩)P`$ (Theorem 3.2). Since $`P(\mathrm{Alg}S𝒩)P`$ contains rank one operators with zero diagonal, the same is true for

$$PS\rho (𝒜)S^1P=SE(\lambda )\rho (𝒜)E(\lambda )S^1S\rho (𝒜)S^1,$$

which proves the claim in that case.

If $`dimP=1`$, then $`P\mathrm{Alg}S𝒩`$ consists of rank one operators and has

$$PS\rho (𝒜)S^1=SE(\lambda )\rho (𝒜)S^1$$

as a dense subset. Hence there exists at least one non-zero rank one operator in $`SE(\lambda )\rho (𝒜)S^1`$ , say $`R`$. The desired finite rank operator will then be any operator of the form

$$F=RtP$$

for a suitable scalar $`t`$. The proof of the claim is complete.

Let $`F`$ be as in the Claim 1 and assume that $`F`$ has rank $`n`$. By \[10, Lemma 1.2\], $`F`$ can be expressed as the sum of $`n`$ rank one operators in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ with zero diagonal. Hence there exist projections $`E_i𝒩`$, $`1in`$, and vectors $`e_iE_i^{}`$, $`f_iE_i`$, $`1in`$, so that

$$F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e_if_i.$$

Let $`x`$ be an element of $`𝒜`$ so that $`\rho (x)=F`$ and let $`_x`$ be the smallest ideal of $`𝒜`$ containing $`x`$.

Claim 2. $`(_x)^{n+1}\mathrm{ker}\phi `$.

It is enough to show that $`(_F)^{n+1}=0`$, where $`_F`$ denotes the smallest ideal of $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ containing $`F`$. Observe that $`(_F)^{n+1}`$ consists of finite sums of elements of the form

(4)
$$A_{i_1}\left(e_{i_1}f_{i_1}\right)A_{i_2}\left(e_{i_2}f_{i_2}\right)\mathrm{}A_{i_{n+1}}\left(e_{i_{n+1}}f_{i_{n+1}}\right)A_{i_{n+2}},$$

where $`A_{i_j}\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$, for all $`i_j`$. At least two of the rank one operators $`e_{i_j}f_{i_j}`$ coincide and therefore the term in (4) reduces to

$$A\left(e_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)B\left(e_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)C$$

with $`A,B,C\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. However,

$`A\left(e_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)B\left(e_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)C`$ $`=`$ $`A(E_{i_j}^{}e_{i_j}f_{i_j})B\left(e_{i_j}E_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)C`$
$`=`$ $`A\left(e_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)E_{i_j}^{}BE_{i_j}\left(e_{i_j}f_{i_j}\right)C`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
since $`B\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. This proves the claim

Let $`m`$ be the least positive integer so that $`(_x)^m\mathrm{ker}\phi `$. Since $`_x\mathrm{ker}\rho `$, Claim 2 shows that $`m`$ exists and $`m2`$. Consider the ideals $`=_x`$ and $`𝒥=(_x)^{m1}`$. Both are non-trivial ideals not contained in $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ that satisfy $`𝒥=(_x)^m\mathrm{ker}\phi `$. Hence $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is not a prime ideal, as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

All examples of $``$-ordered nest representations of TUHF (triangular UHF) algebras available in the literature fail to contain non-zero compact operators in the range. (The known examples of such representations with compact operators in the range occur for TAF algebras whose $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-envelope is not simple.) The following example shows that such representations do occur in a rather natural manner.

###### Example 3.4.

There exists a strongly maximal TUHF algebra $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ which admits an $``$-ordered nest representation with non-zero rank one operators in the range.

Let $`𝒜_i`$, $`i2`$, be the collection of all $`3^i\times 3^i`$-upper triangular matrices. These are viewed as $`3\times 3`$-block upper triangular matrices of the form

(5)
$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_{1,1}& A_{1,2}& A_{1,3}\\ 0& A_{2,2}& A_{2,3}\\ 0& 0& A_{3,3}\end{array}\right),$$

where both the $`(2,2)`$ and $`(3,3)`$ entries are $`2^i\times 2^i`$-upper triangular matrices. The embedding $`\phi _i`$ maps (5) onto the matrix

(6)
$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_{1,1}^{(3)}& A_{1,2}^{(3)}& A_{1,3}^{(3)}\\ 0& A_{2,2}^{(3)}& A_{2,3}^{(3)}\\ 0& 0& A_{3,3}^{(3)}\end{array}\right),$$

where

$$A_{k,l}^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A_{k,l}& 0& 0\\ 0& A_{k,l}& 0\\ 0& 0& A_{k,l}\end{array}\right)$$

is the threefold ampliation of $`A_{k,l}`$. (This is a variant of the familiar block-standard embedding.)

Consider the collection $`𝒥_i`$ of all elements of $`𝒜_i`$ whose $`(2,2)`$ and $`(3,3)`$ entries in (5) are zero. Evidently, $`𝒥_i𝒜_i`$ is an ideal satisfying $`\phi _i(𝒜_i)𝒥_{i+1}=\phi _i(𝒥_i)`$. Therefore the sequence $`\{𝒥_i\}_i`$ determines a closed ideal $`𝒥`$ so that $`𝒥𝒜_i=𝒥_i`$, $`i`$. The quotient $`𝒜/𝒥`$ is the strongly maximal TAF algebra given by the inductive limit

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}T_2T_2& \stackrel{\psi _1}{}& T_4T_4& \stackrel{\psi _2}{}& T_8T_8& \stackrel{\psi _8}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

so that

$$\psi _i\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right)& 0\\ 0& \left(\begin{array}{cc}B& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right).$$

Considering a variant of the Smith representation, one sees that $`𝒜/𝒥`$ admits a $``$-ordered nest representation whose range contains all upper triangular compact operators and the conclusion follows.

The reader may have noticed that the proof of (i) implies (ii) in Theorem 3.3 is valid for any maximal nest $`𝒩`$. Therefore

###### Corollary 3.5.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a complex algebra, $`𝒩`$ be a maximal nest and let $`\rho `$ be a representation of $`𝒜`$ so that $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is w\*-dense in $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. If $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a prime ideal, then $`\rho (𝒜)`$ does not contain any non-zero finite rank operators.

The refinement algebras are not semisimple and therefore the trivial ideal $`\{0\}`$ is not prime in these algebras . On the other hand, there exist many representations of the refinement algebras whose ranges do not contain any non-zero compact operators. This shows that the converse of Corollary 3.5 fails for nest representations of order different than $``$.

Note that in the proof of (i) implies (ii) in Theorem 3.3, it follows that if $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains finite rank operators, then $`𝒜/\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ cannot be semisimple and so $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ cannot be the intersection of any collection of primitive ideals.

###### Corollary 3.6.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho `$ be an $``$-ordered nest representation of $`𝒜`$ on a Hilbert space $``$. Then either $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a primitive ideal or $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a meet irreducible ideal which cannot be expressed as the intersection of primitive ideals. In that case, $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero finite rank operators.

For the rest of this section, we specialize on nest representations with closed range. Such representations exist in abundance. Indeed, Theorem 2.4 in  implies that for any meet irreducible ideal $`𝒥`$ of a TAF algebra $`𝒜`$, there exists a nest representation $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ with closed range so that $`\mathrm{ker}\rho =𝒥`$. We begin with an approximation result that has already been used in Example 2.6

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation with closed range. Let $`e_i𝒜_i`$ be an element of $`𝒜`$ so that $`\rho (e)`$ is a compact operator. Then $`\rho (e)`$ can be expressed as the sum of finitely many rank one operators in $`\rho (_i𝒜_i)`$.

Proof. Let $`𝒥=\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ and let $`\widehat{\rho }:𝒜/𝒥\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be the mapping $`\widehat{\rho }(a+𝒥)=\rho (a)`$, $`a𝒜`$. Since $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is closed, the Inverse Mapping Theorem implies that $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is an isomorphism of Banach spaces and so there exist non-zero constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ so that

(7)
$$c_1a+𝒥\rho (a)c_2a+𝒥.$$

It is enough to prove that for any matrix unit $`e𝒜,\rho (e)`$ can be expressed as the sum of finitely many rank one operators in $`\rho (_i𝒜_i)`$. A matrix unit $`e𝒜_n`$ is said to be elementary iff $`\rho (e)0`$ and all but one of its subordinates in $`𝒜_i`$, $`in`$, are annihilated by $`\rho `$. An argument identical to that in the proof of Theorem 2.3 shows that if $`e`$ is elementary then $`\rho (e)`$ is a rank one operator.

We claim that $`e𝒜_n`$ is a finite sum of elementary operators. Equivalently, we claim that the number of subordinates of $`e`$ in $`𝒜_i`$, not annihilated by $`\rho `$, is uniformly bounded. Clearly the claim proves the theorem.

By way of contradiction, assume that the number of subordinates of $`e`$ in $`𝒜_i`$, not annihilated by $`\rho `$, is not uniformly bounded. Then there exist two subordinates $`e_1,f_1A_{i_1}`$ of $`e`$ so that $`\rho (e_1),\rho (f_1)0`$ and the number subordinates of $`e_1`$ in $`𝒜_i`$, $`ii_1`$, not annihilated by $`\rho `$ is not uniformly bounded. Consequently, there exist two subordinates $`e_2,f_2A_{i_2}`$ of $`e_1`$ so that $`\rho (e_2),\rho (f_2)0`$ and the number subordinates of $`e_2`$ in $`𝒜_i`$, $`ii_2`$, not annihilated by $`\rho `$ is, once again, not uniformly bounded. This way we produce a sequence $`\{f_i\}_i`$ of subordinates of $`e`$ so that $`\rho (f_i)0`$. Furthermore, if $`q_i`$ and $`p_i`$ are the initial and final spaces of $`f_i`$, $`i`$, then

$$p_ip_j=q_iq_j=0$$

for all $`i,j`$, with $`iȷ`$.

Since $`\rho `$ is a \*-representation on the diagonal, $`\{\rho (p_i)\}_i`$ and $`\{\rho (q_i)\}_i`$ are sequences of mutually orthogonal projections and therefore converge strongly to $`0`$. Since $`\rho (e)`$ is a compact operator we obtain,

$$\underset{i}{lim}\rho (f_i)=\underset{i}{lim}\rho (p_i)\rho (f)\rho (q_i)=0.$$

On the other hand,

$$\mathrm{dist}(f_i,𝒜_i𝒥)=\mathrm{dist}(f_i,𝒥)=1$$

and so (7) implies that $`\rho (f_i)c_1`$, which is a contradiction and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.8.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation with closed range. Then every compact operator in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ can be approximated in norm by sums of rank one operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$. In particular, $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains a non-zero compact operator if and only if it contains a non-zero rank one.

Proof. The elements of $`𝒜`$ that are mapped to compact operators form a closed ideal $`𝒦`$ in $`𝒜`$. Since the closed ideals of limit algebras are inductive, any such element $`a𝒦`$ can be approximated by elements in $`_i(𝒜_i𝒦)`$. The previous theorem shows that $`\rho \left(_i(𝒜_i𝒦)\right)`$ consists of sums of rank one operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.9.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation with closed range. Then the compact operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ form a closed ideal of $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$.

Proof. Corollary 3.8 shows that it is enough to check products between elements of $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ and rank one operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$. Let $`ef`$ be such a rank one operator and let $`A\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. By Theorem 3.2 there exist nets $`\{B_i\}_i`$ and $`\{C_j^{}\}_j`$, $`B_i,C_j\rho (𝒜)`$, converging to $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ respectively in the strong operator topology. Hence, $`\left\{B_i\left(ef\right)\right\}_i`$ and $`\left\{\left(ef\right)C_j\right\}_j`$ are nets in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ converging in norm to $`A(ef)`$ and $`(ef)A`$ respectively. Since $`\rho (A)`$ is closed, the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 3.9 allows us to take advantage of the theory in . For instance, if $`\rho (𝒜)`$ is closed then every rank $`n`$ operator in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ can be written as the sum of $`n`$ rank one operators of $`\rho (𝒜)`$ (\[10, Lemma 1.2\]). This improves Corollary 3.8 in that case. We can also improve on Theorems 2.3 and 3.3 as well.

###### Corollary 3.10.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation with closed range. If $`dim0_+=dimI_{}^{}=1`$, then the following are equivalent:

* $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero compact operators.
* $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal of $`𝒜`$.

Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\rho `$ is a $``$-repre- sentation on the diagonal. If $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero compact operators, then Theorem 3.9 shows that the compact operators in $`\rho (𝒜)`$ form a closed ideal of $`\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$. Therefore, $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains the rank one operator $`R=gh`$ from item (ii) in Theorem 2.3 and so $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal of $`𝒜`$. Conversely, if $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ is a completely meet irreducible ideal of $`𝒜`$, then Theorem 2.3 shows that $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains a non-zero rank one operator and the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.11.

Let $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra and let $`\rho :𝒜\mathrm{Alg}𝒩`$ be a nest representation with closed range. If $`𝒩`$ is a maximal nest which is ordered as $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$, then the following are equivalent:

* $`\rho (𝒜)`$ contains non-zero compact operators.
* $`\mathrm{ker}\rho `$ fails to be a prime ideal of $`𝒜`$.

Proof. The result follows from Theorems 3.8 and 3.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Spectra and representation theory for limit algebras

In this section we use representation theory to describe an invariant for isometric isomorphisms of separable operator algebras that depends only on the algebra and its diagonal. Subsequently we show that for strongly maximal TAF algebras this invariant coincides with the fundamental relation of Power .

###### Definition 4.1.

If $`𝒜`$ is an operator algebra then $`\mathrm{nrep}_{}(𝒜)`$ denotes the collection of all nest representations $`\rho :𝒜()`$ of $`𝒜`$ so that $`\rho `$ is a $``$-representation on the diagonal $`𝒜𝒜^{}`$.

Let $`\rho \mathrm{nrep}_{}(𝒜)`$ and let $`g,h`$ be vectors so that the subspaces $`[g],[h]`$ are atoms, i.e., minimal intervals, for $`\mathrm{Lat}\rho (𝒜)`$. (Note that if $`𝒜`$ is a strongly maximal TAF algebra, the existence of $`[g],[h]`$ implies that $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ is a totally atomic masa and so $`𝒩`$ is totally atomic as well.) We define

$$\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}(a)=\rho (a)g,h,a𝒜.$$

The collection of all linear forms of the form $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}`$, $`\rho \mathrm{nrep}_{}(𝒜)`$, $`g,h`$ is denoted as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$. We do not wish to distinguish between multiples of the same form. We therefore define an equivalence relation $``$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$ to mean

$$\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}$$

if and only if $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}=\lambda \omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}`$, for some (non-zero) scalar $`\lambda `$. Consider now the quotient space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/`$ and define a metric $`d`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/`$ by the formula

$$d([\omega _1],[\omega _2])=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{2^n}\left|\frac{\left|\omega _1(a_n)\right|}{\omega _1}\frac{\left|\omega _2(a_n)\right|}{\omega _2}\right|,$$

where $`\{a_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a dense subset of $`𝒜`$. A moment’s reflection shows that a sequence $`\{[\omega _k]\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ converges to some $`[\omega ]\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/`$ with respect to the metric $`d`$ iff

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\left|\omega _k(a)\right|}{\omega _k}=\frac{\left|\omega (a)\right|}{\omega }$$

for all $`a𝒜`$. So even though the definition of the metric $`d`$ depends on the choice of the subset $`\{a_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, the topology $`𝒯`$ determined by $`d`$ is independent of that set.

###### Definition 4.2.

If $`𝒜`$ is a separable operator algebra then the projective dual of $`𝒜`$ is the topological space $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯)`$.

The adjective ”projective” reflects the similarities between the above construction and the definition of the projective space in algebraic geometry. Since isometric isomorphisms preserve the diagonal, the projective dual is an invariant for isometric isomorphisms.

We compare now the projective dual of a strongly maximal TAF algebra to its fundamental relation. Recall from  that the spectrum or fundamental relation of a limit algebra $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ is the set

(8)
$$\mathrm{Spec}(𝒜)=\{\omega 𝒜^\mathrm{\#}\omega =1\text{ and }\omega \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒞_i\right)\{0,1\}\}$$

equipped with the relative w\*-topology as a subset of the dual $`𝒜^\mathrm{\#}`$ of the Banach space $`𝒜`$. Here $`𝒞_i`$ denotes the natural matrix unit system associated with $`𝒜_i`$. (The spectrum of $`𝒜`$ is also equipped with a partially defined operation that makes it a topological semigroupoid; we will come to these details later.)

###### Lemma 4.3.

If $`𝒜=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝒜_i,\phi _i)`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra, then $`\mathrm{Spec}(𝒜)\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$. Conversely, if $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$, then there exists a non-zero scalar $`\lambda `$ so that $`\lambda \omega \mathrm{Spec}(𝒜)`$.

Proof. Let $`\omega \mathrm{Spec}(𝒜)`$. There exist decreasing sequences $`\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{q_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`p_i,q_i𝒜_i`$, $`i`$, of diagonal projections and a matrix unit $`e𝒜_n`$ so that

$$\omega (q_iep_i)=1$$

and $`\omega (f)=0`$ for all other matrix units $`f𝒜_i`$, $`in`$. The sequence $`\{q_iep_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of subordinates of $`e`$ determines a path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the Bratelli diagram for the enveloping $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra $`𝔄=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔄_i,\phi _i)`$ of $`𝒜`$. Let $`𝔍`$ be the ideal consisting of all summands of $`𝔄=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(𝔄_i,\phi _i)`$ that are never mapped into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and let $`\pi :𝔄𝔄/𝔍`$ be the quotient map. Then $`\pi (𝒜)`$ is a strongly maximal TAF algebra of a primitive $`\mathrm{C}^{}`$-algebra. Furthermore, the decreasing sequence $`\{\pi (p_i)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of diagonal projections determines a multiplicative linear form $`p`$ on $`\pi (𝒜)\pi (𝒜)^{}`$, whose orbit under the action of $`𝔄/𝔍`$ is dense in the Gelfand spectrum of $`\pi (𝒜)\pi (𝒜)^{}`$. We now apply the construction of \[22, Proposition II.2.2.\] so that the role of $`[x_0]`$ in that proof is played by our $`p`$. Therefore we obtain a faithful nest representation $`\widehat{\rho }`$ of $`\pi (𝒜)`$ so that $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is a \*-representation on the diagonal and $`\mathrm{Lat}\widehat{\rho }\left(\pi (𝒜)\right)`$ is a maximal, totally atomic nest. In addition, the construction of \[22, Proposition II.2.2.\] implies that the sequences the sequences $`\{\widehat{\rho }\left(\pi (p_i)\right)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{\widehat{\rho }\left(\pi (q_i)\right)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ converge to one dimensional projections with ranges $`[g]`$ and $`[h]`$ respectively. If $`\rho =\widehat{\rho }\pi `$ then it is easy to see that $`\omega =\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}`$ and the conclusion follows.

Conversely, let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$ and let $`\rho \mathrm{nrep}_{}(𝒜)`$, $`g,h`$ so that $`\omega =\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}`$. There exists a matrix unit $`e𝒜_n`$ so that $`\omega (e)0`$ and so let $`\lambda `$ be a scalar so that $`\omega (e)=\lambda ^1`$. Since $`\rho `$ is a \*-representation on the diagonal and $`[g],[h]`$ are atoms for $`\rho (𝒜𝒜^{})^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\omega `$ annihilates all but one of the matrix units of $`𝒜_i`$, $`in`$; let us denote as $`e_i`$ that matrix unit in $`𝒜_i`$. A moment’s reflection shows that $`e_i`$ is a subordinate of $`e`$ and so $`\omega (e_i)=\lambda ^1`$. It is clear now that $`\lambda \omega `$ satisfies the requirements of (8) and the proof follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that Theorem 4.3 establishes the existence of an 1-1 and onto map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:(\mathrm{Spec}(𝒜),\text{w}^{})(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯)`$. Furthermore, this map is easily seen to be bicontinuous. Hence

###### Corollary 4.4.

The topological spaces $`(\mathrm{Spec}(𝒜),\text{w}^{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯)`$ are homeomorphic.

In the case of a strongly maximal TAF algebra generated by its order preserving normalizer, Theorem 2.3 shows that the essential nest representations are sufficient to describe the fundamental relation. In the general case on obtains a dense subset of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯)`$, as \[8, Theorem 3.7\] shows.

The fundamental relation is also equipped with partially defined operation that makes it a topological semigroupoid. We now indicate how this operation materializes in our representation.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a separable operator algebra and let $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )},\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$. If $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$ and $`[g]=[h^{}]`$ then we define

(9)
$$\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}=\omega _{g^{},h}^{(\rho )}.$$

It is not clear at all that (9) establishes a well defined operation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$. Nevertheless, this is the case for strongly maximal TAF algebras, as the following result shows.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a strongly maximal TAF algebra. Then the triple $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯,)`$ forms a topological semigroupoid which is isomorphic to the fundamental relation of $`𝒜`$.

Proof. If $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$, then the last paragraph in the proof of Lemma 4.3 shows that $`\omega _{g,g}^{(\rho )}=s(\omega )`$ and $`\omega _{h,h}^{(\rho )}=r(\omega )`$, where $`s()`$ and $`r()`$ are the source and range maps . Hence, if $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$ and $`\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ^{})`$ are composable, then $`r(\omega ^{})=s(\omega )`$ and so $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ are composable. In addition, $`\omega _{g^{},h}^{(\rho )}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega \omega ^{})`$. This shows that $``$ is a well defined operation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ respects that operation.

We now show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also respects the composition on $`\mathrm{Spec}(𝒜)`$. Let $`\omega ,\omega ^{}\mathrm{Spec}(𝒜)`$ with $`r(\omega ^{})=s(\omega )`$. Then $`r(\omega ),s(\omega ),r(\omega ^{})`$ and $`s(\omega ^{})`$ belong to the same orbit under the action of $`𝒜`$ on the Gelfand space of the diagonal. Therefore the construction of \[22, Proposition II.2.2.\] produces a common representation $`\rho `$ for both $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ so that $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$ and $`\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ^{})`$. Since $`r(\omega ^{})=s(\omega )`$, the construction of \[22, Proposition II.2.2.\] also guarantees that $`g=h^{}`$. Hence $`\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}`$ and $`\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}`$ are composable. In addition,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega \omega ^{})=[\omega _{g^{},h}^{(\rho ^{})}]=[\omega _{g,h}^{(\rho )}][\omega _{g^{},h^{}}^{(\rho ^{})}]=\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ^{})$$

and so $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also respects the composition. From this it is easy to see that the operation $``$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/`$ is associative. The bicontinouity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has been established earlier and the continuity of $``$ is easy to prove. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that Theorem 4.5 gives yet another proof of the invariance of the fundamental relation under isometric isomorphisms. The triple $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯,)`$ can be calculated for other operator algebras as well, including various semicrossed products. It seems that in the case where $`𝒜`$ is the algebra of an r-discrete, principal semigroupoid $`𝒢`$ , one should be able to relate the triple $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜/,𝒯,)`$ to the semigroupoid $`𝒢`$. We plan to pursue these directions elsewhere.


format: text

text:
# IMSc/2003/04/04 Perturbation theory including topological degrees of freedom: Yang-Mills theory in three Euclidean dimensions

## 1 Introduction

It is expected that the topological degrees of freedom such as monopoles, instantons, $`Z_N`$-vortices etc. are responsible for crucial properties such as confinement, deconfinement phase transition, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mass difference etc. An example is provided by the Georgi-Glashow model in $`2+1`$ dimensions. Classically the system may be in the Higgs phase, but the topological degrees of freedom restore confinement . A clean demonstration of this is possible because there is a regime of parameters where semiclassical techniques and the dilute gas approximation can be strictly justified. This uses the finite-energy, classically stable ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole solution of the Euclidean theory. We have considered this example to highlight the differences with the case of the $`2+1`$ dimensional Yang-Mills theory which we address in this paper. In three Euclidean dimensions, the theory does not have classically stable monopole solutions. Nevertheless, consider the ’t Hooft-Polyakov ansatz  for the non-Abelian gauge potential :

$`A_i^a(x)=ϵ_{iab}x^b{\displaystyle \frac{1K(r)}{r^2}}`$ (1.1)
where $`i=1,2,3`$ labels the space index and $`a,b=1,2,3`$ label the group indices. Here $`r=\sqrt{x^ax^a}`$. As long as $`K(r)=1+O(r^2)`$ as $`r0`$ and $`K(r)0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, this configuration has a finite (Euclidean) action. Moreover it has strong qualitative effects. Consider a large Wilson loop

$`W[C]=P\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle _C}𝑑x^iA_i^a(x)\sigma ^a/2)`$ (1.2)
(where $`P`$ stands for the path ordering along the loop $`C`$, and $`\sigma _a`$ are the Pauli matrices). This configuration gives $`W[C]=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }/2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle subtended by the loop at the origin. Such configurations have the potential to disorder and change the expectation value of $`W[C]`$ from the perimeter law to the area law. The reason is that for a monopole near the plane of the loop, $`\mathrm{\Omega }2\pi `$ and $`W[C]1`$, so that a gas of (anti-)monopoles can give coherent cancellations and area law. A suggestive calculation comes from the vortices in two (Euclidean) dimensional Abelian Higgs model . In the dilute gas approximation, with the (anti-)vortex having a chemical potential $`\mu `$, we get

$`W[C]{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{A^n}{n!}}(e^\mu )^n=\mathrm{exp}(e^\mu A).`$ (1.3)
(Here we have summed over vortices only, though anti-vortices are to be included in an analogous manner.) $`A`$ is the area of the loop.The entropy factor $`A^n`$ is there because each vortex can be located anywhere inside the loop, and $`(n!)^1`$ is the symmetry factor. As each vortex contributes $`1`$, we get the alternating sign factor $`(1)^n`$. Because of the coherent cancellation, $`W[C]`$ is much smaller (follows area law) than what perturbative calculation would suggest.

Similar arguments are in operation in the three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model. We may expect an analogous mechanism to be responsible for confinement in the Yang-Mills theory in three Euclidean dimensions too. Configurations such as in (1.1) have finite action, and should be included in the sum over configurations,

$`Z={\displaystyle D𝐀\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2e^2}d^3x𝐁^2(x)\right)}`$ (1.4)
where $`𝐁^a(x)=\mathbf{\times }𝐀^a(x)\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abc}𝐀^b(x)\mathbf{\times }𝐀^c(x)`$ is the non-Abelian magnetic field. But the conventional semiclassical techniques are not applicable as there is no stable classical monopole solution. Indeed, the situation is more demanding. The form factor $`K`$ in Eq. (1.1) is actually a function of $`r/a`$ where $`a`$ is the length scale associated with the monopole. Then the action must be proportional to $`a^1`$ due to dimensional reasons. (This is the reason for the classical instability of this configuration: the action is reduced as the monopole expands.) As a consequence, monopoles of very large size are very light, and therefore can proliferate. The situation is exactly the opposite of one where the dilute gas approximation can be justified. We need a way to handle large, light and overlapping monopole configurations. In Ref.  it was proposed to do this by summing over the “topological centres” of monopoles with a constraint related to the size of the monopole. The semiclassical technique can be modified in principle to carry out this computation. But explicit computations are technically difficult because the dilute gas approximation is not valid, and the energetics of the multi-monopole configurations has to be addressed first.

In this and succeeding papers, we develop a new approach for systematically including topological degrees of freedom within the ambit of renormalized perturbation theory. Our technique does not rely on the existence of stable classical solutions.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2, we obtain a well defined separation of the “topological” and the “spin wave” degrees of freedom. We argue that the topological degrees survive integration over the spin wave degrees, even though we are not expanding about an extremum of the action. In Sec. 3, we analyse the scattering of a charged vector boson off a Dirac monopole. We show that there is a remarkable simplification of the radial equation and one polarization state decouples only when the anomalous magnetic moment is two, exactly as required by the Yang-Mills interaction. In Sec. 4, we obtain the zero modes of the Hamiltonian and explain why one polarization state decouples. In Sec. 5, we re-express the functional integral using the new variables to bring it to a form where perturbative calculation including the topological degree can be carried out (in the case of one monopole). In Sec. 6, we present our conclusions.

## 2 Separation of “spin waves” and “topological” degrees of freedom in the Yang-Mills theory

In Ref. , we have obtained a gauge-invariant characterization of all possible topological configurations of the Yang-Mills theory. For this, we considered the eigenvalue equation

$`S^{ab}(x)\xi _b^A(x)=\lambda ^A(x)\xi _a^A(x),A=1,2,3`$ (2.1)
where $`S_{ab}`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrix

$`S^{ab}(x)=𝐁^a(x)𝐁^b(x),`$ (2.2)
transforming covariantly (as the adjoint representation) under the $`SO(3)`$ local gauge group. The three normalized eigenvectors $`\xi _a^A(x)`$ form an orthogonal matrix (field). Points and lines of singularities of these eigenvectors (or equivalently, loci of degeneracies of the eigenvalues $`\lambda ^A(x)`$) characterize the topological configurations. In particular, it locates the “topological centre” of a monopole configuration such as in Eq. (1.1) in a gauge-invariant manner. This is of great advantage to characterize a dense gas of monopoles (and other topological objects) especially when semiclassical techniques are inapplicable. We may use the orthogonal matrix $`\xi _a^A(x)`$ to formally perform a gauge transformation on the monopole configuration (1.1). The transformed gauge potential $`𝐚^A(x)`$ is

$`𝐚^A=\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^A+𝝎^A`$ (2.3)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^A=\xi _a^A𝐀^a`$ (2.4)
and

$`𝝎^A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ABC}\xi _a^B\xi _a^C.`$ (2.5)
We obtain

$`𝐚^1=\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{K(r)}{r}},𝐚^2=\widehat{𝜽}{\displaystyle \frac{K(r)}{r}},𝐚^3=\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{r}}`$ (2.6)
where ($`\widehat{𝐫}`$, $`\widehat{𝜽}`$, $`\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}`$) are the unit vectors of the spherical coordinates ($`r`$, $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$). $`𝐚^3`$ is precisely the point Dirac monopole, with two Dirac strings along $`\pm z`$ directions. (We have relabelled the indices $`A=1,2,3`$, as compared to Ref. , to have the Dirac monopole for $`A=3`$.) Even though the configuration Eq. (1.1) is non-singular, we have now got a singular configuration because $`\xi _a^A(x)`$ is itself singular on the $`z`$-axis (the angle $`\varphi `$ being undefined at $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$). So $`\xi _a^A(x)`$ is not strictly an allowed local gauge transformation. Indeed the non-Abelian magnetic field for the gauge potential $`𝝎^A`$ is not zero; rather, $`𝐁[𝝎]=\text{Dirac string contribution}`$. Nevertheless, this singular gauge transformation highlights the topological objects and can be handled without problems, as will be shown below.

First we show that the Dirac string singularity does not contribute to the action. In spite of the singularity on the $`z`$-axis, we have $`\xi _a^A(x)\xi _b^A(x)=\delta _{ab}`$ everywhere. Therefore

$`𝐁^a(x)𝐁^a(x)=(\xi _a^A(x)𝐁^a(x))(\xi _b^A(x)𝐁^b(x)).`$ (2.7)
Now,

$`\xi _a^A𝐁^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }(\xi _a^A𝐀^a)\mathbf{}\xi _a^A\mathbf{\times }𝐀^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{abc}\xi _a^A𝐀^b\mathbf{\times }𝐀^c`$ (2.8)
$`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^Aϵ^{ABC}𝝎^B\mathbf{\times }\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ABC}\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^B\mathbf{\times }\stackrel{~}{𝐀}^C`$
$`=`$ $`𝐁^A[𝝎+\stackrel{~}{𝐀}]𝐁^A[𝝎]=𝐁^A[𝐚]𝐁^A[𝝎].`$
Here $`𝐁^A[𝐚]`$ stands for the non-Abelian magnetic field for the gauge potential $`𝐚`$. Note that these operations are valid even if $`\xi _a^A`$ is singular. Subtracting by $`𝐁[𝝎]`$ precisely removes the singular contribution from the Abelian curl of $`𝐚`$, which is the Dirac string magnetic field. This was to be expected because $`\xi _a^A(x)𝐁^a`$ in Eq. (1.4) is finite everywhere. Therefore we may simply replace $`𝐁^a𝐁^a`$ by $`𝐁^A[𝐚]𝐁^A[𝐚]`$ with the understanding that the Dirac string should be ignored in computing $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐚^3`$. With this convention,

$`𝐁^3[𝐚]=\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐚^3𝐚^1\mathbf{\times }𝐚^2.`$ (2.9)
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝐚^3`$ is the magnetic field of the Dirac monopole (sans the string) and is singular as $`\widehat{𝐫}/r^2`$ at the monopole centre. This singularity is precisely cancelled by the non-Abelian interaction term $`𝐚^1\mathbf{\times }𝐚^2=\widehat{𝐫}(K(r))^2/r^2`$ since $`K(r)=1+O(r^2)`$ for $`r0`$.

To use the Dirac potential for the monopole, a slightly different singular gauge transformation will be used in the present work, namely, $`\xi _a^1=\mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{\theta }_a\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\varphi }^a`$, $`\xi _a^2=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\theta }_a+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{\varphi }^a`$, and $`\xi _a^3=\widehat{x}_a`$. The potentials obtained on performing this transformation on the configuration (1.1) may be expressed as

$`𝐚^1+i𝐚^2=(\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}i\widehat{𝜽}){\displaystyle \frac{K(r)}{r}}e^{i\varphi },𝐚^3=\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}.`$ (2.10)
The cancellation described after Eq. (2.9), of course, still takes place. It may be noted that the potential given in Eq. (2.10) is related to the potential given in Eq. (2.6) by a $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation.

We advocate this picture obtained in the singular gauge to obtain a well-defined separation of the topological degrees of freedom and the ‘spin waves’, and as a means of including the topological degrees systematically in renormalized perturbation theory. This method can handle all topological degrees such as vortices, half-monopoles, half-vortices  etc. But in this paper we consider only monopole configurations such as in Eq. (1.1).

The general ansatz for $`𝐚^3`$ is $`𝐚^3=𝐀+𝐚`$ with

$`𝐀(x)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}q_n\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}_n{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _n}{|𝐱𝐱_𝐧|\mathrm{sin}\theta _𝐧}}.`$ (2.11)
$`𝐀(x)`$ is the superposition of Dirac potentials of charge $`q_n=\pm 1`$ (in units of $`1/e`$) located at $`𝐱=𝐱_𝐧`$, $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Also, $`(r_n`$, $`\theta _n`$, $`\varphi _n)`$ are the spherical coordinates centred at $`𝐱=𝐱_𝐧`$, and $`(\widehat{𝐫}_n`$, $`\widehat{𝜽}_n`$, $`\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}_n)`$ are the corresponding unit vectors. The linear superposition of the (spherically symmetric) magnetic fields of the monopoles is distorted by the magnetic fields from the potential $`𝐚`$ representing the ‘spin wave’ degrees of freedom. We will refer to $`𝐚`$ as the photon. We consider the linear combination $`𝐖=(𝐚^1+i𝐚^2)/\sqrt{2}`$ (and $`𝐖^{}=(𝐚^1i𝐚^2)/\sqrt{2}`$), and refer to it as the charged vector boson . The action $`S=d^3x𝐁^2/2`$ then becomes

$`S={\displaystyle d^3x\left(\frac{1}{2}(q_n\frac{𝐱𝐱_𝐧}{|𝐱𝐱_𝐧|^\mathrm{𝟑}}+\mathbf{\times }𝐚+i𝐖^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖)^2+|𝐃[𝐀+𝐚]\mathbf{\times }𝐖|^2\right)}`$ (2.12)
where we have ignored the Dirac string contribution as was shown before. Here

$`𝐃[𝐀]=\mathbf{}i𝐀`$ (2.13)
is the Abelian covariant derivative.

Note that the non-Abelian interaction term from $`i𝐖^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖`$ has the physical meaning of an anomalous magnetic moment $`g=2`$ for the charged vector boson. This interaction turns out to provide remarkable simplification in the scattering of the charged vector boson off the magnetic monopole, as will be discussed in Sec. 3. Also the $`J=0`$ mode of this interaction provides the core to regulate the energy of the Dirac monopole in the ultraviolet.

The action is finite only when the singular energy of the point Dirac monopole is cancelled by the cloud of charged vector bosons around it: $`i𝐖^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖`$ should behave like

$`q_n{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱𝐱_𝐧}{|𝐱𝐱_𝐧|^\mathrm{𝟑}}}+\text{finite terms}\mathrm{for}𝐱𝐱_𝐧.`$ (2.14)
This can be obtained by

$`𝐖(x)(\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}_ni\widehat{𝜽}_n){\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi _n}}{\sqrt{2}|𝐱𝐱_𝐧|}}+O(|𝐱𝐱_𝐧|).`$ (2.15)
Note that this is in accord with the behaviour of the potential given in Eq. (2.10) near the origin. As will be seen in Sec. 5, the $`J=0`$ mode of the $`𝐖`$ boson also has precisely this behaviour.

We have therefore arrived at the picture of a cloud of massless charged vector bosons regularizing the energy of Dirac monopoles, and photons distorting the (spherically symmetric) magnetic fields of the monopoles. Even though we do not have the stable finite-energy classical solutions, we can handle this action systematically by renormalized perturbation theory. In this way we can include the topological degrees in the usual perturbation theory.

In Eq. (2.12), it might appear that we have expanded the action about a background (i.e. Dirac monopole) which is not a solution of the classical equations of motion. If such were the case, an integration over the quantum fluctuations would wash out the effects of the background, as will be discussed now. Consider for illustration a (Euclidean) scalar field theory

$`Z={\displaystyle D\varphi e^{S[\varphi ]}}`$ (2.16)
where the action is expanded about a background $`\varphi _0`$. If $`\varphi _0`$ is not a solution of the classical equation of motion, terms linear in the fluctuation $`\chi =\varphi \varphi _0`$ will be present: $`S[\varphi ]=S[\varphi _0]+s[\chi ,\varphi _0]`$ where $`S[\varphi _0]`$ is the “classical action” and

$`s[\chi ,\varphi _0]=\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S[\varphi _0]}{\delta \varphi _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S[\varphi _0]}{\delta \varphi _0\delta \varphi _0}}\chi +(\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{orders}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{field}\chi ).`$ (2.17)
In a free theory the higher order terms are absent. In this case integration over the fluctuations “cancels” the “classical ” contribution $`S[\varphi _0]`$. In an interacting theory, we have to first remove the linear term in $`s[\chi ,\varphi _0]`$ by a shift of the field $`\chi `$. This shift again cancels the “classical ” term.

We now argue that the situation is different in our case. Consider the theory

$`Z={\displaystyle DH_{\mu \nu }DA_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +H_{\mu \nu })^2s[H_{\mu \nu }]\right)}.`$ (2.18)
$`H_{\mu \nu }`$ describes (a part of) the field carrying magnetic charge. We first integrate over $`A_\mu `$ (say choosing the Landau gauge):

$`Z={\displaystyle DH_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{4}H_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{2}_\nu H_{\mu \nu }^2_\rho H_{\mu \rho }s[H_{\mu \nu }])}.`$ (2.19)
Now $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ terms are not cancelled out completely:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H_{\mu \rho }(\delta _{\rho \sigma }2_\rho _\sigma /^2)H_{\mu \sigma }.`$ (2.20)
The reason is clear: the part of $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ which is of the form $`_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu `$ is removed by the shift $`A_\mu A_\mu +a_\mu `$. The degrees of freedom in $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ that are not represented by $`a_\mu `$ give a non-zero contribution.

This analysis is directly relevant to us. In Eq. (2.12), the magnetic field of a Dirac monopole is a pure gradient, while that of a ‘photon’ is a pure curl. Therefore the contribution of the monopole survives the integration over the gauge potential $`𝐚`$. Indeed, the cross term of the monopole field and $`𝐚`$ is a total derivative and drops out of the action, as in the case of an expansion about an extrema of the action. Therefore the topological degrees survive integration over the spin wave fluctuations.

## 3 A massless charged vector boson scattering off a Dirac monopole

In this section we obtain the eigenfunctions for a charged vector boson in the background of a Dirac monopole. The results will be used in Sec. 5 to express the functional integral in the new modes. The interaction of a spin-one particle with a magnetic monopole has been analyzed before in Ref. . We consider here a massless vector boson in contrast to the massive case which they have addressed. Our analysis and results turn out to be considerably different. We find that for precisely the anomalous magnetic moment $`g=2`$ as required by the Yang-Mills interaction Eq.(2.12) there is a dramatic simplification of the radial equations. Also, only in this case, one of the three polarization states of the charged vector boson decouples in correspondence with the free theory.

The eigenvalue equation we consider is $`H𝐖=k^2𝐖`$, where

$`H=(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐃iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}})\mathbf{\times }`$ (3.1)
where $`k^2`$ is the energy eigenvalue. Now $`𝐃`$ stands for the covariant derivative with the Dirac potential of a monopole at the origin. We may expand $`𝐖`$ as follows:

$`𝐖(r,\theta ,\varphi )={\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\lambda }{}}f_{qJM}^\lambda (r)𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )`$ (3.2)
where $`f_{qJM}^\lambda (r)`$ is a function of $`r`$ only, and the dependence on $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ is contained in $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$, which are the monopole vector spherical harmonics for the monopole of strength $`q`$. It may be noted that $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$ is defined with a factor of $`1/r`$: see Eq. (5.3). Here $`J(J+1)`$ and $`M`$ refer to the eigenvalues of $`𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`J_z`$ where $`𝐉`$ is the total angular momentum $`𝐋+𝐒`$. The orbital angular momentum $`𝐋`$ of a charged particle in the magnetic field of a Dirac monopole is given by $`𝐋=i𝐫\mathbf{\times }𝐃q\widehat{𝐫}`$. The extra term $`q\widehat{𝐫}`$ is the well known angular momentum carried by the crossed electric and magnetic fields, and plays a significant role in the interaction of the charged particle with the monopole. $`𝐒`$ is the spin operator for the vector boson: $`(S^k)_{ij}=iϵ_{ijk}`$, ($`i,j,k=1,2,3`$), acting on the three components of the vector $`𝐖`$. We will adopt the approach of E. J. Weinberg , where the multiplets for given $`J`$ and $`M`$ are labelled by $`\lambda =0,\pm `$ according as the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{𝐫}𝐒`$ are $`0,\pm 1`$. We have

$`𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}b_{\lambda \mu }𝐂_{qJM}^\mu `$ (3.3)
where the only non-vanishing $`b_{\lambda \mu }`$ are

$`b_{0,\pm }=b_{\pm ,0}=\pm a_\pm `$ (3.4)
where $`a_\pm =\sqrt{(𝒥^2\pm q)/2}`$ and $`𝒥=\sqrt{J(J+1)q^2}`$.

Note that $`b_{\lambda \mu }`$ is antisymmetric in its indices. This corrects an error in Ref. . (In Eq. (3.10) of this reference, $`r𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝐂_{qJ^{^{}}M^{^{}}}^0\stackrel{~}{𝐃}\mathbf{\times }𝐂_{qJM}^\pm `$ is equal to $`r𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{𝐃}\mathbf{\times }𝐂_{qJ^{^{}}M^{^{}}}^0)^{}𝐂_{qJM}^\pm `$, and not its negative. The reason is that not only the integration by parts gives a negative sign, but also the interchange of $`𝐂_{qJM}^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}`$ in the cross-product.)

The following discussion will make it clear that the action of $`H`$ does not change the $`J`$ and $`M`$ values for the terms in Eq. (3.2). Therefore, henceforth in this section, we take $`𝐖`$ to be an eigenstate of $`J^2`$ and $`J_z`$, i.e., we consider $`𝐖=_\lambda f_{qJM}^\lambda 𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$.

Using

$`\widehat{𝐫}\mathbf{\times }𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda =i\lambda 𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda ,`$ (3.5)
we then get

$`𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\left(i\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{df_{qJM}^\lambda }{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{r}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}f_{qJM}^\mu b_{\mu \lambda }\right)𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$ (3.6)
and

$`𝐃\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}(\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f_{qJM}^\lambda }{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda +\mu )}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{df_{qJM}^\mu }{dr}}b_{\mu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{r^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}f_{qJM}^\mu b_{\mu \lambda }`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}f_{qJM}^\nu b_{\nu \mu }b_{\mu \lambda })𝐂^\lambda _{qJM}`$
We put this expression in the eigenvalue equation, and also make use of Eq. (3.5). This leads to, for $`\lambda =0,+,`$ respectively:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(a_+f_{qJM}^++a_{}f_{qJM}^{})+𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2rf_{qJM}^0`$ (3.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}f_{qJM}^++a_+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_+}{r^2}}(a_+f_{qJM}^+a_{}f_{qJM}^{})+[q{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^+}{r^2}}]`$ $`=`$ $`k^2f_{qJM}^+`$ (3.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}f_{qJM}^{}+a_{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{r^2}}(a_+f_{qJM}^+a_{}f_{qJM}^{})[q{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^{}}{r^2}}]`$ $`=`$ $`k^2f_{qJM}^{}`$ (3.10)
We have bracketted the contribution from the anomalous magnetic moment to highlight an important cancellation. Using the combinations

$`g_{qJM}^\pm =a_+f_{qJM}^+\pm a_{}f_{qJM}^{}`$ (3.11)
we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}g_{qJM}^++𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2rf_{qJM}^0`$ (3.12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}g_{qJM}^++𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}+q{\displaystyle \frac{g_{qJM}^{}}{r^2}}+[q{\displaystyle \frac{g_{qJM}^{}}{r^2}}]`$ $`=`$ $`k^2g_{qJM}^+`$ (3.13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}g_{qJM}^{}+q{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}+𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{qJM}^{}}{r^2}}[q{\displaystyle \frac{g_{qJM}^+}{r^2}}]`$ $`=`$ $`k^2g_{qJM}^{}`$ (3.14)
Precisely due to the anomalous magnetic moment term, $`g_{qJM}^{}`$ drops out in Eq. (3.13). This simplifies the equations dramatically, as shown below. Comparing the derivative (with respect to $`r`$) of Eq. (3.12) with Eq. (3.13), we obtain

$`g_{qJM}^+={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(rf_{qJM}^0)`$ (3.15)
Plugging this back into Eq. (3.12), we get a simple second-order equation for $`f_{qJM}^0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}(rf_{qJM}^0)𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}+k^2rf_{qJM}^0=0`$ (3.16)
Thus $`f_{qJM}^0`$ satisfies precisely the radial equation for a free particle with the eigenvalue $`l(l+1)`$ of $`𝐋^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ replaced by $`𝒥^2`$. If the anomalous magnetic moment term were not included (or if it had any value other than $`g=2`$), the equation satisfied by $`f_{qJM}^0`$ would be of third order and contrived.

We may write the equation satisfied by $`g_{qJM}^{}`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}g_{qJM}^{}𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_{qJM}^{}}{r^2}}+k^2g_{qJM}^{}=2q{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r^2}}`$ (3.17)
Let us now discuss the relevant solutions to these equations.

1. Choose $`f_{qJM}^0=0`$; therefore from Eq. (3.15), $`g_{qJM}^+=0`$. We also see from Eq. (3.17) that $`g_{qJM}^{}/r`$ then satisfies the equation for the radial part of the free particle wavefunction (with $`l(l+1)𝒥^2`$). The acceptable solution is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{qJM}^{}}{r}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2kr}}}J_{\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+𝒥^2}}(kr)`$ (3.18)
(where $`J`$ denotes the Bessel function) with the behaviour $`g_{qJM}^{}r^{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+𝒥^2}}`$ near the origin. Note that the order of the Bessel function is not half-integral, in contrast to the case of the usual free-particle radial equation.

In this case, we considered the general solution of the homogeneous equation for $`g_{qJM}^{}`$. Next we consider the particular solution for the inhomogeneous equation.
2. The acceptable solution for $`rf_{qJM}^0`$ is the same as for $`g_{qJM}^{}`$ in Eq. (3.18). The corresponding $`g_{qJM}^\pm `$ are obtained by solving the inhomogeneous equations (3.15) and (3.17).

We notice that there are only two linearly independent set of solutions, although there are three ‘polarization states’ $`\lambda =0,\pm `$ for the vector boson. The reason is analogous to the case of free massless vector bosons. This will be demonstrated in Sec. 4.

In solving the eigenvalue equation, we treated all values of $`J`$ and $`M`$ on equal footing. However, the following cases are special.

1. $`J=q1`$: There is only one multiplet $`\lambda =+`$. The mixing matrix is now formally zero. So putting $`a_\pm =0`$ in Eq. (3.9), we get the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}f_{qJM}^++q{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^+}{r^2}}+k^2f_{qJM}^+=0`$ (3.19)
for the only non-vanishing radial wavefunction $`f_{qJM}^+`$. As $`q>0`$ (the equations of Ref.  are valid for $`q0`$ only), this effectively has a centrifugal attraction in the place of centrifugal repulsion. In Sec. 5, we use a different basis for this mode.
2. $`J=q`$: There are only two multiplets, corresponding to $`\lambda =0,+`$. In this case $`a_+=\sqrt{q}`$ and $`a_{}=0`$. We can recover the relevant equation for this case by simply putting these values in the equations (3.8) and (3.9):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}f_{qJM}^+\sqrt{q}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2r}{\sqrt{q}}}f_{qJM}^0=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}f_{qJM}^+\sqrt{q}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}+k^2f_{qJM}^+=0`$ (3.20)
We have only one acceptable solution for $`f_{qJM}^0`$ and $`f_{qJM}^+`$.

## 4 Kernel of the Hamiltonian

We now obtain the modes of the Hamiltonian with zero eigenvalue. These are relevant for the gauge-fixing condition  as will be considered later.

We first show that $`𝐖=𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for any complex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ is a zero mode . We have

$`\left(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐃iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\right)\mathbf{\times }𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`𝐃\mathbf{\times }\left(iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\mathbf{\times }𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }\left(iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }+iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\mathbf{\times }𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }iq{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\mathbf{\times }𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
which is zero because the magnetic field of a monopole is the gradient of a scalar potential.

It is easy to check that this exhausts all modes of zero energy by using an expansion in the monopole vector spherical harmonics as in Sec. 3. We just need to consider Eqs. (3.12)-(3.14) with $`k=0`$. The equations may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{qJM}^+}{dr}}𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{q}{𝒥^2}}g_{qJM}^+g_{qJM}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{𝒥^2}{r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{q}{𝒥^2}}g_{qJM}^+g_{qJM}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.3)
The non-zero solutions of Eq. (4.3) are $`r^{\alpha _\pm }`$ (for all $`r`$) with $`\alpha _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+𝒥^2}`$. They do not give normalizable solution. Therefore we need to consider only the trivial solution of Eq. (4.3), namely, $`g_{qJM}^{}=(q/𝒥^2)g_{qJM}^+`$. In this case, substituting $`f^0`$ and $`g_{qJM}^{}`$ as given by these equations in favour of $`g_{qJM}^+`$ into Eq. (3.2), we get

$`𝐖`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\lambda }{}}\left(f_{qJM}^0𝐂_{qJM}^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a_+}}(g_{qJM}^++g_{qJM}^{})𝐂_{qJM}^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a_{}}}(g_{qJM}^+g_{qJM}^{})𝐂_{qJM}^{}\right)`$ (4.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒥^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\lambda }{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{qJM}^+}{dr}}\widehat{𝐫}Y_{qJM}+g_{qJM}^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥^2+q}{2a_+}}𝐂_{qJM}^++{\displaystyle \frac{𝒥^2q}{2a_{}}}𝐂_{qJM}^{}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒥^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\lambda }{}}\left(\widehat{𝐫}{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{qJM}^+}{dr}}+g_{qJM}^+𝐃\right)Y_{qJM}=𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{J,M,\lambda }g_{qJM}^+Y_{qJM}/𝒥^2`$. Here we used the expressions for $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$ given in Eqs. (3.6) of Ref. . This confirms that the only zero-energy solutions are of the form $`𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Now the eigenfunctions for $`k0`$ are orthogonal to the eigenfunctions for $`k=0`$. Therefore $`d^3x(𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}𝐖=0`$ for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$, so that (on integration by parts)

$`𝐃𝐖=0.`$ (4.5)
It is this constraint which leaves only two independent polarization states for the eigenfunctions.

It is interesting that only by including the anomalous magnetic moment interaction (as required by the Yang-Mills interaction) we get these zero modes. We now show that there are no zero modes without this term. In this case the zero modes are the solutions of

$`𝐃\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖)=0`$ (4.6)
We may first solve $`𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐕=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (where $`𝐕=𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖`$). Expanding $`𝐕`$ in vector harmonics, as in Eq. (3.2), we get the following equation for the radial part:

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{df_{qJM}^\lambda }{dr}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^\mu }{r}}b_{\mu \lambda }=0.`$ (4.7)
This gives

$`g_{qJM}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{qJM}^+}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_{qJM}^{}}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`q{\displaystyle \frac{f_{qJM}^0}{r}}`$ (4.8)
Therefore $`g_{qJM}^{}=f_{qJM}^0=0`$ and $`g_{qJM}^+(r)`$ can at best be a constant. Thus the most general solution is $`f_{qJM}^\pm (r)=c/a_\pm `$, where $`c`$ is arbitrary. Thus for the zero modes, $`𝐕`$ is $`1/r`$ times a function of $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. This is not normalizable, and hence there are no acceptable zero modes.

It has been noted many times in literature  that the natural value for the gyromagnetic ratio of an elementary charged particle coupling to the electromagnetic field is $`g=2`$. Many reasons suggest this. It has been observed in  that for the charged vector boson interacting with the photon, only for $`g=2`$ there is a local gauge invariance $`𝐖𝐖+𝐃\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is a generalization of the invariance in the free theory which implies that one polarization state is unphysical. (This is part of the non- Abelian gauge invariance for us.)

## 5 Functional integral in terms of the new modes

In this section we express the functional integral given by Eqs. (1.4) and (2.12) in terms of the new modes. Henceforth $`q=1`$ only. We will separate the $`J=0`$ mode as it plays a special role: $`𝐖=𝐖_0+𝐖_1`$, where,

$`𝐖_0(r,\theta ,\varphi )=w(r)𝐂_{100}^+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (5.1)
is the $`J=0`$ mode and

$`𝐖_1(r,\theta ,\varphi )={\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\lambda ,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\varphi _{qJM}^\alpha (k)f_{qJM}^{\lambda \alpha }(kr)𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )`$ (5.2)
involves all higher $`J`$ modes. Here $`\varphi _{qJM}^\alpha (k),\alpha =1,2`$ represents the amplitudes for the two linearly independent solutions $`f_{qJM}^{\lambda \alpha }(kr),\alpha =1,2`$ of the radial equations when $`J>1`$. For $`J=1`$ there is only one solution, and $`\alpha =1`$ only in this case. The orthonormality conditions are

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda (\theta ,\varphi )𝐂_{qJ^{^{}}M^{^{}}}^\mu (\theta ,\varphi )}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\delta _{JJ^{^{}}}\delta _{MM^{^{}}}\delta _{\lambda \mu }`$ (5.3)
and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rf_{qJM}^{\lambda \alpha }(kr)f_{qJM}^{\lambda \beta }(k^{^{}}r)=\delta (kk^{})\delta _{\alpha \beta }.`$ (5.4)
Note that the vector monopole harmonics $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$ are defined with a $`r^1`$ factor . As a result, the measure in Eq. (5.4) is $`dr`$ and not $`r^2dr`$.

The vector harmonic for $`J=0`$ is special. It is both (covariant) divergence and curl free. The expression for this harmonic is

$`𝐂_{100}^+(\theta ,\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}i\widehat{𝜽}}{\sqrt{8\pi }r}}e^{i\varphi }`$ (5.5)
\[This can be explicitly checked. In terms of the components of a transverse vector $`𝐖=W_\theta \widehat{𝜽}+W_\varphi \widehat{\mathit{\varphi }}`$, the equation $`𝐃𝐖=0`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}(\mathrm{sin}\theta W_\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}W_\varphi i(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )W_\varphi =0,`$ (5.6)
while $`𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖=0`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}(\mathrm{sin}\theta W_\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}W_\theta +i(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )W_\theta =0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rW_\varphi )=0,{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rW_\theta )=0.`$ (5.7)
Note that our definition of the components $`W_\theta `$ and $`W_\varphi `$ differ from those of Ref. .\] Therefore $`i𝐖_0^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0=\widehat{𝐫}|w(r)|^2/4\pi r^2`$. This is precisely of the type to give a form factor to the point Dirac monopole. We get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}+i𝐖^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|w(r)|^2}{4\pi }}\right)+i(𝐖_0^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1)`$ (5.8)
If in addition $`w(r)`$ satisfies the boundary condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|w(r)|^2}{4\pi }}=1+O(r^2),r0,`$ (5.9)
the action is finite. Thus the $`J=0`$ mode of the $`𝐖`$ boson can regularize the energy of the Dirac monopole as a consequence of its anomalous magnetic moment. The boundary condition $`|w(r)|=\sqrt{4\pi }`$ is necessary to relate (through a singular gauge transformation) our singular fields to non-singular Yang-Mills potentials as in the t’Hooft -Polyakov ansatz Eq. (1.1), as noted in Sec. 2.

For $`J=0`$, the (allowed) eigenfunctions of the radial equation (3.19) has the behaviour $`f_{qJM}^+r^{(1\pm i\sqrt{3})/2}`$ near the origin for any $`k`$. As we want the boundary condition $`|w(r)|=\sqrt{4\pi }`$, we will not use this complete set of radial functions for the $`J=0`$ mode. Instead, we consider the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐃\mathbf{\times }`$ without the anomalous magnetic moment term. For the ansatz (5.1), the eigenvalue equation is now simply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2w}{dr^2}}=k^2w`$ (5.10)
since $`𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐂_{100}^+`$ is zero. Now the radial wave function $`w(r)`$ is a linear combination of the Fourier modes $`\mathrm{exp}(ikr)`$ and hence not required to vanish at $`r=0`$.

Using the orthonormality of $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$, we have

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝐖_0^{}\widehat{𝐫}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1}=0`$ (5.11)
because $`\widehat{𝐫}\mathbf{\times }`$ does not change the $`J,M`$ values when acting on $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$. Therefore Eq. (5.8) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(\frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}+i𝐖^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑r\frac{2\pi }{r^2}\left(1\frac{|w(r)|^2}{4\pi }\right)^2}`$
$`i{\displaystyle d^3x\left(1\frac{|w(r)|^2}{4\pi }\right)𝐖_1^{}\frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r^2}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(𝐖_0^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1)^2}`$
Also

$`{\displaystyle d^3x|𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x𝐖^{}𝐃\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖)}`$ (5.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left(𝐖_0^{}𝐃\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0)+𝐖_1^{}𝐃\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1)\right)}`$
This is because the $`𝐃\mathbf{\times }`$ operation does not change the $`J,M`$ values when acting on $`𝐂_{qJM}^\lambda `$ and therefore there are no terms mixing $`𝐖_0`$ and $`𝐖_1`$. We have,

$`{\displaystyle d^3x𝐖_0^{}𝐃\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0)}={\displaystyle 𝑑rw^{}(r)\frac{d^2}{dr^2}w(r)}`$ (5.14)
We will include the anomalous magnetic moment term $`i𝐖_1^{}(\widehat{𝐫}/r^2)\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1`$ from Eq. (5) along with the $`𝐖_1`$ terms in Eq. (5.13). Using the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ given in Eq. (3.1)

$`{\displaystyle d^3x𝐖_1^{}H𝐖_1}={\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^2|\varphi _{qJM}^\alpha (k)|^2`$ (5.15)
Thus finally,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑r\left[\frac{2\pi }{r^2}\left(1\frac{|w(r)|^2}{4\pi }\right)^2w^{}(r)\frac{d^2}{dr^2}w(r)\right]}+{\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^2|\varphi _{qJM}^\alpha (k)|^2`$ (5.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^3x(\mathbf{\times }𝐚)^2+{\displaystyle }dr{\displaystyle \frac{|w(r)|^2}{4\pi r^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{J,M}{}}(|F{}_{qJM}{}^{+}(r)|^2|F{}_{qJM}{}^{}(r)|^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(𝐖_0^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1)^2}`$
$`+i{\displaystyle d^3x(\mathbf{\times }𝐚)(𝐖_0^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_0+𝐖_1^{}\mathbf{\times }𝐖_1)}`$
$`+i{\displaystyle d^3x𝐚(𝐖^{}\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖)𝐖\mathbf{\times }(𝐃\mathbf{\times }𝐖)^{})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^3x|𝐚\mathbf{\times }𝐖|^2}.`$
Here $`F{}_{qJM}{}^{\pm }(r)=_\alpha dk\varphi {}_{qJM}{}^{\alpha }(k)f{}_{qJM}{}^{\pm \alpha }(kr)`$, with $`F{}_{qJM}{}^{}(r)=0`$ for $`J=1`$.

In Sec. 4 we showed that the eigenfunctions with non-zero energy satisfy the constraint $`𝐃𝐖=0`$. Even though we are not using the eigenfunctions of $`H`$ for the $`J=0`$ mode, this condition is valid for this case too:

$`𝐃𝐖_0={\displaystyle \frac{dw(r)}{dr}}\widehat{𝐫}𝐂_{100}^++w(r)𝐃𝐂_{100}^+=0.`$ (5.17)
Therefore the “natural gauge condition”  for $`𝐖`$ is $`𝐃𝐖=0`$. For the ‘photon’ $`𝐚`$, we may simply choose the gauge condition $`𝐚=0`$.

The functional measure $`D𝐖^{}D𝐖`$is also simply transformed. Because of the orthonormality of the basis in Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2),

$`{\displaystyle D𝐖^{}D𝐖}={\displaystyle \underset{J,M,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi _{qJM}^\alpha (k)Dw(r)}.`$ (5.18)
This completes the expression of the functional integral (for the case of one monopole) using the new variables. It is in the form where perturbative calculations including the topological degree can be carried out. The free energy of one monopole in the leading order will be presented elsewhere.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper, we have initiated a method for systematically including topological degrees of freedom within the ambit of renormalized perturbation theory. We have argued that conventional semi-classical techniques are inapplicable for the case of pure gauge theories. Given the advantages and successes of renormalized perturbation theory, it is obviously better to adapt it to include the topological degrees systematically. We have addressed the Yang-Mills theory in three Euclidean dimensions in this paper. We have obtained a well-defined separation of the topological and “spin wave” degrees of freedom motivated by a singular gauge. The picture is simple enough: stray magnetic fields distorting the spherically symmetric magnetic fields of Dirac monopoles, and massless charged vector bosons scattering off the latter. We have explicitly shown that the Dirac string does not contribute. We have considered the case of one monopole in detail. The $`J=0`$ mode of the vector boson interactions gives precisely the core to make the energy of the monopole (ultraviolet) finite. The radial equations are dramatically simplified exactly with the anomalous magnetic moment $`g=2`$ as required by the Yang-Mills symmetry. Also one polarization state of the vector boson decouples. We can evaluate the free energy of one monopole in the functional integral by formally setting the gauge coupling constant $`e`$ to zero, and evaluate corrections to it in perturbation theory. It is to be noted that due to the Dirac quantization condition on the monopole charge, the effects of the monopole does not disappear even when $`e=0`$. This calculation and the effects of a gas of (anti-)monopoles will be presented elsewhere.