text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Experiments involving the production and decays of the $`\eta `$\- and $`\eta ^{}`$-mesons are consistent with the picture that the $`\eta `$-meson is largely an $`SU(3)_\mathrm{F}`$ flavour-octet state, but the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson contains a significant amount of a $`U(3)_\mathrm{F}`$ flavour-singlet quark-antiquark ($`\overline{q}q`$) component in its wave-function ; in addition, the gluonic ($`gg`$) content of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson is substantial . This implies that for processes involving gluons and the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson, in particular in the decays of heavy mesons of current phenomenological interest, such as $`bsg\eta ^{}`$ inducing the $`B\eta ^{}X_s`$ decay  and the exclusive $`B(\eta ,\eta ^{})(K,K^{})`$ decays , but also the inclusive decay of the Orthoquarkonium $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)gg(g^{}\eta ^{}g)\eta ^{}X`$ , the effective $`\eta ^{}`$-gluon-gluon vertex plays an important role. This effective vertex function (EFV) has to be known sufficiently well to undertake a quantitative analysis of the data involving the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson. Calling this EFV $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g^{}}(p_1^2,p_2^2,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$, where $`p_1^2`$ and $`p_2^2`$ are the virtualities of the two gluons, the QCD anomaly provides the normalization of this vertex for on-shell gluons, $`F_{\eta ^{}gg}(0,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$. When one or both of the gluons are virtual with relatively large virtuality, the effective $`\eta ^{}g^{}g^{()}`$ vertex can be calculated in perturbative QCD .

In this approach, the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson wave-function is described in terms of two light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) involving the quark-antiquark $`\varphi _\eta ^{}^{(q)}(x,Q^2)`$ and the gluonic $`\varphi _\eta ^{}^{(g)}(x,Q^2)`$ components, where $`x`$ is the scaled energy of one of the partons of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson and $`Q^2`$ is the typical hard scale in the vertex. These two components mix if the QCD evolution is taken into account. The leading-twist LCDAs of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson can be expressed as infinite series of the Gegenbauer polynomials $`C_n^{3/2}(x\overline{x})`$ (for the quark-antiquark) and $`C_{n1}^{5/2}(x\overline{x})`$ (for the gluonic) components

$$\varphi _\eta ^{}^{(q)}(x,Q^2)=6x\overline{x}\left[1+\underset{\mathrm{even}n2}{}A_n(Q^2)C_n^{3/2}(x\overline{x})\right],$$
(1)
$$\varphi _\eta ^{}^{(g)}(x,Q^2)=x^2\overline{x}^2\underset{\mathrm{even}n2}{}B_n(Q^2)C_{n1}^{5/2}(x\overline{x}),$$
(2)
where $`\overline{x}=1x`$, and the following notation is used for the Gegenbauer moments:

$`A_n(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`B_n^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _0^2)}{\alpha _s(Q^2)}}\right)^{\gamma _+^n}+\rho _n^{(g)}B_n^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _0^2)}{\alpha _s(Q^2)}}\right)^{\gamma _{}^n},`$ (3)
$`B_n(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _n^{(q)}B_n^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _0^2)}{\alpha _s(Q^2)}}\right)^{\gamma _+^n}+B_n^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _0^2)}{\alpha _s(Q^2)}}\right)^{\gamma _{}^n}.`$ (4)
The constrained parameters $`\rho _n^{(q)}`$, $`\rho _n^{(g)}`$, $`\gamma _+^n`$ and $`\gamma _{}^n`$ are computable and can be found, for example, in the Appendix A of Ref. . Usually, one employs an approximate form for the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson LCDAs in which only the first non-asymptotic terms in both the quark-antiquark and gluonic components are kept. Thus, in this approximation

$$\varphi _\eta ^{}^{(q)}(x,Q^2)=6x\overline{x}\left[1+6(15x\overline{x})A_2(Q^2)\right],\varphi _\eta ^{}^{(g)}(x,Q^2)=5x^2\overline{x}^2(x\overline{x})B_2(Q^2),$$
(5)
where the explicit forms for $`C_2^{3/2}(x\overline{x})`$ and $`C_1^{5/2}(x\overline{x})`$ have been used. The free parameters $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$, which enter in $`A_2(Q^2)`$ and $`B_2(Q^2)`$, are not determined from first principles, and have to be modeled or extracted from a phenomenological analysis of data. To that end, a fit of the CLEO and L3 data on the $`\eta \gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ transition form factors for $`Q^2`$ larger than 2 GeV2  was recently undertaken in Ref. , yielding

$$A_2(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.08\pm 0.04,B_2(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)=9\pm 12,$$
(6)
where the initial scale of the evolution is taken as $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV2. Note, that the coefficients $`A_2(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$ and $`B_2(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$ are strongly correlated. The estimates (6) can be translated in terms of the universal free parameters $`B_2^{(q)}`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}`$, yielding:

$$B_2^{(q)}(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.02\pm 0.17,B_2^{(g)}(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)=9.0\pm 11.5.$$
(7)
The current determination of these coefficients, in particular $`B_2^{(g)}`$, is rather poor, leading to a huge uncertainty in the evaluation of the $`\eta ^{}g^{}g^{()}`$ vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g^{()}}(p_1^2,p_2^2,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$.

In this paper, we undertake a perturbative-QCD based analysis of the recent data on the inclusive process $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ in the large $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy region published recently by the CLEO collaboration , which is expected to be dominated by the process $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg\eta ^{}X`$. Moreover, Chen and Kagan  have argued that the shape of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum in this decay is sensitive to the shape of the $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g}(p^2,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$ vertex function, involving the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson, a real and a virtual gluons (see Fig. 1). This sensitivity has already been used by the CLEO collaboration  to rule out certain models for this vertex, with the CLEO analysis favouring a rapidly falling $`p^2`$-dependence of the vertex $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g}(p^2,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$, in line with the perturbative QCD predictions . Motivated by these observations, we undertake a quantitative analysis of the CLEO data to constrain the LCDAs involving the quark-antiquark and the gluonic components of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson. The results of this analysis are presented in terms of the coefficients $`B_2^{(q)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$, where we have taken the initial scale as $`\mu _0^2=m_\eta ^{}^2+p_0^2=2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, which corresponds to the minimum gluon virtuality $`p_0^21\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. This analysis is then combined with an earlier analysis of the $`\eta \gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ transition form factors  to further constrain the two parameters. As the physical interpretation of the function $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g}(p^2,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$ is that it represents a probability distribution, much the same way as the partonic distributions are in, for example, deep inelastic lepton scattering off nucleons, this function must remain positive definite in the entire $`p^2`$ range. The requirement of positive definiteness of the function $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g}(p^2,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$ provides additional constraints on the parameters $`B_2^{(q)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)`$, in particular on the latter. The combined analysis leads to the following correlated ranges for these coefficients:

$$B_2^{(q)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.008\pm 0.054,B_2^{(g)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)=4.6\pm 2.5.$$
(8)
Finally, we use this information to calculate the $`F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g}(p^2,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)`$ vertex, including the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson mass effects, relegating the detailed derivation to a subsequent paper .

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we calculate the branching ratio for the process $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)\eta ^{}X`$ and the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum in this decay. Numerical analysis of the CLEO data is carried out in section 3, and the resulting constraints are combined with the analysis of the $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ transition form factor to determine the LCDAs of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson. Section 4 contains a brief summary. The expressions for the matrix element squared for the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)`$ are displayed in the Appendix.

## 2 Branching Ratio and $`E_\eta ^{}`$-Distribution in the Decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg\eta ^{}X`$

Several processes contribute to the inclusive $`\eta ^{}`$-meson production in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$-meson decay. The two dominant decays are: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\gamma ^{}q\overline{q}\eta ^{}X`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)\eta ^{}X`$. The first of these has been estimated from the measured value of the hadronic cross-section $`R_{\mathrm{had}}`$ and the branching ratio $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$, yielding $`(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\gamma ^{}q\overline{q})=(8.8\pm 0.3)\%`$ , and the CLEO data has been corrected for the $`q\overline{q}`$ component. In addition, there is also the continuum production from the process $`e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}q\overline{q}\eta ^{}X`$, which can be estimated from the $`e^+e^{}`$-continuum data below the resonance. This data also provides a good profile of the fragmentation in the process $`\gamma ^{}q\overline{q}\eta ^{}X`$. Typically, the fragmentation processes involving the intermediate $`q\overline{q}`$ state populate the low-$`z`$ region, where $`zE_\eta ^{}/E_{\mathrm{beam}}=2E_\eta ^{}/M`$ is the relative $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy expressed in terms of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$-meson mass $`M`$. One expects that in the large-$`z`$ region, the process $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}g\eta ^{})`$ dominates. Assuming this, we will concentrate here on the intermediate three-gluon $`(ggg^{})`$ state and analyze the $`E_\eta ^{}`$-spectrum in the large-$`z`$ region alone. The quality of the fits provides a justification of this procedure a posteriori.

A typical Feynman diagram describing the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)\eta ^{}X`$ is presented in Fig. 1.

The other 17 diagrams can be obtained from the above one by the permutations of the gluons in the intermediate (virtual) and final state. For the matrix element calculations, we adopted the static limit for the heavy quark-antiquark pair in the orthoquarkonium $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$, so that both the quark ($`b`$) and antiquark ($`\overline{b})`$ carry half of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$-meson four-momentum, and the velocity-dependent corrections are neglected.

The total decay amplitude can be divided into three parts:

$$[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(𝒫)\eta ^{}(p_\eta ^{})g(k_1)g(k_2)g(k_3)]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_i,$$
(9)
where each of the three terms $`_i`$ collects the contributions from the diagrams with the virtual gluon of the same four-momentum $`p_i=p_\eta ^{}+k_i`$, with $`p_\eta ^{}`$ and $`k_i`$ being the four-momenta of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson and the $`i`$th final gluon. The explicit forms of the three contributions $`_i`$ are as follows:

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{ABC}}{4\sqrt{N_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^3\sqrt{M}\psi (0)F_{\eta ^{}g}(p_1^2)}{(𝒫k_2)(𝒫k_3)(p_1p_1^{})}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{M^2}}(p_1\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A[f_2^Bf_3^C+\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C]f_V𝒫)`$
$`+`$ $`(f_2^B\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(f_1^Af_V)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(f_1^Af_2^B)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B)(f_1^Af_3^C)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p_1^2}}[(f_2^Bf_3^C)(p_1\stackrel{~}{f}_1^Af_Vp_1)+(f_Vf_3^C)(p_1\stackrel{~}{f}_1^Af_2^Bp_1)+(f_Vf_2^B)(p_1\stackrel{~}{f}_1^Af_3^Cp_1)`$
$`+`$ $`(f_2^B\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(p_1f_1^Cf_Vp_1)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(p_1f_1^Af_2^Bp_1)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B)(p_1f_1^Af_3^Cp_1)]\},`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{ABC}}{4\sqrt{N_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^3\sqrt{M}\psi (0)F_{\eta ^{}g}(p_2^2)}{(𝒫k_1)(𝒫k_3)(p_2p_2^{})}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{M^2}}(p_2\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B[f_3^Cf_1^A+\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A]f_V𝒫)`$
$`+`$ $`(f_1^A\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(f_2^Bf_V)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A)(f_2^Bf_3^C)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(f_1^Af_2^B)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p_2^2}}[(f_1^Af_3^C)(p_2\stackrel{~}{f}_2^Bf_Vp_2)+(f_Vf_1^A)(p_2\stackrel{~}{f}_2^Bf_3^Cp_2)+(f_Vf_3^C)(p_2\stackrel{~}{f}_2^Bf_1^Ap_2)`$
$`+`$ $`(f_1^A\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(p_2f_2^Bf_Vp_2)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A)(p_2f_2^Bf_3^Cp_2)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C)(p_2f_2^Bf_1^Ap_2)]\},`$
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{ABC}}{4\sqrt{N_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^3\sqrt{M}\psi (0)F_{\eta ^{}g}(p_3^2)}{(𝒫k_1)(𝒫k_2)(p_3p_3^{})}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{M^2}}(p_3\stackrel{~}{f}_3^C[f_1^Af_2^B+\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B]f_V𝒫)`$
$`+`$ $`(f_1^A\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B)(f_3^Cf_V)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B)(f_1^Af_3^C)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A)(f_2^Bf_3^C)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{p_3^2}}[(f_1^Af_2^B)(p_3\stackrel{~}{f}_3^Cf_Vp_3)+(f_Vf_2^B)(p_3\stackrel{~}{f}_3^Cf_1^Ap_3)+(f_Vf_1^A)(p_3\stackrel{~}{f}_3^Cf_2^Bp_3)`$
$`+`$ $`(f_1^A\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B)(p_3f_3^Cf_Vp_3)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_2^B)(p_3f_3^Cf_1^Ap_3)+(f_V\stackrel{~}{f}_1^A)(p_3f_3^Cf_2^Bp_3)]\},`$
where $`d_{ABC}`$ ($`A,B,C=1,\mathrm{},N_c^21`$ are the colours of the gluons) is the symmetrical constant of the colour $`SU(N_c)`$ group with $`N_c=3`$; $`g_s`$ is the strong coupling constant; $`(f_V)_{\mu \nu }=𝒫_\mu \eta _\nu 𝒫_\nu \eta _\mu `$ is the polarization tensor of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$-meson, $`M`$, $`𝒫_\mu `$, $`\eta _\mu `$ and $`\psi (0)`$ are the mass of the quarkonium, the four-momentum, the polarization vector, and the non-relativistic wave-function in the position space evaluated at the origin, respectively; $`(f_i^A)_{\mu \nu }=k_{i\mu }e_{i\nu }^Ak_{i\nu }e_{i\mu }^A`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{f}_i^A)_{\mu \nu }=\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }k_i^\rho e_i^{A\sigma }`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are the gluonic field-strength tensor and its dual involving the $`i`$th gluon with the polarization vector $`e_{i\mu }^A`$ and four-momenta $`k_{i\mu }`$; $`p_i=p_\eta ^{}+k_i`$ is the four-momentum of the virtual gluon, and $`p_i^{}=𝒫p_i`$. In the above equations the notations are as follows: $`(f_1^Af_2^B)=(f_1^A)_{\mu \nu }(f_2^B)^{\nu \mu }`$, $`(p_1f_1^Af_2^Bp_1)=p_1^\mu (f_1^A)_{\mu \nu }(f_2^B)^{\nu \rho }p_{1\rho }`$, etc. It is worth noting that the matrix element satisfies the Bose symmetry under the exchange of gluons, in particular, under the interchange of the first and second gluons $`_1_2`$ while the term $`_3`$ remains unchanged.

The function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p_i^2)`$ is the effective vertex function involving the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson and two gluons, one of which is on the mass shell ($`k_i^2=0`$). We shall call this interchangeably also the $`\eta ^{}g`$ transition form factor. A form of this function motivated by the QCD analysis of the $`\eta ^{}g^{}g`$ loop diagram was suggested by Kagan and Petrov :

$$F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)F_{\eta ^{}g^{}g}(p^2,0,m_\eta ^{}^2)=\frac{m_\eta ^{}^2H(p^2)}{p^2m_\eta ^{}^2},$$
(13)
where the function $`H(p^2)`$ was approximated by the constant value $`H(p^2)H_01.7\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, extracted from the $`J/\psi \eta ^{}\gamma `$ decay . In a companion paper  we argue that the form (13) for the $`\eta ^{}g`$ transition form factor also emerges in the perturbative calculations of this function in the hard-scattering approach by keeping the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson mass. In this approach, the dependence of the function $`H(p^2)`$ on the gluon virtuality $`p^2`$ is given by the following expression:

$$H(p^2)=\frac{4\pi \alpha _s(Q^2)}{m_\eta ^{}^2}\sqrt{3}f_\eta ^{}\left[1+A_2(Q^2)\frac{5}{6}B_2(Q^2)G_2^{(g)}(1,\zeta )\right],$$
(14)
where $`f_\eta ^{}2f_\pi /\sqrt{3}`$ is the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson decay constant expressed in terms of the $`\pi `$-meson decay constant $`f_\pi 133`$ MeV, $`\zeta =m_\eta ^{}^2/p^2`$, and the function $`G_2^{(g)}(1,\zeta )`$ has the form :

$$G_2^{(g)}(1,\zeta )=\frac{5}{3\zeta }+\frac{2}{\zeta ^2}\frac{4}{\zeta ^3}\frac{1}{\zeta }\left[1\frac{1}{\zeta }\right]\left[1\frac{4}{\zeta ^2}\right]\mathrm{ln}(1\zeta ).$$
(15)
In Eq. (14) the scale $`Q^2`$ in the strong coupling $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$, and also in the second Gegenbauer moments $`A_2(Q^2)`$ and $`B_2(Q^2)`$ of the quark-antiquark and gluonic LCDAs of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson, is related with the gluon virtuality $`p^2`$, but there is an uncertainty in its precise definition. One of the possibilities is to require that the function $`H(p^2)`$ is finite at all values of $`p^2`$ including the singularity point of the EVF (13), $`p^2=m_\eta ^{}^2`$, which can be done, for example, by putting $`Q^2=|p^2|+m_\eta ^{}^2`$.

The dependence of the function $`G_2^{(g)}`$ on the momentum squared $`p^2`$ of the virtual gluon is presented in Fig. 2 with the value $`G_2^{(g)}(1,0)=1/6`$ in the large-$`|p^2|`$ asymptotic region. Since this result is based on the application of perturbation theory, its validity is restricted to the region $`|p^2|>p_0^2`$, where typically $`p_0^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ (or somewhat higher). In view of this, we shall set $`\mathrm{Im}G_2^{(g)}=0`$ and ignore the structure in $`\mathrm{Re}G_2^{(g)}`$ in the low-$`|p^2|`$ region seen in Fig. 2.

As already noted, the functions $`A_2(Q^2)`$ and $`B_2(Q^2)`$ in Eq. (14) are the second Gegenbauer moments of the quark-antiquark and gluonic light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson. The scale $`\mu _0`$ appearing in the definitions of these moments is set by the initial value in the evolution of the Gegenbauer moments. As the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson is large, $`1`$ GeV, it is not a good approximation to neglect it. Assuming further, that the evolution of the Gegenbauer moments is valid for the gluons with virtualities larger than 1 GeV2, we shall take $`\mu _0^2=Q_0^22`$ GeV2.

The total decay width of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$-meson into the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson and three gluons, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta ^{}ggg`$, averaged over the quarkonium spin states and summed over the polarizations and colours of the final gluons can be written in the form:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}X}\mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta ^{}ggg]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_1}{2\omega _1}\frac{d𝐤_2}{2\omega _2}\frac{d𝐤_3}{2\omega _3}\frac{d𝐩_\eta ^{}}{2E_\eta ^{}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(4)}(𝒫k_1k_2k_3p_\eta ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \left|[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta ^{}ggg]\right|^2},`$
where the factor $`1/3!`$ takes into account the identity of the final gluons. The expression for the matrix element squared is rather lengthy and can be found in the Appendix, where we have also discussed some technical details of our Monte Carlo integration.

The $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy distribution function can be defined as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3g}^{(0)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}X}(z)}{dz}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3g}^{(0)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_1}{2\omega _1}\frac{d𝐤_2}{2\omega _2}\frac{d𝐤_3}{2\omega _3}\frac{d𝐩_\eta ^{}}{2E_\eta ^{}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(4)}(𝒫k_1k_2k_3p_\eta ^{})\delta (z2E_\eta ^{}/M){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \left|[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta ^{}ggg]\right|^2},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3g}^{(0)}`$ is the three-gluon decay width of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$-meson in the leading order:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3g}^{(0)}=\frac{16}{9}\left(\pi ^29\right)C_FB_F\alpha _s^3(M^2)\frac{|\psi (0)|^2}{M^2}.$$
(18)
Here, $`C_F=(N_c^21)/(2N_c)`$ and $`B_F=(N_c^24)/(2N_c)`$ are the constants of the colour $`SU(N_c)`$ group, and $`\alpha _s(M^2)=g_s^2(M^2)/(4\pi )`$ is the strong coupling estimated at the scale of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-meson mass. The $`\alpha _s`$ corrections to the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3g}`$ are known since a long time and are numerically large . However, we do not take them into account, as we have calculated the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)`$ only in the leading order. One anticipates that in the distribution $`dn/dz`$, a good part of the explicit $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections should drop out, and we are tacitly assuming that the remaining corrections do not greatly influence the energy spectrum derived in the lowest non-trivial order.

## 3 Numerical Analysis of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ Data and the $`\eta ^{}`$-Meson LC Distribution Amplitudes

As the results for the matrix element squared in the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)`$ are not yet available in the literature, we shall give their explicit expressions in this paper. In that context we note that it is sufficient to have the expressions for one of the diagonal terms $`|_i|^2`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) and one of the non-diagonal terms $`_i_j^{}`$ ($`ij`$), as the others can be obtained by using the Bose symmetry. With this, the expressions for the components $`(1/3)|_1|^2`$, derived from Eq. $`(\text{2})`$, and $`(1/3)_1_2^{}+`$ c.c., resulting from the cross terms in Eq. $`(\text{2})`$ and $`(\text{2})`$ in $`||^2`$, are given in the Appendix.

We start our numerical calculations by reproducing the already known results for the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum $`dn/dz`$ , as this provides a good consistency check of our calculations. For this purpose, the spectrum in Fig. 3 is calculated with the same set of phenomenological parameters as has been used in Ref.  for the following three input forms333 We thank Alex Kagan for providing us the input parameters used in their analysis of Fig. 3. It should be noted that in the rest of our paper we have used the input parameters displayed in Table 1.:

* A slowly falling EVF: $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)2.1\mathrm{GeV}^1[\alpha _s(p^2)/\alpha _s(m_\eta ^{}^2)]`$ where the two-loop expression is used for the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$.
* A rapidly falling EVF of the form (13) with the function $`H(p^2)`$ approximated by the constant value $`H(p^2)1.7`$ GeV-1.
* An intermediate EVF: $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)12.5\mathrm{GeV}/(p^2+M_0^2)`$ with $`M_0=2.25`$ GeV.

The shapes of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum resulting from these EVFs are presented in Fig. 3.

The experimental points in the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ shown in this figure are taken from Ref. . Our results are in agreement with the ones in Ref. , and we confirm the previous observation that the curve (b) corresponding to the rapidly falling EVF is in reasonable agreement with the experimental data in the hard-energy region $`z0.7`$ . Note that the allowed kinematic domain of the variable $`z`$ is $`z_0<z<1+z_0^2/4`$, where $`z_0=2m_\eta ^{}/M`$. The region $`1<z<1+z_0^2/4`$ is too small to be resolved experimentally, given the statistics of the CLEO data , and hence the energy distribution above $`z=1`$ is included in the last energy bin $`0.9<z<1.0`$.

Let us now turn to the analysis of the perturbative-QCD based form of the effective vertex presented in Eqs. (13)–(15). To fit the parameters $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$ from the existing experimental data on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg\eta ^{}X`$ decay, it is convenient to first derive an approximate numerical formula for the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum. This expression will come in handy for subsequent comparison with other independent calculations and will also facilitate undertaking analysis of the data in future by the experimental groups themselves. As the amplitude of the process considered is linear in $`B_2^{(q)}`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}`$, the energy spectrum $`dn/dz`$ is quadratic in these parameters. The general form for the energy spectrum in the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg\eta ^{}X`$ can be written as follows (suppressing in this equation the scale-dependence of the coefficients for ease of writing):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{n}}{dz}}(z,B_2^{(q)},B_2^{(g)})`$ $`=`$ $`C_{00}(z)+C_{0q}(z)B_2^{(q)}+C_{0g}(z)B_2^{(g)}`$
$`+`$ $`C_{qq}(z)[B_2^{(q)}]^2+C_{qg}(z)B_2^{(q)}B_2^{(g)}+C_{gg}(z)[B_2^{(g)}]^2.`$
We have generated the theoretical $`E_\eta ^{}`$-spectrum, using a high statistics Monte Carlo phase space programme, with fixed values of the coefficients $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$, and have varied their values over a certain range to numerically determine the dependence of the spectrum on these coefficients. Other parameters in our numerical analysis are listed in Table 1, which are the same as the ones used in the analysis of the $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\eta \gamma `$ transition form factors , for the sake of consistency, as we are going to make use of this analysis.

We have not included any errors on $`m_c`$, $`m_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{(4)}`$, as the parametric uncertainties from the Gegenbauer coefficients are by far the largest, which we study.

The coefficients $`C_{ab}(z)`$ \[$`a,b=0,q,g`$\] for the four bins of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum are presented in Table 2. The numbers presented in the parentheses represent the statistical error of our Monte Carlo calculations, for which we have used the Monte Carlo phase space generator FOWL from the CERN Library of programmes. With the help of the program MINUIT , the following best fit values of the parameters $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$ are obtained:

$`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)=0.89_{1.58}^{+1.32},`$ $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)=2.86_{5.80}^{+20.04},\chi ^2=2.45,`$ (20)
$`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)=1.09_{1.36}^{+1.51},`$ $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)=11.53_{20.09}^{+5.55},\chi ^2=2.37,`$
for the last three experimental bins with $`z>0.7`$ (the stated $`\chi ^2`$ corresponds to three degrees of freedom), and

$`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)=0.77_{0.78}^{+0.73},`$ $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)=4.36_{4.46}^{+6.28},\chi ^2=24.13,`$ (21)
$`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)=1.29_{0.73}^{+0.76},`$ $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)=12.51_{6.33}^{+4.53},\chi ^2=23.69,`$
for the four experimental data points in the large-$`z`$ region ($`z>0.6`$). The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit in the last case, namely $`\chi ^224`$ for four degrees of freedom, is unacceptably large. Thus, as already observed in Ref. , only the last three bins in the energy spectrum are dominated by the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg\eta ^{}X`$ decay. Following this, we concentrate on the analysis of the last three bins with $`z0.7`$. The $`1\sigma `$ contours both in the Gegenbauer coefficients ($`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$, $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$) and in the Gegenbauer moments ($`A_2(\mu _0^2)`$, $`B_2(\mu _0^2)`$) are presented as long-dashed curves in Fig. 4.

The best fit values (20) are denoted by the crosses ($`\times `$). The narrow contours (solid curves) also shown in these figures result from the analysis of the data on the $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ transition form factor . As we are using $`\mu _0^2=2`$ GeV2 in our analysis, the results from Ref.  have been rescaled from $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV2 to $`\mu _0^2=2`$ GeV2 with the help of Eqs. (3) and (4) for $`n=2`$. We note that the analysis of the $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ data, being more sensitive to the quark-antiquark LCDA of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson, provides a much more precise determination of the parameter $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and hence of the Gegenbauer moment $`A_2(\mu _0^2)`$, than what can be determined at present from the CLEO data on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$. However, what concerns the coefficient $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$, and also the Gegenbauer moment $`B_2(\mu _0^2)`$, the CLEO data on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$, despite its statistical limitations, has cut out some of the allowed parameter region from the $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ analysis. The additional constraint that follows from demanding that the vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ remains positive definite for all values of $`p^2>m_\eta ^{}^2`$ is shown through the short-dashed lines in these figures, admitting only the parameter space below these lines. We will discuss this constraint in more detail below.

A blow up of the overlapping region in the parameter space ($`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2),B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$) is shown in Fig. 5.

Here, the $`1\sigma `$ contours following from the $`\eta ^{}\gamma `$ transition form factor analysis and the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ decay fit are shown through the solid and dashed curves, respectively. In drawing the allowed parameter space from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ decay fit, we have imposed the additional condition that the $`\eta ^{}g^{}g`$ vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ for $`p^2>m_\eta ^{}^2`$ has the same sign as the corresponding function calculated with the asymptotic forms of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson quark-antiquark and gluonic LCDAs which is defined as positive-definite in the entire $`p^2`$ region. With Eq. (13) taken into account, this condition implies $`H(p^2)>0`$ and results \[with the help of the explicit from (14) of the function $`H(p^2)`$\] in the following inequalities:

$`B_2(\mu _0^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}\left[1+A_2(\mu _0^2)\right],`$ (22)
$`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36+(365\rho _2^{(q)})B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)}{536\rho _2^{(g)}}},`$
where the function $`G_2^{(g)}(1,\zeta )`$ (15) is approximated by its value $`1/6`$ in the large-$`|p^2|`$ asymptotics. The values $`\rho _2^{(q)}=2.86`$ and $`\rho _2^{(g)}=0.01`$ were taken for the constrained parameters in the numerical analysis. The positivity constraint removes the larger values of $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$ above the short-dashed curve in Fig. 5, which would otherwise force the vertex function to cross the zero at some value of $`p^2`$ and become negative. This is exemplified below for specific values of the Gegenbauer coefficients. The resulting combined best fit of the parameters $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$ is shown as the coloured (shaded) region. This yields the following correlated values:

$`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)=0.008\pm 0.054,B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)=4.6\pm 2.5,`$ (23)
$`A_2(\mu _0^2)=0.054\pm 0.029,B_2(\mu _0^2)=4.6\pm 2.7,`$
with the central values having $`\chi ^2=2.66`$ for three degrees of freedom. For comparison, the point shown as $``$ , corresponding to the asymptotic LCDA, has $`\chi ^2=8.41`$ for three degrees of freedom. Thus, the asymptotic form of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson LCDA is not favoured by our analysis.

The shapes of the quark-antiquark and gluonic LCDAs are presented in Fig. 6 (left frame); the resulting $`\eta ^{}g`$ transition form factor $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ corresponding to these LCDAs is also shown in this figure (right frame). The solid and dotted curves in this figure correspond to the asymptotic LCDA and the combined best fit values of the Gegenbauer coefficients (23), respectively. We also show, for the sake of illustration, representative LCDAs with the Gegenbauer coefficients having the values $`B_2^{(q)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.15`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)=13.5`$. These parametric values are taken from the analysis in Ref. , but are in conflict with the positive definiteness of the vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$, as shown by the dashed curve for $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$. In fact, the constraint of positivity on the effective vertex function cuts out regions in the parameter space $`B_2^{(q)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)>0.045`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)>7.1`$, as otherwise the contribution from the gluonic LCDA starts to dominate, which makes the vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ negative for some range of $`p^2`$ considered here and in Ref. . Thus, positivity criterion provides an effective constraint on the magnitude of the coefficient $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$, reducing significantly the otherwise allowed range in Eq. (7). In the context of our analysis, we note that the asymptotic $`\eta ^{}`$-meson LCDA provides a fair description (though not the best fit) of the current data on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)\eta ^{}X`$, and hence one anticipates that the subasymptotic corrections in the LCDAs, and the vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$, while important in the analysis of data, are not dominant.444The approximate validity of the asymptotic transition form factors involving the $`\pi `$-, $`\eta `$\- and $`\eta ^{}`$-mesons compared to the data, observed in Refs. , also suggests that the coefficient $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$ in the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson is bounded by this data. The gluonic components of the $`\pi `$\- and the $`\eta `$-meson LCDAs are small in any case.

The EVF $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ and the function $`m_\eta ^{}^2H(p^2)`$ for the combined best fit values (23) are presented in Fig. 7.

The $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum for the EVF motivated by the perturbative QCD analysis is presented in Fig. 8 in comparison with the experimental data  and the spectrum corresponding to the “rapidly falling” form of the EVF  labeled by the constant value of the function $`H(p^2)=H_01.7`$ GeV-1. The second dotted line labeled by $`H_{\mathrm{as}}(p^2)`$ corresponds to the EVF when only the asymptotic form of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson LCDA ($`B_2^{(q)}=0`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}=0`$) is taken into account. The yellow (shaded) region demarcates the spectrum with the Gegenbauer coefficients having values in the range of the combined best fit (23). The blue (solid) curve lying inside this region corresponds to the best fit values (20) obtained from the analysis of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ decay only. From Fig. 8 it is seen that the rapidly falling phenomenological EVF with $`H_0=1.7\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ gives a harder $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum for the large energy $`z`$ region compared to the CLEO data. The spectrum with the asymptotic form of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson LCDA is well correlated with the experimental point in the bin $`0.7z0.8`$, but overestimates the data in the other two bins. It should be noted that the last two bins (especially the bin $`0.8z0.9`$) are very uncertain in the current data, which has to be statistically improved to draw sharper conclusions.

## 4 Summary

We have calculated the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum in the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg\eta ^{}X`$ in leading order perturbative QCD in the static quark limit for the Orthoquarkonium. Assuming some phenomenological vertex functions, our results are in agreement with the ones obtained earlier in Ref. . In our analysis, the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson is described in the leading-twist (twist-two) accuracy in terms of the quark-antiquark and gluonic LCDAs for which the asymptotic and the first non-asymptotic terms are taken into account. In this approximation, the $`\eta ^{}g^{}g`$ EVF depends essentially on the Gegenbauer coefficients $`B_2^{(q)}(\mu _0^2)`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(\mu _0^2)`$. They are determined from the CLEO data on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ in the large-$`z`$ region ($`z0.7`$) of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum , which is well explained by our perturbative QCD approach. However, the resulting $`1\sigma `$ contour in the Gegenbauer coefficients have a large dispersion. Combining the analysis of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}X`$ data with an earlier analysis of the $`(\eta ^{},\eta )\gamma `$ transition from factors in a similar theoretical framework , and requiring additionally that the vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ remains positive definite in the entire $`p^2>m_\eta ^{}^2`$ region, yield much improved determination of the Gegenbauer coefficients, yielding $`B_2^{(q)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.008\pm 0.054`$ and $`B_2^{(g)}(2\mathrm{GeV}^2)=4.6\pm 2.5`$. Our analysis improves the phenomenological profile of the LCDAs in the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson, and in turn yields a better determination of the vertex function $`F_{\eta ^{}g}(p^2)`$ compared to the earlier estimates of the same. The resulting function (the $`\eta ^{}`$ – gluon transition form factor) is presented in this paper including the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson mass effects.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Alex Kagan, Christoph Greub, Peter Minkowski and Sheldon Stone for numerous helpful discussions. We also thank Gustav Kramer for his comments on the earlier version of this manuscript. The work of A.Ya.P. has been supported by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.

## Appendix A Matrix Element Squared for the Decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)ggg^{}(g^{}\eta ^{}g)`$

In Sec. 2, we have displayed explicitly the terms $`_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) in the decomposition of the total amplitude of the decay $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\eta ^{}ggg`$ in the leading-order perturbative QCD \[Eqs. (2)–(2)\]. Squaring this amplitude results in very lengthy expressions. Nevertheless, it is possible to present compact analytical expressions for some parts of the matrix element squared. In particular, the square of the term $`_1`$, summed over the polarizations and colours of the final gluons and averaged over the polarization states of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-meson, can be written as follows:

$$\frac{1}{3}|_1|^2=\frac{512}{3}C_FB_F\pi ^3\alpha _s^3(M^2)\frac{|\psi (0)|^2}{M}\left|F_{\eta ^{}g}(p_1^2)\right|^2\frac{J_{11}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)}{(𝒫k_2)^2(𝒫k_3)^2(p_1^{}p_1)^2(p_1^2)^2},$$
(24)
where the well-known property of the symmetrical constants $`d_{ABC}`$ of the colour $`SU(N_c)`$-group has been used:

$$\underset{C,D=1}{\overset{N_c^21}{}}d_{ACD}d_{BCD}=\frac{N_c^24}{N_c}\delta _{AB}2B_F\delta _{AB},$$
(25)
and the dynamical function $`J_{11}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)`$ has the form:

$`J_{11}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)`$ $`=`$ $`4M^2(k_1p_1)^2\left[(k_2k_3)^2(𝒫p_1)^2+(k_2p_1)^2(𝒫k_3)^2+(k_3p_1)^2(𝒫k_2)^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`4M^2(p_1^2)^2(k_2k_3)^2\left[(k_1k_2)^2+(k_1k_3)^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`8M^2p_1^2(p_1k_1)^2(k_2k_3)\left[(k_2k_3)^2(k_2p_1)(k_3p_1)\right]`$
$``$ $`8M^2p_1^2(p_1k_1)(k_2k_3)^2\left[(k_1k_2)(k_2p_1)+(k_1k_3)(k_3p_1)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2M^2p_1^2(M^2p_1^2)\left\{\left[(k_1k_2)(k_3p_1)(k_1k_3)(k_2p_1)\right]^2(p_1k_1)^2(k_2k_3)^2\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`2p_1^2(M^2p_1^2)\left[M^2(k_2k_3)+2(𝒫k_2)(𝒫k_3)\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[p_1^2(k_1k_2)(k_1k_3)(k_1p_1)(k_1k_2)(k_3p_1)(k_1p_1)(k_1k_3)(k_2p_1)\right].`$
It is easy to check that this function is invariant under the interchange $`(k_2,p_2)(k_3,p_3)`$, which reflects the Bose symmetry for the set of the Feynman diagrams considered. The other two dynamical functions $`J_{22}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)`$ and $`J_{33}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)`$ originating from the squares of the terms $`_2`$ and $`_3`$, respectively, can be obtained from $`J_{11}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)`$ by the obvious replacements: $`(k_1,p_1)(k_2,p_2)`$ and $`(k_1,p_1)(k_3,p_3)`$.

The differential width of the $`14`$ decay has a non-trivial dependence on five variables (three angles can be integrated out trivially) in the rest frame of the decaying particle. In the Monte Carlo generator, the matrix element squared is rewritten in terms of the following dimensionless variables:

$$x_i=\frac{2(𝒫k_i)}{M^2},y_i=\frac{p_i^2}{M^2},i=1,2,3,$$
(27)
which satisfy the relation:

$$x_1+x_2+x_3+y_1+y_2+y_3=2+z_0^2/4,$$
(28)
where $`z_0=2m_\eta ^{}/M`$ is the relative mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson.

The experimentally measured quantity is the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy spectrum – the number of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\eta ^{}X`$ events $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_i`$ inside the energy bin with the central value $`z_i`$ and the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. This can be calculated theoretically in the Monte Carlo approach, which we have used. In particular, as an input for the calculation of the contribution coming from $`|_1|^2`$, the following equation was used:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_i^{(11)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z_i\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}{\overset{z_i+\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}{}}}𝑑z\delta (z2E_\eta ^{}/M){\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_1}{2\omega _1}\frac{d𝐤_2}{2\omega _2}\frac{d𝐤_3}{2\omega _3}\frac{d𝐩_\eta ^{}}{2E_\eta ^{}}\delta ^{(4)}(𝒫k_1k_2k_3p_\eta ^{})}`$ (29)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|MF_{\eta ^{}g}(y_1)|^2}{64\pi ^5(\pi ^29)M^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{11}(x_i,y_i,\mu )}{[y_1x_2x_3(22y_1x_2x_3)]^2}},`$
where the representation (24) for $`|_1|^2`$ was put into the definition of $`dn/dz`$ (2). The dimensionless functions $`_{11}(x_i,y_i,\mu )`$ is related to the functions $`J_{11}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)`$ as follows:

$$J_{11}(𝒫,k_i,p_i)=\frac{M^{14}}{128}_{11}(x_i,y_i,\mu ).$$
(30)
The first integral in Eq. (29) serves for a selection of the generated Monte Carlo events with the $`\eta ^{}`$-meson energy being inside the bin $`z_i\mathrm{\Delta }z/2<z<z_i+\mathrm{\Delta }z/2`$.

In the same way all the other contributions from the matrix element squared were implemented in the numerical analysis. In particular, the contribution to the energy spectrum coming from the product $`(1/3)_1^{}_2+`$ c.c. can be written as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n_i^{(12)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z_i\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}{\overset{z_i+\mathrm{\Delta }z/2}{}}}𝑑z\delta (z2E_\eta ^{}/M){\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤_1}{2\omega _1}\frac{d𝐤_2}{2\omega _2}\frac{d𝐤_3}{2\omega _3}\frac{d𝐩_\eta ^{}}{2E_\eta ^{}}\delta ^{(4)}(𝒫k_1k_2k_3p_\eta ^{})}`$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2F_{\eta ^{}g}(y_1)F_{\eta ^{}g}(y_2)}{64\pi ^5(\pi ^29)M^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2_{12}(x_i,y_i,\mu )}{y_1y_2x_1x_2x_3^2(22y_1x_2x_3)(22y_2x_1x_3)}}.`$
However, we have not been able to find compact expressions for the non-diagonal terms $`(1/3)_i_j^{}`$ ($`ij`$). We present here instead the dimensionless function $`_{12}(x_i,y_i,\mu )`$ in a form of a series in powers of $`z_0^2/4=m_\eta ^{}^2/M^2`$:

$$_{12}(x_i,y_i,z_0)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{5}{}}f_{12}^k(x_i,y_i)\left(\frac{z_0^2}{4}\right)^k,$$
(32)
where functions $`f_{12}^k(x_i,y_i)`$ are as follows:

$`f_{12}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^24(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3+4(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^2`$
$`+`$ $`8(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3(x_{12}+x_32)`$
$`+`$ $`4(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}(x_{12}^2+2x_{12}x_34x_{12}+x_3^24x_3+4)`$
$`+`$ $`5(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^4+2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3(2x_{12}4x_3+7)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2(x_{12}^26x_{12}x_3+7x_{12}2x_3^2+9x_38)`$
$``$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^5+4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3y_3^2(x_32)`$
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3y_3(x_{12}x_32x_{12}+2x_3)+4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3x_{12}(x_{12}+x_3+1)`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^4(2x_3+5)+4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^3(3x_{12}x_3+2x_{12}+2x_3^212x_3+12)`$
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^2(3x_{12}^2x_3+4x_{12}x_3^217x_{12}x_3+19x_{12}+x_3^311x_3^2+36x_336)`$
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3(x_{12}^3x_3+2x_{12}^2x_3^212x_{12}^2x_3+14x_{12}^2+x_{12}x_3^316x_{12}x_3^2`$
$`+54x_{12}x_352x_{12}4x_3^3+28x_3^264x_3+48)`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}(x_{12}^46x_{12}^3x_3+14x_{12}^38x_{12}^2x_3^2+44x_{12}^2x_356x_{12}^22x_{12}x_3^3`$
$`+30x_{12}x_3^296x_{12}x_3+88x_{12}+x_3^424x_3^2+64x_348)`$
$`+`$ $`4(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^4y_3^2+2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^4y_3(3x_{12}1)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^4(3x_{12}^2+2x_{12}x_36x_{12}+2x_3^26x_3+4)`$
$``$ $`8(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3^4+4(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3^3(x_{12}x_34x_{12}+2x_3^2+2x_37)`$
$`+`$ $`4(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3^2(2x_{12}^2x_32x_{12}^2+3x_{12}x_3^24x_{12}x_37x_{12}9x_3^23x_3+20)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3(2x_{12}^3x_32x_{12}^3+2x_{12}^2x_3^210x_{12}^2x_37x_{12}^220x_{12}x_3^24x_{12}x_3`$
$`+48x_{12}+10x_3^2+32x_352)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2(x_{12}^414x_{12}^312x_{12}^2x_3^210x_{12}^2x_3+56x_{12}^28x_{12}x_3^3+36x_{12}x_3^2`$
$`+32x_{12}x_388x_{12}4x_3^4+20x_3^332x_3^224x_3+48)`$
$``$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4y_3^2+2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4y_3(x_{12}x_3+2)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4(x_{12}^22x_{12}x_3+4x_{12}x_3^2+4x_34)`$
$`+`$ $`7(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3^4+2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3^3(8x_{12}+10x_319)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3^2(6x_{12}^2+20x_{12}x_333x_{12}+11x_3^243x_3+40)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3(2x_{12}^3+16x_{12}^2x_321x_{12}^2+20x_{12}x_3^270x_{12}x_3+56x_{12}+6x_3^3`$
$`37x_3^2+72x_344)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}^2(x_{12}^4+12x_{12}^3x_314x_{12}^3+24x_{12}^2x_3^278x_{12}^2x_3+56x_{12}^2+16x_{12}x_3^3`$
$`90x_{12}x_3^2+160x_{12}x_388x_{12}+3x_3^426x_3^3+80x_3^2104x_3+48)`$
$`+`$ $`4y_3^6+2y_3^5(2x_{12}x_3+5x_{12}4x_3^24x_3+15)`$
$`+`$ $`y_3^4(16x_{12}^2x_3+9x_{12}^236x_{12}x_3^2+38x_{12}x_3+50x_{12}16x_3^3+82x_3^214x_384)`$
$`+`$ $`2y_3^3(12x_{12}^3x_3+2x_{12}^330x_{12}^2x_3^2+56x_{12}^2x_3+15x_{12}^222x_{12}x_3^3+126x_{12}x_3^2`$
$`68x_{12}x_364x_{12}4x_3^4+52x_3^3126x_3^2+24x_3+52)`$
$`+`$ $`y_3^2(16x_{12}^4x_3+x_{12}^444x_{12}^3x_3^2+104x_{12}^3x_3+10x_{12}^340x_{12}^2x_3^3+298x_{12}^2x_3^2`$
$`250x_{12}^2x_364x_{12}^212x_{12}x_3^4+228x_{12}x_3^3644x_{12}x_3^2+288x_{12}x_3+104x_{12}`$
$`+40x_3^4260x_3^3+456x_3^2152x_348)`$
$`+`$ $`2y_3x_3(2x_{12}^56x_{12}^4x_3+19x_{12}^46x_{12}^3x_3^2+66x_{12}^3x_374x_{12}^32x_{12}^2x_3^3`$
$`+68x_{12}^2x_3^2227x_{12}^2x_3+144x_{12}^2+21x_{12}x_3^3156x_{12}x_3^2+304x_{12}x_3`$
$`136x_{12}17x_3^3+88x_3^2132x_3+48)`$
$`+`$ $`x_3^2(7x_{12}^4+16x_{12}^3x_346x_{12}^3+13x_{12}^2x_3^278x_{12}^2x_3+112x_{12}^2+6x_{12}x_3^3`$
$`46x_{12}x_3^2+128x_{12}x_3120x_{12}+2x_3^414x_3^3+44x_3^272x_3+48)\},`$
$`f_{12}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{8(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3+4(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}(x_{12}x_3+2)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3(x_3+7)+(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2(2x_{12}x_3+4x_{12}2x_39)`$
$``$ $`6\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3y_3+2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3(x_3+2)2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^3(2x_3+3)`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^2(4x_{12}x_32x_{12}2x_3^2+7x_310)`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3(2x_{12}^2x_33x_{12}^22x_{12}x_3^2+2x_{12}x_3+2x_{12}x_3^2+8x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}(2x_{12}^3+x_{12}^2x_3+8x_{12}^2+4x_{12}x_3^22x_{12}x_312x_{12}+x_3^3`$
$`2x_3^24x_3+8)`$
$``$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^4(x_{12}+1)+8(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3^3+2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3^2(x_{12}x_3+9x_{12}+2x_3+5)`$
$`+`$ $`4(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3(x_{12}^2x_3+2x_{12}^2+2x_{12}x_32x_{12}6x_3)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2(2x_{12}^3x_3+4x_{12}^3+6x_{12}^2x_315x_{12}^26x_{12}x_3^2+16x_{12}4x_3^3`$
$`+18x_3^28x_34)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4y_3+(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4(x_{12}+x_32)+2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3^3(x_38)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3^2(6x_{12}x_322x_{12}4x_3^2+4x_3+27)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3(3x_{12}^2x_33x_{12}^24x_{12}x_3^2+4x_{12}x_3+11x_{12}x_3^3+6x_3^23x_38)`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(2x_{12}^3x_34x_{12}^2x_3^2+10x_{12}^2x_3x_{12}^22x_{12}x_3^3+18x_{12}x_3^230x_{12}x_3`$
$`+8x_{12}+8x_3^333x_3^2+40x_312)`$
$``$ $`8y_3^5+y_3^4(6x_{12}x_321x_{12}+8x_3^2+4x_341)`$
$`+`$ $`2y_3^3(10x_{12}^2x_39x_{12}^2+14x_{12}x_3^224x_{12}x_324x_{12}+4x_3^324x_3^2+12x_3+44)`$
$`+`$ $`y_3^2(24x_{12}^3x_36x_{12}^3+36x_{12}^2x_3^288x_{12}^2x_319x_{12}^2+14x_{12}x_3^394x_{12}x_3^2`$
$`+56x_{12}x_3+112x_{12}16x_3^3+50x_3^2+32x_3100)`$
$`+`$ $`y_3(12x_{12}^4x_3x_{12}^4+20x_{12}^3x_3^256x_{12}^3x_310x_{12}^3+8x_{12}^2x_3^386x_{12}^2x_3^2+82x_{12}^2x_3`$
$`+64x_{12}^232x_{12}x_3^3+152x_{12}x_3^256x_{12}x_3104x_{12}+40x_3^3120x_3^2+40x_3+48)`$
$`+`$ $`x_3(2x_{12}^5+4x_{12}^4x_319x_{12}^4+2x_{12}^3x_3^234x_{12}^3x_3+74x_{12}^38x_{12}^2x_3^2+97x_{12}^2x_3144x_{12}^2`$
$`+11x_{12}x_3^38x_{12}x_3^2104x_{12}x_3+136x_{12}+4x_3^425x_3^3+32x_3^2+28x_348)\},`$
$`f_{12}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{4(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^3\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}4(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^3`$
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3^2(x_32)+4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}y_3(x_{12}x_32x_{12}6x_3+8)`$
$`+`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}(3x_{12}^2x_{12}x_3x_{12}+4x_34)8(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3^212(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2y_3(2x_{12}+1)`$
$`+`$ $`4(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2(2x_{12}^2+x_{12}x_3^2+5x_3)+3(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^4+2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3^2(4x_3+23)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3(8x_{12}x_3+20x_{12}+4x_3^26x_317)`$
$`+`$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(4x_{12}^2x_3+4x_{12}x_3^2+4x_{12}x_39x_{12}+5x_3^227x_3+16)`$
$`+`$ $`24y_3^4+4y_3^3(3x_{12}x_3+17x_{12}2x_3^2+2x_3+21)`$
$`+`$ $`2y_3^2(16x_{12}^2x_3+27x_{12}^210x_{12}x_3^2+46x_{12}x_3+22x_{12}+22x_3^250x_352)`$
$`+`$ $`2y_3(14x_{12}^3x_3+6x_{12}^310x_{12}^2x_3^2+44x_{12}^2x_37x_{12}^2+18x_{12}x_3^212x_{12}x_3`$
$`32x_{12}+10x_3^256x_3+44)`$
$``$ $`8x_{12}^4x_3+x_{12}^48x_{12}^3x_3^2+8x_{12}^3x_3+10x_{12}^3+18x_{12}^2x_3^2+86x_{12}^2x_364x_{12}^2`$
$`+`$ $`28x_{12}x_3^352x_{12}x_3^2176x_{12}x_3+104x_{12}+12x_3^468x_3^3+88x_3^2+72x_348\},`$
$`f_{12}^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{2(\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12})^2(x_{12}+1)+2\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}(3y_3+2x_{12}x_32)`$
$``$ $`2(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2y_3(x_3+6)+(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^2(2x_{12}x_36x_{12}+8x_3+1)`$
$``$ $`8y_3^3+2y_3^2(x_{12}x_313x_{12}2x_311)+2y_3(2x_{12}^2x_39x_{12}^28x_{12}x_3+20x_3+4)`$
$`+`$ $`2x_{12}^3x_32x_{12}^312x_{12}^2x_3+11x_{12}^2+6x_{12}x_3^2+24x_{12}x_316x_{12}+4x_3^322x_3^2+4\},`$
$`f_{12}^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{3(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12})^22\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}+4y_3^2+2y_3(9x_{12}+7)`$
$`+`$ $`9x_{12}^22x_{12}x_3+2x_{12}+2x_3^214x_34\},`$
$`f_{12}^5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_{12}+1),`$ (38)
where $`x_{12}=x_1+x_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{12}=x_1x_2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_{12}=y_1y_2`$. It is easy to see that the equations for $`f_{12}^k`$ are symmetric under the interchange $`(x_1,y_1)(x_2,y_2)`$.

The expressions for the other $`_{ij}(x_i,y_i,\mu )`$ can be derived from the ones given above by using the Bose symmetry.


format: text

text:
# Critical cardinalities and additivity properties of combinatorial notions of smallness

## 1. Introduction and overview

We work with two spaces which carry an interesting combinatorial structure: The *Baire space* $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ with eventual dominance $`^{}`$ ($`f^{}g`$ if $`f(n)g(n)`$ for all but finitely many $`n`$), and the *Rothberger space* $`P_{\mathrm{}}()=\{A:A\text{ is infinite}\}`$ with $`^{}`$ ($`A^{}B`$ if $`AB`$ is finite). We write $`A^{}B`$ if $`A^{}B`$ and $`B^{}A`$.

A subset $`X`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ is *unbounded* if it is unbounded with respect to $`^{}`$. $`X`$ is *dominating* if it is cofinal in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ with respect to $`^{}`$. $`𝔟`$ is the minimal size of an unbounded subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, and $`𝔡`$ is the minimal size of a dominating subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$.

An infinite set $`A`$ is a *pseudo-intersection* of a family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ if for each $`B`$, $`A^{}B`$. A family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is a *tower* if it is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$, and it has no pseudo-intersection. $`𝔱`$ is the minimal size of a tower. A family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is *centered* if the intersection of each (nonempty) finite subfamily of $``$ is infinite. $`𝔭`$ is the minimal size of a centered family which has no pseudo-intersection. A family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is *splitting* if for each infinite $`A`$ there exists $`S`$ which *splits* $`A`$, that is, such that the sets $`AS`$ and $`AS`$ are infinite. $`𝔰`$ is the minimal size of a splitting family.

Let $`𝔠=2^\mathrm{}_0`$. The following relations, where an arrow means $``$, are well-known :

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & 𝔟\\ & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}_1& & 𝔭& & 𝔱& & & & 𝔡& 𝔠\\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & 𝔰\end{array}$$

No pair of cardinals in this diagram is provably equal, except perhaps $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔱`$. The *Minimal Tower problem*, which asks whether it is provable that $`𝔭=𝔱`$, is one of the most important problems in infinite combinatorics, and it goes back to Rothberger (see, e.g., ).

### New cardinals

In , topological notions related to $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔱`$ were compared. In  the topological notion related to $`𝔱`$ (called *$`\tau `$-covers*) was studied in a wider context. This study led back to several new combinatorial questions, one of which related to the minimal tower problem.

###### Definition 1.

For a family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ and an infinite $`A`$, define $`A=\{BA:B\}`$. If all sets in $`A`$ are infinite, we say that $`A`$ is a *large restriction* of $``$. Let $`\kappa _{\omega \tau }`$ be the minimal cardinality of a *centered* family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ such that there exists no infinite $`A`$ such that the restriction $`A`$ is large and linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$.

It is not difficult to see that $`𝔭=\mathrm{min}\{\kappa _{\omega \tau },𝔱\}`$ . In Section 2 we show that in fact, $`𝔭=\kappa _{\omega \tau }`$. This existence of a centered family with no large linearly quasiordered restriction shows that $`𝔭`$ is combinatorially “larger” than asserted in its original definition, and suggests an additional evidence to the difficulty of separating $`𝔭`$ from the combinatorially “larger” cardinal $`𝔱`$: Now the consistency of $`\kappa _{\omega \tau }<𝔱`$ must be established in order to solve the Minimal Tower problem in the negative.

###### Definition 2.

For functions $`f,g{}_{}{}^{}`$, and a binary relation $`R`$ on $``$, define a subset $`[fRg]`$ of $``$ by:

$$[fRg]=\{n:f(n)Rg(n)\}.$$

Next, For functions $`f,g,h{}_{}{}^{}`$, and binary relations $`R,S`$ on $``$, define $`[hRgSf]`$ by:

$$[fRgSh]=[fRg][gSh]=\{n:f(n)Rg(n)\text{ and }g(n)Sh(n)\}.$$

For a subset $`X`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$, we say that $`g`$ *avoids middles* in $`X`$ with respect to $`R,S`$ if:

1. for each $`fX`$, the set $`[fRg]`$ is infinite;
2. for all $`f,hX`$ at least one of the sets $`[fRgSh]`$ and $`[hRgSf]`$ is finite.

$`X`$ satisfies the *excluded middle* property with respect to $`R,S`$ if there exists $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ which avoids middles in $`X`$ with respect to $`R,S`$. $`𝔵_{R,S}`$ is the minimal size of a subset $`X`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which does not satisfy the excluded middle property with respect to $`R,S`$.

The cardinal $`𝔵=𝔵_{<,}`$ was defined in . In section 3 we express all of the four cardinals $`𝔵_,,𝔵_{<,},𝔵_{,<}`$, and $`𝔵_{<,<}`$ in terms of well-known cardinals. This solves several problems raised in .

### Additivity of combinatorial notions of smallness

For a finite subset $`F`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, define $`\mathrm{max}(F){}_{}{}^{}`$ by $`\mathrm{max}(F)(n)=\mathrm{max}\{f(n):fF\}`$ for each $`n`$. A subset $`Y`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ is *finitely-dominating* if the collection

$$\mathrm{maxfin}(Y):=\{\mathrm{max}(F):F\text{ is a finite subset of }Y\}$$

is dominating.

We will use the following notations:

* : The collection of all bounded subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$,
* : The collection of all subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which satisfy the excluded middle property with respect to $`<,`$,
* : The collection of all subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which are not finitely dominating; and
* : The collection of all subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which are not dominating.

Thus $`𝔅𝔛𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}}𝔇`$. The classes $`𝔅`$, $`𝔛`$, $`𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}}`$, and $`𝔇`$ are used to characterize certain topological diagonalization properties .

Following , we define the *additivity number* for classes $`𝔍P({}_{}{}^{})`$ with $`𝔍`$ by

$$\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(,𝔍)=\mathrm{min}\{|𝔉|:𝔉\text{ and }𝔉𝔍\},$$

and write $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔍)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔍,𝔍)`$. If $``$ contains all singletons, then $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(,𝔍)\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔍)`$, where $`\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔍)=\mathrm{min}\{|J|:J{}_{}{}^{}\text{ and }J𝔍\}`$ (thus $`\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔅)=𝔟`$, $`\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔇)=\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})=𝔡`$, and $`\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔛)=𝔵`$.)

For $`,𝔍\{𝔅,𝔛,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇\}`$, the cardinals $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(,𝔍)`$ bound from below the additivity numbers of the corresponding topological diagonalizations. In section 4 we express $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(,𝔍)`$ for almost all $`,𝔍\{𝔅,𝔛,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇\}`$ in terms of well known cardinal characteristics of the continuum. In two cases for which this is not done, we give consistency results.

## 2. The cardinal $`\kappa _{\omega \tau }`$

For our purposes, a *filter* on a boolean subalgebra $``$ of $`P()`$ is a family $`𝒰`$ which is closed under taking supersets in $``$ and finite intersections, and does not contain finite sets as elements.

###### Theorem 3.

$`𝔭=\kappa _{\omega \tau }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ be a centered family of size $`𝔭`$ which has no pseudo-intersection. Let $``$ be the boolean subalgebra of $`P()`$ generated by $``$. Then $`||=𝔭`$. Let $`𝒰`$ be a filter of $``$ containing $``$. As $`𝒰`$ does not contain finite sets as elements, $`𝒰`$ is centered. Moreover, $`|𝒰|=𝔭`$, and it has no pseudo-intersection.

Towards a contradiction, assume that $`𝔭<\kappa _{\omega \tau }`$. Then there exists an infinite $`A`$ such that the restriction $`𝒰A`$ is large, and is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$. Fix any element $`D_0A𝒰A`$. As $`𝒰A`$ does not have a pseudo-intersection, there exist:

1. An element $`D_1A𝒰A`$ such that $`D_1A^{}D_0A`$; and
2. An element $`D_2A𝒰A`$ such that $`D_2A^{}D_1A`$.

Then the sets $`(D_2(D_0D_1))A`$ and $`D_1A`$ (which are elements of $`𝒰A`$) contain the infinite sets $`(D_0A)(D_1A)`$ and $`(D_1A)(D_2A)`$, respectively, and thus are not $`^{}`$-comparable, a contradiction. ∎

A closely related problem from  remains open.

###### Definition 4.

A family $`YP_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is *linearly refinable* if for each $`yY`$ there exists an infinite subset $`\widehat{y}y`$ such that the family $`\widehat{Y}=\{\widehat{y}:yY\}`$ is linearly $`^{}`$-quasiordered. $`𝔭^{}`$ is the minimal size of a centered family in $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ which is not linearly refineable.

Again it is easy to see that $`𝔭=\mathrm{min}\{𝔭^{},𝔱\}`$. Thus, a solution of the following problem may shed more light on the Minimal Tower problem.

###### Problem 5.

Does $`𝔭=𝔭^{}`$?

## 3. The excluded middle property

###### Lemma 6.

$`𝔟𝔵_,𝔵_{,<}𝔵_{<,}𝔵_{<,<}𝔡`$.

###### Proof.

The inequalities $`𝔵_,𝔵_{,<}`$ and $`𝔵_{<,}𝔵_{<,<}`$ are immediate from the definitions. We will prove the other inequalities.

Assume that $`Y`$ is a bounded subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$. Let $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ bound $`Y`$. Then $`g`$ avoids middles in $`Y`$ with respect to $`,`$. This shows that $`𝔟𝔵_,`$.

Next, consider a subset $`Y`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which satisfies the excluded middle property with respect to $`<,<`$, and let $`g`$ witness that. Then $`g`$ witnesses that $`Y`$ is not dominating. Thus $`𝔵_{<,<}𝔡`$.

It remains to show that $`𝔵_{,<}𝔵_{<,}`$. Assume that $`Y{}_{}{}^{}`$ satisfies the excluded middle property with respect to $`,<`$, and let $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ avoid middles in $`Y`$ with respect to $`,<`$. Define $`\stackrel{~}{g}{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{g}(n)=g(n)+1`$ for each $`n`$. For each $`f,hY`$ we have that $`[fg]=[f<\stackrel{~}{g}]`$, and $`[fg<h]=[f<\stackrel{~}{g}h]`$. Therefore, $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ avoids middles in $`Y`$ with respect to $`<,`$. ∎

###### Theorem 7.

$`𝔵_,=𝔵_{,<}=𝔟`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 6, it is enough to show that $`𝔵_{,<}𝔟`$. Let $`b_\alpha :\alpha <𝔟`$ be an unbounded subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$. For each $`\alpha <𝔟`$ define $`b_\alpha ^0,b_\alpha ^1{}_{}{}^{}`$ by

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}b_\alpha ^0(2n)\hfill & =b_\alpha (n)\hfill \\ b_\alpha ^0(2n+1)\hfill & =0\hfill \end{array};\{\begin{array}{cc}b_\alpha ^1(2n)\hfill & =0\hfill \\ b_\alpha ^1(2n+1)\hfill & =b_\alpha (n)\hfill \end{array}$$

for each $`n`$, and set $`Y=\{b_\alpha ^0,b_\alpha ^1:\alpha <𝔟\}`$. Then $`|Y|=𝔟`$. We will show that $`Y`$ does not satisfy the excluded middle property with respect to $`,<`$. For each $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$, let $`\alpha <𝔟`$ be such that $`\mathrm{max}\{g(2n),g(2n+1)\}<b_\alpha (n)`$ for infinitely many $`n`$. Then:

$`[b_\alpha ^0g<b_\alpha ^1]`$ $`=`$ $`\{n:b_\alpha ^0(n)g(n)<b_\alpha ^1(n)\}`$
$``$ $`\{2n+1:0g(2n+1)<b_\alpha (n)\}`$
is an infinite set. Similarly, $`[b_\alpha ^1g<b_\alpha ^0]\{2n:0g(2n)<b_\alpha (n)\}`$ is also infinite. That is, $`g`$ does not avoid middles in $`Y`$ with respect to $`,<`$. ∎

###### Lemma 8.

$`𝔰𝔵_{<,}`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`Y{}_{}{}^{}`$ is such that $`|Y|<𝔰`$. Let $`P()`$ be the family of all sets of the form $`[f<h]`$, where $`f,hY`$. $`||<𝔰`$, thus there exists an infinite subset $`A`$ of $``$ such that for each $`X`$, either $`AX`$ is finite, or $`AX`$ is finite. As $`|Y|<𝔰𝔡`$, there exists $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`fY`$, $`gA^{}fA`$. (In particular, $`[f<g]`$ is infinite for each $`fY`$.) We may assume that for $`nA`$, $`g(n)=0`$.

Consider any set $`[f<h]`$. If $`A[f<h]`$ is finite, then the set

$`[f<gh]`$ $``$ $`\{n:0<g(n),f(n)<h(n)\}`$
$``$ $`\{nA:f(n)<h(n)\}=A[f<h]`$
is finite. Otherwise, $`A[f<h]`$ is finite, so we get similarly that

$`[h<gf]`$ $``$ $`\{nA:h(n)<f(n)\}`$
$``$ $`\{nA:h(n)f(n)\}=A[f<h]`$
is finite. Thus $`Y`$ satisfies the excluded middle property with respect to $`<,`$. ∎

###### Theorem 9.

$`𝔵_{<,}=𝔵_{<,<}=\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemmas 6 and 8, we have that $`\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}𝔵_{<,}𝔵_{<,<}`$. We will prove that $`𝔵_{<,<}\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$. The argument is an extension of the proof of Theorem 7.

Let $`𝔟^{}`$ be the minimal size of a subset $`B`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that $`B`$ is unbounded on each infinite subset of $``$. According to , $`𝔟=𝔟^{}`$. Thus there exists a subset $`B=b_\alpha :\alpha <𝔟`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that $`B`$ is increasing with respect to $`^{}`$ and unbounded on each infinite subset of $``$. Let $`𝒮=S_\alpha :\alpha <𝔰P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ be a splitting family. For each $`\alpha <𝔰`$ and $`\beta <𝔟`$ define $`b_{\alpha ,\beta }^0,b_{\alpha ,\beta }^1{}_{}{}^{}`$ by:

$$b_{\alpha ,\beta }^0(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_\beta (n)\hfill & nS_\alpha \hfill \\ 0\hfill & nS_\alpha \hfill \end{array};b_{\alpha ,\beta }^1(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & nS_\alpha \hfill \\ b_\beta (n)\hfill & nS_\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$

and set $`Y=\{b_{\alpha ,\beta }^i:i<2,\alpha <𝔰,\beta <𝔟\}`$. Then $`|Y|=2𝔰𝔟=\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$. We will show that $`Y`$ does not satisfy the excluded middle property with respect to $`<,<`$. Assume that $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ avoids middles in $`Y`$ with respect to $`<,<`$. Then the set $`A=[0<g]`$ is infinite; thus there exists $`\alpha <𝔰`$ such that the sets $`AS_\alpha `$ and $`AS_\alpha `$ are infinite. Pick $`\gamma <𝔟`$ such that $`b_\gamma AS_\alpha ^{}gAS_\alpha `$, and $`\beta >\gamma `$ such that $`b_\beta AS_\alpha ^{}gAS_\alpha `$. Then:

$`[b_{\alpha ,\beta }^0<g<b_{\alpha ,\beta }^1]`$ $``$ $`\{nAS_\alpha :b_{\alpha ,\beta }^0(n)<g(n)<b_{\alpha ,\beta }^1(n)\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{nAS_\alpha :0<g(n)<b_\beta (n)\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{nAS_\alpha :g(n)<b_\beta (n)\}`$
is an infinite set. Similarly, the set

$`[b_{\alpha ,\beta }^1<g<b_{\alpha ,\beta }^0]`$ $``$ $`\{nAS_\alpha :b_{\alpha ,\beta }^1(n)<g(n)<b_{\alpha ,\beta }^0(n)\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{nAS_\alpha :0<g(n)<b_\beta (n)\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{nAS_\alpha :g(n)<b_\beta (n)\}`$
is also infinite, because $`b_\gamma ^{}b_\beta `$; a contradiction. ∎

###### Remark 10.

The cardinal $`\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$ is also equal to the *finitely splitting number* $`𝔣𝔰`$ studied in .

Several variations of the excluded middle property are studied in the appendix to the online version of this paper .

## 4. Additivity of combinatorial properties

The additivity number $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(,𝔍)`$ is monotone decreasing in the first coordinate and increasing in the second. Our task in this section is to determine, when possible, the cardinals in the following diagram in terms of the usual cardinal characteristics $`𝔟`$, $`𝔡`$, etc. (In this diagram, an arrow means $``$.)

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇,𝔇)& & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)& & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)& & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔇)\\ & & & & & & \\ & & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})& & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})& & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔛)& & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔛)\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔅)\end{array}$$

### 4.1. Results in ZFC

###### Theorem 11.

The following equalities hold:

1. $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔇)=𝔡`$,
2. $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔛)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})=2`$; and
3. $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇,𝔇)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔅)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔛)=𝔟`$.

###### Proof.

(1) As $`\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝔇)=𝔡`$, it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})𝔡`$. Assume that $`|I|<𝔡`$, and that $`Y=_{iI}Y_i`$ where each $`Y_i`$ is bounded. For each $`iI`$ let $`g_i`$ bound $`Y_i`$. As $`|I|<𝔡`$, the family $`\mathrm{maxfin}(\{g_i:iI\})`$ is not dominating; let $`h`$ be a witness for that. For each finite $`FY`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ be a finite subset of $`I`$ such that $`F_{i\stackrel{~}{I}}Y_i`$. Then $`\mathrm{max}(F)^{}\mathrm{max}(\{g_i:i\stackrel{~}{I}\})^{}h`$. Thus $`\mathrm{max}(F)^{}h`$, so $`Y𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}}`$.

(2) It is enough to show that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}})=2`$. Thus, let

$`Y_0`$ $`=`$ $`\{f{}_{}{}^{}:(n)f(2n)=0\text{ and }f(2n+1)1\}`$
$`Y_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{f{}_{}{}^{}:(n)f(2n)1\text{ and }f(2n+1)=0\}`$
Then the constant function $`g1`$ witnesses that $`Y_0,Y_1𝔛`$, but $`Y_0Y_1`$ is $`2`$-dominating, and in particular finitely dominating.

(3) It is folklore that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇,𝔇)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔅)=𝔟`$ – see, e.g.,  for a proof. It remains to show that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔅,𝔛)𝔟`$. Let $`B`$ be a subset of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which is unbounded on each infinite subset of $``$, and such that $`|B|=𝔟`$. For each $`fB`$ let $`Y_f=\{g{}_{}{}^{}:g^{}f\}`$. (Thus each $`Y_f`$ is bounded.) We claim that $`Y=_{fB}Y_f𝔛`$. To this end, consider any function $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ which claims to witness that $`Y𝔛`$. In particular, $`[0<g]`$ must be infinite. Choose $`fB`$ such that $`f[0<g]^{}g[0<g]`$, that is, $`[0<g<f]`$ is infinite. Let $`A_0,A_1`$ be a partition of $`[0<g<f]`$ into two infinite sets, and define $`f_0Y_f`$ by $`f_0(n)=g(n)`$ when $`nA_0`$ and $`0`$ otherwise; similarly define $`f_1Y_f`$ by $`f_1(n)=g(n)`$ when $`nA_1`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. Then $`f_0,f_1Y`$, but both of the sets $`[f_0<gf_1]`$ and $`[f_1<gf_0]`$ are infinite. ∎

### 4.2. Consistency results

The only cases which we have not solved yet are $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$. In  it was proved that $`𝔟\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$. In Theorem 2.2 of  it is (implicitly) proved that $`𝔤\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{max}\{𝔟,𝔤\}\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)𝔡.$$

Moreover, for any $`𝔍`$, $`\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(,𝔍))\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔍)`$, and therefore

$$\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)),\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇))\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇,𝔇)=𝔟.$$

The notion of ultrafilter will be used to obtain upper bounds on $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$. A family $`𝒰P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is a *nonprincipal ultrafilter* if it is closed under taking supersets and finite intersections, and cannot be extended, that is, for each infinite $`A`$, either $`A𝒰`$ or $`A𝒰`$. Consequently, a linear quasiorder $`_𝒰`$ can be defined on $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ by

$$f_𝒰g\text{ if }[fg]𝒰.$$

The *cofinality* of the reduced product $`{}_{}{}^{}/𝒰`$ is the minimal size of a subset $`C`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which is cofinal in $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ with respect to $`_𝒰`$.

###### Theorem 12.

For each cardinal number $`\kappa `$, the following are equivalent:

1. $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$;
2. For each $`\kappa `$-sequence $`(g_\alpha ,𝒰_\alpha ):\alpha <\kappa `$ with each $`𝒰_\alpha `$ an ultrafilter on $``$ and each $`g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}`$ there exists $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$, $`[g_\alpha g]𝒰_\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

$`12`$: For each $`\alpha <\kappa `$ let $`Y_\alpha =\{f{}_{}{}^{}:[f<g_\alpha ]𝒰_\alpha \}`$. Then each $`Y_\alpha 𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}}`$, thus by (1) $`Y=_{\alpha <\kappa }Y_\alpha `$ is not dominating. Let $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ be a witness for that. In particular, for each $`\alpha `$ $`gY_\alpha `$, that is, $`[g<g_\alpha ]𝒰_\alpha `$. As $`𝒰_\alpha `$ is an ultrafilter, we have that $`[g_\alpha g]=[g<g_\alpha ]𝒰_\alpha `$.

$`21`$: Assume that $`Y=_{\alpha <\kappa }Y_\alpha `$ where each $`Y_\alpha 𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}}`$. For each $`\alpha `$, let $`𝒰_\alpha `$ be an ultrafilter such that $`Y_\alpha /𝒰_\alpha `$ is bounded, say by $`g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}`$ . By (2) let $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ be such that for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$, $`[g_\alpha g]𝒰_\alpha `$. Then $`g`$ witnesses that $`Y`$ is not dominating: For each $`fY`$, let $`\alpha `$ be such that $`fY_\alpha `$. Then $`[fg_\alpha ]𝒰_\alpha `$, thus $`[f<g][f<g_\alpha ][g_\alpha g]𝒰_\alpha `$; therefore $`[f<g]`$ is infinite. ∎

###### Corollary 13.

Assume that $`𝒰`$ is a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $``$. Then $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}({}_{}{}^{}/𝒰)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$ and let $`g_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa `$ be any $`\kappa `$-sequence of elements of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$. For each $`\alpha `$ set $`𝒰_\alpha =𝒰`$. Then by Theorem 12 there exists $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`\alpha `$, $`[g_\alpha g]𝒰_\alpha =𝒰`$. Thus $`g_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa `$ is not cofinal in $`{}_{}{}^{}/𝒰`$. ∎

###### Corollary 14.

$`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)`$.

###### Proof.

Canjar  proved that there exists a nonprincipal ultrafilter $`𝒰`$ with $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}({}_{}{}^{}/𝒰)=\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)`$. Now use Corollary 13. ∎

###### Lemma 15.

$`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ avoids middles in $`Y`$ if, and only if, for each $`fY`$ $`[f<g]`$ is infinite, and the family $`\{[f<g]:fY\}`$ is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$.

###### Theorem 16.

For any cardinal $`\kappa `$, the following are equivalent:

1. $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$;
2. For each $`\kappa `$-sequence $`(g_\alpha ,_\alpha ):\alpha <\kappa `$, such that each $`g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}`$, and for each $`\alpha `$ the restriction $`_\alpha [0<g_\alpha ]`$ is large and linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$, there exists $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$, the restriction $`_\alpha [g_\alpha h]`$ is large.

###### Proof.

$`21`$: Assume that $`Y=_{\alpha <\kappa }Y_\alpha `$ where each $`Y_\alpha 𝔛`$. For each $`\alpha `$ let $`g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}`$ be a function avoiding middles in $`Y_\alpha `$, and set $`_\alpha =\{[f<g_\alpha ]:fY_\alpha \}`$. By Lemma 15, $`_\alpha P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$. As $`_\alpha [0<g_\alpha ]=_\alpha `$, the restriction is large and linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$. By the assumption (2), there exists $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$ and each $`fY_\alpha `$, $`[f<g_\alpha ][g_\alpha h]`$ is infinite; therefore $`h^{}f`$. Thus $`h`$ witnesses that $`Y𝔇`$.

$`12`$: Replacing each $`_\alpha `$ with $`_\alpha [0<g_\alpha ]`$, we may assume that each $`A_\alpha `$ is an infinite subset of $`[0<g_\alpha ]`$.

For each $`\alpha <\kappa `$ let

$$Y_\alpha =\{f{}_{}{}^{}:[f<g_\alpha ]_\alpha \}.$$

For each $`A_\alpha `$ and each $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$, define

(1)
$$\stackrel{~}{h}(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}g_\alpha (n)1\hfill & nA\hfill \\ \mathrm{max}\{g_\alpha (n),h(n)\}\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`[\stackrel{~}{h}<g_\alpha ]=A`$, and $`[\stackrel{~}{h}<h]A`$. Thus, for each $`\alpha `$,

$$_\alpha =\{[h<g_\alpha ]:hY_\alpha \}P_{\mathrm{}}().$$

As $`_\alpha `$ is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$, we have by Lemma 15 that $`g_\alpha `$ avoids middles in $`Y_\alpha `$. By (1), $`Y=_{\alpha <\kappa }Y_\alpha `$ is not dominating; let $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$ be a witness for that.

For each $`\alpha <\kappa `$ and $`A_\alpha `$, let $`\stackrel{~}{h}Y_\alpha `$ be the function defined in Equation 1. Then $`\stackrel{~}{h}Y`$, therefore $`[\stackrel{~}{h}<h]`$ is infinite. By the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, $`[\stackrel{~}{h}<h]A[g_\alpha h]`$; therefore the restriction $`_\alpha [g_\alpha h]`$ is large. ∎

A nonprincipal ultrafilter $`𝒰`$ is a *simple $`P_\kappa `$ point* if it is generated by a $`\kappa `$-sequence $`A_\alpha :\alpha <\kappa P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ which is decreasing with respect to $`^{}`$. $`𝒰`$ is a *pseudo-$`P_\kappa `$ point* if every family $`𝒰`$ with $`||<\kappa `$ has a pseudo-intersection. Clearly every simple $`P_\kappa `$ point is a pseudo-$`P_\kappa `$ point.

###### Corollary 17.

If $`𝒰`$ is a simple $`P_\kappa `$ point, then $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}({}_{}{}^{}/𝒰)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\lambda <\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$. Let $`A_\beta :\beta <\kappa P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ be a $`\kappa `$-sequence which generates $`𝒰`$ and is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$, and set $`_\alpha ==\{A_\beta :\beta <\kappa \}`$ for all $`\alpha <\lambda `$. Assume that $`g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}`$, $`\alpha <\lambda `$, are given. We will show that these functions $`g_\alpha `$ are not cofinal in $`{}_{}{}^{}/𝒰`$.

We may assume that for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`[0<g_\alpha ]=`$. Use Theorem 16 to obtain a function $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, the restriction $`[g_\alpha h]`$ is large. Assume that for some $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`[g_\alpha h]𝒰`$. Then $`[h<g_\alpha ]𝒰`$, thus there exists $`\beta <\kappa `$ such that $`A_\beta ^{}[h<g_\alpha ]`$, therefore $`A_\beta [g_\alpha h]`$ is finite, a contradiction. Thus $`h+1`$ witnesses that the functions $`g_\alpha `$ are not cofinal in $`{}_{}{}^{}/𝒰`$, therefore $`\lambda <\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}({}_{}{}^{}/𝒰)`$. ∎

In the remaining part of the paper we will consider the remaining standard cardinal characteristics of the continuum (see ). Let $`𝔲`$ denote the minimal size of an ultrafilter base.

###### Theorem 18.

It is consistent (relative to $`ZFC`$) that the following holds:

$$𝔲=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)=\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{}_2=𝔰=𝔠.$$

Thus, it is not provable that $`𝔰\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$.

###### Proof.

In  a model of set theory is constructed where $`𝔠=\mathrm{}_2`$ and there exist a simple $`P_\mathrm{}_1`$ point and a simple $`P_\mathrm{}_2`$ point. The simple $`P_\mathrm{}_1`$ point is generated by $`\mathrm{}_1`$ many sets, thus $`𝔲=\mathrm{}_1`$. As $`𝔟𝔲`$, $`𝔟=\mathrm{}_1`$ as well.

Nyikos proved that if there exists a pseudo $`P_\kappa `$ point $`𝒰`$ and $`\kappa >𝔟`$, then $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}({}_{}{}^{}/𝒰)=𝔟`$ (see ). Thus by Corollary 17, $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)𝔟=\mathrm{}_1`$ in this model. In  it is proved that if there exists a pseudo $`P_\kappa `$ point $`𝒰`$, then $`𝔰\kappa `$. Therefore $`𝔰\mathrm{}_2`$ in this model. ∎

$`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())`$ is defined as the minimal cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that there exists no $`^{}`$-decreasing $`\kappa `$-sequence in $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$. (Thus, e.g., $`𝔱<0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())`$.) Each linearly quasiordered family $`P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ has a cofinal subfamily which forms a $`^{}`$-decreasing sequence of length $`<0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())`$.

###### Theorem 19.

1. If $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())<𝔡`$, then $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)=𝔡`$.
2. If $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())=𝔡`$, then $`\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$.

###### Proof.

To prove (1) it is enough to show that for each $`\kappa `$ satisfying $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())\kappa <𝔡`$, we have that $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$. To prove (2) we will show that for each $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)`$, $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$. We will use Theorem 16, and prove both cases simultaneously.

Assume that $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())\kappa <𝔡`$ (respectively, $`\kappa <\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)`$). Consider any $`\kappa `$-sequence $`(g_\alpha ,_\alpha ):\alpha <\kappa `$ where each $`g_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}`$, each $`_\alpha P_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is linearly quasiordered by $`^{}`$, and the restriction $`_\alpha [0<g_\alpha ]`$ is large. We must show that there exists $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$ such that for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$, the restriction $`_\alpha [g_\alpha <h]`$ is large.

Use the fact that $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())\kappa `$ (respectively, $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())=𝔡`$) to choose for each $`\alpha <\kappa `$ a cofinal subfamily $`\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha `$ of $`_\alpha `$ such that $`|\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha |<\kappa `$ (respectively, $`|\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha |<𝔡`$).

We may assume that each $`g_\alpha `$ is increasing. For each $`\alpha `$ and each $`A_\alpha `$, let $`\stackrel{}{A}{}_{}{}^{}`$ be the increasing enumeration of $`A`$. The collection $`\{g_\alpha \stackrel{}{A}:\alpha <\kappa ,A_\alpha \}`$ has less than $`𝔡`$ many elements and therefore cannot be dominating. Let $`h{}_{}{}^{}`$ be a witness for that. Fix $`\alpha <\kappa `$. For all $`A_\alpha `$, there exist infinitely many $`n`$ such that

$$g_\alpha (\stackrel{}{A}(n))=g_\alpha \stackrel{}{A}(n)<h(n)h(\stackrel{}{A}(n)),$$

that is, $`A[g_\alpha <h]`$ is infinite. ∎

###### Theorem 20.

Assume that $`V`$ is a model of $`CH`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1<\kappa =\kappa ^\mathrm{}_0`$. Let $`_\kappa `$ be the forcing notion which adjoins $`\kappa `$ many Cohen reals to $`V`$. Then in the Cohen model $`V^_\kappa `$, the following holds:

$$\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)=𝔰=𝔞=\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}()=\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)=𝔠.$$

###### Proof.

The assertions $`𝔰=𝔞=\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}()=\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()=𝔠`$ are well-known to hold in $`V^_\kappa `$, see . It was proved by Kunen  that $`V^_\kappa 0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())=\mathrm{}_2`$. As $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()𝔡`$, we have that $`𝔡=𝔠=\kappa `$ in this model. If $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_2`$, use Theorem 19(1) and the fact that $`𝔡`$ is regular in this model to obtain $`𝔡\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$. Otherwise use Theorem 19(2) and the fact that $`0pt(P_{\mathrm{}}())=\mathrm{}_2<\kappa =𝔡`$ to obtain this.

In  it is proved that there exists a nonprincipal ultrafilter $`𝒰`$ in $`V^_\kappa `$ such that $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}({}_{}{}^{}/𝒰)=\mathrm{}_1`$. By Corollary 13, we have that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)=\mathrm{}_1`$ in $`V^_\kappa `$. ∎

In particular, the cardinals $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$ are not provably equal.

###### Corollary 21.

It is not provable that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)`$.

###### Proof.

Use Theorem 20 with $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$. In $`V^_\kappa `$, $`𝔡=𝔠=\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$, therefore $`\mathrm{𝖼𝖿}(𝔡)=\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$ in this model. ∎

###### Remark 22.

In the remaining canonical models of set theory which are used to distinguish between the various cardinal characteristics of the continuum (see ), $`\mathrm{max}\{𝔟,𝔤\}=𝔡`$ holds, and therefore $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)=𝔡`$ too. These models show that none of the following is provable: $`\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}(𝒩),𝔯\}\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$ (*Random reals* model), $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}(𝒩),𝔰\}`$ (*Hechler reals* model), $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝒩),\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}(𝒩)\}`$ (*Laver reals* model), and $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)\mathrm{max}\{𝔲,`$ $`𝔞,\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝒩),\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}()\}`$ (*Miller reals* model).

Collecting all of the consistency results, we get that the only possible additional lower bounds on $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$ are $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()`$ and $`𝔢`$ (observe that $`𝔢\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()`$ .)

###### Problem 23.

Is $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$? And if not, is $`𝔢\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$?

No additional cardinal characteristic can serve as an upper bound on $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$.

Another question of interest is whether $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔛,𝔇)`$ appear in the lattice generated by the cardinal characteristics with the operations of maximum and minimum. In particular, we have the following.

###### Problem 24.

Is it provable that $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝔇_{\mathrm{fin}},𝔇)=\mathrm{max}\{𝔟,𝔤\}`$?

We have an indication that the answer to Problem 24 is negative, but this is a delicate matter which will be treated in a future work.

## Appendix A Variations of the excluded middle property

###### Definition 25.

For a subset $`X`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$, and $`R,S\{,<\}`$, we say that $`g`$ *quasi avoids middles* in $`X`$ with respect to $`R,S`$ if:

1. $`g`$ is unbounded;
2. for all $`f,hX`$ at least one of the sets $`[fRgSh]`$ and $`[hRgSf]`$ is finite.

A function $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ satisfying item (2) above is said to *semi avoid middles* in $`X`$ with respect to $`R,S`$. $`X`$ satisfies the *quasi excluded middle* property (respectively, *semi excluded middle* property) with respect to $`R,S`$ if there exists $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ which quasi (respectively, semi) avoids middles in $`X`$ with respect to $`R,S`$. $`𝔵_{R,S}^{}`$ (respectively, $`𝔵_{R,S}^{\prime \prime }`$) is the minimal size of a subset $`X`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ which does not satisfy the quasi (respectively, semi) excluded middle property with respect to $`R,S`$.

###### Lemma 26.

The following inequalities hold:

1. $`𝔵_,^{}𝔵_{,<}^{}𝔵_{<,}^{}𝔵_{<,<}^{}`$,
2. $`𝔵_,^{\prime \prime }𝔵_{,<}^{\prime \prime }𝔵_{<,}^{\prime \prime }𝔵_{<,<}^{\prime \prime }`$;
3. For each $`R,S\{,<\}`$, $`𝔵_{R,S}𝔵_{R,S}^{}𝔵_{R,S}^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Proof.

(1) and (2) are proved as in Lemma 6. We will prove the first inequality of (3), the other one being immediate from the definitions. Assume that $`Y{}_{}{}^{}`$ satisfies $`|Y|<𝔵_{R,S}`$. Let $`i{}_{}{}^{}`$ be the identity function. Set $`Y^{}=Y\{i\}`$. Then $`|Y^{}|<𝔵_{R,S}`$, thus there exists $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$ which avoids middles in $`Y^{}`$. In particular, the set $`[iRg]`$ is infinite, thus $`g`$ is unbounded, so $`g`$ quasi avoids middles in $`Y`$. ∎

###### Theorem 27.

The following assertions hold:

1. Every subset $`X`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ satisfies the weak excluded middle property with respect to $`<,`$. Thus, $`𝔵_{<,}^{\prime \prime }=𝔵_{<,<}^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{}`$.
2. $`𝔵_,^{}=𝔵_{,<}^{}=𝔵_,^{\prime \prime }=𝔵_{,<}^{\prime \prime }=𝔟`$;
3. $`𝔵_{<,}^{}=𝔵_{<,<}^{}=\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$.

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`o{}_{}{}^{}`$ be the constant zero function. Then for each $`f,h{}_{}{}^{}`$, the set $`[f<oh]`$ is finite.

(2) By Lemmas 6 and 26, it is enough to show that $`𝔵_{,<}^{\prime \prime }𝔟`$. But this is, actually, what is shown in the proof of Theorem 7.

(3) By Lemmas 6, 8 and 26, it is enough to show that $`𝔵_{<,<}^{}\mathrm{max}\{𝔰,𝔟\}`$. The proof is identical to the proof of Theorem 9, since for an unbounded $`g{}_{}{}^{}`$, the set $`[0<g]`$ is infinite, as required there. ∎


text:
# Modular congruences, Q-curves, and the diophantine equation 𝑥⁴+𝑦⁴=𝑧^𝑝

## 1 Introduction

In this note we will prove the following results concerning the generalized Fermat equation $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$:

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`p`$ be a prime such that $`p1(mod8)`$ and $`p>13`$. Then the diophantine equation $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$ has no solutions $`x,y,z`$ with $`(x,y)=1`$ and $`xy0`$.

We will call a solution primitive if $`(x,y)=1`$, and non-trivial if $`xy0`$.

###### Definition 1.2

Borrowing the terminology introduced by Sophie-Germain in connection with Fermat’s Last Theorem, we say that a primitive solution $`(x,y,z)`$ of $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$ is in the First Case if $`pxy`$.

###### Theorem 1.3

Let $`p`$ be a prime different from $`7`$. Then the diophantine equation $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$ has no solutions in the First Case.

First of all, we have to stress that we will depend heavily on the work of Ellenberg (see \[E\]) on the more general equation $`x^2+y^4=z^p`$. The reader should keep in mind that the following much stronger result is proved in \[E\]:

###### Theorem 1.4

Let $`p`$ be a prime, $`p211`$. Then the equation $`x^2+y^4=z^p`$ has no primitive solutions in non-zero integers.

Our results are not including in this theorem only for the lower bound $`p211`$.
In \[E\], a Q-curve $`E`$ of degree $`2`$ defined over $`(i)`$ is attached to a given non-trivial solution of $`x^2+y^4=z^p`$, and using the modularity of $`E`$ (proved in \[ES\]) it is shown that there is a congruence modulo $`p`$ between the modular form corresponding to $`E`$ and a modular form of weight $`2`$, trivial nebentypus, and level $`32`$ or $`256`$. All cusp forms in these spaces have complex multiplication (CM). This implies that the prime $`p`$ is dihedral for the $`\mathrm{mod}p`$ Galois representation attached to $`E`$ (this is a representation of the full Galois group of $``$, see \[ES\], \[E\] for precise definitions). To prove theorem 1.4 in \[E\], it is proved (using in particular some results on the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture and analytic estimates for zeros of special values of L-functions) that for $`p211`$ if the $`\mathrm{mod}p`$ representation corresponding to a degree $`2`$ Q-curve over $`(i)`$ is dihedral then the curve must have potentially good reduction at every prime with residual characteristic greater than $`3`$.
We will follow a different path in order to obtain a result holding also for small primes: we will use the theory of modular congruences (level raising results of Ribet) to study the congruences between the modular form associated to $`E`$ and the particular CM modular forms of level $`32`$ and $`256`$. We will restrict to the simpler case where the curve $`E`$ is associated to a solution of the equation $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$ to obtain a stronger result (if we start with a solution of $`x^2+y^4=z^p`$ an imitation of the arguments in this paper only proves the First Case for primes $`p1,3(mod8)`$, $`p>13`$, and the non-existence of solutions as in theorem 1.1 only for $`p1(mod8)`$, $`p>13`$).
The third main ingredient in the proof is the theory of sum of two squares (results of Fermat) and its relation with the CM cusp form of level $`32`$. Let us explain this relation before getting into the proof of theorems 1.1 and 1.3:
Let $`f_1`$ be the cusp form in $`S_2(32)`$. Using the fact that $`f_1`$ is CM and it verifies $`ff\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ is the Dirichlet character of conductor $`4`$, we know that $`f_1`$ is induced from a Hecke character of $`(i)`$. From this, we easily get the well-known relation for the Hecke eigenvalues $`\{a_q\}`$ of $`f_1`$:
$`a_q=(\alpha +\beta i)+(\alpha \beta i)=2\alpha `$, with $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2=q`$, if the prime $`q`$ verifies $`q1(mod4)`$, and $`a_q=0`$ if $`q2,3(mod4)`$.
Acknowledgement: I want to thank Virginia Balzano.

## 2 The results we need

Let $`A,B,C`$ be a primitive solution of $`A^4+B^4=C^p`$ with $`AB0`$. It is an elementary exercise to see that $`(6,C)=1`$. Thus, we can assume that $`A`$ is even. Following Darmon and Ellenberg, the following two elliptic curves $`E_{A,B}`$ and $`E_{B,A}`$ can be attached to this triple:

$$E_{A,B}:y^2=x^3+2(1+i)Ax^2+(B^2+iA^2)x$$

$$E_{B,A}:y^2=x^3+2(1+i)Bx^2+(A^2+iB^2)x$$

They are both degree $`2`$ Q-curves, i.e., each of them is isogenous to its Galois conjugate, with a degree $`2`$ isogeny. Both have good reduction at primes not dividing $`2C`$, and because $`3C`$ this already implies (cf. \[ES\]) that they are modular. Let us denote by $`E`$ any of these two Q-curves, whenever we do not need to distinguish between them.
Modularity should be interpreted in terms of the compatible family of Galois representations of $`G_{}`$ attached to $`E`$ (see \[ES\] for definitions):

$$\rho _{E,\lambda }:G_{}\mathrm{GL}_2((\sqrt{2})_\lambda )$$

for $`\lambda `$ a prime in $`(\sqrt{2})`$. Each $`\rho _{E,\lambda }`$ is unramified outside $`2C\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ the rational prime below $`\lambda `$. These representations are modular and by construction they correspond to a modular form $`f`$ with $`_f=(\sqrt{2})`$ having an extra twist given by the character $`\psi `$ corresponding to $`(i)`$: $`f^\sigma f\psi `$, $`\sigma `$ generating $`\mathrm{Gal}((\sqrt{2})/)`$.
In \[E\], generalizing results of Mazur to the case of Q-curves, it is shown that if $`\mathrm{}>13`$ the residual representation $`\overline{\rho }_{E,\lambda }`$ is irreducible.
From now on we will assume $`p>13`$. The close relation between the discriminant of $`E`$ and $`C^p`$ shows that for $`Pp`$ in $`(\sqrt{2})`$ the residual $`\mathrm{mod}P`$ representation $`\overline{\rho }_{E,P}`$ has conductor equal to a power of $`2`$. The exact value of this conductor was computed in \[E\], giving $`32`$ for the case of $`E_{A,B}`$ (recall $`A`$ is even) and $`256`$ for $`E_{B,A}`$.
The modularity of both Q-curves together with Ribet’s level-lowering result give:

$$\overline{\rho }_{E_{A,B},P}\overline{\rho }_{f,P}fS_2^{new}(32)$$

$$\overline{\rho }_{E_{B,A},P}\overline{\rho }_{f^{},P}f^{}S_2^{new}(256)$$

All newforms of these levels have CM. Thus, this implies that the (projective) images of $`\overline{\rho }_{E_{A,B},P}`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_{E_{B,A},P}`$ fall both in the normalizer of a Cartan subgroup of $`\mathrm{PGL}_2(𝔽_p)`$. Allways with the assumption $`p>13`$, generalizing results of Momose to the case of Q-curves, it is proved in \[E\] that the case of a split Cartan subgroup is impossible, the case of a non-split Cartan subgroup remaining the only case to be considered.

## 3 The Proofs

Let us start by describing in more detail the newforms of levels $`32`$ and $`256`$:
$`N=32`$: The cusp form $`f_1S_2(32)`$ corresponds to the elliptic curve $`y^2=x^3x`$ which has CM by $`(i)`$.
$`N=256`$: $`f_2`$ (and its Galois conjugate) correspond to the degree $`2`$ Q-curve $`y^2=x^3+2(1+i)x^2+ix`$ which has CM by $`(\sqrt{2})`$. We have $`_{f_2}=(\sqrt{2})`$, $`f_2`$ has thus both CM and an inner twist (which is not uniquely defined).
$`f_3`$ and $`f_4`$: Corresponding to elliptic curves defined over $``$ with CM by $`(i)`$.
$`f_5`$ and $`f_6`$: Corresponding to elliptic curves defined over $``$ with CM by $`(\sqrt{2})`$.
The eigenvalues $`a_p`$, $`p17`$, of these cusp forms, are:

$$f_1:0,0,2,0,0,6,2$$

$$f_2:0,2\sqrt{2},0,0,2\sqrt{2},0,6$$

$$f_3:0,0,4,0,0,4,2$$

$$f_4:0,0,4,0,0,4,2$$

$$f_5:0,2,0,0,6,0,6$$

$$f_6:0,2,0,0,6,0,6$$

The first thing to observe is that $`f_5`$ and $`f_6`$ can be eliminated from the possibilities (this result will not be essential in the sequel but it may be of independent interest):

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`E`$ be a Q-curve of degree $`2`$ defined over $`(i)`$ and with good reduction at $`3`$. Let $`p>13`$ be a prime and $`Pp`$ such that: $`\overline{\rho }_{E,P}\overline{\rho }_{f_t,P}`$ for $`t6`$, where $`f_t`$ is one of the cusp forms described above. Then $`t4`$.

Proof: We know that $`\rho _{E,P}`$ is defined over $`(\sqrt{2})`$ and has an extra twist: $`\rho _{E,P}^\sigma \rho _{E,P}\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ is the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ character. This implies that for every good reduction prime $`q3(mod4)`$: $`a_q=z\sqrt{2}`$, $`z`$ a rational integer; where $`a_q=\mathrm{trace}(\rho _{E_P}(\mathrm{Frob}q))`$, $`Pq`$.
Using the bound $`|a_3|2\sqrt{3}`$ we have the only possibilities: $`a_3=0,\pm \sqrt{2},\pm 2\sqrt{2}`$. The cusp forms $`f_5`$ and $`f_6`$ have Hecke eigenvalue $`a_3=\pm 2`$, so the congruence $`\overline{\rho }_{E,P}\overline{\rho }_{f_t,P}`$ with $`t=5,6`$ gives at $`q=3`$: $`a\pm 2(modP)`$ for $`a\{0,\pm \sqrt{2},\pm 2\sqrt{2}\}`$, but this is impossible for $`p>2`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.1:
We have attached two Q-curves to a primitive non-trivial solution $`A,B,C`$ of $`A^4+B^4=C^p`$, and for the Galois representations attached to them we have the congruences:

$$\overline{\rho }_{E_{A,B},P}\overline{\rho }_{f_1,P}(3.1)$$

$$\overline{\rho }_{E_{B,A},P}\overline{\rho }_{f_t,P}(3.2)$$

for $`t=2,3`$ or $`4`$.
Following \[E\], for $`p>13`$ we can assume that the projective images lie both in the normalizer of non-split Cartan subgroups of $`\mathrm{PGL}_2(𝔽_p)`$. Using the fact that $`f_1`$ has CM by $`(i)`$, we know that for $`E_{A,B}`$ this is the case precisely when $`p3(mod4)`$. This proves the theorem for $`p1(mod4)`$, $`p>13`$.
So let $`p`$ be a prime $`p3(mod4)`$, $`p>13`$. Observe that this implies in particular that $`E_{A,B}`$ and $`E_{B,A}`$ have both good reduction at $`p`$, because from the equation $`A^4+B^4=C^p`$ and $`(A,B)=1`$ it is a very old result that all primes dividing $`C`$ are of the form $`4k+1`$. Let $`\{a_q\}`$ be the set traces of $`\rho _{E_{A,B},P}`$ for $`q2Cp`$. Congruence (3.1) gives at $`q=3`$: $`a_30(modP)`$. But we know that $`a_3\{0,\pm \sqrt{2},\pm 2\sqrt{2}\}`$, then the only possibility is $`a_3=0`$. The value $`a_3`$ is computed as usual by counting the number of points of the reduction of the curve $`E_{A,B}`$ modulo $`\stackrel{ˇ}{3}`$ for a prime $`\stackrel{ˇ}{3}`$ dividing $`3`$. It depends only on the values of $`A`$ and $`B^2`$ modulo $`3`$. A direct computation shows that $`a_3=0`$ if and only if $`A0(mod3)`$ and $`B0(mod3)`$. Thus, we can assume that $`A`$ and $`B`$ verify these congruences (recall that by assumption $`A`$ is even, so we have in particular $`6A`$). This determines up to sign the value of the trace $`a_3^{}`$ of the image of $`\mathrm{Frob}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ for the Galois representation $`\rho _{E_{B,A},P}`$ (it depends only on the values of $`A`$ and $`B`$ modulo $`3`$). In fact, putting $`A=0`$ and $`B=\pm 1`$ we obtain $`a_3^{}=\pm 2\sqrt{2}`$.
If we suppose that congruence (3.2) holds for $`t=3`$ or $`4`$, comparing traces at $`q=3`$ we obtain: $`a_3^{}=\pm 2\sqrt{2}0(modP)`$, and this is a contradiction. So we conclude that if $`B,A,C`$ is a non-trivial primitive solution of $`B^4+A^4=C^p`$ with $`A`$ even and $`p>13`$, then congruence (3.2) has to be verified by the newform $`f_2`$ (or its Galois conjugated). Applying again Ellenberg’s generalization of results of Momose (cf. \[E\]) to the case of Q-curves, we can assume that the projective images of the congruent $`\mathrm{mod}P`$ representations in (3.2) must be contained in the normalizer of a non-split Cartan subgroup, and using the fact that $`f_2`$ has CM by $`(\sqrt{2})`$ we know that this can only happen if $`p5,7(mod8)`$. This proves the result also for $`p3(mod8)`$, $`p>13`$, which concludes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 1.3:
Assume as before that $`p>13`$ and consider congruence (3.1) again. As we already mentioned in the proof of theorem 1.1, we can restrict to $`p3(mod4)`$ (the non-split Cartan case). The odd primes where $`E_{A,B}`$ has bad reduction are precisely the primes $`qC`$; the curve has semistable reduction at these primes (cf. \[E\]) and we obviously have $`q1(mod4)`$. In particular $`E_{A,B}`$ has good reduction at $`p`$.
As explained in \[E\], from the fact that $`E_{A,B}`$ has multiplicative reduction at $`qp`$, and the assumption that the corresponding projective $`\mathrm{mod}P`$ Galois representation has image in the normalizer of a non-split Cartan subgroup (using the fact that the cusps of $`X_0^{ns}(2,p)`$ have minimal field of definition $`(\zeta _p+\zeta _p^1)`$, with $`\zeta _p`$ a primitive $`p`$-th root of unity) it follows that the residue field $`[i]/\stackrel{ˇ}{q}`$ must contain $`\zeta _p+\zeta _p^1`$ for $`\stackrel{ˇ}{q}q`$, and this implies (because $`q`$ splits in $`(i)`$) that $`q^21(modp)(3.3)`$.
On the other hand, the level of the modular form $`f`$ corresponding to $`E_{A,B}`$ is $`32\mathrm{cond}(C)`$, where $`\mathrm{cond}(C)`$ is the product of the primes dividing $`C`$. This implies, by Ribet’s level-lowering result, that together with congruence (3.1) there are congruences:

$$\rho _{f,P}\rho _{f_1,P}\rho _{f_{(q)},P}(modP)$$

for every prime $`qC`$, with $`f_{(q)}`$ a newform of level $`32q`$. Ribet’s level raising result gives a constraint for such congruence primes (see \[G\]): using the fact that $`f_1`$ has level $`32`$ and $`f_{(q)}`$ has level $`32q`$, the above congruences imply that:

$$a_q^2q(q+1)^2(modP)$$

where $`a_q`$ is the $`q`$-th coefficient of $`f_1`$, for every $`qC`$.
Using (3.3), in the above congruence we substitute $`q`$ by $`\pm 1`$ and we obtain: $`a_q^24,0(modP)`$ (convention: we list first the value corresponding to $`q1`$).
As we explained in section 1, we have $`a_q=2\alpha `$ with $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2=q`$. Thus, the above congruence gives: $`\alpha ^21,0(modp)(3.4)`$.
In particular, if $`q1(modp)`$ we have: $`\alpha 0(modp)`$, then $`\beta ^2=q\alpha ^21(modp)`$, but this is impossible because $`p3(mod4)`$.
Then, it must hold $`q1(modp)`$ and from (3.4): $`\alpha ^21(modp)`$. Thus, $`\beta ^2=q\alpha ^20(modp)`$.
We have proved that for every $`qC`$, if we write it as a sum of squares $`q=\alpha ^2+\beta ^2`$, these two integers have to verify: $`\alpha ^21(modp)`$ and $`p\beta `$ (or viceversa). Applying the product formula we see that if we write $`C^p=R^2+S^2`$ in any possible way, it must always hold $`pRS`$.
Thus, in the equation $`A^4+B^4=C^p`$ we have $`pAB`$, and this proves the theorem for $`p>13`$. The First Case for the remaining small primes different from $`7`$ (and more generally for $`p\pm 1(mod8)`$) was already solved la Kummer (see \[P\] and \[C\]).

## 4 Bibliography

\[C\] Cao, Z. F.,The diophantine equation $`cx^4+dy^4=z^p`$, C. R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada, 14 (1992), 231-234

\[E\] Ellenberg, J.,Galois representations attached to Q-curves and the generalized Fermat equation $`A^4+B^2=C^p`$, preprint

\[ES\] Ellenberg, J., Skinner, C., On the modularity of Q-curves, Duke Math. J., 109 (2001), 97-122

\[G\] Ghate, E., An introduction to congruences between modular forms, in “Current Trends in Number Theory”, proceedings of the International Conference on Number Theory, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad, November 2000; S. D. Adhikari, S. A. Katre, B. Ramakrishnan (Eds.), Hindustan Book Agency (2002)

\[P\] Powell, B.,Sur l’équation diophantienne $`x^4\pm y^4=z^p`$, Bull. Sc. Math., 107 (1983), 219-223