text:
# Quantum pumping and dissipation: from closed to open systems

## Abstract

Current can be pumped through a closed system by changing parameters (or fields) in time. The Kubo formula allows to distinguish between dissipative and non-dissipative contributions to the current. We obtain a Green function expression and an $`S`$ matrix formula for the associated terms in the generalized conductance matrix: the “geometric magnetism” term that corresponds to adiabatic transport; and the “Fermi golden rule” term which is responsible to the irreversible absorption of energy. We explain the subtle limit of an infinite system, and demonstrate the consistency with the formulas by Landauer and Büttiker, Prétre and Thomas. We also discuss the generalization of the fluctuation-dissipation relation, and the implications of the Onsager reciprocity.

Linear response theory (LRT) is the traditional theoretical tool for dealing with the response of driven systems landau ; imry ; datta ; imryK . It offers an expression (the Kubo formula) for the generalized susceptibility, and hence for the generalized conductance matrix. It has been realized that in the adiabatic limit the Kubo formula reduces to an expression for “geometric magnetism” robbins . In case of electrical current calculation the latter gives the “adiabatic transport” of charge thouless ; avron . Outside of the adiabatic regime the response includes an additional “dissipation” term pmc . The latter determines the rate of irreversible energy absorption, which is caused by Fermi-golden-rule transitions between energy levels.

Recently there was much interest in analyzing the response of open systems that are connected to reservoirs. The analysis has been based on the $`S`$-matrix formalism, leading to the Landauer formula imry ; datta , and more generally to the Büttiker, Prétre and Thomas (BPT) formula BPT . A major motivation for the present work is the realization that the relation between the BPT formula and the Kubo formula has not been clarified. In particular the notion of “adiabatic pumping” in the context of an open system has been left obscured, and some confusion has arose regarding the role of dissipation in the pumping process SAA ; pmp ; pmc .

The purpose of the present work is to analyze the response of closed isolated systems pmp ; pmpMB , and in particular to consider the special limit of an infinite system (no reservoirs!). Thus we are going to construct a bridge between the LRT formulation and the BPT formula. This is of great practical importance, because the assumed open geometry of the $`S`$-matrix formulation is in many cases an idealization. It is clear that Kubo formula allows a straightforward incorporation of finite-size, external noise, environmental and possibly also many-body effects. A major step in constructing this bridge, had been taken in Ref.fisher , where the authors start with the Kubo formula for the electrical conductivity and end up with the Landauer formula which relates the conductance to the transmission of the device. We are going to see that the general case, which deals with the generalized conductance matrix, and hence incorporates adiabatic transport, is much more subtle.

Consider a closed isolated system whose Hamiltonian $``$ depends on several control parameters $`x_j`$. An example is presented in Fig. 1, where $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are gate voltages and $`x_3`$ is the magnetic flux through the loop. The generalized forces are conventionally defined as $`F^k=/x_k`$. Note that $`F^3`$ is the electrical current. In LRT landau  the first order contribution to $`F^k`$ is related to $`x_j(t)`$ by a causal response kernel $`\alpha ^{kj}(tt^{})`$. The Kubo expression for this response kernel is $`\alpha ^{kj}(\tau )=\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau )K^{kj}(\tau )`$, where $`K^{kj}(\tau )=(i/\mathrm{})[F^k(\tau ),F^j(0)]`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau )`$ is the step function. The Fourier transform of $`\alpha ^{kj}(\tau )`$ is the generalized susceptibility $`\chi ^{kj}(\omega )`$. The generalized conductance matrix is:

$`𝑮^{kj}=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}[\chi ^{kj}(\omega )]}{\omega }}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}K^{kj}(\tau )\tau 𝑑\tau `$ (1)
Thus in the limit of zero frequency the non-trivial part of the response can be written as a generalized Ohm law

$`F^k={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝑮^{kj}\dot{x}_j\left(𝜼\dot{x}𝑩\dot{x}\right)_k`$ (2)
where following robbins  the generalized conductance matrix is written as a sum of a symmetric matrix $`𝜼^{kj}=𝜼^{ik}`$ that represents the dissipative response, and an antisymmetric matrix $`𝑩^{kj}=𝑩^{jk}`$ that represents the non-dissipative response (also called “geometric magnetism”).

For a device as in Fig.1, and zero temperature occupation of non-interacting (spinless) Fermions, we find below that the dissipative part of the response is

$`𝜼^{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}\text{trace}\left[F^k\text{Im}[𝖦^+]F^j\text{Im}[𝖦^+]\right]`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }}\text{trace}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}}{x_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_j}}\right]`$ (4)
where $`𝖦^\pm =1/(E\pm i0)`$ are Green functions of the corresponding open system, and $`\text{Im}[𝖦^+]=i\frac{1}{2}(𝖦^+𝖦^{})`$. For the non-dissipative part of the response we find:

$`𝑩^{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\text{trace}\left[F^k(𝖦^++𝖦^{})F^j\text{Im}[𝖦^+]\right]`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi i}}\text{trace}\left[P_\text{A}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_j}}S^{}{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}}{x_j}}S\right)\right]+𝑩_{\text{intrf}}^{3j}`$ (6)
where the second equality holds for $`k=3`$, and allows the determination of the electrical current $`F^3`$ via a specified lead A. The last term is defined in Eq.(26). The projector $`P_\text{A}`$ restricts the trace operation to be over the specified lead channels. In the absence of magnetic field the remaining component is $`𝑩^{12}=0`$, while $`𝜼^{31}=𝜼^{32}=0`$ as expected from the Onsager reciprocity relations (see last paragraph). Disregarding the last term in Eq.(6), the sum of (6) and (4) for $`k=3`$ coincides with the BPT formula, which can be written in our notations as:

$`𝑮^{3j}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\pi i}}\text{trace}\left(P_\text{A}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_j}}S^{}\right)\text{[BPT]}`$ (7)
We show later that this reduces for $`j=3`$ to the Landauer formula which relates the electrical conductance $`𝑮^{33}`$ to the transmission of the device.

Below we explain how to derive the expressions for $`𝜼^{kj}`$ and $`𝑩^{kj}`$ starting from the Kubo formula Eq.(1). Later we discuss further physical implications of our results. Assuming zero temperature Fermi occupation up to energy $`E_F`$, standard textbook procedure landau ; imry ; datta ; imryK  leads to

$`𝜼^{kj}|_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}F_{nm}^k\overline{\delta (E_FE_m)}F_{mn}^j\overline{\delta (E_FE_n)}`$ (8)
where the overline indicates that the delta functions are smeared. If the system were not isolated, the “broadening” $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the energy levels would be determined by the interaction with the external environment imryK . But we assume a closed isolated system. Still we argue pmc  that in case of a quantized chaotic system the levels acquire an effective width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=((\mathrm{}\sigma _F/\mathrm{\Delta }^2)|\dot{x}|)^{2/3}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing, and $`\sigma _F`$ is the root-mean-square value of the near-diagonal matrix elements (see remark note ). Therefore we find two possibilities: In the adiabatic regime ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }`$) the dissipative conductance is zero ($`𝜼=0`$), while in the non-adiabatic regime ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Delta }`$) the dissipative conductance acquires a well defined finite value, which is not sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and can be calculated using Eq.(3). A similar claim holds regarding $`𝑩^{kj}`$, but the details are much more subtle: We start with the standard expression robbins ; pmp

$`𝑩^{kj}|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }=0}=2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(E_n){\displaystyle \underset{m(n)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}\left[F_{nm}^kF_{mn}^j\right]}{(E_mE_n)^2}}`$ (9)
where $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi occupation function (later we take the limit of zero temperature). Incorporating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and exploiting the antisymmetry of the numerator with respect to $`nm`$ interchange we get

$`𝑩^{kj}|_\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}F_{nm}^kF_{mn}^j}{(E_mE_n)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}}(f(E_n)f(E_m))`$ (10)
The numerator, on the average, depends mainly on the difference $`r=mn`$, and it is non-negligible within a bandwidth $`|E_mE_n|<\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$. We further discuss the bandwidth issue in the next paragraph, and explain that in the limit of a very long wire $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$. This means that in this limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ serves like the infinitesimal $`i0`$ in the definition of the Green functions $`𝖦^\pm `$. Consequently, the sum in Eq.(10), which is of the form $`_{n,m}g(nm)(f(E_n)f(E_m))=_rrg(r)`$, leads after some straightforward algebra to Eq.(5).

Formally there is an optional derivation that leads to (3) and (5). The kernel $`K^{ij}(\tau )`$ is related to the symmetrized correlation function $`C^{ij}(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}(F^i(\tau )F^j(0)+F^j(0)F^i(\tau )`$. The quantum mechanical derivation of this subtle relation is discussed in Appendix D of pmp . If we use this relation we get from Eq.(1) an extremely simple (and useful) result:

$`𝑮^{kj}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}C^{kj}(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ (11)
which can be regarded as the generalization of the fluctuation dissipation relation. The fluctuations are described by $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{kj}(\omega )`$ which is defined as the Fourier transform of $`C^{ij}(\tau )`$. It follows from this definition that

$`\stackrel{~}{C}^{kj}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\overline{F_{nm}^kF_{mn}^j}|_{E_nE_m\mathrm{}\omega }`$ (12)
For the device of Fig.1 the mean level spacing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }1/L`$ where $`L`$ is the length of the wire. The above relation implies that the bandwidth of the $`mn`$ matrix is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b\mathrm{}/\tau _{cl}`$, where the classical correlation time $`\tau _{cl}`$ is determined by the chaotic motion inside the dot. It is also clear that $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{ij}(\omega )1/L`$, and therefore $`\sigma _F^2(1/L)^2`$. Hence we get that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/L)^{1/3}`$, implying that the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ (keeping constant Fermi energy) is non-adiabatic, and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$. Assuming for simplicity that there is no magnetic field, one easily derives the expressions

$`𝑮^{33}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}\stackrel{~}{C}^{33}(\omega 0)`$ (13)
$`𝑮^{3j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{C}^{3j}(\omega )}{\omega }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\text{for }j=1,2`$ (14)
which are equivalent to those obtained in the previous paragraph. Note that $`C^{3j}(\tau )`$ with $`j=1,2`$ is antisymmetric with respect to $`\tau `$, and therefore $`i\stackrel{~}{C}^{3j}(\omega )/\omega `$ is a real symmetric function.

We turn back to the formal derivation. We want to get exact expressions for the elements of the conductance matrix, for the device of Fig. 1, in the non-adiabatic limit of large $`L`$. The location of the particle is specified by $`𝒓=(𝗋,s)`$, where $`𝗋`$ is the coordinate along the ring, and $`s`$ is a transverse coordinate. Optionally we can specify the location along a lead using a radial coordinate $`r`$, while the surface coordinate $`s`$ distinguishes different points that have the same $`r`$. We shall refer to $`r=0`$ as the boundary of the scattering region. The channel basis is defined as $`𝗋,s|a,r=\chi _a(s)\delta (𝗋𝗋_a(r))`$, where $`a`$ is the channel index. The wavefunction in the lead regions can be expanded as follows:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{a,r}{}}\left(C_{a,+}\text{e}^{ik_ar}+C_{a,}\text{e}^{ik_ar}\right)|a,r`$ (15)
Following datta  we define an operator which can be identified with the imaginary part of the self energy of the interaction of the dot with the leads:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}|a,0\mathrm{}v_aa,0|=\delta (r){\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}|a\mathrm{}v_aa|`$ (16)
where $`v_a=(\mathrm{}k_a/\text{mass})`$ is the velocity in channel $`a`$. The matrix elements of the second term in Eq.(16) are

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(s,s^{})={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\chi _a(s)\mathrm{}v_a\chi _a(s^{})`$ (17)
Using standard procedure (see section 3.4 in datta ) the Green function in the leads, inside the scattering region ($`r<0`$), can be expressed using the $`S`$ matrix:

$`𝖦^+(r,s|0,s^{})=`$ (18)
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}\chi _b(s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}v_b}}}(\text{e}^{ikr}+S\text{e}^{ikr})_{ba}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}v_a}}}\chi _a(s^{})`$
where $`k=\text{diag}\{k_a\}`$ is a diagonal matrix. Now we are fully equipped to convert Eq.(3) into an $`S`$-matrix expression. Using the identities (see datta  for Eq.(19))

$`\text{Im}[𝖦^+]`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}𝖦^+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝖦^{}=\frac{1}{2}𝖦^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝖦^+`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝖦^\pm }{x_j}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝖦^\pm F^j𝖦^\pm `$ (20)
we obtain

$`𝜼^{kj}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }}\text{trace}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝖦^+}{x_j}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝖦^{}}{x_j}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right]`$ (21)
Using the definition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and Eq.(18) we get Eq.(4).

The derivation of the $`S`$ matrix expression Eq.(6) for $`𝑩^{kj}`$ is much more subtle, and requires a preliminary discussion of the definition of the current operator. Consider a ring geometry, and assume that the current is driven by the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In order to have a better defined model we should specify what is the vector potential $`𝒜(𝒓)`$ along the ring. We can regard the values of $`𝒜`$ at different points in space as independent parameters (think of tight binding model). Their sum (meaning $`𝒜(𝒓)𝑑𝒓`$) should be $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. So we have to know how $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is “distributed” along the ring. This is not just a matter of “gauge choice” because the electric field $`(𝒓)=\dot{𝒜}(𝒓)`$ is a gauge invariant quantity. The transformation $`𝒜𝒜+\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒓)`$ for a time dependent filed is not merely a gauge change: A gauge transformation of time dependent field requires a compensating replacement of the scalar potential, which is not the case here. So let us define a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ which is associated with a vector potential that is concentrated across a section $`𝗋=𝗋_A`$ of a given lead. For the later derivation it is essential to assume that the section $`𝗋=𝗋_A`$ is contained within the scattering region (see Fig. 1). The generalized force which is associated with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ is $`F^3=I_A`$, the current through this section. Namely

$`I_A={\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}e(v\delta (𝗋𝗋_A)+\delta (𝗋𝗋_A)v)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`(e/\mathrm{})[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_AP^+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_AP^{}]`$ (23)
where $`v`$ is the $`𝗋`$ component of the velocity operator. The last equality involves new definitions. We define

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_A={\displaystyle \underset{aA}{}}|a,r_A\mathrm{}v_aa,r_A|`$ (24)
We also define projectors $`P^+`$ and $`P^{}`$ that project out of the lead wavefunction Eq.(15) the outgoing and the ingoing parts respectively. These projectors commute with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\text{A}`$. Furthermore, note that $`P^+𝖦^+=𝖦^+`$, and that $`P^{}𝖦^+=0`$, and that $`𝖦^{}P^{}=0`$ etc. Using these extra identities one obtains the following expression:

$`𝑩^{3j}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi i}}\text{trace}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\text{A}{\displaystyle \frac{𝖦^+}{x_j}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝖦^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\text{A}{\displaystyle \frac{𝖦^{}}{x_j}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝖦^+\right]`$ (25)
Using the definitions of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\text{A}`$, together with Eq.(18), followed by a straightforward algebraic manipulation, one arrives at Eq.(6) with the additional term

$`𝑩_{\text{intrf}}^{3j}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\pi }}\text{Re}\left[\text{trace}\left(P_\text{A}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_j}}\text{e}^{i2kr_\text{A}}\right)\right]`$ (26)
where $`P_\text{A}`$ is a projector that restrict the trace operation to the $`aA`$ lead channels.

For the simple ring geometry of Fig. 1, we have a left lead ($`bB`$) and a right lead ($`aA`$) channels, and the $`S`$-matrix can be written as

$`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒓_\text{B}& 𝒕_{\text{AB}}\text{e}^{i\varphi }\\ 𝒕_{\text{BA}}\text{e}^{i\varphi }& 𝒓_\text{A}\end{array}\right),P_\text{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
where $`\varphi =e\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{A}/\mathrm{}`$. Using the identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\text{A}}}=i{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}(P_\text{A}SSP_\text{A})`$ (28)
one can derive the relation that has been stated between Eq.(4), Eq.(6) and the BPT formula Eq.(7). Furthermore, assuming that there is an electro-motive force $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_B`$ which is induced in the other lead, one obtains from BPT $`𝑮^{33}=(e^2/2\pi \mathrm{})\text{trace}(𝒕_{\text{AB}}𝒕_{\text{AB}}^{})`$ which is the Landauer formula. The application of this procedure to multi-lead systems is a straightforward generalization.

For an open system it is evident that the current which is emitted (say) through the right lead, does not have to be equal to the current which is absorbed by the left lead. The reason is that charge can be accumulated in the dot region. But for a pumping cycle one realizes that the integrated current (pumped charge) is a well defined (lead independent) quantity. Similar observation holds in case of a closed system. Assume for example that the left lead is blocked. In such case raising the dot potential will cause an emission of charge through the right lead, while the current through the left lead is zero. The emitted charge is accumulated in the “wire”. But for a full cycle the original charge distribution is restored, and therefore the integrated charge ($`Q`$) becomes a well defined (lead independent) quantity. The additional term Eq.(26) gives a zero net contribution for a full pumping cycle. This term implies that the current is not uniform within the lead. The current has a modulation in the radial direction ($`r`$), with a spatial period that equals half the De-Broglie wavelength at the Fermi energy. This reflects that the net transported current corresponds to translation of a standing wave which is associated with the last occupied level.

More subtle is the value of $`Q`$ for a full driving cycle. In contrast to a previous wrong statement SAA  we have argued pmp  that for a strictly adiabatic driving cycle, in the absence of magnetic field, the transported charge $`Q`$ is at best approximately quantized (say $`Q1`$ in units of the elementary charge). The deviation is related to the Thouless conductance of the device, and can be either positive or negative pmp . In contrast to that, with the BPT formula the correction to $`Q1`$ is always negative. On the basis of our derivation we can conclude the following: The deviation from quantization in a strictly adiabatic cycle is related to the contribution of the neighboring level. If the degeneracy with this level is located in the plane $`(x_1,x_2,x_3=0)`$ of the encircling cycle, then the correction is positive. If the encircled degeneracy is off plane, then the correction is negative. The effect of non-adiabaticity ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Delta }`$) is to screen the contribution of the neighboring levels, which is the reason for having always a negative correction from the BPT formula.

The role that dissipation may have in pumping is restricted, merely by the realization that the BPT formula is related to the Kubo formula. The Onsager reciprocity relation imply that in the absence of magnetic field the conductance matrix $`𝑮^{kj}`$ should be symmetric (antisymmetric) with respect to the permutation of the indexes $`(k,j)`$, depending on whether $`F^k`$ and $`F^j`$ transform (not) in the same way under time reversal. This means that shape deformations lead to dissipation via $`𝜼^{ij}`$ with $`i,j<3`$, while the electrical current is determined exclusively by the non-dissipative terms $`𝑩^{31}`$ and $`𝑩^{32}`$. This should be contrasted with the response to electro-motive force which is purely dissipative: Both the current and the dissipation are exclusively determined by the Ohmic conductance $`𝜼^{33}`$. Thus, in the absence of magnetic field, we have a clear cut distinction between the dissipative and the non-dissipative contributions to the response.

In summary, starting with the Kubo formalism, we were able to find expressions for the dissipative and for the non-dissipative parts of the response, and to illuminate the role of non-adiabaticity in the limiting case of an infinite system. In contradiction with past speculations, we were able to demonstrate that the switch to an open system does not necessitate an extra dissipative term.

It is my pleasure to thank T. Dittrich (Colombia), T. Kottos (Gottingen), and H. Schantz (Gottingen) for useful discussions. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02), and by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development.

FIG1. Illustration of a closed system. The dot potential is controlled by gate voltages $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. The flux through the loop is $`x_3=\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The scattering region ($`r<0`$) is represented by an $`S`$ matrix. The length ($`L`$) of the wire is assumed to be very large.

NOT PART OF THE PAPER

Going from Eq.(10) to Eq.(5)

In this appendix we give the “straightforward algebra” that leads from Eq.(10) to Eq.(5).

$`𝑩^{kj}=i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_{nm}^kF_{mn}^j}{(E_mE_n)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}}(f(E_n)f(E_m))`$
Within the framework of the approximation which is discussed in the text this sum is of the form

$`𝑩^{kj}={\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}g(nm)\times (f(E_n)f(E_m))`$
Using the notation $`r=mn`$ it leads to

$`𝑩^{kj}={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}g(r)\times r`$
We make the substitutions

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_mE_n}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`g(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}F_{nm}^kF_{mn}^j}{(E_mE_n)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}}`$
where $`n`$ is the index of an arbitrary energy level in the vicinity of the Fermi energy ($`E_nE_F`$).
Now we have the expression

$`𝑩^{kj}=i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}F_{nm}^k{\displaystyle \frac{E_mE_n}{(E_mE_n)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}}F_{mn}^j`$
Thanks to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can make the replacement $`E_nE_F`$.
Next we can use (in reverse) the approximation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n|A|n\overline{\delta (E_nE_F)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}n|A|n`$
where the overline indicates a smeared delta function.
Hence we get

$`𝑩^{kj}=i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}F_{nm}^k{\displaystyle \frac{E_mE_F}{(E_mE_F)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}}F_{mn}^j\overline{\delta (E_nE_F)}`$
As explained in the text, in the limit of a very long wire $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is like the infinitesimal $`i0`$.
Hence we get Eq.(5).

APPENDIX D OF REF.

Expressing $`\stackrel{~}{K}(\omega )`$ using $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$

We can use the following manipulation in order to relate $`\stackrel{~}{K}^{ij}(\omega )`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{ij}(\omega )`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^{ij}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(E_n)\stackrel{~}{K}_n^{ij}(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}f(E_n)(F_{nm}^iF_{mn}^j\delta (\omega +\omega _{nm})F_{nm}^jF_{mn}^i\delta (\omega \omega _{nm}))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}f(E_m)(F_{nm}^iF_{mn}^j\delta (\omega +\omega _{nm})+F_{nm}^jF_{mn}^i\delta (\omega \omega _{nm}))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(E_n)f(E_m)}{2}}(F_{nm}^iF_{mn}^j\delta (\omega +\omega _{nm})F_{nm}^jF_{mn}^i\delta (\omega \omega _{nm}))`$
$`=`$ $`i\omega \pi {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(E_n)f(E_m)}{E_nE_m}}(F_{nm}^iF_{mn}^j\delta (\omega +\omega _{nm})+F_{nm}^jF_{mn}^i\delta (\omega \omega _{nm}))`$
$`=`$ $`i\omega {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f^{}(E_n)C_n^{ij}(\omega )`$
where we use the notation $`\omega _{nm}=(E_nE_m)/\mathrm{}`$. The third line differs from the second line by permutation of the dummy summation indexes, while the fourth line is the sum of the second and the third lines divided by 2. In the last equality we assume small $`\omega `$. If the levels are very dense, then we can replace the summation by integration, leading to the relation:

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^{ij}(\omega ){\displaystyle g(E)𝑑Ef(E)\stackrel{~}{K}_E^{ij}(\omega )}=i\omega {\displaystyle g(E)𝑑Ef^{}(E)\stackrel{~}{C}_E^{ij}(\omega )}`$ (30)
where $`\stackrel{~}{K}_E^{ij}(\omega )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_E^{ij}(\omega )`$ are microcanonically smoothed functions. Since this equality hold for any smooth $`f(E)`$, it follows that the following relation holds (in the limit $`\omega 0`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_E^{ij}(\omega )=i\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{g(E)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dE}}\left[g(E)C_E^{ij}(\omega )\right]`$ (31)
If we do not assume small $`\omega `$, but instead assume canonical state, then a variation on the last steps in Eq.(Quantum pumping and dissipation: from closed to open systems), using the fact that $`(f(E_n)f(E_m))/(f(E_n)+f(E_m))=\mathrm{tanh}((E_nE_m)/(2T))`$ is an odd function, leads to the relation

$`\stackrel{~}{K}_T^{ij}(\omega )=i\omega \times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}\omega }}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}}\right)C_T^{ij}(\omega )`$ (32)
Upon substitution of the above expressions in the Kubo formula for $`𝑮^{ij}`$, one obtains the Fluctuation-Dissipation relation.

Note added: For a low temperature Fermi occupation Eq.(30) can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{K}^{ij}(\omega )=i\omega g(E_F)\stackrel{~}{C}_{E_F}^{ij}(\omega )`$ (33)
Formally this is valid only if $`\mathrm{}\omega T`$. But in fact if $`TE_F`$ the result should not be sensitive to $`E_F`$. Therefore it can be argued that this relation holds globally, and we can set $`T=0`$. It follows that

$`K^{ij}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}g(E_F)\stackrel{~}{C}_{E_F}^{ij}(\tau )`$ (34)
This can be used in order to derive Eq.(11) for Eq.(1). We see that it is a subtle relation which should not be regarded as a trivial identity.


format: text

text:
# Unconventional Upper- and Lower-Critical Fields and Normal-State Magnetic Susceptibility of the Novel Superconducting Compound Na0.35CoO2⋅1.3H2O

## Abstract

Magnetic properties of the novel layered superconductor, Na0.35CoO2$``$1.3H2O have been investigated. From the temperature dependence and field dependence of the magnetization, the superconducting transition temperature, as well as upper- and lower-critical fields have been estimated to be $`T_C=4.6`$ K, $`H_{C2}(0)=61.0`$ T and $`H_{C1}(0)=28.1`$ Oe. These values give quite unusual phenomenological parameters, i.e., coherent length, penetration depth and Ginzburg-Landau parameter of $`\xi =2.32`$ nm, $`\lambda =5.68\times 10^3`$ Å and $`\kappa \lambda /\xi =244`$, suggesting an unconventional nature of superconductivity. Normal-state magnetic susceptibility shows an upturn below 130 K, which is confirmed to be inherent by high-field magnetization data. The upturn may have relevance to the mechanism of the superconductivity.

Na0.35CoO2$``$1.3H2O, Co, triangular lattice, RVB, superconductor, magnetic susceptibility, upper-critical field, lower-critical field, high field magnetization

Very recently, a novel Co oxide, Na0.35CoO2$``$1.3H2O, was found to be a superconductor with $`T_C`$5 KNature . This compound is the first to be discovered superconducting Co oxide and moreover, it has been claimed that there is a marked resemblance between this compound and high $`T_C`$ cupratesNature ; NatureMat . The first similarity is that the compound has a layered structure composed of two-dimensional (2D) CoO2 planes, separated by a thick insulating layer of Na ions and water molecules. As is widely known, high $`T_C`$ cuprates have also layered structures with 2D CuO2 planes which play an essential role in the high $`T_C`$ superconductivity. The second similarity is related to valences and spin states of the transition metals. The Cu ions of the high $`T_C`$ cuprates are of mixed-valence states by hole doping; Cu2+ (S=1/2) ions are partially oxidized to Cu3+ (S=0) ions. In a similar way, the Co ion in the Co oxide is either Co4+ (d5) or Co3+ (d6) with a spin state of S=1/2 or S=0, respectively, assuming low-spin configurations.

It is also worth noting that there is an obvious difference between the two systems. In a high $`T_C`$ cuprate, the Cu atoms form a square lattice, whereas the Co atoms form a triangular lattice in the present material. This geometric difference appears to be quite important because it is related to the magnetic ground states of the mother compounds. In the nondoped CuO2 planes with Cu2+ (S=1/2) ions, antiferromagnetic long-range order is the ground state, but such a simple picture is not applicable for the hypothetical nondoped CoO2 plane with Co4+ (S=1/2) ions because of geometric frustration expected for the triangular lattice. Thus, it is not clear whether the ground state of the CoO2 plane is an antiferromagnetically ordered state or a resonating-valence-bonds (RVB) stateRVB . An additional difference is that the holes of a high $`T_C`$ cuprate exist in the eg orbitals, while the electrons of the Co oxide exist in the t2g orbitals.

Studies of the present Co oxide have just begun, and its fundamental superconducting and normal-state properties still need to be investigated. In particular, magnetic properties seem to be of primary importance. Such investigation may lead to understanding of superconductivity not only of the Co oxide but also of high $`T_C`$ cuprates. Here, we report upper- and lower-critical fields and normal-state magnetic susceptibilities up to 55 T for the superconducting Co oxide and they are discussed in comparison with those of conventional superconductors and high $`T_C`$ cuprates.

A powder sample was synthesized as described in the previous reportNature . The sample was shown by powder X-ray diffraction to be single phase with Na0.35CoO2$``$1.3H2O. The magnetic data below 7 T were collected with a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design MPMS-XL7). All the measurements were done under zero-field-cooling condition. The high-field magnetization measurements were performed by using a pulse magnet at KYOKUGEN in Osaka University.

Typical magnetization/magnetic field ($`M/H`$) data are shown as a function of temperature in Fig. 1($`a`$). For $`H7`$ kOe, magnetic susceptibility was not negative down to 1.8 K but the superconducting transition was observed as a downturn of $`M/H`$. The transition temperature ($`T_C`$) could be determined by the simple straight line fit as shown in Fig. 1($`a`$), for given $`H`$ of 0.02, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 kOe. For $`H50`$ kOe, however, the superconducting transition became quite broad and $`T_C`$ could not be determined without seriously large uncertainty. This procedure gives an upper-critical field ($`H_{C2}`$) versus temperature relation of $`H_{C2}(T)=88.019.3T`$, as shown in Fig. 1($`b`$). From this equation, $`T_C`$ at $`H=0`$ and $`dH_{C2}/dT_{T_C}`$ are calculated to be 4.56 K and 19.3 T/K, respectively. The value of $`T_C`$ obtained at $`H=0`$ agrees well with the onset $`T_C`$ determined from the susceptibility data at $`H=20`$ Oe (see the insert of Fig. 1($`b`$)) but slightly lower than that in the previous reportNature . The initial slope, $`dH_{C2}/dT_{T_C}`$, is much larger than the $``$7.5 T/K of a molybdenum chalcogenide which had been known to have the highest initial slope before the discovery of high $`T_C`$ cupratesMoComp .

According to the Werthamer-Helfand-Hohenberg (WHH) formulaestHc2 ,

$$H_{C2}(0)=0.693(\frac{dH_{C2}}{dT}_{T_C})T_C,$$
(1)
$`H_{C2}(0)`$ is calculated to be 61.0 T. In high $`T_C`$ cuprates, $`H_{C2}`$ does not always have a strictly defined meaning. This may also be the case for the present system. Corresponding to the high $`H_{C2}`$ value, a quite small coherent length, $`\xi =2.32`$ nm, is obtained according to the formula, $`H_{C2}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \xi ^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$: fluxoid quantum). This length is comparable to those of high $`T_C`$ cuprates but far smaller than those of conventional superconductors. The present compound has highly 2D structure with a hexagonal lattice and strong anisotropy is expected for the superconducting properties. Since $`H_{C2}^{H//c}H_{C2}^{H//ab}`$ by analogy of high $`T_C`$ cuprates, $`H_{C2}`$ determined above reflects $`H_{C2}^{H//ab}(=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \xi _{ab}\xi _c`$) and $`\xi =2.32`$ nm is an average of $`\sqrt{\xi _{ab}\xi _c}`$ ($`\xi _i`$: the coherent length of $`i`$-direction). For further discussion of the anisotropy, we need single crystal data, though single crystal growth seems quite hard for the present system.

The temperature dependence of the lower-critical field $`H_{C1}`$ is shown in Fig. 2. The $`H_{C1}`$ values were determined from $`M`$-$`H`$ curves below 100 Oe at various temperatures. The magnetization decreases as $`M=\chi H`$ with increasing applied field below $`H_{C1}`$ and starts to deviate from the straight line at $`H_{C1}`$. According to the Bean’s critical-state modelBean , the deviation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, from the linear function may be calculated as $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M}H_{C1}+H`$estHc1 . However, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M}`$ of our data did not obey well this linear relation. This might be due to the shape effect which is not taken into account in the model. The simple straight line fit used in the $`H_{C2}`$ determination was not appropriate to estimate $`H_{C1}`$ because the result depended largely on the range of fitting for the data above $`H_{C1}`$. Instead, we represented the $`M`$-$`H`$ curve above $`H_{C1}`$ by a quadratic function and $`H_{C1}(T)`$ was determined from the intersection point of the quadratic curve and the straight line which was obtained for the low field data. The $`H_{C1}(T)`$ values obtained were fitted by the function:

$$H_{C1}(T)=H_{C1}(0)[1(T/T_C)^2],$$
(2)
where $`H_{C1}(0)`$ and $`T_C`$ were fitting parameters, resulting in $`H_{C1}(0)=28.1`$ Oe and $`T_C=4.59`$ K. The $`T_C`$ thus calculated agrees very well with that determined from $`H_{C2}`$.

From $`H_{C1}(0)`$ and $`\xi `$, the penetration depth can be calculated to be $`\lambda =5.68\times 10^3`$ Å by the formula,

$$H_{C1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{4\pi \lambda ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\lambda }{\xi }).$$
(3)
The Ginzburg-Landau (GL) parameter, $`\kappa \lambda /\xi =244`$, is much larger than the parameters of conventional superconductors (it is even larger than those of high $`T_C`$ cuprates), suggesting that the present compound belongs to an extreme type II family. Since $`H_{C1}^{H//c}>H_{C1}^{H//ab}`$ is expected by analogy of high $`T_C`$ cuprates, $`H_{C1}`$ in Fig. 1 reflects mainly $`H_{C1}^{H//ab}`$ and both the $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ values should be considered as some averages of those along the $`c`$ axis and along the $`ab`$ plane as in the case of $`\xi `$. However, even taking into account this limitation, the phenomenological parameters obtained in the present study are quite unusual. It is strongly suggested that the present compound is an unconventional superconductor as expected by theoreticiansTanaka ; Baskran .

The magnetic susceptibility measured under 10 kOe is shown in Fig. 3. The susceptibility decreases first with decreasing temperature and then increases between $`T_C`$ and 130 K. Assuming this upturn is due to a magnetic impurity and/or crystal defects, we fit the data between 20 K and 250 K by the equation:

$$\chi =\chi _0+AT^2+\frac{C}{T\theta },$$
(4)
where the first and the second terms are due to Pauli paramagnetism. The parameters obtained are $`\chi _0=3.02\times 10^4`$ emu/mol, $`A=1.25\times 10^9`$ emu/K2mol, $`C=1.31\times 10^2`$ emu$``$K/mol, and $`\theta =37.6`$ K. The solid line in Fig. 3 represents Eq. 4 and seems to reproduce the data well.

On the other hand, as seen in Fig. 4, high-field magnetization increases linearly with increasing field above 15 T. Thus, if the Curie-Weiss-like upturn is caused by the magnetic impurity, its magnetization must be saturated above 15 T. In other words, the slope of the magnetization above 15 T should be equal to the magnetic susceptibility corresponding to the Pauli paramagnetism terms. However, the value of $`4.9\times 10^4`$ emu/mol, which was calculated from the slope of the magnetization between 15 T and 30 T, is different from $`3.02\times 10^4`$ ($`=\chi _0+A\times 4.2^2`$) emu/mol, obviously beyond experimental uncertainty. This result suggests that at least a part of the upturn reflects the intrinsic nature of the compound. The magnetic susceptibility of Na0.5CoO2 also increases with decreasing temperature owing to a kind of spin fluctuationNaCo2O4 . As an example showing such an enhancement of susceptibility, the La-doped Sr2RuO4 has been reportedSr214La  and its mother oxide is a spin triplet superconductorSr214 . As well as the unconventional superconducting parameters, this enhancement may have relevance to the mechanism of the Cooper pair formationTanaka .

In summary, from $`M`$-$`T`$ and $`M`$-$`H`$ curves, superconducting transition temperature, as well as upper- and lower-critical fields are estimated to be $`T_C=4.6`$ K, $`H_{C2}=61.0`$ T and $`H_{C1}=28.1`$ Oe, for the novel Co oxide superconductor of Na0.35CoO2$``$1.3H2O. The coherent length, penetration depth and GL parameter are calculated to be $`\xi =2.32`$ nm, $`\lambda =5.68\times 10^3`$ Å and $`\kappa =244`$. These phenomenological parameters are quite unusual and strongly suggest that the superconductivity is unconventional. The normal-state magnetic susceptibility is also presented for the first time. It shows an upturn below 130 K and at least a part of the upturn is suggested to be inherent. This normal-state magnetic behavior may have relevance to the mechanism of the Cooper pair formation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank A. Tanaka, T. Hikihara, X. Hu, M. Arai, and K. Kobayashi at NIMS and K. Yoshimura and T. Waki at Kyoto University for their useful advice and discussion. One of the authors (H.S.) was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Field-induced quantum critical point in CeCoIn5

## Abstract

The resistivity of CeCoIn5 was measured down to 20 mK in magnetic fields of up to 16 T. With increasing field, we observe a suppression of the non-Fermi liquid behavior, $`\rho T`$, and the development of a Fermi liquid state, with its characteristic $`\rho =\rho _0+AT^2`$ dependence. The field dependence of the $`T^2`$ coefficient shows critical behavior with an exponent of $`4/3`$. This is evidence for a new field-induced quantum critical point, occuring in this case at a critical field which coincides with the superconducting upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$.

, , , , , , , , ,

thanks: Permanent address: Inst. Surf. Chem., N.A.S. Ukraine.thanks: Current address: Department of Physics, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada J1K 2R1thanks: Current address: Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973

The recent discovery of a new family of heavy-fermion superconductors with general formula CeMIn5 (M=Co, Ir, Rh or their solid solutions) has generated much interest . CeCoIn5, with ambient pressure superconductivity below $`T_c=2.3`$ K, is close to a point where the magnetic state becomes unstable as $`T0`$ . This proximity to a quantum critical point (QCP) is believed to be responsible for the unusual superconducting and normal state properties, but not much is known about the QCP itself.

Although long-range magnetic order is not present in CeCoIn5 , the close proximity of this system to antiferromagnetic (AF) order  results in an abundance of spin fluctuations which lead to deviations from Fermi liquid (FL) behavior . Since magnetic fluctuations play an essential role in quantum criticality, the response of this system to applied magnetic fields is of clear interest. In order to help elucidate the nature of the QCP, we have measured the low $`T`$, in-plane resistivity, $`\rho `$, of single-crystal samples of CeCoIn5 in transverse fields, $`H`$, applied parallel to the c-axis.

In CeCoIn5, notable magnetoresistance (MR) begins to appear below 30 K: the linear $`T`$ dependence of $`\rho (T)`$ observed at $`H=0`$ suffers a drastic change with increasing $`H`$, most pronounced at low $`T`$. The field dependence of $`\rho `$, obtained in constant temperature $`H`$-sweeps, is plotted in Fig.1. The evolution of $`\rho (H)`$ with increasing temperature reveals the development of a crossover in the sign of MR with increasing $`H`$ and $`T`$. This crossover is traceable to higher temperatures, and is a clear indication of a field-induced change in character of the spin fluctuations residing in this system . The normal state, low-field MR (inset of Fig. 1) displays a notable range of linear field dependence, reproduced in negative field. This behavior, which is quite different from the usual $`H^2`$ dependence observed at such low fields in conventional metals, is not the $`H`$-linear MR often observed in the $`\omega _c\tau >>1`$ limit . Rather, it may indicate the close proximity of CeCoIn5 to a zero-field QCP .

An analysis of the $`\rho (T)`$ data obtained at high (constant) fields reveals the development of a clearly distinguishable range of $`\rho T^2`$ behavior at low $`T`$. As shown by the linear fits of $`\rho `$ vs. $`T^2`$ in the inset of Fig. 2, the range of $`T^2`$ behavior is small at lower fields, appearing only below $``$100 mK at 6 T. This range, which gradually becomes wider and more apparent with increasing field , extending up to 2.5 K by $`H`$=16 T, is identified with the recovery of a FL regime for $`H5`$T. Concomitantly, the slope of the fitted curves, i.e. the coefficient $`A`$ in $`\rho =\rho _0+AT^2`$, dramatically decreases with increasing field. The field dependence of $`A`$, or $`A(H)`$ (Fig. 2), displays critical behavior, best fitted by the function $`A(HH^{})^\alpha `$ with parameters $`H^{}=5.1\pm 0.2`$ T and $`\alpha =1.37\pm 0.1`$, indicative of a divergence in the strength of electron- electron interactions at the critical field $`H^{}`$. This behavior, taken together with the development of a FL state above $`H^{}`$, is commonly associated with quantum critical behavior, revealing the existence of a field-induced QCP in CeCoIn5.

A number of other systems exhibit similar critical behavior in resistivity when approaching some critical field value associated with a QCP . What is unique (and intriguing) about CeCoIn5 is the fact that $`H^{}H_{c2}(0)=5.1`$ T, which points to the existence of a QCP coincident with the superconducting transition at $`T=0`$. However, because the $`H_{c2}`$ transition in CeCoIn5 is first-order below $`0.7`$ K , it is tempting to propose that the QCP is not associated with the superconducting state, but rather with a $`T=0`$ transition of magnetic origin. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that in antiferromagnetic Ge-doped YbRh2Si2, one also finds $`A(HH)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 4/3`$, but where $`H^{}=H(T_N0)`$ .

In conclusion, we have identified the anomalous low-temperature evolution of magnetoresistance in CeCoIn5 with the development of a Fermi liquid regime away from a field-induced quantum critical point.

This work was supported by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and funded by NSERC.


text:
# Untitled Document

SIMPLE LIE COLOR ALGEBRAS OF WEYL TYPE 111 AMS Subject Classification - Primary: 17B20, 17B65, 17B67, 17B68, 17B75, 16A68, 16A40.
This work was supported by NSF of China, National Educational Department of China, Jiangsu Educational Committee, and Hundred Talents Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

(To appear in Israel J. Math.)

Yucai Su222 These authors were partially supported by Academy of Mathematics and System Sciences during their visit to this academy., Kaiming Zhao and Linsheng Zhu2

Abstract. For an $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-color-commutative associative algebra $`A`$ with an identity element over a field $`F`$ of characteristic not 2, and for a color-commutative subalgebra $`D`$ of color-derivations of $`A`$, denote by $`A[D]`$ the associative subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}(A)`$ generated by $`A`$ (regarding as operators on $`A`$ via left multiplication) and $`D`$. It is easily proved that, as an associative algebra, $`A[D]`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded simple if and only if $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple. Suppose $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple. Then, (a) $`A[D]`$ is a free left $`A`$-module; (b) as a Lie color algebra, the subquotient $`[A[D],A[D]]/Z(A[D])[A[D],A[D]]`$ is simple (except one minor case), where $`Z(A[D])`$ is the color center of $`A[D]`$. The structure of this subquotient is explicitly described.

§1 Introduction

Lie color algebras are generalizations of Lie superalgebras. Let us start with the definition. Let $`F`$ be a field, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ an additive group. A skew-symmetric bicharacter of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a map $`ϵ:\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }F^{}`$ satisfying

$$ϵ(\lambda ,\mu )=ϵ(\mu ,\lambda )^1,ϵ(\lambda ,\mu +\nu )=ϵ(\lambda ,\mu )ϵ(\lambda ,\nu ),\lambda ,\mu ,\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
$`(1.1)`$
It is clear that $`ϵ(\lambda ,0)=1`$ for any $`\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`L=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}L_\lambda `$ be a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`F`$-vector space. For a nonzero homogeneous element $`aL`$, denote by $`\overline{a}`$ the unique group element in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`aL_{\overline{a}}`$. We shall call $`\overline{a}`$ the color of $`a`$. The $`F`$-bilinear map $`[,]:L\times LL`$ is called a Lie color bracket on $`L`$ if the following conditions are satisfied:

$$\begin{array}{c}[a,b]=ϵ(\overline{a},\overline{b})[b,a],\text{(skew symmetry)}\\ [a,[b,c]]=[[a,b],c]+ϵ(\overline{a},\overline{b})[b,[a,c]],\text{(Jocoby identity)}\end{array}$$
$`\begin{array}{c}(1.2)\\ (1.3)\end{array}`$
for all homogeneous elements $`a,b,cL`$. The algebra structure $`(L,[,])`$ is called an $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-Lie color algebra or simply a Lie color algebra. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=ZZ/2ZZ`$ and $`ϵ(i,j)=(1)^{ij},i,jZZ/2ZZ`$, then $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-Lie color algebras are simply Lie superalgebras. For Lie color algebras, we refer the reader to \[P2\] and the references there.

Let $`A=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}A_\lambda `$ be a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded associative $`F`$-algebra with an identity element 1, i.e., $`A_\lambda A_\mu A_{\lambda +\mu }`$ for all $`\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. So $`1A_0`$. We say that $`A`$ is graded simple if $`A`$ does not have nontrivial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded ideals. Denote by $`H(A)`$ all homogeneous elements of $`A`$. If we define the bilinear product $`[,]`$ on $`A`$ by

$$[x,y]=xyϵ(\overline{x},\overline{y})yx,x,yH(A),$$
$`(1.4)`$
then $`(A,[,])`$ becomes a $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-Lie color algebra. We shall simply write $`ϵ(x,y)`$ for $`ϵ(\overline{x},\overline{y})`$ for $`x,yH(A)`$.

An Lie color ideal $`U`$ of $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded vector space $`U`$ of $`A`$ such that $`[A,U]U`$. Sometimes it is called an $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-Lie ideal, or simply a color ideal. The $`ϵ`$-center $`Z(A)`$ of $`A`$ is defined as

$$Z=Z(A)=\{xA|[x,A]=0\}.$$
$`(1.5)`$
It is easy to see that $`Z(A)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded. We say that $`A`$ is color-commutative (or $`ϵ`$-color commutative) if $`[A,A]=0`$.

Passman \[P1,P2\] proved that, for a color-commutative associative algebra $`A`$ with an identity element over a field $`F`$, and for a color-commutative color-derivation subalgebra $`D`$ of $`A`$, the Lie color algebra (including the Lie algebra case) $`AD=AD`$ is simple if and only if $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple and $`AD`$ acts faithfully on $`A`$ and, $`\mathrm{char}F2`$ or $`\mathrm{dim}_FD2`$ or $`D(A)=A`$. In \[SZ1, SZ2, Z\], (associative and Lie) algebras of Weyl type were constructed and studied. In this paper we shall study the color version of these algebras.

For a color-commutative associative algebra $`A`$ with an identity element over a field $`F`$ of characteristic not 2, and for a color-commutative subalgebra $`D`$ of color-derivations of $`A`$, denote by $`A[D]`$ the associative subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}(A)`$ generated by $`A`$ (regarding as operators on $`A`$ via multiplication) and $`D`$. It is easily proved that, as an associative algebra, $`A[D]`$ is graded simple if and only if $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple (see Theorem 2.3). Suppose $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple. Then, (a) $`A[D]`$ is a free left $`A`$-module; (b) as a Lie color algebra, the subquotient $`[A[D],A[D]]/Z(A[D])[A[D],A[D]]`$ is simple (except one minor case), where $`Z(A[D])`$ is the $`ϵ`$-center of $`A[D]`$. The structure of this subquotient is explicitly described (see Theorem 3.9). In many cases $`A[D]=[A[D],A[D]]`$.

§2 Graded simple associative algebras of Weyl type

Throughout this work, we assume that $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded and $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-color commutative and the field $`F`$ is of characteristic not =2. An $`F`$-linear transformation $`:AA`$ is called a homogeneous color-derivation of degree $`\overline{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if

$$\begin{array}{c}(a)A_{\overline{}+\overline{a}},aH(A)\mathrm{and}\\ (ab)=(a)b+ϵ(,a)a(b),a,bH(A).\end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
Taking $`a=b=1`$ in (2.1), we obtain $`(1)=0`$ and so $`(c)=0`$ for all $`cF`$. Denote $`\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{Der}_\lambda ^ϵ(A)`$, where $`\mathrm{Der}_\lambda ^ϵ(A)`$ is the $`F`$-vector space spanned by all homogeneous color derivations of degree $`\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As in the Lie algebras case, it is easy to verify that $`\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)`$ becomes an $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-Lie color algebra under the Lie color bracket

$$[,^{}]=^{}ϵ(,^{})^{},,^{}H(\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)),$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`^{}`$ is the composition of the operators $``$ and $`^{}`$.

Let $`D=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }}D_\lambda `$ be a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded color-commutative Lie color subalgebra of $`\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)`$, i.e.,

$$^{}=ϵ(,^{})^{},,^{}H(D).$$
$`(2.3)`$
We call $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple if $`A`$ has no nontrivial graded $`D`$-stable ideals (see \[P2\]). Set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }|ϵ(\lambda ,\lambda )=1\}`$. Then by (1.1), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with index $`2`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }|ϵ(\lambda ,\lambda )=1\}`$. For any graded subspace $`B`$ of $`A`$, we define $`B_+=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_+}B_\lambda `$, then $`B_+`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded. Similarly we can define $`B_{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, it follows that $`B=B_+B_{}`$. By (2.3), we have $`^2=0\text{ if }H(D_{}).`$

Fix a homogeneous basis $`\{_i|iI\}`$ of $`D`$, where $`I`$ is some index set. Fix a total ordering $`<`$ on $`I`$. Define $`J`$ to be the set of all $`\alpha =(\alpha _i|iI)ZZ_+^I`$ such that $`\alpha _i=0`$ for all but a finite number of $`iI`$ and $`\alpha _i=0\text{ or }1\text{ if }\overline{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}.`$ For $`\alpha J`$, we define the support of $`\alpha `$ by $`\mathrm{supp}(\alpha )=\{iI|\alpha _i0\}`$ and define the level of $`\alpha `$ by $`l(\alpha )=|\alpha |=_{iI}\alpha _i`$. Define a total ordering on $`J`$ by

$$\alpha <\beta |\alpha |<|\beta |,\text{ or }|\alpha |=|\beta |\text{ and }iI\text{ such that }\alpha _i<\beta _i\text{ and }\alpha _j=\beta _j,jI,j<i.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Denote by $`F[D]`$ the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded associative color-commutative algebra generated by $`D`$, and denote by $`A[D]`$ the associative subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}(A)`$ generated by $`A`$ (regarding as operators on $`A`$ via left multiplication) and $`D`$. For $`xA,\alpha J`$, we define by $`x^\alpha `$ the operator acting on $`A`$, i.e.,

$$(x^\alpha )(y)=x(_1^{\alpha _1}(_2^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}(_r^{\alpha _r}(y))\mathrm{})),yA,$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`^\alpha =_{i_1}^{\alpha _{i_1}}_{i_2}^{\alpha _{i_2}}\mathrm{}_{i_r}^{\alpha _{i_r}}`$ with $`i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_r`$. We shall call $`\alpha `$ the degree of $`^\alpha `$. Define $`ϵ^+(\alpha ,\beta )`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`^\alpha ^\beta =ϵ^+(\alpha ,\beta )^{\alpha +\beta }`$, then

$$ϵ^+(\alpha ,\beta )=\underset{i,j:i>j}{}ϵ(_i,_j)^{\alpha _i\beta _j},\alpha ,\beta J.$$
$`(2.6)`$
We shall also simply write $`ϵ^+(x,y)`$ for $`ϵ^+(\overline{x},\overline{y})`$ for $`x,yH(A[D])`$. From $`ϵ^+(\alpha ,\beta )^{\alpha +\beta }=^\alpha ^\beta =ϵ(\alpha ,\beta )^\beta ^\alpha =ϵ(\alpha ,\beta )ϵ^+(\beta ,\alpha )^{\alpha +\beta }`$, we see that

$$ϵ(\alpha ,\beta )=ϵ^+(\alpha ,\beta )ϵ^+(\beta ,\alpha )^1,\alpha ,\beta J,$$
$`(2.7)`$
If $`\alpha +\beta J`$, we set $`^{\alpha +\beta }=0`$. For any $`\alpha J`$, set

$$J(\alpha )=\{\gamma J|\gamma _i\alpha _i,iI\}.$$
$`(2.8)`$
Denote $`({}_{\gamma }{}^{\alpha })=_{iI}({}_{\gamma _i}{}^{\alpha _i}),\alpha ,\gamma J,xH(A).`$ Then $`({}_{\gamma }{}^{\alpha })=0`$ if $`\gamma J(\alpha )`$. We have

$$^\alpha (xy)=\underset{\gamma J}{}({}_{\gamma }{}^{\alpha })ϵ^+(\alpha \gamma ,\gamma )^1ϵ(^\gamma ,x)^{\alpha \gamma }(x)^\gamma (y),\alpha J,x,yH(A).$$
$`(2.9)`$
One may easily check that

$$(u^\alpha )(v^\beta )=\underset{\lambda J}{}({}_{\lambda }{}^{\alpha })ϵ^+(\alpha \lambda ,\lambda )^1ϵ(^\lambda ,v)ϵ^+(\lambda ,\beta )u^{\alpha \lambda }(v)^{\beta +\lambda },u,vH(A),\alpha ,\beta J.$$
$`(2.10)`$
Clearly that formula (2.10) defines a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded associative algebra $`(A[D],)`$ such that $`A`$ is a left $`A[D]`$-module via (2.5). For any

$$x=\underset{\alpha J}{}u_\alpha ^\alpha A[D],u_\alpha A,$$
$`(2.11)`$
the expression in (2.11) is sometimes not unique. An expression of $`x`$ in (2.11) is called principal, if the integer $`\mathrm{max}\{|\alpha ||a_\alpha 0\}`$ is minimal. We denote this integer by $`h(x)`$. Set

$$F_1=A^D=\{uA|D(u)=0\}.$$
$`(2.12)`$
From Lemma 2.1 in \[P2\], any nonzero $`aH(F_1)`$ is invertible (i.e., $`F_1`$ is a graded field) when $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple. In this case $`(F_1)_{}=0`$.

Lemma 2.1. i) $`AA[D]D=0`$. ii) The $`ϵ`$-center $`Z(A[D])`$ of $`A[D]`$ is $`F_1`$.

Proof. Note that we have assume that $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-commutative. Part i) follows from the action of $`xAA[D]D`$ on $`1`$.

ii). For all $`uH(F_1)`$ and $`\delta H(D)`$, we have $`[\delta ,u]=\delta (u)=0`$. So $`F_1Z(A[D])`$. Suppose $`xH(Z(A[D]))`$. If $`h(x)>0`$, write $`x=x_0+x_1`$ where $`x_0H(A)`$ and $`x_1H(A[D]D)`$. Then $`x_10`$. Choose $`aH(A)`$ such that $`x_1(a)0`$. It follows that $`0=[x,a]=[x_1,a]=x_1(a)+y,`$ where $`yA[D]D`$. From i) we deduce that $`x_1(a)=y=0`$, a contradiction. So $`h(x)=0`$, i.e., $`xA`$. We have

$$x=ϵ(\overline{x},\overline{})x=ϵ(\overline{x},\overline{})(x)+x,H(D),$$

to give $`(x)=0`$ for all $`H(D)`$, i.e., $`xF_1`$. Therefore Lemma 2.1 follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2.2. Suppose that $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-commutative $`F`$-algebra with an identity, and $`DDer^ϵ(A)`$ is a color commutative subspace. Then the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded associative algebra $`A[D]`$ is graded simple if and only if $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple.

Proof. ”$``$”: Suppose $`A`$ is not graded $`D`$-simple. Choose a nonzero proper graded $`D`$-stable ideal $`𝒦`$. Then clearly $`𝒦[D]`$ is a nonzero graded color ideal of $`A[D]`$. Since $`A[D]`$ is graded simple, then $`𝒦[D]=A[D]`$, in particular, $`A𝒦[D]`$. From lemma 2.1 i), we know that $`A𝒦`$, a contradiction. Thus $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple.

$``$”: Suppose $`L`$ is a nonzero graded ideal of $`A[D]`$. It suffices to show that $`L=A[D]`$.

Suppose that $`LA=0`$. Choose $`xH(L)\backslash \{0\}`$ such that $`h(x)`$ is minimal. So $`h(x)>0`$. Write $`x=x_0+x_1`$ where $`x_0H(A)`$ and $`x_1H(A[D]D)`$. Then $`x_10`$. Choose $`aH(A)`$ such that $`x_1(a)0`$. It follows that

$$x^{}=[x,a]=[x_1,a]=x_1(a)+yL,$$

where $`yH(A[D]D)`$. From (1.4) and the computation (2.10), we deduce that $`h(x^{})=h(y)<h(x)`$. By the minimality of $`h(x)`$ we deduce that $`x^{}=0`$. Applying Lemma 2.2 i) gives $`x_1(a)=y=0`$, a contradiction. Thus $`LA0`$. It is clear that $`LA`$ is a graded $`D`$-ideal of $`A`$. Since $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple, $`LA=A`$. In particular $`1L`$. Therefore $`L=A[D]`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

§3 Simple Lie color algebras of Weyl type

In this section we assume that $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple and $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-commutative associative algebra with an identity, the field $`F`$ is of characteristic not 2, and $`DDer^ϵ(A)`$ is color commutative. In this section we shall first study the structure of $`A[D]`$ as a left $`A`$-module, then investigate the Lie structure of $`A[D]`$. We still use the notation in Section 2.

Lemma 3.1. i) If $`xd^\alpha =0`$ for some $`xH(A)\backslash \{0\}`$ and some $`\alpha J`$, then $`d^\alpha =0`$.

ii) $`A[A[D],A[D]]`$.

Proof. i) Let $`C=\{xA|x^\alpha =0\}`$. It is easy to verify that $`C`$ is a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-ideal of $`A`$. Since $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple, then $`C=A`$. It yields that $`^\alpha =0`$.

ii) From $`[x,y]=x(y)[A[D],A[D]]`$ for all $`x,yH(A)`$ and $`H(D)`$, we obtain that $`AD(A)[A[D],A[D]]`$. Since $`AD(A)`$ is a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-ideal of $`A`$ and $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple, $`A=AD(A)`$. Thus $`A[A[D],A[D]]`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`\mathrm{char}F=p>0`$, observe that for any $`\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)`$, one has $`^p\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)`$. For convenience, no matter whether $`\mathrm{char}F=p>0`$ or $`\mathrm{char}F=0`$, we denote

$$𝒟=\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)F_1[D],$$
$`(3.1)`$
where $`F_1[D]`$ is the subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}(A)`$ generated by $`F_1`$ and $`D`$. Let $`\{d_i|i\}`$ be a homogeneous $`F_1`$-basis for $`𝒟`$, where $``$ is some index set. It is clear that $`D𝒟`$, and that $`A`$ is graded $`D`$-simple if and only if $`A`$ is graded $`𝒟`$-simple. Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒥=& \{\alpha =(\alpha _i|i)|\alpha _iZZ_+,\text{ and }\alpha _ip1\text{ if }\mathrm{char}F=p>0,\\ & \text{ and }\alpha _i=0\text{ or }1\text{ if }\overline{d}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},\text{ and }\alpha _i=0\text{ for all but a finite number of }i\}.\end{array}$$
$`(3.2)`$
We will often simply denote $`\alpha =(\alpha _i|i)`$ by $`\alpha =(\alpha _i)`$. We also fix a total ordering $`<`$ on $``$ and define a total ordering on $`𝒥`$ as in (2.7). We also write $`d^\alpha =_{iI}d^{\alpha _i}`$ according to the ordering $`<`$ on $``$ for $`\alpha 𝒥`$. Then

$$A[D]=\underset{\alpha 𝒥}{}Ad^\alpha .$$
$`(3.3)`$
Theorem 3.2. Suppose that the field $`F`$ is of characteristic not 2, $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple and $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-commutative associative $`F`$-algebra with an identity, where $`DDer^ϵ(A)`$ is a color commutative subspace. Then $`A[D]`$ is a free $`A`$-module with the homogeneous basis $`\{d^\alpha |\alpha 𝒥\}`$.

We break the proof of this theorem into several Lemmas. For $`𝒥_0𝒥,BA`$, we say that the sum $`_{\alpha 𝒥_0}Bd^\alpha `$ is direct if a finite sum $`_{\alpha 𝒥_0}b_\alpha d^\alpha =0`$ with $`b_\alpha B`$ implies $`b_\alpha d^\alpha =0`$ for all $`\alpha 𝒥_0`$.

Lemma 3.3. Let $`𝒥_0𝒥`$. The sum $`_{\alpha 𝒥_0}Ad^\alpha `$ is direct if and only if the sum $`_{\alpha 𝒥_0}F_1d^\alpha `$ is direct.

Proof. “$``$”: This direction is clear.

$``$”: Suppose $`_{\alpha 𝒥_0}Ad^\alpha `$ is not direct. There exists $`𝒥_1=\{\alpha ^{(0)},\alpha ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\alpha ^{(r)}\}𝒥_0`$ with $`|𝒥_1|>1`$ such that $`Ad^{\alpha ^{(0)}}_{i=1}^rAd^{\alpha ^{(i)}}0`$. Choose such a minimal $`r`$. Let

$$ud^{\alpha ^{(0)}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}u_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}(Ad^{\alpha ^{(0)}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}Ad^{\alpha ^{(i)}})\backslash \{0\},$$
$`(3.4)`$
for some $`u,u_iH(A)`$, and let $`I_1=\{0,1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. It follows that $`d^{\alpha ^{(i)}}0`$ for any $`iI_1`$. Let

$$B_0=\{xA|xd^{\alpha ^{(0)}}\underset{iI_1\backslash \{0\}}{}Ad^{\alpha ^{(i)}}\}.$$

Then it is easy to see that $`B_0`$ is a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-ideal of $`A`$. Since $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple, then $`B_0=A`$. Then

$$d^{\alpha ^{(0)}}=\underset{iI_1\backslash \{0\}}{}a_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}\text{ for some }a_iA.$$
$`(3.5)`$
By taking bracket with $`H(𝒟)`$, we deduce that

$$0=[,d^{\alpha ^{(0)}}]=[,\underset{iI_1\backslash \{0\}}{}a_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}]=\underset{iI_1\backslash \{0\}}{}(a_i)d^{\alpha ^{(i)}}.$$

From the minimality of $`r`$, we must have

$$(a_i)d^{\alpha ^{(i)}}=0,𝒟,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ir.$$
$`(3.6)`$
Suppose $`D(a_i)0`$ for some $`iI_1`$, say $`D(a_1)0`$. Lemma 3.1 yields that $`d^{\alpha ^{(1)}}=0`$, a contradiction. Thus $`D(a_i)=0`$ for all $`iI_1`$, i.e., $`a_iF_1`$ in (3.5). Therefore the sum $`_{\alpha 𝒥_1}F_1d^\alpha `$ is not direct. This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3.4. $`A[D]=_{\alpha 𝒥}Ad^\alpha `$.

Proof. Suppose the sum in (3.3) is not direct. From Lemmas 2.1 i) and 3.1, there exists $`𝒥_1=\{\alpha ^{(0)},\alpha ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\alpha ^{(r)}\}𝒥\backslash \{0\}`$ such that $`F_1d^{\alpha ^{(0)}}_{i=1}^rF_1d^{\alpha ^{(i)}}0`$. Let $`I_1=\{0,1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, and let $`h(𝒥_1)=\mathrm{max}\{|\alpha ^{(i)}||iI_1\}`$. Then $`h(𝒥_1)>1`$. We choose $`𝒥_1`$ such that $`h(𝒥_1)`$ is minimal, and then $`r`$ is minimal. Let

$$d^{\alpha ^{(0)}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}(F_1d^{\alpha ^{(0)}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}F_1d^{\alpha ^{(i)}})\backslash \{0\},$$
$`(3.7)`$
for some $`a_iH(F_1)`$, $`1ir`$. Denote $`a_0=1`$. It follows that $`a_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}0`$ for $`iI_1`$. Rewrite (3.7) to give $`_{i=0}^ra_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}=0.`$ Then for $`xH(A),_{i=0}^ra_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}}(x)=0`$. By (2.10),

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}a_id^{\alpha ^{(i)}},x]={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma J}{}}a_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})ϵ^+(\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma ,\gamma )^1ϵ(d^\gamma ,x)d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }(x)d^\gamma `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma J,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<|\gamma |<h(J_1)}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}a_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})ϵ^+(\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma ,\gamma )^1ϵ(d^\gamma ,x)d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }(x)\right)d^\gamma .`$
From the minimality of $`h(𝒥_1)`$ and Lemma 2.1 i), it follows that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}a_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})ϵ^+(\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma ,\gamma )^1ϵ(d^\gamma ,x)d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }(x)d^\gamma =0,$$
$`(3.8)`$
for all $`xH(A)`$ and all $`\gamma 𝒥\{0\}`$ with $`0<|\gamma |<h(𝒥_1)`$. Noting that for any $`\gamma 𝒥`$ with $`\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma 𝒥`$, we have $`d^\gamma d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }=ϵ(d^\gamma ,d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma })d^{\alpha ^{(i)}}0`$, to give $`d^\gamma 0`$. Since $`d^\gamma 0`$, from (3.8) and Lemma 3.1 we obtain $`_{i=0}^ra_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})ϵ^+(\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma ,\gamma )^1ϵ(d^\gamma ,x)d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }(x)=0,`$ i.e.,

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}a_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})ϵ^+(\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma ,\gamma )^1d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }(ϵ(d^\gamma ,x)x)=0,$$

for all $`xH(A)`$ and all $`\gamma 𝒥`$ with with $`\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma 𝒥`$. So $`_{i=0}^ra_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})ϵ^+(\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma ,\gamma )^1d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }=0`$ for all $`\gamma 𝒥`$ with $`0<h(\gamma )<h(𝒥_1)`$. We have $`a_i(_\gamma ^{\alpha ^{(i)}})0`$ since $`\alpha _j^{(i)}p1`$ if $`\mathrm{char}F=p>0`$, for $`\gamma 𝒥`$ with $`\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma 𝒥`$. Thus we see that $`d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }=0`$ for all $`\gamma 𝒥\{0\}`$ with $`\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma 𝒥\{0\}`$. As we noticed also $`d^{\alpha ^{(i)}\gamma }0`$, so this contradicts the minimality of $`h(𝒥_1)`$. Therefore $`A[D]=_{\alpha 𝒥_0}Ad^\alpha .`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3.5. For all $`\alpha 𝒥`$, $`d^\alpha 0`$.

Proof. It is obvious that $`d^\alpha 0`$ for $`\alpha 𝒥`$ with $`|\alpha |1`$. Suppose $`d^\alpha =0`$ for some $`\alpha 𝒥`$ with $`|\alpha |2`$. Choose $`\alpha `$ such that $`|\alpha |`$ is minimal. Then for any $`xH(A)`$, $`d^\alpha (x)=0`$. Then by (1.4), (2.10),

$$0=[d^\alpha ,x]=\underset{\beta 𝒥}{}(_\beta ^\alpha )ϵ^+(\alpha \beta ,\beta )^1ϵ(\beta ,\overline{x})d^{\alpha \beta }(x)d^\beta ,xH(A).$$

Applying Lemma 3.4 and noting that $`(_\beta ^\alpha )ϵ^+(\alpha \beta ,\beta )^1ϵ(\beta ,\overline{x})0`$ (by noting that $`\alpha _ip1`$ if $`\mathrm{char}F=p>0`$) for any $`\beta 𝒥`$ with $`\alpha \beta 𝒥`$, we get $`d^{\alpha \beta }(x)d^\beta =0,xH(A),\beta J`$. Noting that $`d^\beta 0`$ for any $`\beta 𝒥`$ with $`\alpha \gamma 𝒥\{0\}`$ (since $`|\alpha |`$ is minimal), applying Lemma 3.1 gives $`d^{\alpha \beta }(x)=0,xH(A)`$, i.e., $`d^{\alpha \beta }=0`$ for $`\beta 𝒥`$ with $`\alpha \gamma 𝒥\{0\}`$, contradicting the minimality of $`|\alpha |`$. Therefore the assertion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 3.2. It follows from Lemmas 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

Denote by $`W=[A[D],A[D]]`$ the derived Lie color ideal of $`A[D]`$. In the rest of this section We will investigate the structure of $`W`$.

Lemma 3.6. Suppose $`\mathrm{dim}_{F_1}𝒟>1`$ or $`𝒟𝒟_{}`$. Then for any homogeneous color-derivation $`𝒟`$, we have $`AW`$.

Proof. Case 1: $`𝒟_+`$. For any $`x,aH(A)`$, by Lemma 3.1 ii), $`a,x^2(a)W`$, thus

$$xϵ(,a)(a)=\frac{1}{2}([x^2,a]x^2(a))W,$$
$`(3.9)`$
i.e., $`A(A)W`$. But the space $`K=\{xA|xW\}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-stable since $`W`$ is a Lie color ideal of $`A[D]`$, and $`K`$ contains the nonzero graded ideal $`A(A)`$ of $`A`$, by Lemma 3.1 in \[P2\], $`K=A`$, i.e., $`AW`$.

Case 2: $`𝒟_{}`$. First assume that $`𝒟_+0`$. Choose $`^{}H(𝒟_+)\backslash \{0\}`$, by Case 1, $`A^{}W`$. Thus for any $`x,yH(A)`$, we have $`[x^{},y]W`$ and

$$[x^{},y]=x^{}(y)ϵ(x^{},y)y(x)^{}x^{}(y)\text{ (mod }W),$$
$`(3.10)`$
i.e., $`A^{}(A)W`$, thus as in Case 1, $`AW`$. Next assume that $`𝒟_+=0`$, then by the assumption of the lemma, we can choose $`^{}𝒟_{}`$ such that $`,^{}`$ are $`F_1`$-linear independent. For $`x,yH(A)`$, we have $`[x^{},y]W`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}[x^{},y]& =x^{}(y)ϵ(x^{},y)y(x)^{}\\ & =x^{}(y)ϵ(x^{},y)ϵ(,y)^1((yx)^{}(y)x^{})\\ & x(^{}(y)+ϵ(x^{},y)ϵ(y,)ϵ((y),x)(y)^{})\text{ (mod }W)\\ & =x(^{}(y)+ϵ(^{},y)ϵ(y,)(y)^{}),\end{array}$$
$`(3.11)`$
where the equality “$``$” follows from that $`(xy)^{}=[,xy^{}]W`$. Denote $`d=^{}(y)+ϵ(^{},y)ϵ(y,)(y)^{}.`$ Note that (3.11) shows that $`AdW`$. By using $`^2=0`$ and applying $`\mathrm{ad}`$ to (3.11), we obtain $`[,xd]W`$ and

$$[,xd]=(x)d+ϵ(,x)x[,d]ϵ(,x)x(^{}(y))\text{ (mod }W).$$

This shows that $`A(^{}(A))W`$. But $`^{}0`$ by Lemma 3.5, thus as in Case 1, $`AW`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For any $`i`$, we define

$$\delta ^{(i)}𝒥\text{ such that }\delta _j^{(i)}=\delta _{i,j},j.$$
$`(3.12)`$
The following technical lemma plays a crucial role in describing the structure of $`W`$.

Lemma 3.7. Let $`\beta 𝒥`$ with $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝}(\beta )=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and let $`_1^{},_2^{},\mathrm{},_n^{}\mathrm{Der}^ϵ(A)`$ be $`A`$-linear independent homogeneous derivations such that $`\overline{}_i^{}\overline{d}_i=\overline{}_j^{}\overline{d}_j`$ for $`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Suppose there exist $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_nF\backslash \{0\}`$ such that

$$x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}},b)_i^{}(b)d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}W,x,bH(A),$$
$`(3.13)`$
then $`Ad^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}W`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$.

Proof. By shifting the index, it suffices to prove $`Ad^{\beta \delta ^{(n)}}W`$. We shall prove by induction on $`n`$. If $`n=1`$, (3.13) shows that $`A_1^{}(A)d^{\beta \delta ^{(n)}}W`$, thus the result follows from \[P2\]. Suppose $`n2`$. Replacing $`x`$ by $`x_1^{}(a)`$, and replacing $`x,b`$ by $`y_1^{}(b),a`$ in (3.13), we obtain respectively

$$\begin{array}{c}x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}},b)_1^{}(a)_i^{}(b)d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}W,\\ y\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}},a)ϵ(_1^{}(b),_i^{}(a))_i^{}(a)_1^{}(b)d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}W.\end{array}$$
$`(3.14)`$
Setting $`y=xϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(1)}},a)^1ϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(1)}},b)ϵ(_1^{}(b),_1^{}(a))^1`$ and subtracting the two expressions of (3.14), we obtain

$$x\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}a_iϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}},b)(_1^{}(a)_i^{}(b)u_i(a)_i^{}(a)_1^{}(b))d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}W,$$
$`(3.15)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}u_i(a)& =ϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(1)}},a)^1ϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(1)}},b)ϵ(_1^{}(b),_1^{}(a))^1\\ & ϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}},a)^1ϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}},b)ϵ(_1^{}(b),_i^{}(a))\\ & =ϵ(d^{\delta ^{(1)}\delta ^{(i)}},a)ϵ(_1^{},_i^{}_1^{})F.\end{array}$$
$`(3.16)`$
Fix $`aH(A)`$ such that $`_1^{}(a)0`$, then $`_i^{\prime \prime }=_1^{}(a)_i^{}u_i(a)_i^{}(a)_1^{}\mathrm{Der}_F^ϵ(A),i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ are $`A`$-linear independent derivations satisfying the conditions of the Lemma, thus by induction $`Ad^{\beta \delta ^{(n)}}W`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 3.8 \[ZS, Theorem 2.12\]. Suppose that $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded simple associative algebra of characteristic not 2 and $`\mathrm{dim}_{Z(A)}A>4`$. Then $`[A,A]/([A,A]Z)`$ is a simple $`ϵ`$-Lie color algebra. $`\mathrm{}`$

Our second main result in this section is the following.

Theorem 3.9. Suppose that $`F`$ is of characteristic not 2, $`A`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-graded $`D`$-simple $`(ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-commutative associative $`F`$-algebra, where $`DDer^ϵ(A)`$ is color commutative and nonzero. Let $`W=[A[D],A[D]]`$.

i) If $`|𝒥|=\mathrm{}`$, then $`W=A[D]`$.

ii) Suppose $`|𝒥|<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\gamma 𝒥`$ be the maximal element of $`𝒥`$ (i.e., $`|\gamma |=h(𝒥)`$), then $`W=_{\alpha 𝒥\backslash \{\gamma \}}Ad^\alpha 𝒟(A)d^\gamma `$.

iii) The Lie color algebra $`\overline{A[D]}=W/F_1`$ is simple except when $`A=F_1[t]/(t^2)`$ and $`D=F\frac{d}{dt}`$ and both $`t`$ and $`\frac{d}{dt}`$ have colors in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$.

Proof. If dim$`𝒟=1`$ and $`𝒟=𝒟_{}`$, we see that $`|𝒥|=2`$. Clearly ii) is true in this case. Now suppose that $`𝒟𝒟_{}`$ if dim$`𝒟=1`$. Then $`|𝒥|>2`$.

For any $`\beta 𝒥`$ with $`|\beta |2`$. Using inductive assumption, we may suppose that $`Ad^\alpha W`$ for all $`\alpha 𝒥(\beta )`$ with $`|\alpha ||\beta |2`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{supp}(\beta )=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Then for all $`x,bH(A)`$ we have $`[xd^\beta ,b]W`$ and

$$[xd^\beta ,b]=x[d^\beta ,a]x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\beta _iϵ(d^{\beta \delta ^{(1)}},b)ϵ^+(\delta ^{(i)},\beta \delta ^{(i)})^1d_i(b)d^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}\text{ (mod }W).$$
$`(3.17)`$
By Lemma 3.4, $`d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_n`$ are $`A`$-linear independent derivations. By Lemma 3.7, $`Ad^{\beta \delta ^{(i)}}W`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. This in particular proves i), and that $`_{\alpha 𝒥\backslash \{\gamma \}}Ad^\alpha W`$ if $`|𝒥|<\mathrm{}`$. Next we assume that $`|𝒥|<\mathrm{}`$. Then $`||=m<\mathrm{}`$ and either $`\mathrm{char}F=p>0`$ (in this case $`\gamma _i=p1`$ or 1 for $`i`$) or $`𝒟=𝒟_{}`$ (in this case $`\gamma _i=1`$ for $`i`$). Then $`𝒟(A)d^\gamma =[𝒟,Ad^\gamma ]W`$. Thus $`W^{}=_{\alpha 𝒥\backslash \{\gamma \}}Ad^\alpha 𝒟(A)d^\gamma W`$. To prove $`WW^{}`$, let $`\alpha ,\beta 𝒥`$ be such that $`\alpha +\beta \gamma 𝒥\{0\}`$. It suffices to show the coefficient of $`d^\gamma `$ in $`[xd^\alpha ,yd^\beta ]`$ to be in $`D(A)`$. By (2.7), (2.10), the coefficient of $`d^\gamma `$ in $`[ud^\alpha ,vd^\beta ]`$ for $`u,vH(A)`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}({}_{\gamma \beta }{}^{\alpha })ϵ^+(\alpha +\beta \gamma ,\gamma \beta )^1ϵ(d^{\gamma \beta },v)ϵ^+(\gamma \beta ,\beta )ud^{\alpha +\beta \gamma }(v)\\ ϵ(ud^\alpha ,vd^\beta )({}_{\gamma \alpha }{}^{\beta })ϵ^+(\alpha +\beta \gamma ,\gamma \alpha )^1ϵ(d^{\gamma \alpha },u)ϵ^+(\gamma \alpha ,\alpha )vd^{\alpha +\beta \gamma }(u)\\ =ϵ^+(\alpha +\beta \gamma ,\gamma \beta )^1ϵ(d^{\gamma \beta },v)ϵ^+(\gamma \beta ,\beta )(({}_{\gamma \beta }{}^{\alpha })ud^{\alpha +\beta \gamma }(v)\\ ({}_{\gamma \alpha }{}^{\beta })ϵ(\overline{u},\beta +\alpha \gamma )d^{\alpha +\beta \gamma }(u)v).(3.18)\end{array}$$

Noting that char$`F=p>0`$ or $`\gamma _i=1`$, from the condition $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \alpha \beta 𝒥\{0\}`$ we see that

$$({}_{\gamma \beta }{}^{\alpha })=({}_{\alpha +\beta \gamma }{}^{\alpha })=(1)^{|\alpha +\beta \gamma |}(=\beta _{\gamma \alpha }).$$
$`(3.19)`$
Applying $`d_i`$ to $`u^{}v^{}`$ for any $`u^{}v^{}H(A)`$, we have

$$d_i(u^{})v^{}=ϵ(u^{},d_1)u^{}d_i(v^{})D(A)).$$

Using this and (3.19), one can easily deduce that the right-hand side of (3.18) is in $`D(A)`$. This proves ii). To prove iii), we use Lemma 3.7. By i) and ii), $`Z=F_1`$ and we have $`\mathrm{dim}_{Z(A[D])}A[D]>4`$ except when $`A=F_1F_1x`$ with $`x^2=0`$, and $`D=F\frac{}{x}`$. This leads to the iii). $`\mathrm{}`$

Example 3.10. Let $`n2`$ and let $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be $`n`$ symbols which have colors in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. Let $`A`$ be the free $`ϵ`$-commutative associative algebra generated by $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$. Clearly $`A`$ has dimension $`2^n`$. Let $`D`$ be the space spanned by the derivations $`_i=\frac{}{x_i},i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Then we obtain a simple Lie color algebra $`\overline{A[D]}`$ of dimension $`2^{2n}2`$. In particular, if we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=ZZ/2ZZ`$, $`ϵ(i,j)=(1)^{ij},i,jZZ/2ZZ`$, then $`A=\mathrm{\Lambda }^n(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is the exterior algebra and we obtain the simple Hamiltonian Lie superalgebra $`\overline{A[D]}=H(2n)`$ (see §3.3 in \[K\]).

References

D.A. Jordan, On the simplicity of Lie algebras of derivations of commutative algebras, J. Alg., 228 (2000), 580-585.

V.G. Kac, Lie superalgebras, Adv. Math., 26 (1977), 8-96.

J.M. Osborn, New simple infinite-dimensional Lie algebras of characteristic $`0`$, J. Alg., 185(1996), no.3, 820-835.

D.S. Passman, Simple Lie algebras of Witt type, J. Alg., 206 (1998), 682-692.

D.S. Passman, Simple Lie color algebras of Witt type, J. Alg., 208 (1998), 698-721.

Y. Su, K. Zhao, Simple algebras of Weyl type, Science in China A, 44(2001), 419-426.

Y. Su, K. Zhao, Isomorphism classes and automorphism groups of algebras of Weyl type, Science in China A, 31(2001), 961-972.

K. Zhao, Simple algebras of Weyl type, II, Proc. Amer. Math. Soci., 130(2002), 1323-1332.

K. Zhao, Y. Su, Simple Lie color algebras from graded associative algebras, to appear.

Addresses: Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, China. Email: kfimmi@public1.sta.net.cn.

Academy of Mathematics and system Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China. Email: kzhao@math08.math.ac.cn.

Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China. Email: lszhu@pub.sz.jsinfo.net.


text:
# An entry of Ramanujan on Hypergeometric Series in his Notebooks11footnote 1Corresponding author: G. Vanden Berghe, Universiteit Gent, Toegepaste Wiskunde en Informatica, Krijgslaan 281-S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

## 1. Introduction

In the Notebooks of Ramanujan, identities for hypergeometric series occupy a prominent part (see \[3, Chapters X, XI\]). In fact, Ramanujan discovered for himself all the (now classical) summation theorems established by Gauß, Chu-Vandermonde, Kummer, Pfaff–Saalschütz, Dixon and Dougall. For example, Dougall’s summation theorem (of which all the others mentioned are special cases), which was discovered by Dougall  in 1907, was independently found by Ramanujan during 1910–1912 (see Entry 1 in Chapter XII of Notebook 1 and in the corresponding Entry 1 in Chapter X of Notebook 2). We cannot assert an exact date, because there are no dates anywhere in the Notebooks of Ramanujan. In any case, Ramanujan rediscovered not only all that was known in Europe on hypergeometric series at that time, but he also discovered several new theorems, and, in particular, theorems on products of hypergeometric series , as well as several types of asymptotic expansions.

On the other hand, it is well known  that Ramanujan did not publish any of his results from his Chapters on hypergeometric series that are to be found in his Notebooks. The Chapters on hypergeometric series, in particular, Chapters X and XI, in his second Notebook, have been extensively studied by Hardy  and Berndt , since the Chapters of Ramanujan’s second Notebook are considered as revised, enlarged versions of the Chapters in his first Notebook. However, Example 7, after Entry 43, in Chapter XII of the first Notebook did not find a place in the “corresponding” examples after Entry 10 in Chapter X of his second Notebook, and is therefore not discussed in .

The purpose of this article is to provide a proof for Example 7, after Entry 43, in Chapter XII, (XII, 43, Ex. 7), in the first Notebook of Ramanujan, using well-known transformation and summation theorems of hypergeometric series. In fact, we prove a more general identity (which may have been the identity that Ramanujan actually had, and from which he recorded the most elegant specializations into his Notebook – a conjecture consistent with a wide spread belief that that was Ramanujan’s style).

Our paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, Entry (XII, 43, Ex. 7) in the first Notebook of Ramanujan and some related entries are presented in Ramanujan’s notation, and subsequently translated into current notation. This leads us to the statement of a summation theorem for a $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(x,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2};1)`$ hypergeometric series, for $`\mathrm{}x<2`$. In Section 3, the statement is generalized to a summation theorem for the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(a,a,x;1+a,1+a+N;1)`$ series, where $`N`$ is a non-negative integer, and it is proved. Finally, in Section 4, some remarks regarding special cases of the theorem are made.

## 2. Ramanujan’s Entry

In Ramanujan’s notation, Example 7, after Entry 43, in Chapter XII, of the first Notebook reads as follows:

πtan(πx)  2xgf(2x  xgf)2(12x)(12x121x+112xπ2tan(πx))𝜋𝜋𝑥  2xgfsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑥  xgf212𝑥12𝑥121𝑥112𝑥𝜋2𝜋𝑥\displaystyle{\frac{\pi}{\tan(\pi x)}}{\frac{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $2x$\vphantom{gf}}}}}{\left(2^{x}\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $x$\vphantom{gf}}}}\right)^{2}(1-2x)}}\left(\sum{\frac{1}{2x}}-{\frac{1}{2}}\sum{\frac{1}{x}}+{\frac{1}{1-2x}}-{\frac{\pi}{2}}\tan(\pi x)\right)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\text{ }\text{ 1gf}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x(x+1)}{\text{ }\text{ 2gf}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5^2}}+\&c.(\mathrm{XII},43,\mathrm{Ex}.7)`$
Here,   $`x`$gf is Ramanujan’s notation for the gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x+1)`$, which, for him, was a function over real numbers $`x`$ (see ). We, of course, adopt the contemporary point of view and regard the gamma function as a function over the complex numbers.

The factor on the left-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.7):

πtan(πx)  2xgf(2x  xgf)2(12x)𝜋𝜋𝑥  2xgfsuperscriptsuperscript2𝑥  xgf212𝑥{\frac{\pi}{\tan(\pi x)}}{\frac{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $2x$\vphantom{gf}}}}}{\left(2^{x}\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $x$\vphantom{gf}}}}\right)^{2}(1-2x)}} (1)
is the same factor that appears on the left-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.4) which, in Ramanujan’s first Notebook is

πtan(πx)  2xgf(2x  xgf)2(12x)=1+x  1gf13+x(x+1)  2gf15+&c.(XII,43,Ex.4)\qquad\qquad{\frac{\pi}{\tan(\pi x)}}{\frac{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $2x$\vphantom{gf}}}}}{\left(2^{x}\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $x$\vphantom{gf}}}}\right)^{2}(1-2x)}}=1+{\frac{x}{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $1$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}\cdot{\frac{1}{3}}+{\frac{x(x+1)}{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $2$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}\cdot{\frac{1}{5}}+\&c.\qquad({\rm XII},43,{\rm Ex}.4)
This is given in Ramanujan’s second Notebook as:

π  ngf2  +n12gf=1n  1gf13+n(n1)  2gf15+&c.\displaystyle{\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $n$\vphantom{gf}}}}}{2\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $n+\frac{1}{2}$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}=1-{\frac{n}{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $1$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}\cdot{\frac{1}{3}}+{\frac{n(n-1)}{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $2$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}\cdot{\frac{1}{5}}+\&c. (X, 10, Ex.4)

As pointed out by Berndt , the Entry (X, 10, Ex.4), or, (XII, 43, Ex.4), is the special case of (X, 10), or, (XII, 43), where we do the replacements $`n\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`xn`$. The factor (1) which occurs on the left-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.4) can be shown to be equal to:

πΓ(1x)2xΓ(32x)=π  -xgf2x  +-x12gf,𝜋Γ1𝑥2𝑥Γ32𝑥𝜋  -xgf2𝑥  +-x12gf\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(1-x)}{2x\,\Gamma(\frac{3}{2}-x)}={\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $-x$\vphantom{gf}}}}}{2x\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $-x+\frac{1}{2}$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}\;, (2)
after using the reflection formula: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1z)=\pi /\mathrm{sin}(\pi z)`$, and the duplication formula $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2z)=2^{2z1}\pi ^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(z+\frac{1}{2})`$ and some algebraic manipulations.

When written in the standard hypergeometric notation

$${}_{r}{}^{}F_{s}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a_1,\mathrm{},a_r\\ b_1,\mathrm{},b_s\end{array};z]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a_1)_k\mathrm{}(a_r)_k}{k!(b_1)_k\mathrm{}(b_s)_k}z^k,$$

where the Pochhammer symbol $`(\alpha )_k`$ is defined by $`(\alpha )_k=\alpha (\alpha +1)(\alpha +2)\mathrm{}(\alpha +k1)`$, $`k>0`$, $`(\alpha )_0=1`$, the series on the right-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.4) is:

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2},x\\ \frac{3}{2}\end{array};1],$$

which by the Gauß summation theorem (see \[11, (1.7.6); Appendix (III.3)\]):

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,b\\ c\end{array};1]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}}\text{valid for }\mathrm{}(cab)>0,`$ (3)
becomes:

F12[12,x32;1]=πΓ(1x)2Γ(3/2x)=π2  -xgf  +-x/12gf.subscriptsubscript𝐹12matrix12𝑥321𝜋Γ1𝑥2Γ32𝑥𝜋2  -xgf  +-x/12gf{}_{2}F_{1}\!\left[\begin{matrix}{\frac{1}{2},x}\\
{\frac{3}{2}}\end{matrix};{\displaystyle 1}\right]={\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(1-x)}{2\,\Gamma(3/2-x)}}={\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}}{\frac{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $-x$\vphantom{gf}}}}}{\,\hbox{\vrule width=0.5pt,depth=4.0pt{\text@underline{\ $-x+1/2$\vphantom{gf}}}}}}. (4)
If we compare the right-hand side of this equation with (2), which, as we outlined, is equal to the left-hand side (1) of (XII, 43, Ex.4), it is clear that Ramanujan missed a multiplicative factor $`x`$ on the left-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.4), while his Entry (X, 10, Ex.4) is correct. As we shall see, the same applies to the Entry (XII, 43, Ex.7). To be precise, the factor (1) on the left-hand side of that entry must also be replaced by the correct value (4).

The series on the right-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.7) is, in hypergeometric notation:

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}x,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\end{array};1].$$

There are two factors on the left-hand side of (XII, 43, Ex.7). Besides the factor (1), the other factor in (XII, 43, Ex.7) is:

$$\frac{1}{2x}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{12x}\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{tan}(\pi x).$$
(5)
Ramanujan used the notation $`\frac{1}{x}`$ to indicate the extension of the function

$$1+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{n},$$

representing the harmonic numbers, from positive integers $`n`$ to real $`x`$. In other words, $`\frac{1}{x}`$ is Ramanujan’s notation for the digamma function $`\psi (x):=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$, the logarithmic derivative of the gamma function, or, more precisely, for $`\psi (x+1)+\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, that is

$$\psi (x+1)=\frac{1}{x}\gamma .$$
(6)
In fact, in Ramanujan’s very first research paper , the digamma function occurs as:

$$\frac{d}{dn}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)=1+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{n}\gamma =\frac{1}{n}\gamma .$$

Thus, the expression (5) becomes:

$$\psi (2x+1)\frac{1}{2}\psi (x+1)+\frac{1}{12x}\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{tan}(\pi x)+\frac{\gamma }{2}.$$
(7)
The digamma function satisfies the recurrence relation \[6, 1.7.1(8)\]:

$$\psi (z+1)=\psi (z)+\frac{1}{z},$$
(8)
the reflection formula \[6, 1.7.1(11)\]:

$$\psi (z)=\psi (z+1)+\pi \mathrm{cot}(\pi z)$$
(9)
and the duplication formula \[6, 1.7.1(12)\]:

$$2\psi (2z)=\psi (z)+\psi \left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)+2\mathrm{log}2.$$
(10)
We remark that the duplication formula appears implicitly in Ramanujan’s first Notebook. Namely, a comparison of Entry (XII, 43, Ex.6) with $`nx1`$ in Entry (X, 10, Ex.6) shows that Ramanujan obtained:

$$\frac{1}{x+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{x}=2\frac{1}{2x}2\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{x}2\mathrm{log}2,$$

which by (6) and (8) is equivalent to (10). Furthermore, the digamma function has the special values

$$\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\gamma 2\mathrm{log}2\mathrm{and}\psi (1)=\gamma .$$
(11)
We now use the duplication formula (10) to convert (7) into

$$\frac{1}{2}\psi \left(x+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\mathrm{log}2+\frac{1}{12x}\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{tan}(\pi x)+\frac{\gamma }{2}.$$

The recurrence relation (8) implies that $`\psi (x+\frac{1}{2})=\psi (x\frac{1}{2})+\frac{2}{2x1}`$, while we know from (11) that $`\mathrm{log}2=\frac{1}{2}\psi (\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{2}\gamma `$. If this is substituted in the last equation, and if we then apply the reflection formula (9), we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi \left(\frac{3}{2}x\right)\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)$$
(12)
for the expression (5). Therefore, if we recall that the factor (1) on the left-hand side of Ramanujan’s Entry (XII, 43, Ex.7) must be replaced by (4), this entry can be rewritten in contemporary notation as:

$`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}x,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\end{array};1]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}x)}}\left\{\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}x\right)\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right\}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}x\right)\psi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right\}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}x,\frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{3}{2}\end{array};1],`$
for $`\mathrm{}x<2`$.

In the next section we state and prove a theorem which is a generalization of (13), that is, of Ramanujan’s Entry (XII, 43, Ex.7).

## 3. The theorem

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`N`$ be a non-negative integer and $`a`$ be a complex number which is not a negative integer. If $`\mathrm{}x<N+2`$, then

$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,a,x\\ 1+a,1+a+N\end{array};1]\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{a\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+N+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{N!\mathrm{\Gamma }(ax+1)}\left(\psi (ax+1)\psi (a)\psi (N+1)\gamma \right)\\ \hfill \frac{a\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+N+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{N!\mathrm{\Gamma }(ax+1)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(a)_k(N)_k}{kk!(ax+1)_k}.\end{array}$$
(14)
###### Proof.

To evaluate the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1)`$ series on the left-hand side of (14), let us introduce a parameter $`\epsilon `$, and consider the series

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,a\epsilon ,x\\ 1+a\epsilon ,1+a\epsilon +N\end{array};1].$$

First we apply the (non-terminating) transformation formula (see \[7, Ex. 3.6, $`q1`$, reversed\]):

$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,b,c\\ d,e\end{array};1]\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ab)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(e)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+eabc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(db)\mathrm{\Gamma }(eb)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+eac)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}b,da,ea\\ 1a+b,d+eac\end{array};1]\\ \hfill +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(e)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+eabc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(da)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ea)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+ebc)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,db,eb\\ d+ebc,1+ab\end{array};1].\end{array}$$

and obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\epsilon +Nx)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+a2\epsilon +Nx)}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a\epsilon ,1\epsilon +N\\ 2+a2\epsilon +Nx\end{array};1]\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\epsilon +Nx)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+a\epsilon +Nx)}\\ \hfill \times {}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,1,1+N\\ 1+\epsilon ,2+a\epsilon +Nx\end{array};1].\end{array}$$

Clearly, the convergence of the hypergeometric series on the right-hand side will only be guaranteed if $`\mathrm{}x<1`$. Therefore. for the moment we suppose $`\mathrm{}x<1`$.

To the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-series we apply the transformation formula (see \[2, Ex. 7, p. 98\]):

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,b,c\\ d,e\end{array};1]=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(e)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+eabc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ea)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+ebc)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,db,dc\\ d,d+ebc\end{array};1],$$

to get the expression

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\epsilon +Nx)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+a2\epsilon +Nx)}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a\epsilon ,1\epsilon +N\\ 2+a2\epsilon +Nx\end{array};1]\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ax)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,\epsilon ,\epsilon N\\ 1+\epsilon ,1+ax\end{array};1].\end{array}$$

The $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$-series is summed by means of the Gauß summation theorem (3), while the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-series is written as a sum over $`k`$, and subsequently split into the ranges $`k=0`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, and $`k=N+1,N=2,\mathrm{}`$. This yields the expression

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\epsilon }(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon x)}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ax)})\\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ax)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(a)_k(\epsilon N)_k}{k!(k+\epsilon )(1+ax)_k}\\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+a\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon +N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ax)}\underset{k=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a)_k(\epsilon N)_k}{k!(k+\epsilon )(1+ax)_k}.\end{array}$$

Now we perform the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. Thus, our original $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-series becomes

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,a,x\\ 1+a,1+a+N\end{array};1].$$

On the other hand, the four-line expression which we obtained for this $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-series simplifies significantly. The last term simply vanishes because of the occurrence of the factor $`(\epsilon N)_k`$, which is equal to $`(\epsilon N)_N\epsilon (1+\epsilon )_{kN1}`$ for $`kN+1`$, which is zero for $`N`$ a non-negative integer. On the other hand, the limit of $`\epsilon 0`$ of the first two lines can be easily calculated by means of l’Hôpital’s rule to obtain the final result (14).

As it stands, the assertion is only demonstrated for $`\mathrm{}x<1`$. However, by analytic continuation, Equation (14) is true for any values of $`x`$ for which the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$-series on the left-hand side converges, i.e., for $`\mathrm{}x<N+1`$. ∎

## 4. Some remarks

The following observations can be made:

* Clearly, the theorem (14) reduces to Ramanujan’s entry (XII, 43, Ex.7), in our notation (13), if $`a=1/2`$ and $`N=0`$.
* For $`x=1`$, in (13), the $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1)`$ is a special case of Dixon’s theorem (see e.g. (III.8) of , for $`a=1,b=c=1/2`$), and it has the value $`\frac{\pi ^2}{8}`$.
* For $`x=\frac{3}{2}`$, the left-hand side of (13) is:

$`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\end{array};1]={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{3}{2}\end{array};1]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$
by the Gauß summation theorem (3), which is the result for the right-hand side evaluated by l’Hôpital’s rule.
* For $`x=k`$, a negative integer, in (13), we get:

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},k\\ \frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\end{array};1]=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2+k)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}\frac{1}{2j1}.$$
(15)
* The $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(a,a,x;1+a,1+a+N;1)`$ series can be related to the 3-$`j`$ coefficient$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{x}{2}& \frac{x}{2}& 0\\ a\frac{x}{2}& a+\frac{x}{2}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (cf. ) provided $`x`$ is a negative integer and $`xa0.`$ It also corresponds to the dual Hahn polynomial  $`S_n(0;a,b=1,c=1+N)`$, for $`x=n`$.

Finally, as we already announced in Section 2, it has to be noted that as in the case of Entry (XII, 43, Ex.4), Ramanujan has missed a multiplicative factor $`x`$ on the left-hand side of his Entry (XII, 43, Ex.7).

Acknowledgments : Two of the authors (KSR and GVB) thank Prof. Dr. Niceas Schamp and the Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten for excellent hospitality and one of us (KSR) thanks Prof. Dr. Walter Van Assche for an interesting discussion on a visit to the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven for a lecture on the Life and Work of Ramanujan.