Gauged permutation invariant tensor quantum mechanics, least common multiples and the inclusion-exclusion principle

Denjoe O'Connor and Sanjaye Ramgoolam

arXiv: 2506.18813v2 · PDF · 5 August 2025
Categories: hep-th, math.CO
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We derive the canonical ensemble partition functions for gauged permutation invariant tensor quantum harmonic oscillator thermodynamics, finding surprisingly simple expressions with number-theoretic characteristics. These systems have a gauged symmetry of S_N, the symmetric group of all permutations of a set of N objects. The symmetric group acts on tensor variables \Phi_{ i_1, \cdots , i_s }, where the s indices each range over \{ 1, 2, \cdots , N \} and have the standard S_N action of permutations. The result is a sum over partitions of N and the summand is a product admitting simple expressions, which depend on the least common multiples (LCMs) of subsets of the parts of the partition. The inclusion-exclusion principle of combinatorics plays a central role in the derivation of these expressions. The behaviour of these partition functions under inversion of the Boltzmann factor x = e^{ - \beta } is governed by universal sequences associated with invariants of symmetric groups and alternating groups. The partition functions allow the development of a high temperature expansion analogous to the s=2 matrix case. The calculation of an s-dependent breakdown point leads to a critical Boltzmann factor x_c = { \log N \over sN^{ s-1}} as the leading large N approximation.

Items 9

Theorem

Theorem 1

TUOR

The partition function {\cal Z}_s ( N , p , x) which is the Molien-Weyl inverse determinant (?) is equal to the following product depending on LCMs of numbers chosen from the set of cycle lengths \{ a_1 , a_2 , \cdots , a_K \} :

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal Z}_s ( N , p , x) = \prod_{ i_1 \cdots i_s \in \{ 1, \cdots , K \} } { 1 \over ( 1 - x^{ L ( a_{i_1} , \cdots , a_{ i_s} ) } )^{ \frac{a_{i_1} \cdots a_{ i_s} }{L( a_{i_1}, \cdots , a_{i_s} ) } p_{i_1} \cdots p_{i_s} }} \end{aligned}

Used by Theorem 2

Proof of Theorem 1

We start by using the relation (?) between GCD, LCM and the product of a pair of numbers

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && G ( L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) , b_{ n+1} ) = { L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) b_{ n+1} \over L ( L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) , b_{ n+1} ) } = { L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) b_{ n+1} \over L ( b_1 , b_2 , \cdots , b_n , b_{ n+1} ) } \end{aligned}

Now use (?)

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ) = ( b_1 b_2 \cdots b_l ) \prod_{ k=2}^{ l} ( {\cal G}_{ k } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ) )^{ \epsilon (k +1 ) } \end{aligned}

This allows us to replace the LCMs in (Proof) with GCDs.

This gives

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && G ( L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) , b_{ n+1} ) = ( b_1 \cdots b_{ n+1}) \prod_{ k =2}^{n} ( {\cal G}_{ k} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) )^{ \epsilon ( k+1) } \cr && \times { 1 \over ( b_1 \cdots b_{ n+1}) } \prod_{ k=2}^{ n +1 } ( {\cal G}_{ k} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n , b_{ n+1} ) )^{ \epsilon(k) } \end{aligned}

In this expression, the GCDs of pairs, triples, in general size k-subsets, which do not contain b_{ n+1} cancel out and we are left with an alternating product of GCDs which include b_{ n+1}.

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle G ( L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) , b_{ n+1} ) = \prod_{ k=2}^{ n+1} ( {\cal G}_{ k} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ; b_{ n+1} ) )^{ \epsilon(k) } \end{aligned}

This completes the proof of the Proposition. \blacksquare

Uses Proof

Theorem

Theorem 2

XGY8

The partition function {\cal Z}_s ( N , p , x ), for the contribution of a partition p of N, for S_N invariant s-index tensors, which is given by (?) and (1) can be re-written as

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal Z}_s ( N , p , x ) = \prod_{ \substack { S \subset \{ 1, \cdots , K \} \\ S \ne \emptyset } } { 1 \over ( 1 - x^{ L ( S ) } )^{ {\cal W} ( N , p , s ; S ) \over L ( S ) } } \end{aligned}

with {\cal W} ( N , p , s ; S ) as given in (?).

Uses Theorem 1

Proof

KVBN

Consider the unique prime factorisations of the numbers b_1 , b_2, which exist by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (e.g. Theorem 1.10 of [Apostol]). Let { \rm PF } (b) be the set of prime factors of an integer b, and for a prime p in this set, let m_p ( b ) be the largest power of p which divides b.

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && b_1 = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 ) } p^{ m_p ( b_1) } \cr && b_2 = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_2 ) } p^{ m_p ( b_2 ) } \end{aligned}

Let us also denote { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 ) \equiv { \rm PF } ( b_1 ) \cup { \rm PF } ( b_2 ). The relations between the LCM and the maxima of the exponents in the prime decomposition and between the GCD and the minima of the exponents in the prime decomposition are well known.

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && G ( b_1 , b_2 ) = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 ) } p^{ \min ( m_p ( b_1 ) , m_p ( b_2 ) ) } \cr && L ( b_1 , b_2 ) = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 ) } p^{ \max ( m_p ( b_1 ) , m_p ( b_2 ) ) } \end{aligned}

Now use

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && \max ( a , b ) = a ~ {\cal I} ( a \ge b ) + b ~ {\cal I} ( a < b ) \cr && \min ( a , b ) = b ~ {\cal I} ( a \ge b ) + a ~ {\cal I} ( a < b ) \end{aligned}

where the indicator function {\cal I} ( x ) is defined by:

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && {\cal I} ( x ) = 1 \hbox { if $x$ holds }\cr && {\cal I} ( x ) = 0 \hbox { otherwise } \end{aligned}

It follows that

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle \max ( a , b ) + \min ( a , b ) &= a ( {\cal I} ( a < b ) + {\cal I} ( a \ge b ) ) + b ( {\cal I} ( a < b ) + {\cal I} ( a \ge b ) ) \cr & = & a +b \end{aligned}

Applying this result to the prime decompositions

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle G ( b_1 ) L ( b_2 ) && = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 ) } p^{ \min ( m_p ( b_1 ) , m_p (b_2) ) + \max ( m_p ( b_1 ) , m_p ( b_2 ) ) } \cr && = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 ) } p^{ m_p ( b_1 ) + m_p ( b_2 ) } = b_1 b_2 \end{aligned}

Relation between LCM and GCD for a triple of numbers

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle L ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) = {b_1 b_2 b_3 G ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) \over G ( b_1 , b_2 ) G ( b_1 , b_3 ) G ( b_2 , b_3 )} \end{aligned}

We again use the prime decompositions to write

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle L ( b_1, b_2 , b_3 ) && = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) } p^{ \max ( m_p ( b_1 ) , m_p ( b_2 ) , m_p ( b_3 ) ) } \cr G ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) && = \prod_{ p \in { \rm PF } ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) } p^{ \min ( m_p ( b_1 ) , m_p ( b_2 ) , m_p ( b_3 ) ) } \end{aligned}

The maximum and minimum of a triple of numbers is known to be related by

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle \max ( m_1 , m_2 , m_3 ) &= m_1 + m_2 + m_3 - \min ( m_1 , m_2 ) - \min ( m_1 , m_3 )\\&&\qquad\qquad - \min ( m_2 , m_3 ) + \min ( m_1 , m_2 , m_3 ) \cr && \end{aligned}

An easy proof is to consider the sets

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && S_1 = \{ 1, 2, \cdots , m_1 \} \cr && S_2 = \{ 1, 2, , \cdots , m_2 \} \cr && S_3 = \{ 1, 2, \cdots , m_3 \} \end{aligned}

Observe that

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle \max ( m_1 , m_2 , m_3 ) = | S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S_3 | \end{aligned}

where the RHS is the cardinality of the union of the three sets, and

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && \min ( m_1 ,m_2 ) = | S_1 \cap S_2 | \cr && \min ( m_1 , m_2 , m_3 ) = | S_1 \cap S_2 \cap S_3 | \end{aligned}

We then use the inclusion-exclusion principle for sets which states that

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && | S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S_3 | = |S_1| + |S_2| + | S_3| - | S_1 \cap S_2 | - |S_1 \cap S_3 | - | S_2 \cap S_3 | + |S_1 \cap S_2 \cap S_3 | \cr && \end{aligned}

For the statement of the inclusion-exclusion principle and its proof using indicator functions see [WikiInEx][Rota].

.2cm

General formula relating LCM and GCD for multiple positive integers

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) = ( b_1 \cdots b_n) \prod_{ k=2}^n ( {\cal G}_k ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) )^{ (-1)^{ k+1} } \end{aligned}

where

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal G}_k ( b_1 , \cdots , b_n ) = \prod_{ i_1 < i_2 < \cdots < i_k \in \{ 1, \cdots , n \} } ( G ( b_{ i_1}, b_{ i_2} , \cdots , b_{ i_k } ) ) \end{aligned}

In other words, {\cal G}_k is the product over k-element subsets, of the GCD for the subset.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof

CIJN

We use the prime decomposition of b_i to relate the LCM and GCD’s to \max ( m_1 , \cdots , m_n ) and \min ( m_1 , \cdots , m_n ). The general statement of the inclusion-exclusion principle is [WikiInEx] gives the relation. For the union of sets

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle W = \bigcup_{ i =1}^{ n } W_i \end{aligned}

we have an identity

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle | W | = \sum_{ k=1}^n (-1)^{ k+1} \left ( \sum_{ 1 \le i_1 < i_2 \cdots < i_k \in \{ 1, \cdots , n \} }| A_{ i_1} \bigcap A_{ i_2} \cdots \bigcap A_{ i_k} | \right ) \end{aligned}

Choosing | W_i | = m_i, and W_{ i } = \{ 1, 2, \cdots , m_i \} gives the identity

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle \max ( m_1 , \cdots , m_n ) = \sum_{ k =1 }^{ n } (-1)^{k+1} \sum_{ i_1 < i_2 \cdots < i_k \in \{ 1, 2, \cdots , n \} } \min ( b_{ i_1} , b_{ i_2} , \cdots , b_{ i_k } ) \end{aligned}

Proof

D5FW

For a permutation \sigma with cycle structure given by p as described above, the eigenvectors in the natural representation V_N are

\begin{aligned} &\omega_{ a_1}^{ t_1} ~~,~~ 0 \le t_1 \le ( a_1 -1) ~~; ~~ | \omega_{a_1}^{ t_1 } , r_1 \rangle ~~ 1 \le r_1 \le p_1 \cr & \omega_{ a_2}^{ t_2} ~~,~~ 0 \le t_2 \le ( a_2 -1) ~~; ~~ | \omega_{a_2}^{ t_2 } , r_2 \rangle ~~ 1 \le r_2 \le p_2 \cr & ~~ \vdots \cr & \omega_{ a_K}^{ t_K} ~~,~~ 0 \le t_K \le ( a_K -1) ~~; ~~ | \omega_{a_K}^{ t_1 } , r_K \rangle ~~ 1 \le r_K \le p_K \end{aligned}

In the 3-fold tensor product V_N^{ \otimes 3 } the eigenvalues take the form

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle | \omega_{ a_{i_1} }^{t_{i_1} } , r_{1} \rangle \otimes | \omega_{ a_{i_2} }^{t_{i_2} } , r_{2} \rangle \otimes | \omega_{ a_{i_3}}^{t_{i_3} } , r_{3} \rangle \end{aligned}

The eigenvalues are

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle \omega_{ a_{i_1} }^{ t_{i_1} } \omega_{ a_{i_2} }^{ t_{i_2} } \omega_{ a_{i_3} }^{ t_{i_3} } \end{aligned}

with

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && 1 \le i_1 , i_2 , i_3 \le K \cr && 0 \le t_{ i_1} \le ( a_{ i_1} -1 ) \cr && 0 \le t_{ i_2} \le ( a_{ i_2} -1 ) \cr && 0 \le t_{ i_3} \le ( a_{ i_3} -1 ) \end{aligned}

and the multiplicity space spanned by

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && 1 \le r_1 \le p_{ i_1} \cr && 1 \le r_2 \le p_{ i_2} \cr && 1 \le r_3 \le p_{ i_3} \end{aligned}

has dimension p_{ i_1} p_{ i_2} p_{ i_3}. Thus the determinant appearing in the Molien-Weyl formula is

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && { 1 \over {\rm\bf det} ( 1 - x D^{ V_N^{ \otimes 3 } } ( \sigma ) ) } = \prod_{ i_1 =1}^{ K } ~ \prod_{ i_2 =1 }^K ~ \prod_{ i_3 =1}^{ K } \left ( \prod_{ t_{i_1} = 0 }^{ a_{i_1} -1 } ~ \prod_{ t_{i_2} = 0}^{ a_{i_2} -1 } ~ \prod_{ t_{i_3} = 0}^{ a_{i_3} -1 } { 1 \over ( 1 - x\omega_{ a_{i_1} }^{ t_{i_1} } \omega_{ a_{i_2} }^{ t_{i_2} } \omega_{ a_{i_3} }^{ t_{i_3} } )^{ p_{ i_1} p_{ i_2} p_{ i_3} }} \right ) \cr && \end{aligned}

It is useful to introduce the definition

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal F}_{ 3 } ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) = \prod_{ t_1 = 0 }^{ b_1 -1 } ~ \prod_{ t_2 = 0}^{ b_2 -1 } ~ \prod_{ t_3 = 0}^{ b_3 -1 } { 1 \over ( 1 - x\omega_{ b_1 }^{ t_1} \omega_{ b_2 }^{ t_2 } \omega_{ b_3 }^{ t_3} )} \end{aligned}

for the product over roots of unity. The inverse determinant is then

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle { 1 \over {\rm\bf det} ( 1 - x D^{ V_N^{ \otimes 3 } } ( \sigma ) ) } = \prod_{ i_1 =1}^{ K } ~ \prod_{ i_2 =1 }^K ~ \prod_{ i_3 =1}^{ K } ( {\cal F}_{ 3 } ( a_{ i_1} , a_{ i_2} , a_{ i_3 } ) )^{ p_{ i_1} p_{ i_2} p_{ i_3} } \end{aligned}

The next step in the proof is to express the products over roots of unity in terms of LCMs and GCDs of the cycle lengths a_i appearing in the cycle decomposition of the permutation

\begin{aligned} {\cal F}_{ 3 } ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) ~ & =~\prod_{ t_1 = 0 }^{ b_1 -1 } ~ \prod_{ t_2 = 0}^{ b_2 -1 } ~ \prod_{ t_3 = 0}^{ b_3 -1 } { 1 \over ( 1 - x\omega_{ b_1 }^{ t_1} \omega_{ b_2 }^{ t_2 } \omega_{ b_3 }^{ t_3} ) } \cr ~ &= ~ \prod_{ t_3 } \prod_{ t_2 } { 1 \over ( 1 - x^{ b_1 } \omega_{ b_2 }^{ b_1 t_2} \omega_{ b_3 }^{ b_1 t_3} ) } \cr ~ & = ~ \prod_{ t_3} { 1 \over ( 1 - x^{ L ( b_1 , b_2 ) } \omega_{ b_3 }^{ L ( b_1 , b_2 ) . t_3 } )^{ G ( b_1 , b_2 ) } } \end{aligned}

The second equality uses (?) to do the sum over t_1. The third equality uses (?) to do the t_2 pproduct. In the next step we do the t_3 product using (?) to get

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal F}_{ 3 } ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) && = { 1 \over ( 1 - x^{ L ( L ( b_1 , b_2 ) , b_3 ) } )^{ G ( b_1 , b_2 ) G ( L ( b_1 , b_2 ) , b_3 ) } } \cr && = { 1 \over ( 1 - x^{ L ( b_1 , b_2 , b_3 ) } )^{ G ( b_1 , b_2 ) G ( L ( b_1 , b_2 ) , b_3 ) } } \cr && \end{aligned}

Combining (?) and (?) gives the proof of (?). \blacksquare

Theorem

Theorem 3

9FXJ

We will prove that the exponent in (?) is equal to

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle { \rm Exponent } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = { b_{ 1} b_{ 2} \cdots b_s \over L ( b_1 , b_2 , \cdots , b_s ) } \end{aligned}

Used by Proof

Proposition

Proposition 2

VLGT

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && { \rm Exponent } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = \prod_{ k =2}^{s } ( {\cal G}_k ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) )^{ \epsilon ( k ) } \cr && \hbox{ where } {\cal G}_k ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = \prod_{ j_1 < j_2 \cdots < j_k \in \{ 1, \cdots , s \} } G ( b_1 , \cdots , b_k ) \cr && \hbox { and } \epsilon ( k ) = (-1)^{ k } ~~ \cr && \hbox{ i.e. GCDs of even-size subsets appear in the numerator} \cr && \hbox{ and GCDs of odd-size subsets appear in the denominator } \end{aligned}

Proof of Proposition 2

To understand the proof consider the following identity

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal G}_2 ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = {\cal G}_2 ( b_1 , b_2 ) {\cal G}_{ 2} ( b_1 , b_2 ; b_3 ) \cdots {\cal G}_{ 2} ( b_1 , b_2 , \cdots , b_{s-1} ; b_{ s} ) \end{aligned}

The left hand-side is the product of GCDs of pairs of numbers chosen from \{ b_1 , \cdots , b_s \}. On the RHS the last factor is the product of GCDs of pairs at least one of which is b_s, the second to last factor is the product of GCDs of pairs where at least one of the pair is b_{ s-1} and the other is b_i for some i < s-1. In other words the pairs in {\cal G}_2 (b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) are being ordered according to the highest number in the pair, and collected into products where the highest number is b_2, then the highest if b_3, etc. up to b_{s}.

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal G}_{ 2} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = \prod_{ l=1}^{ s - 1} {\cal G}_{ 2} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ; b_{ l+1} ) \end{aligned}

The same process of ordering and collecting for k-element subsets leads to

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle {\cal G}_{ k } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = \prod_{ l=1}^{ s -1 } {\cal G}_{ k } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ; b_{ l+1} ) \end{aligned}

Now we can combine (?), (?) to write the first two equalities below

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle && { \rm Exponent } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = \prod_{ l =1}^{ s-1} G ( L ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ) , b_{ l+1} ) \cr && = \prod_{ l=1}^{ s-1} \prod_{ k=2}^{ l+1} ( {\cal G}_{ k} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ; b_{ l+1} ) )^{ \epsilon(k) } \cr && = \prod_{ k=2}^{s} \prod_{ l=1}^{ s-1} ( {\cal G}_{ k} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_l ; b_{ l+1} ) )^{ \epsilon(k) } \cr && = \prod_{ k=2}^s ( {\cal G}_{ k} ( b_1 , \cdots , b_{ s } ) )^{ \epsilon( k ) } \end{aligned}

In the third line we re-arranged the product. In the fourth line, we used (Proof).

Finally we make one more use of (?) to conclude that

\begin{aligned}\displaystyle { \rm Exponent } ( b_1 , \cdots , b_s ) = { b_{ 1} b_{ 2} \cdots b_s \over L ( b_1 , b_2 , \cdots , b_s ) } \end{aligned}

This completes the proof of the Theorem 3, equation (3). Note that while the RHS of ? is not manifestly symmetric under permutations of \{ b_1 , \cdots , b_s \}, the above result of (3) does have the symmetry. \blacksquare

Uses Proof, Theorem 3

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2506.18813v2 by Denjoe O'Connor and Sanjaye Ramgoolam, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2506/2506.18813.jsonl.