text:
# Factorization of Combinatorial 𝑅 matrices and Associated Cellular Automata

## 1 Introduction

The box-ball systems  are important examples of soliton cellular automata. They are discrete dynamical systems whose time evolution is expressed as a certain motion of balls along the one dimensional array of boxes. Their integrability has been understood by the ultradiscretization  of classical integrable systems (soliton equations). In the recent works <sup>,</sup> it was revealed that the box-ball systems may also be viewed as quantum integrable systems at $`q=0`$. Here by quantum integrable systems we mean the ones whose integrability is guaranteed by the Yang-Baxter equation , and $`q`$ is the deformation parameter in the relevant quantum group. In fact, the box-ball systems are identified with a $`q0`$ limit of some two-dimensional solvable vertex models, where the role of time evolution is played by the action of a row transfer matrix. The simplest example is the original Takahashi-Satsuma automaton , whose classical origin is the discrete Lotka-Volterra equation  and the quantum origin is the fusion six-vertex model. Here is an example of the automaton time evolution.

$`\mathrm{}1112211211111111\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}1111122121111111\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}1111111212211111\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}1111111121122111\mathrm{}`$

One regards $`1`$ as an empty box and $`2`$ as a box containing a ball. At each time step one moves every ball once starting from the leftmost one. The rule is that the ball goes to the nearest right empty box. One easily finds that the sequence of $`l`$ balls propagate stably to the right with velocity $`l`$ unless it interacts with other balls. By regarding such patterns as (ultradiscrete) solitons, the above figure illustrates how the larger soliton overtakes the smaller one with a phase shift.

In terms of the fusion six vertex model at $`q=0`$, the above figure corresponds to the configuration:

The left and right boundaries are to be understood as $`1`$ or $`111`$ everywhere. This is a configuration of the fusion six vertex model in which the quantum space is spin $`1/2`$ ($`1`$ or $`2`$) and the auxiliary space is spin $`3/2`$ ($`111,112,122`$ or $`222`$). At $`q=0`$ only some selected vertex configurations have non-zero Boltzmann weights and the transfer matrix yields a deterministic evolution of the spins on one row to another. The vertex configurations in the above figure are the non-zero ones, and form an example of the combinatorial ($`q=0`$) $`R`$ matrix, which will be a main subject in this paper. Let $`T_M`$ denote the row transfer matrix at $`q=0`$ corresponding to the spin $`M/2`$ auxiliary space. The above example corresponds to $`T_3`$. Actually it can be shown that the ball-moving algorithm coincides with the action of $`T_M`$ with sufficiently large $`M`$. In the above example $`T_M=T_3`$ holds for any $`M3`$.

The coincidence of the ultradiscrete limit of soliton equations and the $`q0`$ limit of vertex models is an interesting phenomenon in various respects. From a statistical mechanical point of view, it roughly means that in those solvable vertex models, the profile of low-lying excitations over the ferromagnetic ground state at $`q=0`$ admits an exact description by (ultradiscrete) soliton equations. From a mathematical point of view it leads to a systematic generalization  by means of the quantum affine algebras and the crystal base theory . See section 4 of the reference  for several examples of the scattering of ultradiscrete solitons.

Now we turn to a general setting, where the six vertex model is replaced with a solvable vertex model associated with the quantum affine algebra $`U_q^{}(\widehat{𝔤}_n)`$. In this paper we treat the non-exceptional case $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)},A_{2n1}^{(2)},A_{2n}^{(2)},B_n^{(1)},C_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)}`$ and $`D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$. The box-ball systems correspond to  $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)}`$. The Boltzmann weights are trigonometric functions satisfying the Yang-Baxter equation. The row transfer matrix is specified by the auxiliary space $`V_M`$ and the quantum space $`\mathrm{}V_{l_j}V_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$. Here $`V_M`$ denotes the $`M`$-fold symmetric fusion of the vector representation. We suppose a ferromagnetic boundary condition, namely, the spins in the distance $`|j|1`$ are all equal to some prescribed element in $`V_{l_j}`$. At $`q=0`$ the transfer matrix yields a deterministic evolution of the spins on one row to another.

To analyze such a situation we invoke the crystal base theory . Let $`B_l`$ be the crystal of $`V_l`$. It is a finite set listed in Appendix A endowed with the action of Kashiwara operators $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i:B_lB_l\{0\}`$ for $`0in`$. Let $`\delta _l[a]B_l`$ be the special element as in (12). The states in the automaton are the elements $`\mathrm{}b_jb_{j+1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$ obeying the boundary condition $`b_j=\delta _{l_j}[a_k],|j|1`$. Here $`a_k`$ is specified in Table II with (15), and $`k`$ is a label of the boundary condition at our disposal. Let $`T_M`$ denote the $`q=0`$ transfer matrix, or $`M`$-th time evolution in the automaton; $`T_M:\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$. The map $`T_M(\mathrm{}b_jb_{j+1}\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}b_j^{}b_{j+1}^{}\mathrm{}`$ is induced by the isomorphism of crystals $`R:B_MB\stackrel{}{}BB_M`$ with $`B=\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$ according to (36). We call $`R`$ the combinatorial $`R`$ matrix. It is obtained by successive applications of the elementary ones $`B_MB_{l_j}\stackrel{}{}B_{l_j}B_M`$. The boundary condition matches the known properties like $`\delta _M[a_k]\delta _{l_j}[a_k]\stackrel{}{}\delta _{l_j}[a_k]\delta _M[a_k]`$. When $`M`$ gets large, $`T_M`$ stabilizes to a certain map, which we denote by $`T`$. In the box-ball system terminology ($`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)}`$ case), this corresponds to the boxes with inhomogeneous capacities $`\{l_j\}`$ and the carrier with infinite capacity.

The main result of this note is Theorem 2, which states that the isomorphism $`R:B_MB\stackrel{}{}BB_M`$ with $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$ is expressed as

$$R=(\sigma _B\sigma )PS_{i_{k+d}}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+2}}S_{i_{k+1}}$$

in the domain $`B_M[a_k]BB_MB`$ (16) if $`M`$ is sufficiently large. Here $`S_i`$ is the Weyl group operator (8) acting on $`B_MB`$. $`P(uv)=vu`$ is the transposition, $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _B`$ are the operators corresponding to the Dynkin diagram automorphism described around Proposition 1. The above result on $`R`$ reveals the factorization of the time evolution in the automaton: (Corollary 14)

$$T=\sigma _BS_{i_{k+d}}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+2}}S_{i_{k+1}},$$

where $`S_i`$ here is the one acting on $`\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$. See the explanation after Corollary 14. Such a decomposition is by no means evident from the defining relation (36). Note that $`T`$ is a translation in the sense that the product $`\sigma r_{i_{k+d}}\mathrm{}r_{i_{k+1}}`$ ($`r_i`$ is a simple reflection) is so in the extended affine Weyl group, if $`\sigma `$ is interpreted as the Diagram automorphism acting on the weight lattice. According to the factorization, one can consider a finer time evolution $`𝒯_m`$ (37) that includes the original one as $`𝒯_{k+td}=T^t(t0)`$. For $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)}`$, the change from $`𝒯_m(p)`$ to $`𝒯_{m+1}(p)`$ agrees with the original ball-moving algorithm in the box-ball systems, where one touches only the balls with a fixed color. In particular when $`l_j=1`$, our Definition 11 provides a representation theoretical interpretation of the earlier observation. For $`\widehat{𝔤}_nA_n^{(1)}`$, the automaton corresponding to $`l_j=1`$ with $`a_k=1`$ has been introduced previously . The formula (37) in principle provides a simple algorithm to compute the refined time evolution for general $`ł_j`$ and $`a_k`$ in an analogous way to the ball-moving procedure for the $`A_n^{(1)}`$ case. The data $`d_1`$ and $`i_kI`$ are specified in Table II. Curiously, they have stemmed from the study of Demazure crystals . It will be interesting to investigate the present result in the light of the works .

## 2 Crystals

Let $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)}(n1),A_{2n1}^{(2)}(n3),A_{2n}^{(2)}(n2),B_n^{(1)}(n3),C_n^{(1)}(n2),D_n^{(1)}(n4)`$ and $`D_{n+1}^{(2)}(n2)`$. For each $`\widehat{𝔤}_n`$ and $`l_1`$, the $`U_q^{}(\widehat{𝔤}_n)`$ crystal $`B_l`$ has been constructed  except for $`C_n^{(1)}`$ with $`l`$ odd. As for $`C_n^{(1)}`$, $`B_l`$ here is $`B^{1,l}`$ in the paper . The finite set $`B_l`$ and the actions of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i:B_lB_l\{0\}`$ for $`iI=\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ (crystal structure) have been defined. We employ the same notation as  and quote the set $`B_l`$ in Appendix A. In particular for $`\widehat{𝔤}_nA_n^{(1)}`$, we will always assume the convention

$$x_a=\overline{x}_i,\overline{x}_a=x_i,\overline{a}=i\text{if}a=\overline{i},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}in.$$

Let us recall some other notations and the tensor product rule.

$$\phi _i(b)=\mathrm{max}\{j\stackrel{~}{f}_i^jb0\},\epsilon _i(b)=\mathrm{max}\{j\stackrel{~}{e}_i^jb0\}.$$

For two crystals $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$, the tensor product $`BB^{}`$ is defined as the set $`BB^{}=\{b_1b_2b_1B,b_2B^{}\}`$ with the actions of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ specified by

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_i(b_1b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{e}_ib_1b_2\hfill & \text{ if }\phi _i(b_1)\epsilon _i(b_2)\hfill \\ b_1\stackrel{~}{e}_ib_2\hfill & \text{ if }\phi _i(b_1)<\epsilon _i(b_2),\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_i(b_1b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_ib_1b_2\hfill & \text{ if }\phi _i(b_1)>\epsilon _i(b_2)\hfill \\ b_1\stackrel{~}{f}_ib_2\hfill & \text{ if }\phi _i(b_1)\epsilon _i(b_2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
Here $`0b`$ and $`b0`$ are understood to be $`0`$. Consequently one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\phi _i(b_1b_2)\hfill & =\phi _i(b_2)+(\phi _i(b_1)\epsilon _i(b_2))_+,\hfill \\ \epsilon _i(b_1b_2)\hfill & =\epsilon _i(b_1)+(\epsilon _i(b_2)\phi _i(b_1))_+,\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where the symbol $`(x)_+`$ is defined by $`(x)_+=\mathrm{max}(x,0)`$. The Weyl group operator $`S_i(iI)`$ is defined by

$$S_ib=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{\phi _i(b)\epsilon _i(b)}b\hfill & \text{ if }\phi _i(b)\epsilon _i(b),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\epsilon _i(b)\phi _i(b)}b\hfill & \text{ if }\phi _i(b)\epsilon _i(b).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
$`S_i`$ satisfies the Coxeter relations . For two crystals $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$, we let $`P:BB^{}B^{}B`$ denote the transposition $`P(uv)=vu`$. It is easy to check

$$S_iP=PS_i\text{ for any }iI.$$
(9)
For two crystals of the form $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$ and $`B^{}=B_{l_1^{}}\mathrm{}B_{l_N^{}^{}}`$, the tensor products $`BB^{}`$ and $`B^{}B`$ are isomorphic, i.e., they have the same crystal structure. The isomorphism $`R:BB^{}\stackrel{}{}B^{}B`$ is called the combinatorial $`R`$ matrix . (In this paper we do not consider the energy associated with $`R`$.) It is obtained by a successive application of the elementary ones $`B_{l_i}B_{l_j^{}}\stackrel{}{}B_{l_j^{}}B_{l_i}`$. We will use the same symbols $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i,\epsilon _i,\phi _i,S_i,P`$ and $`R`$ irrespective of the crystals that they act.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ denote a fundamental weight and let $`P_{cl}=_{iI}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ be the classical weight lattice. (See Section 3.1 of the paper  for a precise treatment.) We define a linear map $`\sigma :P_{cl}P_{cl}`$ as in the rightmost column of Table I. It is a Dynkin diagram automorphism. When $`\widehat{𝔤}_nC_n^{(1)}`$ (resp. $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=C_n^{(1)}`$), it agrees with the one introduced after Corollary 4.6.3 of the paper  with $`B=B_l`$ (resp. $`B=B_{2l}`$) for any $`l`$.

We also let $`\sigma `$ act on the index set $`I`$ by the rule $`i^{}=\sigma (i)\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{}`$. For $`A_n^{(1)}`$, the letters $`a,a1`$ should be interpreted mod $`n+1`$.

We also introduce the data $`d_{>0}`$, and the sequences $`i_d,\mathrm{},i_1I`$ and $`a_d,\mathrm{},a_0`$ for each algebra as in Table II.

Here $`a_k`$’s are taken from the letters appearing in the description of the crystals $`B_l`$ in Appendix A. In the third and the fourth columns of Table II, the symbols $`\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0,1}{1,0}\right\}`$ and $`\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{\overline{1}}\right\}`$ mean that either the simultaneous upper choice or the simultaneous lower choice are allowed.

###### Proposition 1.

For any $`l_{>0}`$ the operator $`\sigma ^{}:=S_{i_1}\mathrm{}S_{i_d}:B_lB_l`$ is a bijection having the properties:

$$\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_i=\stackrel{~}{f}_{\sigma (i)}\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\sigma (i)}\sigma ^{}.$$

Moreover, the action of $`\sigma ^{}`$ is explicitly given by the second column of Table I.

The second column of Table I specifies the transformation of those letters labeling the elements of $`B_l`$. See Appendix A. For example in $`A_n^{(1)}`$ case, $`\sigma ^{}((x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}))=(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n+1},x_1)`$ in terms of the coordinates. Similarly for $`A_{2n1}^{(2)}`$, $`\sigma ^{}((x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1))=(\overline{x}_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_2,x_1)`$. The proposition implies $`\sigma ^{}S_i=S_{\sigma (i)}\sigma ^{}`$, from which the alternative expression $`\sigma ^{}=S_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}S_{i_d}S_{\sigma ^1(i_1)}\mathrm{}S_{\sigma ^1(i_k)}`$ is available for any $`0kd`$ due to $`S_i^2=id`$. We identify $`\sigma `$ with $`\sigma ^{}`$, thereby extend the definition of its domain. Namely, we also let $`\sigma `$ act on $`B_l`$ for any $`l`$ via $`\sigma =S_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}S_{i_d}S_{\sigma ^1(i_1)}\mathrm{}S_{\sigma ^1(i_k)}`$. (We do not exhibit $`l`$.) The result is independent of $`0kd`$ and enjoys the properties $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{f}_i=\stackrel{~}{f}_{\sigma (i)}\sigma `$ and $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{e}_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\sigma (i)}\sigma `$. Proposition 1 was known  for some $`k`$. For the tensor product crystal $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$, we write $`\sigma _B=\sigma \mathrm{}\sigma :BB`$, where $`\sigma `$ on the right side acts on each component $`B_{l_j}`$ of the tensor product according to the above rule $`\sigma =S_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}S_{i_d}S_{\sigma ^1(i_1)}\mathrm{}S_{\sigma ^1(i_k)}`$. Obviously one has $`\sigma _B\stackrel{~}{f}_i=\stackrel{~}{f}_{\sigma (i)}\sigma _B`$ and $`\sigma _B\stackrel{~}{e}_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\sigma (i)}\sigma _B`$ on $`B`$, therefore

$$\sigma _BS_i=S_{\sigma (i)}\sigma _B\text{ on }B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}.$$
(10)
The combinatorial $`R`$ matrix $`R:BB^{}\stackrel{}{}B^{}B`$ satisfies

$$R(\sigma _B\sigma _B^{})=(\sigma _B^{}\sigma _B)R.$$
(11)
When acting on crystals, $`\sigma `$ without an index shall always act on a single crystal $`B_l`$ with some $`l`$.

For each $`a\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}(\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)})`$, $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,\overline{n},\mathrm{},\overline{1}\}(\widehat{𝔤}_nA_n^{(1)})`$, we set

$$\delta _l[a]=(x_a=l,x_a^{}=0\text{ for }a^{}a)B_l$$
(12)
with the notation in Appendix A. Using the crystal structure explicitly one easily finds

$`\delta _l[a_k]=S_{i_k}\left(\delta _l[a_{k1}]\right)=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\mathrm{max}}\left(\delta _l[a_{k1}]\right)1kd,`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_d}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}u=\delta _l[a_d]\text{for any }uB_l,`$ (14)
$`\phi _{i_k}(\delta _l[a_{k1}])=0,`$
for any $`\widehat{𝔤}_n`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\mathrm{max}}b=\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\epsilon _i(b)}b`$. In particular (13) implies $`\delta _l[a_d]=\sigma ^1(\delta _l[a_0])`$ due to Proposition 1. Thus it is natural to extend the definition of $`i_kI`$ and $`a_k`$ to all $`k`$ by

$$i_{k+d}=\sigma ^1(i_k),\delta _l[a_{k+d}]=\sigma ^1\left(\delta _l[a_k]\right).$$
(15)
This way of extending the index $`k`$ of $`a_k`$ is independent of $`l`$, and (13) also persists for all $`k`$. We have $`\{a_kk\}=\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ for $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)}`$ and $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,\overline{n},\mathrm{},\overline{1}\}`$ for $`\widehat{𝔤}_nA_n^{(1)}`$.

In this paper we will concern some asymptotic domain of the crystal $`B_M`$ when $`M`$ gets large. For $`a\{a_kk\}`$ and $`M1`$, we introduce the “domain” $`B_M[a]B_M`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \widehat{𝔤}_n=A_n^{(1)}:\hfill \\ & B_M[a]=\{(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1})B_Mu_au_b\text{ for any }b\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}\{a\}\},\hfill \\ & \widehat{𝔤}_nA_n^{(1)}:\hfill \\ & B_M[a]=\{(u_1,\mathrm{},\overline{u}_1)B_M|\begin{array}{c}u_a\overline{u}_a|u_b\overline{u}_b|\text{ for any }\hfill \\ b\{1,\mathrm{},n\},ba,\overline{a}\hfill \end{array}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
In the rest of the paper we will have assertions under the conditions like $`cuc^{}BB_M[a]B^{}`$ with $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ of the form $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$, $`B^{}=B_{l_1^{}}\mathrm{}B_{l_N^{}^{}}`$ ($`N,N^{}0`$). The mathematically invalid “definition” (16) should be understood that the associated assertions are valid on condition that $`M1`$ and the inequalities in (16) are satisfied. Thus for example it amounts to assuming the following:

$`\epsilon _{i_k}\phi _{i_k}\text{on }BB_M[a_{k1}]B^{},\phi _{i_k}\epsilon _{i_k}\text{on }BB_M[a_k]B^{},`$ (17)
$`\epsilon _{i_k}(ux)=\epsilon _{i_k}(u)\text{ for }uxB_M[a_k]B,`$ (18)
$`\phi _{i_{k+1}}(xu)=\phi _{i_{k+1}}(u)\text{ for }xuBB_M[a_k],`$ (19)
$`\text{If }ux\stackrel{}{}yv\text{ then }uxB_M[a]ByvBB_M[a].`$ (20)
In the above (17) can be checked by using the explicit formula  for $`\phi _i`$ and $`\epsilon _i`$. (18) and (19) follow directly from (17) and (7). By the weight reason (20) is obvious. Moreover we may effectively treat as

$$S_{i_k}(BB_M[a_{k1}]B^{})=BB_M[a_k]B^{},$$
(21)
for any $`k`$.

## 3 Combinatorial $`R`$ matrices

Let $`B`$ be any crystal of the form $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$. Our goal in this section is to prove

###### Theorem 2.

When $`M`$ is sufficiently large, the combinatorial $`R`$ matrix giving the isomorphism $`R:B_MB\stackrel{}{}BB_M`$ is expressed as

$$R=(\sigma _B\sigma )PS_{i_{k+d}}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+2}}S_{i_{k+1}}$$

on $`B_M[a_k]BB_MB`$ for any $`k`$.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`B`$ be any crystal of the form $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$. Given $`uxB_M[a_0]B`$ and $`yvBB_M[a_0]`$ we set

$`u^{|k}x^{|k}`$ $`=S_{i_k}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}(ux)B_M[a_k]B,`$
$`y^{k|}v^{k|}`$ $`=S_{i_k}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}(yv)BB_M[a_k],`$
for $`0kd`$.

It should be noted that $`u^{|k}`$ for example is not defined solely from $`u`$ but only with the other element $`x`$.

It suffices to show Theorem 2 for $`k=0`$. To see this, let $`uxB[a_0]B,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}kd`$ and assume $`ux\stackrel{}{}(\sigma _B\sigma )PS_{i_d}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}(ux)`$ under the isomorphism $`B_MBBB_M`$ with $`M`$ sufficiently large. Multiplying $`S_{i_k}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}`$ on the both sides and using (10), one gets

$$u^{|k}x^{|k}\stackrel{}{}(\sigma _B\sigma )PS_{\sigma ^1(i_k)}\mathrm{}S_{\sigma ^1(i_1)}S_{i_d}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+1}}(u^{|k}x^{|k}).$$
(22)
In view of (15) and (21) this proves $`1kd`$ case. To see it for the other $`k`$, multiply $`(\sigma ^m\sigma _B^m)`$ on the left side and $`(\sigma _B^m\sigma ^m)`$ on the right side of (22) for an integer $`m`$ and use (10) and (11).

Henceforth we shall concentrate on the $`k=0`$ case of Theorem 2 in the rest of this section. Suppose $`B_M[a_0]Bux\stackrel{}{}yvBB_M[a_0]`$ under the isomorphism $`B_MBBB_M`$ with $`M`$ sufficiently large. Then the assertion of Theorem 2 with $`k=0`$ is equivalent to

$`v`$ $`=\sigma u^{|d},`$ (23)
$`y`$ $`=\sigma _Bx^{|d}.`$ (24)
We shall prove these relations separately. In our approach, (23) can be verified directly for any choice $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$. On the other hand, as for (24), we first deal with $`N=1`$ case and derive $`N`$ general case based on it.

Let us first treat (23).

###### Definition 4.

For any crystal $`B`$ we introduce

$`t:B`$ $`_0^d`$
$`b`$ $`(t_1(b),\mathrm{},t_d(b))`$
$`t_k(b)`$ $`=\phi _{i_k}(\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_{k1}}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}b).`$
Here $`i_k`$’s are those in Table II. It is easy to calculate $`t`$ explicitly for $`B=B_l`$. For the element $`b=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})`$ for $`A_n^{(1)}`$ ($`b=(x_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)`$ for $`\widehat{𝔤}_nA_n^{(1)}`$), the result is summarized in

###### Lemma 5.

The map $`t:B_l_0^d`$ has the form:

$`t(b)`$ $`=(x_n,\mathrm{},x_1)\text{for }A_n^{(1)},`$
$`=(x_n,\mathrm{},x_3,x_2,\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_1,\overline{x}_1}{\overline{x}_1,x_1}}\right\},\overline{x}_2,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_{n1})\text{for }A_{2n1}^{(2)},`$
$`=(x_n,\mathrm{},x_1,x_0,\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_{n1})\text{for }A_{2n}^{(2)},`$
$`=(2x_n+x_0,x_{n1},\mathrm{},x_2,\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_1,\overline{x}_1}{\overline{x}_1,x_1}}\right\},\overline{x}_2,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_{n1})\text{for }B_n^{(1)},`$
$`=(x_n,\mathrm{},x_1,x_0,\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_{n1})\text{for }C_n^{(1)},`$
$`=(x_n+x_{n1},x_{n2},\mathrm{},x_2,\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_1,\overline{x}_1}{\overline{x}_1,x_1}}\right\},\overline{x}_2,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_{n2},\overline{x}_{n1}+x_n)\text{for }D_n^{(1)},`$
$`=(2x_n+x_0,x_{n1},\mathrm{},x_1,x_{\mathrm{}},\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_{n1})\text{for }D_{n+1}^{(2)}.`$
See Appendix A for the notation $`x_0`$ in $`A_{2n}^{(2)},C_n^{(1)}`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$. The upper and lower choices correspond to those in Table II. From Lemma 5 we derive a useful fact.

###### Proposition 6.

The map $`t:B_l_0^d`$ is injective for any $`l_1`$.

###### Lemma 7.

Under Definition 3 one has

$$\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k})=\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1}x^{|k1}),1kd.$$
(25)
Proof. Definition 3 tells $`u^{|k}x^{|k}=S_{i_k}(u^{|k1}x^{|k1})`$. Since $`u^{|k1}x^{|k1}B_M[a_{k1}]B`$, this $`S_{i_k}`$ acts as

$`u^{|k}x^{|k}`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^qu^{|k1}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^q^{}x^{|k1},`$ (26)
$`q`$ $`=\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\phi _{i_k}(x^{|k1})\left(\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\epsilon _{i_k}(x^{|k1})\right)_+,`$
$`q^{}`$ $`=\left(\epsilon _{i_k}(x^{|k1})\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\right)_+.`$
Thus we have $`\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k})=\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k1})q\stackrel{(\text{7})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1}x^{|k1})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For integers $`p,q`$ depending on $`M`$ in general, we write $`pq`$ to mean $`p<q`$ or $`pq=M`$-independent for $`M1`$.

###### Lemma 8.

Let $`uB_M[a_0]B_M`$ for sufficiently large $`M`$. For $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d)_0^d`$, define $`u^k(0kd)`$ by $`u^k=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{k1})c_k}u^{k1}(1kd)`$ and $`u^0=u`$. Suppose $`c_jt_j(u)`$ for all $`1jd`$. Then the following hold for $`1kd`$:

$`\phi _{i_k}(u^{k1})=t_k(u),`$ (27)
$`\epsilon _{i_k}(u^k)=c_k,`$ (28)
$`t_k(\sigma u^d)=c_k.`$ (29)
Although $`u^k`$ depends on $`c_j`$’s, the right side of (27) is independent of them. Actually (28) is trivial. The other relations in the lemma can be verified with a direct calculation by using the crystal structure of $`B_M`$. Under Definition 3, Lemma 8 immediately leads to ($`1kd`$)

$`\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})=t_k(u),`$ (30)
$`\phi _{i_k}(v^{k1|})=t_k(v),`$ (31)
$`\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k})=t_k(\sigma u^{|d}).`$ (32)
The right sides of (30) and (31) are independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$ in Definition 3, respectively.

Proof of (23). Suppose $`B_M[a_0]Bux\stackrel{}{}yvBB_M[a_0]`$ under the isomorphism $`B_MBBB_M`$ with $`M`$ sufficiently large. We employ the notation in Definition 3. Applying $`S_{i_{k1}}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}`$ to the both sides of $`ux\stackrel{}{}yv`$, one gets $`u^{|k1}x^{|k1}\stackrel{}{}y^{k1|}v^{k1|}`$, therefore $`\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1}x^{|k1})=\phi _{i_k}(y^{k1|}v^{k1|})`$. But

$`\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1}x^{|k1})`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{25})}{=}\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k})\stackrel{(\text{32})}{=}t_k(\sigma u^{|d}),`$
$`\phi _{i_k}(y^{k1|}v^{k1|})`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{19})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(v^{k1|})\stackrel{(\text{31})}{=}t_k(v),`$
are valid for $`1kd`$, telling that $`t(v)=t(\sigma u^{|d})`$. Thus (23) follows from Proposition 6. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we proceed to the proof of (24) with the simple choice $`B=B_l`$.

###### Lemma 9.

Suppose $`B_M[a_0]B_l\delta _M[a_0]z\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{u}B_lB_M[a_0]`$ under the isomorphism $`B_MB_lB_lB_M`$ with $`M`$ sufficiently large. Then we have $`t(\stackrel{~}{u})=t(z)`$.

Proof. Define $`u^{|k}z^{|k}`$ by Definition 3 starting from $`uz=u^{|0}z^{|0}=\delta _M[a_0]z`$. From (23) we already know that $`\stackrel{~}{u}=\sigma u^{|d}`$. Thus we have

$`t_k(\stackrel{~}{u})`$ $`=t_k(\sigma u^{|d})\stackrel{(\text{32})}{=}\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k})\stackrel{(\text{25})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1}z^{|k1})`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{7})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(z^{|k1})+\left(\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\epsilon _{i_k}(z^{|k1})\right)_+`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{30})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(z^{|k1})+\left(t_k(u)\epsilon _{i_k}(z^{|k1})\right)_+.`$
Note from the explicit forms in Lemma 5 that $`t_k(u)=t_k(\delta _M[a_0])=0`$, from which $`t_k(\stackrel{~}{u})=\phi _{i_k}(z^{|k1})`$ follows. In view of $`\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\stackrel{(\text{30})}{=}t_k(u)=0`$ and (17), it also follows that $`z^{|k}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}z`$. Therefore we conclude $`\phi _{i_k}(z^{|k1})=t_k(z)`$ from Definition 4. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 10.

Given $`yvB_lB_M[a_0]`$, set

$$y^{(k)}v^{(k)}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}(yv)$$

for $`0kd`$. Then we have $`t(\sigma v^{(d)})=t(y)`$.

Proof. Since $`y^{(k)}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}y`$, we have

$$v^{(k)}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\epsilon _{i_k}(v^{(k1)})\phi _{i_k}(y^{(k1)})}v^{(k1)}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\epsilon _{i_k}(v^{(k1)})t_k(y)}v^{(k1)}.$$

Applying (29) we obtain $`t(\sigma v^{(d)})=t(y)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of (24) for $`B=B_l`$. Suppose $`B_M[a_0]B_lux\stackrel{}{}yvB_lB_M[a_0]`$ under the isomorphism $`B_MB_lB_lB_M`$ with $`M`$ sufficiently large. We employ the notation in Definition 3. Applying $`(\sigma \sigma )\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_d}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ to the both sides and using (14), one finds

$$B_M[a_0]B_l\delta _M[a_0]\sigma x^{|d}\stackrel{}{}(\sigma \sigma )\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_d}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}(yv)B_lB_M[a_0].$$

Setting

$`\delta _M[a_0]\sigma x^{|d}`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{u}B_lB_M[a_0],`$
$`(\sigma \sigma )\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_d}^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_1}^{\mathrm{max}}(yv)`$ $`=(\sigma y^{(d)})(\sigma v^{(d)}),`$
we have $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\sigma y^{(d)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}=\sigma v^{(d)}`$. Thus $`t(\stackrel{~}{u})=t(\sigma v^{(d)})`$. But we know $`t(\stackrel{~}{u})=t(\sigma x^{|d})`$ from Lemma 9 and $`t(\sigma v^{(d)})=t(y)`$ from Lemma 10. Therefore $`t(\sigma x^{|d})=t(y)`$, compelling $`y=\sigma x^{|d}`$ by Proposition 6. $`\mathrm{}`$

To show (24) for the general choice $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$, we prepare

###### Definition 11.

For $`s,s^{}_0,b,b^{}B_l`$ and $`iI`$, we let the vertex diagram

denote the relations

$$b^{}=\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{(\epsilon _i(b)s)_+}b,s^{}=\phi _i(b)+(s\epsilon _i(b))_+.$$

Here $`l`$ can be any positive integer but we do not exhibit it in the diagram. The color $`iI`$ is attached to the horizontal line. The diagram should not be confused with the one representing the combinatorial $`R`$ matrix . Given $`i`$, $`(b^{},s^{})`$ is uniquely fixed from $`(b,s)`$. Thus for example the diagram

is uniquely determined from $`s_0,i`$ and $`b_1\mathrm{}b_N`$. From Definition 11 it implies

$$b_1^{}\mathrm{}b_N^{}=\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\left(\epsilon _i(b_1\mathrm{}b_N)s_0\right)_+}(b_1\mathrm{}b_N).$$
(33)
Having established Theorem 2 for $`B=B_l`$, we already know that

$$B_M[a_0]B_lub\stackrel{}{}\sigma b^{|d}\sigma u^{|d}B_lB_M[a_0]$$

under the isomorphism $`B_MB_lB_lB_M`$ for $`M`$ sufficiently large, where $`u^{|k}b^{|k}=S_{i_k}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}(ub)(0kd)`$.

###### Proposition 12.

Under the above stated setting, the following diagram holds.

Proof. By Definition 11 we are to check

$`b^{|k}`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\left(\epsilon _{i_k}(b^{|k1})t_k(u)\right)_+}b^{|k1},`$
$`t_k(\sigma u^{|d})`$ $`=\phi _{i_k}(b^{|k1})+\left(t_k(u)\epsilon _{i_k}(b^{|k1})\right)_+,`$
for $`1kd`$. To show the former, set $`x=b`$ and apply (30) in $`q^{}`$ appearing in (26). The left side of the latter reads

$`t_k(\sigma u^{|d})`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{32})}{=}\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k})\stackrel{(\text{25})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1}b^{|k1})`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{7})}{=}\phi _{i_k}(b^{|k1})+\left(\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\epsilon _{i_k}(b^{|k1})\right)_+,`$
which is equal to the right side owing to (30). $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of (24) for $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$. Given any $`x=b_1\mathrm{}b_NB`$ and $`uB_M[a_0]`$, set $`s_{0,k}=t_k(u)(1kd)`$. Let $`b_j^{|k}B_{l_j},s_{j,k}_0(1kd,1jN)`$ be the ones uniquely determined from the diagram:

By a repeated use of Proposition 12, one has

$`ub_1\mathrm{}b_N`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\sigma b_1^{|d}\sigma b_2^{|d}\mathrm{}\sigma b_N^{|d}v`$
$`=\left(\sigma _B\left(b_1^{|d}\mathrm{}b_N^{|d}\right)\right)v`$
under the isomorphism $`B_MBBB_M`$ with sufficiently large $`M`$. On the other hand we introduce $`u^{|k}x^{|k}:=S_{i_k}\mathrm{}S_{i_1}(ux)B_M[a_k]B`$. (Although not necessary here, $`vB_M[a_0]`$ is uniquely determined from $`t(v)=(s_{N,1},\mathrm{},s_{N,d})`$ by Proposition 6, and we already know that the result coincides with $`v=\sigma u^{|d}`$ from (23).) We are to show $`x^{|d}=b_1^{|d}\mathrm{}b_N^{|d}`$. In fact, $`x^{|k}=b_1^{|k}\mathrm{}b_N^{|k}`$ can be proved by induction on $`k`$ as follows. (We set $`b_1^{|0}\mathrm{}b_N^{|0}=b_1\mathrm{}b_N`$.) It is obvious for $`k=0`$. From (33) we have

$$b_1^{|k}\mathrm{}b_N^{|k}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{(ms_{0,k})_+}(b_1^{|k1}\mathrm{}b_N^{|k1}),$$
(34)
where $`m=\epsilon _{i_k}(b_1^{|k1}\mathrm{}b_N^{|k1})`$. On the other hand, $`x^{|k}`$ is determined from the recursion relation:

$$x^{|k}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_k}^{\left(\epsilon _{i_k}(x^{|k1})\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\right)_+}x^{|k1},$$
(35)
because of $`\epsilon _{i_k}(u^{|k1})1`$. Note that $`\phi _{i_k}(u^{|k1})\stackrel{(\text{30})}{=}t_k(u)=s_{0,k}`$. Thus the two recursion relations (34) and (35) lead to $`x^{|k}=b_1^{|k}\mathrm{}b_N^{|k}`$ under the induction assumption $`x^{|k1}=b_1^{|k1}\mathrm{}b_N^{|k1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have finished the proof of (24) for any $`B=B_{l_1}\mathrm{}B_{l_N}`$, and thereby the proof of Theorem 2.

###### Example 13.

Consider $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_3^{(1)}(d=3)`$. The data in Table II reads $`i_ja_j4j`$ mod 4 with $`i_j\{0,1,2,3\}`$ and $`a_j\{1,2,3,4\}`$. To save the space the element $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=(3,2,1,0)B_6`$ is denoted by $`111223`$ for example. Then one has $`\sigma (111223)=112444`$ according to Table I.

Let us take $`bc=111223344B_6B_3`$ and seek its image under the isomorphism $`R:B_6B_3\stackrel{}{}B_3B_6`$. It is known  that $`R(bc)=223111344`$. This can be derived by taking $`N=1,M=6`$ and $`k=3`$ in Theorem 2, which reads $`R=(\sigma \sigma )PS_2S_3S_0`$. Namely we may regard $`bcB_M[1]B_3`$, where $`M=6`$ and $`x_1=3`$ for $`b`$ are already sufficiently large so that

$`bc=111223344`$ $`\stackrel{S_0}{}112234344`$
$`\stackrel{S_3}{}112234334`$
$`\stackrel{S_2}{}112224334`$
$`\stackrel{P}{}334112224\stackrel{\sigma \sigma }{}223111344=R(bc).`$
For comparison, take a smaller example $`R(11223344)=22311344B_3B_5`$. Theorem 2 is not applicable in this case under any choice of $`k`$ because $`S_i(11223344)=11223344`$ for any $`i\{0,1,2,3\}`$ and $`(\sigma \sigma )P(11223344)=2331124422311344`$.

## 4 Cellular Automata

The factorization of the combinatorial $`R`$ matrix shown in Theorem 2 induces the factorization of the time evolution of the associated cellular automaton. Consider the isomorphism

$$B_M(\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{})\stackrel{}{}(\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{})B_M$$

induced by the successive application of combinatorial $`R`$ matrix $`B_MB_{l_j}B_{j_j}B_M`$. We impose the boundary condition on $`b_jB_{l_j}`$ as $`b_j=\delta _{l_j}[a_k]`$ for $`|j|1`$, where the choice of $`k`$ is arbitrary. Assume the following properties:

(i) $`\delta _M[a_k]\delta _l[a_k]\stackrel{}{}\delta _l[a_k]\delta _M[a_k]\text{ for any }M,l,`$
(ii) $`u\delta _{l_j}[a_k]\delta _{l_{j+1}}[a_k]\mathrm{}\delta _{l_{j+N}}[a_k]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{b}_j\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{b}_{j+N}\delta _M[a_k]`$
$`\text{for any }uB_M\text{ if }N\text{ is sufficiently large},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{l_j}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{b}_{l_{j+N}}`$ is some element in $`B_{l_j}\mathrm{}B_{l_{j+N}}`$. ((i) is indeed valid by the weight reason.) Then under the isomorphism $`B_M(\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{})(\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{})B_M`$,

$$\delta _M[a_k](\mathrm{}b_jb_{j+1}\mathrm{})\stackrel{}{}(\mathrm{}b_j^{}b_{j+1}^{}\mathrm{})\delta _M[a_k]$$
(36)
is valid for some $`b_j^{}`$’s. One may regard the system as an automaton which undergoes the time evolution $`p=\mathrm{}b_jb_{j+1}\mathrm{}p^{}=\mathrm{}b_j^{}b_{j+1}^{}\mathrm{}`$. When $`M`$ gets large, the transformation $`pp^{}`$ stabilizes to a certain map, which we denote  by $`T(p)=p^{}`$. By taking $`B=\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$ in Theorem 2 and using (10), (15) we obtain

###### Corollary 14.

Under the boundary condition $`b_j=\delta _{l_j}[a_k]B_{l_j}`$ for $`|j|1`$, the time evolution $`T`$ acts on $`B=\mathrm{}B_{l_j}B_{l_{j+1}}\mathrm{}`$ as

$$T^t=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _B^tS_{i_{k+td}}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+2}}S_{i_{k+1}}& \text{ if }t_0,\hfill \\ \sigma _B^tS_{i_{k+td+1}}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k1}}S_{i_k}& \text{ if }t_{<0}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Actually all the Weyl group operators $`S_{i_m}`$ for $`t>0`$ (resp. $`t<0`$) in the above act as $`S_{i_m}=\stackrel{~}{e}_{i_m}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ (resp. $`S_{i_m}=\stackrel{~}{f}_{i_m}^{\mathrm{max}}`$) on $`B`$ since they always hit such states $`pB`$ that $`\epsilon _{i_m}(p)1`$ (resp. $`\phi _{i_m}(p)1`$). Corollary 14 exhibits a factorization of the time evolution of the automaton having the background (vacuum) configuration $`\mathrm{}\delta _{l_j}[a_k]\delta _{l_{j+1}}[a_k]\mathrm{}`$ specified by $`k`$. When the partial factor $`S_{i_m}S_{i_{m1}}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+1}}(k+dmk+1)`$ in $`T`$ is applied, the background, hence the boundary condition, changes into $`\mathrm{}\delta _{l_j}[a_m]\delta _{l_{j+1}}[a_m]\mathrm{}`$ according to (13). A generalization of $`T`$ that does not change the background in every intermediate step is constructed as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒯_m\hfill & =\sigma _{B,k,m}S_{i_m}\mathrm{}S_{i_{k+2}}S_{i_{k+1}},mk+1,\hfill \\ \sigma _{B,k,m}\hfill & =\mathrm{}\sigma _{k,m}\sigma _{k,m}\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \sigma _{k,m}\hfill & =S_{i_{k+1}}S_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}S_{i_m},\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
where $`\sigma _{k,m}`$ acts on each component $`B_{l_j}`$ of the tensor product. We understand $`𝒯_k=id`$. For any $`mk`$, the operator $`𝒯_m`$ retains the background in the original form $`\mathrm{}\delta _{l_j}[a_k]\delta _{l_{j+1}}[a_k]\mathrm{}`$ due to (13). Moreover from Corollary 14 we find that the original evolution under $`t`$-time step $`T^t`$ is included in $`\{𝒯_m\}`$ as $`T^t=𝒯_{k+td}(t0)`$. For $`A_n^{(1)}`$ the evolution of the state $`p`$ according to $`p=𝒯_k(p),𝒯_{k+1}(p),𝒯_{k+2}(p),\mathrm{}`$ agrees with that obtained by the ball-moving algorithm in the box-ball systems  under a convention adjustment. In particular for $`A_1^{(1)}`$, the evolution rule in terms of the Dyck language  essentially agrees with the crystal theoretic signature rule in applying $`S_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{\mathrm{max}}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i^{\mathrm{max}}(i=0,1)`$ explained in section 1.3 of the reference .

###### Example 15.

Consider $`\widehat{𝔤}_n=A_5^{(2)}(d=5)`$. To save the space the element $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,\overline{x}_3,\overline{x}_2,\overline{x}_1)=(2,1,2,1,0,1)B_7`$ is denoted by $`11233\overline{3}\overline{1}`$ for example. Let us take $`k=0`$, hence the initial background is $`\mathrm{}\delta _{l_j}[\overline{3}]\delta _{l_{j+1}}[\overline{3}]\mathrm{}`$. We employ $`i_5,\mathrm{},i_1=2,0,1,2,3`$ and $`a_5,\mathrm{},a_0=\overline{3},\overline{2},1,2,3,\overline{3}`$ correspondingly. Take

$$p=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{1}2\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}B_2B_2B_1B_2B_1B_2B_2\mathrm{},$$

where $``$ stands for $``$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ parts on the both ends represent the configuration identical with the background. Then the time evolution (36) is given by

$$T(p)=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}23\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}.$$

According to Corollary 14, the evolution is decomposed into the following steps.

$`p`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{1}2\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`S_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}331\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{1}23333\mathrm{}`$
$`S_2S_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}221\overline{3}2\overline{3}\overline{1}23322\mathrm{}`$
$`S_1S_2S_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}111\overline{3}2\overline{3}\overline{2}13311\mathrm{}`$
$`S_0S_1S_2S_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{2}\overline{2}\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}\overline{3}\overline{2}133\overline{2}\overline{2}\mathrm{}`$
$`S_2S_0S_1S_2S_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{1}\overline{3}\overline{2}123\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`\sigma _BS_2S_0S_1S_2S_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}23\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}=T(p),`$
where in the last step we used the fact that $`\sigma _B`$ interchanges the letters $`1`$ and $`\overline{1}`$ in each component as specified in Table I. Here the background configuration is changing except the last step.

Alternatively the evolution may also be decomposed according to (37) into the following steps, in which the original background $`\mathrm{}\delta _{l_j}[\overline{3}]\delta _{l_{j+1}}[\overline{3}]\mathrm{}`$ is kept unchanged.

$`p=𝒯_0(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{2}3\overline{3}\overline{1}2\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`𝒯_1(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{2}\overline{3}3\overline{1}2\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`𝒯_2(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{2}\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}\overline{3}22\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`𝒯_3(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{2}1\overline{2}\overline{1}\overline{3}22\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`𝒯_4(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{2}1\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}22\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}`$
$`𝒯_5(p)`$ $`=\mathrm{}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}\overline{3}1\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}23\overline{3}\overline{3}\mathrm{}=T(p).`$
Regarding $`\overline{3}`$ as empty space in a box, one can interpret the above patterns as a motion of particles and anti-particles which can form a neutral (weight 0) bound state. We hope to report on the explicit algorithm for general $`\widehat{𝔤}_n`$ elsewhere.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Masato Okado and Yasuhiko Yamada for useful discussions. One of the authors (A.K.) appreciates the warm hospitality of the organizers of The Baxter Revolution in Mathematical Physics, held at Australian National University, Canberra during February 13–19, 2000, where a part of this work was presented.

## Appendix A Parameterization of $`B_l`$

We list the parameterization of the crystal $`B_l`$. In $`A_n^{(1)}`$ case, it may be identified with the set of semistandard Young tableaux of length $`l`$ one row shape on letters $`\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$. For the other $`\widehat{𝔤}_n`$, $`B_l`$ may be viewed as a similar set with some additional constraints. The relevant letters are $`\{1,\mathrm{},n,\overline{n},\mathrm{},\overline{1}\}`$ as well as $`0`$ and/or $`\mathrm{}`$ depending on $`\widehat{𝔤}_n`$. The crystal structure (actions of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$) can be found in the article  for $`C_n^{(1)}`$ and the ones  for the other $`\widehat{𝔤}_n`$.

$$A_n^{(1)}:B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})^{n+1}|x_i0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}x_i=l\}.$$

$$A_{2n1}^{(2)}:B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}|x_i,\overline{x}_i0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i)=l\}.$$

$`A_{2n}^{(2)}:`$ $`B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}|x_i,\overline{x}_i0,{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i)l\}.`$
$`\text{We set }x_0=l{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i).`$
$$B_n^{(1)}:B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,x_0,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}\times \{0,1\}|\begin{array}{c}x_0=0\text{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},x_i,\overline{x}_i0,\\ x_0+_{i=1}^n(x_i+\overline{x}_i)=l\end{array}\}.$$

$`C_n^{(1)}:`$ $`B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}|\begin{array}{c}x_i,\overline{x}_i0,\hfill \\ l_{i=1}^n(x_i+\overline{x}_i)l2\hfill \end{array}\}.`$
$`\text{We set }x_0=(l{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i))/2.`$
$$D_n^{(1)}:B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}|\begin{array}{c}x_n=0\text{or}\overline{x}_n=0,x_i,\overline{x}_i0,\\ _{i=1}^n(x_i+\overline{x}_i)=l\end{array}\}.$$

$`D_{n+1}^{(2)}:`$ $`B_l=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,x_0,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}\times \{0,1\}|\begin{array}{c}x_0=0\text{ or }1,x_i,\overline{x}_i0,\hfill \\ x_0+_{i=1}^n(x_i+\overline{x}_i)l\hfill \end{array}\}.`$
$`\text{We set }x_{\mathrm{}}=lx_0{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i).`$


format: text

text:
# Nonperturbative approach to a simple model with ultravioletly divergent eigenenergies in perturbation theory

## I Introduction

Models in quantum field theories usually have the problem of ultraviolet divergence in the framework of perturbation theory (see, e.g., ). For renormalizable models, ultraviolet divergence can be removed by renormalization techniques, but at the cost that renormalized masses of particles can not be explained in the framework of the theory. On the other hand, non-renormalizable models are usually rejected, since for them it is not clear at the present stage how to obtain finite results for high order corrections in perturbation theory. However, rigorously to say, the break-down of perturbative treatment to a model does not necessarily mean that the model cannot give meaningful results when it is treated nonperturbatively. The point here is that nonperturbative approach to behaviors of states of ultravioletly divergent models is generally quite difficult. In particular, it is still not clear whether the Hamiltonian of a model suffering ultraviolet divergence in the framework of perturbation theory could have eigenstates with finite energies. This problem is of interest, since, if the answer is positive, then, the ultraviolet divergence may be avoidable in nonperturbative treatment and finite energies of ground states may be associated with masses of particles observed experimentally.

In this paper we will show that the answer is indeed positive. For this purpose, we study a simple quantized model, which gives ultravioletly divergent results in the framework of perturbation theory. The model has an interaction structure similar to that of QED in the number representation, so that most of the arguments given to it can be extended to the case of QED. (In this paper, by interaction structure in a representation, we mean the way in which basis states of the representation are coupled by the interaction term of the Hamiltonian, that is, the structure of the non-zero off-diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian matrix in the representation.) For this reason, whether the simple model has an appropriate form in configuration space does not matter here.

Similar to QED, the Hilbert space of the simple model studied in this paper is infinite even when the momentum space is cut off and discretized. For the infinite Hilbert space, not all the theorems for eigen-solutions of Hamiltonians in finite Hilbert spaces hold. For example, eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of the simple model do not span the whole infinite Hilbert space. In particular, we find that eigenstates and eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian can be expressed in terms of themselves, and, as a result, the eigenenergies can remain finite when the cut-off of momentum is taken off, even if second order corrections to the eigenenergies in perturbation theory is ultravioletly divergent.

Concretely, this paper is organized in the following way. In section II, we introduce the quantized model, discuss the structure of basis states and the structure of the Hamiltonian matrix in the basis states. In section III, we truncate the infinite Hilbert space of the model, so that obtain a series of finite Hilbert spaces, the limit of which gives the infinite Hilbert space. For each truncated finite Hilbert space, we construct another set of basis states by making use of energy eigenstates of another finite Hilbert space. The Hamiltonian matrix in the representation of the new set of basis states is quite simple and can be diagonalized easily. Section IV is devoted to discussions for eigenstates and eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian of the model in the infinite Hilbert space. We show that it is possible for the eigenenergies to be finite, even if perturbative treatment gives divergent results. Conclusions and discussions are given in section V.

## II A simple quantized model

Since realistic models, such as the standard model, are complicated, in this paper, as a first step to the method that is to be developed for nonperturbative approach to eigenstates and eigenenergies of Hamiltonians in quantum field theories, we choose a model as simple as possible to study. Such a model should have an interaction structure similar to that of QED and may have ultraviolet divergence, so that the method developed in this paper for the model can be extended to treat realistic models, such as QED and the standard model. Since here we are interested in properties of eigen-solutions of Hamiltonians only, we are not to start from a classical Lagrangian expressed in configuration space, but start from a Hamiltonian expressed in terms of creation and annihilation operators for free fields.

The simplest model satisfying the above requirements is composed of a quantized fermion field and a quantized boson field in 1-dimensional momentum space. Denoting the creation and annihilation operators for a free fermion field with momentum $`p`$ and for a free boson field with momentum $`k`$ as $`b^{}(p)`$, $`b(p)`$, and $`a^{}(k)`$, a(k), respectively, the Hamiltonian of the model is taken as

$$H=H_f+H_b+H_I$$
(1)
where

$`H_f={\displaystyle p_0b^{}(p)b(p)𝑑p}`$ (2)
$`H_b={\displaystyle k_0a^{}(k)a(k)𝑑k}`$ (3)
$`H_I={\displaystyle }(V(p_1,p_2,k)b^{}(p_2)b(p_1)a^{}(k)+h.c.)\delta (p_1p_2k)dp_1dp_2dk`$ (4)
with $`p_0=|p|`$ and $`k_0=|k|`$. The operators $`b^{}(p)`$ and $`b(p^{})`$ satisfy the usual anticommutation relations and $`a^{}(k)`$ and $`a(k^{})`$ satisfy the usual commutation relations. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ are taken to be unit, $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. The interaction structure of this Hamiltonian in the number representation, given by the expression of $`H_I`$ in Eq. (4), is clearly similar to (although simpler than) that of QED.

For the sake of convenience in discussing properties of the Hamiltonian $`H`$, we discretize the momentum space and take a cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that is, we take

$$p=p_i=i\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Lambda },k=k_j=j\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(5)
where $`i,j=0,1,\mathrm{},N`$ with $`N=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }p`$. The Hamiltonian of the model expressed in terms of summations over $`p=p_i`$ and $`k=k_j`$ is

$$H(\mathrm{\Lambda })=H_f(\mathrm{\Lambda })+H_b(\mathrm{\Lambda })+H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(6)
where

$`H_f(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}p_0b^{}(p)b(p)`$ (7)
$`H_b(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}k_0a^{}(k)a(k)`$ (8)
$`H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \underset{p_1,p_2}{}}(V(p_1,p_2)b^{}(p_2)b(p_1)a^{}(p_1p_2)+h.c.).`$ (9)
In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ becomes the $`H`$ in Eq. (1). In this paper we assume that with finite cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the model is free from divergence.

Since $`H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })a^{}(k)|0=0`$, where $`|0`$ is the vacuum state, states $`a^{}(k)|0`$, denoted by $`|s_k`$ after normalization, are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We are not interested in this kind of trivial eigenstates here. What we are interested in are fermion-type eigenstates. The simplest fermion-type eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are in the Hilbert space spanned by the state $`b^{}(p)|0`$, denoted by $`|f_p`$ after normalization, and all the states that can be coupled to $`|f_p`$ by $`H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, the product of $`m`$ $`H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, with $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. It is this Hilbert space that we are to study in this paper, which will be denoted by $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

Concretely to say, basis states of the Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be taken as

$$|f_{pk_1\mathrm{}k_m}s_{k_1}\mathrm{}s_{k_m}N_{p,k_1,\mathrm{},k_m}b^{}(pk_1\mathrm{}k_m)a^{}(k_1)\mathrm{}a^{}(k_m)|0$$
(10)
for $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (the case for $`m=0`$ is just $`|f_p`$), where $`N_{p,k_1,\mathrm{},k_m}`$ are normalization coefficients. Noticing that the basis states $`|f_{pk_1\mathrm{}k_m}s_{k_1}\mathrm{}s_{k_m}`$ for all possible $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_m`$ can be coupled to the state $`|f_p`$ by $`H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, we will denote the set of them by $`\{H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ in what follows. Then, the basis states of the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in Eq. (10) are elements of the following sets

$$\{H_I^0(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p=|f_p\},\{H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\},\{H_I^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\},\{H_I^3(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\},\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
In some cases in the following sections, for brevity, instead of the expression in Eq. (10), we use $`|\xi _{i_m}(m,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to denote basis states in the set $`\{H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$, i.e., we use $`i_m`$ to denote $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$. For example, $`|\xi _{i_0}(0,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ indicates $`|f_p`$ with $`i_0=1`$, $`|\xi _{i_1}(1,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ indicates $`|f_{pk_1}s_{k_1}`$ with $`i_1=k_1`$, and so on.

The interaction structure of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the basis states in Eq. (10), i.e., the structure of the non-zero off-diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian matrix in the basis states, has an interesting tree structure: The basis state $`|f_p`$ is coupled to basis states in the set $`\{H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ only; basis states in the set $`\{H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ are coupled to basis states in the sets $`\{|f_p\}`$ and $`\{H_I^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ only; $`\mathrm{}`$; basis states in the set $`\{H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ are coupled to basis states in the sets $`\{H_I^{m1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ and $`\{H_I^{m+1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ only; $`\mathrm{}`$. It is easy to show that, with this structure of the Hamiltonian matrix, when the coupling strength $`V(p_1,p_2)`$ in Eq. (9) is strong enough, second order corrections to the eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are ultravioletly divergent in perturbation theory when the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ approaches to infinity.

## III  Truncated Hilbert space and $`\psi _s`$ representation

The Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ spanned by the basis states in the sets given in (11) is infinite, although the momentum space has been cut off by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since the problem of eigen-solutions of a Hamiltonian in an infinite Hilbert space is more difficult than that in a finite Hilbert space and many theorems in the latter case are invalid in the former case, in this section we truncate the Hilbert space to a series of finite ones and discuss properties of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the truncated finite Hilbert spaces. Then, in the next section, we discuss what we could have when the truncated finite Hilbert spaces resume the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

### A Truncated finite Hilbert spaces

A truncated finite Hilbert space, denoted by $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, is spanned by basis states in a set $`A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ defined by

$$A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{|f_p\}\{H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}\mathrm{}\{H_I^n(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}.$$
(12)
When $`n`$ goes to infinity, the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ will become the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

Normalized eigenstates and the corresponding eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the truncated finite Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are denoted by $`|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`E_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, respectively,

$$H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=E_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(13)
These states $`|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ also span the Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and can be expanded in the basis states in the set $`A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$,

$$|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i_m}{}C_{\alpha _n,i_m}(n,m,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\xi _{i_m}(m,p,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(14)
where $`C_{\alpha _n,i_m}(n,m,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are expanding coefficients.

The set $`A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ has an interesting structure: It can be expressed by making use of the sets $`A(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. To see this, first note that the product of two basis states $`|s_k`$ and $`|f_{pkk_1\mathrm{}k_m}s_{k_1}\mathrm{}s_{k_m}`$ is

$$|s_k|f_{pkk_1\mathrm{}k_m}s_{k_1}\mathrm{}s_{k_m}=|f_{pkk_1\mathrm{}k_m}s_{k_1}\mathrm{}s_{k_m}s_k.$$
(15)
From Eq. (10), it is easy to see that each basis state in the set $`\{H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ with $`m1`$ can be expressed as the product of a basis state $`|s_k`$ and a basis state in the set $`\{H_I^{m1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}\}`$. Then, denoting the set of the product of the basis states $`|s_k`$ and the basis states in the set $`A(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for all possible $`k`$ as $`B(n1,p,k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$,

$$B(n1,p,k,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{|s_k|\xi :\mathrm{for}|\xi A(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{and}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{possible}k\},$$
(16)
the set $`A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be reexpressed as

$$A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{|f_p\}\underset{k}{}B(n1,p,k,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(17)
In the next subsection, we show that this structure of the set $`A(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ enables us to construct another set of basis states, in which the Hamiltonian matrix can be diagonalized explicitly.

### B $`\psi _s`$-representation in truncated finite Hilbert spaces

Making use of the definition of product of basis states given in Eq. (15) and the expansion of eigenstates in Eq. (14), it is easy to get $`|s_k|\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, the product of a state $`|s_k`$ and an eigenstate $`|\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the truncated Hilbert space $`L_{n1}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which will be denoted by $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$,

$$|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{i_m}{}C_{\alpha _{n1},i_m}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k|\xi _{i_m}(m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(18)
These states $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ span the same Hilbert space as the states in the set $`B(n1,p,k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in Eq. (16). Therefore, these states together with the state $`|f_p`$ also span the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

Now we show that in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$, the states $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are orthogonal to each other and together with $`|f_p`$ form another set of orthogonal basis states for the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. To prove this, we rewrite $`|\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the form

$$|\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}|h_{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(19)
where

$$|h_{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{i_m}{}C_{\alpha _{n1},i_m}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\xi _{i_m}(m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(20)
for example,

$`|h_{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,0,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=C_{\alpha _{n1},1}(n1,0,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}`$ (21)
$`|h_{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \underset{k_1}{}}C_{\alpha _{n1},k_1}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pkk_1}s_{k_1}.`$ (22)
The states $`|h_{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are projections of the state $`|\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the subspaces spanned by states in the sets $`\{H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}\}`$, respectively, therefore, $`|h_{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with different $`m`$ are orthogonal to each other.

Making use of Eq. (19), we have

$$s_k^{}\psi _{\alpha _{n1}^{}}(n1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}I_m,$$
(23)
where

$$I_m=s_k^{}h_{\alpha _{n1}^{}}(n1,m,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(24)
with $`|s_k^{}h_{\alpha _{n1}^{}}(n1,m,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })=|s_k^{}|h_{\alpha _{n1}^{}}(n1,m,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ defined in the same way as $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in Eq. (18). It is easy to verify that

$`I_0=C_{\alpha _{n1}^{},1}^{}(n1,0,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })C_{\alpha _{n1},1}(n1,0,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _{kk^{}}`$ (25)
$`I_1=C_{\alpha _{n1}^{},k}^{}(n1,1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })C_{\alpha _{n1},k^{}}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k_1}{}}C_{\alpha _{n1}^{},k_1}^{}(n1,1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })C_{\alpha _{n1},k_1}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _{kk^{}}.`$ (27)
Here we assume that in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$, there is no singularity in the coefficients $`C_{\alpha _{n1},i_m}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for fixed $`n1`$ and $`m`$, i.e., $`C_{\alpha _{n1},i_m}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a smooth function of $`i_m`$. Then, since

$$\underset{k_1}{}|C_{\alpha _{n1},k_1}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2<1,$$
(28)
when the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ for discretizing the momentum $`k_1`$ goes to zero, the value of $`C_{\alpha _{n1}^{},k}^{}(n1,1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })C_{\alpha _{n1},k^{}}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ should approach to zero, and Eq. (27) gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }p0}{lim}I_1=\underset{k_1}{}C_{\alpha _{n1}^{},k_1}^{}(n1,1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })C_{\alpha _{n1},k_1}(n1,1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _{kk^{}}.$$
(29)
Similar results can also be obtained for the other $`I_m`$, and finally we have

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }p0}{lim}s_k^{}\psi _{\alpha _{n1}^{}}(n1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (30)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_m}{}}C_{\alpha _{n1}^{},i_m}^{}(n1,m,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })C_{\alpha _{n1},i_m}(n1,m,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _{kk^{}}=\delta _{\alpha _{n1}\alpha _{n1}^{}}\delta _{kk^{}}.`$ (31)
That is to say, the states $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are normalized and orthogonal to each other. Therefore, these states and the state $`|f_p`$ form another set of normalized orthogonal basis states for the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The representation given by this set of basis states in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$, will be termed $`\psi _s`$-representation in what follows.

The Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ has a quite simple matrix form in the $`\psi _s`$-representation of the Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. In fact, similar to Eq. (31), one can verify that

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }p0}{lim}s_k^{}\psi _{\alpha _{n1}^{}}(n1,pk^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (32)
$`=s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta _{\alpha _{n1}\alpha _{n1}^{}}\delta _{kk^{}}.`$ (33)
Therefore, the non-zero off-diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian matrix in the $`\psi _s`$-representation are those connecting the state $`|f_p`$ and the states $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ only. Diagonalization of the Hamiltonian matrix with such a simple structure is quite easy, which gives

$`E_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })f_p|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p`$ (34)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,\alpha _{n1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|f_p|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\right|^2}{E_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })}}`$ (35)
and

$$|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=D_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p+\underset{k,\alpha _{n1}}{}D_{\alpha _n,k\alpha _{n1}}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(36)
where

$$D_{\alpha _n,k\alpha _{n1}}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_pD_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{E_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(37)
and

$`D_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (38)
$`=\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k,\alpha _{n1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p|^2}{\left(E_{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (39)
## IV Eigenenergies and eigenstates in infinite Hilbert space

When $`n`$ goes to infinity, the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ discussed in the previous section will become the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. However, eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the infinite Hilbert space cannot be obtained by simply letting the index $`n`$ go to infinity in the eigenstates $`|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. In fact, when $`n`$ becomes $`n+1`$, the number of eigenstates in the truncated Hilbert space will become $`N`$ times larger ($`N`$ is the number of discretized momenta); and despite of how large $`n`$ is, there exist eigenstates $`|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for which the values of $`|h_{\alpha _n}(n,n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2`$ are not small, i.e., there exist eigenstates whose projections in the subspace spanned by states in the set $`\{H_I^n(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ are not small. Therefore, the definition for eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ should be treated more carefully. In subsection IV A, we give the definition and discuss some properties of the eigenstates defined by it. In subsection IV B, we show that eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be expressed in terms of themselves, and the corresponding eigenenergies can remain finite when the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is taken off, even if they are ultravioletly divergent in perturbation theory. Subsection IV C is devoted to a brief discussion for evolution of states with time in the infinite Hilbert space.

### A Energy eigenstates in infinite Hilbert space

A normalized eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, denoted by $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, with eigenenergy $`E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is defined in the following way: For each positive number $`ϵ`$, there exists a number $`N(ϵ)`$ such that for each $`n`$ not smaller than $`N(ϵ)`$, there exists an eigenstate $`|\psi _\beta (n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with eigenenergy $`E_\beta (n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ satisfying

$$1|\psi _\beta (n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2<ϵ$$
(40)
and

$$|E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })E_\beta (n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|<ϵ.$$
(41)
Then, each eigenstate $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the limit of a series of states in the truncated Hilbert spaces $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$,

$$|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|\psi _\beta (n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(42)
A property of an eigenstate $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is that its projection is less than $`ϵ`$ in the subspace of the infinite Hilbert space spanned by states in the sets $`\{H_I^{N(ϵ)+1}\}`$, $`\{H_I^{N(ϵ)+2}\}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. In fact, substituting Eq. (40) into the normalization condition

$$\underset{\alpha _{N(ϵ)}}{}|\psi _{\alpha _{N(ϵ)}}(N(ϵ),p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2+\underset{m=N(ϵ)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{i_m}{}|\xi _{i_m}(m,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2=1,$$
(43)
we have

$$\underset{m=N(ϵ)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{i_m}{}|\xi _{i_m}(m,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2<ϵ.$$
(44)
Therefore, the projection of each of the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the subspace spanned by states in the set $`\{H_I^n(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ approaches to zero when $`n\mathrm{}`$. Due to this property of the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, one can see that for large $`n`$ and small $`ϵ`$, the number of the states $`|\psi _\beta (n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which are close to the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, must be much smaller than the total number of the states $`|\psi _{\alpha _n}(n,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the truncated Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. As a result, the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ span a small part of the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ only.

### B Expressions of eigenenergies and eigenstates in $`\varphi _s`$-subspace

As discussed above, when $`n\mathrm{}`$, not all the states $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, but a fraction of them, namely, $`|s_k\psi _\beta (n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ have definite limit

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|s_k\psi _\beta (n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=|s_k\varphi _\beta (pk,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(45)
The subspace of the Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ spanned by the states

$$|f_p\mathrm{and}|s_k\varphi _\beta (pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(46)
for all possible $`k`$ and $`\beta `$ will be termed $`\varphi _s`$-subspace. Since all the states $`|s_k\psi _{\alpha _{n1}}(n1,pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with $`\alpha _{n1}\beta `$ do not have definite limit when $`n`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$, the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ must lie in the $`\varphi _s`$-subspace of the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Therefore, if one diagonalizes the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the $`\varphi _s`$-subspace, the eigenstates obtained in the $`\varphi _s`$-subspace must contain all the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of the whole Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. As a result, in order to obtain the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, one does not need to diagonalize the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the whole Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, but diagonalization in the $`\varphi _s`$-subspace is enough.

Similar to Eq. (31), one can show that the states in (46) are normalized and orthogonal to each other. Furthermore, the Hamiltonian matrix in the $`\varphi _s`$-subspace has a structure similar to that in the $`\psi _s`$-representation of the Hilbert space $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, i.e., there is coupling between the state $`|f_p`$ and each of the states $`|s_k\varphi _\beta (pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, but the coupling between each two of the states $`|s_k\varphi _\beta (pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ approaches to zero when $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$. Then, similar to Eqs. (35) and (36), in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p0`$, one can obtain expressions of the eigenstates and eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the $`\varphi _s`$-subspace. In particular, for eigenenergies and eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the whole Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, after simplification we have

$`E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=p_0+{\displaystyle \underset{k,\beta ^{}}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|f_p|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}s_k\right|^2|d_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2}{E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })k_0E_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })}}`$ (47)
$`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=D_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p+{\displaystyle \underset{k,\beta ^{}}{}^{}}D_{\beta ,k\beta ^{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|s_k\varphi _\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ (48)
where

$`D_{\beta ,k\beta ^{}}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{f_{pk}s_k|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_pd_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })k_0E_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })}}D_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (49)
$`D_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k,\beta ^{}}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|f_p|H(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}s_k\right|^2|d_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2}{\left(E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })k_0E_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (50)
$$d_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\varphi _\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}$$
(51)
and the primes over the summations mean that when $`k_0=0`$ the index $`\beta ^{}`$ is not equal to $`\beta `$. Note that the right hand sides of Eqs. (47) and (48) contain the eigenenergies and eigenstates themselves.

Now let us compare the expression of the eigenenergy $`E_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (47) and the second order correction for it in perturbation theory, which is

$$E_\beta ^{(2)}(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{k}{}^{}\frac{|f_p|H_I(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_{pk}s_k|^2}{p_0|pk|k_0}.$$
(52)
The main difference between the right hand side of Eq. (47) and the right hand side of Eq. (52) is that there is a term $`|d_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2`$ in the numerator of the right hand side of Eq. (47). Equation (51) shows that this term is less than one. Let us consider the case that the summation on the right hand side of Eq. (52) goes to infinity as the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. For the summation on the right hand side of Eq. (47), if the value of $`|d_\beta ^{}(pk,\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2`$ decreases fast enough with increasing $`k_0`$, then, it would be possible for it to be convergent in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. That is to say, for a model suffering ultraviolet divergence in perturbation theory, when it is treated nonperturbatively, it is possible for some of, even all of, its eigenstates to have finite eigenenergies.

At last, we would like to mention that the theory of relativity may give additional restrictions to possible physical eigenstates with finite eigenenergies in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. For example, the requirement that $`E_\beta (p,\mathrm{})`$ is finite does not guarantee that it satisfies the relation

$$E_\beta ^2(p,\mathrm{})=E_\beta ^2(0,\mathrm{})+p^2.$$
(53)
Furthermore, the theory of relativity requires that Lorentzian transformation can transform an eigenstate $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{})`$ to an eigenstate $`|\varphi _\beta (p^{},\mathrm{})`$. But, it is not clear if all the eigenstates given in Eq. (48) satisfy this requirement.

### C Evolution of states in infinite Hilbert space

Finally, let us give a brief discussion for evolution of states in the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\lambda )`$. In the infinite Hilbert space, the subspace spanned by the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of the Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which will be called eigen-subspace , play a special role. States in the eigen-subspace can be expanded in the eigenstates $`|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, therefore, they evolve in the same way as those in a finite Hilbert space, say, for an initial state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(t=0)=|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\underset{p,\beta }{}\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|\mathrm{\Phi }_0e^{iE_\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda })t}|\varphi _\beta (p,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(54)
In the general case, evolution of states is more complicated than that in Eq. (54). For example, consider a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ lie in a finite subspace $`L_n(p,\lambda )`$ of the infinite Hilbert space $`L_{\mathrm{}}(p,\lambda )`$. It can be divided into two parts: one in the eigen-subspace, denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{es}`$, the other out side of the eigen-subspace, denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{nes}`$. Then, the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{es}`$ part of the state will evolve as in Eq. (54). But, the evolution of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{nes}`$ is not so clear. As time increases, it is possible for it to spread to subspaces of the Hilbert space spanned by states in the sets $`\{H_I^m(\mathrm{\Lambda })|f_p\}`$ for whatever large $`m`$. In this case, when we are concerned with properties of the state in a finite subspace $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ only, the probability of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{nes}(t)`$ in the subspace $`L_n(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ will become smaller and smaller as $`t`$ increases, which remind one of properties of dissipative systems. At the present stage, it is not clear if this feature of evolution of states is common to all the states out side of the eigen-subspace.

## V Conclusions and discussions

In this paper, we study a simple quantized model, which has an interaction structure similar to (but simpler than ) that of QED and gives ultravioletly divergent results in the framework of perturbation theory. We show that when the eigen-problem of the Hamiltonian of the model is treated nonperturbatively, it is in fact possible for eigenenergies of the Hamiltonian to be finite. The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are found to span part of the whole infinite Hilbert space only. Evolution of states in the infinite Hilbert space shows features quite different from that in finite Hilbert spaces.

We expect that the method introduced in this paper is also useful in studying more realistic models, such as the standard model and models including the gravity. In the application of this method to realistic models, masses of particles are to be explained as energies of ground states of interacting fields, therefore, there would be no need to resort to Higgs mechanism to get masses for particles. For the standard model, without introducing masses to free fields, the Hamiltonian of the model can not have any non-zero finite eigenenergy due to the lack of the dimension of mass. But, making use of the method discussed in this paper, it would be possible for one to get information on ratios of the eigenenergies and properties of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of the standard model. In order to obtain non-zero finite eigenenergies without introducing masses to free fields, one must include the gravity. One of the most serious problems one meets when including the gravity in quantum field theories is that the extended theories are generally non-renormalizable. However, as discussed in this paper, it is not impossible for non-renormalizable models to have energy eigenstates with finite energies when treated rigorously. Therefore, besides the string theory (see, e.g., ), the method introduced in this paper may supply another possible way of overcoming the difficulty of ultraviolet divergence.