text:
# Cosmic crystallography: the euclidean isometries

## 1 Introduction

Various methods have been proposed to investigate the shape of the universe, and cosmic crystallography (CC) is one of them . As CC ponders, if the universe is multiply connected (MC) then multiple images of a same cosmic object may be seen in the sky. The separations between these images are correlated by the geometry and the topology of the spacetime; so if one selects a catalog of $`n`$ observed images of various cosmic objects and performs a histogram of the $`n(n1)/2`$ separations between these $`n`$ images, then the existing correlations must somehow show up.

It was recently examined  in what respects the histogram for a multiply connected observed universe should differ from that of a simply connected (SC) one, with same geometry and radius. It was found that each isometry of the MC universe individually imprints either a small localized deformity on the histogram of the SC universe , or a sharp spike if the isometry is a Clifford translation .

Since each observed universe model has a unique pair separation normalized histogram, a strategy to unveil the cosmic topology seems straightforward: one should compare the histogram obtained from observational astronomy with histograms obtained from computer simulated universe models with prescribed topologies.

Both types of histograms (observational and simulated) are infected with statistical noises, and methods to reduce these noises are desirable. A suggestion was made, to replace the histogram related to the SC component of the simulated model by an exact continuous probability density function. For each geometry with constant curvature the corresponding function was then derived ; however, appropriate functions were still lacking, to replace the histograms related to each isometry component .

In the present study we derive some of these functions, namely the normalized pair separation probability densities for the euclidean isometries. Following the prescriptions of ref. , if we now merge these new functions with the functions already given in  then we obtain noiseless normalized probability densities more suitable for comparing with the normalized observational histograms. For completeness we also examine the euclidean isometries with fixed point, as well as the orientation reversing isometries.

## 2  The euclidean isometries

The isometries of the euclidean space $`E^3`$ are the (pure) translations $`t`$, (pure) rotations $`\omega `$, screw motions $`t\omega `$, (pure) reflections $`ϵ`$, and glide reflections $`ϵt`$. While $`t`$, $`\omega `$, and $`t\omega `$ are orientation preserving, $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵt`$ reverse the orientation of $`E^3`$; and while $`t`$, $`t\omega `$, and $`ϵt`$ act freely on $`E^3`$, $`\omega `$ and $`ϵ`$ have fixed points. We study all five isometries for the sake of completeness, although cosmic crystallography is presently interested on the orientation preserving isometries without fixed points, namely $`t`$ and $`t\omega `$ only.

Our general approach to investigate an isometry $`g`$ in cosmic crystallography is first consider a solid ball $``$ with radius $`a`$, then apply $`g`$ to $``$ thus producing a new solid ball $`_g`$, next consider the set of points $`P`$ $``$ $``$ whose corresponding transformed points $`P_g`$ are also in $``$, finally randomly select a pair ($`P`$, $`P_g`$) and ask for the probability $`𝒫_g^{}(l)dl`$ that their separation lies between the values $`l`$ and $`l+dl`$. The normalization condition

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝒫_g^{}(l)𝑑l=1`$ (2.1)
must be obeyed.

It is clear that the balls $``$ and $`_g`$ need intersect, so the separation $`m`$ between their centers $`C`$ and $`C_g`$ has to satisfy

$`m<2a.`$ (2.2)
The intersection $`_g`$ is a rotationally symmetric solid lens whose diameter, thickness, and volume are (see figure 1)

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{4a^2m^2},`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`2am,`$ (2.3)
$`V_g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{12}}(2am)^2(4a+m).`$
Figure 1 The solid balls $``$ and $`_g`$ both with radius $`a`$ intersect in a solid lens with diameter $`D`$ and thickness $`T`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3  Translations, screw mo-tions, and rotations

Translations

If the euclidean space is subjected to a nonzero translation $`t`$, the probability density that a point $`P`$ be displaced a distance $`l`$ is clearly

$`𝒫_t(l)=\delta (lt),`$ (3.1)
the Dirac delta; the density satisfies the normalization condition (2.1), and does not depend on the ball $``$.

Basics on screw motions of a solid ball

In $`E^3`$, imagine a straight line $``$ placed at a distance $`b`$ from the center $`C`$ of the solid ball $``$ with radius $`a`$; $``$ and $``$ may intersect ($`b<a`$), be tangent ($`b=a`$) or be disjoint ($`b>a`$); see figure 2.

Figure 2 Relative positions of a solid ball $``$ with radius $`a`$ and a straight line $``$ at a distance $`b`$ from the center of $``$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now consider a screw motion $`g`$ of the ball, with nonzero translation $`t`$ parallel to the line $``$ and nonzero rotation $`\omega `$ around the line; for our purposes the senses of $`t`$ and $`\omega `$ are irrelevant, so for definiteness and simplicity we assume $`t>0`$ and $`0<\omega \pi `$.

The separation $`m`$ between the centers $`C`$ and $`C_g`$ of the intersecting balls $``$ and $`_g`$ is

$`m=\sqrt{t^2+4b^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega /2},`$ (3.2)
and the condition $`m<2a`$ implies the constraint

$`t^2+4b^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega /2<4a^2`$ (3.3)
between the four independent parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`t`$, and $`\omega `$; see figure 3.

Figure 3 A solid ball (not displayed) with center $`C`$ rotates $`\omega `$ around the line $``$ (the $`z`$ axis) and translates $`t`$ parallel to the axis, eventually reaching the position centered at $`C_g`$ ; both centers $`C`$ and $`C_g`$ are at a distance $`b`$ from the axis, and their separation $`m`$ must be smaller than the sum $`2a`$ of the two radii in order that the balls intersect. $`\mathrm{}`$

We next introduce the auxiliary variable $`r`$ and a function $`Q_g^{}(r)`$ which help simplify our study. Call $`r`$ the separation between the point $`P`$ (also $`P_g`$) and the axis $``$ (see figure 4); it is related to $`l`$ (the separation from $`P`$ to $`P_g`$) through

$`l^2=t^2+4r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega /2;`$ (3.4)
for each isometry ($`t,\omega `$) this is a bijective relation between $`l`$ and $`r`$, so the probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ of finding a $`g`$-pair with mutual separation $`l`$ parallels the akin probability density $`Q_g^{}(r)`$ of finding a $`g`$-pair whose members (both in $``$) are at a distance $`r`$ from the axis of the motion:

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)dl=Q_g^{}(r)dr.`$ (3.5)
Figure 4 Under the screw motion $`g`$ with axis $``$ , translation $`t`$ , and rotation $`\omega `$ , a point $`P`$ separated $`r`$ from $``$ moves to the position $`P_g`$ at the distance $`l`$ given by eq. $`(\text{3.4})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Clearly the normalization condition

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}Q_g^{}(r)𝑑r=1`$ (3.6)
is also to be satisfied. Once we obtain $`Q_g^{}(r)`$, and since from (3.4) we have

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{l^2t^2}}{2\mathrm{sin}\omega /2}},`$ (3.7)
then we will finally compute

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dl}}𝒬_g^{}[r(l)].`$ (3.8)
To obtain $`Q_g^{}(r)`$ we first consider a sufficiently long cylinder $`𝒞_r`$ with radius $`r`$ and axis $``$. A short reflection gives that the probability density $`Q_g^{}(r)`$ is linearly proportional to the area $`S_g^{}(r)`$ of the intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$; the coefficient of proportionality is the inverse of the volume $`V_g^{}`$ of the intersection $`_g`$ , eq.(2):

$`Q_g^{}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{area(_g𝒞_r)}{vol(_g)}}={\displaystyle \frac{S_g^{}(r)}{V_g^{}}}.`$ (3.9)
To find the area $`S_g^{}(r)`$ we first assume the line $``$ (the axis of the screw motion) along the cartesian $`z`$-axis; the cylinder $`𝒞_r`$ with axis $``$ and radius $`a`$ then has equation

$`x^2+y^2=r^2.`$ (3.10)
Still without loss of generality we take the center $`C`$ of the solid ball $``$ with radius $`a`$ at the cartesian position ($`b`$, 0, 0); the points of $``$ then satisfy

$`(xb)^2+y^2+z^2a^2.`$ (3.11)
Finally the center $`C_g`$ of the solid ball $`_g`$ is at the cartesian position ($`b`$ cos$`\omega `$, $`b`$ sin$`\omega `$, $`t`$), so the points of $`_g`$ satisfy

$`(xb\mathrm{cos}\omega )^2`$ $`+`$ $`(yb\mathrm{sin}\omega )^2`$ (3.12)
$`+`$ $`(zt)^2a^2.`$
$`S_g^{}(r)`$ is then the area of the surface whose points ($`x,y,z`$) satisfy (3.10), (3.11), and (3.12) simultaneously. To visualize this surface $`_g𝒞_r`$ we first consider the surface $`𝒞_r`$ , then the similar surface $`_g𝒞_r`$, and finally the combined intersection $`(𝒞_r)(_g𝒞_r)`$.

The form of the intersection $`𝒞_r`$ depends on the relative values of $`a,b`$, and $`r`$ (see figure 5):

(i) if $`0<r<ab`$ then all generatrices of $`𝒞_r`$ penetrate into $``$: the intersection is a topological ring (an annulus, a compact cylinder, a disc with a hole in it);

(ii) if $`|ab|<r<a+b`$ then only a part of the generatrices of $`𝒞_r`$ goes through $``$: the intersection is a topological disc;

(iii) if $`a+b<r`$, or if $`0<r<ba`$, then there is no intersection.

Figure 5 (A) The solid sphere $``$ and the sufficiently long cylindrical surface $`𝒞_r`$ , in perspective; in the other drawings the line of sight is the vertical;

(i) the intersection $`𝒞_r`$ is a topological ring when $`0<r<ab`$ (loosely saying, $`a`$ is too large);

(ii) $``$ and $`𝒞_r`$ intersect in a topological disc when $`|ab|<r<a+b`$ (then $`a,b`$, and $`r`$ may form a triangle);

(iii) $``$ and $`𝒞_r`$ do not intersect when $`a+b<r`$ nor when $`0<r<ba`$ (loosely saying, either $`r`$ or $`b`$ is too large). $`\mathrm{}`$

Since the intersections $`𝒞_r`$ are drawn on the cylinder $`𝒞_r`$ itself, we use the cylindrical coordinates $`\varphi `$ (the azimuthal angle) and $`z`$ (altitude) to visualize them. A ring-like intersection $`𝒞_r`$ is then bounded by the two curves (see figure 6)

$`z=\pm \sqrt{a^2b^2r^2+2br\mathrm{cos}\varphi },`$ (3.13)
where $`\varphi (\pi ,\pi ]`$; the positive curve oscillates between the extreme values

$`z_{max}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{a^2(br)^2},`$
$`z_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{a^2(b+r)^2}.`$ (3.14)
Figure 6 The ring-like intersection $`𝒞_r`$ , eq.(3.13), when $`a=4`$ , $`b=19/5`$ , and $`r=1/10`$ . The boundaries at $`\varphi =\pi `$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ are identified. The upper and lower boundaries are not sinusoidal. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the disc-like intersection $`𝒞_r`$ (see figure 7) the surface is again read from (3.13), but now $`\varphi [\varphi _{max},\varphi _{max}]`$ with

$`\varphi _{max}=\mathrm{cos}^1{\displaystyle \frac{b^2+r^2a^2}{2br}};`$ (3.15)
while $`z_{max}`$ is still given in (3), $`z_{min}=0`$ now.

Figure 7 The disc-like intersection $`𝒞_r`$ , eq.(3.13), when $`a=1`$ and $`b=r=1/\sqrt{2}`$ ; it is an oval (not an ellipse) centered at $`\varphi =z=0`$ , with $`\varphi _{max}=\pi /2`$ and $`z_{max}=1`$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

A disc-like intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ is a $`g`$-transported copy of the corresponding intersection $`𝒞_r`$, parallelly dragged on the cylinder: while $`𝒞_r`$ is centered at ($`\varphi =0,z=0`$), the center of $`_g𝒞_r`$ is at ($`\varphi =\omega ,z=t`$).

Similar statements are true for the ring-like intersections $`_g𝒞_r`$. By inspection it is then easy to visualize the form of the combined intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ in both disc-like and ring-like cases. Since $`\varphi `$ has a cyclic character, the nonempty intersection of two discs on $`𝒞_r`$ can be either 1 or 2 discs, while two rings intersect in either 1 or 2 discs, or 1 ring (see figures 8 and 9).

Figure 8 Instance of disconnected intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ (dashed areas) when $`𝒞_r`$ (and $`_g𝒞_r`$) are ring-like; here $`a=4.505,b=2,r=2.5,t=5.3`$ , and $`\omega =\pi `$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

Figure 9 Instance of disconnected intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ (dashed areas) when $`𝒞_r`$ (and $`_g𝒞_r`$) are disc-like; here $`a=3.5,b=r=2,t=0.7`$ , and $`\omega =14\pi /15`$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to evaluate the area $`S_g^{}(r)`$ of the combined intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$; given the fixed values of $`a,b,t`$, and $`\omega `$, then for each value of $`r`$ we need to integrate the differential

$`dS_g^{}(r)=\mathrm{\Delta }z.rd\varphi ,`$ (3.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z(r,\varphi )`$ is the varying height of the intersection, and where the limits of integration in $`\varphi `$ may vary with $`r`$ (see eq.(3.15)).

As is evident from figures 8 and 9, the combined intersection is always bounded by one of the two curves

$`z_1(\varphi )=\sqrt{a^2b^2r^2+2br\mathrm{cos}\varphi },`$ (3.17)
$`z_3(\varphi )=t+\sqrt{a^2b^2r^2+2br\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \omega )},`$ (3.18)
from the upper side, and one of the two curves

$`z_2(\varphi )=z_1(\varphi ),`$ (3.19)
$`z_4(\varphi )=t\sqrt{a^2b^2r^2+2br\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \omega )},`$ (3.20)
from the lower side. Further, we only have nonempty combined intersection when $`z_1(\varphi )>z_4(\varphi )`$. We then obtain

$`S_g^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle _{\varphi _{max}}^{\varphi _{max}}}\mathrm{\Theta }(z_1z_4)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[min(z_1,z_3)max(z_2,z_4)\right]d\varphi ,`$ (3.21)
with $`\varphi _{max}`$ given by (3.15) for disc-like intersections, and $`\varphi _{max}=\pi `$ for ring-like intersections; $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the step function with values 0 and 1.

Elliptic integrals

As is seen from eqs. (3.17)-(3), the area $`S_g^{}(r)`$ involves terms of the form

$`A(r)={\displaystyle _0^{\alpha (r)}}\sqrt{a^2b^2r^2+2br\mathrm{cos}\varphi }𝑑\varphi ,`$ (3.22)
with $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \omega )`$ sometimes replacing $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ in the integrand. To evaluate these terms we define

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f^2(r)& =& a^2(br)^2,\\ & & \\ k^2(r)& =& \frac{4br}{f^2(r)},\end{array}$$
(3.23)
after noting that the condition $`f^2(r)>0`$ is satisfied by all nonempty intersections $`𝒞_r`$. Then introduce the (incomplete) elliptic integral of $`2^{nd}`$ kind

$`E(\gamma ,k)={\displaystyle _0^\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1k^2x^2}}{\sqrt{1x^2}}}𝑑x,`$ (3.24)
and finally have the integral (3.22) expressed as

$`A(r)=2f(r)E(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha (r),k(r)),`$ (3.25)
where $`f=\sqrt{f^2}`$ and $`k=\sqrt{k^2}`$ . When $`\gamma =1`$ in (3.24), or equivalently $`\alpha =\pi `$ in (3.22), we have the complete elliptic integral of $`2^{nd}`$ kind

$`E(k)=E(1,k);`$ (3.26)
the functions $`E(k)`$ only appear in the ring-like intersections.

Which of $`z_1`$ or $`z_3`$ is minimum in (3), and which of $`z_2`$ or $`z_4`$ is maximum and whether $`z_1>z_4`$or$`z_1<z_4`$ , usually depends on the angle $`\varphi `$; clearly also the values of the parameters $`a,b,t,`$ and $`\omega `$ are relevant, well as the radius $`r`$.

A sample screw motion with $`b0`$

We consider the case with $`a=t=1/\sqrt{2},b=1/\sqrt{8},\omega =\pi `$; the intersection $`𝒞_r`$ is then ring-like for $`0<r<1/\sqrt{8}`$ (equivalently $`1/\sqrt{2}<l<1`$ ), is disc-like for $`1/\sqrt{8}<r<3/\sqrt{8}`$ (or $`1<l<\sqrt{5}`$), and is empty for larger values of $`r`$ and $`l`$. The combined intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ has a ring-like regime for $`0<r<1/\sqrt{8}`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2}<l<1)`$ , then a two separate discs regime for $`1/\sqrt{8}<r<1/2`$ $`(1<l<\sqrt{3/2})`$, and is empty for larger $`r`$ and $`l`$.

We first consider the ring-like regime: preliminarly find, from (3.23),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f^2(r)& =& \frac{3}{8}+\frac{r}{\sqrt{2}}r^2,\\ & & \\ k^2(r)& =& \frac{\sqrt{2}r}{f^2},\end{array}$$
(3.27)
and the area (3) of the intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ ,

$`S_g^{}(r)=r\left(8fE(k)\pi \sqrt{2}\right);`$ (3.28)
now since

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{l^21/2},dr/dl=l/(4r),`$ (3.29)
the probability density (3.8) is, for $`1/\sqrt{2}<l<1`$ ,

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{l}{4V_g^{}}}\left(8fE(k)\pi \sqrt{2}\right),`$ (3.30)
where the volume of $`_g`$ is

$`V_g^{}=\pi (4\sqrt{2}5)/12.`$ (3.31)
Clearly $`f(r)`$ and $`k(r)`$ in (3.30) need consider the dependence $`r(l)`$ given in (3.29).

To describe the two-discs regime we further define

$`g(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1/(2r)^21},`$
$`g_\pm (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm g}{2}}},`$ (3.32)
then obtain for the area (3)

$`S_g^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`8rf\left(E(g_+,k)E(g_{},k)\right)`$ (3.33)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}r(2\mathrm{cos}^1g\pi ),`$
and finally, for $`1<l<\sqrt{3/2}`$ , the probability density

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{4V_g^{}}}[8f(E(g_+,k)E(g_{},k))`$ (3.34)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}(2\mathrm{cos}^1g\pi )].`$
In (3.34) we clearly need replace $`r`$ by its value $`r(l)`$ in (3.29) in the functions $`f,g,g_+,g_{}`$, and $`k`$. In figure 10 we reproduce the function $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for this sample screw motion, for the whole interval $`1/\sqrt{2}<l<\sqrt{3/2}`$.

Figure 10 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for the screw motion of the solid ball $``$ with $`a=2b=t=1/\sqrt{2}`$ , and $`\omega =\pi `$. For $`l[1/\sqrt{2},1]`$ we use the ring-like equation (3.30), while for $`l[1,\sqrt{3/2}]`$ the two-discs equation (3.34) is used. The integrated area is $`1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The special cases with $`b=0`$

In these cases the axis $``$ of the screw motion contains the centers $`C`$ and $`C_g`$ of the solid balls $``$ and $`_g`$; the intersections $`𝒞_r`$ and $`_g𝒞_r`$ are ring-like and have constant width, as well as the combined intersections $`_g𝒞_r`$. From (3.2) we have $`m=t`$, then (2) gives

$`V_g^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{12}}(2at)^2(4a+t)[b=0]`$ (3.35)
provided $`t<2a`$; this sine qua non is assumed whenever $`b=0`$. The equations (3.17)-(3.20) simplify to

$`z_1=z_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{a^2r^2},`$
$`z_3`$ $`=`$ $`t+z_1,z_4=tz_1,`$ (3.36)
provided $`r<a`$; since we assumed $`t>0`$, we have $`min(z_1,z_3)=`$ $`\sqrt{a^2r^2}`$ and $`max(z_2,z_4)=t\sqrt{a^2r^2}`$, while the condition $`z_1>z_4`$ implies

$`r<r_{max}=\sqrt{a^2t^2/4}.`$ (3.37)
The area of the combined intersection is then

$`S_g^{}(r)=2\pi r(2\sqrt{a^2r^2}t)[b=0]`$ (3.38)
whenever positive, otherwise it is zero. Finally the probability density is, when $`b=0`$,

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dl}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_g^{}(r)}{V_g^{}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{6l(2\sqrt{a^2r^2}t)}{(2at)^2(4a+t)}}\mathrm{csc}^2\omega /2`$ (3.39)
if positive, otherwise it is zero; in (3) one clearly has to substitute $`r`$ for its expression eq.(3.7). As a matter of fact we have $`𝒫_g^{}(l)0`$ when $`b=0`$ only for $`l_{min}<l<l_{max}`$, where

$`l_{min}=t,`$
$`l_{max}=\sqrt{t^2\mathrm{cos}^2\omega /2+4a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega /2},`$ (3.40)
and we have in these extreme limits

$`𝒫_g^{}(l_{min})=6t(2at)^1(4a+t)^1\mathrm{csc}^2\omega /2,`$
$`𝒫_g^{}(l_{max})=0;`$ (3.41)
a sample graph of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for screw motions with $`b=0`$ is given in figure 11.

Figure 11 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for the screw motion of the solid ball $``$ with $`b=0,a=1/\sqrt{2},t=1`$ , and $`\omega =\pi `$ , eq.(3). The integrated area is $`1`$. Note that $`l_{min}=1`$ , $`l_{max}=\sqrt{2}`$ , and $`𝒫_g^{}(1)=6(3+\sqrt{2})/73.8`$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

Rotations

A rotation is the limit of a screw motion when the translation tends to zero, so it is formally described by simply setting $`t=0`$ in the appropriate preceding equations. In particular, eq. (3.4) becomes $`l=2r\mathrm{sin}\omega /2`$. Rotations of the solid sphere $``$ are classified into two categories:

(i) if $`a<b`$ then $``$ is exempt of fixed points;

(ii) if $`b<a`$ then the axis $``$ traverses $``$, which has fixed points.

In category $`a<b`$ the intersection condition (3.3) clearly must be satisfied (see figure 12),

$`b\mathrm{sin}\omega /2<a.`$ (3.42)
Figure 12 The solid lens $`_g`$ when the solid ball $``$ rotates $`\omega `$ around the $`z`$-axis and $`b\mathrm{sin}\omega /2<a<b`$ ; the lens lays between the radial positions $`r_{min}`$ and $`r_{max}`$ given by eq. (3). $`\mathrm{}`$

The lens $`_g`$ lays between the radial positions

$`r_{min}=r_mD/2,r_{max}=r_m+D/2,`$
$`r_m=b\mathrm{cos}\omega /2,`$ (3.43)
where $`r_m`$ is the radial coordinate of the center of the lens and $`D`$ is its diameter (2) with

$`m=2b\mathrm{sin}\omega /2.`$ (3.44)
All intersections $`𝒞_r`$ (and $`_g𝒞_r`$) are topological discs. Since $`z_1>z_4`$ and $`z_4=z_3`$ in rotations, the area (3) has the simpler expression

$`S_g^{}(r)=2r{\displaystyle _{\varphi _{max}}^{\varphi _{max}}}min(z_1,z_3)𝑑\varphi .`$ (3.45)
When $`b\mathrm{sin}\omega /2<a<b`$ and $`r_mD/2<r<r_m+D/2`$ we obtain

$`S_g^{}(r)=8rf[E(1/k,k)E(\mathrm{sin}\omega /4,k)],`$ (3.46)
with $`f(r)`$ and $`k(r)`$ given in (3.23). The probability density (3.8) is easily written if we take in succession $`l=2r\mathrm{sin}\omega /2`$ , then $`Q_g^{}(r)=S_g^{}(r)/V_g^{}`$ with (3.46), finally $`V_g^{}`$ in (2) with $`m=2b\mathrm{sin}\omega /2`$ ; in figure 13 a sample graph of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for rotation with $`a<b`$ is given.

Figure 13 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for a rotation $`\omega `$ of the solid ball $``$ with radius $`a<b`$ . Here $`a=1,b=2,`$and$`\omega =\pi /6`$ . The integrated area is 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

In category $`b<a`$ the intersections $`𝒞_r`$ are either ring-like or disc-like, and the combined intersections $`_g𝒞_r`$ can be of three types according to the relative values of $`a,b,\omega ,`$ and $`r`$ (see figure 14):

(i) a ring, when $`0<r<ab`$ ; then

$`S_g^{}(r)=8rf[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E(k)`$
$`E(\mathrm{sin}\omega /4,k)E(\mathrm{cos}\omega /4,k)];`$ (3.47)
(ii) a pair of discs, when $`ab<r<D/2r_m`$ ; then

$`S_g^{}(r)=8rf[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}E(1/k,k)`$
$`E(\mathrm{sin}\omega /4,k)E(\mathrm{cos}\omega /4,k)];`$ (3.48)
(iii) a disc, when $`D/2r_m<r<D/2+r_m`$ ; then

$`S_g^{}(r)=8rf\left[E(1/k,k)E(\mathrm{sin}\omega /4,k)\right].`$ (3.49)
Figure 14 The solid ball $``$ with center $`C`$ and radius $`a>b`$ rotates $`\omega `$ around the $`z`$-axis and gives the new ball $`_g`$ with center $`C_g`$ . The solid lens $`_g`$ is intersected by the cylindrical surface $`𝒞_r`$ with radius $`r`$ and axis along the $`z`$-axis. The intersection $`_g𝒞_r`$ is a ring if $`r`$ is small $`(0r<ab)`$, is a pair of discs for $`ab<r<D/2r_m`$, and is a single disc when $`r`$ is larger $`(D/2r_m<r<D/2+r_m)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In figures 15 and 16 sample graphs of the probability $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for rotation with $`b<a`$ are given, for the entire interval $`0<r<D/2+r_m`$ .

Figure 15 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for a (pure) rotation of the solid ball $``$ with radius $`a>b`$ . Here $`a=2,b=1.3`$ , and $`\omega =\pi /3`$. The integrated area is 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Figure 16 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for a (pure) rotation of the solid ball $``$ with radius $`a>b`$ . Here $`a=1,b=5/7`$ , and $`\omega =2\mathrm{sec}^15`$. The region where each of the three expressions (3)-(3.49) for $`S_g^{}(r)`$ is used is indicated. The integrated area is 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Rotations with $`b=0`$

In the category $`b<a`$ the special cases $`b=0`$ deserve a few words. The solid spheres $``$ and $`_g`$ coincide, and we easily find that

$`l=2r\mathrm{sin}\omega /2,S_g^{}(r)=4\pi r\sqrt{a^2r^2},`$
$`V_g^{}=4\pi a^3/3.`$ (3.50)
The probability density is then

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{l\sqrt{4a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega /2l^2}}{a^3\mathrm{sin}^3\omega /2}}`$ (3.51)
whenever $`0l2a\mathrm{sin}\omega /2`$ ; a sample graph is given in figure 17.

Figure 17 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for a (pure) rotation with $`b=0`$. Here $`a=1`$ , and $`\omega =\pi /6`$ . The integrated area is 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Reflections and glide reflections

In $`E^3`$, let a solid ball $``$ with radius $`a`$ have its center $`C`$ at the cartesian position $`(b,0,0)`$. Next consider a glide reflection $`g`$ on the plane $`x=0`$ (the plane $`𝒳_0`$) with nonzero translation $`t`$ in the direction $`+z`$. The center $`C_g`$ of the glide reflected ball $`_g`$ is at the cartesian position $`(b,0,t)`$, and the separation $`m`$ between $`C`$ and $`C_g`$ is

$`m=\sqrt{4b^2+t^2}.`$ (4.1)
The condition of intersection $`_g\varphi `$ implies the constraint

$`4b^2+t^2<4a^2`$ (4.2)
between the three independent parameters $`a,b,`$ and $`t`$; a fortiori $`b<a`$, so both balls intersect the plane $`𝒳_0`$; see figure 18.

Figure 18 The solid ball $``$ with center $`C`$ and radius $`a`$ is first reflected on the plane $`x=0`$ a distance $`b<a`$ apart, then translated $`t`$ upwards. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now randomly choose a point $`P=(x,y,z)`$ of $``$, such that $`P_g=(x,y,z+t)`$ is also in $``$; clearly $`P_g`$. $`l`$ being the separation from $`P`$ to $`P_g`$, we ask for the probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ as described in sec. 2; we readily find

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{area(_g𝒳_x)}{vol(_g)}}`$ (4.3)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{S_g^{}(x)}{V_g^{}}},`$
where $`𝒳_x`$ is one of the two planes

$`x=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{l^2t^2};`$ (4.4)
the multiplying factor 2 in (4.3) accounts for these two possibilities, and the volume $`V_g^{}`$ is given in (2) .

The intersections $`_g𝒳_x`$ are of two types, depending on whether or not the plane $`𝒳_x`$ intersects the equator $``$ of the lens $`_g`$ (see figure 19):

Figure 19 The solid lens $`_g`$ and the two types of intersections $`_g𝒳_x`$ when the isometry is a glide reflection. In the equator $``$ of the lens, $`M`$ is the point placed farthest from the reflector plane $`x=0`$ . In (A), $`M`$ is below the center $`C_g`$ of the glide reflected ball $`_g`$ , then $`x_{max}=x_M=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ given in (4); only bicircular sections (i) are possible. In (B), $`M`$ is above $`C_g`$ , then $`x_{max}=ab>x_M`$ and two types of vertical cross-sections can occur: (i) bicircular, and (ii) circular. $`\mathrm{}`$

(i) a bicircular disc, when $`𝒳_x\varphi `$ ; the disc is enclosed by two circles with unequal radii

$`r_\pm (x)=\sqrt{a^2(bx)^2}.`$ (4.5)
It has area

$`S_g^{}(x)=r_{}^2\mathrm{cos}^1{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{r_{}}}+r_+^2\mathrm{cos}^1{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{r_+}}{\displaystyle \frac{t\delta }{2}},`$ (4.6)
whenever $`|x|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ , where

$`h_\pm (x)=t/2\pm 2bx/t,`$ (4.7)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{b^2+t^2/4}}1},`$
$`\delta (x)=2\sqrt{(1+4b^2/t^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2x^2)}.`$ (4.8)
(ii) a circular disc with radius

$`\rho =\sqrt{a^2+(b+|x|)^2},`$ (4.9)
which appears only when

$`q=4b(ab)t^2>0,\mathrm{\Delta }<|x|<ab;`$ (4.10)
the area of the disc is clearly $`\pi \rho ^2`$ .

Collecting together preceding terms we finally obtain

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{l}{\sqrt{l^2t^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_g^{}}}[\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }|x|)S_g^{}(x)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(q)\mathrm{\Theta }(|x|\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Theta }(ab|x|)\pi \rho ^2],`$ (4.11)
valid for $`t<ll_{max}`$ where

$`l_{max}=\sqrt{t^2+4(ab)^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(q)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{at}{\sqrt{b^2+t^2/4}}}\mathrm{\Theta }(q).`$ (4.12)
A graph of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ is given in figure 20.

Figure 20 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for a solid ball under a glide reflection, eq.(4). Here $`a=2,b=1`$ , and $`t=0.25`$ . The regions where the sections $`_g𝒳_x`$ are bicircular or circular are displayed. The function diverges when $`lt`$ , nevertheless the integrated area from $`t`$ to $`l_{max}`$ is finite. $`\mathrm{}`$

Reflections

(Pure) reflections are glide reflections whose translation is $`t=0`$ .

Figure 21 The solid lens $`_g`$ when the isometry $`g`$ is a (pure) reflection on the plane $`x=0`$ . The sections $`_g𝒳_x`$ are circles with variable radius $`\rho `$ . $`\mathrm{}`$

As is evident from figure 21, the probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ is proportional to the area of a disc with radius

$`\rho =\sqrt{a^2(b+l/2)^2},`$ (4.13)
and is given by

$`𝒫_g^{}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2(b+l/2)^2}{(ab)^2(2a+b)}},`$ (4.14)
for $`0l2(ab)`$. A graph is presented in figure 22.

Figure 22 The probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for a solid ball when the isometry $`g`$ is a (pure) reflection, eq.(4.14). Here $`a=2`$ and $`b=1`$ . The integrated area is 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Discussions

We initially aimed to write out one single expression for the probability density $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for screw motions of solid balls, valid for whatever values of the four parameters $`a,b,t`$ , and $`\omega `$. However, we soon found that such expression would demand a quite large number of step functions to account for all sort of possibilities. Since in practice the isometries are dealt with one at each time, we found more appropriate to present a simple method to have the exact $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for each individual screw motion with fixed values of the four parameters. Nevertheless, for those isometric motions of solid balls described by three or less free parameters the exact expression for $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ for any euclidean isometry is short enough and was displayed.

As promised in the Introduction, we exhibited the analytic counterpart $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ of the computer simulations of pair separations histograms of the euclidean isometries in cosmic crystallography thus far obtained in the literature. The graph of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ in figure 10 corresponds to the isometries $`b`$ and $`c`$ in the Fagundes and Gausmann  study, or equivalently the isometries $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ in Gomero . The discontinuity in $`l0.7`$ is not observed in the two upper figures 1 (Universe E4) of  due to the strong statistical noise present in these histograms; nevertheless it is clearly seen in the position $`s=l^2=0.5`$ in the mean histogram 5b of  as well as in the position $`l0.7`$ in the mean histograms 1a, 1b, 2b, 4a, and 5 of . Similarly, figure 11 corresponds to the isometry $`a`$ of  and $`\alpha `$ in  and ; the discontinuity in $`l=1`$ has their counterparts again in the histogram 5b of  and in the histograms 1a, 1b, 2a, 4a, and 5 of .

In contrast with the screw motions (figures 10 and 11), the pure rotations (figures 13, 15, and 16, all with $`t=0`$) do not show discontinuity of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ . Oppositely to figure 13, where $`a<b`$ , figures 15 and 16 correspond to $`a>b`$ , so the ball $``$ now has fixed points and the graph of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ effectively starts from $`l=0`$. The strange-looking graph in figure 15 was confirmed in a computer simulation; the irregular behavior near $`l=0.7`$ corresponds to the narrow $`r`$-interval where the pair-of-discs combined intersection eq.(3) occurs.

In figure 16 we have chosen values for $`a,b`$, and $`\omega `$ such that the three types of combined intersection (ring, pair of discs, and one disc) have equal range in the $`l`$ scale. En passant, the pair-of-discs $`l`$range is now wide, and does not originate a bump as did in figure 15.

Figure 17 corresponds to rotation of the solid ball $``$ around a diameter $`𝒟`$; from (3.51) we find that defining $`l_{max}=2a\mathrm{sin}\omega /2`$ then the graph of $`l_{max}𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ against $`l/l_{max}`$ does not depend on $`l_{max}`$. The points of $``$ along the diameter $`𝒟`$ are fixed under the isometry, so the graph again effectively starts from the origin.

Figure 20 corresponds to a glide reflection whose sections $`x=const`$ in the intersection $`_g`$ are either bicircular discs (for small $`|x|`$) or circular (for larger $`|x|`$). The minimum displacement $`l`$ occurs for the points of $``$ in the intersection with the reflector plane $`x=0`$, giving $`l_{min}=t`$, the translation. Since for all points near the reflector plane we have $`lt(1+2|x|^2)`$, then these points are displaced almost the same value $`lt`$; as a consequence, $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ diverges in the vicinity of $`l=t`$. Nevertheless the integrated area is finite, with value 1.

Between $`l=t=0.25`$ and $`l0.5`$ we have bicircular sections (4.6), while for $`0.5<l<l_{max}2.0`$ the sections $`_g𝒳_x`$ are circles.

The transition from a glide reflection to a (pure) reflection is worth describing: if in figure 20 we continuously displace the vertical line $`l=t=0.25`$ towards $`l=0`$, then the region of divergence of $`𝒫_g^{}(l)`$ shrinks continuously and disappears when $`l=0`$, eventually giving the graph of figure 22.


format: text

text:
# Declarative Representation of Revision Strategies

## Introduction

Formal models of belief revision differ in what they consider as representations of the epistemic states of an agent. In the AGM approach (?) epistemic states are identified with logical theories, that is, sets of formulas closed under classical inference. Other approaches like those discussed in (?) consider finite sets of formulas, sometimes called belief bases, as epistemic states. They investigate how to revise such belief bases. Only a rather small fraction of work in belief revision has studied an obvious alternative: the revision of epistemic states expressed as nonmonotonic theories (????).

This is somewhat surprising since close relationships between properties of nonmonotonic inference relations and postulates for belief revision have been established (??). Indeed, one of the reasons why nonmonotonic logics were invented is their ability to handle conflicts and inconsistencies, one of the major issues in belief revision. If this is the case, shouldn’t it be possible to use the power of nonmonotonic inference to simplify revision? In fact, what we have in mind is a complete trivialization of the revision problem. We want to be able to revise nonmonotonic theories simply by adding new information, and we want to leave everything else to the nonmonotonic inference relation.

An early approach in this spirit was the author’s paper (?) where an extension of Poole-systems (?), the so-called preferred subtheory approach, was used. New information, possibly equipped with information about the reliability level of this information, was simply added to the available information. The nonmonotonic inference relation determined the acceptable beliefs.

We are not satisfied with this approach any longer for several reasons. Existing theories of belief revision, including the one presented in the earlier paper, have difficulties to model the way real agents revise their beliefs. One of the reasons for this is that they do not represent information which is commonly used by agents for this purpose. For instance, new information always comes together with certain meta-information (formulas don’t fly into the agent’s mind): Where does the information come from? Was it an observation? Did you read it in the newspaper? Did someone tell you, and if so, who? Did the person who gave you the information have a motive to lie? and so on. In most cases we reason with and about this meta-information when revising our beliefs. We strongly believe that realistic models of revision should provide the necessary means to represent this kind of information.

The meta-information is used to determine the entrenchment of pieces of information. The less entrenched the information is, the more willing we are to give it up. Again, entrechment relations are not just there, they result from reasoning processes. To model this kind of reasoning, entrenchment should be expressible in the logical language. Once we have the possibility to express entrenchment (or plausibility, or preference) in the language, it will also become possible to represent revision strategies declaratively. This in turn makes it possible to revise the revision strategies themselves.

Here is a real life example that can be used to illustrate what we have in mind. Assume Peter tells you that your girl-friend Anne went out for dinner with another man yesterday. Peter even knows his name: it was John, a highly attractive person known for having numerous affairs. You are concerned and talk to Anne about this. She tells you she was at home yesterday evening waiting for you to call. Peter insists that he saw Anne with that man. You are not sure what to believe. Luckily, you find out that Anne has a twin sister Mary. Mary indeed went out with her new boy-friend John. This explains why Peter got mixed up. You now believe Anne and happily continue your relationship.

What this example nicely illustrates is the way we reason about the reliability of information. There is no given fixed entrenchment ordering to start with. In the example there is also, at least in the beginning, no reason to trust Peter more than the girl-friend, or vice versa. And obviously, it is not the new information that is accepted in each situation. It is the additional context information which is relevant here: it gives us an explanation for Peter’s mistake and decreases the reliability of Peter’s observation enough to break the tie.

To be able to formalize examples of this kind we propose in this paper an approach to belief revision where

* nonmonotonic belief bases represent epistemic states and nonmonotonic inference is used to completely trivialize revision,
* it is possible to express and reason about meta-information, including the reliability of formulas,
* revision strategies can be represented declaratively, that is, logical formulas express how conflicts among different pieces of information are resolved.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section we introduce the nonmonotonic formalism we use here to represent epistemic states. In the following section we show how to use this formalism for representing revision strategies. We then discuss the AGM postulates for revision and show that almost all of them are not valid in our approach (which does not bother us). In the following section we briefly deal with contraction. We then discuss forgetting in the context of our approach. Finally, we discuss related work and conclude.

## Representing reliability relations

In this section we introduce the formalism used in this paper. As mentioned in the introduction, one of the distinguishing features of our approach is that we want to be able to reason about the reliability of the available information in the logical language. In the AGM approach (??) entrenchment relations are used to represent how strongly an agent sticks to his beliefs: the more entrenched a formula, the less willing to give it up the agent is. Entrenchment relations have several properties which are based on the logical strength of the formulas. For instance, logically weaker formulas are not less entrenched than logically stronger ones. The intuition is that if a weaker formula has to be given up, the stronger formula has to be given up anyway.

In our approach we do not require such properties. We may even have equivalent formulas $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ with different reliability. This may happen when, for instance, $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ come from different sources $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ with different reliability. Note that although the less reliable information does not add to the accepted beliefs as long as the more reliable equivalent information is in force, the situation may change when new information about the reliability of $`s`$ is obtained. Should $`s`$ turn out to be highly unreliable later (of course, beliefs about the reliability of sources may be revised as any other beliefs) then it becomes important to have $`p^{}`$ with, say, somewhat lower reliability available.

All we require, therefore, is the existence of a strict partial order $``$ between formulas which tells us how to resolve potential conflicts. To avoid misunderstandings we will not call $``$ an entrenchment relation. Instead, we speak of reliability, or simply priority among formulas.

Since we want to represent $``$ in the logical language we need to be able to refer to formulas. Instead of using a quoting mechanism for this purpose, we will use named formulas, that is pairs consisting of a formula and a name for the formula. Technically, names are just ground terms that can be used everywhere in the language.

We will present our formalism in two steps: we first introduce an extension of Poole systems which allows us to express preference information in the language, together with an appropriate definition of extensions. It turns out that due to the potential self-referentiality of preference information not all theories expressed in this formalism possess extensions, that is, acceptable sets of beliefs. In a second step, we therefore introduce a new notion of prioritized inference defined as the least fixed point of a monotone operator. Epistemic states, then, are identified with preferential default theories under this least fixed point semantics.

Our basic formalism extends the well-known Poole systems (?). Recall that Poole systems consist of a consistent set of (first order) formulas $`F`$, the facts, and a possibly inconsistent set of formulas $`D`$, the defaults. A set of formulas $`E`$ is an extension of a Poole-system $`(F,D)`$ iff $`E=Th(FD^{})`$ where $`D^{}`$ is a maximal $`F`$-consistent subset of $`D`$.

Our formalism differs from this approach in the following respects:

1. In the context of belief revision it seems inappropriate to consider some information as absolutely certain and unrevisable. We therefore do not use $`F`$. Instead, we have a single set $`T`$ containing all the information.111One of the reviewers of this paper points out that using $`F`$ may have representational advantages since it eliminates the need to use preferences to indicate the most reliable information, see our examples in the rest of the paper. We might therefore reintroduce $`F`$ in future versions of this paper for purely practical reasons. This does not seem to pose any technical problems.
2. We represent preference and other meta-information in the language. We therefore introduce names for formulas and a special symbol $`<`$. $`d<d^{}`$ intuitively says that in case of a conflict $`d^{}`$ should be given up rather than $`d`$ since the latter is more reliable. We require that $`<`$ represents a strict partial order.222We assume that the properties of $`<`$, like those of equality, are part of the underlying logic and need not be represented through explicit axioms in our default theories.
3. We introduce a new notion of extension which takes the preference information into account adequately.

To avoid confusion we want to emphasize that $`<`$ belongs to the logical language, whereas $``$ is a meta level symbol. For the following definitions it is essential to clearly separate between these levels.

For simplicity, we only consider finite default theories in this paper. A generalization to the infinite case would have to reduce partial orderings to well-orderings rather than total orders.

###### Definition 1

A named formula is a structure of the form $`d:p`$, where $`p`$ is a first order formula and $`d`$ a ground term representing the name of the formula.

We use the functions $`name`$ and $`form`$ to extract the name respectively formula of a named formula, that is $`name(d:p)=d`$ and $`form(d:p)=p`$. We will also apply both functions to sets of named formulas with the obvious meaning.

###### Definition 2

A preference default theory $`T`$ is a finite set of named formulas such that

* $`form(T)`$ is a set of first order formulas whose logical language contains a reserved symbol $`<`$ representing a strict total order, and
* $`d_1:pT`$, $`d_2:qT`$ and $`pq`$ implies $`d_1d_2`$.

The last item in the definition guarantees that different formulas have different names.

###### Definition 3

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory, $``$ a total order on $`T`$. The extension of $`T`$ generated by $``$, denoted $`E_T^{}`$, is the set $`E_T^{}=Th(_{i=0}^{|T|}E_i)`$ where

* $`E_0=\mathrm{}`$, and for $`0<i|T|`$
* $`E_i=E_{i1}\{form(d_i)\}`$ if this set is consistent, $`E_{i1}`$ otherwise.
Here $`d_i`$ is the $`i`$-th element of $`T`$ according to the total order $``$.

The set $`_{i=0}^{|T|}E_i`$ is called the extension base of $`E_T^{}`$.

We say $`E`$ is an extension of $`T`$ if there is some total order $``$ such that $`E=E_T^{}`$. Obviously, all maximal consistent subsets of $`form(T)`$ are extension bases. We now consider the general case of partial orders.

###### Definition 4

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory, $``$ a strict partial order on $`T`$. The set of extensions of $`T`$ generated by $``$ is

$$Ext_T^{}=\{E_T^{^{}}\text{ }|\text{ }^{}\text{ is a total order extending }\}.$$

We next define two notions of compatibility:

###### Definition 5

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory, $``$ a strict partial ordering of $`T`$, $`S`$ a set of formulas. We say $``$ is compatible with $`S`$ iff

$$S\{d<d^{}\text{ }|\text{ }d:pd^{}:q\}\{\neg (d<d^{})\text{ }|\text{ }d:pd^{}:q\}$$

is consistent.
An extension $`E`$ of $`T`$ is compatible with $`S`$ iff there is a strict partial ordering $``$ of $`T`$ compatible with $`S`$ such that $`EExt_T^{}`$.

The set of extensions of $`T`$ compatible with $`S`$ is denoted $`Ext_T^S`$.

###### Definition 6

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory. A set of formulas $`E`$ is called a preferred extension of $`T`$ iff $`EExt_T^E`$.

Intuitively, $`E`$ is a preferred extension if it is the deductive closure of a maximal consistent subset of $`T`$ which can be generated through a total preference ordering compatible with the preference information in $`E`$ itself. The preference information in $`E`$ certainly does not have to be total.

Here is a simple example illustrating preference default theories:

> $`d_1(x):bird(x)\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(x)\text{ }|\text{ }x\text{ ground object term}`$
> $`d_2:x.penguin(x)\neg \mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(x)`$
> $`d_3:bird(tweety)penguin(tweety)`$
> $`d_4:x.d_3<d_1(x)`$
> $`d_5:x.d_2<d_1(x)`$

As is common in Poole systems, rules with exceptions, that is, formulas whose instances can be defeated without defeating the formula as a whole (here $`d_1`$), are represented as schemata used as abbreviations for all of their ground instances. As above we will make the intended instances explicit in all examples. To make sure that the different ground instances can be distinguished by name we have to parameterize the names also. We assume that terms used as names can be distinguished from other terms which we call object terms.333A more elaborate formalization would be based on sorted logic with sorts for names and other types of objects from the beginning. We do not pursue this here since we want to keep things as simple as possible. In our case, $`d_1(tweety)`$ is a proper rule name, $`d_1(d_1)`$ is not. Since we only consider finite theories we must also assume that the set of object terms is finite.

In our example we obtain 3 extensions $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ and $`E_3`$. In $`E_1`$ the instance of $`d_1(x)`$ with $`x=tweety`$ is rejected, in $`E_2`$ $`d_2`$ is rejected, and $`E_3`$ rejects $`d_3`$. All extensions contain $`d_4`$ and $`d_5`$. It is not difficult to see that only $`E_1`$ can be constructed using a total ordering of $`T`$ which is compatible with this information. $`E_1`$ is thus the single preferred extension of this preference default theory.

Preference default theories under extension semantics are very flexible and expressive. The reason we are not yet fully satisfied with them is that they can express unsatisfiable preference information: there are theories which do not possess any preferred extensions. The simplest example is as follows:

> $`d_1:d_2<d_1`$
> $`d_2:d_1<d_2`$

Accepting the first of the two contradictory formulas requires to give preference to the second, and vice versa. No preferred extension exists for this theory.

This means that preference default theories together with the standard notion of nonmonotonic inference where a formula is considered derivable whenever it is contained in all (preferred) extensions do not seem fully adequate for representing epistemic states of rational agents.

We will therefore introduce another, somewhat less standard notion of nonmonotonic consequence.444An alternative way of handling this problem would be to introduce some kind of “stratification” into our theories. Stratification, a term taken form the area of logic programming, would prohibit formulas from speaking, directly or indirectly, about their own priority. Unfortunately, it turns out that only highly restrictive forms of stratification guarantee existence of extensions. For this reason we do not pursue this approach here. This approach shares some intuition with the fixed point formulation of well-founded semantics for logic programs with negation due to Baral and Subrahmanian (?). In particular, it is based on the least fixed point of a monotone operator.

Let us first explain the underlying idea. Starting with the empty set, we iteratively compute the intersection of those extensions which are compatible with the information obtained so far. Since the set of formulas computed in each step may contain new preference information the number of extensions may be reduced, and their intersection thus may grow. We continue like this until no further change happens, that is, until a fixed point is reached.

###### Definition 7

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory, $`S`$ a set of formulas. We define an operator $`C_T`$ as follows:

$$C_T(S)=Ext_T^S$$

###### Proposition 1

The operator $`C_T`$ is monotone.

Proof:   $`SS^{}`$ implies that an ordering $``$ is compatible with $`S`$ whenever it is compatible with $`S^{}`$. We thus have $`Ext_T^S^{}Ext_T^S`$ and therefore $`Ext_T^SExt_T^S^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Monotone operators, according to the well-known Knaster-Tarski theorem (?), possess a least fixed point. This fixed point can be computed by iterating the operator on the empty set. We, therefore, can define the accepted conclusions of a preference default theory as follows:

###### Definition 8

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory. A formula $`p`$ is an accepted conclusion of $`T`$ iff $`p\mathrm{𝑙𝑓𝑝}(C_T)`$, where $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑓𝑝}(C_T)`$ is the least fixed point of the operator $`C_T`$.

We call extensions which are compatible with $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑓𝑝}(C_T)`$ accepted extensions.

Several illustrative examples will be given in the next section. Here we just show how the theory without preferred extension is handled in this approach. We have $`T=\{d_1:(d_2<d_1),d_2:(d_1<d_2)\}`$. We first compute $`C_T(\mathrm{})`$. Since no preference information is available in the empty set we obtain $`Th(\{d_2<d_1\})Th(\{d_1<d_2\})`$ which is equivalent to $`Th(\{d_2<d_1d_1<d_2\})`$. This set is already the least fixed point.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory, $`p`$ an accepted conclusion of $`T`$. Then $`p`$ is contained in all preferred extensions of $`T`$.

Proof:   If $`T`$ has no preferred extension the proposition is trivially true. So assume $`T`$ possesses preferred extension(s). A simple induction shows that each preferred extension is among the extensions compatible with the formulas computed in each step of the iteration of $`C_T`$. Therefore each preferred extension is also an accepted extension. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3

Let $`T`$ be a preference default theory. The set of accepted conclusions of $`T`$ is consistent.

Proof:   We show by induction that, for arbitrary $`n`$, the set of formulas obtained after $`n`$ applications of $`C_T`$ is consistent. For $`n=0`$ this is trivial. Assume the set of formulas $`S`$ obtained after $`n1`$ iterations is consistent. Since $`S`$ is consistent and $`<`$ formalizes a strict partial ordering there must be at least one strict partial ordering $``$ compatible with $`S`$, so the set of all extensions compatible with $`S`$ is nonempty. Since each extension is by definition consistent the intersection of an arbitrary nonempty set of extensions must also be consistent. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since preference default theories under accepted conclusion semantics always lead to consistent beliefs, we will in the next section identify epistemic states with preference default theories and belief sets with their accepted conclusions.

## Revising epistemic states

### The revision operator

Given an agent’s epistemic state is identified with a preference default theory as introduced in the last section, it is natural to identify the set of beliefs accepted by the agent with the accepted conclusions of this theory. We therefore define belief sets as follows:

###### Definition 9

Let $`T`$ be an epistemic state. $`Bel(T)`$, the belief set induced by $`T`$, is the set of accepted conclusions of $`T`$.

It is a basic assumption of our approach that belief sets cannot be revised directly. Revision of belief sets is always indirect, through the revision of the epistemic state inducing the belief set. Note that since two different epistemic states may induce the same belief set, the revision function which takes an epistemic state and a formula and produces a new epistemic state does not induce a corresponding function on belief sets.

Given an epistemic state $`T`$, revising it with new information simply means generating a new name for it and adding the corresponding named formula.

###### Definition 10

Let $`T`$ be an epistemic state, $`p`$ a formula. The revision of $`T`$ with $`p`$, denoted $`Tp`$, is the epistemic state $`(T\{n:p\})`$ where $`n`$ is a new name not appearing in $`T`$.

Notation: in the rest of the paper we assume that names are of the form $`d_j`$ where $`j`$ is a numbering of the formulas. If $`T`$ has $`j`$ elements and a new formula is added, then its new name is $`d_{j+1}`$.

### Representing revision strategies

In this subsection we show how revision strategies used by an agent can be represented in our approach. We first discuss an example where the strategy is based on the type of the available information. We distinguish between strict rules, observations and defaults. Strict rules have highest priority because they represent well-established or terminological information. Observations can be wrong, but they are considered more reliable than default information. Consider the following epistemic state $`T`$:

> $`d_1:penguin(tweety)`$
> $`d_2:x.penguin(x)bird(x)`$
> $`d_3:x.penguin(x)\neg \mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(x)`$
> $`d_4(x):bird(x)\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(x)\text{ }|\text{ }x\text{ ground object term}`$
> $`d_5:observation(d_1)`$
> $`d_6:rule(d_2)`$
> $`d_7:rule(d_3)`$
> $`d_8:x.\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡}(d_4(x))`$
> $`d_9:n,n^{}.rule(n)observation(n^{})n<n^{}`$
> $`d_{10}:n,n^{}.observation(n)default(n^{})n<n^{}`$

$`T`$ has 4 extensions. The corresponding extension bases are obtained from $`T`$ by leaving out $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$, $`d_3`$, or $`d_4(tweety)`$, respectively. All extensions, and thus $`C_T(\mathrm{})`$, contain information stating that $`d_4(tweety)`$ has lower preference than the other three formulas. Therefore, the only extension compatible with $`C_T(\mathrm{})`$ is the one generated by leaving out $`d_4(tweety)`$. This set is also the least fixpoint of $`C_T`$. $`Bel(T)`$ thus does not contain $`\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)`$.

The next example formalizes the revision strategy of an agent who prefers newer information over older information and information from a more reliable source over information from a less reliable source. In case of a conflict between the two criteria the latter one wins.

Assume the following specific scenario: At time 10 Peter informs you that $`p`$ holds. At time 11 John tells you this is not true. Although you normally prefer later information, you also have reason to prefer what Peter told you since you believe Peter is more reliable than John. Since you consider reliability of your sources even more important than the temporal order you believe $`p`$.

Here is the formal representation of this scenario. We use $`X<d`$ where $`X`$ is a finite set of names as an abbreviation for $`_{xX}x<d`$. Note that we have to make sure, by adding adequate preferences, that the rules representing our revision strategy cannot be used - via contraposition - to defeat our meta-knowldge about $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$:

| $`d_1:p`$ |
| --- |
| $`d_2:\neg p`$ |
| $`d_3:time(d_1)=10`$ |
| $`d_4:time(d_2)=11`$ |
| $`d_5:source(d_1)=Peter`$ |
| $`d_6:source(d_2)=John`$ |
| $`d_7:more\text{-}rel(John,Peter)`$ |
| $`d_8(n,n^{}):more\text{-}rel(source(n),source(n^{}))n<n^{}`$ |
|  | $`|`$ $`n,n^{}\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_7\}`$ |
| $`d_9(n,n^{}):time(n)<time(n^{})n^{}<n`$ |
|  | $`|`$ $`n,n^{}\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_7\}`$ |
| $`d_{10}:n,n^{}.\{d_3,\mathrm{},d_7\}<d_8(n,n^{})<d_9(n,n^{})`$ |

This preference default theory has 14 extensions which are obtained by leaving out one of $`\{d_1,d_2\}`$ and one of $`\{d_3,d_4,d_5,d_6,d_7,d_8(d_1,d_2),d_9(d_1,d_2)\}`$. All extensions contain $`d_{10}`$. This means that after the next iteration of the $`C_T`$-operator we are left with 2 extensions which are obtained by leaving out one of $`\{d_1,d_2\}`$ and $`d_9(d_1,d_2)`$. Both extensions contain the formula $`d_1<d_2`$. The next and final iteration of $`C_T`$ thus eliminates the extension containing $`d_2`$. We are left with a single extension and $`p`$ is among the accepted conclusions.

We next present the example from the introduction. This time we use categories $`low`$, $`medium`$ and $`high`$555We assume uniqueness of names for the categories. Otherwise the set $`\{d_3,d_5,d_6,d_7\}`$ would be consistent and could be used to defeat $`d_9`$ which, obviously, is unintended. to express reliability: the reliability of a formula with name $`n`$ is $`rel(n)`$. We have the following information:

| $`d_1:date(Anne,John)`$ |
| --- |
| $`d_2:\neg date(Anne,John)`$ |
| $`d_3:rel(d_1)=medium`$ |
| $`d_4:rel(d_2)=medium`$ |
| $`d_5:date(Mary,John)`$ |
| $`d_6:twins(Mary,Anne)`$ |
| $`d_7:date(Mary,John)twins(Mary,Anne)`$ |
|  | $`rel(d_1)=low`$ |
| $`d_8:n,n^{}.rel(n)=highrel(n^{})=medium`$ |
|  | $`n<n^{}`$ |
| $`d_9:n,n^{}.rel(n)=mediumrel(n^{})=low`$ |
|  | $`n<n^{}`$ |
| $`d_{10}:rel(d_5)=rel(d_6)=rel(d_7)=rel(d_8)=`$ |
|  | $`rel(d_9)=high`$ |
| $`d_{11}:rel(d_3)=rel(d_4)=medium`$ |

Although the agent initially considers $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ as equally reliable, the information that Anne has a twin sister Mary who is dating John decreases the reliability of $`d_1`$ to $`low`$. $`d_8`$ and $`d_9`$ say how the reliability categories are to be translated to preferences. $`d_{10}`$ and $`d_{11}`$ make sure that meta-information is preferred, and that $`d_7`$ can defeat $`d_3`$.Taking all reliability information into account the agent accepts $`\neg date(Anne,John)`$.

Note that we do not discuss here how agents form meta-beliefs of the kind required to represent the example (induction, folk psychology?). We simply assume that this information is available to the agent.

## Postulates

We now discuss the postulates for revision which are at the heart of the AGM approach (?). Since our approach uses epistemic states rather than deductively closed sets of formulas (belief sets) as substrate of revision, some of the postulates need reformulation. In particular, AGM use the expansion operator $`+`$ in some postulates. Expansion of a belief set $`K`$ with a formula $`p`$ means adding $`p`$ to the belief set and closing under deduction, that is $`K+p=Th(K\{p\})`$. Since epistemic states always induce consistent belief sets the distinction between revising and expanding an epistemic state does not seem to make much sense in our context. We therefore translate expansion in the following postulates to expansion of the induced belief set.

In the following we present the AGM postulates (K\*i) in their original form together with our corresponding reformulations (T\*i). In each case K is a belief set in the sense of AGM, $`T`$ an epistemic state as defined in this paper, $`A,B`$ are formulas:

> (K\*1) $`KA`$ is a belief set.
> (T\*1) $`Bel(TA)`$ is belief set.

Obviously satisfied.

> (K\*2) $`AKA`$
> (T\*2) $`ABel(TA)`$

Not satisfied. New information is not necessarily accepted in our approach. We see this as an advantage since otherwise belief sets would always depend on the order in which information was obtained.

> (K\*3) $`KAK+A`$
> (T\*3) $`Bel(TA)Bel(T)+A`$

Not satisfied. Assume we have $`T=\{d_1:p,d_2:\neg p\}`$, that is $`Bel(T)`$ is the set of tautologies. Let $`A=d_1<d_2`$. Now $`Bel(TA)`$ contains $`p`$ which is not contained in $`Bel(T)+A`$.

| (K\*4) if $`\neg AK`$ then $`K+AKA`$ |
| --- |
| (T\*4) if $`\neg ABel(T)`$ then |
|  | $`Bel(T)+ABel(TA)`$ |

Not satisfied. It may be the case that $`\neg A`$, although not in the belief set, is contained in one of the accepted extensions. Adding $`A`$ to the epistemic state does not necessarily lead to a situation where this extension disappears.

> (K\*5) $`KA`$ iff $`\neg A`$
> (T\*5) $`Bel(TA)`$ iff $`\neg A`$

Not satisfied. Revising an epistemic state with logically inconsistent information has no effect whatsoever. The information is simply disregarded. Inconsistent belief sets are impossible in our approach, so the right to left implication does not hold.

> (K\*6) If $`AB`$ then $`KA=KB`$
> (T\*6) If $`AB`$ then $`Bel(TA)=Bel(TB)`$

Satisfied under the condition that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given the same name, or the names of $`A`$ and $`B`$ do not yet appear in $`S`$. But note that logically equivalent information may have different impact on the belief sets when different meta-information is available. For instance, $`d_1:p`$ and $`d_2:p`$ may have different effects if different meta-information about the sources of $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$, respectively, is available.

> (K\*7) $`K(AB)(KA)+B`$
> (T\*7) $`Bel(T(AB))Bel(TA)+B`$

Not satisfied. Here is a counterexample. Assume we have $`T=\{d_1:p,d_2:\neg p,d_3:\neg p\}`$. Now let $`A=d_1<d_2`$ and $`B=d_1<d_3`$. Clearly, revising the epistemic state with $`AB`$ leads to a single accepted extension containing $`p`$ since the two conflicting formulas are less preferred. $`p`$ is thus in the belief set induced by the revised state. On the other hand, revising the epistemic state with $`A`$ leads to two extensions, one containing $`p`$, the other $`\neg p`$. $`p`$ is thus not in the belief set induced by the new state. This does not change when we expand the belief set with $`d_1<d_3`$.

| (K\*8) If $`\neg BKA`$ then $`(KA)+BK(AB)`$ |
| --- |
| (T\*8) If $`\neg BBel(TA)`$ then |
|  | $`Bel(TA)+BBel(T(AB))`$ |

Not satisfied. This is immediate from the fact that $`Bel(T(AB))`$ does not necessarily contain $`B`$, that is from the failure of (T\*2).

This analysis shows that the intuitions captured by the AGM postulates are indeed very different from those underlying our approach.

## Contraction

Contraction means making a formula underivable without assuming its negation. There may be different reasons for this, not all of them requiring extensions of our framework. For instance, the reliability of a source of a certain piece of information may be in doubt due to extra information. In that case it may happen that a belief $`pBel(T)`$ is no longer in the belief set $`Bel(Tq)`$ for appropriate $`q`$ even if $`\neg pBel(Tq)`$. Such effects are handled implicitly in our approach.

If, however, the agent may obtain information of the kind “do not believe $`p`$” rather than “believe $`\neg p`$”, then extra mechanisms seem necessary. In the context of AGM-style approaches the contraction operator $``$ can be defined through revision on the basis of the so-called Harper identity: $`KA=(K\neg A)K`$. The intuition here is that revision with $`\neg A`$ removes the formulas used to derive $`A`$, and the intersection with $`K`$ guarantees that no new information is derived from $`\neg A`$.

This intuition can, to a certain extent, be captured using Poole’s constraints (?). Constraints, basically, are formulas used in the construction of maximal consistent subsets of the premises, but not used for derivations.

To model contraction of epistemic states we must distinguish between these two types of formulas, premises and constraints. Extension bases consist of both types and also the compatibility of preference orderings is checked against premises and contraints. Extensions, however, are generated only from the premises. Constraints, as regular formulas, have names and may come with meta-information, e.g., information about their reliability.

We do not want to go into further technical detail here. Instead, we illustrate contraction using an example. We indicate constraints by choosing names of the form $`c_j`$ for them. Assume the epistemic state is as follows:

> $`d_1:peng(tweety)`$
> $`d_2(x):peng(x)\neg \mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(x)`$

The agent receives the information “do not believe $`\neg flies(tweety)`$”. The following constraint is added:

> $`c_1:\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)`$

Note that the constraint is not necessarily preferred to the premises. Let $`inst(d_2)`$ denote the set of all ground instances of $`d_2`$. We obtain three extension bases

> $`E_1=\{peng(tweety)\}inst(d_2)`$
> $`E_2=\{peng(tweety),\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)\}inst(d_2)\{peng(tweety)\neg \mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)\}`$
> $`E_3=\{\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)\}inst(d_2)`$

Although $`E_2`$ and $`E_3`$ contain $`\mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)`$ this formula is not in the extensions generated from these extension bases, and for this reason not in the belief set, since it is a constraint.

Note that constraints do not necessarily prohibit formulas from being in the belief set since they may have low reliability. For example, if we revise the epistemic state obtained above with $`d_1<c_1`$ and $`x.d_2(x)<c_1`$ then the belief set contains $`\neg \mathrm{𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠}(tweety)`$.

Although we used the Harper identity above to motivate the use of constraints for contraction, its natural reformulation

$$Bel(TA)=Bel(T\neg A)Bel(T)$$

is not valid in our approach. Assume $`T=\{d_1:p,d_2:\neg p\}`$. Obviously, $`Bel(T)`$ is the set of tautologies. Now let $`A=\neg (d_1<d_2)`$. We contract by adding the constraint $`c_1:(d_1<d_2)`$. Now the single accepted extension of the new epistemic state and thus its belief set is $`Th(p)`$, a strict superset of $`Bel(T)`$.

## Forgetting

In our approach revising a knowledge base means adding a formula to the epistemic state. Even in the case of contraction the epistemic state grows. For ideal agents this may be adequate since every piece of information, whether it contributes to the current belief set or not, may turn out to be relevant later. However, for agents with limited resources the expansion of the epistemic state cannot go on forever.

This raises the question how and when pieces of information should be forgotten. What we need is some kind of a mental garbage collection strategy. In LISP systems garbage collection is the process of identifying unaccessable memory space which is then made available again. In our context there is no clear distinction between garbage and non-garbage. As mentioned before, every information may become relevant through additional information, so it would not be reasonable to throw away information just because it is, say, not contained in any extension base. On the other hand, even those formulas contributing to the current belief set may be considered as garbage if the corresponding part of the belief set is not relevant to the agent. It appears that a satisfactory treatment of forgetting would have to take the utility of information for the agent into account. This is beyond the scope of this paper and a topic of further research.

## Related work and discussion

In this paper we proposed a framework for belief revision where preference default theories together with a corresponding nonmonotonic inference relation are used to represent epistemic states and belief sets, respectively. Our underlying formalism draws upon ideas developed in (?) and (?), the notion of accepted conclusions introduced to guarantee consistency of belief sets and its application to belief revision is new. The framework is expressive enough to represent and reason about reliability and other properties of information. It thus can be used to represent revision strategies of agents declaratively. Another advantage of the framework is that it lends itself to iteration in an obvious and natural way.

In an earlier paper (?) the author used nonmonotonic belief bases in the preferred subtheories framework to model revision. This approach, however, did not represent reliability information explicitly. Williams and Antoniou (?) investigated revision of Reiter default theories. In a similar spirit, Antoniou et al (?) discuss revision of theories expressed in Nute’s defeasible logic. Also these approaches do not reason about the reliability of information. This is also true for existing work in revising logic programs, see (?) for an example.

Forms of revision where new information is not necessarily accepted were investigated by Hansson (?). This form of revision is sometimes referred to as non-prioritized belief revision. Hansson called his version ”semi-revision”. Explicit reasoning about the available information is not modelled in Hansson’s approach.

Structured belief bases were investigated by Wassermann (?). Rather than using the structure to model meta-level and preference information, Wassermann uses structure to determine relevant parts of the belief base. The focus is thus on local revision operations and related complexity issues. Chopra and Parikh (?) propose a model where belief bases are partitioned into subbases according to syntactic criteria. Belnap’s four-valued logic is used for query answering. Again the focus is on keeping the effects of revision as local as possible. It is assumed that the local revision operators used satisfy the AGM postulates. The approach is thus very different from ours.

## Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper was funded by DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), Forschergruppe Kommunikatives Verstehen. I thank R. Booth, S. Lange, H. Sturm and F. Wolter for helpful comments. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers of the paper.


text:
# 1 Introduction and Summary

## 1 Introduction and Summary

The study of brane-antibrane systems in string and M-theory has brought a new perspective onto the understanding of non-perturbative extended objects (see -, and references therein). BPS branes arise as by-products when the tachyonic mode of the open strings connecting the brane and the antibrane condenses in a vortex-like configuration. Also, one can deduce in this framework the presence of new non-BPS extended objects when the tachyon condenses, instead, in a kink-like configuration. These objects have subsequently been shown to play a key role in testing string dualities beyond the BPS level. In Type II and M-theory they are however unstable, because the open strings ending on them contain real tachyonic excitations, but the instability can be cured when the theory is projected out by a certain symmetry that removes the tachyons from the spectrum. This happens in particular for some non-BPS branes in Type I and in certain orbifold/orientifold constructions of Type II and M-theory.

An interesting and still open problem is the construction of the supergravity solutions corresponding to these non-BPS branes. In the Type II theories given that they are unstable one does not expect to find stable classical solutions of the supergravity that could be associated to these branes. Only in some cases it has been possible to construct classical solutions, like the one corresponding to a Kaluza-Klein monopole-antimonopole pair in M-theory, that is stabilized by suspending the system in an external magnetic field (see  and  for related work), or the solution of the, unstable, non-BPS D-instanton of Type IIA constructed in . For the stable non-BPS branes one however expects to find solutions of the supergravity equations of motion that describe these branes in the strong coupling regime.

Recently, using the boundary state formalism, Eyras and Panda  found the asymptotic behavior of the solution corresponding to the non-BPS D0-brane of the Type IIB theory orbifolded by $`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ 111Here $`F_L`$ denotes the left-moving spacetime fermion number, and $`I_4:x^ix^i;i=1,\mathrm{}4`$.. This theory is S-dual to Type IIB orientifolded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }I_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the worldsheet parity reversal operation. The twisted sector of this orientifold construction of Type IIB consists, in the compact case, on 16 O5 orientifold fixed planes together with a D5-brane on top of each plane, each D5-O5 system carrying an SO(2) vector potential. This theory contains massive non-BPS states in the perturbative spectrum arising from open strings stretched between a D5-brane and its image . These states are stable, since they are the lightest states charged under the SO(2) gauge field of the twisted sector, and correspond in the strong coupling limit to the non-BPS D0-branes of IIB/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ . These non-BPS D0-branes are also charged with respect to the SO(2) vector field of the, S-dual, twisted sector, and this renders them stable. Moreover, for a critical value of the radii of the compact orbifold a pair of branes satisfies a no-force condition at least when the distance is larger than the string scale 222In  it is shown that for coincident branes a vacuum configuration in which the branes attract each other seems to be more favourable even at the critical radius. As mentioned in that reference this result is however challenged by the fact that the expectation value for the tachyon fields is beyond the range of validity of the approximation. It would be very interesting to clarify this point further.. This opens the possibility of constructing solutions corresponding to a large number of parallel non-BPS D0-branes, which could correctly describe the weak coupling regime of the theory. More importantly for our discussion, it allows the possibility of constructing infinite arrays of non-BPS D0-branes, from where one can derive other non-BPS D-brane solutions via T-duality transformations.

In this paper we concentrate on this and other stable non-BPS branes, that occur in the six dimensional orbifold/orientifold constructions obtained by projecting out the Type IIB theory by $`\mathrm{\Omega }I_4`$ and duality-related operations. In particular, we focus on the Type IIB and Type IIA theories divided out by $`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$. The $`(1)^{F_L}`$ operation is identified in the strong coupling limit as the transformation reversing the orientation of open D-strings (D2-branes) in the Type IIB (Type IIA) theory, as implied by its connexion via S-duality with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ symmetry of Type IIB  (in Type IIA a further T-duality transformation is required). Therefore, the twisted sector of Type IIB/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ can be described non-perturbatively, in the compact case, as 16 O5-NS5B systems , and that of Type IIA/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ as the same number of O5-NS5A systems . An O5-plane with a NS5B-brane on top of it contains an SO(2) gauge field associated to open D-strings stretched between the NS5-brane and its image, and the non-BPS D0-branes are charged with respect to this twisted field. In the Type IIA theory, the O5-NS5A system contains a self-dual 2-form field associated to open D2-branes stretched between a NS5A-brane and its image, and therefore the twisted sector contributes with SO(2) self-dual 2-form potentials333See  and  for a more detailed description of the twisted sector..

In  Sen conjectured that together with the non-BPS D0-brane, coupled electrically to the SO(2) vector field of the NS5B-O5 system, there is a non-BPS D2-brane, placed on the orbifold plane, that couples magnetically to the same vector field, and arises from open D3-branes stretched between a NS5B-brane and its mirror. Also, T-duality predicts a non-BPS D1-brane in IIA/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ located on the orbifold plane, which should couple, electrically and magnetically, to the self-dual 2-form potential of the twisted sector, and arise from open D2-branes stretched between a NS5A-brane and its mirror.

In this note we construct these D-brane solutions. We also show that there is a non-BPS M1-brane solution of M-theory orientifolded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho `$ reverses the orientation of the M2-brane, to which all these branes are related by reduction and dualities. This provides a unifying picture within M-theory of the stable non-BPS branes that occur in the six dimensional orbifold/orientifold constructions related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$.

M-theory on a 5-torus orientifolded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$ contains a twisted sector that can be identified as 16 O5-M5 systems, together with other 16 O5 orientifold fixed planes which do not contribute any twisted states . This theory contains non-BPS M1-branes that arise from open M2-branes stretched between an M5-brane and its mirror . They couple, electrically and magnetically, to the self-dual 2-form potential living in the M5-brane, what makes them stable. In reducing to the Type IIA theory one can consider two possibilities:

1. Reduce along a worldvolume direction of the M5-O5 system. In this case one obtains Type IIA orientifolded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }I_5`$, whose twisted sector states arise from 16 D4-O4 systems. This theory contains perturbative massive non-BPS states, which can be interpreted in M-theory as non-BPS M1-branes wrapped on the eleventh direction , as well as non-perturbative non-BPS strings coming from open D2-branes stretched between a D4-brane and its mirror, which correspond to unwrapped M1-branes in M-theory . T-duality along one of the orbifolded directions gives then rise to the Type IIB theory orientifolded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }I_4`$, whose twisted sector is described by 16 D5-O5 systems. This theory contains perturbative non-BPS particle states and non-perturbative non-BPS 2-branes, connected by T-duality with the non-BPS objects of IIA.
2. Reduce M-theory/$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$ along one of the orbifolded directions. In this case one obtains Type IIA projected out by $`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$, with a twisted sector consisting of 16 NS5-O5 systems. The non-BPS M1-brane gives rise to a non-BPS D1-brane in IIA that couples (electrically and magnetically) to the self-dual 2-form potential living in the worldvolume of the NS5A-O5. Now T-duality along a worldvolume direction of the NS5A-O5 maps the theory onto Type IIB divided by $`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$, with a twisted sector identified as 16 NS5-O5 systems. Non-BPS D0-branes are coupled electrically to the SO(2) vector field of the twisted sector, and non-BPS D2-branes magnetically. These branes are related to the non-BPS D1-brane by T-duality.

Consistently with the whole duality picture , the two theories that are obtained by either reducing along an M5-brane direction and then T-dualizing along a transverse direction, or viceversa, are related by S-duality. In particular one obtains IIB/$`\mathrm{\Omega }I_4`$ and IIB/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ respectively. We also see that the non-BPS M1-brane of M-theory/$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$ is the eleven dimensional origin of the non-BPS branes that can be defined in the Type II orbifolds/orientifolds obtained by reduction.

## 2 The non-BPS D0-brane solution of

The asymptotic behavior of the solution corresponding to the non-BPS D0-brane of Type IIB orbifolded by $`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$ has been derived in  using the boundary state formalism. In this formalism one can compute the long distance behavior of the massless fields generated by the D-brane and predict in this manner the asymptotic form of the corresponding classical solution . A pair of non-BPS D0-branes satisfies a no-force condition when the orbifold is compactified to a particular critical value of the radii . When this happens it is possible to construct periodic infinite arrays of non-BPS D0-branes and compute T-dual solutions, which is what we shall be doing in the next sections. Note that both the no-force condition and the validity of the classical solution and the T-duality rules hold for distances larger than the string scale.

The asymptotic form of the solution of , corresponding to a D0-brane situated at one of the fixed points of the orbifold, reads, in string frame444In  a somewhat more general solution depending on a free parameter $`a`$ is given, derived by impossing the no-force condition of a pair of branes at the critical radii as a constraint for the background fields. Here we have chosen to work with the strictly linearized solution, though the same kind of generalization can be done for our solutions.:

$`ds_{D0}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_0}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^3}}+\mathrm{})dt^2+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_0}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^3}}+\mathrm{})(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+`$
$`+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j);m,n=1,\mathrm{}5;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`e^\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_0}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^3}}+\mathrm{},`$
$`C_0^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_0}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^3}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (2.1)
Here we have taken $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ but otherwise the notation is that in . Namely, $`\kappa _D^2=8\pi G_D`$, $`\kappa _{Dd}^2=\kappa _D^2/V_d`$, with $`V_d`$ the volume of the $`d`$ dimensional space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ is the area of a unit sphere surrounding the D0-brane, $`T_0`$ is the tension of the brane, $`Q_0`$ its charge555Impossing open-closed string consistency for boundary states, $`T_0`$ and $`Q_0`$ are fixed to: $`T_0=8\pi ^{7/2}`$, $`Q_0=8\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}`$, (see )., $`y^m`$, $`m=1,\mathrm{}5`$ the longitudinal directions along the NS5B-O5 worldvolume, and $`x^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$, the transverse, orbifolded directions. The critical value of the radii: $`R_c=1/\sqrt{2}`$, has already been substituted in the solution. $`C^{(1)}`$ is the vector potential coming from the twisted sector, under which the D0-brane is charged.

## 3 The non-BPS D1-brane of IIA/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$

Considering a periodic infinite array of non-BPS D0-branes along the $`y^5`$ direction we can construct via T-duality a non-BPS D1-brane solution in the Type IIA theory projected out by $`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$. This brane is situated at one of the fixed points of the orbifold with its worldsheet extended along the non-compact spacetime. We find:

$`ds_{D1}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma ^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right);`$
$`m,n=1,\mathrm{}4;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`e^\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{},`$
$`C_{0\sigma }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_1}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.1)
Here $`T_1`$ is the tension of the brane, $`Q_1`$ its charge and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ the area of the unit 3-sphere surrounding the string. The twisted sector consists on a 2-form potential, under which the D1-brane is charged. T-duality implies that this field is to be interpreted as the 2-form potential living in a NS5A-O5 system.

This D1-brane solution can be interpreted as a ten dimensional 1-brane located at the origin of the four-dimensional compact space. Considering first a single compactified direction, a 1-brane sitting at the origin of the $`S^1`$ can be seen from the point of view of the covering space of the $`S^1`$ as an equally spaced array of D1-branes in the $`S^1`$ direction. If $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ denotes a vector in the full eight dimensional transverse space, we can then approximate666The choice of this function will be clear below. $`1/|x|^6`$ by a sum $`_{nZ}1/(r^2+(x^42\pi nR_4)^2)^3`$, with $`r^2=_{m=1}^4y^my_m+_{i=1}^3x^ix_i`$, and, assuming that the size of the compact direction is smaller than the distance in the non-compact space, we can further approximate the sum by an integral. Repeating this process for the four compact directions we can finally write (see for instance  for more details):

$$\frac{1}{|y|^2}\frac{1}{|x|^6}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^4(2\pi R_i)(I_1I_2I_3I_4)^1,$$
(3.2)
where $`R_i`$ are the radii of the compactified orbifold and $`I_n_0^\pi 𝑑\theta \mathrm{sin}^n\theta `$. Substituting back in the expression for the D1-brane solution in the compact orbifold we can then obtain the corresponding solution in the uncompactified case:

$`ds_{D1}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^6}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma ^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^6}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right);`$
$`m,n=1,\mathrm{}4;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`e^\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^6}}+\mathrm{},`$
$`C_{0\sigma }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_1}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (3.3)
Now $`\mathrm{\Omega }_7`$ is the area of the unit 7-sphere surrounding the string. The expression for the 2-form potential is the same as in the compactified case since it lives in the twisted sector. In  it is shown that for the non-BPS D0-brane this kind of approach relating the uncompactified and the compactified solutions gives the same answer than the boundary state analysis of the uncompactified orbifold. This should be the case also for the D1-brane.

It is straightforward to check that this D1-brane solution solves the equations of motion derived from an action $`S_{\mathrm{untwisted}}+S_{\mathrm{twisted}}`$, where:

$$S_{\mathrm{untwisted}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{10}^2}d^{10}xe^{2\varphi }\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}\left(R+4(\varphi )^2\right),$$
(3.4)
and the action corresponding to the twisted sector is proportional to the worldvolume effective action associated to a pair NS5A-O5. This reads, in string frame and to first order in $`\alpha ^{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{twisted}}& & d^6y\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}\left(1+(^{(3)})^2+\mathrm{}\right)d^6y\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}=\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& d^6y\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}(^{(3)})^2+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
Here $`^{(3)}`$ is the field strength of the self-dual 2-form potential of the NS5A-brane, and the self-duality condition is impossed at the level of the equations of motion. The metric is restricted to the position of the orientifold fixed plane.

## 4 The non-BPS D2-brane of IIB/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$

Performing now a T-duality transformation of the D1-brane solution along the $`y^4`$ direction we obtain a D2-brane solution of IIB/$`(1)^{F_L}I_4`$. This brane is located at one of the fixed points of the orbifold, with its worldvolume extending along the non-compact spacetime. Taking the non-BPS D1-brane in the compactified orbifold at the critical radii, where it is possible to construct periodic infinite arrays of strings, and applying the T-duality rules we find:

$`ds_{D2}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma _1^2+d\sigma _2^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right);`$
$`m,n=1,\mathrm{}3;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`e^\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_2}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|}}+\mathrm{},`$
$`C_{0\sigma _1\sigma _2}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_2}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (4.1)
Here $`T_2`$ is the tension of the brane, $`Q_2`$ its charge and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ the area of the unit 2-sphere surrounding the 2-brane.

The same analysis of the previous section gives the following form for the solution in the uncompactified case:

$`ds_{D2}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^5}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma _1^2+d\sigma _2^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^5}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right);`$
$`m,n=1,\mathrm{}3;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`e^\varphi =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^5}}+\mathrm{},`$
$`C_{0\sigma _1\sigma _2}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_2}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (4.2)
Now $`\mathrm{\Omega }_6`$ is the area of the unit 6-sphere surrounding the membrane.

This brane is electrically charged with respect to the 3-form potential of the NS5B-O5 system, or equivalently, magnetically charged with respect to its vector potential. Therefore, it solves the equations of motion derived from $`S_{\mathrm{untwisted}}+S_{\mathrm{twisted}}`$, with:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{twisted}}& & d^6y\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}\left(1+(\stackrel{~}{}^{(4)})^2+\mathrm{}\right)d^6y\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}=\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& d^6y\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}g|}(\stackrel{~}{}^{(4)})^2+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
where we have dualized the vector field of the NS5B-brane onto a 3-form potential with field strength $`\stackrel{~}{}^{(4)}`$, and the metric is restricted to the position of the orientifold fixed plane.

## 5 The non-BPS M1-brane of M-theory/$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$

Oxidizing the D1-brane solution of the Type IIA theory on the orbifold we can obtain the expression for a stable M1-brane solution of M-theory orientifolded by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$. In the compact case we obtain:

$`d\widehat{s}_{M1}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma ^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6T_1}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{})dz^2;`$
$`m,n=1,\mathrm{}4;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`\widehat{C}_{0\sigma }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_1}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (5.1)
This solution has an $`SO(1,1)\times SO(4)\times SO(4)\times U(1)`$ symmetry, i.e. it corresponds to an asymmetric orbifold. This is in agreement with the results of , which show that the orbifold corresponding to M-theory on $`T^5/\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$ has to be asymmetric so that the twisted sector cancels the gravitational anomalies involved in the construction. We see that asymptotically, i.e. in the region where the dilaton of the Type IIA theory is of order 1, the orbifold regains isotropy, also in agreement with .

Uplifting the D1-brane solution corresponding to Type IIA on the uncompactified orbifold we find an M1-brane on $`R^{1,5}\times (R^4\times S^1)/\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho I_5`$:

$`d\widehat{s}_{M1}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^6}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma ^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^6}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{10}T_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^6}}+\mathrm{})dz^2;`$
$`m,n=1,\mathrm{}4;i,j=1,\mathrm{}4,`$
$`\widehat{C}_{0\sigma }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _6Q_1}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^2}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (5.2)
As we did in the previous sections we can interpret this solution as an M1-brane located at the origin of the $`z`$-circle, and find the expression for the corresponding solution in the completely uncompactified case:

$`d\widehat{s}_{M1}^2=(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }_{11}\widehat{T}_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^7}}+\mathrm{})(dt^2+d\sigma ^2)+`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }_{11}\widehat{T}_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^7}}+\mathrm{})\left(\delta _{mn}dy^mdy^n+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j\right)+`$ (5.3)
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{21}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }_{11}\widehat{T}_1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|x|^7}}+\mathrm{})dz^2.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_8`$ is the area of the unit 8-sphere surrounding the string, and we have used $`\widehat{\kappa }_{11}=\kappa _{10}(2\pi R_z)^{1/2}`$, $`\widehat{T}_1=T_1\widehat{\kappa }_{11}/\kappa _{10}`$. $`\widehat{C}^{(2)}`$ remains the same since it lives in the twisted sector.

Finally, the contribution to the supergravity action from the twisted sector is proportional to the worldvolume action describing an M5-O5 system, which in quadratic approximation reads:

$$\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{twisted}}d^6\widehat{y}\sqrt{|\mathrm{det}\widehat{g}|}(\widehat{}^{(3)})^2+\mathrm{}$$
(5.4)
Here $`\widehat{}^{(3)}`$ is the field strength associated to the self-dual 2-form potential of the M5-brane worldvolume, with the self-duality condition impossed at the level of the equations of motion, and the metric is restricted to the position of the orientifold fixed plane.

### Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Laurent Houart for very interesting discussions, and Eduardo Eyras for pointing out some mistakes in a previous version of this paper.