text:
# Non-Kolmogorov probability models and modified Bell’s inequality

## Abstract

We analyse the proof of Bell’s inequality and demonstrate that this inequality is related to one particular model of probability theory, namely Kolmogorov measure-theoretical axiomatics, 1933. We found a (numerical) statistical correction to Bell’s inequality. Such an additional term $`ϵ_\varphi `$ in the right hand side of Bell’s inequality can be considered as a probability invariant of a quantum state $`\varphi .`$ This is a measure of nonreproducibility of hidden variables in different runs of experiments. Experiments to verify Bell’s inequality can be considered as just experiments to estimate the constant $`ϵ_\varphi .`$ It seems that Bell’s inequality could not be used as a crucial reason to deny local realism. We consider deterministic as well as stochastic hidden variables models.

1. Introduction

Experimental violations  of Bell’s inequality  are typically (see, for example, ,) interpreted in one of two ways: (1) nonlocality: by changing the state of one particle in the EPR pair we change the state of the other particle; (2) death of reality: realism could not be used as the philosophic base of quantum mechanics (‘properties’ of quantum systems are not objective properties, i.e., the properties of an object). In particular, (2) implies that the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (via L. Ballentine, ) must be denied in favour of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Although such a viewpoint is dominating in the quantum community, there are still some doubts that violations of Bell’s inequality must be interpreted in such a way. In particular, many scientists thought (and continue to think) that “Bell’s paradox” has purely probabilistic origin, see, for example, . Unfortunately these probabilistic considerations had merely philosophic character. In any case they did not give a new (Bell-like) inequality which has an experimental meaning.

Remark 1.1. The common opinion is that “Bell’s paradox” (experimental violations of Bell’s inequality) is just a reformulation of the EPR paradox. However, the problem is more complicated: Bell’s probabilistic reformulation of the EPR paradox contains some additional assumptions (on probability distribution of hidden variables).

In this note we follow to the general (probabilistic) attitude of . In fact, we generalize ideas of De Baere, , on connection of Bell’s inequality and “implicit reproducibility” (we arrived to such ideas independently by developing non-Kolmogorov probability formalisms, ). However, we found some statistical quantity $`ϵ_\varphi `$ which can be considered as a probability invariant of a quantum state $`\varphi .`$ It seems that the standard interpretation of violations of Bell’s inequality is a consequence of neglecting of this quantity $`ϵ_\varphi .`$

We analyse Bell’s proof and demonstrate that the possibility to derive Bell’s inequality depends crucially on the use of a particular probabilistic model, namely the model based on Kolmogorov’s axiomatics , 1933 (so called measure-theoretical approach to probability). Of course, the Kolmogorov model is the dominating mathematical model for probability theory. Therefore it is not surprising that J. Bell and many others used this approach to probability theory. However, there also exist numerous non-Kolmogorov probabilistic models (which are similar to non-Euclidean geometrical models), see, for example,  and Accardi and Gudder in . In particular, I constructed probabilistic models, , which describe random phenomena in that the standard law of large numbers is violated: relative frequencies $`\nu _N=n/N`$ have no limit (stabilization), $`n\mathrm{}`$ (numerous examples of such a random behaviour can be found in ).

Remark 1.2. We want to underline that in physics the choice of the right probability model is not less important then the choice of the right geometric model. The Kolmogorov model (as well as Euclidean model) could not describe all physical phenomena.

In this note we analyse “Bell’s paradox” on the basis of the assumption that the law of large numbers can be violated for hidden variables: $`\nu _N(\lambda )`$ can fluctuate. From the physical viewpoint this means that different runs of experiments (for example, for correlated particles) can produce different “probability distributions” for hidden variables. In such a situation it would be impossible to define a Kolmogorov probability distribution $`𝐏`$ on the set of hidden variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Kolmogorov’s model could not be applied. We introduce a numerical measure for fluctuations $`ϵ_\varphi `$. It will be shown that “general Bell’s inequality” must contain this probability invariant of a quantum state as an additional term.

Finally, we remark that all experimental calculations are, in fact, based not on Kolmogorov model (probability as a measure), but on von Mises, 1919,  model (probability as frequency). “Experimental covariation” of two observables, $`A,B,`$ is calculated as a sequence mean value: $`<A,B>_{\mathrm{fr}}=(1/N)_{i=1}^NA_iB_i,`$ where $`x=(A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_N)`$ and $`y=(B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_N)`$ are random sequences (collectives) generated by measurements of $`A`$ and $`B.`$ Hence, in fact, $`<A,B>_{\mathrm{fr}}`$ depends on $`x`$ and $`y`$: $`<A,B>_{\mathrm{fr}}=<A,B>_{xy}.`$ However, J. Bell supposed that there exists a Kolmogorov probability distribution $`𝐏`$ on the set of hidden variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and all covariations can be written as mean values with respect to this unique measure: $`<A,B>_{\mathrm{Bell}/\mathrm{Kol}}=_\mathrm{\Lambda }A(\lambda )B(\lambda )d𝐏(\lambda ).`$ This (rather strong) assumption statistical postulate has never been verified experimentally.

2. Bell’s proof

We reproduce the proof of Bell’s inequality. Let $`𝒫=(\mathrm{\Omega },,𝐏)`$ be a Kolmogorov probability space: $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a space of elementary events, $``$ is an algebra of events, $`𝐏`$ probability measure.

Theorem 1. Let $`A,B,C=\pm 1`$ be random variables on $`𝒫.`$ Then Bell’s inequality

$$|<A,B><C,B>|1<A,C>$$
(1)
holds true.

Proof. Set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=<A,B><C,B>.`$ By linearity of Lebesgue integral we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=_\mathrm{\Omega }A(\omega )B(\omega )𝑑𝐏(\omega )_\mathrm{\Omega }C(\omega )B(\omega )𝑑𝐏(\omega )=_\mathrm{\Omega }[A(\omega )C(\omega )]B(\omega )𝑑𝐏(\omega ).$$
(2)
As $`A(\omega )^2=1,`$

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|=|_\mathrm{\Omega }[1A(\omega )C(\omega )]A(\omega )B(\omega )𝑑𝐏(\omega )|_\mathrm{\Omega }[1A(\omega )C(\omega )]𝑑𝐏(\omega ).$$
(3)
Of course, this is the rigorous mathematical proof of (1) for Kolmogorov probabilities. However, abstractness of Kolmogorov’s probability model induces serious problems, if we do not control carefully dependence of probabilities on corresponding statistical ensembles of physical systems. Bell did not control this dependence. In fact, the symbol $`𝐏`$ of probability which is used in the proof must be regarded to different statistical ensembles.

3. Fluctuating distributions of hidden variables

To simplify our considerations, we suppose that the set of hidden variables is finite: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _M\}.`$ For each physical observable $`U`$, the value $`\lambda `$ of hidden variables determines the value $`U=U(\lambda ).`$ Let $`U`$ and $`V`$ be physical observables, $`U,V=\pm 1.`$ We start with the consideration of the frequency (experimental) covariation $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}`$ with respect to a random sequence $`x_{UV}=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N,\mathrm{}),`$ where $`x_i=(u_i,v_i),`$ which is induced by measurements of the pair $`(U,V).`$ The $`x_{UV}`$ is obtained by measurements for an ensemble $`S_{UV}`$ of physical systems (for example, pairs of correlated quantum particles). Our aim is to represent experimental covariation $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}`$ as ensemble covariation $`<U,V>_{S_{UV}}.`$ Then we shall demonstrate that in the general case it is impossible to perform for ensemble covariations Bell’s calculations which have been performed for Kolmogorov covariations. Let $`S_{UV}=\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_N\},`$ where $`i`$th measurement is performed for the system $`d_i.`$ Define a function $`i\lambda (i),`$ the value of hidden variables for $`d_i.`$ We set $`n_k(S_{UV})=|\{d_iS_{UV}:\lambda (i)=\lambda _k\}|`$ and $`𝐩_k^{UV}=𝐏_{S_{UV}}(\lambda =\lambda _k)=\frac{n_k(S_{UV})}{N}.`$ These are probabilities of hidden variables $`\lambda _k,k=1,2,\mathrm{},M,`$ in the statistical ensemble $`S_{UV}.`$ We have $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}=\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^NU(\lambda (i))V(\lambda (i))=_{k=1}^M𝐩_k^{UV}u_kv_k=<U,V>_{S_{UV}},`$ where $`u_k=U(\lambda _k),v_k=V(\lambda _k).`$ Thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=<A,B>_{x_{AB}}<C,B>_{x_{CB}}$$

$$=<A,B>_{S_{AB}}<C,B>_{S_{CB}}=\underset{k}{}(𝐩_k^{AB}a_k𝐩_k^{CB}c_k)b_k$$

and

$$<A,C>_{x_{AC}}=<A,C>_{S_{AC}}=\underset{k}{}𝐩_k^{AC}a_kc_k.$$

We now suppose that probabilities of $`\lambda _k`$ do not depend on statistical ensembles:

$$𝐩_k=𝐩_k^{AB}=𝐩_k^{CB}=𝐩_k^{AC}$$
(4)
(later we shall modify this condition to obtain statistical coincidence of probabilities, instead of the precise coincidence). Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{k=1}^M𝐩_k(a_kc_k)b_k\text{and}<A,C>_{x_{AC}}=_{k=1}^M𝐩_ka_kc_k.`$ We can now apply Theorem 1 for the discrete probability distribution $`\{𝐩_k\}_{k=1}^M`$ and obtain Bell’s inequality.

However, if condition (4) does not hold true, then equality (2) and, as a consequence, Bell’s inequality can be violated. The violation of condition (4) is the exhibition of unstable statistical structure on the level of hidden variables. Condition (4) is equivalent to a condition of implicit reproducibility which was discussed by De Baere .

Remark 3.1. ($`p`$-adic probability models, negative probabilities and Bell’s inequality). All our considerations were based on the statistical stabilization with respect to the real metric. In  we considered the statistical stabilization with respect to a $`p`$-adic metric. The field of $`p`$-adic numbers $`𝐐_p,`$ where $`p>1`$ is a prime number, can be constructed (as the field of real numbers $`𝐑`$) as a completion of the field of rational numbers $`𝐐.`$ The $`p`$-adic metric differs strongly from the real one. As for finite ensembles $`S,`$ ensemble probabilities $`𝐏_S(a)=\frac{n(a)}{N}`$ are rational numbers, we can study their behaviour not only with respect to the real metric on $`𝐐,`$ but also with respect to the $`p`$-adic metric. $`p`$-adic probability theory gives numerous examples of ensemble probabilities fluctuating in the real metric and stabilizing in the $`p`$-adic metric. However, the $`p`$-adic stabilization of probabilities does not imply the possibility to repeat Bell’s proof for $`p`$-adic probabilities: these probabilities may be negative rational numbers, see  (compare with Muckenheim, ).

4. Measure of statistical deviation between runs of an experiment

We introduce now a statistical analogue of the precise coincidence of ensemble probabilities for hidden variables. Let $`_1,_2`$ be two ensembles of physical systems and let $`\pi `$ be a property of elements of these ensembles. The $`\pi `$ has values $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _m).`$ We define

$$\delta _\pi (_1,_2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}|𝐏__1(\alpha _i)𝐏__2(\alpha _i)|,$$

where $`𝐏_{}(\alpha _i)=\frac{|\{d:\pi (d)=\alpha _i\}|}{||}`$ are ensemble probabilities. We remark that the function $`\delta =\delta _\pi `$ is a pseudometric on the set of all ensembles which elements have the property $`\pi :\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1})\delta (_1,_2)0;2)\delta (_1,_2)=\delta (_2,_1);3)\delta (_1,_2)\delta (_1,_3)+\delta (_3,_2).`$ In our model we set $`\pi =\lambda ,`$ hidden variables. The precise reproducibility of the probability distribution of hidden variables (4) can be written as

$$\delta (S_{AB},S_{CB})=\delta (S_{AB},S_{AC})=0,$$

where $`\delta =\delta _\lambda .`$ Of course, we need not use such a precise coincidence in probabilistic considerations. Let $`\varphi `$ be a quantum state. Denote by the symbol $`T_\varphi `$ the set of all statistical ensembles $``$ which correspond to $`\varphi `$ (can be obtained with the aid of some preparation procedure corresponding to $`\varphi ).`$ Set

$$ϵ_\varphi =sup\{\delta (_1,_2):_1,_2T_\varphi \}.$$

Theorem 2. (“General Bell’s inequality”) Let $`\varphi `$ be a quantum state and let $`A,B,C`$ be physical observables such that pairs of observables $`(A,B),(C,B)`$ and $`(A,C)`$ can be measured. Then inequality

$$|<A,B><C,B>|(1+2ϵ_\varphi )<A,C>$$
(5)
holds true.

Proof. We have

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|=|<A,B>_{x_{AB}}<C,B>_{x_{CB}}|$$

$$|\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝐩_k^{AB}(a_kc_k)b_k|+|\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}(𝐩_k^{AB}𝐩_k^{CB})c_kb_k|$$

$$ϵ_\varphi +\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝐩_k^{AB}|a_kb_k|(1a_kc_k)(1+ϵ_\varphi )<A,C>_{S_{AC}}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}|𝐩_k^{AC}𝐩_k^{AB}||a_kc_k|$$

$$(1+2ϵ_\varphi )<A,C>_{S_{AC}}.$$

We use the index $`N`$ to denote the cardinality of a statistical ensemble. If probabilities $`𝐏_{S_{UV}^N}(\lambda _k)`$ stabilize when $`N\mathrm{},`$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}𝐏_{S_{UV}^N}(\lambda _k)=𝐏(\lambda _k),$$

then $`ϵ_\varphi ^N0,N\mathrm{}.`$ This imply precise Bell’s inequality (1).

Experiments to verify Bell’s inequality can be considered as experiments to estimate the probability invariant $`ϵ_\varphi `$ for some class of quantum states. It seems that the only lesson of these experiments is that there exist quantum states $`\varphi `$ which have nonzero probability invariant $`ϵ_\varphi .`$ It may be that physical reality is nonlocal. It may be that it is even nonreal. However, it seems that Bell’s arguments did not imply neither nonlocality nor nonreality.

5. Stochastic hidden variables model

In this section it is supposed that the result of a measurement depends not only on the value $`\lambda `$ of hidden variables, but also on the state $`\omega ^U`$ of an equipment $`_U`$ which is used for measuring of $`U.`$ This the empiricists (contextualistic realists) interpretation of quantum mechanics, see, for example, W. De Muynck, W. De Baere, H. Marten, Ref. .

A measurement device $`_U`$ is a complex macroscopic system which state depends on the huge number of fluctuating parameters. Denote the ensemble of all possible states of $`_U`$ by the symbol $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_U:\mathrm{\Sigma }_U=\{\omega _1^U,\mathrm{},\omega _{L_U}^U\}.`$ The final value $`U_f`$ of an observable $`u`$ depends on both $`\lambda `$ and $`\omega :`$

$$u=U(\omega ,\lambda ).$$

We call such a model stochastic hidden variables model. Our model of stochastic hidden variables differs from the standard one, see section 6. The latter model is strongly connected with Kolmogorov’s probability model (existence of the probability distribution of hidden variables $`𝐏(\lambda )`$ and conditional probabilities $`𝐏(U,\lambda )`$ is postulated).

Let $`U`$ and $`V`$ be physical observables, $`U,V=\pm 1.`$ We start again with the consideration of the frequency covariation $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}`$ with respect to a collective $`x_{UV}`$ induced by the measurement of the pair $`(U,V).`$ The $`x_{UV}`$ is obtained by measurements for an ensemble $`S_{UV}`$ of physical systems. Our aim is again to represent the experimental covariation $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}`$ as ensemble covariation $`<U,V>_{S_{UV}}.`$ Then we shall demonstrate that in the general case it is impossible to perform for ensemble covariations Bell’s calculations, (2) – (3).

Let $`S_{UV}=\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_N\},`$ where $`i`$th measurement is performed for the system $`d_i.`$ Define functions $`i\lambda (i)`$ (the same function as above) and $`i\omega ^U(i),i\omega ^V(i),`$ states of apparatus $`_U`$ and $`_V,`$ respectively, at the instances, $`t_i^U`$ and $`t_i^V,`$ of measurements of $`U`$ and $`V`$ for $`i`$th system. We have

$$<U,V>_{x_{UV}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}U(\omega ^U(i),\lambda (i))V(\omega ^V(i),\lambda (i)).$$

Set $`D_{ks}^U=\{i:\lambda (i)=\lambda _k,\omega ^U(i)=\omega _s^U\}`$ and $`D_{ks}^V=\{i:\lambda (i)=\lambda _k,\omega ^V(i)=\omega _s^V\},1kM,1sL_U,1qL_V.`$ Set $`l_{ksq}^{UV}=|D_{ks}^UD_{kq}^V|.`$ It is evident that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=1}{\overset{L_U}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{L_V}{}}l_{ksq}^{UV}=N.$$

Hence

$$<U,V>_{x_{UV}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{ksq}{}l_{ksq}^{UV}u_{ks}v_{kq},$$

where $`u_{ks}=U(\omega _s^U,\lambda _k),v_{kq}=V(\omega _q^V,\lambda _k).`$ We show that $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}`$ can be represented as ensemble covariation for an appropriative ensemble of physical systems and states of measurement devices. However, a choice of such an ensemble is rather delicate problem.

First we note that $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}<U,V>_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_A\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_B}`$ (compare with section 6). For the latter covariation, we have

$$<U,V>_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_A\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_B}=\frac{1}{ML_AL_B}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=1}{\overset{L_U}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{L_V}{}}u_{ks}v_{kq}$$

and in general $`𝐏_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_A\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_B}(\lambda =\lambda _k,\omega ^U=\omega _s^U,\omega ^V=\omega _q^V)=\frac{1}{ML_AL_B}\frac{l_{ksq}}{N}`$ even approximately for $`M,N,L_A,L_B\mathrm{}.`$

It is also evident that $`<U,V>_{x_{UV}}<U,V>_{S_{UV}}.`$ The latter covariation is simply not well defined, because the ‘properties’ $`\omega ^U(i)=\omega _s^U,\omega ^V(i)=\omega _q^V`$ are not objective properties of elements of the ensemble $`S_{UV}.`$ These ‘properties’ are determined by fluctuations of parameters in the apparatus $`_U`$ and $`_V.`$

To find the right ensemble, we have to introduce two new ensembles, namely, ensembles of states of the apparatus $`_U`$ and $`_V`$ (in the process of measurements for the ensemble of physical systems $`S_{UV}):`$

$$S__U=\{\alpha _1^U,\mathrm{},\alpha _N^U\},\alpha _j^U\mathrm{\Sigma }_U,S__V=\{\alpha _1^V,\mathrm{},\alpha _N^V\},,\alpha _j^V\mathrm{\Sigma }_V,$$

where $`\alpha _i^U=\omega ^U(i),\alpha _i^V=\omega ^V(i)`$ are states of $`_U`$ and $`_V`$ at the instances of $`i`$th measurements. We set

$$𝐒_{UV}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{UV}}\times \mathrm{S}__\mathrm{U}\times \mathrm{S}__\mathrm{V})=\{\mathrm{D}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{N}\},\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j}=(\mathrm{d}_\mathrm{j},\alpha _\mathrm{j}^\mathrm{U},\alpha _\mathrm{j}^\mathrm{V}).$$

Then $`\pi (D_j)=(\lambda (j),\omega ^U(j),\omega ^V(j))`$ is an objective property of elements of the ensemble $`𝐒_{UV}`$ and

$$<U,V>_{x_{UV}}=<U,V>_{𝐒_{UV}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}U(\omega ^U(i),\lambda (i))V(\omega ^V(i),\lambda (i)).$$

We set

$$𝐩_{ksq}^{UV}=𝐏_{𝐒_{UV}}(D_j:\pi (D_j)=(\lambda _k,\omega _s^U,\omega _s^V))$$

$$=\frac{|\{D_j𝐒_{UV}:\pi (D_j)=(\lambda _k,\omega _s^U,\omega _s^V)\}|}{|𝐒_{UV}|}.$$

Hence we obtained that

$$<U,V>_{x_{UV}}=<U,V>_{𝐒_{UV}}=\underset{ksq}{}𝐩_{ksq}^{UV}u_{ks}v_{kq}.$$

Thus in the general case we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Delta }=<A,B>_{x_{AB}}<C,B>_{x_{CB}}=<A,B>_{𝐒_{AB}}<C,B>_{𝐒_{CB}}\hfill \\ & \\ & =_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}^{AB}a_{sk}b_{kq}_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}^{CB}c_{ks}b_{kq}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$<A,C>_{x_{AC}}=<A,C>_{𝐒_{AC}}=\underset{ksq}{}𝐩_{ksq}^{AC}a_{ks}c_{kq}.$$

We suppose now that probabilities $`𝐩_{ksq}^{UV}`$ do not depend on ensembles:

$$𝐩_{ksq}=𝐩_{ksq}^{AB}=𝐩_{ksq}^{CB}=𝐩_{ksq}^{AC}.$$
(6)
In particular, we suppose that all measurement devices have the same set of states (of parameters):

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_A=\mathrm{\Sigma }_B=\mathrm{\Sigma }_C(\text{and}L=L_A=L_B=L_C).$$
(7)
Then we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{ksq}{}𝐩_{ksq}(a_{ks}c_{ks})b_{kq}.$$

However, we could not repeat trick (3) of the proof of Bell’s inequality. The equality $`a_{ks}^2=1`$ does not give the possibility to proceed the proof. Of course, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& |\mathrm{\Delta }|=|_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}(a_{ks}a_{ks}^2c_{ks})b_{kq}|_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}|a_{ks}b_{kq}|(1a_{ks}c_{ks})\hfill \\ & \\ & 1_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}a_{ks}c_{ks}.\hfill \end{array}$$

But in general $`_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}a_{ks}c_{ks}`$ is not larger than $`<A,C>_{x_{AC}}=_{ksq}𝐩_{ksq}a_{ks}c_{kq}.`$

Therefore, if we keep to empiricism, then even stability condition (6) (for combined ensembles of physical systems and states of measurement apparatus) does not imply Bell’s inequality. A new source of violation of Bell’s inequality is the inconsistency of random fluctuations for two measurement devices $`_U`$ and $`_V.`$ In general $`\omega ^U(i)\omega ^V(i).`$

Suppose that it could be possible to control states of $`_U`$ and $`_V`$ and choose $`\omega `$ for $`_U`$ and $`_V`$ in the consistence way:

$$\omega =\omega ^U(i)=\omega ^V(i).$$

Then the ensemble $`𝐒_{UV}`$ would contain only triples of the form $`(\lambda _k,\omega _s,\omega _s)`$ and

$$𝐩_{ksq}^{UV}=𝐏_{𝐒_{UV}}(\lambda _k,\omega _s^U,\omega _q^V)=0,sq.$$
(8)
In such a case we obtain covariations:

$$<U,V>_{\mathrm{Ideal}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}U(\omega ^U(i),\lambda (i))V(\omega ^V(i),\lambda (i))=\underset{ks}{}𝐩_{ks}^{UV}u_{ks}v_{ks},$$

where $`𝐩_{ks}^{UV}=𝐩_{kss}^{UV}.`$ If we also suppose the validity of (6), we obtain

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Ideal}}|=|\underset{ks}{}𝐩_{ks}(a_{ks}c_{ks})b_{ks}|$$

$$1\underset{ks}{}𝐩_{ks}a_{ks}c_{ks}=1<A,C>_{\mathrm{Ideal}}.$$

However, ideal covariations have no direct connection to experimental frequency covariations.

Nevertheless, we can formulate the following mathematical theorem:

Theorem 3. Let statistical ensembles (physical systems/measurement apparatus) satisfy conditions (6) and (8). Then Bell’s inequality (1) holds true for covariations with respect to these ensembles.

Therefore, to obtain Bell’s inequality in the empiricists framework, we have to suppose: (1) statistical repeatability of ensemble distribution of hidden variables $`\lambda `$ in ensembles which are used for measurements; (3) statistical repeatability of fluctuations of states $`\omega `$ in ensembles of an equipment; (3) consistency of fluctuations of all measurement devices.

If the reader even deny the possibility of violations of (1) or (2), he must agree that condition (3) seems to be nonphysical: we could never control fluctuations of the huge number of parameters in the equipment.

Instead of precise coincidence (6), it is possible to consider (under the assumption (7)) the statistical coincidence based on the quantity:

$$\delta (𝐒_{AB},𝐒_{CB})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{s=1}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{L}{}}|𝐩_{ksq}^{AB}𝐩_{ksq}^{CB}|.$$

Here $`\delta =\delta _\pi `$ for the property $`\pi (i)=(\lambda (i),\omega ^U(i),\omega ^V(i)).`$ We remark that condition (6) of the precise coincidence can be written as

$$\delta (𝐒_{AB},𝐒_{CB})=0$$

for every two pairs of observable $`(A,B)`$ and $`(C,B).`$ We also introduce a new quantity which is a statistical measure of inconsistency of ensembles $`S__U`$ and $`S__V:`$

$$\sigma (𝐒_{UV})=\underset{sq}{}𝐏_{𝐒_{UV}}(\omega ^U=\omega _s,\omega ^V=\omega _q)=\underset{k}{}\underset{sq}{}𝐩_{ksq}^{UV}.$$

Condition (8) of the precise consistency for states of $`_U`$ and $`_V`$ can be written in the form:

$$\sigma (𝐒_{UV})=0.$$

Theorem 4. Let statistical ensembles (physical systems/measurement apparatus) satisfy conditions:

$$\delta (𝐒_{AB},𝐒_{CB}),\delta (𝐒_{AB},𝐒_{AC})ϵ\text{and}\sigma (𝐒_{AB}),\sigma (𝐒_{CB}),\sigma (𝐒_{AC})ϵ^{}.$$

Then inequality

$$|<A,B>_{𝐒_{AB}}<C,B>_{𝐒_{CB}}|(1+2ϵ+3ϵ^{})<A,C>_{𝐒_{AC}}$$

holds true.

Proof. We have

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|ϵ+|\underset{ksq}{}𝐩_{ksq}^{AB}(a_{ks}c_{ks})b_{kq}|$$

$$ϵ+2ϵ^{}+\underset{ks}{}𝐩_{ks}^{AB}|(a_{ks}c_{ks})b_{ks}|ϵ+2ϵ^{}+\underset{ks}{}𝐩_{ks}^{AB}(1a_{ks}c_{ks})$$

$$ϵ+4ϵ^{}+\underset{ksq}{}𝐩_{ksq}^{AB}(1a_{ks}c_{kq})(1+2ϵ+4ϵ^{})\underset{ksq}{}𝐩_{ksq}^{AC}a_{ks}c_{kq}.$$

We remark again that experiments to test Bell’s inequality can be interpreted as just experiments to find an estimate for a constant $`C=2ϵ+4ϵ^{}.`$ From this point of view the only result of these experiments is that $`C`$ is essentially larger that zero. However, such a results could be expected: it would be rather strange if measures of statistical deviations $`\delta `$ and $`\sigma `$ would be equal to zero despite of fluctuations of parameters of measuring devices.

6. Probability distributions in stochastic hidden variables models.

Typically stochastic hidden variables models are defined as models with probabilities $`(ϵ=\pm 1)`$

$$𝐏(U=ϵ)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐏(U=ϵ/\lambda )𝑑\rho (\lambda ),$$
(9)
where $`\rho (\lambda )`$ is the probability distribution of hidden variables and $`𝐏(U=ϵ/\lambda )`$ is the conditional probability to measure the value $`U=ϵ`$ for the quantum system having the hidden state $`\lambda ,`$ see, for example, .

Then (see Ref. ) the joint probability distribution can be defined (at least mathematically) as

$$𝐏(U_1=ϵ_1,U_2=ϵ_2,U_3=ϵ_3)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐏(U_1=ϵ_1/\lambda )𝐏(U_2=ϵ_2/\lambda )𝐏(U_3=ϵ_3/\lambda )𝑑\rho (\lambda ).$$
(10)
In fact, to derive Bell’s inequality in the Kolmogorov framework, it is sufficient to use the existence (on the mathematical level) of the joint probability distribution (10). However, considerations in the framework of the ensemble probability theory demonstrated that ‘probabilities’ (9) has no physical meaning. These are probabilities with respect to the ensemble $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_U.`$ However, physical probabilities are probabilities with respect to the ensemble $`𝐒_U=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{U}\times \mathrm{S}__\mathrm{U}),`$ where $`S_U=\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_N\}`$ is the ensemble of quantum system used in the measurement. We note that physical arguments against existing of representation (9) were presented by W. De Muynck, W. De Baere, H. Marten in Ref. . I think that results of this paper can strongly improve their considerations. We hope that our numerical description of nonexistence of Kolmogorov probabilities could essentially clarify the problem.

6. Other probabilistic models which do not contradict to local realism.

L. Accardi in Ref.  used non-Kolmogorov model without Bayes’ formula to eliminate Bell’s inequality from considerations related to spin’s model. Recently he developed a new model which gives an explanation of violations of Bell’s inequality, see Ref. . In fact, to get “physical Bell’s inequality” we have to consider in Theorem 1 indexed random variables $`U^1`$ and $`U^2`$ corresponding to correlated particles, 1 and 2. “Physical Bell’s inequality” can be obtained only on the basis of the implicit anticorrelation: $`U^1=U^2.`$ Accardi discussed the role of this condition in Bell’s arguments.

I. Pitowsky in Ref.  discussed the possibility that some nonmeasurable sets can be physical events, i.e, some physical observables may be nonmeasurable. There is no Bell’s inequality in this approach. Thus there is no problem with violations of Bell’s inequality. This model is consistent with known polarization phenomena and the existence of macroscopic magnetism. He also proposed a thought experiment which indicates a deviation from the predictions of quantum mechanics. We note that already A. N. Kolmogorov discussed ‘generalized probabilities’ on the algebra of all subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Mathematicians, in particular applied mathematicians, where reluctant to take nonmeasurable sets seriously. As a result there was no mathematical theory that relates nonmeasurable distributions with relative frequencies. Such an extension of probability theory was created by I. Pitowsky and then strongly mathematically improved by S.P. Gudder in Ref. . He introduced the concept of a probability manifold $`M.`$ The global properties of $`M`$ inherited from its local structure were then considered. It was shown that a deterministic spin model due to Pitowski falls within this general framework. Finally, Gudder constructed a phase-space model for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. These two models give the same global description as conventional quantum mechanics. However, they also give a local descriptions which is not possible in conventional quantum mechanics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was completed during the visit to Moscow State University on the basis of the grant of the Royal Academy of Science (Sweden) for the collaboration with the former Soviet Union.

References

 J.F. Clauser , A. Shimony, Rep. Progr.Phys., 41 1881-1901 (1978). A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 1804-1807 (1982); D. Home, F. Selleri, Nuovo Cim. Rivista, 14, 2–176 (1991).

 J.S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys., 38, 447–452 (1966).

 B. d’Espagnat, Veiled Reality. An anlysis of present-day quantum mechanical concepts. Addison-Wesley(1995).

 L. E. Ballentine, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 358–381 (1970).

 L. De Broglie, La Physique Quantique Restera–t–elle Indeterministe? Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1953); Lochak G., De Broglie’s initial conception of de Broglie waves. The wave–particle dualism. A tribute to Louis de Broglie on his 90th Birthday, Edited by S. Diner, D. Fargue, G. Lochak and F. Selleri. D. Reidel Publ. Company, Dordrecht, 1–25 (1970); Accardi L., The probabilistic roots of the quantum mechanical paradoxes. Ibid, 47–55; W. De Muynck and W. De Baere W., Ann. Israel Phys. Soc., 12, 1-22 (1996); W. De Muynck, W. De Baere, H. Marten, Found. of Physics, 24, 1589–1663 (1994); W. De Baere, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 39, 234-238 (1984); I. Pitowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett, 48, N.10, 1299-1302 (1982); Phys. Rev. D, 27, N.10, 2316-2326 (1983); S.P. Gudder, J. Math Phys., 25, 2397- 2401 (1984); W. Muckenheim, Phys. Reports, 133, 338–401 (1986).

. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, ser. Matem., 322, No. 6, 1075–1079 (1992);J. Math. Phys., 32, No. 4, 932–937 (1991); Physics Letters A, 200, 119–223 (1995); Physica A, 215, 577–587 (1995); Int. J. Theor. Phys., 34, 2423–2434 (1995); J. Math. Phys., 36, No.12, 6625–6632 (1995); A.Yu. Khrennikov, $`p`$-adic valued distributions in mathematical physics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994); A.Yu. Khrennikov, Non-Archimedean analysis: quantum paradoxes, dynamical systems and biological models. Kluwer Acad.Publ., Dordreht, The Netherlands, 1997.

 Kolmogoroff A. N., Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Springer Verlag, Berlin (1933); reprinted: Foundations of the Probability Theory. Chelsea Publ. Comp., New York (1956).

 T. L. Fine, Theories of probabilities, an examination of foundations. Academic Press, New York (1973).

 R. von Mises, The mathematical theory of probability and statistics. Academic, London (1964).

 P.H. Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento, B, 46, 392-400 (1978); W. de Muynck, J. Steklenborg, Ann. Phys., 45, 222-234(1988).

 A. Fine, Phys. Rev. Letters, 48, 291–295 (1982).


format: text

text:
# Fusion rings for degenerate minimal models

## 1 Introduction

The Virasoro algebra and its minimal models are a good source of interesting vertex operator algebras. In \[W\] the rationality of the Virasoro vertex operator algebras $`L(c_{p.q},0)`$ was proved, where $`c_{p,q}=1\frac{6(pq)^2}{pq}`$ and $`(p,q)=1`$, $`p,q2`$. This result is used for the construction of the corresponding vertex tensor categories (cf. \[H1\]). A similar result is obtained for $`N=1`$ case in \[A\] and \[HM\].

In this paper we study a non–rational vertex operator algebra $`L(1,0)`$ ($`p=q`$ case) and the corresponding fusion ring for degenerate minimal models, i.e., the case “$`p=q`$”, with central charge $`c=1`$. We also consider a $`N=1`$ vertex operator superalgebra version based on $`L(\frac{3}{2},0)`$ (see below). These cases are substantially different for many reasons (let us focus on the case $`L(1,0)`$ since the same problem persists for $`L(\frac{3}{2},0)`$. The vertex operator algebra $`L(1,0)`$ is not rational (cf. \[FZ\]) but it has a distinguished family of irreducible modules (those that are not irreducible Verma modules) $`_1`$, which consists of classes of irreducible modules isomorphic to $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ for some $`m`$. These modules have a quite simple embedding structure (\[KR\], \[FF2\]).

We show that the fusion ring for the family $`_1`$ is isomorphic to the representation ring $`ep(𝔰l(2,))`$, i.e., we “formally” have

$$L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})\times L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})=$$

$$L(1,\frac{(n+m)^2}{4})+L(1,\frac{(n+m2)^2}{4})\mathrm{}+L(1,\frac{(nm)^2}{4}),$$

where $`m,n`$ and $`nm`$.

This result seems to be known–in some form– for a while by physicists (also in \[FKRW\] is stated as a part of more general conjecture concerning fusion rings for $`W(𝔤l_N)`$ algebras–see also \[FM\]). The author of the current paper could not trace any proof in the language of vertex operator algebras. Some computations are done in \[DG\] but not complete. But instead of trying to patch missing proofs, there are two more important reasons for seeking such a proof.

* So far, not many computations of the fusion coefficients has been known for non–rational vertex operator algebras (here non–rational means non–rational in any reasonable category). In particular we offer a proof that uses universal construction (induced modules), therefore it is very general.
* As noticed by H. Li in \[L1\] and \[L2\], Frenkel–Zhu’s formula \[FZ\] does not hold for non–rational vertex operator algebras. The right formula was provided in \[L2\] but it is a non–trivial matter to use it for computational purposes in non–rational setting.

We believe that our method can be used for more complicated models–like degenerate models associated to $`𝒲`$–algebras.

We have to stress that the fusion coefficients are simply derived from the space of intertwining operators among irreducible modules. In other words it is not true that the only modules which “fuse” with $`L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})`$ and $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ are completely reducible. This fact makes impossible to implement $`P(z)`$–tensor product construction from \[HL1\]\[HL2\]. The resolution might be to construct (a new) tensor product which takes only irreducible modules into account, but this approach will assume a good knowledge of matrix coefficients for product of intertwining operators. A different approach would be working in the larger family $`\overline{}_1`$, which consists of all quotients of Verma modules $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$. The possible constructions will be discussed elsewhere.

We also provide a different proof of the fusion formulas by constructing all intertwining operators from the lattice vertex operator algebra $`V_L`$ and its irreducible module $`V_{L+1/2}`$ (cf. \[DG\]).

A super $`N=1`$ versions of the above result stems from the $`N=1`$ Neveu–Schwarz Lie superalgebra at the level $`\frac{3}{2}`$. Again, there are essentially two approaches: one which uses the lattice construction (extended with a suitable fermionic Fock space) and the other which uses the singular vectors and projection formulas. For the future purposes we use the latter approach. We consider a set of equivalence classes of irreducible modules for the $`N=1`$ superconformal algebra (see Section 3.) with representatives $`L(\frac{3}{2},\frac{q^2}{2})`$ where $`q.`$ We proved (see Theorem 10.1 and Corollary 10.1) that the corresponding fusion ring is isomorphic to the representation ring for $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$, i.e., we formally have:

$$L(\frac{3}{2},\frac{r^2}{2})\times L(\frac{3}{2},\frac{q^2}{2})=$$

$$L(\frac{3}{2},\frac{(r+q)^2}{2})+L(\frac{3}{2},\frac{(r+q1)^2}{2})\mathrm{}+L(\frac{3}{2},\frac{(rq)^2}{2}),$$

for every $`r,q𝐍`$, $`rq`$, where $`\times `$ stands for the fusion product (see the last Chapter).

In particular, as in the Virasoro algebra case, these fusion coefficients are $`0`$ or $`1`$. However in \[HM\] we showed that for $`N=1`$ case has some interesting features; for some vertex operator algebras $`L(c,0)`$, fusion coefficients might be $`2`$. In Proposition 11.1 we construct a non–trivial example with $`c=\frac{15}{2}3\sqrt{5}`$.

At the very end, we construct an example of a logarithmic intertwining operator (for the definition see \[M\]) for the $`N=1`$ vertex operator superalgebra $`L(\frac{27}{2},0)`$.

n.b. These results can be extended for a more general class of vertex operator algebras $`L(c,0)`$ where $`cc_{p,q}`$; because of simplicity we treat only the case $`c=1`$ and $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$.

Acknowledgment: The author thank Prof. Haisheng Li and Prof. Yi-Zhi Huang for useful comments. Thanks go to the referee for his/her valuable remarks. This paper is a union of slightly modified preprints available at the arXive.

## 2 Representations of the Virasoro algebra at the level $`c=1`$

The representation theory for the Virasoro algebra has been studied intensively in the last two decades (\[KR\], \[FF1\]\[FF3\]). Kac’s determinant formula is the most important tool in the highest (or lowest) weight theory. From the determinant formula it follows that the lowest weight Verma module with the central charge $`c(t)=136t6t^1`$ and the weight

$$h_{p,q}(t)=\frac{1p^2}{4}t^1\frac{1pq}{2}+\frac{1q^2}{4}t,$$

has a singular vector of the weight $`h_{p.q}(t)+pq`$, $`t`$. We are interested in the case $`t=1`$, i.e $`c=1`$. It is easy to see that $`M(1,h)`$ is irreducible if and only if $`h\frac{m^2}{4}`$ for some $`m`$. In the case $`h=\frac{m^2}{4}`$ we have the following description:

###### Proposition 2.1

The Verma module $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ has a unique singular vector of weight $`\frac{m^2}{4}+(m+1)`$. This vector generates the maximal submodule. In other words we have the following exact sequence

$$0M(1,\frac{(m+2)^2}{4})M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})0.$$
(1)
Even though they do not exist in general, in the case $`h_{1,q}(t)`$, if $`p=1`$ there are explicit formulas at each level $`c(t)`$ (in particular $`t=1`$). When $`c=1`$ Benoit and S. Aubin’s formula \[BSA1\] implies that

$$P_{\mathrm{sing}}v_{1,q}=\underset{\stackrel{I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n\}}{|I|=q}}{}c_q(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_n)v_{1.q}$$
(2)
is a singular vector for $`M(1,h_{1,q}(1))`$, where

$$c_r(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)=\underset{\stackrel{1k<r}{k_{j=1}^si_j}}{}k(rk).$$

###### Remark 2.1

Note that every singular vector (2) has form $`L(1)^{m+1}+\mathrm{}`$, where dots represent lower degree terms (with respect to the universal enveloping algebra grading).

## 3 Vertex operator algebra $`L(1,0)`$

### 3.1 Zhu’s algebra and intertwining operators

We will use the definition of vertex operator algebra and modules as stated in \[FHL\] or \[FLM\]. Let $`L(1,0)=M(1,0)/L(1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ be a simple vertex operator algebra associated to irreducible representation of the Virasoro algebra (cf. \[FZ\], \[W\]).

It is known that to every vertex operator algebra $`V`$, we can associate Zhu’s associative algebra $`A(V)`$ (cf. \[FZ\] and \[Z\]). In the special case $`V=L(1,0)`$, we know (see \[FZ\], \[W\]) that $`A(V)[y]`$, where $`y=[L(2)L(1)].`$ We have chosen the multiplication in $`A(V)`$ as in \[W\] (which is slightly different then the one in \[FZ\]),

$$ab=\mathrm{Res}_xY(a,x)\frac{(1x)^{\mathrm{deg}(a)}}{x}b,$$

where $`a,bA(V)`$.

By using standard techniques (see \[FZ\], \[W\]) we have the following.

###### Proposition 3.1

Every irreducible module for the vertex operator algebra $`L(1,0)`$ is isomorphic to $`L(1,h)`$ , for some $`h`$.

Proof: According to \[Z\], there is a one–to–one equivalence between equivalence classes of $``$–gradable irreducible $`L(1,0)`$–modules and irreducible $`[y]`$–modules. Every irreducible $`L(1,0)`$–module is a $`\mathrm{Vir}`$–module. Any such module is $``$–gradable and isomorphic to $`L(1,h)`$ for some $`h`$. On the other hand every finite dimensional irreducible $`[y]`$–module is one dimensional so the proof follows.

Since the notion of intertwining operator is more subtle we include here the original definition \[FHL\].

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`W_1,W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ be a triple of modules for vertex operator algebra $`V`$. A mapping

$$𝒴W_1W_2W_3\{x\},$$

is called an intertwining operator of type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$, if it satisfies the following properties

1. The truncation property: For any $`w_iW_i`$, $`i=1,2`$,

$$(w_1)_nw_2=0,$$

for $`n`$ large enough.
2. The $`L(1)`$-derivative property: For any $`vV`$,

$$𝒴(L(1)w_1,x)=\frac{d}{dx}𝒴(w_1,x),$$
3. The Jacobi identity: In $`\mathrm{Hom}(W_1W_2,W_3)\{x_0,x_1,x_2\}`$, we have

$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_0}}\right)Y(u,x_1)𝒴(w_1,x_2)`$ (3)
$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_1}{x_0}}\right)𝒴(w_1,x_2)Y(u,x_1)`$
$`=x_2^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_0}{x_2}}\right)𝒴(Y(u,x_0)w_1,x_2)`$
for $`uV`$ and $`w_1W_1`$.

We denote the space of all intertwining operators of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ by $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$. The dimension of the space of intertwining operators (also known as “fusion rule” )of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ we denote by $`𝒩_{W_1,W_2}^{W_3}`$.

Our goal is to find the fusion rules for the degenerate minimal models, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{p^2}{4})L(1,\frac{q^2}{4})}\right).$$

Since our modules are irreducible we want to introduce Frenkel-Zhu’s formula which gives us (roughly) a prescription for calculating fusion rules. It is not hard to see, by using the Jacobi identity, that the space $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{p^2}{4})L(1,\frac{q^2}{4})}\right)`$ is at most one dimensional.

Now for every module $`M`$, we associate an $`A(V)`$–bimodule $`A(M):=M/O(M)`$ (cf. \[FZ\]), where $`O(M)`$ is spanned by the elements of the form

$$\mathrm{Res}_xY(u,x)\frac{(1x)^{deg(a)}}{x^2}v,$$

$`uV`$, $`vM`$. In the case $`M=M(c,h)`$,

$$O(M(c,h))=\{(L(n3)2L(n2)+L(1))v,n0,vM(c,h)\}.$$
(4)
If we let

$$y=[L(2)L(1)],x=[L(2)2L(1)+L(0)],$$

then from the formulas

$$[L(n)v]=[(nyx+\mathrm{wt}(v))v],$$

and

$$[x,y]w=0\mathrm{mod}O(M(c,h)),$$

($`[x,y]=xyyx`$) it follows that

$$A(M(c,h))[x,y],$$

as a $`[y]`$–bimodule (cf. \[L2\]) , where the lowest weight vector is identified with $`1[x,y]`$ and the actions of are

$$yp(x,y)=xp(x,y),p(x,y)y=yp(x,y),$$

for every $`p(x,y)[x,y]`$.

The Frenkel-Zhu’s formula (\[FZ\]) states that it is possible to calculate the dimension of the space $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_3}{M_1M_2}\right)`$ by knowing $`A(V)`$, $`A(M_1)`$, $`M_2(0)`$ and $`M_3(0)`$. Instead of giving the original statement from \[FZ\], we state the following refinement obtained in \[L1\]-\[L2\]:

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ be lowest weight $`V`$–modules. Suppose that $`M_2`$ and $`M_3^{}`$ are generalized Verma $`V`$–modules (see Section 3.2). Then we have

$$𝒩_{M_1M_2}^{M_3}=\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{V})}(\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{M}_1)_{\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{V})}\mathrm{M}_2(0),\mathrm{M}_3(0)),$$

where $`M_i(0)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, is the “top” level of $`M_i`$, respectively, equipped with the $`A(V)`$-module structures.

This theorem is not so useful as it stands. On the other hand its proof is important. Hence it will be necessary to understand a little bit deeper assumptions on $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ in our situation. For warm up let us start with the “easy–half” of the Frenkel-Zhu’s formula which says:

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`M_3`$ be an irreducible lowest weight $`V`$–module. Then

$$𝒩_{M_1M_2}^{M_3}\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{V})}(\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{M}_1)_{\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{V})}\mathrm{M}_2(0),\mathrm{M}_3(0)).$$

Define an infinite dimensional Lie algebra $``$ spanned by

$$L(n2)2L(n1)+L(n),$$

for $`n1`$. In the case of minimal models–which is the most interesting case–the homology groups $`H_q(,L(c,h))`$ where calculated in \[FF2\]. For the Verma modules the $`0`$-th homology, $`H_0(,M(1,h))`$ with the coefficients in the Verma modules is isomorphic to $`[x,y]`$ as an $`A(L(1,0))`$–bimodule (cf. \[W\]).

The following result is an application of a more general theory \[FF1\].

###### Theorem 3.2

We have

1. $$\mathrm{H}_0(,L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})),$$

is infinite–dimensional.
2. $`\mathrm{H}_0(,L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))`$ is finitely generated as a (left) $`A(L(1,0))`$–module.
3. $$\mathrm{Ext}_{Vir,𝒪}^1(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}),L(1,\frac{n^2}{4}))=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{if}|mn|=2\\ 0\mathrm{otherwise}\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{Ext}_{Vir,𝒪}^1`$ stands for the relative $`\mathrm{Ext}`$ with respect to the one–dimensional abelian subalgebra generated by $`L(0)`$.

Proof: a) Since the maximal submodule of $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ is generated by one vector, in the projection (or homology) $`A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))`$ is isomorphic to $`\frac{[x,y]}{I}`$, where $`I`$ is a cyclic submodule (with respect to the left and right actions) generated by some polynomial $`p(x,y)`$ which is a projection of $`v_{1,m}`$ in $`[x,y]`$ . It is clear that this space is infinite dimensional.
b) Note first that $`[L(1)v]=(yx+deg(v))[v]`$. By using Remark 2.1 it follows that

$$[v_{sing}]=p(x,y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}(xy+i)+q(x,y).$$

where $`\text{deg}(q)<(m+1)`$. Thus, the pure monomials in $`p(x,y)`$ with the highest powers are $`x^{m+1}`$ and $`y^{m+1}`$. Since, $`I`$ is spanned by $`p(x,y)[x]`$, here we consider only the left action, it follows that $`\frac{[x,y]}{I}`$ is finitely generated. The similar argument holds for the right action.
c) The idea is the same as in \[FF1\]. The result is however different. It is known that

$$\mathrm{Ext}_{Vir,𝒪}^{}(M,N)H^{}(Vir,𝒪,Hom(M,N)).$$

Therefore

$$H^{}(Vir,𝒪,Hom(M,N))Tor_{}^{Vir,𝒪}(N^{},M),$$

where $`N^{}`$ is the dual module. Hence we can compute our cohomology by using the tensor product of complexes

$$M(1,\frac{(m+2)^2}{4})M(1,\frac{m^2}{4}),$$

$$M(1,\frac{(n+2)^2}{4})^{opp}M(1,\frac{n^2}{4})^{opp},$$

where $`M(c,h)^{opp}`$ is the opposite Verma module (cf. \[FF1\]-\[FF2\]). The corresponding spectral sequence $`E_2^{p,q}`$ collapses at the second term Therefore

$$Tor_1^{Vir,𝒪}(L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})^{},L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})E_2^{1,0}\mathrm{or}0,$$

where non–trivial homology occurs only if the Verma module $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ embeds inside $`M(1,\frac{n^2}{4})`$ as the maximal submodule or vice–versa. This happens if and only if $`|nm|=2`$. Therefore we have the proof 111It is crucial to notice that our cohomology is relative one, otherwise our extension are not controllable inside category $`𝒪`$. Such (non–relative) extensions are studied in \[M\]. The corresponding short–exact sequences are clearly,

$$0L(1,\frac{(m+2)^2}{4})M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})/M(1,\frac{(m+4)^2}{4})L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})0,$$
(5)
and the one obtained from 5 by applying (exact) functor $`()^{}`$ taking modules to the corresponding contragradient modules.

For every $`m,n`$ (we exclude the case $`mn=0`$), fix a multiset $`J_{m,n}=\{m+n,m+n2,\mathrm{},mn\}`$. Let $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ be a “density” module for the Virasoro algebra. $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ is spanned by $`w_r`$, $`r`$ and the action is given by

$$L_n.w_r=(\mu +r+\lambda (m+1))w_{rn}.$$

In \[FF1\] the projection formula for the singular vectors (considered as an element of the enveloping algebra) on $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ (more precisely $`w_0`$) was found. We want to relate the projection of the singular vectors on $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ with the projection inside $`A(M(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))_{C[y]}L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})`$). It is easy to see that

$`[L(j_1)\mathrm{}L(j_k)v_{m^2/4}]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(j_r{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}}y+\beta (r,k)).[v_{m^2/4}]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(j_r{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}}x+\beta (r,k))v_{m^2/4}`$ (6)
where $`v_{m^2/4}`$ is the lowest weight vector and

$$\beta (r,k)=j_{r+1}+\mathrm{}+j_k+\frac{m^2}{4}.$$

But the last factor in (3.1) is the same as the $`P(j_1,..,j_k)`$ where

$$L(j_1)\mathrm{}L(j_k).w_0=P(j_1,\mathrm{},j_k)w_{j_1+\mathrm{}+j_k},$$

and the projection is in $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ for $`\lambda =\frac{n^2}{4}`$ and $`\mu =\frac{n^2}{4}+\frac{m^2}{4}x`$.

In the remarkable paper \[FF2\], projection formulas for all singular vectors on the density modules were found. In the slightly different notation, for the singular vectors we consider, these formulas appeared in \[KA\]. The result is

$$v_{1,m+1}.w_0=\underset{iJ_{m,n}}{}(x\frac{i^2}{4})w_{m+1},$$
(7)
up to a multiplicative constant.

Now, by using (7) fact and the discussion above (cf. \[W\]) we obtain

###### Lemma 3.2

As a $`A(L(1,0)`$–module $`A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))_{A(L(1,0))}L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})(0)`$ is isomorphic to $`\frac{[x]}{<_{iJ_{m,n}}(xi^2/4)>}.`$

If $`nm`$ notice that as an $`A(L(1,0))`$– module

$$A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))_{A(L(1,0))}L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})(0)\underset{iJ_{m,n}}{}v_i,$$
(8)
where $`v_i`$ is an irreducible $`A(L(1,0))`$–module such that $`y.v_i=i^2/4v_i`$. But if $`m<n`$, then we have two-dimensional submodule in the above decomposition (and this module is not completely reducible). Thus, (8) is not symmetric if we switch $`m`$ and $`n`$.

The similar failure was already noticed in \[L1\]. Anyhow, by using Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.1 we obtain

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$, $`L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})`$ and $`M`$ an irreducible $`L(1,0)`$–modules. Then we have the following upper bounds

$`\mathrm{dim}I\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}}\right)\{\begin{array}{c}1\mathrm{if}ML(1,\frac{r^2}{4})\mathrm{for}rJ_{m,n},\\ 0\mathrm{otherwise}\end{array}`$ (11)
where $`J_{m,n}=\{m+n,\mathrm{},mn\}`$.

Now, we shall show that the equality holds in the equation (11). We will provide two different proofs. One which uses the properties of Verma modules and the other which uses free field realization of the modules $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$.

### 3.2 Lie algebra $`g(V)`$

Let $`V`$ be a vetex operator algebra. Let $`\widehat{V}=V[t,t^1]`$, $`d=L(1)1+1\frac{d}{dt}`$ and $`g(V)=V/dV`$. It has been noticed by several authors that the space $`g(V)`$ has a Lie algebra structure if we let

$$[a(m),b(n)]=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{i}\right)(a_ib)(m+ni).$$

If we define the grading with $`\mathrm{deg}a(m)=nm1`$, where $`aV_{(n)}`$, then we have the corresponding triangular decomposition $`g(V)=g(V)_{}g(V)_0g(V)_+`$. Let $`U`$ be any $`g(V)_0`$–module. We let (as in \[L2\])

$$F(U)=\mathrm{Ind}_{U(g(V)_+g(V)_0)}^{U(g)}U,$$

such that $`g(V)_+`$ acts as zero. We define also the quotient $`\overline{F}(U)=F(U)/J(U)`$ (the so–called generalized Verma module \[L2\]), where $`J(U)`$ is the intersection of all kernels of all $`g(V)`$–homomorphisms from $`F(U)`$ to weak modules. Now, the assumption in Theorem 3.1 on $`M_2`$ and $`M_3^{}`$ means that $`M_2\overline{F}(M_2(0))`$ and $`M_3=\overline{F}(M_3^{}(0))^{}`$.

In \[L1\]\[L2\] it was shown that every $`A(V)`$ homomorphism from $`A(W_1)_{A(V)}W_2(0)`$ to $`W_3(0)`$ does not necessary lead to an intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ but rather to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{F(W_3(0)^{})^{}}{W_1F(W_2(0))}\right)`$ (actually $`F(W_2(0))`$ might be replaced by $`\overline{F}(W_2(0))`$).

In the case when $`V`$ is rational $`\overline{F}(W_2(0))W_2`$ and $`\overline{F}(W_3(0)^{})^{}W_3`$ (\[L2\]). But if the vertex operator algebra $`V`$ is not rational, the main difficulty is that the generalized Verma module $`\overline{F}(W_2(0))`$ may not be isomorphic to $`W_2`$ (let alone $`F(W_2(0))`$ !) (cf. \[L2\]). Also, the spaces $`F(U)`$ and $`\overline{F}(U)`$ are extremely difficult to analyze explicitly. Still, because we are dealing with a particular example, Virasoro vertex operator algebra, we can make use of singular vectors and Verma modules to simplify the whole construction.

Let $`V=L(1,0)`$. Pick $`\omega =L(2)\mathrm{𝟏}L(1,0)`$. Then, inside $`g(L(1,0))`$, we have

$$[\omega (m+1),\omega (n+1)]=(mn)\omega (m+n+1)+\delta _{m+n,0}\frac{m^3m}{12},$$

i.e., these operators close the Virasoro algebra. From the construction of $`F(U)`$ it is clear that $`U(Vir_{})UU(g(V)_{})UF(U)`$. In particular $`M(1,h)F(M(1,h)(0))`$.

### 3.3 The fusion rules computations

Assume first that

$$mn.$$
(12)
First we replace the “big” space $`F(M(1,h))`$ with the smaller Verma module for the Virasoro algebra (we have seen already that the latter is a subspace inside $`F(M(1,h))`$).

Now, let us pick a non–trivial $`A(L(1,0))`$ homomorphism from $`A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))_{A(L(1,0))}L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})(0)`$ to $`L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})(0)`$. Also let $`T=L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})[t,t^1]M(1,\frac{n^2}{4}`$ be a $`g(L(1,0))`$–module as in \[L2\]. Then the construction in \[L2\] implies that there is a bilinear pairing between $`T`$ and $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})F(M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})(0)^{})`$. This implies (again by applying Li’s construction in the proof of Theorem 2.11 in \[L2\]) that the corresponding intertwining operator lands in $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}`$, i.e., it is of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})M(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right)`$. Here $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}`$ is the contragradient Verma module (cf. \[FF2\]). The contragradient module $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}`$ is not of the lowest weight type (because $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})`$ is reducible). In particular, if $`v^{}`$ is the lowest weight vector

$$U(Vir)v^{}L(1,\frac{r^2}{4}),$$

i.e. we can “paste” the whole irreducible module by acting on the lowest weight subspace, but not the whole module $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})^{}`$. Now, the question is
How to descend from $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})^{}`$ to $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ ?
Here is the proof. We have either $`nr`$ or $`r<n`$. For each of these two cases we consider

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})M(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right),$$
(13)
or

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{n^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}\right),$$
(14)
respectively. Notice that these two spaces are isomorphic because of $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_3}{M_1M_2}\right)I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_2^{}}{M_1M_3^{}}\right)`$. Suppose that $`nr`$.

Now the aim is to construct intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right).`$ Therefore if we can check

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w=0,$$
(15)
for every $`wM(1,\frac{(m+2)^2}{4})M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$, $`w_3^{}M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{\prime \prime }=M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})`$ and $`w_1L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})`$, then by defining $`\overline{𝒴}(w_1,x)[w_2]:=\overline{𝒴}(w_1,x)w_2`$ where $`[w_2]M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})/M(1,\frac{(m+2)^2}{4})`$, we obtain a (well–defined) non–trivial intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right)`$.

Let us check that (15) holds. First of all, because of the Jacobi identity and the fact that $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})`$ is lowest weight module, it is enough to show that

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)v_{sing}=0$$
(16)
where $`w_3^{}M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{\prime \prime }(0)=M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})(0)`$ is the lowest weight vector and $`v_{sing}`$ is the singular vector that generates the maximal submodule of $`M(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$.

$`w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)L(j_1)\mathrm{}L(j_k)w=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(x^{j_i+1}_x+(1j_i)x^{j_i}{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}})w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(x^{j_i+1}_x+(1j_i)x^{j_i}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}})Cx^{\frac{r^2}{4}\frac{m^2}{4}\frac{n^2}{4}}=`$
$`(1)^{_ij_i}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=i+1}{\overset{k}{}}}j_s+(1j_i){\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}})Cx^{\frac{r^2}{4}\frac{m^2}{4}\frac{n^2}{4}}=`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(j_i{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \underset{s=i+1}{\overset{k}{}}}j_s+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}})Cx^{\frac{r^2}{4}\frac{m^2}{4}\frac{n^2}{4}_ij_i},`$ (17)
where $`C`$ is a constant that depends on $`𝒴`$ (we may assume that $`C`$ is equal to $`1`$). If we compare (3.3) with (3.1) we see that products appearing in both expressions are the same if we interchange $`x`$ with $`\frac{r^2}{4}`$ and $`\frac{m^2}{4}`$ with $`\frac{n^2}{4}`$. In other words the expression $`w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)v_{sing}=0`$ if and only if the corresponding projection inside $`A(L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})_{A(L(1,0)}A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))`$ is zero (notice that now $`L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})`$ and $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ changed positions). We know that

$$A(L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})_{A(L(1,0)}A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))\frac{[x]}{_{iJ_{n,m}}x\frac{i^2}{4}}.$$

Because of (12), $`J_{n,m}J_{n,m}`$ (as multisets). Therefore

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)v_{sing}=0$$

holds. Thus we obtain a non–trivial intertwining operator $`\overline{𝒴}`$ of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right).`$ Now,

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})^{}}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right)I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}\right).$$

Because of our initial assumption $`nr`$, and $`mnrm+n`$ it follows that $`mrnm+r`$, therefore we can repeat the whole procedure for $`M(1,\frac{r^2}{4})`$ so we end up with a non–trivial intertwining operator of the type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}\right).$$

If $`r<q`$ then we pick the intertwining operator (14) and the same reasoning leads to a non–trivial intertwining operator of the type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right).$$

This also follows from the duality property for the intertwining operators. If we summarized everything we obtain

###### Theorem 3.3

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right)=1$$

if and only if $`r\{m+n,\mathrm{},|mn|\}`$.

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`𝒜`$ be a free Abelian group on the set $`\{a(m):m\}`$ and

$$\times :𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜$$

a binary operation defined by the formula

$$a(m)\times a(n)=\underset{r0}{}𝒩_{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}^{L(1,\frac{r^2}{4})}a(r).$$

Then $`𝒜`$ is a commutative associative ring with the multiplication

$$a(m)\times a(n)=a(m+n)+a(m+n2)+\mathrm{}+a(|mn|),$$

i.e. $`𝒜`$ is isomorphic to the representation ring $`ep(𝔰l(2,))`$.

###### Remark 3.1

In general if $`M`$ is any $`L(1,0)`$–module and

$$𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right),$$

then $`M`$ is not necessary completely reducible. Also, note that we excluded the case $`mn=0`$. If $`m`$ or $`n`$ are equal to zero then we deal with intertwining operators among two irreducible modules and vertex operator algebras, which are well known.

Another interesting fact is that in the case (12) the module $`A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))_{A(L(1,0))}L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})(0)`$ is not completely reducible. This fact was exploited in \[M\] where we study logarithmic intertwining operators.

Note that in our proof we actually analyzed more carefully the failure of Frenkel-Zhu’s formula. One should not expect to apply our procedure in the more general setting, because our Virasoro vertex operator algebra has a quite simple structure. Certainly it would be interesting to study a class of vertex operator algebra for which

$$A(W_1)_{A(V)}W_2(0)A(W_2)_{A(V)}W_1(0),$$
(18)
for any choice of irreducible modules $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$. Then we hope that for this class of vertex algebras some version of Frenkel-Zhu’s formula indeed apply. Assumption (18) turns out to be very natural since

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_2W_1}\right).$$
(19)
## 4 Construction of all intertwining operators for the family $`_1`$

### 4.1 $`V_L`$ vertex operator algebra and its irreducible modules

Let $`L`$ be a rank one even lattice with a generator $`\beta `$ normalized such that $`\beta ,\beta =1`$ and let $`\alpha =\sqrt{2}\beta `$. Thus $`\alpha ,\alpha =2`$. As in \[FLM\], \[DL\] we define $`V_L`$ as a vector space

$$V_L=M(1)[L],$$

where $`M(1)`$ is the level one irreducible module for Heisenberg algebra $`\widehat{h}_Z`$ associated to one–dimensional abelian algebra $`h=L_{}`$ and $`[L]`$ is the group algebra of $`L`$ with a generator $`e^\alpha `$. Put $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}\beta (1)^2`$. Then $`V_L`$ is a vertex operator algebra (see \[FLM\]) with the Virasoro element $`\omega `$. We have a decomposition

$$V_L=\underset{m}{}M(1)e^{m\alpha }.$$

Let $`L^o`$ be a dual lattice, $`L^o/L/2`$. Then (as in \[DL\]), for a nontrivial coset representative, we obtain an irreducible $`V_L`$–module $`V_{L+1/2}`$, which can be decomposed as

$$V_{L+1/2}=\underset{m}{}M(1)e^{m\alpha +1/2\alpha }.$$

Moreover, $`V_{L+1/2}`$, $`V_L`$ is (up to equivalence) complete list of irreducible $`V_L`$–modules. Furthermore, one can equip the space $`W=V_LV_{L+1/2}`$ (as in \[DL\]) with the structure of the generalized vertex operator algebra. We will neglect this fact in our considerations.

For every module $`W`$ for the Virasoro algebra on which $`L(0)`$ acts semisimple we define a formal character (or a $`q`$-graded dimension) by

$$ch_q(W)=\underset{n\mathrm{Spec}L(0)}{}\mathrm{dim}(W_n)q^n.$$

From the Proposition 2.1 it follows that

$$ch_q(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}))=\frac{q^{\frac{m^2}{4}}q^{\frac{(m+2)^2}{4}}}{q^{1/24}\eta (q)}.$$

Then it is not hard to obtain

$`ch_q(V_L)={\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}(2n+1)ch_q(L(1,n^2))`$
$`ch_q(V_{L+1/2})={\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}(2n+2)ch_q\left(L(1,{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)^2}{4}})\right).`$ (20)
Consider the vectors

$$x=e^\alpha ,y=e^\alpha ,h=\alpha (1)\iota (0),$$

which span $`(V_L)_1`$. These vectors span a Lie algebra isomorphic to $`𝔰l(2,)`$. $`x_0`$, $`y_0`$ and $`h_0`$ as act derivatives on $`W`$. The following result was obtained in \[DG\].

###### Proposition 4.1

As $`(L(1,0),𝔰𝔩_2)`$–module

$$V_L\underset{m0}{}L(1,m^2)V(2m),$$

where $`V(2m)`$ is an irreducible $`2m+1`$ dimensional $`𝔰𝔩_2`$–module.

The proof uses the result from \[DLM\], \[DM1\] about the decomposition of the vertex operator algebra $`V`$ with respect to a “dual” pair $`(V^G,G)`$ where $`G=Aut(G)`$ is a compact (or finite) group and $`V^G`$ is a $`G`$–stable subvertex operator algebra. This can be modified when instead of group $`G`$ we work with the Lie algebra.

Since $`V_{L+1/2}`$ is a module for the pair $`(V_L^{𝔰𝔩_2},𝔰𝔩_2)`$ then by using (4.1) we derive

$$V_{L+1/2}\underset{m0}{}L(1,\frac{(2m+1)^2}{4})V(2m+1),$$
(21)
where $`V(2m+1)`$ is a $`2m+2`$–dimensional $`𝔰𝔩_2`$–module. It easy to see that $`V(2m+1)`$ is irreducible $`𝔰𝔩_2`$–module.

###### Remark 4.1

Note that $`V^{sl_2}`$ ($`sl_2`$–stable vertex operator algebra) is exactly $`V^G`$ where $`GSO(3)`$ is a (full) group of automorphisms of $`V_L`$. It is well known that every irreducible representation can be obtain as a representation of $`SL(2,)`$, since $`PSL(2,)SO(3)`$. In particular every such finite-dimesional representation is odd–dimensional.

Since, $`V_{L+1/2}`$ is an irreducible $`V_L`$–module we have the Jacobi identity

$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_0}}\right)Y(u,x_1)Y(v,x_2)w`$
$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_1}{x_0}}\right)Y(v,x_2)Y(u,x_1)w`$
$`=x_2^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_0}{x_2}}\right)Y(Y(u,x_0)v,x_2)w,`$ (22)
for every $`uV_L`$, $`vV_{L+1/2}`$ and $`wW`$. Also, for

$$𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{V_L}{V_{L+1/2}V_{L+1/2}}\right),$$

we have

$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_0}}\right)Y(u,x_1)𝒴(v,x_2)w`$
$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_1}{x_0}}\right)𝒴(v,x_2)Y(u,x_1)w`$
$`=x_2^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_0}{x_2}}\right)𝒴(Y(u,x_0)v,x_2)w.`$ (23)
###### Remark 4.2

Note that $`W`$ can not be equipped with a vertex operator superalgebra structure. If $`u,vV_{L+1/2}`$ then we do not get Jacobi identity in the form (4.1) or (4.1), but rather generalized identity where the delta function is suitably multiplied with the terms of the type $`\left(\frac{x_1x_0}{x_2}\right)^{1/2}`$. Studying this (generalized) Jacobi identity is useful for studying convergence and the extension properties for the intertwining operators (cf. \[H1\]).

### 4.2 Intertwining operators for the family $`_1`$.

Let $`V(i)`$, $`i`$ be an irreducible $`sl_2`$–module considered as a subspace of $`W`$ which corresponds to the decompositions in Proposition 4.1 and (21). Fix a positive integer $`j`$. We introduce a basis $`u_j(m)`$, $`m\{j,j2,\mathrm{},j\}`$ for $`V(j)`$, such that the following relations are satisfied,

$`h.u_j(m)=mu_j(m)`$
$`x.u_j(m)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(j+m+2)(jm)}}{2}}u_j(m+2)`$
$`y.u_j(m)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(j+m)(jm+2)}}{2}}u_j(m2),`$ (24)
where $`u_j(k)=0`$ for $`k\{j,\mathrm{},j\}`$. Also, we choose a dual basis $`u_j^{}(m)`$ for $`V(j)^{}`$ such that $`<u_j^{}(m),u_j(n)>=\delta _{m,n}`$. Define $`<g.u^{},v>=<u^{},g.v>`$. Then $`V(j)^{}`$ became a $`sl_2`$–module and an isomorphism from $`V(j)`$ to $`V(j)^{}`$ is given by $`\mu (u_j(m))=(1)^{jm}u_j^{}(m).`$ By using this identification, for $`j_1,j_2,j_3`$ and $`j_im_ij_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, we introduce real numbers (Clebsch–Gordan coefficients) $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ m_1& m_2& m_3\end{array}\right),`$ such that

$$u_{j_1}(m_1)u_{j_2}(m_2)=\underset{j_3=|j_1j_2|}{\overset{j_3=j_1+j_2}{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ m_1& m_2& m_1+m_2\end{array}\right)u_{j_3}(m_1+m_2).$$
(25)
First we need an auxiliary result which is slightly modified result from \[DM1\] and \[DG\].

###### Proposition 4.2

Suppose that $`V`$ is a vertex operator algebra and $`W_1`$, $`W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ three irreducible $`V`$–modules. Let $`v_iW_1,w_iW_2`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ be homogeneous elements such that $`v_i0`$ and $`w_i`$ are linearly independent. Then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}𝒴(v_i,x)w_i0.$$

Now. let us go back to our vertex operator algebra $`V_L`$. Let $`𝒴`$ be any intertwining operator of the type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{V_L}{V_{L+1/2}V_{L+1/2}}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{V_{L+1/2}}{V_LV_{L+1/2}}\right)\mathrm{or}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{V_L}{V_LV_L}\right).$$
(26)
By using the Proposition 4.2 the map

$$𝒴(,x):V(j_1)V(j_2)W\{x\}$$

is injective. and for every $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`j_1`$, $`j_2`$ there is a $`p`$ such that

$$u_{j_1}(m_1)_pu_{j_2}(m_2)=\underset{j_3=|j_1j_2|}{\overset{j_3=j_1+j_2}{}}k(j_1,j_2,j_3,m_1,m_2,m_1+m_2)u_j(m_1+m_2),$$

where $`k(j_1,j_2,j_3,m_1,m_2,m_1+m_2)`$ is a (non–zero) multiple of

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ m_1& m_2& m_1+m_2\end{array}\right).$$

(in the special case $`𝒴=Y`$ this fact was noticed in \[DG\]).

Now it is clear that if $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ m_1& m_2& m_1+m_2\end{array}\right)0`$, then the $`L(1,0)`$–module generated by $`𝒴(u_{j_1}(m_1),x)u_{j_2}(m_2)`$ contains a copy of $`L(1,\frac{j_3^2}{4})`$. Since $`L(1,0)`$ is contained in $`V_L`$ and $`L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})`$ is an $`L(1,0)`$–module then we obtain the following Jacobi identity

$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_0}}\right)Y(u,x_1)𝒴(v,x_2)wx_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_1}{x_0}}\right)𝒴(v,x_2)Y(u,x_1)w`$
$`=x_2^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_0}{x_2}}\right)𝒴(Y(u,x_0)v,x_2)w,`$ (27)
for $`uL(1,0)`$, $`vL(1,\frac{j_1^2}{4})`$ and $`wL(1,\frac{j_2^2}{4})`$ (here $`v`$ and $`w`$ lie in Vir–submodules generated by $`u_{j_1}(m_1)`$ and $`u_{j_2}(m_2)`$, respectively).

Now we can push down $`𝒴`$ to $`L(1,\frac{j_3^2}{4})`$, which is generated by the vector $`u_{j_3}(m_1+m_2)`$, since for every $`j_1,j_2`$ and $`|j_1j_2|j_3j_1+j_2`$ we can choose a pair $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and a $`𝒴`$ of the appropriate type (26) such that

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ m_1& m_2& m_1+m_2\end{array}\right)0.$$

We obtain an intertwining operator of the type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(1,\frac{j_3^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{j_1^2}{4})L(1,\frac{j_2^2}{4})}\right),$$

and this is the end of the construction.

## 5 Lie superalgebra $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$ and $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2))`$

The Lie superalgebra $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$ is a graded extension of the finite–dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔩(2,𝐂)`$. It has three even generators $`x,y`$ and $`h`$, and two odd generators $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$, that satisfy:

$$[h,x]=2x,[h,y]=2y,[x,y]=h,$$

$$[x,\chi ]=\chi ,[x,\phi ]=\phi ,[y,\chi ]=\chi ,[y,\phi ]=\phi ,$$

$$[h,\phi ]=\phi ,[h,\chi ]=\chi ,$$

$$\{\chi ,\phi \}=2h,\{\chi ,\chi \}=2x,\{\phi ,\phi \}=2y.$$

Generators $`\{x,y,h\}`$ span a Lie algebra isomorphic to $`𝔰𝔩(2,)`$, and this fact makes the representation theory of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$ quite simple. All irreducible $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$–modules can be constructed in the following way. Fix a positive half integer $`j`$ ($`2j𝐍`$) and a $`4j+1`$–dimensional vector space $`V(j)`$ spanned by the vectors $`\{v_j,v_{j1/2},\mathrm{},v_j\}`$, with the following actions:

$`x.v_i=\sqrt{[ji][j+i+1]}v_{i+1},`$
$`y.v_i=\sqrt{[j+i][ji+1]}v_{i1},`$
$`h.v_i=2iv_i.`$ (28)
If $`2(ij)𝐙`$ then we define

$`\phi .v_i=\sqrt{j+i}v_{i1/2},`$
$`\chi .v_i=\sqrt{ji}v_{i+1/2},`$ (29)
otherwise

$`\phi .v_i=\sqrt{ji+1/2}v_{i1/2},`$
$`\chi .v_i=\sqrt{j+i+1/2}v_{i+1/2}.`$ (30)
In all these formulas $`v_j=0`$ if $`j\{j,j\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},j\}`$. It is easy to see that each $`V(j)`$ is an irreducible $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$–module and that every finite dimensional irreducible representation of $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)`$ is isomorphic to $`V(j)`$ for some $`j/2`$.

The representations with $`j`$ we call even, and the representations with $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$ we call odd. We extend this definition for an arbitrary element of $`V\mathrm{Rep}(𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2))`$. The corresponding decomposition is $`V=V_{\mathrm{even}}+V_{\mathrm{odd}}`$.

It is a pleasant exercise to decompose the tensor product $`V(i)V(j)`$. The following result is well–known:

$$V(i)V(j)\underset{k=|ij|,k𝐍/2}{\overset{i+j}{}}V(k).$$
(31)
## 6 $`N=1`$ Neveu-Schwarz superalgebra and its minimal models

The $`N=1`$ Neveu-Schwarz superalgebra is given by

$$𝔫𝔰=\underset{n}{}L_n\underset{n}{}G_{n+1/2}C,$$

together with the following $`N=1`$ Neveu-Schwarz relations:

$`[L_m,L_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(mn)L_{m+n}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{12}}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[L_m,G_{n+1/2}]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right)G_{m+n+1/2},`$
$`[G_{m+1/2},G_{n1/2}]`$ $`=`$ $`2L_{m+n}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{3}}(m^2+m)\delta _{m+n,0},`$
$`[C,L_m]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`[C,G_{m+1/2}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
for $`m,n`$. We have the standard triangular decomposition $`𝔫𝔰=𝔫𝔰_+𝔫𝔰_0𝔫𝔰_{}`$ (cf. \[KWa\]). For every $`(h,c)𝐂^2`$, we denote by $`M(c,h)`$ Verma module for $`𝔫𝔰`$ algebra. For each $`(p,q)𝐍^2`$, $`p=q\mathrm{mod}2`$, let us introduce a family of complex ’curves’ $`(h_{p,q}(t),c(t))`$;

$$h_{p,q}(t)=\frac{1p^2}{8}t^1+\frac{1pq}{4}+\frac{1q^2}{8}t,$$

$$c(t)=\frac{15}{2}+3t^1+3t.$$

Then from the determinant formula (see \[KWa\] ) it follows that $`M(c,h)`$ is reducible if and only if there is a $`t𝐂`$ and $`p,q𝐍`$, $`p=q\mathrm{mod}2`$ such that $`c=c(t)`$ and $`h=h_{p,q}(t)`$. In this case $`M(c,h)`$ has a singular vector (i.e., a vector annihilated by $`𝔫𝔰_+`$ ) of the weight $`h+\frac{pq}{2}`$. Any such vector we denote by $`v_{\frac{pq}{2}}`$.

In this paper we are interested in the case $`t=1`$. Then $`c(1)=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`h_{p,q}(1)=\frac{(pq)^2}{8}`$. $`h_{p,q}(1)=h_{1,pq+1}(1)`$, so we consider only the case $`h_{1,q}:=h_{1,q}(1)`$, (here $`q`$ is odd and positive). Hence, each Verma module $`M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$ is reducible.

The following result easily follows from \[D\] (or \[AA\]) and \[KWa\]:

###### Proposition 6.1

For every odd $`q`$, $`M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$ has the following embedding structure

$$\mathrm{}M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q+4})M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q+2})M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})0.$$
(32)
Moreover, we have the following exact sequence:

$$0M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q+2})M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})0,$$
(33)
where $`L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$ is the corresponding irreducible quotient.

Benoit and Saint-Aubin (cf. \[BSA2\]) found an explicit expression for the singular vectors $`P_{\mathrm{sing}}v_{1,q}M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$ that generates the maximal submodule:

$$\underset{N;k_1,\mathrm{},k_N}{}\underset{\sigma S_N}{}(1)^{\frac{qN}{2}}c(k_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},k_{\sigma (k)})G(k_1/2)\mathrm{}G(k_N/2)v_{1.q},$$
(34)
where $`S_N`$ is a symmetric group on $`N`$ letters and the first summation is over all the partitions of $`q`$ into the odd integers $`k_1,..,k_N`$ and

$$c(k_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},k_{\sigma (k)})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_i1}{(k_i1)/2}\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{(N1)/2}{}}\frac{4}{\sigma _{2j}\rho _{2j}},$$

where $`\sigma _j=_{l=1}^jk_l`$ and $`\rho _j=_{l=j}^Nk_l`$.

In the special case: $`q=1`$, $`h_{1,1}=0`$, $`M(\frac{3}{2},0)`$ has a singular vector $`G(1/2)v`$ which generate the maximal submodule. By quotienting we obtain a vacuum module $`L(\frac{3}{2},0)=M(\frac{3}{2},0)/G(1/2)v_{3/2,0}`$.

## 7 $`N=1`$ superconformal vertex operator superalgebra and intertwining operators

We use the definition of $`N=1`$ superconformal vertex operator superalgebra (with and without odd variables) as in \[B\] (cf. \[KV\]) and \[HM\] (see also \[KW\]).

Let $`\phi `$ be a Grassman (odd) variable such that $`\phi ^2=0`$. Every $`N=1`$ superconformal vertex operator superalgebra $`(V,Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\tau )`$ can be equipped with a structure of $`N=1`$ superconformal vertex operator algebra with an odd variable via

$`Y(,(x,\phi )):VV`$ $``$ $`V((x))[\phi ],`$
$`uv`$ $``$ $`Y(u,(x,\phi ))v,`$
where

$$Y(u,(x,\phi ))v=Y(u,x)v+\phi Y(G(1/2)u,x)v$$

for $`u,vV`$.

The same formula can be used in the case of modules for the superconformal vertex operator superalgebra $`(V,Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\tau )`$ (see \[HM\]).

It is known (see \[KW\]) that $`V(c,0):=M(c,0)/G(1/2)v_{c,0}`$ 222We write $`L(c,0)`$ if $`V(c,0)`$ is irreducible. is a $`N=1`$ superconformal vertex operator superalgebra. Also, every lowest weight $`𝔫𝔰`$–module with the central charge $`c`$, is a $`V(c,0)`$–module. If $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$ then $`V(\frac{3}{2},0)=L(\frac{3}{2},0)`$. Hence

###### Proposition 7.1

Every irreducible $`L(\frac{3}{2},0)`$–module is isomorphic to $`L(\frac{3}{2},h)`$, for some $`h𝐂`$.

Proof: The proof is essentially the same as the one in Proposition 3.1.

Among all irreducible $`L(\frac{3}{2},0)`$–modules we distinguish modules isomorphic to $`L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$, $`q2𝐍1`$. These representations we call degenerate minimal models.

### 7.1 Intertwining operators and its matrix coefficients

The notation of an intertwining operators for $`N=1`$ superconformal vertex operator algebras is introduced in \[KW\] and \[HM\].

Let $`W_1`$, $`W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ be a triple of $`V`$–modules and $`𝒴`$ an intertwining operator of type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$. Then we consider the corresponding intertwining operator with an odd variable (cf. \[HM\]):

$`𝒴(,(x,\phi )):W_1W_2`$ $``$ $`W_3\{x\}[\phi ]`$
$`w_{(1)}w_{(2)}`$ $``$ $`𝒴(w_{(1)},(x,\phi ))w_{(2)},`$
such that

$$𝒴(w_{(1)},(x,\phi ))w_{(2)}=𝒴(w_{(1)},x)w_{(2)}+\phi 𝒴(G(1/2)w_{(1)},x)w_{(2)}.$$

Let $`w_1`$ be a lowest weight vector for the Neveu-Schwarz algebra of the weight $`h`$. From the Jacobi identity we derive the following formulas:

$`[L(n),𝒴(w_1,x_2)]=(x_2^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}+(1n)h)𝒴(w_1,x_2),`$
$`[G(n1/2),𝒴(w_1,x_2)]=x_2^n𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x_2),`$
$`[L(n),𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x_2)]=(x_2^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}+(1n)(h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x_2),`$
$`[G(n1/2),𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x_2)]=(x_2^n{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}2nhx_2^{n1})𝒴(w_1,x_2).`$ (35)
In the odd formulation we obtain

$`[L(n),𝒴(w_1,(x_2,\phi ))]`$
$`=(x_2^{n+1}_{x_2}+(1n)x_2^n(h+1/2\phi _\phi ))𝒴(w_1,(x_2,\phi ))`$
$`[G(n1/2),𝒴(w_1,(x_2,\phi ))]`$
$`=(x_2^n(_\phi \phi _{x_2})2nx_2^{n1}(h\phi )𝒴(w_1,(x_2,\phi )),`$ (36)
where $`_\phi `$ is the odd (Grassmann) derivative.

### 7.2 Even and odd intertwining operators

In \[HM\] we proved that every intertwining operator

$$𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,h_3)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)$$

is uniquely determined by the operators $`𝒴(w_1,x)`$ and $`𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x)`$, where $`w_1`$ is the lowest weight vector of $`L(c,h_1)`$. This fact will be used later in connection with the following definition.

###### Definition 7.1

Let $`||`$ denote the ($`/2`$–valued) parity operator from the union of odd and even subspaces for $`V`$–modules $`W_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. An intertwining operator $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ is:

* even, if

$$|\mathrm{Coeff}_{x^s}𝒴(w_1,x)w_2|=|w_1|+|w_2|,$$
* odd, if

$$|\mathrm{Coeff}_{x^s}𝒴(w_1,x)w_2|=|w_1|+|w_2|+1,$$

for every $`s`$ and every $`/2`$–homogeneous vectors $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$.

The space of even (odd) intertwining operators of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ we denote by $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)_{\mathrm{even}}`$ ($`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)_{\mathrm{odd}}`$). In general we do not have a decomposition of $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ into the even and odd subspaces.

### 7.3 Frenkel-Zhu’s theorem for vertex operator superalgebras

According to \[KW\] (after \[Z\]), to every vertex operator superalgebra we can associate the Zhu’s associative algebra $`A(V)`$. If $`V=L(c,0)`$, $`A(L(c,0))𝐂[y]`$. where $`y=[(L(2)L(1))\mathrm{𝟏}]=[L(2)\mathrm{𝟏}]`$ (because of the calculations that follow it is convenient to use $`y=[(L(2)L(1))\mathrm{𝟏}]`$). Also to every $`V`$–module $`W`$ we associate a $`A(V)`$–bimodule $`A(W)`$ (cf. \[KW\]). In a special case $`W=M(c,h)`$, we have

$$A(M_{𝔫𝔰}(c,h))=M_{𝔫𝔰}(c,h)/O(M_{𝔫𝔰}(c,h)),$$

where

$`O(M_{𝔫𝔰}(c,h))=\{L(n3)2L(n2)+L(1)v,`$
$`G(n1/2)G(n3/2)v,n0,vM(c,h)\}.`$ (37)
It is not hard to see that, as $`[y]`$–bimodule,

$$A(M(c,h))𝐂[x,y]𝐂[x,y]v,$$

where $`v=[G(1/2)v_h]`$ and

$$y=[L(2)L(1)],x=[L(2)2L(1)+L(0)].$$

Let $`W_1`$, $`W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ be three $`/2`$–gradable irreducible $`V`$–modules such that $`\mathrm{Spec}L(0)|_{W_i}h_i+`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$. We define $`o(w_1):=\mathrm{Coeff}_{x^{h_3h_1h_2}}𝒴(w_1,x)`$. Because the fusion rules formula in \[FZ\] needs some modifications (cf. \[L1\]) the same modification is necessary for the main Theorem in \[KW\] (this can be done with a minor super–modifications along the lines of \[L1\]). Nevertheless (cf. \[KW\]):

###### Theorem 7.1

The mapping

$$\pi :I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)\mathrm{Hom}_{A(V)}(A(W_1)_{A(V)}W_2(0),W_3(0)),$$

such that

$$\pi (𝒴)(w_1w_2)=o(w_1)w_2,$$
(38)
is injective.

## 8 Some Lie superalgebra homology

In this section we recall some basic definition from the homology theory of infinite dimensional Lie superalgebras which is in the scope of the monograph \[F\] (in the cohomology setting though).

Let $``$ be an any (possibly infinite dimensional) $`/2`$–graded Lie superalgebra with the $`/2`$–decomposition: $`=_0_1`$. and let $`M=M_0M_1`$ be any $`𝐙_2`$–graded $``$–module, such that the gradings are compatible. Then, we form a chain complex $`(C,d,M)`$ (for details see \[F\]),

$$0\stackrel{d_0}{}C_0(,M)\stackrel{d_1}{}C_1(,M)\stackrel{d}{}\mathrm{},$$

where

$$C_q(,M)=\underset{q_0+q_1=q}{}M\mathrm{\Lambda }^{q_0}_0S^{q_1}_1,$$

$$C_q^p(,M)=\underset{\stackrel{q_0+q_1=q}{q_1+r=p\mathrm{mod2}}}{}M_r\mathrm{\Lambda }^{q_0}_0S^{q_1}_1,$$

for $`p=0,1`$. The mappings $`d`$ are super–differentials. For $`q𝐍`$ and $`p=0,1`$, we define $`q`$–th homology with coefficients in $`M`$ as:

$$H_q^p(,M)=\mathrm{Ker}(d_q(C_q^p(,M)))_p/(d_{r+1}(C_{q+1}^p(,M)))_p.$$
(39)
In a special case $`q=0`$, we have

$$H_0^0(,M)=M_0/(_0M_0+_1M_1),$$

and

$$H_0^1(,M)=M_1/(_1M_0+_0M_1).$$

We want to calculate $`H_q(_s,L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))`$. for the Lie superalgebra

$$_s=\underset{n0}{}_s(n),$$

where $`_s(n)`$ is spanned by the vectors $`L(n3)2L(n2)+L(n1)`$ and $`G(n1/2)G(n3/2)`$ , $`n𝐍`$. From (7.3) we see (cf. \[HM\]) that $`H_0(_s,M(c,h))`$ is a $`[y]`$–bimodule such that:

$$H_0(_s,M(c,h))A(M(c,h))𝐂[x,y]𝐂[x,y]v.$$
(40)
###### Remark 8.1

It is more involved to calculate $`H_0((_s,L(c,h))`$, so we consider only the special case $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$, $`h=h_{1,q}`$, $`q`$ odd. As in the Virasoro case, it is easy to show that the space $`H_p(_s,L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))`$ is infinite dimensional for very $`p,q,s𝐍`$, and finitely generated as a $`A(L(3/2,0))`$–module. Moreover, it is not hard to see (by using the same method as in the Virasoro case) that

$$\mathrm{Ext}_{ns,𝒪}^1(L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}),L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r}))$$

is non–trivial (and one-dimensional) if and only if $`|rq|=2`$.

In the minimal models case we expect a substantially different result (cf \[FF1\]).

###### Conjecture 8.1

Let $`c_{p,q}=\frac{3}{2}\left(12\frac{(pq)^2}{pq}\right)`$ and $`h_{p,q}^{m,n}=\frac{(npmq)^2(pq)^2}{8pq}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{dim}H_q(_s,L(c_{p,q},h_{p,q}^{m,n}))<\mathrm{},$$

for every $`q𝐍`$.

There is strong evidence that Conjecture (8.1) holds based on \[A\] and an example $`c=\frac{11}{14}`$ treated in Appendix of \[HM\].

The main difference between the minimal models and the degenerate models is the fact that the maximal submodule for a minimal model is generated by two singular vectors, compared to $`M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$ where the maximal submodule is generated by a single singular vector.

## 9 Benoit-Saint-Aubin’s formula projection formulas

### 9.1 Odd variable formulation

We have seen before how to derive the commutation relation between generators of $`𝔫𝔰`$ superalgebra and $`𝒴(w_1,x)`$ where $`w_1`$ is a lowest weight vector for $`ns`$. We fix $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(\frac{3}{2},h)}{L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})}\right)`$ and consider the following matrix coefficient,

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x,\phi )P_{\mathrm{sing}}w_2,$$
(41)
where $`P_{sing}w_2=v_{1,q}`$ (cf. (7),$`\mathrm{deg}(P_{sing})=q/2`$) and $`w_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ are the lowest weight vectors.

Since all modules are irreducible, by using a result from \[HM\] (Proposition 2.2), we get

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x,\phi )w_2=c_1x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}}+c_2\phi x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}1/2},$$

where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants with the property

$`c_1=c_2=0\mathrm{implies}𝒴=0.`$ (42)
From the formula (7.1)

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x,\phi )P_{\mathrm{sing}}w_2=P(_{x_2},\phi )w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x,\phi )w_2,$$

where $`P(_{x_2},\phi )`$ is a certain super-differential operator such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(P_{\mathrm{sing}})=\mathrm{deg}P(_{x_2},\phi )=q/2.$$

Therefore

$$P(_{x_2},\phi )c_1x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}}=\phi C_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}q/2},$$

and

$$P(_{x_2},\phi )\phi c_2x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}q/2}=C_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}q/2}.$$

Constants $`C_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)`$ and $`C_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)`$ (in slightly different form, but in more general setting) were derived in \[BSA2\]. Considering these coefficients was motivated by deriving formulas for singular vectors from already known singular vectors. By slightly modifying result from \[BSA2\] we obtain

###### Proposition 9.1

Suppose that $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(\frac{3}{2},h)}{L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})}\right)`$ and $`P(_x,\phi )`$ are as the above Then, up to a multiplicative constant,

$$C_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)=\underset{jkj}{}(hh_{1,q+4k})$$

and

$$C_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)=\underset{j+1/2kj1/2}{}(h+\frac{1}{2}h_{1,q+4k}),$$

for $`j=(r1)/4`$, $`j>0`$ (when $`j=0`$, $`C_2(h_{1,1},h_{1,r},h)=1`$).

Proof: The superdifferential operator $`P(_x,\phi )`$ is obtained by replacing generators $`L(m)`$ and $`G(n1/2)`$ by the superdifferential operators

$$L(m)(x_2^{m+1}_{x_2}+(1m)x_2^m(h_1+1/2\phi _\phi ))$$
(43)
and

$$G(n1/2)(x_2^n(_\phi \phi _{x_2})2nx_2^{n1}(h_1\phi )),$$
(44)
acting on $`w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x,\phi )w_2`$. This action was calculated in \[BSA2\]. Their results (Formula 3.10 in \[BSA2\]) implies the statement 333In \[BSA2\] a different sign was used in the equation (43). Still, we obtain the same result if we consider an isomorphic algebra with the generators $`\stackrel{~}{L}(n):=L(n)`$. The same generators were used in \[FF2\]..

### 9.2 BSA formula without odd variables

Since Frenkel-Zhu’s formula does not involve odd variables we need a version of Proposition 9.1 without odd variables (which is of course equivalent). Again $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h)}{L(3/2,h_{1,r})L(3/2,h_{1,q})}\right)`$ is the same as the above. Then

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)P_{sing}w_2=P_2(_x)w_3^{},𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x)w_2,$$

and

$$w_3^{},𝒴(G(1/2)w_1,x)P_{sing}w_2=P_1(_x)w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2,$$

where $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are certain differential operators. If

$$P_2(_x)c_2x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}1/2}=c_2K_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}q/2},$$

and

$$P_1(_x)c_1x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}}=c_1K_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}q/2},$$

then, by comparing corresponding coefficients, we obtain

$`K_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)=C_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h),`$
$`K_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h)=C_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h).`$ (45)
Let us mention that the projection formulas from Proposition 9.1 have a simple explanation terms of super density modules for the Neveu-Schwarz superalgebra.

## 10 Fusion ring for the degenerate minimal models

In order to obtain an upper bound for the fusion coefficients (cf. Theorem 7.1) we first compute

$$A(L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0)}L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})(0).$$

$`/2`$–grading of the $`0`$–th homology group (39) enables us (see Theorem (10.1) to study odd and even intertwining operators (see Definition 7.1). For that purpose we introduce the following splitting:

$`A^0(L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,q})):=H_0^0(_s,L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,q})){\displaystyle \frac{𝐂[x,y]}{I_1}}`$
$`A^1(L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,q})):=H_0^1(_s,L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,q})){\displaystyle \frac{𝐂[x,y]v}{I_2}},`$ (46)
where $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are cyclic submodules (the maximal submodule for $`M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q})`$ is cyclic !). It seems hard to obtain explicitly these polynomials. First we obtain some useful formulas Inside $`A(M(c,h))`$ (cf. \[W\]):

$`[L(n)v]=[((n1)(L(2)L(1))+L(1))v]=`$
$`[(n(L(2)L(1))(L(2)2L(1)+L(0))+L(0))v]=`$
$`(nyx+\mathrm{wt}(v))[v].`$ (47)
for every $`n𝐍`$ and every homogeneous $`vM(c,h)`$. Therefore in

$$A(M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(\frac{3}{2},0))}L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})(0)$$

we have

$`[L(n)v]=(nh_{1,q}x+L(0))[v].`$
$`[G(n1/2)v]=[G(1/2)v].`$ (48)
Also, we have:

$`[G(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})G(m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})v]=[G(1/2)G(m1/2)v]=`$
$`[(2L(m1)G(m1/2)G(1/2))v]=[(2L(m1)L(1))v]=`$
$`((2m+1)yx+\mathrm{wt}(v))[v].`$ (49)
By using (10) and (10) we obtain

$`[G(m_11/2)\mathrm{}G(m_{2r}1/2)L(n_1)\mathrm{}L(n_s)v_{1,q}]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}((2m_{2i}+1)h_{1,r}x+{\displaystyle \underset{p=2i+1}{\overset{2r}{}}}(m_p+1/2)+h_{1,q})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(n_jh_{1,r}x+{\displaystyle \underset{p=j+1}{\overset{s}{}}}n_p+h_{1,q})[v].`$ (50)
inside

$$A(M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(\frac{3}{2},0))}L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})(0).$$

It is easy to obtain a similar formula for the vector

$$[G(m_11/2)\mathrm{}G(m_{2r+1}1/2)L(n_1)\mathrm{}L(n_s)v_{1,q}].$$

###### Lemma 10.1

Let $`[P_{\mathrm{sing}}v_{1,q}]=Q_1(x)[G(1/2)v_{1,q}]`$ and $`[G(1/2)P_{\mathrm{sing}}v_{1,q}]=Q_2(x)[v_{1,q}]`$ be the projections inside

$$A(M(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(\frac{3}{2},0)}L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})(0).$$

Then

$`Q_1(h)=K_2(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h),`$
$`Q_2(h)=K_1(h_{1,q},h_{1,r},h),`$ (51)
for every $`h`$.

Proof: We use the notation from the section 6.2, where

$$𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h)}{L(3/2,h_{1,r})L(3/2,h_{1,q})}\right).$$

By using (7.1), we obtain

$`w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)G(m_11/2)\mathrm{}G(m_{2r}1/2)L(n_1)\mathrm{}L(n_s)w_2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(x^{m_{2i1}m_{2i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}2m_{2i}h_{1,r}x^{m_{2i1}m_{2i}1})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(x^{n_j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+(1n_j)h_{1,r}x^{n_j})w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=`$
$`c_1{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}((2m_{2i}+1)h_{1,r}h+h_{1,q}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=2i+1}{\overset{2r}{}}}(m_p+1/2))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(n_jh_{1,r}h+{\displaystyle \underset{p=j+1}{\overset{s}{}}}n_p+h_{1,q})x^{hh_{1,q}h_{1,r}r{\scriptscriptstyle m_i}_jn_j},`$ (52)
for the constant $`c_1`$ (see Section 6.1 and 6.2) that depends only on $`𝒴`$. There is a similar expression for

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)G(m_11/2)\mathrm{}G(m_{2r+1}1/2)L(n_1)\mathrm{}L(n_s)w_2.$$
(53)
If we compare (10) with (10) (and corresponding formulas for (53)) it follows that $`Q_1(h)`$ is, up to a non–zero multiplicative constant, equal to $`K_2(h_{1,r},h_{1,q},h)`$ (singular vector is odd!) and $`Q_2(h)`$ is, up to a multiplicative constant, equal to $`K_1(h_{1,r},h_{1,q},h)`$.

Thus, Proposition 9.1 and Theorem 10.1 gives us

###### Theorem 10.1

* As a $`A(L(3/2,0))`$–module

$`A(L(3/2,h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L(3/2,h_{1,r})(0)`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐂[x]}{<_{jkj}(xh_{1,q+4k})>}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐂[x]}{<_{j+1/2kj+1/2}(h+1/2h_{1,q+4k})>}}.`$
* The space

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(3/2,h)^{}}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})M(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right),$$

is non–trivial if and only if $`h=h_{1,s}`$ for some $`s\{q+r1,q+r3,\mathrm{},qr+1\}`$.
* The space

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h)}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})L(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right),$$

is one–dimensional if and only if $`h=h_{1,s}`$, $`s\{q+r1,q+r3,\mathrm{},|qr|+1\}.`$

Proof (a): From Lemma 10.1 it follows that

$`A(L(3/2,h_{1,r}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L(3/2,h_{1,q}){\displaystyle \frac{[x]}{Q_1(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{[x]}{Q_2(x)}}.`$ (55)
Now we apply (9.2) and Proposition 9.1.
Proof (b): As in the Virasoro case, by examining carefully the main construction of intertwining operators in \[L1\] with a minor super–modifications, for every $`A(L(3/2,0))`$–morphism from $`A(L(3/2,h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L(3/2,h_{1,r})`$ to $`L(3/2,h)(0)`$ we can construct a non–trivial intertwining operator of the form $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M(3/2,h)^{}}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})M(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right).`$
Proof (c): The proof and all the arguments involved are the same as in the Chapter 3. so we omit the detials. We obtain a non–trivial intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h)}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})L(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right)`$ if $`h=h_{1,s}`$ for $`s\{q+r1,q+r3,\mathrm{},qr+1\}\{r+q1,r+q3,\mathrm{},rq+1\}`$, i.e., $`s\{q+r1,q+r3,\mathrm{},|qr|+1\}`$.

###### Theorem 10.2

Suppose that $`qr`$ 444$`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_2W_1}\right)`$.

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h_{1,s})}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})L(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right)_{\mathrm{even}}=1,$$
(56)
if and only if

$$s\{q+r1,q+r5,\mathrm{},qr+1\}$$

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h_{1,s})}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})L(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right)_{\mathrm{odd}}=1$$
(57)
if and only if

$$s\{q+r3,q+r7,\mathrm{},qr+3\}.$$

Proof: By using (54) we obtain the following decomposition:

$`A^0(L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,r})(0)`$
$`v_{q+r1}v_{q+r5}\mathrm{}v_{qr+1}`$
$`A^1L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},h_{1,r})(0)`$
$`v_{q+r3}v_{q+r7}\mathrm{}v_{qr+3},`$ (58)
where $`v_i`$ is a $`[y]`$–module such that $`y.v_i=\frac{(i1)^2}{8}v_i`$.
Claim: Let

$$\psi \mathrm{Hom}_{A(L(c,0))}(A^0(L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})(0),L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,s})(0)),$$

then the corresponding intertwining operator is even. Similarly if we start from

$$\psi \mathrm{Hom}_{A(L(c,0))}(A^1(L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,q}))_{A(L(3/2,0))}L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,r})(0),L(\frac{3}{2},h_{1,s})(0)),$$

the corresponding intertwining operator is odd.
Proof (of the Claim): Let us elaborate the proof when $`\psi `$ is “even”. From the construction in \[FZ\] and \[L2\] $`𝒴`$ is obtained by lifting $`\psi `$ to a mapping from $`L(3/2,h_{1,q})L(3/2,h_{1,r})(0)`$ to $`L(3/2,h_{1,s})(0)`$, such that

$$L(3/2,h_{1,q})_{\mathrm{odd}}L(3/2,h_{1,r})(0)0.$$

To extend this map to a mapping from $`L(3/2,h_{1,q})M(3/2,h_{1,r})`$ to $`M(3/2,h_{1,s})^{}`$ one uses generators and PBW so the sign is preserved. Because the isomorphism $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2^{}}{W_1W_3^{}}\right)`$ preserves the sign, i.e., odd intertwining operators are mapped into odd and even into even, the result follows from the construction of intertwining operators. When $`\psi `$ is odd a similar argument works.

Let us summarize everything.

###### Corollary 10.1

Let $`𝒜_s`$ be a free abelian group with generators $`b(m),m2𝐍+1`$. Define a binary operation $`\times :𝒜_s\times 𝒜_s𝒜_s`$,

$$b(q)\times b(r)=\underset{j𝐍}{}\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(3/2,h_{1,j})}{L(3/2,h_{1,q})L(3/2,h_{1,r})}\right)b(j).$$

Then $`𝒜_s`$ is a commutative associative ring, and the mapping $`b(m)V(\frac{m1}{4})`$ gives an isomorphism to the representation ring $`ep(𝔬sp(1|2))`$.

Proof: The proof follows from Theorem 10.1(c) and (31).

## 11 Multiplicity $`2`$ fusion rules and super logarithmic intertwiners

### 11.1 A multiplicity $`2`$ case

We have seen that in the $`c=\frac{3}{2}`$ case all fusion coefficients are $`0`$ or $`1`$. Still, we expect (according to \[HM\]) that for some vertex operator superalgebras $`L(c,0)`$, fusion coefficients are $`2`$.

Here is one example. If $`c=0`$, as in the case of the Virasoro algebra, the super vertex operator algebra $`L(0,0)=\frac{M(0,0)}{G(1/2)v_0,G(3/2)v_0}`$ is trivial. Still we can consider a vertex operator superalgebra $`V(0,0):=\frac{M(0,0)}{G(1/2)v}`$ Clearly, for every $`h`$, we have (all modules are considered to be $`V(0,0)`$–modules):

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(0,0)}{L(0,h)L(0,h)}\right)=2.$$
(59)
The previous example is little bit awkward. Here is a nice example with irrational central charge:

###### Proposition 11.1

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(\frac{15}{2}3\sqrt{5},\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}1)}{L(\frac{15}{2}3\sqrt{5},\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}1))L(\frac{15}{2}3\sqrt{5},\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}1))}\right)=2.$$
(60)
Proof: It is not hard to see (by using a result form \[AA\] or \[D\]) that $`M(\frac{15}{2}3\sqrt{5},\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}1))`$ has the unique submodule that is irreducible (the case $`II_+`$ in \[AA\]). If we analyze the determinant formula \[KWa\], singular vectors, and then use Theorem 9.1, we obtain (60).

### 11.2 A logarithmic intertwiner

In \[M\] we studied several examples of logarithmic intertwining operators. Roughly, logarithmic intertwiners exist if matrix coefficients yield some logarithmic solutions. Our analysis can be extended for vertex operator superalgebras.

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(\frac{27}{2},\frac{3}{2})}{L(\frac{27}{2},\frac{3}{2})L(\frac{27}{2},\frac{3}{2})}\right)=2,$$
(61)
where $`W_2(\frac{27}{2},\frac{3}{2})`$ is certain logarithmic module (cf. \[M\]). The proof of this result and the discussion will appear in a separate publication.

## 12 Future work and open problems

* We know that it is possible to obtain intertwining operator algebras (see \[H2\]) from the rational vertex operator algebras (satisfying some natural convergence and extension condition and an additional condition involving generalized modules). Since the notation of intertwining operator algebra can be (obviously) generalized such that fusion algebra is an infinite–dimensional associative, commutative algebra, one hopes that it is possible to construct tensor categories for degenerate minimal models. In the language of conformal field theory this involves explicit calculations of correlation functions for both products and iterates of intertwining operators (cf. Remark 4.2).
* Open problem: For rational vertex operator algebras, construct a canonical isomorphism

$$A(M_1)_{A(V)}M_2(0)A(M_2)_{A(V)}M_1(0).$$
* (N=1 case) For which triples $`L(c,h_1)`$, $`L(c,h_2)`$ and $`L(c,h_3)`$ do we have

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,h_3)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)=2\mathrm{?}$$
* Determine the fusion ring for degenerate minimal models for $`N=2`$ superconformal algebra by using our method (it should be related to $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔬𝔰𝔭(2|2))`$.
* Construct an analogue of the vertex tensor categories constructed in \[HM\] (by using the main result in \[A\]), for the models studied in this paper.

Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, 110 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019

Current Address: Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

E-mail address: amilas@math.rutgers.edu, milas@math.arizona.edu