text:
# Self-avoiding walks and polygons on quasiperiodic tilings

## 1 Introduction

Quasiperiodic tilings are most widely used for the description of quasicrystals. With appropriate atomic decorations of the vertices, they serve as structure models which explain physical properties of quasicrystals . From a theoretical point of view, they are idealisations of real substances on which the usual models of statistical physics like the Ising model may be studied . Quasiperiodic tilings arose before the discovery of quasicrystals, however, more as an object of aesthetic interest in geometry .

From a combinatorial point of view, they provide an interesting example of a non-periodic yet structured graph where typical problems of combinatorics like the counting of objects on a lattice become more complex. This is fundamentally different from counting problems on semiregular lattices, where the underlying translational invariance is still present , and also from self-similar graphs, where the self-similarity allows for the solvability of some counting problems.

Consider for example the counting problem of $`n`$-step walks on a quasiperiodic tiling. This number depends on the chosen starting point. On a lattice, this phenomenon does not occur due to translation invariance. Questions arise, such as if the universal properties of the walks like critical exponents  are changed for quasiperiodic tilings111 For ferromagnetic spin systems on quasiperiodic graphs, a heuristic criterion determines whether its behaviour is different from the lattice situation .  , and how different ways of counting affect asymptotic properties. The first question has been investigated for self-avoiding walks (SAWs) and self-avoiding polygons (SAPs). These are walks or loops which do not visit the same vertex twice. Extrapolation of exact enumeration data for a number of quasiperiodic tilings  indicates that the critical exponents $`\gamma `$ for SAWs and $`\alpha `$ for SAPs are consistent with the corresponding values on regular lattices $`\alpha =1/2`$ and $`\gamma =43/32`$. In , the related problem of SAWs on Penrose random tilings  has been studied by Monte Carlo simulations, the results suggesting the same mean square displacement exponent as in the lattice situation. The studies  suffered however from strong finite-size effects due to the relatively short series data available. This is mainly due to the fact that the finite-lattice method , being the most successful method known to date for walk enumeration on regular lattices , cannot easily be applied here, and so we used the slower method of direct counting. The problem in applying the FLM is discussed in Section 3 below, see also . Another reason for the pronounced finite-size behaviour is that the number of walks or loops depends on the chosen starting point. One might suspect that suitable averaging over different starting points reduces these effects, leading to behaviour comparable to the square lattice case. In this paper, we analyse three different methods of counting in detail. Whereas the first one depends on a chosen vertex of the tiling, the last two are averages over the whole tiling.

* Fixed origin walks. We count the number of $`n`$-step self-avoiding walks emanating from a given vertex. This number depends on the chosen vertex.
* Mean number of walks. We count all translationally inequivalent $`n`$-step self-avoiding walks which may occur anywhere in the infinite tiling, weighted by their occurrence probability. For tilings with quasicrystallographic $`k`$-fold symmetries, these probabilities are numbers in the underlying module $`[e^{2\pi i/k}]`$. This leads to a generating function which has non-integer coefficients.
* Total number of walks. Here we count the number of translationally inequivalent $`n`$-step self-avoiding walks which may occur anywhere in the tiling. This number is bigger than the number of fixed origin walks, and by definition, takes into account vertices over the whole tiling.

Note that two self-avoiding walks (polygons) are translationally equivalent iff they have, up to a translation, the same vertex coordinates. For self-avoiding polygons, we will employ the second and the third method of counting. We do not distinguish between different fillings of the interior of the polygon. For SAPs, the second method has been implemented previously  to obtain the high temperature expansion of the Ising model. The mean number of SAPs up to length $`2n=18`$ has been determined on the Ammann-Beenker tiling  and on the rhombic Penrose tiling .

We counted SAWs and SAPs on the Ammann-Beenker tiling and the rhombic Penrose tiling and compared different counting schemes, thereby extending and generalising the previous approaches to counting SAWs  and SAPs . Generally speaking, averaging reduces oscillation of data due to finite size effects, providing improved estimates for critical points and critical exponents. Within numerical accuracy, we cannot rule out the universality hypothesis that SAWs on the Ammann-Beenker and on the rhombic Penrose tilings have the same exponents as on the square lattice. The data for the total number of walks (polygons) gives a different exponent, reflecting the fact that the number of patches grows quadratically with the patch size, in contrast to the lattice case . The limited quantity of SAP data does not allow us to draw decisive conclusions about exponents.

This paper is organised as follows. The next chapters describe the algorithms used for the generation of the tilings and for the computation of the numbers of walks and their mean values. The following chapter is devoted to the asymptotic analysis of the series and to a comparison of the different approaches. This is concluded by a discussion of possible future work.

## 2 Graph generation

Quasiperiodic tilings in $`^d`$ may be obtained by projecting certain subsets of lattices from a higher-dimensional space $`^n`$ into $`^d`$. This is described by a cut-and-project scheme, summarised in the following diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& \pi _{||}& & \pi _{}& \\ E_{||}^d& & E=^n& & E_{}^m\\ & \text{1–1}& & \text{dense}& \\ L_{||}=\pi _{||}(L)& & L\text{ lattice}& & W\text{ polytope}\end{array}$$

It consists of a Euclidean vector space $`E`$, together with orthogonal projections $`\pi _{||}`$ and $`\pi _{}`$. The vector spaces $`E_{||}=\pi _{||}(E)`$ and $`E_{}=\pi _{}(E)`$ are called direct and internal space, respectively. Let $`LE`$ be a lattice. The projections are such that $`\pi _{||}|_L`$ is one-to-one and $`\pi _{}(L)`$ is dense in $`E_{}`$ (or dense in some subspace of $`E_{}`$). Let $`WE^{}`$ be a polytope (or a finite union of polytopes). The set $`W`$ is also called the acceptance window. The set of tiling vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)=\{𝐱_{||}L_{||}|𝐱L\text{ and }𝐱_{}W\}.$$
(1)
The edges of the tiling are defined by the following rule: The tiling vertices $`\pi _{||}(𝐱)`$ and $`\pi _{||}(𝐲)`$ are adjacent iff the lattice vectors $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ are adjacent.

For the Ammann-Beenker tiling , we have $`n=4`$ and $`d=m=2`$. The lattice is $`L=^4`$. The projections $`\pi _{||}`$ and $`\pi _{}`$ are defined as follows. For $`𝐱^n`$, we set

$`𝐱_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{4}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{4}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{3\pi }{4}\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{4}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{4}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{3\pi }{4}\end{array}\right)𝐱,`$ (2)
$`𝐱_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \mathrm{cos}\frac{3\pi }{4}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{6\pi }{4}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{9\pi }{4}\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\frac{3\pi }{4}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{6\pi }{4}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{9\pi }{4}\end{array}\right)𝐱.`$
The acceptance window $`W^m`$ is a regular octagon with unit side length centred at the origin, having edges perpendicular to the axes. A typical patch is shown in Figure 1.

For the rhombic Penrose tiling , we have $`n=5`$, $`d=2`$ and $`m=4`$. The lattice is $`L=^5`$. The projections $`\pi _{||}`$ and $`\pi _{}`$ are, for $`𝐱^n`$, defined by

$`𝐱_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& \mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{5}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{4\pi }{5}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{6\pi }{5}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{8\pi }{5}\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi }{5}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{4\pi }{5}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{6\pi }{5}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{8\pi }{5}\end{array}\right)𝐱,`$ (3)
$`𝐱_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& \mathrm{cos}\frac{4\pi }{5}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{8\pi }{5}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{12\pi }{5}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{16\pi }{5}\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\frac{4\pi }{5}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{8\pi }{5}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{12\pi }{5}& \mathrm{sin}\frac{16\pi }{5}\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)𝐱.`$
The acceptance window $`W^m`$ is made up of four regular pentagons in the planes $`𝐱_3=0,1,2,3`$. The pentagons in the $`0`$ and $`3`$ $`x_3`$-planes have unit side length and the others have side length $`2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{5}`$. Each pentagon is centred at $`𝐱_1=0`$, $`𝐱_2=0`$. Pentagons $`0`$ and $`2`$ have an edge crossing the positive $`𝐱_1`$ axis at right angles while pentagons $`1`$ and $`3`$ are rotated through $`\frac{\pi }{5}`$. A typical patch is shown in Figure 2.

We remark in passing that a more natural embedding of the rhombic Penrose tiling is the root lattice $`A_4`$, see also , but $`^5`$ is more convenient for computations. Moreover, the Ammann-Beenker tiling and the rhombic Penrose tiling may be alternatively defined by inflation rules for their prototiles .

## 3 Enumeration

A self-avoiding walk on a graph is a path, beginning at an origin vertex, which never visits a vertex more than once. The SAW on the lattice $`^d`$ is a well-studied object (see, for example, ). The number $`c_n`$ of translationally inequivalent $`n`$-step walks on a regular lattice is clearly independent of the choice of origin vertex. Hence this series is representative of the entire lattice. The enumeration of SAWs on non-periodic tilings introduces complications to the interpretation of the series $`C(x)=_{n0}c_nx^n`$. This is because the possible origin vertices produce an infinite range of different series $`C(x)`$. Each origin produces a different series which is representative only of that vertex’s immediate neighbourhood in the tiling. The question then is, how do we obtain a SAW series which is representative of the whole tiling? In this paper we adopt three different approaches to enumerating SAWs on quasiperiodic tilings, as described in the introduction. They are:

* *Fixed origin walks.*
* *Mean number of walks.*
* *Total number of walks.*

### 3.1 Fixed origin walks

We take a random selection of origin vertices $`𝐱L`$ (if $`𝐱_{}W`$ the vertex is not a suitable choice and is ignored). For each suitable origin, we generate the neighbourhood of the vertex, including all vertices up to some Euclidean distance $`N`$ away. Two such neighbourhoods are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. We enumerate all SAWs from the origin up to length $`n`$ in the neighbourhood using backtracking . This takes time proportional to the number of walks $`c_n`$. Unfortunately, the transfer matrix approaches used to enumerate SAWs on regular two-dimensional lattices in less time cannot be used on this problem without major adaptation: Since a SAW of $`N`$ steps may reach a vertex $`N`$ steps from the origin, we would need to consider every possible tiling patch of radius $`N`$. The finite-lattice method’s transfer matrix stage would then need to be adapted to each tiling patch, or generalised to handle them all.

If we apply this method to counting walks on a regular lattice it is clear that we would always produce the usual SAW series for that lattice. If each of the series in Table 1 and Table 2 showed lattice consistent properties, it would be a good indication that these properties belong to the entire tiling. The actual neighbourhoods chosen for the enumerations are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for the Ammann-Beenker and Penrose tilings respectively.

### 3.2 Mean number of walks

Given that a pair of vertices from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$ are adjacent if and only if they are adjacent in $`L`$, we see that the neighbours of a vertex with image $`𝐱_{}`$ can be found by sequentially adding the $`E_{}`$ image of all possible edges in $`L`$ to $`𝐱_{}`$ and testing if the new points lie in $`W`$. If it does the adjacent vertex exists in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$. By recursively checking all possible neighbours of a vertex, all possible walks on the lattices will be found.

Given an origin vertex $`x^0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$, we know its $`E_{}`$ image $`x_{}^0`$ must lie somewhere in $`W`$, i.e. $`x_{}^0W^0=W`$ ($`W^n`$ is the region $`x_{}^0`$ can lie in given our knowledge of the $`n`$ steps in the walk). If we take a step $`s`$ (with projection $`s_{}`$ onto $`E_{}`$) to a possible adjacent vertex $`x^1`$, then we know $`x_{}^1=x_{}^0+s_{}`$. Furthermore if $`x^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$ is true, $`x_{}^1W`$. Hence $`W^1=(W(W^0+s_{}))s_{}`$. The probability that the step $`s`$ is possible from a random $`x^0`$ is given by the ratio between the areas of $`W^1`$ and $`W`$.

Extending this to a walk of length $`n`$ with steps $`s^i,i=1\mathrm{}n`$, $`W^k=(W(W^{k1}+_{i=1}^ks_{}^i))_{i=1}^ks_{}^i,`$ the probability of the walk existing is the ratio of the areas of $`W^n`$ and $`W`$. For example, consider the shaded $`W^i`$ in Figure 5, for the particular walk in the Ammann-Beenker tiling which steps west, south, south-west, north-west, west, north then north.

For the Ammann-Beenker tiling, these probabilities are of the form $`a+b\lambda `$, where $`\lambda =1+\sqrt{2}`$ and $`a,b`$.

Adding the self-avoiding constraint and summing the probabilities results in the expected number of SAWs beginning at a random origin. Again note that applying this method to a regular lattice would result in the usual SAW series. Due to the extra complexity of the rhombic Penrose tiling acceptance window, the area calculations are more involved, see also . They lead to mean numbers of the form $`a+b\tau `$, where $`\tau =(1+\sqrt{5})/2`$ is the golden number, and $`a,b`$. The rhombic Penrose tiling also allows steps in ten directions, more than the Ammann-Beenker tiling’s eight. These facts combine to allow greater length series to be computed on the Ammann-Beenker tiling.

### 3.3 Total number of walks

Investigating all possible walks as in the mean number of walks method, we count instead the number of non-zero contributions to the mean value. This counts the number of translationally inequivalent walks with $`W^n`$ having positive area or, equivalently, the number of translationally inequivalent walks which may occur anywhere in the tiling. Again we note that applying this method to a regular lattice gives the usual SAW series.

### 3.4 Self-avoiding polygons

A self-avoiding polygon is equivalent to a self-avoiding walk in which the initial and final vertices are adjacent. In the enumeration of self-avoiding polygons, we do not distinguish between polygons having, up to a translation, the same boundary but different fillings of the interior.

SAPs may be enumerated in the same manner as we enumerate SAWs. The additional property of end point adjacency allows the backtracking algorithm to be pruned earlier. When enumerating SAPs up to size $`N`$, a walk that visits a vertex after $`D`$ steps that is further than $`ND`$ steps from the origin may be pruned from the search tree. Such a walk can never form part of a SAP of $`N`$ steps. This was used to extend the length of the rhombic Penrose SAP series. The Ammann-Beenker SAP series were calculated at the same time as the SAW series and hence are of the same length. The extensive run time requirements precluded further series extension.

For the computation of occurrence probabilities of self-avoiding polygons, the loop vertices are taken into account, as described in Section 3.2 for the mean number of walks. If the self-avoiding polygon has $`n`$ loop vertices $`x^i\mathrm{\Lambda }(W)`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, the acceptance domain is $`W^n=_i(Wx_{}^i)`$, and the occurrence probability is given by the ratio between the areas of $`W^n`$ and $`W`$, see also .

## 4 Analysis of series

The various sequences were analysed using standard methods of asymptotic analysis of power series expansions as described in . For self-avoiding walks and polygons, it is easy to prove that the limit $`lim_n\mathrm{}(c_n)^{1/n}`$ exists by use of concatenation arguments . We assume the usual asymptotic growth of the sequence coefficients $`c_n,`$ viz:

$$c_n=Ax_c^nn^{\gamma 1}\left[1+𝒪(n^\epsilon )\right](n\mathrm{},0<ϵ1).$$
(4)
On the square lattice, there is overwhelming evidence  of the above asymptotic behaviour with $`\gamma =43/32`$. There is however no proof of this assumption. For interesting new developments see . The above assumption results in an asymptotic growth of the ratios $`r_n`$

$$r_n=\frac{c_n}{c_{n1}}=\frac{1}{x_c}\left[1+\frac{\gamma 1}{n}+𝒪(n^{1\epsilon })\right](n\mathrm{},0<ϵ1),$$
(5)
which may be used to extrapolate numerical estimates of $`x_c`$ and $`\gamma `$. Whereas it has been proved for the square lattice that the limit $`lim_n\mathrm{}c_n/c_{n2}`$ exists and coincides with $`x_c^2`$ , a similar statement for the ratios $`r_n`$ is not known. For some lattices, counterexamples are known .

Fig. 6 shows a plot of the ratios $`r_n`$ against $`1/n`$ for a typical fixed origin Ammann-Beenker walk (full circles) and for the ratios of the mean numbers of Ammann-Beenker walks (large empty circles).

We notice that the fixed origin data suffers from dramatic fluctuations, which are smoothed out by averaging, but are still larger than the corresponding square lattice data , which is shown in small circles. The oscillating behaviour of the mean number of walks data is due to an additional singularity of the sequence generating function at $`x=x_c`$, which, for the case of the square lattice, is well understood due to anti-ferromagnetic ordering . To obtain estimates of $`x_c`$ and $`\gamma `$, we used the standard method described in  and first mapped away the singularity on the negative real axis by an Euler transform and then used Neville-Aitken series extrapolation.

We also used the method of differential approximants (DAs) . The underlying idea is to fit a linear differential equation with polynomial coefficients to the generating function of the sequence, truncated at some order $`n_0`$. The critical points and critical exponents of the differential equation are expected to approximate the critical behaviour of the underlying sequence. Application of first order and second order DAs has proved useful for the analysis of square lattice SAWs . A first order DA involves fitting the coefficients to the differential equation $`P_1(x)xf^{}(x)+P_0(x)f(x)=R(x)`$ where $`P_1(x)`$, $`P_0(x)`$ and $`R(x)`$ are polynomials of degree $`N,`$ $`M,`$ and $`L`$ respectively. We refer to this as a $`[L/M;N]`$ DA. We analysed the approximants $`[L/N1;N]`$, $`[L/N;N]`$, $`[L/N+1;N]`$ for $`1L8`$. We computed estimates for $`x_c`$ and $`\gamma `$ by averaging of the different DA results, given a fixed number of series coefficients $`n_0`$. Since this yields more accurate estimates of $`x_c`$ and $`\gamma `$ (typically of one digit better) than the ratio method and series extrapolation, we list in Table 6 only the results for the DA analysis. Note that the errors are no strict error bounds, but arise from averaging over approximants $`[L/N_0;N_1]`$ for different values of $`N_0,N_1`$ and $`L`$, as explained in .

As suggested by the ratio plot, the estimate using the data for the mean number of walks yields the most precise estimates, which are, however, one order of magnitude in error worse than the corresponding estimates for square lattice SAWs.

An analysis of the total number of SAWs on the Ammann-Beenker tiling using first order DAs yields $`x_c=0.3647(33)`$ and $`\gamma =3.14(37)`$. Whereas the critical point estimate is consistent with the previous analysis, the exponent estimate deviates from the value of $`43/32=1.34375`$ for fixed origin SAWs or the mean number of SAWs. This phenomenon reflects the fact that the number of Ammann-Beenker patches of radius $`r`$ grows asymptotically as $`r^2`$. (More generally, for aperiodic Delone sets in $`^d`$ described by a primitive substitution matrix, the number $`N(r)`$ of patches of radius $`r`$ grows like $`N(r)r^d`$ .) Since the SAW has fractal dimension $`4/3`$, we expect an asymptotic increase of the number of SAWs by $`n^{2\nu }`$, where $`\nu =3/4`$. Thus $`\gamma =43/32+2\nu =2.84375`$. Data extrapolation is consistent with this value.

The analysis of SAP data follows the same lines. However, the estimates suffer from large finite size errors due to the low number (11) of available coefficients. First order differential approximants for the mean number of SAPs yield $`x_c=0.3688(41)`$. We assume $`x_c(SAP)=x_c(SAW)`$, which has been proven for the square lattice case .

For the critical exponent $`\alpha =2+\gamma `$, we expect for the mean number of SAPs by universality that $`\alpha =1/2`$, being the believed exact value for the square lattice (and numerically confirmed to very high precision ). Due to lack of data it is not possible to give estimates of critical exponents. An analysis of the total number of SAPs on the Ammann-Beenker tiling using first order DAs yields $`x_c=0.3587(15)`$.

The above analysis has also been applied to the rhombic Penrose tiling data. We observe qualitatively the same finite size behaviour as for the Ammann-Beenker tiling data, though the fluctuations are a bit less pronounced. In Table 7 we list estimates for $`x_c`$ and $`\gamma `$ obtained by analysing first order differential approximants.

An analysis of the total number of SAWs on the rhombic Penrose tiling using first order DAs yields $`x_c=0.3638(31)`$ and $`\gamma =2.77(21)`$. The estimate of the critical point is consistent with the estimates from the other methods of counting. For the critical exponent, we again expect a value of $`\gamma =43/32+2\nu =2.84375`$, which agrees with the extrapolation within numerical accuracy.

For the analysis of SAP data, only 9 series coefficients are available. First order differential approximants for the mean number of SAPs yield $`x_c=0.372(11)`$. An analysis of the total number of SAPs on the rhombic Penrose tiling using first order DAs yields $`x_c=0.3590(22)`$. Again, due to lack of data, it is not possible to extrapolate reasonable estimates for the critical exponent $`\alpha `$.

## Conclusion

We extended previous enumerations for self-avoiding walks and polygons on the Ammann-Beenker tiling and on the rhombic Penrose tiling and extracted estimates for the critical point and critical exponent, using different counting schemes. It turned out that averaging with respect to the occurrence probability in the whole tiling leads to the best estimates, whereas data produced by fixing an origin leads to strong finite size oscillations. The results support the universality hypothesis that the critical exponents appear to be the same as for the square lattice, within confidence limits. For the total number of walks (polygons) we obtain a new exponent reflecting the polynomial complexity of the number of patches of the underlying tiling.

Since the results were obtained using the enumeration method of backtracking, one might ask if more efficient enumeration methods can be applied in order to substantially increase the length of the series, and hence the accuracy of the estimates. Unfortunately, the successful finite-lattice method cannot be applied in this case, without substantial development.

On a mathematically rigorous level, it may be possible to show the equality of the critical points for SAPs and SAWs on quasiperiodic tilings by appropriately modifying the existing proofs for the hypercubic lattice . Furthermore, it would be interesting to carry out an analysis to determine if random walk behaviour can be proved for dimensions greater than four .

Self-avoiding polygons may also be counted by area. Since this leads to a three-variable generating function due to the different areas of the prototiles, it is tempting to ask whether the scaling behaviour of these objects is different from that recently found  for self-avoiding polygons on two-dimensional lattices.

## Acknowledgements

The authors thank Michael Baake for bringing their attention to the above problem and Daniel Lenz for useful advice on substitution systems. CR would like to acknowledge funding by the German Research Council (DFG). AJG would like to acknowledge funding by the Australian Research Council (ARC).


format: text

text:
# Geodesics and geodesic deviation in a two-dimensional black hole

## I Introduction

Learning to solve the geodesic and geodesic deviation equations is an integral part of a first course on general relativity. However, most texts on general relativityrdi  do not contain a sufficient number of solvable examples that illustrate the behavior of geodesics in a nontrivial geometry. This lack is largely due to the fact that the geodesic equations as well as the geodesic deviation equations are not easy to solve exactly in most of the standard geometries of interest. A traditional example is the case of the line element on the surface of a two-dimensional sphere for which the geodesic and the geodesic deviation equations can be solved analytically. Some other exactly solvable examples in two dimensions include Rindler spacetime, the line element on a cylinder and the hyperbolic plane.

In this article, we will discuss a two-dimensional example (with a diagonal line element of Lorentzian signature ($``$$`+`$), i.e. of the form $`ds^2=g_{00}dt^2+g_{11}dx^2`$, with $`g_{00}`$ everywhere negative and $`g_{11}`$, positive) , for which, like the sphere, there are exact solutions for geodesics as well as geodesic deviation. The line element for this example arises in the context of the stringy black holes.string  In fact, this is the geometry of the first stringy black hole discovered in the early nineties by Mandal et al.msw  We will not go into the details of how this line element is obtained. Interested readers may read the original referencesmsw  to enlighten themselves on this aspect. For our purposes here, the line element represents a geometry that is given to us, and we see that there are exact solutions for geodesics and geodesic deviation for test particles moving in this geometry.

## II The Line Element

We begin by writing down the line element of interestmsw :

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)dt^2+\frac{kdr^2}{4r^2\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)}.$$
(1)
where M is equivalent to $`GM/c^2`$ with the choice of units $`G=1`$ and $`c=1`$. Similarly $`k`$ is required to have dimensions of length squared in order to render the metric coefficient $`g_{rr}`$ dimensionless.

The domain for the radial coordinate is $`r>M`$ and $`t`$ is allowed to vary from $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$. The physical meaning of the constants $`M`$ and $`k`$ can be explained in the context of two-dimensional string theory. For completeness (and also with the risk of introducing some unexplained jargon), we mention that $`M`$ is related to mass and $`k`$ to the central charge parameter.

Several purely geometrical facts about this line element are worth noting. At $`r=M`$, $`g_{tt}0`$ and $`g_{rr}\mathrm{}`$. If $`r<M`$, the signs of $`g_{tt}`$ and $`g_{rr}`$ are interchanged. Readers familiar with some general relativity (say, the Schwarzschild solution) would call $`r=M`$ the horizon and thereby, characterize the line element as a black hole provided there exists a singularity (which is the case here, as we shall see later) inside the horizon (that is, in the region $`r<M`$). As the title of this article suggests, the geometry represents a two-dimensional black hole. As is common knowledge, a black hole is a region from where nothing can escape. If an object falls into a black hole (that is, the object crosses the horizon), the object ends up getting stretched and torn apart by the gravitational forces within. This distortion is quantified through the deviation of geodesics. The ultimate fate is collapse into a singularity where the matter density is infinitely large, thereby being a region of extreme curvature. We shall concern ourselves with the $`r>M`$ region.

The pathology in the line element (that is, $`g_{rr}\mathrm{}`$ ) at $`r=M`$ is entirely a coordinate artifact (a poor choice of coordinates). In addition, it is worth noting, that unlike the case for similar but four-dimensional line elements where the horizon is a sphere or some other two-dimensional surface, here it is a point and falling into a black hole is manifest in crossing this point and entering the region of no return. The spacetime here is undoubtedly very similar to the two-dimensional $`r`$$`t`$ section of the static, spherically symmetric four-dimensional black holes (like the Schwarzschild metric). Many of the features of black holes can be understood via this example. In fact an extensive research literature exists on two-dimensional black holes where interesting phenomena such as Hawking radiation and information loss have been discussed (see Ref. string,  and references therein and Ref. strominger, ).

The line element in Eq. (1) also can be written in the following formstrominger :

$$ds^2=\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(\frac{Mx}{2\sqrt{k}}\right)dt^2+dx^2,$$
(2)
where we have used the coordinate transformation $`x=\frac{\sqrt{k}}{M}\mathrm{cosh}^1(\frac{2r}{M}1)>0`$. Notice that the singular nature of the metric function $`g_{11}`$ at $`r=M`$ is no longer there in this form of the line element. A third form of the line element is the Kruskal extension or the maximal analytical extension done exactly in the same way as for the Schwarzschild metric. (For details on how to construct Kruskal coordinates see any standard text on general relativity.) If we introduce the coordinates $`u`$ and $`v`$ defined by:

$`u=t{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|rM|`$ (3a)
$`v=t+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|rM|,`$ (3b)
and $`U=\sqrt{k}\mathrm{exp}(u/\sqrt{k})`$, $`V=\sqrt{k}\mathrm{exp}(v/\sqrt{k})`$, we can rewrite the line element as:

$$ds^2=\frac{dUdV}{\frac{M}{\sqrt{k}}\frac{UV}{k}}.$$
(4)
In Eq. (3) the coordinates $`u`$ and $`v`$ run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}<U<0`$, $`0<V<\mathrm{}`$. It is possible to further rewrite the line element using coordinates $`2T=V+U`$, $`2X=VU`$. The Kruskal form of the line element is an ‘extension’ over the whole domain of $`r`$ and $`t`$ The geometry of this Kruskal extension has features similar to that of the Schwarzschild.

## III Timelike geodesics

Our main goal is to find timelike geodesics (that is, trajectories of test particles of nonzero rest mass) in the line element given in Eq. (1). The equations and constraint for timelike geodesics are given as:

$`\ddot{x}^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu \dot{x}^\nu \dot{x}^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5a)
$`g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (5b)
where $`x^\mu `$ are the coordinates (here $`r`$ and $`t`$), and $`\mu `$ takes on values 0 and 1 for $`t`$ and $`r`$ respectively. Equation (5b) is the timelike constraint on the trajectories

The differentiation (indicated by dots) in Eq. (5) is with respect to the affine parameter (proper time) $`\lambda `$. The Christofel symbol $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$ is given as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \rho }[g_{\rho \nu ,\lambda }+g_{\rho \lambda ,\nu }g_{\nu \lambda ,\rho }],$$
(6)
where a comma denotes ordinary differentiation with respect to coordinate $`x^\mu `$.The nonzero components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$ for the line element in Eq. (1) are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^0={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2r(rM)}}`$ (7a)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M(rM)}{kr}}`$ (7b)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2rM)}{2r(rM)}}`$ (7c)
The reader might ask why aren’t we interested in null geodesics (that is, trajectories of test particles having zero rest mass, such as light rays) ? In two dimensions null geodesics are the same as those for the flat Minkowski line element. Note that any two-dimensional line element (with Euclidean or Lorentzian signature) can be written as $`ds^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x,t)[dt^2+dx^2]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x,t)`$ is a nonzero, positive definite function of $`x`$ and $`t`$ and is called the conformal factor. Null geodesics require that $`g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu =0`$, which implies that in two dimensions, null geodesics for Minkowski spacetime are the same as those for any other nontrivially curved spacetime.

The timelike constraint in Eq. (5) for the line element of interest here (Eq. (1)), is given as:

$$\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)\dot{t}^2+\frac{k}{4r^2\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)}\dot{r}^2=1.$$
(8)
The geodesic equations (one each for $`r`$ and $`t`$) are

$$\dot{t}=\frac{E}{2\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)}$$
(9)
$$\ddot{r}\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{2rM}{r^2Mr}\right]\dot{r}^2+\frac{E^2Mr}{2k(rM)}=0,$$
(10)
where in Eq. (9) we have substituted for $`\dot{t}`$ from Eq. (9). $`E`$ in the above is a constant of the motion and arises due to the absence of the coordinate $`t`$ in the metric coefficients. If we substitute $`\dot{t}`$ from Eq. (9) in the timelike constraint in Eq. (8). we obtain

$$\dot{r}^2=\frac{1}{k}[(E^24)r^2+4Mr]=V(r)+E_0,$$
(11)
where $`E_0`$ is a constant and $`V(r)`$ is like an effective potential given by:

$$V(r)=E_0\frac{1}{k}[(E^24)r^2+4Mr].$$
(12)
Notice that the effective potential is like that of the harmonic oscillator for $`E^2<4`$ and like that of an inverted harmonic oscillator for $`E^2>4`$. For $`E^2=4`$ it is linear with a negative slope. We can make a coordinate change (translation) in order to see the harmonic oscillator/inverted harmonic oscillator forms explicitly. The potentials for the three cases are shown in Fig. 1.

If we substitute $`\dot{r}`$ and its derivative with respect to $`\lambda `$ from the timelike constraint (11) in Eq. (10) for $`r`$, the equation is satisfied identically. Therefore, it is enough to just obtain $`r(\lambda )`$ by integrating the timelike constraint for the three cases ($`E^2<4,E^2=4,E^2>4`$) and obtain $`r(\lambda )`$ and subsequently $`t(\lambda )`$. These results are given below.

Case 1: $`E^2<4`$.

$$r(\lambda )=\frac{B}{2A}(1+\mathrm{cos}a\lambda )$$
(13a)
$$t(\lambda )=\frac{E}{2}\left[\lambda +\frac{1}{qa}\mathrm{ln}\frac{q+\mathrm{tan}c\lambda }{q\mathrm{tan}c\lambda }\right],$$
(13b)
where $`q^2=(1+f)/(1f)`$, $`A=4E^2`$, $`a=\sqrt{A/k}`$, $`c=a/2`$, $`f=1A/2`$, and $`B=4M`$.

Case 2: $`E^2=4`$.

$$r(\lambda )=\frac{M}{k}\lambda ^2$$
(14a)
$$t(\lambda )=\lambda +\sqrt{\frac{k}{4}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda \sqrt{k}}{\lambda +\sqrt{k}}\right).$$
(14b)
Case 3: $`E^2>4`$.

$$r(\lambda )=\frac{B}{2A}(1+\mathrm{cosh}a\lambda )$$
(15a)
$$t(\lambda )=\frac{E}{2}[\lambda +\frac{q}{a}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{tanh}c\lambda q}{\mathrm{tanh}c\lambda +q}],$$
(15b)
where $`q^2=(f1)/(f+1)`$, $`A=E^24`$, $`a=\sqrt{A/k}`$, $`c=a/2`$, $`f=1+A/2`$, and $`B=4M`$.

In each case, the functional form of $`r(t)`$ can be obtained by utilizing the parametric forms $`r(\lambda )`$, $`t(\lambda )`$. Figures 2–4 illustrate the above function. The origin of the coordinates in each of these figures is chosen to be $`r=1`$ and $`t=0`$. In particular, Fig. 4 shows the actual radial trajectory $`r(t)`$ as a function of time. It is not possible to write $`r`$ as an explicit function of $`t`$ because of the nature of the functional dependence of $`t`$ on $`\lambda `$. However, we may write $`t(r)`$ by inverting $`r(\lambda )`$ to $`\lambda (r)`$ and then using this function in $`t(\lambda (r))`$. Notice that for $`E^2<4`$, the trajectory hovers around the horizon (extending only up to $`r=2M=2`$), reaching the value $`r=M=1`$ only asymptotically. However, for $`E^24`$ there is no such restriction and the trajectory can extend from $`M`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

It should be mentioned that the “discontinuities” in some of the plots arise because of the choice of the parameter ($`M=1`$ implies that $`r>1`$) and, consequently, the allowed domain of the independent variable. They are not real discontinuities of the functions, as is apparent from the solutions.

## IV Geodesic deviation

We now consider the geodesic deviation equation in order to analyze the behavior of the spreading of the geodesic curves obtained in Sec. III. Before we discuss the geodesic deviation in the black hole line element, we briefly recall some of the basic notions of geodesic deviation.dev

In a curved spacetime geodesics are not the straight lines of our Euclidean intuition. For instance, the geodesics on the surface of a sphere are the great circles. To understand how geodesics are spread out in a spacetime of nontrivial curvature, we consider a bundle of geodesics around a specific geodesic (called the central geodesic). At every point on this central geodesic we erect little normals. This normal is the connecting vector, so-called because as we move along the connecting vector. we reach neighboring geodesics. The reader might ask why normal deformations only? The answer is that tangential deformations are taken into account through the reparametrisation of the affine parameter $`\lambda `$, or, in other words, they do not deform the trajectory to a neighboring one.

It is obvious that the nature of the connecting vector (or deviation vector) in a nontrivial spacetime depends crucially on the properties of the spacetime, or more importantly, as it turns out, on its curvature properties. For instance, on the surface of a sphere, if we look at two neighboring great circle arcs connecting the north and south poles, the distance between them increases, reaches a certain value at the equator, and then decreases untill it reaches a zero value at the other pole. The deviation vector essentially measures this effect, which is dictated by the properties of the Riemann tensor $`R_{\nu \lambda \rho }^\mu `$ given by:

$$R_{\nu \lambda \rho }^\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho ,\lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda ,\rho }^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \rho }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\sigma .$$
(16)
The Ricci tensor and the Ricci scalar are obtained from the above Riemann tensor by appropriate contractions with the metric tensor (Ricci tensor, $`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \lambda \nu }^\lambda `$ and Ricci scalar, $`R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }`$).

We know from Einstein’s general relativity that geometry is equivalent to the presence of a gravitational field. Thus the deviation of trajectories from each other is a measure of the relative gravitational force between the objects moving on these separate, neighboring, trajectories. We now state the geodesic deviation equation and solve it for the geodesics in the black hole line element, Eq. (1), discussed here.

Given a geodesic curve, we identify the tangent and normal to it as the vectors $`e^\mu `$ and $`n^\mu `$ respectively. These satisfy the orthonormality conditions:

$`g_{\mu \nu }e^\mu e^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (17a)
$`g_{\mu \nu }n^\mu n^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (17b)
$`g_{\mu \nu }e^\mu n^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (17c)
We make the assumptions:

$`e^\mu `$ $``$ $`(\dot{t},\dot{r})`$ (18a)
$`n^\mu `$ $``$ $`(f(r)\dot{r},g(r)\dot{t}).`$ (18b)
Note that other choices can be made and thus the above definitions in Eq. (18) are by no means unique. If we substitute the assumptions in Eq. (18) into the orthonormality conditions Eq. (17), we obtain the following relations for $`f(r)`$ and $`g(r)`$:

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{11}}{g_{00}}}}`$ (19a)
$`g(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{00}}{g_{11}}}}.`$ (19b)
Therefore the normal vector $`n^\mu `$ takes the form:

$`n^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}}{2r(1\frac{M}{r})}}\dot{r}`$ (20a)
$`n^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r(1\frac{M}{r})}{\sqrt{k}}}\dot{t}.`$ (20b)
The equation for the normal deformations $`\eta `$ (where $`\eta ^\mu =\eta n^\mu `$, $`\eta ^\mu `$ being the deviation vector) is given by:

$$\frac{d^2\eta }{d\lambda ^2}+R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }e^\mu n^\nu e^\rho n^\sigma \eta =0.$$
(21)
The nonzero components of Riemann tensor in the coordinate frame are given by:

$`R_{0101}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{1010}={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2r^3}}`$ (22a)
$`R_{0110}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{1001}={\displaystyle \frac{M}{2r^3}}.`$ (22b)
There is actually only one independent component of the Riemann tensor in two dimensions (recall that in $`n`$ dimensions, the number of independent components is $`n^2(n^21)/12`$). The nonzero Ricci tensor components in the coordinate frame ($`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \alpha \nu }^\alpha `$) and the Ricci scalar ($`R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }`$) are

$`R_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M(rM)}{kr^2}}`$ (23a)
$`R_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2r^2(rM)}}`$ (23b)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{kr}}`$ (23c)
The Riemann tensor components and Ricci scalar diverge as $`r0`$. The geometry becomes singular as $`r0`$. However, $`rM`$ does not seem to be a preferred point (in comparison to $`r=0`$ say), a fact that re-emphasizes the point that the pathology at $`r=M`$ in the line element in Eq. (1) is largely a coordinate artifact. Of course, the special nature of $`r=M`$ is that it is a horizon with the metric signature changing sign as we move from $`r>M`$ to $`r<M`$.

If we substitute the Riemann tensor components for the two-dimensional black hole line element and use the normal and tangent mentioned in Eq. 18 , we find that the deviation equation reduces to the following equations for the three cases discussed earlier.

Case 1: $`E^2<4`$.

$$\frac{d^2\eta }{d\overline{\lambda }^2}2\mathrm{sec}^2\overline{\lambda }\eta =0,$$
(24)
where $`\overline{\lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{4E^2}{k}}\lambda `$. The two linearly independent solutions to Eq. (24) are

$$\eta (\overline{\lambda })=C_1\mathrm{tan}\overline{\lambda }+C_2(\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{tan}\overline{\lambda }+1).$$
(25)
Case 2: $`E^2=4`$.

$$\frac{d^2\eta }{d\lambda ^2}\frac{2}{\lambda ^2}\eta =0.$$
(26)
The solutions are

$$\eta (\lambda )=C_1\lambda ^2+C_2\frac{1}{\lambda }$$
(27)
Case 3: $`E^2>4`$.

$$\frac{d^2\eta }{d\overline{\lambda }^2}2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}^2\overline{\lambda }\eta =0,$$
(28)
where $`\overline{\lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{E^24}{k}}\lambda `$. In this case, the solutions are

$$\eta (\overline{\lambda })=C_1\mathrm{coth}\overline{\lambda }+C_2(\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{coth}\overline{\lambda }1)$$
(29)
In Eqs. (25), (27), and (29), $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are separate arbitrary constants in each case. These constants should be determined by the initial conditions (that is, the value of the initial separation between a pair of geodesics at a specific value of the affine parameter and the value of the rate of change of the initial separation at the same value of $`\lambda `$, similar to the conditions for obtaining particular solutions of second-order, linear, ordinary differential equations).

Now that we have obtained $`\eta `$ for each case, it is easy to write down the deviation vectors, which are given by $`\eta ^\mu =\eta n^\mu `$ (where $`\mu =0,1`$). Let us now discuss a representative case, say $`E^2=4`$. The range of $`\lambda `$ (for $`r>M=1`$) is between $`\mathrm{}<\lambda <1`$ and $`1<\lambda <\mathrm{}`$. If we consider a pair of neighboring geodesics at say $`\lambda =1.5`$ and assume $`\dot{\eta }`$ is positive, then we are forced to choose the solution for $`\eta `$ to be proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$. The evolution of $`\eta `$ then suggests that as we move further and further to larger positive $`\lambda `$, the geodesics spread out (diverge). On the other hand, if we assume $`\dot{\eta }`$ to be negative, then we must choose the $`\frac{1}{\lambda }`$ solution, which says that for larger $`\lambda `$ (which corresponds to larger $`r`$ as well), the geodesics converge, at least locally. However, as we go to larger $`\lambda `$, $`\dot{\eta }`$ also becomes smaller and approaches zero as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ ($`r\mathrm{}`$). Therefore, ultimately the geodesics become parallel to each other.

It is also useful to note that $`d^2\eta /d\lambda ^2`$, the measure of the gravitational force, is like a relative force which acts to change the separation between a pair of neighboring geodesics. We can easily substitute the values of $`\lambda `$ (or $`\overline{\lambda }`$) from the expressions of $`r(\lambda )`$ in the geodesic deviation equations (24), (26), and (28) to analyze the nature of the force. As an example, let us consider the case $`E^2=4`$. For $`\eta =\lambda ^2`$, the relative force is constant throughout and is given by:

$$\frac{d^2\eta }{d\lambda ^2}=2,$$
(30)
whereas for $`\eta =1/\lambda `$, we have

$$\frac{d^2\eta }{d\lambda ^2}=2\left(\frac{M}{kr}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(31)
Equation (31) tells us that the force vanishes as $`r`$ goes to infinity (recall that the geometry is flat in this limit and the geodesics will become parallel to each other), whereas for $`rM`$, it has the value $`2/k^{3/2}`$. A similar analysis can be carried out for the cases with $`E^2<4`$ and $`E^2>4`$.

A point worth mentioning here (without proof) is that in the above geometry, the geodesics do not seem to converge to a point within a finite value of $`\lambda `$ in any of the cases because of the fact that the Ricci scalar is non-negative (it is zero only when $`r\mathrm{}`$). In two dimensions, timelike geodesics do not converge to a point (focus) within a finite value of the affine parameter unless $`R0`$.sk

## V Conclusions

In summary, the exact solutions of the geodesic deviation equation can provide us with a better understanding of the nature of the separation between geodesics. Readers can further investigate the deviation vectors in the cases not discussed above in order to improve their understanding of geodesic deviation. Trajectories in two dimensions are of the form $`r(t)`$. The nontrivial curvature of the spacetime is responsible for their difference from the usual ‘straight lines’ in Minkowski spacetime–the solutions to the geodesic equation obtained in the above line element provide examples. If we take pairs of trajectories it is obvious that they may converge towards or diverge away from each other–a measure of this effect is geodesic deviation. We have illustrated this effect in our example above.

Our aim has been to provide an example where the geodesic and geodesic deviation equations can be exactly solved. It has been shown that for the line element of a two-dimensional black hole, exact, reasonably simple solutions do exist. We hope that the relevance of the line element, as well as the simplicity of the solutions will attract students and teachers to use this example when teaching a first course in general relativity. We also mention that, as far as we know, the exact solutions to the geodesic and the geodesic deviation equations do not exist in the literature and might be of some interest to researchers as well. There are innumerable solutions representing black holes and cosmologies in two-dimensional gravity, most of which have appeared largely in the last decade and a half. We believe that a carefully chosen section of these line elements can be used as worthwhile teaching tools in a first course on general relativity.

###### Acknowledgements.

SP thanks the Centre for Theoretical Studies, IIT Kharagpur, India for a visit during which this work was done. RK acknowledges financial support from IIT Kharagpur, India.

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1: Effective potential ($`y`$-axis) as a function of $`r`$ ($`x`$-axis) for three cases $`E^2=1`$ (Fig. $`1a`$), 4 (Fig. $`1b`$), 7 (Fig. $`1c`$) respectively; $`E_0=10`$, $`k=1`$, $`M=1`$ for all three cases.

Fig. 2: $`r(\lambda )`$ ($`y`$-axis) versus $`\lambda `$ ($`x`$-axis) as in Eqs. $`13a`$ (Fig. $`2a`$), $`14a`$ (Fig. $`2b`$) and $`15a`$ (Fig. $`2c`$) with $`A=3`$, $`k=1`$, and $`M=1`$.

Fig. 3: $`t(\lambda )`$ ($`y`$-axis) versus $`\lambda `$ (x-axis) as in Eqs. $`13b`$ (Fig. $`3a`$), $`14b`$ (Fig. $`3b`$) and $`15b`$ (Fig. $`3c`$) with $`A=3`$, $`k=1`$, and $`M=1`$.

Fig. 4: $`r(t)`$ ($`y`$-axis) versus $`t`$ ($`x`$-axis) from Eqs. $`13a`$ and $`13b`$ (Fig. $`4a`$), $`14a`$ and $`14b`$ (Fig. $`4b`$), $`15a`$ and $`15b`$ (Fig. $`4c`$) with $`A=3`$, $`k=1`$, and $`M=1`$.


text:
# EULER OBSTRUCTION AND DEFECTS OF FUNCTIONS ON SINGULAR VARIETIES

## 0. INTRODUCTION.

This work is a natural continuation of \[BLS\], where it is proved a Lefschetz-type formula for the local Euler obstruction. More precisely, let $`(X,0)`$ be an equidimensional complex analytic singularity germ in an open set $`U^N`$. We endow $`(X,0)`$ with a Whitney stratification $`\{V_i\}`$ and consider a general complex linear form $`l:^N`$. The formula of \[BLS\] says that the local Euler obstruction of $`X`$ at $`0`$ satisfies:

$$Eu_X(0)=\underset{i}{}\chi (V_i𝔹_\epsilon l^1(t_0))Eu_X(V_i),$$

where $`𝔹_\epsilon `$ is a small ball around $`0`$ in $`^N`$, $`t_0\{0\}`$ is sufficiently near $`\{0\}`$ and $`Eu_X(V_i)`$ is the Euler obstruction of $`X`$ at any point of the stratum $`V_i`$.

As we explain below, this formula is actually equivalent to saying that the local Euler obstruction, as a constructible function on $`X`$, satisfies the local Euler condition with respect to general linear forms. The purpose of this work is to understand what prevents the local Euler obstruction of satisfying the local Euler condition with respect to functions with a singularity at $`0X`$.

We consider first an analytic function $`f:X`$ with an isolated singularity at $`0`$. We introduce (in section 2) an invariant $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$, called the local Euler obstruction of $`f`$ at $`0`$. To define this invariant, let us consider the Nash bundle $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ over the Nash transform $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$. Roughly speaking, $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ is the obstruction for constructing a section of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ that extends a lifting of $`\overline{}_Xf`$, the complex conjugate of the gradient vector field of $`f`$ on $`X`$ (see section 2 for a precise definition). In section 3, we prove (Theorem 3.1):

$$Eu_X(0)=\left(\underset{i}{}\chi (V_i𝔹_\epsilon f^1(t_0))Eu_X(V_i)\right)+Eu_{f,X}(0).$$

In sections 3 and 4, we give a proof of this formula, similar to the proof in \[BLS\]. The main difference is that the invariant $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ does not vanish in general and its contribution to the local Euler obstruction $`Eu_X(0)`$ has to be taken into account. The more natural way to prove our formula is to work directly on $`X`$, which is somehow simpler than working on the Nash transform $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, as in \[BLS\]. It seems to us that this approach gives interesting insigths even for the case of general linear forms.

In section 5 we look at the situation where the function $`f`$ may have a non-isolated singularity at $`0`$. In this case our geometric definition of the invariant $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ does not make sense. However, one can define the following defect:

$$D_{f,X}(0):=Eu_X(0)\left(\underset{i}{}\chi \left(V_iB_\epsilon f^1(t_0)\right)Eu_X(V_i)\right)$$

This is well-defined even when the singularity is non-isolated, and we use a formal, derived category argument to prove that the defect $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ has a nice interpretation in terms of vanishing cycles (Theorem 5.3). The proof that we give is very short, but uses a number of basic results, including the index theorem of Brylinski, Dubson, and Kashiwara \[BDK\]. From the defect point of view, what Theorem 3.1 tells us is that, in the case of isolated singularities, $`D_{f,X}(0)=Eu_{f,X}(0)`$.

This vanishing cycle interpretation that we give for $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ allows us to calculate it algebraically. In the case of isolated singularities, we may use another index theorem – proved independently by Ginsburg \[Gi\], Lê \[Le1\], and Sabbah \[Sa2\] – to conclude that, up to sign, $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ is equal to the intersection number of the conormal variety of $`X`$ with the image of the differential $`d\stackrel{~}{f}`$ at the point $`(0,d_0\stackrel{~}{f})`$ (Corollary 5.4).

Thus, when $`X`$ is $`^d`$ and $`f`$ has an isolated singularity at $`0`$, we obtain that $`D_{f,X}(0)=(1)^d\mu `$. That is, $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ coincides (up to sign) with the usual Milnor number of $`f`$ (compare Remark 3.4). We can also define the invariant $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ when $`f`$ is the function distance to $`0`$ on $`X`$; in this case it coincides with the usual local Euler number $`Eu_X(0)`$. Hence $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ unifies these two important notions. The definition of the defect $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ also makes sense when $`f`$ is a constant function, and in this case the algebraic interpretation says that $`D_{f,X}(0)=Eu_X(0)`$.

Moreover, even when $`f`$ has non-isolated singularities, in section 6 we obtain algebraic formulas for $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ by using the work of Massey. When $`X`$ is affine space, we use the results of \[Ma2\] on Lê numbers. When $`X`$ is arbitrary, we use the recent results of \[Ma3\] on Lê-Vogel numbers.

It would be interesting to understand the relationship of this invariant with the Milnor number for functions on singular spaces, introduced by V. Goryunov in \[Go\] for functions on curves (see also \[MS\]). This latter invariant has an obvious generalization to functions on isolated complete intersection germs, either as the number of critical points (on a Milnor fibre) of a generic perturbation of the given function, or equivalently, as the GSV-index of the gradient vector field of the given function \[GSV\].

## 1. EULER OBSTRUCTION AND THE EULER CONDITION.

Let us recall the result of \[BLS\]. Let $`(X,0)`$ be an equidimensional complex analytic singularity germ of dimension $`d`$ in an open set $`U^N`$. Let $`G(d,N)`$ denote the Grassmanian of complex $`d`$-planes in $`^N`$. On the regular part $`X_{reg}`$ of $`X`$, there is a map $`\sigma :X_{reg}U\times G(d,N)`$, defined by $`\sigma (x)=(x,T_x(X_{reg}))`$. The Nash transformation $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$ is the closure of Im$`(\sigma )`$ in $`U\times G(d,N)`$. It is a complex analytic space endowed with an analytic projection $`\nu :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$, which is a biholomorphism on $`\nu ^1(X_{reg})`$. Let us denote by $`U(d,N)`$ the tautological bundle over $`G(d,N)`$, and by $`𝕌`$ the corresponding locally trivial extension bundle over $`U\times G(d,N)`$. The Nash bundle $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is the restriction of $`𝕌`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

Consider a complex analytic stratification $`\{V_i\}`$ of $`U^N`$, adapted to $`X`$. We assume that $`\{0\}`$ is a stratum and the stratification satisfies the Whitney conditions \[Wh\]. We choose a representative of the germ of $`(X,0)`$ sufficiently small, so that $`\{0\}`$ is in the closure of all the strata.

A stratified vector field $`v`$ on $`X`$ is a continuous section of the restriction $`TU|_X`$ of $`TU`$ to $`X`$, such that if $`xV_iX`$, then $`v(x)T_x(V_i)`$. Such a vector field is radial  at $`aX`$ if for each sufficiently small ball $`𝔹_\epsilon (a)U`$ around $`a`$, with $`\epsilon >0`$, and for each boundary point $`x𝕊_\epsilon (a)=𝔹_\epsilon (a)`$, the vector $`v(x)`$ is pointing outwards the ball $`𝔹_\epsilon (a)`$. Such a vector field has necessarily an isolated zero at $`a`$.

One has the following Lemma (\[BS\], Proposition 9.1):

###### LEMMA 1.1

Let $`v`$ be a stratified non-zero vector field on $`AX`$. Then $`v`$ can be lifted to a section $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ along $`\nu ^1(A)`$.

###### PROPOSITION-DEFINITION 1.2

$`(`$\[BS\], Proposition 10.1; see \[MP\] for the original definition$`)`$. Let $`a`$ be a point in $`X`$ and $`v`$ a radial vector field defined on $`X𝔹_\epsilon (a)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ be the lifting of $`v`$ to $`\nu ^1(X𝕊_\epsilon (a))`$ as a section of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$. The local Euler obstruction $`Eu_X(a)`$ is the obstruction to the extension of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ as a nowhere zero section of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ inside $`\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon (a))`$.

More precisely, let $`𝒪(\stackrel{~}{v})H^{2d}(\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon (a)),\nu ^1(X𝕊_\epsilon (a)))`$ be the obstruction cocycle for extending $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ as a nowhere zero section of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ inside $`\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon (a))`$. The local Euler obstruction $`Eu_X(a)`$ is the evaluation of $`𝒪(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ on the fundamental class of the pair $`(\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon (a)),\nu ^1(X𝕊_\epsilon (a)))`$. The Euler obstruction is an integer. It is constant on each stratum of the Whitney stratification.

We consider a complex linear form $`l:U`$, so that $`0l^1(0)`$, and we assume that the kernel of $`l`$, $`ker(l)`$, is transversal to every generalized tangent space $`T`$ at $`0`$, i.e. to every limit of tangent spaces $`T_{x_n}(V_i)`$, for every $`V_i`$ and every sequence $`x_nV_i`$ converging to $`0`$. Such a linear form is said to be general (with respect to $`X`$). From now on, we will denote by $`𝔹_\epsilon `$ the ball $`𝔹_\epsilon (0)`$.

###### THEOREM 1.3

(\[BLS\] Theorem 3.1) Let $`(X,0)`$ and the Whitney stratification $`\{V_i\}`$ be as above, and let $`l:U`$ be a general linear form. Then:

$$Eu_X(0)=\underset{i}{}\chi (V_i𝔹_\epsilon l^1(t_0))Eu_X(V_i),$$

where $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small, $`t_0\{0\}`$ is close to $`0`$ and $`Eu_X(V_i)`$ is the Euler obstruction of $`X`$ at any point of the stratum $`V_i`$.

This theorem can be stated through the framework of bivariant theory \[FM\]. We follow the formulation given in \[Br\]. For this we recall that a function $`\alpha :X`$ is constructible if for each $`n`$, the set $`\alpha ^1(n)`$ is constructible, i.e. it is obtained as a finite number of unions, intersections and differences of analytic subsets of $`X`$. Given a constructible function $`\alpha :X`$ and $`AX`$, the weighted Euler-Poincaré characteristic $`\chi (A;\alpha )`$ is defined by:

$$\chi (A;\alpha ):=\underset{n}{}n\chi (A\alpha ^1(n)).$$

If $`\{V_i\}`$ is a stratification of $`X`$ such that the value of $`\alpha `$ is constant on each stratum, we denote by $`\alpha (V_i)`$ its value in any point of $`V_i`$. We have, equivalently,

$$\chi (A;\alpha )=\underset{i}{}\chi (AV_i)\alpha (V_i).$$

Given an analytic map $`f:X`$ and a constructible function $`\alpha :X`$, we say that $`\alpha `$ satisfies the local Euler condition with respect to $`f`$ if for each $`xX`$, we have

$$\alpha (x)=\chi (𝔹_\epsilon (x)f^1(t);\alpha ),$$

where $`𝔹_\epsilon (x)`$ is a small ball in $`U^N`$, $`t𝔻(f(x))\{f(x)\}`$ and $`𝔻(f(x))`$ is a small disc in $``$ centered at $`f(x)`$ (see \[Br\], \[Sa1\]).

It is clear that Theorem 1.3 can be restated as:

###### THEOREM 1.4

The local Euler obstruction, as a constructible function, satisfies the local Euler condition with respect to general linear forms.

REMARK 1.5. Recently, J. Schürmann \[Scu\] proved that, with the same hypotheses as in Theorem 1.3, if a constructible function $`\alpha `$ on $`X`$ is a linear combination of the functions $`Eu_{\overline{V}_j}()`$, then one has

$$\alpha (0)=\underset{i}{}\chi (V_i𝔹_\epsilon l^1(t_0))\alpha (V_i).$$

In other words, $`\alpha `$ satisfies the local Euler condition with respect to general linear forms. The proof in \[Scu\] uses the index theorem for the vanishing cycle functor. We notice that this result can also be proved using 1.3, applying it to the closure of each stratum $`\overline{V}_j`$.

## 2. LOCAL EULER OBSTRUCTION OF A FUNCTION

Let us recall some well known concepts about singularity theory, which originate in the work of R. Thom.

Let $`(X,0)`$ be a complex analytic germ as above, contained in an open subset $`U`$ of $`^N`$ and endowed with a complex analytic Whitney stratification $`\{V_i\}`$. We assume further that $`\{0\}`$ is a stratum and that every stratum contains $`0`$ in its closure. For every point $`xX`$, we will denote by $`V_i(x)`$ the stratum containing $`x`$. Let $`f:X`$ be a holomorphic function, which is the restriction of a holomorphic function $`\stackrel{~}{f}:U`$. We recall \[GM\] that a critical point of $`f`$ is a point $`xX`$ such that $`d\stackrel{~}{f}(x)(T_x(V_i(x)))=0`$. We say, following \[Le1\], \[GM\], that $`f`$ has an isolated singularity at $`0X`$ relative to the given Whitney stratification, if $`f`$ has no critical points in a punctured neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`X`$.

Let us denote by $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}(x)`$ the gradient vector field of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ at a point $`xU`$, defined by $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}(x):=(\frac{\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}}{x_1},\mathrm{},\frac{\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}}{x_N}),`$ where the bar denotes complex conjugation. From now on we assume that $`f`$ has an isolated singularity at $`0X`$. This implies that the kernel $`ker(d\stackrel{~}{f})`$ is transverse to $`T_x(V_i(x))`$ in any point $`xX\{0\}`$. Therefore at each point $`xX\{0\}`$, we have:

$$Angle\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}(x),T_x(V_i(x))<\pi /2,$$

so the projection of $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}(x)`$ on $`T_x(V_i(x))`$, denoted by $`\widehat{\zeta }_i(x)`$, is not zero.

Let $`V_j`$ be a stratum such that $`V_i\overline{V}_j`$, and let $`\pi :𝒰_iV_i`$ be a tubular neighbourhood of $`V_i`$ in $`U`$. Following the construction of M. H. Schwartz in (\[Sc\], §2), we see that the Whitney condition $`(a)`$ implies that at each point $`yV_j𝒰_i`$, the angle of $`\widehat{\zeta }_j(y)`$ and of the parallel extension of $`\widehat{\zeta }_i(\pi (y))`$ is small. This property implies that these two vector fields are homotopic on the boundary of $`𝒰_i`$. Therefore, we can glue together the vector fields $`\widehat{\zeta }_i`$ to obtain a stratified vector field on $`X`$, denoted by $`\overline{}_Xf`$. This vector field is homotopic to $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}|_X`$ and one has $`\overline{}_Xf0`$ unless $`x=0`$.

Intuitively, what we are doing in the construction of $`\overline{}_Xf`$ is to take, for each stratum $`V_i`$ of $`X`$, the gradient vector field of the restriction of $`f`$ to $`V_i`$, and then gluing all these vector fields together. For instance, we can make the same construction taking $`f`$ to be the function distance to $`0`$, then $`\overline{}_Xf`$ is a radial vector field as in 1.2.

DEFINITION 2.1. Let $`\nu :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the Nash transform of $`X`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ be the lifting of $`\overline{}_Xf`$ as a section of the Nash bundle $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ over $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ without singularity over $`\nu ^1(X𝕊_\epsilon )`$. Let $`𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\zeta })H^{2d}(\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon ),\nu ^1(X𝕊_\epsilon ))`$ be the obstruction cocycle for the extension of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ as a nowhere zero section of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ inside $`\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon )`$. We define the local Euler obstruction of $`f`$ on $`X`$ at $`0`$, denoted $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$, to be the evaluation of $`𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\zeta })`$ on the fundamental class of the pair $`(\nu ^1(X𝔹_\epsilon ),\nu ^1(X𝕊_\epsilon ))`$.

Notice that $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ is an integer. We remark that a reason for considering the conjugate gradient vector field $`\overline{}_Xf`$, and not the usual gradient vector field $`_Xf`$, is given by the following Lemma:

###### LEMMA 2.2

The vector field $`\overline{}_Xf`$ is the lifting, up to homotopy, of a vector field on $``$, via $`d\stackrel{~}{f}`$.

Proof. The gradient vector field satisfies

$$d\stackrel{~}{f}(\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}(x))=\overline{}\stackrel{~}{f}(x)^2\{0\}\text{ for }xX\{0\},$$

this means that it is the lifting, up to scaling, of a constant vector field on a small disk $`𝔻_\eta `$. ∎

It is easy to see that if $`0`$ is a smooth point of $`X`$ and also a regular point of $`f`$, then $`Eu_{f,X}(0)=0`$. In the proposition 2.4 below, we prove that this is the case in a more general situation.

DEFINITION 2.3. Let $`(X,0)(U,0)`$ be a germ of analytic set in $`^N`$ equipped with a Whitney stratification and let $`f:(X,0)(,0)`$ be an analytic map, restriction of a regular holomorphic function $`\stackrel{~}{f}:(U,0)(,0)`$. We say that $`0`$ is a general point of $`f`$ if the hyperplane $`kerd\stackrel{~}{f}(0)`$ is transversal in $`^N`$ to every generalized tangent space at $`0`$, i.e. to every limit of tangent spaces $`T_{x_n}(V_i)`$, for every $`V_i`$ and every sequence $`x_nV_i`$ converging to $`0`$.

We notice that for every $`f`$ as above, the general points of $`f`$ form a non-empty open set on each (open) stratum of $`X`$, essentially by Sard’s theorem. We also remark that Definition 2.3 provides a coordinate free way of looking at general linear forms. In fact the previous definition is equivalent to saying that, with an appropriate local change of coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a linear form in $`U`$, and it is general with respect to $`X`$ (compare Lemma 1.3 in \[BLS\]).

###### PROPOSITION 2.4

Let $`0`$ be a general point of $`f:(X,0)(,0)`$. Then

$$Eu_{f,X}(0)=0.$$

Proof. The proof of this Proposition is implicit within the proof of 2.3 in \[BLS\] and can also be obtained as a corollary of Theorem 3.1 below and Theorem 3.1 in \[BLS\]. However, for completeness, we outline the proof here. In a first step define the map

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(U\times G(d,N))\times ^N\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}𝔻_\eta $$

by $`\stackrel{~}{F}(x,P,y)=d\stackrel{~}{f}_x(y)`$. As $`0`$ is a general point of $`f`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{K}=\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{F}^1(0)`$ is a sub-bundle of $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of (complex) codimension 1 and $`d\stackrel{~}{F}`$ maps the orthogonal complement of $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ isomorphically over $`T(𝔻_\eta )`$ (see \[BLS\] for details).

Now, as we show in the proof of Lemma 3.4 below, every $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ defining an isolated singularity at $`0`$ in $`X`$, determines a sub-bundle $`Q`$ of $`T^N|_{X\{0\}}`$ everywhere transversal to $`ker(d\stackrel{~}{f})`$, and the restriction of $`d\stackrel{~}{f}`$ to $`Q`$ is an isomorphism between $`Q`$ and $`T(𝔻_\eta )`$.

This implies that each nowhere-zero vector field on $`𝔻_\eta `$ lifts compatibly to a vector field on $`X\{0\}`$ and also as a section of $`\stackrel{~}{T}|_X`$. The final step is to notice, as we do in Lemma 2.2, that the gradient vector field $`\overline{}_Xf`$ can be obtained by lifting such a vector field. ∎

###### PROPOSITION 2.5

Let $`f:(X,0)(,0)`$ be analytic at $`0`$. Then there exists a Zariski open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ of the space of complex linear forms on $`^N`$, such that for all $`l\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$, the point $`0`$ is general for the map $`f+\lambda l:X`$, for all sufficiently small $`\lambda ^{}`$.

This Proposition follows from the proof of the Morsification Theorem 2.2 in \[Le2\]. In fact, the deformations of $`f`$ of the type $`f+\lambda l`$, constructed by Lê in \[Le2\] have $`0`$ as a general point and away from 0 their singularities are quadratic (this latter fact is not needed here). ∎

## 3. THE THEOREM

###### THEOREM 3.1

Let $`f:(X,0)(,0)`$ have an isolated singularity at $`0X`$. One has:

$$Eu_X(0)=\left(\underset{i}{}\chi (V_i𝔹_\epsilon f^1(t_0))Eu_X(V_i)\right)+Eu_{f,X}(0).$$

Theorem 3.1 is proved using Lemma 3.2 below. To state this Lemma, let us fix some notations. We choose $`\epsilon >0`$ sufficiently small so that every sphere $`𝕊_\gamma `$ in $`U`$ centered at $`0`$ and radius $`\gamma \epsilon `$ intersects transversally every stratum in $`X\{0\}`$. For each $`t`$, set $`Y_t:=f^1(t)`$. Choose $`\eta >0`$ small enough so that for each $`t`$ in the disk $`𝔻_\eta `$ of radius $`\eta `$ around $`0`$, the hypersurface $`Y_t`$ intersects transversally the sphere $`𝕊_\epsilon `$ . Now choose $`\epsilon ^{}`$ with $`0<\epsilon ^{}<\epsilon `$, and a point $`t_0𝔻_\eta `$ such that $`Y_{t_0}`$ does not meet the sphere $`𝕊_\epsilon ^{}`$. We notice that the strata $`V_i`$ intersect $`Y_{t_0}:=f^1(t_0)`$ transversally and provide a Whitney stratification of this space.

###### LEMMA 3.2

There is a stratified vector field $`w`$ on $`X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon }=X(𝔹_\epsilon Int(𝔹_\epsilon ^{}))`$ such that:

i) it coincides with $`\overline{}_Xf`$ on $`X𝕊_\epsilon ^{}`$ and its restriction to $`X𝕊_\epsilon `$ is radial;

ii) it is tangent to $`Y_{t_0}`$;

iii) $`w`$ has only a finite number of zeroes, and they are all contained in $`Y_{t_0}`$;

iv) at each zero $`a`$, $`w`$ is transversally radial to the stratum containing $`a`$ (i.e. it is transversal to the boundary of a tubular neighbourhood of the stratum).

Proof of Theorem 3.1 (assuming Lemma 3.2). We first notice that if $`\xi `$ is a stratified vector field on a neighbourhood of $`\{0\}`$ in $`X`$, which is everywhere transversal to a small sphere $`𝕊_\epsilon `$, then $`\xi `$ is homotopic to a radial vector field, by elementary obstruction theory. Hence to compute the Euler obstruction using 1.2, it is enough to consider vector fields transversal to $`𝕊_\epsilon `$.

The restriction of the vector field $`w`$ of 3.2 to $`(X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon })`$ is a stratified vector field, so it can be lifted as a section $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ of the Nash bundle $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ on $`\nu ^1((X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon }))`$ by 1.1. Let us denote by $`\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_\epsilon ))`$ the obstruction for extending $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ to $`\nu ^1(X_\epsilon )`$. One has:

$$\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_\epsilon ))=\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_\epsilon ^{}))+\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon }))$$

By statement (i) in Lemma 3.2 this formula becomes

$$Eu_X(0)=Eu_{f,X}(0)+\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon })).$$

By statement iii) in the Lemma 3.2, the contribution of $`\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon }))`$ is concentrated on $`\nu ^1(Y_{t_0}𝔹_\epsilon )`$. Statements iii) and iv), together with the “Theorem of Proportionality” (\[BS\], Théorème 11.1), imply that the contribution of each singularity $`x`$ of $`w`$ to $`\text{Obs}(\stackrel{~}{w},\nu ^1(X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon }))`$ is $`Eu_X(x)`$-times the local Poincaré-Hopf index of $`w`$ at $`x`$, regarded as a vector field on the stratum $`V_i(x)`$. Furthermore (by ii and iv), the sum of the Poincaré-Hopf indices of the restriction of $`w`$ to $`V_iY_{t_0}`$ is $`\chi (V_iY_{t_0}𝔹_\epsilon )`$. Theorem 3.1 then follows. ∎

The next result follows immediately from Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 2.5 above.

###### COROLLARY 3.3

Let $`f:(X,0)(,0)`$ have an isolated singularity at $`0`$. Choose a linear form $`l\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ as in 2.5, and $`\lambda ^{}`$ so that $`f_\lambda :=f+\lambda l`$ is general at $`0`$. Let $`M_{f,X}`$ and $`M_{f_\lambda ,X}`$ be the Milnor fibres of $`f`$ and $`f_\lambda `$, respectively, on $`X`$. Then,

$$Eu_{f,X}(0)=\underset{i}{}\left[\chi (V_iM_{f_\lambda ,X})\chi (V_iM_{f,X})\right]Eu_X(V_i)$$

REMARK 3.4 We notice that if $`X=^d`$ and $`f:(^d,0)(,0)`$ is an analytic map with an isolated singularity at $`0`$ with Milnor number $`\mu `$, then Theorem 3.1 implies,

$$Eu_{f,X}(0)=(1)^d\mu ,$$

because the Euler-Poincaré characteristic of the Milnor fibre of $`f`$ is equal to $`1+(1)^{d1}\mu `$ by \[Mi\].

This formula implies the Theorem 7.2 of \[Mi\]. In fact, since in this case the variety $`X=^d`$ is smooth, its Nash transform is $`^d`$ and the Nash bundle $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is the tangent bundle of $`^d`$. Hence, by definition, $`Eu_{f,X}(0)`$ is the Poincaré-Hopf index at $`0`$ of the gradient vector field $`\overline{}f=(\frac{\overline{f}}{x_1},\mathrm{},\frac{\overline{f}}{x_N}).`$ This equals $`(1)^d`$-times the Poincaré-Hopf index at $`0`$ of the vector field $`f=(\frac{f}{x_1},\mathrm{},\frac{f}{x_N}).`$ So we have that the Milnor number $`\mu `$ is the degree of $`f`$, which is Milnor’s Theorem 7.2.

## 4. PROOF OF LEMMA 3.2

The vector field $`w`$ of Lemma 3.2 is defined as the sum of two vector fields that we construct in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 below. Let us choose $`\eta ^{}>0`$ sufficiently small with respect to $`\eta `$, such that the disc $`𝔻_\eta ^{}(t_0)`$ of radius $`\eta ^{}`$, centered in $`t_0`$, is contained in the interior of $`𝔻_\eta `$ and $`f^1(𝔻_\eta ^{}(t_0))`$ does not intersect the sphere $`𝕊_\epsilon ^{}`$.

###### LEMMA 4.1

There exists a stratified vector field $`r`$ on $`𝔹_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta )`$ satisfying:

i) The restriction of $`r`$ to $`𝕊_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta )`$ , is tangent to all the fibers $`f^1(t)`$, and is transversal to $`𝕊_\epsilon `$, pointing outwards;

ii) $`r`$ is tangent to the fiber $`f^1(t_0)`$, where it has only isolated singularities (zeroes). Furthermore, at each zero, $`r`$ is transversally radial $`(`$in $`f^1(t_0))`$ to the stratum which contains that zero;

iii) $`r`$ is tangent to the fiber $`f^1(t)`$ for all $`t𝔻_\eta ^{}(t_0)`$.

Figure 1. The vector field $`r`$

Proof. We first construct $`r`$ on $`f^1(t_0)`$ satisfying ii) and pointing out of $`𝕊_\epsilon `$. This is done using the technique of M. H. Schwartz, as in the proof of Lemma 3.4 in \[BLS\]. The proof is now similar to the proof of Lemma 2.1 in \[BLS\]: by the fibration theorem of Lê (see \[Le2\] Theorem 1.3), the function $`f`$ determines a stratified locally trivial fibration of $`𝔹_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta )f^1(0)`$ over $`𝔻_\eta \{0\}`$. This induces, in particular, a trivial fibration over $`𝔻_\eta _{^{}}(t_0)`$. Hence $`r`$ can be extended, as a product, to all the fibers over $`𝔻_\eta _{^{}}(t_0)`$, satisfying statement iii).

Let us choose $`\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }`$, with $`\epsilon ^{}<<\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }<\epsilon `$ and such that the restriction of $`f`$ to $`f^1(𝔻_\eta )(𝔹_\epsilon \text{Int}(𝔹_{\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }}))`$ (shaded part of figure 1) is a trivial fibration. Since $`𝔻_\eta `$ retracts to $`𝔻_\eta _{^{}}(t_0)`$, the vector field $`r`$ can be extended to $`𝕊_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta )`$ being tangent to the fibers of $`f`$ and transversal to the sphere $`𝕊_\epsilon `$, pointing outwards

Using a suitable partition of unity, we can extend $`r`$ as zero in the complement of a neighbourhood of $`\left(f^1(𝔻_\eta )(𝔹_\epsilon \text{Int}(𝔹_{\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }}))\right)f^1(𝔻_\eta _{^{}}(t_0))`$ (see figure 1). ∎

Notice that statements i) and ii) in 4.1 imply that for each stratum $`Y_{t_0}V_iB_\epsilon `$, the sum of the Poincaré-Hopf indices of the restriction of $`r`$ is $`\chi (Y_{t_0}V_iB_\epsilon )`$.

###### LEMMA 4.2

There exists a stratified vector field $`u`$ defined on $`(𝔹_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta ))\{0\}`$ and satisfying:

i) $`u`$ is tangent to $`𝕊_\epsilon `$;

ii) its zero set is $`f^1(t_0)`$, and $`u`$ is transversally radial to $`f^1(t_0)`$ ;

iii) $`u`$ is transversal to $`Xf^1(𝔻_\eta )`$.

Figure 2. The vector field $`u`$

Proof. By hypothesis, the restriction of $`f`$ to every stratum $`V_i`$ (other than $`\{0\}`$) is regular, hence the kernel of $`df`$ has codimension 1 in $`V_i`$. The Hermitian metric on $`^N`$ induces a metric on $`V_i`$ and defines a splitting of the tangent bundle $`TV_i`$ as the sum of the tangent bundle to the fiber and the normal bundle. The derivative $`df`$, restricted to the normal bundle, is an isomorphism. Therefore, we can lift every vector field on $`𝔻_\eta `$ as a vector field tangent to $`V_i`$ and “orthogonal” to the fibers $`f^1(t)`$. Let us denote by $`\xi `$ the vector field on $`𝔻_\eta `$, radial from $`t_0`$, and by $`u_i`$ the lifting of $`\xi `$ to $`V_i`$ (see Figure 2).

Just as in the definition of the vector field $`\overline{}_Xf`$, the Whitney conditions allow us to glue the different $`u_i`$ in a stratified vector field $`u`$ defined on $`(𝔹_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta ))\{0\}`$ and satisfying the conditions of the Lemma. ∎

Proof of Lemma 3.2.

We first define the vector field $`w`$ on $`(𝔹_\epsilon f^1(𝔻_\eta ))\text{Int}(𝔹_\epsilon ^{})`$ as the sum (via a partition of unity) of the vector fields that we constructed in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2. We obtain a stratified vector field satisfying:

i) it is transverse to the sphere $`𝕊_\epsilon `$ , pointing outwards ;

ii) it is tangent to $`Y_{t_0}=f^1(t_0)`$;

iii) the singularities of $`w`$ are all contained in $`Y_{t_0}`$;

iv) on each stratum $`Y_{t_0}V_i𝔹_\epsilon `$ , $`w`$ only vanishes at a finite number of points and the sum of the Poincaré-Hopf indices of the restriction of $`w`$ is $`\chi (Y_{t_0}V_i𝔹_\epsilon )`$;

v) at each of its singular points, $`w`$ is transversally radial to the stratum that contains this singular point;

vi) it is transverse to the boundary $`f^1(𝔻_\eta )`$, pointing outwards.

Then we extend $`w`$ to all of $`X_{\epsilon ^{},\epsilon }`$ using Theorem 2.3 in \[BLS\]. To complete the proof of Lemma 3.2, we notice that restricted to $`𝕊_\epsilon ^{}`$, the vector field $`w`$ is homotopic to the gradient vector field $`\overline{}_Xf`$. This fact follows from Lemma 2.2 and the fact that, on $`𝕊_\epsilon ^{}`$, the vector field $`w`$ is the vector field $`u`$ of Lemma 3.4, which is homotopic to a constant vector field near 0. ∎

## 5. INTERPRETATION IN TERMS OF VANISHING CYCLES

Recall our notation from section 2: $`X`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional analytic subset of an open subset $`U`$ of $`^N`$, $`f`$ is the restriction to $`X`$ of a complex analytic function $`\stackrel{~}{f}:(U,0)(,0)`$, and $`\{V_i\}`$ is a complex analytic Whitney stratification of $`X`$.

In Definition 2.1, we defined the local Euler obstruction of $`f`$ in what we consider to be the most natural way – as a geometric obstruction. We then proved in Theorem 3.1 that, when $`f`$ has an isolated singularity, the local Euler obstruction of $`f`$ measures the defect in $`f`$ satisfying the local Euler condition.

In this section, we use a formal, derived category argument to prove that the defect

$$D_{f,X}(0):=Eu_X(0)\left(\underset{i}{}\chi \left(V_iB_\epsilon f^1(t_0)\right)Eu_X(V_i)\right)$$

has a nice interpretation in terms of vanishing cycles, even when the singularity is non-isolated.

Let $`𝔸^{}`$ be a bounded complex of sheaves of complex vector spaces on $`X`$ which is constructible with respect to $`\{V_i\}`$. We will need a number of notions from the derived category, including the characteristic cycle of $`𝔸^{}`$. The reader is referred in \[K-S\].

For each $`V_i`$, we denote the closure of the conormal variety of $`V_i`$ in $`U`$ by $`\overline{T_{V_i}^{}U}`$. We let $`\mathrm{Ch}(𝔸^{})=_im_i\left[\overline{T_{V_i}^{}U}\right]`$ denote the characteristic cycle of $`𝔸^{}`$ in $`U`$. We let $`\psi _f𝔸^{}`$ and $`\varphi _f𝔸^{}`$ denote the nearby and vanishing cycles of $`𝔸^{}`$ along $`f`$, respectively.

LEMMA 5.1. There exists a complex $`𝔸^{}`$ on $`X`$, constructible with respect to $`\{V_i\}`$, such that $`\mathrm{Ch}(𝔸^{})=\left[\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\right]`$

Proof. This is a trivial induction. See, for instance, Lemma 3.1 of \[Ma1\]. ∎

DEFINITION 5.2. We call a complex like that of Lemma 5.1 a characteristic complex for $`X`$ (constructible with respect to $`\{V_i\}`$).

THEOREM 5.3. Let $`𝔸^{}`$ be a characteristic complex for $`X`$.

Then, $`D_{f,X}(0)`$ equals negative the Euler characteristic of the stalk cohomology of $`\varphi _f𝔸^{}`$ at the origin, i.e.,

$$Eu_X(0)=\left(\underset{i}{}\chi \left(V_iB_\epsilon f^1(t_0)\right)Eu_X(V_i)\right)\chi (\varphi _f𝔸^{})_0.$$

Proof. By the index formula of Brylinski, Dubson, and Kashiwara \[BDK\], for any point $`xX`$, $`\chi (𝔸^{})_x`$ is equal to the local Euler obstruction $`Eu_X(x)`$.

By the distinguished triangle relating the nearby cycles $`\psi _f𝔸^{}`$ and the vanishing cycles $`\varphi _f𝔸^{}`$, we obtain that $`\chi (𝔸^{})_0=\chi (\psi _f𝔸^{})_0\chi (\varphi _f𝔸^{})_0`$.

Let $`F:=B_\epsilon f^1(t_0)`$ denote the Milnor fibre of $`f`$ at the origin. As $`F`$ transversely intersects the strata $`\{V_i\}`$, $`F`$ is Whitney stratified by the (finite) collection of strata $`\{FV_i\}`$. The Euler characteristic of the hypercohomology $`\chi \left(^{}(F;𝔸_{|_F}^{})\right)`$ is equal to $`_i\chi (FV_i)\chi (𝔸^{})_{p_i}`$, where $`p_i`$ is a point in the stratum $`V_i`$.

Therefore, we obtain

$$\chi (\psi _f𝔸^{})_0=\chi \left(H^{}(F;𝔸^{})\right)=\underset{i}{}\chi (V_iB_\epsilon f^1(t_0))\chi (𝔸^{})_{p_i},$$

where $`p_i`$ is any point in $`V_i`$.

Combining the above steps, we obtain the desired formula. ∎

COROLLARY 5.4. Let $`𝔸^{}`$ be a characteristic complex for $`X`$.

If $`f`$ has an isolated singularity at $`0`$, then $`(0,d_0\stackrel{~}{f})`$ is an isolated point of the intersection $`\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$, and

$$Eu_{f,X}(0)=\chi (\varphi _f𝔸^{})_0=(1)^d\left(\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}\right)_{(0,d_0\stackrel{~}{f})},$$

where this intersection number is equal to the Milnor number of $`f`$ at the origin in the case where $`X`$ is affine space.

Proof. The first equality follows from Theorem 3.1. The second equality follows from the index formula of Ginsburg \[Gi\], Lê \[Le1\], and Sabbah \[Sa2\]. That the intersection number equals the Milnor number in the affine case is well-known; see, for instance, Proposition I.2.19 of \[Ma3\]. ∎

## 6. CALCULATION IN TERMS OF LÊ NUMBERS

In this section we describe an algebraic method for calculating $`\chi (\varphi _f𝔸^{})_0`$, when $`𝔸^{}`$ is a characteristic complex for $`X`$, even when the critical locus of $`f`$ is non-isolated. In the affine case, this method uses Lê cycles and numbers, as described in \[Ma2\]. When $`X`$ is arbitrary, one must use the more general Lê-Vogel cycles and numbers, as described in \[Ma3\].

In either case, our method of calculation requires a “generic” choice of coordinates for the ambient, affine space $`U`$. This choice of coordinates is made as follows. Refine the stratification $`\{V_i\}`$ to a stratification $`𝒲:=\{W_j\}`$ such that $`𝒲`$ satisfies Thom’s $`a_f`$ condition and such that $`f^1(0)`$ is a union of strata of $`𝒲`$. While this refinement certainly produces non-isolated $`𝒲`$-stratified critical points of $`f`$, this will cause us no difficulty as we are considering the non-isolated case. (By the results of \[BMM\] and \[P\], a Whitney refinement of $`\{V_i\}`$ such that $`f^1(0)`$ is a union of strata would satisfy Thom’s $`a_f`$ condition; however, we are specifically not assuming that $`𝒲`$ is still a Whitney stratification. That one does not require the Whitney conditions on the refined stratification makes it easier to produce such refinements.)

Choose the first coordinate $`z_1`$ so that the hyperplane $`z_1^1(0)`$ transversely intersects, in some neighborhood of the origin, all positive-dimensional strata of $`\{W_j\}`$. Then, there is an induced stratification (on the germ at the origin) of $`Xz_1^1(0)`$ given by $`\{W_jz_1^1(0)\}`$. We choose $`z_2`$ so that $`z_2^1(0)`$ transversely intersects, in some neighborhood of the origin, all positive-dimensional strata of $`\{W_jz_1^1(0)\}`$. We continue in this inductive manner to choose $`z_1,\mathrm{},z__N`$. We call such a coordinate choice prepolar (at the origin).

Prepolar coordinates are not as generic as possible, but they are generic enough for our purposes. Being prepolar at the origin implies that the coordinates are also prepolar at each point in a neighborhood of the origin, and we assume that we are in such a neighborhood throughout the remainder of sections 5 and 6. Note that, if we began (before we refined $`\{V_i\}`$) with an $`X`$ that had a one-dimensional singular set at the origin and an $`f`$ with a one-dimensional stratified critical locus, then the choice of prepolar coordinates is trivial.

Fix a choice of prepolar coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z__N)`$.

The affine case: We will now describe the case where $`X=U`$ is an open subset of affine space. This case will serve as a good introduction to the general case.

In this case, we may take $`𝔸^{}`$ to be the constant sheaf $`_U^{}`$. We write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$ for the ordinary critical locus of $`f:U`$. Our problem is to calculate $`\chi (\varphi _f_U^{})_0`$.

As described in \[Ma2\], this Euler characteristic is an alternating sum of Lê numbers $`\lambda _f^k`$, which are defined as intersection numbers of linear subspaces with the Lê cycles. We need to define these devices.

Consider the analytic cycle $`[U]`$. This cycle can be written as a sum of purely $`N`$-dimensional cycles

$$[U]=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^N+\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^N,$$

where no component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^N`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$ and every component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^N`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$. Of course, if $`f`$ is not constant on a connected-component of $`U`$, we have $`[U]=\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^N`$.

Now, we define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k`$ by downward induction. If we have defined the purely $`(k+1)`$-dimensional cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^{k+1}`$, then the hypersurface (cycle) $`\left[V\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{z_{k+1}}}\right)\right]`$ properly intersects $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^{k+1}`$ inside $`U`$ (this is a result of the coordinates being prepolar), and therefore there is a well-defined, purely $`k`$-dimensional intersection cycle

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^{k+1}\left[V\left(\frac{f}{z_{k+1}}\right)\right],$$

which we can decompose as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^{k+1}\left[V\left(\frac{f}{z_{k+1}}\right)\right]=:\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^k+\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k,$$

where no component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^k`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$ and every component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$.

The cycle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k`$ is the $`k`$-dimensional Lê cycle of $`f`$. As our coordinates are prepolar, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k`$ properly intersects the linear subspace $`V(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)`$ at the origin, and we define the $`k`$-dimensional Lê number of $`f`$ at $`0`$ to be the intersection number

$$\lambda _f^k(0):=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^kV(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)\right)_0.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^0`$ is purely $`0`$-dimensional; thus, $`\lambda _f^0(0)`$ is simply the coefficient of $`[0]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^0`$.

###### PROPOSITION 6.1

If we let $`s:=\mathrm{dim}_0\mathrm{\Sigma }f`$, the Lê numbers $`\lambda _f^k(0)`$ are zero if $`k>s`$, and the Euler characteristic of the vanishing cycles is given by

$$D_{f,X}(0)=\chi (\varphi _f_U^{})_0=\underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}(1)^{Nk}\lambda _f^k(0).$$

In the isolated case, $`s=0`$ and $`\lambda _f^0(0)`$ is simply the Milnor of $`f`$ at the origin. Hence, we recover the result stated in Remark 3.4.

The general case: We redo the Lê cycle and number construction, but we work in the cotangent bundle to $`U`$ and with conormal varieties.

The cotangent bundle $`T^{}U\mathrm{@}>\pi >>U`$ is isomorphic to the trivial bundle $`U\times ^NU`$. The choice of the prepolar coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z__N)`$ determines a basis $`dz_1,\mathrm{},dz__N`$ for the cotangent vectors. We use $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_N`$ for coordinates with respect to this basis. We carry out our calculations with coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z__N,w_1,\mathrm{},w_N)`$ on $`U\times ^N`$.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{f}:U`$ is our extension of $`f`$ to all of $`U`$. Note that in our coordinates, the image of $`d\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}:=V(w_1\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z_1},\mathrm{},w_N\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z__N}).$$

It will be important to us that the projection $`\pi `$, restricted to $`\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$, induces an isomorphism onto its image; the inverse map sends a point $`p`$ to $`(p,{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z_1}}_{|_p},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z__N}}_{|_p})`$.

The cycle $`\left[\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\right]`$ can be written as a sum of purely $`N`$-dimensional cycles

$$\left[\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\right]=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^N+\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^N,$$

where no component of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^N`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and every component of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^N`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$.

Now, we define $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^k`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^k`$ by downward induction. If we have defined the purely $`(k+1)`$-dimensional cycle $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^{k+1}`$, then the hypersurface $`\left[V\left(w_{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z_{k+1}}}\right)\right]`$ properly intersects $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^{k+1}`$ inside $`U`$, and therefore there is a well-defined, purely $`k`$-dimensional intersection cycle

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^{k+1}\left[V\left(w_{k+1}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z_{k+1}}\right)\right],$$

which we can decompose as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^{k+1}\left[V(w_{k+1}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{z_{k+1}})\right]=:\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^k+\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^k,$$

where no component of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f^k`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and every component of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^k`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$.

As the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^k`$ are contained in $`\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}`$, the projection, $`\pi `$, maps each $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^k`$ isomorphically onto a cycle in $`U`$; we let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k:=\pi \left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_f^k\right)`$ (this is the proper projection of a cycle, and is frequently denoted by $`\pi _{}`$). We refer to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k`$ as the $`k`$-dimensional Lê-Vogel cycle.

Note that in the affine case, $`\left[\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\right]=U\times \{0\}`$, and the Lê-Vogel cycles coincide with the Lê cycles.

Now, exactly as before, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^k`$ properly intersects the linear subspace $`V(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)`$ at the origin, and we define the $`k`$-dimensional Lê-Vogel number of $`f`$ at $`0`$ to be the intersection number

$$\lambda _f^k(0):=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_f^kV(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)\right)_0.$$

###### THEOREM 6.2

If we let $`s:=\mathrm{dim}_0\pi \left(\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}\right)`$, the Lê-Vogel numbers $`\lambda _f^k(0)`$ are zero if $`k>s`$, and the Euler characteristic of the vanishing cycles is given by

$$D_{f,X}(0)=\chi (\varphi _f𝔸^{})_0=\underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}(1)^{dk}\lambda _f^k(0).$$

Note that when $`s=0`$, the only Lê-Vogel number which is possibly non-zero is $`\lambda _f^0(0)`$, and $`\lambda _f^0(0)=\left(\overline{T_{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^{}U}\mathrm{im}d\stackrel{~}{f}\right)_{(0,d_0\stackrel{~}{f})}`$. Therefore, we recover the result of Corollary 5.4.