text:
# On pointwise estimates of positive definite functions with given support

(January 2003)

## Abstract

The following problem originated from a question due to Paul Turán. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a convex body in Euclidean space $`^d`$ or in $`𝕋^d`$, which is symmetric about the origin. Over all positive definite functions supported in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and with normalized value $`1`$ at the origin, what is the largest possible value of their integral? From this Arestov, Berdysheva and Berens arrived to pose the analogous pointwise extremal problem for intervals in $``$. That is, under the same conditions and normalizations, and for any particular point $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the supremum of possible function values at $`z`$ is to be found. However, it turns out that the problem for the real line has already been solved by Boas and Kac, who gave several proofs and also mentioned possible extensions to $`^d`$ and non-convex domains as well.

We present another approach to the problem, giving the solution in $`^d`$ and for several cases in $`𝕋^d`$. In fact, we elaborate on the fact that the problem is essentially one-dimensional, and investigate non-convex open domains as well. We show that the extremal problems are equivalent to more familiar ones over trigonometric polynomials, and thus find the extremal values for a few cases. An analysis of the relation of the problem for the space $`^d`$ to that for the torus $`𝕋^d`$ is given, showing that the former case is just the limiting case of the latter. Thus the hiearachy of difficulty is established, so that trigonometric polynomial extremal problems gain recognition again.

MSC 2000 Subject Classification. Primary 42B10 ; Secondary 26D15, 42A82, 42A05.

Keywords and phrases. Fourier transform, positive definite functions and measures, Turán’s extremal problem, convex symmetric domains, positive trigonometric polynomials, dual extremal problems.

§1 Extremal Problems for positive definite functions, periodic and not

Let us denote $`𝕋^d:=[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d^d`$ with the usual modified topology of periodicity, that is, take the topology of $`𝕋^d:=^d/^d`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕋^d`$ any open domain, we put

$$^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }):=\{f:𝕋^d:\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega },f(0)=1,f\mathrm{positive}\mathrm{definite}\},$$
(1)
and, analogously, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ is any open set,

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }):=\{f:^d:\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega },f(0)=1,f\mathrm{positive}\mathrm{definite}\}.$$
(2)
Recall that positive definiteness of functions (and even measures and tempered distributions) can be defined or equivalently characterized by nonnegativity of Fourier transform. In case of (1) positive definiteness means $`\widehat{f}(n)0(n^d)`$, while in case of (2) it means $`\widehat{f}(x)0(x^d)`$.

In 1970 in a discussion with S. B. Stechkin  Paul Turán posed the following problem. Let $`d=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=(h,h)𝕋`$. What is the largest possible value of the integral $`_𝕋f`$ over all $`f^{}((h,h))`$? The question was later investigated in higher dimensions and in $`^d`$ as well. As a natural condition for the above Turán extremal problem, convexity of the underlying domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is usually supposed.

For an account of the problem see the papers  and  and the references therein. However, no authors seem to have noticed that already Boas and Kac settled the analogous (and relatively easy) case of an interval $`(h,h)`$, see Theorem 5 of .

In  the natural pointwise analogue of the above question of Turán was studied for intervals in $`𝕋`$ or $``$. For general domains in arbitrary dimension these problems can be formulated as follows.

###### Problem 1

(Boas-Kac - type pointwise extremal problem for the space). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ be an open set, and let $`f:^d`$ be a positive definite function with $`\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`f(0)=1`$. Let also $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$. What is the largest possible value of $`f(z)`$? In other words, determine

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },z):=\underset{f(\mathrm{\Omega })}{sup}f(z).$$
(3)
###### Remark 1

Obviously, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)1`$, as $`1\pm f(z)=_{}(1\pm \mathrm{exp}(2\pi izt))\widehat{f}(t)𝑑t`$ $`=_{}(1\pm \mathrm{cos}(2\pi zt))\widehat{f}(t)𝑑t0.`$

One might miss a more precise specification of the function class $`f:^d`$ here and similarly in the problems listed below. The fact that considering $`L^1`$, $`C`$ or $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ leads to the same answer ie. same extremal values, will be discussed at the beginning of §2.

###### Problem 2

(Turán - type pointwise extremal problem for the torus). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕋^d`$ be any open set, and let $`f:𝕋^d`$ be a positive definite function with $`\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`f(0)=1`$. Let also $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$. What is the largest possible value of $`f(z)`$? In other words, determine

$$^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z):=\underset{f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{sup}f(z).$$
(4)
###### Remark 2

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$ and $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For the function $`f`$ to be positive definite on the torus means a nonnegativity condition for the Fourier Transform

$$\widehat{f}(\xi )=_^de^{2\pi i\xi ,x}f(x)𝑑x$$

only for a discrete set of values of $`\xi `$, namely $`\xi ^d`$, while positive definiteness of $`f`$ as a function on $`^d`$ is equivalent to nonnegativity of the Fourier transform $`\widehat{f}`$ for all occurring values. From this it follows that we always have

$$^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)(\mathrm{\Omega },z).$$
(5)
The extremal value in the above Problem 1 was estimated together with its periodic analogue Problem 2 in the work  for dimension $`d=1`$. However, already Boas and Kac has solved the $`d=1`$ case of Problem 1, which seem to have been unnoticed in .

These problems are not only analogous, but also related to each other, and, in fact, Problem 1 is only a special, limiting case of the more complex Problem 2 (see Theorem 4 below). On the other hand, already Boas and Kac observed, that Problem 1 (dealt with for $``$ in ) is connected to trigonometric polynomial extremal problems. In particular, from the solution to the interval case they deduced the value (20) below of the extremal problem due to Carathéodory  and Fejér . They also established a connection (see \[3, Theorem 6\]) what corresponds to the one-dimensional case of the first part of our Theorem 1.

It is appropriate at this point to consider also the following type of trigonometric polynomial extremal problems. Denote for any $`H_2:=[2,\mathrm{})`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(H):=\{\phi :𝕋_+:\lambda ,\phi 0,\phi (t)1+\lambda \mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{kH}{}c_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt\}$$
(6)
and with a given $`m_2`$ and $`H_2`$ also

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H):=\{\phi :𝕋:\lambda ,\phi (\frac{j}{m})0(j),\phi (t)=$$
(7)
$$=1+\lambda \mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{kH}{}c_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt\}.$$

###### Problem 3

(Carathéodory-Fejér type trigonometric polynomial problem). Determine the extremal quantity

$$M(H):=sup\{\lambda =2\widehat{\phi }(1):\phi \mathrm{\Phi }(H)\}.$$
(8)
###### Remark 3

Observe that $`M(H)2`$, always, as

$$\left|\lambda /2\right|=\left|\widehat{\phi }(1)\right|\phi _1=\phi =\widehat{\phi }(0)=1.$$

###### Problem 4

(Discretized Carathéodory-Fejér type extremal problem). Determine

$$M_m(H):=sup\{\lambda =2\widehat{\phi }(1):\phi \mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)\}.$$
(9)
###### Remark 4

It should be remarked here that obviously we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(H)\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)`$. So we always have $`M_m(H)M(H)`$.

In this note we present the exact solution of Problem 1 in line of what the paper  suggests. In fact, we have to acknowledge that Boas and Kac mentioned the possibility of extending one of their methods – Poisson summation – to higher dimensions, so some parts of what follows can be interpreted as implicitly present already in their work . But here we obtain some results also for the more complex periodic version.

However, the main result of the present investigation is perhaps the understanding that the above point-value extremal problems are in fact equivalent to the above trigonometric polynomial extremal problems, thus transferring information on one problem to the equivalent other problem in several cases. Until now the equivalence formulated below remained unclear in spite of the fact that, e.g., Boas and Kac found ways to deduce the solution of the trigonometric extremal problems in Problem 3 from their results on Problem 1. We also obtain a clear picture of the limiting relation between torus problems and space problems, and, parallel to this, between the finitely conditioned trigonometric polynomial extremal problems of Problem 4 and the positive definite trigonometric polynomial extremal problems of Problem 3.

§2 Preliminaries. Formulation of the Equivalence Results.

Note that in the above definitions (1), (2) or (6), (7) it is left a bit unclear, what function classes are considered as $`^d`$, $`𝕋^d`$ or $`𝕋`$. However, this causes no ambiguity, since it is not hard to see that the extremal problems (3), (4), (8) or (9) yield the same extremal values when e.g., integrable functions (with continuity of $`f`$ supposed only at $`z`$ in case of (3) or (4)) are considered, and when e.g., compactly supported $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions are taken into account. Indeed, on $`𝕋`$ or $`𝕋^d`$ this follows after a convolution by the Fejér kernels, say. The same way we can restrict ourselves even to trigonometric polynomials in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(H)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)`$ as well.

Passing on to the case of the real space $`^d`$, first we show that it suffices to consider bounded open sets only. To this end let us consider the auxiliary positive definite function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R(x):=\frac{1}{|B_{R/2}|}\chi _{B_{R/2}}\chi _{B_{R/2}}$$
(10)
with $`B_r:=\{x^d:|x|r\}`$, and take $`f_N:=f\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ to obtain

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Omega }_N,z)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{int}\mathrm{\Omega }_N,z),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_N:=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }:|x|N\}=\mathrm{\Omega }B_N`$, and thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_N\mathrm{int}\mathrm{\Omega }_{N+1}`$.

Next observe that for any bounded open $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the condition $`\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega }`$ entails that $`\mathrm{supp}f`$ is compact and of a fixed positive distance $`\eta `$ from the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus convolution of $`f`$ with the (convolution) square of some approximate identity $`k_\delta `$ with $`\mathrm{supp}k_\delta B_\delta `$ leads to a function $`f_\delta :=fk_\delta k_\delta `$ satisfying $`\mathrm{supp}f_\delta \mathrm{supp}f+B_{2\delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`\delta <\frac{1}{2}\eta `$. Hence with a smooth $`k_\delta `$ we have $`f_\delta (\mathrm{\Omega })C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, while for arbitrary fixed $`ϵ>0`$ and with $`\delta `$ correspondingly small enough $`f_\delta (z)f(z)ϵ`$ in view of the continuity of $`f`$ at $`z`$.

Now let us define for $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the derived set

$$H(\mathrm{\Omega },z):=\{k_2:kz\mathrm{\Omega },kz\mathrm{\Omega }\}$$
(11)
Our first goal is to show that in fact the Boas-Kac type Problem 1 is a one-dimensional problem. This is contained in the following result.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`0\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ be any open set and $`z\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. With the above notations we have

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{1}{2}M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)).$$

###### Remark 5

Note that in case $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we trivially conclude $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=0`$ since for all $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ follows from (16) below. Also $`0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is necessary, for a positive definite function $`f`$ must vanish a.e. if $`0\mathrm{supp}f`$.

To tackle the Turán-type Problem 2, one may consider $`fL^1(𝕋^d)`$ with continuity supposed at $`z`$, or even $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^d)`$.

Here positive definiteness of $`f`$ is equivalent to $`\widehat{f}(n)0(n^d)`$, and similarly to (16), one gets $`f(x)=f(x)(x𝕋^d)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{supp}f`$ is symmetric, hence $`\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Once again we see that (4) vanishes unless $`z\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and that it suffices to restrict ourselves to sets symmetric about the origin. In other words, if $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or if $`z(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, then $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=0`$, while for $`z=0`$ obviously $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },0)=1`$. These are the trivial cases, and for the remaining cases we introduce a further notation. Put

$$𝒵:=𝒵(z):=\{nz(\mathrm{mod}𝕋^d)|n\}.$$
(12)
The set $`𝒵`$ is finite if and only if we have $`z^d`$, that is, $`z=(\frac{p_1}{q_1},\mathrm{},\frac{p_d}{q_d})`$ with $`p_j,q_j,(p_j,q_j)=1(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$. In this case we have with $`m=[q_1,\mathrm{},q_d]`$, the least common multiple of the denominators, that $`mz=0(\mathrm{mod}𝕋^d)`$, and for arbitrary $`n,n^{}`$ $`nz=n^{}z(\mathrm{mod}𝕋^d)`$ if and only if $`nn^{}(\mathrm{mod}m)`$.

Let us keep the definition (11) with an interpretation $`(mod𝕋^d)`$ for infinite $`𝒵`$. On the other hand, in case #$`𝒵=m`$ we put

$$H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z):=\{k[2,m/2]:kz\mathrm{\Omega },kz\mathrm{\Omega }\}=H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)[2,m/2].$$
(13)
Moreover, for any set $`H`$ we define

$$H(m):=\{k[2,m/2]:hH\text{such that}\pm kh(modm)\}.$$

###### Remark 6

Note the following relations for an arbitrary $`H_2`$. First, if there exists any index $`kH`$ with $`k1(modm)`$, then we obtain $`M_m(H)=\mathrm{}`$, since $`1+a\mathrm{cos}2\pi ta\mathrm{cos}2k\pi t`$ is nonnegative at $`j/m`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$ and any $`a`$. In fact, for $`k\mathrm{}(modm)`$ obviously $`\mathrm{cos}2k\pi t\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{}\pi t`$ is vanishing at all points of the form $`j/m`$, hence the coefficients can be changed mod $`m`$ to reduce $`\phi `$ to a trigonometric polynomial of degree at most $`m`$. Moreover, since this can be used even for negative indices, and as $`\mathrm{cos}k2\pi t=\mathrm{cos}k2\pi t`$, in fact we can reduce the support of $`\widehat{\phi }`$ to $`[0,m/2]`$. That is, either $`M_m(H)=\mathrm{}`$ (in case there is a $`kH`$ with $`k\pm 1(modm)`$), or $`M_m(H)=M_m(H(m))`$.

Now we can formulate

###### Theorem 2

Let $`0\mathrm{\Omega }𝕋^d`$ be any open set and $`z\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then the extremal quantity (4) depends only on the set $`𝒵`$. In case $`𝒵`$ is infinite, we have

$$^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{1}{2}M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)).$$
(14)
In case $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=m`$ is finite, we have

$$^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{1}{2}M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z)).$$
(15)
§3 Proof of Theorem 1.

First note that it suffices to consider symmetric sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ only. Indeed, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is arbitrary, and $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^d)`$, then by $`\widehat{f}0`$ Fourier inversion yields

$$f(x)=\overline{f(x)}=\overline{\widehat{f}(y)e^{2\pi ix,y}𝑑y}=\widehat{f}(y)e^{2\pi ix,y}𝑑y=f(x).$$
(16)
Thus for all $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{supp}f`$ is necessarily symmetric. On the other hand, $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$ is symmetrized by definition (11) with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence we can restrict ourselves to symmetric sets. Without loss of generality we can assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is also bounded.

Now given a bounded symmetric open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the proof consists of proving the two inequalities below.

$`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$

Let $`f`$ have $`f(0)=1`$, be positive definite and have support in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Define also the positive definite Radon measure

$$\mu _z:=\underset{k}{}\delta _{kz}.$$

The function $`f`$ being continuous, the measure

$$\nu _z=f\mu _z=\underset{k}{}f(kz)\delta _{kz}$$
(17)
is well defined and positive definite as well.

Notice now, because of the boundedness of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, that the sum in (17) is actually a finite one. More precisely, if we have e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }B_n`$, then we find

$$\nu _z:=\underset{k=(n1)}{\overset{n1}{}}f(kz)\delta _{kz}=\delta _0+f(z)(\delta _z+\delta _z)+\underset{kH(\mathrm{\Omega },z)}{}f(kz)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz}),$$

and that

$$0\widehat{\nu _z}(x)=1+2f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi z,x+\underset{kH(\mathrm{\Omega },z)}{}2f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kz,x,(x^d).$$

Setting $`t=z,x`$ and observing that the trigonometric polynomial

$$1+2f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{kH(\mathrm{\Omega },z)}{}2f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt$$

is nonnegative, we obtain $`2f(z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$.

$`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$

For a function $`\phi :𝕋`$ let us call the (restricted) spectrum of $`\phi `$ the set $`S:=S(\phi ):=\mathrm{supp}\widehat{\phi }_2_2`$. Also, we will use the term full spectrum and the notation $`S^{}:=S^{}(\phi )`$ for the set $`S^{}:=\{1,0,1\}S(S)`$, whether the exponential Fourier coefficients at $`1,0`$ or $`1`$ happen to vanish or not.

Take any trigonometric polynomial $`\phi \mathrm{\Phi }(H)`$ with spectrum $`SH:=H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$. Recall that taking the supremum in (8) over the function class (6) yields the same result as considering such trigonometric polynomials only.

Consider the measure

$$\alpha _z:=\delta _0+(\lambda /2)(\delta _z+\delta _z)+\underset{kS}{}(c_k/2)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz}),$$

whose Fourier transform is essentially equal to the polynomial $`\phi (t)`$ in (6). Hence $`\alpha _z`$ is a positive definite measure.

Take now the “triangle function” $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$ defined as in (10), but here with a subscript $`ϵ`$ small enough to guarantee that

1. The sets $`kz+B_ϵ`$, $`kS^{}`$, are disjoint, i.e., $`ϵ<\frac{|z|}{2}`$, and
2. These sets are all contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`ϵ<\mathrm{dist}\{\mathrm{\Omega },S^{}z\}`$.

Finally define

$$f:=\alpha _z\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ,$$

which is a positive definite function supported in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with value $`1`$ at the origin and with $`f(z)=\lambda /2`$. This proves that $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$, as desired.
$`\mathrm{}`$

§4 Applications of Theorem 1

The first application concerns the original convex case of the pointwise Boas-Kac type problem formulated in Problem 1. A symmetric, bounded convex domain with nonempty interior – that is, a convex body – defines a norm. So for a vector $`x`$ let $`x`$ denote the norm of $`x`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, that is

$$x:=inf\{\lambda >0:\frac{1}{\lambda }x\mathrm{\Omega }\}.$$

In other words, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the unit ball of the norm $`||||`$.

###### Corollary 1

(Boas – Kac ). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ be a convex open domain, symmetric about $`0`$. Suppose that

$$\frac{1}{n+1}z<\frac{1}{n},$$
(18)
for some $`n1`$. Then

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{n+2}.$$

Proof of Corollary 1. First observe that for the symmetric, convex, bounded, open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the norm of $`z`$ satisfies (18) if and only if $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=[2,n]`$. Thus by Theorem 1 the problem reduces to the extremal problem

$$M_n:=sup\{\lambda :\phi (t)0,\phi (t)=1+\lambda \mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}c_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt\}.$$
(19)
This problem was settled by Fejér, see e.g.,  or \[6, p. 869-870\]. To finish the proof, we quote from these or from \[10, Problem VI. 52, p. 79\] the formula

$$M_n=2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{n+2}.$$
(20)
$`\mathrm{}`$

Note that \[2, Theorem 2\] gave the estimate $`\frac{n}{n+1}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\pi }{n+1}))`$ for the one-dimensional case. The above exact solution and some calculation shows that both of these estimates are sharp for $`n=1`$, but none of them is for $`n>1`$. However, this is covered (at least for $`d=1`$) by \[3, Theorem 2\].

Now the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limiting case easily leads to

###### Corollary 2

(Boas – Kac ). Suppose that the open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ contains all integer multiples of the point $`z^d`$. Then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=1`$.

Moreover, we also derive easily the $`d`$-dimensional extension of \[3, Theorem 3\].

###### Corollary 3

(Boas – Kac). Suppose that for some $`n`$ the open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ contains no integer multiples $`kz`$ of the point $`z^d`$ with $`k>n`$. Then we have again $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M_n=2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{n+2}`$.

Apart from the convex case there are several cases of (3) when through the trigonometric extremal problem (8) either the precise value, or at least some estimate can be found.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a symmetric open set and $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then the value of the extremal quantity (3) satisfies the following relations.

* If $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\{n\}`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{2n}}`$.
* If $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=_2\{n\}`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{2n}`$.
* If $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=(n,\mathrm{})_2`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{n+2}}`$.
* If $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=2+1`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{2}{\pi }`$.
* If $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=2`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=\frac{\pi }{4}`$.

###### Remark 7

The extremal quantities $``$ and $`M`$ are monotonic in the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`H`$, respectively, hence the above relations imply the corresponding inequalities when we know only that e.g., $`nz\mathrm{\Omega }`$, etc. We skip the formulation.

Proof of Theorem 3. In view of Theorem 1, the calculation of $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$ hinges on finding the value of $`M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$. The solutions of the corresponding trigonometric polynomial extremal problems, relevant to the above list (i)-(v), can be looked up from the literutre as follows.

* An easy calculation, see e.g., .
* See , Proposition 1.
* See .
* See the end of .
* See \[12, p. 492-493\].

When $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$ is known for a certain $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$, then further cases can be obtained via the following duality result.

###### Lemma 1

(see ). Let $`H_2`$ be arbitrary. Then we have

$$M(H)M(_2H)=2.$$

In fact, this gives (ii) once (i) is known; (iii) and Corollary 3 and also (iv) and (v) are similarly related, although they were obtained differently in the works mentioned above.

To formulate the corresponding relation in Problem 1 we can record

###### Corollary 4

For any open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ and $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },z)(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},z)=\frac{1}{2},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is any open, symmetric set containing $`0`$, $`z`$ and $`(_2H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))z`$, but disjoint from $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)z`$.

Ending this section, let us recall that investigation of Turán-type problems started with keeping an eye on number theoretic applications and connected problems. The interesting paper of Gorbachev and Manoshina  mentions .

###### Problem 5

Determine

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(n):=sup\{M(H)/2:H_2,|H|=n\}.$$

We only know (cf )

$$1\frac{5}{(n+1)^2}\mathrm{\Delta }(n)1\frac{0.5}{(n+1)^2}.$$

The question is relevant to the Beurling theory of generalized primes, see .

§5 Proof of Theorem 2

As above, without loss of generality we can restrict ourselves to sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ symmetric about the origin. Similarly to the proof of Theorem 1, we are to prove two inequalities for both cases.

Case $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=\mathrm{}:^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$

Let $`f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^d)`$. We consider the measure

$$\sigma _z^{(N)}:=\underset{k=N}{\overset{N}{}}(1\frac{|k|}{N})\delta _{kz}.$$

This measure is positive definite since for all $`n^d`$ we have

$$\widehat{\sigma _z^{(N)}}(n)=_{𝕋^d}e^{2\pi in,x}d\sigma _z^{(N)}(x)=\underset{k=N}{\overset{N}{}}(1\frac{|k|}{N})e^{2\pi in,z}=:K^{(N)}(2\pi n,z),$$

where $`K^{(N)}`$ is the usual Fejér kernel, which is nonnegative. Let us denote $`H(N):=H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)[2,N]`$.

The function $`f`$ being continuous and even, the measure

$$\rho _z:=f\sigma _z^{(N)}=f(0)\delta _0+\underset{k\{1\}H(N)}{}(1\frac{k}{N})f(kz)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz})$$
(21)
is well defined and, by $`\widehat{\rho _z}=\widehat{f}\widehat{\sigma _z^{(N)}}`$, is positive definite as well. In view of $`f(0)=1`$ we now find for arbitrary $`n^d`$ that

$$0\widehat{\rho _z}(n)=1+(2\frac{2}{N})f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi z,n+\underset{kH(N)}{}(2\frac{2k}{N})f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kz,n.$$

Setting $`t:=z,n`$ yields

$$0\phi _N(t):=1+2(1\frac{1}{N})f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{kH(N)}{}2(1\frac{k}{N})f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=\mathrm{}`$, here for the various values of $`n^d`$ the derived variable $`t`$ will be dense in $`𝕋`$.

Hence we can conclude that in the infinite case $`\phi _N(t)\mathrm{\Phi }(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$. This gives $`2(1\frac{1}{N})f(z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$ for all $`N`$. Whence the stated inequality.

Case $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=m<\mathrm{}:^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$

Let again $`f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })C^{\mathrm{}}(𝕋^d)`$. Now we consider the measure

$$\sigma _{z,m}:=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=[\frac{m1}{2}]}{\overset{[\frac{m1}{2}]}{}}\delta _{kz}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=[\frac{m}{2}]}{\overset{[\frac{m}{2}]}{}}\delta _{kz}.$$

For all $`n^d`$ we have

$$\widehat{\sigma _{z,m}}(n)=_{𝕋^d}e^{2\pi in,x}𝑑\sigma _{z,m}(x)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{[\frac{m1}{2}]}{}}\mathrm{cos}2\pi kn,z+\underset{k=1}{\overset{[\frac{m}{2}]}{}}\mathrm{cos}2\pi kn,z.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=m<\mathrm{}`$, where $`m=[q_1,\mathrm{},q_d]`$ with $`z=(\frac{p_1}{q_1},\mathrm{},\frac{p_d}{q_d}),(p_j,q_j)=1(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$, for the various values of $`n^d`$ the derived variable $`t:=n,z`$ will cover exactly the values of $`j/m(\mathrm{mod}𝕋)`$. For these values, however, direct calculation shows that the above sum is either exactly $`m`$ (in case $`j0(\mathrm{mod}m)`$), or vanishes. Thus, again, the measure $`\sigma _{z,m}`$ will be positive definite.

The function $`f`$ being continuous and symmetric, the measure

$$\rho _{z,m}:=f\sigma _{z,m}=f(0)\delta _0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{[\frac{m1}{2}]}{}}f(kz)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz})+\underset{k=1}{\overset{[\frac{m}{2}]}{}}f(kz)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz})$$
(22)
is well defined and, by $`\widehat{\rho _{z,m}}=\widehat{f}\widehat{\sigma _{z,m}}`$, is positive definite as well. In view of $`f(0)=1`$ we now find for all $`n^d`$

$$0\widehat{\rho _z}(n)=1+2f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{k=2}{\overset{[\frac{m1}{2}]}{}}f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt+\underset{k=2}{\overset{[\frac{m}{2}]}{}}f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt,$$
(23)
where $`t=z,n`$ as above. So let us write now

$$\phi _{z,m}(t):=1+2f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{k=2}{\overset{[\frac{m1}{2}]}{}}f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt+\underset{k=2}{\overset{[\frac{m}{2}]}{}}f(kz)\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt.$$

It follows that

$$\phi _{z,m}(t)=1+2f(z)\mathrm{cos}2\pi t+\underset{kH_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z)}{}c_k^{}\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt,$$

for some $`c_k^{}`$. Similarly as above, (23) implies $`\phi _{z,m}(j/m)0(j=0,\mathrm{},m1)`$. That is, we conclude $`\phi _{z,m}\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$ and thus $`2f(z)M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$. Hence the statement.

Case $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=\mathrm{}:^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$

Let $`\phi `$ be any trigonometric polynomial from the class (6). Then $`\phi `$ has (restricted) spectral set $`S`$ and full spectrum $`S^{}:=\{1,0,1\}\pm S`$ with $`SH:=H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$ necessarily finite. Note that the supremum in the definition (8) of $`M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))`$ can be restricted to the trigonometric polynomials of (6).

Consider the measure

$$\alpha _z=\delta _0+(\lambda /2)(\delta _z+\delta _z)+\underset{kS}{}(c_k/2)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz}),$$

whose Fourier transform $`\widehat{\alpha _z}(n)=\phi (z,n)(n^d)`$ is essentially the polynomial $`\phi (t)`$ itself. Hence $`\alpha _z`$ is a positive definite measure.

Take now the “triangle function” $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$, defined in (10), with a parameter $`ϵ`$ small enough to guarantee that

1. The sets $`kz+B_ϵ`$, $`(kS^{})`$, are disjoint, and
2. These sets are all contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`ϵ<\mathrm{dist}\{\mathrm{\Omega },S^{}z\}`$.

Since we consider only a finite subset $`S`$ of $`H`$, and $`S^{}=\{1,0,1\}\pm S)`$, these conditions are met with some positive $`ϵ`$ as no two different multiples of $`z`$ are equal in $`𝕋^d`$. Finally define

$$f:=\alpha _z\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ,$$

which is a positive definite function supported in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with value $`1`$ at the origin and with $`f(z)=\lambda /2`$. This proves that $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)\lambda /2`$, hence taking supremum over all polynomials $`\phi \mathrm{\Phi }(H)`$ concludes the proof.
$`\mathrm{}`$

Case $`\mathrm{\#}𝒵=m<\mathrm{}:^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2`$

We denote here $`H:=H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$. Now take any $`\phi `$ in (7).

Consider the measure

$$\alpha _z=\delta _0+(\lambda /2)(\delta _z+\delta _z)+\underset{k<\frac{m}{2},kH}{}(c_k/2)(\delta _{kz}+\delta _{kz})+c_{m/2}\delta _{mz/2},$$

with the last term appearing only if $`m`$ is even and $`m/2`$ belongs to the spectral set (13). Observe that for the true spectrum of this measure we have

$$S^{}:=\mathrm{supp}\widehat{\alpha _z}:=S^{}(\alpha _z)\{1,0,1\}\pm H\{m/2\}=S^{}\{m/2\},$$
(24)
where the last term ($`\{m/2\}`$) appears only if $`m`$ is even. Thus it is easy to see that the multiples $`kz(kS^{})`$ are different even in $`𝕋^d`$.

Now let us prove that $`\alpha _z`$ is positive definite. Taking $`n^d`$ arbitrarily, consider the Fourier transform

$$\widehat{\alpha _z}(n)=1+\lambda \mathrm{cos}2\pi z,n+\underset{k<\frac{m}{2},kH}{}c_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kz,n+c_{m/2}e^{im\pi z,n}.$$

Here, by the condition $`z,n=j/m`$ for some integer $`j`$, we have in the last term $`e^{m\pi z,n}=(1)^j=\mathrm{cos}\pi j=\mathrm{cos}m\pi z,n`$ and we get $`\widehat{\alpha _z}(n)=\phi (z,n)=\phi (j/n)`$. It follows that $`\widehat{\alpha _z}(n)0`$ by definition (7).

Take now the “triangle function” $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$ defined in (10) with a parameter $`ϵ`$ small enough to ensure

1. The sets $`kz+B_ϵ`$, $`(kS^{})`$, are disjoint, and
2. These sets are all contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`ϵ<\mathrm{dist}\{\mathrm{\Omega },S^{}z\}`$.

These conditions are met with some positive $`ϵ`$ since no two different multiples $`kz(kS^{})`$ are equal in $`𝕋^d`$, and by definitions (7) and (24) we necessarily have $`S^{}z\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Finally define

$$f=\alpha _z\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ,$$

which is a positive definite function supported in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with value $`1`$ at the origin and with $`f(z)=\lambda /2`$. This proves that $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)\lambda /2`$, hence taking supremum over all polynomials $`\phi \mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)`$ concludes the proof.
$`\mathrm{}`$

§6 Applications of Theorem 2 and further connections

Arestov, Berdysheva and Berens  mention the one dimensional symmetric interval special case of the following fact.

###### Proposition 1

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$ is an open set. Then

$$(\mathrm{\Omega },z)^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z).$$

Proof. The original proof of  uses the natural periodization of functions $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Taking $`g(x):=\underset{n^d}{}f(xn)`$ maps $`(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ injectively to $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, which proves the Proposition. However, we have also an alternative argument here, as Theorems 1 and 2 translate the extremal problems in question to extremal problems for trigonometric polynomials. In case #$`𝒵=\mathrm{}`$ the $`^d`$ and $`𝕋^d`$ interpretations of (11) give $`H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega }+^d,z)=H_{𝕋^d}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$. For #$`𝒵=m<\mathrm{}H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)[2,m2]`$. Indeed, $`z\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$, and as $`0mz`$ but $`mz0(mod𝕋^d)`$, we obtain that $`(m1)z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`^d`$, and similarly for $`kmkz[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$ excludes the possibility of $`kH_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$. Thus it is easy to see that

$$M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))=M_m(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)[2,m2])=M_m(H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)).$$
(25)
Now it is obvious that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)\mathrm{\Phi }(H)`$ and thus $`M_m(H)M(H)`$ for arbitrary $`H_2`$, and we get the assertion even for the finite case.

###### Corollary 5

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$ be a convex, symmetric domain. Then we have

$$^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)w(z),\mathrm{where}w(t):=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{1/t+1}.$$

Proof. Corollary 1 gives $`(\mathrm{\Omega },z)w(z)`$. Thus combining Proposition 1 and Corollary 1 proves the assertion.

###### Remark 8

The above estimate is a sharpening of (14) in \[2, Theorem 3\].

The following assertion is obvious both directly and by Theorem 1.

###### Proposition 2

For all open sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ and $`z^d`$, $`\alpha >0`$ we have

$$(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)=(\mathrm{\Omega },z).$$

###### Proposition 3

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$ open, $`z𝕋^d`$ and $`N`$ we have

$$^{}(\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Omega },\frac{1}{N}z)^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z).$$

Proof. One can work out the generalization of the proof of \[2, Lemma 5\], which is the one-dimensional interval special case of this assertion. Instead, we note that $`k\frac{1}{N}z\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Omega }(mod𝕋^d)`$ entails $`kz\mathrm{\Omega }(mod𝕋^d)`$, and by Theorem 2 the #$`𝒵=\mathrm{}`$ case follows.

On the other hand for finite #$`𝒵(z)=m<\mathrm{}`$ we have #$`𝒵(\frac{1}{N}z)=Nm`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)\mathrm{\Phi }_{mN}(H)`$. Thus combining (15) and (25) yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=& M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))=M_m(H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)\hfill \\ \hfill =& M_m(H_^d(\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Omega },\frac{1}{N}z)M_{mN^{}}(H_^d(\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Omega },\frac{1}{N}z)\hfill \\ \hfill =& M_{mN^{}}(H_{mN^{}}(\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Omega },\frac{1}{N}z))=2^{}(\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Omega },\frac{1}{N}z).\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$.

The next assertion is the generalization of \[2, Theorem 4\].

###### Theorem 4

For any bounded open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ and $`z^d`$ we have

$$\underset{\alpha +0}{lim}^{}(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)=(\mathrm{\Omega },z).$$

###### Remark 9

Here the condition of boundedness ensures that for $`\alpha `$ small enough we have $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$ and the expression under the limit on the left hand side is defined by (4).

Proof. Again, extending the original arguments of  or  leads to a proof. There the idea is to multiply $`f^{}(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega })`$ by a fixed positive kernel, say $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\frac{1}{4}}`$, and exploit that for $`\alpha `$ small $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\frac{1}{4}}|_{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is approximately $`1`$.

Alternatively, we can argue as follows. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, be bounded by $`R`$, and let $`\alpha <\frac{1}{2R}`$: then $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$. Moreover, using $`^d`$ interpretation of the arising sets we always have

$$H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=H_^d(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)[2,\frac{R}{|z|}],$$
(26)
while $`m(\alpha ):=\mathrm{\#}𝒵(\alpha z)\frac{1}{\alpha |z|}\mathrm{}(\alpha 0)`$. Note that here for irrational $`\alpha `$ we can have $`m(\alpha )=+\mathrm{}`$, but defining the index function $`m(\alpha )`$ in this extended sense does not question the asserted limit relation.

In what follows we unify terminology by writing $`H_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Theta },w)=H(\mathrm{\Theta },w)`$ while keeping the notation $`H_n(\mathrm{\Theta },w)=H(\mathrm{\Theta },w)[2,n/2]`$ for finite $`n`$. For the finite case we have $`H_^d(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)=H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)[2,\frac{m(\alpha )}{2}]`$, and in view of (11) and (26) $`H:=H_{m(\alpha )}(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)=H_{𝕋^d}(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)[2,\frac{m(\alpha )}{2}]=H_^d(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega },\alpha z)=H_^d(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$, too. Now if $`m(\alpha )=\mathrm{}`$, then we are to consider the normalized, nonnegative trigonometric polynomials $`\phi \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}(H):=\mathrm{\Phi }(H)`$ defined by (6), while for finite $`m(\alpha )<\mathrm{}`$, the function set to be considered is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(H)`$ defined by (7).

Let now $`\alpha _n0`$, and $`\phi _n`$ be an extremal polynomial in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{m(\alpha _n)}(H)`$. In view of the nonnegativity conditions for these sets we get $`|c_k|2(kH)`$, applying finite Fourier Transform in case $`m(\alpha _n)<\mathrm{}`$. Hence with $`K:=\frac{2R}{|z|}`$ we find $`\phi _n_K:=\{\phi (t)=1+2_{k=1}^Ka_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt||a_k|1,k=1,\mathrm{},K\}`$, which is a compact subset of $`C(𝕋)`$. Thus without loss of generality we can suppose that $`\phi _n\varphi _K`$ uniformly as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Since $`m(\alpha _n)\mathrm{}`$, we must have $`\varphi 0`$. Moreover, if we write $`\varphi (t)=1+2_{k=1}^Ka_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt`$ and $`\phi _n(t)=1+2_{k=1}^Ka_k^{(n)}\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt`$, then $`lim_n\mathrm{}a_k^{(n)}=a_k`$, so $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }(H)`$ and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}^{}(\alpha _n\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha _nz)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}a_1^{(n)}=a_1(\mathrm{\Omega },z).$$

On the other hand Proposition 1 gives the converse inequality.
$`\mathrm{}`$

§7 Calculations of extremal values for some special cases

Now we formulate a periodic case analogon of the Boas-Kac result Corollary 2.

###### Proposition 4

Suppose that the open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝕋^d`$ contains all integer multiples of the point $`z𝕋^d`$, i.e., $`𝒵\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`𝒵`$ defined in (12). Then $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=1`$.

Proof. In case #$`𝒵=\mathrm{}`$, Theorem 2 gives $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=M(H(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2=M(_2)/2=1`$ immediately. Let now #$`𝒵=m<\mathrm{}`$. Then Theorem 2 yields $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=M_m(H_m(\mathrm{\Omega },z))/2=M_m([2,m/2])/2`$. To see that this quantity achieves 1, it suffices to consider the cosine polynomial

$$\phi _m(t):=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{[\frac{m1}{2}]}{}}\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt+\underset{k=1}{\overset{[\frac{m}{2}]}{}}\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt.$$

Direct calculation proves again $`\phi _m(j/m)0(j)`$, thus $`\phi _m\mathrm{\Phi }_m([2,m/2])`$ and now we find $`M_m([2,m/2])/2=1`$.
$`\mathrm{}`$

With the following applications in mind we first prove

###### Lemma 2

Let $`m2`$ be even. Then we have $`M_m([2,m/2))=1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{m}`$.

Proof. Let $`m=2n`$ and

$$\phi (t)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}c_k\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt\mathrm{\Phi }_m(M_m([2,n))).$$

Using the finite Fourier Transform coefficient formula and $`\phi (j/m)0(j)`$ we obtain

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}\phi ({\displaystyle \frac{j}{m}})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi j}{m}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\phi ({\displaystyle \frac{l}{n}})\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\phi ({\displaystyle \frac{2l+1}{m}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi l}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{n}})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\phi ({\displaystyle \frac{l}{n}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\phi ({\displaystyle \frac{l}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{n}})=1+\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{n}}).`$
On the other hand take the cosine polynomial

$$\varphi _m(t):=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi k}{n})\mathrm{cos}2\pi kt.$$

Direct calculation gives

$$\varphi _m(\frac{j}{m})=\{\begin{array}{cc}m\hfill & j0(modm)\hfill \\ m/2\hfill & j\pm 1(modm)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

whence $`\varphi _m(\frac{j}{m})0(j)`$ and $`\varphi _m\mathrm{\Phi }_m(M_m([2,n)))`$.
$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 6

(Arestov – Berdysheva – Berens ) For dimension one we have

* For $`(p,q)=1`$, $`q`$ even we have $`^{}((\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),\frac{p}{q})=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{q})`$.
* For $`(p,q)=1`$, $`q`$ odd we have $`^{}((\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),\frac{p}{q})=1`$.
* For $`z`$ we have $`^{}((\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}),z)=1`$.

Proof. In case (i) #$`𝒵=q=2r`$, and $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=_2r`$, $`H_q^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=[2,r1]`$. Hence in view of Theorem 2 it suffices to show that $`M_q^{}([2,r))=1+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi /q)`$, which follows from Lemma 2. For the cases (ii) and (iii) we clearly have $`𝒵\mathrm{\Omega }`$, hence Proposition 4 applies.
$`\mathrm{}`$

Similarly to the above result of Arestov et al, we can also answer the pointwise Turán extremal problem for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d`$.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d𝕋^d`$. Then we have

* $`^{}((\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d,z)=1`$ if $`z^d`$.

Moreover, if $`z^d`$, $`z=(\frac{p_1}{q_1},\mathrm{},\frac{p_d}{q_d})`$ with $`(p_j,q_j)=1`$, $`q_j=2^{s_j}t_j(s_j)`$, $`t_j2+1(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ and $`m:=[q_1,\mathrm{},q_d]=2^stt2+1`$, then we have either

* $`1s=s_1=\mathrm{}=s_d`$, and then $`^{}((\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d,z)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{m})`$, or
* $`s=0`$ or $`j`$, $`1jd`$ with $`s_j<s`$ and then $`^{}((\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d,z)=1`$.

Proof. Case (i) is covered by Proposition 4 above. If $`z^d`$, then the set defined in (12) is finite and we have #$`𝒵=m=[q_1,\mathrm{},q_d]`$. Let us determine the set $`H(\mathrm{\Omega },z)`$ first. For $`k`$ we have $`kz\mathrm{\Omega }`$ iff $`kp_j/q_j1/2(mod1)(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$, i.e., $`2kp_j/q_j1(mod2)(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$. It follows that $`q_j|2k(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$, and we can not have a solution $`k`$ if $`j`$ so that $`q_j`$ is odd, since then $`2k/q_j`$ must be even. Hence we can consider the case when all $`s_j1`$ and, by $`(p_j,q_j)=1`$, all $`p_j`$ is odd. Then using $`p_j2+1`$ the condition becomes $`2k/q_j1(mod2)(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$. Hence $`m=[q_1,\mathrm{},q_d]|2k`$ and $`s=s_j(j=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ since otherwise for any $`s_j<s`$ we get $`2k/q_j=nm/q_j=n2^{ss_j}t/t_j0(mod2)`$. In all, $`kz\mathrm{\Omega }`$ occurs only in case (ii), while case (iii) will again be covered by Proposition 4. In case (ii), when $`kz\mathrm{\Omega }`$ happens, it occurs precisely for multiples of $`m/2`$. That is, case (ii) now reduces to the determination of $`^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },z)=M_m([2,m/2))/2=(1+\mathrm{cos}2\pi /m)/2`$ in view of Theorem 2 and Lemma 2.
$`\mathrm{}`$

Bibliography

Department of Mathematics,
University of Crete,
Knossos Ave.,
714 09 Iraklio, Greece.
E-mail: mk@fourier.math.uoc.gr
and

Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
1364 Budapest, Hungary
E-mail: revesz@renyi.hu


format: text

text:
# In-the-Gap SU UMa-Type Dwarf Nova, Var73 Dra with a Supercycle of about 60 Days

## 1 Introduction

Dwarf novae are a class of cataclysmic variables stars (CVs), which show various types of variability originating in the accretion disk around the white dwarf (for a review, Warner (1995)). Dwarf novae are further classified into three basic types of SS Cyg-type dwarf novae showing normal outbursts, Z Cam-type dwarf novae showing normal outbursts and standstills, and SU UMa-type dwarf novae showing superoutbursts as well as normal outbursts. The difference of photometric behavior in these kinds of stars including nova-like variable stars is essentially explained by the thermal-tidal disk instability scheme (for a review, e.g. Osaki (1996)). Superhumps are oscillations with an amplitude of 0.1–0.5 mag and a period 1–5 % longer than the orbital period ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$) observed only during long, bright (super)outbursts. The superhump is considered to be a beat phenomenon of the orbital motion of the secondary star and the precession of the tidally distorted eccentric disk (Whitehurst, 1988). The eccentricity in such disks plays a key role to keep the accretion disk in the hot state to make a normal outburst evolve into a superoutburst (Osaki, 1989).

Non-magnetic CVs have been suggested to have a bi-modal $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ distribution (Robinson, 1983), while the gap between $``$2 h and $``$3 h seems to be filled in the case of magnetic systems (Webbink & Wickramasinghe, 2002). This period gap is explained in the standard theory of the CV evolution as follows: 1) the magnetic braking, which is the mechanism of angular momentum loss, suddenly dies down when the secondary star become fully convective around $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$$``$3 h, 2) the secondary shrinks into the thermal equilibrium state and the mass transfer stops, 3) the angular-momentum loss is continued by a greatly reduced rate by the gravitational wave radiation, and 4) the secondary fills again its Roche-lobe around $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$$``$2 h and the CV activity restarts (for a review, King (1988)). Although most of the SU UMa-type dwarf novae are distributed below the period gap, some systems are above (TU Men: Mennickent (1995)) and in (e.g. NY Ser: Nogami et al. (1998b)) the period gap.

The evolution scenario predicts that CVs evolve for the shorter $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ region with the mass transfer rate ($`\dot{M}`$) reduced, but the orbital period begins to increase after the secondary is degenerated (Paczyński, 1971; Kolb & Baraffe, 1999). Most SU UMa stars are believed to be on this standard path. However, a small group of most active, high-$`\dot{M}`$ SU UMa stars, called ER UMa stars, has been recently established near the period minimum (Kato & Kunjaya, 1995; Nogami et al., 1995; Kato et al., 1999), and the evolutionary state of ER UMa stars is a serious problem (Nogami, 1998).

Var73 Dra was discovered by Antipin & Pavlenko (2002) on the Moscow archive plates. Their following CCD observations in 2001 August–October proved that this star is an SU UMa-type dwarf nova of $`R=15.7`$ at the supermaximum and the recurrence cycle of the normal outburst is 7–8 days. The superhump period ($`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$) was measured to be 0.0954(1) day, but the possibility of its one-day alias, 0.1053 d, could not be rejected.

Var73 Dra is identified with USNO B1.0 1546–0228545 ($`B1=15.90,R1=16.09`$), the proper motion of which is not listed in the catalog. The SIMBAD Astronomical Database does not give any cross-identification for this object other than the USNO entry.

We started an intensive photometric-observation campaign of Var73 Dra since 2002 October to reveal behavior of this newly discovered in-the-gap SU UMa-type dwarf nova. The results including two well-covered superoutbursts are reported in this paper.

## 2 Observations

The observations were carried out at ten sites with twelve sets of instruments. The log of the observations and the instruments are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 is a finding chart where the comparison stars are marked.

All the frames obtained at Hida and Okayama, and frames at Saitama on 2002 October 14 were reduced by the aperture photometry package in IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation., after de-biasing (Hida frames) or dark-subtraction (Okayama and Saitama frames), and flat-fielding. The Kyoto frames and the rest of the Saitama frames were processed by the PSF photometry package developed by one of the authors (TK). All frames obtained at the DeKalb Observatory, CBA Belgium, and CBA Concord were reduced by aperture photometry after dark subtraction and flat-fielding, using the AIP4WIN software by Berry and Burnell222http://www.willbell.com/aip/index.htm. The Crimean images were dark subtracted, flat-fielded and analyzed with the profile/aperture photometry package developed by one of the authors (VPG).

## 3 Results

The long-term light curve is shown Fig. 2. During our monitoring, Var73 Dra gave rise to three superoutbursts: the first was in the rising phase on HJD 2452553, the second began on some day between HJD 2452611 and HJD 2452614 (see Table 1), the precursor of the third superoutburst was caught on HJD 2552674. This fact proves the supercycle of Var73 Dra to be $``$60 days. While two normal outbursts were caught at the start and around HJD 2452650 in the long-term light curve shown in Fig. 2, our observations reject the possibility of the recurrence cycle of the normal outburst shorter than 15 days.

To search periodic variability in quiescence, a period analysis by the Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) method (Stellingwerf, 1978) was performed for the data obtained between 2002 August 30 and October 3, after excluding points over 3$`\sigma `$ far from the daily mean magnitude and subtracting the daily mean magnitude from the daily data sets. Fig. 3 exhibits the resultant theta diagram. The sharp peak points to the period of 0.10424(3) d. The error of the period was estimated using the Lafler-Kinman class of methods, as applied by Fernie (1989). The folded light curve have a strong peak at $`\varphi =0.0`$ and a marginal one around $`\varphi 0.6`$.

Fig. 4 shows examples of superhumps observed during the first superoutburst. After selecting data sets with errors small enough to use for the period analysis (indicated by $``$ in Table 1) and subtracting the mean magnitude from each data set, we applied the PDM period analysis to the processed data sets. The theta diagram and the mean superhump light curve is given in Fig. 5. The superhump period of 0.104885(93) d we obtained affirms the longer candidate proposed by Antipin & Pavlenko (2002), and assures that Var73 Dra is an in-the-gap SU UMa-type dwarf nova with the second longest $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$, next to TU Men (Stolz & Schoembs, 1984), almost equal to that of NY Ser (Nogami et al., 1998b).

We extracted the timings of the superhump maxima by fitting the average superhump light curve in Fig. 5. The results are listed in Table 2. The cycle count $`E`$ was set to be 0 at the first superhump maximum measured. A linear regression and a parabolic fit to the times give the following equations:

$$HJD_{\mathrm{max}}=61.847(1)+0.10468(15)\times (E8),$$
(1)
and

$`HJD_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`61.847(3)+0.10468(18)\times (E8)`$ (2)
$`+0.000003(56)\times (E8)^2.`$
The ordinate of Fig. 6 represents the deviation of the observed timing from the expected one by Eq. (1), $`OC1`$, and the curve is drawn based on Eq. (2). We could not significantly determine the change rate of the superhump period.

Fig. 7 displays the result of the PDM period analysis for the data obtained during the second superoutburst and the average superhump light curve. We used the data marked by $``$ in Table 1 also for this second $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ analysis. The superhump period of 0.10623(16) is slightly longer than that during the first superoutburst. No apparent signal of a secondary hump around the phase of 0.5 is seen.

The timings of the superhump maxima were obtained for this superoutburst as before (Table 3). A linear regression to these timings yields the following ephemeris:

$$HJD_{\mathrm{max}}=20.2513(55)+0.10768(44)\times (E26).$$
(3)
The $`OC1`$ calculated using Eq. (3) is displayed in Fig. 8. The diagram clearly shows the decrease in the superhump period. Fit to a quadratic equation of the same timings gives:

$`HJD_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`20.2654(25)+0.10756(16)\times (E26)`$ (4)
$`0.0000893(95)\times (E26)^2.`$
The quadratic term means that the superhump period decreased with a rate of $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ = $`\stackrel{.}{P_{\mathrm{SH}}}/P_{\mathrm{SH}}=1.7(2)\times 10^3`$, which is one order of magnitude larger than the largest values known (see Kato et al. (2003c)).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Two superhump periods

We obtained two superhump periods: 0.104885(93) d during the first superoutburst (hereafter $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$1), and 0.10623(16) d during the second superoutburst (hereafter $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$2). The difference between $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$1 and $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$2 must result from difference of the observed phase in the course of the superoutburst.

The first superoutburst is estimated to have attained to its maximum brightness at HJD 2452552.0 ($`\pm `$1.0) from Table 1. The data used for the $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$1 analysis were therefore taken between the 6($`\pm `$1)th day and the 14($`\pm `$1)th day from the supermaximum. In the case of the second superoutburst, the maximum of the outburst was reached somewhen between HJD 2452611.0 and 2452615.0. Thus the data used for the $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$2 analysis were taken between the 4($`\pm `$2)th day and the 9($`\pm `$2)th day from the onset. Therefore the “mid” day of the observed phase during the second superoutburst (the 7($`\pm `$2)th day) is earlier than that during the first superoutburst (the 10($`\pm `$1) day). The extremely large change rate observed during the second superoutburst can easily yield the difference between two superhump periods.

It should be also noted that $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ seemed to decrease with a larger rate in an earlier phase. This trend is suggested by the fact that the change rate of $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$2 was derived from the superhump-maximum times between 4($`\pm `$2)th day and 10($`\pm `$2)th day, in contrast to that that of $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$1 was derived from the timings of the superhump maximum between 9($`\pm `$1)th day and 10($`\pm `$1)th day from the supermaximum.

### 4.2 Orbital period

We photometrically detected coherent modulations with a period of 0.10424(3) d in quiescence. This period is slightly shorter than the superhump periods $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$1 and $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$2, and is naturally attributed to the orbital period, thus. Confirmation by spectroscopic observations is, however, desired, since our quiescence data contain large errors and the actual error of the period derived is perhaps larger than the noted one statistically calculated. The orbital period of 0.10424 d is the second longest among those of SU UMa stars with the orbital period measured, next to 0.1172 d of TU Men (Mennickent, 1995), and places Var73 Dra at the midst of the period gap.

The superhump excess $`ϵ`$ $`(=(P_{\mathrm{SH}}P_{\mathrm{orb}})/P_{\mathrm{orb}})`$ is 0.6% for $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$1 or 1.9% for $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$2, respectively. It is generally known that there is a robust relationship that the superhump excess smoothly increases with $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ (see e.g. Patterson (1998)). This relationship is well explainable in the disk instability model in that a large superhump excess suggests a large accretion-disk radius in a long-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ system with a large mass ratio ($`q=M_2/M_1`$). While Var73 Dra is expected to have $`ϵ`$ 5–7% from this relation, the derived values of $`ϵ`$ corresponds to those of SU UMa stars with a period about 0.06 d. This implies that Var73 Dra has a small mass ratio, although theoretical calculations on the CV evolution propose a high mass ratio for a CV in the period gap (e.g. Howell et al. (2001)). Var73 Dra may be the first object which breaks the $`ϵ`$$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ relation\[Patterson (1998) discusses this relationship after correction of $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$, taking period changes into account, to the value 4 days after superhump emergence. The same correction does not have significant effect on our results.\]. This problem urges spectroscopic determination of $`q`$ as well as $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. Note that the modulations in quiescence may be attributed to permanent superhumps, as discussed later.

### 4.3 Derivative of the superhump period

Until mid 1990s, the superhump period was considered to monotonically decrease or at least be constant after full development (see e.g. Warner (1985); Patterson et al. (1993)). This phenomenon was basically explained in the disk instability scheme by that the precession frequency of the eccentric accretion disk decreases due to shrinkage of the disk radius Osaki (1985), or propagation of the eccentric wave to the inner disk Lubow (1992). Elongation of $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ was, however, first observed during the 1995 superoutburst of AL Com (Nogami et al., 1997). Following this discovery, similar behavior has been found in several SU UMa stars: V485 Cen (Olech, 1997), EG Cnc (Kato et al., 1997), SW UMa (Semeniuk et al., 1997; Nogami et al., 1998a), V1028 Cyg (Baba et al., 2000), WX Cet (Kato et al., 2001a), and HV Vir (Kato et al., 2001b). These stars are, however, concentrated around the period minimum in the $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$distribution, and SU UMa stars with relatively long $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$have been confirmed to show $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ decrease with a similar rate of $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ $`5\times 10^5`$ (see Kato et al. (2003c)). Very recently, Kato et al. (2003c) reported large negative derivatives of $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ in V877 Ara ($`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ = $``$1.5($`\pm `$0.2) $`\times `$ 10-4, $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ = 0.08411(2) d) and KK Tel ($`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ = $``$3.7($`\pm `$0.4) $`\times `$ 10-4, $`P_{\mathrm{SH}}`$ = 0.08808 d), and pointed out a diversity of $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ in long-period SU UMa-type dwarf novae.

We revealed that $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ in Var73 Dra during the second superoutburst was still about one order of magnitude larger than these two records. Kato et al. (2001a) and Kato et al. (2003c) proposed a possibility that $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$is related to the mass transfer rate: SU UMa stars with larger $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ tend to have larger mass transfer rates, and those with $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ close to and smaller than zero have small $`\dot{M}`$. The quite short supercycle length of about 60 d suggests a high $`\dot{M}`$ in the present object (discussed later), which may support this possiblity. It should be, however, worth noting that Kato et al. (2003a) found $`P_{\mathrm{dot}}`$ $`0`$ in BF Ara, an SU UMa star supposed to have a rather large $`\dot{M}`$.

### 4.4 Outburst behavior

The three superoutbursts we caught suggests that Var73 Dra steadily repeats superoutbursts with a supercycle of $``$60 d. This value is shorter than the shorterst one known so far in usual SU UMa stars (89.4 d in BF Ara: Kato et al. (2003a)), and close to 19–50 d of ER UMa stars.

The disk instability model predicts that the supercycle is shorter in an SU UMa-type star with a highter $`\dot{M}`$. Reproduction of the light curves of ER UM stars was successfully done by Osaki (1995a) by assuming a mass transfer rate about ten times higher than that in ordinary SU UMa stars (see also Osaki (1995b)), although it has not still been clear why ER UMa stars have such high mass transfer rate (Nogami, 1998). Var73 Dra is expected to also have a very high mass transfer rate because of its extraordinary short supercycle (Ichikawa & Osaki, 1994). This condition may be achieved if this star is in the short, high-$`\dot{M}`$ phase just after getting semi-detached and starting mass transfer. This interpretation provide an explanation to the problem on the evolutionary status of this star that mass transfer is supposed to be stopped (or seriously reduced) for evolution in the period gap in the currently standard evolution theory.

This simple view, however, faces a difficulty of lack of the normal outburst in Var73 Dra. We caught two superoutbursts and two normal outbursts in the course of monitoring. The recurrence cycle of the normal outburst and the supercycle are estimated to be over 15 days and $``$60 days, respectively. In contrast, the normal-outburst recurrence cycle is expected to be $``$8 days for an SU UMa star with a supercycle of 60 days based on the model reviewed by Osaki (1996).

The normal-outburst cycle was, however, 7–8 d by Antipin & Pavlenko (2002) from their observations in 2001 August–October. The supercycle at that time was longer than at least 70 d, judging from Fig. 3 in Antipin & Pavlenko (2002). These facts clearly indicate a chage of the outburst activity between 2001 and 2002. Similar changes have been reported in recent years, such as in DI UMa (Fried et al., 1999), SU UMa (Rosenzweig et al. (2000); Kato (2002)), V1113 Cyg (Kato, 2001), V503 Cyg (Kato et al., 2002), and DM Lyr (Nogami et al., 2003). Among thse stars, only DM Lyr showed an anti-correlation: the recurrence cycle of the normal outburst decreased, and the supercycle increased, while Var73 Dra showed a reverse anti-correlation: the recurrence cycle of the normal outburst increased, and the supercycle decreased. Such behavior can not be explained by variation of the mass transfer rate due to e.g. the solar-type cycle of the secondary star (e.g. Ak et al. (2001)). Nogami et al. (2003) proposed for DM Lyr that a machanism to reduce the number of the normal outbursts may work when the superoutbursts more frequently occur and another mechanism to shorten the recurrence time of the normal outburst may work when the superoutburst less frequently takes place. The same idea may be applicable to Var73 Dra. Closer monitoring to avoid to miss rather faint normal outbursts ($`>`$15 mag) is needed to check variabilities of the recurrence cycles of the normal outburst and superoutburst.

### 4.5 Related to ER UMa stars?

Two problems regarding ER UMa stars to be solved are the extraordinary large mass transfer rates for their short orbital periods and the evolution path, as mentioned above. One of the keys to the problems is discovery of ER UMa counterparts with longer $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

Whether Var73 Dra is an object related to ER UMa stars is in interesting subject. While the supercycle of $``$60 d is certainly very close to those of ER UMa stars, our observations give a negative support to this question in terms of the duty cycle of the superoutburst and the recurrence cycle of the normal outburst. The duration of the supercycle of Var73 Dra is at most 15 d (Table 1), a normal one for an SU UMa system, and the duty cycle of the superoutburst in one supercycle is $``$25%, while the duty cycle is 30–50% in ER UMa stars. The normal outburst is 1 or at most a few in one supercycle, quite infrequent for an ER UMa analog.

New interpretations on how ER UMa stars most frequently give rise to superoutbursts have been recently published, which are based on the disk instability scheme, but assuming decoupling of the thermal and tidal instability (Hellier, 2001), or the effects of irradiation (Buat-Ménard & Hameury, 2002). Both models predict superhumps observed in quiescence. The modulations observed here in quiescence may be superhumps, which could give a solution to the problem that the superhump excess in Var73 Dra is too small for this long $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. A small mass ratio is, however, a basic assumption in both models. Measurement of the orbital period and the mass ratio in this system has a significant effect also on this matter.

Kato et al. (2003b) discovered a peculiar behavior of superhumps in ER UMa which is a phase shift of 0.5 before entering the plateau phase of the superoutburst, and interpreted that the (normal) superhumps are seen at the very early phase of the superoutburst and the modulations observed during the plateau phase correspond to ‘late’ superhumps in SU UMa stars. To trace the superhump evolution throughout a superoutburst is important to clarify the superhumps in Var73 Dra exhibit the normal SU UMa-type behavior or the ER UMa-type one.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research has made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/), and the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France (http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad). GM acknowledges the support of Software Bisque and Santa Barbara Instrument Group. This work is partly supported by a grant-in aid (13640239) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (TK), and by a Research Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists (MU).


text:
# References

1. The anapole moment is a special magnetic multipole arising in a system which has no definite parity . The corresponding magnetic field looks like that created by a current in toroidal winding.

For many years the anapole remained a theoretical curiosity only. The situation has changed due to the studies of parity nonconservation (PNC) in atoms. Since these tiny PNC effects increase with the nuclear charge $`Z`$, all the experiments are performed with heavy atoms. The main contribution to the effect is independent of nuclear spin and caused by the parity-violating weak interaction of electron and nucleon neutral currents. This interaction is proportional to the so-called weak nuclear charge $`Q`$ which is numerically close (up to the sign) to the neutron number $`N`$. Thus, in heavy atoms the nuclear-spin-independent weak interaction is additionally enhanced by about two orders of magnitude. Meanwhile, the nuclear-spin-dependent effects due to neutral currents not only lack the mentioned coherent enhancement, but are also strongly suppressed numerically in the electroweak theory. Therefore, the observation of nuclear-spin-dependent PNC phenomena in atoms had looked absolutely unrealistic.

However, it was demonstrated  that these effects in atoms are dominated not by the weak interaction of neutral currents, but by the electromagnetic interaction of atomic electrons with nuclear anapole moment (AM). Since the magnetic field of an anapole, like that of a toroidal winding, is completely confined inside the system, the electromagnetic interaction of an electron with the nuclear AM occurs only as long as the electron wave function penetrates the nucleus. In other words, this electromagnetic interaction is as local as the weak interaction itself, and in this sense they are indistinguishable. The nuclear AM is induced by PNC nuclear forces and is therefore proportional to the same Fermi constant $`G=1.027\times 10^5m^2`$ (we use the units $`\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$; $`m`$ is the proton mass), which determines the magnitude of the weak interactions in general and that of neutral currents in particular. The electron interaction with the AM, being of the electromagnetic nature, introduces an extra small factor into the effect discussed, the fine-structure constant $`\alpha =1/137`$. Then, how it comes that this effect is dominating?

The answer follows from the same picture of a toroidal winding. It is only natural that the interaction discussed is proportional to the magnetic flux through such a winding, and hence in our case is proportional to the cross-section of the nucleus, i.e. to $`A^{2/3}`$, where $`A`$ is the atomic number. Indeed, a simple-minded model calculation leads to the following analytical result for the dimensionless effective constant $`\kappa `$ which characterizes the anapole interaction in the units of $`G`$ :

$$\kappa =\frac{9}{10}g\frac{\alpha \mu }{mr_0}A^{2/3}.$$
(1)
Here $`g`$ is the effective constant of the P-odd interaction of the outer nucleon with the nuclear core, $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment of the outer nucleon, $`r_0=1.2`$ fm. In heavy nuclei the enhancement factor $`A^{2/3}`$ is close to 30 and compensates essentially for the smallness of the fine-structure constant $`\alpha `$. As a result, $`\kappa `$ is not so small in heavy atoms, it is numerically close to 0.3.

The nuclear anapole moment was experimentally discovered in 1997 . This result for the total effective constant of the PNC nuclear-spin-dependent interaction in 133Cs is

$$\kappa _{tot}(^{133}\mathrm{Cs})=0.44(6).$$
(2)
If one subtracts from this number the nuclear-spin-dependent contribution of neutral currents, as well as the result of the combined action of the “weak” charge $`Q`$ and the usual hyperfine interaction, the answer for the anapole constant is

$$\kappa _{exp}(^{133}\mathrm{Cs})=0.37(6).$$
(3)
Thus, the existence of an AM of the 133Cs nucleus is reliably established.

The discussed result brings valuable information on PNC nuclear forces. Of course, to this end it should be combined with reliable nuclear calculations. The most detailed theoretical predictions for this AM can be reasonably summarized, at the so-called “best values” for the parameters of P-odd nuclear forces , as follows :

$$\kappa _{theor}(^{133}\mathrm{Cs})=0.150.21.$$
(4)
There are good reasons to consider this prediction sufficiently reliable, at the accepted values of the P-odd nuclear constants.

The comparison of the theoretical value (4) for the cesium AM with the experimental result (3) indicates that the “best values” of  somewhat underestimate the magnitude of P-odd nuclear forces. In no way is this conclusion trivial. The point is that the magnitude of parity-nonconserving effects found in some nuclear experiments is much smaller than that following from the “best values” (see review ). In all these experiments, however, either the experimental accuracy is not high enough, or the theoretical interpretation is not sufficiently convincing. The experiment  looks much more reliable in both respects. Still, further experimental investigations of nuclear AMs are certainly of great interest.

2. In principle, the AM can be enhanced not only due to large $`A`$, but also in the case when anomalously close to the ground state of a nucleus there is an opposite-parity level of the same angular momentum. In this connection, attention was attracted in  to exotic halo nuclei. In particular, the exotic neutron-rich halo nucleus 11Be was considered therein. In this nucleus the outer odd neutron is in the state $`2s_{1/2}`$, its only bound excited level being $`1p_{1/2}`$ (the well-known “inversion of levels”). The anomalously small energy separation between these two levels of opposite parity,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }E|=E(1p_{1/2})E(2s_{1/2})=0.32\mathrm{MeV},$$
(5)
enhances by itself their P-odd mixing and thus the AM of this nucleus. As pointed out in , the small binding energy of the odd neutron,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }E_0|=0.50\mathrm{MeV},$$
(6)
affects the AM additionally, but in two opposite directions. On one hand, it suppresses the overlap of the odd-neutron wave function with the core, and thus suppresses the mixing of the $`2s_{1/2}`$ and $`1p_{1/2}`$ levels due to the weak interaction operator which looks as

$$W=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_n}{2m}\{𝝈𝐩,\rho (r)\};$$
(7)
here $`g_n`$ is the effective constant of the P-odd interaction of the outer neutron with the nuclear core, $`𝝈`$ and $`𝐩`$ are the momentum and spin operators of the outer neutron, and $`\rho (r)`$ is the spherically symmetric core density. On the other hand, the small binding energy enhances the matrix element of $`𝐫`$ in the anapole operator of the neutron

$$𝐚=\frac{\pi e\mu _n}{m}𝐫\times 𝝈;$$
(8)
here $`\mu _n=1.91`$ is the neutron magnetic moment.

The detailed calculation which takes into account the P-odd mixing of the ground state with the $`1p_{1/2}`$ level only, results in the following value for the effective anapole constant :

$$\kappa _1(^{11}\mathrm{Be})=0.17g_n.$$
(9)
Indeed, this value is 15 times larger than that given by the estimate (1) for $`A=11`$ (the neutron constant $`g_n`$ is poorly known by itself, most probably $`g_n<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$). Certainly, this enhancement of an AM in a light nucleus would be of a serious interest, even if its possible experimental implications are set aside.

However, such a strong enhancement of AM, as given in (9), in a loosely bound nucleus does not look natural. In particular, nothing of the kind happens in the deuteron. Even in the limit of vanishing binding energy, when the energy interval between the deuteron $`s`$ state and the continuum $`p`$ states tends to zero, the deuteron AM in no way is enhanced  (see also ). As to the problem of 11Be discussed here, we argue below that a strong cancellation between the contribution of the bound $`1p_{1/2}`$ state (accounted for in (9)) and that of the continuum (omitted therein) takes place, resulting in a serious suppression of the estimate (9).

3. We start with the general expression for the anapole moment, as induced by operators (7) and (8):

$$0|𝐚|0=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\pi e\mu g}{2m^2}\underset{n}{}\frac{0|𝐫\times 𝝈|nn|\{𝝈𝐩,\rho (r)\}|0+0|\{𝝈𝐩,\rho (r)\}|nn|𝐫\times 𝝈|0}{E(2s_{1/2})E_n}$$
(10)
To estimate the sum we use at first the closure approximation, which is facilitated here by the same (negative) sign of all energy denominators. After extracting some average value of denominators, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}>0`$), and using the completeness relation, the sum (10) reduces to

$$0|𝐚|0=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\pi e\mu g}{2m^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}0|\{[𝐫\times 𝝈],\{𝝈𝐩,\rho (r)\}\}|0$$
(11)
The thus arising effective operator transforms as follows:

$$\{[𝐫\times 𝝈],\{𝝈𝐩,\rho (r)\}\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}(𝐥+𝝈)\rho (r);$$
(12)
here $`𝐥`$ is the orbital angular momentum of the valence nucleon. (It is rather amusing that we arrive here at the same combination $`𝐥+𝝈`$ which enters the expression for the magnetic moment of a bound electron.)

In our case of 11Be, $`𝐥=0`$ and $`𝝈=2𝐈`$, where $`𝐈`$ is the spin of the nucleus. Thus, here the expression for AM reduces to

$$0|𝐚|0=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{4\pi e\mu _ng_n}{m^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}0|\rho (r)|0𝐈.$$
(13)
With the standard prescription (see ) of deleting from the expression for $`0|𝐚|0`$ the factors $`(G/\sqrt{2})𝐈`$ and multiplying the rest by $`eI(I+1)(1)^{I+1/2l}/(I+1/2)`$, we arrive finally at the following expression for the effective anapole constant:

$$\kappa =\frac{3\pi \alpha \mu _ng_n}{m^2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}}0|\rho (r)|0.$$
(14)
The expectation value $`0|\rho (r)|0`$ was calculated by us with the same ground-state wave function

$$R_{2s}(r)=\frac{2^{3/2}a^2[1(r/a)^2]\mathrm{exp}(r/r_0)}{r_0^{3/2}\sqrt{45r_0^4+2a^412a^2r_0^2}},r_0=1.45\mathrm{fm},a=2\mathrm{fm},$$

and core density

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0\mathrm{exp}(r^2/R_c^2),\rho _0=0.20\mathrm{fm}^3,R_c=2\mathrm{fm},$$

as those used in . Thus obtained expectation value is

$$0|\rho (r)|0=0.052\rho _0=0.01\mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(15)
Now, if $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is identified with the smallest energy interval $`E(1p_{1/2})E(2s_{1/2})=0.32\mathrm{MeV}`$, the numerical result is

$$\kappa (\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.32\mathrm{MeV})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.036}g_n.$$
(16)
The comparison of (16) with (9) demonstrates that in the last estimate the negative contribution of continuum states overweighs the positive one of $`1p_{1/2}`$, with a small net result which only slightly exceeds, if any, the typical value of $`\kappa `$ as given by (1).

As expected, the small binding energy strongly suppresses $`0|\rho (r)|0`$ as compared to $`\rho _0`$ itself (see (15)). However, the expected enhancement of the matrix element of $`𝐫`$ in the anapole operator (8) is not operative in (16) since on average this $`𝐫`$ is eaten up by $`𝐩`$ in the weak interaction operator (7). And the strong suppression of $`0|\rho (r)|0`$ compensates in (16) for the enhancement due to small energy intervals.

Estimate (16) can be improved considerably in the following way. Its comparison with (9) demonstrates that with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.32\mathrm{MeV}`$ the contribution of the continuum to $`\kappa `$ constitutes

$$\kappa _c(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.32\mathrm{MeV})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.036}g_n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.17}g_n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.206}g_n.$$
(17)
With the continuum threshold at $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=|\mathrm{\Delta }E_0|=0.50\mathrm{MeV}`$, the continuum contribution is certainly overestimated by (17). However, $`\kappa _c`$ can be easily recalculated for more reasonable values of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ just by multipliyng (17) by $`0.32/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

Combining thus obtained improved values of $`\kappa _c`$ with (9), we arrive at the following estimates for the anapole moment of 11Be:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }},\mathrm{MeV}& 0.6& 0.7& 0.8& \\ & & & & \\ \kappa (^{11}\mathrm{Be})& 0.060g_n& 0.076g_n& 0.088g_n& \end{array}$$

We believe that with all the uncertainties of our estimates (S0.Ex3) for the anapole moment of 11Be, they are more reliable than (9). Most probably the real value of $`\kappa (^{11}\mathrm{Be})`$ is around $`(0.070.08)g_n`$, i. e., it is 2 - 3 times smaller than (9).