text:
# Symmetry Representations in the Rigged Hilbert Space Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we undertake a study of differentiable representations of finite dimensional Lie groups in rigged Hilbert spaces (RHS). Since symmetry transformations on physical systems often constitute such Lie groups, these representations may prove to be an integral component of the relatively new rigged Hilbert space formulation of quantum physics . The inceptive motivation for introducing RHS in quantum mechanics, especially in , was to provide Dirac’s bra and ket formalism, already a well established calculational tool, with a proper mathematical content. It was later realized  that the mathematical structure of RHS contains a certain suppleness that is well suited for a systematic study of scattering and decay phenomena. During about the past two decades, investigations have continued into various aspects of the quantum theory of scattering and decay in the framework of RHS. Perhaps the most significant of these developments is the finding that in a suitably constructed RHS, the fundamental dynamical equation of Schrödinger $`i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=H\psi `$ can be integrated to obtain a Hamiltonian generated semigroup for the time evolution of the physical system . This and certain other features of the theory show that the RHS formulation of quantum physics deviates from the orthodox Hilbert space theory in significant ways. They are also indicative of the above mentioned flexibility of the structure of RHS mathematics.

However, although the semigroup time evolution in RHS has been studied extensively  and often emphasized, a systematic study of representations of Lie groups in RHS has not been carried out in a general setting. Certain fundamental properties such representations must possess, as well as their physical content, have been discussed in . Even in these works, some of the most natural questions to address, such as obtaining an RHS representation of a Lie group from a given Hilbert space representation and/or from a given Lie algebra representation, have not been undertaken.

Aside from the rather obvious need as a component of the general RHS formulation of quantum mechanics, such a study of Lie group representations in RHS is also motivated by certain recent applications of the formalism to relativistic resonances and unstable particles . These works develop a characterization of relativistic resonances and unstable particles by way of certain representations of a particular subsemigroup of the Poincaré group. The relevant subsemigroup, named Poincaré semigroup , is in fact the semidirect product of the homogeneous Lorentz group with the semigroup of space-time translations into the forward light cone. The RHS representations of this subsemigroup can be characterized by a spin value $`j`$ and a complex square mass value $`𝗌_R`$, and consequently they can be attributed a physical interpretation as representing resonances along the lines of Wigner’s classic theory of the unitary representations of Poincaré group for stable particles. These RHS representations of the Poincaré semigroup have subtleties which are not present in either the unitary representations in Hilbert spaces or the well understood RHS theory for the non-relativistic case  where only a one parameter semigroup is needed to describe the evolution of the physical system. Many of the technical and theoretical issues appertaining to the RHS representations of the multi-parameter Poincaré semigroup  are subsumed under the subject of this paper. In the remainder of this introductory section we shall briefly state the questions that we attempt to formulate and answer in this paper; in Sections 2 and 3 we present our results.

###### Definition 1.1.

A rigged Hilbert space consists of a triad of vector spaces

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times $$
(1.1)
where:

1. $``$ is a Hilbert space
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a dense subspace of $``$ and it is endowed with a complete locally convex topology $`\tau _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that is stronger than the $``$-topology
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ is the space of continuous antilinear functionals on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is complete in its weak\* topology $`\tau ^\times `$ and it contains $``$ as a dense subspace.

It is preceptive that the topology of the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be constructed so as to yield an algebra $`𝒜`$ of quantum physical observables –defined at the outset as an algebra of endomorphisms on a dense subspace $`𝒟`$ of $``$– continuous as mappings on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For an operator $`A`$ of this algebra (that is also self adjoint, normal or unitary as an operator in $``$), the Nuclear Spectral Theorem of Gel’fand affirms the existence of generalized eigenvectors (i.e., eigenvectors of the dual operator $`A^\times `$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$) with the corresponding eigenvalues ranging over the continuous (Hilbert space) spectrum of $`A`$222In Gel’fand’s original proof of the theorem, the locally convex space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of Definition 1.1 was required to be nuclear. Therefore, rigged Hilbert spaces are customarily defined in quantum theory with the requirement that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be nuclear. However, since this condition can be relaxed  and since the nuclearity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not needed for the purposes of this paper (and thus our results have a slightly broader generality), we choose to define RHS’s as in Definition 1.1, without demanding that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be nuclear. See also ..

Thus, with the aid of RHS, the continuous and point spectra of observables can be treated on an equal footing. Further, the above set of eigenvectors constitute a basis for the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is in fact the mathematical content of Dirac’s bra-and-ket formulation of quantum mechanics.

Very often in practice, the above mentioned algebra of observables $`𝒜`$ (to be made continuous on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) arises as the associative algebra of an operator Lie algebra in $``$. Further, this Lie algebra may be the differential $`d𝒯`$ (with respect to the norm topology of $``$) of a continuous (often unitary) representation $`𝒯`$ in $``$ of a Lie group $`G`$. As stated above, the complete locally convex space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for an RHS may be constructed from an invariant dense domain $`𝒟`$ for the associative algebra of $`d𝒯`$ so that every element of this algebra becomes continuous as a mapping on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

We prove (Proposition 2.1) that the natural question whether the Hilbert space representation $`𝒯`$ (say, when restricted to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) yields a representation of the group $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is answerable in the affirmative, provided the invariant domain for the operator Lie algebra $`d𝒯`$ is chosen so that it remains invariant also under the group representation $`𝒯`$. Observe that this is a natural and minimal requirement for a homomorphism to be defined on $`G`$ by the composition of the operators $`𝒯|_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which denote the restriction of $`𝒯`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Moreover, it will be seen that the $`\tau _\mathrm{\Phi }`$-generators of the representation $`𝒯|_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ coincide with the $`\tau _{}`$-generators of $`𝒯`$ on the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

In contrast, it may also be possible to construct the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from a dense domain $`𝒟`$ which remains invariant under the differential $`d𝒯`$ but not under the group representation $`𝒯`$. This leads to the interesting possibility that certain symmetries present in the Hilbert space description of a quantum mechanical system need not be present in its RHS description. It is this feature that has been exploited in the above mentioned RHS study of certain quantum mechanical processes such as resonance scattering and decay, and in particular, the apparent asymmetric, semigroup time evolution associated to these processes. However, we shall not be concerned with these aspects of the RHS quantum theory in this paper.

Section 3 of this paper deals with the complementary question whether every (differentiable) Lie group representation in the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of an RHS is necessarily obtained from a (continuous) representation of the group in the central Hilbert space $``$. The starting point in this case is a representation $`T`$ of a certain Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ in a Hilbert space $``$. Unlike in Section 2, Proposition 2.1, we will no longer assume that $`T`$ is the differential $`d𝒯`$ of a continuous group representation $`𝒯`$ in $``$. Instead, we will establish a simple criterion of determining if the given Lie algebra representation $`T`$ is the differential of a certain Lie group representation in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

## 2 Induction from Hilbert Space Representations

###### Definition 2.1.

A continuous representation of a Lie group $`G`$ on a topological vector space $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a continuous mapping $`𝒯:G\times \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that

1. for every $`gG`$, $`𝒯(g)`$ is a linear operator in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$
2. for every $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`g_1,g_2G`$, $`𝒯(g_1g_2)\psi =𝒯(g_1)𝒯(g_2)\psi `$

###### Definition 2.2.

A differentiable representation of a Lie group $`G`$ on a complete topological vector space $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a mapping $`𝒯:G\times \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which fulfills all the requirements of Definition 2.1 and has the additional property that for any one parameter subgroup $`\{g(t)\}`$ of $`G`$, $`lim_{t0}\frac{𝒯(g(t))\varphi \varphi }{t}`$ exists for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ (and, a fortiori, defines a continuous linear operator on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$).

###### Definition 2.3.

A continuous one parameter group of operators $`𝒯(t)`$ in a locally convex topological vector space $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is said to be equicontinuous if for every continuous seminorm $`p`$ on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, there exists another, $`q`$, such that

$$p(𝒯(t)\varphi )q(\varphi )$$
(2.1)
holds for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ and all $`t`$.
The one parameter group is said to be locally equicontinuous if (2.1) holds for all $`t`$ in every compact subset of $``$.

Let $`G`$ be a Lie group of dimension $`d<\mathrm{}`$, and $`𝒢`$ be its Lie algebra. Let $`𝒯`$ be a continuous representation of $`G`$ in a Hilbert space $``$, and let $`T`$ be the differential of $`𝒯`$ evaluated at the identity $`e`$ of $`G`$, $`d𝒯|_e=T`$. It is well known that $`T`$ furnishes a representation of $`𝒢`$ by (not necessarily continuous) linear operators in $``$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`G,𝒢,𝒯`$ and $`T`$ be as above. Let $`𝒟`$ be a dense subspace of $``$ which remains invariant under both $`𝒯`$ and $`T`$. Then there exists a rigged Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ such that the restrictions $`𝒯|_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ yield a continuous representation of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.
Furthermore, if $`𝒟`$ can be chosen so that it is complete under the projective topology $`\tau _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ((2.3) below), the representation $`𝒯|_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`G`$ is differentiable in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. By duality, there also exists a differentiable representation of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$.

PROOF:
Let $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^d`$ be a basis for $`𝒢`$ and let $`X_i`$ be the restriction of the differential $`T(x_i)`$ to the invariant domain $`𝒟`$.

Construction of RHS
Define a family of scalar products on $`𝒟`$ by setting

$$(\varphi ,\psi )_{n+1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}(X_i\varphi ,X_i\psi )_n+(\varphi ,\psi )_n,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\varphi ,\psi 𝒟$$
(2.2)
where $`(\varphi ,\psi )_0(\varphi ,\psi )`$, the scalar product which $`𝒟`$ inherits from $``$. Linearity of the $`X_i`$ then ensures that $`(\varphi ,\psi )_n`$ is in fact a scalar product on $`𝒟`$ for every $`n`$.

With (2.2), we have on $`𝒟`$ the family of norms,

$$\varphi _{n+1}^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}X_i\varphi _n^2+\varphi _n^2$$
(2.3)
From (2.3), it is clear

$$\varphi _n\varphi _{n+1}\text{and}X_i\varphi _n\varphi _{n+1}$$
(2.4)
Since the norms (2.3) are derived from the scalar products (2.2), the dense subspace $`𝒟`$ can be completed with respect to each norm $`\left|\right|.||_n`$ to obtain a Hilbert space $`_n`$. The relations (2.4) then imply that the $`_n`$ form a nested scale

$$_1_2\mathrm{}$$
(2.5)
and that the operators $`X_i`$, and therewith the algebra $`𝒜`$ spanned by them, extend to elements of $`(_{n+1},_n)`$, the space of bounded linear operators from $`_{n+1}`$ into $`_n`$.

Now, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{n}{}_n$$
(2.6)
It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Fréchet space333The topology of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induced by the countable family of norms (2.3) is equivalent to the topology induced by the powers of generalized Laplacian $`(_{i=1}^dX_i^2+I)^n`$, as considered in . which contains $`𝒟`$. It is also easy to see that the topology of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is independent of the basis chosen. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is dense in $``$, and thus we have the triplet

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times $$
(2.7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, the anti-dual of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, can be obtained as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\times =\underset{n}{}_n$$
(2.8)
Remark
It is not known to us if the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is nuclear when it is constructed in the manner above, i.e., under the projective topology from the differential of a continuous representation of a finite dimensional but otherwise arbitrary Lie group in a Hilbert space. However, it is known that nuclearity holds for $`\tau _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the unitary representations of the following classes of Lie groups: semi-simple groups ; nilpotent groups ; semi-direct products of Abelian groups with compact groups ; and the Poincaré group. Thus for a large class of Lie groups, our Proposition 2.1 can be restated for a triad $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a nuclear space.

Restriction of $`𝒯`$ to $`𝚽`$

From the $``$-continuity of $`𝒯(g)`$, we have, for all $`\psi `$,

$$𝒯(g)\psi \omega (g)\psi $$
(2.9)
where $`\omega (g)`$ is a positive constant which may depend on the group element $`g`$. An important property of the representation $`𝒯`$ is that it is locally equicontinuous, a consequence of the local equicontinuity of continuous, one parameter groups in barrelled spaces . That is, the positive valued function $`\omega `$ on $`G`$ is locally bounded.

Proposition 2.1 follows from (2.9) and the following operator valued formulation of the well known Lie algebra inner automorphism $`\mathrm{Ad}(e^{ty})`$ of $`𝒢`$, defined by $`ze^{ty}ze^{ty},y,z𝒢`$ (in any realization). Thus, for $`g=e^y`$,

$$gzg^1=e^{(\mathrm{ad}y)}zf_{zi}(g^1)x_i$$
(2.10)
where the functions $`f_{zi}`$ are locally analytic on $`G`$. The corresponding automorphism on $`G`$ is $`ge^{tz}g^1=e^{(t\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}y)z)}`$, where $`g=e^y`$ and $`t`$, a real parameter. Then, for $`\varphi 𝒟`$,

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒯(g)𝒯(e^{tz})𝒯(g^1)\varphi =\frac{d}{dt}𝒯(e^{t(\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}y)z)})\varphi $$
(2.11)
Now, since

$`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(g)𝒯(e^{tz})𝒯(g^1)\varphi \varphi }{t}}𝒯(g)T(z)𝒯(g^1)\varphi `$ (2.12)
$`\omega (g)\underset{t0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(e^{tz})I}{t}}T(z)\right)𝒯(g^1)\varphi `$
and since $`𝒟`$ is invariant under $`𝒯`$, we see that the left hand side of (2.11), evaluated at $`t=0`$, is $`𝒯(g)T(z)𝒯(g^1)`$. Thus,

$$𝒯(g)T(z)𝒯(g^1)\varphi =T((e^{\mathrm{ad}y})z)\varphi $$
(2.13)
for $`\varphi 𝒟`$. But, by (2.10), for the basis elements $`X_i`$ we then have

$$𝒯(g)X_i𝒯(g^1)\varphi =\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}f_{ij}(g^1)X_j\varphi $$
(2.14)
The real valued functions $`f_{ij}`$ are continuous and locally analytic, and provide a (not necessarily faithful) matrix representation of $`G`$. For the one parameter subgroup $`\{e^{tx_k}\}`$, it is easy to see that the $`f_{ij}`$ can be expanded as

$$f_{ij}(e^{tx_k})=\delta _{ij}+tc_{ijk}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.15)
where $`c_{ijk}`$ are the structure constants of $`𝒢`$. Furthermore, the $`f_{ij}`$ and $`c_{ijk}`$ fulfill the identities

$$\underset{k}{}c_{ijk}f_{kl}(g^1)=\underset{m,n}{}c_{mnl}f_{im}(g^1)f_{jn}(g^1)$$
(2.16)
The relations (2.9) and (2.14) show that for any $`\varphi 𝒟`$,

$$𝒯(g)\varphi _n\omega (g)\left(1+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|f_{ij}(g)|\right)^n\varphi _n$$
(2.17)
The proof of (2.17) is by induction. For $`n=0`$, (2.17) is just (2.9), the assumed continuity of $`𝒯`$ in $``$. If (2.17) holds for some $`n`$, then,

$`𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi _{n+1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}X_i𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi _n^2+𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi _n^2`$ (2.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}𝒯\left(g\right)𝒯\left(g^1\right)X_i𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi _n^2+𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi _n^2`$
$``$ $`\omega \left(g\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left|f_{ij}\left(g\right)\right|\right)^{2n}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}}𝒯\left(g^1\right)X_k𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi _n^2+\varphi _n^2\right)`$
$``$ $`\omega \left(g\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left|f_{ij}\left(g\right)\right|\right)^{2n}\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left|f_{kl}\left(g\right)\right|\right)^2\varphi _{n+1}^2`$
$``$ $`\omega \left(g\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left|f_{ij}\left(g\right)\right|\right)^{2n+2}\varphi _{n+1}^2,`$
where the inequalities (2.4) are used in the last step. Thus, we have (2.17).

The relation (2.17) gives the continuity of the operators $`𝒯(g),gG,`$ (when restricted to the dense domain $`𝒟`$) with respect to the Fréchet topology given by (2.2) or (2.3). It is also fairly straightforward to establish the continuity of the mapping $`G𝒯(G)`$ in this topology on $`𝒟`$. To that end, for $`\varphi 𝒟`$,

$$𝒯(g)\varphi \varphi _{n+1}^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}X_i𝒯(g)\varphi X_i\varphi _n^2+𝒯(g)\varphi \varphi _n^2$$
(2.19)
Then, since

$`X_i𝒯\left(g\right)\varphi X_i\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯\left(g\right){\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}f_{ij}\left(g\right)X_j\varphi X_i\varphi _n`$ (2.20)
$``$ $`\omega \left(g\right)\left(1+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}f_{ij}\left(g\right)\right|\right)^n{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}f_{ij}\left(g\right)X_j\varphi X_i\varphi _n`$
$`+𝒯\left(g\right)X_i\varphi X_i\varphi _n`$
and since from (2.15), $`lim_{ge}f_{ij}(g^1)=\delta _{ij}`$, the continuity $`lim_{t0}𝒯(e^{tx})\varphi \varphi _n=0`$ implies

$$\underset{t0}{lim}𝒯(e^{tx})\varphi \varphi _{n+1}=0$$
(2.21)
Since $`𝒟`$ is dense in each Hilbert space $`_n`$ of the nested scale (2.5), linearity of the operators $`𝒯(g)`$ permits the inequalities (2.17) and (2.21) to be extended to the whole of $`_n`$. That is, the representation $`𝒯|_𝒟`$ extends from $`𝒟`$ to a continuous representation of $`G`$ in each of the Hilbert spaces $`_n`$ of (2.5).

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}_n`$, the relations (2.17) and (2.21) can be extended to the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therewith we conclude that the restrictions $`𝒯(g)|_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ yields a continuous (with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-topology (2.3)) representation of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

It remains to prove that this representation on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is differentiable, i.e., for any $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`x𝒢`$, $`lim_{t0}\frac{𝒯(e^{tx})I}{t}\varphi `$ exists. We shall shortly see that the equality

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{𝒯(e^{tx})I}{t}\varphi T(x)\varphi _n=0$$
(2.22)
can be easily obtained by induction so long as $`\varphi `$ is restricted to the dense domain $`𝒟`$. However, since the mapping $`G𝒯(G)`$ is not linear, we cannot necessarily extend (2.22) to the whole of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

At this point we remark that a result of Roberts, Proposition 13 in , leads to the conclusion that the invariant domain $`𝒟`$ is complete under the projective topology when $`𝒟`$ is taken to be the maximal invariant domain for the operator Lie algebra $`T(𝒢)`$. This domain is also invariant under the operator group $`𝒯(G)`$. Thus, for such $`𝒟`$, (2.22) holds for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$, and we have a differentiable representation of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

To prove (2.22), notice first that for $`n=0`$ the equation just expresses that differentiability of $`\varphi `$ in $``$-topology, and thus the equation is true for all $`\varphi 𝒟`$ by the definition of $`𝒟`$. Next, if (2.22) is true for some $`n`$, then

$`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯\left(e^{tx_i}\right)I}{t}}\varphi T\left(x_i\right)\varphi _{n+1}^2`$ (2.23)
$`=\underset{t0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}X_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒯\left(e^{tx_i}\right)I}{t}}\varphi X_i\varphi \right)_n^2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯\left(e^{tx_i}\right)I}{t}}\varphi X_i\varphi _n^2\right)`$
Since (2.22) is assumed to be true for $`n`$, the last term vanishes. Also,

$`X_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(e^{tx_i})I}{t}}X_i\right)\varphi _n`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_kf_{jk}(e^{tx_i})𝒯(e^{tx_i})X_k\varphi X_j\varphi }{t}}X_jX_i\varphi _n`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{jj}(e^{tx_i})𝒯(e^{tx_i})X_j\varphi X_j\varphi }{t}}X_iX_j\varphi _n`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{_{kj}\left(f_{jk}(e^{tx_i})𝒯(e^{tx_i})X_k\varphi tc_{jik}X_k\varphi \right)}{t}}_n`$
The invariance of $`𝒟`$ under $`X_k`$ and the expansion (2.15) of the $`f_{ij}`$ show that the right hand side of (LABEL:2.22) vanishes when $`t0`$. That is, the right hand side of (2.23) tends to zero. This proves (2.22) for every basis element $`x_i`$ of $`𝒢`$. The general case easily follows.
The existence of a differentiable representation of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ easily follows from the treatment in Section 2.3.
This concludes the proof Proposition 2.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.1 thus shows that, starting from a continuous representation of a finite dimensional Lie group in a Hilbert space $``$, a rigged Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ can be constructed so that there exists a differentiable representation of the group in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The construction begins with identifying the maximal invariant domain for the operator Lie algebra in $``$. In view of the remark on page 2, for unitary representations of a large class of Lie groups we can construct the triad $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ subject to the more restrictive condition that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a nuclear space.

In the remainder of this Section we shall investigate some secondary aspects of such representations in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and present a couple of simple examples illustrating of these features.

### 2.1 One Parameter Subgroups in $`𝚽`$

Proposition 2.1 asserts that the differentiable representation $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of a finite dimensional Lie group $`G`$, obtained from its continuous Hilbert space representation $`𝒯`$, is precisely the projective limit of a family of continuous representations in the nested scale of Hilbert spaces $`_n`$ in (2.5). That is, the representation $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends to a continuous representation $`𝒯_n(𝒯_0=𝒯)`$ of $`G`$ in $`_n`$ for $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The generators $`X_{i,n}`$ of the one parameter subgroups $`𝒯_n(e^{tx_i})`$ are the extensions to $`_n`$ by closure, with respect to the norm topology $`\left|\right|.||_n`$, of the operators $`X_i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and they furnish a representation of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ in some algebra $`𝒜(𝒟_n)`$ of endomorphisms on a dense subspace $`𝒟_n`$ of $`_n`$. In fact, the invariant subspace $`𝒟`$ from which the Fréchet space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ was constructed can function as $`𝒟_n`$ in each $`_n`$.

This observation motivates us to consider the problem of integrating the Lie algebra representation $`T(𝒢)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the differentiable group representation $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as, somewhat loosely put, the projective limit of the integrability problem in the Hilbert spaces $`_n`$. We shall take up this integrability of an operator Lie algebra in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a substantive problem below in Section 3. Here we will limit ourselves to the integrability conditions on a single element of $`T(𝒢)`$ into a differentiable one parameter group in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. More precisely, the integrability of an element $`X`$ of the continuous Lie algebra representation $`T`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to a differentiable one parameter group can be treated as a repeated application of the classical Hille-Yosida  theory of one parameter $`C_0`$-groups in Banach spaces.

Consider again the case studied in Proposition 2.1. Let us denote a typical one parameter subgroup of this differentiable representation by $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$, where $`X`$ is the generator of $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$. As seen from (2.17), the differentiable subgroup $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ extends to a $`C_0`$-group in each of the Hilbert spaces $`_n`$. In $`_n`$, this subgroup is generated by $`\overline{X}_n`$, the extension to $`_n`$, by closure, of the operator $`X`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. If we denote this $`C_0`$-group in $`_n`$ by $`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)`$, then $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the projective limit of the $`C_0`$-groups $`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)`$ in $`_n`$.

Suppose $`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)`$ is of type $`\omega _n`$ , i.e.,

$$\omega _n=\underset{t0}{inf}\frac{1}{|t|}\mathrm{ln}𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)_n=\pm \underset{t\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{|t|}\mathrm{ln}𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)_n$$
(2.25)
The classical Hille-Yosida theory affirms the following relationship between the resolvent $`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)`$ of $`\overline{X}_n`$ and the $`C_0`$-group $`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)`$ generated by $`\overline{X}_n`$:

$`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\lambda t}𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)\varphi ,\lambda >\omega _n`$
$`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑te^{\lambda t}𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)\varphi ,\lambda <\omega _n`$ (2.26)
$`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}e^{\lambda t}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda t)^j}{j!}}\left(\lambda R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\right)^j\varphi ,t>0`$
$`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}e^{\lambda t}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda t)^j}{j!}}\left(\lambda R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\right)^j\varphi ,t<0`$ (2.27)
where all limits are with respect to the $`_n`$-topology. Further, for some positive $`M_n`$ and $`\beta _n>\omega _n`$, we have

$$\left(R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\right)^p_nM_n(|\lambda |\beta _n)^p$$
(2.28)
for all $`\lambda >\beta _n`$ and $`p=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. In fact, the relation (2.28) is a necessary and sufficient requirement for the closed operator $`\overline{X}_n`$ to generate the $`C_0`$-group $`𝒯(t,\overline{X}_n)`$ in the Hilbert space $`_n`$.

Since the differentiable subgroup $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the projective limit of the continuous groups $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\overline{X}_n)`$, we see that the continuous operator $`X`$ generates a one parameter group in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ when its closure $`\overline{X}_n`$ fulfills the relation (2.28) for all $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. That is, for the kind of differentiable subgroup considered here, the problem of reconstructing the $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ in terms of (the resolvent of) $`X`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be reduced to the corresponding problem in each of the $`_n`$ in the nested scale of Hilbert spaces (2.5).

It is interesting at this point to ask if the subgroup $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ can be recovered from its generator $`X`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ without appealing to the Banach space theory applied to the Hilbert spaces $`_n`$. The theory of $`C_0`$-groups in more general locally convex spaces has also been developed , and the form of this general theory is similar to the Banach space theory when the group is equicontinuous in the parameter. For such a $`C_0`$-group in a locally convex space, the resolvent operator of the generator can be obtained much the same way as in (2.26) as the Laplace transform of the group. The group, in turn, can be recovered from the resolvent by way of a limiting process similar to (2.27). Of course the integrals and limit processes are now to be defined with respect to the locally convex topology of the vector space.

Nevertheless, as evident from the example below, such global equicontinuity of may prove to be too strong a restriction for $`C_0`$-groups in rigged Hilbert spaces. In such situations, the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,X)`$ may fail to exist anywhere in the complex plane, and further, even when it does exist for all large $`|\lambda |`$, the group may not be able to be constructed from it as in (2.27)444As remarked earlier, one parameter $`C_0`$-groups in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are necessarily locally equicontinuous, and these groups have been studied in the literature . However, we shall not make use of the results of  as the structure of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, defined by (2.6), makes the case considerably simpler for one parameter groups in rigged Hilbert spaces..

One obvious condition under which the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,X)`$ can acquire an integral resolution of the kind (2.26) in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is

$$\omega \underset{n}{sup}\omega _n<\mathrm{}$$
(2.29)
where the $`\omega _n`$ are defined as in (2.25) and $`|\lambda >|\omega `$. However, even when the resolvent $`R(\lambda ,X)`$ of $`X`$ is everywhere defined in the complex plane, it is not necessary that the subgroup $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ can be recovered in terms of $`R(\lambda ,X)`$ by the limit process (2.27) (in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-topology). One instance when this is possible is

$$M_n1\mathrm{and}\beta \underset{n}{sup}\beta _n<\mathrm{}$$
(2.30)
where $`M_n`$ and $`\beta _n`$ are defined as in (2.28). This condition assures that the Hille-Yosida theory for the $`C_0`$-groups in locally convex spaces  can be applied. In other words, if the relations (2.29) and (2.30) hold, the subgroup $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }(t,X)`$ can be recovered from the resolvent of its generator by way of (2.27), defined now in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a $`\tau _\mathrm{\Phi }`$-limit process.

### 2.2 Example

Define a multiplication in $`^3`$ by

$$(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)(\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\zeta _3)=(\xi _1+\zeta _1,\xi _2+\zeta _2,\xi _3+\zeta _3+\xi _1\zeta _2)$$
(2.31)
Under this multiplication $`^3`$ becomes a group, $`G`$, which has the set $`\{(0,0,\xi _3)\}`$ as its center. The Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of $`G`$ is spanned by the elements

$$\chi _1=(1,0,0)\chi _2=(0,1,0)\chi _3=(0,0,1)$$
(2.32)
which fulfill the commutation relations

$$[\chi _1,\chi _2]=\chi _3,[\chi _1,\chi _3]=[\chi _2,\chi _3]=0$$
(2.33)
These commutation relations can be realized in $`^3`$ by the multiplication rule defined, for any two elements $`\chi =(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ and $`\chi ^{}=(a,b,c)`$ of $`𝒢`$, as

$$(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )(a,b,c)=(0,0,\alpha b)$$
(2.34)
Thus, the basis elements (2.32) fulfill the relations

$$\chi _i\chi _j=\delta _{1i}\delta _{2j}\chi _3$$
(2.35)
Notice that under the product rule (2.34), the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ becomes an associative algebra. This associative algebra can be made into an operator algebra on $`^3`$ by way of the definition, for $`\chi =(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )𝒢`$ and $`v=(x,y,z)^3`$,

$$\chi v=(\alpha y+\gamma z,\beta z,0)$$
(2.36)
The group $`G`$ can be constructed by the exponentiation of $`𝒢`$:

$$(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)=e+\xi _1\chi _1+\xi _2\chi _2+\xi _3\chi _3$$
(2.37)
where $`e`$, the identity element of $`G`$, is simply the origin $`(0,0,0)`$.

A representation $`𝒯`$ of $`G`$ in $`L^2(,\mu )`$, where $`\mu `$ is the Lebesgue measure, can be obtained by setting

$$\left(𝒯((\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3))f\right)(x)=e^{i\xi _3}e^{ix\xi _2}f(x+\xi _1)$$
(2.38)
It is easily seen that this is a continuous unitary representation of $`G`$.

The representation of $`𝒢`$, given by the differential $`d𝒯`$ (with respect to the $`L^2`$-topology), is spanned by the operators

$$T(\chi _1)X_1=\frac{d}{dx};T(\chi _2)X_2=ix;T(\chi _3)=X_3=iI$$
(2.39)
The task at hand is to construct a rigged Hilbert space so that a differentiable representation of $`G`$ maybe induced in the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from the continuous unitary representation (2.38) in $`L^2`$. To that end, as a common invariant domain for the operator Lie algebra (2.39) we choose the Schwartz space $`𝒮()`$, the space of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions which decay at infinity faster than the inverse of any polynomial. The definition (2.38) shows that $`𝒮()`$ is invariant under the group representation $`𝒯`$. We can now introduce the projective topology (2.3) on $`𝒮()`$ by means of the generators $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, and $`X_3`$ of (2.39):

$$f_{n+1}^2=X_1f_n^2+X_2f_n^2+f_n^2,f𝒮()$$
(2.40)
This topology on $`𝒮()`$ is equivalent to the more customary one defined by the norms $`f_{m,n}=sup_x|(\frac{d^n}{dx^n}x^mf)(x)|`$. Thus, $`𝒮()`$ is complete under the topology (2.40) and, in fact, it is the projective limit of the scale of Hilbert spaces $`L^2(,\mu )_1_2\mathrm{}`$ where $`_n`$ is obtained by completing $`𝒮()`$ with respect to the norm $`\left|\right|.||_n`$. Therefore, we have the RHS

$$𝒮()L^2(,\mu )𝒮()^\times $$
(2.41)
It is noteworthy that $`𝒮()`$ is a nuclear space.

Proposition 2.1 shows that the restriction of the continuous unitary representation (2.38) to the space $`𝒮()`$ yields therein a differentiable representation of the group (2.31). In fact, with respect to the norms (2.40),

$$𝒯(g)f_n(1+|\xi _1|^2+|\xi _2|^2)^{n/2}f_n,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},f𝒮()$$
(2.42)
where $`g=(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$. Further,

$$\underset{ge}{lim}(𝒯(g)I)f_n=0,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},f𝒮()$$
(2.43)
and

$`\underset{\xi _10}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒯((\xi _1,0,0))I}{\xi _1}}X_1\right)f_n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\underset{\xi _20}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒯((0,\xi _2,0))I}{\xi _2}}X_2\right)f_n`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\underset{\xi _30}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒯((0,0,\xi _3))I}{\xi _3}}X_3\right)f_n`$ $`=`$ $`0,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},f𝒮()`$
As in the general case discussed in Proposition 2.1, the proofs of (2.42)–(LABEL:e1.11) are by induction. The explicit form of the factor $`(1+|\xi _1|^2+|\xi _2|^2)^{n/2}`$ in (2.42) follows from that of the functions $`f_{ij}`$ of (2.14), i.e., from $`𝒯(g)X_1𝒯(g^1)=X_1+i\xi _2`$, $`𝒯(g)X_2𝒯(g^1)=X_2+i\xi _1`$, or, $`f_{ij}(g)=\delta _{1i}\delta _{1j}+\delta _{2i}\delta _{2j}+\delta _{3i}\delta _{3j}+\xi _2\delta _{1i}\delta _{3j}+\xi _1\delta _{2i}\delta _{3j}`$. In fact, the $`f`$’s are realized by the (non-isomorphic) representation $`(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)(0,\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ of $`G`$.

It is easily seen from (2.42) that the differentiable representation $`𝒯`$ extends to a continuous representation $`𝒯_n`$ for every $`n`$. The generators of the one parameter subgroups $`𝒯_n(\xi _1)`$ and $`𝒯_n(\xi _2)`$ are, respectively, the extensions to $`_n`$, by closure, of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$. As before, let us denote these two one parameter subgroups in $`_n`$ by $`𝒯(\xi _1,\overline{X}_{1,n})`$ and $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$. The classical Hille-Yosida theory can then be applied to recover these one parameter subgroups from (the resolvents of) their generators.

Consider the one parameter subgroup $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$. From (2.42),

$$𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})f_n(1+|\xi _2|^2)^{n/2}f_n,f_n$$
(2.45)
It is of type $`\omega _n=0`$, i.e.,

$$\omega _n=\underset{|\xi _2|}{inf}\frac{1}{|\xi _2|}\mathrm{ln}𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})_n=0,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(2.46)
Then, the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ can be obtained as, for $`f_n`$,

$`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi _2e^{\lambda \xi _2}𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})f,\mathrm{}(\lambda )>0`$
$`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑\xi _2e^{\lambda \xi _2}𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})f,\mathrm{}(\lambda )<0`$ (2.47)
Also, the $`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ satisfy the equicontinuity condition

$$\left(R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})\right)^p_n(|\lambda |n)^p$$
(2.48)
for all $`\lambda `$ with $`|\mathrm{}(\lambda )|>n`$. Therefore, according to the Hille-Yosida theory, the continuous group $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ can be recovered from the resolvent $`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ by means of the limiting process (2.27):

$`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_n)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}e^{\lambda \xi _2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda \xi _2)^j}{j!}}\left(\lambda R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\right)^j\varphi \mathrm{for}\xi _2>0`$
$`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_n)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}e^{\lambda \xi _2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda \xi _2)^j}{j!}}\left(\lambda R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_n)\right)^j\varphi \mathrm{for}\xi _2<0`$
The differentiable one parameter subgroup $`𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can then be obtained as the projective limit of the continuous groups $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ in $`_n`$.

It is interesting to ask if the differentiable subgroup $`𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)`$ can be recovered from the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,X_2)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, i.e., without appealing to the Banach space theory applied to $`_n`$. Notice first that since

$$\omega =\underset{n}{sup}\omega _n=0$$

where the $`\omega _n`$ are as in (2.46), the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,X_2)`$ is defined everywhere on the complex plane, except on the imaginary axis, and it is given by integrals of the kind (2.47). The formal integrals

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi _2e^{\lambda \xi _2}e^{ix\xi _2}f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +ix}}f(x),\mathrm{}(\lambda )>0`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑\xi _2e^{\lambda \xi _2}e^{ix\xi _2}f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +ix}}f(x),\mathrm{}(\lambda )<0`$ (2.50)
which must coincide with the vector valued ones (which exist by the above Hille-Yosida argument) show, for $`f𝒮()`$,

$`R(\lambda ,X_2)f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +ix}}f(x)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi _2e^{\lambda \xi _2}𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)f(x),\mathrm{}(\lambda )>0`$
$`R(\lambda ,X_2)f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda +ix}}f(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑\xi _2e^{\lambda \xi _2}𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)f(x),\mathrm{}(\lambda )<0`$
where the integrals are defined as the limit of a Riemann sum with respect to Fréchet topology (2.40) of $`𝒮()`$. The Hille-Yosida theory then implies that the operator $`R(\lambda ,X_2)`$ is an everywhere defined continuous operator in $`𝒮()`$. Alternatively, we could directly show, by induction, that the linear operator defined by the first equality in (LABEL:e1.17) is such an operator:

$$R(\lambda ,X_2)f_n\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=0}^nc_i\right)^{1/2}f_n$$
(2.52)
where $`c_i=1+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=0}^{i1}c_j`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n,`$ and $`c_0=\frac{1}{|\lambda |^2}`$.

The relation (2.52) also shows that $`R(\lambda ,X_2)`$ extends to an everywhere defined continuous operator in $`_n`$. This extension is really the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ of $`\overline{X}_{2,n}`$, the closure of $`X_2`$ in $`_n`$-topology. Further, a direct computation shows

$$\left(R(\lambda ,\overline{X}_{2,n})\right)^p_n(|\lambda |n)^p$$
(2.53)
for all $`|\lambda |>n`$ and $`p=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. This is exactly the relation (2.48), obtained there by applying the Hille-Yosida theory to the $`C_0`$-group $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ in $`_n`$.

The $`inf\{|\lambda |\}`$, for which (2.53) holds, strictly increases along the scale $`L^2(,\mu )_1_2\mathrm{}`$. This means that the upper bound (2.30) does not exist for the $`C_0`$-group $`𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)`$ in $`𝒮()`$. That is, there exist no $`\beta `$ such that $`e^{\beta \xi _2}𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)`$ is equicontinuous in $`𝒮()`$ for $`\xi _2`$. Therefore, although the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,X_2)`$ exists for all $`\lambda `$ with $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )0`$, the $`C_0`$-group $`𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)`$ cannot be recovered from it by means of a limit process akin to (2.27) in the $`𝒮()`$-topology. However, this recovery can be done for each $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ in $`_n`$, and the differentiable group $`𝒯(\xi _2,X_2)`$ in $`𝒮()`$ can be obtained as the projective limit of the $`𝒯(\xi _2,\overline{X}_{2,n})`$ thus recovered.

### 2.3 Differentiable Representations of Groups in $`𝚽^\mathbf{\times }`$

Let $`𝒯`$ be a representation of a finite dimensional Lie group $`G`$ in the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of a rigged Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$. Then, a representation $`𝒱`$ of $`G`$ can be defined in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ by way of the identity

$$𝒯(g)\varphi |F=\varphi |𝒱(g^1)F,gG;\varphi \mathrm{\Phi };F\mathrm{\Phi }^\times $$
(2.54)
In other words,

$$𝒱(g^1)=(𝒯(g))^\times $$
(2.55)
where the right hand side denotes the operator dual to $`𝒯(g)`$. It is easy to verify that $`𝒱`$ is a homomorphism on $`G`$. Furthermore, if $`𝒯`$ is a continuous representation, $`𝒱`$ will also be a continuous representation with respect to the weak\* topology $`\tau ^\times `$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, and if $`𝒯`$ is differentiable, $`𝒱`$ will also be differentiable. To see this, consider a one parameter subgroup $`\{e^{tx}\}`$ in $`G`$ and its representation $`𝒯(t,X)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As in (2.54), let us denote by $`𝒱(t)`$ the one parameter subgroup dual to $`𝒯(t,X)`$. If $`𝒯`$ is a differentiable representation, then for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`lim_{t0}\frac{\left(𝒯(t,X)I\right)}{t}\varphi =X\varphi `$, and thus,

$`X\varphi |F`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t,X)I}{t}}\varphi ,F`$ (2.56)
$`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t,X)I}{t}}\varphi ,F`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}\varphi ,{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱(t)I}{t}}F`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}\varphi ,{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱(t)I}{t}}F`$
where the second equality follows from the continuity of $`F`$ as an antilinear functional on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The last equality in (2.56) shows that the $`lim_{t0}\frac{𝒱(t)I}{t}F`$ exists everywhere in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ with respect to the weak\* topology $`\tau ^\times `$. That is, the dual representation $`𝒱`$, defined by (2.54), is differentiable in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ when $`𝒯`$ is differentiable in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Further, since the operator $`X^\times `$ dual to $`X`$ is defined by $`X\varphi ,F=\varphi ,X^\times F,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi },F\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, we see from (2.56) that the generator of $`𝒱(t)`$ is $`X^\times `$, and we may thus denote the one parameter subgroup by $`𝒱(t,X^\times )`$. It is evident that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$-differential of $`𝒱`$, evaluated at the identity element of $`G`$, furnishes a representation $`V`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, given explicitly by

$$V(x)=(T(x))^\times x𝒢$$
(2.57)
where the × on the right hand side denotes the dual operator to $`T(x)`$. It is trivial to verify that the mapping $`𝒢V(𝒢)`$ preserves the commutation relations $`[x_i,x_j]=c_{ijk}x_k`$ in $`𝒢`$.

### 2.4 Example

Proposition 2.1 shows that in a suitably constructed rigged Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, the restriction $`𝒯_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of a continuous Lie group representation $`𝒯`$ in $``$ furnishes a differentiable representation of the group in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As seen in the previous section, by duality, there also exists a differentiable representation of the group in the dual space $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, given in particular by $`(𝒯(G))^\times `$. It is interesting to ask if every differentiable Lie group representation in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ necessarily arises as the restriction of a continuous representation of the group in the kernel Hilbert space $``$, or equivalently, if every differentiable representation in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends to a continuous representation in $``$. In this section we will construct a variant of the example considered in Section 2.2 that shows that a differentiable representation in the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of an RHS need not extend to a continuous representation in the Hilbert space $``$. However, this still leaves the case for nuclear spaces unanswered because our $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ here is not a nuclear vector space.

Consider again the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ spanned by the $`\chi _1`$, $`\chi _2`$, and $`\chi _3`$ of (2.32). The corresponding Lie group $`G`$ is generated by the exponentiation of $`𝒢`$ as in (2.37). We can obtain a representation of $`𝒢`$ in the Hilbert space $`\mathrm{}_2()`$ of square summable complex sequences $`\varphi =(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3,\mathrm{})`$ by the direct sum of the operator algebra (2.36):

$$X_1=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n\chi _1,X_2=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n\chi _2,X_3=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^2\chi _3$$
(2.58)
i.e., $`X_1\varphi =(\varphi _2,0,0,2\varphi _5,0,0,3\varphi _8,0,\mathrm{})`$, etc.

The operators (2.58) are unbounded on $`\mathrm{}_2()`$. As a common invariant dense domain for the $`X_i`$, and therewith for the whole operator Lie algebra, we choose the subspace of rapidly decreasing sequences, $`𝒮=\{\varphi :\varphi \mathrm{}_2();lim_{|m|\mathrm{}}m^n\varphi _m=0\mathrm{for}n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}.`$

To obtain an RHS, we introduce on $`𝒮`$ a locally convex topology by means of the scalar products

$$(\varphi ,\psi )_{n+1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(X_i\varphi ,X_i\psi )_n+(\varphi ,\psi )_n$$

where $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒮`$ and $`(\varphi ,\psi )_0=(\varphi ,\psi )=_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _m\overline{\psi }_m`$, the inner product in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$. The ensuing norms are

$$\varphi _{n+1}^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}X_i\varphi _n^2+\varphi _n^2$$
(2.59)
However, from (2.35) and the definition (2.58) of the $`X_i`$, we have

$$X_iX_j=\delta _{1i}\delta _{2j}X_3$$
(2.60)
Thus, the set of norms (2.59) consists of only two elements:

$`\varphi _0^2`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^2={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\varphi _m|^2`$
$`\varphi _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}X_i\varphi ^2+\varphi ^2`$ (2.61)
The Hilbert space $`_1`$ which results from the completion of $`𝒮`$ under the norm $`\left|\right|.||_1`$, its dual $`_1^\times `$, and $`\mathrm{}_2()`$ form the RHS

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{}_2()_1^\times \mathrm{\Phi }^\times $$
(2.62)
As mentioned earlier $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, being an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, is not nuclear.

In much the same way as the Lie algebra of (2.33) integrates in $`^3`$ to a representation of the group $`G`$ of (2.31), the operator Lie algebra spanned by the (2.58) integrates in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to a differentiable representation of $`G`$:

$$𝒯(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)=I+\xi _1X_1+\xi _2X_2+\xi _3X_3$$
(2.63)
That (2.63) is a homomorphism on $`G`$ follows easily from (2.60) and (2.31). The continuity of $`𝒯(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ as an operator in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for each $`(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)G`$, as well as the differentiability of the mapping $`G𝒯(G)`$ in $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, follows from the continuity of the operators $`X_i`$ and the defining relations (2.63).

Since the $`X_i`$ are not continuous in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$, (2.63) does not yield a continuous representation of $`G`$ in the central Hilbert space $`\mathrm{}_2()`$ of the triad (2.62). That is, the differentiable representation (2.63) in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not extend to a continuous representation in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$. In fact, the operator Lie algebra spanned by the $`\{X_i\}`$ of (2.58) cannot be the differential of any continuous representation of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$, be it in the form (2.63) or not, because none of basis elements $`X_i`$ is integrable in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$. To see this, first notice that on the common invariant domain $`𝒮`$ for the $`X_i`$,

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}(\lambda +X_i)(\lambda X_i)=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}(\lambda X_i)(\lambda +X_i)=I,\lambda 0$$
(2.64)
If the resolvent operator $`R(\lambda ,X_i)`$ exists for some non-zero complex number $`\lambda `$, it must coincide with $`\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}(\lambda +X_i)`$ on $`𝒮`$. And for $`\lambda =0`$, the range of $`(\lambda X_i)`$ is not dense in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$. Therefore, the resolvent set of any of the $`X_i`$ is empty, and the Hille-Yosida theory renders each $`X_i`$ non-integrable in $`\mathrm{}_2()`$ to a $`C_0`$-group.

## 3 Integrability of Operator Lie algebras in RHS

The Example 2.4 motivates us to consider representations of Lie groups in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ independently of possible corresponding representations of the group in $``$.

Therefore, let us suppose that $`T`$ is a representation of a $`d`$-dimensional ($`d<\mathrm{}`$) Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ in a complex Hilbert space $``$ by linear operators defined over a common, invariant dense domain $`𝒟`$. Unlike in Section 2, here we do not assume at the outset that $`T`$ is the differential $`d𝒯`$ of a continuous Lie group representation $`𝒯`$ in $``$.

If $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^d`$ is some basis for $`𝒢`$, then $`T(x_i)`$ furnishes a basis for $`T(𝒢)`$, which is a finite dimensional subspace of the algebra of endomorphisms on $`𝒟`$. We shall adopt the notation $`X=T(x),x𝒢`$. Then, as in (2.2) and (2.3), we may use the operator algebra spanned by $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^d`$ to define a locally convex topology on $`𝒟`$ leading to an RHS $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the completion of $`𝒟`$ under the new locally convex topology. By construction, every $`X`$ in $`T(𝒢)`$ is continuous as an operator on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Thus, the mapping $`T`$ furnishes a representation of $`𝒢`$ by continuous operators on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We shall denote this operator Lie algebra in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also by $`T(𝒢)`$, unless there is room for confusion. The problem we investigate in this section is the integrability of $`T`$:

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`G`$ be a connected and simply connected Lie group and $`𝒢`$, its Lie algebra. Let $`T`$ be a representation of $`𝒢`$ by (not necessarily continuous) linear operators on a complex, locally convex, complete topological vector space $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. $`T`$ is said to be integrable if there exists a representation $`𝒯`$ of $`G`$ such that its differential $`d𝒯`$, evaluated at the identity, contains $`T`$.

In other words, integrability of $`T`$ means that for every $`x𝒢`$, the operator $`X=T(x)`$ coincides on its domain of definition with the generator of the one parameter subgroup $`𝒯(e^{tx}),t`$. The representation $`𝒯`$ is generally taken to be continuous (Definition 2.1). The well known classical results  then affirm that the generator of the one parameter group $`𝒯(e^{tx})`$ is a densely defined, closed operator in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. When these generators are continuous, as seen in Section 2, the group representation $`𝒯`$ is not simply continuous but differentiable (Definition 2.2).

The integrability in the sense of Definition 3.1 can be viewed as an operator valued version of E. Cartan’s classic theorem that every abstract Lie algebra is in fact the infinitesimal Lie algebra of a Lie group. Integrating operator Lie algebras has been a subject of continued interest . Among the earlier works are that of Nelson  and of Flato et. al. , where primarily the integration of operator Lie algebras into unitary group representations in Hilbert spaces is investigated. The problem is also studied for more general cases such as Banach spaces and other locally convex spaces . Some of these developments make use of a good deal of geometric notions, whereas  and  mainly employ techniques of functional analysis. Since the locally convex spaces in rigged Hilbert spaces have a particular topological structure as the projective limit of a scale of Hilbert spaces (2.2), for the purposes of this paper what is mostly relevant is the constructions in  and, in particular,  for Hilbert spaces; our main technical result (Theorem 3.1) is an immediate extension of . Therefore, we shall not review here in detail the treatments of  which deal with various aspects of the integrability problem in Banach and other locally convex spaces.

The centrally significant theoretical feature for the unitary representations is the existence of a large class of analytic vectors for the representation $`T(𝒢)`$. In particular, Nelson proved  that if the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i=1}^dX_i^2`$ with respect to some basis $`\{X_i\}`$ of $`T(𝒢)`$ is essentially self-adjoint for a Lie algebra representation $`T`$ by skew symmetric operators defined on a common invariant dense domain in a Hilbert space, then $`T`$ is integrable to a unique unitary representation of $`G`$. A generalization of Nelson’s integrability criterion for unitary representations was achieved by M. Flato et al. (FSSS). They proved  that a Lie algebra isomorphism by skew symmetric operators in a Hilbert space is integrable to a unique unitary representation of $`G`$ if there exists an invariant common dense domain of vectors analytic for some basis $`\{X_i\}`$ of the operator Lie algebra. That is, these vectors are assumed to be analytic for each $`X_i`$ separately, but not necessarily for the whole Lie algebra. Thus, the FSSS theory provides less stringent integrability condition than Nelson’s.

Furthermore, the FSSS theory has the interesting feature that it can be naturally generalized to continuous group representations in more general, complete locally convex spaces . This generalization is achieved, however, contingent to the assumption, which supplements the ones on the existence of analytic vectors, that the closure of each basis element $`\overline{X_i}`$ generates a one parameter subgroup. Although this requirement is redundant for skew symmetric operators in Hilbert spaces, the integrability problem for an operator in a general locally convex space into a continuous one parameter group is considerably more complex, especially when the group is not globally equicontinuous in the parameter. Such was the case considered in Example 2.2.

In this section, we propose an adaptation of the FSSS theory for Lie group representations in rigged Hilbert spaces. As mentioned above, for our purposes, the FSSS theory provides the most convenient and immediate starting point. Suppose then an RHS $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ has been built so as to yield an isomorphism $`T`$ of a Lie algebra by continuous linear operators in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Thus, the integrability of $`T`$ amounts to finding a true anti derivative for $`T`$, i.e., a group representation $`𝒯`$ such that $`d𝒯=T`$ everywhere in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. That is, the group representation $`𝒯`$ is differentiable, not just continuous as considered in . Our main technical result is that the differentiability of $`𝒯`$ allows us to remove the assumption on the existence of analytic vectors in the FSSS theory. This absence of the need for analytic vectors may make matters considerably simpler in applications.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$ be a rigged Hilbert space and $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, the space of continuous linear operators in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ equipped with the strong operator topology. Let $`𝒢`$ be a Lie algebra of dimension $`d<\mathrm{}`$ and $`G`$, the connected and simply connected Lie group with $`𝒢`$ as its Lie algebra. Suppose $`T:𝒢T(𝒢)L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is an isomorphism on $`𝒢`$, and suppose that there exists a basis $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^d`$ for $`𝒢`$ such that each $`X_iT(x_i),i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},d,`$ generates a one parameter group in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then $`T`$ is integrable to a unique differentiable representation of $`G`$.

Before we present the proof of Theorem 3.1, we shall consider some preliminary facts and identities from Lie group theory and formulate their operator valued analogues in $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$.

### 3.1 Lie Algebra Preliminaries

Let $`G`$, $`𝒢`$, and $`\{x_i\}`$ be as defined in Theorem 3.1. Then, a convex neighborhood $`W`$ of the identity $`e`$ of $`G`$ can be chosen such that any $`gW`$ can be written as

$$g=e^{t_1(g)x_1}e^{t_2(g)x_2}\mathrm{}e^{t_d(g)x_d}$$
(3.1)
The coordinate functions of the second kind

$$g(t_1(g),t_2(g),\mathrm{},t_d(g))$$
(3.2)
furnish a local chart over $`W`$. Since $`W`$ is chosen to be convex, we have $`e^{tx}e^yW`$ whenever $`e^yW`$, $`e^xe^yW`$, and $`0t1`$. Thus, for any $`e^xW`$ and $`0t1`$,

$$e^{tx}=e^{t_1(t)x_1}e^{t_2(t)x_2}\mathrm{}e^{t_d(t)x_d}$$
(3.3)
where we use the simpler notation $`t_i(e^{tx})t_i(t)`$.

By applying the chain rule of differentiation on (3.3), we obtain the Lie algebra identities

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{dt}}x_1+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{dt_d}{dt}}\mathrm{Int}(t_1x_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(t_{d1}x_{d1})x_d`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Int}(t_dx_d)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(t_2x_2)x_1{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{dt}}+\mathrm{}+x_d{\displaystyle \frac{dt_d}{dt}}`$ (3.4)
where $`\mathrm{Int}(tx)y=e^{tx}ye^{tx}`$, the inner automorphism on $`𝒢`$ induced by the elements of $`G`$. We shall also make use of the well-known formula

$$e^{tx}ye^{tx}=\mathrm{Int}(tx)y=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\mathrm{ad}(tx)\right)^ny$$
(3.5)
where $`(\mathrm{ad}(x))^ny=[x,(\mathrm{ad}(x))^{n1}y]`$ and $`(\mathrm{ad}(x))^0y=y`$. The series on the right hand side of (3.5) converges in the usual Euclidean topology of $`𝒢`$.

Finally, for some $`x𝒢`$ and $`gW`$ such that $`e^xgW`$, we have by the convexity of $`W`$, $`e^{tx}gW`$ for $`0t1`$. Thus, by (3.3),

$$e^{tx}g=e^{\alpha _1(t)x_1}e^{\alpha _2(t)x_2}\mathrm{}e^{\alpha _d(t)x_d}$$
(3.6)
where the $`\alpha _i`$ are analytic in $`t`$ as they are simply given by the coordinate functions $`t_i`$ of (3.3) as $`\alpha _i(t)=t_i(e^{tx}g).`$ This yields the identities ,

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _1}{dt}}x_1+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _d}{dt}}\mathrm{Int}(\alpha _1x_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(\alpha _{d1}x_{d1})x_d`$
$`g^1xg`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Int}(\alpha _dx_d)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(\alpha _2x_2)x_1{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _1}{dt}}+\mathrm{}+x_d{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _d}{dt}}`$ (3.7)
### 3.2 $`𝑳\mathbf{(}𝚽\mathbf{)}`$ Analogues

Let us denote the image of $`\mathrm{Int}(x)y`$ under the isomorphism $`T`$ by $`\mathrm{Int}(X)Y`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{Int}(X)YT(\mathrm{Int}(x)y)`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

$$(\mathrm{Int}(tX)Y)\varphi =T(e^{tx}ye^{tx})\varphi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(\mathrm{ad}(tX))^nY\varphi ,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.8)
where $`(\mathrm{ad}(X))^nY\varphi =X(\mathrm{ad}(X))^{n1}Y\varphi (\mathrm{ad}(X))^{n1}YX\varphi `$.

PROOF:
The first equality follows trivially from the above definition and the Lie algebra identity (3.5). What needs to be shown is the convergence of the series in $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and that its limit is $`\mathrm{Int}(tX)Y`$. But this is trivial from (3.5) and the continuity of the mapping $`T:𝒢L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in the strong operator topology of $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Recall that the basis $`\{x_i\}`$ is chosen in $`𝒢`$ so that each $`X_i=T(x_i)`$ integrates to a one parameter group of operators in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Let $`𝒯(t,X_i)`$ be this group. Then, by the continuity of $`X_i`$,

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi =X_i𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi =𝒯(t,X_i)X_i\varphi ,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.9)
Further, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Fréchet space, $`𝒯(t,X_i)`$ is locally equicontinuous, i.e., for any compact interval $`I`$ and any $`n`$, there exists some $`m`$ such that

$$𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi _n\varphi _m,tI,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.10)
The relations (3.9) and (3.10) are among the standard results of the theory of one-parameter groups in locally convex spaces .

###### Proposition 3.2.

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒯(t,X_i)𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi =𝒯(t,X_i)(X_i+X_j)𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi ,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.11)
PROOF:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒯(t,X_i)𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi 𝒯(t,X_i)\left(X_i+X_j\right)𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
$`=\underset{s0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t+s,X_i)𝒯(t+s,X_j)𝒯(t,X_i)𝒯(t,X_j)}{s}}\varphi 𝒯(t,X_i)\left(X_i+X_j\right)𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
$`\underset{s0}{lim}𝒯(t+s,X_i){\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t+s,X_j)𝒯(t,X_j)}{s}}𝒯(t+s,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
$`+\underset{s0}{lim}𝒯(t+s,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi 𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
$`+\underset{s0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t+s,X_i)𝒯(t,X_i)}{s}}𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi 𝒯(t,X_i)X_i𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
$`\underset{s0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t+s,X_j)𝒯(t,X_j)}{s}}X_j𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _m`$
$`+\underset{s0}{lim}𝒯(t+s,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi 𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
$`+\underset{s0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒯(t+s,X_i)𝒯(t,X_i)}{s}}𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi 𝒯(t,X_i)X_i𝒯(t,X_j)\varphi _n`$
The first term in the last inequality follows from the local equicontinuity of $`𝒯`$, (3.10). Since each term on right hand side tends to zero, we have (3.11). Notice that we needed only the local equicontinuity of $`𝒯(t,X_i)`$ but not that of $`𝒯(t,X_j)`$ for (3.11) to hold. $`\mathrm{}`$

Relations (3.8) and (3.11) can be combined to obtain an $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ analogue of the Lie algebra identity (3.5):

###### Proposition 3.3.

For any two basis elements $`X_i`$ and $`X_j`$ of $`T(𝒢)`$, the equality

$$𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\mathrm{ad}(tX_i)\right)^nX_j\varphi $$
(3.12)
holds for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$. The series here is defined as in (3.8) in the strong operator topology.

PROOF:
The proposition is clearly true for $`t=0`$. Next, by the continuity of the linear mapping $`T:𝒢L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, we have

$$\frac{d}{dt}T(e^{tx_i}x_je^{tx_i})\varphi =T\left(\frac{d}{dt}(e^{tx_i}x_je^{tx_i})\right)\varphi =T(e^{tx_i}(\mathrm{ad}(x_i)x_j)e^{tx_i})\varphi $$
(3.13)
But, by (3.5),

$$e^{tx_i}(\mathrm{ad}x_i)x_je^{tx_i}=(\mathrm{ad}x_i)(e^{tx_i}x_je^{tx_i})=(\mathrm{ad}x_i)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(\mathrm{ad}(tx_i))^nx_j$$

Thus, again by the continuity of $`T:𝒢L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$,

$$T\left((\mathrm{ad}(x_i))(e^{tx_i}x_je^{tx_i})\right)\varphi =(\mathrm{ad}X_i)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(\mathrm{ad}(tX_i))^nX_j\varphi $$
(3.14)
Therefore, from (3.8), (3.13), and (3.14), we have

$$\frac{d}{dt}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\mathrm{ad}(tX_i)\right)^nX_j\varphi =(\mathrm{ad}X_i)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}(\mathrm{ad}(tX_i))^nX_j\varphi ,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.15)
Now, from (3.11),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`𝒯(t,X_i)\left(\mathrm{ad}(X_i)X_j\right)𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{ad}(X_i))\left(𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_i)\right)\varphi ,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$
Equalities (3.15) and (LABEL:3.2.18) yield the $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ valued differential equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}u(t)\varphi =(\mathrm{ad}(X_i))u(t)\varphi \varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.17)
where

$$u(t)=𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_i)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\mathrm{ad}(tX_i)\right)^nX_j$$
(3.18)
Thus $`u(0)=0`$. We can employ a technique used in , Equation (12), redefined here with respect to the $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ topology, to show that the solution $`u(t)`$ to (3.17) is identically equal to zero. To that end, consider the function $`v(s)\varphi =𝒯(ts,X_i)u(s)𝒯(t+s,X_i)\varphi `$, where $`u(s)`$ is as in (3.18).

From (3.8) and (3.10), $`u(s)`$ is locally equicontinuous in $`s`$. Hence, by Proposition 3.2,

$$\frac{dv(s)}{ds}\varphi =X_iv(s)\varphi +(\mathrm{ad}X_i)v(s)\varphi +v(s)X_i\varphi =0$$
(3.19)
i.e., $`v(s)`$ is independent of $`s`$. Therefore,

$$u(t)=v(t)=v(0)=𝒯(t,X_i)u(0)𝒯(t,X_i)=0$$

and (3.18) gives (3.12) $`\mathrm{}`$

In summary,

$$𝒯(t,X_i)X_j𝒯(t,X_i)\varphi =(\mathrm{Int}(tX_i)X_j)\varphi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{t^n}{n!}(\mathrm{ad}(X_i))^nX_j\varphi $$
(3.20)
Remark: This equality is similar to Equation (8) of . However, our assumptions as well as proof technique are different.

Further, from (3.4) and (3.7), we also have the $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ valued the Lie algebra identities:

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{dt}}X_1+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{dt_d}{dt}}\mathrm{Int}(t_1X_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(t_{d1}X_{d1})X_d`$
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Int}(t_dX_d)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(t_2X_2)X_1{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{dt}}+\mathrm{}+X_d{\displaystyle \frac{dt_d}{dt}}`$
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _1}{dt}}X_1+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _d}{dt}}\mathrm{Int}(\alpha _1X_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}(\alpha _{d1}X_{d1})X_d`$ (3.21)
All the technical preliminaries are now in place for the proof of Theorem 3.1

### 3.3 Proof of Theorem 3.1

Let $`W`$ be as defined Section 3.1. Then, for any $`gW`$ (i.e., of the form (3.1)) we define an $`L(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ element $`𝒯(g)`$ by

$$𝒯(g)=𝒯(t_1(g),X_1)𝒯(t_2(g),X_2)\mathrm{}𝒯(t_d(g),X_d)$$
(3.22)
Being the composition of finitely many continuous linear operators, $`𝒯(g)`$ is a continuous linear operator. Next, if $`x𝒢`$ is such that $`e^xgW`$, then for $`0t1`$ by way of (3.3) and (3.6),

$`𝒯(e^{tx})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯(t_1(t),X_1)𝒯(t_2(t),X_2)\mathrm{}𝒯(t_d(t),X_d)`$
$`𝒯(e^{tx}g)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯(\alpha _1(t),X_1)𝒯(\alpha _2(t),X_2)\mathrm{}𝒯(\alpha _d(t),X_d)`$ (3.23)
Since each $`𝒯(t,X_i)`$ is locally equicontinuous, repeated applications of Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.3 ((3.20) in particular) on the first equality in (3.23) yield, for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒯\left(e^{tx}\right)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{dt}}X_1+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{dt_d}{dt}}\mathrm{Int}\left(t_1X_1\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}\left(t_{d1}X_{d1}\right)X_d\right)𝒯\left(e^{tx}\right)\varphi `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒯\left(e^{tx}\right)\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`𝒯\left(e^{tx}\right)\left(\mathrm{Int}\left(t_dX_d\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Int}\left(t_2X_2\right)X_1{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{dt}}+\mathrm{}+X_d{\displaystyle \frac{dt_d}{dt}}\right)\varphi `$
Thus, with (3.21), we have, for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒯(e^{tx})\varphi =X𝒯(e^{tx})\varphi =𝒯(e^{tx})X\varphi ,\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.24)
This shows the differentiability of $`𝒯(e^{tx})`$ in the neighborhood $`W`$ of the identity of $`G`$.

The same application on the second equality in (3.23), together with (3.21), gives

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒯(e^{tx}g)\varphi =X𝒯(e^{tx}g)\varphi \varphi \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(3.25)
Next, for $`0st1`$, the vector valued function

$$f(s)\varphi =𝒯(e^{sx})𝒯(e^{(ts)x}g)\varphi $$

can be differentiated, as in (3.11), because $`𝒯(s^{sx})`$ and $`𝒯(e^{(ts)x}g)`$ are both locally equicontinuous in $`s`$. Thus,

$$\frac{d}{ds}f(s)\varphi =X𝒯(e^{sx})𝒯(e^{(ts)x}g)\varphi 𝒯(e^{sx})X𝒯(e^{(ts)x}g)\varphi =0$$
(3.26)
That is, $`f(s)\varphi `$ is independent of $`s`$, and so,

$$f(0)\varphi =𝒯(e^{tx}g)\varphi =f(t)\varphi =𝒯(e^{tx})𝒯(g)\varphi $$
(3.27)
This shows that the mapping $`W𝒯(g)`$ defined by (3.22) is a homomorphism on $`W`$.

Recall that $`G`$ was assumed to be the connected and simply connected Lie group with $`𝒢`$ as its Lie algebra. Thus, an arbitrary element $`g`$ of $`G`$ can be written as a product of finitely many elements of $`W`$. Consequently, the homomorphism $`𝒯:WL(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ given by (3.22) can be extended from $`W`$ to the entire group manifold, and the simply connectedness of $`G`$ assures that this extension is well defined for all $`gG`$. From (3.24) and the analyticity of the multiplication in $`G`$, it follows that the above extension yields a differentiable representation of $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is straightforward to verify, by way of (3.25), that the differential $`d𝒯|_e`$ coincides with the Lie algebra representation given at the outset, $`T`$.
This concludes the proof of Theorem 3.1 $`\mathrm{}`$

As an immediate consequence of the theorem, we have the following corollary:

###### Corollary 3.1.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.1, the dual Lie algebra representation in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, defined by $`T^\times (x)=\left(T(x)\right)^\times ,x𝒢`$, is integrable.

PROOF:
If $`T`$ is integrable to the differentiable representation $`𝒯`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then as defined by (2.55), there exists a differentiable representation $`𝒱`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$. The weak\* differential $`d𝒱`$ of $`𝒱`$ is precisely $`(T(𝒢))^\times `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Example 2.4 led us to the conclusion that not every differentiable Lie group representation in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ comes about as the restriction of a continuous representation of the group in $``$. The following proposition allows us to determine if such is the case for a given differentiable representation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of an RHS.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`𝒢`$ and $`G`$ be as in Theorem 3.1, and let $`𝒯`$ be a differentiable representation of $`G`$ in the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of a rigged Hilbert space $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$. Suppose there exists a basis $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^d`$ for the operator Lie algebra $`T(𝒢)`$ such that each one parameter subgroup $`𝒯(t,X_i)`$ extends to a continuous one parameter subgroup in $``$. Then the differentiable representation $`𝒯`$ extends to a continuous representation of $`G`$ in $``$.

PROOF:
Since the extension of the one parameter subgroup $`𝒯(t,X_i)`$ in $``$ is generated by the $``$-closure $`\overline{X_i}`$ of the generator $`X_i`$, let us denote it by $`𝒯(t,\overline{X_i})`$. Now, for $`gW`$, where $`W`$ is as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, define

$$𝒯_{}(g)\varphi =𝒯(t_1(g),\overline{X_i})\mathrm{}𝒯(t_d(g),\overline{X_d})\varphi \varphi ,gW$$
(3.28)
It is clear that $`𝒯_{}(g)`$ is a continuous linear operator in $``$ for each $`gW`$. Since $`𝒯_{}(g)`$ coincides with $`𝒯(g)`$ of (3.22) on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is dense in $``$, the mapping $`𝒯_{}:W()`$ of (3.28) is a homomorphism on $`W`$. For $`x𝒢`$ such that $`e^{tx}W,0t1`$, we have

$$𝒯_{}(e^{tx})\varphi =𝒯(t_1(t),\overline{X_1})𝒯(t_2(t),\overline{X_2})\mathrm{}𝒯(t_d(t),\overline{X_d})\varphi \varphi $$
(3.29)
which shows that $`𝒯_{}:W()`$ is continuous on $`W`$. As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, the connectedness and simply connectedness of $`G`$ permits a well defined extension of $`𝒯_{}`$ from $`W`$ to the entire $`G`$ to yield a continuous representation of $`G`$ in $``$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In view of Proposition 2.1, $`𝒯`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is then the projective limit of continuous representations of $`G`$ in a scale of Hilbert spaces $`_1_2\mathrm{}`$.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

This paper studies some aspects of differentiable representations of finite dimensional Lie groups in rigged Hilbert spaces. In particular, it is shown (Proposition 2.1) that, for a suitably constructed rigged Hilbert space, such a representation can always be obtained from a continuous representation of the group defined in a Hilbert space. Further, conditions are specified (Theorem 3.1) under which a given Lie algebra representation in a Hilbert space may be integrated to an RHS representation of the corresponding Lie group. It is worthwhile to point out that, in a suitable RHS $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, such integrability may be possible in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ even when the given Hilbert space representation of the Lie algebra is not integrable in the Hilbert space $``$ itself (Proposition 3.4).

Lie groups and Lie algebras play an essential role in many quantum mechanical theories. Building a part of the theoretical framework for handling Lie group and algebra representations in the RHS formulation of quantum mechanics is the primary goal of this paper. In addition, as pointed out in the Introduction, recent applications of the formalism to characterize relativistic resonances and unstable particles involve intricacies of the representations of Lie groups (and subsemigroups thereof) in RHS. In the developments achieved in , the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and therewith the RHS $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^\times `$, is built so that a differentiable representation of the Poincaré semigroup (introduced in Section 1) can be obtained in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from a unitary representation of the Poincaré group in $``$. In particular, these constructions employ Proposition 2.1 to obtain a differentiable representation of the homogeneous Lorentz group in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Further, the construction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is achieved so that the momentum operators $`P_\mu `$ do not generate one parameter groups in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and thus (Theorem 3.1) the differentiable representation of the Poincaré semigroup in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not extend to a representation of the entire Poincaré group. Motivation for the mathematical developments presented in this paper partly comes from the theory of relativistic resonances and unstable particles proposed in .

## Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Erwin Schrödinger Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna, where they were guests while a part of this paper was written. They are also grateful for the financial support from the Welch Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Stochastic Modelling Approach to the Incubation Time of Prionic Diseases

## Abstract

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies like the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in humans are neurodegenerative diseases for which prions are the attributed pathogenic agents. A widely accepted theory assumes that prion replication is due to a direct interaction between the pathologic ($`\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}`$) form and the host encoded ($`\text{PrP}^\text{C}`$) conformation, in a kind of an autocatalytic process. Here we show that the overall features of the incubation time of prion diseases are readily obtained if the prion reaction is described by a simple mean-field model. An analytical expression for the incubation time distribution then follows by associating the rate constant to a stochastic variable log normally distributed. The incubation time distribution is then also shown to be log normal and fits the observed BSE data very well. The basic ideas of the theoretical model are then incorporated in a cellular automata model. The computer simulation results yield the correct BSE incubation time distribution at low densities of the host encoded protein.

The so-called prion diseases comprise a group of fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) like the well known bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and sheep scrapie. In humans, these progressive neurodegenerative diseases include Kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), Gerstmann-Straeussler-Scheinker syndrome (GSS) and fatal familial insomnia (FFI). Common pathology includes spongiform degeneration and characteristic formation of plaques in the brain tissue weissman . Variant CJD correlated with a (BSE)-like prion strain, have been identified and are believed to be linked to the consumption of contaminated food collinge ; will ; bruce ; hill .

The protein-only hypothesis griffith  states that the infectious agent is a protein, named prion prus1 ; prus2 , which is devoid of nucleic acid and capable of replicating itself in the absence of these traditional genetic material. Two conformations of this protein are important for characterizing the disease, namely, the normally folded host-encoded cellular protein called $`\text{PrP}^\text{C}`$ and an abnormal pathogenic conformation named $`\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}`$. The latter form is hydrophobic, has a tendency to form aggregates and may be found in different strains. The pathogenic form $`\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}`$ is more stable than the endogenous cellular form, and is known to be resistant to enzymatic digestion, radiation and high temperatures. One of the most accepted models for prion replication assumes that this form acts as a template for converting the host prion into its own conformation in a kind of an autocatalytic reaction telling ; prus3 . Understanding the dynamics of the $`\text{PrP}^\text{C}\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}`$ transformation is crucial if one is attempting to explain and predict the main stages of the disease. The reaction is complex, perhaps involving other participants possibly acting as chaperone, to help mediate protein folding telling2 . The number of parameters involved for thoroughly describing the transformation process is thus expected to be very large laurent ; eigen . It is therefore important to be able to recognize which ones are mandatory, i.e., responsible for the major aspects of the dynamics.

Here we present a simple, analytically solvable, mean-field model for describing the prion reaction problem, which focuses on realistically reproducing the incubation time of the disease. For notational convenience it is useful to introduce the following definitions: $`A`$ stands for the host protein ($`\text{PrP}^\text{C}`$) and $`B`$ stands for the pathogenic form ($`\text{PrP}^{Sc}`$) with $`a=[A]`$ and $`b=[B]`$ denoting volume concentrations. We then write the autocatalytic conversion reaction simply as

$$A+B\stackrel{K}{}2B$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is the reaction rate. For simplicity we shall assume that the total concentration $`a+b=\rho `$ is kept fixed at all times. This means that there is no metabolic decomposition of $`B`$ and any metabolic decomposition of $`A`$ is immediately compensated by the host genetic system. It also implies that the host takes no action for producing new, normal protein, as the reaction takes place. In order to stick to the simplest possible case we are also assuming that the reaction is unidirectional and favors the most stable form $`\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}.`$ No other strains are supposed to be present and both forms are assumed to be uniformly distributed. The kinetic evolution murray  is then given by $`db/dt=Kab=K(\rho b)b`$ which is the simplest possible nonlinear equation describing an autocatalytic reaction. This equation can be easily integrated up to the time $`T`$ giving

$$T=\frac{1}{K(a_0+b_0)}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{a_0}{b_0}\left(\frac{b(T)}{a_0+b_0b(T)}\right)\right]$$
(2)
with $`b_0`$ being the infection dose given at time $`t=0`$ and $`a_0`$ the initial concentration of $`A`$. According to this expression $`b(t)`$ is slowly varying for small $`t`$, followed by a period of rapid increase in a short time interval, then reaching a plateau for long enough times when the reaction stops nos ; laurent .

We now define the incubation time ($`T_I`$) as the time it takes for the number of pathogenic prions to reach a given value $`b_I`$, i.e., $`b(T_I)=b_I.`$ (It makes no difference to our calculations whether $`b_I`$ represents a number of prions or an aggregate with size $`b_I.`$) A useful approximation can be obtained by assuming, reasonably, that $`b_0/a_0<<1`$. This gives

$$T_I\frac{1}{Ka_0}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{b_I}{b_0}\left(\frac{1}{1+b_I/a_0}\right)\right].$$
(3)
This log-dependence of the incubation time on the initial dose was quantitatively observed by Prusiner prus4  from inoculation of a form of scrapie in hamsters (Fig. 1). Prusiner’s results also indicate that the survival time is practically independent of the dose. Eqn. (3) is consistent with this finding (see also nos ). If we define the time of death as the time it takes for the number of $`B^{}s`$ to reach the value $`b_D`$, i.e., $`b(T_D)=b_D`$, we find that $`T_DT_I`$ does not depend on $`b_0`$. Moreover, eqn. (3) can be easily adapted to fit Prusiner’s data. In order to mimic the end-point titration method used in the experiment, we first define all concentrations relative to the largest experimental concentration which we shall call $`\beta _0.`$ We then write $`b_0/\beta _0=10^{n10}`$ ($`n`$ = $`\mathrm{𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑒}`$) and allow $`n`$ to vary from $`n=0`$ (smallest concentration) to $`n=10`$ (largest concentration). We can now apply regression to the data (using only the integral values for $`n`$) to obtain the best fit. Notice, however, that the experimental curves are composed of two branches, both exhibiting a sudden increase in the inclination for $`n2`$ (see Fig. 1). This behavior seems to be indicative of a threshold, possibly leading to a smaller rate constant at high dilutions. One can simulate a dose dependent activation mechanism linked to the rate constant $`K`$ by making the following “ansatz”: we make $`KK_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ with $`K_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}=K[1a_1/(a_2+\mathrm{exp}(n))]`$. With these implementations, eqn. (3) reads $`T_I=C[\mathrm{ln}10/(Ka_0)]n`$, $`C`$ being a constant (independent of $`b_0`$). The phenomenological constants, estimated with a non-linear least-squares fitting to this equation, with $`K`$ replaced by $`K\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}`$, are $`a_1=0.23(4)`$ ($`0.61(2)`$) and $`a_2=0.51(6)`$ ($`2.1(2)`$) for the incubation (death) curve. The result of the full fitting is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. Notice that $`K_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ rapidly approaches $`K`$ for $`n>2.`$

However, we decided to avoid dealing with the controversial features associated with the region $`n2`$ (containing only two points) and stick to the (larger) less inclined part of the experimental curve. Therefore any parameter obtained from the $`y`$intercepts in Fig. 1 will not be taken into account. The regression coefficient gives $`1/(Ka_0)=3.12(3)`$ days for the incubation part of the curve and $`1/(Ka_0)=3.02(6)`$ days for the death part of the curve. This (partial) fitting is represented by the continuous line in the main part of Fig. 1. We can easily check the reasonableness of these figures. Notice that we could have started with the Michaelis-Menten equation, namely, $`db/dt=K_T[ab/(K_M+a)]`$ with $`K_T`$ and $`K_M`$ being the turnover number and the Michaelis constant respectively eigen . Direct integration of this equation yields

$`K_T\times T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_0+b_0}}[K_M\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{a_0+b_0b(T)}}\right)`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`(K_M+a_0+b_0)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{b(T)}{b_0}}]`$
which is consistent with eqn. (2) for $`K_M>>a_0>>b_0`$ and $`KK_T/K_M.`$ We can therefore estimate the prion $`K_T/K_M`$ ratio for the scrapie strain used by Prusiner in hamsters. If we assume $`a_0`$ nanomole liter-1 laurent ; eigen  we find $`K_T/K_M10^3\mathrm{M}^1\mathrm{s}^1.`$ This value is within the range expected for enzymes, in which case $`K_M`$ lies between 10-7 M to 10-1 M and $`K_T`$ falls in the range from 10 s-1 and 107 s$`^1.`$

Having discussed the behavior of the incubation time on $`b_0`$, we now turn our attention to the dependence of $`T_I`$ on $`a_0`$. The role played by the host prion initial concentration is useful for describing reactions, such as (1), in numerical simulation approaches. The explicit power law dependence of $`T_I`$ on $`a_0`$ can be seen by expanding eqn. (2) in terms of $`b_I/a_0.`$ This gives

$$T_I\frac{1}{Ka_0}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{b_I}{b_0}+\frac{b_I}{a_0}+𝒪\left((\frac{b_I}{a_0})^2\right)\right\}$$
(5)
and therefore $`T_IA_1/a_0+A_2/a_0^2.`$ This kind of behavior, having the form of a sum of monomer and dimer terms, has already been suggested in the literature cox . However, the determination of the explicit dependence of the coefficients $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ on $`b_I`$ and $`b_0`$, as shown here, was only possible because of the simplicity of the model.

The initial concentration of the endogenous PrP protein is determinant for the dynamics of the prion reaction since it represents the reaction fuel. The higher the initial concentration $`a_0`$, the lower the time for the $`\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}`$ concentration to reach the value $`b_I.`$ These results have been obtained through careful computer simulations by Cox et al. cox . They also showed that the incubation time distributions for different $`a_0`$ collapse to a single form if the time scale is properly normalized to unity. Will our simple, minimally parametrized model represented by the basic reaction (1), be able to reproduce such results? In order to address this question, we ran computer simulations based on a cellular automata ($`\mathrm{𝐶𝐴}`$) with rules following a close resemblance to our model.

According to the CA rules, an $`N\times N`$ ($`N=200`$) square lattice is randomly populated with a number ($`N_{A0}`$) of the host $`A=\text{PrP}^\text{C}`$ protein and a number ($`N_{B0}=6`$) of the $`B=\text{PrP}^{\text{Sc}}`$ misfolded protein. $`N_{A0}`$ is given as a small percentage of the total number of sites available and to each of the $`B`$ sites is assigned a “mass” ($`m`$), initially set to unity. The $`A^{}s`$ and $`B^{}s`$ are allowed to diffuse randomly to their nearest neighbor sites and a reaction occurs when a $`B`$ is approached by an $`A`$ at a distance $`d\sqrt{m}.`$ In this case the normal Prion disappears and the misfolded Prion has its mass increased by one. The reaction is unidirectional, favoring $`B`$, with the $`A^{}s`$ slowly disappearing from the system, keeping $`A+B=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡}.`$ One site-by-site sweep through the lattice is made for diffusion followed by another one for reaction. The time unit is then increased by one (arbitrary units). The reaction stops when one of the masses reaches the value $`m=40`$, the corresponding computer time thus characterizing the incubation time. The above values for the parameters (not the CA rules) were adjusted from the numerical simulations of Cox et al. cox  in a hexagonal lattice. The mass is here to mimic clusterization without assigning any geometric form to the cluster. Besides simplifying the computer code and speeding up the simulations, this helps reducing the influence of local topology on the final results.

Fig. 2(a) shows the simulation results for the incubation time distributions for several values of $`N_{A0}`$, with the time scale normalized by the mean time. Notice that as the $`\text{PrP}^\text{C}`$ concentration is decreased, the corresponding distribution converge asymptotically to the experimental results (BSE-infected cattle in UK cox ; stekel ; anderson ) represented by the full circles. Increasing $`N_{A0}`$ makes the system more homogeneous which diminishes fluctuations and narrows the distribution. The biological concentrations (believed to be nanomolar) correspond to an areal concentration around $`N_{A0}^{bio}=0.001\%`$ cox . With the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝐴}`$ rules above, such small concentrations would require very large computing time, if feasible at all. The best agreement is obtained for $`N_{A0}=0.6\%`$ which is far as we could go with these simulations.

Our next issue is to search for an analytical form for the incubation time distribution. Knowledge of such a function is not only important to check the reliability of the model but also to provide a distribution that can be used in statistical studies anderson2 . We need to adapt the deterministic model to accommodate a stochastic variable following a known distribution and associate it with eqn (2) (or (5)). Since the protein-folding process actually involve many steps eigen , possibly chaperone-assisted liautard , the end result of the prionic reaction can adequately be viewed as a series of multiplicative processes. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the distribution of the reaction rate $`K`$ in a population is log normal shlesinger . Since $`K1/T_I`$ it is easy to show that $`T_I`$ also follows a log normal distribution with the same deviation. The scaled distribution $`G(t_I)`$, with $`t_I=T_I/\overline{T}_I`$, is then readily obtained. One finds

$$G(t_I)=\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }}t_I^1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}t_I+(5/2)\sigma ^2}{\sigma }\right)^2\right]$$
(6)
which does not depend neither on the initial variables nor on $`b_I.`$ We are therefore left with a single fitting parameter, namely $`\sigma `$, the standard deviation of $`\mathrm{ln}K.`$ Applying non-linear least squares fitting to Eqn. (6) we get $`\sigma =0.255(\pm 6).`$ The final result is shown in Fig. 2(b). In this Figure the observed data are the same used in reference cox  for BSE-infected cattle in the United Kingdom born in 1987 stekel ; anderson .

In conclusion, a simple mean field model, based on an autocatalytic mechanism, is shown to contain the basic ingredients necessary to describe the essential features associated with the incubation time of the complex prion conversion reactions. Assuming that the rate constant is a random variable, following a log normal distribution, we were able to provide a closed form for the incubation time distribution of BSE-infected cattle. The surprisingly simple analytical expression derived for the incubation time distribution contains only one parameter, namely the variance of the logarithm of the rate constant. The simplicity of the model is characterized by the almost naive differential equation upon which it is based, by simple computer simulations, and by the minimal set of parameters used to describe the autocatalytic process.

J.C.C. and A.S.F acknowledge funding from CNPq (476376/2001-7). J.C.C. is very grateful to Profs. R. J. V. dos Santos and S. B. Cavalcanti for discussions. We particularly acknowledge Prof. M. L. Lyra for fruitful suggestions and careful reading of the manuscript.