text:
# Abstract

### Abstract

A new type of exact solvability is reported. Schrödinger equation is considered in a very large spatial dimension $`D1`$ and its central polynomial potential is allowed to depend on “many” (= $`2q`$) coupling constants. In a search for its bound states possessing an exact and elementary wave functions $`\psi `$ (proportional to a harmonic-oscillator-like polynomial of a freely varying, i.e., not just small, degree $`N`$), the “solvability conditions” are known to form a complicated nonlinear set which requires a purely numerical treatment at a generic choice of $`D`$, $`q`$ and $`N`$. Assuming that $`D`$ is large we discovered and demonstrate that this problem may be completely factorized and acquires an amazingly simple exact solution at all $`N`$ and up to $`q=5`$ at least.

PACS 03.65.Ge

## 1 Introduction

The key motivation of our present study of polynomial oscillators lies in the well known fact that the majority of quantitative predictions in nuclear, atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics must rely on a more or less purely numerical model. The completely non-numerically tractable quantum systems are rare though, at the same time, useful and transparent (cf., e.g., the description of vibrations in molecules mimicked by harmonic oscillator). Polynomial oscillators may be taken, in this setting, as lying somewhere on a borderline between the two regimes.

The first indications of a breakdown of the traditional separation between the numerical and analytic models in quantum mechanics came with the emergence of certain “incompletely analytic” (now we call them quasi-exactly solvable, QES) polynomial oscillator models. Unfortunately, their separate discoveries at the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century  have all been understood and accepted as a mere formal curiosity. As an interesting confirmation of analogies with classical mechanics for the charged and shifted oscillator in two and three dimensions , as a peculiar singularity in a universal continued-fraction algorithm for sextic oscillators , as an exceptional case in the standard infinite-series solution of the corresponding differential Schrödinger equations  etc.

The defining property of the QES models (being solvable just for a part of the complete set of their coupling constants and/or energies) re-acquired a new meaning only after their Lie-algebraic re-interpretation  which revealed their genuine mathematical closeness to the exactly solvable (ES) Hamiltonians . Subsequently, in physics, a multitude of their relationship to the apparently different models has been revealed in a way summarized, e.g., in the detailed Ushveridze’s monograph .

In spite of the unique success of the mathematical QES formulae, a number of difficulties remained connected with their practical applications and applicability. One of the key reasons (and differences from the current ES models) is that the explicit construction of the multiplet QES energies remains purely numerical. Indeed, these values must be computed as roots of an $`N`$dimensional secular determinant so that the difference between the variational, “generic $`N=\mathrm{}`$” rule in Hilbert space seems only marginally simplified by the QES construction of any QES multiplet with $`N1`$.

The main purpose of our present study is related precisely to the latter point. Our idea may be explained, briefly, as an application of perturbative philosophy assuming that the spatial dimension $`D`$ is large. In this spirit we are going to consider a general Magyari’s  QES Hamiltonian $`H^{(q,N)}(D)`$ (at a fixed dimension $`D`$ of the space of coordinates and with a chosen size $`N`$ of its secular determinants, see below for a more detailed explanation). Finally we construct a set of its specific approximations $`H_0^{(q,N)}(\mathrm{})`$ with errors proportional to $`1/D`$.

The exact solvability of the latter Hamiltonians $`H_0^{(q,N)}`$ emerged as an utterly unexpected result of our (originally, fully numerical) calculations. Our presentation of it starts from a concise review of the concepts of exact solvability in section 2. Section 3 will then mention a few specific formal merits of transition to the domain of the large dimensions $`D`$ which simplifies the general Magyari’s secular determinants considerably. The core of our message appears in section 4 where in the domain of $`D1`$, the separate families of the polynomial oscillators (numbered by the integer $`q=1,2`$ and $`3`$) are studied in detail and shown to lead to the closed solutions. Section 5 outlines the possibilities of an extension of these results to $`q=4`$ and $`5`$ while section 6 summarizes and discusses some possible practical consequences.

## 2 Exactly solvable oscillators: A brief review

### 2.1 Harmonic oscillator and the like: All bound states are elementary

One of the most exceptional exactly solvable models in quantum mechanics is the central harmonic oscillator in $`D`$ dimensions. Its so called superintegrability (the term coined by Pavel Winternitz ) makes its partial differential Schrödinger equation

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}m\mathrm{\Omega }^2|\stackrel{}{x}|^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})=\epsilon \mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})$$
(1)
solvable by the separation of variables in several systems of coordinates. The most common cartesian choice may be recommended for the first few lowest spatial dimensions $`D`$ only . In contrast, the separation in spherical system remains equally transparent at any $`D`$ because it reduces eq. (1) to the same ordinary (so called radial) differential equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}+\omega ^2r^2\right]\psi (r)=E\psi (r)$$
(2)
with $`r=|\stackrel{}{x}|(0,\mathrm{})`$, $`E=2m\epsilon /\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\omega =m\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{}>0`$. In this language we have $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_L=L+(D3)/2`$ where $`L=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ . At each $`L`$ the energy levels are numbered by the second integer,

$$E=E_{n,L}=\omega (2n+\mathrm{}_L+3/2),n,L=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
The wave functions with quadratic $`\lambda (r)=\omega r^2/2>0`$ and minimal $`N=n+1`$ in

$$\psi _{n,L}(r)=r^{\mathrm{}+1}e^{\lambda (r)}\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}h_mr^{2m}$$
(4)
are proportional to an $`n`$th Laguerre polynomial . In Hilbert space, their set is complete: This may be explained via oscillation theorems and characterizes the harmonic oscillator as exceptional. In such a setting, one should recollect all the similar (i.e., Coulomb and Morse) exactly solvable potentials, but one need not mention them separately as long as they are formally equivalent to our harmonic oscillator example after a simple change of variables .

### 2.2 Sextic oscillators: Many bound states are elementary

For many phenomenological purposes, even the shifted harmonic oscillator forces $`V^{(HO)}(r)=V^{(HO)}(0)+\omega ^2r^2`$ are not flexible enough. Fortunately, there exists an immediate QES generalization of the harmonic oscillators revealed by Singh et al . Let us summarize briefly this type of solvability as a construction which starts from a replacement of the free constants in $`V^{(HO)}(r)`$ by their polynomial descendants of the first order in $`r^2`$,

$$\omega W(r)=\alpha _0+\alpha _1r^2,V^{(HO)}(0)G_1+G_0r^2=U(r).$$
(5)
After the conventional choice of $`G_1=0`$ this trick gives the general sextic potential

$$V^{(sextic)}(r)=U(r)+r^2W^2(r)=g_0r^2+g_1r^4+g_2r^6$$
(6)
all three couplings of which are simple functions of our initial three parameters and vice versa,

$$g_2=\alpha _1^2>0,g_1=2\alpha _0\alpha _1,g_0=2\alpha _0^2+G_0.$$
(7)
The resulting Schrödinger bound state problem cannot be solved in closed form. Nevertheless, we may postulate the polynomiality of the wave functions $`\psi _{n,L}^{(sextic)}(r)`$ for a finite multiplet (i.e., $`N`$plet) of the wave functions. For this purpose it is necessary to lower the number of the freely variable couplings by the specific constraint

$$G_0=\alpha _0^2\alpha _1(4N+2\mathrm{}+1),N1.$$
(8)
For each$`N`$plet, the polynomial solutions (4) are made exact by the $`N`$dependent QES condition (8). The choice of a WKB-like (i.e., quartic) exponent

$$\lambda (r)=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0r^2+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _1r^4$$
(9)
guarantees their physical normalizability. The ansatz (4) transforms then the differential Schrödinger equation into a linear algebraic definition of the unknown $`N`$plet of coefficients $`h_m`$. An incomplete solution is always obtained for a mere finite set of the levels $`n(n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_{N1})`$. In contrast to the harmonic oscillator, the QES solvability is based on the $`L`$ and $`N`$ dependent constraint (8) so that, generically, the elementary QES multiplet exists in a single partial wave only.

### 2.3 General harmonic-oscillator-like bound states

The explicit energy formula (3) for harmonic oscillator was replaced by an implicit definition in the preceding paragraph which gives the sextic QES energies in the purely numerical form, viz., as zeros of the Singh’s secular determinant of a certain tridiagonal $`N`$ by $`N`$ matrix . In this sense, a very natural further extension of the Singh’s QES construction exists and has been described by Magyari . Its description may start from the more consequent replacement (5), constructed from even polynomials of degree $`2q`$,

$$V^{(q)}(r)=U^{(q)}(r)+r^2[W^{(q)}(r)]^2,U^{(q)}(r)=G_0r^2+G_1r^4+\mathrm{}+G_{q1}r^{2q},$$

$$W^{(q)}(r)=\alpha _0+\alpha _1r^2+\mathrm{}+\alpha _qr^{2q}$$
(10)
This formula re-parametrizes the polynomial

$$V^{[q]}(r)=g_0r^2+g_1r^4+\mathrm{}+g_{2q}r^{4q+2}g_{2q}=\gamma ^2>0$$
(11)
and specifies the one-to-one correspondence between the two sets of couplings,

$$\{g_0,\mathrm{},g_{2q}\}\{G_0,\mathrm{},G_{q1},\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _q\}$$

where $`g_{2q}=\alpha _{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, $`g_{2q1}=g_{2q1}(\alpha _q,\alpha _{q1})=2\alpha _{q1}\alpha _q,\mathrm{}`$ or, in opposite direction, $`\alpha _q=\sqrt{g_{2q}}\gamma >0`$, $`\alpha _{q1}=g_{2q1}/(2\alpha _q)`$ etc.

At a generic $`q=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, equation (9) must be further modified in such a way that $`rW(r)Z^{}(r)`$,

$$\lambda ^{(q)}(r)=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0r^2+\frac{1}{4}\alpha _1r^4+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2q+2}\alpha _qr^{2q+2}.$$
(12)
With $`\alpha _q>0`$, one verifies that

$$\psi ^{(physical)}(r)e^{\lambda ^{(q)}(r)+𝒪(1)},r1$$

which means that the correct bound-state ansatz

$$\psi (r)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}h_n^{(N)}r^{2n+\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\lambda ^{(q)}(r)\right]$$
(13)
converts our radial equation (2) + (11) into an equivalent linear algebraic problem

$$\widehat{Q}^{[N]}\stackrel{}{h}^{(N)}=0.$$
(14)
Its closer inspection reveals that this problem is overcomplete, i.e., its matrix is non-square and asymmetric,

$$\widehat{Q}^{[N]}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}B_0\hfill & C_0\hfill & & & & & \\ A_1^{(1)}\hfill & B_1\hfill & C_1\hfill & & & & \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & & & \\ A_q^{(q)}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & A_q^{(1)}\hfill & B_q\hfill & C_q\hfill & & \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill & & & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \\ & & A_{N2}^{(q)}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & A_{N2}^{(1)}\hfill & B_{N2}\hfill & C_{N2}\hfill \\ & & & A_{N1}^{(q)}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & A_{N1}^{(1)}\hfill & B_{N1}\hfill \\ & & & & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & & & & A_{N+q2}^{(q)}\hfill & A_{N+q2}^{(q1)}\hfill \\ & & & & & & A_{N+q1}^{(q)}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(15)
Its elements depend on the parameters in bilinear manner,

$$\begin{array}{c}C_n=(2n+2)(2n+2\mathrm{}+3),B_n=E\alpha _0(4n+2\mathrm{}+3)\\ A_n^{(1)}=\alpha _1(4n+2\mathrm{}+1)+\alpha _0^2g_0,A_n^{(2)}=\alpha _2(4n+2\mathrm{}1)+2\alpha _0\alpha _1g_1,\\ \mathrm{},\\ A_n^{(q)}=\alpha _q(4n+2\mathrm{}+32q)+\left(\alpha _0\alpha _{q1}+\alpha _1\alpha _{q2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{q1}\alpha _0\right)g_{q1},\\ n=0,1,\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$
(16)
At any fixed and finite dimension $`N=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the non-square system (14) is an over-determined set of $`N+q`$ linear equations for the $`N`$ non-vanishing components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{h}^{(N)}`$.

### 2.4 Changes of variables and an extension of applicability of the harmonic-oscillator-like constructions

At $`q=0`$, equations (15) degenerate back to the recurrences and define the well known harmonic oscillator states. As already mentioned, their additional merit lies in the coincidence of their polynomial part with the current Laguere polynomials.

At $`q=1`$ we return to the sextic model where the ”redundant” last row fixes one of the couplings and where we are left with a diagonalization of an $`N`$ by $`N`$ matrix which defines the $`N`$plet of the real QES energies in principle. In such a setting, an important piece of an additional encouragement results from the well known possibility of a definition of new QES Hamiltonians by a change of variables $`rx`$ and $`\psi (r)x^{const}\varphi (x)`$ in the Schrödinger equation . Even when considered just in the most elementary power-law form, this change is defined by the prescription

$$r^{2j}x^{\delta (k)},\delta (k)=2\frac{j+1}{k}2,k=1,2,\mathrm{},2q+2,$$

and extends the class of the ”interesting” potentials not only in the well known $`q=0`$ case (see the open possibility of a transition to the completely solvable Coulombic potential as mentioned above) but also in the $`q=1`$ model where the following four equivalent potentials may be distinguished and numbered by the above index $`k`$ attached to them as their second superscript,

$$\begin{array}{c}V^{(q=1,k=1)}(r)=ar^2+br^4+r^6\\ V^{(q=1,k=2)}(r)=ar^1+br+r^2\\ V^{(q=1,k=3)}(r)=ar^{4/3}+br^{2/3}+r^{2/3}\\ V^{(q=1,k=4)}(r)=ar^{3/2}+br^1+cr^{1/2}.\end{array}$$
(17)
The situation is more complicated at $`q>1`$. The counting of parameters and equations indicates that unless one broadens the class of potentials, only a very small multiplet of bound states may remain available in closed form . Still, the same elementary change of variables enables us to extend the set of the partially solvable potentials to the six-member family at $`q=2`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}V^{(q=2,k=1)}(r)=ar^2+br^4+cr^6+dr^8+r^{10}\\ V^{(q=2,k=2)}(r)=ar^1+br+cr^2+dr^3+r^4\\ V^{(q=2,k=3)}(r)=ar^{4/3}+br^{2/3}+cr^{2/3}+dr^{4/3}+r^2\\ V^{(q=2,k=4)}(r)=ar^{3/2}+br^1+cr^{1/2}+dr^{1/2}+r\\ V^{(q=2,k=5)}(r)=ar^{8/5}+br^{6/5}+cr^{4/5}+dr^{2/5}+r^{2/5}\\ V^{(q=2,k=6)}(r)=ar^{5/3}+br^{4/3}+cr^1+dr^{2/3}+fr^{1/3}\end{array}$$
(18)
etc (cf., e.g., paper  where the similar lists of the partially solvable potentials have been displayed up to $`q=4`$). In this way, the availability of the exact solutions for all these various forces might offer a new inspiration, say, in some phenomenological considerations and models and/or for their perturbative analyses and some more detailed large$`D`$ calculations.

## 3 Solvability of polynomial oscillators at the large spatial dimensions

Up to now, our attention has been concentrated upon the structure of the QES wave functions. From the point of view of the evaluation of the energies, the main dividing line between the solvable and unsolvable spectra is in fact marked by the distinction between the closed $`q=0`$ formulae and their implicit QES form at $`q=1`$. The transition to the next $`q=2`$ may be perceived as merely technical. At all $`q1`$, the difficulties grow with $`N`$. In such a setting we noticed the emergence of certain simplifications at $`D1`$.

### 3.1 Difficulties arising at $`q1`$

At any $`D`$, the last row in eq. (14) decouples from the rest of the system. At any $`q>1`$ it may treated as a constraint which generalizes eq. (8),

$$g_{q1}=\alpha _q(4n+2\mathrm{}+32q)+\left(\alpha _0\alpha _{q1}+\alpha _1\alpha _{q2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{q1}\alpha _0\right).$$
(19)
The insertion of this explicit definition of the coupling $`g_{q1}`$ simplifies the lowest diagonal in $`\widehat{Q}^{[N]}`$,

$$A_n^{(q)}=4\gamma (N+qn1).$$
(20)
Since $`A_{N+q1}^{(q)}=0`$ we may omit the last line from eq. (15) and drop the ”hat” $`\widehat{}`$ of the diminished matrix $`\widehat{Q}^{[N]}`$. This gives eq. (14) in the more compact form

$$Q^{[N]}\stackrel{}{h}^{(N)}=0$$
(21)
where the size of the non-square matrix $`Q^{[N]}`$ is merely $`(N+q1)`$ by $`N`$. Unfortunately, the new equation is still purely numerical, with an exception of the simplest special case with $`q=0`$ where no coupling is fixed and where the energies themselves are given by the explicit formula (19). At $`q=0`$ also the recurrences for coefficients of the wave functions may be solved in a compact form.

As already mentioned, the $`q=1`$ version of eq. (21) degenerates to the secular equation

$$detQ^{[N]}=0.$$
(22)
This is a purely numerical problem at all the larger $`N5`$. Still, one coupling is fixed by eq. (19) and only the $`N`$plet of energies must be calculated as the real zeros of secular polynomial.

At $`q2`$ the $`q`$ independent (and mutually coupled) $`N`$ by $`N`$ secular determinants must vanish at once . With an auxiliary abbreviation for the energy $`E=g_1`$ this means that at least one of the couplings is always energy-dependent and its value must be determined numerically. In the other words, our non-square matrix $`Q^{[N]}=Q^{[N]}(g_1,g_0,\mathrm{},g_{q2})`$ will annihilate the vector $`\stackrel{}{h}^{(N)}`$ if and only if all its $`q`$ arguments are determined in a deeply nonlinear and self-consistent, mostly purely numerical manner.

### 3.2 Simplifications arising at $`D1`$

For a clear understanding of what happens at $`D1`$, let us pick up the $`q=0`$ model $`V^{[q]}(r)`$ and re-consider its coordinate-dependence in the $`D1`$ regime. We discover a quick growth of the minimum of the effective potential, occuring at a fairly large value of the coordinate $`R=R(D)=[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)/\omega ^2]^{1/4}1`$. Its Taylor expansion

$$\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}+\omega ^2r^2=2\omega ^2R^2+4\omega ^2(rR)^2\frac{4}{R}(rR)^3+\mathrm{}$$
(23)
reveals that the shape of the effective potential is $`R`$ and $`D`$independent. Near the minimum, also the cubic and higher corrections become negligible. This implies that the shifted harmonic oscillations characterize now the local solutions very well. In particular we have the wave functions

$$\psi _0e^{\omega (rR)^2},\psi _1(rR)e^{\omega (rR)^2},\mathrm{},rR$$
(24)
and re-derive also the leading-order degeneracy of the spectrum and its equidistance in the next order,

$$E_0=2\omega ^2R^2+2\omega +\mathrm{},E_1=2\omega ^2R^2+6\omega +\mathrm{},\mathrm{}.$$
(25)
The agreement of this approximate formula with the available exact spectrum (3) is amazing.

Considerations which have led to this agreement may be applied as a guide to the large-$`D`$ description of the low-lying states in any phenomenological input potential well $`V(r)`$. In such a context, a skeptical question is due. Once we have the exact formula, why should we search for its alternative (re-)derivation? The reply will follow from our forthcoming results. We shall see that a qualitatively different new source of $`D1`$ simplification will emerge in all the exactly solvable polynomial $`q<\mathrm{}`$ models.

### 3.3 Magyari equations in the large$`D`$ regime

In the above $`D1`$ construction, little information can be extracted from the wave functions themselves. Although we Taylor-expanded the effective potential, we did not make any use of the information about the wave functions. In this sense, we are now going to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach where the guaranteed polynomiality of the wave functions will play a key role.

In our original differential eq. (2) as well as in all its $`q>0`$ generalizations, the numerical value of the spatial dimension $`D`$ will be assumed large. This will simplify our matrix re-arrangement (21) of this problem with the matrix elements (16) re-written as the linear functions of $`D`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}C_n=(2n+2)(2n+2L+D),B_n=g_1\alpha _0(4n+2L+D),\\ A_n^{(k)}=g_{k1}\alpha _k(4n+2L+D2k)+\left(\alpha _0\alpha _{k1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{k1}\alpha _0\right),\\ k=1,2,\mathrm{},q1,n=0,1,\mathrm{},N+q2.\end{array}$$
(26)
Besides the $`D`$independent $`A_n^{(q)}=A_n^{(q)[0]}`$ which remains unchanged, we shall preserve the dominant components of the matrix elements,

$$C_n^{[0]}=(2n+2)D,B_n^{[0]}=g_1\alpha _0D,A_n^{(k)[0]}=g_{k1}\alpha _kD,k<q.$$

Then we re-scale the coordinates and, hence, coefficients,

$$h_n^{(N)}=p_n/\mu ^n.$$
(27)
By the choice of the parameter $`\mu `$ we are free to achieve that the uppermost and the lowest diagonals are just a re-ordering of each other,

$$\frac{2D}{\mu }=\tau =4\gamma \mu ^q.$$
(28)
This exhausts the freedom and fixes the $`D`$dependence of our scaling,

$$\mu =\mu (D)=\left(\frac{D}{2\gamma }\right)^{1/(q+1)},\tau =\tau (D)=\left(2^{q+2}D^q\gamma \right)^{1/(q+1)}.$$
(29)
The recipe replaces the energies and couplings $`\{g_1,g_0,\mathrm{},g_{q2}\}`$ by the new parameters $`\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_q\}`$ in linear way,

$$g_{k2}=\alpha _{k1}D\frac{\tau }{\mu ^{k1}}s_k,k=1,2,\mathrm{},q.$$
(30)
In the leading-order approximation, our re-scaled Magyari equations read

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}s_1& 1& & & & \\ s_2& s_1& 2& & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ s_q& \mathrm{}& & s_1& N2& \\ N1& s_q& & & s_1& N1\\ & N2& s_q& & \mathrm{}& s_1\\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & 2& s_q& s_{q1}\\ & & & & 1& s_q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N2}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(31)
We shall now study their solutions.

### 3.4 Inspiration: New closed formulae at $`q=0`$

At $`q=0`$, as already mentioned, the energies are unique functions of $`N`$ and do not exhibit any unexpected behaviour. Still, it is instructive to extract the leading-order result for wave functions. The $`q=0`$ version of eq. (31)

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}N1& 1& & & & \\ & N2& 2& & & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & 2& N2& \\ & & & & 1& N1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N2}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0$$
(32)
defines the (up to the normalization, unique) Taylor coefficients

$$p_n=(1)^np_0\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n\end{array}\right).$$
(33)
We may appreciate that they do not carry any round-off error and that the related leading-order wave functions possess the elementary form

$$\psi _{n,L}(r)=r^{\mathrm{}+1}\left(1\frac{r^2}{\mu }\right)^ne^{\lambda r^2},n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$
(34)
At the same time one must be aware that only the leading-order part of (34) is to be compared with the available exact $`D<\mathrm{}`$ result. In particular, the presence of a degenerate nodal zero is an artifact of the zero-order construction. All this experience may serve as a guide to the less transparent $`q>0`$ cases.

## 4 New partially solvable models with $`q1`$, any $`N`$ and large $`D1`$

In the way inspired by eq. (18), one may move beyond $`q=0`$ and $`q=1`$ and transform the decadic forces into their quartic equivalents etc. Paper  may be consulted for details which indicate that the study of any potential $`V(r)`$ which is a polynomial in the powers of the coordinate $`r`$ may be replaced by the study of its present Magyari’s or ”canonical” QES representation $`V^{(q)}(r)`$ at a suitable integer $`q`$. In addition, we shall also restrict our attention to the domain of large $`D`$.

### 4.1 Guide: Sextic QES oscillator with $`q=1`$ and any $`N`$

Starting from the first nontrivial sextic-oscillator potential (6) with $`q=1`$ and with the binding energies re-parametrized in accord with eq. (30) where $`s_1=s`$,

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_1}{\sqrt{g_2}}D+(64g_2)^{1/4}\sqrt{D}s,$$

full attention must be paid to the selfconsistency problem represented by the set of equations (31). At every $`N`$, its first nontrivial $`q=1`$ version

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}s& 1& & & & \\ N1& s& 2& & & \\ & N2& s& 3& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & & 2& s& N1\\ & & & & 1& s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N2}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0$$
(35)
has the form of an asymmetric eigenvalue problem. In standard manner it leads to the secular equation (22) expressible as the following sequence of the polynomial conditions,

$$s^34s=0,N=3,$$

$$s^410s^2+9=0,N=4,$$

$$s^520s^3+64s=0,N=5,$$

etc. By mathematical induction, all the infinite hierarchy of these equations has been recently derived and solved in ref. .

Quite remarkably, all of the real (i.e., “physical”) energy roots $`s=s^{(j)}`$ proved to be equal to integers. Moreover, all of them may be determined by the single and compact formula

$$s=s^{(j)}=N1+2j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(36)
This represented one of the key motivations of our present work, especially when we imagined that also all the related coefficients $`p_n^{(j)}`$ may equally easily be normalized to integers,

$$p_0^{(1)}=1,N=1,$$

$$p_0^{(1)}=p_1^{(1)}=p_0^{(2)}=p_1^{(2)}=1,N=2,$$

$$p_0^{(1)}=p_2^{(1)}=p_0^{(2)}=p_2^{(2)}=p_0^{(3)}=p_2^{(3)}=1,p_1^{(1)}=p_1^{(3)}=2,p_1^{(2)}=0,N=3,$$

etc.

The first result of our subsequent computations using the symbolic manipulation techniques proved equally encouraging since we succeeded in compactification of the set of the above recurrent solutions to the single leading-order form of the related wave functions,

$$\psi ^{(j)}(r)=r^{\mathrm{}+1}\left(1+\frac{r^2}{\mu }\right)^{Nj}\left(1\frac{r^2}{\mu }\right)^{j1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha _0r^2\frac{1}{4}\alpha _1r^4\right),$$

$$j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(37)
A few more comments may be added.

* The large and degenerate nodal zeros in eq. (37) are a mere artifact of the zero-order construction.

+ The apparently interesting exact summability of all the separate $`𝒪(r^2/\mu )`$ error terms is not too relevant, indeed. Although it leads to the zero-order nodes at $`r=𝒪(\sqrt{\mu })=𝒪(D^{1/4})`$, these nodes have no real physical meaning.
* The leading-order perturbative approximation provides a reliable information about the energies.

+ They are asymptotically degenerate, due to the large overall shift of the energy scale as explained in section 3.2.
    + The next-order corrections may be easily obtained by the recipes of the textbook perturbation theory.
    + As long as the coefficients $`p_n`$ are defined in integer arithmetics, the latter strategy gives, by construction, all the above-mentioned energy corrections without any rounding errors in a way outlined in more detail in ref. .

In the other words, we may say that formula (37) may either be truncated to its leading-order form $`\psi ^{(j)}(r)=r^{\mathrm{}+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda ^{(2)}(r)\right)`$ or, better, its full form may be used as a generating function which facilitates the explicit evaluation of the coefficients $`p_n^{(j)}`$. In comparison with the oversimplified harmonic oscillator, the $`q=1`$ wave functions may be characterized by the similar coordinate dependence which becomes spurious (i.e., dependent on the selected normalization) everywhere beyond the perturbatively accessible domain of $`r`$.

At the same time, the energies specified by eq. (36) form and absolutely amazing multiplet. On the background of its existence, a natural question arises whether some similar regularities could also emerge at some of the larger integer indices $`q>1`$. We are now going to demonstrate that in spite of the growth of the technical obstacles in dealing with the corresponding key equation (31), the answer is, definitely, affirmative.

### 4.2 The first generalization: Decadic oscillators with $`q=2`$ and any $`N`$

The decadic anharmonic oscillator exhibits certain solvability features which motivated its deeper study in non-Hermitian context . The changes of variables make this oscillator very closely related to the common quartic problem with a recognized relevance of both its non-Hermitian  and Hermitian  QES constructions.

Paying attention to the $`D1`$ domain and abbreviating the parameters $`s_1=s`$ and $`s_2=t`$ of the respective decadic-oscillator energy and coupling in eq. (30), we arrive at the four-diagonal version of our solvability condition (31) at $`q=2`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}s& 1& & & & & \\ t& s& 2& & & & \\ N1& t& s& 3& & & \\ & N2& t& s& 4& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & & 3& t& s& N1\\ & & & & 2& t& s\\ & & & & & 1& t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N2}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(38)
This is the first really nontrivial equation of the class (31). In order to understand its algebraic structure in more detail, let us first choose the trivial case with $`N=2`$ and imagine that the resulting problem

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}s& 1\\ t& s\\ 1& t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\end{array}\right)=0$$

(with $`p_10`$ due to the definition of $`N`$) may be solved by the determination of the unknown ratio of the wavefunction coefficients $`p_0/p_1=t`$ from the last line, and by the subsequent elimination of $`t=1/s`$ using the first line. The insertion of these two quantities transforms the remaining middle line into the cubic algebraic equation $`s^3=1`$ with the single real root $`s=1`$.

The next equation at $`N=3`$ is still worth mentioning because it shows that the strategy accepted in the previous step is not optimal. Indeed, in

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s& 1& 0\\ t& s& 2\\ 2& t& s\\ 0& 1& t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ p_2\end{array}\right)=0$$
(39)
the same elimination of $`p_1/p_2=t`$ and of $`p_0/p_2=(t^2s)/2`$ from the third line leads to the apparently ugly result

$$\begin{array}{c}st^2s^22t=0,\\ t^33st+4=0.\end{array}$$

Still, one should not feel discouraged, at least for the following two reasons. Firstly, an alternative strategy starting from the elimination of $`p_0`$ and $`p_2`$ leads to the much more symmetric pair of the conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}t^2s^2t+2s=0,\\ s^2t^2s+2t=0\end{array}$$

the respective pre-multiplication of which by $`t`$ and $`s`$ gives the difference $`t^3=s^3`$. This means that $`t=\epsilon s`$ where the three eligible proportionality constants exist such that $`\epsilon ^3=1`$. Thus, our problem degenerates to a quadratic equation with the pair of the real roots $`s=t=s^{(1,2)}`$ such that

$$s^{(1)}=2,s^{(2)}=1.$$

The second reason for optimism is even stronger: The “ugliness” of the results of the elimination may be re-interpreted as an inessential intermediate stage of the solution of eq. (39) for all its four unknowns (we may always put $`p_N=1`$) by the “brute-force” symbolic manipulations on the computer, by the so called technique of Gröbner bases . In particular, at $`N=3`$, the computerized experiment of this type leads to the step-by-step elimination of the redundant unknowns and to the final effective polynomial equation for the single unknown quantity $`s`$,

$$s^67s^38=0.$$

This equation may be verified to possess the same complete set of the real roots as above. One may conclude that the real energies of the “strongly spiked” decadic oscillator are very easily determined even without a detailed specification of an “optimal” elimination pattern.

We see that in general one may expect that eq. (38) may give many unphysical complex roots as well. This is confirmed by the next step with $`N=4`$ leading to the effective polynomial equation

$$s^{10}27s^7+27s^4729s=0.$$

Being tractable by the standard computer software, it results in the set of the mere two real roots again,

$$s^{(1)}=3,s^{(2)}=0,N=4,q=2.$$

It is not difficult to continue along the same path. In general one finds that the $`q=2`$ problem may be reduced to a single polynomial equation with $`\left(\begin{array}{c}N+1\\ 2\end{array}\right)`$ complex roots $`s`$. Still, originally, we were unable to suspect that after all the explicit calculations, all the general physical (i.e., real) spectrum of energies proves to be quite rich and appears described again by the following closed and still almost trivial formula

$$s^{(j)}=N+23j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},j_{max},j_{max}=entier\left[\frac{N+1}{2}\right].$$
(40)
This is our first important conclusion. After one applies the same procedure at the higher and higher dimensions $`N`$, some more advanced symbolic manipulation tricks must be used . Nevertheless, one repeatedly arrives at the confirmation of the $`N`$independent empirical observation (40) and extends it by another rule that at all the values of the dimension $`N`$, there exist only such real roots that $`s^{(j)}=t^{(j)}`$. This means that each ”solvability admitting” real energy $`s`$ requires, purely constructively, the choice of its own ”solvability admitting” real coupling constant $`t`$.

This is our second important result which parallels completely the similar observations made in our preceding paper on the quartic oscillators . Now, a fully open question arises in connection with all the $`q>2`$ versions of eq. (31). Do their real roots $`s,t,\mathrm{}`$ exhibit the similar pattern as emerged at $`q=2`$?

### 4.3 The second generalization: Oscillators with $`q=3`$ and their solvability at any $`N`$

At $`q=3`$ we have to solve the five-diagonal eq. (31),

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}r& 1& & & & & & \\ s& r& 2& & & & & \\ t& s& r& 3& & & & \\ N1& t& s& r& 4& & & \\ & N2& t& s& r& 5& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & & 4& t& s& r& N1\\ & & & & 3& t& s& r\\ & & & & & 2& t& s\\ & & & & & & 1& t\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N2}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0$$
(41)
which may be reduced, by means of the similar symbolic computations as above, to the single polynomial problem

$$t^912t^564t=0$$

at $`N=3`$, to the next similar condition

$$t^{16}68t^{12}442t^850116t^4+50625=0$$

at $`N=4`$, to the conditions of vanishing of the secular polynomial

$$t^{25}260t^{21}+7280t^{17}1039040t^{13}152089600t^9+2030239744t^5+10485760000t$$

at $`N=5`$, or to the perceivably longer equation

$$t^{36}777t^{32}+135716t^{28}17189460t^{24}3513570690t^{20}$$

$$1198527160446t^{16}+103857100871252t^{12}+873415814269404t^8+$$

$$+74500845455535625t^475476916312890625=0$$

at $`N=6`$ etc. These computations represent a difficult technical task but at the end they reveal again a clear pattern in the structure of the secular polynomials as well as in their solutions. One arrives at the similar final closed formulae as above. Now one only deals with more variables so that we need two indices to prescribe the complete classification scheme

$$s=s^{(j)}=N+34j,$$

$$r=r^{(j,k)}=t=t^{(j,k)}=N3+2j+2k,$$
(42)
$$k=1,2,\mathrm{},k_{max}(j),k_{max}(j)=N+22j,$$

$$j=1,2,\mathrm{},j_{max},j_{max}=entier\left[\frac{N+1}{2}\right].$$

We may re-emphasize that all the real roots share the symmetry $`r=t`$ but admit now a different second root $`s`$. The physical meaning of these roots is obvious. Thus, the energies of the oscillations in the polynomial well

$$V^{(q=3,k=1)}(r)=ar^2+br^4+\mathrm{}+gr^{14}$$

will be proportional to the roots $`r^{(j,k)}`$. After the change of variables, the roots $`s^{(j)}`$ will represent energies for the alternative, “charged” polynomial potentials

$$V^{(q=3,k=2)}(r)=\frac{e}{r}+ar+br^2+\mathrm{}+fr^6$$

etc .

## 5 Outlook: QES solutions at $`q4`$ and selected $`N`$

### 5.1 An apparent loss of simplicity at $`q=4`$ and $`N6`$

In our present formulation of the problem (31), we denote the descending diagonals as $`s_m`$ with $`m=1,2,3,4`$ and get the equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}s_1& 1& & \\ s_2& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ s_3& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& N1\\ s_4& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& s_1\\ N1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& s_2\\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& s_3\\ & & 1& s_4\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_0\\ p_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{N1}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(43)
Its systematic solution does not parallel completely the above-described procedures. In fact, the reduction of the problem to the search for the roots of a single polynomial secular equation $`P(x)=0`$ (in the selected auxiliary variable $`x=s_4`$) enables us only to factorize $`P(x)`$ on an extension of the domain of integers,

$$P(x)=\left(x+3\right)\left(2x+1\sqrt{5}\right)\left(2x+1+\sqrt{5}\right)$$

$$\left(2x^23x+3\sqrt{5}x+18\right)\left(2x^23x3\sqrt{5}x+18\right)$$

$$\left(2x^23x\sqrt{5}x+8+2\sqrt{5}\right)\left(2x^23x+\sqrt{5}x+82\sqrt{5}\right)$$

$$\left(x^2+x+\sqrt{5}x+4+\sqrt{5}\right)\left(x^2+x\sqrt{5}x+4\sqrt{5}\right)$$

$$\left(2\sqrt{5}+83x+3\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)\left(2\sqrt{5}+83x3\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)$$

$$\left(2\sqrt{5}+8+7x\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)\left(2\sqrt{5}+8+7x+\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)$$

$$\left(2x^2+2x+3\sqrt{5}\right)\left(2x^2+2x+3+\sqrt{5}\right)$$

$$\left(\sqrt{5}+33x\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)\left(\sqrt{5}+33x+\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)$$

$$\left(2\sqrt{5}+83x+\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right)\left(2\sqrt{5}+83x\sqrt{5}x+2x^2\right).$$

From this lengthy formula it follows that we get

$$s_4^{(1)}=3,s_4^{(2)}=\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}1.618,s_4^{(3)}=\frac{\sqrt{5}1}{2}0.618.$$

There only exist these three real roots $`s_4`$ in this case.

The similar computerized procedure gave us the real roots also at $`N=5`$. Their inspection leads to the conclusion that $`s_2=s_3`$, $`s_1=s_4`$. We did not succeed in an application of our algorithms beyond $`N=5`$ yet. Even the $`N=5`$ version of eq. (43) in its reduction to the condition

$$x^{70}936x^{65}+67116x^{60}95924361x^{55}74979131949x^{50}+8568894879002x^{45}$$

$$\mathrm{}17459472274501870222336x^5+142630535951654322176=0$$

of the vanishing auxiliary polynomial required a fairly long computation for its (still closed and compact) symbolic-manipulation factorization summarized in Table 1.

Marginally, it is worth noticing that the choice of $`q=4`$ is the first instance where the popular cubic polynomial forces may emerge via the change of variables of ref. . For this reason, in particular, the incomplete character of our $`q=4`$ solution might prove challenging in the context of the so called PT symmetric quantum mechanics where the study of cubic oscillators happened to play a particularly significant role .

### 5.2 Simplicity re-gained at $`q=5`$

#### 5.2.1 $`N=6`$

At $`q=5`$ and $`N=6`$ the symbolic manipulations using the Gröbner bases  generate the secular polynomial in $`x=s_5`$ which has the slightly deterring form

$$x^{91}16120x^{85}+49490694x^{79}286066906320x^{73}3553475147614293x^{67}$$

$$\mathrm{}319213100611990814833843025405983064064000000x=0.$$

Fortunately, it proves proportional to the polynomial with the mere equidistant and simple real zeros,

$$P_1^{(6)}(x)=x\left(x^21\right)\left(x^22^2\right)\left(x^23^2\right)\left(x^24^2\right)\left(x^25^2\right).$$

The rest of the secular polynomial is a product of the other two elementary and positive definite polynomial factors

$$P_2^{(6)}(x)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(x^23kx+3k^2\right)\left(x^2+3k^2\right)\left(x^2+3kx+3k^2\right)$$

and

$$P_3^{(6)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{5}{}}\left(x^2kx+k^2\right)\left(x^2+kx+k^2\right),$$

with another positive definite polynomial

$$P_4^{(6)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{12}{}}\left(x^2b_kx+c_k\right)\left(x^2+b_kx+c_k\right)$$

where the structure of the two series of coefficients (see their list in Table 2) is entirely enigmatic.

The subsequent symbolic manipulations reveal a symmetry $`s_2=s_4`$ and $`s_1=s_5`$ of all the real eigenvalues. In the pattern summarized in Table 3, we recognize a clear indication of a return to the transparency of the $`q3`$ results which may be written and manipulated in integer arithmetics.

#### 5.2.2 $`N=7`$

One should note that in spite of its utterly transparent form, the latter result required a fairly long computing time for its derivation. One encounters new technical challenges here, which will require a more appropriate treatment in the future . Indeed, the comparison of the $`N=6`$ secular polynomial equation with its immediate $`N=7`$ descendant

$$x^{127}60071x^{121}+1021190617x^{115}11387407144495x^{109}\mathrm{}+cx10^6=0$$

shows that the last coefficient

$$c=125371220122726667620073789326658415654595883041274311330630729728$$

fills now almost the whole line. This case failed to be tractable by our current computer code and offers the best illustration of the quick growth of the complexity of the $`q5`$ constructions with the growth of the QES dimension parameter $`N`$.

Fortunately, we are still able to keep the trace of the pattern outlined in Tables 2 and 3. Indeed, our new secular polynomial factorizes again in the product of four factors $`P_j(x)`$, $`j=1,2,3,4`$ where only the first one has the real zeros,

$$P_1^{(7)}(x)=P_1^{(6)}(x)\left(x^26^2\right).$$

The further three factors fit the structure of their respective predecessors very well,

$$P_2^{(7)}(x)=P_2^{(6)}(x)\left(x^29x+27\right)\left(x^2+27\right)\left(x^2+9x+27\right)$$

and

$$P_3^{(7)}=P_3^{(6)}\left(x^26x+36\right)\left(x^2+6x+36\right)$$

while

$$P_4^{(7)}=P_4^{(6)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}\left(x^2f_kx+g_k\right)\left(x^2+f_kx+g_k\right).$$

The subscript-dependence of the new coefficients is listed in Table 4.

On the basis of the above factorization we may deduce that the pattern of Table 2 survives, mutatis mutandis, also the transition to $`N=7`$. Indeed, by inspection of Tables 2 and 4 one easily proves that the product function $`P_2(x)P_3(x)P_4(x)`$ has no real zeros and remains positive on the whole real line of $`x`$ again. A full parallel with the $`N=6`$ pattern is achieved and might be conjectured, on this background, for all $`N`$, therefore.

## 6 Summary

Our paper offered new closed solutions of Schrödinger equation with polynomial potentials at the large angular momenta $`\mathrm{}1`$. This type of construction proves well founded and motivated, say, in nuclear physics where, quite naturally, the variational calculations in hyperspherical basis lead to the very large values of $`\mathrm{}=𝒪(10^3)`$ . In such a setting, of course, practically any version of the popular $`1/\mathrm{}`$ perturbation expansion (a compact review may be found, e.g., in papers ) must necessarily lead to a satisfactory numerical performance.

Our present project was more ambitious. We imagined that a rarely mentioned week point of all the above perturbative philosophy lies in the notoriously narrow menu of the necessary zero-order approximants $`H_0`$ . Indeed, in spite of an amazing universality of all the different $`1/\mathrm{}`$ (better known as $`1/N`$) expansion techniques (cf. a small sample of the relevant computational tricks in ), one usually finds and returns to the common harmonic oscillator $`H_0^{(HO)}H^{(q=0)}`$, in spite of the wealth and variability of the underlying physics . For this reason we recently started to study some alternative possibilities offered by the QES models . In our present continuation of this effort, a decisive extension of the results of this type is given.

Our text reveals the existence and describes the construction of certain fairly large multiplets of “exceptional” $`\mathrm{}1`$ bound states for a very broad class of polynomial oscillators. We believe that they might find an immediate application in some phenomenological $`D1`$ models where the enhancement of the flexibility of the models with $`q>1`$ might lead, say, to a more precise fit of the vibrational spectra etc.

From the mathematical point of view, the most innovative and characteristic feature of our new $`D1`$ QES multiplets lies in the existence of the new closed and compact formulae for the QES energies and/or couplings at all $`N`$. For this reason, the corresponding partially solvable polynomial oscillator Hamiltonians $`H_0^{(q,N)}`$ might even be understood as lying somewhere in between the QES and ES classes.

Due to such an exceptional transparency of our constructions of $`H_0^{(q,N)}`$, a facilitated return to the “more realistic” finite spatial dimensions $`D=𝒪(1)`$ might prove tractable by perturbation techniques. Two reasons may be given in favor of such a strategy. First, due to the specific character of our present “unperturbed” spectra and eigenvectors, the perturbation algorithm might be implemented in integer arithmetics (i.e., without rounding errors) in a way outlined, preliminarily, in ref.  at $`q=1`$. Second, the evaluation of the few lowest orders might suffice. This expectation follows from the enhanced flexibility of the available zero-order Hamiltonians. A priori, a better convergence of the corrections will be achieved via a better guarantee of a ”sufficient smallness” of the difference between the realistic Hamiltonian $`H`$ and its available approximant $`H_0`$.

Of course, the detailed practical implementation of the perturbation technique represents an independent task which must be deferred to a separate publication. With encouraging results, the first steps in this direction have already been performed at $`q=2`$ . In parallel, it seems feasible to enlarge further the range of $`q`$ in zero order. Although one has to deal with the fairly complicated symbolic manipulations on the computer beyond $`q=3`$, we still intend to perform a deeper analysis of the problems with $`q4`$ in the nearest future .

### Acknowledgements

M. Z. appreciates the support by the grant Nr. A 1048302 of GA AS CR. The contribution of V. G. and D. Y. was supported in part by the grants 00-15-96691 and 01-01-007 from Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

## Tables

Table 1. Sample of the real roots of eq. (43) ($`q=4`$).

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{N=4}\\ & \\ s_3& s_4\\ & \\ 3& 3\\ (\sqrt{5}+1)/2& (\sqrt{5}+1)/2\\ (\sqrt{5}+1)/2& (\sqrt{5}+1)/2\\ & \\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{N=5}\\ & \\ s_3& s_4\\ & \\ 1& 1\\ 4& 4\\ \sqrt{5}1& \sqrt{5}1\\ \sqrt{5}1& \sqrt{5}1\\ (\sqrt{5}+3)/2& (\sqrt{5}+3)/2\\ (\sqrt{5}+3)/2& (\sqrt{5}+3)/2\\ & \\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{N=6}\\ & \\ s_3& s_4\\ & \\ 0& 0\\ 5& 5\\ \sqrt{5}& \sqrt{5}\\ \sqrt{5}& \sqrt{5}\\ (\sqrt{5}+5)/2& (\sqrt{5}+5)/2\\ (\sqrt{5}+5)/2& (\sqrt{5}+5)/2\\ & \end{array}$$

Table 2. Coefficients $`b_k`$ and $`c_k`$ for $`q=5`$ and $`N=6`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \hfill k& \hfill c_k& \hfill b_k\\ & & \\ \hfill 13& \hfill 7& \hfill 1,4,5\\ \hfill 46& \hfill 13& \hfill 2,5,7\\ \hfill 79& \hfill 19& \hfill 1,7,8\\ \hfill 1012& \hfill 21& \hfill 3,6,9\\ & & \end{array}$$

Table 3. Real roots of eq. (31) at $`q=5`$ and $`N=6`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \hfill s_3& \hfill s_4& \hfill s_5\\ & & \\ \hfill 5& \hfill 5& \hfill 5\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 5& \hfill 3\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 5& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 5& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 5& \hfill 3\\ \hfill 5& \hfill 5& \hfill 5\\ & & \\ \hfill 5& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 1& \hfill 3\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 1& \hfill 3\\ \hfill 5& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ & & \\ \hfill 5& \hfill 2& \hfill 2\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 2& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 4\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 2\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 2\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 2& \hfill 4\\ \hfill 3& \hfill 2& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 5& \hfill 2& \hfill 2\\ & & \end{array}$$

Table 4. Additional coefficients $`f_k`$ and $`g_k`$ at $`q=5`$ and $`N=7`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \hfill k& \hfill f_k& \hfill g_k\\ & & \\ \hfill 13& \hfill 28& \hfill 2,8,10\\ \hfill 46& \hfill 31& \hfill 4,7,11\\ & & \end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# A Product Formula Related to Quantum Zeno Dynamics

## 1 Introduction

The fact that the decay of an unstable system can be slowed down, or even fully stopped in the ideal case, by frequently repeated measurements checking whether the system is still undecayed was noticed first by Beskow and Nilsson \[BN\]. It was only decade later, however, when Misra and Sudarshan \[MS\] caught the imagination of the community by linking the effect to the well-known Zeno aporia about a flying arrow. While at first the subject was rather academical, in recent years the possibility of observing Zeno-type effects experimentally has become real and at present there are scores of physical papers discussing this topic.

On the mathematical side, the first discussion of the continuous observation appeared in \[Fr\]. Two important questions, however, namely the existence of Zeno dynamics and the form of its effective Hamiltonian have been left open both in this paper and later in \[MS\]. The second problem is particularly important when the subspace into which the state of the system is repeatedly reduced has dimension larger than one. A partial answer was given in \[Ex, Sec. 2.4\] where it was shown that the results of Chernoff \[Ch1, Ch2\] allow to determine the generator of the Zeno time evolution naturally through the appropriate quadratic form.

Our interest to the problem was rekindled by a recent paper by Facchi et al. \[FPS\] who studied the important special case when the presence of a particle in a domain of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ is repeatedly ascertained. Using the method of stationary phase the authors showed that the Zeno dynamics describes in this case the free particle confined to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with the hard-wall (Dirichlet) condition at the boundary of the domain. The result cannot be regarded as fully rigorous, because detailed properties of the convergence are not worked out, but the idea is sound without any doubt.

In the present paper we combine the results of \[Ch1, Ch2\] with that of Kato \[Ka2\] to address this question in a general setting. We show that if the natural effective Hamiltonian mentioned above is densely defined — which is a nontrivial assumption — then the Zeno dynamics exists and the said operator is its generator in a topology which includes an averaging over the time variable – cf. Theorem 2.1 for exact statement (a part of the present result given in Corollary 2.3 was announced in \[EI\]). Our conclusion cannot be thus regarded as fully satisfactory from the mathematical point of view, because the natural topology to be used here is given by the norm of the Hilbert space, and in this respect an important part of the problem remains open. We demonstrate, however, the strong convergence in $``$ for the particular case when the projections involved are finite-dimensional – cf. Theorem 2.4. On the other hand, from the physical point of view the result given in Theorem 2.1 is quite plausible taking into account that any real measurement is burdened with errors – see Remark 2.5 below.

We will formulate the theorems together with their corollaries in the next section. Theorem 2.1 will be then proven in Sections 3 and 4, Theorem 2.4 in Section 5. As an example we discuss in the concluding section reduction of a free dynamics to a domain in $`^d`$ by permanent observation. We will establish that the Zeno generator mentioned above is in this case the Dirichlet Laplacian, obtaining thus in a different way the result of the paper \[FPS\].

## 2 The main result

Throughout the paper $`H`$ will be a nonnegative self-adjoint operator in a separable Hilbert space $``$, and $`P`$ will be an orthogonal projection. The nonnegativity assumption is made for convenience; our main result extends easily to any self-adjoint operator $`H`$ bounded from below as well as one bounded from above, i.e. to each semi-bounded self-adjoint operator in $``$.

Consider the quadratic form $`uH^{1/2}Pu^2`$ with form domain $`D[H^{1/2}P]`$. Note that $`H^{1/2}P`$ involved here is a closed operator and $`HP`$ has the same property. Let $`H_P:=(H^{1/2}P)^{}(H^{1/2}P)`$ be the self-adjoint operator associated with this quadratic form. In general, $`H_P`$ may not be densely defined in which case it is a self-adjoint operator in a closed subspace of $``$. More specifically, it is obviously defined and acts nontrivially in a closed subspace $`\mathrm{Ran}P`$ of the closure of the form domain $`D[H^{1/2}P]`$, while in the orthogonal complement $`(\mathrm{Ran}P)^{}`$ it acts as zero.

The quadratic form $`uH^{1/2}Pu^2`$ defined on $`D[H^{1/2}P]`$ is a closed extension of the form $`uPu,HPu`$ defined on $`D[HP]`$, but the former is not in general the closure of the latter. Indeed, if $`H`$ is unbounded, $`D[H]`$ is a proper subspace of $`D[H^{1/2}]`$. Take $`u_0D[H^{1/2}]\backslash D[H]`$ such that the vector $`H^{1/2}u_0`$ is nonzero, and set $`P`$ to be the orthogonal projection onto the one-dimensional subspace spanned by $`u_0`$. Taking into account that $`D[HP]=\{u;PuD[H]\}`$ which $`u_0=Pu_0`$ does not belong to, we find $`HPu=0`$ for $`uD[HP]`$, while $`H^{1/2}Pu_0=H^{1/2}u_00`$ by assumption.

To describe our results, we denote by $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)=L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{}))`$ the Fréchet space of the $``$-valued strongly measurable functions $`v()`$ on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`v()`$ is locally square integrable there, with the topology induced by the semi-norms $`v\left(_0^T_{\mathrm{}}v(t)^2𝑑t\right)^{1/2}`$ for a countable set $`\{T_{\mathrm{}}\}_{\mathrm{}=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of increasing positive numbers accumulating at infinity, $`lim_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}T_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. In a similar way one defines the Fréchet space $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2(;)=L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2()`$.

Our main result can be stated as follows:

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`H`$ be a nonnegative self-adjoint operator on a separable Hilbert space $``$ and $`P`$ an orthogonal projection. Let $`tP(t)`$ be a strongly continuous function whose values are orthogonal projections in $``$, defined in some neighborhood of zero, with $`P(0)=:P`$. Moreover, suppose that $`D[H^{1/2}P(t)]D[H^{1/2}P]`$ and $`lim_{t0}H^{1/2}P(t)v=H^{1/2}Pv`$ holds for $`vD[H^{1/2}P]`$. If the operator $`H_P`$ specified above is densely defined in the whole Hilbert space $``$, then for every $`f`$ and $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$ it holds that

$`[P(1/n)\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)P(1/n)]^nf\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf,`$ (2.1)
$`[P(1/n)\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)]^nf\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf,`$ (2.2)
$`[\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)P(1/n)]^nf\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf,`$ (2.3)
in the topology of $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2(;)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Note that $`H_P`$ differs in general from the operator $`PHP`$, which may not be self-adjoint in $``$, nor even closed, because $`PH`$ is not necessarily closed, though $`HP`$ is. $`H_P`$ is a self-adjoint extension of $`PHP`$. The requirement of the theorem that $`H_P`$ is densely defined in $``$ means nothing else but that the domain $`D[H^{1/2}P]`$ of the quadratic form in question is dense in $``$.

Note also that for $`\epsilon =1`$, the theorem concerns a nonnegative self-adjoint operator $`\epsilon H=H`$, while for $`\epsilon =1`$, we get product formulae for the non-positive self-adjoint operator $`\epsilon H=H`$. Moreover, the result is preserved when $`H`$ is replaced with a shifted operator $`H+cI`$, i.e. for any semi-bounded self-adjoint operator in a separable Hilbert space.

An important particular case, most often met in the applications, concerns the situation when the projection-valued function is constant.

###### Corollary 2.2

Let $`H`$ be a self-adjoint operator bounded from below in a separable Hilbert space $``$ and $`P`$ an orthogonal projection. If the operator $`H_P`$ specified above is densely defined, then for every $`f`$ and $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$ we have in the topology of $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2(;)`$ the limiting relation

$$[P\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)P]^nf\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf$$
(2.4)
for $`n\mathrm{}`$ as well as its nonsymmetric counterparts obtained by setting $`P(1/n)=P`$ in (2.2) and (2.3).

¿From the viewpoint of quantum Zeno effect described in the introduction the optimal result would be a strong convergence on $``$ for a fixed value of the time variable, moreover uniformly on each compact interval in $`t`$. Our Theorem 2.1 implies the following weaker result on pointwise convergence.

###### Corollary 2.3

Under the same hypotheses as in Theorem 2.1, there exist a set $`M`$ of Lebesgue measure zero and a strictly increasing sequence $`\{n^{}\}`$ of positive integers along which we have

$`[P(1/n^{})\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n^{})P(1/n^{})]^n^{}f\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf,`$ (2.5)
$`[P(1/n^{})\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n^{})]^n^{}f\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf,`$ (2.6)
$`[\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n^{})P(1/n^{})]^n^{}f\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf,`$ (2.7)
for every $`f`$, strongly in $``$ for all $`tM`$.

As we have indicated above, one need not resort to subsequences in the particular case when the projections involved are finite-dimensional.

###### Theorem 2.4

In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1, assume that the orthogonal projection $`P`$ as well as $`P(t)`$ is of finite dimension. Then
(i) the formulae (2.1)–(2.3) hold in the norm of $``$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, uniformly on each compact interval of the variable $`t`$ in $`\{0\}`$,
(ii) it also holds for $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$ that as $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$`[P(t/n)\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)P(t/n)]^n\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)P,`$
$`[P(t/n)\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)]^n\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)P,`$
$`[\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)P(t/n)]^n\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)P,`$
strongly on $``$, uniformly on each compact interval in the variable $`t`$.

Before proving Theorems 2.1 and 2.4 and Corollary 2.3 let us comment briefly on several other aspects of the result.

###### Remark 2.5

While the necessity to pick a subsequence makes the pointwise convergence result weaker than desired, let us notice that from the physical point of view the convergence in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2(;)`$ can be regarded as satisfactory. The point is that any actual measurement, in particular that of time, is burdened with errors. Suppose thus we perform the Zeno experiment on numerous copies of the system. The time value in the results will be characterized by a probability distribution $`\varphi :_+_+`$, which is typically a bounded, compactly supported function – in a precisely posed experiment it is sharply peaked, of course. Corollary 2.2 then gives

$$\varphi (t)[P\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH/n)P]^nf\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon tH_P)Pf^2𝑑t0$$
(2.8)
as $`n\mathrm{}`$, in other words, the Zeno dynamics limit is valid after averaging over experimental errors, however small they are.

###### Remark 2.6

While the proof of strong convergence in $``$ in Theorem 2.1 and Corollaries 2.2 and 2.3 remains elusive without the finite-dimension assumption, such a claim can be easily established in the orthogonal complement of the subspace $`P`$. Indeed, taking $`fQ`$, where $`Q:=IP`$, we have

$`(P(1/n)e^{i\epsilon tH/n}P(1/n))^nf`$ $`=`$ $`(P(1/n)e^{i\epsilon tH/n}P(1/n))^nP(1/n)Qf,`$
$`(e^{i\epsilon tH/n}P(1/n))^nf`$ $`=`$ $`(e^{i\epsilon tH/n}P(1/n))^nP(1/n)Qf,`$
which converge to zero, uniformly on each compact $`t`$-interval in $``$, as $`n\mathrm{}`$, because $`P(\tau )\stackrel{s}{}P`$ as $`\tau 0`$. This gives the result for (2.5) and (2.7), while for (2.6) one has to employ in addition the relation (3.11) below.

###### Remark 2.7

The fact that the product formulae require $`H_P`$ to be densely defined is nontrivial. Recall the example of \[Ex, Rem. 2.4.9\] in which $`H`$ is the multiplication operator, $`(H\psi )(x)=x\psi (x)`$ on $`L^2(_+)`$, and $`P`$ is the one-dimensional projection onto the subspace spanned by the vector $`\psi _0:\psi _0(x)=[(\pi /2)(1+x^2)]^{1/2}`$. In this case obviously $`H_P`$ is the zero operator on the domain $`D[H_P]=\{\psi _0\}^{}`$. On the other hand, $`Pe^{itH}P`$ acts on $`\mathrm{Ran}P`$ as multiplication by the function

$$v(t):=e^t\frac{i}{\pi }\left[e^t\overline{\mathrm{Ei}}(t)e^t\mathrm{Ei}(t)\right]=1+\frac{2i}{\pi }t\mathrm{ln}t+𝒪(t),$$

where $`E_i(t)`$ and $`\overline{E}_i(t)`$ are exponential integrals \[AS\]; due to the rapid oscillations of the imaginary part as $`t0`$ a pointwise limit of $`v(t/n)^n`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$ does not exist. Notice also that different limits may be obtained in this example along suitably chosen subsequences $`\{n^{}\}.`$

###### Remark 2.8

In their recent study of Trotter-type formulae involving projections Matolcsi and Shvidkoy \[MaS\] presented two examples in which expressions of the type $`[\mathrm{exp}(iH/n)P]^n`$ do not converge strongly. This result does not answer the question, however, whether the product expressions considered here converge in the strong topology of $``$ or not, because our assumptions are not satisfied there. In the first example of \[MaS\] the analogue of the operator $`H_P`$ is not densely defined, in the second one $`H`$ is not semi-bounded.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 2.1

We present the argument for $`\epsilon =1`$, the case $`\epsilon =1`$ can be treated similarly. We first prove (2.1) in (a), and next (2.2), (2.3) in (b).

(a) Let us begin with the symmetric product case and prove the formula (2.1) with $`\epsilon =1`$. We will check the convergence in (2.1) on an arbitrary compact $`t`$-interval in the closed right half-line $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. The proof for $`t`$-intervals in the closed left half-line $`(\mathrm{},0]`$ is analogous, and in addition, it can be included in the case $`\epsilon =1`$ with the convergence in (2.1) on compact $`t`$-intervals of the closed right half-line $`[0,\mathrm{})`$.

Put $`Q(t):=IP(t)`$ and $`Q:=Q(0)=IP(0)=IP`$, where $`I`$ is the identity operator on $``$. Since $`H`$ is nonnegative by assumption, there exists a spectral measure $`E(d\lambda )`$ on the nonnegative real line such that $`H=_0^{\mathrm{}}\lambda E(d\lambda )`$. For $`\zeta `$ with $`\text{Re}\zeta 0`$ and $`\tau >0`$, we put

$$F(\zeta ,\tau )=P(\tau )e^{\zeta \tau H}P(\tau ),$$
(3.1)
which is a contraction, and

$$S(\zeta ,\tau )=\tau ^1[IF(\zeta ,\tau )]=\tau ^1[IP(\tau )e^{\zeta \tau H}P(\tau )],$$
(3.2)
which exists as a bounded operator on $``$ with $`\text{Re}f,S(\zeta ,\tau )f0`$ for every $`f`$. For definiteness we use here and in the following the physicist convention about the inner product supposing that it is antilinear in the first argument. For a non-zero $`\zeta `$ with $`\text{Re}\zeta 0`$, we put also

$$H(\zeta ):=\zeta ^1[Ie^{\zeta H}].$$
(3.3)
Each element $`v()`$ in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ is an equivalence class such that any two representatives of it are equal a.e. on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. However, at some places we will not avoid an abuse of notation using for a particular representative of such an element the same symbol $`v()`$. At the same time, in the following the convergence of a family of vectors $`v(,\tau )`$ to $`v()`$ in the topology of the space $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)=L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{}))`$ as $`\tau `$ tends to zero will be often written as $`v(t,\tau )v(t)`$; this will be the case when writing $`v(,\tau )v()`$ would require to introduce a separate symbol for this $`v(t,\tau )`$ the meaning of which is clear from the context.

The key ingredient of the proof is the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1

$`(I+S(it,\tau ))^1`$ converges to $`(I+itH_P)^1P`$ as $`\tau 0`$ strongly in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$, in other words, for all $`f`$ and every finite $`T>0`$ we have

$$_0^T(I+S(it,\tau ))^1f(I+itH_P)^1Pf^2𝑑t0,\tau 0.$$
(3.4)
We postpone the proof of Lemma 3.1 to the next section. For the moment we will accept its claim and use it to show that it implies the symmetric case (2.1) of the product formula in Theorem 2.1.

To this end, let $`\{m_n\}`$ be a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers, i.e. a subsequence of the sequence of all positive integers. We have only to show that there exists a subsequence $`\{n^{}\}`$ in any such sequence $`\{m_n\}`$ along which (2.1) holds. Then by a standard argument we can conclude that (2.1) actually holds along the sequence of all positive integers $`n`$. For if this were not the case, there would exist a subsequence $`\{n^{}\}`$ of strictly increasing positive integers along which (2.1) does not converge. However, we see that there is a subsequence $`\{n^{\prime \prime }\}`$ of $`\{n^{}\}`$ along which the convergence takes place to the same limit, which is a contradiction.

Fix $`\{m_n\}`$ and $`f`$. Lemma 3.1 holds, in particular, along the sequence $`\{\tau _n\}`$ with $`\tau _n:=1/m_n`$, and since $`L^2`$ convergence implies pointwise convergence a.e. along a subsequence, there exist a subset $`M_f`$ of Lebesgue measure zero of the variable $`t`$ in $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ and a subsequence $`\{\tau _{f,n}\}`$ of $`\{\tau _n\}`$, both dependent on $`f`$, such that

$$(I+S(it,\tau _{f,n}))^1f(I+itH_P)^1Pf$$

holds strongly in $``$ for $`t[0,\mathrm{})M_f`$. Since $``$ is separable by assumption, we can choose a countable dense subset $`𝒟=\{f_{\mathrm{}}\}_{\mathrm{}=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $``$. Then we infer that for $`f_1𝒟`$ there exist a set $`M_1:=M_{f_1}`$ of Lebesgue measure zero and a subsequence $`\{\tau _{1,n}\}`$ of $`\{\tau _n\}`$ along which $`(I+S(it,\tau _{1,n}))^1f`$ converges to $`(I+itH_P)^1Pf`$ for every $`tM_1`$. Next, for $`f_2𝒟`$ there exist a set $`M_2:=M_{f_2}`$ of Lebesgue measure zero and a subsequence $`\{\tau _{2,n}\}`$ of $`\{\tau _{1,n}\}`$ along which $`(I+S(it,\tau _{2,n}))^1f`$ converges to $`(I+itH_P)^1Pf`$ for every $`tM_2`$. Proceeding in this way, we associate in the $`\mathrm{}`$-th step with $`f_{\mathrm{}}𝒟`$ a set $`M_{\mathrm{}}:=M_f_{\mathrm{}}`$ of Lebesgue measure zero and a subsequence $`\{\tau _{\mathrm{},n}\}`$ of $`\{\tau _{\mathrm{}1,n}\}`$ along which $`(I+S(it,\tau _{\mathrm{},n}))^1f`$ converges to $`(I+itH_P)^1Pf`$ for every $`tM_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Now we put $`\tau _n^{}:=\tau _{n,n}`$ and $`n^{}:=1/\tau _n^{}`$, so that $`\{n^{}\}`$ is a subsequence of the strictly increasing sequence $`\{m_n\}`$ of positive integers from which we have started. Then it follows that for every $`t[0,\mathrm{})_{\mathrm{}=1}^{\mathrm{}}M_{\mathrm{}}`$, the sequence $`\{(I+S(it,\tau _n^{}))^1f\}`$ converges to $`(I+itH_P)^1Pf`$ strongly in $``$ as $`\tau _n^{}0`$ for every $`f𝒟`$, and therefore also in $``$, because both $`(I+S(it,\tau _{\mathrm{},n}))^1`$ and $`(I+itH_P)^1P`$ are bounded operators on $``$ with the norms not exceeding one. We denote $`M:=_{\mathrm{}=1}^{\mathrm{}}M_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is, of course, again a set of Lebesgue measure zero. In this way we have found a subsequence $`\{\tau _n^{}\}`$ of $`\{\tau _n=1/m_n\}`$ and an exceptional subset $`M`$ of $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ such that

$$(I+S(it,\tau _n^{}))^1f=(I+S(it,1/n^{}))^1f(I+itH_P)^1Pf$$
(3.5)
strongly in $``$ as $`\tau _n^{}0`$ or $`n^{}\mathrm{}`$ for every $`f`$ and for each fixed $`tM`$; it is important that $`M`$ is independent of $`f`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

For the sequence $`\{n^{}\}`$ specified above and every $`f`$ we have

$$[P(1/n^{})\mathrm{exp}(itH/n^{})P(1/n^{})]^n^{}fe^{itH_P}Pf$$
(3.6)
as $`n^{}\mathrm{}`$ strongly in $``$ provided $`tM`$.

Notice that this claim is in fact the “symmetric” part of Corollary 2.3.

Proof of Lemma 3.2: We use arguments analogous to those employed in derivation of Chernoff’s theorem – see \[Ch2, Theorem 1.1\], \[Ch1\] and \[Ka1, Thm IX.3.6\]. We divide the proof into two steps referring to $`f`$ belonging to $`P`$ and to its orthogonal complement.

Suppose first that $`fP`$. For $`tM`$ and $`\tau `$ fixed, the operator $`S(it,\tau )`$ generates a strongly continuous semigroup $`\{e^{\theta S(it,\tau )}:\theta 0\}`$ on $``$, and the resolvent convergence (3.5) implies the convergence of the corresponding semigroups \[Ka1, Thm IX.2.16\], so we have

$$e^{\theta S(it,1/n^{})}f\stackrel{s}{}e^{i\theta tH_P}f$$

in $``$ as $`n^{}\mathrm{}`$ for $`tM`$, uniformly on each compact interval of the variable $`\theta 0`$. In particular, choosing $`\theta =1`$ we get for each $`t[0,\mathrm{})M`$

$$e^{S(it,1/n^{})}f\stackrel{s}{}e^{itH_P}f,n^{}\mathrm{}.$$
(3.7)
The same equivalence implies for any $`\lambda 0`$ and $`t[0,\mathrm{})M`$ that

$$(I+\lambda S(it,1/n^{}))^1f\stackrel{s}{}(I+i\lambda tH_P)^1Pf,$$

in particular, using the diagonal trick we obtain

$$\left(I+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n^{}}}S(it,1/n^{})\right)^1f\stackrel{s}{}Pf\mathrm{as}n^{}\mathrm{},$$
(3.8)
for every $`t[0,\mathrm{})M`$. Next we use \[Ch1, Lemma 2\] which gives for any $`g`$ the inequality

$$F(it,1/n^{})^n^{}ge^{n^{}(IF(it,1/n^{}))}g\sqrt{n^{}}(IF(it,1/n^{}))g.$$

Choosing $`g=\left(I+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n^{}}}S(it,1/n^{})\right)^1f`$ we infer that

$`\left[F(it,1/n^{})^n^{}e^{S(it,1/n^{})}\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n^{}}}}S(it,1/n^{})\right)^1f`$
$`\left(I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n^{}}}}S(it,1/n^{})\right)^1ff,`$
where the right-hand side tends to zero as $`n^{}\mathrm{}`$ by (3.8). Using (3.8) once again we get

$$F(it,1/n^{})^n^{}fe^{S(it,1/n^{})}f0.$$
(3.9)
The sought relation (3.6) immediately follows from (3.7) and (3.9), since by (3.1) we have $`F(it,1/n^{})^n^{}=[P(1/n^{})\mathrm{exp}(itH/n^{})P(1/n^{})]^n^{}`$.

The case $`fQ`$ is easier being independent of the arguments preceding Lemma 3.2. We have, along the sequence of all positive integers $`n`$,

$$[P(1/n)\mathrm{exp}(itH/n)P(1/n)]^nf0$$

strongly in $``$ and for each $`t[0,\mathrm{})`$, since $`P(1/n)f=P(1/n)Qf`$ converges by assumption to $`PQf=0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, while $`\mathrm{exp}(itH_P)Pf=0`$.

This yields the sought result because $`\{[P(1/n^{})\mathrm{exp}(itH/n^{})P(1/n^{})]^n^{}\}`$ is a bounded sequence for any $`t0`$ and by Lebesgue dominated-convergence theorem it tends to the expected limit in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$. Using the standard “subsequence” trick mentioned above we have thus shown that Lemma 3.1 implies the symmetric product formula (2.1) of Theorem 2.1.

(b) Let us turn to the non-symmetric product-formula cases, i.e. to prove that (2.1) implies (2.2) and (2.3).

Proof of (2.2): We employ the standard notation, $`[U,S]=USSU`$, for the commutator of bounded operators $`U`$ and $`S`$. First we observe the following fact.

###### Lemma 3.3

It holds that $`[e^{it\tau H},P(\tau )]\stackrel{s}{}0`$ as $`\tau 0`$, uniformly on each compact $`t`$-interval in $``$.

Proof: By (3.3) with $`\zeta =it\tau `$ we have

$$[e^{it\tau H},P(\tau )]=i\left(P(\tau )t\tau H(it\tau )t\tau H(it\tau )P(\tau )\right),$$

and hence for any $`v`$ we can estimate

$$[e^{it\tau H},P(\tau )]vt\tau H(it\tau )v+t\tau H(it\tau )P(\tau )v.$$

We rewrite (3.3) with $`\zeta =it\tau `$ as

$$iH(it\tau )=\frac{I\mathrm{cos}t\tau H}{t\tau }+i\frac{\mathrm{sin}t\tau H}{t\tau }=:B(t\tau )+iA(t\tau ),$$
(3.10)
where $`B(t\tau )`$ and $`A(t\tau )`$ are obviously bounded self-adjoint operators on $``$, and $`B(t\tau )`$ is in addition nonnegative. The definition makes sense if $`t0`$ but we need not exclude this case because what we really need is the operator $`t\tau H(it\tau )`$. For any $`w`$ we get

$`t\tau H(it\tau )w^2`$ $`=`$ $`[t\tau B(t\tau )+it\tau A(t\tau )]w^2`$
$`=`$ $`[(I\mathrm{cos}t\tau H)+i\mathrm{sin}t\tau H]w^2`$
$`=`$ $`w,[(I\mathrm{cos}t\tau H)^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(t\tau H)]w`$
$`=`$ $`4\mathrm{sin}(t\tau H/2)w^20,`$
uniformly on compact $`t`$-intervals in $``$. In this way we have proved the claim, noting that $`P(\tau )\stackrel{s}{}P`$ holds uniformly on each compact $`t`$-interval in $``$ as $`\tau 0`$.

Now we employ the following identity,

$`\left(P(1/n)e^{itH/n}\right)^nv\left(P(1/n)e^{itH/n}P(1/n)\right)^nv`$ (3.11)
$`=\left(P(1/n)e^{itH/n}P(1/n)\right)^{n1}[e^{itH/n},P(1/n)]v,`$
the right-hand side of which converges by Lemma 3.3 to zero for all $`t0`$ and any $`v`$, because $`\left(P(1/n)e^{itH/n}P(1/n)\right)^{n1}`$ is a contraction on $``$, and hence also in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$. This yields the formula (2.2).

Proof of (2.3): In view of the already proven formula (2.1) we have for every $`f`$ and $`T>0`$ the following chain of relations

$`TPf^2`$ $``$ $`lim\; sup{\displaystyle _0^T}(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf^2𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`lim\; sup[{\displaystyle _0^T}P(1/n)(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf^2dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^T}Q(1/n)(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf^2dt]`$
$``$ $`lim\; sup{\displaystyle _0^T}(P(1/n)e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf^2𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}e^{itH_P}Pf^2𝑑t=TPf^2,`$
with the $`lim\; sup`$ taken along $`n\mathrm{}`$, because $`I=P(1/n)+Q(1/n)`$ and $`P(\tau )\stackrel{s}{}P`$ as $`\tau 0`$. It follows that $`_0^TQ(1/n)(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf^2𝑑t0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Thus for any $`v()L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ and every $`T>0`$ we have, again by (2.1),

$`{\displaystyle _0^T}v(t),(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}P(1/n)v(t),(P(1/n)e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf𝑑t`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^T}Q(1/n)v(t),Q(1/n)(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf𝑑t`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^T}v(t),e^{itH_P}Pf𝑑t`$
as $`n\mathrm{}`$. It means that $`\{(e^{itH/n}P(1/n))^nf\}`$ converges to $`e^{itH_P}Pf`$ weakly in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ together with all the seminorms, and therefore the convergence is strong in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$. This yields the formula (2.3).

It remains to prove Lemma 3.1 on which the above arguments were based.

## 4 Proof of Lemma 3.1

To demonstrate (3.4), we shall use the Vitali theorem – see, e.g., \[HP\] – for holomorphic functions and employ arguments analogous to those used in Kato’s paper \[Ka2\] for the self-adjoint Trotter product formula with the form sum of a pair of nonnegative self-adjoint operators. We do it in three steps.

*I.* In the first step we will show the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1

For a fixed $`\zeta =t>0`$,

$$(I+S(t,\tau ))^1\stackrel{s}{}(I+tH_P)^1P\mathrm{as}\tau 0.$$
(4.1)
Proof: The argument will be analogous to that in \[Ka2\], and indeed, validity of the result in the particular case when our projection-valued function is constant is remarked in \[Ka2, Eq. (5.2), p. 194\].

For $`\zeta =t\tau >0`$ we have from (3.3) $`H(t\tau )=(t\tau )^1[Ie^{t\tau H}]`$, which is a bounded, nonnegative and self-adjoint operator on $``$. It allows us to rewrite

$`S(t,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^1[IP(\tau )(It\tau H(t\tau ))P(\tau )]`$
$`=`$ $`\tau ^1Q(\tau )+tP(\tau )H(t\tau )P(\tau ),`$
which is in this case also a bounded and nonnegative self-adjoint operator. To prove (4.1) take any $`f`$ and put $`\widehat{u}(t,\tau ):=(I+S(t,\tau ))^1f`$, so that

$$f=(I+S(t,\tau ))\widehat{u}(t,\tau )=[I+\tau ^1Q(\tau )+tP(\tau )H(t\tau )P(\tau )]\widehat{u}(t,\tau ).$$
(4.2)
Then we have

$$\widehat{u}(t,\tau ),f=\widehat{u}(t,\tau )^2+\tau ^1Q(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )^2+tH(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )^2.$$
(4.3)
Thus the families $`\{\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\},\{\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\}`$ and $`\{t^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\}`$ are all bounded by $`f`$ for all $`t>0`$, uniformly as $`\tau 0`$, and therefore they are weakly compact in $``$. It follows that for each fixed $`t>0`$ there exists a sequence $`\{\tau _n(t)\}`$ with $`\tau _n(t)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, in general dependent on $`t`$, along which these vectors converge weakly in $``$,

$`\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\stackrel{w}{}\widehat{u}(t),\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\stackrel{w}{}g_0(t),`$
$`t^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\stackrel{w}{}h(t),`$ (4.4)
for some vectors $`\widehat{u}(t),g_0(t)`$ and $`h(t)`$ in $``$. Note that the sequence $`\{\tau _n(t)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be chosen the same for all three families.

¿From this result we see first that $`Q(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\stackrel{s}{}0`$ uniformly in $`t>0`$ as $`\tau 0`$, so that we have $`Q\widehat{u}(t)=0`$ or $`\widehat{u}(t)=P\widehat{u}(t)P`$. For every $`vD[H^{1/2}]`$ we have, with the limit taken along $`\{\tau _n(t)\}`$,

$`v,h(t)`$ $`=`$ $`limv,t^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )`$
$`=`$ $`t^{1/2}limH(t\tau )^{1/2}v,P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )=t^{1/2}H^{1/2}v,P\widehat{u}(t),`$
because $`H(t\tau )^{1/2}v\stackrel{s}{}H^{1/2}v`$ as $`\tau 0`$. Hence $`\widehat{u}(t)=P\widehat{u}(t)`$ belongs to $`D[H^{1/2}]`$ and $`h(t)=t^{1/2}H^{1/2}P\widehat{u}(t)`$ because $`D[H^{1/2}]`$ is dense by assumption. Furthermore, multiplying (4.2) by $`\tau ^{1/2}`$ and taking the weak limit along the sequence $`\{\tau _n(t)\}`$ we get $`g_0(t)=0`$. Similarly, multiplying (4.2) by $`P(\tau )`$ we have for every $`vD[H^{1/2}P]`$

$$v,P(\tau )f=v,P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )+t^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )v,t^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau ).$$

Then taking the limit along the sequence $`\{\tau _n(t)\}`$ we get

$$v,Pf=v,P\widehat{u}(t)+t^{1/2}H^{1/2}Pv,h(t),$$

because by spectral theorem

$`H(t\tau )^{1/2}(P(\tau )P)v`$ $`=`$ $`H(t\tau )^{1/2}(I+H)^{1/2}(I+H)^{1/2}(P(\tau )P)v`$
$``$ $`(I+H)^{1/2}(P(\tau )P)v,`$
which tends to zero since $`P(\tau )\stackrel{s}{}P`$ as $`\tau 0`$, $`D[H^{1/2}P(\tau )]D[H^{1/2}P]`$ and $`H^{1/2}P(\tau )vH^{1/2}Pv`$ for $`vD[H^{1/2}P]`$ by assumption<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This part of the proof shows that the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1 can be slightly weakened, because we need in fact only that $`slim_{\tau 0}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )v=H^{1/2}Pv`$ holds for any $`vD[H^{1/2}P]`$.. Hence $`H^{1/2}P\widehat{u}(t)D[H^{1/2}P]`$ and

$`Pf`$ $`=`$ $`P\widehat{u}(t)+t^{1/2}(H^{1/2}P)^{}h(t)=\widehat{u}(t)+t(H^{1/2}P)^{}(H^{1/2}P)\widehat{u}(t)`$ (4.5)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{u}(t)+tH_P\widehat{u}(t),`$
because $`D[H^{1/2}P]`$ is supposed to be dense. Applying once again the standard argument mentioned after Lemma 3.1 to all the three families we conclude that the weak convergence in (4) takes place independently of a sequence $`\{\tau _n(t)\}`$ chosen.

On the other hand, we infer from (4.3) that

$`\widehat{u}(t),f`$ $``$ $`lim\; inf\widehat{u}(t,\tau )^2+lim\; inf\tau ^1Q(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )^2`$
$`+lim\; inft^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )^2`$
$``$ $`\widehat{u}(t)^2+g_0(t)^2+h(t)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{u}(t)^2+t^{1/2}H^{1/2}P\widehat{u}(t)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{u}(t)^2+tH_P^{1/2}\widehat{u}(t)^2`$
with $`lim\; inf`$ taken along $`\tau 0`$. Since by (4.5) the left-hand side of the above inequality is equal to

$$\widehat{u}(t),f=\widehat{u}(t),Pf=\widehat{u}(t)^2+t\widehat{u}(t),H_P\widehat{u}(t)=\widehat{u}(t)^2+tH_P^{1/2}\widehat{u}(t)^2,$$

we see that the norms of these vectors converge to the norms of their limit vectors. It allows us to conclude that the $``$-valued families in question, $`\{\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\},\{\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\}`$ and $`\{t^{1/2}H(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\}`$ converge to $`\widehat{u}(t)`$, $`0`$ and $`t^{1/2}H^{1/2}P\widehat{u}(t)`$ strongly in $``$, respectively, as $`\tau 0`$. In particular, we have shown that $`Pf=(I+tH_P)\widehat{u}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{u}(t,\tau )\stackrel{s}{}\widehat{u}(t)=(I+tH_P)^1Pf`$, or (4.1). This proves Lemma 4.1.

*II.* Next, for a fixed $`\tau >0`$, the function $`\zeta F(\zeta ,\tau )`$ is holomorphic in the open right half-plane $`\text{Re}\zeta >0`$ and uniformly bounded in norm by one. This makes it possible to mimick the argument of Feldman \[Fe\], which is reproduced in Chernoff’s book \[Ch2, p. 90\], see also \[Fr\], to conclude by means of the Vitali theorem (see, e.g., \[HP, Thm 3.14.1\]) that for $`\text{Re}\zeta >0`$

$$(I+S(\zeta ,\tau ))^1\stackrel{s}{}(I+\zeta H_P)^1P\mathrm{as}\tau 0$$
(4.6)
holds uniformly on compact subsets of $`\text{Re}\zeta >0`$.

At the boundary $`\text{Re}\zeta =0`$, or $`\zeta =it`$ with $`t`$ real, $`(I+S(\zeta ,\tau ))^1`$ still converges as $`\tau 0`$ but in a weaker sense only. Using the argument of \[Fe\] based on the Poisson kernel, we can check that for each pair of $`f,g`$ and all $`\varphi L^1()`$ the following relation is valid,

$$s\underset{\tau 0}{lim}_{}\varphi (t)g,(I+S(it,\tau ))^1f𝑑t=_{}\varphi (t)g,(I+itH_P)^1Pf𝑑t.$$
(4.7)
This says that for each pair of $`f,g`$ the family $`\{g,(I+S(it,\tau ))^1f\}`$ of functions of $`t`$ in $`L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ converges to $`g,(I+itH_P)^1Pf`$ as $`\tau 0`$ weakly, or equivalently, in the weak topology defined by the dual pairing between $`L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ and $`L^1()`$ – see, e.g., \[Kö\].

*III.* Now we shall show the family of the bounded operators $`\{(I+S(it,\tau ))^1\}`$ is weakly convergent in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$, and in fact, strongly convergent there too. To do so, we will employ an argument analogous to that used in the proof of Lemma 4.1 on the Hilbert space $``$, however, this time on the Fréchet space $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$.

Using the decomposition (3.10) with $`t0`$, we find (cf. \[Ich\])

$`S(it,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^1[IP(\tau )(Iit\tau H(it\tau ))P(\tau )]`$
$`=`$ $`\tau ^1Q(\tau )+tP(\tau )(B(t\tau )+iA(t\tau ))P(\tau ).`$
To prove (3.4), take any $`f`$ and put $`u(t,\tau ):=(I+S(it,\tau ))^1f.`$ Note that this $`u(t,\tau )`$ represents an element in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ as well as its unique representative in $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, because $`u(t,\tau )`$ is strongly continuous at this interval as a function of $`t`$. Then

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`(I+S(it,\tau ))u(t,\tau )`$
$`=`$ $`[I+\tau ^1Q(\tau )+tP(\tau )(B(t\tau )+iA(t\tau ))P(\tau )]u(t,\tau ),`$
so we have

$`u(t,\tau ),f`$ $`=`$ $`u(t,\tau ),(I+S(it,\tau ))u(t,\tau )`$ (4.9)
$`=`$ $`u(t,\tau )^2+\tau ^1Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )^2+tB(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )^2`$
$`+itP(\tau )u(t,\tau ),A(t\tau )P(\tau )u(t,\tau ).`$
Observing the real part of (4.9) we see that for $`\tau `$ small enough, each of the $``$-valued families $`\{u(t,\tau )\}`$, $`\{\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )\}`$ and $`\{t^{1/2}B(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )\}`$ is bounded by $`f`$ for all $`t>0`$. Moreover, they are strongly continuous in $`t`$ for fixed $`\tau >0`$, and locally bounded as $``$-valued functions of $`t`$ in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$, uniformly as $`\tau 0`$.

Hence we infer first of all that $`Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )\stackrel{s}{}0`$, uniformly in $`t(0,\mathrm{})`$, as $`\tau 0`$. Next, since $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ is reflexive \[GV, Chap. 1, Sec. 3.1, pp. 57-62\], any bounded set in it is weakly compact \[Kö, Sec. 23.5, pp. 302-304\]. Consequently, there is a sequence $`\{\tau _n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\tau _n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ along which the above families are weakly convergent in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$:

$`u(t,\tau )\stackrel{w}{}u(t),\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )\stackrel{w}{}f_0(t),`$
$`t^{1/2}B(t,\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )\stackrel{w}{}z(t),`$ (4.10)
with some vectors $`u(),f_0()`$ and $`z()L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$. Note that as before the sequence $`\{\tau _n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be chosen the same for all three families.

###### Lemma 4.2

These above mentioned vectors have the following properties,

$$u(t)=Pu(t)P\text{for a.e.}t,z()=0,f_0()=0.$$

Proof: For $`B(t\tau )`$ and $`A(t\tau )`$ in (3.10), the spectral theorem gives

$`(B(t\tau )^{1/2}v^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}t\tau \lambda }{t\tau \lambda }}\right|E(d\lambda )H^{1/2}v^20,vD[H^{1/2}];`$
$`(B(t\tau )v^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}t\tau \lambda }{t\tau \lambda }}\right|^2E(d\lambda )Hv^20,vD[H]`$ (4.11)
as $`\tau 0`$ by the Lebesgue dominated-convergence theorem.

Since $`Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )\stackrel{s}{}0`$ uniformly in $`t(0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`Q(\tau )\stackrel{s}{}Q`$ as $`\tau 0`$, we have $`Qu(t)=0`$, or in other words $`u(t)=Pu(t)P`$ for a.e. $`t`$. Moreover, by (4.11) we infer that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi (t)v,z(t)𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`lim{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi (t)v,t^{1/2}B(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`lim{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\overline{\varphi }(t)t^{1/2}B(t\tau )^{1/2}v,P(\tau )u(t,\tau )𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\overline{\varphi }(t)0,Pu(t)𝑑t=0`$
holds for every $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}))`$ and $`vD[H^{1/2}]`$, hence $`z(t)=0`$ a.e. because $`D[H^{1/2}]`$ is dense in $``$, so that $`z()`$ is the zero element of $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$. Finally, the relation $`f_0()=0`$ follows from (4) which implies $`\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )f=\tau ^{1/2}(1+\tau ^1)Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )`$, yielding the result; this concludes the proof.

Our next aim is to show that the weak limits in (4.10) do not depend upon a sequence chosen. The $`u(,\tau _n)=(I+S(it,\tau _n))^1f`$ converge to $`u=u()`$ weakly in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. It obviously implies that for all $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}([0,\mathrm{}))`$ and for every $`g`$ we have

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\varphi (t)g,(I+S(it,\tau ))^1f𝑑t_0^{\mathrm{}}\varphi (t)g,u(t)𝑑t,$$

again along the sequence $`\{\tau _n\}`$. It follows from (4.7) that

$$u(t)=(I+itH_P)^1Pf,\text{for}\text{a.e.}t\text{in}[0,\mathrm{}),$$
(4.12)
because the set of all such $`\overline{\varphi }()g`$ is total in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$. This shows that for every $`f`$, $`(I+S(it,\tau _n))^1f`$ converges to $`(I+itH_P)^1Pf`$ weakly in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Together with the fact that $`z()=0,f_0()=0`$ in view of Lemma 4.2, this yields the desired property, namely that the weak limits of (4.10) are independent of the particular subsequence $`\{\tau _n\}`$ chosen. The standard argument sketched below Lemma 3.1 shows that (4.10) holds as $`\tau 0`$ without any restriction on subsequences.

Finally, we are going to check the strong convergence $`u(,\tau )\stackrel{s}{}u()`$ in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ as $`\tau 0`$. In fact, we will prove two other limiting relations at the same time.

###### Lemma 4.3

In the topology of $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$, the family $`\{u(,\tau )\}`$ converges to the vector $`u=u()`$ as $`\tau 0`$, and moreover,

$`\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )f_0(t)=0,`$
$`t^{1/2}B(t,\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )z(t)=0.`$
Proof: In the above reasoning we have already checked the weak convergence in (4.10) as $`\tau 0`$. Integrating the real part of (4.9) in $`t`$ over the interval $`[0,T]`$ for any fixed $`T>0`$ and taking $`lim\; inf`$ as $`\tau 0`$, we get by Lemma 4.2

$`\text{Re}{\displaystyle _0^T}u(t),f𝑑t`$ $``$ $`lim\; inf{\displaystyle _0^T}u(t,\tau )^2𝑑t`$
$`+lim\; inf{\displaystyle _0^T}\tau ^1Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )^2𝑑t`$
$`+lim\; inf{\displaystyle _0^T}t^{1/2}B(t\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )^2𝑑t`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}u(t)^2𝑑t+{\displaystyle _0^T}f_0(t)^2𝑑t+{\displaystyle _0^T}z(t)^2𝑑t`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}u(t)^2𝑑t.`$
On the other hand, the left-hand side of the above inequality is by (4.12) equal to

$$\text{Re}_0^Tu(t),f𝑑t=\text{Re}_0^Tu(t),(I+itH_P)u(t)𝑑t=_0^Tu(t)^2𝑑t.$$

Hence we conclude that all the Fréchet-space semi-norms of the vectors $`u(t,\tau )`$, $`\tau ^{1/2}Q(\tau )u(t,\tau )`$ and $`t^{1/2}B(t,\tau )^{1/2}P(\tau )u(t,\tau )`$ converge to the semi-norms of the weak-limit vectors $`u(t),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`0`$, respectively, as $`\tau 0`$. Thus the convergence is strong with respect to each semi-norm, and since their family induces the topology in $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2([0,\mathrm{});)`$ the lemma is proved.

This completes the proof of Lemma 3.1, and by that the verification of our main result, Theorem 2.1.

## 5 The finite-dimensional case

In this section, we will prove Theorem 2.4 in which we assume that $`P`$ and $`P(t)`$ are finite-dimensional orthogonal projections. Since the closed operator $`H^{1/2}P`$ is supposed to be densely defined, the domain $`D[H^{1/2}P]`$ of $`H^{1/2}P`$ becomes the whole space $``$, for the restriction $`H^{1/2}P|_P`$ of the operator $`H^{1/2}P`$ to the finite-dimensional subspace $`P`$ is densely defined, so its domain must coincide with $`P`$, and it acts as zero on $`Q`$. The same is valid for $`H^{1/2}P(t)`$ when $`P(t)`$ is of a finite dimension. As a result, $`H^{1/2}P`$ and $`H_P=(H^{1/2}P)^{}(H^{1/2}P)`$ as well as $`H^{1/2}P(t)`$ are bounded operators on $``$ by the closed-graph theorem. By the assumptions common with Theorem 2.1, for each fixed $`fD[H^{1/2}P]=`$ the family $`\{H^{1/2}P(t)f\}`$ converges to $`H^{1/2}Pf`$ as $`t0`$, and hence is uniformly bounded with respect to $`t`$ near to zero, say, for $`1t1`$. Then by the uniform boundedness principle we can conclude that $`sup_{|t|1}H^{1/2}P(t)<\mathrm{}`$.

To prove the assertions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.4 simultaneously, take a fixed $`a`$ and consider instead of $`F(\zeta ,\tau ),S(\zeta ,\tau )`$ defined by (3.1) and (3.2), respectively, the following operators

$$F_a(\zeta ,\tau ):=P(a\tau )\mathrm{exp}(\zeta \tau H)P(a\tau ),S_a(\zeta ,\tau ):=\tau ^1[IF_a(\zeta ,\tau )].$$

In fact, we shall employ $`F_a(it,\tau ),S_a(it,\tau )`$ instead of $`F(it,\tau ),S(it,\tau )`$ in the proof of Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.1. Similarly $`u(t,\tau )`$ used above will be replaced by $`u_a(t,\tau )=(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1f`$ corresponding to a given $`f`$.

###### Lemma 5.1

For any $`t,t^{}0`$ and $`0<\tau 1`$ we have

$$u_a(t,\tau )u_a(t^{},\tau )C(a)|tt^{}|f$$

with a positive $`C(a)`$ independent of $`t,t^{}`$, which is uniformly bounded as a function of $`a`$ on each compact interval of $``$.

*Proof:* By the resolvent equation we have

$`u_a(t,\tau )u_a(t^{},\tau )`$
$`=(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1f(I+S_a(it^{},\tau ))^1f`$
$`=(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1P(a\tau )\tau ^1[e^{it\tau H}e^{it^{}\tau H}]P(a\tau )(I+S_a(it^{},\tau ))^1f`$
$`=(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1P(a\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}e^{is\tau H}𝑑sP(a\tau )(I+S_a(it^{},\tau ))^1f`$
$`=i(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1P(a\tau ){\displaystyle _t^{}^t}He^{is\tau H}𝑑sP(a\tau )(I+S_a(it^{},\tau ))^1f`$
$`=i(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1(H^{1/2}P(a\tau ))^{}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _t^{}^t}e^{is\tau H}ds(H^{1/2}P(a\tau ))(I+S_a(it^{},\tau ))^1f.`$
At the beginning of this section we have argued that the operators $`H^{1/2}P(a\tau )`$ are uniformly bounded on $``$ for $`0<\tau 1`$. It follows that

$$u_a(t,\tau )u_a(t^{},\tau )C(a)|tt^{}|f$$

with $`C(a):=sup_{|a\tau |1}H^{1/2}P(a\tau )^2`$. By the argument preceding the lemma the function $`C()`$ is uniformly bounded on each compact $`a`$-interval in $``$; this yields the claim.

*Proof of Theorem 2.4:* It follows from the lemma that the vector family $`\{u_a(t,\tau )\}`$, continuous in $``$, is uniformly bounded and equicontinuous. Hence we may infer by the Ascoli–Arzelà theorem that the sequence $`\{\tau _n\}`$ used in part III of the proof of Lemma 3.1 can chosen to have an additional property, namely that the sequence $`\{u_a(t,\tau _n)\}`$ converges strongly to $`u(t)`$ also pointwise, uniformly on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Then the limit $`u(t)`$ becomes strongly continuous in $`t0`$, and coincides with $`(I+itH_P)^1f`$ for all $`t0`$. Thus we have instead of Lemma 3.1 the following claim:

$$(I+S_a(it,\tau ))^1(I+itH_P)^1P$$
(5.1)
as $`\tau 0`$, strongly on $``$ and uniformly on each compact interval of the variable $`t`$ in $`[0,\mathrm{})`$.

Next we will modify the reasoning of Sec. 3 based on \[Ch2, Theorem 1.1\] with the aim to show the symmetric product case,

$$[P(at/n)\mathrm{exp}(itH/n)P(at/n)]^n\stackrel{s}{}\mathrm{exp}(itH_P)P,n\mathrm{}.$$
(5.2)
Let $`f`$. The resolvent convergence (5.1) with $`t=1`$ implies the convergence of the corresponding semigroups, so we have

$$e^{\theta S_a(i,\tau )}f\stackrel{s}{}e^{i\theta H_P}f$$
(5.3)
in $``$ as $`\tau 0`$, uniformly on each compact interval of the variable $`\theta 0`$. Using this equivalence once more we get for any $`\lambda 0`$ the relation

$$(I+\lambda S_a(i,\tau ))^1f\stackrel{s}{}(I+i\lambda H_P)^1Pf,\tau 0.$$

In particular, taking $`\tau =\theta /n`$ and using the diagonal trick, we infer that

$$(I+\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{n}}S_a(i,\theta /n))^1f\stackrel{s}{}Pf,n\mathrm{},$$
(5.4)
holds uniformly on each compact $`\theta `$-interval in $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Then the mentioned lemma from \[Ch1\] yields

$$F_a(i,\theta /n)^nge^{n(IF_a(i,\theta /n))}g\sqrt{n}(IF_a(i,\theta /n))g.$$

Choosing again $`g=\left(I+\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{n}}S_a(i,\theta /n)\right)^1f`$ we find that

$`\left[F_a(i,\theta /n)^ne^{\theta S_a(i,\theta /n)}\right]\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\sqrt{n}}}S_a(i,\theta /n)\right)^1f`$
$`\left(I+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\sqrt{n}}}S_a(i,\theta /n)\right)^1ff,`$
where the right-hand side tends to zero as $`n\mathrm{}`$ by (5.4). Using the last named convergence once more we get

$$F_a(i,\theta /n)^nfe^{\theta S_a(i,\theta /n)}f0$$
(5.5)
uniformly on each compact $`\theta `$-interval in $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Choosing now $`\theta =t`$ we see that the validity of (5.2) on $`P`$ follows immediately from (5.3) and (5.5). Consequently, on the subspace $`P`$ the assertion (i) is obtained by taking $`a=1/t`$ for any $`t`$ belonging to a compact interval in $`\{0\}`$ and (ii) by choosing simply $`a=1`$.

The case $`fQ`$ can be treated as in the proof of Lemma 3.2; together this yields the relation (5.2) on $``$, i.e. the symmetric product case. The non-symmetric product cases can also be checked with the help of Lemma 3.3 – cf. part (b) of the proof of Theorem 2.1 in Section 3. This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.4.

## 6 An example

As we have said, our investigation was motivated by the result by Facchi et al. \[FPS\] mentioned in the introduction. Let us thus look how the result looks in this case. To see this, consider an open domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^d`$ with a smooth boundary, and denote by $`P`$ the orthogonal projection on $`L^2(^d)`$ defined as the multiplication operator by the indicator function $`\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Consider further the free quantum Hamiltonian $`H:=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e. the Laplacian in $`^d`$ which is a nonnegative self-adjoint operator in $`L^2(^d)`$, and the Dirichlet Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ defined in the usual way \[RS, Sec. XIII.15\] as the Friedrichs extension of the appropriate quadratic form.

We consider the Zeno dynamics in the subspace $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ corresponding to a permanent reduction of the wavefunction to the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which may be identified with the volume of a detector. In the sense of the $`L_{\mathrm{loc}}^2(;L^2(^d))`$ topology, which is physically plausible as explained in Remark 2.5, we then claim that the generator of the dynamics in $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is just the appropriate Dirichlet Laplacian,

$$(Pe^{it(\mathrm{\Delta }/n)}P)^ne^{it(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega })}P$$
(6.1)
as $`n\mathrm{}`$, or in other words:

###### Proposition 6.1

The self-adjoint operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_P=((\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}P)^{}((\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}P)$$
(6.2)
is densely defined in $`L^2(^d)`$ and its restriction to the subspace $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is nothing but the Dirichlet Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with the domain $`D[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }]=W_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })W^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Proof: Let $`uD[\mathrm{\Delta }_P]`$, so that $`u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Pu`$ belong to $`L^2(^d)`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_Pu,\phi =u,\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\mathrm{\Delta }u,\phi ,$$

for any $`\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ because $`\phi `$ has a compact support in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Pu=\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ holds in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the sense of distributions, which means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }u|_\mathrm{\Omega }L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. On the other hand, since $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{1/2}PuL^2(^d)`$, we have $`\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }uW^1(^d)`$. Since we have

$$(\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }u)=((\chi _\mathrm{\Omega })^2u)=(\chi _\mathrm{\Omega })\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }u(x)+\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }(\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }u),$$

in order to belong to $`L^2(^d)`$ the function $`(\chi _\mathrm{\Omega }u)`$ must not contain the $`\delta `$-type singular term, which requires $`u()=0`$ on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This combined with the fact that $`u|_\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Delta }u|_\mathrm{\Omega }L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ – see, e.g., \[LM, Thm 5.4\] – implies that $`u|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to $`W^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`W_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Thus we have shown that $`u|_\mathrm{\Omega }D[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_Pu)|_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }(u|_\mathrm{\Omega })`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }_P|_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$, but both operators are self-adjoint, so they coincide.

In this sense therefore our result given in Theorem 2.1 provides one possible abstract version of the result by Facchi et al. \[FPS\].

### Acknowledgments

P.E. and T.I. are respectively grateful for the hospitality extended to them at Kanazawa University and at the Nuclear Physics Institute, AS CR, where parts of this work were done. The research has been partially supported by ASCR and Czech Ministry of Education under the contracts K1010104 and ME482, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) No. 13440044 and No. 16340038, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.