text:
# AGB stars in the Magellanic Clouds. I. The C/M ratio.

## 1 Introduction

Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars trace the intermediate age population of galaxies (ages between 1 and several Gyr). In near–infrared (near–IR) light they are often the brightest isolated objects in a galaxy and can be studied at distances beyond 1 Mpc. There are two main kinds of AGB stars: oxygen–rich stars (more O–atoms than C-atoms, spectral type M or K) and carbon–rich stars (more C–atoms than O—atoms, spectral type N or C). When the number of O–atoms equals that of C–atoms the AGB star is of type S. It is not straight forward to identify S stars either photometrically or spectroscopically, and this introduces as well intermediate classes of AGB stars (e.g. MS and SC). Single stars enter the AGB phase as oxygen–rich but may be converted into carbon–rich stars after several short episodes in which matter that has been enriched in carbon nuclei by nuclear fusion is dredged–up to the stellar surface; these episodes are called thermal pulses; stars that have become C–stars in this way are called “intrinsic” C–stars; they may all have N–type spectra.

Searches for carbon and M–type stars in Baade’s Window (Glass et al. glass99 (1999)), in the solar neighbourhood (Mikami mikami (1978)) and in the Magellanic Clouds (i.e. Blanco et al. bmb (1980), Feast & Whitelock feast (1994)) have shown that the ratio of number of carbon stars to that of oxygen–rich AGB stars varies strongly from one environment to another and that it correlates with metallicity in the sense: lower metallicity, more carbon stars. For example, Cook et al. cook (1986) (and references therein) derived a C/M ratio in seven gas–rich galaxies and found that this correlates very well inversely with the abundance ratio log\[O/H\]: higher abundance lower C/M ratio – see their figure 6.

Iben & Renzini (iben (1983)) explain the correlation between metallicity and the C/M ratio by three factors: (1) for lower metallicity the O–rich stars will turn into C–type AGB stars more easily and stay so for a longer time on the AGB because less carbon atoms need to be dredged–up for the transformation; (2) at lower metallicity the evolutionary tracks for AGB stars move to higher temperatures and the number of M5+111When the sample of M-giants consists of stars with spectral type M0 and later we will designate this as “M0+”; similarly we will use M3+, M5+ etc. stars drops considerably; the abundance of TiO molecules is lower and the atmosphere is more transparent; (3) in very–low metallicity environments a post–horizontal–branch star may become a white dwarf without becoming first an AGB star (“AGB–manqué stars”).

In this article we use the DCMC, the DENIS Catalogue of point sources detected in the $`IJK_s`$–photometric bands in the direction of the Magellanic Clouds (Cioni et al. 2000a ). We eliminate foreground stars, we select red stars with a luminosity above the tip of the RGB (=TRGB) and we use photometric colours to distinguish between C–type AGB stars and AGB stars of class M0+. We then study the variation of the C/M0+ ratio over the face of each Magellanic Cloud. We exploit two advantages of the DCMC catalogue over earlier studies: full coverage of both Clouds ($`320`$ square degrees in the LMC and $`150`$ in the SMC) and the inclusion of M giants of all M-type spectra (M0+).

By considering only AGB stars above the TRGB we eliminate stars with a carbon–type spectrum, but NOT on the AGB: in a binary in which the secondary is a white dwarf, the primary may have a C–rich spectrum because it received enough C–enriched material from the secondary when, in the past, that was an AGB star. Such stars are called “extrinsic C–stars”; a thorough discussion of their properties is given by Jorissen (jorissen (2003)). All R-type carbon stars, CH–stars and Ba–stars seem to be such extrinsic stars. Carbon stars with a luminosity above that of the TRGB must be AGB stars and thus very probably intrinsic carbon stars.

In Sect. $`2`$ we discuss the sample and our selection criteria and we present the C/M ratio and compare it with the values obtained during previous researches. Sect. $`3`$ addresses the metallicity distribution derived in other papers and we compare the Magellanic Clouds (MC) with other galaxies. Conclusions are given in Sect. $`4`$.

## 2 The distribution of M-type and C-type AGB stars in LMC and SMC

### 2.1 Selection of AGB stars from the DENIS catalogue

We selected AGB stars from the DCMC survey following the same criteria as used in an earlier paper (Cioni et al., 2000b ). Briefly: in each Cloud we select all stars that (1) have been detected in all three DENIS wavelength bands ($`IJK_\mathrm{s}`$); that (2) have an $`I`$–band magnitude above that of the TRGB ($`I=14.54`$ in the LMC and $`I=14.95`$ in the SMC) and (3) that have a red colour $`(IJ)>(19.78I)/4.64`$ separating MC stars from foreground objects. The same sample has been used in an earlier paper to discuss the morphology of each Cloud (Cioni et al., 2000b ; see region B in their figure 1). The two samples contain almost all AGB stars above the TRGB; we only miss stars with a circumstellar shell thicker than $`(JK_\mathrm{s})>2.4`$. The evolution of stars with a thick circumstellar envelope is so fast that there are always very few of them. Experience with ISO programmes confirms that the number of stars with such thick shells is too small to affect our conclusions (Loup cecile (1999)). The LMC sample contains 32801 AGB stars; the SMC sample contains 7652 stars.

### 2.2 Contamination by foreground stars

Our selection criterium rejects most of the foreground stars (Cioni et al. 2000b .) Does the remaining fraction of foreground stars affects our conclusion? In this paper Fig 1 contains a faint extension to higher $`(IJ)`$ values at $`(JK_s)=0.9`$; from DENIS colour–colour diagrams of stars outside of the Magellanic Clouds it follows that these are as well foreground objects. Nevertheless, this plume of objects contains a small number of genuine Magellanic Cloud stars: faint super-giants of spectral type K or M (Nikolaev & Weinberg nw (2000)). Foreground stars, if uniformly distributed, will affect the ratio, but will not introduce variations in the ratio. Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)) observed several fields covering a total of about $`6`$ and $`7`$ square degrees in the LMC and SMC, respectively (see Sect. 3.2), and sampled foreground areas at the same latitude. They found on average $`10`$ M2 foreground stars per field ($`0.12`$ deg2). If the distribution of foreground stars is the same as shows the gray scale in Fig. 2 in Cioni et al. (2000b ), the enhancement towards the East is also the distribution of early M–type foreground stars, we would expect to find a smaller ratio in this direction than towards that directly opposite. But looking at Fig. 3 we do not find a noteworthy difference between the two regions. Thus we conclude that the distribution of foreground stars does not bias the C/M ratio that we derive. The C/M ratios, on the other hand, are lower limits, because there may be a foreground contamination by M dwarfs (Cook et al. cook (1986)).

### 2.3 Separating the M-type stars from the C-type stars

Fig. 1 shows all stars of the sample in a colour–colour diagram. A comparison one–by–one of a subsample of DCMC stars coinciding with stars with a spectral type derived from spectroscopy (Loup et al. in preparation) shows that the stars above the slanted dashed line (a) are all M–type giants of spectral type M7+ and the stars below this dashed line and to the right of the vertical line $`(JK_\mathrm{s})=1.6`$ (b) are all C-stars. This leaves the stars in the lower left part of the diagram below line (a) and left of line (b). We assume that we can separate the stars in M–type stars and in C–type stars in the LMC by the criterium ($`JK_\mathrm{s}`$) $`<`$ or $`>1.4`$ (see Fig. 2) and in the SMC $`(JK_\mathrm{s})=1.3`$ will be the dividing line. We also assume that that the $`(JK_\mathrm{s})`$–colour is practically independent of spectral type whereas the $`(IJ)`$–colour is correlated strongly with the spectral type of the M–stars. This, for example has been found by Fluks et al. (fluks (1994)): for M0–giants $`(IJ)=1.14`$ and $`(JK_\mathrm{s})=1.03`$ and for M9–stars these values are 4.06 and 1.25. Fluks’ colours are based on stars in the solar neighbourhood. Therefore we calibrated our relation between spectral type and the colour $`(IJ)`$ on the results obtained by Blanco et al., Blanco & McCarthy (bmb (1980, 1983)) in the LMC and we correct the value of $`(IJ)_0`$ to $`1.02`$ for M0–giants and to $`1.99`$ for M7-giants.

The location of the C–star branch has been explained recently by accounting properly the molecular opacity in the stellar atmosphere when a star develops from an M–type star into a C–star (Marigo, Girardi & Chiosi, accepted for A&A). We conclude that a vertical line at $`(JK_\mathrm{s})=1.4`$ (the dashed line in Fig. 2) separates the M–type stars from the C-stars. The next conclusion is that in the area of the M–giants (left of the line ($`JK_\mathrm{s})=1.4`$) the $`(IJ)`$ value determines the M–type subclass: at $`(IJ)=1.2`$ the stars will be of spectral type M0; at $`(IJ)=3.8`$ they will be M9+. Close to the point $`(IJ,JK_\mathrm{s})=(1.4,1.3)`$ some C–stars will be mixed with the M–stars, but their fraction seems to be quite low. S–type AGB stars have near–IR colours similar to O–rich AGB stars and they cannot be disentangled in our diagrams; but there are always few around.

We apply this result in Fig. 2, the ($`K_S`$, $`JK_S`$) colour–magnitude diagram of our LMC sample of AGB stars and obtain a sample of 25229 M–type stars and of 7572 C–stars. As remarked above, the first sample contains a small fraction of C–stars. For the SMC we obtain 6009 M–type and 1643 C-type AGB stars. The photometric accuracy of DENIS at the AGB magnitudes (i.e. for $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$$`<4`$) is below $`0.05`$ mag and the number of sources that have been put in the wrong section of Fig. 2 by photometric errors is negligible.

Using the $`(IJ)`$ colours of M giants as indicated by Blanco et al. (bmb (1980)) and correcting for extinction ($`A_{IJ}=0.16`$ for $`E(BV)=0.15`$ as in Cioni et al. 2000c ) we obtain the numbers of C-stars and the numbers of M0+, M3+, M5+ and M7+ stars. The numbers of giants of C and M spectral subtype with the corresponding ratio are given in, or can be easily obtained from, table 1. The table shows the population of early M–type AGB stars. The C/M0+ numbers are very similar for both LMC and SMC, which may indicate a similar average metallicity for both Clouds.

### 2.4 Total number of carbon stars

Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)) expect 11,000 carbon stars in the LMC and 2900 in the SMC. Groenewegen (groeniau (2002)) calculated from the Kontizas et al. (kontdap (2001)) survey of the LMC, that the carbon stars amount to $`7750`$. Rebeirot et al. (rebe (1983)) on the other hand found $`1707`$ carbon stars in the SMC. These numbers are not very different from our estimated number of carbon stars based on the colour–magnitude selection criteria. We found, in the LMC, only 7572 C–type stars, and we think that we are complete, except for about 10% misclassifications (Cioni et al. 2001b ) among the M0 and M1 giants. This would increase the number of possible C–type stars detection to $`10094`$ and $`2243`$ in the LMC and SMC, respectively, and the present C/M ratio would be thus underestimated. Other missing C–type stars are those with luminosities below the TRGB that might have weaker CN bands and may therefore have been missed as well on the red grism plates used by Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)).

### 2.5 The distribution of the C/M ratio over the face of LMC and SMC

From our samples of M–type and C–type AGB stars we have calculated C/M0+ in all cells belonging to a grid a $`100\times 100`$ of $`0.04`$ square degrees over the face of the LMC and the SMC. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the ratios after boxcar average smoothing of width 2. The most outstanding feature is the ring of high C/M0+ values around the outer edge of the LMC. In the SMC the distribution is quite clumpy. Both features are in contrast to what is found for the distribution of all (M+C–type) AGB stars (Cioni et al. 2000b ): these all–AGB star distributions are smooth and regular and they have the highest densities in the center of each galaxy.

Are the structures in Figures 3 and 4 real? We use $`10^4`$ squares and a sample of 25,000 M–giants and 7000 C–stars, thus on average each bin contains 2 M0+–type stars and 0.7 C star, and the ratio C/M0+ is affected by noise due to small-number statistics. In the bin corresponding to the highest ratio there are 3 C– and 1 M0+– star. In bins where M–type stars were not detected, the C–type number of stars was taken as an upper limit to the ratio, i.e. a ratio C/M0+=1 was assumed. To check that the resulting pattern does not depend on the bin size we also made maps with $`50\times 50`$ bins and obtained the same result. Now the bin with the lowest C/M ratio contains 2 C– and 4 M0+–type stars whereas the bin with the highest ratio contains 7 C– and 7 M0+-stars. We conclude that the variations seen in Figures 3 and 4 are real.

In the LMC, apart from the ring, there is a small region of a relatively high C/M0+ value at about $`\alpha =5^h30^m`$ and $`\delta =67^{}`$. This structure points approximately to the middle of the bar and defines two lobes (NW & SE) of lower C/M0+ values and two other lobes (NE & SW) of higher C/M0+. The features may be related to the effect of the bar on the star formation history or vice versa as we do not know precisely when the bar has formed. Considering that the metal–poor component is probably old, the bar appears to be a fairly recent structure. The LMC bar extends approximately from $`\alpha =5^h40^m`$, $`\delta =70^{}`$ to $`\alpha =5^h00^m`$, $`\delta =69^{}`$.

In the SMC the situation is more complex – see Fig. 4. The fluctuations in this figure are real: the highest C/M ratio is reached in a bin with 4 C–stars and 1 M0+–star and the lowest ratio in a bin with 16 C– and 16 M0+–stars. The blob–like regions of high C/M0+ do not form a regular pattern; there is a hint that C/M0+ is higher in the external part of the central region. The lowest ratio is obtained in the so called “wing”. Probably the extension of the SMC along the line of sight contributes to the irregular distribution.

Around the centre of the SMC the C/M0+ ratio is higher than inside the ring of the LMC. This is in agreement with earlier studies (e.g. Blanco et al. bmb (1980)) that show the metallicity of the AGB population in the SMC to be lower than in the LMC.

### 2.6 Related previous studies

In Fig. 2 most of the stars populating the (almost) vertical sequence to the left of the line $`(JK_s)=1.4`$ are of spectral type M0+. Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)) discussed the ratios C/M2+, C/M5+ and C/M6+ and found $`0.2(0.63)`$, $`0.8(4.3)`$, $`2.2(13.8)`$ for the entire LMC (SMC): the increase illustrates the existence of a large number of M–giants of early spectral type. In the earlier papers (e.g. Blanco, McCarthy & Blanco bmb (1980)) the samples are incomplete in these earlier types except in a few small fields mentioned below: M–giants of earlier spectral type have weak TiO and VO molecular bands and require spectra of very good quality to derive the subtype. Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)) stated that the estimated number of M2–M4 stars may be in error by $`20`$%. The authors showed that an approximate linear relation exists between the frequencies of carbon stars and those of M2–M4 giants: for each carbon star there are $`4.6`$ and $`1.58`$ M2–M4 stars in the LMC and in the SMC, respectively. Westerlund (westerl (1997)) suggests that the most massive AGB stars could be of early type. These stars should exist in the Blanco fields as the immediate precursors of the detected Cepheid population.

Frogel & Blanco (frog (1990)) detected stars with spectral types from M0 to M5 but only in about 0.03 square degrees in the Bar West field of the LMC. In the northern LMC Reid & Mould (reidm (1985)) spectroscopically identified O–rich stars of M0+ but only in six small fields (total area of 0.8 square degrees in the northern LMC. They derive C/non–C ratios between $`0.19`$ to $`0.56`$. The similarity with the range of values obtained from Fig. 3 proves the validity of our photometric selection criteria for M0+ stars and C stars.

Loup et al. (loup (2002)) conclude that in the region roughly indicated by $`(JK_s)1.1`$ and $`(IJ)<2.0`$ early M–type AGB stars are mixed with C–rich AGB (Fig. 1). If we apply the selection criteria given by the straight lines in Fig. 1 we obtain 4456 C–type and 765 M7+–type AGBs in the LMC. The distribution of the C/M7+ ratio is strongly dominated by the distribution of C–type stars and the value of the ratio is high in the bar and progressively decreases to the outer parts. Using a coarser grid ($`50\times 50`$ instead of $`100\times 100`$) as discussed in Sect. 2.5) we find a higher C/M7+ ratio outside of the bar. In both cases the numbers of stars are low and the ratio can be calculated with confidence only in the inner part of the disk that is inside the metal poor ring identified in Fig. 3, thus closer to the bar. Above we have stated that AGB stars of the same luminosity but of lower metallicity have earlier spectra and this is further supporting our conclusion that the stars in the ring in the LMC have lower metallicity.

## 3 A metallicity gradient in the LMC?

The variation of the C/M0+–ratio may be caused by two effects: a variation in metallicity or a variation in the star formation rate depending on stellar mass. This second possibility will be discussed in a later paper; here we assume that the metallicity variation is the main cause of the C/M0+ variation.

To investigate in more detail the variation of the (C/M0+)–ratio over the face of the LMC we calculated this ratio within segments of concentric rings as follows (the same procedure was adopted in van der Marel & Cioni, structure (2001)): the centre is at ($`\alpha =5^h29^m`$, $`\delta =69.5^{}`$); the inner circle (i) has a radius of $`2.5^{}`$, and the rings are (ii) between $`2.5^{}`$ and $`3.4^{}`$, (iii) between $`3.4^{}`$ and $`4.4^{}`$, (iv) between $`4.4^{}`$ and $`5.5^{}`$ and (v) between $`5.5^{}`$ and $`6.7^{}`$. Table 2 lists: (i) the number of the ring, (ii) inner and outer limit of the ring, (iii) the number of C–type and M–type stars as obtained from the global selection (C & M0+); (iv) similar numbers from a sample using the more restrictive selection criteria derived by Loup et al. (e.g. Sect. 2.3), (v) the average of C/M0+ and C/M6+ multiplied by the fractional area covered by each ring ($`A_{\mathrm{R}ING}/A_{\mathrm{T}OT}`$). The average value of the surface density increases for larger distance from the center; excluding the very central region, the trend deduced from Fig. 3 is conserved.

If the outermost ring marks lower metallicity it must also contain relatively more early M–giants than the central area. This is indeed the case: see Fig. 5, that shows the normalised number of O–rich sources as a function of $`(IJ)`$ colour in the central ($`\rho <2.5^{}`$) and in the outermost ring ($`5.5^{}<\rho <6.7^{}`$) of the LMC. The panel on the upper right corner shows the same histograms with C–type stars added; the latter produce a bump in the distribution at about $`(IJ)=1.7`$. In the outermost ring the distribution of the colours peaks at about $`(IJ)=1.3`$ and the histogram of the colours of the central area peaks at $`1.5`$. At about $`(IJ)=1.7`$ (M5) there are almost twice as many sources in the center as in the outer ring. This is the effect that we predicted. Unfortunately we cannot exclude the possibility that the shift of the peak of the histograms is due to exinction. If we assume that the reddening decreases linearly with increasing radius with a step of $`(IJ)=0.025`$ in the range $`0.10`$ from the center to the outer regions, and we recalculate the C/M ratio we obtain $`0.33`$, $`0.59`$, $`2.94`$ and $`38.4`$, for the C/M0+, C/M3+, C/M5+ and C/M7+, respectively. In addition there are sources in the innermost bin at $`(IJ)_0<1.02`$ which would imply a spectral type earlier than M0. Thus we conclude that if a differential reddening between the center and the outskirts of the LMC is taken into account, giants in the center would have, on average, an earlier spectral type than giants in the outskirts.

The next step is to divide each ring in the LMC into eight segments of $`45^{}`$ and labelled counterclockwise from 1 through 8 or by wind directions (E, SE, S, SW, W, NW, N and NE) per increasing angle. The first sector starts in the East and ends in the North–East direction. Fig. 6 shows the C/M0+ ratio averaged over each segment. On average the C/M0+ ratio reaches it highest value in the southern segment (number 3 or direction S; see Fig. 6), that is in the same direction as the HI “bridge” that connects the LMC and the SMC. It thus seems that we have detected an increase of the C/M ratio towards the bridge connecting the two Clouds and thus a lower metallicity. A lower metallicity has also been proposed by Muller et al. (muller (2002)) because of the detection of a 12CO(1–0) emission region within the Magellanic Bridge ($`\alpha =1^h56^m47^s`$, $`\delta =74^{}17^{}41^{\prime \prime }`$).

The same procedure has been applied to the latest type AGB stars selected according to the Loup et al. (loup (2002)) criteria; the result is shown in Fig. 7. In each ring the C/M ratio has a peak. The innermost and the outermost ring have a peak in the SW region, while in the other rings the peak moves from W to S going from inside to outside the LMC. Note that the ratio C/M is higher in Fig. 7 than in Fig. 6, because we excluded early–type M–giants. The average C/M ratio over the whole LMC ($`0.19\times A_{\mathrm{T}OT}`$) is about $`2.68`$ which is very close to the value of $`2.2\pm 0.1`$ obtained by Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)) selecting carbon stars and giants of M6+ spectroscopically.

### 3.1 Calibration of C/M in terms of \[Fe/H\]

In this section we quantify the C/M ratio in terms of \[Fe/H\] by using measurements available in the literature for galaxies in the Local Group with different metallicity.

We took as a reference the work by Groenewegen (groeniau (2002)). He lists the metallicity attributed to most of the galaxies in the Local Group with the number of carbon– and oxygen–rich AGBs stars. We considered only those galaxies for which AGBs were detected (O and C). Fig. 8 shows the decimal logarithm of the C/M ratio versus metallicity. There is a clear correlation and the solid line indicates the best fit through the points.

If we use the same relation to quantify the spread in metallicity derived in the previous sections for the Magellanic Clouds, using the values corresponding to the lower and higher contours, we obtain about $`0.75`$ dex between the central area and the outermost ring. This value is in agreement with the spread inferred from the metallicity of the star clusters in the LMC (Kontizas et al. konti (1993)). The error on the linear fit is about $`0.1`$ dex and we believe that the error on the C/M ratio is negligible due to the large number of AGBs involved and to the completeness of detection. However, the ratio depends on the selection criteria used (cf. Table 2, cols. 6–7). Mouhcine & Lançon (mouci (2002)) have shown that different star formation histories lead to non–linear curves in diagrams such as Fig. 8, but for populations older than $`1`$ Gyr the models merge into a common sequence. Here, we are not giving an absolute value for the metallicities in the Clouds because with the photometric data available at the moment we cannot determine the zero–point of the C/M versus metallicity relation. The metallicity spread detected in the MCs agrees with the spread measured in Local Group dwarf galaxies (i.g. Shetrone et al. shet1 (2001), shet3 (2003), Tolstoy et al. eline (2003)). However, the spread in metallicity may influence the fit in Fig. 8.

### 3.2 Previous studies on abundance gradients in the MCs

The indication of a metallicity gradient in the LMC and of a range of metallicities in the SMC obtained in this work is based on two fundaments: (i) our survey of the MCs is complete and (ii) our photometry allows us a statistical identification of the AGB stars of different atmospheric abundances. Previous studies of varying metallicity have been quite localised. For example, Nikolaev & Weinberg (nw (2000)) do not find an indication of a radial metallicity gradient in the LMC using isochrone fitting to the red giant branch located in a centre ($`\alpha =5^h24^m`$, $`\delta =69.8^{}`$) and in an outer ($`\alpha =6^h12^m`$, $`\delta =67.5^{}`$) field of the LMC, of $`2^{}\times 1^{}`$ in size. Comparing the location of these fields with Fig.3, our data confirm that between these fields there is no significant difference in abundances.

The most extensive work done in the eighties is that of Blanco & McCarthy (bm (1983)). They surveyed the SMC and the LMC down to a limiting magnitude of $`I=17`$ in $`37`$ and $`52`$ fields, respectively, of $`0.12`$ square degrees each. Their survey is $`95`$% complete for C–type and M5+–type AGBs while the numbers of M2–M4 stars may be in error by as much as $`20`$%. They found that the C/M ratio in the LMC does not vary appreciably away from the central regions while in the SMC the ratio may decrease towards the peripheral regions. They further investigated the distribution of the ratios by binning the number of AGBs C– and O–rich in three groups: central, intermediate and outer. They concluded that there is no apparent gradient in the LMC while in the SMC a lower ratio in the outer field was confirmed. Note that these ratios include O–rich AGB stars of M6+ and that the variation of the C/M ratio in the SMC disappears if also M2–M4 stars are included. The most important thing to notice is that their LMC fields are limited to $`65^{}<\delta <74^{}`$ and the highest value of the C/M ratio that we detect is at about $`\delta =75^{}`$ (Fig. 3). Reid & Mould (reidm (1985)) took spectra of all the stars in six fields in the northern part of the LMC, three of which contain a Blanco et al. (bmb (1980)) field. Reid & Mould concluded that if a radial variation of the C/M ratio exists, then the Bar is less enriched in heavy elements than the outer regions. Comparing the location of their analysed fields with Fig. 3, we find that these fields are not representative of the radial distribution.

A positive indication of a metallicity spread in the Magellanic Clouds comes from Luck & Lambert (lula (1982)) who concluded, from measurements in Cepheids and non–variable supergiants that the \[Fe/H\] ratio in the SMC has an abundance dispersion consistent with the errors while in the LMC a real dispersion is possible. In addition Spite et al. (1989b a, 1989a b) suggested that inhomogeneities in the abundances derived from F and G super giants are due to a low metallicity in the halo and a progressively increasing metallicity in the disk.

Kontizas et al. (konti (1993)) studied a sample of $`94`$ star clusters in the LMC of intermediate age (between $`0.5`$ and $`3`$ Gyr). They found that the outermost clusters are significantly metal poorer than those at the centre. Their outer system coincides with our outermost region (see their Fig. 1) where we detect the highest C/M ratios.

### 3.3 Metallicity gradients in other galaxies of the Local Group

There is evidence, though somewhat controversial, that the metallicity is a decreasing function of radius in other galaxies in the Local Group.

In our Galaxy the metallicity gradient is present among clusters (Friel fri (1995)). Note that clusters do not usually contain C stars even if they are metal poor. This is strictly an age effect and the C/M is directly correlated with the intermediate age stars. Andrievsky et al. andrea (2002) recently concluded that a linear fit to the \[Fe/H\] data of Galactic Cepheids from $`4`$ to $`12`$ kpc produces a grandient of $`0.06`$ dex kpc-1.

Fields in the halo and in the centre of M31 were observed in $`B`$ and $`V`$, the colour variation corresponds to about $`0.2`$ dex in \[Fe/H\] (Van den Bergh & Pritchet vdbpri (1992)). In M31 Brewer et al. (bre (1995)) found an increase of the C/M ratio with galactocentric distance by studying seven fields spaced along the M31’s SW semi–major axis. On the other hand, Freedman & Madore (fremad (1990)) argue that because the period–luminosity relation of Cepheids does not vary with radius in M31 there is no abundance gradient. Globular clusters in M31 show a spread in metallicity within $`5`$ kpc from the centre but metal rich clusters exist in the outer halo (Huchra et al. huc (1991)).

Nitrogen and oxygen lements present a strong radial gradient in M33 (Smith et al. smithal (1993)).In IC 1613 a slight C/M gradient from the center outward has been detected. Stars of the two spectral types were selected using the (CN-TiO$`)/(RI)`$ diagram. M0+ stars were also included (Albert et al. albert (2000)).

In the dwarf spheroidals NGC147, NGC187 and NGC205 the width of the RGB is the major indication of a metallicity spread which is often larger in the centre of the galaxies than in the outer parts (Han et al. han (1998), Martínez–Delgado & Aparicio mda (1998), Mould et al. mkdc (1984)). The Sculptor galaxy presents a strong radial population effect (Hurley–Keller et al. hkmg (1999)) and it would be interesting to know if and how this is associated to a gradient in metallicity.

## 4 Conclusions

We have derived C/M ratios in the Magellanic Clouds from AGB stars selected in colour–magnitude diagrams obtained from the DCMC catalogue. This value is a simple, but robust indication of the metallicity of the AGB population. It varies considerably across the surface of both galaxies. In the LMC we find a increase of the ratio C/M0+ in at the inside of the elliptical distribution of the AGB star. The distribution of the C/M valueis, however, are rather clumpy and that has prevented previous authors from detecting such a gradient. A more detailed analysis of the LMC C/M ratio shows that towards the direction of the bridge connecting the two Clouds the ratio C/M0+ is still higher.

The range of variation of the C/M ratio has been calibrated in terms of \[Fe/H\]; in the LMC it corresponds to a spread in metallicity of $`0.75`$ dex. The same spread has been found in the SMC and it approximately corresponds to the range of values derived in intermediate age LMC star clusters. The SMC has on average a lower metallicity than the LMC and the distribution of regions of high C/M0+ shows no systemnatic behaviour.

To conclude, it is important to remember that the variation of metallicity found is valid for the epoch when these giants formed and it is not necessarily valid today or for other epochs better traced by other stellar populations or gas. On the other hand in view of the recent results by Mouhcine & Lançon (mouci (2002)) the C/M ratio measures both the metallicity of the carbon star progenitors and the present interstellar medium metallicity, unless the local composition has been strongly altered by the presence of a Bar or other interactions.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Martino Romaniello, Luca Pasquini and Vanessa Hill for useful discussions during the preparation of this article.


format: text

text:
# Variability of Sagittarius A* - Flares at 1 Millimeter

## 1 Introduction

Sgr A\*, a compact radio source, is believed to be associated with the supermassive black hole at the Galactic center (Eckart et al. , 2002; Ghez et al. , 2000). The inferred bolometric luminosity (L$`10^{8.5}`$ LEdd) is far below the Eddington luminosity for the black hole mass of $``$2.6$`\times 10^6`$ M. Sgr A\* represents an extremely dim galactic nucleus. The low luminosity of Sgr A\* is explained by the low efficiency radiative advection dominated accretion flow (ADAF) model (Narayan et al.  1998). However, the ADAF alone can not explain the detailed activities, such as the radio outbursts and the X-ray flares. The recent work by Yuan et al.  (2002a) provides an alternative model to link a jet outflow (Falcke et al.  1993) with the ADAF. This new model appears to be able to fit reasonably well the overall spectrum of Sgr A\* from radio, sub-millimeter, IR to the X-ray.

The apparent structure at radio wavelengths longer than 3 mm appears to be mainly dominated by the scattering effects due to the ISM. At 3 mm, the scattering effects are finally small enough that the intrinsic source size is estimated to be less than 0.27 mas (Doeleman et al.  2001), or about 40 times the Schwarzchild radius ($`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ hereafter). A promising way to explore this extremely compact source is to monitor the variations of the emitted flux density from radio to X-ray.

The variations in radio flux density of Sgr A\* have been known for two decades (Brown & Lo 1982). The nature of the radio variability has not been well understood. At the long wavelengths, the flux density of Sgr A\* might be modulated by the scintillation due to the turbulence in the ISM (Zhao et al.  1989). The radio light curves observed with the VLA at wavelengths from 20 to 1.3 cm during the period of 1990-1993 suggest that the fractional amplitude variations increased towards short wavelengths and that the rate of radio flares appeared to be about three per year (Zhao et al. 1992; and Zhao & Goss 1993). The typical time scale of these radio flares is about a month. The observed large amplitude variations in flux densities at 3 mm (Wright & Backer 1993; Tsuboi et al.  1999) are consistent with the wavelength-dependence of the variability as observed at centimeter wavelengths.

The presence of a 106 day cycle in the radio variability of Sgr A was suggested from an analysis of data observed with the VLA in the period of 1977-1999 (Zhao et al.  2001). The periodic oscillation at a period around 100 days appears to persist in the densely sampled light curves obtained with the VLA at 2, 1.3 and 0.7 cm over the past two years (Zhao et al.  2002). The period of the fluctuation cycle appears to increase to $``$ 130 days (Bower et al.  2002a; Zhao et al.  2002). In addition, a longer periodic fluctuation feature with a period 2.4-2.5 times the short one has also been seen (Zhao et al.  2002). Similar periodic fluctuation in flux density was also observed in the GBI monitoring data (Falcke, 1999).

Observations of Sgr A\* at sub-millimeter can penetrate into the deep region of this intriguing source. In this letter, we report results obtained from a monitoring program at 1 mm, with the partially finished Sub-Millimeter Array (hereafter SMA; Moran 1998).

## 2 Observations & Data Reduction

Observations of Sgr A\* at 1.3 mm and 0.87 mm were made using the partially completed SMA with three or four antennas and baselines ranging from 7 to 55 kilo wavelengths at 1.3 mm. A total of 24 epochs of observations at 1.3 mm were carried out in reasonably good weather conditions (the sky opacity $`\tau _{\mathrm{zenith}}<`$ 0.3 at 1.3 mm). One observation was made at 0.87 mm on 2001 March 22 with $`\tau _{\mathrm{zenith}}`$0.5 at 0.87 mm. The observations were carried out with a total bandwidth of 328 MHz for each sideband. A typical system temperature is 200-300 K at 1.3 mm. A typical r.m.s. noise of $``$ 20 mJy was achieved from an observation with four antennas for a typical on-source integration time of 2 hrs. In each epoch of observation, we interleaved Sgr A\* with Sgr B2(N), a compact ($`<5`$″ in size) nearby ($`1^\mathrm{o}`$) HII region, and two nearby QSOs, OV236 ($`22^\mathrm{o}`$) and NRAO 530 ($`16^\mathrm{o}`$). The flux density scale in each observation was determined by observing a compact planet (Neptune ($`<2.5`$″ in diameter) and Uranus ($`<4`$″)). Sgr B2(N) ($``$50 Jy at 1.3 mm) was used to monitor the stability of the telescope during the observations, for example the effect due to the possible telescope pointing drift.

Further calibration was done by observing two QSOs, OV236 and NRAO 530. We fitted the secular variations of each calibrator with polynomials. Any correlated offsets in flux density from the secular variations of the two QSOs are considered as systematic offsets, such as telescope pointing error. The residual gain correction determined from the offsets are applied to the Sgr A\* data in order to minimize the the systematic errors. The final uncertainty of $`10\%`$ in the flux density calibration is assessed by calculating the standard deviations of the residual offsets from the calibrators. However, the variation of a possible linear polarization as a function of parallactic angle was not corrected. A fractional linear polarization of $``$7% from Sgr A\* has been detected (Bower et al., 2002b). The error due to this effect is less significant and is embedded in the final uncertainty.

In addition, Sgr A\* is embedded in the complex, extended source Sgr A West. Fig. 1 shows the image of Sgr A\* and its vicinity observed with the SMA at 1.3 mm with a beam of 7.4″$`\times `$2.3″(P.A. =7°). At this wavelength and this angular resolution, Sgr A\* is about 10 times brighter than the surrounding components. By examining the visibilities as a function of baseline lengths, we find that, for baselines $``$ 20k$`\lambda `$ or longer, Sgr A\* is the dominant source and the confusing flux density at 1 mm from the surrounding free-free and dust emission is less than 0.3 Jy. The flux density measurements were made in both the visibility and imaging domains. In the visibility domain, we measured the amplitude of the baselines of $``$20 k$`\lambda `$ and longer. The flux density was double checked by constructing images with the self-calibrated (phase-only) visibility data. The measurements of the point source flux density were done by deconvolving the telescope beam and taking out the contribution from surrounding components using IMFIT in AIPS. The flux densities derived from the two domains are in an agreement within 10% of the mean value. This additional 10% level of the uncertainty in the measurements is mainly due to the confusion from the surrounding emission and is added to the final error assessment. The error bars of Sgr A\* are derived from the quadrature addition of the uncertainty in flux density calibration and the uncertainty due to the confusion. The typical uncertainty at 1 mm is in a range of 10 to 20%.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Light Curve and Flares

Fig. 2 shows the SMA light curve at 1.3 mm suggesting that Sgr A\* varies significantly. A few “flares” were observed from Sgr A\* while the calibrators show secular variations with opposite drifts in flux density over the past year ( Fig. 2a). Three “flares” were observed over a 1-year period. Both the 2001-March and 2002-February flares (Flare 1 and Flare 3 as marked in Fig. 2b) were partially observed in their decreasing phase. The 2001-July flare (Flare 2) was observed covering an entire cycle from its inception to a slow decrease back to its steady state value. Flare 1, which started from 4.1$`\pm `$0.5 Jy after an unobserved peak and decreased to 1.1 $`\pm `$ 0.15 Jy within less than three months, appeared to be relatively stronger than others. The rising time for Flare 2 was about 2-3 weeks, reaching a peak of $`3.2\pm 0.3`$ Jy on 2001 July 10. Then, a slow decrease lasted about 40-50d. We were not able to observe Sgr A\* for the next three months due to the proximity to the Sun. The monitoring program was resumed in 2002 February. A tail of a possible flare (Flare 3) was observed in early 2002.

### 3.2 Day-to-Day Variability and Non-detection Limit on Intra-day Variability

Based on the sparse data, marginal day-to-day variations at a level of 2-3$`\sigma `$ (or 20-30%) were observed during Flare 1 and Flare 2 as well as in later May 2002.

Intra-day variations on short time scales were searched based on the 24 epochs of observations at 1.3 mm. We averaged the data in a 5min bin and checked the visibility plots for each baseline. We also averaged all baseline together and checked intra-day light curves. No evidence for significant variations on a time scale of $``$1 hr has been found, i.e. a variability quantity $`\frac{\left[S_{max}S_{min}\right]}{\left[S_{max}+S_{min}\right]}<20\%`$, where $`\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are the maximum and minimum flux densities at 1.3 mm, respectively, in a single observing track of 6 hrs or less.

We also searched for periodic signals in a period ranging between 10 min to 2.5 hrs based on the observations of 5.5 hr on May 29, 2002. There is a possible oscillation signal with a frequency of 1.1$`\times 10^4`$ Hz (or 2.5 hr in period) on an E-W baseline. This oscillation signal can be well modeled as a structure due to interference between Sgr A\* and surrounding components. Combining all baselines, a $`3\sigma `$ non-detection limit of a periodic signal from SgrA\* at a level of$``$5% can be inferred.

### 3.3 Spectrum during A “Flare”

We also observed Sgr A\* at 0.87 mm with the SMA on 2001 March 22. We observed Sgr A\* (S$`{}_{0.87\mathrm{mm}}{}^{}=6.7\pm 1.5`$ Jy) at the sub-millimeter band using the three-element array of the partially completed SMA. Fig. 3a shows a spectrum derived from the mean flux density determined from the multiple observations within two weeks of the peak of Flare 1. The error bars were derived from the quadrature addition of the standard deviation and the maximum error in individual measurements. The spectral index $`\alpha `$ (S$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}\nu ^\alpha `$) appears to be 0.1$`\pm `$0.1 at 100 GHz and below, and 1.5$`{}_{1.1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.0}`$ between 232 and 345 GHz, suggesting a break frequency in spectral index of $``$100 GHz or higher. A flux density excess towards sub-millimeter wavelengths has been observed (Zylka, Mezger, & Lesch 1992; Serabyn et al.  1997; Falcke et al.  1998).

The overall spectrum can fit two power-law components, i.e. Sν = S$`{}_{1}{}^{}(\nu /\nu _1)_{}^{\alpha _1}`$ \+ S$`{}_{2}{}^{}(\nu /\nu _2)_{}^{\alpha _2}`$. Three sets of combination of $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are used in the fitting. First, for $`\alpha _1=0.0`$ and $`\alpha _2=2`$ (dashed lines in Fig. 3), the sub-millimeter component corresponds to the thermal synchrotron emission either arising from the inner region of the accretion disk (e.g. Liu & Melia 2002) or produced from a jet-nozzle (Falcke & Markoff 2000). Second, for $`\alpha _1=0.1`$ and $`\alpha _2=2.5`$ (solid lines in Fig. 3), the spectral index of 2.5 suggests that a homogeneous opaque, non-thermal synchrotron source might be present in the inner region of the accretion flow. Such a model appears to be plausible if one considers the non-thermal synchrotron particles to be accelerated inside the compact source, perhaps within a jet nozzle as has been proposed for the case of NGC 4258 (Yuan et. al. 2002b). Finally, if the low frequency component has an exponential cut-off, i.e. $`\mathrm{S}_1(\nu /\nu _1)^{0.25}\mathrm{exp}(\nu /\nu _0)`$, at $`\nu _075`$ GHz, a smaller value of $`\alpha _21.5`$ (dash-dotted lines in Fig. 3) for the sub-millimeter component is also consistent with a spectrum produced from the ADAF in which a gradient of $`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{e}`$ depresses the rising part of the spectrum (Narayan et. al., 1998). The observed spectrum suggests an opaque nature of the sub-millimeter component at 1.3 and perhaps 0.87 mm. Observations at the shorter sub-millimeter wavelengths appear to be critical to differentiate between the models. The spectrum in a minimum state is also shown (Fig. 3b). The excess at 1.3 mm appears to be less significant.

### 3.4 Correlation with The VLA Data

The SMA data at 1 mm appears to show a correlation with the light curves observed with the VLA. The SMA light curve shows three “flares” from Sgr A\* in the past year from 2001 March to 2002 May. The variation in flux density that we observed in the SMA light curve suggests that flares are constantly occurring in this source.

A quantitative analysis of cross-correlation properties between the light curves at 1.3 mm and 1.3 cm has been carried out. Due to the sparse data sampling, large uncertainty remains in the cross-correlation analysis for individual flares (Zhao 2002). However, a global delay between the 1.3 mm and 1.3 cm light curves can be searched for using the z-transformed discrete correlation function (ZDCF) without interpolating in the temporal domain (Alexander 1997). With no prior models assumed, the ZDCF is a reliable and efficient method to search for a delay. Fig. 4 shows the ZDCF between the SMA and VLA light curves at 1.3 mm and 1.3 cm. The peak in the correlation function corresponds to a delay of 4$`{}_{1}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2}`$ d. A noticeable asymmetric shape of the ZDCF near the zero lag shows a significant excess in cross-correlated power towards the positive lags, suggesting that the true global delay is $`\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{delay}}>3\mathrm{d}`$. The ZDCF indicates that flares at 1.3 mm starts first.

In addition, the strong X-ray flare with a time scale of $``$1 hr, observed by Baganoff et al.  (2001), occurred about 10 days earlier than a radio peak observed in all three VLA monitoring bands. During Flare 2 (2001 July), Chandra observed Sgr A\* on 2001 July 14, a few days past the 1 mm peak but no X-ray flares were observed. The X-ray flux level was consistent with that of a quiescent state (Baganoff 2001, private communication).

## 4 Discussion & Summary

The SMA observations have shown that Sgr A\* varies significantly at 1 mm during the course of SMA monitoring in 2001 March to 2002 May. The derived lags from a cross-correlation analysis appear to be good evidence that the flaring occurs from the inside out starting from short wavelengths and then continuing to longer wavelengths. In the Jet-ADAF model connecting a jet outflow with the ADAF (Yuan et al.  2002a), the sub-millimeter excess is thought to arise from a sum of the emission from both the ADAF and the jet nozzle.

On the other hand, from the observations with the SMA and the VLA, further constraints on the models can be derived. Taking a global delay time of $`\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{delay}}>3\mathrm{d}`$ and the source size of 40 Rsc, an expansion velocity, v$`{}_{\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}`$1200 km s-1 or $`<`$ 0.004 c, is inferred. The expansion velocity appears to be far below the escape velocity of 0.1 c at r $``$ 40 Rsc. The bulk kinetic energy associated with the flares appeared to be too small to power a noticeable collimated jet in Sgr A\*. In addition, the break in the spectral index at $``$3 mm also indicates that a large fraction of the flaring plasma might well be confined within the characteristic radius at 3 mm. However, the possible outflow tries to expand to a larger scale. The data presented here does not exclude the possibility of a strong flare which can lead to an observable jet-like structure. The inferred small expansion velocity may imply that other processes contribute to the transport of high energy particles, e.g. diffusion and convection may also play a role in powering Sgr A\* at lower radio frequencies.

The time scale (weeks) of 1 mm flares differs from the time scale (1 hr) of the X-ray flare (Baganoff, 2001). The lack of strong flares on a short time scale at 1 mm places a critical constraint on the models of the inverse Compton scattering as has been proposed for the short duration X-ray flares (Falcke & Markoff 2000; Markoff et. al., 2001; Liu & Melia, 2002 ). Considering the opaque nature of the sub-millimeter component at 1.3 mm, the X-ray flares could hide at 1.3 mm due to a self-absorption. Alternatively, the flares at sub-millimeter wavelengths might be a result of collective mass ejections associated with the X-ray flares that originate from the inner region of the accretion flows near the event horizon of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic center.

We would like to thank the SMA staff from both the SAO and the ASIAA for supporting this monitoring program. We are grateful to Jim Moran and Heino Falcke (the referee) for their valuable comments. JHZ thanks Irwin Shapiro for his initial suggestion of the SMA monitoring program. The Very Large Array (VLA) is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). The NRAO is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.


text:
# Theorem 2.1.

On integral representations of $`q`$-gamma and $`q`$–beta functions

|  | Department of Mathematics, MIT |
| --- | --- |
|  | 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA |
|  | E–mails: desole@math.mit.edu |
|  | kac@math.mit.edu |

Abstract

We study $`q`$–integral representations of the $`q`$–gamma and the $`q`$–beta functions. This study leads to a very interesting $`q`$–constant. As an application of these integral representations, we obtain a simple conceptual proof of a family of identities for Jacobi triple product, including Jacobi’s identity, and of Ramanujan’s formula for the bilateral hypergeometric series.

1. Introduction

The $`q`$–gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$, a $`q`$–analogue of Euler’s gamma function, was introduced by Thomae  and later by Jackson  as the infinite product

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)=\frac{(1q)_q^{t1}}{(1q)^{t1}},t>0,$$
(1.1)
where $`q`$ is a fixed real number $`0<q<1`$. Here and further we use the following notation:

$`(a+b)_q^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(a+q^jb),\text{ if }n_+,`$ (1.2)
$`(1+a)_q^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1+q^ja),`$ (1.3)
$`(1+a)_q^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+a)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1+q^ta)_q^{\mathrm{}}}},\text{ if }t.`$ (1.4)
Notice that, under our assumptions on $`q`$, the infinite product (1.3) is convergent. Moreover, the definitions (1.2) and (1.4) are consistent.

Though the literature on the $`q`$–gamma function and its applications is rather extensive, , , , the authors usually avoided the use of its $`q`$–integral representation. In fact, each time when a $`q`$–integral representation was discussed, it was, as a rule, not quite right. The first correct integral representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ that we know of is in reference :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)=_0^{\frac{1}{1q}}x^{t1}E_q^{qx}d_qx.$$
(1.5)
Here $`E_q^x`$ is one of the two $`q`$–analogues of the exponential function:

$`E_q^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{n(n1)/2}{\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{[n]!}}=(1+(1q)x)_q^{\mathrm{}},`$ (1.6)
$`e_q^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{[n]!}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1(1q)x)_q^{\mathrm{}}}},`$ (1.7)
and the $`q`$–integral (introduced by Thomae  and Jackson ) is defined by

$$_0^af(x)d_qx=(1q)\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}aq^jf(aq^j).$$
(1.8)
The $`q`$–beta function was more fortunate in this respect. Already in the mentioned papers by Thomae and Jackson it was shown that the $`q`$–beta function defined by the usual formula

$$\text{B}_q(t,s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(s+t)},$$
(1.9)
has the $`q`$–integral representation, which is a $`q`$–analogue of Euler’s formula:

$$\text{B}_q(t,s)=_0^1x^{t1}(1qx)_q^{s1}d_qx,t,s>0.$$
(1.10)
Jackson  made an attempt to give a $`q`$–analogue of another Euler’s integral representation of the beta function:

$$\text{B}(t,s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)^{t+s}}𝑑x.$$
(1.11)
However, his definition is not quite right, since it is not quite equal to $`B_q(t,s)`$, as will be explained in Remark 4.4. A correct $`q`$–analogue of (1.11) is the famous Ramanujan’s formula for the bilateral hypergeometric series, see \[2, pp 502–505\] (in fact, Ramanujan’s formula was known already to Kronecker).

In the present paper we give a $`q`$–integral representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ based on the $`q`$–exponential function $`e_q^x`$, and give a $`q`$–integral representation of $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ which is a $`q`$–analogue of (1.11). Both representations are based on the following remarkable function:

$$K(x,t)=\frac{x^t}{1+x}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)_q^t(1+x)_q^{1t}.$$
(1.12)
This function is a $`q`$–constant in $`x`$, i.e.

$$K(qx,t)=K(x,t),$$

and for $`t`$ an integer it is indeed independent on $`x`$, and is equal to $`q^{t(t1)/2}`$. However, for $`t(0,1)`$ this function does depend on $`x`$, since for these $`t`$ one has

$$\underset{q0}{lim}K(x;t)=x^t+x^{t1}.$$

Our integral representations are as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ $`=`$ $`K(A,t){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A(1q)}}x^{t1}e_q^xd_qx,`$ (1.13)
$`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`K(A,t){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}}d_qx,`$ (1.14)
where the improper integral, following  and , is defined by

$$_0^{\mathrm{}/A}f(x)d_qx=(1q)\underset{n}{}\frac{q^n}{A}f\left(\frac{q^n}{A}\right).$$
(1.15)
Since $`K(A,t)`$ depends on $`A`$, we conclude that integrals in both formulas do depend on $`A`$. In his formulas Jackson used the factor $`q^{t(t1)/2}`$ in place of $`K(A,t)`$, which is correct only for an integer $`t`$.

Note also that formula (1.5) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ can be written via an improper integral too (since $`E_q^{\frac{q^n}{1q}}=0`$ for $`n0`$):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}/(1q)}x^{t1}E_q^{qx}d_qx.$$
(1.16)
We will refer to the book  for notation and basic facts on $`q`$–calculus. Unfortunately the authors of the book didn’t know about the reference  and made the same mistake as their predecessors in the definition (1.16) (taking $`\mathrm{}`$ in place of $`\mathrm{}/(1q)`$, which gives a divergent series). However all their arguments hold verbatim for the definition (1.5) (or (1.16)) and are used in the present paper to derive (1.13) and (1.14).

In Sections 5 and 6 we will apply equation (1.14) to find an integral representation of the $`q`$–beta function which is manifestly symmetric under the exchange of $`t`$ and $`s`$, and to find a $`q`$–analogue of translation invariance of certain improper integrals. Finally, in Section 7 we will show that equation (1.13) is equivalent to a family of triple product identities, a special case of which is the Jacobi triple product identity:

$$(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1x)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q/x)_q^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^nq^{n(n1)/2}x^n,$$
(1.17)
equation (1.14) is equivalent to the famous Ramanujan’s identity, see \[2, pp 501–505\]:

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1a)_q^n}{(1b)_q^n}x^n=\frac{(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1b/a)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1ax)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q/ax)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1b)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q/a)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1x)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1b/ax)_q^{\mathrm{}}},$$
(1.18)
and the symmetric integral representation of the $`q`$–beta function is equivalent to the following identity:

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1a)_q^n(1q/a)_q^n}{(1b)_q^n(1c)_q^n}=\frac{(1a)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q/a)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1b)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1c)_q^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1bc/q)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1b/a)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1ac/q)_q^{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(1.19)
One of the authors wishes to thank A. Varchenko for sending corrections to the book , including the one mentioned above.

2. Notation and preliminary results

Throughout this paper we will assume $`q`$ to be a fixed number between 0 and 1. We denote by $`D_q`$ the $`q`$–derivative of a function

$$(D_qf)(x)=\frac{f(qx)f(x)}{(q1)x}.$$

The Jackson definite integral of the function $`f`$ is defined to be

$$_0^af(x)d_qx=(1q)\underset{n0}{}q^naf(q^na).$$

Notice that the series on the right–hand side is guaranteed to be convergent as soon as the function $`f`$ is such that, for some $`C>0,\alpha >1`$, $`|f(x)|<Cx^\alpha `$ in a right neighborhood of $`x=0`$. Jackson integral and $`q`$–derivative are related by the “fundamental theorem of quantum calculus”, \[7, p 73\]

###### Theorem 2.1.

1. If $`F`$ is any anti $`q`$–derivative of the function $`f`$, namely $`D_qF=f`$, continuous at $`x=0`$, then

$$_0^af(x)d_qx=F(a)F(0).$$
2. For any function $`f`$ one has

$$D_q_0^xf(t)d_qt=f(x).$$

###### Remark 2.2.

It is easy to check the $`q`$–analogue of the Leibniz rule:

$$D_q(f(x)g(x))=g(x)D_qf(x)+f(qx)D_qg(x).$$

An immediate consequence is the $`q`$–analogue of the rule of integration by parts:

$$_0^ag(x)D_qf(x)d_qx=f(x)g(x)|_0^a_0^af(qx)D_qg(x)d_qx.$$

One defines the Jackson integral in a generic interval $`[a,b]`$ by :

$$_a^bf(x)d_qx=_0^bf(x)d_qx_0^af(x)d_qx.$$

One also defines improper integrals in the following way , :

$$_0^{\mathrm{}/A}f(x)d_qx=(1q)\underset{n}{}\frac{q^n}{A}f\left(\frac{q^n}{A}\right).$$
(2.1)
###### Remark 2.3.

Notice that in order the series on the right–hand side to be convergent, it suffices that the function $`f`$ satisfies the conditions: $`|f(x)|<Cx^\alpha ,x[0,ϵ)`$, for some $`C>0,\alpha >1,ϵ>0`$, and $`|f(x)|<Dx^\beta ,x[N,\mathrm{})`$, for some $`D>0,\beta <1,N>0`$. In general though, even when these conditions are satisfied, the value of the sum will be dependent on the constant $`A`$. In order the integral to be independent of $`A`$, the anti $`q`$–derivative of $`f`$ needs to have limits for $`x0`$ and $`x+\mathrm{}`$.

One has the following reciprocity relations:

$`{\displaystyle _0^A}f(x)d_qx={\displaystyle _{q/A}^{\mathrm{}/A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)d_qx,`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}f(x)d_qx={\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{}A}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)d_qx.`$ (2.2)
This is a special case of the following more general change of variable formula, \[7, p 107\]. If $`u(x)=\alpha x^\beta `$, then

$$_{u(a)}^{u(b)}f(u)d_qu=_a^bf(u(x))D_{q^{1/\beta }}u(x)d_{q^{1/\beta }}x.$$

The $`q`$–analogue of an integer number $`n`$ is

$$[n]=\frac{1q^n}{1q}=1+q+\mathrm{}+q^{n1}.$$

In general we will denote $`[t]=\frac{1q^t}{1q}`$ even for a non integer $`t`$.

The following lemma follows immediately from the definitions (1.2), (1.3) and (1.4) of $`(a+b)_q^t`$. The proof is left as an exercise to the reader. See also \[7, pp 106-107\].

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`n_+`$ and $`t,s,a,b,A,B`$.

1. $`D_qx^t=[t]x^{t1}`$
2. $`D_q(Ax+b)_q^n=[n]A(Ax+b)_q^{n1}`$
3. $`D_q(a+Bx)_q^n=[n]B(a+Bqx)_q^{n1}`$
4. $`D_q(1+Bx)_q^t=[t]B(1+Bqx)_q^{t1}`$
5. $`D_q\frac{Ax^s}{(1+Bx)_q^t}=[s]\frac{Ax^{s1}}{(1+Bx)_q^{t+1}}B([t][s])\frac{Ax^s}{(1+Bx)_q^{t+1}}`$
6. $`D_q\frac{(1+Ax)_q^s}{(1+Bx)_q^t}=[s]A\frac{(1+Aqx)_q^{s1}}{(1+Bqx)_q^t}B[t]\frac{(1+Ax)_q^s}{(1+Bx)_q^{t+1}}`$
7. $`(1+x)_q^{s+t}=(1+x)_q^s(1+q^sx)_q^t`$
8. $`(1+x)_q^t=\frac{1}{(1+q^tx)_q^t}`$
9. $`(1+q^sx)_q^t=\frac{(1+x)_q^{s+t}}{(1+x)_q^s}=\frac{(1+q^tx)_q^s}{(1+x)_q^s}(1+x)_q^t`$
10. $`(1+q^nx)_q^t=\frac{(x+q)_q^n}{(q^tx+q)_q^n}(1+x)_q^t`$

The $`q`$–analogues of the exponential function are given by (1.6) and (1.7). The equality between the series expansion and the infinite product expansion of $`e_q^x`$ and $`E_q^x`$ (in the domain where both expansions converge) is proved by taking the limit for $`n\mathrm{}`$ in the Gauss and Heine’s $`q`$–binomial formulas, \[7, pp 29–32\].

###### Remark 2.5.

Notice that for $`q(0,1)`$ the series expansion of $`e_q^x`$ has radius of convergence $`1/(1q)`$. This corresponds to the fact that the infinite product $`1/(1(1q)x)_q^{\mathrm{}}`$ has a pole at $`x=1/(1q)`$. On the contrary, the series expansion of $`E_q^x`$ converges for every $`x`$. Both product expansions (1.6) and (1.7) converge for all $`x`$.

###### Lemma 2.6.

The $`q`$–exponential functions satisfy the following properties:

1. $`D_qe_q^x=e_q^x,D_qE_q^x=E_q^{qx}`$.
2. $`e_q^xE_q^x=E_q^xe_q^x=1`$.

The proof is straightforward and it is left as an exercise to the reader. See also \[7, pp 29–32\].

3. Definition of $`q`$–gamma and $`q`$–beta functions

The Euler’s gamma and beta functions are defined as the following definite integrals ($`s,t>0`$):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x^{t1}e^x𝑑x,`$ (3.1)
$`\text{B}(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}x^{t1}(1x)^{s1}𝑑x,`$ (3.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)^{t+s}}}𝑑x.`$ (3.3)
Notice that (3.3) follows immediately from (3.2) after a change of variable $`x=1/(1+y)`$. From the expression (3.2) it is clear that $`\text{B}(t,s)`$ is symmetric in $`t`$ and $`s`$. Recall some of the main properties of the gamma and beta functions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t+1)=t\mathrm{\Gamma }(t),\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=1,`$ (3.4)
$`\text{B}(t,s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(t+s).`$ (3.5)
In this paper we are interested in the $`q`$–analogue of the gamma and beta functions. They are defined in the following way.

###### Definition 3.1.

1. For $`t>0`$, the $`q`$–gamma function is defined to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)=_0^{1/(1q)}x^{t1}E_q^{qx}d_qx.$$
(3.6)
2. For $`s,t>0`$, the $`q`$–beta function is

$$\text{B}_q(t,s)=_0^1x^{t1}(1qx)_q^{s1}d_qx.$$
(3.7)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ and $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ are the “correct” $`q`$–analogues of the gamma and beta functions, since they reduce to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ and $`\text{B}(t,s)`$ respectively in the limit $`q1`$, and they satisfy properties analogues to (3.4) and (3.5). This is stated in the following

###### Theorem 3.2.

1. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ can be equivalently expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)=\frac{(1q)_q^{t1}}{(1q)^{t1}}.$$
(3.8)
In particular one has

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t+1)=[t]\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t),t>0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(1)=1.$$
2. The $`q`$–gamma and $`q`$-beta functions are related to each other by the following two equations

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{B}_q(t,\mathrm{})}{(1q)^t}},`$ (3.9)
$`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t+s)}}.`$ (3.10)

###### Proof.

We reproduce here the proof of Kac and Cheung \[7, pp 76–79\], because similar arguments will be used to prove the results in the next section. If we put $`s=\mathrm{}`$ in the definition of the $`q`$–beta function, use (1.6) and the change of variable $`x=(1q)y`$, we get

$`\text{B}_q(t,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}x^{t1}E_q^{\frac{qx}{1q}}d_qx`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1q)^t}}{\displaystyle _0^{1/(1q)}}y^{t1}E_q^{qy}d_qy={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1q)^t}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t),`$
which proves (3.9). It follows from $`q`$–integration by parts and Lemma 2.4 (parts (3) and (4)) that $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ satisfies the following recurrence relations ($`t,s>0`$):

$`\text{B}_q(t+1,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[t]}{[s]}}\text{B}_q(t,s+1),`$
$`\text{B}_q(t,s+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{B}_q(t,s)q^s\text{B}_q(t+1,s).`$
Putting these two conditions together we get

$$\text{B}_q(t,s+1)=\frac{[s]}{[s+t]}\text{B}_q(t,s).$$

Since clearly $`\text{B}_q(t,1)=\frac{1}{[t]}`$, we get, for $`t>0`$ and any positive integer $`n`$,

$`\text{B}_q(t,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[n1]\mathrm{}[1]}{[t+n1]\mathrm{}[t]}}=(1q){\displaystyle \frac{(1q)_q^{n1}}{(1q^t)_q^n}}`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`(1q){\displaystyle \frac{(1q)_q^{n1}(1q)_q^{t1}}{(1q)_q^{t+n1}}}.`$
Taking the limit for $`n\mathrm{}`$ in this expression we get

$$\text{B}_q(t,\mathrm{})=(1q)(1q)_q^{t1}.$$

This together with (3.9) proves (3.8). We are left to prove (3.10). By comparing (3.11) and (3.8) we have that (3.10) is true for any positive integer value of $`s`$. To conclude that (3.10) holds for non integer values of $`s`$ we will use the following simple argument. If we substitute $`a=q^s`$ and $`b=q^t`$ in (3.10) we can write the left–hand side as

$$(1q)\underset{n0}{}b^n\frac{(1q^n)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1aq^{n1})_q^{\mathrm{}}},$$

and the right–hand side as

$$(1q)\frac{(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1ab)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1a)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1b)_q^{\mathrm{}}}.$$

Both these expressions can be viewed as formal power series in $`q`$ with coefficients rational functions in $`a`$ and $`b`$. Since we already know that they coincide, for any given $`b`$, for infinitely many values of $`a`$ (of the form $`a=q^n`$, with positive integer $`n`$), it follows that they must be equal for every value of $`a`$ and $`b`$. This concludes the proof of the Theorem. ∎

4. An equivalent definition of $`q`$–gamma and $`q`$–beta functions

In the previous section the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t)`$ was obtained from the integral expression (3.1) of the Euler’s gamma function, simply by replacing the integral with a Jackson integral and the exponential function $`e^x`$ with its $`q`$–analogue $`E_q^{qx}`$. It is natural to ask what happens if we use the other $`q`$–exponential function. In other words, we want to study the following function ($`A>0`$):

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}/A(1q)}x^{t1}e_q^xd_qx.$$
(4.1)
Similarly, the function $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ was obtained by taking the $`q`$–analogue of the integral expression (3.2) of the Euler’s beta function. We now want to study the $`q`$–analogue of the integral expression (3.3). We thus define

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)=_0^{\mathrm{}/A}\frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}d_qx.$$
(4.2)
In this section we will show how the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$ are related to the $`q`$–gamma and $`q`$–beta function respectively.

We want to adapt the arguments in the proof of Theorem 3.2 to the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$. First, by taking the limit $`s\mathrm{}`$ in the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$, using the infinite product expansion of $`e_q^x`$ and making the change of variables $`x=(1q)y`$, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)_q^{\mathrm{}}}}d_qx={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}x^{t1}e_q^{\frac{x}{1q}}d_qx`$
$`=`$ $`(1q)^t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A(1q)}}y^{t1}e_q^yd_qy=(1q)^t\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t).`$
We therefore proved

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t)=\frac{1}{(1q)^t}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,\mathrm{}).$$
(4.3)
We now want to find recursive relations for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$. By integration by parts we get

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t+1)=q^t[t]\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t).$$

Here we used the fact that $`x^te_q^x`$ tends to zero as $`x0`$ and $`x+\mathrm{}`$ (The second fact follows from Lemma 2.6 (b)). Since obviously $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(1)=1`$, we conclude that for every positive integer $`n`$ (and any value of $`A>0`$),

$$q^{n(n1)/2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(n)=[n1]!=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(n).$$
(4.4)
Let us now consider the function $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$. From integration by parts and the results in Lemma 2.4 we get ($`t,s>0`$)

$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t+1,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[t+s]}}q^t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}(qx)^tD_q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}}d_qx`$
$`=`$ $`q^t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[t+s]}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}}D_qx^td_qx=q^t{\displaystyle \frac{[t]}{[t+s]}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s).`$
For $`t=1`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(1,s)=_0^{\mathrm{}/A}\frac{1}{(1+x)_q^{s+1}}d_qx=\frac{1}{[s]}.$$
(4.6)
Formulas (S4.Ex26) and (4.6) imply ($`s>0,n_+`$)

$$q^{n(n1)/2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(n,s)=(1q)\frac{(1q)_q^{s1}(1q)_q^{n1}}{(1q)_q^{s+n1}}=\text{B}_q(n,s).$$
(4.7)
Similarly we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[t+s]}}q^s{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qx)^s}}D_q{\displaystyle \frac{x^{t+s}}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}}d_qx`$
$`=`$ $`q^s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[t+s]}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}/A}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{t+s}}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}}D_q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^s}}d_qx={\displaystyle \frac{[s]}{[t+s]}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s).`$
We now need to compute $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,1)`$. By definition and Lemma 2.4 (5)

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,1)=_0^{\mathrm{}/A}\frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)_q^{t+1}}d_qx=\frac{1}{[t]}_0^{\mathrm{}/A}D_q\frac{x^t}{(1+x)_q^t}d_qx.$$
(4.9)
When using the fundamental theorem of $`q`$–calculus to compute the right–hand side, we have to be careful, since the limit for $`x+\mathrm{}`$ of the function $`F(x)=\frac{x^t}{(1+x)_q^t}`$ does not exist. On the other hand, by definition of $`q`$–derivative and Jackson integral, we have

$$_0^{\mathrm{}/A}D_qF(x)d_qx=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}F\left(\frac{1}{Aq^N}\right)\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}F\left(\frac{q^N}{A}\right),$$

where the limits on the right–hand side are taken over the sequence of integer numbers $`N`$. We then have from (4.9)

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,1)=\frac{1}{[t]}\left(\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}(Aq^N)^t(1+\frac{1}{Aq^N})_q^t\right)^1.$$
(4.10)
If we denote by $`K(A;t)`$ the limit in parenthesis in the right–hand side of (4.10), we can use Lemma 2.4 (10) to get

$`K(A;t)`$ $`=`$ $`A^t\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}q^{Nt}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^N}{A}}\right)_q^t`$
$`=`$ $`A^t\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)_q^t\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}q^{Nt}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{1}{A}+q\right)_q^N}{\left(\frac{q^t}{A}+q\right)_q^N}}`$
$`=`$ $`A^t\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)_q^t\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+qA)_q^N}{(1+q^{1t}A)_q^N}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+A}}A^t\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\right)_q^t(1+A)_q^{1t}.`$
From (S4.Ex27) and (4.10) we conclude that for any $`t>0`$ and positive integer $`n`$

$$K(A;t)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,n)=(1q)\frac{(1q)_q^{n1}(1q)_q^{t1}}{(1q)_q^{n+t1}}=\text{B}_q(t,n).$$
(4.11)
In the following lemma we enumerate some interesting properties of the function

$$K(x;t)=\frac{1}{1+x}x^t\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)_q^t(1+x)_q^{1t}.$$

###### Lemma 4.1.

1. In the limit $`q1`$ and $`0`$ we have

$`\underset{q1}{lim}K(x;t)=1,x,t`$
$`\underset{q0}{lim}K(x;t)=x^t+x^{t1},t(0,1),x.`$
In particular $`K(x,t)`$ is not constant in $`x`$.
2. Viewed as a function of $`t`$, $`K(x;t)`$ satisfies the following recurrence relation:

$$K(x;t+1)=q^tK(x;t).$$

Since obviously $`K(x;0)=K(x;1)=1`$, we have in particular that for any positive integer $`n`$

$$K(x;n)=q^{n(n1)/2}.$$
3. As function of $`x`$, $`K(x;t)`$ is a “$`q`$–constant”, namely

$$D_qK(x,t)=0,t,x.$$

In other words $`K(q^nx;t)=K(x;t)`$ for every integer $`n`$.

###### Proof.

The limit for $`q1`$ of $`K(x;t)`$ is obviously 1. In the limit $`q0`$ we have, for any $`\alpha >0`$,

$$(1+x)_q^\alpha =(1+x)\frac{(1+qx)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1+q^\alpha x)_q^{\mathrm{}}}(1+x).$$

We therefore have, for $`t(0,1)`$: $`lim_{q0}K(x;t)=x^t\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)`$. For part (b), it follows from the definition of $`K(x;t)`$ and Lemma 2.4 that

$`K(x;t+1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x}}x^{t+1}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)_q^{t+1}(1+x)_q^t`$
$`=`$ $`x\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{q^t}{x}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+q^tx)}}K(x;t)=q^tK(x;t).`$
For part (c) it suffices to prove that $`K(qx;t)=K(x;t)`$. By definition

$$K(qx;t)=\frac{1}{1+qx}(qx)^t\left(1+\frac{1}{qx}\right)_q^t(1+qx)_q^{1t}.$$

We can replace in the right–hand side

$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qx}}\right)_q^t={\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{qx}}{1+\frac{q^t}{qx}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)_q^t`$ $`,`$
$`(1+qx)_q^{1t}={\displaystyle \frac{1+q^{1t}x}{1+x}}(1+x)_q^{1t}`$ $`.`$
The claim follows from the following trivial identity

$$\frac{q^t\left(1+\frac{1}{qx}\right)(1+q^{1t}x)}{(1+qx)\left(1+\frac{1}{q^{1t}x}\right)}=1.$$

This concludes the proof of the lemma. ∎

###### Remark 4.2.

The function $`K(x;t)`$ is an interesting example of a function which is not constant in $`x`$ and with $`q`$–derivative identically zero.

It follows from (4.7), (4.11) and Lemma 4.1 that the functions $`K(A;t)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$ and $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ coincide for any $`A>0`$ as soon as either $`t`$ or $`s`$ is a positive integer. We want to prove that they actually coincide for every $`t,s>0`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

For every $`A,t,s>0`$ one has:

$`K(A;t)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_q^{(A)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(t),`$ (4.12)
$`K(A;t)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{B}_q(t,s).`$ (4.13)
###### Remark 4.4.

This result corrects and generalizes a similar statement of Jackson . There (4.13) is proved in the special case in which $`s+t`$ is a positive integer, But, due to a computational mistake, the factor $`K(A;t)`$ is missing.

###### Proof.

(4.12) is an immediate corollary of (3.9), (4.3) and (4.11). As in the proof of Theorem 3.2, in order to prove (4.13) it suffices to prove that $`K(A;t)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)`$ can be written as formal power series in $`q`$ with coefficients rational functions in $`a=q^s`$ and $`b=q^t`$. After performing a change of variable $`y=Ax`$, we get

$$K(A;t)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_q^{(A)}(t,s)=\frac{1}{1+A}\left(1+\frac{1}{A}\right)_q^t(1+A)_q^{1t}_0^{\mathrm{}/1}\frac{y^{t1}}{\left(1+\frac{y}{A}\right)_q^{t+s}}d_qy.$$
(4.14)
Fix $`A>0`$. After letting $`b=q^t`$, we can rewrite the factor in front of the integral as

$$\frac{1}{1+A}\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{A}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{\left(1+\frac{b}{A}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{(1+A)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{\left(1+\frac{qA}{b}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}},$$

and this is manifestly a formal power series in $`q`$ with coefficients rational functions in $`b`$. We then only need to study the integral term in (4.14), which we decompose as

$$_0^1\frac{y^{t1}}{\left(1+\frac{y}{A}\right)_q^{t+s}}d_qy+_1^{\mathrm{}/1}\frac{y^{t1}}{\left(1+\frac{y}{A}\right)_q^{t+s}}d_qy$$
(4.15)
After letting $`a=q^s`$ and $`b=q^t`$ the first term in (4.15) can be written as

$$(1q)\underset{n0}{}b^n\frac{\left(1+ab\frac{q^n}{A}\right)}{\left(1+\frac{q^n}{A}\right)},$$

and this is a formal power series in $`q`$ with coefficients rational functions in $`a`$ and $`b`$. Consider now the second term of (4.15). By relation (S2.Ex10) we can rewrite it as

$$_0^q\frac{x^{s1}}{x^{t+s}\left(1+\frac{1}{Ax}\right)_q^{t+s}}d_qx.$$
(4.16)
Recalling the definition of $`K(x;t)`$, we have the identity

$$\frac{1}{x^{t+s}\left(1+\frac{1}{Ax}\right)_q^{t+s}}=\frac{1}{1+Ax}(1+Ax)_q^{1ts}\frac{A^{t+s}}{K(Ax;t+s)}.$$

The main observation is that, even though $`K(Ax;t+s)`$ is not constant in $`x`$, by Lemma 4.1 $`K(Aq^n;t+s)=K(A;t+s),n`$, therefore inside the Jackson integral it can be treated as a constant. Using this fact, we can rewrite (4.16) as

$$\frac{A^{t+s}}{K(A;t+s)}_0^q\frac{1}{1+Ax}x^{s1}(1+Ax)_q^{1ts}d_qx.$$
(4.17)
After letting $`a=q^s`$ and $`b=q^t`$ we can finally rewrite the first factor in (4.17) as

$$\frac{(1+A)\left(1+\frac{ab}{A}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{qA}{ab}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{\left(1+\frac{1}{A}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+A\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}}$$
(4.18)
and the integral term in (4.17) as

$$(1q)\underset{n0}{}a^{n+1}\frac{(1+Aq^{n+2})_q^{\mathrm{}}}{\left(1+\frac{Aq^{n+2}}{ab}\right)_q^{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(4.19)
Clearly both expression (4.18) and (4.19) are formal power series in $`q`$ with coefficients rational functions in $`a`$ and $`b`$. This concludes the proof of the theorem. ∎

5. Application 1: an integral expression of the $`q`$–beta function manifestly symmetric in $`t`$ and $`s`$

Theorem 3.2 implies that $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ is a symmetric function in $`t`$ and $`s`$. This is not obvious from its integral expression (3.7). We now want to use Theorem 4.3 to find an integral expression for $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ which is manifestly symmetric under the exchange of $`t`$ and $`s`$. By Theorem 4.3 we have that, for any $`A>0`$

$$\text{B}_q(t,s)=K(A;t)_0^{\mathrm{}/A}\frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}d_qx.$$
(5.1)
By definition of $`K(x,t)`$ and using the results of Lemma 2.4 we get, after simple algebraic manipulations

$$\frac{1}{x^t}(1+x)_q^{t+s}=K(\frac{1}{x};t)\left(1+\frac{q}{q^tx}\right)_q^t(1+q^tx)_q^s.$$
(5.2)
Since by Lemma 4.1 we have

$$K(\frac{1}{x};t)=K(A;t),x=\frac{q^n}{A},n,$$

when we substitute (5.2) back into (5.1) we get, after a change of variable $`y=q^tx`$,

$$\text{B}_q(t,s)=_0^{\mathrm{}/\alpha }\frac{1}{y(1+\frac{q}{y})_q^t(1+y)_q^s}d_qy,\alpha >0.$$
(5.3)
To conclude, we just notice that this integral expression of $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ is manifestly symmetric in $`t`$ and $`s`$, since performing the change of variable $`x=\frac{q}{y}`$ (namely applying the reciprocity relation (S2.Ex10) gives the same integral with $`\alpha `$ replaced by $`1/\alpha `$ and $`s`$ replaced by $`t`$.

6. Application 2: translation invariance of a certain type of improper integrals

One of the main failures of the Jackson integral is that there is no analogue of the translation invariance identity

$$_0^af(x)𝑑x=_c^{a+c}f(xc)𝑑x,$$

obviously true for “classical” integrals. By using Theorem 4.3 we are able to write a $`q`$ analogue of translation invariance for improper integrals of a special class of function, namely of the form $`x^\alpha /(1+x)_q^\beta `$. More precisely we want to prove the following

###### Corollary 6.1.

For $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\beta >\alpha +1`$ we have

$$_0^{\mathrm{}/\alpha }\frac{x^\alpha }{(1+x)_q^\beta }d_qx=\frac{q}{q^\beta K(A,\alpha )}_1^{\mathrm{}/1}\frac{x^\alpha \left(1\frac{1}{x}\right)_q^\alpha }{x^\beta }d_qx.$$
(6.1)
###### Remark 6.2.

In the “classical” limit $`q=1`$, the right–hand side is obtained from the left–hand side by translating $`xx1`$.

###### Proof.

From the definition of $`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ we have

$`\text{B}_q(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}x^{s1}(1qx)_q^{t1}d_qx`$ (6.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _q^{\mathrm{}/1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{s+1}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q}{x}}\right)_q^{t1}d_qx`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^s}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}/1}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{t1}\left(1\frac{1}{x}\right)_q^{t1}}{x^{t+s}}}d_qx.`$
The first identity was obtained by applying (S2.Ex10) and the second by a change of variable $`y=x/q`$. From Theorem 4.3 we also have

$$\text{B}_q(t,s)=K(A;t)_0^{\mathrm{}/A}\frac{x^{t1}}{(1+x)_q^{t+s}}d_qx.$$
(6.3)
Equation (6.1) is obtained by comparing (6.2) and (6.3), after letting $`\alpha =t1,\beta =t+s`$ and using the fact that $`K(A;\alpha +1)=q^\alpha K(A;\alpha )`$. ∎

7. Application 3: identities

If we rewrite equations (4.12), (4.13) and (5.3) using the definition of improper integrals, we get some interesting identities involving $`q`$–bilateral series.

After using the infinite product expansion (1.7) of the $`q`$–exponential function $`e_q^x`$, the expression (3.8) of the $`q`$–gamma function, the definition (1.15) of the improper Jackson integral and simple algebraic manipulations, we can rewrite equation (4.12) as

$$(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+q^t/A)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+qA/q^t)_q^{\mathrm{}}=(1+qA)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q^t)_q^{\mathrm{}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{tn}(1+1/A)_q^n.$$
(7.1)
If we let $`x=q^t/A`$ in equation (7.1) we get

$$(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1x)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q/x)_q^{\mathrm{}}=(1+qA)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+Ax)_q^{\mathrm{}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(x)^nA^n(1+1/A)_q^n.$$
(7.2)
This is a 1–parameter family of identities for the Jacobi triple product $`(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1x)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q/x)_q^{\mathrm{}},`$ parametrized by $`A`$. Notice that

$$\underset{A0}{lim}A^n(1+1/A)_q^n=q^{n(n1)/2}.$$

This implies that, in the special case $`A=0`$, equation (7.2) reduces to the famous Jacobi triple product identity (1.17).

Let’s consider now equation (4.13). After using the definition (1.15) of improper $`q`$–integral, the expression (1.9) for the $`q`$–beta function and simple algebraic manipulations, we can rewrite it as

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1+1/A)_q^n}{(1+q^{t+s}/A)_q^n}q^{tn}=\frac{(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q^{t+s})_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+q^t/A)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+qA/q^t)_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1+q^{t+s}/A)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+qA)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q^t)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q^s)_q^{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(7.3)
Notice that, after letting $`a=1/A,b=q^{t+s}/A,x=q^t`$, equation (7.3) is equivalent to the famous Ramanujan’s identity (1.18). In other words, the proof of Theorem 4.3 in Section 4 can be viewed as a new, more conceptual proof of Ramanujan’s identity.

Finally we can rewrite equation (5.3) as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+1/\alpha )_q^n(1+q\alpha )_q^n}{(1+q^s/\alpha )_q^n(1+q^{t+1}\alpha )_q^n}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(1+1/\alpha )_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+q\alpha )_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1+q^s/\alpha )_q^{\mathrm{}}(1+q^{t+1}\alpha )_q^{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q^{t+s})_q^{\mathrm{}}}{(1q^s)_q^{\mathrm{}}(1q^t)_q^{\mathrm{}}}}.`$ (7.4)
After letting $`a=1/\alpha ,b=q^s/\alpha ,c=q^{t+1}\alpha `$, equation (S7.Ex54) reduces to (1.19).