Operator algebra of chiral quasi-primary fields

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and comparison of commutation relations for modes of chiral quasi-primary fields in conformal field theory (CFT). Participants explore the mathematical expressions involved, including the use of contour integrals and various summation techniques to reconcile different formulations found in textbooks and personal calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derived expression for the commutation relations of two chiral quasi-primary fields, noting a discrepancy with textbook results.
  • Another participant suggests eliminating one variable using a constraint to simplify the comparison of expressions, indicating that both expressions can be analyzed term-wise for fixed indices.
  • Further contributions involve detailed manipulations of binomial coefficients and factorials, with attempts to express terms in a more comparable form using Gamma functions.
  • One participant claims to have reproduced the original result but struggles to show its equivalence to the textbook formulation, indicating ongoing uncertainty about the manipulation of terms.
  • Another participant expresses gratitude for the introduction of identities that helped prove the equivalence of the two formulas, suggesting a resolution to the earlier discrepancies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the equivalence of the two expressions initially presented, although one participant later claims to have proven their equivalence. The discussion includes multiple competing views and unresolved aspects regarding the manipulation of mathematical terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the expressions involved, including constraints on summation indices and the need for careful handling of factorial and binomial terms. Some steps in the derivation remain unresolved, and the discussion reflects a reliance on specific mathematical identities that may not be universally accepted.

J.Hong
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Studying conformal field theory, I tried to derive general expression for the commutation relations of the modes of two chiral quasi-primary fields.
At first, I expressed the modes [itex]\phi_{(i)m}[/itex] and [itex]\phi_{(j)n}[/itex] as contour integrals over each fields, and took commutation relation. I used ansatz, [tex]\phi _i(z)\phi_j(w)=\sum_{k,n\geqslant 0}C^k_{ij}\frac{a^n_{ijk}}{n!}\frac{1}{(z-w)^{h_i+h_j-h_k-n}}\partial ^n\phi_k(w)[/tex], to calculate the commutation relation, [tex]\left [ \phi_{(i)m},\phi_{(j)n} \right ].[/tex] [itex]h_i, h_j,[/itex] and [itex]h_k[/itex] are conformal dimension of the fields, [itex]\phi_i(z), \phi_j(z),[/itex] and [itex]\phi_k(z)[/itex], respectively.
Finally, I obtained the result, [tex]\left [ \phi_{(i)m},\phi_{(j)n} \right ]=\sum_{k\geq 0}C^k_{ij}P(m,n;h_i,h_j,h_k)\phi_{(k)m+n}+d_{ij}\delta _{m,-n}\binom{m+h_i-1}{2h_i-1} ,[/tex] where [tex]P(m,n;h_i,h_j,h_k)=\sum_{r=0}^{h_i+h_j-h_k-1}\binom{m+h_i-1}{h_i+h_j-h_k-1-r}\frac{(-1)^r(h_i-h_j+h_k)_{(r)}(m+n+h_k)_{(r)}}{r!(2h_k)_{(r)}}[/tex]. [tex](x_{(r)}\equiv \Gamma (x+r)/\Gamma (x)).[/tex] I took advantage of two and three point functions to get the result.
I think my calculation is right. In many textbooks on CFT, however, [tex]\left [ \phi_{(i)m},\phi_{(j)n} \right ]=\sum_{k\geq 0}C^k_{ij}P(m,n;h_i,h_j,h_k)\phi_{(k)m+n}+d_{ij}\delta _{m,-n}\binom{m+h_i-1}{2h_i-1}[/tex], where [tex]\sum_{r,s\in \mathbb{Z},r+s=h_i+h_j-h_k-1}\binom{m+h_i-1}{r}\binom{n+h_j-1}{s}\frac{(-1)^r(2h_k-1)!}{(h_i+h_j+h_k-2)!}\frac{(2h_i-2-r)!}{(2h_i-2-r-s)!}\frac{(2h_j-2-s)!}{(2h_j-2-r-s)!} .[/tex] This result looks different from my result, but two result should be the same. I don't know how to obtain the formula in textbooks and how the two results are the same. Please, teach me with explicit calculation procedures.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
J.Hong said:
[tex]\sum_{r,s\in \mathbb{Z},r+s=h_i+h_j-h_k-1}\binom{m+h_i-1}{r}\binom{n+h_j-1}{s}\frac{(-1)^r(2h_k-1)!}{(h_i+h_j+h_k-2)!}\frac{(2h_i-2-r)!}{(2h_i-2-r-s)!}\frac{(2h_j-2-s)!}{(2h_j-2-r-s)!} .[/tex]

I don't have the patience to go through this step by step, but you should first note that this isn't really a double sum because of the constraint that ##r+s=h_i+h_j-h_k-1##. So the first step would be to eliminate ##s## using this constraint. It looks like both expressions are then sums over the same index ##r## and same range. So you can compare the expressions term-wise, for fixed ##r##.

Convert all short-cut notation like the binomial coefficients, the ##x_{(r)}## notation, and the factorials into ##\Gamma## functions. Some common coefficients are already obvious in what you've wrote down so far, if you go a bit further, I expect things to be a bit more clearer. Simplify as much as you can and then post back if you still have questions.
 
fzero said:
I don't have the patience to go through this step by step, but you should first note that this isn't really a double sum because of the constraint that ##r+s=h_i+h_j-h_k-1##. So the first step would be to eliminate ##s## using this constraint. It looks like both expressions are then sums over the same index ##r## and same range. So you can compare the expressions term-wise, for fixed ##r##.

Convert all short-cut notation like the binomial coefficients, the ##x_{(r)}## notation, and the factorials into ##\Gamma## functions. Some common coefficients are already obvious in what you've wrote down so far, if you go a bit further, I expect things to be a bit more clearer. Simplify as much as you can and then post back if you still have questions.

Thanks, fzero :)

Even though eliminate one variable by using the constraint you said, it still remains different term. See below.

1. My result
[tex]\left [ \phi_{(i)m},\phi_{(j)n} \right ]=\sum_{k\geq 0}C^k_{ij}\sum_{r=0}^{h_i+h_j-h_k-1}\frac{(-1)^{h_i+h_j-h_k-1-r}(m+n+h_k+r-1)!(m+h_i-1)!(2h_k-1)!(2h_i-2-r)!\phi_{(k)m+n}}{(m+n+h_k-1)!(h_i+h_j-h_k-1-r)!(m+h_i-1-r)!r!(h_i-h_j+h_k-1)!}.[/tex]

2. The result in many textbooks
[tex]\left [ \phi_{(i)m},\phi_{(j)n} \right ]=\sum_{k\geq 0}C^k_{ij}\sum_{r=0}^{h_i+h_j-h_k-1}\frac{(-1)^{r}(n+h_j-1)!(m+h_i-1)!(2h_k-1)!(2h_i-2-r)!(h_j-h_i+h_k-1-r)!\phi_{(k)m+n}}{(n-h_i+h_k+r)!(h_i+h_j-h_k-1-r)!(m+h_i-1-r)!r!(h_i+h_j+h_k-2)!(h_j-h_i+h_k-1)!(h_i-h_j+h_k-1)!}.[/tex]

I abbreviated the term includes [itex]\delta _{m,-n}[/itex] which is matche each other.
 
I had a chance to look at this a bit more. I was able to reproduce your result

J.Hong said:
[tex]P(m,n;h_i,h_j,h_k)=\sum_{r=0}^{h_i+h_j-h_k-1}\binom{m+h_i-1}{h_i+h_j-h_k-1-r}\frac{(-1)^r(h_i-h_j+h_k)_{(r)}(m+n+h_k)_{(r)}}{r!(2h_k)_{(r)}}[/tex]

but I haven't been able to show that this is equal to the textbook result. I had a few ideas about how to manipulate this, but I'm still left with some strange factors. Maybe you'll be able to straighten things out further.


We need the identities

$$
\binom{n}{k} = \binom{n}{n-k} = \frac{\binom{n}{h} \binom{n-h}{k}}{\binom{n-k}{h}} = \sum_{j=0}^k \binom{m}{j} \binom{n-m}{k-j},$$
where in the 4th term, we can choose any ##m## that we want. We can use the 4th identity to write

$$
\begin{split} (m+n+h_k)_{(r)} & = r! \binom{m+n+h_k+r-1}{r} \\
& = \sum_{t=0}^r r! \binom{m+h_k-h_j+r}{t} \binom{m+h_j-1}{r-t} .\end{split}
$$

Under the sum over ##r##, we can shift the index to ##s=r-t##, so that

$$ (m+n+h_k)_{(r)} \longrightarrow \sum_{s} r!\binom{m+h_k-h_j+r}{r-s} \binom{m+h_j-1}{s}$$


Set ##r+s= h_i+h_j-h_k-1##, we can use the 3rd identity to write

$$\binom{m+h_i-1}{h_i+h_j-h_k-1-r} = \binom{m+h_i-1}{s} = \frac{\binom{m+h_i-1}{s} \binom{m+h_i-r-1}{s}}{\binom{m+h_i-s-1}{r}} . $$

Furthermore,

$$(h_i-h_j+h_k)_{(r)} = \frac{(2h_i-r-2)!}{(2h_i-r-s-2)!} \frac{r!\binom{2h_i-s-2}{r}}{\binom{2h_i-r-2}{s}}.$$

We can therefore write

$$P(m,n;h_i,h_j,h_k) = \sum_{r,s} (-1)^r \binom{m+h_i-1}{s} \binom{n+h_j-1}{s} \frac{(2h_i-r-2)! }{(2h_i-r-s-2)! } \frac{(2h_j-s-2)! }{(2h_j-r-s-2)! } p_{r,s} $$

where

$$p_{r,s} = \frac{\binom{m+h_k-h_j+r}{r-s} \binom{m+h_i-r-1}{s}}{\binom{m+h_i-s-1}{r}}
\frac{\binom{2h_i-s-2}{r}}{\binom{2h_i-r-2}{s}\binom{ 2h_j-s-2}{r}} .
$$

We can use the 3rd identity a couple of times to write this as

$$p_{r,s} = \frac{\binom{m+h_k-h_j+r}{r-s} }{\binom{ 2h_j-s-2}{r}} \frac{\binom{m+h_i-1}{r}}{\binom{m+h_i-1}{s}}
\frac{\binom{2h_i-2}{s}}{\binom{2h_i-2}{r}} .
$$

There are some obvious cancellations, but I haven't been able to get all of the factors to cancel in order to recover the textbook answer. Maybe you'll have better luck and/or turn up some mistake that I made.
 
fzero said:
We need the identities

$$
\binom{n}{k} = \binom{n}{n-k} = \frac{\binom{n}{h} \binom{n-h}{k}}{\binom{n-k}{h}} = \sum_{j=0}^k \binom{m}{j} \binom{n-m}{k-j},$$
where in the 4th term, we can choose any ##m## that we want.

Thank you, fzero

I proved two formulas are the same each other using general version of the identities you introduced. Thank you again, fzero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K