1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}   %envcountsame

2: \input macros

3: \driver=1 \bozza=0

4: 

5: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

6: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

7: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

8: 

9: \begin{document}

10: 

11: 

12: \title{{Functional Integral Construction of the

13: Thirring model: axioms verification and massless limit}}

14: 

15: 

16: \author{ G. Benfatto \and  P. Falco \and   V. Mastropietro}

17: 

18: \date{}

19: \maketitle

20: 

21: \begin{center}

22: Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\`a di Roma ``Tor Vergata''\\

23: via della Ricerca Scientifica, I-00133, Roma

24: \end{center}

25: 

26: \begin{abstract} We construct a QFT for the

27: Thirring model for any value of the mass in a functional integral

28: approach, by proving that a set of Grassmann integrals converges,

29: as the cutoffs are removed and for a proper choice of the bare

30: parameters, to a set of Schwinger functions verifying the

31: Osterwalder-Schrader axioms. The corresponding Ward Identities

32: have anomalies which are not linear in the coupling and which

33: violate the anomaly non-renormalization property. Additional

34: anomalies are present in the closed equation for the interacting

35: propagator, obtained by combining a Schwinger-Dyson equation with

36: Ward Identities.

37: \end{abstract}

38: 

39: \section{ Introduction and Main result}\lb{ss1}

40: 

41: \subsection{Historical Introduction}\lb{ss1.1}

42: 

43: Proposed by Thirring \cite{T} half a century ago, the {\it

44: Thirring model} is a Quantum Field Theory (QFT) of a spinor field

45: in a two dimensional space-time, with a self interaction of the

46: form $(\l/4) \int\! d\xx (\bar\psi_\xx\g^\m\psi_\xx)^2$. The

47: interest of such a model, witnessed by the enormous number of

48: papers devoted to it, is mainly due to the fact that it has a non

49: trivial behavior, similar to the one of more realistic models, but

50: at the same time it is simple enough to be in principle accessible

51: to an analytic investigation. Hence the validity of several

52: properties of QFT models, which in general can be verified at most

53: by perturbative expansions, can be checked in principle in the

54: Thirring model at a non-perturbative level. The Thirring model has

55: been studied along the years following different approaches and we

56: will recall here briefly the main achievements.

57: 

58: \*

59: 

60: \noindent {\it Exact approach.} After a certain number of

61: "solutions" of the model fell into disrepute after inconsistences

62: were encountered, Johnson \cite{J} was able to derive, {\it in the

63: massless case}, an exact expression for the two point function; if

64: $\la T(\psi_\xx\bar\psi_{\bf 0})\ra$ is the two-point function in

65: the Minkowski space, he found that $\la T(\psi_\xx\bar\psi_{\bf

66: 0})\ra= i(\bar\g^\m\partial_\m)^{-1} (|\xx|/x_0)^{-\h_z}$, where

67: $\h_z=2 (\l/4\pi)^2 [1-(\l/4\pi)^2]^{-1}$, $\bar\g_\m$ are the

68: Minkowski gamma matrices and $x_0$ is an arbitrary constant with

69: the dimension of a length. This result was followed shortly

70: \cite{K} by the general $n$-point function at non-coinciding

71: points. The Johnson solution, based on operator techniques, is

72: essentially a {\it self-consistency} argument: a number of

73: reasonable requirements on the correlations is assumed from which

74: their explicit expression can be determined. The first assumpion

75: is the validity of {\it Ward-Takahashi Identities} (WTi) of the

76: form

77: %

78: \bea

79: &&i\partial_\m \la T (j^{\m}_\zz \psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy)\ra

80: =a[\d(\zz-\xx)-\d(\zz-\yy)] i\la T(\psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy)\ra\;, \lb{1.1a}\\

81: &&i\partial_\m \la T (j^{\m,5}_\zz \psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy)\ra =\bar

82: a[\d(\zz-\xx)-\d(\zz-\yy)]\g^5 i\la T(\psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy)\ra\;,\nn

83: \eea

84: %

85: where the current $j^{\m}_\xx$ and pseudocurrent $j^{\m,5}_\xx$

86: are operators, formally defined respectively as

87: $\bar\psi_\xx\bar\g^\m\psi_\xx$ and

88: $\bar\psi_\xx\bar\g^\m\g^5\psi_\xx$, and the coefficients

89: $a^{-1}-1$ and $\bar a^{-1}-1$ are called {\it anomalies}; they

90: would vanish in the naive WTi which one would expect from the

91: classical conservation laws, see for instance \cite{A1}. The

92: second assumption was the validity of {\it Schwinger-Dyson}

93: equations (the analogue of the equations of motion), and,

94: combining them with the WTi, closed equations for the $n$-point

95: functions were found; from them an explicit expression for the

96: $n$-point function at distinct points was derived and, by a

97: self-consistency argument, the following explicit values for the

98: anomalies:

99: %

100: \be

101: a^{-1}=1-{\l\over 4\pi}\quad\quad\quad \bar a^{-1}=1+{\l\over

102: 4\pi}\;.\lb{1.1b}

103: \ee

104: %

105: The anomalies are then {\it linear in the coupling}, that is no

106: higher orders contributions are present; this property is called

107: {\it anomaly non-renormalization} or {\it Adler-Bardeen theorem}, and it holds, as a statement

108: valid {\it at all orders in perturbation theory} and with suitable

109: regularizations \cite{AB}, in realistic models like $QED$ or the

110: Electroweak model in $d=4$ (in the last model it plays a crucial

111: role in the proof of its perturbative renormalizability). The

112: validity of \pref{1.1b} in the Thirring model is particularly

113: significant, as it has been considered \cite{GR} as a {\it

114: non-perturbative verification} of the perturbative analysis of

115: \cite{AB} adapted to this case; however the applicability of the

116: \cite{AB} analysis to the Thirring model has been also questioned

117: \cite{AF}. Another remarkable relation found in the exact analysis

118: in \cite{J} is

119: %

120: \be

121: \h_z={\l\over 2\pi}(a-\bar a)\;, \lb{1.1c}

122: \ee

123: %

124: relating the anomalous exponent of the two point function with the

125: anomalies; it is an immediate consequence of the the {\it closed

126: equation} for the two point functions obtained by inserting the

127: WTi \pref{1.1a} in the Schwinger-Dyson equation. The outcome of

128: this exact analysis is an explicit expression for the $n$-point

129: function at non-coinciding points and for the WTi. However, as

130: stressed by Wigthmann \cite{W}, the procedure is {\it not

131: satisfactory} from a mathematical point of view, as it involves

132: several formal manipulations of diverging quantities; even the

133: meaning of the basic equation \pref{1.1a} is unclear as the

134: averages in the l.h.s. and r.h.s. has to be (formally) divided by

135: a vanishing constant to be not identically vanishing.

136: 

137: \*

138: 

139: \noindent {\it Axiomatic approach.} The Johnson analysis still

140: left as an open problem the {\it rigorous} construction of a QFT

141: corresponding to the massless Thirring model. Wigthmann \cite{W}

142: proposed to construct the massless Thirring model following an

143: axiomatic approach; one can start directly from the explicit

144: expressions of the $n$-point functions at non-coinciding points

145: derived in \cite{J}, \cite{K} (forgetting how they were derived)

146: and try to verify the axioms necessary for the reconstruction

147: theorem. Indeed all axioms can be easily verified except {\it

148: positive definiteness}, which was proved later on in \cite{DFZ}

149: and \cite{CRW}; the idea was to define certain field operators,

150: depending on a certain number of parameters, whose expectations

151: verify the positivity property {\it by construction} and such that

152: their $n$-point functions coincide, for a suitable choice of the

153: parameters, with the expression found in \cite{J}, \cite{K}. As

154: the axioms are verified by the $n$-point functions of \cite{J},

155: \cite{K}, a rigorous construction of a QFT corresponding to

156: massless Thirring model is then obtained. Note however that the

157: fermionic mass cannot be included in this approach; moreover

158: quadratic fermionic operators at coinciding points, like

159: $j^\m_\xx$ or $j^{\m,5}$ cannot be considered, hence the WTi

160: \pref{1.1a} cannot be rigorously derived.

161: 

162: \*

163: 

164: \noindent {\it Perturbative approach.} The massive case is much

165: less understood; Coleman \cite{C} considered a perturbation

166: expansion in the mass showing that it was order by order

167: coinciding with the expansion of the Sine-Gordon model, if

168: suitable identification of parameters is done; however an explicit

169: expression for the n-point functions was not obtained, hence a QFT

170: corresponding to the massive Thirring model has never been

171: constructed.

172: 

173: \*

174: 

175: \noindent {\it Bosonic functional integral approach.} If the

176: coupling $\l$ is positive, the partition function and the

177: generating functional of the massless (Euclidean) Thirring model

178: can be written as bosonic functional integrals \cite{FGS} by a

179: {\it Hubbard-Strato\-novich} transformation; one can then

180: integrate the fermion variables and it turns out that the

181: partition function of the Thirring model can be written as

182: %

183: \be

184: \int P(d A) {{\rm det}(\g_\m[\partial_\m+A_\m])\over {\rm

185: det}(\g_\m\partial_\m)}\;,\lb{1.1e}

186: \ee

187: %

188: where $A_{\m,\xx}$ is a two-dimensional  Gaussian field with

189: covariance $\la A_{\m,\xx} A_{\n,\yy}\ra=\l \d_{\m,\n}\d(\xx-\yy)$

190: and $\g_\m$ are the Euclidean gamma matrices. A similar expression

191: holds for the generating functional. It is well known \cite{S}

192: that, {\it under suitably regularity conditions over $A$}, $\log

193: {\rm det}(\g_\m\partial_\m +\g_\m A_\m) - \log {\rm

194: det}(\g_\m\partial_\m )$ is quadratic in $A$; by replacing the

195: determinant with a quadratic exponential, one then gets an

196: explicitly solvable integral, from which the n-point functions can

197: be derived. As stressed in \cite{FGS}, in this way one gets in a

198: very simple way the results of the exact approach found in

199: \cite{J} and \cite{K}. In particular the relation \pref{1.1c} for

200: the two point critical index $\h_z$ is verified and the anomalies

201: \pref{1.1b} can be easily computed. If a dimensional

202: regularization is adopted, one finds $a=1$ and $\bar

203: a^{-1}-1=\l/(2\pi)$, while with a momentum regularization

204: \pref{1.1b} holds; in both cases the anomaly non-renormalization

205: holds. Of course in the above derivation an approximation is

206: implicit; the logarithm of the fermionic determinant in

207: \pref{1.1e} is given by a quadratic expression {\it only if} $A$

208: is sufficiently regular, but {\it the integral is over all

209: possible fields $A$}, hence one is neglecting the contributions of

210: the irregular fields and there is {\it no guarantee at all} that

211: such contribution is negligible. This approximation is usually

212: supported by the fact that one gets in this way the same results

213: found in \cite{J} and \cite{K}.

214: 

215: \*

216: 

217: \noindent {\it Fermionic functional integral approach.} This is

218: the approach we will follow in this paper. The generating

219: functional for the Euclidean Thirring model is the following {\it

220: Grassmann integral} (see below for a more precise definition)

221: %

222: \be

223: e^{\WW(\phi,J)}={1\over \NN}\int P_N(d\psi) e^{ \int d\xx

224: [-{\l\over 4} (\bar\psi_\xx\g^\m\psi_\xx)^2+

225: J_{\m,\xx}\bar\psi_{\xx}\g_\m

226: \psi_{\xx}+{\phi_\xx\bar\psi_\xx\over\sqrt{Z_N}}+

227: {\bar\phi_\xx\psi_\xx \over \sqrt{Z_N}}]} \;,\lb{1.1d}

228: \ee

229: %

230: where $\NN$ is a normalization constant, $\phi,J$ are external

231: fields, $Z_N$ is {\it the wave function renormalization},

232: $\psi_\xx,\bar\psi_\xx$ are Grassmann variables, $P_N(d\psi)$ is

233: the fermionic integration corresponding to a fermionic propagator

234: with mass $\m_N$ and a (smooth) momentum ultraviolet cut-off

235: $\g^N$, with $\g>1$.  Note that the averages of

236: $\bar\psi_{\xx}\g^\m\g^5 \psi_{\xx}$ can be obtained by the

237: derivatives with respect to $J_\m$, using the relation

238: $\bar\psi_{\xx}\g^\m\g^5

239: \psi_{\xx}=-i\e_{\m,\n}\bar\psi_{\xx}\g^\m\psi_{\xx}$ with

240: $\e_{\m,\n}=-\e_{\n,\m}$ and $\e_{1,0}=1$. When $J=\phi=0$ and

241: $\m_N=0$ the r.h.s. of \pref{1.1d} coincides with \pref{1.1e} (if

242: $\l$ is positive) in the limit $N\to \io$.

243: 

244: We will show that, by properly choosing the bare wave function

245: renormalization $Z_N$ and the bare mass $\m_N$, the Schwinger

246: functions at non-coinciding points obtained from \pref{1.1d}

247: converge, for $N\to\io$, to a set of functions verifying the {\it

248: Osterwalder-Schrader axioms} \cite{OS2} for an Euclidean QFT.

249: These functions depend on three parameters, the physical mass, the

250: physical wave function renormalization and the physical coupling,

251: but they are independent on the way the ultraviolet

252: cutoff is explicitly realized. On the contrary, the relation

253: between the physical and the bare parameters depends on the

254: details of the ultraviolet cutoff.

255: 

256: In this way we have obtained for the first time a construction of

257: a QFT for the Thirring model for any value of the (physical) mass.

258: Moreover, even if in the massless case other constructions were

259: known, we find in any case interesting to reach a complete

260: construction of the Thirring model relying only on a functional

261: integral approach, which could be the only possible one at higher

262: dimensions or for more realistic models.

263: 

264: The analysis of the functional integral \pref{1.1d} is performed

265: by a multiscale analysis using a (Wilsonian) Renormalization Group

266: approach as in \cite{G}. After each iteration step an effective

267: theory with new couplings, mass, wave function and current

268: renormalizations is obtained. The effective parameters obey to a

269: recursive equation called {\it Beta function}, and a major

270: technical problem is that this iterative procedure can be

271: controlled only by proving non trivial cancellations in the Beta

272: function. Such cancellations are established by suitable WTi valid

273: at each scale and reflecting the symmetries of the formal action;

274: contrary to the WTi formally valid when all cutoffs are removed,

275: they have corrections due to the cutoffs introduced for performing

276: the multiscale integration. The crucial role of WTi in the

277: construction of the theory is a feature that the functional

278: integral \pref{1.1d} shares with realistic models like $QED$ or

279: the Electroweak theory in $d=4$, requiring WTi even to prove the

280: perturbative renormalizability, which is absent in the models

281: previously rigorously constructed by functional integral methods,

282: like the massive {\it Yukawa} model \cite{Le} or the massive {\it

283: Gross-Neveu} model \cite{GK,FMRS}. From the functional integral

284: \pref{1.1d} we obtain, for $N\to\io$ and in the massless limit,

285: WTi of the same form as the one postulated in \cite{J}:

286: %

287: \bea

288: &&\partial_\m \la \bar\psi_\zz\g^\m\psi_\zz;\psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy\ra

289: =a[\d(\zz-\xx)-\d(\zz-\yy)]\la\psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy\ra\;,\lb{1.1aa}\\

290: &&\partial_\m \la \bar\psi_\zz\g^\m\g^5\psi_\zz;

291: \psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy\ra =\bar

292: a[\d(\zz-\xx)-\d(\zz-\yy)]\g^5\la\psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy\ra\;,\nn

293: \eea

294: %

295: where $\la\psi_\xx\bar\psi_\yy\ra=\lim_{N\to\io}

296: {\partial^2\over\partial\bar\phi_\xx

297: \partial\phi_\yy}\WW|_{0}$ (similar definitions

298: hold for the other averages); however the anomaly coefficients in

299: \pref{1.1aa} are given by the following expression

300: %

301: \be

302: a^{-1}=1-{\l\over 4\pi}+c_+\l^2+O(\l^3)\virg \bar

303: a^{-1}=1+{\l\over 4\pi}+c_+\l^2+O(\l^3)\;,\lb{1.1h}

304: \ee

305: %

306: where $c_+$ is a {\it non-vanishing} constant, (its explicit value

307: is calculated in Appendix B). The anomaly coefficients are not

308: linear in the bare coupling ({\it the anomaly non-renormalization

309: is violated }), contrary to what happens in the values

310: \pref{1.1b}, found in the exact approach. Indeed the

311: regularizations used in the exact solution are different with

312: respect to the ones used in the functional integral approach, and

313: it is not too surprising to get different properties (despite

314: often is guessed that the same results should be obtained by the

315: two approaches). In particular, the constant $c_+$, not only is

316: different from $0$, but even depends on the way the ultraviolet

317: cutoff is realized. The difference of \pref{1.1h} with respect to

318: \pref{1.1b} also implies that the approximation in \pref{1.1e} of

319: the determinant with a quadratic exponential does not lead to

320: correct results, at least if a momentum regularization is used.

321: 

322: In \pref{1.1d} a {\it bare wave function} $Z_N$ for the fermionic

323: fields has been introduced, to be fixed so that the "physical"

324: renormalization has a fixed value at the "laboratory scale";

325: analogously we can introduce a (finite) {\it bare charge} also for

326: the current, defining it as $\x\bar\psi\g^\m\psi$. A physically

327: meaningful choice for $\x$ could be $\x=a^{-1}$, implying that the

328: current has no anomalies; this choice fix the renormalization even

329: of the pseudocurrent (remember that $\bar\psi\g^\m\g^5\psi=

330: i\e_{\m,\n}\bar\psi\g^\m\psi$), which has then still anomalies.

331: 

332: Note that \pref{1.1h} is not in contrast to the Adler-Bardeen \cite{AB} analysis,

333: as they consider a boson-fermion interaction with a

334: massive boson, which corresponds to require a non local

335: current-current interaction. If we replace in \pref{1.1d} the

336: local current-current interaction with a {\it non local short

337: ranged} one, still a WTi like

338: \pref{1.1aa} is found for $N\to\io$, but the anomalies are linear

339: in $\l$ and identical to the ones found in the exact approach,

340: that is they are given by \pref{1.1b} instead of \pref{1.1h}, see

341: \cite{M}.

342: 

343: Finally we will show that a closed equation for the 2-point

344: function is indeed valid starting from the functional integral

345: \pref{1.1d}; it is however {\it different} with respect to the one

346: postulated in \cite{J} (which was the natural one obtained

347: inserting the WTi in the Schwinger-Dyson equation) for the

348: presence of {\it additional anomalies}. As a consequence, we get a

349: relation between the critical index of the two point function and

350: the anomalies different with respect to \pref{1.1c}, namely

351: %

352: \be

353: \h_z={\l\over 4\pi}(a-\bar a)[1-c_0\l+O(\l^2)]\;, \lb{1.1cc}

354: \ee

355: %

356: with $c_0>0$ nonvanishing. This additional anomalies says that the

357: closed equation for the 2-point function is not simply obtained

358: inserting the WTi in the Schwinger-Dyson equation.

359: 

360: 

361: In the rest of this section we will define more precisely our

362: regularized functional integral and we state our main results. We

363: will find more convenient, from the point of view of the notation,

364: to introduce the {\it Weyl spinors} $\psi^\pm_{\xx,\o}$, with

365: $\o=\pm$, such that $\psi_\xx=(\psi^-_{\xx,+},\psi^-_{\xx,-})$,

366: $\bar\psi\= \ps^\dagger \g^0$ and

367: $\psi_\xx^+=(\psi^+_{\xx,+},\psi^+_{\xx,-})$; the $\g$'s matrices

368: are explicitly given by

369: %

370: $$\g^0=

371:  \pmatrix{0&1\cr

372:           1&0\cr}\;,

373:  \qquad

374:  \g^1=

375:  \pmatrix{0&-i\cr

376:           i&0\cr}\;,

377:  \qquad

378:  \g^5=-i\g^0\g^1

379:  =

380:  \pmatrix{1&0\cr

381:           0&-1\cr}\;.$$

382: %

383: 

384: \subsection{Thirring model with cutoff}\lb{ss1.3}

385: 

386: We introduce in $\L=[-L/2, L/2]\times [-L/2, L/2]$ a lattice

387: $\L_a$ whose sites are given by the space-time points

388: $\xx=(x,x_0)=(na,n_0 a)$, with ${L/2 a}$ integer and $n,n_0=-L/2

389: a,\ldots,L/2 a-1$. We also consider the set $\DD_a$ of space-time

390: momenta $\kk=(k,k_0)$, with $k=(m+{1\over 2}){2\p\over L}$ and

391: $k_0=(m_0+{1\over 2}){2\pi\over L}$ and $m,m_0=-L/2 a,\ldots,L/2

392: a-1$. In order to introduce an ultraviolet and an infrared cutoff,

393: we fix a number $\g>1$, a positive integer $N$ and a negative

394: integer $h$; then we define the function $C_{h,N}^{-1}(\kk)$ in

395: the following way; let $\chi_0\in C^\io(\RRR_+)$ be a

396: non-negative, non-increasing smooth function such that

397: %

398: \be \chi_0(t)\defi

399: \lft\{\matrix{ 1\hfill&\hfill{\rm if\ }0\le t\le 1\cr

400: 0\hfill&\hfill{\rm if\ } t\ge \g_0\;,}\rgt.\lb{1.5bis}\ee

401: %

402: for a fixed choice of  $\g_0:1<\g_0\le\g$; then we define, for any

403: $h\le j\le N$,

404: %

405: \be f_j(\kk)\defi

406: \chi_0\lft(\g^{-j}|\kk|\rgt)-\chi_0\lft(\g^{-j+1}|\kk|\rgt)\lb{1.5}\ee

407: %

408: and $C_{h,N}^{-1}(\kk)=\sum_{j=h}^N f_j(\kk)$; hence

409: $C_{h,N}^{-1}(\kk)$ acts as a smooth cutoff for momenta $|\kk|\ge

410: \g^{N+1}$ (ultraviolet region) and $|\kk|\le \g^{h-1}$ (infrared

411: region). It is useful for technical reasons to choose for

412: $\chi_0(t)$ a Gevrey function, for example one of class $2$, that

413: is a function such that, for any integer $n$,

414: %

415: \be

416: |d^n \chi_0(t)/ dt^n| \le C^n (n!)^2\;.,\lb{1.5a}\ee

417: %

418: where $C$ is a symbol we shall use regularly in the following to

419: denote a generic constant. With each $\kk\in\DD_a$ we associate

420: four {\it Grassmann variables} $\big\{ \hp_{\kk,\o}^{[h,N]\s},

421: \s,\o=\pm \big\}$, to be called {\it field variables}; we define

422: $\DD^{[h,N]}\defi \lft\{\kk\in \DD_a:C_{h,N}^{-1}(\kk)\neq

423: 0\rgt\}$. On the {\it finite Grassmannian algebra} generated from

424: these variables we define a linear functional $\der\hp^{[h,N]}$

425: (the {\it Lebesgue measure}), so that, given a monomial $\QQ(\ps)$

426: in the field variables, $\int \der\hp^{[h,N]} \QQ(\ps)=0$ except

427: in the case $\QQ(\ps)$ is equal to $\QQ_0(\ps)=

428: \prod_{\kk\in\DD^{[h,N]}}\prod_{\o=\pm} \hp_{\kk,\o}^{[h,N]-}

429: \hp_{\kk,\o}^{[h,N]+}$ or to one of the monomials obtained from

430: $\QQ_0(\ps)$ by a permutation of the field variables; in these

431: cases the value of $\int \der\hp^{[h,N]} \QQ(\ps)$ is determined

432: by the condition $\int \der\hp^{[h,N]} \QQ_0(\ps)=1$ and the

433: anticommuting properties of the field variables.

434: 

435: We also define a Grassmann field on the lattice $\L_a$ by Fourier

436: transform, according to the following convention:

437: %

438: \be

439:  \ps^{[h,N]\s}_{\xx,\o}\defi

440:  {1\over L^2} \sum_{\kk\in\DD_a} e^{i\s\kk\xx}

441:  \hp^{[h,N]\s}_{\kk,\o}\;,

442:  \qquad \xx\in \L_a\;.

443: \ee

444: %

445: By the definition of $\DD_a$, $\ps^{[h,N]\s}_{\xx,\o}$ is

446: antiperiodic both in time and in space coordinate.

447: 

448: The {\it Generating Functional} of the {\it Thirring model with

449: cutoff} is

450: %

451: \bea

452: &&\qquad \WW(\f,J) = \log \int\!\!P_{Z_N}(d\ps)

453: \exp \Big\{-\l V(\sqrt{Z_N}\ps) +\lb{1.6}\\

454: %

455: &&+ Z_N \sum_\o \int\!d\xx\

456: J_{\xx,\o}\ps^{[h,N]+}_{\xx,\o}\ps^{[h,N]-}_{\xx,\o}

457: +\sum_\o\int\!d\xx\

458: \lft[\f^{+}_{\xx,\o}\ps^{[h,N]-}_{\xx,\o}+\ps^{[h,N]+}_{\xx,\o}\f^{-}_{\xx,\o}\rgt]

459: \Big\}\;,\nn\eea

460: %

461: where $\int\!d\xx$ is a short hand notation for

462: $a^2\sum_{\xx\in\L_a }$,

463: %

464: \bea

465: && P_{Z_N}(d\ps)\defi \der\hp^{[h,N]} \cdot

466: \prod_{\kk\in\DD^{[h,N]}} \left[ L^{-4} Z^2_N|(-|\kk|^2-\m_N^2)

467: C^2_{h,N}(\kk) \right]^{-1} \cdot\nn\\

468: %

469: && \exp\left\{-Z_N {1\over L^2}\sum_{\o,\o'=\pm} \sum_{\kk\in

470: \DD^{[h,N]}} {T_{\o,\o'}(\kk)\over C^{-1}_{h,N}(\kk)}

471: \hp^{[h,N]+}_{\kk,\o}\hp^{[h,N]-}_{\kk,\o'}\right\}\;,

472: \lb{1.7}\eea

473: %

474: \be  T_{\o,\o'}(k) \defi

475: \pmatrix{ D_+(\kk) & \m_N \cr \m_N & D_-(\kk)\cr}_{\o,\o'}\;;

476: \qquad D_\o(\kk)\defi-ik_0+\o k_1\;,\lb{1.8}\ee

477: %

478: \be V(\ps)\defi{1\over 2}

479:  \sum_{\o=\pm}\int\!d\xx\

480:  \hp^{[h,N]+}_{\xx,\o}

481: \hp^{[h,N]-}_{\xx,\o}\hp^{[h,N]+}_{\xx,-\o}\hp^{[h,N]-}_{\xx,-\o}\lb{1.9}\ee

482: %

483: and $\{J_{\xx,\o}\}_{\xx,\o}$ are commuting variables, while

484: $\{\f^\s_{\xx,\o}\}_{\xx,\o,\s}$ are anticommuting.

485: $\{J_{\xx,\o}\}_{\xx,\o}$ and $\{\f^\s_{\xx,\o}\}_{\xx,\o,\s}$ are

486: the {\it external field variables}.

487: 

488: \vskip.5cm

489: 

490: {\it Remark.} It is immediate to check that \pref{1.6} coincides

491: with \pref{1.1d}, if the notational conventions adopted at the end

492: of \S 1.1. are used and up to the trivial rescaling $\psi\to

493: \sqrt{Z}\psi$ of the Grassmann variables. Note also that the {\it

494: continuum regularization} we have introduced is very suitable to

495: derive WTi and SDe ; its main disadvantage is that the

496: positive definiteness property is not automatically ensured; such

497: a property will be recovered indirectly later by introducing a

498: different regularization preserving positive definiteness and such

499: that, by a proper choice of the bare parameters, the Schwinger

500: functions in the limit of removed cutoffs are coinciding.

501: \vskip.5cm Setting ${\underline\xx}\defi \xx_1,\ldots,\xx_n$, and

502: $\uy\defi \yy_1,\ldots,\yy_m$, for any given choice of the labels

503: $\us\defi(\s_1\ldots,\s_m)$, $\uo\defi(\o_1\ldots,\o_n)$ and

504: $\ue\defi(\e_1\ldots,\e_n)$, the Schwinger functions are defined

505: as

506: %

507: \be

508:  S^{N,h,a;(m;n)}_{\us;\uo,\ue}(\uy;\ux)\defi

509: \lim_{L\to\io} {\partial^{n+m}\WW\over\partial

510:  J_{\yy_1,\s_1}\cdots\partial J_{\yy_m,\s_m}

511:  \partial\f^{\e_1}_{\xx_1,\o_1}\cdots\partial\f^{\e_n}_{\xx_n,\o_n}}

512:  (0,0)\;.\lb{1.10}\ee

513: %

514: We will follow the convention that a missing label means that the

515: corresponding limit has been performed, for instance

516: $S^{N,h;(m;n)}_{\us;\uo,\ue}=\lim_{a\to 0}

517: S^{N,h,a;(m;n)}_{\us;\uo,\ue}$ In particular, in order to shorten

518: the notation of the most used Schwinger functions, let:

519: %

520: \bea

521: G^{2,N,h,a}_{\o}(\xx,\yy) &\defi& S^{N,h,a,(0;2)}_{\o,\o,(+,-)}(\xx,\yy)\;, \\

522: %

523: G^{2,1,N,h,a}_{\o',\o}(\zz;\xx,\yy) &\defi&

524: S^{N,h,a,(1;2)}_{\o';\o,\o,+,-}(\zz;\xx,\yy)\;.\lb{1.11}

525: \eea

526: %

527: We define the Fourier transforms so that, for example,

528: %

529: \bea

530: G^2_\o(\xx,\yy) &\defi& \int {d\kk\over (2\p)^2}

531: e^{-i\kk(\xx-\yy)} \hG^2_\o(\kk)\;,\\

532: %

533: G^{2,1}_{\o',\o}(\zz;\xx,\yy) &\defi& \int {d\kk d\pp\over

534: (2\p)^4} e^{i\pp(\zz-\yy)}e^{-i\kk(\xx-\yy)}

535: \hG^{2,1}_{\o',\o}(\pp,\kk)\;.\lb{1.12}\eea

536: %

537: The presence of the cutoffs makes the Schwinger functions

538: $S^{N,h,a;(m;n)}_{\us;\uo,(\ue)}(\uy;\ux)$ well defined, since the

539: generating functional is simply a polynomial in the external field

540: variables, for any finite $L$, and the limit $L\to\io$ gives no

541: problem, if $h$ is finite. Note that the lattice is introduced

542: just to give a meaning to the Grassmann integral and it can be

543: removed safely if $h,N$ are fixed. In \S\ref{ss2} we will prove

544: the following result.

545: \\

546: 

547: \begin{theorem} \lb{th1} Given $\l$ small enough and $\m>0$,

548: there exist functions $Z_N\equiv Z_N(\l)$ $\m_N\equiv \m g_N(\l)$,

549: such that

550: %

551: \be

552: Z_N=\g^{-N\h_z}\big(1+{\rm O}(\l^2)\big) \virg

553: \m_N=\m\g^{-N\h_\m}\big(1+{\rm O}(\l))\;,\lb{1.13}\ee

554: %

555: with $\h_z=a_z\l^2 +{\rm O}(\l^4)$, $\h_\m=-a_\m\l+{\rm O}(\l^2)$,

556: $a_z, a_\m>0$, and the following is true.

557: 

558: \bd

559: 

560: \item[1.] The limit

561: %

562: \be \lim_{N,-h,a^{-1}\to\io} S^{N,h,a;(m;n)}_{\us;\uo,\ue}(\uy;\ux)=

563: S^{(m;n)}_{\us;\uo,\ue}(\uy;\ux)\;,\lb{1.14}\ee

564: %

565: exist at non coinciding points.

566: 

567: \item[2.] The family of functions $S_{2n,\uo}(\ux)$, defined as equal to

568: $S^{(0;2n)}_{\uo,\ue}(\ux)$, with $\e_i=+1$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and

569: $\e_i=-1$ for $i=n+1,\ldots,2n$, fulfills the OSa.

570: 

571: \item[3.] The two point Schwinger function verifies the following

572: bound

573: %

574: \be \left|G^2_{\o}(\xx,\yy)\right|\leq

575: {C\over |\xx-\yy|^{1+\h_z}}

576:  e^{-c\sqrt{\k\m^{1+ \h'_\m}|\xx-\yy|}}\;,\lb{1.15}\ee

577: %

578: with $\h'_\m=a_\m\l+O(\l^2)$. Moreover $G^2_{\o}(\xx,\yy)$ is

579: singular for $\xx\to \yy$ and it diverges as

580: $|\xx-\yy|^{-1-\h_z}$.

581: 

582: \item[4.] In the massless limit $\mu\to 0$ two point Schwinger

583: function can be written as

584: %

585: \be \hG^{2}_{\o}(\kk)= (1+f(\l))

586: {|\kk|^{\h_z}\over -i k_0+\o k}\;,\lb{1.16}\ee

587: %

588: with $f(\l)=O(\l)$ and independent from $\kk$.

589: 

590: \ed

591: \end{theorem}

592: 

593: %The above result says that

594: %ensures that all cutoffs can be removed if the

595: %wave function renormalization and the bare mass

596: %are chosen properly. According to a perturbative power counting analysis,

597: %there are four marginal or irrelevant term so that {\it a priori}

598: %it should be necessary to choose

599: %{\it four} bare parameters; the fact that two are enough

600: %is a consequence of the symmetry properties of the

601: %formal not regularized action reducing the number of indipendent renormalization

602: %parameters.

603: 

604: {\it Remark.} It is an easy consequence of our proof that the

605: Schwinger functions {\it do not} depend on the parameter $\g$, but

606: are only functions functions of $\l$ and $\m$.

607: 

608: \subsection{WTi and chiral anomalies}\lb{ss1.3a}

609: 

610: Once that the model is constructed and the OSa are verified, we

611: can compute the WTi in the massless limit. We will show that

612: %

613: \bea

614: &&\qquad D_\o(\pp) \hG_{\o,\o'}^{2,1,N,h}(\pp;\kk) =\nn\\

615: && =\d_{\o,\o'}[\hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk-\pp)-\hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk)]+

616: \hD^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)\lb{1.17}\eea

617: %

618: where $\hD^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)$ is a {\it correction term}

619: which is formally vanishing if we replace $C_{h,N}^{-1}(\kk)$ by

620: $1$.

621: 

622: \insertplot{330}{80}%

623: {\input f1b.txt}%

624: {f1}{\lb{f1}: Graphical representation of \pref{1.17}; the small

625: circle in the last term represents the function in the r.h.s. of

626: \pref{3.3}.}{0}

627: 

628: The anomaly manifests itself in the fact that

629: $\hD^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}$ is nonvanishing in the limit $N,-h\to

630: \io$; we will prove in fact the following Theorem.

631: 

632: \begin{theorem} \lb{th2} Under the same conditions of Theorem \ref{th1},

633: in the massless limit, i.e. $\m=0$, it holds that for finite

634: nonvanishing $\kk,\kk-\pp,\pp$

635: %

636: \bea

637: &&\qquad \hD^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk) = D_\o(\pp)

638: \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk) + \lb{1.18}\\

639: %

640: && +\n^+_{h,N} D_\o(\pp) \hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)

641: +\n_{-,h,N} D_{-\o}(\pp)

642: \hG^{2,1,N,h}_{-\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)\;,\nn\eea

643: %

644: where all the quantities appearing in this identity admit a

645: $N,-h\to\io$-limit, such that

646: %

647: \be \n_{-}={\l\over 4\pi}+O(\l^2)\;,

648: \qquad \n_{+}=c_+\l^2+O(\l^2)\;,\lb{1.19}\ee

649: %

650: with $c_+<0$, $|\hG^{2,1}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)|$ satisfies the bound

651: \pref{2.64} below, and

652: %

653: \be \hR^{2,1}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)=0\;.\lb{1.20}\ee

654: \end{theorem}

655: 

656: It is immediate to check that the above result implies the WTi

657: \pref{1.1aa}, with $a^{-1}=1-\n^--\n^+$ and $\bar

658: a^{-1}=1+\n^--\n^+$.

659: 

660: \insertplot{300}{90}%

661: {\input f2b.txt}%

662: {f2}{\lb{f2}: Graphical representation of \pref{1.18}; the filled

663: circle in the second term is the operator implicitly defined in

664: \S\ref{ss4.1}}{0}

665: 

666: 

667: \subsection{Closed equation and additional anomaly}\lb{ss1.5}

668: 

669: %Theorem \ref{th2} says that, when the cutoffs are removed, a

670: %WTi is obtained of the same form assumed by Johnson \cite{J};

671: %that is an exact relation between $G^{2,1}$ and $G^2$ is obtained,

672: %since the remainder vanishes in the limit. Johnson assumed also

673: %that one can insert this WTi in the Schwinger-Dyson equation to

674: %get a {\it closed equation} for the two point Schwinger function.

675: %It is then interesting to see if this closed equation is really

676: %verified when the Schwinger functions are obtained from the

677: %functional integral \pref{1.6}.

678: 

679: It is easy to see (see for instance \cite{BM4}) that the Schwinger

680: functions of \pref{1.6} in the massless limit verify the following

681: SDe

682: %

683: \be \hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk)={\hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk)\over Z_N}-

684: \l \hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk)\int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2}

685:  \bar\chi_N(\pp)\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{-\o,\o}

686: (\pp;\kk)\;,\lb{1.21}\ee

687: %

688: where $\hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk) = C_{h,N}^{-1}(\kk) D_\o(\kk)^{-1}$ and

689: $\bar\chi_N(\pp)$ is a smooth function with support in $|\pp|\le

690: 3\g^{N+1}$, equal to $1$ if $|\pp|\le 2\g^{N+1}$ (we can insert it

691: freely in the SDe, thanks to the support properties of the

692: propagator).

693: 

694: \insertplot{330}{70}%

695: {\input f3b.txt}%

696: {f3}{\lb{f3}: Graphical representation of \pref{1.21}.}{0}

697: 

698: 

699: Inserting the WTi \pref{1.17} in SDe \pref{1.21} and using

700: \pref{1.18}, we get

701: %

702: \bea

703: \hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk) &=&{\hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk)\over Z_N}- \l

704: \hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk) \int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2} \bar\c_h(\pp)

705: \hG^{2,1,h,N}_{-\o,\o}(\pp;\kk) - \nn\\

706: %

707: &-& \l A_{+,h,N} \hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk) \int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2}

708: \wt\c(\pp) {\hG_{\o}^{2,N,h}(\kk-\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\pp)}+\lb{1.22}\\

709: %

710: &+& \hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk) \sum_{\e}\l A_{\e,h,N} \int {d\pp\over

711: (2\p)^2} \wt\c(\pp) {{D_{\e\o}(\pp)} \over D_{-\o}(\pp)}

712: \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\e\o,\o} (\pp;\kk)\;,\nn\eea

713: %

714: where

715: %

716: \bea

717: A_{\e,h,N} &\defi& {a_{h,N}-\e \bar a_{h,N}\over 2}\;, \lb{1.23}\\

718: %

719: a_{h,N}={1\over 1-\n_{h,N}^- -\n_{h,N}^+} \quad&,& \bar

720: a_{h,N}={1\over 1+\n_{h,N}^- -\n_{h,N}^+}\;, \nn\eea

721: %

722: $\bar\c_h(\pp)$ is defined as $\bar\c_N(\pp)$, with $h$ in place

723: of $N$, and $\wt\c(\pp)= \bar\chi_N(\pp) - \bar\c_h(\pp)$ (so that

724: the support of $\wt\c(\pp)$ is only for $2\g^{h+1}\le|\pp|\le

725: 3\g^{N+1}$). The bound \pref{2.64} below implies that, if $\kk$ is

726: fixed to a non vanishing value, $\hG^{2,1,h,N}_{-\o,\o}(\pp;\kk)$

727: diverges more slowly that $|\pp|^{-1/8}$, as $\pp\to 0$; hence the

728: second addend in the r.h.s. of \pref{1.22} is vanishing in the

729: limit $h=-\io$.

730: 

731: %\insertplot{400}{130}{}%

732: %{f33}{\lb{f4}: Graphical representation of the leading terms in

733: %\pref{1.22}; ``rem'' is vanishing for $-h,N\to\io$.}{0}

734: 

735: {\it If} the last term in \pref{1.22} were vanishing for

736: $-h,N\to\io$ (as the second addend), one would get a closed

737: equation for $\hG_{\o}^{2}$ which is identical to the one

738: postulated in \cite{J}; it is just the formal Schwinger-Dyson

739: equation combined with the WTi in the limit of removed cutoffs.

740: 

741: {\it However this is not what happens}; despite both WTi and

742: Schwinger-Dyson equation are true in the limit, one cannot simply

743: insert one in the other to obtain a closed equation. The last term

744: is {\it non vanishing} and this is a {\it additional anomaly

745: effect which seems to be unnoticed in the literature}.

746: 

747: Despite the presence of the additional anomaly, a closed equation

748: ({\it different} with respect the one in \cite{J}) holds, as shown

749: from the following theorem.

750: 

751: \begin{theorem} \lb{th3} Under the same conditions of Theorem \ref{th1},

752: in the massless limit there exist functions $\a_{\e,h,N}$,

753: $\r_{\e,h,N}$ such that, for non vanishing $\kk$,

754: %

755: \bea

756: &&\qquad \hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk) \int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2}

757: \wt\c(\pp){{D_{\e\o}(\pp)} \over D_{-\o}(\pp)}

758: \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\e\o,\o}(\pp;\kk)= \nn\\

759: %

760: && =-\a_{\e,h,N} {\hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk)\over Z_N}+

761: \big(\a_{\e,h,N}+\r_{\e,h,N}) \hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk)

762: +\hR^{4,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)\;,\lb{1.24}\eea

763: %

764: with

765: %

766: \be \lim_{N,-h\to\io} \hR^{4,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)=0\;,\lb{1.25}\ee

767: %

768: and, in the limit of removed cutoff,

769: %

770: \bea

771: &&\a_+= c_1\l+O(\l^2)\;,\qquad \r_{+}=c_2\l+O(\l^2)\;,\nn\\

772: %

773: && \phantom{**} \a_-= c_3+O(\l)\;, \qquad

774: \r_{-}=c_4+O(\l)\;.\lb{1.26}\eea

775: \end{theorem}

776: 

777: 

778: %\insertplot{370}{70}{}%

779: %{f31}{\lb{f5}: Graphical representation of the leading terms in

780: %\pref{1.24}.}{0}

781: 

782: The above result says that, up to a vanishing term, the last

783: addend in the r.h.s. of \pref{1.22} can be written in terms of $g$

784: and $G^2$, so that a closed equation still holds in the limit, but

785: different with respect to the one postulated in \cite{J}; in

786: particular one gets a relation between the critical index $\h_z$

787: and the anomalies $a,\bar a$, which is different with respect to

788: the \pref{1.1c}, that found in \cite{J}.

789: 

790: \begin{corollary} \lb {cor1} The critical index of the massless two

791: point Schwinger function \pref{1.16} verifies

792: %

793: \be

794: \h_z = {\l \over 2\p}{a-\bar a \over 1 -\l \sum_{\e}

795: A_\e(a_\e+\r_{\e})}\;.\lb{1.27}\ee

796: %

797: with $\sum_{\e} A_\e(a_\e+\r_{\e})=c_0+O(\l^2)$ with $c_0>0$.

798: \end{corollary}

799: 

800: 

801: \subsection{Lattice fermions and positive definiteness}\lb{ss1.3b}

802: 

803: There are of course several ways to introduce a functional

804: integral formulation of the Thirring model corresponding to

805: different ways of regularizing the theory. The choice

806: corresponding to \pref{1.6} is the closest to the formal continuum

807: limit (the regularized propagator is  linear in $\kk$) and this is

808: convenient under many respects, for instance in the derivation of

809: WTi and closed equation for the two point Schwinger function which

810: we will discuss below. However such a choice has the big

811: disadvantage that the crucial property of {\it positive

812: definiteness} is quite difficult to prove; such a property is

813: however automatically fulfilled with a {\it lattice

814: regularization}. There is an extensive literature on the lattice

815: fermions \cite{MM}; if one simply replaces $k,k_0$ in the

816: propagator with $a^{-1}\sin k a$ and $a^{-1}\sin k_0 a$ the well

817: known {\it fermion doubling} problem is encountered, namely that

818: the massless fermion propagator has {\it four} poles instead of a

819: single one. In the continuum limit $a\to 0$ this means that there

820: are four fermion state per field component and such extra unwanted

821: fermions influence possibly the physical behavior in a non trivial

822: way. Several solutions have been proposed; we will follow here the

823: Wilson formulation of adding a term to the free action, called

824: {\it Wilson term}, to cancel the unwanted poles \cite{MM}. Then in

825: the Wilson lattice regularization the fermionic integration is

826: given by

827: %

828: \bea

829: && P_{Z_a} (d\ps) \defi \exp\left\{-{Z_a\over

830: L^2}\sum_{\o,\o'=\pm} \sum_{\kk\in\DD_a} \Big({\hat

831: r}^{-1}(\kk)\Big)_{\o',\o}

832: \hp_{\kk,\o'}^{+}\hp_{\kk,\o}^{-}\right\}

833: \cdot\nn\\

834: %

835: &&\quad \cdot \prod_{\kk\in\DD_a} \prod_{\o=\pm}

836: {\der\hp_{\kk,\o}^{+}\der\hp_{\kk,\o}^{-}\over \bar \NN_a(\kk)}\;,

837: \lb{1.28}\eea

838: %

839: where the covariance ${\hat r}_{\o,\o'}(k)$ is defined as

840: %

841: \be {\hat r}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)\defi

842: {1\over e_+(\kk)e_-(\kk) -\m^2_a(\kk)} \pmatrix {e_-(\kk) &

843: -\m_a(\kk) \cr -\m_a(\kk)  & e_+(\kk)\cr}_{\o,\o'}\;,\lb{1.28a}\ee

844: %

845: with $k_0=(m_0+1/2)2\pi/L$, $k=(m+1/2)2\pi/L$, $n,n_0=-L/2

846: a,1,\ldots,L/2 a-1$,

847: %

848: \bea

849: e_\o(\kk) &\defi& -i{\sin(k_0 a)\over a}+\o

850: {\sin(k a)\over a}\;, \nn\\

851: %

852: \m_a(\kk) & \defi& \m + {1-\cos(k_0a) \over a} + {1-\cos(k a)\over

853: a} \;, \lb{1.29}

854: \eea

855: %

856: and $\bar \NN_a$ is the normalization. The generating functional

857: is given by

858: 

859: \bea

860: && \int\! P_{Z_a}(d\ps) \exp\Big\{-\l_aZ^2_aV(\ps)+\n_a

861: Z_aN(\ps)\Big\}\cdot\lb{1.30}\\

862: %

863: &&\cdot \exp\Big\{Z_a^{(2)}\sum_\o\int d\xx\

864: J_{\xx,\o}\ps^+_{\xx,\o}\ps^-_{\xx,\o} +\sum_\o

865:  \int\!d\xx\

866: \lft[\f^+_{\xx,\o}\ps^-_{\xx,\o}+\ps^+_{\xx,\o}\f^-_{\xx,\o}\rgt]

867: \Big\}\;,\nn\eea

868: %

869: where $N(\ps)=\sum_{\o=\pm} \int\!d\xx\

870: \ps^{+}_{\xx,\o}\ps^-_{\xx,-\o}$. Note the presence of the term

871: $(1-\cos(k_0a))/ a+(1-\cos(ka))/ a$ which has the effect that, in

872: the massless case, only one pole is present. On the other hand it

873: is not true, contrary to what happened in the previous case, that

874: the massless case corresponds simply to $\m=0$; the Wilson term

875: breaks a parity symmetry leading to the generation though the

876: interaction of a mass; we introduce then a counterterm $\n_a$ to

877: fix the mass proportional to $\m$.

878: 

879: We call $S^{N,(m;n)}_{{\us;\uo,\ue}}$ the Schwinger functions

880: \pref{1.10} (in the limit $a=0$ and $h=-\io$) and  $\bar

881: S^{a,(m;n)}_{{\us;\uo,\ue}}$ the Schwinger functions corresponding

882: to \pref{1.30}; in \S\ref{ss4b} we shall prove the following

883: theorem.

884: 

885: \begin{theorem} \lb{th4} Given $N>0$, let  $a_N=

886: \pi(4 \g^{N+1})^{-1}$; if $\l$ is small enough, there exist

887: functions $Z_N(\l)$, $\m g_N(\l)$ and $\l_{a_N}(\l)$,

888: $Z_{a_N}(\l)$, $\n_{a_N}(\l)$, $\m g_{a_N}(\l)$, such that, if all

889: the points $\underline\zz,\underline\xx$ are different from each

890: other, then $\bar S^{a_N, (m;n)}_{{\us;\uo,\ue}}

891: ({\underline\zz};\underline{\xx})$ is well defined in the limit

892: $N\to\io$ and

893: %

894: \be \lim_{N\to\io}

895: [S^{N,(m;n)}_{{\us;\uo,\ue}}({\underline\zz};\underline{\xx})

896: -\bar

897: S^{a_N,(m;n)}_{{\us;\uo,\ue}}({\underline\zz};\underline{\xx})]=0\;.\lb{1.31}\ee

898: \end{theorem}

899: 

900: The above result says that in the limit of removed cutoffs the two

901: {\it different regularizations} of the Thirring model give the

902: {\it same} Schwinger functions, if the ``bare'' parameters are

903: suitably chosen.

904: 

905: The proof of the above results is based on many technical

906: arguments, some of which were already proved in

907: \cite{BM1}-\cite{BM4}; hence, in this paper we shall discuss in

908: detail only the arguments not discussed in those papers.

909: 

910: 

911: 

912: \section{ Continuum fermions with cutoff}\lb{ss2}

913: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

914: 

915: \subsection{Renormalization Group analysis}\lb{ss2.1}

916: The integration of the generating functional \pref{1.6} is done

917: almost exactly (essentially up to a trivial rescaling) as

918: described in \cite{BM1}-\cite{BM4}; hence we briefly resume here

919: such procedure to fix notations. It is possible to prove by

920: induction that, for any $j:h\le j\le N$, there are a constant

921: $E_j$, two positive functions $\tilde Z_j(\kk)$, $\tilde\m_j(\kk)$

922: and two functionals $\VV^{(j)}$ and $\BB^{(j)}$, such that, if

923: $Z_j =\max_{\kk} \tilde Z_j(\kk)$,

924: %

925: \be e^{\WW(\f,J)}=e^{-L^2 E_j}

926: \int P_{\tilde Z_j,\tilde\m_j,C_{h,j}} (d\psi^{[h,j]})

927: e^{-\VV^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})+\BB^{(j)}

928: (\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]},\f,J)}\,,\lb{2.1}\ee

929: %

930: where:

931: 

932: \bd

933: \item[1.] $P_{\wt Z_j,\tilde\m_j,C_{h,j}}(d\psi^{[h,j]})$ is the {\it

934: effective Grassmannian measure at scale $j$}, equal to

935: %

936: \bea

937: && P_{\wt Z_j,\tilde\m_j,C_{h,j}}(d\psi^{[h,j]})

938: \prod_{\kk:C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk)>0} \prod_{\o,\o'=\pm1}

939: {d\hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o}d\hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk,\o}\over

940: \NN_j(\kk)} \cdot \lb{2.2}\\

941: %

942: &&\cdot\; \exp \left\{-{1\over L^2} \sum_{\kk:

943: C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk)>0} \, C_{h,j}(\kk) \tilde Z_j(\kk)\sum_{\o\pm1}

944: \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o} T^{(j)}_{\o,\o'} (\kk)

945: \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk,\o'}\right\} \;,\nn\eea

946: %

947: with $T^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}$ given by \pref{1.8} with $\tilde\m_j(\kk)$

948: replacing $\m_N$, $C_{h,j}(\kk)^{-1}=\sum_{r=h}^j f_r(\kk)$ and

949: $\NN_j(\kk)$ a suitable normalization constant.

950: %

951: \item[2.]

952: The {\it effective potential on scale $j$}, $\VV^{(j)}(\psi)$, is

953: a sum of monomial of Grassmannian variables multiplied by suitable

954: kernels. \ie it is of the form

955: %

956: \be \VV^{(j)}(\psi) = \sum_{n=1}^\io {1\over L^{4n}}

957: \sum_{\kk_1,\ldots,\kk_{2n} \atop \o_1,\ldots,\o_{2n}} \left[

958: \prod_{i=1}^{2n} \hat\psi^{\s_i}_{\kk_i,\o_i} \right] \hat

959: W_{2n,\uo}^{(j)}(\kk_1,...,\kk_{2n-1})

960: \d\left(\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\s_i\kk_i\right)\;,\lb{2.3}\ee

961: %

962: where $\s_i=+$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$, $\s_i=-$ for $i=n+1,\ldots,2n$

963: and $\uo=(\o_1,\ldots,\o_{2n})$;

964: %

965: \item[3.] The {\it effective source term at scale $j$},

966: $\BB^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi, \f,J)$, is a sum of monomials of

967: Grassmannian variables and $\f^\pm,J$ field, with at least one

968: $\f^\pm$ or one $J$ field; we shall write it in the form

969: %

970: \be \BB^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi, \f,J) = \BB_\f^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)+

971: \BB_J^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi) +

972: W_R^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi,\f,J)\;,\lb{2.4}\ee

973: %

974: where $\BB_\f^{(j)}(\psi)$ and $\BB_J^{(j)}(\psi)$ denote the sums

975: over the terms containing only one $\f$ or $J$ field,

976: respectively. $\BB^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi, \f,J)$ can be written as

977: sum over monomials of $\psi,\f,J$ multiplied by kernels $\hat

978: W_{2n,n_\f,n_J,\uo}^{(j)}$.

979: 

980: Of course \pref{2.1} is true for $j=N$, with $\tilde

981: Z_N(\kk)=Z_N$, $W_R^{(0)}=0$, and $\VV^{(N)}(\psi), \BB_\f^{(N)},

982: \BB_J^{(N)}$ given implicitly by \pref{1.6}.

983: %

984: The kernels in $\hat W^{(j)}$, $\VV^{(j)}$ and $\BB^{(j)}$, $j<N$,

985: are functions of $\m_k$, $Z_k$ and the {\it effective couplings}

986: $\l_k$ (to be defined later), with $k\ge j$; the iterative

987: construction below will inductively implies that the dependence on

988: these variables is well defined.

989: 

990: \ed

991: 

992: 

993: We now begin to describe the iterative construction leading to

994: \pref{2.1}. We introduce two operators $\PP_r$, $r=0,1$, acting on

995: the kernels $\hat W^{(j)}$ in the following way

996: %

997: \be \lft.\PP_0 \hat W^{(j)}= \hat W^{(j)}\rgt|_{\tilde\m_j,..\m_N=0}\;,

998: \qquad \lft.\PP_1 \hat W^{(j)}=\sum_{k\ge j,\kk} \tilde\m_k(\kk)

999: {\partial \hat W^{(j)} \over

1000: \partial \tilde\m_k(\kk)}\rgt|_{\tilde\m_j,..\m_N=0}\;.\lb{2.5}\ee

1001: %

1002: We introduce also two operators $\LL_r$, $r=0,1$, acting on the

1003: kernels $\hat W^{(j)}$ in the following way:

1004: 

1005: \bd

1006: \item[1.] If $n=1$,

1007: %

1008: \bea

1009: \LL_0 \wh W_{2,\uo}^{(j)}(\kk) &\defi& \fra14 \sum_{\h,\h'=\pm

1010: 1}\wh W_{2,\uo}^{(j)}\left(\bk\h{\h'}\right)\;, \nn\\

1011: %

1012: \LL_1\widehat W_{2,\uo}^{(j)}(\kk) &\defi& \fra14 \sum_{\h,\h'=\pm

1013: 1}\widehat W_{2,\uo}^{(j)}(\bk\h{\h'}) \big[\h {k_0 L\over \pi} +

1014: \h'{k L\over\pi}\big]\;, \lb{2.6}\eea

1015: %

1016: where $\bk\h{\h'} = \left(\h{\p\over L},\h'{\p\over L}\right)$.

1017: %

1018: \item[2.]

1019: If $n=2$, $\LL_1\hW_{4,\uo}\defi 0$ and

1020: %

1021: \be \LL_0 \hW_{4,\uo}^{(j)}(\kk_1,\kk_2,\kk_3)\defi

1022: \hW_{4,\uo}^{(j)}(\bk++,\bk++,\bk++)\;.\lb{2.7}\ee

1023: %

1024: \item[3.]

1025: If $n>2$, $\LL_0\hW_{2n,\uo}^{(j)}

1026: \defi\LL_1\hW_{2n,\uo}^{(j)} \defi 0$.

1027: 

1028: \ed

1029: 

1030: \0 Given $\LL_j,\PP_j$, $j=0,1$ as above, we define the action of

1031: $\LL$ on the kernels $\hW_{2n,\uo}^{(j)}$ as follows.

1032: 

1033: \bd

1034: \item[4.] If $n=1$, then

1035: %

1036: \be \LL \hW_{2,\o,\o'}^{(j)} \defi(\LL_0+\LL_1) \PP_0

1037: \widehat W_{2,\o,\o'}^{(j)}+ \LL_0\PP_1\widehat

1038: W_{2,\o,\o'}^{(j)}\;.\lb{2.8}\ee

1039: %

1040: \item[5.]

1041: If $n=2$, then $\LL \hW_{4,\uo}^{(j)} \defi

1042: \LL_0\PP_0\hW_{4,\uo}^{(j)}$.

1043: %

1044: \item[6.]

1045: If $n>2$, then $\LL \hW_{2n,\uo}^{(j)}=0$.

1046: 

1047: \ed

1048: 

1049: Note that $\LL_0\PP_0\hW_{2,\o,\o}^{(j)} =0$, because of the

1050: parity properties (in the exchange $\kk\to-\kk$) of the diagonal

1051: propagators, whose number is surely odd in each Feynmann graph

1052: contributing to $W_{2,\o,\o}^{(j)}$;

1053: $\LL_0\PP_1\hW_{2,\o,\o}^{(j)}=0$, because there are no

1054: contributions of first order in $\m_k$; $\PP_0\hW_{2,\o,-\o}^{(j)}

1055: =0$, since the only way to get a contribution to

1056: $\hW_{2,\o,-\o}^{(j)}$ is to use at least one antidiagonal

1057: propagator. Therefore \pref{2.8} reads

1058: %

1059: \be \LL \widehat W_{2,\o,\o}^{(j)} =\LL_1\PP_0\widehat W_{2,\o,\o}^{(j)}

1060: \;, \qquad \LL \widehat W_{2,\o,-\o}^{(j)} =\LL_0\PP_1\widehat

1061: W_{2,\o,-\o}^{(j)} \;.\lb{2.9}\ee

1062: %

1063: Note also that $\LL^2\VV^{(j)}=\LL\VV^{(j)}$. The effect of $\LL$

1064: on $\VV^{(j)}$ is, by definition, to replace on the r.h.s. of

1065: \pref{2.3} $\wh W_{2n,\uo}^{(j)}$ with $\LL\wh W_{2n,\uo}^{(j)}$;

1066: we get

1067: %

1068: \be \LL\VV^{(j)}(\psi^{[h,j]})=z_j F_\z^{[h,j]}+s_j

1069: F_\s^{[h,j]}+l_j F_\l^{[h,j]}\;,\lb{2.10} \ee

1070: %

1071: where $z_j$, $a_j$ and $l_j$ are real numbers and

1072: %

1073: \bea

1074: F_\z^{[h,j]} &=& {1\over L^2}\sum_\o

1075: \sum_{\kk:C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk)>0} D_\o(\kk)

1076: \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o} \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk,\o}\;,\nn\\

1077: %

1078: F_\s^{[h,j]} &=& {1\over L^2}\sum_\o

1079: \sum_{\kk:C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk)>0}

1080: \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o} \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk,-\o}\;,\lb{2.11}\\

1081: %

1082: F_\l^{[h,j]} &=& {1\over L^8}

1083: \sum_{\kk_1,...,\kk_4:C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk_i)>0}

1084: \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk_1,+} \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk_2,+}

1085: \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk_3,-}

1086: \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk_4,-}\d(\kk_1-\kk_2+\kk_3-\kk_4)\;. \nn\eea

1087: 

1088: Analogously, we write $\BB^{(j)}=\LL \BB^{(j)}+\RR \BB^{(j)}$,

1089: $\RR=1-\LL$, according to the following definition. First of all,

1090: we put $\LL W_R^{(j)}=0$. Let us consider now

1091: $\BB_J^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)$. It is easy to see that the field

1092: $J$ is equivalent, from the point of view of dimensional

1093: considerations, to two $\psi$ fields. Hence, the only terms which

1094: need to be renormalized are those of second order in $\psi$, which

1095: are indeed marginal. We shall use for them the definition

1096: %

1097: \be

1098: \BB_J^{(j,2)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi) = \sum_{\o,\tilde\o} {1\over L^4}

1099: \sum_{\pp, \kk} \hat B_{\o,\tilde\o}^{(j)}(\pp,\kk) \hat

1100: J_{\pp,\o} (\sqrt{Z_j}\hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\pp+\kk,\tilde\o})

1101: (\sqrt{Z_j} \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk,\tilde\o})\;.\lb{2.12}\ee

1102: 

1103: We regularize $\BB_J^{(j,2)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)$, in analogy to what

1104: we did for the effective potential, by decomposing it as the sum

1105: of $\LL\BB_J^{(j,2)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)$ and

1106: $\RR\BB_J^{(j,2)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)$, where $\LL$ is defined through

1107: its action on $\hat B_{\o,\tilde\o}^{(j)}(\pp,\kk)$ in the

1108: following way:

1109: %

1110: \be \LL \hat B_{\o,\tilde\o}^{(j)}(\pp,\kk) = \fra14 \d_{\o,\tilde\o}

1111: \sum_{\h,\h'=\pm 1} \PP_0\hat B_{\o,\tilde\o}^{(j)}(0,

1112: \bar\kk_{\h,\h'}) \;;\lb{2.13}\ee

1113: %

1114: note that $\LL \hat B_{\o,-\o}^{(j)}=0$ because of the symmetry

1115: property

1116: %

1117: \be

1118: \hat g^{(j)}_\o(\kk)=-i\o \hat g^{(j)}_\o(\kk^*) \virg

1119: \kk=(k,k_0),\quad \kk^*=(-k_0,k)\;.\lb{2.13a}

1120: \ee

1121: We get

1122: %

1123: \be \LL\BB_J^{(j,2)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)=

1124: \sum_\o {Z_j^{(2)}\over Z_j} \int\!\der\xx\ J_{\xx,\o}

1125: \left(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{+}_{\xx,\o}\right)

1126: \left(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{-}_{\xx,\o}\right) \;,\lb{2.14}\ee

1127: %

1128: which defines the renormalization constant $Z_j^{(2)}$; we shall

1129: extend this definition to $j=N$ by putting, in agreement with

1130: \pref{1.6}, $Z_N^{(2)} = Z_N$.

1131: 

1132: Finally we have to define $\LL$ for

1133: $\BB_\f^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi)$; we want to show that, by a

1134: suitable choice of the localization procedure, if $j\le N-1$, it

1135: can be written in the form

1136: %

1137: \bea

1138: &&\BB_\f^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi) = \sum_{\o,\o'}

1139: \sum_{i=j+1}^N \int d\xx d\yy\;\cdot\nn\\

1140: %

1141: &&\hskip-1cm \cdot\;\left[ \f^+_{\xx,\o}

1142: g^{Q,(i)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx-\yy){\dpr\over \dpr\psi^+_{\yy,\o'}}

1143: \VV^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi) + {\dpr\over \dpr\psi^-_{\yy,\o}}

1144: \VV^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_{j}}\psi)

1145: g^{Q,(i)}_{\o,\o'}(\yy-\xx)\f^-_{\xx,\o'} \right]+\nn\\

1146: %

1147: &&+ \sum_{\o,\o'} {1\over L^2} \sum_{\kk:C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk)>0}

1148: \left[ \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o} \hat Q^{(j+1)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)

1149: \hat\f_{\kk,\o'}^- +\hat\f^+_{\kk,\o} \hat Q^{(j+1)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)

1150: \hat\psi^{[h,j]-}_{\kk,\o'} \right]\;\lb{2.15}\eea

1151: %

1152: where $ \wh g^{Q,(i)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)= \sum_{\o''}

1153: \hg^{(i)}_{\o,\o''}(\kk) \wh Q^{(i)}_{\o'',\o'}(\kk) $,

1154: $g^{(i)}_{\o,\o''}$ is the renormalized propagator of the field on

1155: scale $j$ (see \pref{2.20} below for a precise definition) and

1156: $\wh Q^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)$ is defined inductively by the

1157: relations

1158: %

1159: \bea

1160: \wh Q^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk) &=& \wh Q^{(j+1)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk) - z_j

1161: Z_j D_\o(\kk) \sum_{i=j+1}^N \hat g^{Q,(i)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)-s_j Z_j

1162: \sum_{i=j+1}^N \hat g^{Q,(i)}_{\o,-\o'}(\kk) \;,\nn\\

1163: %

1164: \quad \hat Q^{(0)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk) &=& 1\;.\lb{2.16}\eea

1165: %

1166: The $\LL$ operation for $\BB^{(j)}_\f$ is defined by decomposing

1167: $\VV^{(j)}$ in the r.h.s. of \pref{2.15} as $\LL \VV^{(j)}+\RR

1168: \VV^{(j)}$, $\LL \VV^{(j)}$ being defined by \pref{2.10}.

1169: 

1170: After writing $\VV^{(j)}=\LL \VV^{(j)}+\RR\VV^{(j)}$ and

1171: $\BB^{(j)}=\LL \BB^{(j)}+\RR\BB^{(j)}$, the next step is to {\sl

1172: renormalize} the free measure $P_{\tilde Z_j,\tilde\m_j,C_{h,j}}

1173: (d\psi^{[h,j]})$, by adding to it part of the r.h.s. of

1174: \pref{2.10}. We get that \pref{2.1} can be written as

1175: %

1176: \be

1177: e^{-L^2 t_j}\int P_{\tilde Z_{j-1}, \tilde \m_{j-1},

1178: C_{h,j}}(d\psi^{[h,j]}) \, e^{-\tilde

1179: \VV^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]}) + \tilde\BB^{(j)}

1180: (\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})}\;,\lb{2.17}\ee

1181: %

1182: where, since $\tilde Z_j(\kk)=Z_j \=\max_\kk \tilde Z_j(\kk)$ and

1183: $\tilde\m_j(\kk)=\m_j \= (Z_{j+1}/ Z_j)(\m_{j+1}+ s_{j+1})$, if

1184: $C_{h,j}^{-1}(\kk)\not=0$, then

1185: %

1186: \be \tilde Z_{j-1}(\kk)=Z_j [1+C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk) z_j]\;,\quad

1187: \tilde\m_{j-1}(\kk)={Z_j\over \tilde

1188: Z_{j-1}(\kk)}[\m_j+C^{-1}_{h,j}(\kk) s_j]\;, \lb{2.18}\ee

1189: %

1190: \be \tilde\VV^{(j)}(\psi^{[h,j]})= \VV^{(j)}(\psi^{[h,j]})-

1191: z_j F_\z^{[h,j]} -s_j F_\s^{[h,j]}\;, \lb{2.18a}\ee

1192: %

1193: and the factor $\exp(-L^2 t_j)$ in \pref{2.17} takes into account

1194: the different normalization of the two measures. Moreover

1195: %

1196: \be \tilde\BB^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})=

1197: \tilde\BB^{(j)}_\f(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]}) +

1198: \BB^{(j)}_J(\sqrt{Z_j} \psi^{[h,j]})+W^{(j)}_R\;,\lb{2.19}\ee

1199: %

1200: where $\tilde\BB^{(j)}_\f$ is obtained from $\BB^{(j)}_\f$ by

1201: inserting \pref{2.19} in the second line of \pref{2.15} and by

1202: absorbing the terms proportional to $z_j,s_j$ in the terms in the

1203: third line of \pref{2.15}.

1204: 

1205: If $j>h$, the r.h.s of \pref{2.17} can be written as

1206: %

1207: \bea

1208: && e^{-L^2t_j} \int P_{\tilde Z_{j-1},\m_{j-1},C_{h,j-1}}

1209: (d\psi^{[h,j-1]}) \int P_{Z_{j-1},\m_{j-1},\tilde

1210: f_j^{-1}}(d\psi^{(j)})\;\cdot\nn\\

1211: %

1212: && \cdot\; e^{-l_j F_\l(\sqrt{Z_j} \psi^{[h,j]})

1213: -\RR\VV(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]}) +\tilde\BB^{(j)}

1214: (\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})}\;, \lb{2.20}\eea

1215: %

1216: where $\tilde f_j(\kk)=f_j(\kk) Z_{j-1} [\tilde

1217: Z_{j-1}(\kk)]^{-1}$.

1218: 

1219: The above integration procedure is done till the scale

1220: $h^*=\max\{h,\bar h^*\}$, where $\bar h^*$ is the maximal $j$ such

1221: that $\g^j\le \m_j$. If $\bar h^*< j\le N$, by using the Gevray

1222: property \pref{1.5a} of $\chi_0$, see \cite{DR}, we get

1223: %

1224: \bea

1225: |g^{(j)}_{\o,\o}(\xx,\yy)| &\le& {C\over Z_{j-1}}\g^j

1226: e^{-c\sqrt{\g^j{|\xx-\yy|}}}\;,\nn\\

1227: %

1228: |g^{(j)}_{\o,-\o}(\xx,\yy)| &\le& {C\over Z_{j-1}} \lft({\m_j\over

1229: \g^j}\rgt)\g^j e^{-c\sqrt{\g^j{|\xx-\yy|}}}\;,\lb{2.21}\eea

1230: %

1231: where $C$ and $c$ are suitable constants; moreover,

1232: %

1233: \bea

1234: |g^{(\leq \bar h^*)}_{\o,\o}(\xx,\yy)| &\le& {C\over Z_{\bar

1235: h^*-1}} \g^{\bar h^*} e^{-c\sqrt{\g^{\bar h^*}{|\xx-\yy|}}}\;, \nn\\

1236: %

1237: |g^{(\leq \bar h^*)}_{\o,-\o}(\xx,\yy)| &\le& {C\over Z_{\bar

1238: h^*-1}} \lft({\m_{\bar h^*}\over \g^{\bar h^*}}\rgt) \g^{\bar h^*}

1239: e^{-c\sqrt{\g^{\bar h^*}{|\xx-\yy|}}}\;.\lb{2.21a}\eea

1240: %

1241: Note that the propagator $\hat g^{Q,(i)}_{\o}(\kk)$ is equivalent

1242: to $\hat g^{(i)}_{\o}(\kk)$, as concerns the dimensional bounds,

1243: since the sum in the r.h.s. of \pref{2.16} contains at most two

1244: nonvanishing terms. We now {\it rescale} the field so that

1245: %

1246: \bea

1247: && l_j F_\l(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})+\RR\VV(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})

1248: = \hat\VV^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_{j-1}} \psi^{[h,j]})\;, \nn\\

1249: %

1250: &&\tilde\BB^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_j}\psi^{[h,j]})=

1251: \hat\BB^{(j)}(\sqrt{Z_{j-1}} \psi^{[h,j]})\;;\lb{2.23}\eea

1252: %

1253: it follows that $\LL\hat\VV^{(j)}(\psi^{[h,j]})=\l_j F_\l^{[h,j]}$

1254: %

1255: where $\l_j=(Z_j Z_{j-1}^{-1})^2 l_j$; we shall extend this

1256: definition to $j=N$ by putting, in agreement with \pref{1.6},

1257: $\l_N=\l$. If we now define

1258: %

1259: \bea

1260: && e^{-\VV^{(j-1)} (\sqrt{Z_{j-1}} \psi^{[h,j-1]})+

1261: \BB^{(j-1)}(\sqrt{Z_{j-1}}\psi^{[h,j-1]})-L^2 E_j}=\lb{2.24}\\

1262: %

1263: &&=\int P_{Z_{j-1},\m_{j-1},\tilde f_j^{-1}}(d\psi^{(j)}) \,

1264: e^{-\hat \VV^{(j)} \big(\sqrt{Z_{j-1}}[\psi^{[h,j-1]} +

1265: \psi^{(j)}]\Big)+ \hat \BB^{(j)}

1266: \big(\sqrt{Z_{j-1}}[\psi^{[h,j-1]} + \psi^{(j)}] \big)}\;,\nn\eea

1267: %

1268: it is easy to see that $\VV^{(j-1)}$ and $\BB^{(j-1)}$ are of the

1269: same form of $\VV^{(j)}$ and $\BB^{(j)}$ and that the procedure

1270: can be iterated. Note that the above procedure allows, in

1271: particular, to write $\l_j$, $Z_j$, $\m_j$, for any $j$ such that

1272: $N> j\ge h^*$, in terms of $\l_{j'}$,  $Z_{j'}$, $\m_{j'}$, $j'>

1273: j$.

1274: 

1275: 

1276: At the end of the iterative integration procedure, we get

1277: %

1278: \be \WW(\f,J)=-L^2 E_{L} + \sum_{m^\f+n^J\ge 1}

1279: S_{2m^\f,n^J}^{(h)}(\f,J)\;,\lb{2.25}\ee

1280: %

1281: where $E_{L}$ is the {\it free energy} and

1282: $S_{2m^\f,n^J}^{(h)}(\f,J)$ are suitable functionals, which can be

1283: expanded, as well as $E_{L}$, the effective potentials and the

1284: various terms in the r.h.s. of \pref{2.4} and \pref{2.3}, in terms

1285: of {\it trees}.

1286: We do not repeat here the analysis leading to the

1287: tree expansion, as it is essentially identical to the one for

1288: instance in \S 3 of \cite{BM1}, and we quote the results; it turns

1289: out the kernels $S_{2m^\f,n^J}^{(h)}(\f,J)$ can be written as in

1290: formula (102) of \cite{BM2}:

1291: %

1292: \bea

1293: && S_{2m^\f,n^J}^{(h)}(\f,J) = \sum_{n=0}^\io

1294: \sum_{j_0=h^*-1}^{N-1} \sum_{\uo}

1295: \sum_{\t\in\TT_{j_0,n,2m^\f,n^J}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP \atop

1296: |P_{v_0}|=2m^\f} \nn\\

1297: %

1298: &&\int d\xxx \prod_{i=1}^{2m^\f} \f^{\s_i}_{\xx_i,\o_i}

1299: \prod_{r=1}^{n^J} J_{\xx_{2m^\f+r},\o_{2m^\f+r}}

1300: S_{2m^\f,n^J,\t,\uo}(\xxx)\;, \lb{2.26}\eea

1301: %

1302: where we refer to \S 3.4 of \cite{BM2} for the notation. In

1303: particular,

1304: 

1305: \bd

1306: 

1307: \item{-} $\TT_{j_0,n,2m^\f,n^J}$ is a family of {\it trees}

1308: (identical to the those defined in \S3.2 of \cite{BM2}, up to the

1309: (trivial) difference that the maximum scale of the vertices is

1310: $N+1$ instead of $+1$), with root at scale $j_0$, $n$ normal

1311: endpoints (\ie endpoints not associated to $\f$ or $J$ fields),

1312: $n^\f=2m^\f$ endpoints of type $\f$ and $n^J$ endpoints of type

1313: $J$.

1314: 

1315: \item{-} If $v$ is a vertex of the tree $\t$, $P_v$ is a set of

1316: labels which distinguish the {\it external fields of $v$}, that is

1317: the field variables of type $\psi$ which belong to one of the

1318: endpoints following $v$ and either are not yet contracted in the

1319: vertex $v$ (we shall call $P_v^{(n)}$ the set of these variables)

1320: or are contracted with the $\psi$ variable of an endpoint of type

1321: $\f$ through a propagator $g^{Q(h_v)}$; note that $|P_v|=

1322: |P_v^{(n)}|+ n_v^\f$, if $n_v^\f$ is the number of endpoints of

1323: type $\f$ following $v$.

1324: 

1325: \item{-} $\xx_v$, if $v$ is not an endpoint, is the family of all

1326: space-time points associated with one of the endpoints following

1327: $v$.

1328: 

1329: \ed

1330: 

1331: \subsection{Convergence of the RG expansion}\lb{ss2.2}

1332: 

1333: In order to control the RG expansion, it is sufficient to show

1334: that $\bar\l_{h} \= \max_{h\le j \le N} |\l_j|$ stays small if

1335: $\l=\l_N$ is small enough. This property is surely true if $|h-N|$

1336: is at most of order $\l^{-1}$, but to prove that it is true for

1337: any $h,N$ is quite nontrivial. In \S\ref{ss4.2}, by using WTi and

1338: SDe, we shall prove the following Theorem, essentially taken from

1339: \cite{BM4}.

1340: 

1341: \begin{theorem} \lb{th6} There exists a constant $\e_1$, independent

1342: of $N$, such that, if $|\l|\le \e_1$, the constants $\l_j$, $Z_j$,

1343: $Z^{(2)}_j$ and $\m_j$ are well defined for any $j\le N$; moreover

1344: there exist suitable sequences $\hat\l_j$, $\hat Z_j$, $\hat

1345: Z^{(2)}_j$ and $\hat\m_j$, defined for $j\le 0$ and independent of

1346: $N$, such that $\l_j= \hat\l_{j-N}$, $Z_j= \hat Z_{j-N}$,

1347: $Z^{(2)}_j= \hat Z^{(2)}_{j-N}$ and $\m_j= \hat\m_{j-N}$. The

1348: sequence $\hat\l_j$ converges, as $j\to -\io$, to a function

1349: $\l_{-\io}(\l)= \l +O(\l^2)$, such that

1350: %

1351: \be

1352: |\hat\l_j- \l_{-\io}| \le C\l^2 \g^{j/4}\;.\lb{2.42a}

1353: \ee

1354: Finally, there exist $\h_\m= -a_\m \l +O(\l^2)$ and $\h_z= a_z

1355: \l^2 +O(\l^3)$, with $a_\m$ and $a_z$ strictly positive, such

1356: that, for any $j\le 0$, $|\log_\g( \hat Z_{j-1}/ \hat Z_j) - \h_z|

1357: \le C\l^2 \g^{j/4}$, $|\log_\g( \hat Z^{(2)}_{j-1}/ \hat

1358: Z^{(2)}_j) - \h_z| \le C\l^2 \g^{j/4}$ and $|\log_\g(\hat\m_{j-1}/

1359: \hat\m_j) - \h_\m| \le C|\l| \g^{j/4}$.

1360: 

1361: \end{theorem}

1362: 

1363: \0 {\it Remark.} Note that the definitions of $\l_j$, $\m_j$,

1364: $Z_j$ and $Z^{(2)}_j$ are independent of the $\m$ value; however,

1365: in the theory with $\m\not= 0$, there appear only their values

1366: with $j\ge \bar h^*$.

1367: 

1368: \*\* The above result implies that we can remove the cutoffs and

1369: take the limit $N,-h\to\io$, by choosing the {\it normalization

1370: conditions}

1371: %

1372: \be \quad Z_{0}=1, \quad \m_0=\m\;. \lb{2.43}\ee

1373: %

1374: In fact, by using \pref{2.43}, it is easy to prove that, if $Z_N=

1375: Z^{(2)}_N = [\prod_{i=1}^N (Z_{j-1}/Z_j)]^{-1}$ and $\m_N=

1376: [\prod_{i=1}^N (\m_{j-1}/\m_j)]^{-1}$, then

1377: \be

1378: \m_j = \m \g^{-\h_\m j} F_{1,j,N}(\l), \quad  Z_j = \g^{-\h_z j}

1379: F_{2,j,N}(\l), \quad Z^{(2)}_j= \z(\l) \g^{-\h_z j}

1380: F_{3,j,N}(\l)\;, \lb{2.45}\ee

1381: %

1382: where

1383: %

1384: \be

1385: \z(\l) = \prod_{j=-\io}^0 {\hat Z^{(2)}_{j-1} \hat Z_j \over \hat

1386: Z^{(2)}_j \hat Z_{j-1}}\lb{2.45a}

1387: \ee

1388: and $F_{i,j,N}(\l)$, $i=1,2,3$, satisfy the conditions

1389: %

1390: \be

1391: F_{i,0,N}(\l)=1, \qquad |F_{i,j,N}(\l)-1| \le

1392: C|\l|^2\g^{-[N-\max\{j,0\}]/4}\;.\lb{2.45b}\ee

1393: %

1394: Note also that the first of \pref{2.45} implies that, in the limit

1395: $N,-h\to\io$, if $[x]$ denotes the largest integer $\le x$,

1396: %

1397: \be \bar h^* = \left[ {\log_\g |\m| \over 1-\h_\m} \right]

1398: \;.\lb{2.45c}\ee

1399: %

1400: Moreover, the proof of Theorem \ref{th6} implies that the critical

1401: indices $\h_z$ and $\h_\m$ are given by tree expansions, such that

1402: everywhere the constants $\l_j$ and $Z_j$ are substituted with

1403: $\l_{-\io}$ and $\g^{-\h_z j}$. In particular $\h_z$ is the

1404: solution of an equation of the form

1405: %

1406: \be

1407: \h_z = a_z\l_{-\io}^2 + \l_{-\io}^4 H(\l_{-\io},\h_z)\;,

1408: \ee

1409: which allows to explicitly calculate the perturbative expansion of

1410: $\h_z$ through an iteratively procedure.

1411: 

1412: \*

1413: 

1414: \0{\it Remark.} The normalization conditions \pref{2.43} could

1415: also include the value of $Z^{(2)}_j$ for $j=0$, but we have

1416: chosen to fix the value of $Z^{(2)}_j$ for $j=N$, by putting it

1417: equal to $Z_N$. A different choice would only change the value of

1418: $\z(\l)$ by an arbitrary finite constant.

1419: 

1420: \*\*

1421: 

1422: \subsection{The Schwinger functions}\lb{ss2.3}

1423: 

1424: Theorem \ref{th6} allows us to control the expansion of the

1425: Schwinger functions, by using the following bound for the kernels

1426: appearing in the expansion \pref{2.26}:

1427: %

1428: \bea

1429: &&\int d\xxx |S_{2m^\f,n^J,\t,\uo}(\xxx)| \le L^2 C^{2m_\f+n_J}

1430: (C\bar\l_{j_0})^n \g^{-j_0(-2+m^\f+n^J)}

1431: \cdot\nn\\

1432: %

1433: && \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{2m^\f} {\g^{-h_i}\over (Z_{h_i})^{1/2}}

1434: \prod_{r=1}^{n^J }{Z_{\bar h_r}^{(2)}\over Z_{\bar h_r}}

1435: \prod_{\rm v\ not\ e.p.} \lft({Z_{h_v}\over

1436: Z_{h_v-1}}\rgt)^{|P_v|/2} \g^{-d_v} \;,\lb{2.27}\eea

1437: %

1438: where $h_i$ is the scale of the propagator linking the $i$-th

1439: endpoint of type $\f$ to the tree, $\bar h_r$ is the scale of the

1440: $r$-th endpoint of type $J$ and

1441: %

1442: \be d_v = -2+|P_v|/2+n_v^J +\tilde z(P_v)\;,\lb{2.28}\ee

1443: %

1444: with

1445: %

1446: \be \tilde z(P_v)=

1447: \cases{$3/4$ & if $|P_v|=4$, $n_v^\f=0,1$, $n^J_v=0$,\cr

1448:        $3/2$ & if $|P_v|=2$, $n_v^\f=0,1$, $n^J_v=0$,\cr

1449:        $3/4$ & if $|P_v|=2$, $n_v^\f=0$, $n^J_v=1$,\cr

1450:        $0$ & otherwise.\cr} \lb{2.29}\ee

1451: 

1452: \*

1453: 

1454: The above bound has a simple dimensional interpretation; how to

1455: prove it rigorously has been explained in detail in the very

1456: similar model studied in \cite{BM1} (see also \S 3 of \cite{BM2}).

1457: We simply remark here that, had we defined $\LL=0$, we would have

1458: obtained a bound similar to \pref{2.27} with $\tilde z(P_v)=0$ in

1459: \pref{2.29}. The regularization procedure has the effect that the

1460: {\it vertex dimension} $d_v$ gets an extra $\tilde z(P_v)$, whose

1461: value can be understood in the following way. If we apply the

1462: regularizing operator $1-\LL_0$ to the kernel associated with the

1463: vertex $v$, the bound improves by a dimensional factor

1464: $\g^{h_{v'}-h_v}$, if $v'$ is the first non trivial vertex

1465: preceding $v$; if we apply $1-\LL_0-\LL_1$, the bound improves by

1466: a factor $\g^{ 2(h_{v'}-h_v)}$. Moreover, if to a kernel

1467: associated with the vertex $v$ the operator $1-\PP_0$ is applied,

1468: the bound improves by a factor

1469: %

1470: \bea

1471: &&|\m_{h_v}| \g^{-h_v}\le |\m_{h^*}| |\m_{h_v}/ \m_{h^*}|

1472: \g^{-h_v}\le \g^{h^*} \g^{c\bar \l_{j_0} (h_v-h^*)} \g^{-h_v} =\\

1473: &&=\g^{(1-c \bar \l_{j_0})(h^*-h_v)} \le \g^{{3\over

1474: 4}(h_{v'}-h_v)}\;;\nn \eea

1475: %

1476: if $1-\PP_0-\PP_1$ is applied, the bound improves by a factor

1477: $(|\m_{h_v}| \g^{-h_v})^2 \le\g^{{3\over 2}(h_{v'}-h_v)}$.

1478: 

1479: 

1480: By suitably modifying the analysis leading to the bound

1481: \pref{2.27}, we can derive a bound for all the Schwinger functions

1482: and get a relatively simple tree expansion for their removed

1483: cutoffs limit. We shall here consider in detail the Schwinger

1484: functions with $n^J=0$, at fixed non coinciding points; we shall

1485: get a bound sufficient to prove two of the OSa, the boundedness

1486: and the cluster property. Since relativistic invariance is obvious

1487: by construction, to complete the proof of OSa there will remain to

1488: prove only positive definiteness.

1489: 

1490: Given a set $\xxx= \{\xx_1, \ldots,\xx_k\}$ of $k$ (an even

1491: integer) space-time points, such that $\d \= \min_{\xx\not= \yy

1492: \in \xxx} |\xx-\yy| >0$, and a set $\uo= \{\o_1, \ldots, \o_k \}$

1493: of $\o$-indices, the $k$-points Schwinger function

1494: $S_{k,\uo}(\xxx)$ is defined as the $k$-th order functional

1495: derivative of the generating function \pref{2.26} with respect to

1496: $\f^+_{\xx_1, \o_1}, \ldots, \f^+_{\xx_{k/2}, \o_{k/2}}$ and

1497: $\f^-_{\xx_{k/2+1}, \o_{k/2+1}}, \ldots, \f^-_{\xx_k, \o_k}$ at

1498: $J=\f=0$, see \pref{1.10} and item 2) in Theorem \ref{th1}. By

1499: using \pref{2.26}, we can write

1500: %

1501: \be

1502: S_{k,\uo}(\xxx) = \lim_{|h|,N\to \io} \sum_{\p(\xxx,\uo)}

1503:  \sum_{n=0}^\io \sum_{j_0=h^*-1}^{N-1} \sum_{\uo}

1504: \sum_{\t\in\TT_{j_0,n,k,0}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP\atop |P_{v_0}|=k}

1505: S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)\;, \lb{2.26a}\ee

1506: %

1507: where $\sum_{\p(\xxx,\uo)}$ denotes the sum over the permutations

1508: of the $\xx$ and $\o$ labels associated with the $k/2$ endpoints

1509: of type $\f^+$, as well as those associated with the $k/2$

1510: endpoints of type $\f^-$.

1511: 

1512: We need some extra definitions. Given a tree $\t$ contributing to

1513: the r.h.s. of \pref{2.26a}, we call $\t^*$ the tree which is

1514: obtained from $\t$ by erasing all the vertices which are not

1515: needed to connect the $k$ special endpoints (all of type $\f$).

1516: The endpoints of $\t^*$ are the $k$ special endpoints of $\t$,

1517: which we denote $v^*_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$; with each of them a

1518: space-time point $\xx_i$ is associated. Given a vertex $v\in\t^*$,

1519: we shall call $\xx^*_v$ the subset of $\xxx$ made of all points

1520: associated with the endpoints following $v$ in $\t^*$; we shall

1521: use also the definition $D_v = \max_{\xx, \yy \in \xx^*_v}

1522: |\xx-\yy|$. Moreover, we shall call $s^*_v$ the number of branches

1523: following $v$ in $\t^*$, $s^{*,1}_v$ the number of branches

1524: containing only one endpoint and $s^{*,2}_v = s^*_v- s^{*,1}_v$.

1525: Note that $\xx_v^* \subset \xx_v$ and $s^*_v \le s_v$.

1526: 

1527: The bound of $S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)$ can be obtained by slightly

1528: modifying the procedure described in detail in \S 3 of \cite{BM1},

1529: which allowed us to prove the integral estimate \pref{2.27}, in

1530: order to take into account the fact that the points in $\xxx$ are

1531: not integrated. First of all, we note that it is possible to

1532: extract a factor $e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_v} D_v}}$ for each non trivial

1533: (that is with $s^*_v\ge 2$, n.t. in the following) vertex

1534: $v\in\t^*$, by partially using the decaying factors

1535: $e^{-c\sqrt{\g^j|\xx-\yy|}}$ appearing in the bounds \pref{2.21},

1536: which are used for the propagators of the spanning tree $T_\t

1537: =\bigcup_v T_v$ of $\t$ (see (3.81) of \cite{BM1}); we can indeed

1538: use the bound

1539: %

1540: \be

1541: e^{-c\sqrt{\g^h|\xx|}} \le e^{-\frac{c}{2}\sqrt{\g^h|\xx|}} \cdot

1542: e^{-c'\sum_{j=-\io}^h \sqrt{\g^j|\xx|}} \virg c'={c\over 2

1543: \sum_{j=0}^\io \g^{-j/2}} \lb{2.30}

1544: \ee

1545: %

1546: and the remark that, given a n.t. $v\in\t^*$, there is a subtree

1547: $T_v^*$ of $T_\t$, connecting the points in $\xx_v^*$ (together

1548: with a subset of the internal points in $\xx_v$), made of

1549: propagators of scale $j\ge h_v$. It follows that, given two points

1550: $\xx,\yy\in \xx_v^*$, such that $D_v=|\xx-\yy|$, there is a path

1551: connecting $\xx$ and $\yy$, made of propagators in $T_v^*$, whose

1552: length is at least $D_v$; the decomposition of the decaying

1553: factors in the r.h.s. of \pref{2.30} allows us to extract, for

1554: each of these propagators, a factor $e^{-c' \sqrt{\g^{h_v}|\xx|}}$

1555: and the product of these factors can be bounded by

1556: $e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_v} D_v}}$.

1557: 

1558: Note that, after this operation, there will remain a factor

1559: $e^{-(c/2)\sqrt{\g^j|\xx-\yy|}}$ for each propagator of $T_\t$, to

1560: be used for the integration over the internal vertices. Moreover,

1561: there will be $1+ \sum_{v\in \t^*} (s^*_v-1)= k$ integrations less

1562: to do; by suitably choosing them, the lacking integrations produce

1563: in the bound an extra factor $\prod_{v\in \t^*} \g^{2 h_v

1564: (s_v^*-1)}L^{-2}$ so that we get

1565: %

1566: \bea

1567: &&|S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)| \le  C^k(C\bar\l_{j_0})^n \g^{-j_0(-2+

1568: k/2)} \left[ \prod_{n.t. v\in\t^*} \g^{2 h_v (s^*_v-1)}

1569: e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_v} D_v}} \right]\cdot\nn\\

1570: %

1571: &&\cdot \prod_{i=1}^k {\g^{-h_i}\over (Z_{h_i})^{1/2}} \prod_{\rm

1572: v\ not\ e.p.} \lft({Z_{h_v}\over Z_{h_v-1}}\rgt)^{|P_v|/2} \g^{-d_v}

1573: \;.\lb{2.31}\eea

1574: 

1575: Let $E_i$ be the family of trivial vertices belonging to the

1576: branch of $\t^*$ which connects $v^*_i$ with the higher non

1577: trivial vertex of $\t^*$ preceding it; the definition of

1578: $s^{*,1}_v$ and the fact that, by assumption, $1/Z_{h_i}\le

1579: \g^{h_i\h}$, with $\h\le c\bar\l^2_{j_0}$, imply that, if

1580: $E=\cup_i E_i$,

1581: %

1582: \be

1583: \prod_{i=1}^k {\g^{-h_i}\over (Z_{h_i})^{1/2}} \le \prod_{v\in E}

1584: \g^{-(1-\h/2)} \prod_{n.t. v\in \t^*} \g^{-h_v(1-\h/2) s^{*,1}_v}

1585: \;.\lb{2.32}\ee

1586: 

1587: Let $v^*_0$ the first vertex following $v_0$ (the vertex

1588: immediately following the root of $\t$, of scale $j_0+1$) with

1589: $s^*_v\ge 2$; then we have, if $k_v$ denotes the number of

1590: elements in $\xx_v^*$ (hence $k_v=k$, if $v_0 \le v \le v^*_0$),

1591: %

1592: \be

1593: \g^{-j_0(-2+ k/2}) \prod_{v_0 \le v <v^*_0} \g^{-d_v} =

1594: \g^{-h_{v^*_0} (-2+ k_{v^*_0}/2)} \prod_{v_0 \le v <v^*_0}

1595: \g^{-\tilde d_v}\;, \lb{2.33}\ee

1596: %

1597: where we used the definition,

1598: %

1599: \be

1600: \tilde d_v = d_v - \left(-2+ {k_v\over 2} \right) = \frac{|P_v|

1601: -k_v}{2}\lb{2.34}\;;

1602: \ee

1603: %

1604: note that $\tilde d_v \ge 1/2$, for any $v\in \t^*$.

1605: 

1606: By inserting \pref{2.32} and \pref{2.33} in the r.h.s. of

1607: \pref{2.31}, we get

1608: %

1609: \bea

1610: &&|S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)| \le  C^k(C\bar\l_{j_0})^n \left[

1611: \prod_{n.t. v\in\t^*} e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_v} D_v}} \right]

1612: %

1613: \left[ \prod_{v\ not\ e.p.} \lft({Z_{h_v}\over Z_{h_v-1}}\rgt)^{|P_v|/2}

1614: \right]\;\cdot\nn\\

1615: %

1616: &&\cdot \left[ \prod_{v\notin \t^*\atop v \ not\ e.p.} \g^{-d_v}

1617: \right]

1618: %

1619: \left[ \prod_{v\in E} \g^{-d_v-1+\h/2} \right] \left[ \prod_{v_0

1620: \le v <v^*_0} \g^{-\tilde d_v}\right] \cdot F_\t \;,\lb{2.35}

1621: \eea

1622: %

1623: where

1624: %

1625: \be

1626: F_\t = \g^{-h_{v^*_0} (-2+ k_{v^*_0}/2)}

1627: %

1628: \prod_{n.t. v\in\t^*} \g^{h_v [2(s^*_v-1) - (1-\h/2) s^{*,1}_v]}

1629: \left[ \prod_{v^*_0 \le v\in\t^*\atop v\notin E} \g^{-d_v} \right]

1630: \;.\lb{2.36}

1631: \ee

1632: 

1633: Given a n.t. vertex $v\in\t^*$, let $s=s^*_v$, $s_1=s^{*,1}_v$,

1634: $\tilde s=s-s_1$ and $v_1, \ldots, v_{\tilde s}$ the n.t. vertices

1635: immediately following $v$ in $\t^*$. Note that $k_v=s_1 +

1636: \sum_{i=1}^{\tilde s} k_{v_i}$; hence, given $\e>0$, we can write

1637: %

1638: \bea

1639: && -(-2+\e + k_v/2) + [2(s-1) - (1-\h/2) s_1] =\nn\\

1640: && =2-\e -k_v/2 +\e(s-1) +(2-\e)(s_1+ \tilde s-1)  - (1-\h/2)

1641: s_1=\nn\\

1642: && = - \frac12 \left(s_1 + \sum_{i=1}^{\tilde s} k_{v_i}\right) +

1643: \e(s-1) +(2-\e)\tilde s +s_1(2-\e-1+\h/2) =\nn\\

1644: &&= \e(s-1) + s_1(1/2-\e +\h/2) - \sum_{i=1}^{\tilde s} (-2 +\e

1645: +k_{v_i}/2)\;.\lb{2.37}

1646: \eea

1647: %

1648: This identity, applied to the vertex $v^*_0$, implies that, if

1649: $v_1, \ldots, v_{\tilde s}$, $\tilde s=s^*_{v_0^*} -

1650: s^{*,1}_{v_0^*}$, are the n.t. vertices immediately following

1651: $v^*_0$ in $\t^*$, then

1652: %

1653: \bea

1654: && \g^{-h_{v^*_0} (-2+ k_{v^*_0}/2)} \g^{h_{v^*_0}

1655: [2(s^*_{v^*_0}-1) - (1-\h/2) s^{*,1}_{v^*_0}]}  =\nn\\

1656: && = \g^{\e h_{v^*_0}} \g^{\a_{v^*_0} h_{v^*_0}}

1657: \prod_{i=1}^{\tilde s} \left[ \g^{-h_{v_i} (-2+\e+ k_{v_i}/2)}

1658: \cdot \prod_{v\in \CC_i} \g^{-2+\e+ k_v/2} \right] \;, \lb{2.38}

1659: \eea

1660: %

1661: where $\CC_i$ is the path connecting $v^*_0$ with $v_i$ in $\t^*$

1662: (not including $v_i$) and we used the definition

1663: %

1664: \be \a_v= \e(s^*_v-1) + s^{*,1}_v(1/2-\e+\h/2)\;. \lb{2.39}\ee

1665: %

1666: The presence of the factor $\g^{-h_{v_i} (-2+\e+ k_{v_i}/2)}$ for

1667: each vertex $v_i$ in the r.h.s. of  \pref{2.38} implies that an

1668: identity similar to \pref{2.38} can be used for each n.t. vertex

1669: $v\in\t^*$. It is then easy to show that

1670: %

1671: \be

1672: F_\t = \g^{\e h_{v^*_0}} \left[ \prod_{n.t. v\in\t^*} \g^{\a_v

1673: h_v} \right] \left[ \prod_{v\in\t^*, v\notin E} \g^{-\tilde

1674: d_v+\e} \right] \;.\lb{2.40}

1675: \ee

1676: %

1677: By inserting this equation in \pref{2.35}, we get

1678: %

1679: \bea

1680: &&|S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)| \le  C^k (C\bar\l_{j_0})^n \g^{\e

1681: h_{v^*_0}} \left[ \prod_{n.t. v\in\t^*} \g^{\a_v h_v}

1682: e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_v} D_v}} \right]\;\cdot\nn\\

1683: %

1684: &&\cdot \left[ \prod_{v\ not\ e.p.} ({Z_{h_v}\over

1685: Z_{h_v-1}})^{|P_v|/2} \g^{-\bar d_v}\right] \;,\lb{2.35a}

1686: \eea

1687: %

1688: where

1689: %

1690: \be

1691: \bar d_v = \cases{

1692: %

1693: \tilde d_v & if $v_0\le v < v_0^*$\cr

1694: %

1695: \tilde d_v -\e & if $v\in\t^*$, $v_0^*\le v\notin E$\cr

1696: %

1697: d_v+1-\h/2 & if $v\in E$\cr

1698: %

1699: d_v & otherwise\cr }\lb{2.41a}\ee

1700: 

1701: Note that $\bar d_v>0$ for any $v\in\t$, if $\e<1/2$; moreover, if

1702: this condition is satisfied, $\a_v \ge \e>0$, for any n.t. vertex

1703: $v\in\t^*$, uniformly in $\bar\l_{j_0}$. Moreover, since by

1704: hypothesis $D_v\ge\d>0$, there is $c_0$ such that

1705: %

1706: \be

1707: \g^{\a_v h_v} e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_v} D_v}} \le \sup_{x>0} x^{2\a_v}

1708: e^{-c' x\sqrt{\d} } \le \left( {c_0\over \d} \right)^{\a_v}

1709: \a_v^{2\a_v}\;. \lb{2.43a}\ee

1710: %

1711: Note that

1712: %

1713: \be \sum_{n.t. v\in \t^*} \a_v = \frac12 k(1+\h) -\e \le

1714: \frac12 k(1+ \h)\;. \lb{2.42aa}\ee

1715: %

1716: Hence, by using \pref{2.35a} and \pref{2.42aa}, we get

1717: %

1718: \bea

1719: &&|S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)| \le  C^k  (k!)^{1+ \h} (C\bar\l_{j_0})^n

1720: \d^{-[k(1+\h)/2 -\e] +\a_{v_0^*}}\;\cdot\nn\\

1721: %

1722: &&\cdot \g^{ (\a_{v^*_0} +\e) h_{v^*_0}}

1723: e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h_{v^*_0}} D_\xxx}} \left[ \prod_{v\ not\ e.p.}

1724: \lft({Z_{h_v}\over Z_{h_v-1}}\rgt)^{|P_v|/2} \g^{-\bar d_v}\right]

1725: \;,\lb{2.44a}

1726: \eea

1727: %

1728: where $D_\xxx$ denotes the diameter of the set $\xxx$.

1729: 

1730: Let us now observe that, since the vertex dimensions $\bar d_v$

1731: are all strictly positive, if we insert the bound \pref{2.44a} in

1732: the r.h.s of \pref{2.26a}, we can easily perform all the sums (by

1733: using the arguments explained, for instance, in \cite{BM1}), once

1734: we have fixed the scale of the vertex $v_0^*$ and the values of

1735: $s^*_{v^*_0}$ and $s^{*,1}_{v^*_0}$ (so that the value of

1736: $\a_{v^*_0}$ is fixed) and we can take the limit $-h,N\to\io$. By

1737: using Theorem \ref{th6} and the remark that the bound \pref{2.44a}

1738: implies that the trees giving the main contribution to

1739: $S_{k,\uo}(\xxx)$ are those with $\g^{h_{v^*_0}} D_\xxx$ of order

1740: $1$, it is easy to prove that the limit can be expressed as an

1741: expansion similar to \pref{2.26a}, with the sum over $j_0$ going

1742: from $-\io$ to $+\io$, the sum over $\t$ including trees with

1743: endpoints of arbitrary scale (satisfying the usual constraints)

1744: and the values of $S_{k,0,\t,\uo}(\xxx)$ modified in the following

1745: way:

1746: 

1747: \bd

1748: 

1749: \item{1)} in every endpoint there is the same constant $\l_{-\io}$

1750: in place of $\l_{h_v}$;

1751: 

1752: \item{2)} the constants $Z_j$, and $\m_j$ are

1753: substituted everywhere by $\g^{-\h_z j}$ and $\m \g^{-\h_\m j}$,

1754: respectively, see \pref{2.45};

1755: 

1756: \item{3)} in the expansion which defines the constants $z_j$ and $s_j$

1757: needed, respectively, in the definition of $\tilde Z_{j-1}(\kk)$

1758: and $\m_{j-1}(\kk)$, see \pref{2.18}, one has to make the same

1759: substitutions of items 1) and 2).

1760: 

1761: \ed

1762: 

1763: The bound \pref{2.44a} also implies the following one (valid for

1764: $C_\e|\l|\le 1$, with $C_\e\to\io$ as $\e\to 1/2$):

1765: %

1766: \bea

1767: && |S_{k,\uo}(\xxx)| \le C^k  (C_\e|\l|)^{k/2-1} (k!)^{2+\h}

1768: \d^{-[k(1+\h)/2 -\e]} \sum_{s=2}^k \sum_{s_1=0}^s \d^{\e (s-1)

1769: + s_1(1-2\e +\h)/2} \cdot\nn\\

1770: %

1771: && \cdot \sum_{h=-\io}^{+\io} \g^{[\e s + s_1(1-2\e +\h)/2]h}

1772: e^{-c'\sqrt{\g^{h} D_\xxx}} \le\nn\\

1773: && \le C^k (C_\e|\l|)^{k/2-1} (k!)^{3+ 2\h}  \d^{-k(1+\h)/2}

1774: \sum_{s=2}^k \sum_{s_1=0}^s \left(  {\d\over D_\xxx} \right)^{\e s

1775: + s_1(1-2\e+\h)/2} \;. \lb{2.45aa}\eea

1776: %

1777: Since $\d/ D_\xxx\le 1$, the sum over $s$ and $s_1$ is bounded by

1778: $Ck^2(\d/ D_\xxx)^{2\e}$; hence we get the bound

1779: %

1780: \be

1781: |S_{k,\uo}(\xxx)| \le C^k (C_\e|\l|)^{k/2-1} (k!)^{3+2\h}

1782: \d^{-[k(1+\h)/2 -2\e]} {1\over 1+D_\xxx^{2\e}}\;, \lb{2.45b}\ee

1783: %

1784: which proves both the boundedness and the cluster property, see

1785: Appendix \ref{ss6}.

1786: 

1787: \*

1788: 

1789: In conclusion,we have proved the following result.

1790: 

1791: \begin{theorem} \lb{th5}

1792: If $\e_1$ is defined as in Theorem \ref{th6}, there exists

1793: $\e_2\le \e_1$ such that,if the normalization conditions

1794: \pref{2.43} are satisfied and $|\l|\le \e_2$, then the Schwinger

1795: functions $S_{k,\uo}(\xxx)$ are well defined at non coinciding

1796: points and verify all the OS axioms, possibly except the axiom of

1797: positive definiteness.

1798: \end{theorem}

1799: 

1800:  \*\*

1801: 

1802: The positivity property will be proved in \S\ref{ss4}, together

1803: with the claim in item 4) of Theorem \ref{th1}. Moreover, it is

1804: easy to derive from the previous bounds (see for instance

1805: \cite{BM4} for the case $\m=0$) the bound for the two point

1806: Schwinger functions \pref{1.15}. Finally, the previous arguments

1807: can be extended to prove that also the Schwinger functions with

1808: $n_J>0$ are well defined in the limit of removed cutoffs, so

1809: completing the proof of Theorem \ref{th1}, except for eq.

1810: \pref{1.16}, which will be proved in \S\ref{ss2.5} below.

1811: 

1812: 

1813: \subsection{Bounds for the Fourier transform of the

1814: Schwinger functions}\lb{ss2.4}

1815: 

1816: The main bound \pref{2.27} can be also used to get bounds on the

1817: Fourier transform of the Schwinger functions at non zero external

1818: momenta; these bounds are uniform in the cutoffs and allow, in

1819: particular, to prove (by some obvious technicality, that we shall

1820: ship) that the removed cutoffs limit is well defined. Here we

1821: shall only consider, as an example, the function

1822: $\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)$ in the massless case.

1823: 

1824: By using \pref{2.26}, we can write

1825: %

1826: \be

1827: \hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk) = \sum_{n=0}^\io

1828: \sum_{j_0=h-1}^{N-1} \sum_{\t\in\TT_{j_0,n,2,1}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP

1829: \atop |P_{v_0}|=2} \hG^{2,1}_\t(\pp,\kk)\;, \lb{2.60}\ee

1830: %

1831: with an obvious definition of $\hG^{2,1}_\t(\pp,\kk)$. Let us

1832: define, for any $\kk\not= 0$, $h_\kk= \min\{j: f_j(\kk)\not= 0\}$

1833: and suppose that $\pp$, $\kk$, $\pp-\kk$ are all different from

1834: $0$. It follows that, given $\t$, if $h_-$ and $h_+$ are the scale

1835: indices of the $\psi$ fields belonging to the endpoints associated

1836: with $\f^+$ and $\f^-$, while $h_J$ denotes the scale of the

1837: endpoint of type $J$, $\hG^{2,1}_\t(\pp,\kk)$ can be different

1838: from $0$ only if $h_-=h_\kk, h_\kk+1$, $h_+=h_{\kk-\pp},

1839: h_{\kk-\pp} +1$ and $h_J\ge h_\pp- \log_\g 2$. Moreover, if

1840: $\TT_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}$ denotes the set of trees satisfying the

1841: previous conditions and $\t\in \TT_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}$,

1842: $|\hG^{2,1}_\t(\pp,\kk)|$ can be bounded by $\int d\zz d\xx

1843: |G^{2,1}_\t(\zz; \xx, \yy)|$. Hence, by using \pref{2.27} and

1844: \pref{2.45}, we get

1845: %

1846: \bea

1847: &&|\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)| \le C \g^{-h_\kk(1-\h_z/2)}

1848: \g^{-h_{\kk-\pp}(1-\h_z/2)}\;\cdot\nn\\

1849: %

1850: && \cdot \sum_{n=0}^\io \sum_{j_0=h-1}^{N-1}

1851: \sum_{\t\in\TT_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP \atop

1852: |P_{v_0}|=2} (C|\l|)^n \prod_{\rm v\ not\ e.p.} \g^{-d_v} \;.

1853: \lb{2.61}\eea

1854: 

1855: The bound of the r.h.s. of \pref{2.61} could be easily performed

1856: by using the procedure described in \S3 of \cite{BM1}, if $d_v$

1857: were greater than $0$ for any $v$; however, by looking at

1858: \pref{2.28}, one sees that this is not true. Given $\t\in

1859: \TT_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}$, let $v^*_0$ the higher vertex preceding all

1860: three special endpoints and $v^*_1\ge v^*_0$ the higher vertex

1861: preceding either the two endpoints of type $\f$ (to be called

1862: $v_{\f,+}$ and $v_{\f,-}$) or one endpoint of type $\f$ and the

1863: endpoint of type $J$ (to be called $v_J$). It turns out that

1864: $d_v>0$, except for the vertices belonging to the path $\CC^*$

1865: connecting $v_1^*$ with $v^*_0$, where, if $|P_v|=4$ and $n_v^J=0$

1866: or $|P_v|=2$ and $n_v^J=1$, $d_v=0$. Hence, we can perform as in

1867: \S3 of \cite{BM1} the sums over the scale and $P_v$ labels of

1868: $\t$, only if we fix the scale indices $h^*_0$ and $h^*_1$  of

1869: $v^*_0$ and $v^*_1$, after multiplying by $\g^{-\d(h^*_1-h^*_0)}$

1870: the r.h.s. of \pref{2.61}, $\d$ being any positive number. Of

1871: course, we have also to perform the sum over $h^*_0$, $h^*_1$ of

1872: $\g^{\d (h^*_1-h^*_0)}$, which is divergent, if we proceed exactly

1873: in this way.

1874: 

1875: In order to solve this problem, we note that, if $v\notin \CC^*$,

1876: $d_v-1/4>0$. Hence, before performing the sums over the scale and

1877: $P_v$ labels, we can extract from each $\g^{-d_v}$ factor

1878: associated with the vertices belonging to the paths connecting the

1879: three special endpoints with $v^*_0$ or $v^*_1$, a $\g^{-1/4}$

1880: piece, to be used to perform safely the sums over $h^*_0$, $h^*_1$

1881: in the following way.

1882: 

1883: Let us consider first the family $\TT^{(1)}_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}$ of

1884: trees such that the two special endpoints following $v^*_1$ are

1885: $v_{\f,+}$ and $v_{\f,-}$ and let us suppose that $|\kk| \ge

1886: |\kk-\pp|$. In this case, before doing the sums over the the scale

1887: and $P_v$ labels, we fix also the scale $h_J$ of $v_J$. We get, if

1888: $h_J^*\= \max\{h_\pp+2, h^*_0+1\}$:

1889: %

1890: \bea

1891: && \sum_{n=0}^\io \sum_{j_0=h-1}^{N-1}

1892: \sum_{\t\in\TT^{(1)}_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP \atop

1893: |P_{v_0}|=2} (C|\l|)^n \prod_{\rm v\ not\ e.p.} \g^{-d_v} \le

1894: \lb{2.62}\\

1895: %

1896: && \le C \sum_{h_1^*=-\io}^{h_{\kk-\pp}} \sum_{h_0^*=-\io}^{h^*_1}

1897: \sum_{h_J=h_J^*}^{+\io} \g^{\d(h^*_1- h^*_0)} \g^{-\frac14

1898: [(h_\kk-h^*_1) +(h_{\kk-\pp} -h^*_1) + (h_J-h^*_0)]}\;,\nn\eea

1899: %

1900: and it is easy to prove that the r.h.s. of \pref{2.62} is bounded

1901: by $C\g^{\d(h_\kk -h_\pp)}$, if $\d\le 1/8$. If $|\kk-\pp| \ge

1902: |\kk|$, we get a similar result, with $h_{\kk-\pp}$ in place of

1903: $h_\kk$.

1904: 

1905: Let us consider now the family $\TT^{(2,+)}_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}$ of

1906: trees such that the two special endpoints following $v^*_1$ are

1907: $v_J$ and $v_{\f,+}$. We get, if $h_J^*\= \max\{h_\pp+2,

1908: h^*_1+1\}$ and $\bar h_0=\min\{h_{\kk-\pp}, h^*_1\}$:

1909: %

1910: \bea

1911: && \sum_{n=0}^\io \sum_{j_0=h-1}^{N-1}

1912: \sum_{\t\in\TT^{(1,+)}_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP \atop

1913: |P_{v_0}|=2} (C|\l|)^n \prod_{\rm v\ not\ e.p.} \g^{-d_v} \le

1914: \lb{2.63}\\

1915: %

1916: && \le C \sum_{h_1^*=-\io}^{h_{\kk}} \sum_{h_0^*=-\io}^{\bar h_0}

1917: \sum_{h_J=h_J^*}^{+\io} \g^{\d(h^*_1- h^*_0)} \g^{-\frac14

1918: [(h_\kk-h^*_1) +(h_{\kk-\pp} -h^*_0) + (h_J-h^*_1)]}\;,\nn\eea

1919: %

1920: and it is easy to prove that, if $\d\le 1/8$, the r.h.s. of

1921: \pref{2.63} is bounded by $C\g^{\d(h_\kk -h_{\kk-\pp})}$, if

1922: $|\kk| \ge |\kk-\pp|$, by a constant, otherwise. The family

1923: $\TT^{(2,-)}_{j_0,n,\pp,\kk}$ of trees such that the two special

1924: endpoints following $v^*_1$ are $v_J$ and $v_{\f,-}$ can be

1925: treated in a similar way and one obtains a bound $C\g^{\d(

1926: h_{\kk-\pp}- h_\kk)}$, if $|\kk-\pp| \ge |\kk|$, or a constant,

1927: otherwise.

1928: 

1929: By putting together all these bounds, we get, for any positive

1930: $\d\le 1/8$:

1931: %

1932: \bea

1933: && |\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)| \le {C_\d\over |\kk|^{1-\h_z}

1934: |\kk-\pp|^{1-\h_z}} \;\cdot\lb{2.64}\\

1935: &&\left[ \left( {|\kk|\over |\pp|} \right)^\d + \left( {

1936: |\kk-\pp|\over |\pp|} \right)^\d + \left( {|\kk| \over |\kk -\pp|}

1937: \right)^\d + \left( {|\kk-\pp|\over |\kk|} \right)^\d

1938: \right]\;,\nn\eea

1939: %

1940: with $C_\d\to \io$ as $\d\to 0$.

1941: 

1942: 

1943: \subsection{Calculation of $\hG_\o^2{(\kk)}$ in the massless case}

1944: \lb{ss2.5}

1945: 

1946: We want now to discuss the structure of the limit $-h,N \to\io$ of

1947: the interacting propagator $\hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk)$ for $\m=0$.

1948: 

1949: By using \pref{2.26}, we can write

1950: %

1951: \be

1952: \hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk) = \sum_{n=0}^\io \sum_{j_0=h-1}^{N-1}

1953: \sum_{\t\in\TT_{j_0,n,2,0}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP \atop |P_{v_0}|=2}

1954: \hG^{2}_\t(\kk)\;, \lb{2.65}\ee

1955: %

1956: with an obvious definition of $\hG^{2}_\t(\kk)$.

1957: 

1958: Let us define $h_\kk$ as in \S\ref{ss2.4} and suppose that

1959: $\kk\not= 0$. It follows that, given $\t$, if $h_-$ and $h_+$ are

1960: the scale indices of the $\psi$ fields belonging to the endpoints

1961: associated with $\f^+$ and $\f^-$, $\hG^{2}_\t(\kk)$ can be

1962: different from $0$ only if $h_\pm=h_\kk, h_\kk+1$. Moreover, if

1963: $\TT_{j_0,n,\kk}$ denotes the set of trees satisfying the previous

1964: conditions and $\t\in \TT_{j_0,n,\kk}$, $|\hG^{2}_\t(\kk)|$ can be

1965: bounded by $\int d\xx |G^{2}_\t(\xx, \yy)|$. Hence, by using

1966: \pref{2.27} and \pref{2.45}, we get

1967: %

1968: \bea

1969: &&|\hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk)| \le C \g^{-(h_\kk-j_0)}

1970: {\g^{-h_\kk}\over Z_{h_\kk}} \;\cdot\nn\\

1971: %

1972: && \cdot \sum_{n=0}^\io \sum_{j_0=h-1}^{N-1}

1973: \sum_{\t\in\TT_{j_0,n,\kk}} \sum_{\bP\in \PP \atop |P_{v_0}|=2}

1974: (C|\l|)^n \prod_{\rm v\ not\ e.p.} \g^{-d_v} \;, \lb{2.66}\eea

1975: %

1976: where $d_v>0$, except for the vertices belonging to the path

1977: connecting the root with $v^*$, the higher vertex preceding both

1978: the two special endpoints, where $d_v$ can be equal to $0$. These

1979: vertices can be regularized by using the factor

1980: $\g^{-(h_\kk-j_0)}$ in the r.h.s. of \pref{2.66}; hence, by

1981: proceeding as in \S\ref{ss2.4}, we can easily perform the sum over

1982: the trees with a fixed value of the scale label $h^*$ of $v^*$ and

1983: we get the bound

1984: %

1985: \be

1986: |\hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk)| \le C {\g^{-h_\kk}\over Z_{h_\kk}}

1987: \sum_{h^*=-\io}^{h_\kk} \g^{-(h_\kk - h^*)/2} \le C

1988: {\g^{-h_\kk}\over Z_{h_\kk}}\;.\lb{2.67}\ee

1989: 

1990: By using Theorem \ref{th6}, it is not hard to argue, as in

1991: \S\ref{ss2.3}, that the removed cutoffs limit $\hG^{2}_{\o}(\kk)$

1992: is well defined and is given by an expansion similar to

1993: \pref{2.65}, with the sum over $j_0$ going from $-\io$ to $+\io$

1994: and the quantity $\hG^{2}_\t(\kk)$ modified by substituting, in

1995: every endpoint, $\l_j$ with $\l_{-\io}$, and, in every propagator,

1996: $Z_j$ with $\g^{-\h j}$, $\h\=\h_z$; this property easily implies

1997: that $\hG^{2}_{\o}(\g\kk) = \g^{\h-1} \hG^{2}_{\o}(\kk)$. On the

1998: other hand, the symmetries of the model imply that there is a

1999: function $g(x,\l)$, defined for $x>0$ and $\l$ small enough, such

2000: that $\hG^{2}_{\o}(\kk)= D_\o^{-1}(\kk) g(|\kk|,\l)$; by the

2001: previous scaling property, $g(\g x,\l)= \g^{\h} g(x,\l)$. We want

2002: to show that $g(x,\l)=x^{\h} f(\l)$, with $f(\l)$ independent of

2003: $x$.

2004: 

2005: To prove this claim, first of all note that

2006: $\hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk)$ is independent of $\g$, since the cutoff

2007: function $C^{-1}_{h,N}(\kk)$ only depends on $\g_0$ and $\g\ge

2008: \g_0$, see \S\ref{ss1.3}. This property is then valid also for

2009: $\hG^{2}_{\o}(\kk)$, hence for $g(x,\l)$. However, since the

2010: expansion heavily depends on $\g$, the value of $\h$ is apparently

2011: a function of $\g$; we want to show that this is not true.

2012: 

2013: Note that, for any $\g$ and any integer $j$, $g(\g^j,\l)=

2014: \g^{j\h(\g)} g(1,\l)$; it follows that, if there exist, given

2015: $\g_1$ and $\g_2$, two integers $j_1, j_2$, such that $\g_1^{j_1}

2016: =\g_2^{j_2}$, then $\h(\g_1)= \h(\g_2)$. Hence, given an interval

2017: $I=[\g_0, \bar\g]$ and $\g\in I$, the set $\{\g'\in

2018: I:\h(\g')=\h(\g)\}$ is dense in $I$, as the set of rational

2019: numbers is dense in the interval $[\log_\g \g_0, \log_\g \bar\g]$.

2020: Since $\h(\g)$ is obviously continuous in $\g$, it follows that it

2021: is constant.

2022: 

2023: Let us now put $g(x,\l)= x^\h f(x,\l)$; we see immediately that

2024: $f(\g x,\l)= f(x,\l)$. Hence, by varying $\g$ in the interval

2025: $[2,4]$ and by choosing $x=1/\g$, we see that $f(1,\l)=f(x,\l)$,

2026: if $x\in [1/4, 1/2]$. By using this equation, by varying $x$ in

2027: the interval $[1/4,1/2]$ and by choosing $\g=2$, we get also

2028: $f(1,\l)=f(x,\l)$, if $x\in [1/2, 1]$. By proceeding in this way,

2029: it is easy to show that $f(1,\l)=f(x,\l)$, for any $x>0$.

2030: 

2031: The previous discussion and the fact that, in the expansion

2032: \pref{2.66}, $d_v>1/4$ for any $v>v^*$, imply also that

2033: %

2034: \be

2035: \hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk) = {|\kk|^\h \over D_\o(\kk)} [f(\l) + O(|\kk|

2036: \g^{-N})^{1/4}]\;.\lb{2.68}\ee

2037: 

2038: 

2039: \section{ Ward--Takahashi Identities}\lb{ss3}

2040: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

2041: 

2042: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th2}}\lb{ss3.1}

2043: 

2044: In order to derive WTi in the massless case $\m=0$ from the

2045: generating functional \pref{1.6} (in the continuum limit $a=0$),

2046: it is convenient to introduce a cutoff function

2047: $[C^\e_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}$ equivalent to $[C_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}$ as

2048: far as the scaling features are concerned, but such that the

2049: support of $[C^\e_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}$ is the whole set $\DD_0$ and

2050: $\lim_{\e\to 0} [C^\e_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}= [C_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}$; we

2051: refer to \cite{BM2} \S 2.2 for its exact definition. We then

2052: substitute $[C_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}$ with $[C^\e_{h,N}(\kk)]^{-1}$ in

2053: the r.h.s. of \pref{1.6} and perform the gauge transformation

2054: $\psi^\pm_{\xx,\o}\to e^{\pm \a_{\xx,\o}} \psi^\pm_{\xx,\o}$

2055: (equivalent to the usual phase and chiral transformations). The

2056: change in the cutoff function has the effect that the Lebesgue

2057: measure $d\hat\psi^{[h,N]}$ is invariant under this transformation

2058: and we get the WTi \pref{1.17}, where, if $< .

2059: >_{h,N}$ denotes the expectation with respect to measure $\NN^{-1}

2060: P_{Z_N}(d\psi) e^{-\l_N Z_N^2 V(\psi)}$ (see \pref{1.7}-\pref{1.9}

2061: for the definitions), $\hD^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'} (\pp,\kk)$ is the

2062: Fourier transform of

2063: %

2064: \be \D^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\xx;\yy,\zz)\defi

2065: \la\psi^-_{\yy,\o'};\psi^+_{\zz,\o'};\d

2066: T_{\xx,\o}\ra_{h,N}\;,\lb{3.1}\ee

2067: %

2068: where $\la -; -; -\ra_{h,n}$ denotes the truncated expectation

2069: with respect to the measure \pref{1.7},

2070: %

2071: \be \d T_{\xx,\o}\defi

2072: {Z_N \over L^4}\sum_{\kk^+,\kk^-\atop\kk^+\not=\kk^-}

2073:  e^{i(\kk^+-\kk^-)\xx} C^\e_{h,N;\o}(\kk^+,\kk^-)

2074: \hp^+_{\kk^+,\o}\hp^-_{\kk^-,\o}\;,\lb{3.2}\ee

2075: %

2076: and

2077: %

2078: \be C^\e_{h,N;\o}(\kk^+,\kk^-)=[C_{h,N}^\e(\kk^-)-1]D_\o(\kk^-)

2079: -[C_{h,N}^\e(\kk^+)-1]D_\o(\kk^+)\;.

2080: \lb{3.3}\ee

2081: %

2082: Let us now suppose that $\pp$ is fixed independently of $h$ and

2083: $N$, as well as $\kk$, and that $\pp$, $\kk$ and $\kk-\pp$ are all

2084: different from $0$. This implies, in particular, that the

2085: condition $\wt\c(\pp)=1$ is satisfied if $|h|$ and $N$ are large

2086: enough and $\tilde\c(\pp)$ is the function appearing in

2087: \pref{1.22}. Hence we can prove Theorem \ref{th2} by substituting

2088: in \pref{1.18} $\hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp,\kk)$ with $\wt\c(\pp)

2089: \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp,\kk)$, which is the Fourier transform

2090: of

2091: %

2092: \be {\partial\over\partial J_{\xx,\o}}

2093: {\partial^2\over\partial \f^+_{\yy,\o'}\partial \f^-_{\zz,\o'}}

2094: \WW_\D|_{J=\f=0}\;,\lb{3.4}\ee

2095: %

2096: where

2097: %

2098: \bea

2099: e^{\WW_{\D} (J,\f)} &\defi& \int\! \der P^{[h, N]}(\ps)\

2100:  \exp\Bigg\{ -\l_{N} V\left(\sqrt{Z_N}\ps\right) +\nn\\

2101: %

2102: &+& \sum_\o\int\!d\xx\

2103: \lft[\f^{+}_{\xx,\o}\ps^{-}_{\xx,\o}+\ps^{+}_{\xx,\o}\f^{-}_{\xx,\o}

2104: \rgt]\Bigg\} \cdot \lb{3.5}\\

2105: %

2106: &\cdot& \exp\left\{ \sum_\o \left[\bar T_{0,\o} - \n_{+,N}\bar

2107: T_{+,\o} - \n_{-,N}\bar T_{-,\o} \right] \left(J, \sqrt{Z_N}

2108: \ps\right) \right\}\nn\;,\eea

2109: %

2110: with

2111: %

2112: \bea

2113: \bar T_{0,\o} \left(J,\ps\right) &=& {1\over L^4}\sum_{\kk,\pp}

2114: J_{\pp,\o} \wt\c(\pp) {C^\e_{h,N;\o}(\kk,\kk-\pp)\over

2115: D_{\o}(\pp)} \hp^+_{\kk,\o}\hp^-_{\kk-\pp,\o}\equiv {1\over

2116: L^2}\sum_{\pp\not=0} J_{\pp,\o} \d\r_{\pp,\o}\;,\nn\\

2117: %

2118: \bar T_{\pm,\o} \left(J,\ps\right) &=& {1\over L^4} \sum_{\kk,\pp}

2119: J_{\pp,\o} \wt\c(\pp) {D_{\pm\o}(\pp)\over D_{\o}(\pp)}

2120: \hp^+_{\kk,\pm\o}\hp^-_{\kk-\pp,\pm\o}\;.\lb{3.6}

2121: \eea

2122: %

2123: The coefficients $\n_{\pm,N}$ will be fixed by the requirement

2124: that \pref{1.20} holds. A crucial role in the analysis is played

2125: by the function

2126: %

2127: \be \D_\o^{(i,j)}(\kk^+,\kk^-)

2128: ={C^\e_{h,N;\o}(\kk^+,\kk^-)\over D_\o(\kk^+-\kk^-)}\hat

2129: g^{\;(i)}_\o(\kk^+) \hat g^{\;(j)}_\o(\kk^-)\;,\lb{3.7}\ee

2130: %

2131: where $\hat g^{(j)}_\o \= \hat g^{\;(j)}_{\o,\o}$. By proceeding

2132: as in \S(4.2.) of \cite{BM2} (where only the case $N=0$ is

2133: considered), one can show that, if $\pp=\kk^+-\kk^-\not=0$ and

2134: $|\pp|\ge 2\g^{h+1}$ (which is true since $\wt\c(\pp)=1$):

2135: 

2136: \bd

2137: 

2138: \item[1.]

2139: if $h<i,j<N$, since $[C^\e_{h,N}(\kk^\pm)]^{-1}=1$,

2140: %

2141: \be \D^{(i,j)}_\o(\kk^+,\kk^-)=0\;;\lb{3.8}\ee

2142: %

2143: \item[2.]

2144: if $h< j\le N$,

2145: %

2146: \be \D^{(N,j)}_\o(\kk^+,\kk^-)=

2147: {\pp\over D_\o(\pp)} {\bf S}_\o^{(j)}(\kk^+,\kk^-) \;;\lb{3.9}\ee

2148: %

2149: where ${\bf S}_\o^{(j)}(\kk^+,\kk^-)

2150: \defi\big(S^{(j)}_{\o,0}(\kk^+,\kk^-),S^{(j)}_{\o,1}(\kk^+,\kk^-)\big)$

2151: is a vector of smooth functions such that

2152: %

2153: \be |\dpr_{\kk^+}^{m_+} \dpr_{\kk^-}^{m_-} S^{(j)}_{\o,i}(\kk^+,\kk^-)|\le

2154: C_{m_+ +m_-} {\g^{-N(1+m_+)}\g^{-j(1+m_-)}\over Z_N

2155: Z_{j-1}}\;;\lb{3.10}\ee

2156: %

2157: \item[3.]

2158: if $h\le i \le N$,

2159: %

2160: \be |\D^{(i,h)}_\o(\kk^+,\kk^-)|\le C \g^{-(i-h)} {\g^{-h-i}\over

2161: Z_{i-1} Z_N} \;;\lb{3.11}\ee

2162: %

2163: \item[4.]

2164: if $i=j=h$,

2165: %

2166: \be \D^{(h,h)}_\o(\kk^+,\kk^-)=0\;.\lb{3.8a}\ee

2167: 

2168: 

2169: \ed

2170: 

2171: Note that, in the r.h.s. of \pref{3.11}, there is apparently a

2172: $Z_N/ Z_{h-1}$ factor missing, but the bound can not be improved;

2173: this is a consequence of the fact that $\tilde Z_{h-1}(\kk)=0$ for

2174: $|\kk|\le \g^{h-1}$, see eq. (63) of \cite{BM2}.

2175: 

2176: The multiscale integration of $\WW_{\D}$ has been described in

2177: detail in \S 4 of \cite{BM2} (of course the scale $0$ has to be

2178: replaced with the scale $N$). After the integration of $\psi^{(N)}$ we

2179: get an expression like \pref{2.1} and the terms linear in $J$ and

2180: quadratic in $\psi$ in the exponent will be denoted by

2181: $K_{J}^{(N-1)}(\sqrt{Z_{N-1}} \psi^{[h,N-1]})$; we write

2182: $K_{J}^{(N-1)}=K_{J}^{(a,N-1)}+K_{J}^{(b,N-1)}$, where

2183: $K_{J}^{(a,N-1)}$ was obtained by the integration of $\bar T_0$

2184: and $K_{J}^{(b,N-1)}$ from the integration of $\bar T_\pm$. We can

2185: write $K_{J}^{(a,N-1)}$ as

2186: %

2187: \bea

2188: && K_{J}^{(a,N-1)}(\sqrt{Z_{N-1}} \psi) =\sum_\o Z_{N}

2189: \int d\xx J_{\xx,\o} \Bigg\{\bar T_{0,\o} (J,\psi)+ \lb{3.12}\\

2190: %

2191: &&+ \sum_{\tilde \o}\int d\yy d\zz \left[

2192: F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,\tilde\o}(\xx,\yy,\zz) +

2193: F^{(N-1)}_{1,\o}(\xx,\yy,\zz) \d_{\o,\tilde\o} \right]

2194: [\psi^+_{\yy,\tilde\o} \psi^-_{\zz,\tilde\o}] \Bigg\} \nn\eea

2195: %

2196: where $F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,\tilde\o}$ and $F^{(N-1)}_{1,\o}$ are the

2197: analogous of eq. (132) of \cite{BM2}; they represent the terms in

2198: which both or only one of the fields in $\d \r_{\pp,+}$,

2199: respectively, are contracted. Both contributions to the r.h.s. of

2200: \pref{3.12} are dimensionally marginal; however, the

2201: regularization of $F^{(N-1)}_{1,\o}$ is trivial, as it is of the

2202: form

2203: %

2204: \be

2205: F_{1,\o}^{(N-1)}(\kk^+,\kk^-)= {[C_{h,N}(\kk^-)-1] D_\o(\kk^-) Z_N

2206: \hat g^{(N)}_\o(\kk^+)- u_N(\kk^+) \over D_\o(\kk^+-\kk^-)}

2207: G_\o^{(2)}(\kk^+)\lb{3.13}\ee

2208: %

2209: or the similar one, obtained exchanging $\kk^+$ with $\kk^-$;

2210: $u_N(\kk)=0$ if $|\kk|\le\g^N$ and $u_N(\kk)=1-f_N(\kk)$ for

2211: $|\kk|\ge\g^N$. By the oddness of the propagator in the momentum,

2212: $G_\o^{(2)}(0)=0$, hence we can regularize such term without

2213: introducing any local term, by simply rewriting it as

2214: %

2215: \bea

2216: &&\qquad F_{1,\o}^{(N-1)}(\kk^+,\kk^-)=

2217: [G_\o^{(2)}(\kk^+)- G_\o^{(2)}(0)]\;\cdot\nn\\

2218: &&{[C_{h,N}(\kk^-)-1] D_\o(\kk^-) Z_N \hat g^{(N)}_\o(\kk^+)-

2219: u_N(\kk^+) \over D_\o(\kk^+-\kk^-)} \;.\lb{3.14}\eea

2220: 

2221: By using the symmetry property \pref{2.13a},

2222: $F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,\tilde\o}$ can be written as

2223: %

2224: \be F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+, \kk^-) = {1\over D_\o(\pp)}

2225: \left[ p_0 A_{0,\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+,\kk^-) + p_1

2226: A_{1,\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+,\kk^-) \right]\;,\lb{3.15}\ee

2227: %

2228: where $A_{i,\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+,\kk^-)$ are functions such that, if

2229: we define

2230: %

2231: \be \LL F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,\tilde\o}={1\over D_\o(\pp)}

2232: \left[ p_0 A_{0,\o,\tilde\o}(0,0) +p_1 A_{1,\o,\tilde\o}(0,0)

2233: \right]\;,\lb{3.16}\ee

2234: %

2235: then

2236: %

2237: \be \LL F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,\o}=Z_{N-1}^{3,+} \virg \LL F^{(N-1)}_{2,\o,-\o}=

2238: {D_{-\o}(\pp)\over D_\o(\pp)} Z_{N-1}^{3,-}\;,\lb{3.17}\ee

2239: %

2240: where  $Z_{N-1}^{3,+}$ and $Z_{N-1}^{3,-}$ are suitable real

2241: constants. Hence the local part of the marginal term in the second

2242: line of \pref{3.12} is, by definition, equal to

2243: %

2244: \be \sum_\o [Z_N Z_{N-1}^{3,+} \bar T_{+,\o}(J,\psi^{[h,N-1]}) +

2245: Z_N Z_{N-1}^{3,-} \bar T_{-,\o}(J,\psi^{[h,N-1]})]\;.\lb{3.18}\ee

2246: %

2247: The terms linear in $J$ and quadratic in $\psi$ obtained by the

2248: integration of $\bar T_\pm$ have the form

2249: %

2250: \bea

2251: &&K_{J}^{(b,N-1)}(\sqrt{Z_{N-1}}\psi)=Z_N {1\over

2252: L^4}\sum_{\kk^+,\pp} \wt\c(\pp) J_{\pp,\o} \sum_{\o, \tilde\o}

2253: \hat\psi_{\kk^+,\tilde\o}^+ \hat\psi_{\kk^+

2254: -\pp,\tilde\o}^-\;\cdot\nn\\

2255: %

2256: &&\cdot\; \left[ -\n_{+,N} G^{(N)}_{\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+, \kk^+-\pp)

2257: - \n_{-,N} {D_{-\o}(\pp) \over D_\o(\pp)}

2258: G^{(N)}_{-\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+, \kk^+-\pp) \right] \;.\lb{3.19}\eea

2259: %

2260: By using the symmetry property of the propagators, it is easy to

2261: show that $G^{(N)}_{\o,-\o}(0,0)=0$. Hence, if we regularize

2262: \pref{3.19} by subtracting $G^{(N)}_{\o,\tilde\o}(0,0)$ to

2263: $G^{(N)}_{\o,\tilde\o}(\kk^+, \kk^+-\pp)$, we still get a local

2264: term of the form \pref{3.18}. Finally by collecting all the local

2265: term linear in $J$ we can write

2266: %

2267: \bea

2268: &&\qquad \LL K_J^{N-1}(\sqrt{Z_{N-1}}\psi^{[h,N-1]})= \sum_\o

2269: \Big[ Z_N\bar T_{0,\o}\left(J,\ps^{[h,N-1]}\right)-\lb{3.20}\\

2270: %

2271: &&- \n_{+,N-1}\bar T_{+,\o}\left(J,\sqrt{Z_{N-2}}

2272: \ps^{[h,N-1]}\right)- \n_{-,N-1}\bar

2273: T_{-,\o}\left(J,\sqrt{Z_{N-2}} \ps^{[h,N-1]}\right) \Big]\;,

2274: \nn\eea

2275: %

2276: where $Z_{N-2} \n_{\pm,N-1} =Z_{N-1}[\n_{\pm,N} - Z_{N-1}^{3,\pm}

2277: +\n_{\pm,N} G^{(N)}_{\pm \o,\pm \o}(0,0)]$ (our definitions imply

2278: that $Z_{N-1}=Z_N$). The above integration procedure can be

2279: iterated with no important differences up to scale $h+1$. In

2280: particular, for all the marginal terms such that one of the fields

2281: in $\bar T_{0,\o}$ in \pref{3.12} is contracted at scale $j$, we

2282: put $\RR=1$; in fact the second field has to be contracted at

2283: scale $h$ and, by \pref{3.11}, the extra factor $\g^{h-j}$ has the

2284: effect of automatically regularizing such contributions.

2285: 

2286: The above analysis implies that $\n_{+,j}$ gets no contributions

2287: from trees with an endpoint of type $\n_{-,k}$, $k>j$, and

2288: viceversa; moreover, if a tree has an endpoint corresponding to

2289: $\bar T_{0,\o}$, this endpoint has scale index $N+1$. Hence we can

2290: write, for $h+1\le j\le N-1$,

2291: %

2292: \be \n_{\pm,j-1}=\n_{\pm, j}+

2293: \b_{\pm,\n}^{j}(\l_j,\n_j..,\l_N,\n_N)\;,\lb{3.21}\ee

2294: %

2295: with

2296: 

2297: \be \b_{\pm,\n}^{j}(\l_j,\n_j..,\l_N,\n_N)=

2298: \b_{\pm,\n}^{j}(\l_j,..,\l_N)+\sum_{j'=j}^N \n_{\pm,j'}

2299: \b^{j,j'}_{\pm,\n}(\l_j,..,\l_N)\lb{3.22}\ee

2300: %

2301: and, given a positive $\th<1/4$,

2302: %

2303: \be |\b_{\pm,\n}^{j}(\l_j,..,\l_N)|\le

2304: C\bar\l_j\g^{-2\th(N-j)}\quad,

2305: |\b^{j,j'}_{\pm,\n}(\l_j,..,\l_N)|\le

2306: C\bar\l_j^2\g^{-2\th|j-j'|}\;.\lb{3.23}\ee

2307: %

2308: We fix $\n_{\pm,N}$ so that

2309: %

2310: \be \n_{\pm,N}=-\sum_{j=h+1}^N

2311: \b_{\pm,\n}^{j}(\l_j,\n_j..,\l_N,\n_N)\;.\lb{3.21a}\ee

2312: %

2313: By a fixed point argument (see \S 4.6 of \cite{BM4}), one can show

2314: that, if $\bar\l_h$ is small enough, it is possible to choose

2315: $\n_{\pm,N}$ so that

2316: %

2317: \be |\n_{\o,j}| \le c_0 \bar\l_h \g^{-\th (N-j)}\;,\lb{3.25}\ee

2318: %

2319: for any $h+1\le j\le N$.

2320: 

2321: 

2322: The convergence of $\n_{\pm,N}$ as $|h|,N\to \io$ is an easy

2323: consequence of the previous considerations. Moreover, from an

2324: explicit computation of \pref{3.21}, we get

2325: $\n_-={\l\over4\pi}+O(\l^2)$ and $\n_+=c_+\l^2+O(\l^3)$ with

2326: $c_+<0$.

2327: 

2328: \insertplot{250}{60}%

2329: {\input f6b.txt}%

2330: {f6}{\lb{f6}: Graphical representation of the lowest order

2331: contribution to $\n^-$ and to $\n^+$; the small circle represent the operator $C$

2332: \pref{3.3}}{0}

2333: 

2334: The convergence of $\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)$ was discussed

2335: in \S \ref{ss2.4}. Hence, to complete the proof of Theorem

2336: \ref{th2}, we have to prove that $\wt\c(\pp)

2337: \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp,\kk)\to 0$ , if $\pp$, $\kk$ and

2338: $\kk-\pp$ are all different from $0$. In fact, since

2339: $\wt\c(\pp)=1$ for $\pp\not=0$ and $|h|,N$ large enough, this

2340: implies \pref{1.20}.

2341: 

2342: This result can be obtained by a simple extension of the arguments

2343: given in \S\ref{ss2.4} to prove that

2344: $\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp;\kk)$ is bounded uniformly in $h$ and

2345: $N$. In fact, $\wt\c(\pp) \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}(\pp,\kk)$ can be

2346: written by a sum of trees essentially identical to the ones for

2347: $\hG^{2,1,N,h}_{\o,\o'}$, with the only important difference that

2348: there are three different special endpoints associated to the

2349: field $J$, corresponding to the three different terms in

2350: \pref{3.20}; we call these endpoints of type $T_0,T_+,T_-$

2351: respectively.

2352: 

2353: The sum over the trees such that the endpoint is of type $T_\pm$

2354: can be bounded as in \pref{2.61}, the only difference being that,

2355: thanks to the bound \pref{3.25}, one has to multiply the r.h.s. by

2356: a factor $|\l|\g^{-\th(N-h_J)}$, which has to be inserted also in

2357: the r.h.s. of the bounds \pref{2.62} and \pref{2.63}. Hence, it is

2358: easy to see that the contributions of these trees vanishes as

2359: $N\to\io$.

2360: 

2361: Let us now consider the trees with an endpoint of type $T_0$. In

2362: this case there are two possibilities. The first is that the

2363: fields of the $T_0$ endpoint are contracted at scale $j,N$; this

2364: implies that the sum over $h_J$ is missing in the r.h.s. of the

2365: bounds \pref{2.62} and \pref{2.63} and $h_J=N$. Hence it is easy

2366: to see that the sum over such trees goes to $0$ as $N\to\io$. The

2367: second possibility is that the fields of the $T_0$ endpoint are

2368: contracted at scale $j,h$; this implies that the sum over $j_0$ is

2369: missing in the r.h.s. of \pref{2.61} and $j_0=h$. Since

2370: $d_v-1/4>0$ for all vertices belonging to the path connecting the

2371: root to the vertex $v^*_0$, we can add a factor $\g^{-(j_0-h))/4}$

2372: to the r.h.s. of the bounds \pref{2.62} and \pref{2.63}, which

2373: then go to $0$ as $h\to-\io$.

2374: 

2375: 

2376: 

2377: 

2378: \section{ Schwinger-Dyson equations and new anomalies}\lb{ss4}

2379: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

2380: 

2381: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th3}}\lb{ss4.1}

2382: 

2383: In this section we study the last addend of the Schwinger-Dyson

2384: equation \pref{1.22}, so proving Theorem \ref{th3}; the analysis

2385: rests heavily on \S 4 of \cite{BM4}.

2386: 

2387: Let us consider a fixed finite $\kk$ and let us define its scale

2388: $h_\kk$ as in \S\ref{ss2.4}; then, if $-h$ and $N$ are large

2389: enough, $\hg^{N,h}_\o(\kk)= \hg_\o(\kk)$. We start by putting (see

2390: \S 4.1 of \cite{BM4}):

2391: %

2392: \be

2393: \wt G^{2,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk) \defi \hg_\o(\kk) \int {d\pp\over

2394: (2\p)^2} \wt\c(\pp) {{D_{\e\o}(\pp)} \over D_{-\o}(\pp)}

2395: \hR^{2,1,N,h}_{\e\o;\o}(\pp,\kk) = {\dpr\WW_{T,\e} \over \dpr

2396: \hf^+_{\kk,\o}\partial \hj_{\kk,\o}} \;, \lb{4.1}\ee

2397: %

2398: where $\e=\pm$ and $\WW_{T,\e}$ is defined (in the infinite volume

2399: limit) by the equation:

2400: %

2401: \bea

2402: && e^{\WW_{T,\e} (J,\f)} \defi\int\! \der P_{Z_N}(\ps)\

2403: \exp\Bigg\{ -\l_{N}Z_N^2 V(\ps) \int\!d\xx\

2404: \Big[\f^{+}_{\xx,\o}\ps^{[h,N]-}_{\xx,\o}

2405: +\nn\\

2406: && + \ps^{[h,N]+}_{\xx,\o}\f^{-}_{\xx,\o}\Big]+ Z_N

2407: \left[T^{(\e)}_1 -\n_{+,N} T_{-\e}- \n_{-,N} T_{\e} \right]

2408: \left(\ps, J\right)\Bigg\}\;,\lb{4.1a}\eea

2409: %

2410: with

2411: %

2412: \bea

2413: T^{(\e)}_1(\ps,J) &\defi& \int {d\pp d\kk'\over (2\p)^4}

2414: \wt\c(\pp) \hj_{\kk,\o} \hg_\o(\kk) {C_{\e\o}(\kk',

2415: \kk'-\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\pp)} \cdot\nn\\

2416: && \cdot \hp^+_{\kk-\pp,\o} \hp^+_{\kk',\e\o}

2417: \hp^-_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}\;,\lb{4.1b}\\

2418: %

2419: T_{+}(\ps,J) &\defi& \int {d\pp d\kk'\over (2\p)^4} \wt\c(\pp)

2420: \hj_{\kk,\o} \hg_\o(\kk) \hp^+_{\kk-\pp,\o}

2421: \hp^+_{\kk',-\o} \hp^-_{\kk'-\pp,-\o}\;,\nn\\

2422: %

2423: T_{-}(\ps,J) &\defi& \int {d\pp d\kk'\over (2\p)^4} \wt\c(\pp)

2424: \hj_{\kk,\o} \hg_\o(\kk) {D_{\o}(\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\pp)}

2425: \hp^+_{\kk-\pp,\o} \hp^+_{\kk',\o} \hp^-_{\kk'-\pp,\o}\;,\nn\eea

2426: %

2427: and $\n_{\pm,N}$ are defined as in \pref{3.21a}.

2428: 

2429: The calculation of $\wt G^{2,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)$ is done again via

2430: a multiscale expansion, very similar to the one described in \S 4

2431: of \cite{BM4}. The main differences are that here we are

2432: considering a quantity with two external lines, instead of four,

2433: and that the external momenta are on the scale $h_\kk$, instead of

2434: the infrared cutoff scale $h$. However, the last remark implies

2435: that the integration of the fields of scale $j>h_\kk +1$ differs

2436: from that discussed in \cite{BM4} only for trivial scaling

2437: factors; in particular, there is no contribution to $\wt

2438: G^{2,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)$ associated with a tree, whose root has

2439: scale higher than $h_\kk$.

2440: 

2441: Let us call $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}(\psi^{[h,N-1]})$ the sum over the

2442: terms linear in $J$, obtained after the integration of the field

2443: $\psi^{(N)}$; we put:

2444: %

2445: \bea

2446: &&\bar\VV^{(N-1)}(\psi^{[h,N-1]}) =

2447: \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,1}(\psi^{[h,N-1]}) +

2448: \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,2}(\psi^{[h,N-1]}) +\nn\\

2449: %

2450: &&\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,1}(\psi^{[h,N-1]}) +

2451: \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,2}(\psi^{[h,N-1]}) \;,\lb{4.2}\eea

2452: %

2453: where $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,1} + \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,2}$ is the sum

2454: of the terms in which the field $\hat\psi^+_{\kk-\pp,\o}$

2455: appearing in the definition of $T^{(\e)}_1(\psi)$ or $T_\pm(\psi)$

2456: is contracted, $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,1}$ and $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,2}$

2457: denoting the sum over the terms of this type containing a $T_1$ or

2458: a $T_\pm$ vertex, respectively; $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,1} +

2459: \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,2}$ is the sum of the other terms, that is

2460: those where the field $\hat\psi^+_{\kk-\pp,\o}$ is an external

2461: field, the index $i=1,2$ having the same meaning as before.

2462: 

2463: Let us consider first $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,1}$; we shall still

2464: distinguish different group of terms, those where both fields

2465: $\hat\psi_{\kk',\e\o}^+$ and $\hat\psi_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}^-$ are

2466: contracted, those where only one among them is contracted and

2467: those where no one is contracted. If no one of the fields

2468: $\hat\psi_{\kk',\e\o}^+$ and $\hat\psi_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}^-$ is

2469: contracted, we can only have terms with at least four external

2470: lines; for the properties of $\D_{\e\o}^{(i,j)}$ (see \pref{3.7}), at

2471: least one of the fields $\hat\psi_{\kk',\e\o}^+$ and

2472: $\hat\psi_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}^-$ must be contracted at scale $h$. If

2473: one of these terms has four external lines, hence it is marginal,

2474: it has the following form

2475: %

2476: \bea

2477: &&Z_N \int {d\pp d\kk'\over (2\p)^4} \hat\psi^+_{\o,\kk-\pp}

2478: G^{(N)}_2(\kk-\pp) \hat

2479: g^{N,h}_\o(\kk-\pp) \;\cdot\nn\\

2480: %

2481: && \cdot \hj_{\kk,\o} \hg_\o(\kk) \wt\c(\pp)

2482: {C_{\e\o}(\kk',\kk'-\pp) \over D_{-\o}(\pp)}

2483: \hat\psi^+_{\kk',\e\o}\hat\psi^-_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}\;, \lb{4.3}\eea

2484: %

2485: where $G^{(N)}_2(\kk)$ is a suitable function which can be

2486: expressed as a sum of graphs with an odd number of propagators,

2487: hence it vanishes at $\kk=0$. This implies that $G^{(N)}_2(0)=0$,

2488: so that we can regularize it without introducing any running

2489: coupling.

2490: 

2491: 

2492: \insertplot{100}{80}%

2493: {\input f8b.txt}%

2494: {f8}{\lb{f8}: Graphical representation of \pref{4.3}}{0}

2495: 

2496: If both $\hat\psi_{\kk',\e\o}^+$ and $\hat\psi_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}^-$

2497: in $T^{(\e)}_1(\psi)$ are contracted, we get terms of the form (up

2498: to an integral over the external momenta)

2499: \be

2500: \hj_{\kk,\o} g_\o(\kk) \tilde W_{n+1}^{(N-1)} (\kk,\kk_1,..,\kk_n)

2501: (\sqrt{Z_N})^{n-1} \prod_{i=1}^n \hat\psi^{\e_i}_{\kk_i}\;,

2502: \lb{4.4}\ee

2503: %

2504: where $n$ is an odd integer. We want to define an $\RR$ operation

2505: for such terms. There is apparently a problem, as the $\RR$

2506: operation involves derivatives and any term contributing to

2507: $\tilde W_{n+1}^{(N-1)}$ contains the $\D_{\e\o}^{(N,N)}$ and the

2508: cutoff function $\wt\c(\pp)$. Hence one can worry about the

2509: derivatives of the factor $\wt\c(\pp) \pp D_{-\o}(\pp)^{-1}$.

2510: However, as $\kk$ is fixed independently from $N$ (and far enough

2511: from $\g^N$) and $\kk-\pp$ is fixed at scale $N$, then $|\pp|\ge

2512: \g^{N-1}/2$, so that we can freely multiply by a smooth cutoff

2513: function $\bar\chi(\pp)$ restricting $\pp$ to the allowed region;

2514: this allows us to pass to coordinate space and shows that the

2515: $\RR$ operation can be defined in the usual way. We define

2516: %

2517: \be \LL\tilde W_4^{(N-1)} (\kk,\kk_1,\kk_2, \kk_3) =

2518: \tilde W_4^{(N-1)}(0,..,0)\;,\lb{4.5}\ee

2519: %

2520: \be \LL\tilde W_2^{(N-1)} (\kk)=\tilde W_2^{(N-1)}(0)+

2521: \kk\partial_\kk \tilde W_2^{(N-1)}(0)\;. \lb{4.6}\ee

2522: %

2523: Note that by parity the first term in \pref{4.6} is vanishing;

2524: this means that there are only marginal terms.

2525: 

2526: \insertplot{310}{80}%

2527: {\input f9b.txt}%

2528: {f9}{\lb{f9}: Graphical representation of $\tilde W_4^{(-1)}$

2529: and $\tilde W_2^{(-1)}$}{0}

2530: 

2531: If only one among the fields $\hat\psi_{\kk',\e\o}^+$ and

2532: $\hat\psi_{\kk'-\pp,\e\o}^-$ in $T_1(\psi)$ is contracted, we get

2533: terms with four external lines of the form (up to an integral over

2534: the external momenta):

2535: %

2536: \bea

2537: && Z_N \hg_\o(\kk) \hj_{\kk,\o} \hat\psi^+_{\kk_1,\o_1}

2538: \hat\psi^-_{\kk^-,\e\o} \hat\psi^+_{\kk^- +\kk- \kk_1,\o_2} \int

2539: d\kk^+ \tilde\chi(\kk^+ -\kk^-) \;\cdot\nn\\

2540: && \cdot \hat g^{N,h}_{\o}(\kk- \kk^+ +\kk^-) G_4^{(N)}(\kk^+,

2541: \kk_1, \kk+\kk_- -\kk_1) \;\cdot\nn\\

2542: && \cdot \left\{ {[C_{h,N}(\kk^-)-1] D_{\e\o}(\kk^-) \hat

2543: g^{N,h}_{\e\o}(\kk^+)\over D_{-\o}(\kk^+-\kk^-)} - {u_N(\kk^+)

2544: \over D_{-\o}(\kk^+-\kk^-)} \right\}\;, \lb{4.7}\eea

2545: %

2546: or the similar one with the roles of $\kk^+$ and $\kk^-$

2547: exchanged. Note that the indices $\o_1$ and $\o_2$ must satisfy

2548: the constraint $\o_1 \o_2=\e$.

2549: 

2550: \insertplot{120}{60}%

2551: {\input f10b.txt}%

2552: {f10}{\lb{f10}: Graphical representation of a single addend in

2553: \pref{4.7}}{0}

2554: 

2555: The two terms in \pref{4.7} must be treated differently, as

2556: concerns the regularization procedure. The first term is such that

2557: one of the external lines is associated with the operator

2558: $[C_{h,N}(\kk^-)-1] D_{\e\o}(\kk^-) D_{-\o}(\pp)^{-1}$. We define

2559: $\RR=1$ for such terms; in fact, when such external line is

2560: contracted (and this can happen only at scale $h$), the factor

2561: $D_{\e\o}(\kk^-) D_{-\o}(\pp)^{-1}$ produces an extra factor

2562: $\g^{h-N}$ in the bound, with respect to the dimensional one. The

2563: second term in \pref{4.7} can be regularized as above, by

2564: subtracting the value of the kernel computed at zero external

2565: momenta, \ie for $\kk^-=\kk=\kk_1=0$. Note that such quantity

2566: vanishes, if the four $\o$-indices are all equal, otherwise it is

2567: given by the product of the field variables times

2568: %

2569: \be -Z_N \hg_\o(\kk) \hj_{\kk,\o} \int d\kk^+ \tilde\chi(\kk^+)

2570: \hat g^{N,h}_{\o}(\kk^+) G_4^{(N)}(\kk^+, 0, 0) {u_N(\kk^+) \over

2571: D_{-\o}(\kk^+)} \;,\lb{4.8}\ee

2572: %

2573: and there is no singularity associated with the factor

2574: $D_{-\o}(\kk^+)^{-1}$, thanks to the support on scale $N$ of the

2575: propagator $\hat g^{N,h}_\o(\kk^+)$. The terms with two external

2576: lines can be produced only if $\e=+1$ and can be treated in a

2577: similar way; they have the form

2578: %

2579: \bea

2580: && \hat\psi^-_{\kk,\o} \hg_\o(\kk) \hj_{\kk,\o} \int d\kk^+

2581: \tilde\chi(\kk^+-\kk) G_1^{(N)}(\kk_+)\;\cdot\nn\\

2582: %

2583: && \cdot\; \left\{ {[C_{h,N}^\e(\kk)-1] D_{\e\o}(\kk) \hat

2584: g^{(N)}_{\o}(\kk^+)\over D_{-\o}(\kk^+ -\kk)} - {u_N(\kk^+) \over

2585: D_{-\o}(\kk^+ -\kk)} \right\}\;, \lb{4.9}\eea

2586: %

2587: where $G_1^{(N)}(\kk_+)$ is a smooth function of order $0$ in

2588: $\l$. However, the first term in the braces is equal to $0$, since

2589: we keep $\kk$ fixed and far from the cutoffs, hence

2590: $C_{h,N}^\e(\kk)-1=0$, and the second term can be regularized as

2591: above.

2592: 

2593: A similar (but simpler) analysis holds for the terms contributing

2594: to $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,2}$, which contain a vertex of type $T_+$

2595: or $T_-$ and are of order $\l\n_\pm$. Now, the only thing to

2596: analyze carefully is the possible singularities associated with

2597: the factors $\tilde\chi(\pp)$ and  $\pp D_{-\o}(\pp)^{-1}$.

2598: However, since in these terms the field $\hat\psi^+_{\kk-\pp,\o}$

2599: is contracted, $|\pp|\ge \g^{N-1}/2$; hence the regularization

2600: procedure can not produce bad dimensional bounds.

2601: 

2602: We will define $\tilde z^{(\e)}_{N-1}$ and

2603: $\tilde\l^{(\e)}_{N-1}$, so that (recall that $Z_{N-1}=Z_N$)

2604: %

2605: \bea

2606: && \LL[\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,1} +

2607: \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{a,2}](\psi^{[h,N-1]}) = -\tilde\l^{(\e)}_{N-1}

2608: {Z_{N-2}^2\over Z_N} \bar F_\l^{[h,N-1]}(\psi^{[h,N-1]}, J) -\nn\\

2609: %

2610: &&- \tilde z^{(\e)}_{N-1} {Z_{N-1}\over Z_N}

2611: \hat\psi^{[h,N-1]+}_{\kk,\o} D_\o(\kk) \hg_\o(\kk) \hj_{\kk,\o}

2612: \;,\lb{4.10}\eea

2613: %

2614: where we used the definition

2615: %

2616: %

2617: \be \bar F_\l(\psi^{[h,N-1]},J)= \int {d\kk_1 d\kk_2\over

2618: (2\p)^4} \hj_{\kk,\o} \hg_\o(\kk)

2619:  \hp^+_{\kk_2,\o} \hp^+_{\kk+\kk_1- \kk_2,-\o}

2620: \hp^-_{\kk_1,-\o}. \lb{4.11}\ee

2621: 

2622: Let us consider now the terms contributing to

2623: $\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,i}$, that is those where

2624: $\hat\psi^+_{\bar\kk-\pp,\o}$ is not contracted. Such terms can be

2625: analyzed exactly as in \S 4.3 of \cite{BM4}; it turns out that

2626: %

2627: \bea

2628: && \LL[\bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,1} +

2629: \bar\VV^{(N-1)}_{b,2}](\psi^{[h,N-1]}) = -\n_{+,N-1}

2630: Z_{N-2} T_{-\e}(\psi^{[h,N-1]},J) -\nn\\

2631: %

2632: &&-\n_{-,N-1} Z_{N-2} T_\e(\psi^{[h,N-1]},J) \;,\lb{4.12}\eea

2633: %

2634: $\n_{\pm,N-1}$ being exactly the same constants appearing in

2635: \pref{3.20}.

2636: 

2637: The integration over subsequent scales is performed in a similar

2638: way; as described in more details in \S 4.4 of \cite{BM4}, it

2639: turns out that, if $j\ge h_\kk$, the local part of the terms

2640: linear in $J$ has the form (coinciding with eq. (131) of

2641: \cite{BM4} for $Z_N=1$ and $\o=\e=-1$):

2642: %

2643: \bea

2644: && \LL\bar\VV^{(j)}( \ps^{[h,j]})=Z_N T^{(\e)}_1(\psi^{[h,j]},J) -

2645: \n_{+,j} Z_{j-1} T_{-\e} (\ps^{[h,j]}, J)-\nn\\

2646: %

2647: &&- \n_{-,j} Z_{j-1} T_{\e}((\psi^{[h,j]},J) -\tilde\l^{(\e)}_j

2648: {Z_{j-1}^2\over Z_N} \bar F_\l^{[h,j]}(\psi^{[h,j]}, J) -\nn\\

2649: %

2650: &&- \sum_{i=j}^{N-1} \tilde z^{(\e)}_i {Z_i\over Z_N}

2651: \hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o} D_\o(\kk) \hg_\o(\kk) \hj_{\kk,\o}\;.

2652: \lb{4.13}\eea

2653: %

2654: If $j< h_\kk$, $\LL\bar\VV^{(j)}$ has the same structure, but

2655: there is indeed no term with two external legs, since

2656: $\hat\psi^{[h,j]+}_{\kk,\o}=0$; for a similar reason the term with

2657: four external legs is different from $0$ only if $3\g^{j-1}

2658: >\g^{h_\kk}$. However, the constants $\tilde\l^{(\e)}_j$ and

2659: $\tilde z^{(\e)}_i$ are defined for any $j>h$ and their value is

2660: independent of $\kk$. Note also that, as in the expansion of a

2661: normal Schwinger function, we do not localize the terms with four

2662: external legs, containing both a $J$ vertex and a $\f$ vertex.

2663: 

2664: It follows that we can write $\wt G^{2,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)$ as a sum

2665: of trees with two special endpoints, similar to those described in

2666: detail in \S 4.5 of \cite{BM4}; they differ from those present in

2667: the expansion of the function $\hG^{2,N,h}_{\o}(\kk)$, see

2668: \S\ref{ss2.5}, since one of the special endpoints corresponds to

2669: one of the addenda in \pref{4.13}, to be called of type $T$,

2670: $T_+$, $T_-$, $\wt\l^{(\e)}$, $\wt z^{(\e)}$. By construction the

2671: constants $\n_{\pm,j}$ coincide with those introduced in

2672: \S\ref{ss3.1}, hence they verify \pref{3.25}. Moreover, it was

2673: shown in \S 4.6) of \cite{BM4}, by a fixed point argument, that,

2674: if $\bar\l_h$ is small enough, it is possible to choose

2675: $\a_{+,h,N}=c_1\l+O(\l^2)$ and $\a_{-,h,N}=c_3+O(\l)$ so that

2676: there exist two positive constant, $C$ and $\th$, independent of

2677: $h$ and $N$, such that, if $h+1\le j\le N-1$,

2678: %

2679: \be |z_i \; \a_{\e,h,N} -\wt z^{(\e)}_i|\le C\bar \l_h\g^{-\th(N-i)}\;,

2680: \quad |\l_i \; \a_{\e,h,N}-\wt\l^{(\e)}_i|\le

2681: C\bar\l_h\g^{-\th(N-i)}\;.\lb{4.15}\ee

2682: 

2683: 

2684: %\insertplot{100}{50}%

2685: %{\input f11.txt}%

2686: %{f11}{\lb{f11}: Graphical representation of the lowest order

2687: %contribution to $\a^-_{h,N}$.}{0}

2688: 

2689: \insertplot{290}{90}%

2690: {\input f12b.txt}

2691: {f12}{\lb{f12}: Graphical representation of the leading terms contributing

2692: to $c_1\l$; other four graphs contributing to $c_1\l$, as well as the

2693: graph contributing to $c_3$, are vanishing

2694: in the limit  of short tail ($\g_0\to 1$)

2695: of the cutoff function (see definition \pref{1.5bis}).

2696: The two graphs giving the

2697: 0--th order expansion in $\l$ of $\a^+_{h,N}$ cancell

2698: each other by symmetry.}{0}

2699: 

2700: Then we can write

2701: %

2702: \be \wt G^{2,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)

2703: \defi A^{\wt\l,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)+A^{\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)

2704: +A^{T_\pm,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)+A^{T,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)\;,\lb{4.16}\ee

2705: %

2706: where $ A^{\wt\l,N,h}_{\e,\o}$, $A^{\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}$,

2707: $A^{T_\pm,N,h}_{\e,\o}$ and $A^{T,N,h}_{\e,\o}$ contain

2708: respectively one endpoint of type $\wt\l^{(\e)}$, $\wt z^{(\e)}$,

2709: $T_\pm$, $T$.

2710: 

2711: In order to bound $A^{T,N,h}_{\e,\o}$, we repeat the analysis in

2712: \S 4.8 in \cite{BM4}. It follows that it is bounded by an

2713: expression similar to the r.h.s. of \pref{2.66}, with the

2714: following differences. Given a tree $\t$ contributing to

2715: $A^{T,N,h}_{\e,\o}$, the dimensional bound differs from that of a

2716: tree contributing to $\hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk)$ for the following

2717: reasons:

2718: 

2719: \bd

2720: 

2721: \item[(1)] there is an extra factor

2722: $Z_{h_\kk}/Z_N$, because one external propagator is substituted by

2723: the free one, $Z_N^{-1}  \hg_\o(\kk)$ (see the definition of

2724: $T_1^{(\e)}$);

2725: \item[(2)] since there is no external field

2726: renormalization for $T_1^{(\e)}$ (which is dimensionally

2727: equivalent to a term with four external fields), there is an extra

2728: factor $(Z_N/Z_{j_T})^2$, if $j_T$ is the scale of the endpoint of

2729: type $T$;

2730: \item[(3)] if at least one of fields in $T_1^{(\e)}$) is

2731: contracted on scale $h$, there is an extra factor $Z_{h}/Z_N$,

2732: because of the bound \pref{3.11};

2733: \item[(4)] because of \pref{3.8}, either $j_T=N+1$ or the root

2734: of $\t$ has scale $h-1$.

2735: 

2736: \ed

2737: 

2738: Hence, $A^{T,N,h}_{\e,\o}$ can be bounded by an expression equal

2739: to the r.h.s. of \pref{2.66}, multiplied by a factor $Z_h

2740: Z_{h_\kk}/ Z_{j_T}^2 \le \g^{C\l^2 [(j_T-h) + |j_T-h_\kk|]}$,

2741: which takes into account the items (1)-(3) above. This factor can

2742: be absorbed in the sum over the scale labels, since all vertices

2743: have an "effective" positive dimension (see remark before

2744: \pref{2.67}). Then, by taking into account the remark in item (4)

2745: above, it is easy to show that

2746: %

2747: %

2748: \be |A^{T,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)|\le C {\g^{-h_\kk}\over Z_{h_\kk}}

2749: \lft(\g^{-(N-h_\kk)/4} + \g^{-(h_\kk-h)/4}\rgt)\;.\lb{4.17}\ee

2750: 

2751: Let us now consider $A^{T_\pm,N,h}_{\e,\o}$. We still have some

2752: extra factors with respect to the bound \pref{2.66}, the same

2753: factor of item (1) above and a factor $(Z_N/Z_{j_T})$, due to the

2754: partial field renormalization of $T_\pm$; the product of these

2755: factors can be treated as before. We do not have anymore a

2756: condition like item (4) above, but we have to take into account

2757: that the running constant associated with the special vertex of

2758: type $T_\pm$ satisfies the bound \pref{3.25}. It follows that

2759: %

2760: \be |A^{T_\pm,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)|\le C{\g^{-h_\kk}\over

2761: Z_{h_\kk}}\g^{-(N-h_\kk)/4}\;.\lb{4.18}\ee

2762: 

2763: 

2764: Let us now consider $A^{\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}$ and let us suppose

2765: that $|\kk|=\g^{h_\kk}$, so that (see \pref{2.18} and \pref{2.21})

2766: $\hg^{(j)}_\o(\kk)= [D_\o(\kk) Z_{h_\kk-1}]^{-1}$, if $j=h_\kk$,

2767: while $\hg^{(j)}_\o(\kk)=0$, if $j\not= h_\kk$. This condition,

2768: which greatly simplifies the following discussion, is not really

2769: restrictive. In fact, since the external momentum $\kk$ is fixed

2770: in this discussion, one could modify the definition \pref{1.15} of

2771: the cutoff functions $f_j(\pp)$, by substituting it with

2772: $f_j(\pp/p_0)$, $p_0$ being a fixed positive number $\le \g$, to

2773: be chosen so that $p_0^{-1} |\kk|=\g^{h_\kk}$, for some integer

2774: $h_\kk$. Since our bounds would be clearly uniform in this new

2775: parameter and the removed cutoffs limit is independent of $\g$

2776: (see \S\ref{ss2.5}), this procedure can not produce any trouble.

2777: 

2778: By using \pref{4.13}, we can write

2779: %

2780: \be A^{\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)= A^{1,\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)

2781: -{\hg_\o(\kk)\over Z_N} \lft[{1\over Z_{h_\kk-1}} \sum_{i=

2782: h_\kk}^{N-1}\wt z^{(\e)}_i Z_i \rgt] \;,\lb{4.19}\ee

2783: %

2784: where $A^{1,\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}$ contains the contributions to

2785: $A^{\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}$ coming from trees with at least one $\l$

2786: endpoint. Since $Z_{j-1}=Z_j(1+z_j)$ and $Z_{N-1}=Z_N$,

2787: %

2788: \be Z_{h_\kk-1}-\sum_{j=h_\kk}^{N-1}Z_j z_j=Z_N\;, \lb{4.20}\ee

2789: %

2790: hence we can write

2791: %

2792: \be

2793: \sum_{i=h_\kk}^{N-1} {\wt z^{(\e)}_i Z_i \over Z_N} =\sum_{i=

2794: h_\kk}^{N-1} \lft(\wt z^{(\e)}_i- z_i \a_{\e,h,N} \rgt) {Z_i\over

2795: Z_N} +\a_{\e,h,N} \lft({Z_{h_\kk-1}\over Z_N} -1 \rgt)

2796: \;.\lb{4.21}\ee

2797: %

2798: The first term in the r.h.s. of \pref{4.21} can be written as

2799: %

2800: \bea

2801: && \sum_{i=h_\kk}^{N-1} (\wt z^{(\e)}_i-\a_{\e,h,N} z_i) {Z_i\over

2802: Z_N}=\sum_{j=h}^{N-1} (\wt z^{(\e)}_j-\a_{\e,h,N} z_j) {Z_j\over

2803: Z_N}- \sum_{j=h}^{h_\kk-1} (\wt z^{(\e)}_j-\a_{\e,h,N} z_j)

2804: {Z_j\over Z_N}\nn\\

2805: &&\defi -\r_{\e,h,N} +R^{2,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)\;,\lb{4.22}\eea

2806: %

2807: where $\r_{\e,h,N}$ is independent of $\kk$ and satisfies, by

2808: \pref{4.15}, the bound

2809: %

2810: \be

2811: |\r_{\e,h,N}| \le C |\l|\sum_{j=h}^{N} \g^{-(\th-c\bar

2812: \l_h^2)(N-j)} \le C|\l|\;,\lb{4.23}\ee

2813: %

2814: implying that there exists the limit $\r_\e= \lim_{-h,N\to\io}

2815: \r_{\e,h,N}$. By an explicit computation one can show that $\r_{+}

2816: = c_2\l+O(\l^2)$ and $\r_{-}=c_4+O(\l)$, with $c_2$ and $c_4$

2817: strictly positive constants.

2818: %

2819: On the contrary, $R^{2,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)$ is vanishing for

2820: $-h,N\to\io$; in fact

2821: %

2822: \be

2823: |R^{2,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)| \le  C |\l|\sum_{j=h}^{h_\kk}

2824: \g^{-(\th-c\bar\l_h^2)(N-j)} \le C |\l| \g^{-(\th/2)(N-h_\kk)}\;.

2825: \lb{4.24}\ee

2826: %

2827: %

2828: 

2829: \insertplot{300}{30}%

2830: {\input f13b.txt}%

2831: {f13}{\lb{f13}: The first two graphs are the

2832: graphical representation of $c_2\l$; the last is the

2833: graph for $c_4$.}{0}

2834: 

2835: By collecting all terms we get

2836: %

2837: \bea

2838: A^{\wt z, N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk) = A^{1,\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)

2839: -\a_{\e,N,h}{\hg_\o(\kk)\over Z_N} +\lb{4.19a}\\

2840: %

2841: +(\r_{\e,N,h}+\a_{\e,N,h}) \hg^{(h_\kk)}_\o(\kk) - R^{2,

2842: N,h}_{\e}(\kk) \hg^{(h_\kk)}_\o(\kk)\;, \nn\eea

2843: %

2844: with $\lft|R^{2,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)\hg^{(h_\kk)}_\o(\kk)\rgt| \le C

2845: |\l| \g^{-h_\kk} Z_{h_\kk}^{-1} \g^{-\th(N-h_\kk)}$.

2846: 

2847: We now consider $A^{1,\wt z,N,h}$ together to $A^{\wt \l,N,h}$. We

2848: proceed as in \cite{BM3}, formulas (161)--(165); to summarize,

2849: given a tree $\t\in\TT_{\l,n}$, $n\ge 1$, we can associate to it a

2850: tree $\t'\in\TT_{z,n+1}$, substituting the endpoint $v^*$, on

2851: scale $j^*$, of type $\wt\l$ with an endpoint of type $\l$, and

2852: linking the endpoint $v^*$ to an endpoint of type $\wt z$. If we

2853: define

2854: %

2855: \be \hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk)\defi

2856: \hg^{(h_\kk)}_\o(\kk)+ \sum_{j^*=h_\kk}^N \l_{j^*}

2857: B^{2,N,h}_{\o,j^*}(\kk)\;,\ee

2858: %

2859: then it is easy to check that

2860: %

2861: \bea

2862: A^{\wt \l,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk) &=& {Z_{h_\kk-1}\over Z_N}

2863: \sum_{j^*=h_\kk}^{N-1} \wt\l^{(\e)}_{j^*}

2864: B^{2,N,h}_{\o,j^*}(\kk)\;,

2865: \nn\\

2866: %

2867: A^{1,\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk) &=& - {Z_{h_\kk-1}\over

2868: Z_N}\sum_{j^*=h_\kk}^{N-1} \l_{j^*}\lft({\sum_{i=h_\kk}^{N-1}

2869:  \wt z^{(\e)}_i Z_i\over Z_{h_\kk-1}}\rgt) B^{2,N,h}_{\o,j^*}(\kk)\;.

2870: \lb{4.26}\eea

2871: %

2872: Using \pref{4.20} and the definitions of $\r_{\e,h,N}$ and

2873: $R^{2,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)$, we get:

2874: %

2875: \bea

2876: &&\wt\l^{(\e)}_{j^*}-\l_{j^*} {\sum_{j=h_\kk}^{N-1}\wt z^{(\e)}_j

2877: Z_j\over Z_{h_\kk-1}}= (\wt\l_{j^*}^{(\e)}-\a_\e\l_{j^*})+\nn\\

2878: %

2879: &&+\l_{j^*}{Z_N\over Z_{h_\kk-1}}

2880: \lft[\a_{\e,h,N}+\r_{\e,h,N}-R^{2,N,h}_\e(\kk)\rgt]

2881: \;.\lb{4.27}\eea

2882: %

2883: By the usual arguments, one can see that

2884: $|B^{2,N,h}_{\o,j^*}(\kk)| \le C \g^{-h_\kk} Z_{h_\kk}^{-1}

2885: (\g^{-\th|j^*-h_\kk|})$; hence, by summing the two equations in

2886: \pref{4.26}, we get:

2887: %

2888: \be A^{\wt \l,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)+

2889: A^{1,\wt z,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)= (\a_{\e,h,N}+\r_{\e,h,N})

2890: \lft[\hG^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk) -\hg^{(h_\kk)}_\o(\kk)\rgt] +R^{3,

2891: N,h}_{\e}(\kk)\;, \lb{4.28}\ee

2892: %

2893: where

2894: %

2895: \be R^{3,N,h}_\e(\kk)\defi {Z_{h_\kk-1}\over Z_N}

2896:  \sum_{j^*=h_\kk}^N B^{2,N,h}_{\o,j^*}(\kk)

2897: \lft[\lft(\wt\l_{j^*}^{(\e)}-\a_{\e,h,N}\l_{j^*}\rgt) - {Z_N\over

2898: Z_{h_\kk-1}} \l_{j^*} R^{2,N,h}_\e(\kk)\rgt]\ee

2899: %

2900: is bounded by $C |\l| \g^{-h_\kk} Z_{h_\kk}^{-1} \g^{-(\th/2)

2901: (N-h_\kk)}$.

2902: 

2903: Finally, the summation of all terms in the r.h.s. of \pref{4.16}

2904: gives

2905: %

2906: \be \wt G^{2,N,h}_{\e,\o}(\kk)=

2907: -\a_{\e,h,N} {g_\o(\kk)\over Z_N}+ (\a_{\e,h,N}+\r_{\e,h,N})

2908: G^{2,N,h}_\o(\kk)+R^{4,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)\;,\lb{1.24a}\ee

2909: %

2910: with

2911: %

2912: \be |R^{4,N,h}_{\e}(\kk)|\le C|\l|{\g^{-h_\kk}\over Z_{h_\kk}}

2913: \lft(\g^{-(\th/2)(h_\kk-h)}+

2914: \g^{-(\th/2)(N-h_\kk)}\rgt)\;.\lb{1.25a}\ee

2915: %

2916: This ends the proof of Theorem \ref{th3}.

2917: 

2918: 

2919: \subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor1}}\lb{ss4.3}

2920: 

2921: If we insert the identity \pref{1.24a} in the r.h.s. of

2922: \pref{1.22} and we take the limit $h\to -\io$, we get

2923: %

2924: \be

2925: \hG^{2,N}_{\o}(\kk) D_\o(\kk)  = {B_N \over Z_N} - b_N \int

2926: {d\pp\over (2\p)^2} \bar\chi_N(\pp) {\hG^{2,N}_\o(\kk-\pp)\over

2927: D_{-\o}(\pp)} + H_{N,\o}(\kk)\;, \lb{4.31}\ee

2928: %

2929: where $\bar\chi_N(\pp)$ is the function appearing in \pref{1.21},

2930: $B_N\= (1 -\l_N \sum_{\e} A_{\e,N} a_{\e,N}) [1-\l_N \sum_{\e}

2931: A_{\e,N} (a_{\e,N}+\r_{\e,N})]^{-1}$, $b_N\= \l_N A_{+,N} [1-\l_N

2932: \sum_{\e} A_{\e,N} (a_{\e,N}+\r_{\e,N})]^{-1}$ and $H_{N,\o}(\kk)$

2933: is a function satisfying the bound

2934: %

2935: \be |H_{N,\o}(\kk)| \le C|\l| Z_{h_\kk}^{-1}

2936: \g^{-(\th/2)(N-h_\kk)}\;.\lb{4.32}\ee

2937: %

2938: On the other hand, by \pref{2.68}, there is a function $f(\l)$,

2939: independent of $\kk$, such that

2940: %

2941: \be \hG^{2,N}_{\o}(\kk)={|\kk|^{\h_z} \over D_\o(\kk)} F_{N}(\kk)

2942: \virg F_{N}(\kk)= f(\l) +O(\g^{-N}|\kk|)^\th\;;\lb{4.46}\ee

2943: %

2944: hence, we can rewrite \pref{4.31} as

2945: %

2946: \be

2947: |\kk|^{\h_z}F_{N}(\kk) = {B_N\over Z_N} +b_N \int{d\pp\over

2948: (2\p)^2} \bar\chi_N(\pp+\kk) |\pp|^{\h_z} {F_{N}(\pp)\over

2949: D_{-\o}(\pp+\kk)D_\o(\pp)} +{H_{N,\o}(\kk)}\lb{4.46a}\ee

2950: %

2951: and, subtracting the equation with $\kk=0$, we obtain

2952: %

2953: \bea

2954: &&|\kk|^{\h_z} F_{N}(\kk) = b_N \int{d\pp\over (2\p)^2}

2955: {|\pp|^{\h_z}\over D_\o(\pp)} F_{N}(\pp)

2956: \left[{\bar\chi_N(\kk+\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\kk+\pp)}-

2957: {\bar\chi_N(\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\pp)} \right]+ \nn\\

2958: &&+H_{N;\o}(\kk)-H_{N,\o}(0)\;.\lb{4.46b}\eea

2959: %

2960: The integral can be written as the sum of two terms

2961: %

2962: \bea

2963: &&\int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2} {|\pp|^{\h_z}\over |\pp|^2}

2964: F_{N}(\pp)\bar\chi_N(\kk+\pp){D_{-\o}(\kk)\over

2965: D_{-\o}(\kk+\pp)}-\nn\\

2966: && -\int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2} {|\pp|^{\h_z}\over |\pp|^2}

2967:  F_{N}(\pp)[\bar\chi_N(\kk+\pp)-\bar\chi_N(\pp)]\;,\lb{4.47}\eea

2968: %

2969: and the second addend is vanishing in the $N\to\io$ limit, as it

2970: can be written as

2971: %

2972: \be \g^{\h_z N}\int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2} {|\pp|^{\h_z}\over |\pp|^2}

2973:  F_{N}(\pp)[\bar\chi_0(\g^{-N}\kk+\pp)- \bar\chi_0(\pp)]\lb{4.48}\ee

2974: %

2975: and $\bar\chi_0(\g^{-N}\kk+\pp)- \bar\chi_0(\pp)$ is

2976: $O(\g^{-N}|\kk|)$ and with compact support. On the other hand, by

2977: \pref{4.46}, the integral we obtain, if we substitute $F_{N}(\pp)$

2978: with $f(\l)$, is vanishing as $N\to\io$. Hence, in the limit

2979: $N\to\io$ we get the identity:

2980: %

2981: \be |\kk|^{\h_z}= b_\io \int {d\pp\over (2\p)^2}

2982: {|\pp|^{\h_z}\over |\pp|^2} {D_{-\o}(\kk)\over D_{-\o}(\kk+\pp)}=

2983: {b_\io\over 2\p} \int_0^\io {d\r\over\r^{1-\h_z}} \int_0^{2\pi}

2984: {d\th\over 2\p} {|\kk|\over |\kk|+\r e^{i\th}}\;, \lb{4.49}\ee

2985: %

2986: that is

2987: %

2988: \be 1={b_\io\over 2\p} \int_0^\io {d\r\over\r^{1-\h_z}}

2989: \int_0^{2\pi} {d\th\over 2\p} {1\over 1+\r e^{i\th}}= {b_\io\over

2990: 2\p} \int_0^1 {d\r\over\r^{1-\h_z}} ={b_\io\over 2\p \h_z}\;,

2991: \lb{4.50}\ee

2992: %

2993: which proves \pref{1.27}.

2994: 

2995: 

2996: 

2997: 

2998: 

2999: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th6}}\lb{ss4.2}

3000: The {\it Beta function equations} for the running coupling or

3001: renormalization constants are

3002: %

3003: \bea

3004: \l_{j-1}&

3005: =&\l_j+\b^j_\l(\l_j,...,\l_N)\;,\nn\\

3006: {Z_{j-1}\over Z_j} &=& 1+\b_z^{(j)}(\l_{j},..,\l_N)\;,\nn\\

3007: %

3008: {Z^{(2)}_{j-1}\over Z^{(2)}_j} &=& 1+ \b_{z_2}^{(j)}(\l_{j},

3009: \ldots,\l_N)\;,\lb{2.44}\\

3010: %

3011: {\m_{j-1}\over \m_j} &=& 1+ \sum_{k\ge j} {\m_k\over \m_j}

3012: \b_{\m}^{(j,k)}(\l_{j},..,\l_N)\;,\nn \eea

3013: %

3014: with $\b_z^{(j)},\b_{z_2}^{(j)}, \b_{\m}^{(j,k)}$ {\it independent

3015: from $\m$} and, if $a_\m$, $a_z$, $a_{z_2}$ are suitable positive

3016: constants,

3017: %

3018: \bea

3019: \b_\m^{(j,k)}(\l_j,..\l_j) &=& a_\m\l_j\d_{j,k} + O(\bar\l_j^2)\;,\nn\\

3020: %

3021: \b_z^{(j)}(\l_{j},.., \l_j) &=& a_z\l_j^2+O(\bar\l_j^4)\;,\\

3022: %

3023: \b_{z_2}^{(j)}(\l_{j},..,\l_j) &=&

3024: a_{z_2}\l_j^2+O(\bar\l_j^4)\;.\lb{2.44f}\eea

3025: %

3026: Moreover, these functions do not depend directly of $Z_N$, but

3027: only depend on the ratios $Z_{j-1}/Z_j$, $j\le N$; hence the value

3028: of $\l_j$ is a function of $\l_N=\l$ and the number of RG steps

3029: needed to reach scale $j$ starting from scale $N$. It follows

3030: that, if we call $\hat\l_j$, $j\le 0$, the constants we get for

3031: $N=0$, then, for any $N>0$ and $j\le N$, $\l_j=\hat\l_{j-N}$. The

3032: problem with $N=0$ was studied in detail in \cite{BM4}, where it

3033: has been proved (see Theorem 2 of that paper) that there exist

3034: constants $c_1,\e_1$ (independent of $N,h$), such that, if

3035: $|\l|\le \e_1$, then $|\l_j|\le c_1\e_1$ for any $j$. The proof of

3036: this statement is based on the analogue of SDe equation

3037: \pref{1.22} for the four point function; if the momenta are

3038: calculated at the infrared cut-off scale $\g^j$, a relation is

3039: obtained between $\l_j$ and $\l$ implying that $\l_j=\l+O(\l^2)$.

3040: This properties implies, see (3.48) of \cite{BM3}, that

3041: %

3042: \be |\b^j_\l(\l_j,...,\l_j)|\le C |\l_j|^2\g^{-(N-j)/4}\lb{5.13}\ee

3043: %

3044: From \pref{2.44} and \pref{5.13} one gets immediately, see \S 4.10

3045: of \cite{BM1}, the bound \pref{2.42a} with

3046: $\l_{-\io}(\l)=\l+O(\l^2)$ together with $|\log_\g(Z_{j-1}/ Z_j) -

3047: \h_z| \le C\l^2 \g^{-(N-j)/4}$, $|\log_\g(\m_{j-1}/ \m_j) - \h_\m|

3048: \le C|\l| \g^{-(N-j)/4}$; finally by the WTi \pref{1.17} with

3049: momenta calculated at the infrared cut-off scale $\g^j$ one gets,

3050: see \cite{BM2}, $|Z^{(2)}_j/ Z_j-1|\le C|\l|$.

3051: 

3052: \section{ Lattice Wilson fermions}\lb{ss4b}

3053: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

3054: 

3055: \subsection{Integration of the doubled fermions}\lb{ss5.1}

3056: 

3057: In order to prove Theorem \ref{th4}, we have to compare the

3058: Schwinger functions of the continuum model with ultraviolet cutoff

3059: scale $N$ with those of the lattice model \pref{1.28} with $a=

3060: \pi/ (4 \g^{N+1})$. In this model the momentum $\kk$ belongs to

3061: the two-dimensional torus $\DD_a$ of size $2\p/a$ and we shall

3062: denote by $|\kk-\kk'|$ the corresponding distance.

3063: 

3064: To begin with, we define $\bar f(\kk)$ so that

3065: %

3066: \be C_{N}^{-1}(\kk)+ \bar f(\kk)=1\;,\lb{5.1}\ee

3067: %

3068: where $C_{N}^{-1}(\kk)=\sum_{j=-\io}^N f_j(\kk)$, with $f_j(\kk)$

3069: as in \pref{1.5}; since $C_{N}^{-1}(\kk)=0$ for $|\kk|\ge

3070: \g^{N+1}=\pi/ (4 a)$, the support of the function $\bar f(\kk)$ is

3071: given by the set $\{\kk:|\kk-\p/a|\le 3\pi/ 4 a\}$. Therefore, it

3072: is possible to decompose the propagator $\wh r_{\o,\o'}(\kk)$,

3073: defined in \pref{1.28a}, as the sum of $\wh r^{(\leq

3074: N)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk) = C_{N}^{-1}(\kk) \wh r_{\o,\o'}(\kk)$ and $\wh

3075: r^{( N+1)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk) = \bar f(\kk) \wh r_{\o,\o'}(\kk)$. With

3076: this decomposition we associate the following decomposition of the

3077: measure \pref{1.28}

3078: %

3079: \be P_{Z_a}(d\psi)=P_{Z_a}(d\psi^{(\le N)})P_{Z_a}

3080: (d\psi^{(N+1)})\;.\lb{5.4}\ee

3081: %

3082: Note that the second integration has a ``very massive''

3083: propagator; in fact, since the function $\bar f(\kk)$ is a Gevrais

3084: function of class $2$, with a compact support of size $a^{-2}$,

3085: and $[1-\cos(k_0a)+1-\cos(ka)]/a\geq \tilde C a^{-1} =C\g^N$ on

3086: its support, it is easy to show that

3087: %

3088: \be |r^{(N+1)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx)|\le C\g^N e^{-c\sqrt{\g^N|\xx|}}\;.

3089: \lb{5.5}\ee

3090: 

3091: The integration of $\WW(\f,J)$ is performed in a way very similar

3092: to the one presented in \S\ref{ss2}, except for the first step,

3093: made with $Z_{N+1}=Z_a$, $\l_{N+1}=\l_a$, $\n_{N+1}=\n_a$,

3094: $\m_{N+1}(\kk)=\m_a(\kk)$. We define all localization operators as

3095: in \S\ref{ss2}, except $\LL_1$, which is defined as

3096: %

3097: \be \LL_1\hW_{2,\o,\o'}^{(h)}(\kk)=\fra14

3098: \sum_{\h,\h'=\pm 1}\hW_{2,\o,\o'}^{(h)}(\bk\h{\h'}) \big[\h {\sin

3099: k_0a\over \sin{\p a\over L}} + \h'{\sin k a\over \sin{\p a\over

3100: L}}\big]\;,\lb{5.6}\ee

3101: %

3102: in order to take into account the lattice structure of the space

3103: coordinates; hence the localization procedure is essentially

3104: unchanged. However, the presence in the interaction of the term

3105: proportional to $\n_{N+1}$ has the effect (see below) that in the

3106: effective potential a new type of vertex will appear (which we

3107: shall call $\n$ vertex); this new vertex changes the symmetry

3108: properties of the functions $\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,\o'}$, so that, in

3109: particular, $\PP_0\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}\not=0$.

3110: 

3111: To be more precise, we note that $\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,\o}$ is given by

3112: the sum of graphs with

3113: %

3114: \bd

3115: \item{1.}

3116: either an even number of $\n$ vertices, an even number of non

3117: diagonal propagators and an odd number of diagonal propagators;

3118: \item{2.} or an odd number of $\n$ vertices, an odd number of non

3119: diagonal propagators and an odd number of diagonal propagators.

3120: \ed

3121: %

3122: Moreover $\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}$ is given by the sum of graphs with

3123: %

3124: \bd

3125: \item{3.} either an even number of $\n$ vertices, an odd number

3126: of non diagonal propagators and an even number of diagonal

3127: propagators;

3128: \item{4.}

3129: or an odd number of $\n$ vertices, an even number of non diagonal

3130: propagators and an even number of diagonal propagators. \ed

3131: %

3132: As the diagonal propagators are odd in the exchange $\kk\to-\kk$

3133: while the non diagonal ones are even, we get

3134: $\LL_0\PP_0\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,\o}=\LL_0\PP_1\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,\o}=0$

3135: and $\LL_1\PP_0\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}=0$. Then

3136: %

3137: \be \LL \hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,\o}=\LL_1\PP_0

3138: \widehat W^{(j)}_{2,\o,\o},\quad \LL \widehat W^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}

3139: =\LL_0\PP_0 \hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}+\LL_0

3140: \PP_1\hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}\;.\lb{5.7}\ee

3141: %

3142: This implies that we can write

3143: %

3144: \be \LL\VV^{(j)}(\psi^{[h,j]})=z_j F_\z^{[h,j]}+(s_j+\g^j n_j)

3145: F_\s^{[h,j]} +l_j F_\l^{[h,j]} \;,\lb{5.8} \ee

3146: %

3147: where $\g^j n_j=\LL_0\PP_0 \hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}$, while $s_j=

3148: \LL_0\PP_1 \hW^{(j)}_{2,\o,-\o}$, as in \pref{2.9}-\pref{2.10}.

3149: 

3150: The renormalization of the free measure is done exactly as in

3151: \S\ref{ss2}, see \pref{2.18}, that is we do not put the term

3152: proportional to $n_j$ in the free measure, but we define a new

3153: running coupling constant $\n_j= n_j (Z_j/Z_{j-1})$. It follows

3154: that the rescaled potential $\hat \VV^{(j)}(\psi^{[h,j]})$ differs

3155: from that of \pref{2.24} because its local part contains the term

3156: $\g^j \n_j F_\s^{[h,j]}$.

3157: 

3158: For $j\le N$, the renormalized measure takes the form:

3159: %

3160: \be \wh r^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\kk)\defi

3161: {\tilde f_j(\kk)\over e_+(\kk)e_-(\kk) -\m^2_j(\kk)}

3162:   \pmatrix

3163:   {e_-(\kk) & -\tilde\m_j(\kk) \cr

3164:   -\tilde\m_j(\kk)  & e_+(\kk)\cr}_{\o,\o'}\;,\lb{58bis}\ee

3165: %

3166: with $\tilde\m_j(\kk)= \hat\m_j(\kk) +[Z_N/Z_j(\kk)] [1-\cos(k_0a)

3167: +1-\cos(ka)]/a$, $\hat\m_j(\kk)$ being a function equal to $\m$

3168: for $j=N$, which satisfies the same recursion relation as

3169: $\tilde\m_j(\kk)$ in \pref{2.18}.

3170: 

3171: It is convenient to split the propagator \pref{58bis} as

3172: %

3173: \be r^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx,\yy)= g^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx,\yy)+

3174: g^{R,(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx,\yy)\lb{5.9}\ee

3175: %

3176: where $g^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}$ is obtained from $r^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}$ by

3177: substituting $\tilde\m_j(\kk)$ with $\hat\m_j(\kk)$ (hence it has

3178: the same form as the propagator of \pref{2.2}). We shall prove

3179: below that the flow of the running couplings and the free measure

3180: can be controlled as in \S\ref{ss2}, if the value of $\n_a$ is

3181: suitable chosen. This implies that there is $h^*$, satisfying a

3182: bound like \pref{2.45a}, such that, as far as $h>h^*$,

3183: $|\tilde\m_j(\kk)|\le \g^j$, so that

3184: %

3185: \be |g^{R,(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx,\yy)|

3186: \le C\g^{-(N-j)} \g^je^{-c\sqrt{\g^j|\xx-\yy|}}\;.\lb{5.10}\ee

3187: 

3188: The flow equation for $\l_j$ can be written, for $j\le N+1$, as

3189: %

3190: \bea \l_{j-1}

3191: =&&\l_j+\b^j_\l(\l_N,...,\l_j)+r^j_\l(\l_a,\l_N,...,\l_j)\\

3192: && + \sum_{k\ge j} \n_k

3193: \tilde\b^{j,k}_\l(\l_a,\n_a,\l_N,\n_N,...,\l_j,\n_j)\;,\lb{5.11}\eea

3194: %

3195: where the functions in the r.h.s. can be represented as sums over

3196: trees similar to those of \pref{2.26}; in particular, we have

3197: included the sum over all trees with at least one $\n$-endpoint in

3198: the last term in the r.h.s. of \pref{5.11} and we have split the

3199: sum of all trees with no $\n$-endpoints as $\b^j_\l+r^j_\l$, where

3200: $\b^j_\l$ contains the trees with propagator $g^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}$

3201: (the decomposition \pref{5.9} is used), while all other terms are

3202: included in $r^j_\l$. The fact that the contribution of a single

3203: tree satisfies a bound similar to that of \pref{2.27}, with

3204: $d_v>0$ for any $v$, easily implies that, if $|\n_j| \le C|\l_a|$

3205: for any $j$,

3206: %

3207: \be |\tilde\b^{j,k}_\l|\le C \bar\l_j \g^{-(k-j)/4}\virg

3208: |r^j_\l|\le C \bar\l_j^2 \g^{-(N-j)/4}\;.\lb{5.12}\ee

3209: %

3210: Note also that \pref{5.13} still holds, as the only difference

3211: comes from the fact that in the continuum model the delta function

3212: of conservation of momenta is $L^2 \d_{k,0}\d_{k_0,0}$, while in

3213: the lattice model is $L^2 \sum_{n,m\in Z^2} \d_{k,2\pi

3214: n/a}\d_{k_0,2\pi m/a}$. However, the difference between the two

3215: delta functions has no effect on the local part $\LL\VV^N$,

3216: because of the compact support of $\psi^{\le N}$ and only slightly

3217: affects the non local terms. To see that, let us consider a

3218: particular tree $\t$ and a vertex $v\in\t$ of scale $h_v$ with

3219: $2n$ external fields of space momenta $\kk_i$; the conservation of

3220: momentum implies that $\sum_i \e_i \kk_i={\bf m}{2\pi\over a}$,

3221: with $m$ an arbitrary integer. On the other hand, $\kk_i$ is of

3222: order $\g^{h_v}$ for any $i$, hence $m$ can be different from $0$

3223: only if $n$ is of order $\g^{N-h_v}$. Since the number of

3224: endpoints following a vertex with $2n$ external fields is greater

3225: or equal to $n-1$ and there is a small factor (of order

3226: $\bar\l_j$) associated with each endpoint, we get an improvement,

3227: in the bound of the terms with $|m|>0$, with respect to the

3228: others, of a factor $\exp(-C\g^{N-h_v})$. Hence, by using the

3229: remark preceding \pref{5.12}, it is easy to show that the

3230: difference between the two beta functions is of order

3231: $\bar\l_j^2\g^{-(N-j)/4}$.

3232: 

3233: 

3234: \begin{lemma}

3235: For any given $\l_{N+1}$ small enough, it is always possible to

3236: fix $\n_{N+1}$ so that, for any $j\le N+1$,

3237: %

3238: \be

3239: |\n_j|\le C |\l_a|\g^{-(N-j)/8}\;, \qquad |\l_j-\l_a|\le

3240: C\l^2_a\;.\lb{5.13}

3241: \ee

3242: %

3243: \end{lemma}

3244: 

3245: {\it Proof.} We consider the Banach space $\MM_\xi$ of sequences

3246: $\underline\n= \{\n_j\}_{j\le N+1}$ such that

3247: %

3248: \be

3249: ||{\underline\n}||_\xi=\sup_{j\le N+1} \g^{(N-j)/8}|\n_j|\le \xi

3250: |\l_a|\;,\ee

3251: %

3252: with $\xi$ to be fixed later. From \pref{5.11}, \pref{5.12} and

3253: \pref{5.13} it follows, see \S 4 of \cite{BM1} or Appendix 5 of

3254: \cite{GiM} for details, that there exists $\e_0$ such that, if

3255: both $|\l_a|$ and $\xi|\l_a|$ are smaller than $\e_0$, then, for

3256: any $\underline\n$, $\underline\n'\in\MM_\xi$,

3257: %

3258: \be |\l_j(\underline\n)-\l_{a}|\le C\l_{a}^2

3259: \virg |\l_j(\underline\n)-\l_j(\underline\n')|\le C |\l_a|

3260: ||\underline\n -\underline{\n'}||_\xi\;. \lb{5.14}\ee

3261: %

3262: We want to show that it is possible to choose $\n_{N+1}$ so that

3263: $\underline\n\in\MM_\xi$. Note that $\underline\n$ verifies by

3264: construction the equation

3265: %

3266: \be \n_{j-1}=\g\n_j+\b_\n^{(j)}\big(\l_a,\n_a;\l_N,\n_N;...;\l_j,\n_j\big)

3267: \lb{5.15}\ee

3268: %

3269: and that, if $\underline \n \in \MM_\xi$, $\lim_{j\to

3270: -\io}\n_j=0$; by some simple algebra, this implies that

3271: %

3272: \be \n_{j}=-\sum_{k\le j}\g^{k-j-1}\b_\n^{(k)}

3273: \big(\l_a,\n_a;\l_N,\n_N;...;\l_j,\n_j\big)\;.\lb{5.15a}\ee

3274: %

3275: Hence, we look for a fixed point of the operator ${\bf T}:

3276: \MM_\xi\to\MM_\xi$ defined as

3277: %

3278: \be {\bf T}(\underline\n)_{j}\defi-\sum_{k\le j}\g^{k-j-1}

3279: \b_\n^{(k)}\Big(\l_a,\n_a, \l_N(\underline\n),

3280: \n_N,..,\l_j(\underline\n),\n_j\Big)\;.\lb{5.17}\ee

3281: %

3282: Note that

3283: %

3284: \bea

3285: && \b_\n^{(j)}(\l_a,\n_a,\l_N,\n_N,...,\l_j,\n_j) =

3286: \b_\n^{(1,j)}(\l_N,...,\l_j)+\nn\\

3287: %

3288: &&+\sum_{k\ge j} \n_k\tilde\b_\n^{(j,k)}

3289: \big(\l_a,\n_a,\l_N,\n_N,...,\l_j,\n_j\big)\;,\lb{5.1a}\eea

3290: %

3291: where $\b_\n^{(j,1)}$ is a sum over trees with no endpoints of

3292: type $\n$ and no endpoints of scale $N+1$. By using the

3293: decomposition \pref{5.9}, the parity properties of

3294: $g^{(j)}_{\o,\o'}(\xx,\yy)$ and the remark preceding \pref{5.12},

3295: we get the bounds

3296: %

3297: \be |\b_\n^{(1,j)}|\le C |\l_a| \g^{-(N-j)/4} \virg

3298: |\tilde\b_\n^{(j,k)}|\le C |\l_a| \g^{-(k-j)/4}\;, \lb{5.19}\ee

3299: %

3300: which implies that

3301: %

3302: \be |{\bf T}(\underline\n)_j|\le \sum_{k\le j} C |\l_a|

3303: \g^{-(j-k)} \g^{-(N-k)/8} \le c_0|\l_a|

3304: \g^{-(N-j)/8}\;.\lb{5.20}\ee

3305: %

3306: Hence the operator ${\bf T}:\MM_\xi\to\MM_\xi$ leaves $\MM_\xi$

3307: invariant, if $\xi\ge c_0$ and $\l_a$ is sufficiently small, and

3308: it is also a contraction since $|{\bf T}(\underline\n)_j-{\bf

3309: T}(\underline\n')_j|\le C|\l_a| ||\n-\n'||_\xi$.

3310: %

3311: It follows that there is a unique fixed point in $\MM_\xi$,

3312: satisfying the flow equation \pref{5.15}.\qed

3313: 

3314: \*\*

3315: 

3316: An important consequence of the bound \pref{5.13} is that, if we

3317: construct as in \S\ref{ss2} the Schwinger functions, by imposing

3318: the normalization conditions \pref{2.43}, we get, as $N\to \io$,

3319: exactly the same expansion in terms of trees, containing only $\l$

3320: endpoints with a fixed coupling constant $\tilde\l_{-\io}(\l_a) =

3321: \lim_{j\to -\io} \l_j$; in fact, the trees containing at least one

3322: $\n$ vertex vanish in this limit.

3323: 

3324: By a fixed point argument, one can show that we can fix $\l_a$ so

3325: that $\tilde\l_{-\io}(\l_a)$ has the same value as $\l_{-\io}(\l)$

3326: in the continuum model; this remark completes the proof of Theorem

3327: \ref{th4}.

3328: 

3329: 

3330: \appendix

3331: 

3332: \section{Osterwalder-Schrader axioms}\lb{ss6}

3333: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

3334: 

3335: Osterwalder-Schrader axioms were partially stated in \cite{OS1}

3336: and completed in \cite{OS2} by the ``linear growth property''. We

3337: show here that they are satisfied by the Schwinger functions of

3338: our model.

3339: 

3340: \subsection{Linear growth condition and Clustering}\lb{ss6.1}

3341: In order to verify the linear growth property, see the bound (4.1)

3342: of \cite{OS2}, for $s=3$, let us consider the space

3343: $\SS_0(\RRR^{2k})$ of the test functions such that, for any $m\in

3344: \NNN$,

3345: %

3346: \be

3347: \|f\|_m\defi \sup_{\xxx\in\rrr^{2k}\atop |\underline\a|\le m}

3348: \left|(1+|\xxx|^2)^{m/2}\big(D^{\underline\a}f\big)(\xxx) \right|

3349: < \io \lb{A.1}\ee

3350: %

3351: and which vanish, together with all their partial derivatives, if

3352: at least two among the points in the set

3353: $\xxx=\{\xx_1,\dots,\xx_k\}$ are coinciding. By \pref{2.45b}

3354: %

3355: \be

3356: \lft|\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f\big)\right| \le

3357: C^k(k!)^{3+2\h}\sum_{i<j} \int\!d\xx_1\cdots d\xx_k\

3358: {\big|f(\xxx)\big| \over  |\xx_i-\xx_j|^{k(1+\h)/2

3359: -2\e}}\;.\lb{A.2}\ee

3360: %

3361: On the other hand, by \pref{A.1}, $|f(\xxx)|\le \|f\|_{4k+1}

3362: (1+|x|^{4k+1})^{-1}$ and, for any $i\not= j$, $|f(\xxx)| \le 2^{k}

3363: [(2k)!]^{-1} |\xx_i -\xx_j|^{2k} \|f\|_{2k}$; hence, since

3364: $\|f\|_{2k} \le \|f\|_{4k+1}$,

3365: %

3366: \be

3367: |f(\xxx)|\le \|f\|_{4k+1} \sqrt{(1+|\xxx|^{4k+1})^{-1}}

3368: \sqrt{2^{k} [(2k)!]^{-1} |\xx_i -\xx_j|^{2k}}\;.\lb{A.2bis} \ee

3369: %

3370: It follows that

3371: %

3372: \bea

3373: \lft|\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f\big)\right| &&\le C^k

3374: (k!)^{2+2\h}\|f\|_{4k+1}\;.\lb{A.2ter}\eea

3375: 

3376: In order to prove the ``cluster property'', fixed any integer

3377: $p\in [1,k-1]$, $\yy\in\RRR^2$ and $f\in \SS_0(\RRR^{2k})$, we

3378: first prove that $\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f_{p,\yy} \big)$ goes to

3379: $0$ as $|\yy|\to \io$, if $f_{p,\yy}(\xxx) \=

3380: f(\xx_1,\dots\xx_p,\xx_{p+1}-\yy,\dots,\xx_k-\yy)$. Let us

3381: consider the characteristic functions $\c_{\yy}(\xxx)$ and

3382: $\c'_{\yy}(\xxx)$ of the set

3383: %

3384: \be

3385: M\defi \left\{\xxx\in \RRR^{2k}:\max_{1\le j\le p}|\xx_j|\le

3386: |\yy|/4\;,\ \max_{p+1\le j\le k}|\xx_j-\yy|\le

3387: |\yy|/4\right\}\lb{A.3}\ee

3388: %

3389: and of its complementary, respectively. Since $D_\xxx\geq |\yy|/2$

3390: in $M$, by using \pref{2.45b} and \pref{A.2bis}, we see that

3391: $|\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f_{p,\yy} \c_{\yy}\big)| \le [1+

3392: (|\yy|/2)^{2\e}]^{-1} C^k (k!)^{2+2\h}\|f\|_{4k+1}$, so that

3393: $\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f_{p,\yy} \c_{\yy}\big)$ is uniformly

3394: bounded and vanishes as $|\yy|\to\io$. On the other hand, by

3395: \pref{A.2bis}, $|\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f_{p,\yy} \c'_{\yy}

3396: \big)| \le C^k (k!)^{2+2\h}\|f\|_{4k+1} \int d\xxx

3397: \sqrt{(1+|\xxx|^{4k+1})^{-1}} \c'_0(\xxx)$, so that even

3398: $\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f_{p,\yy} \c'_{\yy}\big)$ is uniformly

3399: bounded and vanishes in the limit $|\yy|\to\io$, as well as

3400: $\big(S_{k,\underline\o},f_{p,\yy}\big)$.

3401: 

3402: The cluster property E0, defined in \S3 of \cite{OS1}, now simply

3403: follows, by decomposing the connected Schwinger functions as

3404: finite linear combinations of the truncated Schwinger functions, .

3405: 

3406: 

3407: 

3408: \subsection{Symmetry, Euclidean invariance and Reflection positivity}

3409: \lb{ss6.2} From the explicit definition of  the generating

3410: functional, \pref{1.6}, two properties immediately follow. First,

3411: since the fields anticommute, the Schwinger functions are

3412: antisymmetric in the exchange of their arguments. Moreover, the

3413: generating functional \pref{1.6} is invariant under the Lorentz

3414: transformation of the fields by construction.

3415: 

3416: Finally the ``reflection positivity'' E2, defined in \S6 of

3417: \cite{OS1}, is verified in the lattice regularization \pref{1.30},

3418: as proved in \cite{OSe}, hence it holds even in the removed

3419: cutoffs limit of the regularized model \pref{1.6}, which we have

3420: shown to be equivalent to the $a=0$ limit of the lattice model,

3421: see Theorem 1.4.

3422: 

3423: 

3424: \section{Lowest order computation of $\n_-$ and $\n_+$}\lb{ss7}

3425: %\setcounter{equation}{0}

3426: 

3427: 

3428: \subsection{Lowest order computation of $\n_-$}\lb{ss7.1}

3429: Calling  $\hat g_{\o,\o}(\kk)\defi\hat g_{\o}(\kk)$ and

3430: $u_0(t)\defi 1-\c_0(t)$, the lowest order contibution to the

3431: $\n_{-,N}$, appearing in \pref{3.5}, is obtained, from \pref{3.16}

3432: and \pref{3.17}, by taking the $\pp\to 0$ limit of the following

3433: expression (see the first graph in Fig. \ref{f6}), whose value is

3434: independent of the infrared cutoff for any fixed $\pp$ and $|h|$

3435: large enough:

3436: %

3437: \bea

3438: &&\l\int\!{d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}\

3439:  {C_{h,N;\o}(\kk,\kk-\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\pp)}

3440: \hat g^{(\le N)}_\o(\kk)\hat g^{(\le N)}_\o(\kk-\pp) =\nn\\

3441: =&&-\l{D_\o(\pp)\over D_{-\o}(\pp)}\int {d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}

3442: {u_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk- \pp|\big)\chi_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk|\big)\over

3443: D_\o(\kk-\pp) D_{\o}(\kk)} +\nn\\

3444: &&+\l\int {d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}

3445: {\chi_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk|\big)-\chi_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk-\pp|\big)\over

3446: D_\o(\kk-\pp) D_{-\o}(\pp)}\lb{B.1}\eea

3447: %

3448: where we have used \pref{3.3} and rearranged the terms. In the

3449: limit $|\pp|\to 0$, the first contribution in the r.h.s. of

3450: \pref{B.1} vanishes by the symmetry  $\hat g_\o(\kk)=-i\o \hat

3451: g_\o(\kk^*)$, $\kk^*=(-k_0,k)$. As regards the second term, if we

3452: write the first order Taylor expansion in $\pp$ of the numerator

3453: as a linear combination of $D_{-\o}(\pp)$ and $D_\o(\pp)$, the

3454: term proportional to $D_\o(\pp)$ also vanishes, again for the

3455: symmetry $\kk\to\kk^*$, so that

3456: %

3457: \be \n_-= -{\l\over 2}\int\!{d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}\

3458: {\chi'_0(|\kk|) \over |\kk|} = -{\l\over 4\pi}\int_1^\io\!d\r\

3459: \chi'_0(\r)={\l\over 4\pi}\;. \lb{B.2}\ee

3460: 

3461: 

3462: \subsection{Lowest order computation of $\n_+$}\lb{ss6.2}

3463: 

3464: If we define

3465: %

3466: \be

3467: I_{\o}\lft(\g^{-N}\kk\rgt)=\int\!{d\kk'\over (2\pi)^2}\ \hat

3468: g_{\o}^{(\le N)}(\kk') \hat g_{\o}^{(\le N)}(\kk'+\kk)\;,

3469: \ee

3470: %

3471: then the lowest order contribution to the anomaly coefficient

3472: $\n_{+,N}$, appearing in \pref{3.5}, is is obtained, from

3473: \pref{3.16} and \pref{3.17}, by taking the $\pp\to 0$ limit and,

3474: after that, the $h\to -\io$ limit of the following expression (see

3475: the second graph in Fig. \ref{f6}):

3476: %

3477: \bea

3478: &&-\l^2 \int {d\kk\over (2\pi)^2} {C_{h,N:\o}(\kk,\kk-\pp)\over

3479: D_{\o}(\pp)} g^{(\le N)}_\o(\kk)g^{(\le N)}_\o(\kk-\pp)

3480: I_{-\o}\lft(\g^{-N}\kk\rgt)

3481: =\nn\\

3482: && =\l^2\int {d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}

3483: {u_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk-\pp|\big)\chi_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk|\big)\over

3484: D_\o(\kk-\pp)

3485: D_{\o}(\kk)}I_{-\o}\lft(\g^{-N}\kk\rgt)-\nn\\

3486: &&-\l^2\int {d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}

3487: {\chi_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk|\big)-\chi_0\big(\g^{-N}|\kk-\pp|\big)\over

3488: D_\o(\kk-\pp) D_{\o}(\pp)}I_{-\o}\lft(\g^{-N}\kk\rgt)\;.\lb{B.4}

3489: \eea

3490: %

3491: In the limit $|\pp|\to 0$ and $h\to -\io$, we get

3492: %

3493: \bea

3494: \n_+ &&=\l^2\int\!{d\kk\over (2\pi)^2}\

3495: \left[{u_0(|\kk|)\chi_0(|\kk|)\over |\kk|^4}- {\chi'_0(|\kk|)\over

3496: 2 |\kk|^3}\right] I_{-\o}(\kk)D^2_{-\o}(\kk)\;,\lb{B.5}

3497: \eea

3498: %

3499: where we are using the symbol $I_{-\o}(\kk)$ to denote even its

3500: $h=-\io$ limit, which is finite. Note that the term in square

3501: brackets is nonnegative; moreover, it is different from $0$ only

3502: for $1\le|\kk|\le \g_0$ (defined in \pref{1.5bis}). We now fix

3503: $\o=+$ for definiteness (the result is $\o$-independent); then if

3504: $i k_0+k=y e^{i\phi}$ and $i k'_0+k'=x e^{i\th}$ we get:

3505: %

3506: \be

3507: I_{-}(\kk)=e^{-2 i\phi}\int {dx d\th\over (2\pi)^2}

3508: \chi_0(x){\chi_0(|x e^{-i\th}+y|)\over |x

3509: e^{-i\th}+y|^2}e^{-i\th}(x e^{-i\th}+y)\;,

3510: \ee

3511: %

3512: so that

3513: %

3514: \be

3515: D^2_{-}(\kk)I_{-}(\kk)=y^2 \int {dx d\th\over (2\pi)^2}

3516: \chi_0(x){\chi_0(|x e^{-i\th}+y|)\over |x e^{-i\th}+y|^2}(x\cos

3517: 2\th+y\cos\th)\;. \lb{B.7}\ee

3518: %

3519: The integral \pref{B.5} is easily shown to be strictly negative in

3520: the limit $\g_0\to 1$; hence by continuity in $\g_0$, $\n_+<0$ for

3521: $\g_0-1$ small enough. Indeed in the limit $\g_0\to 1$ \pref{B.5}

3522: becomes

3523: %

3524: \be

3525: {\pi\l^2\over (2\p)^4} \int_0^1 dx \int_0^{2\pi} d\th\ {\chi_0(|x

3526: e^{-i\th}+1|)\over |x e^{-i\th}+1|^2}(x\cos 2\th+\cos\th)\;;

3527: \lb{B.8}\ee

3528: %

3529: on the other hand, since $|x e^{-i\th}+1|\le 1$, $\cos\th< 0$ if

3530: $x>0$ and $x\cos 2\th+ \cos\th =\cos\th (1+x\cos\th)-x\sin^2\th<

3531: 0$ if $0<x<1$; it follows that the integrand of \pref{B.8} is $<0$

3532: for $x\not=0,1$.

3533: 

3534: A numerical calculation also shows that $|\n_+|$ is not constant

3535: as a function of $\g_0$, but is a strictly decreasing function

3536: near $\g_0=1$.

3537: \vskip1cm

3538: {\bf Acknowledgments} We are indebted with K Gawedzki

3539: for enlightening discussions on the Thirring model which we have 

3540: summarized

3541: in the considerations after (1.4) in the introduction.

3542: P.F. gratefully acknowledges

3543: the hospitality and the financial 

3544: support of the Erwin Schr\"odinger 

3545: Institute for Mathematical Physics (Vienna)

3546: during the 

3547: preparation of this work.

3548: \vskip.5cm

3549: \begin{thebibliography}{999999}

3550: 

3551: \bibitem[A]{A} Adler S. L.:

3552: Axial--Vector Vertex in Spinor Electrodynamics. {\it Phys. Rev.}

3553: {\bf 177}, { 2426--2438}, 1969.

3554: 

3555: \bibitem[A1]{A1} Adler S. L.: Anomalies. {\it hep-th/0411038}

3556: To appear in the Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, Elsevier,

3557: 2006.

3558: 

3559: \bibitem[AB]{AB} Adler S. L., Bardeen W.A.: Absence of higher order

3560: corrections in the anomalous axial vector divergence equation.

3561: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 182}, { 1517-1536}, 1969.

3562: 

3563: \bibitem[AF]{AF} Akiyama A., Futami Y.: Two-fermion-loop contribution

3564: to the axial anomaly in the massive Thirring model. {\it Phys.

3565: Rev. D} {\bf 46}, { 798-805}, 1992.

3566: 

3567: 

3568: \bibitem[BM1]{BM1} Benfatto G., Mastropietro V.:

3569: Renormalization group, hidden symmetries and approximate Ward

3570: identities in the $XYZ$ model. {\it Rev. Math. Phys.} {\bf 13}, {

3571: 1323--1435}, 2001.

3572: 

3573: \bibitem[BM2]{BM2} Benfatto G., Mastropietro V.:

3574: On the density--density critical indices in interacting Fermi

3575: systems. {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 231}, { 97--134}, 2002.

3576: 

3577: \bibitem[BM3]{BM3} Benfatto G., Mastropietro V.:

3578: Ward identities and vanishing of the Beta function for $d=1$

3579: interacting Fermi systems. {\it J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf 115}, {

3580: 143--184}, 2004.

3581: 

3582: \bibitem[BM4]{BM4} Benfatto G., Mastropietro V.:

3583: Ward identities and chiral anomaly in the Luttinger liquid. {\it

3584: Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 258}, { 609--655}, 2005.

3585: 

3586: %\bibitem[BT]{BT}

3587: %Bergknoff H., Thacker H. B.: Method for solving the massive

3588: %Thirring model. {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 42}, { 135-138}, 1979.

3589: 

3590: \bibitem[C]{C} Coleman S.: Quantum sine-Gordon equation as the massive

3591: Thirring model. {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 11}, { 2088-2097}, 1975.

3592: 

3593: \bibitem[CRW]{CRW} Carey A.L., Ruijsenaars S.N.M., Wrigth J.D.:

3594: The massless Thirring model: Positivity of Klaiber's n-point

3595: functions. {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 99}, { 347--364}, 1985.

3596: 

3597: \bibitem[DFZ]{DFZ} Dell'Antonio G., Frishman Y., Zwanziger, D.:

3598: Thirring Model in Terms of Currents: Solution and Ligth--Cone

3599: Expansions. {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 6}, { 988--1007} 1972.

3600: 

3601: \bibitem[DR]{DR} Disertori M., Rivasseau, V.:

3602: Interacting Fermi Liquid in Two Dimensions at Finite Temperature.

3603: Part I: Convergent Attributions. {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf

3604: 215}, { 251--290}, 2000.

3605: 

3606: \bibitem[FGS]{FGS} Furuya K., Gamboa Saravi S, Schaposnik F. A. :

3607: Path integral formulation of chiral invariant fermion models in

3608: two dimensions. {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 208}, { 159--181}, 1982.

3609: 

3610: 

3611: \bibitem[FMRS]{FMRS} Feldman J., Magnen J., Rivasseau V, S\'en\'eor R.:

3612: Massive Gross--Neveu Model: A Rigorous Perturbative Construction.

3613: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett} {\bf 54}, { 1479--1481}, 1985.

3614: 

3615: %\bibitem[GJS]{GJS} Glimm J., Jaffe A., Spencer T.:

3616: %The Wightman axioms and particle structure in the $P(\f)_2$

3617: %quantum field model.  {\it Ann. of Math.} {\bf 100}, { 585--632},

3618: %1974.

3619: 

3620: \bibitem[G]{G} Gallavotti G.:

3621: Renormalization theory and ultraviolet stability for scalar fields

3622: via renormalization group methods. {\it Rev.Mod.Phys.} {\bf 57},

3623: {471--562}, 1985.

3624: 

3625: \bibitem[GK]{GK} Gawedzki K., Kupiainen A.:

3626: Gross--Neveu model through convergent perturbation expansions.

3627: {\it Comm.Math.Phys.} {\bf 102}, { 1--30}, 1985.

3628: 

3629: \bibitem[GL]{GL} Gomes M., Lowenstein J.H.:

3630: Asymptotic scale invariance in a massive Thirring model. {\it

3631: Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 45}, { 252--266}, 1972.

3632: 

3633: \bibitem[GR]{GR} Georgi H., Rawls J.M.:

3634: Anomalies of the Axial--Vector Current in Two dimensions. {\it

3635: Phys.Rev.D} {\bf 3}, { 874--879}, 1971.

3636: 

3637: \bibitem[GiM]{GiM} Giuliani A., Mastropietro V.:

3638: Anomalous Universality in the Ashkin-Teller model. {\it Comm.

3639: Math. Pys} 2003.

3640: 

3641: \bibitem[J]{J} Johnson K.:

3642: Solution of the Equations for the Green's Functions of a two

3643: Dimensional Relativistic Field Theory. {\it Nuovo Cimento} {\bf

3644: 20}, {773--790}, 1961.

3645: 

3646: %\bibitem[JZ]{JZ} Johnson K., Zumino B.: Gauge Dependence of the

3647: %Wave--Function Renormalization Constant in Quantum

3648: %Electrodynamics. {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 3}, { 351--352},

3649: %1959.

3650: 

3651: \bibitem[K]{K} Klaiber B.: The Thirring model. In: Quantum theory and

3652: statistical physics. Vol X A editors Barut A.O. and Brittin. W.F.

3653: {\it Gordon and Breach.}, 1968.

3654: 

3655: \bibitem[Le]{Le} Lesniewski A.:

3656: Effective action for the Yukawa$_2$ quantum field theory. {\it

3657: Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 108}, { 437--467}, 1987.

3658: 

3659: %\bibitem[MS]{MS} Magnen J., S\'en\'eor R.:

3660: %The Wightman axioms for the weakly coupled Yukawa model in two

3661: %dimensions. {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 51}, { 297--313}, 1976.

3662: 

3663: \bibitem[M]{M} Mastropietro V.: preprint 2006

3664: 

3665: %\bibitem[ML]{ML} Mattis D. C., Lieb E. H.: Exact Solution of a Many--Fermion

3666: %System and its Associated Boson Field. {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf

3667: %6}, { 304--312}, 1965.

3668: 

3669: \bibitem[MM]{MM} Montvay I., M\"unster G.: Quantum Fields on a

3670: Lattice. {Cambridge University Press}, 1994.

3671: 

3672: \bibitem[OS1]{OS1} Osterwalder K., Schrader R.: Axioms for Euclidean

3673: Green's Functions. {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 31}, { 83--112},

3674: 1973.

3675: 

3676: 

3677: \bibitem[OS2]{OS2} Osterwalder K., Schrader R.: Axioms for Euclidean

3678: Green's Functions II. {\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 42},

3679: {281--305}, 1975.

3680: 

3681: \bibitem[OSe]{OSe} Osterwalder K., Seiler E.: Gauge Field Theories on

3682: a Lattice. {\it Ann.Phys.} {\bf 110}, {440--471}, 1978.

3683: 

3684: \bibitem[S]{S} Seiler E:  {\it Phys. Rev. D}

3685: {\bf 22}, {2412--2418}, 1980.

3686: 

3687: 

3688: 

3689: \bibitem[T]{T} Thirring W.: A soluble relativistic field theory.

3690: {\it Ann.Phys.} {\bf 3}, {91--112}, 1958.

3691: 

3692: \bibitem[Wi]{Wi} Wilson K.G.:

3693: Non--Lagrangian Models of Current Algebra. {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf

3694: 179}, { 1499--1512}, 1969.

3695: 

3696: \bibitem[W]{W} Wightman W.: { Cargese lectures}, 1976.

3697: 

3698: %\bibitem[Z70]{Z70} Zimmermann W.: Lectures on elementary particles and

3699: %quantum field theory, vol.1. { M.I.T. press }, 1970.

3700: 

3701: 

3702: \end{thebibliography}

3703: \end{document}

3704: