\section{Introduction}

Given $M\geq 1$, a homeomorphism $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is said to be $M-$quasisymmetric
if and only if
$$
M^{-1}\leq \frac{|f(I)|}{|f(J)|}\leq M
$$
for all pairs of adjacent intervals $I,J$ of equal length, here and in sequel $|\cdot|$ stands for the 1-dimensional Lebesgue measure. A
map is quasisymmetric if it is $M-$quasisymmetric for some $M\geq1$. More generally a homeomorphism between metric
spaces $(X,d_X)$ and $(Y,d_Y)$. If there is a homeomorphism
$\eta:[0,+\infty)\rightarrow [0,+\infty)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{d_X(a,x)}{d_X(b,x)}\leq t\Rightarrow
\frac{d_Y(f(a),f(x))}{d_Y(f(b),f(x))}\leq
\eta(t)
\end{equation}
for all triples $a, b, x $ of distinct points in $X$ and $t\in [0,+\infty)$, then we call $f$ is a quasisymmetric map. When $X =Y=\mathbb{R}^n$, we also say that $f$ is an $n$-dimensional quasisymmetric map.

Let $QS(X)$ denote the collection of all quasisymmetric maps defined on $X$.
Conformal dimension of a metric space, a concept introduced by Pansu
in \cite{PP}, is the infimal Hausdorff dimension of quasisymmetric images of $X$,
$$
\mathcal{C}\dim X =\inf_{f\in QS(X)}\dim_Hf(X).
$$
We say $X$ is minimal for conformal dimension or just minimal if $\mathcal{C}\dim X =
\dim_H X$. Euclidean spaces with standard metric are the simplest examples
of minimal spaces. Basic analytic definitions and results about the conformal dimension and the quasisymmetric map are contained in \cite{JH}.

Now, we introduce the notion of the homogeneous perfect set. The general references on the homogeneous perfect set are \cite{ZW,WW}. In these paper, the authors obtained the  Hausdorff, lower box-counting, upper box-counting and packing dimensions of  the homogeneous perfect set.

{\bf Homogeneous perfect sets.} Let $J_0=[0,1]\subset R$ be the fixed closed interval which
we call the initial interval. Let $\{n_k\}^{\infty}_{k =1}$ be a
sequence of positive integers and $\{c_k\}$ a
sequence of positive real numbers such that for any $k\geq 1,n_k\geq 2$ and $0<c_{k}<1$. For any $k\geq 1$, let
$D_k=\{(i_1,i_2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,i_k):1\leq i_j\leq n_j, 1\leq j\leq
k\} , D=\bigcup_{k\geq 0}D_k$, where $D_0=\{0\}$. We assume if
$\sigma=(\sigma_1, \sigma_2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,\sigma_k)\in D_k, 1\leq
j \leq n_{k+1}$, then $\sigma*j= (\sigma_1,
\sigma_2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,\sigma_k,j)\in D_{k+1}$.

Suppose that $J_0$ is the initial interval and $\mathcal{J}=\{J_{\sigma}:\sigma\in D\}$ is a collection of closed subintervals of $J_0$.  We say that the collection $\mathcal{J}$ fulfills the homogenous perfect structure provided:

1. For any $k\geq 0, \sigma\in D_k, J_{\sigma*1}, J_{\sigma*2},\cdot\cdot\cdot, J_{\sigma*n_{k+1}}$ are subintervals of $J_{\sigma}$. Furthermore, $\max\{x:x\in J_{\sigma*i}\}\leq \min\{x:x\in J_{\sigma*(i+1)}\}, 1\leq i\leq n_{k+1}-1$, that is the interval $J_{\sigma*i}$ is located at the left of $J_{\sigma*(i+1)}$ and the interiors of the intervals $J_{\sigma*i}$ and $J_{\sigma*(i+1)}$ are disjoint.

2. For any $k\geq 1, \sigma\in D_{k-1}, 1\leq j\leq n_k$, we have
$$
\frac{|J_{\sigma*i}|}{|J_{\sigma}|}=c_k.
$$

3. There exists a sequence of nonnegative real numbers $\{\eta_{k,j},k\geq 1, 0\leq j\leq n_k\}$ such that for any $k\geq 0, \sigma\in D_k$, we have $\min(J_{\sigma*1})-\min(J_{\sigma})=\eta_{k+1,0},
\max(J_{\sigma})-\max(J_{\sigma*n_{k+1}})=\eta_{k+1,n_{k+1}}$, and $\min(J_{\sigma*(i+1)})-\max(J_{\sigma*i})=\eta_{k+1,i}(1\leq i\leq n_{k+1}-1)$.

Suppose that the collection of intervals $\mathcal{J}=\{J_{\sigma}:\sigma\in D\}$ satisfies the homogeneous perfect structure.

Let $$E_k=\bigcup_{\sigma\in D_k} J_{\sigma}$$ for every $k\geq 1$.
The set
$$
E:= E(J_0,\{n_k\},\{c_k\},\{\eta_{k,j}\})=\bigcap_{k\geq 1}\bigcup_{\sigma\in D_k}J_{\sigma}=\bigcap_{k\geq 0}E_k
$$
is called a homogeneous perfect set and the intervals $J_{\sigma},\sigma\in D_k$, the fundamental intervals of order $k$.

 For any $k\geq 1$, if $\eta_{k,0}=\eta_{k,n_k}=0$ and $\eta_{k,l}=e_k|J_{\sigma}|$ for all $1\leq l\leq n_{k}-1,\sigma\in D_{k-1}$. Then $E$ is called a uniform Cantor set. This case has been considered by M.D. Hu and S.Y.Wen in \cite{MS}. They obtained
\begin{theorem}[\cite{MS}]\label{MSThm}
Let $E$ be a uniform Cantor set. If the sequence $\{n_k\}$ is bounded and if
$\dim_HE=1$. Then $\dim_H
f(E)=1$ for all $1$-dimensional quasisymmetric maps $f$.
\end{theorem}

In this paper, we generalize Theorem \ref{MSThm} to the homogeneous perfect set and show how the techniques of \cite{MS} can be applied to the homogeneous perfect set and obtain the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{MTHM}
Let $E:= E(J_0,\{n_k\},\{c_k\},\{\eta_{k,j}\})$ be a homogeneous perfect set. If the
sequence $\{n_k\}$ is bounded and if $\dim_HE=1$, then
$\dim_Hf(E)=1$ for all $1$-dimensional quasisymmetric map $f$.
\end{theorem}

This paper is organized as following. In section 2 we introduce the
basic general definitions and results in fractal geometry. The proof of Theorem \ref{MTHM} appears in section 3.

\section{Preliminary}
In order to obtain our result, we need the following lemma from \cite{JMW}, the lemma can also be found in \cite{HH} or \cite{MS}
\begin{lemma}[\cite{JMW}]\label{mainl2}
Let $f$ be an $M$-quasisymmetric map. Then
\begin{equation}\label{numpq1}
(1+M)^{-2}(\frac{|J|}{|I|})^q\leq\frac{|f(J)|}{|f(I)|}\leq
4(\frac{|J|}{|I|})^p
\end{equation}
for all pairs $J,I$ of intervals with $J\subset I$, where
\begin{equation}\label{numpq}
0<p=\log_2(1+M^{-1})\leq 1 \leq q=\log_2(1+M).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

{\bf Hausdorff dimension.}
In this subsection, we recall the definition of Hausdorff dimension. For more details we refer to \cite{KF,ZYW}.

Let $K\subset \mathbb{R}^d$. For any $s\geq 0$, the $s-$dimensional Hausdorff measure of $K$ is given in the usual way by
$$
\mathbf{H}^s(K)=\liminf_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\{\sum_i|U_i|^s: K\subset \bigcup_iU_i, 0<|U_i|<\delta\}.
$$
This leads to the definition of the
Hausdorff dimension of $K$:
$$
\dim_HK=\inf\{s: \mathbf{H}^s(K)<\infty\}=\sup\{s: \mathbf{H}^s(K)>0\}.
$$

The Hausdorff dimension of  the homogeneous perfect set $E$, which depends on $\{n_k\},\{c_k\}$ and $\{\eta_{k,j}\}$ have been obtained in \cite{ZW} as follows
\begin{theorem}[\cite{ZW}]\label{Hdim}
Let $E = E(J_0,\{n_k\},\{c_k\},\{\eta_{k,j}\})$ be a homogeneous perfect set. Suppose
$n_k\leq D$ for all $k$, where $D$ is a constant, then
\begin{equation}
\dim_HE=\liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log(n_{1}n_{2}\cdot\cdot\cdot n_{k})}{-\log(\sum_{l=1}^{n_{k+1}-1}\eta_{k+1,l}+n_{k+1}c_1c_2\cdot\cdot\cdot c_{k+1})}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

Denote by $N_k$ the number of component intervals of $E_k$ and by $\delta_k$ their common length. Let $e_{k,l}=\eta_{k,l}/\delta_{k-1}\geq \eta_{k,l}$ for all $k\geq 1$ and $0\leq l\leq n_{k}$.
From the definition we obtain
$$
n_kc_k\leq 1,\quad
N_k=n_kn_{k-1}\cdot\cdot\cdot n_1 \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \delta_k=c_kc_{k-1}\cdot\cdot\cdot c_1
$$
for all $k\geq1$. So we have the total length of $E_k$ is
$$
N_k\delta_k=\prod_{i=1}^kn_ic_i,
$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{delata}
\delta_k=\Sigma_{l=0}^{n_{k+1}}\eta_{k+1,l}+n_{k+1}\delta_{k+1}
=\Sigma_{l=0}^{n_{k+1}}e_{k+1,l}\delta_k+n_{k+1}\delta_{k+1}.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}\label{Mlema}
Let $E = E(J_0,\{n_k\},\{c_k\},\{\eta_{k,j}\})$ be a homogeneous perfect set. Suppose the sequence $\{n_k\}$ is bounded and $\mathrm{dim}_{H}E=1$ then:

$(1)$ $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} (N_k\delta_k)^{1/k}=1$.

$(2)$ $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^ke_i^p=0$ for
any $0<p\leq 1$, where $e_i=\max_{0\leq l\leq n_i}{e_{i,l}}$.

$(3)$ $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\sharp\{i: 0\leq i \leq k, e_i\geq
\epsilon\}/k=0$ for any $\epsilon\in (0,1)$,
where $\sharp$ denotes the cardinality.

\end{lemma}
\proof $(1)$  Since
$$N_k(\delta_k-\eta_{k,0}-\eta_{k,n_{k+1}})\leq  N_k\delta_k\leq 1,$$
Thus, we have
$$\frac{\log N_k}{-\log(\delta_k-\eta_{k,0}-\eta_{k,n_{k+1}})}\leq \frac{\log N_k}{-\log\delta_k}\leq 1.$$
As $\mathrm{dim}_{H}E=1$, we get from Theorem \ref{Hdim}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
1=\dim_HE &\;=\liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log N_k}{-\log(\delta_k-\eta_{k,0}-\eta_{k,n_{k+1}})}\\
&\;\leq\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log N_k}{-\log\delta_k}\leq 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus we obtain
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log N_k}{-\log\delta_k}=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log N_k}{\log N_k-\log N_k\delta_k}=1,
$$
and
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log N_k\delta_k}{\log N_k}=0.
$$
Let $N=1+\sup_k n_k<\infty$. We obtain $N_k\leq N^k$,
so
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\log N_k\delta_k}{k\log N}=0,
$$
that gives the the conclusion $(1)$ of the lemma.

$(2)$ Since
$$(N_k\delta_k)^{1/k}=(\prod_{i=1}^kn_ic_i)^{1/k}\leq \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^kn_ic_i\leq 1.
$$
Thus, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^kn_ic_i=1.
\end{equation}

From the equation (\ref{delata}), we have
\begin{equation}
\delta_k
=\Sigma_{l=0}^{n_{k+1}}e_{k+1,l}\delta_k+n_{k+1}c_{k+1}\delta_{k}.
\end{equation}
Thus
$$
e_{k+1}\leq  1-n_{k+1}c_{k+1},
$$
so
$$
\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i}^ke_i\leq\frac{1}{k}\sum^k_{i}(1-n_ic_{i}).
$$
Since the equation (\ref{eq11}), we obtain
$$
\lim_{i}\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i}^ke_i=0,
$$
which together with Jensen's
inequality yields
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^ke_i^p\leq
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} (\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^ke_i)^p=0
$$
for any $0<p\leq 1$. This proves the conclusion $(2)$.

$(3)$ Fixed $\epsilon\in (0,1)$, we obtain from the conclusion $(2)$

$$
\frac{1}{k}\sharp\{i: 0\leq i \leq k, e_i\geq \epsilon
\}=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i:1\leq i\leq k,e_i\geq \epsilon}1\leq
\frac{1}{k\epsilon}\sum_{i=1}^ke_i\rightarrow 0
$$
as $k$ tends to $\infty$. This proves the conclusion $(3)$.

\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{MTHM}}
In order to obtain our result, we need the following mass distribution principle to estate the lower bound.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{KF}]\label{MSSLemma}Let $\mu$ be a mass distribution supported on $E$. Suppose that for some $t$ there are numbers $c>0$ and $\eta>0$ such that for all sets $U$ with $|U|\leq \eta$ we have $\mu(U)\leq c|U|^t$. Then $\dim_HE\geq t.$
\end{lemma}

{\bf The proof of Theorem \ref{MTHM}:}
Let $E=\bigcap_{k=0}^{\infty}E_k$ be a
homogeneous perfect set satisfying the conditions of Theorem \ref{MTHM}. Let $f:
\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be an $M$-quasisymmetric map and
$q$ is the number defined as in $(\ref{numpq})$.
Without loss of generality assume that $f([0,1])
=[0,1]$. Then $f(E)=\bigcap_{k=1}^{\infty}f(E_k)$.
The images of component intervals of $E_k$ are component intervals
of $f(E_k)$.

We define a mass distribution $\mu$ on $f(E)$ as follows: Let
$\mu([0, 1]) = 1$. For every $k\geq 1$ and for every component
interval $J$ of $f (E_{k-1})$, let $J_{k1},J_{k2}, \cdot\cdot\cdot,
J_{kn_{k}} $denote the $n_k $ component intervals of $f(E_k)$
lying in $J$. Define
$$
\mu(J_{ki})=\frac{|J_{ki}|^{d}}{||J||_{d}}\mu(J),\quad
i=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,n_k,
$$
where
$$
||J||_d=\sum_{i=1}^{n_k}|J_{ki}|^d
$$
and
\begin{equation} d\in\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(0,1)& $ when $ q=1,\\
(1/q,1)& $ when $q>1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}

we are going to prove that the measure $\mu$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{massd}
\mu(J)\leq C|J|^d
\end{equation}
for any interval $J\subset [0,1]$, where $C$ is a positive constant
independent of $J$. We do this as following two steps.

{\bf Step 1.}  Suppose that $J$ is a component interval of $f(E_k)$,
For every $i, 0\leq i\leq k,$ let $J_i$ be the component interval of
$f(E_i)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sequence}
J=J_k\subset J_{k-1}\subset \cdot\cdot\cdot J_1\subset J_0=[0,1]
\end{equation}
By the definition of $\mu$, we have
$$
\frac{\mu(J)}{|J|^d}=\frac{1}{||J_{k-1}||_d}\frac{|J_{k-1}|^d}{||J_{k-2}||_d}\cdot\cdot\cdot
\frac{|J_{1}|^d}{||J_{0}||_d}=\frac{|J_{k-1}|^d}{||J_{k-1}||_d}\cdot\cdot\cdot
\frac{|J_{1}|^d}{||J_{1}||_d} \frac{|J_{0}|^d}{||J_{0}||_d}.
$$
Let
\begin{equation}
r_i=\frac{||J_{i}||_d}{|J_{i}|^d},\quad i=0,1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,k-1.
\end{equation}
So the above equality can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mu(J)}{|J|^d}= (\prod_{i=1}^kr_{i-1})^{-1}.
\end{equation}
In order to prove (\ref{massd}), it suffices to show
\begin{equation}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\prod_{i=1}^kr_{i-1}=\infty.
\end{equation}

Given an $i$, $1\leq i\leq k$, we are going to estimate $r_{i-1}$. Let
$J_{i-1}$ be the component interval of $f(E_{i-1})$ in the sequence (\ref{sequence}).
Let $J_{i1},J_{i2},\cdot\cdot\cdot,J_{in_{i}}$ be the
 $n_i$ component intervals of $f(E_i)$ lying in $J_{i-1}$. Recall that $J_i\subset J_{i-1}$ is a component interval of
$f(E_i)$. So there must exist $1\leq i_0\leq n_i$ such that $J_i=J_{ii_0}$. Let
$G_{i0},G_{i1},\cdot\cdot\cdot,G_{in_i}$ be the $n_i+1$ gaps in the $J_{i-1}$. Put
$$
I_{i-1}=f^{-1}(J_{i-1}),\quad I_i=f^{-1}(J_i)=f^{-1}(J_{ii_0})\quad \mathrm{and}
\quad I_{ij}=f^{-1}(J_{ij}),
$$
for $j=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,n_i.$
Then $I_{i1},\cdot\cdot\cdot,I_{in_i}$ are component intervals
of $E_i$ lying in the component interval $I_{i-1}$ of $E_{i-1}$.
Since $f$ is $M$-quasisymmetric, it follows Lemma
\ref{mainl2} and the construction of $E$ that
\begin{equation}\label{ineq14}
\frac{|G_{ij}|}{|J_{i-1}|}\leq 4(\frac{|f^{-1}(G_{ij})|}{|f^{-1}(J_{i-1})|})^p\leq 4e_i^p,\quad
j=0,1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,n_i,
\end{equation}
where $e_i=\max_{0\leq l\leq n_i}{e_{i,l}}$
and that
\begin{equation}\label{ineq15}
\frac{|J_{ij}|}{|J_{i-1}|}\geq
(1+M)^{-2}(\frac{|I_{ij}|}{|I_{i-1}|})^q=(1+M)^{-2}c_i^q.
\end{equation}
Here $p,q$ are numbers defined in Lemma \ref{mainl2}. The
inequality (\ref{ineq14}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{E14}
\frac{|J_{i1}|+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|}{|J_{i-1}|}=
\frac{|J_{i-1}|-|G_{i0}|-\cdot\cdot\cdot-|G_{in_i}|}{|J_{i-1}|}\geq
1-4(n_i+1)e_i^p.
\end{equation}
From inequality (\ref{ineq15}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{E20}
\begin{split}
r_{i-1}&\;=\frac{|J_{i1}|^d+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|^d}{|J_{i-1}|^d}\\
&\;\geq n_i(\frac{|J_{ij}|}{|J_{i-1}|})^{d}\\
&\;\geq \frac{n_i}{(1+M)^{2d}}c_i^{dq}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let
$$
S(k,p)=\{i:1\leq i\leq k,e^p_i\leq \min\{a,|I_i|^p\}
$$
 where $a=1-\sqrt[4N+4]{\frac{4N+4}{4N+5}}$, where $N=1+\sup_{l} n_l$.
 Since $\eta_{i,l}\leq e_{i,l}$. Thus, If $i\in S(k,p)$ we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
c_i=\frac{|I_{ij}|}{|I_{i-1}|}&\;=\frac{|I_{ij}|}{n_i|I_{ij}|+\sum_{l=0}^{n_i}\eta_{i,l}}\\
&\;\geq\frac{|I_{ij}|}{n_i|I_{ij}|+(n_i+1)\eta_i}\\
&\;\geq\frac{1}{2n_i+1}\\
&\;\geq\frac{1}{2N}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $j=1,\cdot\cdot\cdot,n_i$, where $\eta_i=\max_{0\leq l\leq n_i}{\eta_{i,l}}$.

From the conclusion (3) of Lemma \ref{Mlema}, we obtain
 \begin{equation}\label{eq0000}
 \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\sharp S(k,p)}{k}=1.
 \end{equation}

Then follows from the left hand inequality of (\ref{numpq1}) that
$$
1\geq\frac{|J_{ij}|}{|J_i|}
=\frac{|f(I_{ij})|}{|f(I_i)|}\geq(1+M)^{-2}(\frac{|I_{ij}|}{|I_{i-1}|})^{q}\geq
A
$$
for $j=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,n_i$, where
$A=\frac{(1+M)^{-2}}{(2N)^{q}}$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{E16}
\begin{split}
\frac{|J_i|^d+|J_{i1}|^d+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|^d}
{(|J_i|+|J_{i1}|+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|)^d}
&\;=\frac{1+x_1^d+\cdot\cdot\cdot+x_{n_i}^d}{(1+x_1+\cdot\cdot\cdot+x_{n_i})^d}\\
 &\;\geq (1+A)^{1-d},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $x_j=\frac{|J_{ij}|}{|J_i|}\in [A,1]$.

Note that the equality (\ref{E14}) and (\ref{E16}), for any $i\in S(k,p)$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
r_{i-1}&\;=\frac{|J_i|^d+|J_{i1}|^d+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|^d}{|J_{i-1}|^d}\\
&\;=\frac{|J_i|^d+|J_{i1}|^d+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|^d}
{(|J_i|+|J_{i1}|+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|)^d}\frac{(|J_i|+|J_{i1}|+\cdot\cdot\cdot+|J_{in_i}|)^d}
{|J_{i-1}|^d}\\
&\;\geq \alpha_2(1-4(n_i+1)e_i^p)^d,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_2=(1+A)^{1-d}>1$.

Since
 $$
 1-mx\geq (1-x)^{m+1}
 $$
for all $x\in (0,1-\sqrt[m]{\frac{m}{m+1}})$, so we have
$$
1-4mx\geq (1-x)^{4m+1}
$$
for all $x\in (0,a)$where $a=1-\sqrt[4N+4]{\frac{4N+4}{4N+5}}$ and all positive inters $m\leq N$.

Note that $n_i<N$ and $e_i^p\in (0,a)$ for all $i\in S(k,p)$, thus we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{E21}
r_{i-1}\geq \alpha_2(1-e_i^p)^{(4n_i+4)d}
\end{equation}
Using the estimate (\ref{E20}) and (\ref{E21}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\prod_{i=1}^kr_{i-1}&\;\geq \prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}\frac{n_ic_i^{dq}}{(1+M)^{2d}}
\prod_{i\in S(k,p)}\alpha_2(1-4(n_i+1)e_i^p)^d\\
&\;\geq\prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}\frac{n_ic_i^{dq}}{(1+M)^{2d}}\prod_{i\in
S(k,p)}\alpha_2(1-e_i^p)^{(4n_i+4)d}\\
&\;=\alpha_2^{\sharp S(k,p)}[(1+M)^{-2d}]^{k-\sharp S(k,p)}\prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}n_ic_i^{dq}\prod_{i\in
S(k,p)}(1-e_i^p)^{(4n_i+4)d}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

If $q=1$, since $n_ic_i\leq 1$ then we have
$$
\prod_{i \not\in S(k,p)}n_ic_i^{dq}=\prod_{i \not\in S(k,p)}n_ic_i^{d}\geq\prod_{i \not\in S(k,p)}n_ic_i\geq\prod^k_{i =1}n_ic_i=N_k\delta_k.
$$
If $q>1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}n_ic_i^{dq}&\;=\prod^k_{i\not\in S(k,p)
}(n_ic_i)^{dq}n_i^{1-dq}\geq\prod^k_{i =1}(n_ic_i)^{dq}\prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}n_{i}^{1-dq}\\
&\;=\prod^k_{i =1}(n_ic_i)^{dq}\prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}n_{i}^{1-dq}
\geq (N_k\delta_k)^{dq}\prod_{i \not\in
S(k,p)}N^{1-dq}\\
&\;=(N_k\delta_k)^{dq}(N^{1-dq})^{k-{\sharp S(k,p)}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $d\in (1/q,1)$.

Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\xi_k=\alpha_2^{\sharp S(k,p)}((1+M)^{-2d})^{k-\sharp S(k,p)}(N_k\delta_k)^{dq}(N^{1-dq})^{k-\sharp S(k,p)}
\end{equation}
and
$$
 \zeta_k=\prod_{i\in
S(k,p)}(1-e_i^p)^{(4n_i+4)d}.
$$
Thus, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq0}
\prod_{i=1}^kr_{i-1}\geq  \xi_k\zeta_k.
\end{equation}
It is obvious that
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\xi_k^{1/k}=\alpha_2>1.
\end{equation}
due to the conclusion (1) of Lemma \ref{Mlema} and the equality (\ref{eq0000}) .
On the other hand, since $\log(1-x)\geq -2x$ when $0<x<1$, the conclusion (2) of Lemma \ref{Mlema}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{k}\log\zeta_k&\;=\frac{1}{k}\log\prod_{i\in
S(k,p)}(1-e_i^p)^{(4n_i+4)d}\\
&\;=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i\in
S(k,p)}\log(1-e_i^p)^{(4n_i+4)d}\\
&\;=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i\in
S(k,p)}(4n_i+4)d\log(1-e_i^p)\\
&\;\geq \frac{(4N+4)d}{k}\sum_{i\in
S(k,p)}\log(1-e_i^p)\\
&\;\geq -2\frac{(4N+4)d}{k}\sum_{i\in
S(k,p)}e_i^p\\
&\;\geq -2\frac{(4N+4)d}{k}\sum_{i=1}^ke_i^p\rightarrow 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
as $k\rightarrow\infty$. This show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\zeta_k^{1/k}=1.
\end{equation}
From $(\ref{eq0}),(\ref{eq2}),(\ref{eq3})$, we obtain
$$
\liminf_{k\rightarrow \infty}(\prod_{i=1}^kr_{i-1})^{1/k}\geq \alpha_2>1.
$$
This implies
$$
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}(\prod_{i=1}^kr_{i-1})=\infty.
$$

{\bf Step 2.} Let $J\subset [0,1]$ be any interval. For such $J$, let $k$ be the unique positive inter such that
$$
\delta_k\leq |f^{-1}(J)|\leq \delta_{k-1},
$$
where $\delta_k$ denotes the lengthen of component intervals of $E_k$. Then the set $f^{-1}(J)$ meets at most two component intervals of $E_{k-1}$ and hence at most $2n_{k+1}$ component intervals of $E_k$. Thus, the set $J$ meets at most $2n_{k+1}$ component intervals of $f(E_k)$.

Let $J_1,J_2,\cdot\cdot\cdot, J_l,l\leq 2n_{k+1}$, be those component intervals of $f(E_k)$ meeting $J$. Using the conclusion of step 1. we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mu(J)\leq \sum_{i=1}^l \mu(J_i)\leq C\sum_{i=1}^l |J_i|^d.
\end{equation}
 Since $\delta_k\leq |f^{-1}(J)|$, we obtain
 $$
 f^{-1}(J_i)\subset 3f^{-1}(J), \quad i=1,2,3\cdot\cdot\cdot l,
 $$
 where $3f^{-1}(J)$ denote the interval of lengthen $3|f^{-1}(J)|$ concentric with $f^{-1}(J)$. Thus we obtain
 $$
 |J_i|\leq f(3f^{-1}(J))\leq K|J|, \quad i=1,2,3\cdot\cdot\cdot l,
 $$
where $K$ is a positive constant depending on $M$ only. This together with gives
$$
\mu(J)\leq ClK^d|J|^d\leq 2NCK^d|J|^d.
$$
This show that (\ref{massd}).

By Lemma (\ref{MSSLemma}), it follows from  that $\dim_Hf(E)\geq d$ for  $d$. As $d$ could be chosen as closed to 1 as one would. Hence $\dim_Hf(E)=1$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{MTHM}.\qed

{\bf Acknowledgments}. I would like to thank my advisor Professor Qiu Weiyuan for introducing me to the theory of fractal geometry.
\thebibliography{10}
\bibitem{KF}K.J.Faconer, Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications, John Wile Sons (1990).

\bibitem{HH}H.Hakobyan,  Cantor sets minimal for quasisymmetric maps, J.Contemp. Math.Anal. {\bf 41(2)}, 2006, 5-13.

\bibitem{MS}M.D.Hu, S.Y.Wen, Quasisymmetrically minimal uniform cantor sets, Topology and its
Applications, {\bf 155}, 2008, no.6,515-521.

\bibitem{JH}J.Heinonen, Lectures on Analysis in Metric Spaces. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.

\bibitem{PP}P.Pansu,  Dimension confrome et sph\`{e}re \`{a} l'infini des vari\'{e}t\'{e}s \`{a} courbure n\'{e}gative, Ann.Acad.Sci.Fenn. {\bf14(2)}14 177-212.

\bibitem{ZW}Z.Y.Wen, J.Wu, Hausdorff dimension of homogeneous perfect sets, Acta Math.Hungar.,{\bf107},2005,35-44.

\bibitem{ZYW}Z.Y.Wen, Mathematical Foundations of Fractal geometry, Shanghai Scientific and Technological Education Publishing House, 2000.

\bibitem{WW}X.Y.Wang, J.Wu, Packing dimensions of homogeneous perfect
    sets, Acta Math.Hungar., {\bf118(1-2)},2008,29-39.

\bibitem{JMW}J.M.Wu, Null sets for doubling and dyadic doubling measures, Ann.Acad.Sci.Fenn.Math.{\bf18}, 1993,77-91.
\end{document}


\section{Introduction}

Relational particle mechanics (RPM) are mechanics in which only relative times, relative angles and
(ratios of) relative separations are physically meaningful.
Scaled RPM and pure-shape (i.e. scalefree, and so involving just ratios) RPM were set up
respectively in \cite{BB82} by Barbour--Bertotti and in \cite{B03} by Barbour.
These theories are relational in Barbour's sense rather than Rovelli's \cite{Rovellibook, B94I, EOT,
08I}, via obeying the following postulates.
Firstly, RPM's are {\it temporally relational} \cite{BB82, RWR, FORD}, i.e. there is no meaningful
primary notion of time for the whole (model) universe.
This is implemented by using actions that are manifestly reparametrization invariant while also being
free of extraneous time-related variables [such as Newtonian time or the lapse in General Relativity
(GR)].
This reparametrization invariance then directly produces primary constraints quadratic in the momenta
(which in the GR case is the super-Hamiltonian constraint, and for RPM's is an energy constraint.)
Secondly, RPM's are {\it configurationally relational}, which can be thought of in terms of a certain
group $G$ of transformations that act on the theory's configuration space $Q$ being physically
meaningless \cite{BB82, RWR, FORD, FEPI, Cones}.
Configurational relationalism can be approached by \cite{BB82, B03} indirect means that amount to
working on the principal bundle P($Q$, $G$).
Then one has linear constraints from varying with respect to the $G$-generators (the super-momentum
constraint in the case of GR, zero total angular momentum for the universe for scaled RPM and both
that, and its dot- rather than cross-product counterpart, zero total dilational momentum, for pure-shape
RPM).
Then elimination of the $G$-generator variables from the Lagrangian form of these constraints sends one
to the desired quotient space\footnote{Here,
$Q$ is the na\"{\i}ve configuration spaces for $N$ particles in dimension $d$, $\mathbb{R}^{Nd}$.
$G$ is a group of transformations that are declared to be physically meaningless.
E.g. 1) In the case of scaled RPM, the Euclidean group of translations and rotations (removing what is
usually regarded as the absolutist content of mechanics).
E.g. 2) the similarity group that furthermore includes dilations in the case of pure-shape RPM.}
$Q/G$.
In 1- and 2-$d$, these RPM's can be obtained alternatively by working directly on $Q/G$
\cite{FORD, Cones}.
This involves applying a `Jacobi--Synge' construction of the natural mechanics associated with a
geometry, to Kendall's shape spaces \cite{Kendall} for pure-shape RPM's or to the cones over these
\cite{Cones} for the scaled RPM's.

RPM's are furthermore motivated through being useful toy models \cite{K92, EOT, RWR,
Kieferbook06I06IISemiclIGrybBanalMGM, Records, FEPI, AF, Cones} of GR in geometrodynamical form, since
they possess analogues of many features of this.
RPM's are similar in complexity and in number of parallels with GR to minisuperspace \cite{Mini} and to
2 + 1 GR \cite{Carlip} are, though each such model differs in how it resembles GR, so that such models
offer complementary perspectives and insights.
In particular, RPM's purely quadratic energy constraint parallels the GR super-Hamiltonian constraint
in leading to the frozen formalism facet of the Problem of Time \cite{K92, I93}, alongside nontrivial
linear constraints that parallel the GR momentum constraint (and are absent for minisuperspace), which
cause a number of further difficulties in various approaches to the Problem of Time.
Other useful applications of RPM's not covered by minisuperspace models include that RPM's are useful
for the qualitative study of the quantum-cosmological origin of structure formation/inhomogeneity
(scaled RPM's are a tightly analogous, simpler version of Halliwell--Hawking's \cite{HallHaw} model
for this), and for the study of correlations between localized subsystems of a given instant.
Scalefree RPM's such as this paper's, moreover, occurs as subproblems within scaled RPM's,
corresponding to the light fast modes/inhomogeneities of shape in the preceding sentence's context.
RPM's also admit analogies with conformal/York-type initial value problem formulations of GR, with
the conformal 3-geometries playing an analogous role to the pure shapes \cite{York73York74ABFOABFKO}.
In general, having multiple toy models for the Problem of Time/Quantum Cosmology is highly useful
\cite{K92}, and developing RPM's adds to this.

1-$d$ RPM's \cite{AF, ScaleQM} and triangleland in 2-$d$ \cite{08I, 08II, +tri, 08III} have already
been covered.
2-$d$ suffices for almost all the analogies with GR to hold whilst keeping the mathematics manageable:
for 1- and 2-$d$ pure-shape RPM's the reduced configuration spaces (shape spaces) are
$\mathbb{S}^{N - 2}$ and $\mathbb{CP}^{N - 2}$; for scaled RPM's, they are the cones over these.
Thus, we are now looking at the case of quadrilateralland in 2-$d$.
Quadrilateralland is valuable A) through its simultaneously possessing nontrivial subsystems and
nontrivial constraints, rendering it a useful and nontrivial model from which to gain qualitative
understanding of the Halliwell--Hawking model and of correlations within a single instant, which enter
into many timeless approaches to the Problem of Time (e.g. \cite{H03, Records} and more references in
\cite{APOT}).
B) From the 2-$d$ RPM of $N$ particles having $\mathbb{CP}^{N - 2}$ mathematics, of which $N$ = 4 is
the first genuinely nontrivial and thus typical case (since, for $N = 3$, $\mathbb{CP}^1 = \mathbb{S}^2$).
I further lay out mathematics of the quadrilateral in 2-$d$ in Sec 2, and discuss some of the
consequences and applications in the Conclusion.

Shape quantities are useful \cite{08II, AF, +tri, Cones, ScaleQM, 08III} in interpreting the
classical and quantum solutions of RPM's and for the kinematical quantization \cite{Isham84} of RPM's
\cite{AF, 08III}.
For the relational triangle, a useful set of such are Dragt-type coordinates \cite{Dragt}; these are
nontrivially realized Cartesian coordinates associated with a $\mathbb{R}^3$ surrounding the
$\mathbb{S}^2$ shape space.
These can furthermore be interpreted as an ellipticity of the moments of inertia, a departure
from isoscelesness (`anisoscelesness') and four times the area per unit moment of inertia of the
(mass-weighted) triangle (\cite{+tri} and Sec 4).
Ellipticity and anisoscelesness depend on how one splits the subsystem up into clusters, while the area
is a clustering-independent property, alias {\it democracy invariant} \cite{ZickACG86, LR95, LR} (Sec 3).
The current paper addresses the question of what the relational quadrilateral's counterparts of
these Dragt-type quantities are (Sec 5).
I find that they are 3 anisoscelesnesses, 1 ellipticity, 1 linear combination of 2 ellipticities and a
quantity proportional to the square root of the sum of squares of areas.
(All of these quantities refer to Sec 2's constituent subsystem triangles present within the quadrilateral.)
Among these, the quantity related to the areas is the sole democracy invariant shape quantity.
The current paper has useful applications to 1) investigations of the classical and quantum mechanics of the
relational quadrilateral (paralleling those in \cite{08I, 08II, +tri, 08III} for the relational
triangle).
2) For subsequent investigations of Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity strategies \cite{APOT, SemiclIII Forth}
and for investigation of various other conceptual issues in Quantum Cosmology \cite{H03, AF, +tri, QSub,
Forth}, including in particular  the role of democratic invariants as diagnostics of uniform states.
Uniform states play an important role in both Classical and Quantum Cosmology, since the current universe
is fairly uniform and initial conditions from which it arose are usually taken to be extremly uniform.

\section{The relational quadrilateral}

$N$ particles in 2-$d$ has\footnote{I refer to
this as $N$-a-gonland, the first two nontrivial subcases of which are
triangleland ($N$ = 3) and quadrilateralland ($N$ = 4).}
Cartesian configuration space $\mathbb{R}^{2N}$.
Rendering absolute position irrelevant (e.g. by passing from particle position coordinates\footnote{I
take $a$, $b$, $c$ as particle label indices running from 1 to $N$ for particle positions.
$e$, $f$, $g$ as particle label indices running from 1 to $n = N - 1$ for relative position variables.
$I$, $J$, $K$ as indices running from 1 to $n - 1$.
$i$, $j$, $k$ as spatial indices.
$\Delta$ as an index running over the $SO(N)$ indices (1 to 3 for triangleland and 1 to 6 for
quadrilateralland).
$\delta$ as an index running over all bar one of the $SO(N)$ indices.
$p$, $q$, $r$ as relational space indices (running from 1 to 3 for triangleland and from 1 to 5 for
quadrilateralland).
$u$, $v$, $w$ as shape space indices (running from 1 to 4 for quadrialteralland).
}
${\bf q}^a$ to any sort of relative coordinates) leaves one on the configuration space {\it relative
space}, $\mbox{\sffamily R} = \mathbb{R}^{2n}$, for $n$ = $N$ -- 1.
The most convenient sort of coordinates for this are {\it relative Jacobi coordinates} \cite{Marchal}
${\bf R}^e$.
These are combinations of relative position vectors ${\bf r}^{ab} = {\bf q}^b - {\bf q}^a$ between particles
into inter-particle cluster vectors such that the kinetic term is diagonal.
E.g. for 3 particles, these are ${\bf R}_1 = {\bf q}_3 - {\bf q}_2$ and ${\bf R}_2 = {\bf q}_1 - \{m_2{\bf q}_2 +
m_3{\bf q}_3\}/\{m_2 + m_3\}$.
Relative Jacobi coordinates have associated particle cluster masses $\mu_e$.
In fact, it is tidier to use {\it mass-weighted} relative Jacobi coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}^e = \sqrt{\mu_e}
{\bf R}^e$ (Fig \ref{Fig1}) or the squares of their magnitudes: partial moments of inertia $I^e = \mu_e
|{\bf R}^e|^2$, or the normalized counterparts of the former, ${\mbox{\bf n}}^e = \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}^e/\rho$.
Here, $\rho = \sqrt{I}$ is the {\it hyperradius}, $I$ itself being the moment of inertia of the
system.
I use (Hb) as shorthand for \{ab, cd\} i.e. the clustering (partition into subclusters) into two pairs
ab and cd, and (Ka) as shorthand for \{\{bc, d\}, a\} i.e. the clustering into a single particle a
and a triple \{bc, d\} which is itself partitioned into a pair bc and a single particle d.
In each case, a, b, c, d form a cycle.
I take clockwise and anticlockwise labelled triangles to be distinct, i.e. I make the plain rather than
mirror-image-identified choice of set of shapes.
I also assume equal masses for simplicity.

{            \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{CONES-Fig-1.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{        \footnotesize{O, + and $\times$ denote COM(23),
COM(12) and COM(34) respectively, where COM(ab) is the centre of mass of particles a and b.

\noindent
a) For 3 particles in the plane, one particular choice of mass-weighted relative Jacobi coordinates are
as indicated.
I furthermore define $\Phi^{(\mbox{\scriptsize a})}$ as the `Swiss army knife' angle
$\mbox{arccos}\big( \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize a})} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize a})} / \rho_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize a})} \rho_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize a})} \big)$.

\noindent b) For 4 particles in the plane, one particular choice of mass-weighted relative Jacobi
H-coordinates are as indicated.
I furthermore define $\Phi_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}$ and $\Phi_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}$ as the `Swiss army knife' angles
$\mbox{arccos}\big(\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}/\rho_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}\rho_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}\big)$
and
$\mbox{arccos}\big(\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}/\rho_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}\rho_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize H}\mbox{\scriptsize b})}\big)$
respectively.

\noindent c) For 4 particles in the plane, one particular choice of mass-weighted relative Jacobi
K-coordinates are as indicated.
I furthermore define $\Phi_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}$ and $\Phi_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}$ as the `Swiss army knife' angles
$\mbox{arccos}\big( \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}/\rho_1^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}\rho_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})} \big)$
and
$\mbox{arccos}\big( \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}/\rho_2^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})}\rho_3^{(\mbox{\scriptsize K}\mbox{\scriptsize a})} \big)$
respectively.}         }
\label{Fig1} \end{figure}          }

If one takes out the rotations also, one is on {\it relational space}.
If one furthermore takes out the scalings, one is on {\it shape space}.
If one takes out the scalings but not the rotations, one is on {\it preshape space} \cite{Kendall}.
For $N$ particles in 2-$d$, preshape space is $\mathbb{S}^{nd - 1}$ and shape space is
$\mathbb{CP}^{\sN - 2}$ (provided that the plain choice of set of shapes is made).
The 3-particle case of this is, moreover, special, by $\mathbb{CP}^1 = \mathbb{S}^2$.
Now, relational space is {\it the cone} \cite{Cones} over shape space, which is
C$(\mathbb{CP}^{\sN - 2})$ in the present case [and $\mbox{C}(\mathbb{CP}^1) = \mbox{C}(\mathbb{S}^2) =
\mathbb{R}^3$, albeit not with the flat metric upon it \cite{08III}].
Thus, we consider this paper's quadrilateralland case as the first case with nontrivial
complex-projective maths.

In this scheme, the kinetic metric on shape space is the natural Fubini-Study metric \cite{Kendall, FORD},
\begin{equation}
\textrm{d} s_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S}}^2 = \big((1 + |{Z}|_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}^2)|\textrm{d} {Z}|_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}^2 - |({Z} ,\textrm{d}\overline{{Z}})_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}|^2\big)/
(1 + |{Z}|_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}^2)^2  \mbox{ } .
\label{FS}
\end{equation}
Here, $|{Z}|_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}^2 = \sum_{I}|{Z}^{I}|^2$, $( \mbox{ } , \mbox{ } )_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$ is the corresponding inner
product, ${Z}^I$ are the inhomogeneous coordinates [independent set of ratios of $z^{e} = {\cal R}^{e}
\mbox{exp}({i\Theta^{e}})$ for ${\cal R}^{e}$, $\Theta^{e}$ the polar presentation of Jacobi
coordinates], the overline denotes complex conjugate and $|\mbox{ }|$ the complex modulus.
Note that using $Z^{I} = {\cal R}^{I}\mbox{exp}({i\Theta^{I}})$, the corresponding kinetic term can be
recast in real form.
The kinetic metric on relational space in scale-shape split coordinates is then
\begin{equation}
\textrm{d} s_{\mbox{\scriptsize C}(\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S})}^2 = \textrm{d} \rho^2 + \rho^2\textrm{d} s_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S}}^2 \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
The action for $N$-a-gonland in relational form is then
\begin{equation}
2\int\textrm{d}\lambda \sqrt{\mbox{\sffamily T}  \{\mbox{\sffamily U} + \mbox{\sffamily E}\} } \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
This is a Jacobi-type action \cite{Lanczos} (thus complying with temporal relationalism), with
$\mbox{\sffamily T} = \mbox{\sffamily T}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S}}$ or $\mbox{\sffamily T}_{\mbox{\scriptsize C}(\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S})}$ built from $\textrm{d} s^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S}}$ or $\textrm{d} s^2_{\mbox{\scriptsize C}(\mbox{\scriptsize F}\mbox{\scriptsize S})}$
respectively (thus directly implementing configurational relationalism).

\section{Democracy transformations for 1- and 2-d RPM's}

The {\it democracy tranformations} \cite{ZickACG86,LR95,LR} (alias kinematical rotations \cite{ML99})
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_{i} \longrightarrow \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_{i}^{\prime} =
D_{ij}\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_{j}
\end{equation}
are interpolations between relative Jacobi vectors for different choices of clustering.
These transformations form the {\it democracy group} Demo($n$), which is $O(n)$, or, without much loss
of generality, $SO(n)$.
Note that this is a symmetry group of the unreduced kinetic term.
Also note that the democracy group is indeed independent of spatial dimension, since democracy
transformations only mix up whole Jacobi vectors rather than separately mixing up each's individual
components.
This means, firstly, that much about the theory of democracy transformations in 2-$d$ can be gained from
their more widely studied counterpart in 3-$d$.
Secondly, it means that for spatial dimension $> 1$, the democracy group is but a subgroup of the full
symmetry group of the unreduced kinetic term, which itself is the dimension-dependent $O(nd)$.

\mbox{ }

\noindent Lemma 1. The hyperradius $\rho$ is always a democracy invariant.
It is, however, a scale rather than shape quantity.

\mbox{ }

\noindent Lemma 2.
$\mbox{dim}({\cal R}(n, d)) - \mbox{dim}(\mbox{Demo}(n)) = (n + d - (n - d)^2)/2$ gives a
a minimum number of independent democracy invariants \cite{LR95}.
This bound is 2 both for triangleland and for quadrilateralland, revealing in each case the presence of
at least one further democracy invariant.

\mbox{ }

\noindent
It is intuitively clear that one such for triangleland should be the area of the triangle.
It is not, however, clear what happens for quadrilateralland, due to RPM's in truth involving
constellations, i.e. sets of points rather than figures formed from these points.
Then, for $N > 3$, there is an ambiguity in how one would `join up the dots'.
Thus the area ascribed to the constellation via drawing a quadrilateral between
its points is not itself a democracy invariant.

To  find democracy invariants, consider the independent invariants that
arise from the Q-matrix \cite{LR95}
\begin{equation}
Q_{ij} = \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_i\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_j^{\mbox{\scriptsize T}} \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
The invariant trace($Q$) always gives the hyperradius, hence proving Lemma 1.
For $N$-stop metroland, $Q_{ij} = \rho_i\rho_j$, which is sufficiently degenerate that it and all
of its nontrivial submatrices have zero determinants, so that there are no more democracy invariants.
For triangleland, however, det($Q$) = 4 Area$^2$ (for Area the area of the triangle per unit $I$ in
mass-weighted space), while $Q_{ij}$ is but 2 $\times$ 2, so that there are no more invariants.
For quadrilateralland, det($Q$) = 0.
This is understandable in terms of volume forms being zero for planar figures.
Also, being 3 $\times$ 3, there is one further invariant, $Q_{11}Q_{22} - Q_{12}\mbox{}^2$ + cycles =
$\rho_1^2\rho_2^2 - \{\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2\}^2$ + cycles = $|\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1\mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}}\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2|_3\mbox{}^2$ + cycles,
i.e. proportional to the sum of squares of areas of various constituent triangles (see Fig 2).
Here the 3-suffix denotes that it is mathematically the component in a ficticious third dimension
of the cross product.
In the \{12, 34\} H-clustering, these are the coarse-grainings by taking 1, 2 and COM(34); 3, 4 and
COM(12); 12 and 34 with one shifted so that its COM coincides with the other's.
In the \{\{12,3\},4\} K-clustering, these are 12 and 3 with 4 at COM(123); 3, 4 and COM(12); 12, 4
with particle 3 at COM(12).
These triangles clearly correspond to those that one makes by taking 2 out of the 3 relative Jacobi
variables; as such, they play further roles below.
This is also indicatory of how quadrilateralland has a role for nontrivial subsystems, which is of
interest especially as regards timeless approaches (see the Conclusion for more).

{            \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Constit-Tri.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{        \footnotesize{Figure of the constituent
triangles for the case of (H2)-coordinates, i.e. those made from each pair of $\rho^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$-vectors.
The (31) triangle (made from the $\rho_1^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$ and $\rho_3^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$ vectors) a) and the (23)
triangle (made from the $\rho_2^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$ and $\rho_3^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$ vectors) b) are straightforward,
whilst the (12) case c) requires a displacement in order to form a triangle out of the
$\rho_1^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$ and $\rho_2^{(\mbox{\tiny H} 2)}$ vectors [d)].}         }
\label{Constit-Tri}\end{figure}          }

\section{Shape quantities for triangleland}

\noindent I present a different method of finding the useful shape coordinates for triangleland, which
continues to work in the quadrilateralland case, as well as providing a useful prequel for this as
regards notation and interpretation.
$\underline{\underline{Q}}$ may be written as $\frac{1}{2}(w \underline{\underline{1}} +
w_1\underline{\underline{\sigma}}_1 + w_3\underline{\underline{\sigma}}_3)$ (for Pauli matrices
$\underline{\underline{\sigma}}_1$ and $\underline{\underline{\sigma}}_3$;
$\underline{\underline{\sigma}}_2$ does not feature since $\underline{\underline{Q}}$ is symmetric).
This takes such an $SU(2)$ form due to the 3-particle case being exceptional through the various tensor
fields of interest possessing higher symmetry in this case \cite{LR95}.
Then, reading off from the definition of $\underline{\underline{Q}}$ [and dropping (1)-labels],

\noindent
\begin{equation}
w = \rho^2 = I ( = \mbox{moment of inertia) := Size} \mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_1 = \rho_1^2 - \rho_2^2 := \mbox{Ellip} \mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_3 = 2\,\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2 := \mbox{Aniso} \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
$w_1$ can be interpreted as an `ellipticity', being the difference in the principal moments of inertia
of the base and median.
Also, $w_3$ can be interpreted as an `anisoscelesness' (i.e. departure from isoscelesness, in analogy
with anisotropy as a departure from isotropy in GR Cosmology); specifically, working in mass-weighted
space, Aniso per unit base length is the amount by which the perpendicular to the base fails to bisect
it ($l_1 - l_2$ from Fig 3).

{            \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{+TRI_FIG_5.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{        \footnotesize{ Definitions of $l_1$ and $l_2$
used in the anisoscelesness notion Aniso(a).                         }        }
\label{Fig-3tri}\end{figure}            }

There is also a
\begin{equation}
w_2 = 2\,|\rho_1 \mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}} \rho_2|_3
\label{9}
\end{equation}
such that $w^2 = \sum\mbox{}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize i = 1}}}^3w_i^2$.
(\ref{9}) has straightforward interpretation as 4 $\times \mbox{ Area}$, which is a measure of
noncollinearity and, clearly, a democratic invariant notion.

For triangleland, $w_1$, $w_2$ and $w_3$ are Dragt-type coordinates.
[Though, given that these run over not Dragt's $\mathbb{R}_+^3$ but $\mathbb{R}^3$, they are even more
closely related to the well-known $\mathbb{S}^3 \longrightarrow  \mathbb{S}^2 $ Hopf Map.
This is involved in the configuration space study as follows: relative space $\mathbb{R}^4
\longrightarrow$ preshape space $\mathbb{S}^3 \stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize Hopf map}}{\longrightarrow}$
shape space $\mathbb{S}^2 = \mathbb{CP}^1 \stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize coning}}{\longrightarrow}
\mathbb{R}^3$ relational space.]
For these to be shape quantities, I divide each of these by $I$ and switch the 2 and 3 labels (so the
principal axis is aligned with the democracy invariant), obtaining
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_1 = \mbox{n}_1^2 - \mbox{n}_2^2    = \mbox{Ellip}/I         := \mbox{ellip}
\mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_2 = 2\,\mbox{\bf n}_1\cdot\mbox{\bf n}_2   = \mbox{Aniso}/I         := \mbox{aniso}
\mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_3 = 2|\mbox{\bf n}_1 \mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}} \mbox{\bf n}_2|_3 = 4 \times \mbox{Area}/I := 4 \times \mbox{area} :=
\mbox{demo}(N = 3)
\mbox{ } . \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
These are in $\mathbb{R}^3 = C(\mathbb{S}^2)$ and subject to the on-$\mathbb{S}^2$ restriction
$\sum\mbox{}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\Delta$ = 1}}}^3\mbox{shape}_{\Delta}^2 = 1$.
Interpretation of various great circles and of the hemispheres they divide triangleland into are
provided in Fig 4.

{            \begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{LRTFAC.png}
\caption[Text der im Bilderverzeichnis auftaucht]{        \footnotesize{
\noindent a) Each bimeridian of isoscelesness cuts the shape space sphere into hemispheres of
right and left triangles.

\noindent b) Each bimeridian of regularness ($I_1 = I_2$) cuts the shape space sphere into hemispheres
of sharp ($I_1 < I_2$)  and flat triangles ($I_1 > I_2$).

\noindent c) The equator of collinearity cuts the shape space sphere into hemispheres of
anticlockwise and clockwise triangles.                        }        }
\label{LRTFAC}\end{figure}            }

\section{Shape quantities for quadrilateralland}

Repeating this for quadrilateralland closely parallels the analysis for the tetrahaedron in \cite{LR95}
because the democracy group does not care about dimension.
Now,
\begin{equation}
\underline{\underline{Q}} = \frac{1}{2}
\left\{
w \,\underline{\underline{1}} + \sum\mbox{}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\delta$ = 1}}}^5 w_{\delta}\,
\underline{\underline{B}}_{\delta}\right\} \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
where the $\underline{\underline{B}}_{\Delta}$ are $\mj = 1$ [quantum number of the $SO(3)$ democracy
group] representation matrices,
\begin{equation}
\underline{\underline{B}}_1 = \sqrt{3}\mbox{\Huge (}
\stackrel{    \mbox{\scriptsize{1 0 0}}    }
         {    \stackrel{  \mbox{\scriptsize 0-1  0   }    }
                       {  \mbox{\scriptsize 0  0  0  }    }    } \mbox{\Huge )}
\mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\underline{\underline{B}}_2 = \sqrt{3}\mbox{\Huge (}
\stackrel{    \mbox{\scriptsize{0 1 0}}    }
         {    \stackrel{  \mbox{\scriptsize 1 0  0   }    }
                       {  \mbox{\scriptsize 0 0  0  }    }    } \mbox{\Huge )}\mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\underline{\underline{B}}_3 = \sqrt{3}\mbox{\Huge (}
\stackrel{    \mbox{\scriptsize{0 0 0}}    }
         {    \stackrel{  \mbox{\scriptsize 0 0 1   }    }
                       {  \mbox{\scriptsize 0 1 0  }    }    } \mbox{\Huge )}\mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\underline{\underline{B}}_4 = \sqrt{3}\mbox{\Huge (}
\stackrel{    \mbox{\scriptsize{0 0 1}}    }
         {    \stackrel{  \mbox{\scriptsize 0 0 0   }    }
                       {  \mbox{\scriptsize 1 0 0   }    }    } \mbox{\Huge )}\mbox{ } , \mbox{ }
\underline{\underline{B}}_5 =     \mbox{\Huge (}
\stackrel{    \mbox{\scriptsize{-1 0 0}}    }
         {    \stackrel{  \mbox{\scriptsize 0-1  0 }    }
                       {  \mbox{\scriptsize 0 0 2  }    }    } \mbox{\Huge )}\mbox{ } . \mbox{ }
\end{equation}
Thus, reading off from the definition of $\underline{\underline{Q}}$ and dropping (H2) labels,
\begin{equation}
w = Q_{11} + Q_{22} + Q_{33} = \rho_1^2 + \rho_2^2 + \rho_3^2 = \rho^2 = I \mbox{ : moment of inertia (MOI)} \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_1 = \sqrt{3}(Q_{11} - Q_{22})/2 = \sqrt{3}(\rho_1^2 - \rho_2^2)/2 = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{Ellip}(12)/{2}
\mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_2 = \sqrt{3}Q_{12} =  \sqrt{3}\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2 = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{Aniso}(12) \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_3 = \sqrt{3}Q_{23} =  \sqrt{3}\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3 = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{Aniso}(23) \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_4 = \sqrt{3}Q_{31} =  \sqrt{3}\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1 = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{Aniso}(31) \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_5 = (- Q_{11} - Q_{22} + 2Q_{33})/2 = (- \rho_1^2 - \rho_2^2 + 2\rho_3^2)/2
    = (\mbox{Ellip}(31) + \mbox{Ellip}(32))/2  \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
Here, the brackets refer to the pair of Jacobi vectors involved in each constituent triangle (Fig 2);
note that Ellip being a signed quantity requires this to be an ordered pair.

Note also that if one sets
\begin{equation}
w_6 = \sqrt{3}\{|\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1\mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}}\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2|_3\mbox{}^2 + \mbox{cycles}\}^{1/2}
= \sqrt{12}\{\mbox{Area}(12)^2 + \mbox{cycles}\}^{1/2},
\end{equation}
i.e. a quantity proportional to the square root of the above-found democracy invariant, then
$w^2 = \sum\mbox{}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\Delta$ = 1}}}^6w_{\Delta}^2$.
One can then straightforwardly make the $w_{\Delta}$ into shape quantities by dividing through by $I$:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_1 := \sqrt{3}(\mbox{n}_1^2 - \mbox{n}_2^2)/2 = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{ellip}(12)/{2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_2 := \sqrt{3}\,{\mbox{\bf n}_1}\cdot{\mbox{\bf n}_2} = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{aniso}(12) \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_3 := \sqrt{3}\,{\mbox{\bf n}_2}\cdot{\mbox{\bf n}_3} = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{aniso}(23) \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_4 := \sqrt{3}\,{\mbox{\bf n}_3}\cdot{\mbox{\bf n}_1} = \sqrt{3}\,\mbox{aniso}(31) \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_5 := (- \mbox{n}_1^2 - \mbox{n}_2^2 + 2\mbox{n}_3^2)/2 = (\mbox{ellip}(31) + \mbox{ellip}(32))/2 \mbox{ } ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{shape}_6 := \sqrt{3}(|\mbox{\bf n}_1 \mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}} \mbox{\bf n}_2|_3\mbox{}^2 + \mbox{cycles})^{1/2}
= \sqrt{12}(\mbox{area}(12)^2 + \mbox{cycles})^{1/2} = \mbox{demo}(N = 4) \mbox{ } .
\end{equation}
These belong to $\mathbb{R}^6 = \mathbb{C}^3$ and the relation between the $w^{\Delta}$ becomes the
on-$\mathbb{S}^5$ condition $\sum\mbox{}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\Delta$ = 1}}}^6
\mbox{shape}_{\Delta}^2 = 1$.
That an $\mathbb{S}^5$ makes an appearance is not unexpected (for quadrilateralland, from Sec 2
and using the generalization af the Hopf map in the sense of $U(1) = SO(2)$ fibration,
relative space $\mathbb{R}^6 \longrightarrow$ preshape space $\mathbb{S}^5
\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize Hopf map}}{\longrightarrow}$ shape space $\mathbb{CP}^2$).
Moreover, since $\mathbb{CP}^2$ is 4-$d$ and $\mathbb{S}^5$ is 5-$d$, there is a further condition on
the shape$_{\Delta}$ for quadrilateralland.
Also above, aniso(12) is same notion of anisoscelesness as before but now applied to the triangle made
out of the 1 and 2 relative Jacobi vectors, and so on.
\noindent demo($N$ = 4) = $\sqrt{\mbox{12 times squares of mass-weighted areas per unit
MOI}}$, which is a democracy invariant.

Quadrilateralland's relational space is locally $\mathbb{R}^5$.
One can envisage this from $\mathbb{CP}^2/\mathbb{Z}_2$ = $\mathbb{S}^4$ \cite{Kuiper} and then taking the cone.
As we are treating $\mathbb{CP}^2$, we have, rather, two copies of $\mathbb{S}^4$.
Such a doubling does not appear in the coplanar boundary of \cite{LR95}'s study of 4 particles in 3-$d$,
since 3-$d$ dictates that the space of shapes on its coplanar boundary is the mirror-image-identified
one.
Another distinctive feature of 3-$d$ is that it has a third volume-type democracy invariant,
$\mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_1 \cdot \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_2 \mbox{\scriptsize{\bf $\mbox{ } \times \mbox{ }$}} \mbox{\boldmath$\rho$}_3$.

Finally demo($N$ = 4) = shape$_6$ can be used to diagnose collinearity as the points at which this is
zero.
It is in this respect like triangleland's demo($N$ = 3) = shape$_3$, which also gives the equilateral
configurations (corresponding to a manifest notion of maximum uniformity) as the output to its
extremization, corresponding to the natural $\mathbb{S}^2$ poles.
However, one can quickly see that extremizing demo$(N = 4)$ will involve something more complicated,
since there are not two but six permutations of labelled squares (likewise a manifest notion of maximum
uniformity), so these cannot possibly all lie on the two $\mathbb{S}^5$ poles, nor could any of them
lie on the poles by a symmetry argument.
In fact, extremizing demo($N$ = 4) does yield these squares, but not uniquely.
One gets, rather, one curve of extrema for each of the two orientations, each containing three labelled squares.

\section{Conclusion}

In this paper, I showed how to extend the relational triangle's useful shape quantities (ellipticity,
anisoscelesness and four times the area) to the case of the relational quadrilateral.
We get one ellipticity, one linear combination of ellipticities, three anisoscelesnesses and a quantity
proportional to the square root of the sum of three areas squared.
These quantities refer to three cluster-dependent `subsystem triangles' (Fig 2).
The last of these quantities, like the triangle case's 4 $\times$ area [= demo($N$ = 3)], is
furthermore a democratic invariant (cluster independent quantity), demo($N$ = 4).

In 2-$d$, the extension to the general `$N$-a-gonland' is neat because these have $\mathbb{CP}^{N - 2}$
as their shape spaces; this is in contrast to the 3-$d$ models' shape spaces forming a much harder
sequence \cite{Kendall}, which is a good reason to study the 2-$d$ models (particularly since the
analogy with geometrodynamics does not require dimension 3 in order to work well).
However, now the number of independent ellipticities plus the one hyperradius gives $n$, there
continues to be a sum of squares of areas type of democracy invariant, but, additionally,
the number of anisoscelesnesses goes as $n$($n$ -- 1)/2, so that the latter substantially overwhelms
the shape space dimension.
This suggests that the these more general models will require a tighter set of shape variables than
the present paper's one which includes all of its possible anisoscelesness quatities.
I leave this (and its application to kinematical quantization) as questions for a further occasion,
since the present paper's coverage of the quadrilateralland case presently suffices to advance my
research program.

This paper's shape quantities are useful in the following investigations of the classical and quantum
mechanics of the relational quadrilateral \cite{QSub, Forth} (paralleling those in \cite{08I, 08II, +tri,
08III} for the relational triangle, including expectations and spreads of corresponding operators).

\noindent
A) I look to study of special configurations and subregions of quadrilateralland's shape space that
they represent.

\noindent
B) I physically interpret quadrilateralland's conserved quantities (these form the group $SU(3)$ as
opposed to the $SU(2)$ or $SO(3)$ form of triangleland's and 4 particles on a line's \cite{AF, +tri}).
I then aim to treat quadrilateralland's classical equations of motion and Schr\"{o}dinger equation.

\noindent
C) For subsequent investigations of Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity strategies and various other
quantum-cosmological issues.
Particular such application for Quadrilateralland and $N$-a-gonland are to

\noindent I) timeless approaches to the Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity,

\noindent II) qualitative models of structure formation in Quantum Cosmology, and

\noindent III) the robustness study based on the ($N$ -- 1)-particle model lying inside the
$N$-particle one.
I note that complex projective mathematics (the present paper being the first specific RPM model paper
that involves nontrivial such) will underly this robustness study.

\noindent
The large-$N$ limit of $N$-a-gonland may also be interesting, alongside the study of the statistical
mechanics/entropy/notions of information/relative information/correlation that timeless approaches are
concerned with.
The present paper's model is also the smallest that possesses both linear rotational constraints
(conferring it a `midisuperspace toy model character') and nontrivial subsystems (applications of which
include attempting to use one such as a clock for the other parts of the model universe \cite{PW83,
Rovellibook}, timeless records approaches \cite{Records} and structure formation.)

\noindent IV) Another application is to notions of uniformity and how probable such states are (this is
another issue of interest in Quantum Cosmology).
Now, while demo($N = 4$) for quadrilateralland is as good a diagnostic as demo($N$ = 3) for
triangleland as regards collinear configurations, that the extrema of demo($N$ = 3) pick out the
triangleland uniform states (the 2 labellings of equilateral triangle) only partly carries over to the
extrema of demo($N$ = 4), since these do not uniquely pick out the quadrilateral uniform states (the 6
labellings of squares).
Obtaining more information of where these uniform states sit in quadrilateralland's $\mathbb{CP}^2$
configuration space (with or without orientation and distinguishability reducing these to 3 or just 1
uniform state) remains work in progress \cite{QSub}.

\mbox{ }

\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}: I thank: my wife Claire, Amy, Sophie, Sophie, Adam, Sally and Tea for
being supportive of me whilst this work was done.
Professors Belen Gavela, Karel Kucha\v{r}, Marc Lachi\`{e}ze-Rey, Malcolm MacCallum, Don Page, Reza
Tavakol, and Dr's Julian Barbour and Jeremy Butterfield for support with my career.
Fqxi grant RFP2-08-05 for travel money, and Universidad Autonoma de Madrid for funding during part of
this work.


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}

To begin we consider an $(N+1)$-by-$(N+1)$ complex Toeplitz matrix $A$ ($N$ a positive integer):
\[
A = (a_{j-k})_{j,k=0}^N.
\]
By $L^2$ we shall mean the $L^2$ space of normalized Lebesgue measure on the unit circle, $\bT$.  The subspace of $L^2$ consisting of the complex polynomials of degrees at most $N$ will be denoted by $\cP_N$.  We identify $A$ with the operator it induces on $\cP_N$, i.e., the operator on $\cP_N$ whose matrix with respect to the monomial basis is $A$.

The operator $A$ is the compression to $\cP_N$ of the multiplication operator on $L^2$ induced by any function $f$ in $L^{\i}$ of the circle whose Fourier coefficients indexed between $-N$ and $N$ match the matrix elements of $A$, in other words, for which $\wh{f}(n) = a_n$ for $n = -N,-N+1,\dots,0,\dots,N-1,N$.  The family of such functions $f$ will be denoted by $\cG_A$.  We pose the problem of minimizing $\|f\|_{\i}$ over the class $\cG_A$.  Standard reasoning shows the minimum is attained; we denote it by $c_A$.  It is evident that $\|A\| \le c_A$.

In the cases where $A$ is lower triangular or upper triangular, our problem fits into the classical interpolation problem of C.~Carath\'eodory and L.~Fej\'er, dating back 100 years \cite{CF}.  Perhaps surprisingly, the more general problem seems not to have been considered until recently \cite{BT}, \cite{NF}, \cite{S}.  Although we will not do so here, it can be treated as a special case of a general dual extremal problem studied by M. G. Krein and A. A. Nudelman in \cite{KN} --- more details later.

In this paper we focus on the case where $A$ is self-adjoint.  For this case we show that the minimizing function in $\cG_A$ is unique, and we describe it: it alternates the values $c_A$ and $-c_A$ on a family of subarcs that partition $\bT$, are even in number, and number at most $2N$.

If the matrix $A$ is self-adjoint but not diagonal, then the minimizing function is not a rational function and so multiplies every nonzero function in $\cP_N$ outside of $\cP_N$.
It follows that $c_A > \|A\|$.  Let $\cT_{N+1}$ denote the class of $(N+1)$-by-$(N+1)$ self-adjoint Toeplitz matrices.  We pose the problem of maximizing the ratio $c_A/\|A\|$ over the nonzero matrices $A$ in $\cT_{N+1}$.  As in the minimum problem, standard reasoning shows that the maximum is attained; we denote it by $c_N$.

It is proved in \cite{S} that $c_1 = \pi/2$.  The other cases remain open.  We have numerical evidence, presented in Section~\ref{sec7}, that $c_N > \pi/2$ for $N > 1$, and suggesting that $c_N$ increases with $N$.  We are able to prove that the preceding inequality holds for infinitely many $N$.

It is known, and nontrivial, that the numbers $c_N$ have a common bound.  \linebreak M.~Bakonyi and D.~Timotin obtain in \cite{BT} the bound $c_N \le 2$.  The interpolation problem they consider is slightly different from ours, but their reasoning applies in our case.  L.~N. Nikolskaya and Yu.~B. Farforovskaya obtain in \cite{NF} the bound $c_N \le 3$, and their reasoning applies even in the non-self-adjoint case.  In both papers \cite{BT} and \cite{NF}, the inequality obtained is an outcome of a matrix extension problem.

In Section~\ref{sec2} we state what we shall need concerning the Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er interpolation problem.  Section~\ref{sec3} recasts our minimum problem in a form that fits into the Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er framework.  The minimizing functions for our minimum problem are identified in Section~\ref{sec4} and studied further in Section~\ref{sec5}.  The inequality $c_1 \le \pi/2$ is reproved in Section~\ref{sec6} in a way that exploits the results from Sections~\ref{sec4} and \ref{sec5}.  The concluding Section~\ref{sec8} contains open questions and conjectures.  The maximum part of our mini-max problem remains largely mysterious, while strongly
 enticing.  New ideas are needed.

We are indebted to an anonymous referee for alerting us to the relevance to our study of references \cite{G} and \cite{KN}.

\section{Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er Interpolation Problem}
\label{sec2}

The Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er problem asks whether there is a holomorphic function in the unit disk $\bD$ having prescribed power series coefficients of orders $0,1,\dots,N$ and having a prescribed supremum norm.  Carath\'eodory and Fej\'er's solution, recast in our context and in our notation, can be stated as follows:

\medbreak
{\sc Theorem CF.} {\em
If $A$ is lower triangular then $c_A = \|A\|$, attained by a unique function in $\cG_A$, a Blaschke product of order at most $N$ multiplied by $\|A\|$.
}

\medbreak
This is actually a mild generalization of what Carath\'eodory and Fej\'er prove, because their minimization problem is over $H^{\i}$ functions, not $L^{\i}$ functions.  But once one knows their result, one easily generalizes it to the one stated above.  Theorem~CF forms the basis of the analysis to follow.

\section{Reformulation of the Minimum Problem}
\label{sec3}

Let $A$ be a matrix in the class $\cT_{N+1}$, and let the function $f$ belong to $\cG_A$.  Then $\Re f$ is also in $\cG_A$ and $\|\Re f\|_{\i} \le \|f\|_{\i}$.  Hence $c_A$, the minimum of $\|f\|_{\i}$ over the class $\cG_A$, equals the minimum of $\|f\|_{\i}$ over the class $\cG_A^* = \{f \in \cG_A: f = \ol{f}\}$.

We let $P_+$ denote the orthogonal projection of $L^2$ onto the Hardy space $H^2 = \{h \in L^2: \wh{h}(n) = 0$ for $n < 0\}$.  As is customary, we identify the functions in $H^2$ with their holomorphic extensions in $\bD$.

Suppose $f$ is a function in the class $\cG_A^*$.  Then the function $h = P_+f - a_0/2$ is in $H^2$, and $f = h + \ol{h} = 2\Re h$.  We have
\[
h(z) = a_0/2 + a_1z + \dots + a_Nz^N + O(z^{N+1})\quad (z \to 0).
\]
Let $\cH_A$ denote the class of functions $h$ in $H^2$ that satisfy the preceding condition and for which $\Re h$ is in $L^{\i}$.  Then $2\Re h$ is in $\cG_A^*$ for such an $h$.  Accordingly, our minimum problem can be restated as the problem of minimizing $2\|\Re h\|_{\i}$ over the class $\cH_A$.

\section{The Minimum Problem}
\label{sec4}

Let $A$ be a matrix in $\cT_{N+1}$.  To eliminate a trivial case, we assume here that $A$ is not diagonal.  Suppose $h$ is a minimizing function in $\cH_A$, i.e., a function in $\cH_A$ satisfying $2\|\Re h\|_{\i} = c_A$.  To simplify the notation we temporarily write $c$ in place of $c_A$ below.

We introduce the domain
\[
\bS_c = \left\{z \in \bC: -\frac {c}{2} < \Re z < \frac {c}{2}\right\},
\]
an open vertical strip in the plane bisected by the imaginary axis, of width $c$.  The domains $\bD$ and $\bS_c$ are conformally equivalent under the map $h_c: \bD \to \bS_c$ given by
\[
h_c(z) = \frac {c}{\pi i} \Log\left( \frac {1+z}{1-z}\right);
\]
here, $\Log$ denotes the principal branch of $\log$.  The inverse map $h_c^{-1}: \bS_c \to \bD$ is given by
\[
(h_c^{-1})(z) = i \tan\left( \frac {\pi z}{2c}\right).
\]

The composite function
\[
b = h_c^{-1} \circ h = i \tan\left( \frac {\pi h}{2c}\right)
\]
is a self-map of $\bD$.  We write its power series about $0$ as
\[
b(z) = b_0 + b_1z + \dots + b_Nz^N + O(z^{N+1}).
\]

The relation between the coefficients $a_0,\dots,a_N$ of $h$ and $b_0,\dots,b_N$ of $b$ is rather complicated.  To illustrate, we exhibit below the expressions for $b_0,b_1,b_2,b_3$ in terms of $a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3$.
\[
\begin{aligned}
b_0 &= i\tan\left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right),\\
b_1 &= \frac {\pi ia_1}{2c} \sec^2 \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right), \\
b_2 &= \frac {\pi ia_2}{2c} \sec^2 \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) + \frac {\pi^2ia_1}{2^2c^2} \sec^2 \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) \tan \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right), \\
b_3 &= \frac {\pi ia_3}{2c} \sec^2 \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) + \frac {\pi^2a_1a_2}{2^2c^2} \sec^2 \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) \tan \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) \\
&\quad + \frac {\pi^3ia_1^3}{3 \cdot 2^3 \cdot c^3} \left[ 2\sec^2\left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) \tan^2 \left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right) + \sec^4\left( \frac {\pi a_0}{4c} \right)\right].
\end{aligned}
\]
However, for our purpose these complications are not an obstacle.  From the rule for composing formal power series one knows that, for $0 \le n \le N$, the coefficient $b_n$ depends only on $c,a_0,\dots,a_n$, and vice versa.  That is all we shall need.

Let $B$ denote the $(N+1)$-by-$(N+1)$ lower triangular Toeplitz matrix with entries $b_0,b_1,\dots,b_N$ in the first column.  By Theorem~CF, there is a unique Blaschke product $\o$ of order $\le N$ such that
\[
\|B\|\o(z) = b_0 + b_1z + \dots + b_Nz^N + O(z^{N+1}).
\]
We then have
\[
((h_c^{-1}) \circ (\|B\|\o)) = \frac {a_0}{2} + a_1z + \dots + a_Nz^N + O(z^{N+1}).
\]
But in fact $\|B\| = 1$, for the inequality $\|B\| < 1$ would imply that twice the real part of the preceding composite function has $L^{\i}$-norm less than $c = c_A$, contradicting the assumed minimizing property of $h$.  Hence
\[
h = h_c \circ \o = \frac {c_A}{\pi i} \Log\left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o}\right).
\]

\begin{defn}
\label{def4.1}
For $c > 0$ and $n$ a positive integer, an alternating step function of height $c$ and order $n$ is a function in $L^{\i}$ that assumes alternatively the values $c$ and $-c$ on $2n$ subarcs that form a partition of $\bT$.
\end{defn}

For example, the function
\[
\psi(e^{i\th}) = \begin{cases}
1, &0 < \th < \pi, \\
-1, &-\pi < \th < 0,
\end{cases}
\]
is an alternating step function of height $1$ and order $1$.

For the function $h = h_c \circ \o$ above, we have, on $\bT$ (with $\Arg$ denoting the principal value of $\arg$),
\[
\begin{aligned}
2\Re h &= \frac {2c_A}{\pi} \Arg\left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o} \right) = \frac {2c_A}{\pi} \Arg((1+\o)(1-\ol{\o})) \\
&= \frac {2c_A}{\pi} \Arg(\o-\ol{\o}) = \frac {2c_A}{\pi} \Arg(i\Im \o) \\
&= \frac {2c_A}{\pi} \left( \frac {\pi}{2} \begin{cases}
+0 &\text{if $\sin \o > 0$,} \\
-\pi &\text{if $\sin \o < 0$,}
\end{cases} \right) \\
&= \begin{cases}
c_A &\text{if $\sin \o > 0$,} \\
-c_A &\text{if $\sin \o < 0$.}
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\]
Let $n$ be the order of $\o$.  The Blaschke product $\o$ wraps the unit circle $\bT$ around itself $n$ times in the strictly counterclockwise direction.  We thus see that the minimizing function $2\Re h$ is an alternating step function of height $c_A$ and order $n$.

The following theorem summarizes what has been proved.  To include the diagonal case in the statement, we define an alternating step function of order $0$ to be a constant function.  The constant is defined to be the height of the function.

\begin{thm}
\label{th4.1}
For $A$ a matrix in $\cT_{N+1}$, there is a unique function in $\cG_A$ of minimum $L^{\i}$-norm.  It is an alternating step function of height $c_A$ and order at most $N$.
\end{thm}

Theorem~\ref{th4.1} as stated excludes much of the information obtained in the reasoning leading up to it--- information we shall use later.  The theorem as stated can be obtained by fitting it into the general dual extremum problem studied by Krein and Nudelman in Chapter IX of \cite{KN}.  The general problem, which involves a Banach space and its dual, is formulated at the beginning of \S 1 of Chapter IX, after which their basic theorem on the problem, Theorem 1.1, is established.  Taking real $L^1$ of the unit circle as the Banach space in question, it follows fairly simply from this theorem that each of our minimizers has the form $L \sign \nu$, where $L$ is a positive number and $\nu$ is a real trigonometric polynomial of order at most $N$; the minimizer is thus an alternating step function.  Establishing the uniqueness of the minimizer takes more work but can be done on the basis of Krein-Nudelman's Theorem 1.3 and its corollaries.  See also Theorem 2.1 and 2.2 from Chapter IX of \cite{KN}.  Of course, the approach we use here, which  is specific to our setting, is quite distinct from the approach in \cite{KN}.

The reasoning that led to the theorem can be reversed.  Start with a nonconstant Blaschke product $\o$ of order $n \le N$.  Fix a positive number $c$, and form the function $h = \frac {c}{\pi i} \Log\left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o}\right)$.  Then $2\Re h$ is an alternating step function of height $c$ and order $n$.  We show that $2\Re h$ is the minimizing function for the corresponding minimum problem.

In view of the analysis that produced Theorem~\ref{th4.1}, it will suffice to show that, among all $H^{\i}$ functions $g$ satisfying $\wh{g}(k) = \wh{\o}(k)$ for $k = 0,\dots,N$, the function $\o$ has the least norm.  By Theorem~CF, this amounts to showing that the compression $B$ to $\cP_N$ of the operator on $L^2$ of multiplication by $\o$ has norm $1$.

Let $z_1,\dots,z_n$ be the zeros of $\o$.  Then $\o$ has the form
\[
\o(z) = \l^2 \prod_{j=1}^n \left( \frac {z-z_j}{1-\ol{z}_jz} \right),
\]
where $\l$ is a constant of modulus~$1$.  Defining the polynomials $r$ and $s$ by
\[
r(z) = \l \prod_{j=1}^n (z-z_j),\quad s(z) = \ol{\l} \prod_{j=1}^n (1-\ol{z}_jz),
\]
we have $\o = r/s$.  The polynomials $r$ and $s$ belong to $\cP_N$, and we have $\|r\|_2 = \|s\|_2$, plus $Bs = r$.  The desired equality, $\|B\| = 1$, follows.  (The preceding argument is of course well known.)

The question whether every nonconstant alternating step function is obtained by the preceding procedure now arises.  That question is addressed in the next section.

\section{Inner Functions and Alternating Step Functions}
\label{sec5}

\begin{thm}
\label{th5.1}
Let $\psi$ be an alternating step function of height $c$ and order $N > 0$.  Then there is a Blaschke product $\o$ of order $N$ such that
\[
\psi = \frac {2c}{\pi} \Arg\left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o}\right)
\]
on $\bT$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We assume (without loss of generality) that $c = 1$.
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{}\end{proof}

\medbreak
{\sc Step 1.} Let the real numbers $\a_1,\dots,\a_N,\b_1,\dots,\b_N$ satisfy
\[
0 \le \a_1 < \b_1 < \a_2 < \b_2 < \dots < \a_N < \b_N < \a_1 + 2\pi := \a_{N+1}.
\]
Let the arcs $\chi_n^-$ and $\chi_n^+$ $(n = 1,\dots,N)$ be defined by
\[
\chi_n^- = \{e^{i\th}: \a_n < \th < \b_n\},\quad \chi_n^+ = \{e^{i\th}: \b_n < \th < \a_{n+1}\}.
\]
The function $\psi$ that takes the value $1$ on each arc $\chi_n^-$ and the value $-1$ on each arc $\chi_n^+$ is, to within a sign, the general alternating step function of height~$1$ and order~$N$.  We let
\[
\a = \a_1 + \dots + \a_N,\quad \b = \b_1 + \dots + \b_N.
\]

\medbreak
{\sc Step 2.} We introduce the polynomials
\[
p(z) = e^{-i\a/2} \prod_{n=1}^N (z-e^{i\a_n}),\quad q(z) = e^{-i\b/2} \prod_{n=1}^N (z-e^{i\b_n}).
\]
It is asserted that the polynomial $q - ip$ has degree $N$.  In fact, the leading coefficient of $q - ip$ is $e^{-i\b/2} - ie^{-i\a/2}$.  For this to vanish we must have $e^{i(\b-\a)/2} = -i = e^{3\pi i/2}$.  However $0 < \b - \a < 2\pi$, so $0 < \frac {\b-\a}{2} < \pi$, and the assertion follows.

\medbreak
{\sc Step 3.} We show that the rational function $q/p$ is real valued on $\bT$ (except at its poles $e^{i\a_n}$, $n = 1,\dots,N$), and that on each arc $\chi_n := \chi_n^- \cup \chi_n^+ \cup \{e^{i\b_n}\}$ it is an increasing function with range $\bR$.

We have
\[
\begin{aligned}
q(e^{i\th})/p(e^{i\th}) &= e^{i(\b-\a)/2} \prod_{n=1}^N (e^{i\th}-e^{i\b_n})\left/ \prod_{n=1}^N (e^{i\th}-e^{i\a_n}) \right. \\
&= e^{i(\b-\a)/2} \prod_{n=1}^N e^{i\left( \frac {\a_n-\b_n}{2}\right)} \left[ \frac {e^{i\left( \frac {\th-\b_n}{2}\right)} - e^{-i\left( \frac {\th-\b_n}{2} \right)}}{e^{i\left( \frac {\th-\a_n}{2} \right)} - e^{-i\left( \frac {\th-\a_n}{2}\right)}} \right] \\
&= \prod_{n=1}^N \frac {\sin\left( \frac {\th-\b_n}{2}\right)}{\sin \left( \frac {\th-\a_n}{2}\right)}\,.
\end{aligned}
\]
Thus $q/p$ is real valued on $\bT$.

For $\a_n < \th < \a_{n+1}$, the function $\sin\left( \frac {\th-\a_n}{2}\right)$ is positive, while the function $\sin\left( \frac {\th-\b_n}{2}\right)$ is negative for $\th < \b_n$ and positive for $\th > \b_n$.  For $j \ne n$ and $\a_n < \th < \a_{n+1}$, the functions $\sin\left( \frac {\th-\a_j}{2}\right)$ and $\sin\left( \frac {\th-\b_j}{2}\right)$ have the same sign (negative for $j < n$, positive for $j > n$).  Together with the expression above for $q/p$, this tells us that $q/p$ is negative on $\chi_n^-$ and positive on $\chi_n^+$.  As $e^{i\a_n}$ and $e^{i\a_{n+1}}$ are poles of $q/p$, we thus must have $q(e^{i\th})/p(e^{i\th}) \to -\i$ as $\th \searrow \a_n$ and $q(e^{i\th})/p(e^{i\th}) \to +\i$ as $\th \nearrow \a_{n+1}$.  Hence $q/p$ maps the arc $\chi_n$ onto $\bR$.  It must be monotone on each such arc because, being a rational function of degree $N$, it assumes no value with multiplicity greater than $N$.

\medbreak
{\sc Step 4.} We show that the function $\o = (q-ip)/(q+ip)$ is a Blaschke product of order $N$ satisfying
\[
\psi = \frac {2}{\pi} \Arg \left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o}\right). \leqno(1)
\]

In fact, since $\o$ can be rewritten as $\o = \left( \frac {q}{p} - i \right)\left/\left( \frac {q}{p} + i\right)\right.$, it follows by Step~3 that $\o$ is unimodular on $\bT$.  From the definition of $\o$ we see immediately that $\o(e^{i\a_n}) = 1$ for each $n$ and $\o(e^{i\b_n}) = -1$ for each $n$.

We can re-express $\o$ as $\var \circ \left( \frac {q}{p}\right)$, where $\var(z) = (z-i)/(z+i)$, a linear-fractional transformation that maps the upper half-plane to $\bD$ and $\bR$ to $\bT\setminus \{1\}$, with $\var(z)$ moving counterclockwise on $\bT$ as $z$ moves in the positive direction on $\bR$.  We know from Step~3 that on each arc $\chi_n$ the function $q/p$ is increasing with range $\bR$.  We can conclude that $\arg \o$ undergoes an increment of $2\pi$ on each arc $\chi_n$, hence an increment of $2\pi N$ on $\bT$.  By the argument principle, $\o$ has $N$ zeros in $\bD$, thus is a Blaschke product of order $N$.

Because $\frac {1+\o}{1-\o} = \frac {q}{ip}$, if $q(e^{i\th})/p(e^{i\th}) > 0$, i.e., if (according to Step~3) $e^{i\th}$ is in one of the arcs $\chi_n^+$, we have $\Arg\left( \frac {1+\o(e^{i\th})}{1-\o(e^{i\th})}\right) = -\frac {\pi}{2} + 0 = -\frac {\pi}{2}$.  Similarly, if $e^{i\th}$ is in one of the arcs $\chi_n^-$ then $\Arg\left( \frac {1+\o(e^{i\th})}{1-\o(e^{i\th})}\right) = -\frac {\pi}{2} + \pi = \frac {\pi}{2}$.  The desired equality $(1)$ follows.  This concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th5.1}.  \qed

\medbreak

Theorem~\ref{th5.1} is a particular case of Theorem 9 in the paper \cite{G} of P. Gorkin and R.C. Rhoades.  Both \cite[Theorem 9]{G} and our Theorem~\ref{th5.1} assert the extistence of certain finite Blaschke products.  The proofs of the two theorems are essentially the same, the chief difference being that Gorkin-Rhoades work mainly on the real line while we stick to the unit circle.  A conformal isomorphism between the unit disk and the upper half-plane connects the two approaches.

We have chosen to include the proof above of Theorem~\ref{th5.1}, rather than refer the reader to \cite{G} for a proof, for the sake of completeness, and because the aims of \cite{G} are rather different from ours.  (Since Theorem~\ref{th5.1} is less general than \cite[Theorem 9]{G}, its proof is also a bit simpler.)

To conclude this section we discuss the extent to which the Blaschke product $\o$ produced in the preceding proof fails to be unique.  Note that $\left| \frac {1+\o(0)}{1-\o(0)}\right| = 1$.  In fact
\[
\frac {1+\o(0)}{1-\o(0)} = \frac {q(0)}{ip(0)} = -ie^{i(\b-\a)/2}.
\]

Suppose the Blaschke product $\var$ of order $n$ satisfies $(1)$ when substituted for $\o$.  Then the argument of $\frac {1+\var}{1-\var}$ must undergo a jump of $-\pi$ across each point $e^{i\a_n}$ and a jump of $\pi$ across each point $e^{i\b_n}$.  This implies, by a standard argument, that each point $e^{i\a_n}$ is a simple pole of $\frac {1+\var}{1-\var}$ and each point $e^{i\b_n}$ is a simple zero of $\frac {1+\var}{1-\var}$.  The functions $\frac {1+\var}{1-\var}$ and $\frac {1+\o}{1-\o}$ are thus rational functions with the same zeros and poles, so they are constant multiples of each other.  It follows that one can obtain $\var$ by composing $\o$ from the left with a conformal automorphism of $\bD$.  That conformal automorphism must fix the points $1$ and $-1$, so it has the form $z \mapsto \frac {z+r}{1+rz}$, where $-1 < r < 1$.  We get $\var = \frac {\o+r}{1+r\o}$.

A calculation produces the equality
\[
\frac {1+\var}{1-\var} = \left( \frac {1+r}{1-r} \right) \left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o}\right).
\]
Thus $\left| \frac {1+\var(0)}{1-\var(0)}\right| = 1$ only if $r = 0$, i.e., only if $\var = \o$.  We see that $\o$ becomes unique if one imposes the supplementary condition $\left| \frac {1+\o(0)}{1-\o(0)} \right| = 1$.

\begin{thm}
\label{th5.2}
If $\psi$ is an alternating step function of order $N$, then $\psi$ is uniquely determined by the Fourier coefficients $\wh{\psi}(0),\wh{\psi}(1),\dots,\wh{\psi}(N)$, in the sense that if those coefficients are known then the coefficients $\wh{\psi}(N+1),\wh{\psi}(N+2),\dots$ can in principle be found.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $\psi$ be such a function, and let $c$ be its height.  We may assume $N > 0$ (the case $N = 0$ being trivial).  By Theorem~\ref{th5.1}, there is a Blaschke product $\o$ of order $N$ such that $\psi = h + \ol{h}$, where
\[
h = \frac {c}{\pi i} \Log\left( \frac {1+\o}{1-\o} \right).
\]
From this we see that, for any $n$, the coefficient $\wh{\psi}(n)$ can be expressed in terms of $c$ and the coefficients $\wh{\o}(0),\dots,\wh{\o}(n)$.  As $\o$ is a rational function of degree $N$, the coefficients $\wh{\o}(N+1),\wh{\o}(N+2),\dots$ can be expressed in terms of $\wh{\o}(0),\dots,\wh{\o}(N)$.  The desired conclusion follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
\label{cor5.3}
Let $E$ be the union of $N$ closed disjoint subarcs of $\bT$.  Then $E$ is uniquely determined by the coefficients $\wh{\chi}_E(0),\dots,\wh{\chi}_E(N)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
It suffices to apply Theorem~\ref{th5.2} to the alternating step function $2\chi_E-1$.
\end{proof}

The phenomenon described in the corollary is treated at length in \cite{C}.

\section{Two Dimensions}
\label{sec6}

We indicate how the equality $c_1 = \frac {\pi}{2}$ can be deduced from our characterization of minimizing functions.  The inequality states that $c_A/\|A\| \le \frac {\pi}{2}$ for all nonzero matrices $A$ in $\cT_2$.  For such a matrix $A$ we know from Theorem~\ref{th4.1} that the minimizing function in $\cG_A$ is an alternating step function of order $1$ and height $c_A$.  We can thus try to establish the inequality by starting with an alternating step function $\psi$ of order $1$ and a given height, computing the corresponding matrix $A$, finding $\|A\|$, and checking the ratio of interest.  And it will clearly suffice to treat the case where $\psi$ has height $1$ and has a discontinuity at the point $1$ with a jump there of $2$.

Let $\a$ be a point in the interval $(0,2\pi)$, and define $\psi$ by
\[
\psi(e^{i\th}) = \begin{cases}
1, &0 < \th < \a, \\
-1, &\a < \th < 2\pi.
\end{cases}
\]
Then $\psi$ is the general alternating step function of interest.  The corresponding matrix $A$ is given by
\[
A = \begin{pmatrix}
\wh{\psi}(0) & \wh{\psi}(-1) \\
\wh{\psi}(1) & \wh{\psi}(0)
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\]
Calculations give
\[
\wh{\psi}(0) = \frac {\a-\pi}{\pi},\quad \wh{\psi}(1) = \frac {2e^{-i\a/2}\sin \frac {\a}{2}}{\pi}\,.
\]
Thus
\[
A = \frac {1}{\pi} \begin{pmatrix}
\a-\pi & 2e^{i\a/2}\sin \frac {\a}{2} \\
2e^{-i\a/2}\sin \frac {\a}{2} & \a - \pi
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\]
The eigenvalues of $A$ can be found by the standard procedure.  The calculations yield
\[
\|A\| = \frac {|\a-\pi| + 2\left| \sin \frac {\a}{2}\right|}{\pi}\,.
\]
As $c_A = 1$, the desired conclusion is $\frac {1}{\|A\|} \le \frac {\pi}{2}$.  We have
\[
\frac {1}{\|A\|} = \frac {\pi}{|\a-\pi| + 2\left| \sin \frac {\a}{2}\right|}\,,
\]
so we need only verify that
\[
\pi - \a + 2\sin \frac {\a}{2} \ge 2
\]
for $0 \le \a \le \pi$.  Differentiation with respect to $\a$ shows that the function on the left side is decreasing on $[0,\pi]$.  At $\a = \pi$ it has the value $2$, so the desired inequality holds, and it reduces to an equality only for $\a = \pi$.

\section{The Numbers $c_N$}
\label{sec7}

We present here what we have learned about the maxima $c_N$, including numerical results for small $N > 1$.  For $f$ a function in $L^{\i}$ we let $A_{f,N}$ denote the compression to $\cP_N$ of the multiplication operator on $L^2$ induced by $f$.

The inequality $c_N \ge \frac {\pi}{2}$ is easily seen at this point.  For example, let $\psi$ be the alternating step function of height $1$ and order $N$ associated with the inner function $\o(z) = z^N$ as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th4.1}:
\[
\psi(z) = 2\Re\left( \frac {1}{\pi i} \Log \left( \frac {1+z^N}{1-z^N}\right)\right).
\]
Referring to that proof, one sees that $\psi$ alternates the values $1$ and $-1$ on $2N$ consecutive subarcs of $\bT$, each of length $\frac {\pi}{N}$.  For $z \to 0$ we have
\[
\frac {1+z^N}{1-z^N} = 1 + 2z^N + O(|z|^{2N}),
\]
so
\[
\begin{aligned}
\psi(z) &= \frac {2}{\pi} \Im\left( \Log\left( \frac {1+z^N}{1-z^N}\right)\right) \\
&= \frac {2}{\pi} \Im (\Log(1+2z^N)) + O(|z|^{2N}) \\
&= \frac {2}{\pi} \Im (2z^N) + O(|z|^{2N}) \\
&= \frac {2}{\pi} \left( \frac {2z^N-2\ol{z}^N}{2i}\right) + O(|z|^{2N}) \\
&= \frac {2}{\pi i}(z^N - \ol{z}^N) + O(|z|^{2N}).
\end{aligned}
\]
We see that the matrix $A_{\psi,N}$ has only two nonzero entries, $\frac {2}{\pi i}$ in the lower left corner and $-\frac {2}{\pi i}$ in the upper right corner.  In particular, $\|A_{\psi}\| = \frac {2}{\pi}$, and the ratio $\frac {\|\psi\|_{\i}}{\|A_{\psi,N}\|} = \frac {1}{\|A_{\psi,N}\|}$ equals $\frac {\pi}{2}$, telling us that $c_N \ge \frac {\pi}{2}$.

The following observation produces a generalization of the last inequality.

\begin{pro}
\label{prop7.1}
Let the function $f$ be in $L^{\i}$, let $k$ be a positive integer, and let the function $g$ on $\bT$ be defined by $g(e^{i\th}) = f(e^{ik\th})$.  Then $\|A_{f,N}\| = \|A_{g,kN}\|$.
\end{pro}

\begin{proof}
To simplify the notation, let $T = A_{g,kN}$.  For $p$ in $\cP_{kN}$, the $m$-th Fourier coefficient of $Tp$ is given by
\[
(Tp)^{\wedge}(m) = \sum_{\substack{0 \le j \le kN \\ -kN \le m-j \le kN}} \wh{g}(m-j)\wh{p}(j).
\]
If this coefficient is nonzero, there must be a $j$ such that $k$ divides $m-j$, in other words, such that $j \equiv m\ (\mod k)$.

For $l = 0,\dots,k-1$, let $S_l$ be the subspace of $\cP_{kN}$ consisting of the polynomials $p$ such that $\wh{p}(j) = 0$ if $j \not\equiv l\ (\mod k)$.  These subspaces are mutually orthogonal, they span $\cP_{kN}$, and, by the observation above, they are $T$-invariant.  Hence $T$ is the direct sum of its restrictions to the subspaces $S_l$.

If $p$ is in $S_0$ then there is a $q$ in $\cP_N$ such that $p(z) = q(z^k)$.  For the $km$-th coefficient of $Tp$ we have
\[
\begin{aligned}
(Tp)^{\wedge}(km) &= \sum_{j=0}^N \wh{g}(km-kj)\wh{p}(kj) \\
&= \sum_{j=0}^N \wh{f}(m-j)\wh{q}(j),
\end{aligned}
\]
showing that $T\mid S_0$ is unitarily equivalent to $A_{f,N}$.

For $p$ in $S_l$ with $l \ne 0$, the $(l+km)$-th coefficient of $Tp$ $(m = 0,\dots,N-1)$ is given by
\[
(Tp)^{\wedge}(l+km) = \sum_{\substack{j \equiv l\ (\mod k) \\ l \le j \le l+k(N-1)}} \wh{g}(l+km-j)\wh{p}(j).
\]
In the summation on the right, $j-l$ runs through the numbers $0,k,\dots,(N-1)k$, and correspondingly, $j$ runs through the numbers $l,l+k,\dots,l+k(N-1)$.  The equality can be rewritten as
\[
(Tp)^{\wedge}(l+km) = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \wh{g}((m-j)k)\wh{p}(l+jk).
\]
A polynomial $p$ in $S_l$ $(l \ne 0)$ can be written as $p(z) = z^lq(z^k)$, where $q$ is in $\cP_N$ and $\wh{q}(N) = 0$.  This gives us
\[
(Tp)^{\wedge}(l+km) = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \wh{f}(m-j)\wh{q}(j),
\]
showing that the restriction of $T$ to $S_l$ is unitarily equivalent to the $N$-by-$N$ principal minor of $A_{f,N}$, hence is of norm at most that of $A_{f,N}$.  The equality $\|A_{f,N}\| = \|A_{g,kN}\|$ now follows.
\end{proof}

The following corollary generalizes the inequality $c_N \ge \frac {\pi}{2}$.

\begin{cor}
\label{cor7.2}
For $k$ a positive integer, $c_{kN} \ge c_N$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
It suffices to apply Proposition~\ref{prop7.1} with $f$ equal to an alternating step function $\psi$ of order at most $N$ for which $\frac {\|\psi\|_{\i}}{\|A_{\psi,N}\|} = c_N$.
\end{proof}

One way to obtain better lower bounds than $c_N \ge \frac {\pi}{2}$ for $N > 1$ is to find alternating step functions $\psi$ of height $1$ and order $N$ for which $\|A_{\psi, N}\|$ can be shown to be smaller than $\frac {2}{\pi}$.  We do this for a number of values of $N$.  Our method is to consider a family of step functions involving a number of parameters, and to observe that when the parameters are judiciously chosen, the Fourier coefficients of $\psi$ are related to one another in a way that permits calculation of $\|A_{\psi,N}\|$.  A computer was used to assist in the search for relations between Fourier coefficients that would yield nontrivial lower bounds on $c_N$.

\medbreak
{\sc The case $N=2$.}  For any positive $L$ and $M$ satisfying $0 < L + M < \pi$, there is a unique alternating step function $\psi$ of order $2$ taking the value $1$ at $1$ and having discontinuities at $e^{\pm iL}$ and $e^{i(\pi \pm M)}$.  Calculations show that
\[
\wh{\psi}(0) = \frac{2L+2M-\pi}{\pi}, \quad \wh{\psi}(1) = \frac{2 (\sin L - \sin M)}{\pi}, \quad \wh{\psi}(2) = \frac{\sin(2M)+\sin(2L)}{\pi}.
\]
The values of $L$ and $M$ can additionally be chosen so that the relations $\wh{\psi}(1) = 2 \wh{\psi}(0)$ and $\wh{\psi}(2) = -\wh{\psi}(1)$ are also satisfied, and these choices are unique subject to the conditions $L \in [0,1]$ and $M \in [0,2]$.  (To abbreviate the argument: one can show that subject to the inequalities on $L$ and $M$, each equation of Fourier coefficients defines $M$ implicitly as a monotone function of $L$ on $[0,1]$, and use the intermediate value theorem to see that the functions intersect exactly once.)  These relations allow one to explicitly compute $\|A_{\psi, 2}\| = 3 |\wh{\psi}(0)|$.

\medbreak
{\sc Conclusion.} If $L$ and $M$ are the unique real numbers satisfying the relations $0 < L + M < \pi$, $L \in [0,1]$, $M \in [0,2]$, $2 L + 2M - \pi = \sin L - \sin M$, and $-2 (\sin L - \sin M) = \sin(2 M) + \sin(2L)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{c2est}
c_2 \ge \frac{\pi}{3 |2L+2M-\pi|}.
\end{equation}

\medbreak
One must find $L \approx .2138$ and $M \approx 1.0263$ to several digits to deduce that this estimate improves on the known $c_2 \ge \frac{\pi}{2}$, but it can be shown that the right hand side of \eqref{c2est} is between $1.6185$ and $1.6186$.

\medbreak
{\sc The case $N=3$.}  For any $L$ in $(0, \frac{\pi}{2})$ there is a unique alternating step function $\psi(e^{i\theta})$ of order $3$ and height $1$ taking the value $1$ at $1$ and having discontinuities at $e^{\pm iL}$, $e^{i(\pi \pm L)}$, and $e^{\pm i\pi/2}$.   Calculations show that $\wh{\psi}(0)=\wh{\psi}(2)=0$ and
\[
\wh{\psi}(1) = \frac{2}{\pi}(2 \sin L - 1), \quad \wh{\psi}(3) = \frac{2}{3\pi}(2 \sin(3L) + 1).
\]
There is a unique $L$ in $(0, \frac{\pi}{2})$ satisfying $\sin(3L)+3\sin L -1=0$.  For this value of $L$ we have $\wh{\psi}(1)=-\wh{\psi}(3)$, and therefore $\|A_{\psi,3}\| = \sqrt{2} |\wh{\psi}(1)|$.  We deduce
\[
c_3 \ge \frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2}(1 - 2 \sin L)}.
\]
Trigonometric identities imply that $\sin L$ is the least positive root of the polynomial $1 - 6x+4x^3$.  Using this polynomial one can find a similar characterization of $\frac{1}{1-2\sin L}$.

\medbreak
{\sc Conclusion.} If $k$ is the largest root of the polynomial $p(x) = 1-3x-3x^2+3x^3$, then
\begin{equation}\label{c3est}
c_3 \ge \frac{\pi}{2 \sqrt{2}} k.
\end{equation}

\medbreak
It can be checked by hand that $p(\frac{3}{2}) < 0$, and thus $k \ge \frac{3}{2}$, so $c_3 \ge \frac{3\pi}{4 \sqrt{2}} > \frac{\pi}{2}$ can be shown by hand.  Working to greater precision one can show that the right hand side of \eqref{c3est} is between $1.6825$ and $1.6826$.

Our higher dimensional examples are similar to those just given.  The difference is that, with the exception of the case $N=5$, the number of parameters involved makes exact formulas difficult to prove.  We can nevertheless give numerical values of parameters that produce a $\psi$ with the property that $\|A_{\psi,N}\|$ is small enough to give new information about $c_N$.

\medbreak
{\sc The case $N=4$.} For any positive $L,M,N,O$ satisfying $L+M+N+O<\pi$ there is an alterating step function of height $1$ and order $4$ taking the value $1$ at $1$ and having discontinuities at $e^{iL}$, $e^{i(L+M)}$, $e^{i(L+M+N)}$, $e^{i(L+M+N+O)}$ and their complex conjugates.  Taking $L \approx .1396$, $M \approx 1.1143$, $N \approx 1.096$, and $O \approx .2724$ one obtains a function $\psi$ for which $\|A_{\psi,4}\|$ can be shown to be between $1.7065$ and $1.7066$.  These values of $L,M,N,O$ appear to approximate a tuple with the property that the corresponding list of Fourier coefficients $(\wh{\psi}(j))_{j=0}^4$ is a scalar multiple of $(1, -\sqrt{5}-1, 1-\sqrt{5},\sqrt{5}-1,1+\sqrt{5})$.  If $L,M,N,O$ can be chosen so that this holds, we would have $c_4 \ge (5 |\psi(0)|)^{-1} = \frac{\pi}{5(\pi-2M-2O)}$.

\medbreak
{\sc The case $N=5$.} For any positive $L$ and $M$ satisfying $L+M < \frac{\pi}{2}$ there is a unique alternating step function $\psi$ of height $1$ and order $5$ taking the value $1$ at $1$ and having discontinuities at $e^{iL}$, $e^{i(L+M)}$, $e^{i \pi/2}$, $e^{i(\pi - L)}$, $e^{i(\pi - L-M)}$, and their complex conjugates.  We have $\wh{\psi}(0) = \wh{\psi}(2)  = \wh{\psi}(4) = 0$ for all such $L$ and $M$, and it can be shown that there are unique $L$ and $M$ in the interval $(0,1)$ for which
\begin{equation}\label{fiverel}
\wh{\psi}(1) = -2 \wh{\psi}(3) = \wh{\psi}(5).
\end{equation}
For these values of $L$ and $M$ we deduce that $\|A_{\psi, 5}\| = \frac{3}{2} |\wh{\psi}(1)|$.

\medbreak
{\sc Conclusion.} If $L$ and $M$ are the unique numbers in $(0,1)$ for which the equations \eqref{fiverel} hold, then
\begin{equation}\label{c5est}
c_5 \ge \frac{\pi}{3 (1 +2 \sin L - 2 \sin(L+M))}.
\end{equation}

\medbreak
Numerical calculations can show that $L \approx .4304$, $M \approx .2326$, and that the right hand side of \eqref{c5est} is between $1.7353$ and $1.7354$.

\medbreak
{\sc The case $N=6$.} For any positive $L,M,N,O,P,Q$ whose sum is less than $\pi$, there is a unique alternating step function $\psi$ of height $1$ and order $6$ taking the value $1$ at $1$ and having discontinuities at the points $e^{iL}$, $e^{i(L+M)}$, $e^{i(L+M+N)}$, $e^{i(L+M+N+O)}$, $e^{i(L+M+N+O+P)}$, $e^{i(L+M+N+O+P+Q)}$ and their complex conjugates.  Taking $(L,M,N,O,P,Q) \approx (.0989,.7269,.2002,.7702,.7755,.2109)$ one obtains a function $\psi$ for which $\|A_{\psi,6}\|$ can be shown to be between $1.7504$ and $1.7505$.  These parameter values appear to approximate a tuple with the property that the list of Fourier coefficients of the corresponding function $\psi$ is proportional to $(1,a,-b,c,-c,b,-a,1)$, where $a<b<c$ are the roots of $8+4x-4x^2-x^3$.

\medbreak
{\sc The case $N=7$.} For any positive $L,M,N$ satisfying $L+M+N < \frac{\pi}{2}$, there is a unique alternating step function $\psi$ of height $1$ and order $7$ taking the value $1$ at $1$ and having discontinuities at $e^{iL}$, $e^{i(L+M)}$, $e^{i(\pi/2-N)}$, $e^{i\pi/2}$, $e^{i(\pi/2+N)}$, $e^{i(\pi-L-M)}$, $e^{i(\pi-L)}$, and their complex conjugates.   Taking $L \approx .0877$, $M \approx .6343$, and $N \approx .6713$ one obtains a function $\psi$ for which it can be shown that $\|A_{\psi,7}\|$ is between $1.7677$ and $1.7678$.  These values of $L,M,N$ appear to approximate a tuple with the property that the corresponding list of Fourier coefficients $(\wh{\psi}(j))_{j=0}^7$ is a scalar multiple of $(0,-1-\sqrt{2},0,1,0,-1,0,1+\sqrt{2})$.  If $L,M,N$ can be chosen so that this holds exactly, we can conclude that $c_7 \ge \frac{(\sqrt{2}+1)\pi}{4 \sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}} (1-2\cos N-2\sin L+2\sin(L+M))}$ for these values of $L,M,N$.

\medbreak
In summary, along with the exact value $c_1 = \frac {\pi}{2} \approx 1.5707963$, we have the following lower bounds for $c_2 - c_7$, found numerically:
\[
\begin{aligned}
c_2 &\ge 1.6185 \\
c_3 &\ge 1.6825 \\
c_4 &\ge 1.7065 \\
c_5 &\ge 1.7354 \\
c_6 &\ge 1.7505 \\
c_7 &\ge 1.7677.
\end{aligned}
\]

\section{Questions and Conjectures}
\label{sec8}

We present some problems for future research suggested by the numerical results of Section~\ref{sec7}, which tell us, in particular, that $c_N > \frac{\pi}{2}$ for $N=2,3,4,5,6,7$.  (As noted in Section~\ref{sec7}, for $N = 3$ the inequality can be verified by hand.)  By the corollary to Proposition~\ref{prop7.1}, we can conclude that $c_N > \frac{\pi}{2}$ for infinitely many $N$. We conjecture that the following question has an affirmative answer.

\medbreak
{\sc Question 1.} {\em
Is $c_N > \frac{\pi}{2}$ for all $N > 1$?
}

\medbreak
Our estimates for $c_1$--$c_7$ suggest the following question.

\medbreak
{\sc Question 2.} {\em
Does $c_N$ increase strictly as $N$ increases?
}

\medbreak
Again, we conjecture the answer is affirmative.

As noted in Section~\ref{sec1}, the inequality $c_N \le 2$ holds for all $N$, suggesting the next question.

\medbreak
{\sc Question 3.} {\em
What is $\sup \{c_N: N \ge 1\}$?
}

\medbreak
We have no conjecture to offer on this one.

We have seen that the maximum ratio $c_N$ is attained by an alternating step function of order at most $N$, i.e., there is such a function $\psi$ for which $\|\psi\|_{\i}/\|A_{\psi,N}\| = c_N$.  The function $\psi$ here is not unique, because one gets the same ratio if one replaces $\psi$ by a nonzero real scalar multiple of itself, or by a composite (from the right) with a rotation of the circle, or by a composite with complex conjugation on the circle.  Two questions are suggested, which we combine into one.

\medbreak
{\sc Question 4.} {\em
Are the alternating step functions of order at most $N$ that attain the maximum ratio $c_N$ actually of order $N$, and are any two of them related via the transformations listed above?
}

\medbreak
Otherwise put, the question asks whether an alternating step function attaining the ratio $c_N$ has $2N$ discontinuities, and whether the set of discontinuities is unique to within rotations and reflections on $\bT$.  We conjecture the answer is affirmative.

The questions above are of course part of the underlying problem of ``finding,'' in some reasonable sense, the maxima $c_N$ and the corresponding maximizers.  There must be an interesting underlying structure, one would think, which so far escapes us.  Answers to one or more of Questions~1--4 should provide clues to that structure.