in the _ tree compatibility problem _ , we are given a collection @xmath4 of rooted phylogenetic trees with partially overlapping taxon sets .
@xmath0 is called a _ profile _ and the trees in @xmath0 are the _ input trees_. the question is whether there exists a tree @xmath1 whose taxon set is the union of the taxon sets of the input trees , such that @xmath1 exhibits the clusterings implied by the input trees .
that is , if two taxa are together in a subtree of some input tree , then they must also be together in some subtree of @xmath1 .
the tree compatibility problem has been studied for over three decades @xcite .    in the original version of the tree compatibility problem ,
only the leaves of the input trees are labeled . here
we study a generalization , called _ ancestral compatibility _ , in which taxa may be _
nested_. that is , the internal nodes may also be labeled ; these labels represent _ higher - order taxa _ , which are , in effect , sets of taxa .
thus , for example , an input tree may contain the taxon _ glycine max _
( soybean ) nested within a subtree whose root is labeled fabaceae ( the legumes ) , itself nested within an angiosperm subtree .
note that leaves themselves may be labeled by higher - order taxa .
the question now is whether there is a tree @xmath1 whose taxon set is the union of the taxon sets of the input trees , such that @xmath1 exhibits not only the clusterings among the taxa , but also the ancestor / descendant relationships among taxa in the input trees . our main result is a @xmath2 algorithm for the compatibility problem for trees with nested taxa , where @xmath3 is the total number of nodes and edges in the trees in @xmath0 .
[ [ background . ] ] background .
+ + + + + + + + + + +    the tree compatibility problem is a basic special case of the _ supertree problem_. a supertree method is a way to synthesize a collection of phylogenetic trees with partially overlapping taxon sets into a single supertree that represents the information in the input trees . the supertree approach , proposed in the early 90s @xcite , has been used successfully to build large - scale phylogenies @xcite .
the original supertree methods were limited to input trees where only the leaves are labeled .
page @xcite was among the first to note the need to handle phylogenies where internal nodes are labeled , and taxa are nested .
a major motivation is the desire to incorporate _ taxonomies _ as input trees in large - scale supertree analyses , as way to circumvent one of the obstacles to building comprehensive phylogenies : the limited taxonomic overlap among different phylogenetic studies @xcite .
taxonomies group organisms according to a system of taxonomic rank ( e.g. , family , genus , and species ) ; two examples are the ncbi taxonomy @xcite and the angiosperm taxonomy @xcite .
taxonomies spanning a broad range of taxa provide structure and completeness that might be hard to obtain otherwise .
a recent example of the utility of taxonomies is the open tree of life , a draft phylogeny for over 2.3 million species @xcite .
taxonomies are not , strictly speaking , phylogenies .
in particular , their internal nodes and some of their leaves are labeled with higher - order taxa .
nevertheless , taxonomies have many of the same mathematical characteristics as phylogenies .
indeed , both phylogenies and taxonomies are _ semi - labeled trees _ @xcite .
we will use this term throughout the rest of the paper to refer to trees with nested taxa .    the fastest previous algorithm for testing ancestral compatibility , based on earlier work by daniel and semple @xcite ,
is due to berry and semple @xcite .
their algorithm runs in @xmath5 time using @xmath6 space . here , @xmath7 is the number of distinct taxa in @xmath0 and @xmath8 , where @xmath9 is the set of internal nodes of @xmath10 , for each @xmath11 , and @xmath12 is the degree of node @xmath13 .
while the algorithm is polynomial , its dependence on node degrees is problematic : semi - labeled trees can be highly unresolved ( i.e. , contain nodes of high degree ) , especially if they are taxonomies .    [
[ our - contributions . ] ] our contributions .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the @xmath2 running time of our ancestral compatibility algorithm is independent of the degrees of the nodes of the input trees , a valuable characteristic for large datasets that include taxonomies . to achieve this time bound ,
we extend ideas from our recent algorithm for testing the compatibility of ordinary phylogenetic trees @xcite . as in that algorithm , a central notion in the current paper is the _ display graph _ of profile @xmath0 , denoted @xmath14 .
this is the graph obtained from the disjoint union of the trees in @xmath0 by identifying nodes that have the same label ( see section [ sec : testac ] ) .
the term `` display graph '' was introduced by bryant and lagergren @xcite , but similar ideas have been used elsewhere . in particular , the display graph is closely related to berry and semple s _ restricted descendancy graph _ @xcite , a mixed graph whose directed edges correspond to the ( undirected ) edges of @xmath14 and whose undirected edges have no correspondence in @xmath14 .
the second kind of edges are the major component of the @xmath15 term in the time and space complexity of berry and semple s algorithm .
the absence of such edges makes @xmath14 significantly smaller than the restricted descendancy graph .
display graphs also bear some relation to _ tree alignment graphs _ @xcite .    here
, we exploit the display graph more extensively and more directly than our previous work . although the display graph of a collection of semi - labeled trees is more complex than that of a collection of ordinary phylogenies , we are able to extend several of the key ideas  notably , that of a semi - universal label  to the general setting of semi - labeled trees . as in @xcite ,
the implementation relies on a dynamic graph data structure , but it requires a more careful amortized analysis based on a weighing scheme .    [ [ contents . ] ] contents .
+ + + + + + + + +    section [ sec : prelims ] presents basic definitions regarding semi - labeled trees and ancestral compatibility . .
section [ sec : dispgraph ] introduces the display graph and discusses its properties .
section [ sec : testac ] presents @xmath16 , our algorithm for testing ancestral compatibility .
section [ sec : implementation ] gives the implementation details for @xmath16 .
section [ sec : discussion ] gives some concluding remarks .
for each positive integer @xmath17 , @xmath18 $ ] denotes the set @xmath19 .
let @xmath20 be a graph .
@xmath21 and @xmath22 denote the node and edge sets of @xmath20
. the _ degree _ of a node @xmath23 is the number of edges incident on @xmath13 .
a _ tree _ is an acyclic connected graph . in this paper , all trees
are assumed to be rooted . for a tree @xmath24
, @xmath25 denotes the root of @xmath24 .
suppose @xmath26 .
then , @xmath27 is an _ ancestor _ of @xmath13 in @xmath24 , denoted @xmath28 , if @xmath27 lies on the path from @xmath13 to @xmath25 in @xmath24 .
if @xmath28 , then @xmath13 is a _ descendant _ of @xmath27 .
node @xmath27 is a _ proper descendant _ of @xmath13 if @xmath27 is a descendant of @xmath13 and @xmath29 .
if @xmath30 and @xmath28 , then @xmath27 is the _ parent _ of @xmath13 and @xmath13 is a _ child _ of @xmath27 .
if neither @xmath28 nor @xmath31 hold , then we write @xmath32 and say that @xmath27 and @xmath13 are _ not comparable _ in @xmath24 .
[ [ semi - labeled - trees . ] ] semi - labeled trees .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    a _ semi - labeled tree _ is a pair @xmath33 where @xmath24 is a tree and @xmath34 is a mapping from a set @xmath35 to @xmath36 such that , for every node @xmath37 of degree at most two , @xmath38 .
@xmath35 is the _ label set _ of @xmath1 and @xmath34 is the _ labeling function _ of @xmath1 .    for every node @xmath37
, @xmath39 denotes the ( possibly empty ) subset of @xmath35 whose elements map into @xmath13 ; these elements as the _ labels of @xmath13 _ ( thus , each label is a taxon ) . if @xmath40 , then @xmath13 is _ labeled _ ; otherwise , @xmath13 is _
unlabeled_. note that , by definition , every leaf in a semi - labeled tree is labeled .
further , any node , including the root , that has a single child must be labeled .
nodes with two or more children may be labeled or unlabeled .
a semi - labeled tree @xmath33 is _ singularly labeled _ if every node in @xmath24 has at most one label ; @xmath1 is _ fully labeled _ if every node in @xmath24 is labeled .
semi - labeled trees , also known as _
@xmath41-trees _ , generalize ordinary phylogenetic trees , also known as _ phylogenetic @xmath41-trees _ @xcite .
an ordinary phylogenetic tree is a semi - labeled tree @xmath33 where @xmath25 has degree at least two and @xmath34 is a bijection from @xmath35 into leaf set of @xmath24 ( thus , internal nodes are not labeled ) .
let @xmath33 be a semi - labeled tree and let @xmath42 and @xmath43 be two labels in @xmath35 . if @xmath44 , then we write @xmath45 , and say that @xmath43 is a _ descendant _ of @xmath42 in @xmath1 and that @xmath42 is an _ ancestor _ of @xmath43 .
we write @xmath46 if @xmath47 is a proper descendant of @xmath48 .
if @xmath49 , then we write @xmath50 and say that @xmath42 and @xmath43 are _ not comparable _ in @xmath1 . if @xmath1 is fully labeled and @xmath48 is the parent of @xmath47 in @xmath24 , then @xmath42 is the _ parent _ of @xmath43 in @xmath1 and @xmath43 is a _ child _ of @xmath42 in @xmath1 ; two labels with the same parent are _
siblings_.    two semi - labelled trees @xmath33 and @xmath51 are _ isomorphic _ if there exists a bijection @xmath52 such that @xmath53 and , for any two nodes @xmath26 , @xmath54 if and only @xmath55 .
let @xmath33 be a semi - labeled tree .
for each @xmath56 , @xmath57 denotes the set of all labels in the subtree of @xmath24 rooted at @xmath27 ; that is , @xmath58 .
@xmath57 is called a _ cluster _ of @xmath24 .
@xmath59 denotes the set of all clusters of @xmath1 .
it is well known ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 3.5.2 ) that a semi - labeled tree @xmath1 is completely determined by @xmath59 .
that is , if @xmath60 for some other semi - labeled tree @xmath61 , then @xmath1 is isomorphic to @xmath61 .
suppose @xmath62 for a semi - labeled tree @xmath33 .
the _ restriction _ of @xmath1 to @xmath63 , denoted @xmath64 , is the semi - labeled tree whose cluster set is @xmath65 intuitively , @xmath66 is obtained from the minimal rooted subtree of @xmath24 that connects the nodes in @xmath67 by suppressing all vertices of degree two that are not in @xmath67 .
let @xmath33 and @xmath51 be semi - labeled trees such that @xmath68 .
@xmath1 _ ancestrally displays _
@xmath61 if @xmath69 .
equivalently , @xmath1 ancestrally displays @xmath61 if @xmath61 can be obtained from @xmath70 by contracting edges , and , for any @xmath71 , ( i ) if @xmath72 , then @xmath73 , and ( ii ) if @xmath74 , then @xmath75 . the notion of `` ancestrally displays '' for semi - labeled trees generalizes the well - known notion of `` displays '' for ordinary phylogenetic trees @xcite .    for a semi - labelled tree @xmath1 ,
let @xmath76 note that @xmath77 consists of _ ordered _ pairs , while @xmath78 consists of _ unordered _ pairs .
[ lm : dn ] let @xmath1 and @xmath61 be semi - labelled trees such that @xmath68
. then @xmath1 ancestrally displays @xmath61 if and only if @xmath79 and @xmath80 .    [
[ profiles - and - ancestral - compatibility . ] ] profiles and ancestral compatibility .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    throughout the rest of this paper @xmath81 denotes a set where , for each @xmath82 $ ] , @xmath83 is a semi - labeled tree .
we refer to @xmath0 as a _ profile _ , and write @xmath84 to denote @xmath85 } l({\ensuremath{\mathcal{t}}}_i)$ ] , the _ label set _ of @xmath0 .
figure  [ fig : profile ] shows a profile where @xmath86 .
we write @xmath87 for @xmath85 } v(t_i)$ ] and @xmath88 for @xmath85 } e(t_i)$ ] , the _ size _ of @xmath0 is @xmath89 .     for the profile of figure [ fig : profile ] .
]     for the profile of figure [ fig : profile ] . ]     for the profile of figure [ fig : profile ] . ]
@xmath0 is _ ancestrally compatible _ if there is a rooted semi - labeled tree @xmath1 that ancestrally displays each of the trees in @xmath0 .
if @xmath1 exists , we say that @xmath1 _ ancestrally displays _
@xmath0 ( see figure [ fig : supertree ] ) .
given a subset @xmath41 of @xmath84 , the _ restriction _ of @xmath0 to @xmath41 , denoted @xmath90 , is the profile @xmath91 .
the proof of the following lemma is straightforward .
[ lm : compatsubprofile ] suppose @xmath0 is ancestrally compatible and let @xmath1 be a tree that ancestrally displays @xmath0
. then , for any @xmath92 , @xmath93 ancestrally displays @xmath94 .
a semi - labeled tree @xmath95 is _ fully labeled _ if every node in @xmath24 is labeled .
suppose @xmath0 contains trees that are not fully labeled .
we can convert @xmath0 into an equivalent profile @xmath96 of fully - labeled trees as follows .
for each @xmath82 $ ] , let @xmath97 be the number of unlabeled nodes in @xmath98 .
create a set @xmath99 of @xmath100 } l_i$ ] labels such that @xmath101 .
for each @xmath82 $ ] and each @xmath102 such that @xmath103 , make @xmath104 , where @xmath42 is a distinct element from @xmath99 .
we refer to @xmath96 as the _ profile obtained by adding distinct new labels to @xmath0 _
( see figure [ fig : profile ] ) .
[ lm : fullyl ] let @xmath96 be the profile obtained by adding distinct new labels to @xmath0 . then
, @xmath0 is ancestrally compatible if and only if @xmath96 is ancestrally compatible .
further , if @xmath1 is a semi - labeled phylogenetic tree that ancestrally displays @xmath96 , then @xmath1 ancestrally displays @xmath0 .    from this point
forward , we shall assume that , for each @xmath82 $ ] , @xmath10 is fully and singularly labeled .
by lemma [ lm : fullyl ] , no generality is lost in assuming that all trees in @xmath0 are fully labeled .
the assumption that the trees are singularly labeled is inessential ; it is only for clarity .
note that , even with the latter assumption , a tree that ancestrally displays @xmath0 is not necessarily singularly labeled .
figure [ fig : supertree ] illustrates this fact .
the _ display graph _ of a profile @xmath0 , denoted @xmath14 , is the graph obtained from the disjoint union of the underlying trees @xmath105 by identifying nodes that have the same label .
multiple edges between the same pair of nodes are replaced by a single edge .
see figure  [ fig : displaygraph ] .
@xmath14 has @xmath106 nodes and edges , and can be constructed in @xmath106 time . by our assumption
that all the trees in @xmath0 are fully and singularly labeled , there is a bijection between the labels in @xmath84 and the nodes of @xmath14 .
thus , from this point forward , we refer to the nodes of @xmath14 by their labels .
it is easy to see that if @xmath14 is not connected , then @xmath0 decomposes into label - disjoint sub - profiles , and that @xmath0 is compatible if and only if each sub - profile is compatible .
thus , we shall assume , without loss of generality , that @xmath14 is connected .
[ [ positions . ] ] positions .
+ + + + + + + + + +    a _ position _ ( for @xmath0 ) is a vector @xmath107 , where @xmath108 , for each @xmath82 $ ] . since labels may be shared among trees , we may have @xmath109 , for @xmath110 $ ] with @xmath111
. for each @xmath82 $ ] , let @xmath112 , and let @xmath113 } { \ensuremath{\mathrm{desc}}}_i(u)$ ] .
a position @xmath114 is _ valid _ if , for each @xmath82 $ ] ,    1 .
[ item : v1 ] if @xmath115 , then the elements of @xmath116 are siblings in @xmath10 and 2 .   [ item : v2 ] @xmath117 .
[ lem : v2 ] for any valid position @xmath114 , @xmath118 .    by ( v[item : v2 ] ) , we have that @xmath119 and @xmath120 are isomorphic , for each @xmath82 $ ] .
the lemma then follows from the definition of @xmath121 .    for any valid position @xmath114
, @xmath122 denotes the subgraph of @xmath14 induced by @xmath123 .
[ obs : update1 ] for any valid position @xmath114 , @xmath122 is the subgraph of @xmath14 obtained by deleting all labels in @xmath124 , along with all incident edges .
a valid position of special interest to us is @xmath125 , where @xmath126 , for each @xmath82 $ ] .
that is , @xmath127 is a singleton containing only the label of @xmath128 .
thus , in figure [ fig : displaygraph ] , @xmath129 .
it is straightforward to verify that @xmath125 is indeed valid , that @xmath130 , and that @xmath131 .
[ [ semi - universal - labels . ] ] semi - universal labels .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    let @xmath114 be a valid position , and let @xmath42 be a label in @xmath114 .
then , @xmath42 is _ semi - universal in @xmath114 _ if @xmath132 , for every @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath133 .
it can be verified that in figure [ fig : displaygraph ] , labels @xmath134 and @xmath135 are semi - universal in @xmath125 , but @xmath136 is not , since @xmath136 is in both @xmath137 and @xmath138 , but @xmath139 .    the term `` semi - universal '' , borrowed from peer et al .
@xcite , derives from the following fact .
suppose that @xmath0 is ancestrally compatible , that @xmath1 is a tree that ancestrally displays @xmath0 , and that @xmath42 is a semi - universal label for some valid position @xmath114 .
then , as we shall see , @xmath42 must label the root @xmath140 of a subtree of @xmath1 that contains all the descendants of @xmath42 in @xmath10 , for every @xmath141 such that @xmath133 .
the qualifier `` semi '' is because this subtree may also contain labels that do not descend from @xmath42 in any input tree , but descend from some other semi - universal label @xmath43 in @xmath114 instead . in this case
, @xmath43 also labels @xmath140 .
this property of semi - universal labels is exploited in both our ancestral compatibility algorithm and its proof of correctness ( see section [ sec : testac ] ) .    for each label
@xmath142 , let @xmath143 denote the number of input trees that contain label @xmath42 .
we can obtain @xmath143 for every @xmath142 in @xmath106 time during the construction of @xmath14 .
[ lem : semiu ] let @xmath144 be a valid position . then
, label @xmath42 is semi - universal in @xmath114 if the cardinality of the set @xmath145 : u(i ) = \{\ell\}\}$ ] equals @xmath143 .    by definition , @xmath132 , for every @xmath146 .
since @xmath147 , the lemma follows .
[ [ successor - positions . ] ] successor positions .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    for every @xmath82 $ ] and every @xmath133 , let @xmath148 denote the set of children of @xmath42 in @xmath149 . for a subset @xmath63 of @xmath149 , let @xmath150 .
let @xmath114 be a valid position , and @xmath151 be the set of semi - universal labels in @xmath114 .
the _ successor of @xmath114 with respect to @xmath151 _ is the position @xmath152 defined as follows . for each @xmath153 and each @xmath82 $ ] , if @xmath132 , then @xmath154 ; otherwise , @xmath155 .    in figure
[ fig : displaygraph ] , the set of semi - universal labels in @xmath125 is @xmath156 . since @xmath157 and @xmath158 , the successor of @xmath125 is @xmath159 .
[ obs : update2 ] let @xmath114 be a valid position , and let @xmath152 be the successor of @xmath114 with respect to the set @xmath151 of semi - universal labels in @xmath114 .
then , @xmath160 can be obtained from @xmath122 by doing the following for each @xmath153 : ( 1 ) for each @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath132 , delete all edges between @xmath42 and @xmath148 ; ( 2 ) delete @xmath42 .
let @xmath114 be a valid position , and @xmath161 be a subset of @xmath123 .
then , @xmath162 denotes the position @xmath163 . in figure
[ fig : displaygraph ] , the components of @xmath160 , where @xmath152 is the successor of @xmath125 , are @xmath164 and @xmath165 . thus , @xmath166 and @xmath167 . we have the following result .
[ lm : childofu ] let @xmath114 be a valid position , and @xmath151 be the set of all semi - universal labels in @xmath114 .
let @xmath152 be the successor of @xmath114 with respect to @xmath151 , and let @xmath168 be the label sets of the connected components of @xmath160 .
then , @xmath169 is a valid position , for each @xmath170 $ ] .
it suffices to argue that @xmath152 satisfies conditions ( v[item : v1 ] ) and ( v[item : v2 ] ) .
the lemma then follows from the fact that the connected components of @xmath160 are label - disjoint .
@xmath152 must satisfy condition ( v[item : v1 ] ) , since @xmath114 does .
suppose @xmath153 .
then , for each @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath133 , @xmath171 and @xmath172 .
thus , since ( v[item : v2 ] ) holds for @xmath114 , it also holds for @xmath152 .
@xmath16  ( algorithm [ alg : slbuild ] ) is our algorithm for testing compatibility of semi - labeled trees .
its argument , @xmath114 , is a valid position in @xmath0 such that @xmath173 is connected .
line [ alg : findsemi ] computes the set @xmath151 of semi - universal labels in @xmath114 .
if @xmath151 is empty , then , as argued in theorem [ thm : buildcorrect ] below , @xmath174 is incompatible , and , thus , so is @xmath0 . this fact is reported in line [ alg : s0emptyincompat ] .
line [ alg : s0singleton ] checks if @xmath151 contains exactly one label @xmath42 , with no proper descendants .
if so , by the connectivity assumption , @xmath42 must be the only element in @xmath123 .
therefore , line [ alg : s0singletonreturn ] simply returns the tree with a single node , labeled @xmath42 .
line [ alg : updateu ] updates @xmath114 , replacing it by its successor with respect to @xmath151 .
let @xmath175 be the connected components of @xmath122 after updating @xmath114 . by lemma [ lm : childofu ]
, @xmath176 is a valid position , for each @xmath170 $ ] .
lines [ alg : connected][alg : recurseend ] recursively invoke @xmath177 on @xmath176 for each @xmath170 $ ] , to determine if there is a tree @xmath178 that ancestrally displays @xmath179 .
if any subproblem is incompatible , line [ alg : recurseend ] reports that @xmath0 is incompatible .
otherwise , lines [ alg : ru][alg : finalreturn ] assemble the @xmath178s into a single tree that displays @xmath174 , whose root is labeled by the semi - universal labels in the set @xmath151 of line [ alg : findsemi ] .
let @xmath180 [ alg : findsemi ] replace @xmath114 by the successor of @xmath114 with respect to @xmath151.[alg : updateu ] let @xmath168 be the connected components of @xmath122 [ alg : connected ]    create a node @xmath181 , whose label set is @xmath151 [ alg : ru ] the tree with root @xmath181 and subtrees @xmath182 [ alg : finalreturn ]    next , we argue the correctness of @xmath177 .    [
thm : buildcorrect ] let @xmath183 be a profile and let @xmath184 , where , for each @xmath82 $ ] , @xmath126 . then , @xmath185 returns either ( i ) a semi - labeled tree @xmath1 that ancestrally displays @xmath0 , if @xmath0 is ancestrally compatible , or ( ii ) ` incompatible ` otherwise .
\(i ) suppose that @xmath185 outputs a semi - labeled tree @xmath1 .
we prove that @xmath1 ancestrally displays @xmath0 . by lemma [ lm : dn ]
, it suffices to show that @xmath186 and @xmath187 , for each @xmath82 $ ] .
consider any @xmath188 .
then , @xmath42 has a child @xmath189 in @xmath10 such that @xmath190 .
there must be a recursive call to @xmath191 , for some valid position @xmath114 , where @xmath42 is the set @xmath151 of semi - universal labels obtained in line [ alg : findsemi ] . by observation [ obs : update2 ] ,
label @xmath189 , and thus @xmath43 , both lie in one of the connected components of the graph obtained by deleting all labels in @xmath151 , including @xmath42 , and their incident edges from @xmath122 .
it now follows from the construction of @xmath1 that @xmath192 .
thus , @xmath186 .
now , consider any @xmath193 .
let @xmath13 be the lowest common ancestor of @xmath194 and @xmath195 in @xmath10 and let @xmath196 be the label of @xmath13 .
then , @xmath196 has a pair of children , @xmath197 and @xmath198 say , in @xmath10 such that @xmath199 , and @xmath200 . because @xmath185 returns a tree
, there are recursive calls @xmath201 and @xmath202 for valid positions @xmath203 and @xmath204 such that @xmath197 is semi - universal for @xmath203 and @xmath198 is semi - universal for @xmath204 .
we must have @xmath205 ; otherwise , @xmath206 , and , thus , neither @xmath197 nor @xmath198 is semi - universal , a contradiction .
further , it follows from the construction of @xmath1 that we must have @xmath207 .
hence , @xmath50 , and , therefore , @xmath208 .
\(ii ) asssume , by way of contradiction , that @xmath185 returns ` incompatible ` , but that @xmath0 is ancestrally compatible . by assumption , there exists a semi - labeled tree @xmath1 that ancestrally displays @xmath0 . since @xmath185 returns ` incompatible ` , there is a recursive call to @xmath191 for some valid position @xmath114 such that @xmath114 has no semi - universal label , and the set @xmath151 of line [ alg : findsemi ] is empty . by lemma  [ lm : compatsubprofile ]
, @xmath209 ancestrally displays @xmath174 .
thus , by lemma [ lem : v2 ] , @xmath209 ancestrally displays @xmath210 , for every @xmath82 $ ] .
let @xmath42 be any label in the label set of the root of @xmath209 .
then , for each @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath211 , @xmath42 must be the label of the root of @xmath119 .
thus , for each such @xmath141 , @xmath132 .
hence , @xmath42 is semi - universal in @xmath114 , a contradiction .
here we describe an efficient implementation of @xmath177 .
we focus on two key aspects : finding semi - universal labels in line [ alg : findsemi ] , and updating @xmath114 and @xmath122 in lines [ alg : updateu ] and [ alg : connected ] .    by observation [ obs : update1 ] , at each recursive call , @xmath177 deals with a graph obtained from @xmath14 through edge and node deletions .
to handle these deletions efficiently , we represent @xmath14 using the dynamic graph connectivity data structure of holm et al .
@xcite , which we refer to as _ hdt_. hdt allows us to maintain the list of nodes in each component , as well as the number of these nodes so that , if we start with no edges in a graph with @xmath212 nodes , the amortized cost of each update is @xmath213 .
since @xmath14 has @xmath106 nodes , each update takes @xmath214 time . the total number of edge and node deletions performed by @xmath185  including all deletions in the recursive calls
 is at most the total number of edges and nodes in @xmath14 , which is @xmath106 .
hdt allows us to maintain connectivity information throughout the entire algorithm in @xmath215 time .
as deletions are performed on @xmath14 , @xmath177 maintains three data fields for each connected component @xmath216 that is created : @xmath217 , @xmath218 , and @xmath219 .
it also maintains a field @xmath220 , for each @xmath142 .    1 .
@xmath217 equals @xmath221 .
2 .   @xmath218 is a map from a set @xmath222 $ ] to a set of nonempty subsets of @xmath223 .
for each @xmath224 , @xmath225 denotes the set associated with @xmath141 .
3 .   @xmath220 equals the cardinality of the set @xmath226 : y.{\ensuremath{\mathtt{map}}}(i ) \text { is defined and } y.{\ensuremath{\mathtt{map}}}(i ) = \{\ell\}\}$ ] .
( recall that @xmath143 is the number of input trees that contain @xmath42 . )
@xmath227 is a set containing all labels @xmath228 such that @xmath229 .
informally , each set @xmath225 corresponds to a non - empty @xmath116 ; @xmath227 corresponds to the semi - universal labels in @xmath216 .
next , we formalize these ideas .    at the start of the execution of @xmath191 for any valid position @xmath114
, @xmath122 has a single connected component , @xmath230 .
our implementation maintains the following invariant .
inv : : :    at the beginning of the execution of    @xmath191 ,    @xmath231 for each    @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath232 ,    and @xmath233 is undefined for    each @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath234 .
thus , @xmath220 equals the number of indices @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath132 .
along with lemma [ lem : semiu ] , inv implies that , at the beginning of the execution of @xmath191 , @xmath235 contains precisely the semi - universal labels of @xmath114 .
thus , the set @xmath151 of line [ alg : findsemi ] of @xmath191 can be retrieved in @xmath236 time .    to establish inv for the initial valid position @xmath125
, we proceed as follows . by assumption
, @xmath237 has a single connected component , @xmath238 .
since @xmath237 equals @xmath14 , we initialize data fields 14 for @xmath239 during the construction of @xmath14 .
@xmath240 is simply @xmath241 . for each @xmath82 $ ] , @xmath242 is @xmath243 , where @xmath42 is the label of the root of @xmath98 .
we initialize the @xmath244  fields as follows .
first , set @xmath220 to @xmath245 for all @xmath142
. then , iterate through each @xmath82 $ ] , incrementing @xmath220 by one if @xmath246 . finally , @xmath247 consists of all @xmath248 such that @xmath229 .
all data fields can be initialized in @xmath106 time .
we now focus on lines [ alg : updateu ] and [ alg : connected ] of @xmath177 . by observation [ obs : update2 ]
, we can update @xmath114 and @xmath122 jointly as follows .
we use a temporary variable @xmath249 . prior to executing line [ alg : updateu ] , we set @xmath250 .
then , we successively consider each label @xmath153 , and perform two steps : ( i ) initialize data fields 14 in preparation for the deletion of @xmath42 and ( ii ) delete from @xmath249 the edges incident on @xmath42 and then @xmath42 itself , updating data fields 14 as necessary , to maintain inv .
after these steps are executed , @xmath249 will equal @xmath122 for the new set @xmath114 created by line [ alg : updateu ] . steps ( i ) and ( ii ) are done by @xmath251 ( algorithm [ alg : initmarks ] ) and @xmath252 ( algorithm [ alg : dellabel ] ) , respectively .
lines [ alg : delsemi][alg : addpairmap ] of @xmath251 initialize @xmath218 and @xmath227 to reflect the fact that label @xmath153 is leaving @xmath116 , for each @xmath82 $ ] such that @xmath253 , to be replaced by its children in @xmath10 , and will no longer be semi - universal . lines [ alg : initsingleton][alg : foraddalphasemi ] are needed to update certain @xmath254 fields due to the possibility that singleton sets @xmath225 may be created in the preceding steps .
the number of operations on @xmath218 performed by @xmath251 is @xmath255 : \ell \in l({\ensuremath{\mathcal{t}}}_i ) } |{{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{ch}}}}}_i(\ell)|)$ ] ; i.e. , it is proportional to the total number of children of @xmath42 in all the input trees . since @xmath42 is considered only once , the total number of operations on @xmath256 fields of the various sets @xmath216 considered over the entire execution of @xmath185 is @xmath106 .
the number of updates of @xmath218 done by @xmath251 is at most @xmath143 ; the total over all @xmath42 considered by @xmath185 over its entire execution is @xmath106 .
delete @xmath42 from @xmath227 [ alg : delsemi ]    @xmath252 begins by consulting hdt to identify the connected component @xmath216 that currently contains @xmath42 .
the loop in lines [ alg : forscanedges][alg : endforscanedges ] successively deletes each edge between @xmath42 and a child @xmath257 of @xmath42 , updating the appropriate data fields for the resulting connected components .
line [ alg : testconn ] queries the hdt data structure to determine whether deleting @xmath258 splits @xmath216 into two components .
if @xmath216 remains connected , no updates are needed  the * continue * statement skips the rest of the current iteration and proceeds directly to the next .
otherwise , @xmath216 is split into two parts @xmath259 and @xmath260 .
@xmath261 uses a weighted version of the technique of scanning the smaller component @xcite .
line [ alg : smallerweight ] identifies which of the two components has the smaller @xmath262  field ; without loss of generality , it assumes that @xmath263 .
lines [ alg : delinity1 ] and [ alg : delinity2 ] initialize @xmath264 and @xmath265 to @xmath266  and @xmath267 and @xmath268 to the corresponding fields of @xmath216 .
lines [ alg : forbetay1][alg : addtoj ] , scan each label @xmath269 in @xmath259 , from @xmath270 to @xmath271 , for every @xmath141 such that @xmath272 . set @xmath273 ,
updated in line [ alg : addtoj ] , keeps track of the indices @xmath141 such that @xmath271 and @xmath270 are modified . lines [ alg : forupdatesemi][alg : endforscanedges ] iterate through @xmath273 to determine if any new singleton sets were created in either @xmath259 or @xmath260 .
this operation requires at most one update in each of @xmath265 and @xmath268 ; each update takes @xmath236 time .
after all edges incident on @xmath42 are deleted , @xmath42 itself is deleted ( line [ alg : delell ] ) .
the preceding description of @xmath252 omits the updating of the @xmath274 fields of the connected components created by an edge deletion .
this is done before line [ alg : smallerweight ] , by ( again ) using the technique of scanning the smaller component .
we consult hdt to determine which of @xmath259 and @xmath260 has fewer labels .
assuming , without loss of generality , that @xmath275 , compute @xmath276 in a sequential scan of @xmath259 .
then , @xmath277 .
let @xmath216 be the connected component of @xmath249 that contains @xmath42 [ alg : findy ] delete @xmath42 from @xmath249 [ alg : delell ]    let us track the number of operations on @xmath256 fields in lines [ alg : forbetay1][alg : addtoj ] of @xmath252 that can be attributed to some specific label @xmath278 over the entire execution of @xmath185 .
each execution of lines [ alg : forbetay1][alg : addtoj ] for @xmath269 performs @xmath279 operations on @xmath256 fields .
let @xmath280 be the weight of the connected component containing @xmath269 at the beginning of the loop of lines [ alg : forbetay1][alg : addtoj ] , at the @xmath17th time that @xmath269 is considered in those lines ; thus , @xmath281 .
then , @xmath282 .
the reason is that we only consider @xmath269 if ( i ) @xmath269 is contained in one of the two components that result from deleting an edge in line [ alg : deleteedge ] and ( ii ) the component containing @xmath269 has the smaller weight of the two components .
thus , the number of times @xmath269 is considered in lines [ alg : forbetay1][alg : addtoj ] over the entire execution of @xmath185 is @xmath283 , which is @xmath284 , since @xmath285 .
therefore , the total number of updates of @xmath256 fields over all labels is @xmath286 , which is @xmath287 .
it can be verified that the number of updates to @xmath244  and @xmath288  fields is also @xmath287 .
a similar analysis shows that the total time to update @xmath274 fields over all edge deletions performed by @xmath185 is @xmath287 .
to summarize , the work done by @xmath185 consists of three parts : ( i ) initialization , ( ii ) maintaining connected components , and ( iii ) maintaining the @xmath262 , @xmath289 , and @xmath288 , and fields for each connected component , as well as @xmath220 for each label @xmath42 .
part ( i ) takes @xmath106 time . part ( ii )
involves @xmath106 edge and node deletions on the hdt data structure , at an amortized cost of @xmath214 per deletion . part ( iii ) requires a total of @xmath287 updates to the various fields .
using data structures that take logarithmic time per update , leads to our main result .
[ thm : slbuilda ] @xmath16  can be implemented so that @xmath16@xmath290 runs in @xmath215 time .
like our earlier algorithm for compatibility of ordinary phylogenetic trees , the more general algorithm presented here , @xmath16 , is a polylogarithmic factor away from optimality ( a trivial lower bound is @xmath291 , the time to read the input ) .
@xmath16  has a linear - space implementation , using the results of thorup @xcite .
a question to be investigated next is the performance of the algorithm on real data .
another important issue is integrating our algorithm into a synthesis method that deals with incompatible profiles .            o.  r.  p.
bininda - emonds , m.  cardillo , k.  e. jones , r.  d.  e. macphee , r.  m.  d. beck , r.  grenyer , s.  a. price , r.  a. vos , j.  l. gittleman , and a.  purvis .
the delayed rise of present - day mammals .
, 446:507512 , 2007 .
p.  daniel and c.  semple .
supertree algorithms for nested taxa . in o.  r.  p.
bininda - emonds , editor , _ phylogenetic supertrees : combining information to reveal the tree of life _ , pages 151171 .
kluwer , dordrecht , 2004 .          c.  e. hinchliff ,
s.  a. smith , j.  f. allman , j.  g. burleigh , r.  chaudhary , l.  m. coghill , k.  a. crandall , j.  deng , b.  t. drew , r.  gazis , k.  gude , d.  s. hibbett , l.  a. katz , h.  d. laughinghouse  iv , e.  j. mctavish , p.  e. midford , c.  l. owen , r.  h. reed , j.  a. reesk , d.  e. soltis , t.  williams , and k.  a. cranston .
synthesis of phylogeny and taxonomy into a comprehensive tree of life .
, 112(41):1276412769 , 2015 .
r.  m. page .
taxonomy , supertrees , and the tree of life . in o.  r.  p.
bininda - emonds , editor , _ phylogenetic supertrees : combining information to reveal the tree of life _ , pages 247265 .
kluwer , dordrecht , 2004 .


the present article is a continuation of our works @xcite .
by using the lax operator formalism , in @xcite we constructed a family of pairwise commuting operators such that the jack symmetric functions of the infinitely many variables @xmath2 are their eigenfunctions .
we expressed these commuting operators in terms of the power sum symmetric functions @xmath3 where @xmath4 .
the jack symmetric functions can be regarded as limiting cases of macdonald symmetric functions .
the latter depend on the same variables @xmath2 and also on two parameters @xmath5 .
in @xcite we extended the results of @xcite to the latter setting .
in particular , by again using the lax operator formalism we constructed a family of pairwise commuting operators such  that the macdonald symmetric functions are their eigenfunctions . in @xcite
we expressed these commuting operators in terms of the hall - littlewood symmetric functions of the variables @xmath6 and of the parameter @xmath7 .
these expressions involve only the hall - littlewood symmetric functions corresponding to the partitions with one part , see subsection [ sec:111 ] here .    shortly after @xcite was published , a.n.sergeev and a.p.veselov communicated to us their remarkable works @xcite where in particular they found essentially the same commuting operators as we did in @xcite .
their approach was different however .
they first computed the limits at @xmath8 of the heckman operators  @xcite acting on all polynomials in the variables @xmath9 .
these @xmath0 operators do not commute in general .
but the restrictions of the power sums of these @xmath0 operators to the space of symmetric polynomials do commute .
moreover , jack symmetric polynomials are eigenfunctions of these restrictions .
jack symmetric functions are then eigenfunctions of the limits of these restrictions at @xmath1 .    -5 mm here we extend this approach from jack to macdonald symmetric functions .
it has been discovered by i.v.cherednik @xcite that the macdonald polynomials in the variables @xmath10 are eigenfunctions of power sums of some @xmath0 commuting operators , acting on all polynomials in these variables .
these operators are called the cherednik operators , see our subsection [ sec:13 ] for their definition .
it has been also known @xcite that the cherednik operators have limits at @xmath1 .
however , explicit expressions for these limits are unknown .
we offer a solution to this open problem by firstly introducing for the macdonald polynomials the analogues of non - commuting heckman operators , see our subsection [ sec:15 ] .
these analogues act on the rational functions of @xmath10 and are denoted by @xmath11 .
they are related to the cherednik operators by proposition [ sec:15 ] .
the principal property  of the operators @xmath12 is stated as theorem  [ sec:16 ] , see also proposition [ sec:13 ] .
an explanation is needed here regarding our scheme of referring to lemmas , propositions , theorems and corollaries .
when referring to these , we indicate the subsections where they respectively appear .
there is no more than one of each of these in every subsection , so our scheme should cause no confusion .
for example , proposition [ sec:13 ] is the only proposition that appears in subsection  [ sec:13 ] .    in subsection [ sec:17 ]
we reformulate theorem [ sec:16 ] by introducing a certain @xmath13 matrix @xmath14 with operator entries acting on the rational functions of the variables @xmath9 .
it is closely related to the classical lax matrix of the trigonometric ruijsenaars - schneider model @xcite . to be precise ,
let @xmath15 be the operator defined by . in the classical limit @xmath16 ,
when the canonical commutation relation @xmath17 degenerates to the poisson bracket @xmath18 , our @xmath14 degenerates to this lax matrix up to a change of variables and up to conjugation by a diagonal matrix . in the same classical limit
, the macdonald determinant degenerates to the characteristic determinant of the lax matrix .
thus we have found a way to derive a quantum analogue of this lax matrix directly from the cherednik operators .
it is well known how the quantum hamiltonians @xcite of the trigonometric ruijsenaars - schneider model are related to the macdonald operators , see for instance @xcite .
but our generating series for quantum hamiltonians differs from the determinant and is new .
a similar resolvent - type expression was used for the quantum calogero - sutherland model in @xcite .
the eigenstates of the latter model are the jack symmetric polynomials .
the limit at @xmath8  of the generalisation of that model to particles with spin has been studied in @xcite as another extension of our work @xcite .    following the approach of @xcite in subsection [ sec:31 ] of our article we compute the limits at @xmath8 of the operators @xmath11 .
then we also compute the limit of the restriction of the operator sum appearing in theorem  [ sec:16 ] to the space of symmetric polynomials in @xmath9 .
this limit is a formal power series in another variable @xmath19 with operator coefficients acting on the symmetric functions of @xmath6 .
after renormalisation and a change of the variable @xmath20 , this limit becomes the same generating series of the pairwise commuting operators as we constructed in @xcite . for details , see subsections [ sec:32 ] and [ sec:33 ] here .    in this article
we generally keep to the notation of the book @xcite for symmetric functions . when using results from @xcite we simply indicate their numbers within the book . for example , the statement ( 6.9 ) from chapter i of the book will be referred to as [ i.6.9 ] assuming it is from  @xcite .
fix a field @xmath21 . for any positive integer @xmath22 denote by @xmath23 the @xmath24-algebra of symmetric polynomials in @xmath0 variables @xmath9 . the algebra @xmath23 is graded by the polynomial degree .
the substitution @xmath25 defines a homomorphism @xmath26 preserving the degree . here
the inverse limit of the sequence @xmath28 in the category of graded algebras is denoted by @xmath29 .
note that we get a canonical homomorhism @xmath30 .
the elements of the algebra @xmath31 are called _
symmetric functions_. following @xcite we now will introduce some standard bases of @xmath29 .
let @xmath32 be any partition of @xmath33 .
the number of non - zero parts is called the _ length _ of @xmath34 and is denoted by @xmath35 . if @xmath36 then the sum of all distinct monomials obtained by permuting the @xmath0 variables in @xmath37 is denoted by @xmath38 .
the symmetric polynomials @xmath39 with @xmath36 form a basis of the vector space @xmath40 . by definition , for @xmath36 @xmath41 where we write @xmath42 instead of @xmath35
. here @xmath43 is the symmetric group permuting the numbers @xmath44 and @xmath45 if @xmath46 are the respective multiplicites of the parts @xmath47 of @xmath48 .
further , @xmath49 0 & \quad\textrm{if}\quad\,\ell({\lambda})=n\ , .
\end{array } \right.\ ] ] hence for any fixed partition @xmath34 the sequence of polynomials @xmath39 with @xmath50 has a limit in @xmath29 .
this limit is called the _ monomial symmetric function _ corresponding to @xmath48 . simply omitting the variables
, we will denote the limit by @xmath51 . with @xmath34 ranging over all partitions of @xmath52
the symmetric functions @xmath53 form a basis of the vector space @xmath29 . note that if @xmath54 then we set @xmath55
.    we will be also using another standard basis of the vector space @xmath29
. for each @xmath56 denote @xmath57 .
when the index @xmath58 is fixed the sequence of symmetric polynomials @xmath59 with @xmath60 has a limit in @xmath29 , called the _ power sum symmetric function _ of degree @xmath61
. we will denote it by @xmath62 .
more generally , for any partition @xmath34 put @xmath63 where @xmath64 as above .
the elements @xmath65 form another basis of @xmath29 .
equivalently , the elements @xmath66 are free generators of the commutative algebra @xmath31 over @xmath21 . in this article
we will be using the _ natural ordering _ of partitions . by definition , here @xmath67
if @xmath34 and @xmath68 are partitions of the same number and @xmath69 this is a partial ordering .
note that by [ i.6.9 ] any monomial symmetric function @xmath70 is a linear combination of the symmetric functions @xmath65 where @xmath71 .
define a bilinear form @xmath72 on @xmath31 by setting for any two partitions @xmath34 and @xmath68 @xmath73 in the above notation .
this form is obviously symmetric and non - degenerate .
we will indicate by the superscript @xmath74 the operator conjugation relative to this form .
in particular , by for the operator conjugate to the multiplication in  @xmath31 by @xmath75 with @xmath76 we have @xmath77    next put @xmath78 for any fixed @xmath58 the sequence of the symmetric polynomials @xmath79 with @xmath60 has a limit in @xmath29 , denoted by @xmath80 and called the _ elementary symmetric function _ of degree @xmath81 we will also use a formal power series in another variable  @xmath82 , @xmath83 by taking logarithms of the left and right hand side of the above display and  then exponentiating , @xmath84    also put @xmath85 where the sum is taken over partitions @xmath34 of @xmath81 then the sequence of symmetric polynomials @xmath86 with @xmath60 has a limit in @xmath29 , denoted by @xmath87 and called the _ complete symmetric function _ of degree @xmath61 . by [ i.2.6 ] for the series @xmath88 we have the relation @xmath89 hence implies @xmath90 the elements @xmath91 as well as the elements @xmath92 are free generators of the commutative algebra  @xmath31 over the field @xmath21 .
we will also use the _ vertex operator _ @xmath93 it follows from and that for any @xmath56 we have the equality @xmath94 it also follows from and that @xmath95 $ ] is a homomorphism of @xmath24-algebras .
see [ i.5 , example 29 ] for both of the last two statements .
hence by applying @xmath96 to any symmetric function in the variables @xmath97 we get the same symmetric function but in the variables @xmath98 .
let @xmath24 be the field @xmath99 with @xmath100 a parameter .
the hall - littlewood symmetric functions [ iii.2.11 ] are labelled by all partitions of @xmath52 and constitute another remarkable basis of the vector space @xmath31 over @xmath21 . in the present article we will use only the elements of this basis corresponding to the single part partitions @xmath101 .
these elements will be denoted by @xmath102 respectively .
their generating series is @xmath103 by using and we get the relation @xmath104 while by using and we get the relation @xmath105      now let @xmath24 be the field @xmath106 where @xmath107  and  @xmath100 are formal parameters .
then define a bilinear form @xmath108 on @xmath31 by setting @xmath109 for any partitions @xmath34 and @xmath110 .
this form is symmetric and non - degenerate .
if @xmath111 , it specializes to the form defined by .
we will indicate by the superscript @xmath112 the operator conjugation relative to @xmath113 .
in particular , by and @xmath114 for any @xmath115 . hence by using we get @xmath116 note that by using , the latter identity can be rewritten as @xmath117 similarly to @xmath96 the map @xmath118 $ ] is a homomorphism of @xmath24-algebras .    by [ vi.4.7 ]
there exists a unique family of elements @xmath119 such that @xmath120 and such that any @xmath121 equals @xmath53 plus a linear combination of the elements @xmath122 with @xmath123 in the natural partial ordering .
the elements @xmath124 are called the _
macdonald symmetric functions_.    by [ vi.4.10 ] the canonical homomorphism @xmath125 maps @xmath126 if @xmath127 . if @xmath36 then the image of @xmath124 under the homomorphism @xmath125 is the _
macdonald symmetric polynomial _ usually denoted by @xmath128 . all these polynomials with @xmath129 form a basis of the vector space @xmath23 over @xmath130 .
let @xmath131 as in subsection [ sec:1111 ] .
for @xmath132 the _ inverse q - shift operator _ @xmath15 acts on any rational function @xmath133  by @xmath134 denote by @xmath135 the _ vandermonde polynomial _ of @xmath0 variables @xmath136{\phantom{\big[}\!\!}_{i , j=1}^n=
\prod_{1{\leqslant}i < j{\leqslant}n}({\hspace{0.75pt}}x_i - x_j)\,.\ ] ] put @xmath137{\phantom{\big[}\!\!}_{i , j=1}^n \hspace{-8pt}\ ] ] where @xmath19 is another variable . the last determinant is defined as the alternated  sum @xmath138 where as usual @xmath139 denotes the sign of permutation @xmath140 . in every product over @xmath132 appearing in the alternated sum all the operator factors pairwise commute , hence their ordering does not matter .
note that @xmath141 .    by the @xmath142 is a polynomial of degree @xmath0 in the variable @xmath19 with operator coefficients .
it also follows from that these coefficients  map the space @xmath23 to itself . by [ vi.3.3 ] for any @xmath143 the coefficient of @xmath142 at @xmath144 equals @xmath145 where the sum is taken over all subsets @xmath146 of @xmath147 of size @xmath148 , whereas @xmath149    now for every @xmath143 consider the restriction of the operator to the space @xmath40 . by [ vi.4.16 ]
all these restrictions to @xmath23 pairwise commute .
they are called the _
macdonald operators_. the macdonald polynomials @xmath150 with @xmath36 make a common eigenbasis of these operators . by [ vi.4.15 ]
the eigenvalue of @xmath142 corresponding to any such eigenvector @xmath150 is @xmath151    note that our definition of the @xmath142 differs from [ vi.3.2 ] by changing the parameters @xmath152 and @xmath153 .
however , by [ vi.4.14 ] the macdonald polynomials @xmath150 are invariant under this change of their parameters . after this change
, we also replaced the variable @xmath154 used in the definition [ vi.3.2 ] by @xmath155 .
the reasons for these alterations will be explained in subsection [ sec:31 ] .      for @xmath156 with @xmath157
introduce the operator acting on the vector space @xmath158 @xmath159 where @xmath160 acts by exchanging the variables @xmath161 and @xmath162 .
it is immediately obvious from the definition that the operator @xmath163 maps polynomials in the variables @xmath10 to polynomials .
further , one can check that @xmath164 the _ cherednik operators _ @xmath165 acting on @xmath166 $ ] are then defined  by @xmath167 these operators pairwise commute . in general
, they do not map the space @xmath23 to itself . however , any symmetric polynomial of the operators @xmath165 with the coefficients from the field @xmath24 does .
moreover by ( * ? ? ?
* subsection 1.3.5 ) we have    the action of @xmath142 on @xmath23 coincides with that of the product @xmath168    in accord with the remark we made at the end of previous subsection , the operator @xmath169 differs from the operator defined by ( * ? ? ?
* equation 1.3.32 ) by changing the parameters @xmath152 and @xmath153 .
our normalisation of @xmath169 is also different .
we will use the following property of operators .
for @xmath170 let @xmath171 be the cherednik operators acting on @xmath172 $ ] instead of @xmath166\,$ ] .
the action of @xmath173 on the space @xmath23 coincides with the action of @xmath174    first let us prove by the downward induction on @xmath175 that the action of on the space @xmath23 coincides with the action of the product @xmath176 where the factors corresponding to the indices @xmath177 are arranged from left to right . if @xmath178 then neither of the products and has any factors , so the statement to prove is trivial
. now assume that our statement is already proved for some @xmath179 .
consider the product obtained from by replacing the index @xmath42 by @xmath180 . by the induction assumption , the action on @xmath23 of the so obtained product coincides with that of @xmath181 the last @xmath182 factors of the cherednik operator @xmath183 appearing in @xmath184 commute with @xmath185 and @xmath15 for any @xmath186 .
they also act trivially on @xmath40 . after removing these @xmath182 factors from @xmath183 in
we get the product @xmath187 thus we are making the induction step , and our statement is proved for any @xmath148 .    by using this statement in the particular case when @xmath188 , the action of on the space @xmath23 coincides with the action of the product @xmath189 by applying the latter result to the set of operators instead of @xmath165 we obtain that for @xmath190 the action of on @xmath23 coincides with that of @xmath191 the last displayed product equals by renaming @xmath192 to @xmath193 .
but we had also proved that the action of on @xmath23 coincides with the action of
.      for @xmath156 with @xmath157 denote @xmath194 so that by @xmath195 define operators @xmath12 acting on @xmath196 by setting @xmath197 where @xmath198 in general , these operators do not map polynomials in the variables @xmath10 to polynomials . but by definition , these operators make a _ covariant set _ relative to the action of the symmetric group @xmath199 by permutations of the @xmath200 note that for @xmath201 the operators @xmath165 on @xmath202 $ ] do not enjoy the covariance property . on the other hand ,
our @xmath12 do not commute .    for @xmath170 let @xmath203 $ ] be the subspace of polynomials symmetric in the variables @xmath204 . then @xmath205\,.\
] ] now consider the cherednik operator @xmath206 acting on @xmath166\,$ ] . our definition of the operator @xmath207 originates from the following proposition .
the actions of the operators @xmath206 and @xmath207 on @xmath208 coincide .
we will prove that the action of @xmath206 on @xmath209 coincides with the action of @xmath210 we will use the downward induction on @xmath211 .
our proposition will be then obtained when @xmath212 . if @xmath213 then by the definition we have @xmath214 as required .
now assume that our statement is proved for some @xmath215 .
since @xmath216 we then know in particular that the action of @xmath206 on the space @xmath217 coincides with the action of the product . the latter product can be rewritten as @xmath218 ( { \hspace{0.75pt}}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}+b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}{\hspace{0.75pt}})\,\ , \bigl(\   \prod_{k<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1l}\,+\ ! \sum_{k
< j{\leqslant}n}b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}\ , \bigl(\ \prod_{\substack{k<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n\\l\neq j}}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}jl}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1}\,.\end{gathered}\ ] ] in its turn , the expression in the last displayed line can be rewritten as @xmath219 \sum_{k < j{\leqslant}n}\ , ( { \hspace{0.75pt}}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}\,b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}+b_{\,1k}\,b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}kj}\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}{\hspace{0.75pt}})\,\ , \bigl(\ \prod_{\substack{k<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n\\l\neq j}}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}jl}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1}\,.\end{gathered}\ ] ] here none of the indices of the factor @xmath220 can be equal to @xmath221 or @xmath148 , because @xmath222 and @xmath223 .
further , here @xmath224 where the factor @xmath225 commutes with the operator @xmath226 on @xmath166 $ ] and acts trivially on the subspace .
thus by the identity @xmath227 the action of the operator @xmath206 on @xmath217 coincides with the action of @xmath228 \bigl(\   \prod_{k{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}\!a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1l}\,+\ , b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}\ , \bigl(\ \prod_{k<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}kl}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1k}\,+\ ! \sum_{k
< j{\leqslant}n}b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}\ ,
\bigl(\ \prod_{\substack{k{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}n\\l\neq j}}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}jl}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1 } \\
\ = r_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}12}\ldots r_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1,k-1}\,\ , \bigl(\   \prod_{k-1<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1l}\,+\ ! \sum_{k-1<j{\leqslant}n}b_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}\ , \bigl(\ \prod_{\substack{k-1<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n\\l\neq j}}a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}jl}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1j}{\hspace{0.75pt}}\bigr)\,{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1}\,.\end{gathered}\ ] ]
thus we have made the downward induction step .
we have already noted that for any @xmath132 the cherednik operator @xmath169 maps the polynomials in the variables @xmath10 to polynomials .
on the other hand , the operator @xmath229 commutes with those permutations of the variables that preserve @xmath230 . by using these two observations when
@xmath231 , our proposition implies    both operators @xmath206 and @xmath207 map the space @xmath208 to itself .
our main result of the current section is the theorem below .
define operators @xmath232 acting on @xmath233 by setting @xmath234 similarly to @xmath12 the operators @xmath232 make a covariant set relative to the action of the group @xmath199 by permutations of the variables @xmath9 : @xmath235    the action of the ratio @xmath236 on @xmath23 coincides with the action of the sum @xmath237    we will relate operators on the space @xmath233 by the symbol @xmath238 if their actions on the subspace @xmath23 coincide . in subsection [ sec:12 ] we already noted that the coefficients of the polynomial @xmath142 map the space @xmath23 to itself .
let us multiply by @xmath142 on the right both the ratio and the sum appearing in our theorem , and then subtract @xmath142 from the results .
we get to prove the relation @xmath239    in the notation of subsection [ sec:12 ] the left hand side of the relation  equals @xmath240 now consider the summand at the right hand side of with the index @xmath241 . by proposition [ sec:13 ]
the action of this summand on @xmath23 coincides with that of @xmath242 where we used proposition [ sec:15 ] and then lemma [ sec:14 ] in the particular case @xmath212 .
hence by applying proposition [ sec:13 ] once again , but to the cherednik operators @xmath243 instead of @xmath165 we obtain that the summand at the right hand side of the relation with the index @xmath244 acts on @xmath23 as @xmath245 here @xmath246 ranges over all subsets of @xmath247 of size @xmath180 . it follows that the summands at the right hand side of with @xmath248 act on @xmath23 as the operators obtained from via conjugation by @xmath249 respectively .
thus the right hand side of acts on @xmath23 as the operator sum of the  form @xmath250 where @xmath146 ranges over all subsets of @xmath147 of size @xmath148 , and each @xmath251 is a certain rational function of the variables @xmath10 over the field @xmath252 .
to prove the relation it now suffices to demonstrate that for each @xmath146 @xmath253 moreover , because both sides of are invariant under conjugation by the elements of @xmath254 , it suffices to verify only in the case when @xmath255 .
note that in the latter case the left hand side of equals @xmath256    now consider the right hand side of in the case when @xmath255 .
let us denote it by @xmath257 for short .
the contribution to @xmath257 from corresponds to the set @xmath258 and hence equals @xmath259 \label{idtwo } ( \,t-1{\hspace{0.75pt}})\ ,
\bigl(\   \prod_{1<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}k}\,a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1l}\ , \bigr)\,{\hspace{0.75pt}}&t^{\,k{\hspace{0.75pt}}(k-1)/2 } \!\!\prod_{\substack{1{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}j{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}k\\k<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}}\!\!a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}jl}\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] if we conjugate by any @xmath260 with @xmath261 , the result will make contribution to @xmath262 only when @xmath263 , and this contribution will correspond to @xmath264 . indeed , then we will need @xmath246 in such that @xmath265 .
hence for each index @xmath266 we get a contribution to @xmath257 @xmath267 \label{three } ( \,t-1{\hspace{0.75pt}})\ , \bigl(\   \prod_{\substack{1{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}k\\l\neq i}}\,a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}il}\ , \bigr)\,{\hspace{0.75pt}}&t^{\,k{\hspace{0.75pt}}(k-1)/2 } \!\!\prod_{\substack{1{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}j{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}k\\k<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}}\!\!a_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}jl}\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    by dividing , , by @xmath268 and by cancelling there  all the common factors @xmath220 the relation now reduces to the identity @xmath269 the latter identity is easy to verify , and we omit the details of verification .
consider the operator sum over @xmath132 appearing in .
denote by @xmath270 the restriction of this operator sum to the subspace @xmath271 .
the @xmath270 expands as a formal power series in @xmath19 with coefficients acting on  @xmath40 .
our theorem means that the action of the coefficients of the series @xmath272 on @xmath23 coincides with the action of the respective coefficients  of  @xmath273 .
the latter ratio should be also expanded as a formal power series in @xmath19 here .
the coefficients of the series @xmath270 will be called the _ quantum hamiltonians _ corresponding to the basis of macdonald polynomials in the vector space @xmath40 . in the next subsection we give another expression for @xmath270 by using the resolvent of a certain @xmath13 matrix with operator entries which act on @xmath274 .
take any @xmath275 and consider the column vector @xmath276 now define a @xmath13 matrix @xmath14 with operator entries acting on the vector space @xmath196 as follows .
the @xmath277-entry @xmath278 of the matrix @xmath14 is defined by setting @xmath279 then by using the definition we have @xmath280 where for @xmath281 we also use the relation @xmath282 .
it follows from  that @xmath283 z_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}2}\,{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}12}\,(f ) \\
\vdots \\[2pt ] \ { \hspace{0.75pt}}z_n\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1n}{\hspace{0.75pt}}(f ) \
\end{bmatrix } \,=\,{\mathcal{z}}\,{\mathcal{f}}\,.\ ] ] indeed , in its first entry the vector equality holds by with @xmath241 . if @xmath284 then by using we get @xmath285 as required . here for three pairwise distinct indices @xmath286 we also use the relations @xmath287    by the the covariance property of the operators @xmath12 the column vector at the left hand side of has a form similar to @xmath288 .
namely , it can be obtained by replacing the polynomial @xmath289 in @xmath290 by @xmath291 .
here we use corollary  [ sec:15 ] . by expanding @xmath292 for every @xmath132 as a formal power series in @xmath19 and by repeatedly using the above arguments
, we get the equality @xmath293 ( \,1+u\,z_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}2}{\hspace{0.75pt}})^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-1}\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}12}\,(f ) \\
\vdots \\[4pt ] \
( \,1+u\,z_n{\hspace{0.75pt}})^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-1}\,{\sigma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1n}{\hspace{0.75pt}}(f)\   \end{bmatrix } \,=\,(\,1+u\,{\mathcal{z}}\,)^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-1}\,{\mathcal{f}}\,.\ ] ]    now suppose @xmath294 so that the polynomial @xmath289 is symmetric in all the variables @xmath295 . then @xmath296 so that @xmath297 where @xmath298 is the column vector of size @xmath0 with every entry being  @xmath299 .
let @xmath300 be the row vector of size @xmath0 where the @xmath301-entry is the @xmath302 defined by  . by using and the definition of the series @xmath270
as given in subsection [ sec:16 ] @xmath303 thus we have proved that the action of @xmath270 on @xmath23 coincides with the action  of @xmath304 hence we now obtain the following corollary to theorem [ sec:16 ] .    the action of the ratio @xmath236 on @xmath23 coincides with that  of @xmath305
let @xmath131 as before .
we will find first the inverse limit at @xmath8 of the restriction of the operator @xmath207 to the subspace @xmath306 by proposition [ sec:15 ] the operator @xmath206 has the same restriction to @xmath208 .
the limit will be an operator acting on the space @xmath307 $ ] and denoted simply by @xmath308 . to define the limit extend the canonical homomorphism @xmath125 to a homomorphism @xmath309\,\to\,{\lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1)}:\ , v\,\mapsto\,x_1\,.\ ] ] here @xmath310
we will now define an operator @xmath311 on the vector space @xmath307 $ ] explicitly .
denote by @xmath312 and @xmath313 the automorphisms of the @xmath24-algebra @xmath307 $ ] which act trivially on the subalgebra @xmath31 but map the variable @xmath314 to @xmath315 and @xmath316 respectively .
thus @xmath312 is the inverse @xmath317-shift of @xmath314 while @xmath313 is the usual @xmath7-shift .
next equip the vector space @xmath318 $ ] with the standard inner product so that @xmath319 form an orthonormal basis .
denote by @xmath320 the operator on @xmath318 $ ] conjugate to multiplication by @xmath82 .
explicitly , @xmath321 0 & \quad\textrm{if}\quad\,n=0\ , .
\end{array } \right.\ ] ]    extend the operator @xmath320 from @xmath318 $ ] to @xmath307 $ ] by @xmath322-linearity .
the extension will still be denoted by @xmath320 . for every @xmath323 extend from @xmath31 to @xmath307 $ ] by @xmath318{\hspace{0.75pt}}$]-linearity the operator of multiplication by @xmath289 and its conjugate operator @xmath324 .
recall that the superscript @xmath74 here indicates conjugation relative to the inner product .
the conjugate @xmath325 relative to the inner product extends from @xmath31 to @xmath307 $ ] in the same way as @xmath326 does . using these conventions ,
put @xmath327 where @xmath328    we have a commutative diagram of @xmath24-linear mappings @xmath329 { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[above=1pt]{z }          \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[left=1pt]{\pi_n }   & { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[right=2pt]{\pi_n } \\ { \lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1 ) } \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[below=2pt]{z_1 }     & { \lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1 ) }   \end{tikzcd } \vspace{2pt}\ ] ]    we will verify commutativity of the two diagrams obtained from by replacing @xmath330 respectively by @xmath331 and @xmath332 .
our theorem will then follow .
firstly observe that the extended operator @xmath333\to{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt}}]$ ] appearing in the definition of @xmath334 is a homomorphism of @xmath24-algebras , and so is @xmath335\to { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt}}]\,$ ] .
hence it suffices to show that the compositions @xmath336 and @xmath337 coincide on @xmath314 and on @xmath75 for @xmath338 . by applying the compositions to @xmath314
we get the  same  result : @xmath339 v \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\gamma } }          & q^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-1}{\hspace{0.75pt}}v \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{\pi_n } &   q^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-1}{\hspace{0.75pt}}x_1 \end{tikzcd } \quad\text{and}\quad     \begin{tikzcd}[column sep=32pt ] v \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{\pi_n }          & x_1 \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1 } }   & q^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-1}{\hspace{0.75pt}}x_1\ , .
\end{tikzcd}\ ] ]    to check the coincidence on any generator @xmath75 note that by the identity   @xmath340 hence due to by applying @xmath336 and @xmath337 to @xmath75 we also get the same result : @xmath339 p_n \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\gamma } }          &   q^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-n}{\hspace{0.75pt}}v^n - v^n+p_n \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{\pi_n }   &    q^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-n}{\hspace{0.75pt}}x_1+x_2^n+\ldots+x_n^n \end{tikzcd } \vspace{-8pt}\ ] ] and @xmath339 p_n \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{\pi_n }          & x_1^n+\ldots+x_n^n \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1 } }   & q^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}-n}{\hspace{0.75pt}}x_1+x_2^n+\ldots+x_n^n\ , .
\end{tikzcd } \vspace{2pt}\ ] ]    now consider the compositions @xmath341 and @xmath342 . by definition ,
the extended operator @xmath343\to { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt}}]$ ] commutes with multiplication by any @xmath344 . but
@xmath345 by .
in particular , the restriction of the operator @xmath346 to the subspace commutes with multiplication by @xmath347 .
hence it suffices to show that the compositions @xmath341 and @xmath348 coincide on the elements @xmath349\,$ ] .
let us use the generating series of these elements @xmath350 in the other variable @xmath20 . by applying @xmath341 to the series we get @xmath351 \displaystyle \frac1{\,1-u\,v\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\small w } }          & \displaystyle \frac{\,q(u)}{\,1-u\,t\,v\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{\pi_n }   &
\displaystyle \frac1{\,1-u\,t\,x_1 } \,\,\prod_{i=1}^n\,{\hspace{0.75pt}}\frac{\,1-u\,t\,x_i\,}{1-u\,x_i}\ .
\end{tikzcd}\ ] ] here we employed the general fact that for any formal power series @xmath352 with  the coefficients from @xmath24 @xmath353 we have also employed the relation with the variable @xmath314 replaced by @xmath20 .    on the other hand , by applying @xmath348 to the series we get @xmath339 \displaystyle \frac1{\,1-u\,v\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\pi_n } }          & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\,1-u\,x_1\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{w_1 }   & \displaystyle \frac1{\,1-u\,x_1 } \prod_{1<{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n}\frac{\,x_1-t\,x_l}{x_1-x_l } \ \,+ \end{tikzcd } \vspace{-2pt}\ ] ] @xmath354 here we also used and .
it easy to verify that the results obtained in and in the last two displayed lines are the same .
consider them as rational functions of @xmath19 and assume that @xmath355 .
then both rational functions vanish at @xmath356 and have poles only at @xmath357 .
all these poles are simple , and the corresponding residues of the two functions coincide .
note that for any index @xmath358 one can also consider the restriction of the operator @xmath229 to the subspace of @xmath233 consisting of the polynomials in @xmath10 symmetric in all the variables but @xmath230 . by the covariance property our corollary [ sec:15 ] implies that the operator @xmath229 preserves this subspace .
we could have defined the extension @xmath359 of the homomorphism @xmath125 from @xmath31 to @xmath307 $ ] by mapping the variable @xmath314 to @xmath161 instead of @xmath360 . the image of @xmath359 would be then the latter subspace of @xmath361
. the inverse limit of the restriction of @xmath229 to that subspace would be then the same operator @xmath311 acting on @xmath307{\hspace{0.75pt}}$ ] .
this coincidence follows immediately from the property .
it is the change of parameters @xmath152 and @xmath362 in the original definition [ vi.3.2 ] that allowed us to state the last theorem in terms of the hall - littlewood symmetric functions @xmath363 .
otherwise we would have to change @xmath362 in the definition of the latter symmetric functions .
the change of the variable @xmath154 in [ vi.3.2 ] and the corresponding choice of normalization of the operator @xmath169 as in and as in proposition [ sec:13 ] ensure that every @xmath229 has a limit at @xmath1 .
in this subsection we will find the inverse limits at @xmath8 of the quantum hamiltonians corresponding to the basis of macdonald polynomials in @xmath40 .
these quantum hamiltonians are defined as the operator coefficients of the series @xmath270 acting on the vector space @xmath40 , see the end of subsection  [ sec:16 ] .
we will denote by @xmath364 the inverse limit of the series  @xmath365 .
the coefficients of the series @xmath364 will be certain operators @xmath366 $ ] where @xmath367 is yet another formal variable .
we will then eliminate the dependence of the coefficients on @xmath367 by renormalising the series @xmath368 .
hence the coefficients of the renormalised series will be operators acting on @xmath29 . consider the sum over @xmath132 appearing in . by the action of this sum on the subspace @xmath369
coincides with that of @xmath370 where we set @xmath371 here @xmath372 .
we will demonstrate that the operator @xmath373 maps the subspace to  @xmath40 . at the same time we will determine the inverse limit at @xmath8 of the restriction of the operator @xmath373 to the subspace .
the latter limit will be an operator @xmath307\to{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt}}]$ ] denoted simply by @xmath374 . to determine this limit extend the canonical homomorphism @xmath125 to a homomorphism @xmath375\to{\lambda}_n:\ , w\,\mapsto\,t^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}n}\,.\ ] ] here @xmath376 this definition of the homomorphism @xmath377 goes back to ( * ? ? ?
* section 6 ) . now define @xmath374 explicitly as the unique @xmath322-linear operator @xmath307\to{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt}}]$ ] such that @xmath378 w-1 & \quad\textrm{if}\quad\,n=0\ , .
\end{array } \right.\ ] ]    we have a commutative diagram of @xmath24-linear mappings @xmath379 { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[above=1pt]{v }          \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[left=1pt]{\pi_n }   & { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[right=2pt]{\tau_{n } } \\
{ \lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1 ) } \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[below=2pt]{v_1 }     & \,{\lambda}_n^{\phantom{(1 ) } } \end{tikzcd } \vspace{2pt}\ ] ]    the operator @xmath380\to{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt}}]$ ] commutes with the multiplication by any @xmath344 . in turn , the restriction of the operator @xmath381 to the subspace  commutes with multiplication by @xmath347 .
so it suffices to show that the compositions @xmath382 and @xmath383 coincide on the elements @xmath349\,$ ] .
let us again use the generating series of these elements . by applying @xmath382
to we get @xmath384 \displaystyle \frac1{\,1-u\,v\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\small v } }          & w - q(u ) \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{\tau_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}n } }   & \displaystyle t^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}n}-{\hspace{0.75pt}}\,\prod_{i=1}^n\,{\hspace{0.75pt}}\frac{\,1-u\,t\,x_i\,}{1-u\,x_i } \end{tikzcd}\ ] ] where we used . on the other hand , by applying @xmath383 to we get @xmath385 \displaystyle \frac1{\,1-u\,v\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{{\pi_n } }          & \displaystyle \frac{1}{\,1-u\,x_1\ , } \arrow[mapsto]{r}[below=2pt]{v_1 }   & \displaystyle \,\,\sum_{i=1}^n\,\ , \frac{t-1}{\,1-u\,x_i } \,\prod_{\substack{1{\leqslant}{\hspace{0.75pt}}l{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\leqslant}n\\l\neq i}}\frac{\,x_i - t\,x_l}{x_i - x_l } \ . \end{tikzcd}\ ] ] the results obtained in and are equal to each other . indeed , consider them as rational functions of @xmath19 and assume that @xmath355 .
then both rational functions vanish at @xmath356 and have poles at @xmath357 .
these poles are simple , and the corresponding residues of two functions coincide .    by the surjectivity of @xmath359
the last proposition implies that the operator @xmath373 maps the subspace to  @xmath40 .
moreover , it implies that the inverse limit at @xmath8 of the restriction of the operator sum to  the subspace equals @xmath386 by the definitions of @xmath387 and @xmath374 here for every @xmath388 the composition @xmath389 is an operator @xmath307\to{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt}}]\,$ ] .
the above stated equality of the inverse limit follows from the commutativity of the diagram @xmath390 { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[above=1pt]{z^n }          \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[left=1pt]{\pi_n }   & { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[above=1pt]{{\gamma}\ }          \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[left=1pt]{\pi_n }   & { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[above=1pt]{v }          \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[right=1pt]{\pi_n }   & { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[right=2pt]{\tau_{n } } \\ { \lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1 ) } \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[below=2pt]{z_1^n } & \!{\lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1 ) } \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[below=2pt]{{\gamma}_{{\hspace{0.75pt}}1 } } & { \lambda}_n^{{\hspace{0.75pt}}(1 ) } \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[below=2pt]{v_1 }     & \,{\lambda}_n^{\phantom{(1 ) } } \end{tikzcd } \vspace{2pt}\ ] ] here we use the commutativity of , and that of the diagram obtained from by replacing @xmath330 respectively by @xmath391 .
the commutativity of the diagram so obtained has been established as a part of our proof of theorem  [ sec:31 ] .
denote by @xmath392 the embedding of @xmath31 to @xmath307 $ ] as the subspace of degree zero in @xmath82 .
then we have a commutative diagram @xmath393 { \lambda}{\phantom{[]}}\!\ ! \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[above=2pt]{{\delta } }          \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[left=0pt ] { }   & { \lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt } } ] \arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{d}[right=2pt]{\pi_n } \\ { \lambda}_n^{\phantom{(1)}}\!\!\ !
\arrow[xshift=0pt , yshift=0pt]{r}[below=0pt ] { }     & { \lambda}_n^{(1 ) } \end{tikzcd}\ ] ] where the left vertical arrow is the canonical projection .
the bottom horizontal arrow is the natural embedding .
it follows that the inverse limit of @xmath270 equals @xmath394    by the above definition , every coefficient in the formal power series expansion of @xmath364 in @xmath19 is a certain operator @xmath366\,$ ] .
now consider the series @xmath395 where the summand @xmath221 in front of @xmath396 stands for the embedding of @xmath31 to @xmath397 $ ] as the subspace of degree zero in @xmath398 .
this should cause no confusion . in the next subsection
we will show that the series does not depend on @xmath398 .
hence the coefficients of this series will be operators mapping the vector space @xmath31 to itself .
note that by the definition of the homomorphism @xmath399 and by the above given arguments , the series is equal to the inverse limit at @xmath8 of @xmath400 but by using the multiplicative formula , the eigenvalue of @xmath236 on the trivial macdonald polynomial @xmath401 corresponding to @xmath402 is @xmath403 hence our theorem [ sec:16 ] implies that the eigenvalue of on @xmath401 equals  @xmath299 . by taking the limit at @xmath8
the eigenvalue of on the trivial macdonald symmetric function @xmath404 also equals @xmath299 .
this explains the definition of .      here
we will use the vector space decomposition @xmath405={\lambda}\oplus v{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}v{\hspace{0.75pt}}]\,.\ ] ] the second direct summand in will be called the _ truncated space_.
relative to this decomposition the operator @xmath334 on @xmath307 $ ] is represented by the @xmath406 matrix with operator entries @xmath407 \ { \beta}&{\alpha}\   \end{bmatrix}\ ] ] where @xmath408 denotes the composition of the restriction of @xmath334 to the first summand in with the projection to the second summand .
the map @xmath334 preserves the second summand , and @xmath409 denotes the restriction of @xmath334 to it .
similarly , the operator @xmath410 on @xmath307 $ ] is represented by the @xmath406 matrix with operator entries @xmath411 \ 0&\,x\ ,   \end{bmatrix}\ ] ] where @xmath154 and @xmath412 respectively denote the compositions of the restriction of @xmath410 to the second summand in with the projections to the first and to the second summands .
note that the operator @xmath327 is then represented by the product @xmath413 \ 0&\,x\ ,   \end{bmatrix } \begin{bmatrix } \ 1&\,0\   \\[2pt ] \ { \beta}&{\alpha}\   \end{bmatrix } = \begin{bmatrix } \ 1+y{\beta}&\ y{\alpha}\   \\[2pt ] \
x{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\beta}&\,x{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\alpha}\   \end{bmatrix } .\ ] ]    by definition the operator @xmath380\to{\lambda}{\hspace{0.75pt}}[{\hspace{0.75pt}}w{\hspace{0.75pt}}]$ ] acts on the first direct summand in as multiplication by @xmath414 .
the restriction of @xmath374 to the second direct summand does not depend on @xmath398 .
thus it maps @xmath415 $ ] to @xmath29 .
moreover , by the definitions of @xmath374 and @xmath410 this restriction coincides with the operator @xmath416 .
hence relative to the operator @xmath374 is represented by the row with operator entries @xmath417    finally denote @xmath418 .
this is an operator on the truncated space @xmath415\,$ ]
. we shall call it the _ lax operator _ for the macdonald symmetric functions in @xmath29 .
this terminology is justified by the following theorem .
the series is equal to @xmath419 where @xmath420 in particular , the series does not depend on the variable @xmath398 .
relative to the operator @xmath421 $ ] is represented by the column with two operator entries @xmath422 therefore the operator product @xmath423 appearing in the definition of the series @xmath364 is represented by the first column of the @xmath406 matrix inverse  to @xmath424 \
u\,x{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\beta}&\,1+u\,x{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\alpha}\   \end{bmatrix } .\ ] ] here we employ the matrix representation of the operator @xmath308 .
to find that column we will use a well known formula for the inverse of a @xmath406 block matrix with invertible diagonal blocks , see ( * ? ?
* lemma 3.2 ) .
the block matrix is assumed to be invertible too .
the first entry of the first column that we find in this way  is @xmath425 the second entry of the first column of the inverse matrix that we find is then @xmath426    the product @xmath427 in is represented by the row with operator entries @xmath428 \ { \beta}&{\alpha}\   \end{bmatrix } = \begin{bmatrix } \,w-1-y{\hspace{0.75pt}}{\beta}\ , \ ,
-{\hspace{0.75pt}}y{\alpha}\ , \end{bmatrix } .\ ] ] the series @xmath364 is equal to the product of this row by the column representing @xmath429 .
that column has the entries and .
hence @xmath364 equals @xmath430 our theorem immediately follows from the last displayed expression for @xmath368 .
note that by replacing in the series @xmath431 the variable @xmath19 by @xmath432 we get the same generating series for the limits of the quantum hamiltonians at @xmath8 as was denoted in ( * ? ? ?
* section 2 ) by @xmath368 .
but in the present article the notation @xmath364 was introduced in and has a meaning different from that in @xcite .
we are grateful to i.v.cherednik for illuminating conversations .
the first named author was supported by the epsrc grant ep / n023919 , and by the programme _ geometry and representation theory _ at the erwin schrdinger institute .
the second named author was supported by leverhulme senior research fellowship .