Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: spin - charge separation and interaction dependent power laws of correlation functions have been known as non - fermi - liquid behavior of tomonaga - luttinger ( tl ) liquid , which is expected to describe the low energy physics of one dimensional ( 1d ) interacting electron systems @xcite . in the past ten years , experimental evidences for the realization of tl states have been reported in many systems such as carbon nanotube devices @xcite , quantum wires in semiconductor heterostructures  @xcite and fractional quantum hall systems  @xcite , as predicted by theories  . the power law temperature dependencies of the tunneling density of states  @xcite , and the bulk spectral density near the fermi level  @xcite have been the key signatures of tl states in these experiments . on the other hand , there are only a few experiments on the direct observation of spin - charge separation @xcite . in order to obtain such low energy spectral profiles , we need to resolve local density of states at long distances from a scatterer or a boundary edge , by scanning tunneling microscope ( stm )  @xcite , which seems rather difficult to obtain high resolution data . instead , experiments on resonant tunneling @xcite seems to be a more suitable procedure to detect the spin - charge separation , since they probes the energy level spacings in the quantum island .    the resonant tunneling in tl liquid has been studied for more than a decade since kane and fisher s work @xcite . the charge transport is a main focus on those works . meanwhile , the spin transport in presence of external magnetic field , which is closely linked to detecting spin - charge separation , has not been studied enough . there are some theoretical works concerned with this issue @xcite . they consider the quantum wire forms the quantum dot between ferromagnetic contacts . there the spin and the charge transport can be controlled by the relative angle between the magnetization orientations of the ferromagnets @xcite . in their results , the qualitative change due to the spin - charge separation can be seen . however , the quantitative determination of the spin - charge separation in the excitation spectrum remains difficult .    in this paper , we consider the resonant tunneling through double impurities in a spinful tl liquid under magnetic fields . a schematic picture of the system is shown in fig.[fig : system ] ; a strong field @xmath3 is applied to the entire one - dimensional system . the charge and the spin in the region between double impurities are changed by a gate voltage @xmath0 and a weak field @xmath1 , respectively . applying a strong magnetic field breaks the spin rotational symmetry and violate spin - charge separation in the spectral peaks @xcite , due to the fermi velocity differences between two spins . as a result , the spin and the charge sector mix with each other  @xcite . it is shown that the spin - charge mixing effects can clearly be seen in the resonant oscillation patterns of zero bias conductance in @xmath4 plane . the spin dependent scaling behavior of a single impurity potential , due to zeeman effect , has been discussed by previous works  @xcite . we also discuss a spin - charge mixing effects on the impurity scaling in the resonant tunneling . zero bias conductance is calculated by standard bosonization technique  @xcite as a function of a gate voltage , gate magnetic field , temperature @xmath5 and the strong magnetic field . the impurity potential @xmath6 is assumed to be either very weak ( @xmath7 ) or very strong ( @xmath8 ) . when @xmath9 , changing the gate voltage does affect the spin density together with the charge density due to the spin - charge mixing , leading to noticeable deformation in the lattice pattern of the conductance peaks  @xcite . moreover contour shapes at low temperatures are divided into three types , depending on the bulk parameters such as @xmath3 , interaction parameters @xmath10 , where the impurity potentials are scaled towards  perfect reflection " , `` perfect transmission '' and magnetic field induced `` spin - filtering '' , respectively . these three behaviors are explained by a renormalization group ( rg ) analysis of a single impurity potential in spin - charge mixed systems . we consider a system illustrated in fig.[fig : system ] .     schematic figure of spin polarized tomonaga - luttinger liquid with two impurities under magnetic field . , width=295,height=108 ]    an infinite tl liquid , under a strong magnetic field @xmath11 perpendicular to the wire , has two impurities ( or barriers ) of the strength @xmath12 at @xmath13 . hereafter we take the spin quantization axis in the direction of @xmath11 , and denote the strength of @xmath11 by @xmath14 . @xmath15 and @xmath16 are set to unity in this paper . zeeman effect due to @xmath3 is incorporated into hamiltonian as the difference in fermi velocity between two spin species . for simplicity , we take into account the zeeman effect only on spins with neglecting the orbital effects . this is allowed when the magnetic length @xmath17 is longer than a width of the tl wire , as discussed in @xcite . in the effective mass approximation @xmath18 , the velocity difference is given by , @xmath19 for not too strong fields , @xmath20 is approximately linear in @xmath3 . for simplicity , we set @xmath21 , where the sign @xmath22 represents up ( down ) spin . we shall call the region @xmath23 an island . in the island , chemical potential of spin @xmath24 electrons can be controlled by gate voltage @xmath25 and gate magnetic field @xmath26 ; @xmath27 . we consider the situation where zeeman energies due to strong magnetic field @xmath3 and due to gate magnetic field @xmath1 are , respectively , on the order of fermi energy and energy level spacing in the island ; _ i.e. _ @xmath28 . then the fermi velocity change due to @xmath1 can be neglected . hamiltonian of the system consists of four parts , @xmath29 where @xmath30 and @xmath31 are the hamiltonian for free electrons , two - body interaction , electrons on the island and barrier potential , respectively . they are given in terms of fermion field operator ,    [ eq : whole ] @xmath32 , \\ & & h_{\rm int}=\frac{1}{2 } \sum_{\sigma,\sigma ' } \int dxdy \ n_{\sigma}(x ) { \mathcal u}_{\sigma,\sigma'}(x - y ) n_{\sigma'}(y )    ,   \qquad \\ & & h_{{\rm island}}=   -ev_{\rm g }   \sum_{\sigma } \int_{-d}^{d } dx \ n_{\sigma }   \nonumber   \\ & & \qquad \quad +   \int_{-d}^{d } dx   \ \frac{1}{2 } g \mu_{b } \overrightarrow{b_{\rm g } } \cdot ( \psi_{\alpha}^{\dagger } \vec{\sigma}_{\alpha,\beta}\psi_{\beta } )   ,    \label{h - island } \\ & & h_{{\rm b}}= v \sum_{\sigma } \ \left [ n_{\sigma}(-d ) +   n_{\sigma}(d ) \right ] , \label{h - barriers}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath33 and @xmath34 are annihilation operator and density operator for electrons with spin @xmath35 . we neglect the charging energy of the island ( @xmath36 in @xcite ) , which can be incorporated into @xmath37 . @xmath38 are written in terms of bosonic phase fields  @xcite ,    [ eq : whole ] @xmath39 \nonumber    \\ & & \qquad \qquad   +   \pi \delta \int dx   \left [ ( \frac{1}{\pi}\partial_{x } \phi_{\rho})(\frac{1}{\pi}\partial_{x } \phi_{s})+ \pi_{\rho}\pi_{s } \right ] ,   \qquad \label{hamiltonian before diagonalized}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here , @xmath40 is the inverse of the fermi wave number : @xmath41 and @xmath42 are conjugate pairs of bosonic field with commutation relations @xmath43=i \delta_{i , j } \delta(x - x')$ ] , where @xmath44 @xmath45 represent for charge ( spin ) variables .    to diagonalize @xmath38 , we use the linear transformation  @xcite ( see also appendix b for the expression in ladder operators of tl bosons ) @xmath46 commutation relations are preserved under this transformation @xmath47=i \delta_{i , j } \delta(x - x')$ ] . parameters @xmath48 and @xmath49 are , respectively , a rotation angle and a scale factor in `` spin - charge space '' given by , @xmath50 the rotation angle @xmath48 is proportional to @xmath20 , and thus to @xmath3 , for small @xmath20 . after the transformation , @xmath51 becomes , @xmath52 . \label{tl hamiltonian}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the expression of @xmath53 and @xmath54 are given in appendix a.    as discussed in @xcite , in a polarized tl liquid , the scaling dimensions of a single impurity potential split between two spins . renormalization group equations for small backscattering amplitude @xmath55 and small tunneling amplitude @xmath56 are given @xmath57 with @xmath58 and an initial ( running ) energy cutoff @xmath59 ( @xmath60 ) . the scaling dimensions @xmath61 and @xmath62 are given @xmath63 where @xmath64 , @xmath65 , @xmath66 , and @xmath67 . thus the ratio of reflection amplitudes and tunneling amplitudes scale like , respectively , @xmath68 and @xmath69 . the difference of the exponents @xmath70 and @xmath71 are given @xmath72 this expression tells us that the split of the scaling dimensions between two spins become large when the spin - charge mixing angle is large . due to the split of exponents , we expect the spin current with large polarization @xmath73 at low temperature in the strong barrier limit . this scaling effect with the exponents @xmath61 and @xmath62 also appears in the conductance for double barrier structure . we consider first the weak barrier limit @xmath74 , where the electron transfer is due to the coherent tunneling of the spin - charge mixed density wave . the zero bias conductance is calculated perturbatively with respect to the small barrier potential @xmath75 . the hamiltonian for the island and for the barriers in eq.([h - island ] ) and eq.([h - barriers ] ) are written in terms of the bosonic phase at @xmath13 , @xmath76 @xmath77 is the linear combination of phases at @xmath13 . according to our assumption that the magnetic field @xmath3 is strong enough that @xmath78 , only @xmath79-component of @xmath80 remains after the integration of ( [ h - island ] ) with neglecting the fast oscillating terms . hereafter , we denote @xmath81 by @xmath1 . to make calculations easier , it is helpful to construct an effective action @xcite obtained by integrating out the tl field except for the positions of the barriers @xmath13 , since charge ( spin ) current through barriers depends only on the local variables , @xmath82 . the integrated effective action is calculated as , @xmath83 , \\ & & \tilde{\epsilon}_{i}^{\pm}(\omega_{n } ) = \frac{1}{\pi \tilde{k}_{i}}\frac{| \omega_{n}|}{1 \pm \exp \{-(2d/\tilde{v}_{i})|\omega_{n}| \}}. \end{aligned}\ ] ] here we have defined new variables @xmath84 . @xmath85 and @xmath86 relates each other by the same linear transformation between @xmath87 and @xmath88 . we will calculate zero bias conductance for charge ( spin ) current following kubo formula , @xmath89 where analytic continuation is to be taken before taking the limit . the effective action @xmath90 is used for taking thermal average such that @xmath91 hamiltonian for the island @xmath92 is given after canonical transformation ( [ linear transform ] ) as @xmath93 with the coefficients , @xmath94 thus , the terms other than barrier potentials , quadratic in @xmath95 , can be treated exactly in @xmath90 . after straightforward calculation , we obtain an explicit form of the conductance to the second order in @xmath75 ; @xmath96 for @xmath97 . the unperturbed conductance @xmath98 and @xmath99 are @xcite , @xmath100 this expression implies that spin polarized current can flow in a clean , infinite tl liquid due to spin - charge mixing effect , since @xmath101 when @xmath102 for all interaction parameters . however , such a violation of the conductance quantization is shown to be an artifact for infinite system as previous works pointed out for unpolarized system  @xcite . we show in appendix c that the prefactors of conductance should vanish @xmath103 @xmath104 also for spin polarized system , by taking into account the effects of fermi liquid reservoirs . thus the spin polarized current can not be generated in a clean system , even when a magnetic field are applied . the second order correction @xmath105 is    [ eq : whole ] @xmath106 , \\   & & \qquad r_{\sigma } = \cos{\omega_{\sigma } }   \exp\left[-\sum_{\omega'_{n}}f_{\sigma}(\omega_{n } ' ) ( 1+\cos{\omega'_{n}\tau } ) \right ] + \exp\left[-\sum_{\omega'_{n}}f_{\sigma}(\omega_{n } ' ) ( 1-\cos{\omega'_{n}\tau } ) \right ] \\   & & \qquad \omega_{\sigma}=-4k_{{\rm f},\sigma}d+ \bigl [ \frac{-\cos{\alpha}b_{\rho,\sigma}}{\pi \tilde{\epsilon}_{\rho}^{-}(0 ) } + \frac{y^{-1}\sin{\alpha } b_{s,\sigma}}{\pi \tilde{\epsilon}_{s}^{-}(0 ) }   \bigr ] 2ev_{g } + \bigl [ \frac{y \sin{\alpha}b_{\rho,\sigma}}{\pi \tilde{\epsilon}_{\rho}^{-}(0 ) } + \frac{\cos{\alpha}b_{s,\sigma}}{\pi \tilde{\epsilon}_{s}^{-}(0 ) } \bigr ] g \mu_{b}b_{g } , \\ & & \qquad f_{\sigma}(\omega_{n } ' ) = \frac{1}{2\beta }   \left ( \frac{b_{\rho,\sigma}^2 } { \tilde{\epsilon}_{\rho}^{-}(\omega'_{n } ) } + \frac{b_{s,\sigma}^2 } { \tilde{\epsilon}_{s}^{-}(\omega'_{n } ) } \right ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath107 and the constants given by , @xmath108 the second order correction @xmath105 gives us some information about the resonant oscillation in @xmath109 plane ; the exponential terms determine the temperature dependent amplitude , and @xmath110 determines the period . as seen in the above expression , the conductance oscillation comes from a sum of two independent contributions ; resonant tunneling of spin up electrons and spin down electrons . this is because the average of a product of cosine terms for up spin and down spin always vanishes ; @xmath111 .    at low temperature @xmath112 , it is given @xmath113 where @xmath59 is the high energy cut - off . at high temperature @xmath114 , the term proportional to @xmath115 is exponentially suppressed as increasing temperature , while the other terms remain unchanged in ( [ eq : weak barrier conductance ] ) . thus , the conductance oscillation dessappers and the double impurity structure can be viewed as a single impurity whose scaling law is given in eq.([eq : single impurity scaling ( weak ) ] ) for @xmath116 . second order conductance correction @xmath117 are plotted as a function of gate voltage and magnetic field normalized by @xmath118 for hubbard model . @xmath119 , @xmath120 ; ( a ) @xmath121 , ( b ) @xmath122 , ( c ) @xmath123 , ( d ) @xmath124 . the temperature is fixed at @xmath125 in all figures . solid ( broken ) arrow indicates the direction of peak line of the conductance deviation due to up ( down ) spin resonant tunneling . , width=296,height=309 ]    figure [ fig : conductance ] shows the contour plot of the conductance correction as a function of gate voltage and gate magnetic field . conductance peaks form lattice in ( @xmath126 ) plane and spin - charge mixing effect causes the deformation of the lattice . for unpolarized fermi liquid @xmath102 and @xmath127 in fig.[fig : conductance](a ) , conductance peaks form rectangular lattice with periods @xmath128 . changing the interaction parameter from @xmath129 to @xmath130 ( from fig.[fig : conductance](a ) to fig.[fig : conductance](b ) ) , the lattice shape does not change but with a shift in the period @xmath131 due to the change in charge- and spin- susceptibility of the island @xmath132 and @xmath133 . as increasing @xmath20 from @xmath134 to @xmath135 in fermi liquid case ( from fi.[fig : conductance](a ) to fig.[fig : conductance](c ) ) , stretches in primary unit vectors of the lattice ( arrows in figures ) , by a factor @xmath136 for spin @xmath35 electrons , are seen . it reflects the change in the level spacing due to zeeman effect given by @xmath137 . then , adding the interaction from @xmath129 to @xmath130 ( from fig.[fig : conductance](c ) to fig.[fig : conductance](d ) ) , rotations of the primary unit vectors rotates reflecting rotations of spin - charge space . this is exactly due to spin - charge mixing effect . for @xmath138 , the rotation can not be seen in fig.[fig : conductance](c ) since the principal axis in spin - charge space stay in the direction @xmath139 independent of @xmath20 . the rotation angle @xmath140 is proportional to `` spin - charge mixing angle @xmath48 '' for small @xmath20 , @xmath141 when there are only density - density interactions between electrons @xmath142 _ i.e. _ tl parameters satisfy @xmath143 , @xmath144 when the temperature decreases , the amplitude of oscillation for two spins follow power laws with different exponents . in case of spin isotropic interaction ( @xmath145 @xmath103 @xmath146 ) , depending on the interaction @xmath147 is repulsive or attractive , impurity potentials are scaled toward perfect reflection or perfect transmission . extending the parameter space to spin anisotropic interaction ( @xmath148 @xmath103 @xmath149 ) , `` spin filter phase '' where @xmath150 , emerges between the two phases `` perfect transmission '' and `` perfect reflection '' . in this phase , the impurity potential scales toward perfect transmission for up spin ( majority spin ) , and perfect reflection for down ( minority ) spin . the conductance correction at different temperatures are plotted with tl parameters in spin filter phase in fig.[fig : conductance - low temperature ] . the peaks of the conductance correction changes from lattice structure to one plane wave , as lowering temperature from fig.[fig : conductance - low temperature](a ) to fig.[fig : conductance - low temperature](b ) . this is due to the strong suppression of backscattering current of the majority spins , and the enhansment for the minority spin at low temperature . these results suggest the possibility of generating and modulating spin current with large polarization by gate voltage and gate magnetic field . @xmath117 are plotted as a function of gate voltage and magnetic field normalized by @xmath118 for spin anisotropic interaction parameters . @xmath151 , @xmath152 , @xmath153 ; ( a ) @xmath154 , ( b ) @xmath155.,width=289,height=149 ] in this section , we consider the weak link limit ( @xmath157 ) , where the tunneling amplitudes @xmath56 satisfies @xmath158 and the electron transport is described by a sequential tunneling picture  @xcite . we will calculate zero - bias conductance perturbatively to the lowest order within a master equation framework . the higher order contributions , such as cotunneling ( cot )  @xcite and correlated sequential tunneling ( cst )  @xcite , are neglected . contributions from cot and cst become important , respectively , away from the resonance peaks and for rather transparent barriers  @xcite . thus , they do not seem to make major changes in the discussions here focusing on the peak positions and the height in the weak link limit . we consider a quantum island with length @xmath159 weakly linked to the semiinfinite tl wires at the both ends . the hamiltonian for the semiinfinite wires @xmath160 are the same as eq.([tl hamiltonian ] ) . we represent electron field operators of the island , the right ( r ) and the left ( l ) wire by @xmath161 , @xmath162 and @xmath163 , respectively . they obey the open boundary condition @xmath164 . the chemical potentials of the right and the left wire are set @xmath165 and @xmath166 , and we take the limit @xmath167 at the last stage of the calculations for the zero bias conductance . in the sequential tunneling regime , the number of excess electrons on the island @xmath168 becomes a good quantum number , which enters in the zero mode hamiltonian @xmath169 , @xmath170 the hamiltonian for non - zero mode @xmath171 is the same as in eq.([tl hamiltonian ] ) ; @xmath172 , where @xmath173 . under the boundary condition , the mode expansion of the electron field operator @xmath174 becomes  @xcite , @xmath175 where @xmath176 is zero - mode phase satisfying @xmath177 = i$ ] . non - zero mode phase @xmath178 is given @xmath179 the mode expansion of @xmath180 are similarly obtained . using the boundary operators , the tunnel hamiltonian @xmath181 is given @xmath182 the transition rate @xmath183 from a initial state @xmath184 to a final state @xmath185 ( @xmath186 ) , via tunneling processes at the right ( left ) end of the island , can be calculated perturbatively . to the lowest order , it becomes @xmath187 where the time evolution of operators are given in interaction representation @xmath188 with @xmath189 $ ] . we obtain the expression for @xmath190 @xmath191 as , @xmath192    \gamma^{j}(\varepsilon_{\sigma}^{j},\beta ) , \label{eq : transition rate } \\ & &   \gamma^{j}(\varepsilon_{\sigma}^{j},\beta ) \sim \frac{1}{\pi}\left ( \frac{t_{\sigma}^{j}}{v_{{\rm f},\sigma } } \right)^{2 } \left ( \frac{\pi}{\beta \lambda } \right)^{\frac{\lambda_{\sigma}}{2}-2 }   \prod_{i=\rho , s } \left(\frac{3\tilde{v}_{i}/d}{\lambda}\right)^{\frac{d_{i,\sigma}^{2}}{2\tilde{k}_{i } } } \nonumber \\ & & \qquad \quad \times 2^{\lambda_{\sigma}-1 } b\left [   \frac{\lambda_{\sigma}+i\beta \varepsilon_{\sigma}^{j}/\pi}{2 } , \frac{\lambda_{\sigma}-i\beta \varepsilon_{\sigma}^{j}/\pi}{2 }   \right ] ,   \label{eq : tunneling rate}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath193 is the energy difference between the two states . the line shape of the conductance near the peak is roughly given by the beta function in ( [ eq : tunneling rate ] ) , and the peak height scales like @xmath194 as lowering temperature . the probability @xmath195 to find the system in @xmath196 , and the current of spin @xmath35 electrons @xmath197 are obtained by solving a set of master equations , @xmath198 where @xmath199 . the zero bias conductance @xmath200 is evaluated from ( [ eq : transition rate])-([eq : current by sequential tunneling ] ) and plotted as a function of gate voltage and gate magnetic field in fig.[fig : weak link conductance ] . zero bias conductance @xmath201 is plotted as a function of gate voltage and magnetic field normalized by @xmath118 , with @xmath202 and @xmath203 . different values of interaction and magnetic field are taken for each figures ; ( a ) @xmath127 , @xmath204 , ( b ) @xmath127 , @xmath205 , ( c ) @xmath130 , @xmath145 , @xmath204 , and ( d ) @xmath130 , @xmath145 , @xmath205.,width=292,height=265 ]    the conductance peak form lattice in @xmath2 plane , and one can see the spin - charge mixing effect on the shape as well as in the case of weak barriers . arrows in figures are the primary unit vectors , and a translation by a solid ( dotted ) arrow corresponds to a change in the average particle number of down ( up ) spin electrons in the island by one . when spin and charge excitations are degenerate ( @xmath138 ) , the primary unit vectors of the lattice pattern are in the direction of @xmath139 independently of the magnetic field @xmath20 as shown in fig.[fig : weak link conductance](a ) and fig.[fig : weak link conductance](b ) . on the other hand , when spin - charge separation does hold ( @xmath206 ) , the vectors rotate as increasing @xmath20 as seen in fig.[fig : weak link conductance](c ) and fig.[fig : weak link conductance](d ) . from eq.([eq : zero mode 1]-[eq : zero mode 2 ] ) , one can ensure that the angle of the solid ( dotted ) arrow @xmath207 ( @xmath208 ) is given @xmath209 thus the expansion of the rotation angle @xmath140 to the linear order in @xmath20 , yields the same result as eq.([eq : rotation angle ] ) obtained for the weak barrier case . this could indicate that applying a magnetic field causes a rotation of the lattice of conductance peaks by the same angle for entire range of barrier strength to the linear order . of course , being similar to the weak barrier case , the splits of scaling dimensions for tunneling amplitudes between two spins results in strong suppression of the peak height along the resonant line @xmath210 compared to @xmath211 in fig.[fig : weak link conductance](d ) . another interesting result in the strong barrier limit is that for @xmath212 there are no resonance points of four number states ( say @xmath213 , @xmath214 , @xmath215 and @xmath216 ) like o and @xmath217 . instead , such a resonance point splits into two ; one like a and @xmath218 where the three states @xmath213 , @xmath214 and @xmath215 degenerate , and the other like d and @xmath219 where @xmath216 , @xmath214 and @xmath215 do . the length between the separated resonance points @xmath220 and @xmath221 , corresponds to @xmath222 . it can thus be a measure for the strength of spin - charge separation . we have discussed the spin - charge mixing effect on the resonant tunneling in spin - polarized tomonaga - luttinger liquid under magnetic fields . the zero bias conductance is calculated as a function of gate voltage @xmath223 and gate magnetic field @xmath224 . conductance peaks form a lattice structure in @xmath225 plane . we find two effects of the spin - charge mixing in the plot of zero bias conductance ; ( i ) the primary unit vectors of the lattice pattern rotate as increasing magnetic field due to `` spin - charge mixing '' . ( ii ) the amplitude of conductance oscillation differs significantly at low temperature between two spins , which originates from the split of the scaling dimension of impurity potential . for systems with appropriate interaction parameters , the impurity potential can become a spin - filter that selects electrons of one spin orientation to pass through . we should note that such spin - filtering phase appears only for the systems with spin - anisotropic interaction ( @xmath148 ) , whose candidates in real systems havent been found yet . however , recent studies predicts that spin - orbit interactions in a quantum wire , whose strength is tunable by the gate voltage , can also cause spin - charge mixing @xcite as the zeeman effect does . moreover gritsev @xmath226 @xcite show that an interaction parameter @xmath227 can be renormalized and shift from @xmath145 in the presence of rashba coupling . these facts may suggest a possibility to lead such spin - filtering phase to an experimentally accessible region . finally we would like to address the possibility for the experimental test of our theory . if one uses armchair carbon nanotube as a tl wire , there arise two difficulties to observe the spin - charge mixing . armchair nanotubew are described as four components tl liquid ( spinful tl liquid with two bands @xmath228 ) , having a symmetry in the band structure @xmath229 at the fermi level @xmath230  . due to this unique band structure , the symmetry between up and down spins will not be broken even when applied magnetic field . hense the spin - charge mixing does not occur for @xmath230 . this is one difficulty . however , for doped carbon nanotubes ( @xmath231 ) with the band structure symmetry broken @xmath232 , the spin - charge mixing occur when applied a strong magnetic field . another difficulty is on realization of such a strong magnetic fields that the spin - cahrge mixing effect can be measured . in our case , a significant change in the fermi velocity about @xmath233 is needed . such situation may be difficult to prepare in carbon nanotubes with a band width @xmath234 @xcite since @xmath235-factor for electrons in carbon nanotubes is @xmath236 @xcite , which means a magnetic field 1 t amounts to @xmath237 . to make velocity difference @xmath238 , it requires @xmath239 tesla in case of carbon nanotubes . and the preparation of the local magnetic field @xmath1 with a submicron meter scale is also an open issue , though there are some works reporting magnetic fields with a micron meter scale  @xcite . however , if one uses a quantum wire with a small fermi energy and a large @xmath235-factor _ e.g. _ an insb quantum wire with @xmath240 , two problems lying on carbon nanotubes are cleared , and our predictions can possibly be verified in experiments . ultracold fermionic atoms in optical lattices  @xcite , which shows remarkable progress in experiments , with controllable parameters such as interaction parameters , lattice shapes , and the potential height , will also give us another conceivable stage to test our theory . it is the more important issue of spintronics to suggest new ways of creating spin filters _ i.e. _ the way to modify the split of scaling dimensions between two spin channels in more realistic models . however the concepts of `` spin - charge mixing effect '' will play one key role in this matter . we thank n. yokoshi and t. kimura for useful comments and discussions . this work is supported by the 21st century coe program ( holistic research and education center for physics of selforganization systems ) at waseda university from the ministry of education , sports , culture , science and technology of japan . is supported by the japan society for promotion of science . luttinger parameters in eq.([tl hamiltonian ] ) are given ,    @xmath241    where @xmath48 and @xmath49 are given in eq.([rotation angle ] ) . here we represent the linear transformation in eq.([linear transform ] ) in terms of ladder operators of tl bosons @xmath242 , @xmath243 , @xmath244 and @xmath245 , which diagonalize tl hamiltonian as @xmath246 . the phase variables @xmath41 and @xmath42 are expanded in terms of the ladder operators as @xmath247 the representation for @xmath248 and @xmath249 are obtained similarly by putting @xmath250 into the above equations . focusing on a @xmath251-component here , we omit the index @xmath251 for simplicity . from the above expressions , the transformation in eq.([linear transform ] ) is expressed as @xmath252 with @xmath253 , @xmath254 , and a 4@xmath2554 matrix @xmath256 ; @xmath257 for sure , it can be easily checked that the transformation matrix @xmath256 satisfies a normalization condition for a bogoliubov transformation @xmath258 with @xmath259 . here we calculate the zero bias conductance of a clean tl wire under magnetic field , connected to fermi liquid reservoirs . as previous works @xcite have shown , the scaling factor of conductance should disappear by the effect of reservoirs . we check whether their statements can also be applied to a polarized tl liquid , and whether our result in eq.([eq : conductance in clean limit 2 ] ) , which implies that applying bias voltage generates spin current by spin - charge mixing effect , is an artifact of the assumption to be an infinite system . we consider a polarized tl wire is connected to reservoirs of noninteracting fermi liquid at @xmath13 .    from hamiltonian ( [ hamiltonian before diagonalized ] ) , the imaginary time action becomes , @xmath260 @xmath20 , @xmath261 and @xmath262 are @xmath263-dependent parameters and abruptly change at the boundaries , @xmath264 conductance can be calculated from the green s function of bosonic field , @xmath265 which satisfies the equation , @xmath266 here @xmath267 is fourier component of @xmath268 obtained by @xmath269 . dc charge current ( @xmath270 ) and spin current ( @xmath271 ) induced by a time independent electronic field @xmath272 in tl wire @xmath273 , are determined from kubo formula for @xmath274 @xmath275_{i,\rho } \right ) e(y ) . \quad\end{aligned}\ ] ] we must solve ( [ eq : equation for greens function ] ) under the boundary conditions at @xmath276 ; ( i ) the green s function should be continuous and ( ii ) the integration should satisfy @xmath277 one can find the solution to become @xmath278 thus the conductance is given by @xmath279 and @xmath101 instead of eq.([eq : conductance in clean limit 1]-[eq : conductance in clean limit 2 ] ) . the result shows the conductance quantization to @xmath280 par spin channel also holds for spin - charge mixed systems under the magnetic field , as far as concerned the dc limit @xmath281 . moreover we can ensure this conclusion is unchanged when a magnetic field is also applied to reservoirs besides the one - dimensional region . a. gogolin , a. nersesyan , and a. tsvelik , _ `` bosonization and strongly correlated systems '' _ ( cambridge university press , cambridge , england , 1998 ) . m. bockrath _ et . al . _ , nature ( london ) * 397 * , 598 ( 1999 ) ; z. yao _ et . _ , _ ibd . _ * 402 * , 273 ( 1999 ) . a. bachtold _ et . lett . * 87 * , 166801 ( 2001 ) . h. w. postma , t. teepen , z. yao , m. grifoni , and c. dekker , science * 293 * , 76 ( 2001 ) . s. tarucha , t. honda and t. saku , solid state commun . * 94 * , 413 ( 1995 ) . a. yacoby _ et . al . _ , solid state commun . * 101 * , 77 ( 1997 ) . f. p. milliken , c. p. umbach , and r. a. webb , solid state commun . * 97 * , 309 ( 1996 ) . a. m. chang , l. n. pfeiffer , and k. w. west , phys . * 77 * , 2538 ( 1996 ) . r. egger and a. o. gogolin , phys . lett . * 79 * , 5082 ( 1997 ) ; c. l. kane , l. balents , and m. p. a. fisher , _ ibd . _ * 79 * , 5086 ( 1997 ) x .- g . wen , phys . b * 41 * , 12838 ( 1990 ) . h. ishii , h. kataura , h. shiozawa , h. yoshioka , h. otsubo , y. takayama , t. miyahara , s. suzuki , y. achiba , m. nakatake , t. narumira , m. higashiguchi , k. shimada , h. namatame and m. taniguchi , nature * 426 * , 540 ( 2003 ) . o. m. auslaender , h. steinberg , a. yacoby , y. tserkovnyak , b. i. halperin , k. w. baldwin , l. n. pfeiffer , and k. w. west , science * 308 * , 88 ( 2005 ) . j. lee , s. eggert , h. kim , s. j. kahng , h. shinohara , and y. kuk , phys . lett . * 93 * , 166403 ( 2004 ) . w. liang , m. bockrath , d. bozovic , j. h. hafner , m. tinkham , h. park , nature ( london ) * 411 * , 665 ( 2001 ) ; w. liang , m. bockrath , and h. park , phys . rev . * 88 * , 126801 ( 2002 ) m. r. buitelaar , a. bachtold , t. nussbaumer , m. iqbal , and c. schonenberger , phys . * 88 * , 156801 ( 2002 ) . c. l. kane and m. p. a. fisher , phys . b * 46 * , 15233 ( 1992 ) . a. furusaki and n. nagaosa , phys . b * 47 * , 3827 ( 1993 ) . a. furusaki , phys . b * 57 * , 7141 ( 1998 ) . qimiao si , phys . 81 * , 3191 ( 1998 ) . l. balents and r. egger , phys . lett . * 85 * , 3464 ( 2000 ) ; l. balents and r. egger , phys . rev . b 64 , 035310 ( 2001 ) . c. s. peca , l. balents , and k. j. wiese , phys . b * 68 * , 205423 ( 2003 ) . s. rabello and q. si , europhys . lett . * 60 * , 882 ( 2002 ) . k. penc and j. solyom , phys . b * 47 * , 6273 - 6292 ( 1993 ) . t. kimura , k. kuroki , and h. aoki , phys . b * 53 * , 9572 ( 1996 ) . d. schmeltzer , phys . b * 65 * , 193303 ( 2002 ) ; h. y. chang and d. schmeltzer , phys . lett . a * 345 * , 45 ( 2005 ) . t. hikihara , a. furusaki and k. a. matveev , phys . b * 72 * , 035301 ( 2005 ) . s. lal , s. rao , and d. sen , phys . b * 65 * , 195304 ( 2002 ) . k. kamide , t. tsukada , and s. kurihara , physica b * 359 * -*361 * , 645 ( 2005 ) . h. ajiki and t. ando , j. phys . . jpn . * 62 * , 1255 ( 1993 ) ; j. phys . . jpn . * 65 * , 505 ( 1996 ) . d. l. maslov and m. stone , phys . b * 52 * , r5539 ( 1995 ) . a. kawabata , j. phys . jpn . * 65 * , 30 ( 1995 ) . v. v. ponomarenko , phys . rev . b * 52 * , r8666 ( 1995 ) . m. thorwart , m. grifoni , g. cuniberti , h. w. ch . postma , and c. dekker phys . lett . * 89 * , 196402 ( 2002 ) ; m. thorwart , r. egger , and m. grifoni phys . rev . b * 72 * , 035330 ( 2005 ) . m. fabrizio and a. o. gogolin , phys . b * 51 * , 17827 ( 1995 ) . a. e. mattsson , s. eggert , and h. johannesson , phys . b * 56 * , 15615 ( 1997 ) . f. anfuso and s. eggert , phys . b * 68 * , 241301(r ) ( 2003 ) . a. v. moroz , k. v. samokhin , and c. h. w. barnes , phys . lett . * 84 * , 4164 ( 2000 ) ; a. v. moroz and c. h. w. barnes , phys . b * 60 * , 14272 ( 1999 ) . v. gritsev , g. i. japaridze , m. pletyukhov , and d. baeriswyl , phys . * 94 * , 137207 ( 2005 ) . m. ouyang , j. l. huang , and c. m. lieber , phys . lett . * 88 * 66804 ( 2002 ) . s. j. tans , m. h. devoret , h. dai , a. thess , r. e. smalley , l. j. geerligs , and c. dekker , nature * 386 * , 474 ( 1997 ) ; d. h. cobden , m. bockrath , p. l. mceuen , a. g. rinzler and r. e. smalley , phys . lett . * 81 * , 681 ( 1998 ) . q. ramadan , c. yu , v. samper , and d. p. poenar , appl . . lett . * 88 * , 032501 ( 2006 ) . m. khl , h. moritz , t. stferle , k. gnter , and t. esslinger , phys . lett . * 94 * , 080403 ( 2005 ) ; k. gnter , t. stferle , h. moritz , m. khl , and t. esslinger , phys . rev . lett . * 95 * , 230401 ( 2005 ) .
Abstract:

Answer: we investigate spin - charge mixing effect on resonant tunneling in spin - polarized tomonaga - luttinger liquid with double impurities . the mixing arises from fermi velocity difference between two spin species due to zeeman effect . zero bias conductance is calculated as a function of gate voltage @xmath0 , gate magnetic field @xmath1 , temperature and magnetic field applied to the system . mixing effect is shown to cause rotation of the lattice pattern of the conductance peaks in @xmath2 plane , which can be observed in experiments . at low temperatures , the contour shapes are classified into three types , reflecting the fact that effective barrier potential is renormalized towards `` perfect reflection '' , `` perfect transmission '' and magnetic field induced `` spin - filtering '' , respectively .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the @xmath0-calculus is a powerful model for representing functions . in its un - typed version , every recursive function can be represented . but , in this model , a term can be applied to itself and a computation may not terminate . to avoid this problem , types are used . in the simplest case , they are built from atomic types with the arrow and the typing rules say that a function of type @xmath2 may only be applied to an argument of type @xmath3 . this discipline ensures that every typed term is strongly normalizing , i.e. a computation always terminate . in this system ( the simply typed @xmath0-calculus ) , church numerals , i.e. the terms of the form @xmath4 , are codes for the integers . they are the only terms ( in normal form ) of type @xmath5 . thus , functions on the integers can be represented but schwichtenberg @xcite has shown that very few functions are so . he showed that the extended polynomials ( i.e. polynomials with positive coefficients together with a conditional operator ) are the only functions that can be represented there . other type systems were then designed to allow the representation of more functions . they are built in different ways . the first one consists in extending the set of terms . for example , in gdel system @xmath6 , the terms use the usual constructions of the @xmath0-calculus , the constant @xmath7 , the constructor @xmath8 and an operator for recursion . the types are built from the atomic type @xmath9 with the arrow . this system represents exactly the functions whose totality can be shown in peano first order arithmetic . the second one consists in keeping the same terms but extending the type system . this is , for example , the case of girard system @xmath10 where the types can use a second order universal quantifier . there , the type of the integers is given by @xmath11 . this system represents exactly the functions whose totality can be shown in peano second order arithmetic . a third way consists in extending the _ logic_. in the curry - howard correspondence , the previous systems correspond to _ intuitionistic _ logic . other systems correspond to _ classical _ logic . there , again , new constructors for terms are introduced . this is , for example , the case of parigot s @xmath1-calculus @xcite . since the introduction of girard system @xmath10 for intuitionistic logic and parigot s @xmath1-calculus for classical logic , many others , more and more powerful , type systems were introduced . for example , the calculus of constructions ( coquand & huet @xcite ) and , more generally , the pure type systems . it is also worth here to mention the system @xmath12 of parigot @xcite where some types are defined as the least fixed point of an operator . this system was introduced , not to represent more functions , but to represent more _ algorithms_. for example , to be able to represent the integers in such a way that the predecessor can be computed in constant time , which is not the case for the previous systems . these systems all satisfy the subject reduction ( i.e. the fact that the type is preserved by reduction ) , the strong normalization ( i.e. every computation terminates ) and , for the systems based on simple types , the decidability of type assignment . we study here other kinds of extension of the simply typed @xmath0-calculus , i.e. systems where _ equations _ on types are allowed . these types are usually called _ recursive types_. for more details see , for example , @xcite . they are present in many languages and are intended to be able to be _ unfolded _ recursively to match other types . the subject reduction and the decidability of type assignment are preserved but the strong normalization may be lost . for example , with the equation @xmath13 , the term @xmath14 where @xmath15 is typable but is not strongly normalizing . with the equation @xmath16 , every term can be typed .    by making some natural assumptions on the recursive equations the strong normalization can be preserved . the simplest condition is to accept the equation @xmath17 ( where @xmath10 is a type containing the variable @xmath18 ) only when the variable @xmath18 is positive in @xmath10 . for a set @xmath19 of mutually recursive equations , mendler @xcite has given a very simple and natural condition that ensures the strong normalization of the system . he also showed that the given condition is necessary to have the strong normalization . his proof is based on the reducibility method . the condition ensures enough monotonicity to have fixed point on the candidates . but this proof ( using candidates of reducibility ) can not be formalized in peano arithmetic and the strength of the system needed for a proof of the strong normalization of such systems was not known .    in this paper , we give an _ arithmetical _ proof of the strong normalization of the simply typed @xmath0-calculus ( and also of the @xmath20-calculus ) with recursive equations on types satisfying mendler s condition . this proof is an extension of the one given by the first author for the simply typed @xmath0-calculus . it can be found either in @xcite ( where it appears among many other things ) or as a simple unpublished note on the web page of the first author @xcite . apparently , proof methods similar to that used here were independently invented by several authors ( levy , van daalen , valentini and others ) . the proof for the @xmath1-calculus is an extension of the ones given in @xcite or @xcite . the paper is organized as follows . in section [ s - lambda ] we define the simply typed @xmath0-calculus with recursive equations on types . to help the reader and show the main ideas , we first give , in section [ proof ] , the proof of strong normalization for the @xmath0-calculus . we generalize this proof to the @xmath20-calculus in section [ s - mu ] . in section [ applic ] , we give two examples of applications of systems with recursive types . we conclude in section [ conc ] with some open questions . let @xmath21 be an infinite set of variables .    1 . the set @xmath22 of @xmath0-terms is defined by the following grammar + @xmath23 2 . the relation @xmath24 on @xmath22 is defined as the least relation ( compatible with the context ) containing the rule @xmath25 $ ] . as usual , @xmath26 ( resp . @xmath27 ) denotes the reflexive and transitive ( resp . transitive ) closure of @xmath24 . let @xmath28 be a set of atomic constants and @xmath29 be a set of type variables .    1 . the set @xmath30 of types is defined by the following grammar + @xmath31 2 . when @xmath32 is a set of types , the congruence @xmath33 generated by @xmath34 is the least congruence on @xmath30 such that @xmath35 for each @xmath36 . let @xmath33 be a congruence on @xmath30 . the typing rules of the typed system are given below where @xmath37 is a context , i.e. a set of declarations of the form @xmath38 where @xmath39 and @xmath40 . @xmath41 @xmath42    @xmath43 @xmath44    [ congru ] let @xmath33 be a congruence generated by a set of types .    1 . if @xmath45 , then @xmath46 or @xmath47 . 2 .   if @xmath48 , then @xmath49 and @xmath50 . 3 .   if @xmath51 , then @xmath38 occurs in @xmath37 for some @xmath52 . 4 .   if @xmath53 , then @xmath54 for some @xmath55 such that @xmath56 . 5 . if @xmath57 , then @xmath58 , @xmath59 for some @xmath60 and @xmath3 . 6 .   if @xmath61 and @xmath62 , then @xmath63 . 7 .   if @xmath64 and @xmath65 , then @xmath66 : t$ ] .    easy .    [ sr ] if @xmath67 and @xmath68 , then @xmath69 . it is enough to show that if @xmath70 , then @xmath71:t$ ] . assume @xmath70 . by lemma [ congru ] , @xmath72 , @xmath73 and @xmath74 . thus , @xmath75 and @xmath76 . by lemma [ congru ] , we have @xmath77 and @xmath78 . thus , @xmath79 . since @xmath73 and @xmath74 , the result follows immediately . let @xmath80 . we define the subsets @xmath81 and @xmath82 of @xmath30 as follows . * @xmath83 * if @xmath84 , then @xmath85 . * if @xmath86 and @xmath87 , then @xmath88 and @xmath89 .    [ cong ] we say that a congruence @xmath33 is good if the following property holds : for each @xmath80 , if @xmath90 , then @xmath91 .    * examples *    in each of the following cases , the congruence generated by the given equations is good .    1 . @xmath92 and @xmath93 . 2 .   @xmath94 and @xmath95 . 3 .   the same equations as in case 2 and @xmath96 where @xmath10 is any type using only the variables @xmath97 . 4 .   the same equations as in case 3 and @xmath98 , @xmath99 where @xmath100 are any types using only the variables @xmath101 .    _ in the rest of the paper , we fix a finite set @xmath32 of types and we denote by @xmath33 the congruence generated by @xmath34 . we assume that @xmath33 is good . _    * notations and remarks *    * we have assumed that the set of equations that we consider is finite . this is to ensure that the order on @xmath102 given by definition [ ordre ] below is well founded . it should be clear that this is not a real constraint . since to type a term , only a finite number of equations is used , we may consider that the other variables are constant and thus the general result follows immediately from the finite case . * if @xmath103 is a term , @xmath104 will denote the structural complexity of @xmath103 . * we denote by @xmath105 the set of strongly normalizing terms . if @xmath106 , we denote by @xmath107 the length of the longest reduction of @xmath103 and by @xmath108 the pair @xmath109 . * we denote by @xmath110 the fact that @xmath103 is a sub - term of a reduct of @xmath9 . * as usual , some parentheses are omitted and , for example , we write @xmath111 instead of @xmath112 . more generally , if @xmath113 is a finite sequence @xmath114 of terms , we denote by @xmath115 the term @xmath116 and by @xmath117 the fact that @xmath118 . * if @xmath119 is the substitution @xmath120 $ ] , we denote by @xmath121 the set @xmath122 , by @xmath123 the set @xmath124 and by @xmath125 the fact that @xmath126 . * if @xmath119 is a substitution , @xmath127 and @xmath103 is a term , we denote by @xmath128 $ ] the substitution @xmath129 defined by @xmath130 for @xmath131 and @xmath132 . * in a proof by induction , will denote the induction hypothesis . when the induction is done on a tuple of integers , the order always is the lexicographic order . we give the idea for one equation @xmath133 . the extension for the general case is given at the beginning of section [ 3.4 ] . it is enough to show that , if @xmath134 are in @xmath105 , then @xmath135 \in sn$ ] . assuming it is not the case , the interesting case is @xmath136 with @xmath137 where @xmath138 \in sn$ ] . this implies that @xmath139 and @xmath140 \not \in sn$ ] . if we know that the type of @xmath9 is an arrow type , we get a similar situation to the one we started with , but where the type of the substituted variable has decreased . repeating the same argument , we get the desired result , at least for @xmath9 whose type does not contain @xmath18 . if it is not the case , since , by repeating the same argument , we can not come to a constant type ( because such a term can not be applied to something ) , we come to @xmath18 . thus , it remains to show that , if @xmath134 are in @xmath105 and the type of @xmath141 is @xmath18 , then @xmath135 \in sn$ ] .    to prove this , we prove something a bit more general . we prove that , if @xmath142 where @xmath119 is a substitution such that the types of its image are in @xmath81 , then @xmath143 \in sn$ ] . the proof is done , by induction on @xmath144 as follows . as before , the interesting case is @xmath145 , @xmath146 \in sn$ ] and @xmath140 \not\in sn$ ] . thus , there is a sub - term of a reduct of @xmath147 of the form @xmath148 such that @xmath149 ) \not \in sn$ ] but @xmath150 \in sn$ ] . thus @xmath151 must reduce to a  @xmath0 . this @xmath0 can not come from some @xmath152 , i.e. @xmath153 . otherwise , the type of @xmath154 would be both positive ( since @xmath155 and the type of @xmath156 is positive ) and negative ( since , in @xmath103 , @xmath154 is an argument of @xmath141 whose type also is positive ) . thus the type of @xmath151 ( the same as the one of @xmath154 ) does not contain @xmath18 . but since @xmath157 are in @xmath105 , we already know that @xmath140 $ ] must be in @xmath105 . a contradiction . thus , @xmath158 and we get a contradiction from the induction hypothesis since we have @xmath159 \not \in sn$ ] for @xmath160 strictly less than @xmath103 . the case when @xmath161 has more than one argument is intuitively treated by `` repeat the same argument '' or , more formally , by lemma [ prepa ] below .    as a final remark , note that many lemmas are stated in a negative style and thus may seem to hold only classically . this has been done in this way because we believe that this presentation is closer to the intuition . however , it is not difficult to check that the whole proof can be presented and done in a constructive way . [ untyped ] assume @xmath162 and @xmath163 . then , for some term @xmath164 , @xmath165 and @xmath166\;\overrightarrow{o } ) \not \in sn$ ] .    since @xmath162 , an infinite reduction of @xmath167 looks like @xmath168\ ; \overrightarrow{o ' } ) \rhd \ldots $ ] and the result immediately follows from the fact that @xmath166\;\overrightarrow{o } ) \rhd^ * ( m'[x:=n']\;\overrightarrow{o'})$ ] . [ subterm ] let @xmath103 be a term and @xmath119 be a substitution . assume @xmath169 and @xmath143 \not\in sn$ ] . then @xmath170 } ) \not \in sn$ ] for some @xmath171 such that @xmath172 } \in sn$ ] .    a sub - term @xmath164 of a reduct of @xmath103 such that @xmath173 is minimum and @xmath174 \not\in sn$ ] has the desired form . [ lambda ] let @xmath103 be a term and @xmath119 be a substitution such that @xmath143 \rhd^ * \lambda z m_1 $ ] . then + - either @xmath175 and @xmath176 \rhd^ * m_1 $ ] + - or @xmath177 for some @xmath178 and @xmath179 } ) \rhd^ * \lambda z m_1 $ ] . this is a classical ( though not completely trivial ) result in @xmath0-calculus . note that , in case @xmath106 ( and we will only use the lemma in this case ) , it becomes easier . the proof can be done by induction on @xmath108 by considering the possibility for @xmath103 : either @xmath180 or @xmath181 or @xmath182 ( for @xmath141 in @xmath183 or not ) . [ ordre ] we define on @xmath102 the following relations    * @xmath184 iff @xmath185 for some @xmath6 such that @xmath186 . * @xmath187 iff @xmath184 and @xmath188 . * @xmath189 iff @xmath184 and @xmath190    it is clear that @xmath191 is an equivalence on @xmath102 .    1 . let @xmath192 and @xmath193 . 2 .   for @xmath194 , let @xmath195 where @xmath196 is the set of type variables occurring in @xmath6 . 3 .   for @xmath197 , we will abbreviate by @xmath198 the set @xmath199 and by @xmath200 the set @xmath201 . if @xmath202 , @xmath203 will denote the opposite of @xmath204 . the opposite of + is - and conversely . let @xmath36 . the class of @xmath205 can be partitioned into two disjoint sets @xmath206 and @xmath207 satisfying the following properties .    1 .   if @xmath202 , @xmath208 and @xmath209 , then for each @xmath210 , @xmath211 and for each @xmath212 , @xmath213 . 2 .   let @xmath214 . then , if @xmath215 , @xmath216 and @xmath217 and if @xmath218 , @xmath219 and @xmath220 .    this follows immediately from the following observation . let @xmath221 and @xmath222 . choose an occurrence of @xmath223 in @xmath6 and in @xmath3 . then , these occurrences have the same polarity . this is because , otherwise , since @xmath184 , there is a @xmath224 such that @xmath225 and @xmath226 occurs in @xmath224 . but then , replacing the mentioned occurrences of @xmath223 by @xmath224 in @xmath6 and @xmath3 will contradict the fact that @xmath33 is good . [ class ] let @xmath36 and @xmath202 . we denote @xmath227 / for each @xmath228 , @xmath229 and for each @xmath230 , @xmath231 . [ propr ] let @xmath36 and @xmath202 . 1 .   @xmath232 . 2 .   if @xmath233 and @xmath234 , then @xmath235 . 3 .   if @xmath233 and @xmath236 , then @xmath237 and @xmath238 .    immediate . * notations , remarks and examples *    * if the equations are those of the case 4 of the examples given above , we have @xmath239 and , for example , @xmath240 and @xmath241 , @xmath242 , @xmath243 , @xmath244 and @xmath245 . * if @xmath6 is a type , we denote by @xmath246 the size of @xmath6 . note that the size of a type is , of course , not preserved by the congruence . the size of a type will only be used in lemma [ sansx ] and the only property that we will use is that @xmath247 and @xmath248 are less than @xmath249 . * by the typing rules , the type of a term can be freely replaced by an equivalent one . however , for @xmath36 and @xmath250 , the fact that @xmath233 does not change when @xmath3 is replaced by @xmath224 for some @xmath251 . this will be used extensively in the proofs of the next sections .      to give the idea of the proof , we first need a definition . let @xmath252 be a set of types . denote by @xmath253 $ ] the following property :    let @xmath254 . assume @xmath255 and @xmath65 for some @xmath256 such that @xmath257 . then @xmath135 \in sn$ ] .    to get the result , it is enough to show @xmath258 $ ] . the proof that any typed term is in @xmath105 is then done by induction on @xmath104 . the only non trivial case is @xmath259 . but @xmath260 $ ] and the result follows from @xmath258 $ ] and the _ ih_.    we first show the following ( see lemma [ sansx ] ) . let @xmath261 . to prove @xmath262 $ ] , it is enough to prove @xmath263 $ ] for each @xmath264 . it is thus enough to prove of @xmath265 $ ] for each @xmath36 . this is done by induction on @xmath205 . assume @xmath266 $ ] for each @xmath267 . thus , by the previous property , we know @xmath268 $ ] . we show @xmath265 $ ] essentially as we said in section [ 3.1 ] . the only difference is that , what was called there `` @xmath18 is both positive and negative in @xmath6 '' here means @xmath6 is both in @xmath269 and @xmath270 . there we deduced that @xmath18 does not occur in @xmath6 . here we deduce @xmath271 and we are done since we know the result for this set . [ sansx ] let @xmath194 be such that @xmath263 $ ] holds for each @xmath264 . then @xmath262 $ ] holds . let @xmath134 be terms in @xmath105 . assume @xmath255 and @xmath272 and @xmath273 . we have to show @xmath274 \in sn$ ] . this is done by induction on @xmath275 . assume @xmath135 \not\in sn$ ] . by lemma [ subterm ] , let @xmath276 be such that @xmath277 and @xmath278 where @xmath279 $ ] and @xmath280}$ ] . by lemma [ untyped ] , @xmath281 and @xmath282 \;\ ;    \overrightarrow{q_1 } ) \not \in sn$ ] . if @xmath3 is a variable ( which is in @xmath283 since @xmath284 ) , we get a contradiction since we have assumed that @xmath263 $ ] holds for each @xmath264 .    the type @xmath3 can not be a constant since , otherwise @xmath141 could not be applied to some arguments . thus @xmath285 . in the typing of @xmath286 , the congruence may have been used and thus , by lemma [ congru ] , there are @xmath287 , @xmath288 , @xmath289 and @xmath290 and @xmath291 . but then , we also have @xmath292 and @xmath293 . now , by the _ ih _ , we have @xmath294 \in sn$ ] since @xmath295 . since @xmath296 for some @xmath297 and @xmath298 : u_2 $ ] , by the _ ih _ since @xmath299 , we have @xmath282 \ ; \overrightarrow{q_1})=(z \ ; \overrightarrow{q_1})[z = n_1[x_1:=p_1 ] ] \in sn$ ] . contradiction . _ for now on , we fix some @xmath205 and we assume @xmath266 $ ] for each @xmath300 . thus , by lemma [ sansx ] , we know that @xmath268 $ ] holds . it remains to prove @xmath265 $ ] i.e. proposition [ avecx ] . _    let @xmath103 be a term , @xmath119 be a substitution , @xmath37 be a context and @xmath3 be a type . say that @xmath301 is adequate if the following holds . * @xmath302 : u$ ] and @xmath303 . * for each @xmath131 , @xmath304 and @xmath305 . [ prepa ] let @xmath306 be integers , @xmath307 be a sequence of terms and @xmath308 be adequate . assume that    1 . @xmath309 and @xmath310 \ , \overrightarrow{s } ) : w$ ] for some @xmath311 . @xmath312 , @xmath313 and @xmath314 . 3 .   @xmath143 \in sn$ ] for every adequate @xmath315 such that @xmath316 .    then @xmath317 \ ; \overrightarrow{s } )   \in sn$ ] . by induction on the length of @xmath307 . if @xmath307 is empty , the result follows from ( 3 ) since @xmath314 . otherwise , let @xmath318 and assume that @xmath319 \rhd^ * \l z \ ; r$ ] . by lemma [ lambda ] , there are two cases to consider :    * @xmath320 . we have to show that @xmath321\ \overrightarrow{s_2 } ) \in sn$ ] . since @xmath322 , by lemmas [ congru ] and [ propr ] , there are types @xmath323 such that @xmath324 and @xmath325 and @xmath326 and @xmath327 and @xmath328 . since @xmath329 and @xmath330 , \delta \cup \ { z : b_1\ } , r ' , b_2)$ ] is adequate , it follows from ( 3 ) that @xmath331 \in sn$ ] . + - assume first @xmath332 . since @xmath333 and @xmath334 $ ] , the result follows from @xmath268 $ ] . + - otherwise , the result follows from the _ ih _ since @xmath335 , \delta \cup \ { z : b_1\ } , r ' , b_2)$ ] is adequate and the length of @xmath336 is less than the one of @xmath307 . * if @xmath337 for some @xmath338 . then @xmath339 } ) : b $ ] . by the definition of adequacy , the type of @xmath161 is in @xmath340 and @xmath341 contradiction . [ x>0 ] assume @xmath342 is adequate . then @xmath343 \in sn$ ] . by induction on @xmath108 . the only non trivial case is @xmath344 for some @xmath345 . let @xmath346 .    by the _ , @xmath347 , \overrightarrow{o[\sigma ] } \in sn$ ] . by lemma [ congru ] , we have @xmath348 , @xmath349 : w_1 $ ] and @xmath350 ) : w_2 $ ] . moreover , by lemma [ propr ] , @xmath351 and @xmath352 . since @xmath353 = ( z \ ; \overrightarrow{o})[\sigma + z : = ( n \ , q[\sigma])]$ ] , @xmath354 , @xmath355 and @xmath356 , it is enough , by the _ ih _ , to show that @xmath357 ) \in sn$ ] . assume that @xmath358 . we have to show that @xmath359\in sn$ ] . - assume first @xmath360 . the result follows from @xmath361 $ ] .    - otherwise , assume @xmath359 \not \in sn$ ] . since @xmath362 \in sn$ ] , by lemma [ subterm ] , @xmath363 for some @xmath364 such that @xmath365 } \in sn$ ] and @xmath366   \ ; \overrightarrow{l[y:=q [ \sigma ] ] } ) \not \in sn$ ] . but this contradicts lemma [ prepa ] . note that , by the , condition ( 3 ) of this lemma is satisfied . [ avecx ] assume @xmath367 and @xmath368 and @xmath369 . then @xmath274 \in sn$ ] . this follows from lemma [ x>0 ] since @xmath370 , \g , m , u ) $ ] is adequate . let @xmath372 be an infinite set of variables such that @xmath373 . an element of @xmath21 ( resp . @xmath372 ) is said to be a @xmath0-variable ( resp . a @xmath374-variable ) . we extend the set of terms by the following rules + @xmath375 2 . we add to the set @xmath28 the constant symbol @xmath376 and we denote by @xmath377 the type @xmath378 . 3 .   we extend the typing rules by + @xmath379 @xmath380 + where @xmath37 is now a set of declarations of the form @xmath381 and @xmath382 where @xmath141 is a @xmath0-variable and @xmath383 is a @xmath384-variable . we add to @xmath385 the following reduction rule @xmath386 $ ] where @xmath387 $ ] is obtained by replacing each sub - term of @xmath103 of the form @xmath388 by @xmath389 . this substitution will be called a @xmath384-substitution whereas the ( usual ) substitution @xmath135 $ ] will be called a @xmath0-substitution . * remarks *    * note that we adopt here a more liberal syntax ( also called de groote s calculus @xcite ) than in the original calculus since we do not ask that a @xmath390 is immediately followed by a @xmath391 ( denoted @xmath392 m$ ] in parigot s notation ) . * we also have changed parigot s typing notations . instead of writing @xmath393 , @xmath394 we have written @xmath395 but , since the first introduction of the @xmath1-calculus , this is now quite common . * unlike for a @xmath0-substitution where , in @xmath135 $ ] , the variable @xmath141 has disappeared it is important to note that , in a @xmath384-substitution , the variable @xmath383 has not disappeared . moreover its type has changed . if the type of @xmath9 is @xmath3 and , in @xmath396 , the type of @xmath383 is @xmath397 it becomes @xmath398 in @xmath399 $ ] . * the definition of good congruence is the same as before . as a consequence , we now have the following facts . if @xmath400 , then @xmath401 and , if @xmath402 , then @xmath403 . * we also extend all the notations given in section [ s - lambda ] . finally note that lemma [ congru ] remains valid . moreover , they are easily extended by lemma [ typed1 ] below . [ typed1 ]    1 .   if @xmath404 , then @xmath405 for some @xmath224 such that @xmath62 . 2 .   if @xmath406 , then @xmath407 and @xmath408 . 3 .   if @xmath409 and @xmath65 , then @xmath410 : t$ ] . [ sr ] if @xmath67 and @xmath68 , then @xmath69 . it is enough to show that , if @xmath411 , then @xmath412:t$ ] . assume @xmath413 . by lemma [ congru ] , @xmath414 , @xmath415 and @xmath416 . thus , @xmath417 and @xmath418 . by lemma [ congru ] , we have @xmath419 . since @xmath73 and @xmath416 , @xmath420 : \bot$ ] . then @xmath421 : v$ ] and @xmath422 : t$ ] . [ mu.lambda ] let @xmath103 be a term and @xmath423 where @xmath424 ( resp . @xmath425 ) is @xmath0 ( resp . @xmath384 ) substitution . assume @xmath143 \rhd^ * \m\al m_1 $ ] ( resp . @xmath180 ) . then    - either @xmath426 ( resp . @xmath427 ) and @xmath176 \rhd^ * m_1 $ ]    - or ( @xmath177 for some @xmath428 and @xmath179 } ) \rhd^ * \m \al m_1 $ ] ( resp . @xmath180 ) .    a @xmath384-substitution can not create a @xmath0 or a @xmath384 ( see , for example , @xcite ) and thus , the proof is as in lemma [ lambda ] . [ mu.untyped ] assume @xmath429 and @xmath430 . then either ( @xmath431 and @xmath432 \;\overrightarrow{q } ) \not \in sn$ ] ) or ( @xmath433 and @xmath434 \;\overrightarrow{q } ) \not \in sn$ ] ) . as in lemma [ untyped ] .    [ mu.subterm ] let @xmath103 be a term and @xmath119 be a @xmath0-substitution . assume @xmath169 and @xmath143 \not\in sn$ ] . then @xmath170 } ) \not \in sn$ ] for some @xmath171 such that @xmath172}\in sn$ ] .    as in lemma [ subterm ] .    a @xmath374-substitution @xmath119 is said to be fair if , for each @xmath435 , @xmath436 where @xmath437 ( resp . @xmath438 ) means that @xmath439 ( resp . @xmath440 ) for some @xmath441 . [ goodsub ] let @xmath119 be is a fair @xmath374-substitution , @xmath442 and @xmath443 ( resp . @xmath444 ) , then @xmath143[x:=\sigma(\alpha)]= m[x:=\sigma(\alpha)][\sigma]$ ] ( resp . @xmath143[\beta = \sigma(\alpha)]= m[\beta = \sigma(\alpha)][\sigma]$ ] ) .    immediate . [ mu.nonsn ] let @xmath134 be terms and @xmath119 be a fair @xmath384-substitution . assume @xmath143 , n \in sn$ ] but @xmath445 \ ; n ) \not \in sn$ ] . assume moreover that @xmath143 \ras \m\al m_1 $ ] . then , for some @xmath446 , we have @xmath447 \ ; n ) \not\in sn$ ] and @xmath448 \in sn$ ] where @xmath449 $ ] .    by lemma [ mu.lambda ] , we know that @xmath450 for some @xmath451 such that @xmath452 \ras m_1 $ ] . let @xmath164 be a sub - term of a reduct of @xmath103 such that @xmath453 ) , cxty(m')\rangle$ ] is minimum and @xmath454 \not\in sn$ ] . we show that @xmath455 and has the desired properties . by minimality , @xmath164 can not be of the form @xmath456 , @xmath457 nor @xmath458 for @xmath459 or @xmath460 .    if @xmath461 . by the minimality of @xmath164 , @xmath462 , p_2[\sigma ' ] \in sn$ ] . thus , by lemma [ mu.lambda ] and [ mu.untyped ] , @xmath463 ( resp . @xmath464 ) such that @xmath465[x:=p_2[\sigma']]= q[x:=p_2][\sigma ' ] \not\in sn$ ] ( resp . @xmath465[\be = p_2[\sigma']]=q[\be = p_2][\sigma ' ] \not\in sn$ ] ) and this contradicts the minimality of @xmath164 .    if @xmath466 for some @xmath467 . then @xmath468 \ ; \sigma(\be ) ) \not\in sn$ ] and , by the minimality of @xmath164 , @xmath469 \in sn$ ] . thus , by lemmas [ mu.lambda ] , [ mu.untyped ] and [ goodsub ] , @xmath470 ( resp . @xmath471 ) such that @xmath465[x:=\sigma(\be)]= q[x:=\sigma(\be)][\sigma ' ] \not\in sn$ ] ( resp . @xmath465[\gamma=\sigma(\be)]=q[\gamma=\sigma(\be)][\sigma ' ] \not\in sn$ ] ) and this contradicts the minimality of @xmath164 . thus @xmath455 and its minimality implies @xmath448 \in sn$ ] . we use the same notations as in section [ proof ] . [ mu.sansx ] let @xmath194 be such that @xmath263 $ ] holds for each @xmath264 . then @xmath262 $ ] holds . assume that @xmath263 $ ] holds for each @xmath264 . the result is a special case of the following claim .    _ claim : _ let @xmath103 be a term , @xmath55 be types such that @xmath472 and @xmath119 be a @xmath0-substitution such that , for each @xmath141 , @xmath473 $ ] where @xmath474 is a fair @xmath374-substitution such that @xmath475 ) = \emptyset$ ] . assume @xmath476 and for each @xmath131 , @xmath477 . assume finally that @xmath103 and the @xmath478 $ ] are in @xmath105 . then , @xmath143 \in sn$ ] . _ by induction on @xmath479 where @xmath480 @xmath481 and @xmath482 and , in the sums , each occurrence of a variable counts for one . for example , if there are two occurrences of @xmath483 and three occurrences of @xmath484 , @xmath485 . note that we really mean @xmath486 and not @xmath487)$ ] and similarly for @xmath488 . the only non trivial case is when @xmath489 for @xmath131 . by the _ ih _ , @xmath347 , \overrightarrow{o[\sigma]}\in sn$ ] . it is enough to show that @xmath490 \ ; q[\sigma ] ) \in sn$ ] since @xmath143 $ ] can be written as @xmath454 $ ] where @xmath491})$ ] and @xmath492 \ ; q[\sigma])$ ] and ( since the size of the type of @xmath493 is less than the one of @xmath3 ) the gives the result . by lemma [ mu.untyped ] , we have two cases to consider .    * @xmath478 \ras \l y n_1 $ ] . by lemma [ mu.lambda ] , @xmath494 and the proof is exactly the same as in lemma [ sansx ] . * @xmath478 \ras \m \al n_1 $ ] . by lemma [ mu.nonsn ] , let @xmath495 be such that @xmath496 \in sn$ ] and @xmath497 \ ; q[\sigma ] ) \not \in sn$ ] where @xmath498 $ ] . but @xmath499 can be written as @xmath500 $ ] where @xmath129 is the same as @xmath119 except that @xmath501 $ ] . note that @xmath502 is the same as ( or less than ) @xmath103 but one occurrence of @xmath141 has been replaced by the fresh variable @xmath161 . the substitution @xmath503 is fair and @xmath504 . the gives a contradiction since @xmath505 . note that the type condition on @xmath129 is satisfied since @xmath506 has type @xmath3 , thus @xmath383 has type @xmath377 and thus @xmath507 also has type @xmath3 . _ for now on , we fix some @xmath205 and we assume @xmath266 $ ] for each @xmath300 . thus , by lemma [ mu.sansx ] , we know that @xmath268 $ ] holds . it remains to prove @xmath265 $ ] i.e. proposition [ mu.avecx ] . _    let @xmath103 be a term , @xmath508 where @xmath424 ( resp . @xmath425 ) is a @xmath0 ( resp . @xmath384 ) substitution , @xmath37 be a context and @xmath3 be a type . say that @xmath301 is adequate if the following holds :    * @xmath509 : u$ ] and @xmath303 . * for each @xmath510 , @xmath511 and @xmath512 . note that nothing is asked on the types of the @xmath384-variables . [ mu.prepa ] let @xmath306 be integers , @xmath307 be a sequence of terms and @xmath308 be adequate . assume that    1 . @xmath513 and @xmath514 \ , \overrightarrow{s } ) : w$ ] for some @xmath311 . @xmath312 , @xmath313 and @xmath314 . 3 .   @xmath143 \in sn$ ] for every adequate @xmath315 such that @xmath515 . then @xmath317 \ , \overrightarrow{s } )   \in sn$ ] . by induction on the length of @xmath307 . the proof is as in lemma [ prepa ] . the new case is @xmath516 \rhd^ * \m \al r$ ] ( when @xmath517 ) . by lemma [ mu.lambda ] , we have two cases to consider .    * @xmath518 . we have to show that @xmath519\ \overrightarrow{s_2 } ) \in sn$ ] . by lemma [ typed1 ] , the properties of @xmath33 and since @xmath520 , there are types @xmath323 such that @xmath521 and @xmath522 : b_2 $ ] and @xmath523 . since @xmath524 and @xmath525 , \delta \cup \ { \al : \neg b_2\ } , \mu \al r ' , b_2)$ ] is adequate , it follows from ( 3 ) that @xmath526 \in sn$ ] . + - assume first @xmath332 . since @xmath333 and @xmath527 $ ] , the result follows from @xmath268 $ ] . + - otherwise , the result follows from the _ ih _ since @xmath528 , \delta \cup \ { \al : \neg b_2\ } , \mu \al r ' , b_2)$ ] is adequate and the length of @xmath336 is less than the one of @xmath307 . * @xmath337 for some @xmath0-variable @xmath529 . as in lemma [ prepa ] . [ mu.2 ] assume @xmath530 is adequate . then @xmath343 \in sn$ ] .    as in the proof of the lemma [ mu.sansx ] , we prove a more general result . assume that , for each @xmath510 , @xmath531 $ ] where @xmath474 is a fair @xmath374-substitution such that @xmath475 ) = \emptyset$ ] . we prove that @xmath143 \in sn$ ] .    by induction on @xmath532 and , by secondary induction , on @xmath533 where @xmath534 and @xmath535 are defined as in lemma [ mu.sansx ] . the proof is as in lemma [ mu.sansx ] . the interesting case is @xmath489 for some @xmath510 . the case when @xmath536 \ras \l y n'$ ] is as in lemma [ x>0 ] . the new case is when @xmath478 \rhd^ * \m \al n'$ ] . this is done as in lemma [ mu.sansx ] . note that , for this point , the type was not used . [ mu.avecx ] assume @xmath367 and @xmath368 and @xmath537 . then @xmath274 \in sn$ ] . this follows from lemma [ mu.2 ] since @xmath370 , \g , m , u ) $ ] is adequate . by using recursive types , some terms that can not be typed in the simply typed @xmath0-calculus become typable . for example , by using the equation @xmath538 , it is possible to type terms containing both @xmath539 and @xmath540 as sub - terms . just take @xmath541 and @xmath542 . by using the equation @xmath543 , it is possible to apply an unbounded number of arguments to a term . it is thus natural to try to extend schwichtenberg s result and to determine the class of functions that are represented in such systems and , in particular , to see whether or not they allow to represent more functions . note that doyen @xcite and fortune & all @xcite have given extensions of schwichtenberg s result . here is an example of function that can not be typed ( of the good type ) in the simply typed @xmath0-calculus . let @xmath544 and @xmath545 where @xmath546 are type variables . let @xmath547 be the church numeral representing @xmath548 and @xmath549 , @xmath550 be the terms representing _ false _ and _ true_. note that @xmath551 has type _ nat _ and @xmath552 , @xmath553 have type @xmath554 . the term @xmath555 where @xmath556 has been introduced by b.maurey . it is easy to see that , for every @xmath557 , the term @xmath558 reduces to * 1 * if @xmath559 and to * 0 * otherwise . krivine has shown in @xcite that the type @xmath560 can not be given to @xmath561 in system @xmath10 but , by adding the equation @xmath562 , it becomes typable . our example uses the same ideas . let @xmath33 be the congruence generated by @xmath563 . for each @xmath564 , let @xmath565 where @xmath566 . [ p1 ] for each @xmath564 we have @xmath567 . we have @xmath568 , then @xmath569 , thus @xmath570 . but @xmath571 , therefore @xmath572 . we have @xmath573 , then @xmath574 , thus @xmath575 . but @xmath576 , therefore @xmath577 . we deduce that @xmath578 , then @xmath579 and thus @xmath580 . [ p2 ] for each @xmath564 and @xmath581 , @xmath582 reduces to * 1 * if @xmath583 and to * 0 * otherwise . @xmath584 + @xmath585 + @xmath586    * remarks *    note that for the ( usual ) simply typed @xmath0-calculus we could have taken for @xmath18 and @xmath587 the same variable but , for propositions [ p1 ] and [ p2 ] , we can not assume that @xmath588 because then the condition of positivity would not be satisfied . this example is thus not completely satisfactory and it actually shows that the precise meaning of the question `` which functions can be represented in such systems '' is not so clear . the strong normalization of a typed @xmath1-calculus can be deduced from the one of the corresponding typed @xmath0-calculus by using cps translations . see , for example , @xcite for such a translation . there is another , somehow simpler , way of doing such a translation . add , for each atomic type @xmath18 , a constant @xmath589 of type @xmath590 . using these constants , it is not difficult to get , for each type @xmath6 , a @xmath0-term @xmath591 ( depending on @xmath6 ) such that @xmath592 has type @xmath593 . this gives a translation of the @xmath594-calculus into the @xmath0-calculus from which the strong normalization of the @xmath1-calculus can be deduced from the one of the @xmath0-calculus . this translation , quite different from the cps translations , has been used by krivine @xcite to code the @xmath1-calculus with second order types in the @xmath595-calculus .    with recursive equations , we do not have to add the constant @xmath589 since we can use the equation @xmath596 . we give here , without proof , the translation . we denote by @xmath597 the simply typed @xmath0-calculus where @xmath33 is the congruence on @xmath598 ( where @xmath599 ) generated by @xmath600 for each @xmath18 and by @xmath601 the usual ( i.e. without recursive types ) @xmath1-calculus .    1 .   we define , for each type @xmath6 , a closed @xmath0-term @xmath591 such that @xmath602 as follows . this is done by induction on @xmath6 . * @xmath603 where @xmath604 . * if @xmath80 , @xmath605 . * @xmath606 2 . we define a translation from @xmath601 to @xmath597 as follows . * @xmath607 . * @xmath608 . * @xmath609 . * @xmath610 if @xmath383 has the type @xmath377 . * @xmath611 .    for a better understanding , in the translation of @xmath612 and @xmath613 , we have kept the same name to the variable @xmath383 but it should be clear that the translated terms are @xmath0-terms with only on kind of variables . [ trtype ] if @xmath614 then @xmath615 . let @xmath134 be typed @xmath1-terms . if @xmath616 , then @xmath617 . it is enough to check that @xmath618)^*$ ] . the strong normalization of @xmath597 implies the one of @xmath601 .    by lemmas [ trtype ] and [ trred ] . * remark *    note that the previous translation can not be used to show that the @xmath1-calculus with recursive types is strongly normalizing since having two equations ( for example @xmath596 and @xmath619 ) is problematic . the proof of the strong normalization of the system d of intersection types @xcite is exactly the same as the one for simple types . is it possible to extend our proof to such systems with equations ? note that the sort of constraints that must be given on the equations is not so clear . for example , what does that mean to be positive in @xmath620 ? to be positive both in @xmath621 and @xmath622 ? in one of them ? it will be interesting to check precisely because , for example , it is known that the system given by system d and the equations @xmath623 and @xmath624 is strongly normalizing ( but the proof again is not formalized in peano arithmetic ) though the positivity condition is violated . 2 .   we could add other typing rules and constructors to ensure that , intuitively , @xmath18 represents the _ least fixed point _ of the equation @xmath133 . this kind of thing is done , for example , in @xmath12 . what can be said for such systems ? there are many translations from , for example , the @xmath1-calculus into the @xmath0-calculus that allows to deduce the strong normalization of the former by the one of the latter . these cps transformations differ from the one given in section [ transfo ] by the fact that the translation of a term does not depend on its type . what is the behavior of such translations with recursive equations ? we would like to thank p urzyczyn who has mentioned to us the question solved here and has also indicated some errors appearing in previous versions of our proofs . thanks also to the referees and their valuable remarks .
Abstract:

Answer: we give an arithmetical proof of the strong normalization of the @xmath0-calculus ( and also of the @xmath1-calculus ) where the type system is the one of simple types with recursive equations on types . the proof using candidates of reducibility is an easy extension of the one without equations but this proof can not be formalized in peano arithmetic . the strength of the system needed for such a proof was not known . our proof shows that it is not more than peano arithmetic .