When is a numerical semigroup a quotient?

Abstract: A natural operation on numerical semigroups is taking a quotient by a positive integer. If $\mathcal S$ is a quotient of a numerical semigroup with $k$ generators, we call $\mathcal S$ a $k$-quotient. We give a necessary condition for a given numerical semigroup $\mathcal S$ to be a $k$-quotient, and present, for each $k \ge 3$, the first known family of numerical semigroups that cannot be written as a $k$-quotient. We also examine the probability that a randomly selected numerical semigroup with $k$ generators is a $k$-quotient.

\section{Introduction
\label{sec:intro

We denote $\NN=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$, and we define a \emph{numerical semigroup} to be a set $\nsg\subseteq\NN$ that is closed under addition and contains~0. A numerical semigroup can be defined by a set of generators,
\[\langle a_1,\ldots,a_n\rangle = \{a_1x_1+\cdots a_nx_n:\ x_i\in\NN\},\]
and if $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ are the minimal set of generators of $\nsg$, we say that $\nsg$ has \emph{embedding dimension} $\mathsf e(\nsg) = n$.  For example,
\[\langle 3,5\rangle = \{0,3,5,6,8,9,10,\ldots\}\]
has embedding dimension 2.

If $\nsg$ is a numerical semigroup, then an interesting way to create a new numerical semigroup
is by taking the \emph{quotient}
\[
\frac{\nsg}{d} = \{ t \in \NN:\  dt \in \nsg\}
\]
by some positive integer $d$.  Note that $\frac{1}{d}\nsg$ is itself a numerical semigroup, one that in particular satisfies $\nsg \subseteq \frac{1}{d}\nsg \subseteq \NN$.  For example,
\[
\frac{\langle 3,5\rangle}{2}=\{0,3,4,5,\ldots\}=\langle 3,4,5\rangle.
\]
Quotients of numerical semigroups appear through the literature over the past couple of decades~\cite{symmetriconeelement,symmetricquotient} as well as recently~\cite{harrisquotient,nsquotientgens}; see~\cite[Chapter~5]{numerical} for a thorough overview.

\begin{defn}\label{def:quotientrank}
We say a numerical semigroup $\nsg$ is a \emph{$k$-quotient} if $\nsg=\langle a_1,\ldots,a_k\rangle/d$ for some positive integers $d, a_1, \ldots, a_k$.  The \emph{quotient rank} of $\nsg$ is the smallest $k$ such that $\nsg$ is a $k$-quotient, and we say $\nsg$ has \emph{full quotient rank} if its quotient rank is $\mathsf e(\nsg)$ (since $\nsg=\frac{\nsg}{1}$, its quotient rank is at most $\mathsf e(S)$).
\end{defn}

Numerical semigroups of quotient rank 2 are precisely the \emph{proportionally modular} numerical semigroups~\cite{openmodularns}, which have been well-studied~\cite{propmodtree,propmodular}.
This includes arithmetical numerical semigroups (whose generators have the form $a, a + d, \ldots, a + kd$ with $\gcd(a,d) = 1$), which have a rich history in the numerical semigroup literature~\cite{diophantinefrob,setoflengthsets,nsfreeresarith}.  In fact, generalized arithmetical numerical semigroups~\cite{omidalirahmati}, whose generating sets have the form $a, ah + d, \ldots, ah + kd$, can also be shown to have quotient rank 3.

For quotient rank $k \ge 3$, much less is known.  It is identified as an open problem in~\cite{nsgproblems} that no numerical semigroup had been proven to have quotient rank at least 4.
Since then, the only progress in this direction is~\cite{ksquashed}, wherein it is shown there exist infinitely many numerical semigroups with quotient rank at least 4, though no explicit examples are given.

With this in mind, we state the main question of the present paper.

\begin{mainprob}\label{mainprob:whenaquotient}
When is a given numerical semigroup $\nsg$ a $k$-quotient?
\end{mainprob}

Our main structural results, which are stated in Section~\ref{sec:necessary}, are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
We prove a sufficient condition for full quotient rank (Theorem~\ref{thm:necessary}), which we use to obtain, for each $k$, a numerical semigroup of embedding dimension $k + 1$ that is not a $k$-quotient (Theorem~\ref{thm:noquotient}).  When $k \ge 3$, this is the first known example of a numerical semigroup that is not a $k$-quotient.  We~also construct, for each $k$, a numerical semigroup that cannot be written as an intersection of $k$-quotients (Theorem~\ref{thm:nointersection}), settling a conjecture posed in~\cite{ksquashed}.

\item
We prove quotient rank is sub-additive whenever the denominators are coprime.
This provides a new method of proving a given numerical semigroup is a quotient:\ partition its generating set, and prove that each subset generates a quotient, e.g.,
\begin{align*}
\langle 11,12,13,17,18,19,20 \rangle
&= \langle 11,12,13 \rangle + \langle 17,18,19,20 \rangle
= \frac{\langle 11,13\rangle}{2}+\frac{\langle 17,20\rangle}{3}
\\
&= \frac{3\langle 11,13\rangle + 2\langle 17,20\rangle}{2 \cdot 3}
= \frac{\langle 33,34,39,40\rangle}{6}.
\end{align*}
We~use this result to prove that any numerical semgiroup with \emph{maximal embedding dimension} (that is, the smallest generator equals the embedding dimension) fails to have full quotient rank (Theorem~\ref{thm:maxembdim}).
\end{itemize}

Our remaining results are probabilistic in nature.  We examine two well-studied models for ``randomly selecting'' a numerical semigroup:\ the ``box'' model, where the number of generators and a bound on the generators are fixed~\cite{expectedfrob,arnoldfrob,burgeinsinaifrob}; as well as a model where the smallest generator and the number of gaps are fixed~\cite{kaplancounting}, whose prior study has yielded connections to enumerative combinatorics~\cite{kunzcoords} and polyhedral geometry~\cite{kunzfaces1,kunz}.
We prove that under the first model, asymptotically all semigroups have full quotient rank (Theorem~\ref{thm:numericalbox}), while under the second model, asymptotically no semigroups have full quotient rank (Theorem~\ref{thm:maxembdim}).

Our results also represent partial progress on the following question, which has proved difficult.

\begin{prob}\label{prob:algorithm}
Given a numerical semigroup $\nsg$ and a positive number $k$, is there an algorithm to determine whether $\nsg$ is a $k$-quotient?
\end{prob}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:relprime}
Some texts require that the generators of a numerical semigroup be relatively prime, so that $\NN\setminus \nsg$ is finite.  This assumption is harmless, since any numerical semigroup can be written as $m\nsg$, where the generators of $\nsg$ are relatively prime, and it also doesn't affect $k$-quotientability: given a positive integer $d$, one can readily check that
\[
\frac{m\nsg}{d} = m' \left(\frac{\nsg}{d'}\right),
\]
where $m' = m/\gcd(m,d)$ and $d' = d/\gcd(m,d)$.
\end{remark}

\section{When is $\nsg$ not a $k$-quotient?
\label{sec:necessary

In this section, we give two structural results.
The first (Theorem~\ref{thm:necessary}) is a necessary condition for a given numerical semigroup $\nsg$ to be a $k$-quotient, which forms the backbone of the constructions in Section~\ref{sec:fullquotientrank} and the probabilistic results in Section~\ref{sec:randomsgps}.  The second (Theorem~\ref{thm:sums}) is a constructive proof that quotient rank is sub-additive, provided the denominators are relatively prime.

In what follows, we write $[p] = \{1,2,\dots,p\}$ for any positive integer $p$, and given a collection of vectors $\{\vec v_i\}$ and a set of indices $I$, we define $\vec v_I=\sum_{i\in I}\vec v_i$.

\begin{thm} \label{thm:necessary}
Suppose
\[\nsg =\frac{\langle b_1,\ldots,b_k\rangle}{d}\]
for some $b_i\in \NN$ and positive integer $d$. Given any elements $s_1,\ldots,s_p \in \nsg$ with $p > k$, there exists a nonempty subset $I\subseteq [p]$ such that $s_I/2\in \nsg$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $\vec b=(b_1,\ldots,b_k)$. For $1\le i\le p$, let $\vec c_i=(c_{i1},\ldots,c_{ik})\in\NN^k$ be such that
\[s_i = d (c_{i1}b_1+\cdots c_{ik}b_k),\]
which exist since $s_i\in\nsg$.
For a vector $\vec v\in\ZZ^k$, define $\vec v\bmod 2\in\ZZ_2^k$ to be the coordinate-wise reduction of $\vec v$ modulo 2. For $J\subseteq [p]$, examine $\vec c_J \bmod 2$. There are $2^p$ possible $J$ and $2^k$ possible values for $\vec c_J \bmod 2$, with $p>k$, so there must be two distinct $J_1$ and $J_2$ such that
\[\vec c_{J_1}\bmod 2=\vec c_{J_2}\bmod 2.\]
Let $I=(J_1\setminus J_2)\cup (J_2\setminus J_1)$ be their symmetric difference, which is nonempty. Then
\[\vec c_{I}\bmod 2=\vec c_{J_1}+\vec c_{J_2}-2\vec c_{J_1\cap J_2}\bmod 2=\vec 0,\]
so $\vec c_{I}$ has even coordinates. Let $\vec c_I = (2q_1,\ldots,2q_k)$ where $q_i\in\NN$. Then
\begin{align*}
s_I/2&=\sum_{i\in I}\big(d\cdot (c_{i1}b_1+\cdots c_{ik}b_k)\big)/2
= d\sum_{j=1}^kb_j\sum_{i\in I}c_{ij}/2
=d\sum_{j=1}^k q_jb_j
\end{align*}
is an element of $\nsg$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor} \label{cor:necessary}
Let $\nsg = \langle a_1, \dots, a_n \rangle$ be a numerical semigroup.  If $\nsg$ does not have full quotient rank, then there exists $I \subseteq [n]$ such that
\[ a_I \in\langle a_j:\ j\notin I \rangle.\]
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
By applying Theorem~\ref{thm:necessary} to the generating set $\{a_1, \dots, a_n\}$, we obtain that for some $J \subseteq [n]$, $a_J/2 \in \nsg$. So there exist $c_r\in\NN$ such that
\[
\sum_{j\in J} a_j=\sum_{r\in R} 2c_r a_r
\]
where $R=\{r:\ c_r>0\}$.
Letting $I=J\setminus R$ and subtracting each $a_j$ with $j\in J\cap R$ from both sides, we have
\[
a_I=\sum_{i\in I} a_i = \sum_{r\in J\cap R} (2c_r-1) a_r + \sum_{r\in R\setminus J}2c_r a_r
\]
is an element of $\langle a_j:\ j\notin I\rangle$,
as desired. Note that $I$ is nonempty, as otherwise
\[
0 = a_I = \sum_{r\in J\cap R} (2c_r-1) a_r + \sum_{r\in R\setminus J}2c_r a_r \ge \sum_{r\in J\cap R} a_r = \sum_{r\in J} a_r > 0
\]
since $J$ is nonempty,
which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm} \label{thm:sums}
If $\nsg$ and $\nsgtwo$ are numerical semigroups and $\gcd(c,d) = 1$, then
\[
\frac{\nsg}{c} + \frac{\nsgtwo}{d} = \frac{d\nsg + c \nsgtwo}{cd}.
\]
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
First suppose that $x \in \frac{1}{c}\nsg + \frac{1}{d}\nsgtwo$.  Then $x = s+t$ where $cs \in \nsg$ and $dt \in \nsgtwo$, so
\[
cdx = d(cs) + c(dt) \in d \nsg + c \nsgtwo
\]
which implies $x \in \frac{1}{cd}(d\nsg + c \nsgtwo)$.  Note this containment does not require $\gcd(c,d) = 1$.

On the other hand, suppose $cdx \in d \nsg + c \nsgtwo$, so
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sums}
cdx = ds + ct
\qquad \text{for some} \qquad
s \in \nsg, t \in \nsgtwo.
\end{equation}
In particular, $ct = d(cx-s)$ is a multiple of $d$. Since $c$ and $d$ are relatively prime, this implies that $t$ is a multiple of $d$, say $t = bd$. Since $t \in \nsgtwo$, we conclude that $b \in \frac{1}{d}\nsgtwo$.  Similarly, we can write $s = ac$ for some $a$ and so $a \in \frac{1}{c}\nsg$.

Substituting $t=bd$ and $s=ac$ into \eqref{eq:sums}, we obtain
\[
cdx = dac + cbd = cd(a+b).
\]
By cancellation, we obtain $x = a + b$ with $a \in \frac{1}{c}\nsg$ and $b \in \frac{1}{d}\nsgtwo$, as desired.
\end{proof}

Given the ease of proving Theorem~\ref{thm:sums}, it is surprisingly more difficult when the denominators do have a common factor.  In a follow-up to this current paper, we will translate the quotient operation into a geometric setting, which will allow us to generalize Theorem~\ref{thm:sums} to drop the ``coprime denominators'' hypothesis.  Intriguingly, the translation can cause a large blow-up in the numbers, e.g.,
\[
\frac{\langle 11,13\rangle}{2} + \frac{\langle 17,19\rangle}{2}
= \frac{\langle 2416656, 2894591, 3441983, 3869571  \rangle}{25357536}.
\]
Based on experimentation, this blow-up seems necessary.

\section{Some families of numerical semigroups with full quotient rank
\label{sec:fullquotientrank

In this section, we produce two families of numerical semigroups:\ those in the first have embedding dimension $k+1$ but are not $k$-quotients, so in particular have full quotient rank (Theorem~\ref{thm:noquotient}); and those in the second are not even \emph{intersections} of $k$-quotients  (Theorem~\ref{thm:nointersection}).

\begin{thm} \label{thm:noquotient}
Given a positive integer $k$, let $a\ge 2^k$ be an integer. Define $a_i=2a+2^i$ for $i=0,1,\dots,k$. Then the numerical semigroup
\[\nsg=\langle a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_k\rangle\]
is not a $k$-quotient.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
For $1\le j\le 2^k-1$, let $b_j=\omega(j)a+j$,
where $\omega(j)$ is the number of 1's in the binary representation of $j$. We first prove that, if  $\nsgtwo$ is \emph{any} $k$-quotient the contains $a_0,\ldots,a_k$ (so $\nsgtwo=\nsg$ will be an example), then there exists $j$ ($1\le j\le 2^k-1$) such that $b_j\in \nsgtwo$. Indeed, we apply Theorem~\ref{thm:necessary}. We know that there exists a nonempty $I\subseteq\{0,1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $a_I/2\in \nsgtwo$. If $0\in I$, then $a_I$ is odd and $a_I/2$ is not an integer, so we know $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,k\}$. Let
\[j=\sum_{i\in I}2^{i-1}.\]
We have that $1\le j\le 2^k-1$, and
\[a_I/2=\sum_{i\in I}\left(2a+2^i\right)/2 = \abs{I}a + \sum_{i\in I}2^{i-1} = \omega(j)a+j=b_j,\]
so $b_j\in \nsgtwo$.

Now we this apply to $\nsgtwo=\nsg$. Seeking a contradiction, suppose $\nsg$ is a $k$-quotient, and therefore we have some  $b_j\in \nsg$, that is, $b_j=\sum_{i=0}^ka_ix_i$ with $x_i\in\NN$. Examining this sum modulo $a$, and noting that $b_j=j\pmod a$ and $a_i=2^i\pmod a$, we see that
\[\sum_{i=0}^k x_i\ge \omega(j).\] But a sum of $\omega(j)$ generators of $\nsg$ is too large:
\[\omega(j)a+j=b_j\ge \omega(j)\cdot a_0 = \omega(j)(2a+1)\ge \omega(j)a+a\ge \omega(j)a+2^k,\]
a contradiction. Therefore $b_j\notin \nsg$, and so $\nsg$ cannot be a $k$-quotient.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm} \label{thm:nointersection}
Given a positive integer $k\ge 2$, let $a\ge k2^k$ be an integer. As before, define $a_i=2a+2^i$ and $b_j=\omega(j)a+j$,
where $\omega(j)$ is the number of 1's in the binary representation of $j$. Let $N=(2k+1)a$. Then
\[\nsg=\langle a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_k,N-b_1,N-b_2,\ldots,N-b_{2^k-1}\rangle\]
cannot be written as an intersection of $k$-quotients.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Suppose, seeking a contradiction, that $\nsg=\bigcap_{\ell=1}^p \nsg_\ell$, where the $\nsg_\ell$ are $k$-quotients.
Each $\nsg_\ell$ must contain $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_k$, and we noted in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:noquotient} that this implies that $\nsg_\ell$ must contain $b_j$ for some $j$. But then $\nsg_\ell$ contains both $b_j$ and $N-b_j$, and so additive closure implies that it contains $N$.  This means $N \in \bigcap_{\ell=1}^p \nsg_\ell = \nsg$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sumforN}
N=\sum_{i=1}^k a_ix_i + \sum_{j=1}^{2^k-1}(N-b_j)y_j,
\end{equation}
where $x_i,y_j \in \NN$.
We break into three cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $\sum_{j}y_j\ge 2$, then~\eqref{eq:sumforN} would be too large, as for some $j_1,j_2$,
\begin{align*}(2k+1)a
= N
&\ge (N-b_{j_1})+(N-b_{j_2})\\
&= 2N-(\omega(j_1)+\omega(j_2))a -(j_1+j_2)\\
&> 2\cdot (2k+1)a -2ka-2\cdot 2^k\\
&= (2k+2)a-2^{k+1},
\end{align*}
which is impossible since $a\ge 2^{k+1}$.

\item
If $\sum_{j}y_j=1$, then~\eqref{eq:sumforN} uses exactly one $N-b_j$.  But then $N=(N-b_j)+b_j$ implies that $b_j\in \langle a_0,a_1\ldots,a_k\rangle$, which we saw was impossible in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:noquotient} since $a\ge 2^k$.

\item
If $\sum_{j}y_j=0$, then $N = \sum_{i} a_ix_i$. If $\sum_i x_i \le k$, then
\[(2k+1)a=N\le k(2a+2^k),\]
which is impossible since $a>k2^k$. On the other hand, if $\sum_i x_i > k$, then
\[(2k+1)a=N\ge (k+1)(2a+1)>(2k+1)a,\]
which is also impossible.
\end{itemize}
In each case, we obtain a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\section{How often do numerical semigroups have full quotient rank?
\label{sec:randomsgps

In this section, we consider the question ``how likely is a randomly selected numerical semigroup to have full quotient rank?''  We consider two sampling methods.  The first is the ``box'' method, wherein a fixed number of generators are selected uniformly and independently from an interval $[1,M]$.  Numerical semigroups selected under this model have high probability (i.e., approaching 1 as $M \to \infty$) of having full quotient rank.

\begin{thm} \label{thm:numericalbox}
Fix a positive integer $n$. If $\nsg = \langle a_1, \dots, a_n \rangle$ where $a_1, \ldots, a_n \in [M]$ are uniformly and independently chosen, then the probability that $\nsg$ has full quotient rank tends to 1 as $M \to \infty$.  More precisely, this probability is $1 - O(M^{-\frac{1}{n}})$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
By Corollary~\ref{cor:necessary}, it suffices to bound the probability that there exists $I \subseteq [n]$ such that $a_I \in \langle a_j:\ j\notin I\rangle$.  Let $A$ be this event, and let $B$ be the event that $a_i \leq M^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$ for some $i$. We will use that
\[
\Pr(A)
= \Pr(B)\Pr(A \mid B) + \Pr(B^c)\Pr(A \mid B^c)
\leq \Pr(B) + \Pr(A \mid B^c).
\]
For the first term, the union bound gives us that
\[
\Pr(B)
\leq n \left( \frac{M^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}{M} \right)
= \frac{n}{M^{\frac{1}{n}}}.
\]
For the second term, fix a nontrivial subset $I \subsetneq [n]$ and $b_i \in \NN$ for $i \notin I$. If $b_i > nM^{\frac{1}{n}}$ for some $i \notin I$, then since every $a_i$ is greater than $M^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$, we have
\[
\sum_{j \notin I} b_ja_j
\geq b_ia_i
> \left( nM^{\frac{1}{n}} \right) M^\frac{n-1}{n}
= nM.
\]
But $a_I$ cannot be this large because it is the sum of at most $n-1$ integers that are each at most $M$. So we need only consider $b_i \le nM^{\frac{1}{n}}$.  Letting $i^\ast = \min(I)$ and $m = nM^{\frac{1}{n}}$,
\begin{align*}
\Pr(A \mid B^c)
&\le \sum_{\substack{I \subsetneq [n] \\ I \ne \emptyset}} \sum_{\substack{b_j \le m \\ j \notin I}} \Pr \bigg( \sum_{i \in I}a_i =  \sum_{i \notin I}b_ia_i \biggm\vert a_1, \ldots, a_n > M^{\frac{n}{n-1}} \bigg)
\\
& = \sum_{\substack{I \subsetneq [n] \\ I \ne \emptyset}} \sum_{\substack{b_j \le m \\ j \notin I}} \Pr \bigg( a_{i^\ast} = \sum_{i \notin I}b_ia_i - \!\!\! \sum_{i \in I \setminus \{i^\ast\}} \!\!\! a_i \biggm\vert a_1, \ldots, a_n > M^{\frac{n}{n-1}} \bigg)
\\
& \le \sum_{\substack{I \subsetneq [n] \\ I \ne \emptyset}} \sum_{\substack{b_j \le m \\ j \notin I}} \frac{1}{M-M^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}
\le \frac{\left( 2^n - 2 \right) \left( nM^{\frac{1}{n}} \right)^{n-1}}
{M-M^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}
= \frac{\left( 2^n - 2 \right)n^{n-1}}{M^{\frac{1}{n}}-1},
\end{align*}
where the second inequality comes from the fact that for any choice of the $a_i$ with $i \neq i^\ast$, there is at most one choice of $a_i^\ast$ that makes the linear equation hold.  Thus,
\[
\Pr(A) \leq \frac{\left( 2^n - 2 \right)n^{n-1}}{M^{\frac{1}{n}}-1} + \frac{n}{M^{\frac{1}{n}}-1} = O(M^{-\frac{1}{n}}),
\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:numericalbox}
The ``minimally generated'' and ``finite complement'' conditions, which are often imposed on numerical semigroups, do not affect Theorem~\ref{thm:numericalbox}.
Indeed, under this ``box'' probability model, the chosen generators $a_1, \dots, a_n$ need not form a minimal generating set.  Since the quotient rank is at most the embedding dimension, the (asymptotically rare) event that the rank of $\nsg$ is less than $n$ contains the event that the chosen generating set is not minimal.
Additionally, the probability that $a_1,\ldots, a_n$ are relatively prime approaches the positive constant $1/\zeta(n)$ by~\cite{Nym}, where $\zeta(n)$ is the Reimann zeta function $\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}1/i^n$.  Therefore, even if one restricts to those $a_1,\ldots, a_n$ that are relatively prime, the conditional probability that the quotient rank of the resulting numerical semigroup is less than $n$ still tends to 0.
\end{remark}

Under the second model, a numerical semigroup $\nsg$ is selected uniformly at random from among the (finitely many) with fixed smallest generator $m$ and number of gaps~$g$.  Such numerical semigroups have high probability (i.e., tending to 1 as $g \to \infty$) of having embedding dimension $m$ (such numerical semigroups are said to have \emph{maximal embedding dimension}).  We prove that maximal embedding dimension numerical semigroups never have full quotient rank, illustrating a stark contrast in asymptotic behavior to the first model.

We first recall a characterization of quotient rank 2 numerical semigroups, which appears in~\cite{numerical} as a characterization of proportionally modular numerical semigroups in the case $\gcd(\nsg) = 1$.  Our statement here is more general, thanks to Remark~\ref{rem:relprime}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:pmcriterion}
A numerical semigroup $\nsg$ with $\gcd(\nsg) = D$ has quotient rank 2 if and only if there exists an ordering $b_1, \ldots, b_n$ of its minimal generators such that:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\gcd(b_i, b_{i+1}) = D$ for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$; and
\item $b_{i-1} + b_{i+1}$ is divisible by $b_i$ for $2 \leq i \leq n-1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:plusminusone}
For any $a, b, m \ge 1$, the numerical semigroup $\nsg = \langle m,am-1, bm+1 \rangle$ is a 2-quotient.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $\mathsf e(\nsg) \le 2$, then $\nsg$ is clearly a 2-quotient. Otherwise, letting $b_1 = am-1$, $b_2 = m$, and $b_3 = bm+1$, it is clear that $\gcd(b_1, b_2) = \gcd(b_2, b_3) = 1$ and that $b_2 \mid  (b_1 + b_3)$.  As such, $\nsg$ is a 2-quotient by Theorem \ref{thm:pmcriterion}.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:maxembdim}
If $m = \min(\nsg \setminus \{0\})$, then $\nsg$ is an $(m-1)$-quotient.  In particular, if $\mathsf e(\nsg) = m$, then $\nsg$ does not have full quotient rank.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
If $\nsg=\frac{\nsg}{1}$ has embedding dimension less than $m$, then the proof is immediate. If not, then $\nsg$ has $m$ minimal generators, and so they must all have distinct residues modulo $m$. That is,
\[ \nsg = \langle m, b_1m+1, \dots, b_{k-1}m + (m-1) \rangle \]
for some positive integers $b_1, \dots, b_{m-1}$. Write $\nsg = \nsg_1 + \nsg_2$ where
\[ \nsg_1 = \langle m, b_1m + 1, b_{k-1}m + (m-1) \rangle, \: \nsg_2 = \langle b_2m + 2, \dots, b_{m-2}m + (m-2) \rangle. \]
Now by Lemma~\ref{lem:plusminusone}, $\nsg_1$ as a 2-quotient, and $\nsg_2 = \frac{\nsg_2}{1}$ is trivially an $(m-3)$-quotient.  Since $1$ is coprime to every integer, Theorem~\ref{thm:sums} implies $\nsg$ is an $(m-1)$-quotient.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements
Tristram Bogart was supported by internal research grant INV-2020-105-2076 from the Faculty of Sciences of the Universidad de los Andes.

Commutative Algebra (math.AC); Combinatorics (math.CO)


A systematic approach on some relevant theorems that follows from Kolmogorov's axioms

Abstract: A selection of the relevant theorems of Probability Theory that comes directly from Kolmogorov's axioms, Set Theory basic results, definitions and rules of inference are listed and proven in a systematic approach, aiming the student who seeks a self-contained account on the matter before moving to more advanced material.

\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}

Most of the Probability Theory and Statistics books presents the rules of probability as consequences of Andrei Kolmogorov's axioms \cite{ross2010,rozanov1969,magalhaes2006,degroot1989,shiryaev1996,sinai1992,gnedenko1997}. Although they show proofs of the most relevant relations between probabilities of different kinds of events, either directly or through of exercises, I've found no systematic list of relations and proofs. The lacking of some generalizations is also present, so I've made a selection that includes the most common and relevant theorems (and their consequences) that arise, direct or indirectly, from the axioms. The list is neither complete nor fundamentally rigorous, but provides a secure step for the student to base its researches and prove more theorems even before the introduction of random variables. At the end of this paper, in section \ref{probdiagram}, a diagram relating axioms and main results is presented to increase the broad view of the connections among them.

The discussion is intentionally didactic in order to help the student to follow the reasoning. It demands some contact with proof theory and logic beforehand, but nothing more, alongside some Set Theory equations listed briefly in section \ref{sets}.

It's perhaps important to emphasize that the axiomatic system proposed by Kolmogorov, somewhat inspired in the frequentist view of statistics \cite{shafer2006}, was not the only one proposed, as described, for instance, by Terenin and Draper \cite{terenin2017}.

\section{Sets}
\label{sets}

For the proofs to follow, some relations between sets are necessary. I'll present them here, without proof, since they are not the subject of this paper. However, they can be found easily in introductions to mathematical proof \cite{wohlgemuth2011}, for instance, and Probability Theory textbooks:

\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Empty set}: An empty set, $\emptyset$, have the following properties for any set $A$: $A\cup \emptyset = A$ and $A\cap \emptyset = \emptyset$;
\item \emph{Space set}: An space set, $\Omega$, is the union of all possible sets. In other words, the properties $A \subset \Omega$, $A\cup \Omega = \Omega$ and $A\cap \Omega = A$ are valid for any set $A$;
\item \emph{Complementary set}: A complementary set of $A$, $\overline{A}$, has the following properties: $A \cup \overline{A}= \Omega$ and $A \cap \overline{A}= \emptyset$;
\item \emph{Associative laws for sets}: Given three sets $A$, $B$ and $C$, it can be proven that: $(A\cup B) \cup C = A\cup (B \cup C)$ and $(A\cap B) \cap C = A\cap (B \cap C)$;
\item \emph{Distributive laws for sets}: Given three sets $A$, $B$ and $C$, the following equations are valid: $A\cup(B\cap C) =(A\cup B)\cap (A\cup C)$ and $A\cap(B\cup C) =(A\cap B)\cup (A\cap C)$.
\end{itemize}

\section{Probabilities}
\label{probabilities}

\begin{defi}
$\Omega$ is the set that represents the sample space, the space of all possible events.
\label{definition1}
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
Events related to the sample space are all subsets of $\Omega$.
\label{definition2}
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
Two events $A$ e $B$ are pairwise mutually exclusive (PME) if $A\cap B=\emptyset$, that is, are disjoint sets.
\label{definition3}
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
A class of subsets of $\Omega$, represented by $\mathcal{F}$, is considered a $\sigma$-algebra if it has the following properties \cite{magalhaes2006,sinai1992}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Omega\in\mathcal{F}$.
\item If $A\in\mathcal{F}$, then $\overline{A}\in\mathcal{F}$.
\item (\emph{Closure with respect to countable unions}). If a countable collection $\{A_1,A_2,...\}=\{A_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of sets $A_i$ is such that $A_i\in\mathcal{F}$ for all $i$, then $\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i\in\mathcal{F}$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{definition4}
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
A partition of the sample space $\Omega$ is defined according the following property:
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i=\Omega
\label{equation1}
\end{equation}
Being $A_i$ and $A_j$ mutually exclusive (ME) for all combinations of sets.
\label{definition5}
\end{defi}

\begin{defi}
Probability $P$ is a function of the subsets of the sample space correspondent to $\mathcal{F}$: $P=P(\mathcal{F})$. Additionally, it should obey the axioms that follow.
\label{definition6}
\end{defi}

\begin{center}
\fbox{\parbox{15cm}{
\begin{ax}[Non-negativity]
$P(A_i)\geq 0$, for all event $A_i\subset\mathcal{F}$.
\label{axiom1}
\end{ax}

\begin{ax}[Normalization]
$P(\Omega)=1$.
\label{axiom2}
\end{ax}

\begin{ax}[Countable additivity]
If $A_i$ and $A_j$ are two PME events (disjoint sets) for all $i\neq j$, then $P\displaystyle\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i\right)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}P(A_i)$ for all $(A_i,A_j)\in\mathcal{F}$.
\label{axiom3}
\end{ax}
} }
\end{center}

\begin{defi}
If $\mathcal{F}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra of set $\Omega$, and $P$ a function of $\mathcal{F}$ with the properties described by axioms \ref{axiom1}, \ref{axiom2} and \ref{axiom3}, then the triple $\{\Omega,\mathcal{F},P\}$ is called \emph{probability space}.
\end{defi}

\begin{thm}
$P(\emptyset)=0$.
\label{theorem1}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
According to axiom \ref{axiom3}, we can choose the sets $A_i$ for $i\geq 2$ such that $A_i=\emptyset_i=\emptyset$. Consequently:

\begin{equation}
P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i\right)=P\left[A_1\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{\infty}A_i\right)\right]=P\left[A_1\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{\infty}\emptyset_i\right)\right]=P(A_1)+P\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{\infty}\emptyset_i\right)
\label{equation2}
\end{equation}

Considering that $\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=2}^{\infty}\emptyset_i=\emptyset$, it follows that:

\begin{equation}
P(A_1\cup\emptyset)=P(A_1)+P(\emptyset)
\label{equation3}
\end{equation}

Given the property of the empty set $A_i\cup\emptyset=A_i$ for all $i$, then $P(A_1\cup\emptyset)=P(A_1)$ which can be substituted in Eq. \ref{equation3}:

\begin{equation}
P(A_1)=P(A_1)+P(\emptyset)
\label{equation4}
\end{equation}

Finally proving that:

\begin{equation}
P(\emptyset)=0
\label{equation5}
\end{equation}

\end{proof}

\subsection{Combination of events}
\label{combinationsofevents}

\begin{thm}
If $A_i$ and $A_j$ are PME events, then $P\displaystyle\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)$ for $i\neq j$ and $n\geq 1$.
\label{theorem2}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
From axiom \ref{axiom3}, consider that from $i=1$ to $i=n$ we have the sets $A_1$, $A_2$, etc, $A_n$, and for $i>n$ we have $A_i=\emptyset_i$. Therefore:

$$P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i\right)=P\left[\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{\infty}A_i\right)\right]=P\left[\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{\infty}\emptyset_i\right)\right]$$

\begin{equation}
P\left[\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{\infty}\emptyset_i\right)\right]=\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)+\sum_{i=n+1}^{\infty}P(\emptyset_i)
\label{equation6}
\end{equation}

Since $\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{\infty}\emptyset_i=\emptyset$, and $A\cup\emptyset=A$ for all $A$, including $A=\bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_i$, according to theorem \ref{theorem1} $P(\emptyset_i)=P(\emptyset)=0$, thus:

\begin{equation}
P\left[\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{\infty}\emptyset_i\right)\right]=P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)
\label{equation7}
\end{equation}

\end{proof}

\begin{thm}[Normalization condition]
Let the sets $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ be a partition in $\Omega$. It implies that:

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nP(A_i)=1
\label{equation8}
\end{equation}

\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Given the definition \ref{definition5}, $A_i\cap A_j=\emptyset$ for all $i\neq j$. Therefore, following the result of the theorem \ref{theorem2}:

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nP(A_i)=P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^nA_i\right)=P(\Omega)=1
\label{equation9}
\end{equation}

The second equality in Eq. \ref{equation9} follows from definition \ref{definition5}, and the third is a consequence of the axiom \ref{axiom2}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
Any pair among the sets $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ are mutually exclusive (that is, they are PME) if and only if they are mutually exclusive as a whole (ME for any combination of any number of these sets, including all of them).
\label{lemma1}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $A_i\cap A_j=\emptyset$ for all $i\neq j$ in the presented sequence of sets, then, given that $A_i\cap\emptyset =\emptyset$:

$$A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap ... \cap A_n=(A_1\cap A_2)\cap A_3\cap ... \cap A_n=\emptyset\cap A_3\cap ... \cap A_n$$
$$A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap ... \cap A_n=(\emptyset\cap A_3)\cap ... \cap A_n=\emptyset\cap ... \cap A_n$$
$$ \ldots $$

\begin{equation}
A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap ... \cap A_n=\emptyset
\label{equation10}
\end{equation}

And since $\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}A_i=\emptyset$, we can deduce that for any $A_i$ and $A_j$ with $i\neq j$:

\begin{equation}
A_1\cap ... \cap A_i ... \cap A_j \cap ... \cap A_n=(A_i\cap A_j)\cap (A_1\cap ... \cap A_n)=\emptyset
\label{equation11}
\end{equation}

Hence, the property $A\cap \emptyset = \emptyset$ for all $A$ can be applied:

$$(A_i\cap A_j)\cap (A_1\cap ... \cap A_n)=\emptyset=\emptyset\cap (A_1\cap ... \cap A_n)$$

\begin{equation}
(A_i\cap A_j)=\emptyset
\label{equation12}
\end{equation}

\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If $A$ and $B$ are events, then:

\begin{equation}
P(A\cup B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A\cap B)
\label{equation13}
\end{equation}

\label{lemma2}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
By using the relations $A\cup B=A\cup(\overline{A}\cap B)$ and $B=(\overline{A}\cap B)\cup (A\cap B)$, and since $A$ and $\overline{A}\cap B$ are PME, and $\overline{A}\cap B$ and $A\cap B$ too, we can use the theorem \ref{theorem2} for $n=2$ in order to obtain the relations:

\begin{equation}
P(A\cup B)=P(A)+P(\overline{A}\cap B)
\label{equation14}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
P(B)=P(\overline{A}\cap B)+P(A\cap B)
\label{equation15}
\end{equation}

Subtracting Eq. \ref{equation15} from \ref{equation14} leads to $P(A\cup B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A\cap B)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}[Rule of addition of probabilities, or inclusion-exclusion principle, or Poincaré's theorem]

\begin{equation}
P\left(\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1}P(A_i\cap A_j)+...
\label{equation16}
\end{equation}

\label{theorem4}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The proof follows from mathematical induction. Eq. \ref{equation16} is refered as proposition $Q(n)$. The case for $n=2$, that is, $Q(2)$, was already proved (lemma \ref{lemma2}), if we change the notation to $A=A_1$ and $B=A_2$. The case $Q(1)$ is trivial, with $P(A)=P(A)$ (or $P(A_1)=P(A_1)$). We can prove the validity of $Q(n+1)$ if the validity of $Q(n)$ is presumed or, equivalently, we might prove $Q(n)$ from $Q(n-1)$. But first we'll prove $Q(3)$ to better understand the structure of $Q(n)$, and of its terms. As already proven:

\begin{equation}
P(A_1\cup A_2)=P(A_1)+P(A_2)-P(A_1\cap A_2)
\label{equation17}
\end{equation}

In order to demonstrate $Q(3)$, we first use $Q(2)$ (lemma \ref{lemma2}) and the associative properties of sets:

\begin{equation}
P(A_1\cup A_2\cup A_3)=P[A_1\cup (A_2\cup A_3)]=P(A_1)+P(A_2\cup A_3)-P[A_1\cap (A_2\cup A_3)]
\label{equation18}
\end{equation}

Then using the distributive property, $A_1\cap (A_2\cup A_3)=(A_1\cap A_2)\cup(A_1\cap A_3)$, and two more applications of $Q(2)$:

$$P(A_2\cup A_3)=P(A_2)+P(A_3)-P(A_2\cap A_3)$$
$$P[A_1\cap (A_2\cup A_3)]=P(A_1\cap A_2)+P(A_1\cap A_3)-P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3)$$

\begin{eqnarray}
P(A_1\cup A_2\cup A_3)
& = & P(A_1)+P(A_2)+P(A_3) \nonumber \\
& - & P(A_1\cap A_2)-P(A_1\cap A_3)-P(A_2\cap A_3) \nonumber \\
& + & P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3) \nonumber \\
\label{equation19}
\end{eqnarray}

Eq. \ref{equation19} can be written in terms of summations:

\begin{equation}
P\displaystyle\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{3}A_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{3}P(A_i)-\sum_{i=1}^{3-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{3}P(A_i\cap A_j)+\sum_{i=1}^{3-2}\sum_{j=i+1}^{3-1}\sum_{k=j+1}^{3}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap A_k)
\label{equation20}
\end{equation}

Which for $n$ events can be generalized to:

\begin{eqnarray}
P\displaystyle\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)
& = & \sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n}P(A_i\cap A_j)+\ldots \nonumber \\
& + & (-1)^{L-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n-(L-1)}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n-(L-2)}...\sum_{l=m+1}^{n-(L-L)}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_m\cap A_l)+\ldots \nonumber \\
& + & (-1)^{n-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n-(n-1)}\sum_{j=i+1}^{n-(n-2)}...\sum_{e=d+1}^{n-(n-n)}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_d\cap A_e) \nonumber \\
\label{equation21}
\end{eqnarray}

A simpler notation for $Q(n)$ can be:

\begin{eqnarray}
P\displaystyle\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)
& = & \sum_{1\leq i\leq n}P(A_i)-\sum_{1\leq i < j\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j)+\ldots \nonumber \\
& + & (-1)^{L-1}\sum_{1\leq i < j < ...< m < l\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_m\cap A_l) +\ldots \nonumber \\
\label{equation22}
\end{eqnarray}

The equation that corresponds to $Q(n-1)$ can be written as:

\begin{eqnarray}
P\displaystyle\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{n}A_i\right)
& = & \sum_{2\leq i\leq n}P(A_i)-\sum_{2\leq i < j\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j)+\ldots \nonumber \\
& + & (-1)^{L-1}\sum_{2\leq i < j < ...< m < l\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_m\cap A_l)+\ldots \nonumber \\
\label{equation23}
\end{eqnarray}

And assuming $Q(n-1)$ we should prove $Q(n)$ in order to complete the proof by induction. From the left side of Eq. \ref{equation16}:

\begin{equation}
P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=P\left[A_{1}\cup\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{n}A_i\right)\right]
\label{equation24}
\end{equation}

By applying $Q(2)$:

\begin{eqnarray}
P\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)
& = & P(A_{1})+P\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{n}A_i\right) - P\left[A_{1}\cap\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{n}A_i\right)\right] \nonumber \\
& = & P(A_{1})+P\left(\bigcup_{i=2}^{n}A_i\right) - P\left[\bigcup_{i=2}^{n}\left(A_1\cap A_i\right)\right] \nonumber \\
\label{equation25}
\end{eqnarray}

If we apply $Q(n-1)$ in the last two terms on the right of Eq. \ref{equation25}:

\begin{eqnarray}
P\left(\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)
& = & P(A_1)+\displaystyle\sum_{2\leq i\leq n}P(A_i)-\displaystyle\sum_{2\leq i < j\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j)+\ldots \nonumber \\
& + & (-1)^{L-1}\sum_{2\leq i < j < ...< m < l\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_m\cap A_l) +\ldots \nonumber \\
& - & \left\{\displaystyle\sum_{2\leq i \leq n}P(A_1\cap A_i)+\ldots+(-1)^{L-2}\sum_{2\leq i < j < ...< m \leq n}P(A_1\cap A_i\cap ...\cap A_m)+...\right\} \nonumber \\
\label{equation26}
\end{eqnarray}

Performing the substitutions:

\begin{equation}
P(A_1)+\displaystyle\sum_{2\leq i\leq n}P(A_i)=\sum_{1\leq i\leq n}P(A_i)
\label{equation27}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
-\displaystyle\sum_{2\leq i \leq n}P(A_1\cap A_i)-\displaystyle\sum_{2\leq i < j\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j)=-\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq i < j\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j)
\label{equation28}
\end{equation}

\begin{center}
\ldots
\end{center}

\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle -(-1)^{L-2}\sum_{2\leq i < j < ...< m \leq n}P(A_1\cap A_i\cap ...\cap A_m)\nonumber \\
+(-1)^{L-1}\sum_{2\leq i < j < ...< m < l\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_m\cap A_l)\nonumber \\
=(-1)^{L-1}\sum_{1\leq i < j < ...< m < l\leq n}P(A_i\cap A_j\cap ...\cap A_m\cap A_l) \nonumber \\
\label{equation29}
\end{eqnarray}

We reach $Q(n)$, and the theorem is proved by mathematical induction.

\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If $A$ and $B$ are mutually exclusive events, then:

\begin{equation}
P(A\cup B)=P(A)+P(B)
\label{equation30}
\end{equation}

\label{lemma3}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}[Proof 1 (without theorem \ref{theorem2})]
Since the sets are PME, according to definition \ref{definition3} and the theorem \ref{theorem1}: $P(A\cap B)=P(\emptyset)=0$. Considering the lemma \ref{lemma2} the implication is that $P(A\cup B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A\cap B)=P(A)+P(B)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof 2 (by using theorem \ref{theorem2})]
By using the theorem \ref{theorem2} for $n=2$, and changing the notation of $A_1=A$ and $A_2=B$, PME, $P(A\cup B)=P(A)+P(B)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}[Rule of addition of a finite number of ME events]
Let the events $A_1$, $A_2$, \ldots, $A_n$ be ME. The following relation is valid:

\begin{equation}
P\left(\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)
\label{equation31}
\end{equation}

\label{lemma4}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Groups of events that are ME as a whole are PME (lemma \ref{lemma4}). Then we can apply the theorem \ref{theorem2} in order to finish the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}

\begin{equation}
P(\overline{A})=1-P(A)
\label{equation32}
\end{equation}
\label{lemma5}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}[Proof 1 (based on lemma \ref{lemma3} and two axioms)]
Given that $A$ and $\overline{A}$ are PME, then $P(A\cup\overline{A})=P(A)+P(\overline{A})$, according to axiom \ref{axiom3}. Considering the property of complementary events, $A\cup\overline{A}=\Omega$, we can use the axiom \ref{axiom2}: $P(A\cup\overline{A})=P(\Omega)=1=P(A)+P(\overline{A})$, therefore $P(\overline{A})=1-P(A)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof 2 (based on \ref{lemma2} and one axiom)]

Assume $B=\overline{A}$, then $P(A\cup\overline{A})=P(A)+P(\overline{A})-P(A\cap\overline{A})$. Since $P(A\cup\overline{A})=P(\Omega)$, according to the axiom \ref{axiom2}, we have $P(A\cup\overline{A})=1$, and given the fact that $A$ and $\overline{A}$ are PME (another property of the complementary sets), $P(A\cap\overline{A})=0$ (definition \ref{definition3}). Therefore, $1=P(A)+P(\overline{A})$, leading to Eq. \ref{equation32}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If $A\subset B$, then $P(A)\leq P(B)$.
\label{lemma6}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $A\subset B$, then $B=A\cup(\overline{A}\cap B)$. Being $A$ and $\overline{A}\cap B$ PME, then lemma \ref{lemma3} applies, and $P(B)=P(A)+P(\overline{A}\cap B)$. Following the axiom \ref{axiom1}, $P(\overline{A}\cap B)\geq 0$, then $P(B)\geq P(A)$ and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}

\begin{equation}
P(A)\leq 1
\label{equation33}
\end{equation}

\label{lemma7}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
By the definition of the space set, $A\subset\Omega$, and from lemma \ref{lemma6} $P(A)\leq P(\Omega)$. The direct application of the axiom \ref{axiom2}, leads to the result: $P(A)\leq P(\Omega)=1$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Dependency among events}
\label{dependencyevents}

\begin{defi}
The conditional probability of the event $A$ given the event $B$, $P(A|B)$, is defined for $P(B)>0$ as:

\begin{equation}
P(A|B)=\displaystyle\frac{P(A\cap B)}{P(B)}
\label{equation34}
\end{equation}

\label{definition8}
\end{defi}

\begin{lem}
Given $A$ and $B$, and $P(B) > 0$, it's true that $0\leq P(A|B)\leq 1$.
\label{lemma8}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
According the definition of $P(A|B)$, that depends on $P(A\cap B)$ and $P(B)>0$, once $0\leq P(C)\leq 1$ for any $C$ (axiom \ref{axiom1} and lemma \ref{lemma7}), then both $0\leq P(A|B)\leq 1$ and $0\leq P(A\cap B) \leq 1$ are true. The first condition is the proof of the lemma, and the second can be used to determine the limits of $P(A\cap B)$, leading to $0\leq P(A\cap B)\leq P(B)$. When $P(A\cap B)=P(B)$, $P(A|B)=1$. And if $P(A\cap B)=0$, that is, the events $A$ and $B$ are PME, then $P(A|B)=0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
If $A$ and $B$ are PME events, then $P(A|B)=0$.
\label{proposition1}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
If $A$ and $B$ are PME, $A\cap B=\emptyset$ (definition \ref{definition3}), and since $P(\emptyset)=0$ (theorem \ref{theorem1}), then $P(A|B)=0$. Based on the definition of $P(A|B)$ (equation \ref{equation34}), we have $P(A|B)=0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
If the event $B$ implies the event $A$, that is, $B\subset A$, then $P(A|B)=1$.
\label{proposition2}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
If $B\subset A$, $P(A\cap B)=P(B)$. By definition, $P(A|B)=P(A\cap B)/P(B)$, hence $P(A|B)=P(B)/P(B)=1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}[Rule of addition for conditional probabilities]
If $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ are ME with union $A=\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^nA_i$, then:

\begin{equation}
P(A|B)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nP(A_i|B)
\label{equation35}
\end{equation}

\label{proposition3}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
According the definition of $P(A|B)$ (definition \ref{definition8}) and its relation with $P(B)>0$ and $P(A\cap B)$:

\begin{equation}
P(A|B)=\displaystyle\frac{P(A\cap B)}{P(B)}=\frac{1}{P(B)}P\displaystyle\left(B\cap\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\frac{1}{P(B)}P\displaystyle\left[\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}(A_i\cap B)\right]
\label{equation36}
\end{equation}

Since $A_i$ and $A_j$ are PME for $i\neq j$, then $A_i\cap B$ and $A_j\cap B$ also are PME:

\begin{equation}
A_i\cap A_j=\emptyset \Rightarrow (A_i\cap A_j)\cap B=\emptyset\cap B =\emptyset\Rightarrow (A_i\cap B)\cap (A_j\cap B)=\emptyset
\label{equation37}
\end{equation}

Therefore we can apply lemma \ref{lemma4}:

\begin{equation}
P(A|B)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{P(B)}P\displaystyle\left[\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}(A_i\cap B)\right]=\displaystyle\frac{1}{P(B)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i\cap B)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{P(A_i\cap B)}{P(B)}=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i|B)
\label{equation38}
\end{equation}

\end{proof}

\begin{defi}
The event $A$ is said to be independent of the event $B$, or statistically independent (SI), if and only if $P(A|B)=P(A)$.
\label{definition9}
\end{defi}

\begin{thm}[Rule of the product of probabilities]
Let the events $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ with $P\left(\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)\geq 0$ and $P\left(\displaystyle\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}A_i\right)> 0$ for $1\leq k < n$. It can be shown that:

\begin{equation}
P\left(\displaystyle\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=P(A_1)\times P(A_2|A_1)\times \ldots \times P(A_n|A_1\cap ...\cap A_{n-1})
\label{equation39}
\end{equation}

\label{theorem5}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Using the definition of $P(A|B)$ repeatedly for each factor in the product:

$$P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\frac{P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)}{P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n-1}A_i\right)}\times\frac{P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n-1}A_i\right)}{P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n-2}A_i\right)}\times ...\times \frac{P(A_1\cap A_2)}{P(A_1)}P(A_1)$$

\begin{equation}
P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=P\left[A_n|\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n-1}A_i\right)\right]\times P\left[A_{n-1}|\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n-2}A_i\right)\right]\times ... \times P(A_2|A_1)P(A_1)
\label{equation40}
\end{equation}

\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If $A$ and $B$ are SI, and both $P(A)$ and $P(B)$ are not zero, then $P(A\cap B)=P(A)P(B)$
\label{lemma9}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The definition for $P(A|B)=P(A\cap B)/P(B)$ also applies backwards, $P(B|A)=P(A\cap B)/P(A)$. If $A$ and $B$ are SI, given the definition \ref{definition9} $P(A|B)=P(A)$ and $P(B|A)=P(B)$. Thus, in both cases one can show that $P(A\cap B)=P(A)P(B)$, since $P(A\cap B)=P(A|B)P(B)=P(A)P(B)$ and $P(A\cap B)=P(B|A)P(A)=P(B)P(A)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{defi}
The events $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ are defined as mutually independents (MI) if $P\displaystyle\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^{n}A_i\right)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}P(A_i)$ for all combinations of sets between $1$ e $n$.
\label{definition10}
\end{defi}

\begin{lem}
If the events $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ are MI, then any pair $A_i$ e $A_j$, for $i\neq j$, are SI.
\label{lemma10}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
According the definition \ref{definition10} $A_i$ and $A_j$ must be SI, for the independence is valid for the combination of any number of sets, including pairs. Hence $P(A_i\cap A_j)=P(A_i)P(A_j)$ for any $i\neq j$ if the events $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_n$ are MI. Notice that the opposite is not necessarily true: by assuming $P(A_i\cap A_j)=P(A_i)P(A_j)$ for any pair $(i,j)$ one do not prove $P(A_i\cap A_j\cap A_k)=P(A_i)P(A_j)P(A_k)$ for all $(i,j,k)$, and higher order groups.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If the sets $A$ and $B$ are SI, then they are not PME, and vice versa.
\label{lemma11}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $A$ and $B$ are SI, then $P(A\cap B)=P(A)P(B)$ (lemma \ref{lemma9}). PME events are such that $A\cap B=\emptyset$, and $P(A\cap B)=P(\emptyset)$. According theorem $\ref{theorem1}$, $P(\emptyset)=0$, thus PME events ($P(A\cap B)=0$) cannot be SI ($P(A\cap B)=P(A)P(B)$). Notice that the events $A$ and $B$ are such that $P(A)>0$ and $P(B)>0$, respectively (lemma \ref{lemma9}).
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
If the set $\{C_1,...,C_n\}$ is a partition of the sample space, $\Omega$, then for any event $A$:

\begin{equation}
P(A)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A|C_i)P(C_i)
\label{equation41}
\end{equation}

\label{lemma12}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The definition of $P(A|C_i)$ (Eq. \ref{equation34}) implies $P(A|C_i)=P(A\cap C_i)/P(C_i)$. Making the summation from $i=1$ to $n$ on both sides of the equation $P(A|C_i)P(C_i)=P(A\cap C_i)$:

\begin{equation}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nP(A|C_i)P(C_i)=\sum_{i=1}^nP(A\cap C_i)
\label{equation42}
\end{equation}

Since $C_i$ and $C_j$ are disjoint for any $i\neq j$, then is also true that $(A\cap C_i)\cap (A\cap C_j)=\emptyset$ (see proof of proposition \ref{proposition3}). Therefore, by using the theorem \ref{theorem2}:

\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nP(A|C_i)P(C_i)
& = & P\left[\bigcup_{i=1}^n (A\cap C_i)\right]=P\left[A\cap \left(\bigcup_{i=1}^n C_i\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& = & P(A\cap \Omega) = P(A|\Omega)P(\Omega)=P(A) \nonumber \\
\label{equation43}
\end{eqnarray}

Where we have used the definition of a partition in $\Omega$ (definition \ref{definition5}), the axiom \ref{axiom2}, the definition of conditional probability and the implicit identity $P(A|\Omega)$ for any $A$ ($A\subset \Omega$, so any element of the set $A$ is also an element of the sample space).

\end{proof}

\begin{thm}[Bayes' theorem]

Given the event $A$ is such that $P(A)\geq 0$, and the set $\{C_1, ...,C_n\}$, which defines a partition in $\Omega$, with $P(C_i)\geq 0$ for every $i$, it's possible to prove that:

\begin{equation}
P(C_i|A)=\displaystyle\frac{P(A|C_i)P(C_i)}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}P(A|C_i)P(C_i)}
\label{equation44}
\end{equation}

\label{theorem6}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Due to the fact that $P(C_i|A)=P(A\cap C_i)/P(A)$ and $P(A|C_i)=P(A\cap C_i)/P(C_i)$ (definition \ref{definition8}), then:

\begin{equation}
P(C_i|A)=\frac{P(A|C_i)P(C_i)}{P(A)}
\label{equation45}
\end{equation}

We can substitute the result of lemma \ref{lemma12} for $P(A)$ in Eq. \ref{equation45} to prove the theorem.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Probabillity theorems diagram}
\label{probdiagram}

In order to represent the main content of this paper, namely, the most relevant equations presented so far, and the relations among them, the diagram in Fig. \ref{diagram} was prepared. It omits some results and assumptions, focusing on the fundamental relations between axioms and results. A line divides the figure in two parts: below are the results proved in section \ref{combinationsofevents}, and above it the results from section \ref{dependencyevents} are listed and interrelated.

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diagram}
\caption{Main results from Kolmogorov's axioms (in gray boxes). Those above the dashed line correspond to dependent events, and those below the line are related to combinations of events.}
\label{diagram}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}

I hope the set of proofs and the choice of theorems/lemmas/propositions and definitions, as much as the order they are presented, help students of mathematics, statistics, engineering, chemistry and physics to se a broad picture of the Kolmogorov's axiomatic system, even if in a simplified and incomplete form.

\section{Acknowledgements}
\label{acknowledgements}

I must thank CNPq and CAPES for the PhD scholarship which allowed me to investigate the theme.


A second eigenvalue bound for the Dirichlet Schroedinger operator

Abstract: Let $\lambda_i(\Omega,V)$ be the $i$th eigenvalue of the Schrödinger operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions on a bounded domain $\Omega \subset \R^n$ and with the positive potential $V$. Following the spirit of the Payne-Pólya-Weinberger conjecture and under some convexity assumptions on the spherically rearranged potential $V_\star$, we prove that $\lambda_2(\Omega,V) \le \lambda_2(S_1,V_\star)$. Here $S_1$ denotes the ball, centered at the origin, that satisfies the condition $\lambda_1(\Omega,V) = \lambda_1(S_1,V_\star)$.Further we prove under the same convexity assumptions on a spherically symmetric potential $V$, that $\lambda_2(B_R, V) / \lambda_1(B_R, V)$ decreases when the radius $R$ of the ball $B_R$ increases.We conclude with several results about the first two eigenvalues of the Laplace operator with respect to a measure of Gaussian or inverted Gaussian density.

\section{Introduction}
In an earlier publication \cite{AB2}, Ashbaugh and one of us have proven the Payne-P\'olya-Weinberger (PPW) conjecture,
which states that the first two  eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \lambda_2$ of the Dirichlet-Laplacian on a bounded domain
$\Omega\subset \mathbb R^n$ ($n\ge 2$) obey the bound
\begin{equation} \label{EqPPW}
\lambda_2 / \lambda_1 \le j_{n/2,1}^2/j_{n/2-1,1}^2.
\end{equation}
Here $j_{\nu,k}$ stands for the $k$th positive zero of the Bessel function $J_\nu$. Thus the right hand side of
(\ref{EqPPW}) is just the ratio of the first two eigenvalues of the Dirichlet-Laplacian on an $n$-dimensional ball of
arbitrary radius. This result is optimal in the sense that equality holds in (\ref{EqPPW}) if and only if $\Omega$ is a
ball.

The proof of the PPW conjecture has been generalized in several ways. In \cite{AB1} a corresponding theorem has been
established for the Laplacian operator on a domain $\Omega$ that is contained in a hemisphere of the $n$-dimensional
sphere $\mathbb S^n$. More precisely, it has been shown that $\lambda_2(\Omega) \le \lambda_2(S_1)$, where $S_1$ is the
$n$-dimensional geodesic ball in $\mathbb S^n$ that has $\lambda_1(\Omega)$ as its first Dirichlet eigenvalue.

A further variant of the PPW conjecture has been considered by Haile. In \cite{H} he compares the second eigenvalue
$\lambda_2(\Omega,kr^\alpha)$ of the Schr\"o\-din\-ger operator with the potential $V = kr^\alpha$ ($k>0, \alpha\ge 2$)
with $\lambda_2(S_1,kr^\alpha)$, where $S_1$ is the ball, centered at the origin, that satisfies the condition
$\lambda_1(\Omega,kr^\alpha) = \lambda_1(S_1,kr^\alpha)$. Here and in the following we denote by $\lambda_i(\Omega,V)$
the $i$th eigenvalue of the Schr\"o\-din\-ger operator $-\Delta + V(\vec r)$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions on a
bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$.

We have to mention a gap in \cite{H}, which occurs in the proof of Lemma 3.2. The author claims (and uses) that all
derivatives of the function $Z(\theta)$ (which is equal to $T'(\theta)$ where $T(\theta)=0$) coincide with the
derivatives of $T'(\theta)$ in the points where $T(\theta)=0$. This is not proven and there seems to be no reason why
it should be true. The same problem occurs in the proof of Lemma 3.3. In the present paper we will prove a theorem that
includes Haile's theorem as a special case and thus remedies the situation.

One very important difference between the original PPW conjecture and the extended problems in \cite{AB1,H} is that in
the later cases the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ is not scaling invariant anymore. While $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ is the
same for any ball in $\mathbb R^n$, it is an increasing function of the radius for balls in $\mathbb S^n$ \cite{AB1}.
On the other hand, we will see that $\lambda_2(B_R,V)/\lambda_1(B_R,V)$ on the ball $B_R$ is a decreasing function of
the radius $R$, if $V$ has certain convexity properties. This rises the question which is the `right size' of the
comparison ball in the PPW estimate. We will make some remarks on this problem below.

The main objective of the present work is to prove a PPW type result for a Schr\"odinger operator with a positive
potential. We will state the corresponding theorem in the following section. In Section \ref{SectionGauss} we will
transfer our results to the case of a Laplacian operator with respect to a metric of Gaussian or inverted Gaussian
measure, the two cases of which are closely related to the harmonic oscillator. The rest of the article will be devoted
to the proofs of our results.

\section{Main Results} \label{SectionResults}

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ (with $n\ge 2$) be some bounded domain and $V : \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ some positive
potential such that the Schr\"odinger operator $-\Delta + V$ (subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions) is self-adjoint
in $L^2(\Omega)$. We call $\lambda_i(\Omega,V)$ its $i$th eigenvalue. Further, we denote by $V_\star$ the radially
increasing rearrangement of $V$. Then the following PPW type estimate holds:
\begin{Theorem} \label{TheoremPPW}
Let $S_1 \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a ball centered at the origin and of radius $R_1$ and let $\tilde V: S_1 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ be some
radially symmetric positive potential  such that $\tilde V(r) \le V_\star(r)$ for all $0 \le r \le R_1$ and
$\lambda_1(\Omega,V) = \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$. If $\tilde V(r)$ satisfies the conditions
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] $\tilde V(0) = \tilde V'(0)=0$ and
\item[b)] $\tilde V'(r)$ exists and is increasing and convex,
\end{enumerate}
then
\begin{equation}\label{EqTheorem}
\lambda_2(\Omega,V) \le \lambda_2(S_1,\tilde V).
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
If $V$ is such that $V_\star$ satisfies the convexity conditions stated in the theorem, the best bound is obtained by
choosing $\tilde V = V_\star$. In this case the theorem is a typical PPW result and optimal in the sense that equality holds
in (\ref{EqTheorem}) if $\Omega$ is a ball and $V = V_\star$. For a general potential $V$ we still get a non-trivial
bound on $\lambda_2(\Omega,V)$ though it is not sharp anymore. To show that our Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} contains
Haile's result \cite{H} as a special case, we state the following corollary:
\begin{Corollary}
Let $\tilde V: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ be a radially symmetric positive potential that satisfies the conditions a) and b) of
Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} and let $S_1 \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be the ball (centered at the origin) such that
$\lambda_1(\Omega,\tilde V) = \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$. Then
$$\lambda_2(\Omega,\tilde V) \le \lambda_2(S_1,\tilde V).$$
\end{Corollary}

The proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} follows the lines of the proof in \cite{AB2} and will be presented in Section
\ref{SectionProof}. Let us make a few remarks on the conditions that $\tilde V$ has to satisfy. Condition a) is not a very
serious restriction, because any bounded potential can be shifted such that $V_\star(0) = 0$. Also $V_\star'(0) = 0$
holds if $V$ is somewhat regular where it takes the value zero. Moreover, our method relies heavily on the fact that
\begin{equation} \label{EqLambda}
\lambda_2(B_R,\tilde V) \ge \left(1+\frac 2n\right) \lambda_1(B_R,\tilde V),
\end{equation}
which is a byproduct of our proof and holds for any ball $B_R$ and any potential $\tilde V$ that satisfies the conditions of
Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW}. The conditions a) and b) will be needed to show the above inequality, which is equivalent to
$q''(0) \le 0$ for a function $q$ to be defined in the proof. Numerical studies indicate that b) is somewhat sharp in
the sense that, for example, a potential $r^{2-\epsilon}$ (which violates b) only `slightly') does not satisfy
(\ref{EqLambda}) for every $R$. In this case the statement of Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} may still be true, but the
typical scheme of the PPW proof will fail. Furthermore, condition a) and b) will allow us to employ the crucial
Baumgartner-Grosse-Martin (BGM) inequality \cite{BGM,AB3}: From a) and b) we see that $V(r) + rV'(r)$ is increasing.
Consequently $rV(r)$ is convex, which is just the condition needed to apply the BGM inequality.

As mentioned above, one has to chose carefully the size of the comparison ball in a PPW estimate if
$\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ is a non-constant function of the ball's radius. In the case of the Laplacian on $\mathbb S^n$,
one compares the second eigenvalues on $\Omega$ and $S_1$, the ball that has the same first eigenvalue as $\Omega$. By
the Rayleigh-Faber-Krahn (RFK) inequality for $\mathbb S^n$ it is clear that $S_1 \subset \Omega^\star$, where
$\Omega^\star$ is the spherically symmetric rearrangement of $\Omega$. It has also be shown in \cite{AB1} that
$\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ on a geodesic ball in $\mathbb S^n$ is an increasing function of the ball's radius. One can
conclude from these two facts that in $\mathbb S^n$ an estimate of the type (\ref{EqTheorem}) is stronger than the
inequality
\begin{equation} \label{EqLL}
\lambda_2(\Omega)/\lambda_1(\Omega) \le \lambda_2(\Omega^\star) / \lambda_1(\Omega^\star).
\end{equation}
It has also been argued in \cite{AB3} why the situation is different in the hyperbolic space $\mathbb H^n$. Here an estimate of
the type (\ref{EqLL}) is not possible, for the following reason: One can show that $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ on geodesic
balls in $\mathbb H^n$ is a decreasing function of the radius. Now suppose, for example, that $\Omega$ is the ball $B_R$ with
very long and thin tentacles attached to it. Then the first and the second eigenvalue of the Laplacian on $\Omega$ and
$B_R$ are almost the same, while the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ on $\Omega^\star$ can be considerably less than on
$B_R$ (and thus on $\Omega$). We will prove a PPW inequality of the type $\lambda_2(\Omega) \le \lambda_2(S_1)$ for
$\mathbb H^n$ and the monotonicity of $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ on geodesic balls in a future publication.

To shed light on the question which is the right type of PPW inequality for the Schr\"odinger operator on $\Omega$, we
state
\begin{Theorem} \label{TheoremMonotonicity}
Let $V: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ be a spherically symmetric potential that satisfies the conditions of Theorem
\ref{TheoremPPW}, i.e.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] $V(0) = V'(0)=0$ and
\item[b)] $V'(r)$ exists and is increasing and convex.
\end{enumerate}
Then the ratio
$$\frac{\lambda_2(B_R, V)}{\lambda_1(B_R, V)}$$
is a decreasing function of $R$.
\end{Theorem}
This theorem shows that one can not replace equation (\ref{EqTheorem}) in our Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} by an inequality
of the type (\ref{EqLL}), following the same reasoning as in the case of the Laplacian on $\mathbb H^n$. Theorem
\ref{TheoremMonotonicity} will be proven in Section \ref{SectionProof2}.

\section{Connection to the Laplacian operator in Gaussian space} \label{SectionGauss}

Recently, there has been some interest in isoperimetric inequalities in $\mathbb{R}^n$ endowed with a measure of Gaussian ($\,\mathrm{d}
\mu_- =  e^{-r^2/2}\,\mathrm{d}^nr$) or inverted Gaussian ($\,\mathrm{d} \mu_+ =  e^{+r^2/2}\,\mathrm{d}^nr$) density. For the Gaussian space it
has been known for several years that a classical isoperimetric inequality holds. Yet the ratio of Gaussian perimeter
and Gaussian measure is minimized by half-spaces instead of spherical domains \cite{B}. The `inverted Gaussian' case,
i.e., $\mathbb{R}^n$ with the measure $\mu_+$, is more similar to the Euclidean case: It has been shown recently that a
classical isoperimetric inequality holds and that the minimizers are balls centered at the origin \cite{MPB}.

We consider the Dirichlet-Laplacians $-\Delta_\pm$ on $L^2(\Omega,\,\mathrm{d}\mu_\pm)$, where $\Omega\varsubsetneqq\mathbb{R}^n$ is a
domain of finite measure $\,\mathrm{d}\mu_\pm(\Omega)$. These two operators are defined by their quadratic forms
\begin{equation} \label{EqQuadForm}
h_\pm[\Psi] = \int_\Omega |\nabla \Psi(\vec r)|^2 \,\mathrm{d} \mu_\pm, \quad \Psi \in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega,\,\mathrm{d} \mu_\pm).
\end{equation}
The eigenfunctions $\Psi^\pm_i$ and eigenvalues $\lambda^\pm_i(\Omega)$ in question are determined by the the
differential equation
\begin{equation} \label{EqEVProblem}
-\sum\limits_{k=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial r_k} \left(e^{\pm r^2} \frac{\partial \Psi^\pm_i}{\partial r_k}\right) =
\lambda^\pm_i(\Omega) e^{\pm r^2} \Psi^\pm_i(\vec r).
\end{equation}
There is a tight connection between the operators $-\Delta_\pm$ on a domain $\Omega$ and the harmonic oscillator
$-\Delta+r^2$ restricted to $\Omega$. Their eigenfunctions and eigenvalues are related by \cite{BCF}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi^\pm_i(\vec r) &=& \Psi_i(\vec r) \cdot e^{\mp r^2/2} \quad \textmd{and} \nonumber\\
\lambda^\pm_i(\Omega) &=& \lambda_i(\Omega, r^2) \pm n, \label{EqCon}
\end{eqnarray}
denoting by $\Psi_i$ the Dirichlet eigenfunctions of $-\Delta + r^2$ on $\Omega$.

There is an equivalent of the RFK inequality in Gaussian space \cite{BCF} stating that $\lambda^-_1(\Omega)$ is
minimized for given $\mu_-(\Omega)$ if $\Omega$ is a half-space. The corresponding fact for the `inverted' Gaussian
space is that $\lambda^+_1(\Omega)$ is minimized for given $\mu_+(\Omega)$ by the ball centered at the origin. It can
be seen by the RFK inequality for Schr\"odinger operators \cite{L} in combination with (\ref{EqCon}).

Concerning the second eigenvalue, we will now show what our results from Section \ref{SectionResults} imply for the
operators $-\Delta_\pm$. We state
\begin{Theorem} \label{TheoremMonotonicity2}
For the operator $-\Delta_+$ on a ball $B_R$ of radius $R$ (centered at the origin) the ratio
$\lambda_2^+(B_R)/\lambda_1^+(B_R)$ is a strictly decreasing function of $R$.
\end{Theorem}
In Section \ref{SectionProof3} we will derive Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity2} from Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity}
in a purely algebraic way using only the relation (\ref{EqCon}). Repeating the argument for $\mathbb H^n$ from the
previous section, we see that by Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity2} the best PPW result we can expect to get is
\begin{Theorem} \label{TheoremPPW2}
Be $S_1$ the ball (centered at the origin) that satisfies the condition $\lambda^+_1(S_1) = \lambda^+_1(\Omega)$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_2^+(\Omega) \le \lambda_2^+(S_1).
\end{equation*}
\end{Theorem}
Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW2} follows immediately from Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} and (\ref{EqCon}). In the same way we
easily get the corresponding version for $-\Delta_-$:
\begin{Theorem} \label{TheoremPPW3}
Be $S_1$ the ball (centered at the origin) that satisfies the condition $\lambda^-_1(S_1) = \lambda^-_1(\Omega)$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_2^-(\Omega) \le \lambda_2^-(S_1).
\end{equation*}
\end{Theorem}
Yet in this case it is not clear anymore whether $S_1$ is the optimal comparison ball: First, in contrast to the
`inverted' Gaussian case the ratio $\lambda_2^-(B_R)/\lambda_1^-(B_R)$ is not a decreasing function of $R$ anymore.
This can be seen by comparing the values of  $\lambda_2^-(B_R)/\lambda_1^-(B_R)$ for $R\rightarrow 0$ and $R\rightarrow
\infty$: For small $R$ the ratio is close to the Euclidean value ($\approx 2.539$) while for large $R$ it approaches
infinity (by (\ref{EqCon})). Second, the RFK inequality in Gaussian space states that $\lambda_1^-(\Omega)$ is
minimized by half-spaces, not circles. This means that for general $\Omega$ we don't know whether $\Omega^\star$ is
bigger or smaller than $S_1$. For these differences it remains unclear what is the most natural way to generalize the
PPW conjecture to Gaussian space.

\section{A monotonicity lemma} \label{SectionLemma}

In our proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} we will need
\begin{Lemma}[Monotonicity of $g$ and $B$] \label{LemmaMonotonicityOfgAndB}
Let $\tilde V$, $S_1$ and $R_1$ be as in Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} and call $z_1(r)$ and $z_2(r)$ the radial parts (both
chosen positive) of the first two Dirichlet eigenfunctions of $-\Delta + \tilde V$ on $S_1$. Set
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(r) &=& \frac{z_2(r)}{z_1(r)} \quad \textmd{and}\\
B(r) &=& g'(r)^2 + (n-1)\frac{g(r)^2}{r^2}
\end{eqnarray*}
for $0 < r < R_1$. Then $g(r)$ is increasing on $(0,R_1)$ and $B(r)$ is decreasing on $(0,R_1)$.
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof} \cite{H,AB0}
In this section we abbreviate $\lambda_i = \lambda_i(S_1,\tilde V)$. The functions $z_1$ and $z_2$ are solutions of the
differential equations
\begin{eqnarray}
-z''_{1} - \frac{n-1}{r} z'_{1} + \left(\tilde V -\lambda_1\right) z_{1} &=& 0, \label{EquN1}\\
-z''_{2} - \frac{n-1}{r} z'_{2} + \left(\frac{n-1}{r^2} + \tilde V - \lambda_2\right) z_{2} &=& 0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{EqBoundary}
z'_{1}(0) = 0, \quad z_{1}(R_1) = 0, \quad z_{2}(0) = 0, \quad z_{2}(R_1) = 0.
\end{equation}
This is assured by the BGM inequality \cite{AB0,BGM}, which is applicable because $r\tilde V$ is convex. As in \cite{AB0} we
define the function
$$q(r) := \frac{rg'(r)}{g(r)}.$$
Proving the lemma is thus reduced to showing that $0 < q(r) < 1$ and
$q'(r) < 0$ for $r \in [0,R]$. Using the definition of $g$ and the equations (\ref{EquN1}), one can show that $q(r)$ is
a solution of the Riccati differential equation
\begin{equation} \label{EqRic}
q' = (\lambda_1-\lambda_2) r + \frac{(1-q)(q+n-1)}r - 2q\frac{z_1'}{z_1}.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to establish the boundary behavior
$$q(0) = 1, \quad q'(0) = 0, \quad q''(0) = \frac 2n \left(\left(1+\frac 2n\right)\lambda_1 - \lambda_2\right)$$
and
$$q(R_1) = 0.$$
\begin{Fact}  \label{Fact1}
For $0 \le r \le R$ we have $q(r) \ge 0$.
\end{Fact}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary. Then there exist two points $0 < r_1 < r_2 \le R_1$ such that $q(r_1) = q(r_2) = 0$ but $q'(r_1)
\le 0$ and $q'(r_2) \ge 0$. If $r_2 < R_1$ then the Riccati equation (\ref{EqRic}) yields
$$0 \ge q'(r_1) = (\lambda_1-\lambda_2) r_1 + \frac{n-1}{r_1} > (\lambda_1-\lambda_2) r_2 + \frac{n-1}{r_2} = q'(r_2)
\ge 0,$$ which is a contradiction. If $r_2 = R_1$ then we get a contradiction in a similar way by
$$0 \ge q'(r_1) = (\lambda_1-\lambda_2) r_1 + \frac{n-1}{r_1} > (\lambda_1-\lambda_2) R_1+ \frac{n-1}{R_1} = 3q'(R_1)
\ge 0.$$
\end{proof}
In the following we will analyze the behavior of $q'$ according to (\ref{EqRic}), considering $r$ and $q$ as two
independent variables. For the sake of a compact notation we will make use of the following abbreviations:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{rclrcl}
p(r) &=& z_1'(r) /z_1(r) \quad \quad & N_y &=& y^2 - n + 1 \cr %
\nu &=& n-2                            & M_y &=& N_y^2/(2y) - \nu^2y/2 \cr %
E &=& \lambda_2-\lambda_1            & Q_y &=& 2y\lambda_1 + EN_yy^{-1} - 2E
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
We further define the function
\begin{equation}\label{EqT}
T(r,y) := -2 p(r) y - \frac{\nu y + N_y}{r} - E r.
\end{equation}
Then we can write (\ref{EqRic}) as
\begin{equation*}
q'(r) = T(r,q(r))
\end{equation*}
The definition of $T(r,y)$ allows us to analyze the Riccati equation for $q'$ considering $r$ and $q(r)$ as independent
variables. For $r$ going to zero, $p$ is $\mathcal{O}(r)$ and thus
$$T(r,y) = \frac{1}{r}\left((\nu+1+y)(1-y)\right) + \mathcal{O}(r) \quad \textmd{for }y\textmd{ fixed}.$$
Consequently,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{rcll}
\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} T(r,y) &=& +\infty  \quad \quad & \textmd{for } 0 \le y < 1 \,\textmd{ fixed,}\cr%
\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} T(r,y) &=& 0 & \textmd{for }\, y = 1 \textmd{ and }\cr%
\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} T(r,y) &=& -\infty & \textmd{for }\, y > 1 \,\textmd{ fixed.}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
For $r$ approaching $R_1$, the function $p(r)$ goes to minus infinity, while all other terms in (\ref{EqT}) are
bounded. Therefore
$$\lim_{r\rightarrow R_1} T(r,y) = +\infty  \quad \textmd{ for } y > 0 \textmd{ fixed}.$$
The partial derivative of $T(r,y)$ with respect to $r$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{EqTprime}
T' = \frac{\partial}{\partial r} T(r,y) = -2yp' + \frac{\nu y}{r^2} + \frac{N_y}{r^2}- E.
\end{equation}
In the points $(r,y)$ where $T(r,y) = 0$ we have, by (\ref{EqT}),
\begin{equation}\label{EqPAtTZero}
p|_{T=0} = -\frac {\nu}{2r}-\frac{N_y}{2yr}-\frac{Er}{2y}.
\end{equation}
From (\ref{EquN1}) we get the Riccati equation
\begin{equation}\label{EqRicp}
p'+p^2+\frac{\nu+1}{r}p+\lambda_1-\tilde V=0.
\end{equation}
Putting (\ref{EqPAtTZero}) into (\ref{EqRicp}) and the result into (\ref{EqTprime}) yields
\begin{equation}
T'|_{T=0} = \frac{M_y}{r^2} + \frac{E^2r^2}{2y}+Q_y-2y\tilde V.
\end{equation}
If we define the function
$$Z_y(r) := \frac{M_y}{r^2} + \frac{E^2r^2}{2y}+Q_y-2y\tilde V,$$
it is clear that $T'(r,y) = Z_y(r)$ for any $r,y$ with $T(r,y)=0$. The behavior of $Z_y(r)$ at $r=0$ is determined by
$M_y$. From the definition of $M_y$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{EqMMM}
yM_y  = \frac 12(y^2-1)\cdot[(y-1)-(n-2)]\cdot[(y+1)+(n-2)].
\end{equation}
This implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_y &>& 0 \quad \textmd{for } 0<y<1,\\
M_1 &=& 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
and therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} Z_y(r) &=& \infty \quad \textmd{for } 0<y<1.
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{Fact} \label{Fact2}
There is some $r_0>0$ such that $q(r) \le 1$ for $0<r<r_0$ and $q(r_0) < 1$.
\end{Fact}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the contrary, i.e., $q(r)$ first increases away from $r=0$. Then, because $q(0) = 1$ and $q(R) = 0$ and because
$q$ is continuous and differentiable, we can find two points $r_1 < r_2$ such that $\hat q := q(r_1) = q(r_2) > 1$ and
$q'(r_1) > 0 > q'(r_2)$. Even more, we can chose $r_1$ and $r_2$ such that $\hat q$ is arbitrarily close to one.
Writing $\hat q = 1 + \epsilon$ with $\epsilon > 0$, we can calculate from the definition of $Q_y$ that
$$Q_{1+\epsilon} = Q_1 + \epsilon n\left(\lambda_2 - \left(1-2/n\right)\lambda_1\right) + {\mathcal O}(\epsilon^2).$$
The term in brackets can be estimated by
$$\lambda_2 - (1-2/n)\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 >0.$$
We can also assume that $Q_1 \ge 0$, because otherwise $q''(0) = \frac{2}{n^2}Q_1 < 0$ and Fact \ref{Fact2} is
immediately true. Thus, choosing $r_1$ and $r_2$ such that $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small, we can make sure that
$Q_{\hat q} > 0.$ We further note, that in view of (\ref{EqMMM}) the constant $M_{\hat q}$ can be positive or negative
(depending on $n$), but not zero because $1<\hat q<2$.

Now consider the function $T(r,\hat q)$. We have $T(r_1,\hat q) > 0 > T(r_2,\hat q)$ and the boundary behavior
$T(0,\hat q) = -\infty$ and $T(R_1,\hat q) = +\infty$. Thus $T(r,\hat q)$ changes its sign at least thrice on
$[0,R_1]$. Consequently, we can find three points $0 < \hat r_1 < \hat r_2 < \hat r_3 < R_1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{EqZBeh}
Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_1) \ge 0, \quad Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_2) \le 0, \quad Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_3) \ge 0.
\end{equation}
Let us define
$$h(r) = \frac{E^2 r^2}{2 \hat q} - 2 \hat q\tilde V(r).$$
Then
\begin{equation} \label{EqZg}
Z_{\hat q}(r) = \frac{M_{\hat q}}{r^2} + Q_{\hat q} + h(r).
\end{equation}
By condition b) on $\tilde V$, the function $h'(r)$ is concave. Also $h(0) = h'(0) = 0$. We conclude that if $h'(r_0) < 0$ or
$h(r_0) < 0$ for some $r_0> 0$, then $h'(r)$ is negative and decreasing for all $r>r_0$. We will now show that $Z_{\hat
q}$ cannot have the properties (\ref{EqZBeh}), a contradiction that proves Fact \ref{Fact2}:

Case 1: Assume $M_{\hat q} > 0$. Then from $Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_2) \le 0$ we see that
$$-h(\hat r_2) \ge \frac{M_{\hat q}}{\hat r_2^2} + Q_{\hat q} > 0.$$
By what has been said above about $h(r)$, we conclude that $-h(r)$ is a strictly increasing function on $[\hat r_2,\hat
r_3]$. Therefore
$$-h(\hat r_3) > -h(\hat r_2) \ge \frac{M_{\hat q}}{\hat r_2^2} + Q_{\hat q} > \frac{M_{\hat q}}{\hat r_3^2} + Q_{\hat q},$$
such that $Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_3) < 0$, contradicting (\ref{EqZBeh}).

Case 2: Assume $M_{\hat q} < 0$. Then from $Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_1) \ge 0 \ge Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_2)$ follows that $Z_{\hat
q}'(\hat r) \le 0$ for some $\hat r\in [\hat r_1,\hat r_2]$. In view of (\ref{EqZg}) we have $h'(\hat r) < 0$. But this
means by our above concavity argument that $h'(r)$ is decreasing and thus $h'(r) < 0$ for all $r>\hat r$. Then
$Z'_{\hat q}$ is strictly decreasing for $r\ge \hat r$. Together with $ Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_2) \le 0$ and $Z'_{\hat
q}(\hat r) \le 0$ this implies that $ Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_3) < 0$, a contradiction to (\ref{EqZBeh}).
\end{proof}
\begin{Fact} \label{Fact3}
For all $0\le r\le R_1$ the inequality $q'(r) \le 0$ holds.
\end{Fact}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary. Then there are three points $r_1<r_2<r_3$ in $(0,R_1)$ with $0 < \hat q := q(r_1) = q(r_2) =q(r_3)
< 1$ and $q'(r_1) < 0$, $q'(r_2)>0$, $q'(r_3) < 0$. Consider the function $T(r,\hat q)$, which is equal to $q'(r)$ at
$r_1,r_2,r_3$. Taking into account its boundary behavior at $r = 0$ and $r=R_1$, it is clear that $T(r,\hat q)$ must
have at least the sign changes positive-negative-positive-negative-positive. Thus $T(r,\hat q)$ has at least four zeros
$\hat r_1 < \hat r_2 < \hat r_3 <\hat r_4$ with the properties
$$Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_1) \le 0, \quad Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_2) \ge 0, \quad Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_3) \le 0, \quad Z_{\hat q}(\hat r_4) \ge 0.$$
We also know that $Z_{\hat q}(0) = +\infty$. To satisfy all these requirements, $Z_{\hat q}$ must either have at least
three extremal points where $Z_{\hat q}'$ crosses zero or $Z_{\hat q}$ must vanish on a finite interval. But we have
$$Z'_{\hat q}(r) = -\frac{2M_{\hat q}}{r^3} + \frac{E^2r}{\hat q} -2 \hat q\tilde V'(r),$$
which is a strictly concave function (recall $M_{\hat q} > 0$ for $0<\hat q<1$). A strictly concave function can only
cross zero twice and not be zero on a finite interval, which is a contradiction that proves Fact \ref{Fact3}.
\end{proof}
Altogether we have shown that $0 < q(r) < 1$ and $q'(r) \le 0$ for all $r\in[0,R]$, proving Lemma
\ref{LemmaMonotonicityOfgAndB}.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW}} \label{SectionProof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW}]
We start from the basic gap inequality
\begin{equation} \label{EqGap}
\lambda_2(\Omega,V) - \lambda_1(\Omega,V) \le \frac{\int_\Omega |\nabla P|^2 u_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr}{\int_\Omega P^2 u_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^n
r},
\end{equation}
where $u_1$ is the first Dirichlet eigenfunction of $-\Delta + V$ on $\Omega$ and $P$ is a suitable test function that
satisfies the condition $\int_\Omega Pu_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^n r = 0$. We set
\begin{equation}
P_i(\vec r) = g(r) \frac{r_i}{r} \quad \textmd{for } i = 1,2,...,n,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g(r) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{z_2(r)}{z_1(r)} & \textmd{for } r < R_1\cr %
\lim\limits_{t \uparrow R_1} g(t) & \textmd{for } r \ge R_1.\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Here $z_1$ and $z_2$ are the radial parts (both chosen positive) of the first two eigenfunctions of $-\Delta + \tilde V$ on
$S_1$. More precisely, $z_2(r) r_i r^{-1}$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ is a basis of the space of second eigenfunctions. It
follows from the convexity of $r\tilde V$ and the BGM inequality \cite{AB0, BGM} that the second eigenfunctions can be
written in that way.

According to an argument in \cite{AB2} one can always chose the origin of the coordinate system such that $\int_\Omega
P_iu_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^n r = 0$ is satisfied for all $i$. Putting the functions $P_i$ into (\ref{EqGap}) and summing over all $i$
yields
\begin{equation} \label{EqDifLambda}
\lambda_2(\Omega,V) - \lambda_1(\Omega,V) \le \frac{\int_\Omega B(r) u_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr}{\int_\Omega g(r)^2 u_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation*}
B(r) = g'(r)^2 + (n-1)\frac{g(r)^2}{r^2}.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma \ref{LemmaMonotonicityOfgAndB} we know that $B$ is a decreasing and $g$ an increasing function of $r$. Thus,
denoting by $u_1^\star$ the spherically decreasing rearrangement of $u_1$ with respect to the origin, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EqChain1}
\int_\Omega B(r) u_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr &\le& \int_{\Omega^\star} B^\star(r)\, {u_1^\star}^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr\\
&\le& \int_{\Omega^\star} B(r) \,{u_1^\star}^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr \le \int_{S_1} B(r)\, z_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EqChain2}
\int_\Omega g(r)^2 u_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr &\ge& \int_{\Omega^\star} g_\star(r)^2\, {u_1^\star}^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr\\
&\ge& \int_{\Omega^\star} g(r)^2 \,{u_1^\star}^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr \ge \int_{S_1} g(r)^2\, z_1^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In each of the above chains of inequalities the first step follows from general properties of rearrangements and the
second from the monotonicity properties of $g$ and $B$. The third step is justified by a comparison result that we
state below and the monotonicity of $g$ and $B$ again. Putting (\ref{EqChain1}) and (\ref{EqChain2}) into
(\ref{EqDifLambda}) we get
$$\lambda_2(\Omega,V) - \lambda_1(\Omega,V) \le \frac{\int_{S_1} B(r)\, z^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr}{\int_{S_1} g(r)^2\, z^2 \,\mathrm{d}^nr} =
\lambda_2(S_1,\tilde V) - \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V).$$%
Keeping in mind that $\lambda_1(\Omega,V) = \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$, Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW} is proven by this last
inequality.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lemma}[Chiti Comparison result] \label{LemmaChiti}
Let $u_1^\star$ be the radially decreasing rearrangement of the first eigenfunction of $-\Delta + V$ on $\Omega$ and
$z_1$ the first eigenfunction of $-\Delta + \tilde V$ on $S_1$. Assume both functions to be positive and normalized in
$L^2(\Omega^\star)$. Then there exists an $r_0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_1^\star(r) &\le& z_1(r) \quad \textmd{for } r \le r_0 \textmd{ and}\\
u_1^\star(r) &\ge& z_1(r) \quad \textmd{for } r_0 < r \le R_1.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
By a version of the RFK inequality for Schr\"odinger operators \cite{L} and by domain monotonicity of the first
eigenvalue it is clear that $S_1 \subset \Omega^\star$. This is why we can view $z_1(r)$ as a function in
$L^2(\Omega^\star)$, setting $z_1(r) = 0$ for $r > R_1$.

Both $u_1^\star$ and $z_1$ are positive and spherically symmetric. Moreover, $u_1^\star(r)$ and $z_1(r)$ are decreasing
functions of $r$. For $u_1^\star$ this is clear by definition of the rearrangement. For $z_1$ it follows from a simple
comparison argument using $z_1^\star$ as a test function in the Rayleigh quotient for $\lambda_1$. (Here and in the
sequel we write short-hand $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(\Omega,V) = \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$.)

We introduce a change of variables via $s = C_n r^n$ and write $u_1^\#(s) \equiv u_1^\star(r)$,  $z_1^\#(s) \equiv
z_1(r)$ and $\tilde V_\#(s) \equiv \tilde V(r)$.
\begin{Fact} \label{FactDE}
For the functions $u_1^\#(s)$ and $z_1^\#(s)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
-\frac{\,\mathrm{d} u_1^\#}{\,\mathrm{d} s} &\le& n^{-2}C_n^{-2/n}s^{n/2-2} \int_0^s (\lambda_1 - \tilde V_\#(w))\, u_1^\#(w) \,\mathrm{d} w, \label{EqFact1}\\
-\frac{\,\mathrm{d} z_1^\#}{\,\mathrm{d} s} &=& n^{-2}C_n^{-2/n}s^{n/2-2}  \int_0^s (\lambda_1 - \tilde V_\#(w))\, z_1^\#(w) \,\mathrm{d} w.
\label{EqFact2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Fact}
\begin{proof}
We integrate both sides of $-\Delta u_1 + Vu_1 = \lambda_1 u_1$ over the level set $\Omega_t := \{\vec r\in \Omega:
u_1(\vec r) > t\}$ and use Gauss' Divergence Theorem to obtain
\begin{equation} \label{EqHH}
\int_{\partial\Omega_t} |\nabla u_1| H_{n-1}(\,\mathrm{d} r) = \int_{\Omega_t} (\lambda_1-V(\vec r))\, u_1(\vec r) \,\mathrm{d}^n r,
\end{equation}
where $\partial\Omega_t = \{\vec r\in \Omega: u_1(\vec r) = t\}$. Now we define the distribution function $\mu(t) =
|\Omega_t|$. Using the coarea formula, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the classical isoperimetric inequality,
Talenti derives (\cite{T}, p.709, eq. (32))
\begin{equation} \label{EqHH2}
\int_{\partial\Omega_t} |\nabla u_1| H_{n-1}(\,\mathrm{d} r) \ge - n^2C_n^{2/n} \frac{\mu(t)^{2-2/n}}{\mu'(t)}.
\end{equation}
The left sides of (\ref{EqHH}) and (\ref{EqHH2}) are the same, thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
- n^2C_n^{2/n} \frac{\mu(t)^{2-2/n}}{\mu'(t)} &\le& \int_{\Omega_t} (\lambda_1-V(\vec r))\,u_1(\vec r) \,\mathrm{d}^n r\\
&\le&  \int_{\Omega_t^\star} (\lambda_1 - V_\star(\vec r))\, u_1^\star(\vec r) \,\mathrm{d}^n r\\
&\le&  \int_{\Omega_t^\star} (\lambda_1 - \tilde V(\vec r))\, u_1^\star(\vec r) \,\mathrm{d}^n r\\
&=&  \int_0^{(\mu(t)/C_n)^{1/n}} n C_n r^{n-1} (\lambda_1 - \tilde V(r)) u_1^\star(r) \,\mathrm{d} r.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Now we perform the change of variables $r \rightarrow s$ on the right hand side of the above chain of inequalities. We
also chose $t$ to be $u_1^\#(s)$. Using the fact that $u_1^\#$ and $\mu$ are essentially inverse functions to one
another, this means that $\mu(t) = s$ and $\mu'(t)^{-1} = (u_1^\#)'(s)$. The result is (\ref{EqFact1}). Equation
(\ref{EqFact2}) is proven analogously.
\end{proof}

Fact \ref{FactDE} enables us to prove Lemma \ref{LemmaChiti}. We have $u_1^\#(|S_1|) > z_1^\#(|S_1|) = 0$. Being
equally normalized, $u_1^\star$ and $z_1$ must have at least one intersection on $[0,R]$. Thus $u_1^\#$ and $z_1^\#$
have at least one intersection on $[0,|S_1|]$. Now assume that they intersect at least twice. Then there is an interval
$[s_1,s_2] \subset [0,|S_1|]$ such that $u_1^\#(s) > z^\#(s)$ for $s \in (s_1,s_2)$, $u_1^\#(s_2) = z_1^\#(s_2)$ and
either $u_1^\#(s_1) = z_1^\#(s_1)$ or $s_1=0$. There is also an interval $[s_3,s_4] \subset [s_2,|S_1|]$ with
$u_1^\#(s) < z_1^\#(s)$ for $s \in (s_3,s_4)$, $u_1^\#(s_3) = z_1^\#(s_3)$ and $u_1^\#(s_4) = z_1^\#(s_4)$. Be further
$\tilde s$ the point where $\tilde V_\#(s) - \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$ crosses zero (Set $\tilde s = |S_1|$ if $\tilde V_\#(s) -
\lambda_1$ doesn't cross zero on $[0,|S_1|]$). To keep our notation compact we will write
$$I_a^b[u] =  \int_a^b (\lambda_1-\tilde V_\#(w))\,u(w)\,\mathrm{d} w.$$
\emph{Case 1:} Assume $\tilde s \ge s_2$. Then $\tilde V_\#(s) - \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$ is negative for $s<s_2$. Set
\begin{equation*}
v(s) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} u_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [0,s_1] \textmd{ if } I_0^{s_1}[u_1^\#] > I_0^{s_1}[z_1^\#],\cr%
z_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [0,s_1] \textmd{ if } I_0^{s_1}[u_1^\#] \le I_0^{s_1}[z_1^\#],\cr %
u_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [s_1,s_2]\cr %
z_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [s_2,|S_1|]\cr %
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Using Fact \ref{FactDE}, one can check that then $v(s)$ fulfills the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{Eqv}
-\frac{\,\mathrm{d} v}{\,\mathrm{d} s} \le  n^{-2}C_n^{-2/n}s^{n/2-2} \int_0^s (\lambda_1 - \tilde V_\#(s)) v(w) \,\mathrm{d} w.
\end{equation}
\emph{Case 2:} Assume $\tilde s < s_2$. Then $\tilde V_\#(s) - \lambda_1(S_1,\tilde V)$ is positive for $s\ge s_3$. Set
\begin{equation*}
v(s) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} u_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [0,s_3] \textmd{ if } I_0^{s_3}[u_1^\#] > I_0^{s_3}[z_1^\#],\cr%
z_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [0,s_3] \textmd{ if } I_0^{s_3}[u_1^\#] \le I_0^{s_3}[z_1^\#],\cr %
u_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [s_3,s_4]\cr %
z_1^\#(s) & \textmd{on } [s_4,|S_1|]\cr %
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Again using Fact \ref{FactDE}, one can check that also in this case $v(s)$ fulfills the inequality (\ref{Eqv}).

Now define the test function
$$\Psi(\vec r) = v(C_nr^n) = v(s).$$
Then we use the Rayleigh characterization of $\lambda_1$, equation (\ref{Eqv}) and integration by parts to calculate
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_1 {\int_{S_1} \Psi(\vec r)^2 \,\mathrm{d}^n r} &<& \int_{S_1} \left(|\nabla \Psi|^2 + \tilde V(\vec r) \Psi^2\right) \,\mathrm{d}^n r\\
&=& \int_0^{|S_1|} \left( v'(s)^2 n^2 s^{2-2/n} C_n^{2/n} + \tilde V_\#(s) v^2(s)\right) \,\mathrm{d} s\\
&\le& \int_0^{|S_1|} \left(-v'(s) \int_0^s (\lambda_1-\tilde V_\#(w)) v(w) \,\mathrm{d} w + \tilde V_\#(s) v^2(s)\right) \,\mathrm{d} s\\
&=& \int_0^{|S_1|} \left(v(s) (\lambda_1 - \tilde V_\#(s)) v(s) + \tilde V_\#(s) v^2(s) \right) \,\mathrm{d} s\\
&=& \lambda_1 {\int_{S_1} \Psi(\vec r)^2 \,\mathrm{d}^n r}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This is a contradiction to our original assumption that $u_1^\#(r)$ and $z_1^\#(r)$ have more than one intersection,
thus proving Lemma \ref{LemmaChiti}.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity}} \label{SectionProof2}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity}]
The first eigenfunction of $-\Delta + V$ on $B_R$ is radially symmetric and will be called $z_1(r)$. Further, a
standard separation of variables and the Baumgartner-Grosse-Martin \cite{BGM, AB3} inequality imply that we can write a
basis of the space of second eigenfunctions in the form $z_2(r) \cdot r_i \cdot r^{-1}$. The radial parts $z_1$ and
$z_2$ of the first and the second eigenfunction, which we assume to be positive, solve the differential equations
\begin{eqnarray}
-z''_1(r) - \frac{n-1}{r} z'_1(r) + \left(V(r) -\lambda_1\right) z_1(r) &=& 0, \label{EqDEs}\\
-z''_2(r) - \frac{n-1}{r} z'_2(r) + \left(\frac{n-1}{r^2} + V(r)- \lambda_2\right) z_2(r) &=& 0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{EquM3}
z'_1(0) = 0, \quad z_1(R) = 0, \quad z_2(0) = 0, \quad z_2(R) = 0.
\end{equation}
We define the rescaled functions $\tilde z_{1/2}(r) = z_{1/2}(\beta r)$. Putting $\beta r$ (with $\beta>0$) instead of
$r$ into the equations (\ref{EqDEs}) and multiplying by $\beta^2$ yields the rescaled equations
\begin{eqnarray*}
-\tilde z''_1(r) - \frac{n-1}{r} \tilde z'_1(r) + \left(\beta^2 V(\beta r) -\beta^2 \lambda_1\right) \tilde z_1(r) &=& 0, \nonumber\\
-\tilde z''_2(r) - \frac{n-1}{r} \tilde z'_2(r) + \left(\frac{n-1}{r^2} + \beta^2 V(\beta r)- \beta^2 \lambda_2\right)
\tilde z_2(r) &=& 0. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
We conclude that $\tilde z_1$ and $\tilde z_2$ are the radial parts of the first two eigenfunctions of $-\Delta +
\beta^2 V(\beta r)$ on $B_{R/\beta}$ to the eigenvalues $\beta^2 \lambda_1$ and $\beta^2\lambda_2$. Consequently, if we
replace $R$ by $R/\beta$ and $V(r)$ by $\beta^2 V(\beta r)$, then the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$ doesn't change.

For the rest of this section we shall write $\lambda_{1/2}(R,V)$ instead of $\lambda_{1/2}(B_R,V)$. We also fix two
radii $0 < R_1 < R_2$ and let $\rho(\beta)$ for $\beta > 1$ be the function defined implicitly by
\begin{equation} \label{EqLam}
\lambda_1(\rho(\beta), V(r)) = \lambda_1(R_2/\beta, \beta^2 V(\beta r)).
\end{equation}
Then we have $\rho(1) = R_2$. By domain monotonicity of $\lambda_1$ and because $V(r)$ is increasing and positive we
see that the right hand side of (\ref{EqLam}) is increasing in $\beta$. Therefore, again by domain monotonicity,
$\rho(\beta)$ must be decreasing in $\beta$. One can also check that $\rho(\beta)$ is a continuous function and that
$\rho(\beta)$ goes to zero for $\beta \rightarrow \infty$. Thus we can find $\beta_0 > 1$ such that $\rho(\beta_0) =
R_1$. Then we can apply Theorem \ref{TheoremPPW}, with $B_{R_2/\beta_0}$ for $\Omega$ and  $B_{\rho(\beta_0)}$ for
$S_1$, as well as $\beta_0^2 V(\beta_0 r)$ for $V$ and $V(r)$ for $\tilde V$, to get
\begin{equation} \label{EqLam2}
\lambda_2(R_2/\beta_0, \beta_0^2 V(\beta_0 r) \le \lambda_2(\rho(\beta_0), V(r)) = \lambda_2(R_1, V(r)) .
\end{equation}
But by what has been said above about the scaling properties of the problem, we have
\begin{equation} \label{EqLam3}
\frac{\lambda_2(R_2/\beta_0, \beta_0^2 V(\beta_0 r))}{\lambda_1(R_2/\beta_0, \beta_0^2 V(\beta_0 r))} =
\frac{\lambda_2(R_2, V(r))}{\lambda_1(R_2, V(r))}.
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{EqLam}) for $\beta=\beta_0$, (\ref{EqLam2}) and(\ref{EqLam3}), we get
\begin{equation} \label{EqLam4}
\frac{\lambda_2(R_1,V(r))}{\lambda_1(R_1, V(r))} \ge \frac{\lambda_2(R_2, V(r))}{\lambda_1(R_2, V(r))}.
\end{equation}
Because $R_1$ and $R_2$ were chosen arbitrarily, this proves Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity}.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity2}} \label{SectionProof3}

Before we prove Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity2} we need to state the following technical Lemma:
\begin{Lemma}\label{LemmaAlgebraic}
Be $a,b,c,d > 0$ with $a\ge b$, $d\ge b$ and $\frac a b < \frac cd$. Then
\begin{equation}
\frac{a+x}{b+x} < \frac{c+x}{d+x}
\end{equation}
holds for any $x>0$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define the function
$$f(x) := \frac{c+x}{d+x} - \frac{a+x}{b+x}.$$
then $f(0) > 0$. A straightforward calculation shows that $f$ has exactly one zero at
$$x_0 = -\frac{bc-ad}{b+c-a-d}.$$
The numerator $bc-ad$ in the expression for $x_0$ is positive because of the condition $\frac a b < \frac cd$. For the
denominator we get
$$b+c-a-d > c+b-\frac{bc}{d}-d = \frac{(d-b)(c-d)}{d} \ge 0.$$
This means that $x_0<0$, such that $f(x)>0$ for all $x>0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity2}]
Choose some $x > 0$. From Theorem \ref{TheoremMonotonicity} we know that
$$\frac{\lambda_2(B_{R+x},r^2)}{\lambda_1(B_{R+x},r^2)} < \frac{\lambda_2(B_{R},r^2)}{\lambda_1(B_{R},r^2)} \quad \textmd{for }x>0.$$ %
Moreover, $\lambda_1(B_R,r^2) \ge \lambda_1(B_{R+x},r^2)$ and $\lambda_2(B_{R+x},r^2) > \lambda_1(B_{R+x},r^2)$. Thus
we can apply first (\ref{EqCon}), then Lemma \ref{LemmaAlgebraic} and then (\ref{EqCon}) again, to get
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\lambda^+_2(B_{R+x})}{\lambda^+_1(B_{R+x})}  = \frac{\lambda_2(B_{R+x},r^2) + n}{\lambda_1(B_{R+x},r^2) + n}
< \frac{\lambda_2(B_{R},r^2) + n}{\lambda_1(B_{R},r^2) + n} = \frac{\lambda^+_2(B_{R})}{\lambda^+_1(B_{R})}.%
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}