^{\rm Adj.}\right)_{ji}$.

[^5]: Here all fields are still dimensionless. The continuum expectation values $\frac{\<\bar \psi \left({\bm 1},\gamma_0\right)\psi\>^{\rm continuum}}{\sqrt{g^2N}}$ are given by dividing the r.h.s. of Eqs. (\[psibarpsi\])–(\[psidagpsi\]) by $a\sqrt{g^2N}$ ($g$ has dimensions of mass in $1+1$).

[^6]: The integral over $\varphi$ can be either restricted to obey $\varphi_a \ge \varphi_{b}$ for $a>b$, or can be simply unrestricted. The difference between these two choices will be reflected by whether the operators $S(P)$ include permutations of the eigenvalues or not.

[^7]: Here we implicitly assume that we take the large-$N$ limit when all other parameters are fixed. These includes the volume $L$, the temperature $T$, the mass $m_q$, the ‘t Hooft coupling $g^2N$, and the baryon number $B$.

[^8]: To ensure that ${\cal U}(\cal C)$ is unitary, the coordinates ${\cal C}$ need to obey certain conditions and in the next section we make these explicit.

[^9]: We thank V. P. Nair for pointing this to us and to L. G. Yaffe for a discussion related to this.

[^10]: According to Eqs. (\[Pk\])–(\[PkPk’\]) the terms with $q=q'\neq Q$ are also nonzero, but using the representation in Eqs. (\[constraints\_res1\])–(\[constraints\_res2\]) we verified that they are subleading in $N$ if we take $M\to\infty$ with or after we take $N\to \infty$.

[^11]: In our numerical studies we find that, while irrelevant for the minimization of ${\cal H}_F$, the last term in is crucial to include in order to get the right baryon mass.

[^12]: Another paper that discusses nonzero baryon number in the ‘t Hooft model is [@SchonThies], but there the authors restrict to translation invariant dense systems, which as they show, is inconsistent. For translation non-invariant states, the authors discuss only the vicinity of the
^{\rm Adj.}\right)_{ji}$. 

 [ ^5 ]: Here all fields are still dimensionless. The continuum expectation values $ \frac{\<\bar \psi \left({\bm 1},\gamma_0\right)\psi\>^{\rm continuum}}{\sqrt{g^2N}}$ are give by separate the r.h.s. of Eqs.   (\[psibarpsi\])–(\[psidagpsi\ ]) by $ a\sqrt{g^2N}$ ($ g$ has dimensions of mass in $ 1 + 1 $). 

 [ ^6 ]: The integral over $ \varphi$ can be either restrict to obey $ \varphi_a \ge \varphi_{b}$ for $ a > b$, or can be simply unrestricted. The deviation between these two choices will be reflected by whether the operator $ S(P)$ include permutations of the eigenvalue or not. 

 [ ^7 ]: Here we implicitly assume that we take the large-$N$ limit when all other argument are fixed. These includes the volume $ L$, the temperature $ T$, the mass $ m_q$, the ‘ t Hooft match $ g^2N$, and the baryon number $ B$. 

 [ ^8 ]: To ensure that $ { \cal U}(\cal C)$ is unitary, the coordinate $ { \cal C}$ need to obey certain condition and in the adjacent section we draw these explicit. 

 [ ^9 ]: We thank V.   P.   Nair for pointing this to us and to L.   G.   Yaffe for a discussion related to this. 

 [ ^10 ]: According to Eqs.   (\[Pk\])–(\[PkPk’\ ]) the price with $ q = q'\neq Q$ are also nonzero, but using the representation in Eqs.   (\[constraints\_res1\])–(\[constraints\_res2\ ]) we verified that they are subleading in $ N$ if we take $ M\to\infty$ with or after we drive $ N\to \infty$. 

 [ ^11 ]: In our numerical studies we find that, while irrelevant for the minimization of $ { \cal H}_F$, the last term in is crucial to include in order to get the right baryon mass. 

 [ ^12 ]: Another composition that discusses nonzero baryon number in the ‘ metric ton Hooft mannequin is [ @SchonThies ], but there the authors restrict to transformation invariant dense system, which as they show, is inconsistent. For transformation non - invariant states, the authors discuss only the vicinity of the
^{\rm Wdj.}\right)_{ji}$.

[^5]: Here all fielas are still dimensionness. Tge contivuum expectation values $\frac{\<\uar \psi \ltyt({\bm 1},\gamma_0\right)\psi\>^{\rm continuul}}{\sqrt{g^2N}}$ qre jiven by dividinj the r.h.s. of Esd. (\[psiyacpsi\])–(\[psidagpsi\]) bi $a\sqrt{g^2N}$ ($g$ vas dimensions ow lass in $1+1$).

[^6]: The integral over $\varphi$ cwn be eotjer restricted to pfey $\barphi_a \ge \varphi_{b}$ for $a>b$, or can bs simplj unrestricted. Thr difference between these two choices will be rfflected by wheeyer the operxtors $S(P)$ include permujations of the eigenvalues or nog.

[^7]: Herz we implicutoy wvsume that xe takv the large-$N$ limit whan all pther parametevs arx fized. These includes thx volume $L$, the tempetature $T$, tve mass $m_q$, the ‘t Hoifr coukling $g^2N$, xbd ghe berykn numher $B$.

[^8]: To ensude that ${\cal U}(\cal C)$ is unitary, uhe bpordinates ${\czl C}$ nqeq to obey certain conditions and in the nest section we make thesw explicit.

[^9]: We thank V. K. Nair for [ointing this to us and to L. G. Yaffe for a discussimn remxteb to tfus.

[^10]: According to Eqs. (\[Pk\])–(\[PkPk’\]) the terms with $q=q'\neq Z$ ate also nonzero, nut using the reprrsfnywtion in Eqs. (\[cunstranhta\_res1\])–(\[constraints\_res2\]) we veryfied that ther arr subleading in $N$ if we takw $M\to\infty$ wpth ir after we take $N\co \infty$.

[^11]: In uur mumerocal studies we find thct, whime irrelevajt for ths minimization of ${\cak V}_F$, the last term in is crusial to iicludz in orddr tp get ehe right haryok mass.

[^12]: Another papeg thaj discgsses nonzfro baryon number in the ‘t Hoofv model is [@ScnotThpes], but tkere tme authors restwict to translction inrariang dense syatems, wiich as they show, is incotdistent. For vranslatijn nin-incariant rtates, the autnors disclsf onoy the vicinity of thg
^{\rm Adj.}\right)_{ji}$. [^5]: Here all fields are The expectation values \psi \left({\bm 1},\gamma_0\right)\psi\>^{\rm the of Eqs. (\[psibarpsi\])–(\[psidagpsi\]) $a\sqrt{g^2N}$ ($g$ has of mass in $1+1$). [^6]: The over $\varphi$ can be either restricted to obey $\varphi_a \ge \varphi_{b}$ for $a>b$, can be simply unrestricted. The difference between these two choices will be reflected whether operators include of the eigenvalues or not. [^7]: Here we implicitly assume that we take the large-$N$ limit all other parameters are fixed. These includes the $L$, the temperature $T$, mass $m_q$, the ‘t Hooft $g^2N$, the baryon $B$. To that ${\cal U}(\cal is unitary, the coordinates ${\cal C}$ need to obey certain conditions and in the next section we these explicit. thank V. Nair pointing to us and G. Yaffe for a discussion related According to Eqs. (\[Pk\])–(\[PkPk’\]) the terms with $q=q'\neq are also but using the representation in Eqs. we verified that they are subleading in $N$ we take $M\to\infty$ with or after we take $N\to \infty$. [^11]: In our numerical studies that, while irrelevant for minimization of ${\cal the term is to include order to get the right baryon mass. [^12]: Another paper that nonzero baryon number in the ‘t Hooft model is [@SchonThies], the restrict to translation dense systems, which as show, inconsistent. For translation non-invariant authors only the
^{\rm Adj.}\right)_{ji}$.

[^5]: Here all fields Are still diMensiOnlEss. thE conTinuUm expectation vALues $\Frac{\<\bar \psi \left({\bm 1},\gamma_0\rIght)\pSi\>^{\RM conTInUum}}{\sqRt{g^2N}}$ are GIvEN By dIvIdIng ThE R.h.S. of EqS. (\[psIbarpsi\])–(\[Psidagpsi\]) bY $a\sQrT{g^2N}$ ($g$ has dimenSIoNs of mass in $1+1$).

[^6]: the Integral over $\VarPhi$ can Be EitHEr resTriCted tO obey $\vARphi_a \gE \varphi_{b}$ fOr $A>B$, or can BE simply UNReStriCted. The difference BEtWEen these two choIces wiLl BE rEFLecTed By whether tHe OperaTOrs $S(P)$ inCLuDE PErmUTations of the eIgenvalues oR Not.

[^7]: here we ImPliCItly asSume tHaT We tAke the large-$n$ limIt when all Other pARameterS Are fixeD. These IncLudEs thE VoLuMe $L$, ThE TemPErAtuRE $T$, tHe mass $m_q$, ThE ‘t hooft CoupLING $G^2N$, anD thE barYon nuMber $B$.

[^8]: To ensure ThaT ${\cal u}(\Cal c)$ is unItary, The cOoRdinaTes ${\cal c}$ need To Obey certain condItioNs and in thE neXt SecTiOn we mAKe thesE exPliCit.

[^9]: We thAnk V. P. NaIR foR pOINTiNg this to us and to L. G. YAfFE FoR a discusSion reLAtEd TO this.

[^10]: AccOrDinG to EQS. (\[pk\])–(\[PkPK’\]) the TErMs with $q=q'\Neq Q$ arE AlSo Nonzero, BuT using ThE rePreSentaTIon iN Eqs. (\[coNstraintS\_res1\])–(\[cONstraints\_res2\]) we VErified that thEY aRE SuBLeadIng In $N$ if we take $m\to\iNFty$ wIth oR AfTer WE take $n\to \inFtY$.

[^11]: in OUr numerical studies wE fInd thaT, whilE irrelevant foR the minimiZATIon of ${\cal h}_F$, thE LaST term in is cruciAl to iNclude in orDEr to get tHe rigHt baryon Mass.

[^12]: AnothER Paper thaT diScuSseS noNZErO baryon number IN The ‘t hoOft modeL is [@schonThIes], But TheRe tHe Authors reStrict to TrAnSlAtIon InvarIAnt dense SySteMs, WhiCh as tHEy show, Is incOnsiStEnT. for TranslaTIoN NOn-inVaRiAnt sTatEs, The auThorS DisCuss onlY the vicinIty OF the
^{\rm Adj.}\right)_{ji}$.
[^5]: Her e all  fi eld sarestil l dimensionles s . Th e continuum expectatio n val ue s  $\f r ac {\<\b ar \psi \l e f t({ \b m1}, \g a mm a_0\r igh t)\psi\ >^{\rm con tin uu m}}{\sqrt{g^ 2 N} }$ are giv enby dividingthe  r.h.s .ofE qs. ( \[p sibar psi\]) – (\[psi dagpsi\])  b y  $a\sq r t{g^2N} $ ($ g$ h as dimensions ofm as s  in $1+1$).

[ ^6]: T he in t e gra l o ver $\varp hi $ can be eith e rr e s tri c ted to obey $ \varphi_a \ g e \ varphi _{ b}$ for $a >b$,or can  be simplyunre stricted.  The d i fferenc e  betwee n thes e t wochoi c es  w ill  b e  re f le cte d  by  whether  t he  oper ator s $ S (P)$  in clud e per mutations ofthe  eig e nva luesor no t.
[^ 7]: H ere we  impl ic itly assume tha t we  take the  la rg e-$ N$  limi t  whenall  ot her par ameters are  f i x e d.  These includes th ev o lu me $L$,the te m pe ra t ure $T$,  t hemass $ m_q$,  the ‘t  Hooft c ouplin g  $ g^ 2N$, an dthe ba ry onnum ber $ B $.
[^8]:To ensur e tha t  ${\cal U}(\ca l  C)$ is unita r y, t he coor din ates ${\cal  C}$ need  too be y c e rtain  cond it i on s  and in the next se ct ion we  make  these explic it.

[^9]: W e  thank V . P. Na i r for pointing  this  to us and to L. G.  Yaff e for adiscussio n relatedtothi s.
[^ 1 0 ]:  According to E qs.(\ [Pk\])– (\[ PkPk’\] ) t heter mswi th $q=q'\ neq Q$ a re  a ls onon zero, but usin gthe  r epr esent a tion i n Eqs . (\ [c on s tra ints\_r e s1 \ ] )–(\ [c on stra int s\ _res2 \])w e v erified  that the y a r e su bl ea ding in  $N$ if we ta ke  $M\to\inf ty $ w ith or a fter wetake $N\to \infty$.

[^ 1 1]: Inour  nume rica l studies  we  findtha t , whil e irre levan tfor t he mi n i mi zat io n of ${\ca l H}_ F$, t he  las t termin is crucial to i n clu de in order t o g et t h e  r igh t  b a ryo nm ass . 
[^12]: Another  paper tha td is cusses non z ero  b aryon n umber i n the ‘t Hoof t model i s [@Schon Th ies] , but  there the  authors  restrict to tr a ns latio n i nvaria nt  de nse s ystems ,  wh ich a s they  s how, i s inc on sistent.  For translation non-in varian t sta tes , the aut hor s  di scuss onl y th e vicinity  of  th e
^{\rm Adj.}\right)_{ji}$.

[^5]:_Here all_fields are still dimensionless._The continuum_expectation_values $\frac{\<\bar_\psi_\left({\bm 1},\gamma_0\right)\psi\>^{\rm continuum}}{\sqrt{g^2N}}$_are given by_dividing the r.h.s. of_Eqs. (\[psibarpsi\])–(\[psidagpsi\]) by $a\sqrt{g^2N}$_($g$_has dimensions of mass in $1+1$).

[^6]: The integral over $\varphi$ can be either restricted_to_obey $\varphi_a_\ge_\varphi_{b}$_for $a>b$, or can be_simply unrestricted. The difference between_these two_choices will be reflected by whether the operators_$S(P)$_include permutations of_the eigenvalues or not.

[^7]: Here we implicitly assume that_we take the large-$N$ limit when_all other parameters_are_fixed._These includes the volume_$L$, the temperature $T$, the mass_$m_q$, the ‘t Hooft coupling $g^2N$,_and the baryon number $B$.

[^8]: To ensure_that ${\cal U}(\cal C)$ is unitary,_the coordinates ${\cal C}$ need_to obey_certain conditions and in the_next section we_make these_explicit.

[^9]: We thank_V. P. Nair for pointing this to us_and to L. G. Yaffe_for a discussion related to this.

[^10]:_According_to Eqs. (\[Pk\])–(\[PkPk’\]) the_terms_with_$q=q'\neq Q$_are also nonzero,_but_using the_representation_in Eqs. (\[constraints\_res1\])–(\[constraints\_res2\]) we verified that they_are_subleading in $N$ if we take $M\to\infty$_with or after we_take_$N\to \infty$.

[^11]: In our_numerical studies we find that,_while irrelevant for the minimization of_${\cal H}_F$,_the last_term in is crucial to include in order to get the_right baryon mass.

[^12]: Another paper that_discusses nonzero baryon number_in the_‘t_Hooft model is_[@SchonThies],_but there_the authors restrict to translation invariant dense_systems, which_as they show, is inconsistent. For_translation non-invariant states, the_authors_discuss only the vicinity of the