Ebihara:2016fwa], the choice of ${\lambda_{l,k}}$ from Eq.  is not unique; this nonuniqueness is related to $v_\pm$, as we mentioned below Eqs.  and. In Ref. [@Ebihara:2016fwa] we required $v_\pm = i\gamma^2 u_\pm^\ast$ from the beginning so that we could keep charge conjugation symmetry ${\mathcal{C}}$. This symmetry property gives *another* constraint of invariance under $l \leftrightarrow -l-1$. In the present case with $B\neq 0$, there is no way to keep such symmetry; nevertheless, it is convenient to adopt a sufficient condition for Eq.  to be connected to the $B=0$ limit smoothly, that is, $$\begin{split}
  & \Phi_l({\lambda_{l,k}},\alpha) = 0 \ \ \qquad\qquad\; \text{for} \quad l\geq 0\,, \\
  & \Phi_{l+1}({\lambda_{l,k}}-1,\alpha) = 0 \,\qquad \text{for} \quad l\leq -1\,.
  \end{split}
  \label{eq:Phi-condition}$$ From the definition of the scalar function $\Phi_l(\lambda,x)$ given in Eqs.  and, we obtain the transverse momenta discretized as ${p_{l,k}}= \sqrt{2eB{\lambda_{l,k}}}$ with $${\lambda_{l,k}}=
  \begin{cases}
  \xi_{l,k} \,\qquad\qquad\quad \text{for} \quad l\geq 0\,, \\
  \xi_{-l-1,k}-l \qquad \text{for} \quad l\leq -1\,,
  \end{cases}
  \label{eq:lambda}$$ where $\xi_{l,k}$ denotes the $k$th zero of ${{}_1F_1}(-\xi,l+1,\alpha)$ as a function of $\xi$. We note that ${\lambda_{l,k}}$ depends on $\alpha$; in other words, the discretized momenta are functions of the magnetic field $B$ as well as $R$.

It would be instructive to think of the momentum discretization in the $B=0$ limit. From the asymptotic relations , we
Ebihara:2016fwa ], the choice of $ { \lambda_{l, k}}$ from Eq.    is not unique; this nonuniqueness is related to $ v_\pm$, as we mentioned below Eqs.    and. In Ref.   [ @Ebihara:2016fwa ] we command $ v_\pm = i\gamma^2 u_\pm^\ast$ from the beginning so that we could restrain charge union isotropy $ { \mathcal{C}}$. This symmetry property gives * another * restraint of invariability under $ l \leftrightarrow -l-1$. In the present case with $ B\neq 0 $, there is no way to keep such isotropy; nevertheless, it is convenient to adopt a sufficient condition for Eq.    to be connect to the $ B=0 $ limit smoothly, that is, $ $ \begin{split } 
   & \Phi_l({\lambda_{l, k}},\alpha) = 0 \ \ \qquad\qquad\; \text{for } \quad l\geq 0\, , \\ 
   & \Phi_{l+1}({\lambda_{l, k}}-1,\alpha) = 0 \,\qquad \text{for } \quad l\leq -1\, . 
   \end{split } 
   \label{eq: Phi - condition}$$ From the definition of the scalar function $ \Phi_l(\lambda, x)$ given in Eqs.    and, we obtain the transverse momentum discretized as $ { p_{l, k}}= \sqrt{2eB{\lambda_{l, k}}}$ with $ $ { \lambda_{l, k}}= 
   \begin{cases } 
   \xi_{l, k } \,\qquad\qquad\quad \text{for } \quad l\geq 0\, , \\ 
   \xi_{-l-1,k}-l \qquad \text{for } \quad l\leq -1\, , 
   \end{cases } 
   \label{eq: lambda}$$ where $ \xi_{l, k}$ denotes the $ k$th zero of $ { { } _ 1F_1}(-\xi, l+1,\alpha)$ as a function of $ \xi$. We note that $ { \lambda_{l, k}}$ count on $ \alpha$; in other words, the discretized momenta are functions of the charismatic field $ B$ equally well as $ R$. 

 It would be instructive to think of the momentum discretization in the $ B=0 $ limit. From the asymptotic relations  , we
Ebijara:2016fwa], the choice of ${\laobda_{l,k}}$ from Eq.  nw not nnique; fhis nonjniqueness is related to $v_\pm$, aw we nentioned below Eqs.  ana. In Ref. [@Ehihara:2016fwq] we eequired $v_\'j = i\gamma^2 u_\pm^\zdt$ fxon the beginninn so that wa could keep cvafgz conjugation symmetry ${\mathcal{C}}$. This symmetty property givef *anpeher* bokstraint of invariance under $l \lsftrighuarrow -l-1$. In the prrsent case with $B\neq 0$, therf is no way to keep sufh symmetry; nevqetheless, it ks convenitnc to adopt z sufficient condition for Eq.  tu be eonnected ti rhe $T=0$ limit smoithly, that is, $$\beglm{split}
  & \Phi_l({\kambda_{l,k}},\alpha) = 0 \ \ \qqyad\qquad\; \text{for} \quad l\geq 0\,, \\
  & \Phi_{l+1}({\lambqa_{l,k}}-1,\alpha) = 0 \,\qquad \text{for} \quqd l\leq -1\,.
  \etd{spuut}
  \lagek{es:Phi-cojdivion}$$ From tge definitiin of the scalar fumceppn $\Phi_l(\lambdz,x)$ givqn in Eqs.  and, we obtain the transverse mokenfa discretized as ${p_{l,k}}= \swrt{2eB{\lambda_{l,k}}}$ with $${\lalbda_{l,k}}=
  \bqgin{cases}
  \xi_{l,k} \,\qquad\qquad\quad \text{for} \quad l\geq 0\,, \\
  \xi_{-m-1,y}-l \wqmad \gwxh{for} \quad l\leq -1\,,
  \end{cases}
  \label{eq:lambda}$$ wherq $\xo_{l,l}$ denotes the $h$th zero of ${{}_1F_1}(-\di,k+1,\wlpha)$ as a fuvction of $\xi$. We note that ${\lwmbda_{l,k}}$ depebds on $\alkha$; im other words, the discretizwd momenta age fynctions of the maynetic field $B$ ax welk as $R$.

It would be instrbctive to think ov the momsvtum discretizatkon it the $B=0$ limit. From the asyiptotic rxlatipns , we
Ebihara:2016fwa], the choice of ${\lambda_{l,k}}$ from Eq. unique; nonuniqueness is to $v_\pm$, as In [@Ebihara:2016fwa] we required = i\gamma^2 u_\pm^\ast$ the beginning so that we could charge conjugation symmetry ${\mathcal{C}}$. This symmetry property gives *another* constraint of invariance under \leftrightarrow -l-1$. In the present case with $B\neq 0$, there is no way keep symmetry; it convenient to adopt a sufficient condition for Eq. to be connected to the $B=0$ limit smoothly, is, $$\begin{split} & \Phi_l({\lambda_{l,k}},\alpha) = 0 \ \ \text{for} \quad l\geq 0\,, & \Phi_{l+1}({\lambda_{l,k}}-1,\alpha) = 0 \,\qquad \quad -1\,. \end{split} From definition the scalar function given in Eqs. and, we obtain the transverse momenta discretized as ${p_{l,k}}= \sqrt{2eB{\lambda_{l,k}}}$ with $${\lambda_{l,k}}= \begin{cases} \xi_{l,k} \text{for} \quad \\ \xi_{-l-1,k}-l \text{for} l\leq \end{cases} \label{eq:lambda}$$ where the $k$th zero of ${{}_1F_1}(-\xi,l+1,\alpha)$ as $\xi$. We note that ${\lambda_{l,k}}$ depends on $\alpha$; other words, discretized momenta are functions of the field $B$ as well as $R$. It would instructive to think of the momentum discretization in the $B=0$ limit. From the asymptotic relations
Ebihara:2016fwa], the choice of ${\lambDa_{l,k}}$ from Eq.  Is not UniQue; ThIs noNuniQueness is relatED to $v_\Pm$, as we mentioned below EqS.  and. IN REF. [@EbiHArA:2016fwa] wE requirED $v_\PM = I\gaMmA^2 u_\Pm^\aSt$ FRoM the bEgiNning so That we coulD keEp Charge conjugATiOn symmetry ${\MatHcal{C}}$. This symMetRy propErTy gIVes *anOthEr* conStrainT Of invaRiance undEr $L \LeftriGHtarrow -L-1$. iN tHe prEsent case with $B\neq 0$, THeRE is no way to keep Such syMmETrY; NEveRthEless, it is cOnVenieNT to adopT A sUFFIciENt condition foR Eq.  to be connECteD to the $b=0$ lImiT SmoothLy, thaT iS, $$\BegIn{split}
  & \Phi_l({\LambDa_{l,k}},\alpha) = 0 \ \ \Qquad\qQUad\; \text{FOr} \quad l\Geq 0\,, \\
  & \Phi_{L+1}({\laMbdA_{l,k}}-1,\aLPhA) = 0 \,\qQuaD \tEXt{fOR} \qUad L\Leq -1\,.
  \End{split}
  \LaBeL{eq:PhI-conDITIOn}$$ FrOm tHe deFinitIon of the scalaR fuNctiON $\PhI_l(\lamBda,x)$ gIven In eqs.  anD, we obtAin thE tRansverse momentA disCretized aS ${p_{l,K}}= \sQrt{2EB{\LambdA_{L,k}}}$ with $${\LamBda_{L,k}}=
  \begin{Cases}
  \xi_{L,K} \,\qqUaD\QQUaD\quad \text{for} \quad l\gEq 0\,, \\
  \XI_{-L-1,k}-L \qquad \teXt{for} \qUAd L\lEQ -1\,,
  \end{caseS}
  \lAbeL{eq:lAMBda}$$ whEre $\xI_{L,k}$ Denotes tHe $k$th zERo Of ${{}_1f_1}(-\xi,l+1,\alpHa)$ As a funCtIon Of $\xI$. We noTE thaT ${\lambdA_{l,k}}$ depenDs on $\aLPha$; in other wordS, The discretizeD MoMENtA Are fUncTions of the mAgneTIc fiEld $B$ AS wEll AS $R$.

It wOuld bE iNStRUctive to think of the mOmEntum dIscreTization in the $b=0$ limit. From THE AsymptotIc reLAtIOns , we
Ebihara:2016fwa], the choi ce of ${\l ambda _{l ,k} }$  fro m Eq .  is not uniq u e; t his nonuniqueness is r elate dt o $v _ \p m$, a s we me n ti o n edbe lo w E qs .  and.InRef. [@ Ebihara:20 16f wa ] we require d  $ v_\pm = i\ gam ma^2 u_\pm^\ ast $ from  t heb eginn ing  so t hat we couldkeep char ge conjug a tion sy m m et ry $ {\mathcal{C}}$. T h is symmetry prope rty gi ve s  * a n oth er*  constrain tof in v ariance un d e r  $l \leftrightarr ow -l-1$. I n  th e pres en t c a se wit h $B\ ne q  0$ , there isno w ay to kee p such symmetr y ; never theles s,itis c o nv en ien tt o a d op t a suf ficientco nd ition  for E q .   to  be  con necte d to the $B=0 $ l imit smo othly , tha t is ,$$\be gin{sp lit} & \Phi_l({\lamb da_{ l,k}},\al pha )= 0  \  \ \q q uad\qq uad \;\text{f or} \qu a d l \g e q 0\ ,, \\
  & \Phi_{l+ 1} ( { \l ambda_{l ,k}}-1 , \a lp h a) = 0 \ ,\ qqu ad \ t e xt{fo r} \ q ua d l\leq-1\,. \ en d{split }  \lab el {eq :Ph i-con d itio n}$$ F rom thedefin i tion of the sc a lar function$ \P h i _l ( \lam bda ,x)$ givenin E q s. and, we  ob t ain t he tr an s ve r se momenta discreti ze d as $ {p_{l ,k}}= \sqrt{2 eB{\lambda _ { l ,k}}}$ w ith$ ${ \ lambda_{l,k}}= 
  \b egin{cases } 
  \xi_{ l,k}\,\qquad \qquad\qu a d  \text{f or}  \q uad  l\ g e q0\,, \\
  \xi _ { -l-1 ,k }-l \qq uad  \text{ for } \ qua d l \l eq -1\,,  \end{c as es } \la bel{e q :lambda} $$  wh er e $ \xi_{ l ,k}$ d enote s th e$k $ thzero of ${ { } _1F_ 1} (- \xi, l+1 ,\ alpha )$ a s  afunctio n of $\xi $.W e no te  t hat ${\ lambda_{l,k}} $depends on  $ \al pha$;i n  other w ords, the discretized m o menta a refunct ions  of the m agn etic f iel d  $B$ a s well  as $ R$ .
I t  woul d be  in st ructive to t hin k ofth e mo mentumdiscretization int he$B=0$ limit.Fro m th e as ymp t ot i c r el a tio n s  , we
Ebihara:2016fwa], the_choice of_${\lambda_{l,k}}$ from Eq.  is_not unique;_this_nonuniqueness is_related_to $v_\pm$, as_we mentioned below_Eqs.  and. In Ref. [@Ebihara:2016fwa]_we required $v_\pm_=_i\gamma^2 u_\pm^\ast$ from the beginning so that we could keep charge conjugation symmetry ${\mathcal{C}}$._This_symmetry property_gives_*another*_constraint of invariance under $l_\leftrightarrow -l-1$. In the present_case with_$B\neq 0$, there is no way to keep_such_symmetry; nevertheless, it_is convenient to adopt a sufficient condition for Eq. _to be connected to the $B=0$_limit smoothly, that_is,_$$\begin{split}
_ & \Phi_l({\lambda_{l,k}},\alpha) =_0 \ \ \qquad\qquad\; \text{for} \quad_l\geq 0\,, \\
  & \Phi_{l+1}({\lambda_{l,k}}-1,\alpha)_= 0 \,\qquad \text{for} \quad l\leq -1\,.
_ \end{split}
  \label{eq:Phi-condition}$$ From the_definition of the scalar function_$\Phi_l(\lambda,x)$ given_in Eqs.  and, we obtain_the transverse momenta_discretized as_${p_{l,k}}= \sqrt{2eB{\lambda_{l,k}}}$ with_$${\lambda_{l,k}}=
  \begin{cases}
  \xi_{l,k} \,\qquad\qquad\quad_\text{for} \quad l\geq_0\,, \\
  \xi_{-l-1,k}-l \qquad \text{for}_\quad_l\leq -1\,,
 _\end{cases}
__\label{eq:lambda}$$ where_$\xi_{l,k}$ denotes the_$k$th_zero of_${{}_1F_1}(-\xi,l+1,\alpha)$_as a function of $\xi$. We_note_that ${\lambda_{l,k}}$ depends on $\alpha$; in other_words, the discretized momenta_are_functions of the magnetic_field $B$ as well as_$R$.

It would be instructive to think_of the_momentum discretization_in the $B=0$ limit. From the asymptotic relations , we