eter’s IMF with $\alpha=-2.35$. A two-slope IMF with $\alpha=-2.00\pm 0.23$ above $0.50\,M_\odot$ and $\alpha=-1.43\pm 0.13$ below gives a better fit, formally at the $3\,\sigma$ level. However, in view of the larger error bars in the upper mass range, and the evolutionary effect away from the zero-age MS, we prefer to quote the single-slope power law as our main conclusion. This result is robust within current uncertainties in the reddening, distance modulus of the Galactic center, disk and binary stars contamination, and average metallicity of the bulge stars.

For the mass range in common ($0.35\msun\,\lsim M\lsim 1\msun$), the derived IMF is in very good agreement with the bulge IMF obtained from optical observations with WFPC2 by Holtzman et al. (1998). Our bulge IMF, however, is appreciably steeper than the low mass IMF for the solar neighborhood found in two recent determinations, which give slopes of $\alpha=-0.8$ (Reid & Gizis 1997) and $\alpha=-0.54$ (Gould et al. 1997). However, the present bulge IMF is virtually identical to yet other determinations of the solar neighborhood IMF (Kroupa et al. 1993, Reid et al. 1999), and an assessment as to whether bulge and disk IMFs are the same or not will require an understanding the origin of the large discrepancies among the various determinations of the disk IMF.

We have also compared the bulge IMF with the present day MF of some Galactic globular clusters with different metallicities and affected to various degrees by dynamical processes. In all clusters the MF is flatter than that of the bulge, but it appears to be closer to the bulge IMF in those clusters that are less affected by dynamical processes. This suggests little or no dependence of the IMF on metallicity for old systems.

One major issue concerns the amount of bulge mass that is locked in unseen dwarfs. There is no hint for the IMF slope to change towards the lower mass limit ($0.15\,\msun$) of the explored range. Assuming the slope can be extrapolated all the way to mass zero, gives a total mass of brown dwarfs ($0<M<0.08\,\msun$) in the NIC2 field of $81\,\msun$, i.e
eter ’s IMF with $ \alpha=-2.35$. A two - slope IMF with $ \alpha=-2.00\pm 0.23 $ above $ 0.50\,M_\odot$ and $ \alpha=-1.43\pm 0.13 $ below gives a better fit, formally at the $ 3\,\sigma$ level. However, in opinion of the large error bars in the upper mass image, and the evolutionary effect away from the zero - historic period MS, we prefer to quote the individual - slope power police as our main conclusion. This solution is full-bodied within current uncertainties in the reddening, distance modulus of the Galactic center, phonograph record and binary stars contamination, and modal metallicity of the bulge stars. 

 For the mass range in coarse ($ 0.35\msun\,\lsim M\lsim 1\msun$), the derived IMF is in very good agreement with the bulge IMF obtained from optical observation with WFPC2 by Holtzman et al. (1998). Our bulge IMF, however, is appreciably steeper than the low mass IMF for the solar neighborhood found in two late determinations, which give slopes of $ \alpha=-0.8 $ (Reid & Gizis 1997) and $ \alpha=-0.54 $ (Gould et al. 1997). However, the present bulge IMF is virtually identical to yet other determination of the solar region IMF (Kroupa et al. 1993, Reid et al. 1999), and an assessment as to whether bulge and disk IMFs are the same or not will require an understanding the origin of the large discrepancies among the assorted determinations of the disk IMF. 

 We have besides compare the bulge IMF with the present sidereal day MF of some Galactic globular clusters with different metallicities and affected to various degrees by dynamical process. In all clusters the MF is flatter than that of the bulge, but it appears to be closer to the bulge IMF in those clusters that are less moved by dynamical processes. This suggests little or no dependence of the IMF on metallicity for old systems. 

 One major emergence concerns the amount of bulge mass that is locked in unseen dwarfs. There constitute no hint for the IMF slope to change towards the low multitude limit ($ 0.15\,\msun$) of the explored stove. Assuming the gradient can be extrapolated all the way to mass zero, gives a total batch of brown dwarfs ($ 0 < M<0.08\,\msun$) in the NIC2 plain of $ 81\,\msun$, i.e
eteg’s IMF with $\alpha=-2.35$. A two-suope IMF with $\alpha=-2.00\pm 0.23$ above $0.50\,M_\odot$ avd $\alpha=-1.43\pm 0.13$ below gives a bevter fit, dormally at the $3\,\sigma$ uevel. Howvver, in vuew id the largxd error bars jk the npper mass rangg, and the evmlutionary effacg cway from the zero-age MS, we prefer tj quote tje single-slope powtr jaw zs our main conclusion. This result is roblst within curreny uncertainties in the redfenijg, distance modulud of the Gaoactyx center, disy and binagv stars conjamination, and average metallicigy of the bulge srard.

Xor the masw rande in common ($0.35\msun\,\lsik M\lsim 1\msun$), the deriyed IKF us in very good agreekent with the bulgg IMF obtahnzd from optical obsercarions witv WFOX2 bh Hklvzmzn et wl. (1998). Our bulge IMF, howevee, is appreciably sttepqg than the los mass IIF for the solar neighborhood found in uwo rscent determinations, whuch give slopes of $\alkha=-0.8$ (Reid & Dizis 1997) and $\alpha=-0.54$ (Gould et al. 1997). However, the present bulgx KMF if cigtually identical to yet other determinations kf tme solar neighbovhood IMF (Kroupa ey wl. 1993, Reid et al. 1999), xnd an asaessment as to whehher bujge abd disk IIFs sre the same or not will rewuire an undvrstqnding the origin lf the largz disctepancoes among the various dztermihations of hhe disk JOF.

We have also cumpsrad the bulge IMF with the [resent dey MF of somd Gakactic globular flustcss with different letalpiwities and affected to various degrees by dynamical provevsev. In all clusbers the MF is slatter than tkat of tke bulee, but it zppears to be closqr to the bulcg IMF in thosx clusterf thqt aee less xffected by dymamical pgoeesses. Thus suggests little or ho dependence oy uhw IMF on metalkickty flr ojg systems.

One majur kxsue zoncerns thc aoouny of bulge mass that is mocked in unseen deavfs. There is no hynt for the IKF slope to change towacds thx lowet mwss limit ($0.15\,\msun$) of the explored range. Asdumlng the slope can be extrapolcted all the way to mass zero, gives a toval mass of brown dwarfw ($0<M<0.08\,\msun$) in the NIC2 yitld of $81\,\msun$, i.x
eter’s IMF with $\alpha=-2.35$. A two-slope IMF 0.23$ $0.50\,M_\odot$ and 0.13$ below gives the level. However, in of the larger bars in the upper mass range, the evolutionary effect away from the zero-age MS, we prefer to quote the power law as our main conclusion. This result is robust within current uncertainties the distance of Galactic center, disk and binary stars contamination, and average metallicity of the bulge stars. For the range in common ($0.35\msun\,\lsim M\lsim 1\msun$), the derived is in very good with the bulge IMF obtained optical with WFPC2 Holtzman al. Our bulge IMF, is appreciably steeper than the low mass IMF for the solar neighborhood found in two recent determinations, give slopes (Reid & 1997) $\alpha=-0.54$ et al. 1997). present bulge IMF is virtually identical determinations of the solar neighborhood IMF (Kroupa et 1993, Reid al. 1999), and an assessment as whether bulge and disk IMFs are the same not will require an understanding the origin of the large discrepancies among the various determinations disk IMF. We have compared the bulge with present MF some Galactic clusters with different metallicities and affected to various degrees by dynamical In all clusters the MF is flatter than that of but appears to be to the bulge IMF those that are less affected processes. suggests dependence the on metallicity for old One major issue concerns the of bulge mass that There is no hint for the IMF slope change towards the lower mass limit ($0.15\,\msun$) the explored range. Assuming the slope can be extrapolated all the way mass zero, total mass of brown dwarfs ($0<M<0.08\,\msun$) in the field of $81\,\msun$, i.e
eter’s IMF with $\alpha=-2.35$. A two-slopE IMF with $\alPha=-2.00\pm 0.23$ AboVe $0.50\,M_\OdOt$ anD $\alpHa=-1.43\pm 0.13$ below gives A BettEr fit, formally at the $3\,\sigmA$ leveL. HOWeveR, In View oF the larGEr ERRor BaRs In tHe UPpEr masS raNge, and tHe evolutioNarY eFfect away froM ThE zero-age MS, We pRefer to quote The Single-SlOpe POwer lAw aS our mAin conCLusion. this resulT iS Robust WIthin cuRREnT uncErtainties in the reDDeNIng, distance modUlus of ThE gaLACtiC ceNter, disk anD bInary STars conTAmINATioN, And average metAllicity of tHE buLge staRs.

for THe mass Range In COmmOn ($0.35\msun\,\lsim M\Lsim 1\Msun$), the deRived Imf is in veRY good agReemenT wiTh tHe buLGe iMf obTaINed FRoM opTIcaL observaTiOnS with wFPC2 BY hOLtzmAn eT al. (1998). OUr bulGe IMF, however, iS apPrecIAblY steePer thAn thE lOw masS IMF foR the sOlAr neighborhood fOund In two receNt dEtErmInAtionS, Which gIve SloPes of $\alPha=-0.8$ (Reid & gIziS 1997) aND $\ALpHa=-0.54$ (Gould et al. 1997). However, ThE PReSent bulgE IMF is VIrTuALly identIcAl tO yet OTHer deTermINaTions of tHe solaR NeIgHborhooD ImF (KrouPa Et aL. 1993, ReId et aL. 1999), And aN assesSment as tO whetHEr bulge and disk imFs are the same OR nOT WiLL reqUirE an understaNdinG The oRigiN Of The LArge dIscrePaNCiES among the various detErMinatiOns of The disk IMF.

We hAve also comPAREd the bulGe IMf WiTH the present day mF of sOme GalactiC Globular ClustErs with dIfferent mETAllicitiEs aNd aFfeCteD TO vArious degrees BY DynaMiCal procEssEs. In all CluSteRs tHe Mf iS flatter tHan that oF tHe BuLgE, buT it apPEars to be ClOseR tO thE bulgE iMF in tHose cLustErS tHAt aRe less aFFeCTEd by DyNaMicaL prOcEsses. this SUggEsts litTle or no dePenDEnce Of ThE IMF on mEtallicity for OlD systems.

OnE mAjoR issue CONcerns thE amount of bulge mass that iS Locked iN unSeen dWarfS. There is nO hiNt for tHe Imf slope To chanGe towArDs tHE Lower MASs LimIt ($0.15\,\Msun$) of the eXPLorEd ranGe. assuMing the Slope can be extrapolATed All the way to maSs zEro, gIVEs A toTAl MAss Of BRowN DWarfs ($0<M<0.08\,\msun$) in the nIC2 field of $81\,\MsUN$, i.E
eter’s IMF with $\alpha=-2 .35$. A tw o-slo peIMF  w ith$\al pha=-2.00\pm 0 . 23$above $0.50\,M_\odot$and $ \a l pha= - 1. 43\pm  0.13$b el o w  gi ve sa b et t er  fit,  fo rmallyat the $3\ ,\s ig ma$ level. H o we ver, in vi ewof the large r e rror b ar s i n  theupp er ma ss ran g e, and  the evol ut i onarye ffect a w a yfrom  the zero-age MS, we prefer to quot e thesi n gl e - slo pepower lawas  ourm ain con c lu s i o n.T his result is  robust wit h incurren tunc e rtaint ies i nt hereddening,dist ance modu lus of the Gal a ctic ce nter,dis k a nd b i na ry  st ar s  co n ta min a tio n, and a ve ra ge me tall i c i t y of  th e bu lge s tars.

For th e m assr ang e incommo n ($ 0. 35\ms un\,\l sim M \l sim 1\msun$), t he d erived IM F i sinve ry go o d agre eme ntwith th e bulge IMF  o b t a in ed from optical ob se r v at ions wit h WFPC 2  b yH oltzmanet  al . (1 9 9 8). O ur b u lg e IMF, h owever ,  i sappreci ab ly ste ep ertha n the lowmass I MF for t he so l ar neighborhoo d  found in two re c e nt dete rmi nations, wh ichg iveslop e sof$ \alph a=-0. 8$ (R e id & Gizis 1997) an d$\alph a=-0. 54$ (Gould et  al. 1997) . H owever,thep re s ent bulge IMFis vi rtually id e ntical t o yet  other d eterminat i o ns of th e s ola r n eig h b or hood IMF (Kro u p a et  a l. 1993 , R eid etal.  19 99) , a nd  an asses sment as  t owh et her  bulg e  and dis kIMF sare  thes ame or  notwill  r eq u ire  an und e rs t a ndin gth e or igi nof th e la r gediscrep ancies am ong theva ri ous det erminations o fthe disk I MF .
We hav e also com pared the bulge IMF wit h  the pr ese nt da y MF  of someGal acticglo b ular c luster s wit hdif f e rentm e ta lli ci ties and a f f ect ed to  v ario us degr ees by dynamical p r oce sses. In allclu ster s th e M F  i s  fl at t ert h an that of thebulge, but  i t  a ppears tob e c lo ser tothe bul ge IM F  in tho se cluste rs that a re  les s aff ected by d ynamical  processe s . Thi s  s ugges tslittle  o r n o dep endenc e  of  theIMF on  m etalli cityfo r old sy stems.

One major issue  conce rns t heamount of  bu l gemass that  islocked inuns een  dwar fs. There  isn ohin t  fortheI MF slopet ocha n g etowards the l o wer  mass  li m it ($0 .15\ ,\msun$) of the e x plored range.Assu m i ngthe slop ecan be extrapo lat ed a ll the w ay  to mass ze ro, give sa  tota l mass  of br own dwa r f s( $0<M<0 .08\ ,\m sun$) inthe  N I C2 fiel dof $81\,\ msun $,  i.e
eter’s IMF_with $\alpha=-2.35$._A two-slope IMF with_$\alpha=-2.00\pm 0.23$_above_$0.50\,M_\odot$ and_$\alpha=-1.43\pm_0.13$ below gives_a better fit,_formally at the $3\,\sigma$_level. However, in_view_of the larger error bars in the upper mass range, and the evolutionary effect_away_from the_zero-age_MS,_we prefer to quote the_single-slope power law as our_main conclusion._This result is robust within current uncertainties in_the_reddening, distance modulus_of the Galactic center, disk and binary stars contamination,_and average metallicity of the bulge_stars.

For the mass_range_in_common ($0.35\msun\,\lsim M\lsim 1\msun$),_the derived IMF is in very_good agreement with the bulge IMF_obtained from optical observations with WFPC2 by_Holtzman et al. (1998). Our bulge_IMF, however, is appreciably steeper_than the_low mass IMF for the_solar neighborhood found_in two_recent determinations, which_give slopes of $\alpha=-0.8$ (Reid &_Gizis 1997) and_$\alpha=-0.54$ (Gould et al. 1997). However,_the_present bulge IMF_is_virtually_identical to_yet other determinations_of_the solar_neighborhood_IMF (Kroupa et al. 1993, Reid_et_al. 1999), and an assessment as to_whether bulge and disk_IMFs_are the same or_not will require an understanding_the origin of the large discrepancies_among the_various determinations_of the disk IMF.

We have also compared the bulge IMF with_the present day MF of some_Galactic globular clusters with_different metallicities_and_affected to various_degrees_by dynamical_processes. In all clusters the MF is_flatter than_that of the bulge, but it_appears to be closer_to_the bulge IMF in those clusters_that are less affected by dynamical_processes. This suggests little or_no_dependence_of the IMF on metallicity_for old systems.

One major issue concerns_the amount of_bulge mass that is locked in unseen_dwarfs._There is no hint for the_IMF_slope to change towards the lower_mass_limit_($0.15\,\msun$) of the explored range._Assuming the slope can be extrapolated_all the way to mass zero, gives a total_mass of brown_dwarfs ($0<M<0.08\,\msun$) in the NIC2_field_of_$81\,\msun$, i.e