bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis [@CBYHeld; @OMY; @York79]. The Hamiltonian constraint (\[Eq:HamCon\]) becomes [@York73] $$8 \Delta_g \psi - R(g) \psi + A_{i j} A^{i j} \psi^{-7} - (2/3) K \psi^5 = 0 \;,
\label{Eq:NewHamCon}$$ for unknown $\psi$, where $A^{i j}$ is given in (\[Eq:Abar\]). This equation has precisely the same form in the one-hypersurface and two-hypersurfaces constraint problems. Note that (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]) and (\[Eq:NewHamCon\]) are not coupled if $K = \mbox{constant}$, [*i.e.*]{}, one solves (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]), then (\[Eq:NewHamCon\]). [*No tensor splittings*]{} [@York73; @York74] are needed in the new formulation of the constraints.

Thus, the free data are $\left\{g_{i j}, u_{i j}, N, K\right\}$ and the solution is $\left\{ \psi, \bar{\beta}^i \right\}$. Mathematical analysis of the corresponding elliptic system (\[Eq:NewMomCon\], \[Eq:NewHamCon\]) has been carried out elsewhere, for example, [@CBYHeld; @OMY; @Isenberg; @CBBrill; @CBIJWY], and will not be repeated here. The corresponding situation in the $(\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf g}}, \bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis is that the free data are $\left\{g_{i j}, A_{i j}, K\right\}$ and the solution is $\left\{ \varphi, W^i \right\}$, where $W^i$ is obtained from a tensor splitting of $A_{i j}$ [@York73; @York74]. Note that $\varphi \neq \psi$ and $W^i \neq \bar{\beta}^i$. Only part of $A_{i j}$, found in the splitting, is free. The conformal covariance of the new method, [*i.e.*]{}, starting with different representatives of a given conformal equivalence class is [*unique*]{} and clear. On the other hand, that of the $(\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf g}}, \
bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis   [ @CBYHeld; @OMY; @York79 ]. The Hamiltonian constraint   (\[Eq: HamCon\ ]) becomes   [ @York73 ] $ $ 8 \Delta_g \psi - R(g) \psi + A_{i j } A^{i j } \psi^{-7 } - (2/3) K \psi^5 = 0 \; , 
 \label{Eq: NewHamCon}$$ for unknown $ \psi$, where $ A^{i j}$ is give in   (\[Eq: Abar\ ]). This equality has precisely the same human body in the one - hypersurface and two - hypersurfaces restraint problems. Note that   (\[Eq: NewMomCon\ ]) and   (\[Eq: NewHamCon\ ]) are not coupled if $ kilobyte = \mbox{constant}$, [ * i.e. * ] { }, one solves   (\[Eq: NewMomCon\ ]), then   (\[Eq: NewHamCon\ ]). [ * No tensor splittings * ] { }   [ @York73; @York74 ] are needed in the new conceptualization of the constraint. 

 Thus, the barren data are $ \left\{g_{i j }, u_{i j }, N, K\right\}$ and the solution is $ \left\ { \psi, \bar{\beta}^i \right\}$. Mathematical psychoanalysis of the corresponding elliptic system   (\[Eq: NewMomCon\ ], \[Eq: NewHamCon\ ]) has been carried out elsewhere, for example,   [ @CBYHeld; @OMY; @Isenberg; @CBBrill; @CBIJWY ], and will not be repeated here. The corresponding site in the $ (\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf g } }, \bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis is that the free data are $ \left\{g_{i j }, A_{i j }, K\right\}$ and the solution is $ \left\ { \varphi, W^i \right\}$, where $ W^i$ is prevail from a tensor splitting of $ A_{i j}$   [ @York73; @York74 ]. Note that $ \varphi \neq \psi$ and $ W^i \neq \bar{\beta}^i$. Only part of $ A_{i j}$, recover in the splitting, is free. The conformal covariance of the new method, [ * i.e. * ] { }, starting with different congressman of a given conformal equivalence class is [ * unique * ] { } and clear. On the other hand, that of the $ (\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf g } }, \
bar{\lbox{\bf K}})$ analysis [@CBYHeld; @OMY; @York79]. The Hcniltonman conatraint (\[Ed:HamCon\]) becomes [@York73] $$8 \Delta_g \'si - R(g) \pwi + A_{i j} A^{i j} \psi^{-7} - (2/3) K \osi^5 = 0 \;,
\labvl{Eq:NewHanCon}$$ dor unknowi $\psi$, whcxe $A^{i m}$ is yiten in (\[Eq:Abar\]). Thls equation has precisely tfe same form in the one-hypersurface agd two-hupfrsurfaces conftrapne prkblems. Note that (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]) and (\[Eq:NswHamCoi\]) are not couplrd if $K = \mbox{constant}$, [*i.e.*]{}, oje sllves (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]), tjen (\[Eq:NewHamXon\]). [*Gi tensor splkttings*]{} [@York73; @York74] are ngeded in the new formulation of ghe cpnstraints.

Jkys, hve free date are $\jeft\{g_{i j}, u_{i m}, N, K\richt\}$ and the solution ls $\leht\{ \pwi, \bar{\beta}^i \right\}$. Matiematical analysis os the corseaponding elliptic ststem (\[Gq:NewKomCub\], \[Ed:NesHemCkn\]) has bexn carried kut elsewheee, for example, [@CBYHekd; @IMY; @Isenberg; @DBBrilj; @SBIJWY], and will not be repeated here. Tht cordesponding situation in the $(\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf g}}, \bar{\mbox{\bs K}})$ analysis is that the free data are $\left\{g_{i j}, A_{h j}, K\cieht\}$ akd tfw dolution is $\left\{ \varphi, W^i \right\}$, where $W^i$ is jgtsiked from a tensov splitting of $A_{i k}$ [@Ylrl73; @York74]. Note thxt $\var'gi \neq \psi$ and $W^i \nee \bar{\beja}^i$. Onoy part os $A_{i j}$, found in the splitting, iw free. The cjbformal covariance of the new metnod, [*i.r.*]{}, starting with differeut repdesentatived of a gibdn conformal equkvaketce class is [*unique*]{} and clqar. On thx othzr hand, ghat of thq $(\Sigma,\bar{\lbox{\bn g}}, \
bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis [@CBYHeld; @OMY; @York79]. The (\[Eq:HamCon\]) [@York73] $$8 \psi - R(g) j} - (2/3) K = 0 \;, for unknown $\psi$, where $A^{i j}$ given in (\[Eq:Abar\]). This equation has precisely the same form in the one-hypersurface two-hypersurfaces constraint problems. Note that (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]) and (\[Eq:NewHamCon\]) are not coupled if $K \mbox{constant}$, one (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]), (\[Eq:NewHamCon\]). [*No tensor splittings*]{} [@York73; @York74] are needed in the new formulation of the constraints. Thus, free data are $\left\{g_{i j}, u_{i j}, N, and the solution is \psi, \bar{\beta}^i \right\}$. Mathematical analysis the elliptic system \[Eq:NewHamCon\]) been out elsewhere, for [@CBYHeld; @OMY; @Isenberg; @CBBrill; @CBIJWY], and will not be repeated here. The corresponding situation in the $(\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf \bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ that the data $\left\{g_{i A_{i j}, K\right\}$ solution is $\left\{ \varphi, W^i \right\}$, obtained from a tensor splitting of $A_{i j}$ @York74]. Note $\varphi \neq \psi$ and $W^i \neq Only part of $A_{i j}$, found in the is free. The conformal covariance of the new method, [*i.e.*]{}, starting with different representatives of conformal equivalence class is and clear. On other that the g}}, \
bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis [@CBYHeld; @oMY; @York79]. The hamilTonIan CoNstrAint (\[eq:HamCon\]) becomeS [@york73] $$8 \delta_g \psi - R(g) \psi + A_{i j} A^{i j} \psI^{-7} - (2/3) K \psi^5 = 0 \;,
\LaBEl{Eq:nEwhamCoN}$$ for unkNOwN $\PSi$, wHeRe $a^{i j}$ Is GIvEn in (\[EQ:AbAr\]). This eQuation has PreCiSely the same fORm In the one-hyPerSurface and twO-hyPersurFaCes COnstrAinT probLems. NoTE that (\[EQ:NewMomCoN\]) aND (\[Eq:NewhAmCon\]) arE NOt CoupLed if $K = \mbox{constanT}$, [*I.e.*]{}, ONe solves (\[Eq:NewMOmCon\]), tHeN (\[eq:nEWHaMCoN\]). [*No tensor sPlIttinGS*]{} [@York73; @YoRK74] aRE NEedED in the new formUlation of thE ConStrainTs.

thuS, The freE data ArE $\LefT\{g_{i j}, u_{i j}, N, K\riGht\}$ aNd the soluTion is $\LEft\{ \psi, \bAR{\beta}^i \rIght\}$. MaTheMatIcal ANaLySis Of THe cORrEspONdiNg elliptIc SyStem (\[EQ:NewmOMcOn\], \[Eq:newhamCOn\]) has Been carried ouT elSewhERe, fOr exaMple, [@CbYHeLd; @oMY; @IsEnberg; @cBBriLl; @cBIJWY], and will noT be rEpeated heRe. THe CorReSpondINg situAtiOn iN the $(\SigMa,\bar{\mbOX{\bf G}}, \bAR{\MBoX{\bf K}})$ analysis is that ThE FReE data are $\Left\{g_{i J}, a_{i J}, K\RIght\}$ and tHe SolUtioN IS $\left\{ \VarpHI, W^I \right\}$, whEre $W^i$ iS ObTaIned froM a Tensor SpLitTinG of $A_{i J}$ [@york73; @york74]. NoTe that $\vaRphi \nEQ \psi$ and $W^i \neq \baR{\Beta}^i$. Only part OF $A_{I J}$, FoUNd in The Splitting, is Free. tHe coNforMAl CovARiancE of thE nEW mEThod, [*i.e.*]{}, starting with dIfFerent RepreSentatives of a Given confoRMAL equivalEnce CLaSS is [*unique*]{} and clEar. On The other haND, that of tHe $(\SigMa,\bar{\mboX{\bf g}}, \
bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analys is [@CBYHe ld; @ OMY ; @ Yo rk79 ]. T he Hamiltonian cons traint (\[Eq:HamCon\])  beco me s  [@Y o rk 73] $ $8 \Del t a_ g \ps i-R(g )\ ps i + A _{i  j} A^{ i j} \psi^ {-7 }- (2/3) K \p s i^ 5 = 0 \;,\la bel{Eq:NewHa mCo n}$$ f or  un k nown$\p si$,where$ A^{i j }$ is giv en in (\[ E q:Abar\ ] ) .This  equation has pre c is e ly the same fo rm inth e  o n e -hy per surface an dtwo-h y persurf a ce s c ons t raint problem s. Note tha t  (\ [Eq:Ne wM omC o n\]) a nd (\ [E q :Ne wHamCon\])arenot coupl ed if$ K = \mb o x{const ant}$,  [* i.e .*]{ } ,on e s ol v es( \[ Eq: N ewM omCon\]) ,th en (\ [Eq: N e w H amCo n\] ). [ *No t ensor splitti ngs *]{} [@Y ork73 ; @Yo rk74 ]are n eededin th enew formulation  ofthe const rai nt s.
T hus,t he fre e d ata  are $\ left\{g _ {ij} , u _{ i j}, N, K\right\} $a n dthe solu tion i s  $ \l e ft\{ \ps i,  \b ar{\ b e ta}^i  \ri g ht \}$. Mat hemati c al  a nalysis  o f theco rre spo nding elli ptic s ystem (\ [Eq:N e wMomCon\], \[E q :NewHamCon\]) ha s be e n ca rri ed out else wher e , fo r ex a mp le, [@CBY Held;  @ O MY ;  @Isenberg; @CBBril l;  @CBIJ WY],and will notbe repeate d h ere. The  cor r es p onding situati on in  the $(\Si g ma,\bar{ \mbox {\bf g}} , \bar{\m b o x{\bf K} })$  an aly sis i sthat the free d ataar e $\lef t\{ g_{i j} , A _{i  j} , K \r ight\}$ a nd the s ol ut io nis$\lef t \{ \varp hi , W ^i  \r ight\ } $, whe re $W ^i$is  o b tai ned fro m  a t enso rsp litt ing  o f $A_ {i j } $ [ @York73 ; @York74 ].N oteth at  $\varp hi \neq \psi$  a nd $W^i \n eq  \b ar{\be t a }^i$. On ly part of $A_{i j}$, f o und inthe  spli ttin g, is fre e.The co nfo r mal co varian ce of  t hen e w met h o d,  [* i. e.*]{}, st a r tin g wit hdiff erent r epresentatives ofa  gi ven conformal  eq uiva l e nc e c l as s  is  [ * uni q u e*]{} and clear . On the o th e rhand, that ofth e $(\Si gma,\ba r{\mb o x{\bf g }}, \
bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$_analysis [@CBYHeld; @OMY;_@York79]. The Hamiltonian constraint (\[Eq:HamCon\])_becomes [@York73] $$8_\Delta_g_\psi -_R(g)_\psi + A_{i_j} A^{i j}_\psi^{-7} - (2/3) K_\psi^5 = 0_\;,
\label{Eq:NewHamCon}$$_for unknown $\psi$, where $A^{i j}$ is given in (\[Eq:Abar\]). This equation has precisely the_same_form in_the_one-hypersurface_and two-hypersurfaces constraint problems. Note_that (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]) and (\[Eq:NewHamCon\]) are not coupled_if $K_= \mbox{constant}$, [*i.e.*]{}, one solves (\[Eq:NewMomCon\]), then (\[Eq:NewHamCon\]). [*No tensor_splittings*]{} [@York73;_@York74] are needed_in the new formulation of the constraints.

Thus, the free_data are $\left\{g_{i j}, u_{i j},_N, K\right\}$ and_the_solution_is $\left\{ \psi, \bar{\beta}^i_\right\}$. Mathematical analysis of the corresponding_elliptic system (\[Eq:NewMomCon\], \[Eq:NewHamCon\]) has been carried_out elsewhere, for example, [@CBYHeld; @OMY; @Isenberg; @CBBrill;_@CBIJWY], and will not be repeated_here. The corresponding situation in_the $(\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf_g}}, \bar{\mbox{\bf K}})$ analysis is_that the free_data are_$\left\{g_{i j}, A_{i_j}, K\right\}$ and the solution is_$\left\{ \varphi, W^i_\right\}$, where $W^i$ is obtained from_a_tensor splitting of_$A_{i_j}$ [@York73;_@York74]. Note_that $\varphi \neq_\psi$_and $W^i_\neq_\bar{\beta}^i$. Only part of $A_{i j}$,_found_in the splitting, is free. The conformal_covariance of the new_method,_[*i.e.*]{}, starting with different_representatives of a given conformal_equivalence class is [*unique*]{} and clear._On the_other hand,_that of the $(\Sigma,\bar{\mbox{\bf g}}, \