\section{introduction}

If $X$ is a Banach space over $\mathbb{K}$, $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, we let
$\mathcal{L}^s(^mX)$ denote the Banach space of all continuous symmetric $m$-linear forms $L:X^m\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ with the norm
\[\|L\|=\sup\{|L(x_1,\ldots,x_m)|: \|x_1\| \leq 1,\ldots, \|x_m\| \leq 1\}\,.\]
A function $P: X\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ is a continuous $m$-homogeneous polynomial if there is a continuous symmetric $m$-linear form $L:X^m\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ for which $P(x)=L(x, \ldots, x)$ for all $x\in X$. In this case it is convenient to write $P=\widehat{L}$. Let $\mathcal{P}(^mX)$ denote the Banach space
of all continuous $m$-homogeneous polynomials $P: X\rightarrow\mathbb{K}$ with the norm
\[\|P\|=\sup\{|P(x)|: \|x\|\leq 1\}\,.\]
We write $L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})$ as shorthand for $L(x_1,\ldots,x_1,\ldots,x_n,\ldots,x_n)$ where each $x_i$ appears $k_i$ times for $1\leq i\leq n$, $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$.\\
We also need to define the norm
\[\|L\|_{(n)}=\sup_{k_1+\ldots k_n=m}\sup\{|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|: \|x_1\| \leq 1,\ldots, \|x_n\| \leq 1\},\]
which for $n=2$ gives
\[\|L\|_{(2)}=\sup_{1\leq k\leq m}\sup\{|L(x_1^kx_2^{m-k})|: \|x_1\| \leq 1, \|x_2\| \leq 1\}\,.\]
Clearly, $\|\widehat{L}\|\leq\|L\|_{(n)}\leq\|L\|_{(n+1)}\leq\|L\|$.

It is known that if $L\in\mathcal{L}^s(^mX)$ and $\widehat{L}$ the associated polynomial, then
\[\|L\|\leq\frac{m^m}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|.\]
This is the answer of Problem 73 of Mazur and Orlicz in \cite{SB}.

A natural generalization of Problem 73 is the following:\\
Let $X$ be a normed linear space, $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ be nonnegative integers whose sum is $m$ and let $c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,X)$ be the smallest number with the property that if $L$ is any symmetric $m$-linear mapping of one real normed linear space into another, then
\[|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|\leq c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,X)\|\widehat{L}\|.\]
It is shown in \cite{H1} Theorem 1, that if only complex normed linear spaces and comlex scalars are considered, then
\[c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,X)=\frac{k_1!\ldots k_n!}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}\frac{m^m}{m!}.\]
In the next two sections we shall find bounds for the constant $c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,X)$ in the case of real normed linear spaces and specifically in the case of real $\ell_p$ spaces.

\section{Polynomials on a real normed linear space}

From \cite{H2} Corollary 7 (see also \cite{RS}, \cite{S2}), we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq Harris}
|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|\leq\sqrt{\frac{m^m}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}}\|\widehat{L}\|
\end{equation}
for all non-negative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ with $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$.\\
For $n=2$ we get
\[|L(x_1^kx_2^{m-k})|\leq\sqrt{\frac{m^m}{k^k(m-k)^{m-k}}}\|\widehat{L}\|\]
and we can easily see that the square root takes its maximum value which is $(\sqrt{2})^m$ when $k=\frac{m}{2}$.\\
To see this, simply consider the function $f(k)=k^k(m-k)^{m-k}$.\\
Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
f'(k) &=& (1+\ln k)k^k(m-k)^{m-k}-k^k[1+\ln(m-k)](m-k)^{m-k}\\
&=& k^k(m-k)^{m-k}\ln\frac{k}{m-k}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\[f'(k)=0\Leftrightarrow\ln\frac{k}{m-k}=0\Leftrightarrow\frac{k}{m-k}=1\Leftrightarrow k=\frac{m}{2},\]
since $k\neq0$ and $k\neq m$.\\
Moreover, $f'(k)<0$ for $0<k<\frac{m}{2}$ (i.e. $f$ if strictly decreasing for $0<k<\frac{m}{2}$) and $f'(k)>0$ for $\frac{m}{2}<k<m$ (i.e. $f$ if strictly increasing for $\frac{m}{2}<k<m$).\\
Therefore, the minimum value of $f$ is $f\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)=\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)^m$. Thus,
\[\bigg(\frac{\|L\|_{(2)}}{\|\widehat{L}\|}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{m}}\leq\sqrt{2}.\]
If $m$ is odd, the previous inequality is strict (since $k\in\mathbb{N}$).\\
Similarly, we get the following general result:
\[\bigg(\frac{\|L\|_{(n)}}{\|\widehat{L}\|}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{m}}\leq\sqrt{n}\]

From \cite{N} Lemma 3, we have
\[|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|\leq e^{\frac{m}{2}}C_m
\begin{pmatrix} m+n-1\\n-1 \end{pmatrix}
\|\widehat{L}\|.\]
The value of the constant $C_m$ needs to be determined in order to compare this result with (\ref{eq Harris}).
To do this, we need to find a bound for $\mathbb{E}(|A|^k)$ which is used in the proof of \cite{N} Lemma 3. Stirling's formula and some elementary calculations will do the job.\\
For $k\neq2$ even:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}(|A|^k) &\leq& k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\Gamma\bigg(\frac{k}{2}\bigg)=k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{2}-1\bigg)!=
k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{\frac{k}{2}-1}{e}\bigg)^{\frac{k}{2}-1}\sqrt{\frac{k}{2}-1}\\
&=& k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{k-2}{2e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\frac{2e}{k-2}\sqrt{\frac{k-2}{2}}=
\frac{ke\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{k-2}}\bigg[\frac{p(k-2)}{e}\bigg]^\frac{k}{2}\\
&=& \frac{ke\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{k-2}}\bigg(\frac{k-2}{k}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{pk}{e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}=
e\sqrt{2}\sqrt{k-2}\bigg(\frac{k-2}{k}\bigg)^{\frac{k}{2}-1}\bigg(\frac{pk}{e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\\
&\leq& e\sqrt{2(k-2)}\bigg(\frac{pk}{e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $k\neq1$ odd:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}(|A|^k) &\leq& k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\Gamma\bigg(\frac{k}{2}\bigg)\leq k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\Gamma\bigg(\frac{k+1}{2}\bigg)=k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{k-1}{2}\bigg)!\\
&=& k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{\frac{k-1}{2}}{e}\bigg)^{\frac{k-1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{k-1}{2}}=
k(2p)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{k-1}{2e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2e}{k-1}}\sqrt{\frac{k-1}{2}}\\
&=& k\sqrt{e}\bigg[\frac{p(k-1)}{e}\bigg]^\frac{k}{2}=
k\sqrt{e}\bigg(\frac{k-1}{k}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\bigg(\frac{pk}{e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\\
&=& (k-1)\sqrt{e}\bigg(\frac{k-1}{k}\bigg)^{\frac{k}{2}-1}\bigg(\frac{pk}{e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}\leq
(k-1)\sqrt{e}\bigg(\frac{pk}{e}\bigg)^\frac{k}{2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, $\mathbb{E}(|A|)\leq\sqrt{2p}$ and $\mathbb{E}(|A|^2)\leq4p$.\\
In order to make the next calculations easier, we have to unite all the above cases. Thus, we take $\mathbb{E}(|A|^k)\leq ke\big(\frac{pk}{e}\big)^\frac{k}{2}$. The term $ke$ could be slightly better, but it would not make any essential difference.\\
At the end of the proof of \cite{N} Lemma 3, we need to calculate the $\sup_{k_i}(C_{k_1}\ldots C_{k_n})$, where $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$. We have:
\[\sup_{k_i}(C_{k_1}\ldots C_{k_n})=\sup_{k_i}(k_1e\ldots k_ne)=e^n\sup_{k_i}(k_1\ldots k_n)\leq e^n\bigg(\frac{m}{n}\bigg)^n=\bigg(\frac{em}{n}\bigg)^n\]
Finally, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq Nguyen}
|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|\leq e^{\frac{m}{2}}\bigg(\frac{em}{n}\bigg)^n
\begin{pmatrix} m+n-1\\n-1 \end{pmatrix}
\|\widehat{L}\|.
\end{equation}
Inequality (\ref{eq Nguyen}) is worse than inequality (\ref{eq Harris}). But asymptotically it gives better estimate, so it can be useful in some cases.

Combining inequalities (\ref{eq Harris}) and (\ref{eq Nguyen}) we obtain the following

\begin{lemma} \label{lemma asymptotic}
Let $L:X^m\rightarrow Y$ be an $m$-linear map. Then
\[
\bigg(\frac{\|L\|_{(n)}}{\|\widehat{L}\|}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{m}}\leq
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{2},\ \text{if }n=2\\
C\sqrt{e},\ \text{if }n\geq3
\end{cases}
\]
where $C=C(m,n)$ is independent of $L$, $X$, $Y$ and tends to 1 as $m\rightarrow\infty$ for fixed $n$.
\end{lemma}

The $n$th Rademacher function is defined on $[0,1]$ by $r_n=\text{sign}\sin2^n\pi t$.

\begin{lemma}({\bf{Polarization Formula}}) \label{polarization formula}
Let $X$ be a vector space and $L\in\mathcal{L}^s(^mX)$. If $x_1,\ldots,x_m\in X$, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq polarization formula}
L(x_1,\ldots,x_m) = \frac{1}{m!}\int_0^1r_1(t)\ldots r_m(t)\widehat{L}\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^mr_i(t)x_i\bigg]dt.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

The proof of Lemma \ref{polarization formula} is easy, so it is omitted (see \cite{S1} Lemma 2).

\begin{proposition} \label{proposition X}
Let $X$, $Y$ be real normed linear spaces and $L:X^m\rightarrow Y$ be a continuous symmetric $m$-linear mapping with associated homogeneous polynomial $\widehat{L}$. If $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are norm-one vectors in $X$, then
\[\frac{|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|}{\|\widehat{L}\|}\leq\min\bigg\{
\sqrt{\frac{m^m}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}}\ ,
\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^m\bigg\}\]
for all non-negative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ with $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{polarization formula}, we have
\[L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n}) = \frac{1}{m!}\int_0^1r_1(t)\ldots r_m(t)\widehat{L}[(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))x_1+\ldots]dt\]

\[\Leftrightarrow L\bigg(\bigg(\frac{x_1}{k_1}\bigg)^{k_1}\ldots\bigg(\frac{x_n}{k_n}\bigg)^{k_n}\bigg) =
\frac{1}{m!}\int_0^1r_1(t)\ldots r_m(t)\widehat{L}\bigg[(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))\frac{x_1}{k_1}+\ldots\bigg]dt\]

\[\Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n}) =
\frac{1}{m!}\int_0^1r_1(t)\ldots r_m(t)\widehat{L}\bigg[(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))\frac{x_1}{k_1}+\ldots\bigg]dt\]
Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{eq new}
\begin{aligned}
|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})| & \leq
\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|\int_0^1\bigg\|(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))\frac{x_1}{k_1}+\ldots\bigg\|^mdt\\
& \leq
\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|\int_0^1\bigg(\frac{|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t)|}{k_1}+\ldots\bigg)^mdt\\
& \leq \frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^m\|\widehat{L}\|.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Inequalities (\ref{eq Harris}) and (\ref{eq new}) complete the proof.
\end{proof}

Asymptotically, inequality (\ref{eq new}) gives much worse estimate than inequalities (\ref{eq Harris}) and (\ref{eq Nguyen}). It is useful though for large $n$'s and when $n$ depends on $m$, while inequality (\ref{eq Harris}) is useful only for fixed $n$'s. We now conclude that:

\begin{theorem} \label{theorem X}
Let $X$, $Y$ be real normed linear spaces and $L:X^m\rightarrow Y$ be a continuous symmetric $m$-linear mapping with associated homogeneous polynomial $\widehat{L}$. If $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are norm-one vectors in $X$, then
\[\frac{k_1!\ldots k_n!}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}\frac{m^m}{m!}\leq c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,X)\leq\min\bigg\{
\sqrt{\frac{m^m}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}}\ ,
\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^m\bigg\}\]
for all non-negative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ with $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The right hand side inequality is an immediate consequence of Proposition \ref{proposition X}.\\
For the left hand side, let $x^i=(x_n^i)_{n=1}^\infty\in X$, $i=1,\ldots,m$ and $l\in\mathcal{L}^s(^mX)$ be defined by
\[L(x^1,\ldots,x^m)=\frac{1}{m!}\sum_{\sigma\in S_m}x_{\sigma(1)}^1\ldots x_{\sigma(m)}^m,\]
where $S_m$ is the set of permutations of the first $m$ natural numbers.
Then
\[L\big((x^1)^{k_1}\ldots(x^n)^{k_n}\big)=\frac{1}{m!}\sum_{\sigma\in S_m}x_{\sigma(1)}^1\ldots x_{\sigma(k_1)}^1\ldots x_{\sigma(k_1+\ldots k_{n-1}+1)}^n\ldots x_{\sigma(k_1+\ldots k_n)}^n.\]
Take $e_i$ to be the $i$th coordinate vector of $X$ and define
\[y^1=\frac{1}{k_1}(e^1+\ldots+e^{k_1})\]
\[y^2=\frac{1}{k_2}(e^{k_1+1}+\ldots+e^{k_1+k_2})\]
\[\vdots\]
\[y^n=\frac{1}{k_n}(e^{k_1+\ldots+k_{n-1}+1}+\ldots+e^{k_1+\ldots+k_n}).\]
Then an easy calculation shows that $y^1,\ldots,y^n$ are unit vectors in $X$ and
\[L\big((y^1)^{k_1}\ldots(y^n)^{k_n}\big)=\frac{1}{m!}\frac{k_1!\ldots k_n!}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}.\]
On the other hand, $\|\widehat{L}\|\leq\frac{1}{m^m}$, since
\[|\widehat{L}(x)|=|x_1\ldots x_m|=\big[(|x_1|\ldots|x_m|)^\frac{1}{m}\big]^m\leq\bigg(\frac{|x_1|+\ldots+|x_m|}{m}\bigg)^m\]
by the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality. Thus
\[\big|L\big((y^1)^{k_1}\ldots(y^n)^{k_n}\big)\big|\geq\frac{k_1!\ldots k_n!}{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}\frac{m^m}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|.\]
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
For $k_1=\ldots=k_n=1$, the upper and lower bound of $c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,X)$ in Theorem \ref{theorem X} give the same estimate which is $\frac{m^m}{m!}$.
\end{remark}

\section{polynomials on a real $\ell_p$ space}

In \cite{S1} Theorem 2, Y. Sarantopoulos proved that in the case of $L_p(\mu)$, for $1\leq p\leq m'$, $\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{m'}=1$ holds that
\[\|L\|\leq\frac{m^\frac{m}{p}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|.\]
This is an improved estimate of the one in \cite{H1} by L. A. Harris.
Here we shall give some estimates of the constant $c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,\ell_p)$ for which $|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|\leq c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,\ell_p)\|\widehat{L}\|$.

If $f$ is a measurable function on $(X,\mathcal{A},\mu)$, we define its distribution function $\lambda_f:(0,+\infty)\rightarrow[0,+\infty]$ by
\[\lambda_f(a)=\mu(\{x:|f(x)|>a\}).\]
From \cite{F}, we have the following

\begin{proposition}
If $\lambda_f(a)<\infty$ for every $a>0$ and $\phi$ is a nonnegative Borel function on $(0,\infty)$, then
\[\int_X\phi\circ|f|d\mu=-\int_0^\infty\phi(a)d\lambda_f(a).\]
\end{proposition}

The case of this result we are interested in, is $\phi(a)=a^p$, which gives
\[\int|f|^pd\mu=-\int_0^{\infty}a^pd\lambda_f(a).\]
Integrating the right side by parts, we obtain
\[\int|f|^pd\mu=p\int_0^{\infty}a^{p-1}\lambda_f(a)da.\]
The validity of this calculation becomes clear if we consider that $a^p\lambda_f(a)\rightarrow0$ as $a\rightarrow0$ and $a\rightarrow\infty$ (since $\lambda_f$ is strictly decreasing). In the following Proposition the function $f$ will be of the form $f(t)=r_1(t)+\ldots+r_k(t)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Therefore, using Hoeffding's inequality (see \cite{H} Theorem 2), we get that
\[\lambda_f(x):=\lambda_k(x)=P(|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_k(t)|\geq x)\leq2e^{-\frac{x^2}{2k}}.\]

\begin{proposition} \label{proposition l_p}
Let $1\leq p\leq\infty$ and $L:(\ell_p)^m\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous symmetric $m$-linear mapping with associated homogeneous polynomial $\widehat{L}$. If $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are norm-one vectors in $\ell_p$ with disjoint supports, then
\[\frac{|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})|}{\|\widehat{L}\|}\leq
\begin{cases}
\min\bigg\{\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^\frac{m}{p},
\frac{p2^\frac{p}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)m^\frac{p}{2}}{m!}\bigg\},\text{ if }p\geq m\\
\min\bigg\{\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^\frac{m}{p},
\frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}m2^\frac{m}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)m^\frac{m}{2}}{m!}\bigg\},\text{ if } p<m
\end{cases}\]
for all non-negative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ with $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Working as in the proof of Proposition \ref{proposition X}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq l_p}
\begin{aligned}
|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})| & \leq
\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|\int_0^1\bigg\|(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))\frac{x_1}{k_1}+\ldots\bigg\|_p^mdt\\
& \leq
\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|\int_0^1\bigg[\bigg(\frac{|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t)|}{k_1}\bigg)^p+\ldots\bigg]^\frac{m}{p}dt\\
& \leq \frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^\frac{m}{p}\|\widehat{L}\|.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

We shall now use a different technique and we need to distinguish two cases.

For $p\geq m$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})| &\leq&
\frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\int_0^1\|(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))x_1+\ldots\|_p^mdt\\
&\leq& \frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\int_0^1(|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t)|^p+\ldots)^{\frac{m}{p}}dt\\
&\leq& \frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\bigg(p\int_0^{\infty}x^{p-1}\lambda_{k_1}(x)dx+\ldots+p\int_0^{\infty}x^{p-1}\lambda_{k_n}(x)dx\bigg)\\
&\leq& \frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\bigg(p\int_0^{\infty}x^{p-1}2e^{-\frac{x^2}{2k_1}}dx+\ldots+p\int_0^{\infty}x^{p-1}2e^{-\frac{x^2}{2k_n}}dx\bigg)\\
&=& \frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\bigg(p(2k_1)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)+\ldots+p(2k_n)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)\bigg)\\
&=& \frac{p2^\frac{p}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)}{m!}\sum_{i=1}^nk_i^\frac{p}{2}\|\widehat{L}\|\leq
\frac{p2^\frac{p}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)}{m!}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^nk_i\bigg)^\frac{p}{2}\|\widehat{L}\|\\
&=& \frac{p2^\frac{p}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)m^\frac{p}{2}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|
\end{eqnarray*}

For $p<m$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|L(x_1^{k_1}\ldots x_n^{k_n})| &\leq&
\frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\int_0^1\|(r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t))x_1+\ldots\|_p^mdt\\
&\leq& \frac{\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\int_0^1(|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t)|^p+\ldots)^{\frac{m}{p}}dt\\
&=& \frac{n^\frac{m}{p}\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\int_0^1\bigg(\frac{|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t)|^p+\ldots}{n}\bigg)^{\frac{m}{p}}dt\\
&\leq& \frac{n^\frac{m}{p}\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\int_0^1\frac{|r_1(t)+\ldots+r_{k_1}(t)|^m+\ldots}{n}dt\\
&\leq& \frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\bigg(m\int_0^{\infty}x^{m-1}\lambda_{k_1}(x)dx+\ldots+m\int_0^{\infty}x^{m-1}\lambda_{k_n}(x)dx\bigg)\\
&\leq& \frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\bigg(m\int_0^{\infty}x^{m-1}2e^{-\frac{x^2}{2k_1}}dx+\ldots+m\int_0^{\infty}x^{m-1}2e^{-\frac{x^2}{2k_n}}dx\bigg)\\ &=& \frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}\|\widehat{L}\|}{m!}\bigg(m(2k_1)^{\frac{m}{2}}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)+\ldots+m(2k_n)^{\frac{m}{2}}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)\bigg)\\
&=& \frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}m2^\frac{m}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)}{m!}\sum_{i=1}^nk_i^\frac{m}{2}\|\widehat{L}\|\leq
\frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}m2^\frac{m}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)}{m!}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^nk_i\bigg)^\frac{m}{2}\|\widehat{L}\|\\
&=& \frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}m2^\frac{m}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)m^\frac{m}{2}}{m!}\|\widehat{L}\|
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

Note that the second technique used in the proof of Proposition \ref{proposition l_p} gives better estimates than (\ref{eq l_p}) for large $m$'s and small $n$'s and its special case where $p\geq m$ holds asymptotically only for $\ell_\infty$. Moreover, observe that Proposition \ref{proposition l_p} gives better estimates than Proposition \ref{proposition X}.

\begin{remark}
The term $\sum_{i=1}^nk_i^\frac{p}{2}$ \big(resp. $\sum_{i=1}^nk_i^\frac{m}{2}$\big) in the proof of Proposition \ref{proposition l_p} can be bounded by $(m-n+1)^\frac{p}{2}+n-1$ \big(resp. $(m-n+1)^\frac{m}{2}+n-1$\big) instead of $m^\frac{p}{2}$ \big(resp. $m^\frac{m}{2}$\big) since it takes its maximum value when all but one $k_i$'s equal to 1 and the last one equals to $m-n+1$.
\end{remark}

We now conclude that:

\begin{theorem} \label{theorem l_p}
Let $1\leq p\leq\infty$ and $L:(\ell_p)^m\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous symmetric $m$-linear mapping with associated homogeneous polynomial $\widehat{L}$. If $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are norm-one vectors in $\ell_p$ with disjoint supports, then:\\
if $p\geq m$
\[\frac{k_1!\ldots k_n!}{k_1^\frac{k_1}{p}\ldots k_n^\frac{k_n}{p}}\frac{m^\frac{m}{p}}{m!}\leq c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,\ell_p)\leq\min\bigg\{\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^\frac{m}{p},
\frac{p2^\frac{p}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{p}{2}\big)m^\frac{p}{2}}{m!}\bigg\}\]
and if $p<m$
\[\frac{k_1!\ldots k_n!}{k_1^\frac{k_1}{p}\ldots k_n^\frac{k_n}{p}}\frac{m^\frac{m}{p}}{m!}\leq c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,\ell_p)\leq\min\bigg\{\frac{k_1^{k_1}\ldots k_n^{k_n}}{m!}n^\frac{m}{p},
\frac{n^\frac{m-p}{p}m2^\frac{m}{2}\Gamma\big(\frac{m}{2}\big)m^\frac{m}{2}}{m!}\bigg\}\]
for all non-negative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ with $k_1+\ldots+k_n=m$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The right hand side inequality is an immediate consequence of Proposition \ref{proposition l_p}.\\
For the left hand side, we just need some simple adjustments to the proof of Proposition \ref{proposition X}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
For $k_1=\ldots=k_n=1$, the upper and lower bound of $c(k_1,\ldots,k_n,\ell_p)$ in Theorem \ref{theorem l_p} give the same estimate which is $\frac{m^\frac{m}{p}}{m!}$.
\end{remark}

\section{Radius of analyticity of a power series on a real Banach space}

A power series centered at $a\in X$ is a formal sum
\begin{equation} \label{eq power series}
\sum_{m=0}^\infty P_m(x-a)
\end{equation}
where for each $m$, $P_m:X\rightarrow Y$ is a continuous $m$-homogeneous polynomial.

The radius of uniform convergence of this power series is defined to be
\[\rho:=\{r:(\ref{eq power series})\text{ converges uniformly on }|x-a|\leq r\},\]
which is given by the following standard formula:
\[\rho=\frac{1}{\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\|P_m\|^\frac{1}{m}}.\]
If $\rho>0$, then for every $0<r<\rho$, (\ref{eq power series}) is a uniformly and absolutely convergent series for every $x\in B_r(a)$. hence in this case, (\ref{eq power series}) defines a function on $B_{\rho}(a)$ taking values in $Y$.

The Taylor series of an infinitely differentiable function $F$ defined in a neighborhood of $a$ is the power series defined by
\[T_aF(x)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{1}{m!}D^mF(a)((x-a)^m),\]
where $D^mF(a):X^m\rightarrow Y$ is the symmetric $m$-linear map given by taking the Fr\'{e}chet derivative of $F$ $m$ times.

$F$ is called analytic at $a$ if $T_aF(x)$ has a positive radius of uniform convergence and equals $F(x)$ within the domain of uniform convergence. If $U\subset X$ is open, we say that $F$ is analytic in $U$ if it is analytic at every $a\in U$. If furthermore, $T_aF(x)$ converges uniformly in every closed ball centered at $a$ contained in $U$, for each $a\in U$, $F$ is called fully analytic in $U$.

Let $F(x)$ be a power series centered at $a$ with radius of uniform convergence $\rho>0$. The radius of analyticity $\rho_{\substack{\\ A}}=\rho_{\substack{\\ A}}(F)$ of $F(x)$ at $a$ is the largest $r>0$ such that $F(x)$ is fully analytic in $B_r(a)$.

The norm we need to control when we expand a power series at a new point is $\|L\|_{(2)}$. To see this, consider the power series (\ref{eq power series}) centered at $a=0$, which we may rewrite as
\begin{equation} \label{eq series at 0}
F(x)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty L_m(x^m).
\end{equation}
Observe that by the binomial formula, given any $y\in X$
\[L_m(x^m)=L_m((y+x-y)^m)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\begin{pmatrix} m\\k \end{pmatrix}
L_m(y^{m-k},(x-y)^k).\]
Then, if in
\begin{equation} \label{eq double series}
\sum_{m=0}^\infty L_m(x^m)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^m
\begin{pmatrix} m\\k \end{pmatrix}
L_m(y^{m-k},(x-y)^k)
\end{equation}
the double series on the right converges absolutely, we can interchange summations and obtain
\[F(x)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty L_m(x^m)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{m=k}^\infty
\begin{pmatrix} m\\k \end{pmatrix}
L_m(y^{m-k},(x-y)^k)\]
Thus, if we can perform this change of summation for all $x\in B_r(y)$, for some $r>0$, then we will have expressed $F(x)$ as a power series centered at $y$ whose $k$-homogeneous polynomial coefficients are given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq coefficients}
A_k(z):=\sum_{m=k}^\infty
\begin{pmatrix} m\\k \end{pmatrix}
L_m(y^{m-k},z^k).
\end{equation}
Observe that the absolute convergence of the double sum (\ref{eq double series}) for $x\in B_r(y)$ implies the absolute convergence of the $A_k$ in $B_r(0)$ and hence on all $X$ by homogeneity.

Absolute convergence of (\ref{eq double series}) holds if
\[\sum_{m=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^m
\begin{pmatrix} m\\k \end{pmatrix}
\|L_m\|_{(2)}|y|^{m-k}|x-y|^k=\sum_{m=0}^\infty\|L_m\|_{(2)}(|y|+|x-y|)^m<\infty.\]
This holds when
\begin{equation} \label{eq convergence1}
|y|+|x-y|<\frac{1}{\limsup\|L_m\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m}}.
\end{equation}
Choose a subsequence $m_i$ such that
\[\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\|L_{m_i}\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m_i}=\limsup\|L_m\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m}.\]
Let $\rho=\frac{1}{\limsup\|\widehat{L}_m\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m}}>0$ be the radius of uniform convergence of (\ref{eq series at 0}) and suppose $\rho<\infty$. Then (\ref{eq convergence1}) is satisfied if
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} \label{eq convergence2}
|y|+|x-y| & < \rho\cdot\frac{\limsup_{i\rightarrow\infty}\|\widehat{L}_{m_i}\|^\frac{1}{m_i}}{\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\|L_{m_i}\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m_i}}\\
& = \rho\cdot\limsup_{i\rightarrow\infty}\bigg(\frac{\|\widehat{L}_{m_i}\|}{\|L_{m_i}\|_{(2)}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{m_i}\\
& := \bar{\rho}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, for $|y|<\bar{\rho}$ and $|x-y|<\bar{\rho}-|y|$, the series (\ref{eq double series}) converges absolutely.

Altogether then, we have shown that for any fixed $|y|<\bar{\rho}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq series}
F(x)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty A_k(x-y)
\end{equation}
for $|x-y|<\bar{\rho}-|y|$.

From \cite{C} Corollary 1, p. 165, we have the following

\begin{lemma} \label{lemma Chae}
For any power series $F(x)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty A_k(x-y)$ centered at $y$ with positive radius of uniform convergence, $A_k=\frac{1}{k!}D^kF(y)$ as $k$-homogeneous polynomials.
\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem} \label{theorem radius}
Let $F(x)$ be a power series in a Banach space $X$, which we may take to be centered at the origin. Let $\rho>0$ denote its radius of uniform convergence and $\rho_{\substack{\\ A}}$ its radius of analyticity. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] $\rho_{\substack{\\ A}}\geq\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$,
\item [(ii)] for every $n$, the $n$th Fr\'{e}chet derivative $D^nF:X\rightarrow\mathcal{L}_n(X,Y)$ of $F(x)$, viewed as a map from $X$ to the Banach space $\mathcal{L}_n(X,Y)$ of continuous $n$-linear maps from $X$ to $Y$, has a Taylor series centered at the origin with radius of uniform convergence at least $\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$ for $n=2$ and $\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{e}}$ for $n\geq3$,
\item [(iii)] the radius of analyticity of the power series $D^nF(x)$ is at least $\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] Suppose $\rho<\infty$. Lemma \ref{lemma asymptotic} implies
    \begin{equation} \label{eq limsup}
    \limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\bigg(\frac{\|\widehat{L}_m\|}{\|L_m\|_{(2)}}\bigg)^\frac{1}{m}\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2},}
    \end{equation}
    hence $\bar{\rho}\geq\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$ by (\ref{eq convergence2}). Thus the preceding analysis shows that for $|y|<\rho$, the Taylor series (\ref{eq series}) is absolutely convergent in $\{x:|x-y|<\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}-|y|\}$. From this, we get uniform convergence of (\ref{eq series}) in $\{x:|x-y|<r\}$ for every $r<\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}-|y|$, since one can bound the tail of (\ref{eq series}) as follows:
    \begin{equation} \label{eq bound}
    \begin{aligned}
    \bigg|\sum_{k=N}^\infty A_k(x-y)\bigg| & \leq \sum_{k=N}^\infty\sum_{m=k}^\infty
    \begin{pmatrix} m\\k \end{pmatrix}
    |L_m(y^{m-k},(x-y)^k)|\\
    & \leq \sum_{m=N}^\infty\|L_m\|_{(2)}(|y|+|x-y|)^m
    \end{aligned}
    \end{equation}
    where (\ref{eq bound}) tends to zero uniformly in $x$ as $N\rightarrow0$ so long as $|y|+|x-y|\leq|y|+r$ is bounded away from $\bar{\rho}\geq\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$. This follows because we have shown that (\ref{eq bound}) viewed as power series in a single real variable has radius of uniform convergence at least $\bar{\rho}$. Finally, Lemma \ref{lemma Chae} implies that the power series (\ref{eq series}) is a Taylor series of $F(x)$ centered at $y$. So for $\rho<\infty$, this proves (i) since we have shown $\rho_{\substack{\\ A}}\geq\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$.

    For the remaining case $\rho=\infty$, i.e. $\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\|\widehat{L}_m\|^\frac{1}{m}=0$, (\ref{eq limsup}) implies also that $\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\|L_m\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m}=0$. From (\ref{eq convergence1}), we can apply the previous analysis for every $\bar{\rho}>0$, hence $\rho_{\substack{\\ A}}=\rho=\infty$.
\item [(ii)] By Chae, given any power series $F(x)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty L_m(x^m)$ with radius of uniform convergence $\rho>0$, for every $n$, $D^nF(x)$ has a Taylor series centered at the origin given by
    \begin{equation} \label{eq Taylor series}
    T_0D^nF(x)=n!\sum_{m=0}^\infty
    \begin{pmatrix} m+n\\n \end{pmatrix}
    L_{m+n}(x^m).
    \end{equation}
    In (\ref{eq Taylor series}), the linear maps $L_{m+n}$ are only evaluated on at most $n+1$ distinct arguments ($D^nF(x)$ takes values in $n$-linear maps). So by Lemma \ref{lemma asymptotic}, for $n\geq3$, the lower bound for the radius of uniform convergence of (\ref{eq Taylor series}) is $\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{e}}$ since
    \begin{eqnarray*}
    \limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\bigg\|
    \begin{pmatrix} m+n\\n \end{pmatrix}
    L_{m+n}\bigg\|_{(n+1)}^\frac{1}{m} &\leq& \bigg(\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}C(m,n+1)\sqrt{e}\bigg)\\
    & & \times\bigg(\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\|\widehat{L}_{m+n}\|^\frac{1}{m}\bigg)\\
    &\leq& \frac{\sqrt{e}}{\rho}.
    \end{eqnarray*}
    Similarly, the lower bound for the radius of uniform convergence of $T_0DF(x)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty(m+1)L_{m+1}(x^m)$ is $\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$ since
    $\limsup_{m\rightarrow\infty}\|(m+1)L_{m+1}\|_{(2)}^\frac{1}{m}\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\rho}$.\\
    By Lemma \ref{lemma Chae} and the formula (\ref{eq coefficients}) for the $A_k$, it follows that for $n\geq3$, $T_0D^nF(y)=D^nF(y)$ for all $y$ such that $|y|<\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{e}}$ and $T_0DF(y)=DF(y)$ for all $y$ such that $|y|<\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$.
\item [(iii)] We need to show that the radius of analyticity of (\ref{eq Taylor series}) is at least $\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}}$. For this, we need to control $\|L_{m+n}\|_{(n+2)}$, but this is precisely the $\|\cdot\|_{(2)}$-norm of $L_{m+n}$ viewed as a map from $X$ to $\mathcal{L}_n(X,Y)$. Applying Lemma \ref{lemma asymptotic} the proof is completed.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}


\section{Introduction}                                                                                \label{sec:intro}
Transit events for the T-Cyg1-12664 were detected during regular operations of the \textit{Trans-Atlantic~Exoplanet~Survey} network
({\em TrES}) for detecting the rare objects, such as transiting extrasolar planets and gravitational microlenses. \citet{2008AJ....135..850D} made
identification and classification of 773 eclipsing binaries found in the {\em TrES}-survey. They have also estimated the absolute properties of
these systems by a joint analysis of their light curves, colors and theoretical isochrones.  T-Cyg1-12664 is classified
as a long-period single-lined eclipsing binary in their catalog, following a systematic analysis of the light curves within 10 fields of
the {\em TrES} survey.  This binary was originally thought to have an 8.2-day orbital period because all of the eclipses observed in
the {\em r}-passband of {\em TrES} have almost equal depths. This indicates that the system should be consisted of very similar components.

Later on T-Cyg1-12664 was observed by the {\em Kepler} satellite in both long and short cadence and identified as KIC\,10935310 in
the {\em Kepler} Input Catalog. A very shallow secondary eclipse is revealed by these observations. Detailed descriptions of the characteristics
of these observations can be found in \cite{Sla}. The shallow secondary eclipse with respect to the primary minimum and the
orbital period of about 4-day are indicative of the existence of a low mass star in the system. Therefore, we included T-Cyg1-12664 into our
observing program on the low-mas stars. In this paper we present the results of analyses of the data gathered by {\em Kepler}
and as well as our ground-based spectroscopic and photometric observations and {\em TrES}. We point out the special location of the components in the
parameter space and offer to use it as a benchmark object for future theoretical studies of low-mass stellar objects.

\section{Data acquisition}                                                                                \label{sec:obs}
\subsection{Spectroscopy}
Optical spectroscopic observations of the T-Cyg1-12664 were obtained with the Turkish Faint Object Spectrograph Camera
(TFOSC)\footnote{http://tug.tug.tubitak.gov.tr/rtt150\_tfosc.php} attached to the 1.5 m telescope in July, 2010,
under good seeing conditions. Further details on the telescope and the spectrograph can be found at http://www.tug.tubitak.gov.tr. The
wavelength coverage of each spectrum was 4000-9000 \AA~in 12 orders, with a resolving power of $\lambda$/$\Delta \lambda$
$\sim$7\,000 at 6563 \AA~and an average signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) was $\sim$120. We also obtained high S/N spectra of two M dwarfs  GJ\,740
(M0\,V) and GJ\,182 (M0.5\,V) for use as templates in derivation of the radial velocities \citep{Nidever}.

The electronic bias was removed from each image and we used the 'crreject' option for cosmic ray removal. Thus, the resulting
spectra were largely cleaned from the cosmic rays. The echelle spectra were extracted and wavelength calibrated by using Fe-Ar
lamp source with help of the IRAF {\sc echelle} package, see \citet{Tonry_Davis}.

\subsection{Photometric identification and follow-up observations}
T-Cyg1-12664 was first identified as a likely low-mass eclipsing binary candidate in the  \citet{2008AJ....135..850D}'s catalog, following a systematic analysis
of the light curves (TrES; Alonso et al. 1996). The light curves of the survey consist of $\sim$5\,240 $Sloan$ $r$-band photometric measurements (depicted in
Fig.\,7) binned to a 9-minute cadence. The calibration of the TrES images, the identification of stars and the extraction of the light curves are described by \citet{Dunham04}.

T-Cyg1-12664 was observed as KIC\,10935310  between 24\,54\,953.0 - 24\,55\,370.7 by the $Kepler$ satellite. The short-cadence observations comprise
135 and 170 data points obtained in the Quarters\,1 and 3, and the long-cadence data encompass 2\,651 and 2\,752 data points in the  Quarters\,0
and 2, respectively. The uncorrected flux measurements are plotted against time in Fig.\,1. The
times of the data are expressed in the barycentric Julian day (BJD) time-scale. The light curves of eclipsing binaries obtained by  $Kepler$ satellite
have discontinuities with variable amplitudes due to one safe mode and four spacecraft attitude tweaks in Q2. Therefore, one encounters with some
problems, especially variability in the baseline flux, when creating a complete light curve of a system. This may be occurred from either systematic
effects (focus drifts, safe modes), intrinsic stellar variability (chromospheric activity, pulsations), or extrinsic contamination by a third light (a variable
source that contributes light in the aperture of the object of interest). For these complications and other substantial data issues see the "{\it Kepler Data
Characteristics Handbook}" \citep{chris}. The main Kepler pipeline conveys two kinds of photometric data: {\it calibrated} and {\it corrected}. Calibrated
data are gained by performing pixel-level calibration that corrects for the bias, dark current, gain, nonlinearity, smear and flat field, and applies aperture
photometry to reduced data. Corrected data are the result of detrended data which corrects degraded cadence due to data unorthodox and removes variability.

The original data of T-Cyg1-12664 and their detailed descriptions can be found in \cite{Sla}. Most notable for a chromospherically active star where
spot modulation causes a significant baseline variability with an amplitude of the same order as the depth of the secondary eclipse in the light
curves.  Fig.\,1 shows the uncorrected flux measurements plotted versus the BJD. These light curves clearly show variations on a time scale of
about 4 days, due to the eclipse, superimposed on a small amplitude light fluctuations.  In Fig.2 (top panel) we plot the data against the BJD, excluding
the eclipses. The light variations on a short time-scale have a peak-to-peak amplitude of about 0.020 in flux units. A second-order polynomial fit to the
data at out-of-eclipse was obtained and subtracted from all of the fluxes, including eclipses. The remaining data after removal of the eclipses are
plotted in the middle panel of Fig.2 which show again a variation with a cycle of about 90 days and a peak-to-peak amplitude of about 0.007 in
flux units. The full data including eclipses are plotted in the bottom panel of Fig.2. The distortions on the light curve with changing amplitude
are clearly seen.

In order to provide ground-based observations of the system in different passbands, we used {\sf SI\,1100 CCD
Camera\footnote{http://www.specinst.com/}} mounted on the 1\,m telescope at the T\"{U}B{\.I}TAK National Observatory, Turkey.
Further details on the telescope and the instruments can be found in \cite{cakirli}. Differential aperture photometry was performed
to obtain the light curves in the V-, R-, and I-bandpass. We iteratively selected comparison and check stars, namely
GSC\,3562\,396 and GSC\,3561\,2134. The typical $rms$ residuals for each filter vary between 0.003 and 0.007 mag in differential
magnitudes depending on the atmospheric conditions. The ground-based R-passband light curve is shown in the sixth panel from top-to-bottom of Fig.\,7.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{kepler_LC_sepa.ps}
\caption{Light curves of T-Cyg1-12664 obtained by Kepler.} \end{center} \end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{LC_det.ps}
\caption{Light curve of the T-Cyg1-12664 after extracting the eclipses (top panel) and its parabolic representation. Wave-like distortions on
the out-of-eclipses are clearly visible. The remaining light curve after removal of the parabolic variation from the fluxes (middle
panel). The final light curve including eclipses (bottom panel). In the top and middle panels the apsis are BJD while in the bottom
panel is the orbital phase. The ordinates are fluxes.} \end{center} \end{figure*}

 \section{Analysis}
\subsection{Spectral classification}
We have used our spectra to reveal the spectral type of the primary component of T-Cyg1-12664. For this purpose we have degraded the
spectral resolution from 7\,000 to 3\,000, by convolving them with a Gaussian kernel of the appropriate width, and we have measured
the equivalent widths ($EW$) of photospheric absorption lines for the spectral classification. We have followed the procedures of
\citet{hernandez}, choosing helium lines in the blue-wavelength region, where the contribution of the secondary component to the
observed spectrum is almost negligible. From several spectra we measured $EW_{\rm He I+ Fe I\lambda 4922 }=0.171\pm 0.088$\,\AA~and
$EW_{\rm H_\beta 4861 }=3.24\pm 0.21$\,\AA. From the calibration relations $EW$--Spectral-type of \citet{hernandez}, we have derived
a spectral type of K5 with an uncertainty of about 1 spectral subclass and an effective temperature of 4\,320$\pm$100 K from the
tables of \citet{drill}.

The catalogs USNO, NOMAD and GSC2.3 provide (see Table\,1 for additional information) BVR$r$JHK magnitudes for T-Cyg1-12664 with
a few tenths of a magnitude uncertainities. Using the USNO B=14.24$\pm$0.20 mag and GSC2.3 V=13.11$\pm$0.30 mag we obtained
an observed color of B-V=1.13$\pm$0.36 mag. The color-spectral type relationship of \citet{drill} gives a color of B-V=1.15 mag for
a K5-dwarf. Therefore, an interstellar reddening of E(B-V) is ignored.  The observed infrared colors of J-H=0.329$\pm$0.021 and
H-K=0.053$\pm$0.021 are obtained using the JHK magnitudes given in the 2MASS catalog \citep{cutri}. These colors correspond to a
main-sequence G4$\pm$2 star which is not consistent with that estimated from the spectra. This difference should be arisen from an
additional star in the same direction with the eclipsing binary system. This star should radiate mostly at the infrared to change
the color of the binary about one spectral class. Actually, a third star is seen in our CCD images which locates at the same
direction with the binary system. A CCD image is shown in Fig.3.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{mim.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:periodresids} The 800x1500 pixels V, R, and I passbands  images of the field of binary system (Original size of the image
is 20'x20'). A third star is clearly seen at the right side of the binary system (near the center). Note that the image of the third star is
increasing in size towards the longer wavelengths. } \end{figure}

\begin{table}
\caption{Catalog information for T-Cyg1-12664.}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Source Catalog & Parameter &Value\\
\hline
2MASS$^{a}$					    & $\alpha$ (J2000)      									& 19:51:39.8\\
2MASS 								& $\delta$ (J2000)      									& +48:19:55.4\\
USNO-B$^{b}$					& $B$ mag 													& 14.24 $\pm$ 0.20\\
GSC2.3$^{c}$					& $V$ mag 													& 13.11 $\pm$ 0.30\\
USNO-B 								& $R$ mag                  									& 13.32 $\pm$ 0.20\\
CMC14$^{d}$						& $r'$ mag 													& 13.024 $\pm$ 0.035\\
2MASS  								& $J$ mag  													& 11.911 $\pm$ 0.015\\
2MASS 								& $H$ mag         											& 11.582 $\pm$ 0.015\\
2MASS 								& $K_s$ mag       										& 11.529 $\pm$ 0.015\\
USNO-B 								& $\mu_\alpha$ (${\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}$) 	&  $-$18 $\pm$ 6\\
USNO-B 								& $\mu_\delta$ (${\rm mas\,yr^{-1}}$) 	& $-$6 $\pm$ 2\\
$Kepler_{name}$				& KIC															& 10935310\\
$Kepler_{mag}$				    & K$_{mag}$												& 13.10$\pm$0.21\\
\hline \end{tabular} \\
\medskip
{\rm $^{a}${\em 2MASS} Two Micron All Sky Survey catalog \citep{Skrutskie06}.}, {\rm $^{b}${\em USNO-B} U.S. Naval Observatory photographic sky survey \citep{Monet03}.},
{\rm $^{c}${\em GSC2.3} Guide Star Catalog, version 2.3.2 \citep{Morrison01}.}, {\rm $^{d}${\em CMC14} Carlsberg Meridian Catalog 14 \citep{Evans02}.}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\caption{Times of minimum light for T-Cyg1-12664. The O-C values refer to the difference between the
observed and calculated times of mid-eclipse.}
\label{O-C values}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
  Minimum time  & Cycle number   & O-C & Ref.  \\
   (HJD-2\,400\,000)            & &     & \\
  \hline
 53177.8113	   &-431   &      0.0011  & 1	\\
 53181.9372	   &-430   &     -0.0018  & 1	\\
 53206.7121	   &-424   &      0.0003  & 1	\\
 53210.8415	   &-423    &      0.0009  & 1	\\
 53239.7411	   &-416    &     -0.0011  & 1	\\
 53243.8718	   &-415    &      0.0008  & 1	\\
 54965.5795(63)    &2     &     -0.0002  & 2	\\
 54969.7081(75)    &3     &     -0.0004  & 2	\\
 54973.8375(64)    &4     &      0.0003  & 2	\\
 54977.9656(10)    &5     &     -0.0005  & 2	\\
 54982.0941(28)    &6      &     -0.0007  & 2	\\
 54986.2240(31)    &7       &      0.0003  & 2	\\
 54990.3528(23)    &8       &      0.0004  & 2	\\
 54994.4814(15)    &9       &      0.0002  & 2	\\
 55006.8677(14)    &12      &      0.0001  & 2	\\
 55010.9963(13)    &13      &     -0.0002  & 2	\\
 55019.2535(25)    &15      &     -0.0006  & 2	\\
 55023.3823(30)    &16      &     -0.0005  & 2	\\
 55027.5126(41)    &17      &      0.0010  & 2	\\
 55031.6413(32)    &18      &      0.0009  & 2	\\
 55035.7699(22)    &1     &      0.0007  & 2	\\
 55039.8985(7)     &20     &      0.0004  & 2	\\
 55044.0262(47)    &21      &     -0.0007  & 2	\\
 55048.1556(8)     &22     &     -0.0000  & 2	\\
 55052.2847(61)    &23      &      0.0003  & 2	\\
 55060.5425(42)    &25      &      0.0005  & 2	\\
 55064.6712(29)    &26      &      0.0004  & 2	\\
 55068.8006(74)    &27      &      0.0010  & 2	\\
 55072.9283(8)     &28     &     -0.0001 & 2	\\
 55077.0566(6)     &29     &     -0.0007  & 2	\\
 55081.1849(61)    &30      &     -0.0012  & 2	\\
 55085.3142(9)     &31     &     -0.0007  & 2	\\
 55089.4433(4)     &32     &     -0.0003  & 2	\\
 55762.4377(4)     &195     &      0.0004  & 3	\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[Ref:]{\small (1) \citet{2008AJ....135..850D}, (2) $Kepler-data$, (3) VRI-data}
\end{list}
\end{table}

\subsection{Period determination}
In the {\em TrES} observations the shallow secondary eclipse is not detected. Therefore, six times for the primary eclipse were obtained
and the first ephemeris was presented by \citet{2008AJ....135..850D}. The secondary eclipse was clearly revealed by the  {\em Kepler}
photometric observations. We determined 27 times for the mid-primary eclipse. In addition, we obtained one time for mid-primary eclipse
from the ground-based photometric observations. Since the light curve is distorted, due to chromospheric activity, as large as the depth
of the secondary eclipse, no attempt has been made for derivation of the times for the mid-secondary eclipse.  In order to measure the
times of mid-primary eclipse we used the $\chi^2$  minimisation method. Very few of the minimum timings are accompanied by an
errorbar, so uncertainties were assumed to be nearly equal. Since the times are given as BJD in the Kepler's data we transformed
them into the heliocentric time scales. All times of minimum light of T-Cyg1-12664 were presented in Table 2. The orbital ephemeris
given by \citet{2008AJ....135..850D} was used to determine the cycle numbers and the residuals between the observed and computed
times of minima.  A straight line was fitted to the resulting cycle numbers and residuals, in the sense observed minus computed
times, (Table\,2) by $\chi^2$ minimisation. The resulting  ephemeris is obtained as,

\begin{equation}
Min I(HJD)=2\,454\,957.3221(1)+4^d.12879779(64) \times E
\end{equation}
where the quantities in the parenthesis are the uncertainties in the final digits of the preceding number. The residuals of the
fit are plotted in Fig.\,4. New orbital period is longer about 4 s than that found by \citet{2008AJ....135..850D}. Since the O-C
residuals are represented by a straight line, although the observations gathered in three small time intervals but with large
time spans between them, no substantive evidence is seen for departures from a constant period within six years.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0]{oc.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:periodresids} The residuals between the observed and computed (Eq.1) times of mid-eclipses.
} \end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{fig_voigt_TLyr.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:CCF} Sample of CCFs between T-Cyg1-12664 and the radial velocity template spectrum around the first and second quadrature.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Radial velocity}
To derive the radial velocities of the components, the 9 TFOSC spectra of the eclipsing binary  were cross-correlated against
the spectrum of GJ\,182, a single-lined M0.5\,V star, on an order-by-order basis using the {\sc fxcor} package in IRAF \citep{Simkin}. The majority of the spectra
showed two distinct cross-correlation peaks in the quadrature, one for each component of the binary. Thus, both peaks were fitted independently
in the quadrature with a $Gaussian$ profile to measure the velocity and errors of the individual components. If the two peaks appear
blended, a double Gaussian was applied to the combined profile using {\it de-blend} function in the task. For each of the 9 observations we
then determined a weighted-average radial velocity for each star from all orders without significant contamination by telluric absorption
features. Here we used as weights the inverse of the variance of the radial velocity measurements in each order, as reported by {\sc fxcor}.

We adopted a $two-Gaussian$ fit algorithm to resolve cross-correlation peaks near the first and second quadratures when spectral lines are
visible separately. Fig.\,5 shows examples of cros-correlations obtained by using the largest FWHM at nearly first and second quadratures. The
two peaks correspond to each component of T-Cyg1-12664. The stronger peaks in each CCF correspond to the more luminous
component which has a larger weight into the observed spectrum.

\begin{table}
\caption{Heliocentric radial velocities of T-Cyg1-12664. The columns give the heliocentric Julian date, the
orbital phase (according to the ephemeris in Eq.~1), the radial velocities of the two components with the
corresponding standard deviations.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccccc@{}c}
\hline
HJD 2400000+ & Phase & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Star 1 }& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Star 2 } 	\\
             &       & $V_p$                      & $\sigma$                    & $V_s$   	& $\sigma$	\\
\hline
55390.47353 &	0.9098 &  22.3 &  4.8 &     --- &    --- \\
55391.36826 &	0.1265 & -35.8 &  3.2 &    58.9 &   5.3 \\
55392.52267 &	0.4061 & -28.2 &  4.6 &    44.1 &   7.7 \\
55393.39257 &	0.6168 &  25.5 &  6.6 &   -60.8 &   5.8 \\
55393.56632 &	0.6589 &  35.6 &  6.0 &   -82.5 &   4.8 \\
55394.40416 &	0.8618 &  32.3 &  4.2 &   -72.3 &   4.1 \\
55396.39116 &	0.3431 & -42.2 &  2.2 &    66.6 &   7.1 \\
55397.54163 &	0.6217 &  25.3 &  7.1 &   -67.7 &   8.5 \\
55398.36226 &	0.8205 &  37.6 &  3.3 &   -84.3 &   4.1 \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

The heliocentric radial velocities for the primary (V$_p$) and the secondary (V$_s$) components are listed in Table\,3 , along
with the dates of observations and the corresponding orbital phases computed with the new ephemeris given in previous
section. The velocities in this table have been corrected to the heliocentric reference system by adopting a radial velocity of
14 \kms for the template star GJ\,182. The radial velocities listed in Table\,3 are the weighted averages of the values obtained
from the cross-correlation of orders \#4, \#5, \#6 and \#7 of the target spectra with the corresponding order of the standard star
spectrum. The weight $W_i = 1/\sigma_i^2$ has been given to each measurement. The standard errors of the weighted means have been
calculated on the basis of the errors ($\sigma_i$) in the velocity values for each order according to the usual formula (e.g.
Topping 1972). The $\sigma_i$ values are computed by {\sc fxcor} according to the fitted peak height, as described by \citet{Tonry_Davis}. The
radial velocities are plotted against the orbital phase in Fig.\,6, which also includes the radial velocities measured by \citet{Devor}.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{RV.ps}\\
\caption{Radial velocities folded on a period of 4.129-day and the model. Points with error bars (error bars are masked by
the symbol size in some cases) show the radial velocity measurements for the components of the system
(primary: filled circles, secondary: open squares). The velocities measured by \citet{Devor} are shown by empty circles. } \end{figure}

\subsection{Light curve and radial velocities modeling}
We used the most recent version of the eclipsing binary light curve modeling algorithm of \citet{wil}, as implemented in the
{\sc phoebe} code of Pr{\v s}a \& Zwitter (2005), further developed by \citet{Wil} . In order to obtain the physical parameters of the component stars we, in
the first step, analysed simultaneously  the detrended Kepler's R-data, plotted in the bottom panel of Fig. 2, and radial velocities
shown in Fig. 6. The Wilson-Devinney code needs some input parameters, which depend upon the physical structures of the component
stars. The values of these parameters can be estimated from global stellar properties. Therefore, we adopted the linear limb-darkening
coefficients from Van Hamme (1993) as 0.635 and 0.602 for the primary and secondary components, respectively, taking into account the
effective temperatures and the wavelengths of the observations; the bolometric albedos from \citet{lucy} as 0.5, typical for a
convective stellar envelope, the gravity brightening coefficients as 0.32 for both components. The rotational velocities of the
components are assumed to be synchronous with the orbital one.

The adjustable parameters in the light and RV curves fitting were the orbital
inclination, the surface potentials of the two stars, the effective temperature of the secondary, and the color-dependent luminosity
of the hotter star, the zero-epoch offset, semi-major axis of the orbit, the mass-ratio and the systemic velocity. A detached configuration
(Mode 2) with coupling between luminosity and temperature was used for solution. The iterations were carried out automatically until
convergence, and a solution was defined as the set of parameters for which the differential corrections were smaller than the probable
errors. The computed light curve corresponding to the simultaneous light-velocity solution is compared with the observations in the
bottom panel of Fig.2 and in Fig.6.

It is obvious from these figures that the observed light curves and radial velocities are reproduced by the best fit theoretical curves shown by solid lines.
However, systematic deviations are apparent in the light curve, especially at out-of-eclipses. The light curve of the system is asymmetric in shape
and varies with time. The wave-like distortion at out-of-eclipses in the light curves of T-Cyg1-12664 is attributed to the spot or spot groups on the
primary star. The amplitudes of these variations exceed sometime the depth of the secondary eclipse. Therefore, we assumed that solar-like
activity originates in the K5 star, maculation effects are separable from proximity and eclipse effects, and a cool, circular spot model may represent
the parameters of the spotted regions. Due to the very small light contribution of the secondary star, as it is indicated by the preliminary
analysis, the K5 star should be responsible for the magnetic activity which will be discussed in Sec.4. The second step was to include spot
parameters as adjustable parameters. Using a trial-error method we estimated preliminary parameters for the spots. The shape of the
distortion on the light curve depends upon the number of spots, locations and sizes on the star's surface. The trial-and-error method indicated
that distortions could be represented by two cool spots on the primary star. Since the amplitude and shape of the wave-like distortion vary
with time we divided the data into ten separate parts with a three-day intervals. The parameters calculated in the first step were taken as
input parameters as well as spot parameters. The analysis was repeated and the final parameters and spot parameters are  listed in
Tables\,4 and 5, respectively. The uncertainties assigned to the adjusted parameters are the internal errors provided directly by the
Wilson-Devinney code.

We also searched for the light contribution of the third star. Third light is added to the adjustable parameters but this trial is failed. This is because
either light contribution of the third star is as small as to be ignored at the R-bandpass or its effect is overcome by the spot effects.

The computed light curves (continuous lines) are compared with the observations in Fig.\,7 (five panels from top to bottom) . In the bottom
two panels of Fig.\,7  we also compare the computed curves with our R-data and the {\em TrES} r-passband data. The last two figures are
presented only for comparison the observations with the computed curves obtained by the $Kepler$ data.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{kepler_some.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:periodresids} Sample light curves for T-Cyg1-12664 obtained in the $Kepler-R$-passband and the computed curves including spot parameters. In the sixth panel from top-to-bottom our ground-based R-passband light curve with spots and in the bottom panel the observations obtained by $TrES$ is compared with the computed light curve without spots. } \end{figure}

\begin{table}
\scriptsize
\caption{Results of the $Kepler-R$-passband light curves and radial velocities analyses for T-Cyg1-12664. }
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.8pt}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline
Parameters  &  $Kepler-R $  \\
\hline
$i^{o}$																&83.84$\pm$0.04									\\
$\Omega_1$												&18.398$\pm$0.076					\\
$\Omega_2$												&7.341$\pm$0.049						\\
T$_{eff_1}$ (K)											&4320[Fix]											\\
T$_{eff_2}$ (K)											&2750$\pm$8									\\
$a$ (R$_{\odot}$)									    &10.904$\pm$0.016				\\
$V_{\gamma}$ (km s$^{-1}$)				                &-4.764$\pm$0.001 							\\
$q$														&0.5021$\pm$0.0018	\\
r$_1$				   									&0.0562$\pm$0.0002					\\
r$_2$												    &0.0823$\pm$0.0007					\\
$\frac{L_{1}}{(L_{1}+L_{2})}$ 	       					&0.8980$\pm$0.0018				\\
$\chi^2$												&0.015						\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table*}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{minipage} {12 cm}
\caption{The spot parameters.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c| c| c| c|}
\hline
\hline
BJD	& Spot 	&$Co-Lat$ ($^{\circ}$)    & $Co-Long$ ($^{\circ}$)	&	$R$ ($^{\circ}$) &  $T_{Spot}$/$T_{Sur}$ 	\\
\hline
54965-54968 &  I  &	 51.4$\pm$2.5  &  49.1$\pm$1.2 & 12.4$\pm$0.3 & 0.9782$\pm$0.0012 \\
            &  II &	 93.4$\pm$1.1  & 220.2$\pm$0.8 & 20.2$\pm$0.4 & 0.9900$\pm$0.0003 \\

54982-54985 &  I  &	 14.9$\pm$1.1  &  59.9$\pm$0.3 & 17.3$\pm$0.1 & 0.9610$\pm$0.0006 \\
            &  II &      78.0$\pm$0.6  & 265.5$\pm$0.6 & 16.6$\pm$0.1 & 0.9621$\pm$0.0006 \\

55003-55006 &  I  &	106.8$\pm$1.3  & 115.0$\pm$1.5 & 15.7$\pm$0.2 & 0.9702$\pm$0.0008 \\
            &  II &	 91.6$\pm$0.4  & 340.0$\pm$0.7 & 19.9$\pm$0.1 & 0.9631$\pm$0.0005 \\

55034-55037 &  I  &	 45.2$\pm$4.1  & 100.2$\pm$1.2 & 18.3$\pm$0.2 & 0.9573$\pm$0.0005 \\
            &  II &	 85.7$\pm$25.7 & 260.5$\pm$0.6 &  9.9$\pm$0.1 & 0.9783$\pm$0.0010 \\

55079-55082 &  I  &	 97.7$\pm$0.9  &  99.9$\pm$1.3 & 15.2$\pm$0.3 & 0.9880$\pm$0.0006 \\
            &  II &	 48.8$\pm$1.3  & 260.0$\pm$1.6 & 16.1$\pm$0.3 & 0.9849$\pm$0.0006 \\

55760-55763 &  I  &	 90.7$\pm$10.7 &  30.8$\pm$1.9 & 16.1$\pm$0.2 & 0.8800$\pm$0.0042 \\
            &  II &	135.7$\pm$1.1  & 277.0$\pm$4.4 & 18.3$\pm$0.4 & 0.8800$\pm$0.0066 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\smallskip

\subsection{Absolute parameters}
The orbital inclination and mean fractional radii of the components are found to be $i$=83.84$\pm$0.04,
r$_1$=0.0562$\pm$0.0002, and r$_2$=0.0823$\pm$0.0007 from the light and radial velocity curves analyses. The
separation between the components was estimated to be $a$=10.904$\pm$0.016 R$_{\odot}$. The effective temperature of 5770 K and bolometric
magnitude of 4.74 mag are adopted for the Sun. The standard deviations of the parameters have been determined by JKTABSDIM\footnote{This
can be obtained from http://http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/$\sim$jkt/codes.html} code, which calculates distance and
other physical parameters using several different sources of bolometric corrections (Southworth et al. 2005). The best
fitting parameters are listed in Table\,6 together with their formal standard deviations. The masses of the primary and
secondary stars are determined with an accuracy of about 3\%  and 3.5\% , respectively, while the radii with 1 \% . We
compared the position of the primary star in the age-radius diagram with the evolutionary tracks of \citet{gir00} for
solar metallicity. The location of the primary star in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is in a good agreement with those
of K5 main-sequence stars. We roughly estimate its age as 3.4 Gyr. This indicates that the secondary star should also
be on the main-sequence band of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

The light contribution of the primary star is found to be 0.898 for the R-passband. Its apparent visual magnitude is calculated
as 13.14$\pm$0.30 mag. The interstellar reddening of E(B-V)=0.0 mag yield a distance to the system as 126$\pm$13  pc for
the bolometric correction of -0.72 mag for a K5 main-sequence star \citep{drill}. However, the mean distance to the system
is estimated as 128$\pm$14 pc for the the bolometric corrections taken from  \citet{gir02}. The mean distance to the system
was determined as 127$\pm$14 pc.

\subsection{Kinematics}
To study the kinematical properties of T-Cyg1-12664, we used the system's centre-of-mass velocity, distance and proper motion values. The
proper motion data were taken from 2MASS catalogue \citep{Skrutskie06}, whereas the centre-of-mass velocity and
distance are obtained in this study. The system's space velocity was calculated using \citet{sod87} algorithm. The U, V and W space
velocity components and their errors were obtained and given in Table\,6. To obtain the space velocity precisely, the first-order galactic
differential rotation correction was taken into account \citep{mih81}, and -1.08 and 0.65 \kms differential corrections were applied to
U and V space velocity components, respectively. The W velocity is not affected in this first-order approximation. As for the LSR (Local Standard of Rest) correction,
\citet{mih81} values (9, 12, 7)$_{\odot}$ \kms were used and the final space velocity of T-Cyg1-12664 was obtained as  {\it S}\,=17 \kms. This
value is in agreement with space velocities of the young stars \citep{montes2001}.

\begin{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.5pt}
\caption{Fundamental parameters of T-Cyg1-12664.}
\label{parameters}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{0.25cm}T-Cyg1-12664} 																									\\
Parameter 												& Primary	&	Secondary																						\\
\hline
Mass (M$_{\odot}$) 								& 0.680$\pm$0.021 & 0.341$\pm$0.012																\\
Radius (R$_{\odot}$) 								& 0.613$\pm$0.007 & 0.897$\pm$0.012																\\
$T_{eff}$ (K)											& 4\,320$\pm$100	& 2\,750$\pm$65      																\\
$\log~g$ ($cgs$) 										& 4.696$\pm$0.006 & 4.065$\pm$0.011															\\
$\log~(L/L_{\odot})$								& -0.928$\pm$0.041	& -1.381$\pm$0.043       															\\
$(vsin~i)_{calc.}$ (km s$^{-1}$)			&7.51$\pm$0.08  &10.99$\pm$0.15       																		\\
Spectral Type											& K5V$\pm$1  	&M3V$\pm$1  																		\\
$d$ (pc)													& \multicolumn{2}{c}{127$\pm$14}																	\\
$\mu_\alpha cos\delta$, $\mu_\delta$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{-18$\pm$6, -6$\pm$2} 							\\
$U, V, W$ (km s$^{-1}$)  						& \multicolumn{2}{c}{4$\pm$1, 2$\pm$1, -7$\pm$1}										\\
\hline
 \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Ca_ii.ps}
\caption{Ca {\sc ii}-K (3933.68 \AA)\,and Ca {\sc ii}-H (3968.49 \AA) emission lines in the spectrum of the primary star.} \end{figure}

\section{Stellar activity}
The VRI light curves of T-Cyg1-12664 clearly show wave-like distortions, especially at out-of-eclipse. Such a cyclic variation is
common properties of the active binary systems, i.e. RS CVn-type binaries. The amplitude of distortions on the light curves
appears to change during the time span of the observations. The minimum and maximum amplitudes are measured as 5.9
and 30.5 mmag, respectively. However, the amplitudes of the wave-like distortion in the ground-based observations are
0.061, 0.042 and 0.033 mag in V-, R- and I-passband light curves, respectively. The effect of distortion is diminishing toward
the longer wavelengths as it is expected for a K5 star. As it is evidenced from the top panel of Fig.2 the amplitude of the
distortion increases up to about BJD 2455014 and then decreases again. A preliminary cycle for distortion is estimated to
be about 127 days. The wave-like distortion has been represented by two spots located on the K5 star. The spot parameters
are already given in Table 5. They are located at latitudes between 15 and 135 degrees, mostly in 40-100 degrees. It seems
that they are located at longitudes of 90 and 270 degrees separated about 180 degrees. This result indicates that there are
two active regions on the primary star. Such active longitude belts are common in chromospherically active stars
\citep{Eat}, \citep{Uch}.  The amplitude of the distortion is increased when the spots are located at latitudes about 90
and 107 degrees. The spots appears to be cooler about 140 K than the effective temperature of the primary star. In
addition, the mean brightness level at the maxima, i.e. (MaxI+MaxII)/2, of the system varies of about 8 mmag with
a cycle of about 90 days. The mean brightness has reached two local maxima and minima (see Fig. 2 middle panel).

The mostly used indicator of the stellar activity is Ca {\sc ii} emission lines. In Fig.\,8 the Ca {\sc ii} - K (3933.68 Å)
and Ca {\sc ii} - H (3968.49 Å) emission lines for primary are shown. In the spectrum of the system hydrogen absorption
lines are usually shallow which is another indicator of the stellar activity.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{bis_time_span.ps}
\caption{Bisector velocity span vs. radial velocity for the system. The clear negative correlation indicates that radial velocity variations are due to stellar activity. } \end{figure}

We also carried out a line bisector (BIS) analysis to enable us to find out whether the light curves and line profile variations may be attributed to
starspots. It is a method describing quantitatively the tiny asymmetry or subtle changes in the line profiles. It is easily done by marking
the middle of horizontal cuts of profile in the different line depths. The line connecting such points (called bisector) is then zoomed in
horizontal (wavelength or radial velocity) direction. The characteristic shapes of bisector are reported in the literature (see for example
\citep{Que98}; \citep{fio2005}); {\it i}) anti-correlation, which indicates that the radial velocity variations are due to stellar activity (by active
regions at the stellar surface like spots or plages), {\it ii}) lack of correlation, which indicates the Doppler reflex motion around the centre-of-
mass due to the other bodies orbiting the star, {\it iii}) correlation, which, as pointed out by \citet{fio2005}, indicates that the radial velocity
variations are due to light contamination from an unseen stellar companion.

As shown in Fig.\,9, there is an anti-correlation between BIS and radial velocity, with a reliable correlation coefficient. This result suggests that the
radial velocity variations of T-Cyg1-12664  are due to stellar activity variations (e.g. spots on photosphere).

\begin{table*}
\scriptsize
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.5pt}
\caption{The mass, radius, effective temperature and orbital period of the low-mass stars in the double-lined eclipsing binaries. }
\begin{tabular}{lcrclrclrclccr}
\hline
Object	&Star	&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Mass/\Msun}	&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Radius/\Rsun}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{T$_{\rm eff}$/K}&P$_{\rm orb}/\rm day$	&Refs	&\\
\hline
CM Dra		&A	&0.2310	&$\pm$	&0.0009	&0.2534	&$\pm$	&0.0019	&3130	&$\pm$	&70	&1.276	&1	&\\
				&B	&0.2141	&$\pm$	&0.0008	&0.2398	&$\pm$	&0.0018	&3120	&$\pm$	&70	&	&	&\\
YY Gem	&A	&0.5992	&$\pm$	&0.0047	&0.6194	&$\pm$	&0.0057	&3820	&$\pm$	&100	&0.820	&2	&\\
				&B	&0.5992	&$\pm$	&0.0047	&0.6194	&$\pm$	&0.0057	&3820	&$\pm$	&100	&	&	&\\
CU Cnc		&A	&0.4349	&$\pm$	&0.0012	&0.4323	&$\pm$	&0.0055	&3160	&$\pm$	&150	&2.794	&3	&\\
				&B		&0.3992	&$\pm$	&0.0009	&0.3916	&$\pm$	&0.0094	&3125	&$\pm$	&150	&	&	&\\
GU Boo	&A	&0.6101	&$\pm$	&0.0064	&0.6270	&$\pm$	&0.0160	&3920	&$\pm$	&130	&0.492	&4	&\\
				&B	&0.5995	&$\pm$	&0.0064	&0.6240	&$\pm$	&0.0160	&3810	&$\pm$	&130	&	&	&\\
TrES-Her0-07621	&A	&0.4930	&$\pm$	&0.0030	&0.4530	&$\pm$	&0.0600	&3500	&$\pm$	&...  &1.137	&5	&\\
	&B	&0.4890	&$\pm$	&0.0030	&0.4520	&$\pm$	&0.0500	&3395	&$\pm$	& ...&	&	&\\
2MASS J05162881+2607387	&A	&0.7870	&$\pm$	&0.0120	&0.7880	&$\pm$	&0.0150	&4200	&$\pm$	&...&2.619	&6	&\\
	&B	&0.7700	&$\pm$	&0.0090	&0.8170	&$\pm$	&0.0100	&4154	&$\pm$	& ...&	&	&\\
UNSW-TR 2	&A	&0.5290	&$\pm$	&0.0350	&0.6410	&$\pm$	&0.0500	& ...&$\pm$	& ...	&2.144	&7	&\\
	&B	&0.5120	&$\pm$	&0.0350	&0.6080	&$\pm$	&0.0600	& ...	&$\pm$	& ...	&	&	&\\
NSVS 06507557	&A	&0.6560	&$\pm$	&0.0860	&0.6000	&$\pm$	&0.0300	&3960	&$\pm$	&80	&0.520	&8	&\\
	&B	&0.2790	&$\pm$	&0.0450	&0.4420	&$\pm$	&0.0240	&3365	&$\pm$	&80	&	&	&\\
NSVS 02502726	&A	&0.7140	&$\pm$	&0.0190	&0.6740	&$\pm$	&0.0600	&4300	&$\pm$	&200	&0.560	&9	&\\
	&B	&0.3470	&$\pm$	&0.0120	&0.7630	&$\pm$	&0.0050	&3620	&$\pm$	&205	&	&	&\\
T-Lyr1-17236	&A	&0.6795	&$\pm$	&0.0107	&0.6340	&$\pm$	&0.0430	&4150	&$\pm$	& ...	&8.430	&10	&\\
	&B	&0.5226	&$\pm$	&0.0061	&0.5250	&$\pm$	&0.0520	&3700	&$\pm$	& ... &	&	&\\
2MASS J01542930+0053266	&A	&0.6590	&$\pm$	&0.0310	&0.6390	&$\pm$	&0.0830	&3730	&$\pm$	&100	&2.639	&11	&\\
	&B	&0.6190	&$\pm$	&0.0280	&0.6100	&$\pm$	&0.0930	&3532	&$\pm$	&100	&	&	&\\
GJ 3236	&A	&0.3760	&$\pm$	&0.0170	&0.3828	&$\pm$	&0.0072	&3310	&$\pm$	&110	&0.770	&12	&\\
	&B	&0.2810	&$\pm$	&0.0150	&0.2992	&$\pm$	&0.0075	&3240	&$\pm$	&110	&	&	&\\
SDSS-MEB-1	&A	&0.2720	&$\pm$	&0.0200	&0.2680	&$\pm$	&0.0090	&3320	&$\pm$	&130	&0.410	&13	&\\
	&B	&0.2400	&$\pm$	&0.0220	&0.2480	&$\pm$	&0.0080	&3300	&$\pm$	&130	&	&	&\\
BD -22 5866	&A	&0.5881	&$\pm$	&0.0029	&0.6140	&$\pm$	&0.0450	& ...	&$\pm$	& ...	&2.211	&14	&\\
	&B	&0.5881	&$\pm$	&0.0029	&0.5980	&$\pm$	&0.0450	& ...	&$\pm$	& ...	&	&	&\\
NSVS 01031772	&A	&0.5428	&$\pm$	&0.0027	&0.5260	&$\pm$	&0.0028	&3615	&$\pm$	&72	&0.368	&15	&\\
	&B	&0.4982	&$\pm$	&0.0025	&0.5088	&$\pm$	&0.0030	&3513	&$\pm$	&31	&	&	&\\
NSVS 11868841	&A	&0.8700	&$\pm$	&0.0740	&0.9830	&$\pm$	&0.0300	&5260	&$\pm$	&110	&0.602	&8	&\\
	&B	&0.6070	&$\pm$	&0.0530	&0.9010	&$\pm$	&0.0260	&5020	&$\pm$	&110	&	&	&\\
GJ 2069A	&A	&0.4329	&$\pm$	&0.0018	&0.4900	&$\pm$	&0.0800	& ...	&$\pm$	& ...	&2.771	&16	&\\
	&B	&0.3975	&$\pm$	&0.0015	&0.3300	&$\pm$	&0.0400	& ...	&$\pm$	& ...	&	&	&\\
2MASS J04463285+1901432	&A	&0.4700	&$\pm$	&0.0500	&0.5700	&$\pm$	&0.0200	&3320	&$\pm$	&150	&0.630	&18	&\\
	&B	&0.1900	&$\pm$	&0.0200	&0.2100	&$\pm$	&0.0100	&2910	&$\pm$	&150	&	&	&\\
NSVS 6550671	&A	&0.5100	&$\pm$	&0.0200	&0.5500	&$\pm$	&0.0100	&3730	&$\pm$	&60	&0.193	&19	&\\
	&B	&0.2600	&$\pm$	&0.0200	&0.2900	&$\pm$	&0.0100	&3120	&$\pm$	&65	&	&	&\\
IM Vir	&A	&0.9810	&$\pm$	&0.0120	&1.0610	&$\pm$	&0.0160	&5570	&$\pm$	&100	&1.309	&20	&\\
	&B	&0.6644	&$\pm$	&0.0048	&0.6810	&$\pm$	&0.0130	&4250	&$\pm$	&130	&	&	&\\
RXJ0239.1	&A	&0.7300	&$\pm$	&0.0090	&0.7410	&$\pm$	&0.0040	&4645	&$\pm$	&20	&2.072	&21	&\\
	&B	&0.6930	&$\pm$	&0.0060	&0.7030	&$\pm$	&0.0020	&4275&$\pm$	&	15&	&	&\\
ASAS\,J045304-0700.4	&A	&0.8452	&$\pm$	&0.0056	&0.848	&$\pm$	&0.005	&5324	&$\pm$	&200	&1.6224	&22	&\\
	&B	&0.8390	&$\pm$	&0.0056	&0.833	&$\pm$	&0.005	&5105&$\pm$	&	200&	&	&\\
ASAS\,J082552-1622.8	&A	&0.703	&$\pm$	&0.003	&0.694	&$\pm$	&0.007	&4230	&$\pm$	&200	&1.52852	&22	&\\
	&B	&0.687	&$\pm$	&0.003	&0.699	&$\pm$	&0.011	&4280&$\pm$	&	200&	&	&\\
ASAS\,J093814-0104.4	&A	&0.771	&$\pm$	&0.033	&0.772	&$\pm$	&0.012	&4360	&$\pm$	&200	&0.897442	&23	&\\
	&B	&0.768	&$\pm$	&0.021	&0.769	&$\pm$	&0.013	&4360&$\pm$	&	200&	&	&\\
ASAS\,J212954-5620.1	&A	&0.833	&$\pm$&0.017&0.845	&$\pm$	&0.012	&4750	&$\pm$	&150	&0.702430	&23	&\\
	&B	&0.703	&$\pm$	&0.013	&0.718	&$\pm$	&0.017	&4220 &$\pm$	&	180&	&	&\\

T-Cyg1-12664	&A	&0.680	&$\pm$&0.021&0.613	&$\pm$	&0.007	&4320	&$\pm$	&100	&4.12879779	&This study	&\\
	&B	&0.341	&$\pm$	&0.012	&0.897	&$\pm$	&0.012	&2750 &$\pm$	&	65&	&	&\\

\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[Ref:]{ (1)\,\citet{table1}, (2)\,\citet{table2}, (3)\,\citet{table3}, (4)\,\citet{table4}, (5)\,\citet{table5}, (6)\,\citet{table6}, (7)\,\citet{table7},
(8)\,\citet{table8}, (9)\,\citet{table9}, (10)\,\citet{2008AJ....135..850D}, (11)\,\citet{table11}, (12)\,\citet{table12}, (13)\,\citet{table13}, (14)\,\citet{table14},
(15)\,\citet{table15}, (16)\,\citet{table16}, (17)\,\citet{table17}, (18)\,\citet{table18}, (19)\,\citet{table19}  ,(20)\,\citet{table20}, (21)\,\citet{table21},
(22)\,\citet{table22}, (23)\,\citet{table23}}
\end{list}
\end{table*}

\section{Oversized Stars in the Low-Mass Eclipsing Binaries}
Abt (1963) and Duquennoy, Mayor and Halbwachs (1991) report that binary stars are more common
than single stars at masses above that of the Sun. In contrary, Reid \& Gizis (1997) and Delfosse
et al. (1999) suggest that binaries are not very common in low-mass stars, although approximately
75 \% of all stars in our Galaxy are low-mass dwarfs with masses smaller than 0.7 \Msun. Due to the
low binary fractions and their faintness very few low-mass eclipsing binary systems have been observed
so far both photometrically and spectroscopically, yielding accurate physical parameters.
Recently in a pioneer study, Ribas (2003, 2006) collected the available masses and radii of the low-mass stars
and compared with those obtained by stellar evolutionary models. Even small numbers of the sample, a total of eight
double-lined eclipsing binaries whose masses and radii are determined with an accuracy of better than 3 \%,
the comparison evidently revealed that the observed radii are systematically larger than the models. However,
the effective temperatures are cooler than the theoretical calculations, being the luminosities in agreement
with those of single stars with the same mass. This discrepancy between the models and observations has been explained
by Mullan and MacDonald (2001), Torres et al. (2006), Ribas (2006) and Lopez-Morales (2007) and others by the high
level magnetic activity in the low-mass stars. They suggest that stellar activity may be responsible for the observed
discrepancy through inhibition of convection or effects of a significant spot coverage. However, Berger et al. (2006)
compared the interferometric radii of low-mass stars with those estimated from theory and find a correlation between
an increase in metallicity and larger-than-expected radius, i.e. the larger radii are caused by differences in metallicity.

The number of double-lined low-mass eclipsing binaries having precise photometric and spectroscopic observations
is now reached to 26. Combining the results of the analysis of both photometric and spectroscopic observations
accurate masses, radii, effective temperatures and luminosities  of the components have been obtained.
In Table\,7 we list absolute parameters for the low-mass stars with their standard deviations.
In Fig.\,10 we show positions of the T-Cyg1-12664 components in the mass-radius (M-R) and mass - effective temperatures (M-T$_{\rm eff}$) planes relative to those of the well-determined
low-mass stars in the eclipsing binary systems. Theoretical M-R diagrams for a zero-age main-sequence stars with [M/H]=0
taken from the \citet{bar98} are also plotted for comparison.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figxxx.ps}
\caption{Components of T-Cyg1-12664 (squares with error bars) in the mass-radius plane (left panel). The less massive  component is located among
the most deviated stars from the theoretical mass-radius relationship \citep{cakirli}. The lines show stellar evolution models from
\citet{bar98} for zero-age mian-sequence with [M/H]=0 (solid line). Components of T-Cyg1-12664 (squares with error bars) in the mass-effective temperature plane (right panel). The less massive  component appears to the coolest star with respect to the model. }  \end{figure}

A low-mass star has a convective envelope with a radiative core. The depth of the convective zone is about
0.28 R for a star with a mass about 0.9 \Msun,~ and gradually increases to about 0.41 R for a 0.4 \Msun star.  Stars are
thought to be fully convective below about 0.35 \Msun.~ Therefore, the internal structure of such a low-mass star with a deep
convective zone is tightly dependent on the mixing length parameter, $\alpha$. \citet{cakirli} compared locations of the low-mass
stars in the M-R and M-T$_{eff}$ diagrams with the theoretical calculations for various $\alpha$ parameters. Convection is modelled
by mixing length theory (B{\"o}hm-Vitense 1981) with the ratio of mixing length to pressure scale height (i.e. $\alpha = l/H_p$). Theoretical
models show that there is no significant separation in the  M-R relation for the stars below about 0.6 \Msun~, depending
on the mixing length parameter. For masses above this value a separation is revealed. However, as the $\alpha$ parameter
increases the computed effective temperature gets higher. A separation is clearly seen even for the masses below 0.6 \Msun~. Empirical
parameters of the low-mass stars were also plotted in the same planes. This comparison clearly exposes that the discrepancies
in radii and effective temperatures could not be explained only by changing $\alpha$ parameter as it is obvious in M-R and
M-T$_{eff}$ relations. On the other hand Demory et al. (2009) showed that there is no significant correlation between metallicity
and radius of the single, low-mass stars. An alternative explanation remains to be the magnetic activity responsible for the
observed larger radii but cooler effective temperatures. As demonstrated by Mullan \& MacDonald (2001) and Chabrier et al. (2007) magnetic fields change the evolution of low-mass stars. Due to the high
magnetic activity in the fast-rotating dwarfs their surfaces are covered by dark spot(s) or spot groups. Spot coverage in active dwarfs
yields larger radii and lower effective temperatures. The secondary component of T-Cyg1-12664 appears to be the mostly deviated star from the normal
main-sequence stars in the M-R plane. The empirical relation between the mass and radius of low mass stars clearly shows that the stars
with masses below 0.27~\Msun\, follow theoretical M-R relation. Thereafter a slight deviation begins from theoretical expectations and the
largest deviation occurs for stars with a mass of about 0.34\,\Msun.\, Then, the deviations begin to decrease up to the solar mass. The
maximum deviation seen at a mass of 0.34\,\Msun\, which is very close to the mass of 0.35\,\Msun\, fully convective stars as suggested by theoretical studies \citep{reiners} .

\section{Discussion}
We obtained multi-band ,VRI light curves and spectra of T-Cyg1-12664. We
analyzed the Kepler's R-data consisting of 5708 observations and radial velocities simultaneously. The light contribution of the secondary star $L_2$/($L_1$+$L_2$)=0.031 and 0.102 were obtained for the V-, and R-bandpass, respectively. This result indicates that the light contribution of the less massive component is very small, indicating its effect on the color at out-of-eclipse is very limited for the shorter wavelengths. Kepler's R-data clearly show that there is a wave-like distortion on the light curve. Both the amplitude and the shape of these distortions vary with time. These distortions are modelled by two separate spots on the primary star, indicating two active longitude belts. In addition a sine-like variation in the mean normalized light of the system with a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.007
in light units has been revealed. Extracting light contribution of  the secondary star  to total light and adopting various bolometric contributions for a K5V star we estimated a distance of  127$\pm$14 pc for the system.

Comparison of the theoretical models shows that the secondary star has a radius of 2.8 times larger than that expected for its mass. It is located amongst the
largest deviated low-mass stars from the mass-radius relation of the zero-age main-sequence stars. However, its effective temperature seems to be the lowest with respect to the models for solar composition. The mass of the secondary star is obtained with an accuracy of about 3.5 \% which is very close to the mass of 0.35\,\Msun\, which represents stars passing from partially convective envelope to the fully convective ones.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank to T\"{U}B{\.I}TAK National Observatory (TUG) for a partial support in using RTT150 and T100 telescopes with project numbers
10ARTT150-483-0, 11ARTT150-123-0 and 10CT100-101.
We also thank to the staff of the Bak{\i}rl{\i}tepe observing station for their warm hospitality.
We thank the referee for a timely and useful report.
The following internet-based resources were used in research for this paper: the NASA Astrophysics Data System; the SIMBAD database operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France; T\"{U}B\.{I}TAK
ULAKB{\.I}M S\"{u}reli Yay{\i}nlar Katalo\v{g}u-TURKEY; and the ar$\chi$iv scientific paper preprint service operated by Cornell University. We are grateful to the anonymous referee, whose comments and suggestions helped to improve this paper.

\bibliographystyle{mn_new}