Several complex variables and analytic spaces Holomorphic convexity and pseudoconvexity Lemma
Narasimhan lemma
Builds on Strongly pseudoconvex domainLevi formBiholomorphismPeak function
Statement
Let be a domain with boundary, and let be a strongly pseudoconvex point. Then there is a biholomorphic map from an open neighbourhood of onto an open subset of with this property. The set is strictly convex. That is, the hypersurface has a defining function whose real Hessian is positive definite on the real tangent space at each of its points.
Remarks
The proof is a computation with the second-order Taylor expansion of a defining function at . After a complex-linear change of coordinates, and , where is the Levi form matrix. The holomorphic quadratic change of coordinates , for , removes the pure terms , so the new real Hessian at is given by the Levi form matrix. Strong pseudoconvexity makes it positive definite on the complex tangent space . The real tangent space at also contains the direction of . A further change , with suitable constants and , makes the Hessian positive definite on the whole real tangent space. Positive definiteness at then persists at nearby boundary points, by continuity. Example of use: local holomorphic peak functions at are obtained from linear functions in the convex coordinates. This is the first step towards the fact that every boundary point of a strongly pseudoconvex domain is a peak point. Without strong pseudoconvexity the lemma fails. If the boundary contains a complex disc, its image under a biholomorphic map is a complex disc in the new boundary, and a strictly convex hypersurface contains no such disc.
Going deeper
For a student
The lemma is used to build local peak functions and local holomorphic support functions, and to construct integral kernels, such as the Henkin–Ramírez kernels, near strongly pseudoconvex boundaries. It does not extend to weakly pseudoconvex points. Kohn and Nirenberg gave a pseudoconvex domain in with a boundary point near which no holomorphic coordinate change makes the domain convex. Globally the lemma also fails: a strongly pseudoconvex domain need not be biholomorphic to a convex domain, for instance because it need not be contractible, while convex domains are.
Reading path
To understand this page from the ground up, read these 5 pages in order. The foundations come first.
Show the path as a graph
- no evidence level
- Biholomorphism concept
- Levi form concept
- Peak function concept
- Strongly pseudoconvex domain concept
- Narasimhan lemma statement
Further reading
About this page
| Tag | QEEZEDBZ50 |
|---|---|
| URI | m2://QEEZEDBZ50 |
| Kind | statement, lemma |
| Writing | W0 stub |
| MSC | 32T15 |
| Status | This copy of the site has no build data. Run m2 status QEEZEDBZ50. |
| About | Strongly pseudoconvex domain |
| Uses | Strongly pseudoconvex domain, Levi form, Biholomorphism, Peak function |
Markdown · JSON · Edit on GitHub
What this page needs for W1
- an inventory row: the row of the inventory that the node accounts for (0 of 1)
- a source with a locator (0 of 1)
The writing levels say how complete the text of a page is. They do not measure its truth.
What links here
No page links to this page yet.