Degree of Ball Maps with Maximum Geometric Rank
Abstract.
This work focuses on the degree bound of maps between balls with maximum geometric rank and minimum target dimension where this geometric rank occurs. Specifically, we show that rational proper maps between and with , , and geometric rank cannot have a degree of more than .
Key words and phrases:
rational maps, proper holomorphic mappings2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
32H35, 32A08, 32H021. Introduction
Rational proper maps between balls has intrigued mathematicians for a long time since Fatou [fatou-1923-fonctions] proved that proper holomorphic ball maps in one dimension are rational. Understanding and classifying these maps is still an active field of research a century later. Alexander [alexander-1977-proper] found that for , any proper holomorphic self map on the unit ball in a complex Euclidean space is necessarily an automorphism, hence rational of degree due to a classic result. This essentially completed our understanding of such maps between balls of the same dimension and inspired many researchers to search for such maps between balls of different dimensions for the next fifty years. It is a deep theorem of Forstnerič [forstneric-1989-extending] that any proper holomorphic map between and that extends smoothly enough up to the boundary is rational. Thus a general goal is to classify rational proper maps between balls up to spherical equivalence, that is, up to automorphisms. An important subclass is to classify the polynomial ones. D’Angelo [dangelo-1988-polynomial] has classified all such maps. The general problem of classifying rational ones is still an open problem. In this work, we will always assume .
Webster [webster-1979-mapping] was the first to successfully attempt the positive codimensional case showing that for and , any such map is spherically equivalent to the linear embedding map , which means that such maps are of degree . Faran [faran-1982-maps] complemented this result by showing that there are four spherical equivalence classes for and with maximum degree , but it was not clear why this case shows more equivalence classes than the case. Cima and Suffridge [cima-1983-reflection] conjectured and later Faran [faran-1986-linearity] proved that for , any such map is spherically equivalent to the linear embedding map, implying only degree- maps, and indicating a gap in the possible minimum target dimension .
Huang [huang-1999-linearity] proved the same result under weaker regularity hypothesis using the Cartan-Chern-Moser theory [chern-1974-real], which led to a series of results [huang-2001-mapping, huang-2003-semirigidity, hamada-2005-rational, huang-2006-new, huang-2014-third] in the same direction in the following decade. Huang and Ji [huang-2001-mapping] showed that there can be two equivalence classes for and with maximum degree . Among other results, Hamada [hamada-2005-rational] found all maps for and to have a maximum degree of . The work of [huang-2006-new] and [andrews-2016-mapping] classified the case and the case respectively, both showing a maximum degree of . Lebl [lebl-2011-normal] classified all degree- such maps into uncountably many spherical equivalence classes represented by monomial maps. More discussion on this subject can be found in the articles [forstneric-1993-proper, huang-2003-semirigidity, lebl-2024-exhaustion] and the book [dangelo-1993-several] and references therein.
One way of measuring the complexity of a rational proper map is its degree. The celebrated result of Forstnerič [forstneric-1989-extending] also shows that any rational proper map between and has a degree bounded by a constant depending only on the dimensions of the unit balls, but the bound was not sharp. D’Angelo [dangelo-2003-sharp] made a conjecture about the degree bound: that any rational proper map between balls has
where both bounds are known to be sharp if true. The conjecture has been proved for all such monomial maps by D’Angelo, Kos and, Riehl [dangelo-2003-sharp] for and by Lebl and Peters [lebl-2011-polynomials, lebl-2012-polynomials] for any . Meylan [meylan-2006-degree] showed that for , and D’Angelo and Lebl [dangelo-2009-complexity] later proved that for any , .
The proof of the and case [huang-2001-mapping] uses the rank of a certain matrix called geometric rank of the map, which is used to measure the degeneracy of the second fundamental form of the map. See Sections 2 and 2.1 for the definition. Huang [huang-2003-semirigidity] proved a deep result showing that maps with satisfy a semi-linearity property, which maps with may not, making the latter maps more complicated than the former. He also showed in the same work that , which implies that the minimum target dimension depends on the geometric rank. This splits the study of these maps into four problems:
-
(A)
Study rational proper maps with and ;
-
(B)
Study rational proper maps with and ;
-
(C)
Study rational proper maps with and ;
-
(D)
Study rational proper maps with and .
This, for example, explains why the and cases differ for .
The work of [huang-1999-linearity, huang-2001-mapping, ji-2004-maps, hamada-2005-rational, huang-2006-new, ji-2018-upper] deal with in many different settings. Huang, Ji, and Xu [huang-2006-new] confirmed D’Angelo conjecture for and geometric rank . The case of maximum geometric rank has mostly been unresolved. For Problem (C), the case has been solved by Faran [faran-1982-maps], where the sharp degree bound turned out to be . The case is still unresolved, but Huang, Ji, and Xu [huang-2005-several] found a degree bound of . The current work focuses on the degree bound of Problem (C). Our main result is as follows.
Theorem 1.1.
Let be a proper holomorphic map that is -smooth up to the boundary with geometric rank , , and . Then is rational with .
Two immediate corollaries are the following degree bounds for rational proper maps:
Corollary 1.2.
Let be a rational proper map with geometric rank , , and . Then .
Corollary 1.3.
Let , , and be a rational proper map with geometric rank . Then .
The case has been proved by Ji and Xu [ji-2004-maps].
2. Normal Forms, Geometric Rank, and Degree Bound
Our result is based on the normal form and the degree result in Corollary 2.4 which this section will lead to.
2.1. Associated Maps
We will use a series of associated maps and state a series of normalization for a rational proper map. Write for the Siegel upper half-space and for its boundary, the Heisenberg group. We parametrize by through the map , and for a non-negative integer and a function defined on a small ball around in , we write if uniformly for on every compact subset of as the real number .
Let be a rational CR map. Take any , consider and given by
where is the standard bilinear product. Then is a rational CR map with . It follows from Huang’s pioneer paper [huang-1999-linearity]*Section 4 that there are automorphisms and such that the rational CR map satisfies the following normalization condition:
with , where we denote by a homogeneous polynomial degree in , that is, for any .
2.2. The Geometric Rank
The normalization lets us write , where
(1) |
is an Hermitian positive semidefinite matrix. Write for the Cayley transformation, which extends to .
Definition 2.1 (Geometric Rank).
We define the geometric rank of a rational CR map at to be the rank of the from Equation 1, and the geometric rank of to be
The geometric rank of a rational proper map is defined to be the geometric rank of .
Note that . Huang [huang-2003-semirigidity]*Lemma 2.2 (B) showed that is independent of or and in fact depends only on the spherical equivalence class of . The geometric rank is used to measure the degeneracy of the second fundamental form of the map. The minimum geometric rank is associated with linear fractional maps [huang-1999-linearity].
To put the map into one more normal form, we write , , , and , number of elements in . We can use Lemma 3.2 and its proof from Huang [huang-2003-semirigidity] to show that if , then and there is an automorphism such that the rational CR map satisfies the following normalization condition:
Moreover, for , and for .
2.3. A Degree Result
Now let us focus on how to get a degree estimate from the normal forms.
Definition 2.2 (Degree of a Rational Map).
Let be a rational map from into in reduced terms. We define the degree of to be
Denote the Segre variety by . A useful result that we will use to find a degree estimate is due to Huang and Ji [huang-2001-mapping]*Lemma 5.4:
Proposition 2.3.
Let be a rational map from into in reduced terms and a positive integer such that for all close to the origin, . Then .
Writing gives us . Notice that
Since all automorphisms of are of degree , so is . We see that
which tells us that the condition from Proposition 2.3 is equivalent to .
We summarize these results in the following. Write and for the coefficient of and respectively in the Taylor series of . We get the following normal form up to 2nd order and degree result that will be useful to find degrees.
Corollary 2.4.
Let be a rational CR map of geometric rank . Then
-
(i)
.
-
(ii)
For every , is spherically equivalent to a rational CR map preserving the origin and satisfying the following normalization condition:
where , and .
-
(iii)
Moreover, let be a positive integer such that for all close to the origin, . Then .
3. Proof of the Main Result
3.1. Partial Normalization
Let be a proper holomorphic map that is -smooth up to the boundary with geometric rank , , and . Since , we get and hence is a rational map by [huang-2005-several]*Corollary 1.4. Let be the degree of the map . As the case has been proved in [ji-2004-maps], we will assume .
The map is a rational proper map between balls and so extends holomorphically across the boundary due to a well-known result by Cima and Suffridge [cima-1990-boundary], and takes to . Then the extension , which we will also call , is a rational CR map of degree , as and are rational maps of degree . Take any near the origin. Using Corollary 2.4 (ii) with , we get that is spherically equivalent to the origin preserving map
with
where for , for , and .
To prove that , it is sufficient to prove that for all , because of Corollary 2.4 (iii). Here .
Consider the CR vector fields
for and complexify these to get
Write and compute
for . On , we get the basic equation , that is,
Complexification gives us
(2) |
along any Segre variety .
Notation 1.
For any positive integer , denote by by the set .
3.2. A Degree Estimate
We will describe the normalized map along a Segre variety and get a degree estimate from there. Set and . We apply for and for on Equation 2 to get
Letting and gives us
that is, , and
Define
for . We will label the components of both by single indices and double indices , and write and .
At , we compute
for and .
Set and , so that at ,
Notice that at ,
and write
We see that at , , so that near the origin, and is invertible. Hence
and
which describes along the Segre variety in terms of the matrices and . We see that , , and are all polynomial maps in with
and
as polynomial maps in , so in .
We will in fact show in the next section that
-
(i)
and
-
(ii)
,
so that , giving us . Combining this with , we will have shown that , that is, , proving our desired result.
4. A Linear Algebraic Proof of the Claims
The proofs of both the claims are completely linear algebraic in nature.
Notation 2.
We will decompose a matrix of polynomials of degree into the unique homogeneous expansion
where is homogeneous of degree , that is, for any .
Notation 3.
For any matrix , we denote by
-
•
the -th element
-
•
the column
-
•
the matrix with row removed
-
•
the matrix with row and column removed.
4.1. Matrix Structures
We will look at the columns of linear and quadratic terms of matrix and those of matrix . We define the matrix and the column vector by defining and in the following way: Write , let be the Kronecker delta function, and define
We write for columns of to get that
Using 2, write . We see that the quadratic terms of form the matrix
so that all its columns are multiples of the column matrix , making a determinant- rank- matrix. Moreover, as
all columns of are linear combinations of s.
The linear terms of form the matrix
so that all its columns are linear combinations of s, making a determinant- rank- matrix. As a consequence, columns of s are linear combinations of s for .
Finally
so that each of its columns is a nonzero multiple of .
4.2. Determinants and Adjugates
We will need the following two lemmas.
Determinants are multilinear in columns: Let be a square matrix. Write for columns of and decompose a given column into finitely many terms. Then
(3) |
Adjugate matrices are not multilinear, but we get the following formula:
Lemma 4.1.
Let be a square matrix. Write for columns of and decompose a given column into finitely many terms. Then
Proof.
The key to the proof is that all the three matrices under the operator on the middle and right sides of the formula stay the same if we remove their -th columns. Using 3, we get that the -th element of is
where the last case of the last expression uses Equation 3. On the other hand, the -th element of the sum of the adjugate matrices in the formula is
This means that the -th element of
equals
which is the -the element of . ∎
Lemma 4.2.
Suppose that is a nonzero square matrix, and there are an integer with , linearly independent column vectors forming the matrix , linearly independent column vectors forming the matrix , and column vectors forming the matrix such that . Then
-
(i)
For all , row of is the zero vector, or equivalently, for all , the -th element of is zero.
-
(ii)
If also rank of is , then , or equivalently, for all .
Proof.
As the columns of the square matrix are linearly independent, the reduced row echelon form of is the identity matrix , that is, there is an invertible matrix with . This gives us
-
(i)
Write to mean the matrix with row and column removed using 3. Now for all ,
Since
we get
Hence row of .
-
(ii)
As , we get that , and there are and such that .
Since , we get
Hence . ∎
4.3. Claims
Now we are ready to prove both our claims.
Proposition 4.3.
If and are as before, then .
Proof.
Notice that each column of each matrix is homogeneous. The idea is that if there are enough constant columns, the degree of the determinant is low enough, and if there are too many nonconstant columns, these must be linearly dependent.
Take any , put , write for number of columns of with degree at least , and for number of columns of with degree . This gives us .
As columns of s are linear combinations of columns s for , so are s.
Case 1
First assume that . Then there are at least columns which are linear combinations of columns s, so that .
Case 2
Now assume that . Then there are at least two columns which are multiples of , so that .
Case 3
Finally assume that and . Then
Hence for all and so . ∎
Proposition 4.4.
If , , and are as before, then .
Proof.
Repetitive use of Lemma 4.1 on all columns of gives us
where , and we also allow to be to mean that is the zero column vector from Lemma 4.1. This tells us that
for all and
Once again, each column of each matrix is homogeneous. The idea is that if there are enough constant columns, the degree of the determinant is low enough, and if there are too many nonconstant columns, these must be linearly dependent. The proof is more technical than the previous one.
Write for number of columns of with degree at least , and for , for number of columns of with degree . This gives us .
As columns of s are linear combinations of columns s for , so are s. So columns of s are linear combinations of columns s for .
Case 1
Case 2
Finally assume that . Fix . For , row of for all by Lemma 4.2 (i), so that row of . Now let . We consider two subcases.
If , then
for all , so that
Otherwise , so that for all , there are at least two columns of which are multiples of , so that and row of .
Hence for all and so . ∎
This completes the proof of the main result Theorem 1.1.