arxiv:math/ v1 [math.cv] 27 Aug 2006

Transcription

1 arxiv:math/ v1 [math.cv] 27 Aug 2006 AN EXAMPLE OF A C-CONVEX DOMAIN WHICH IS NOT BIHOLOMOPRHIC TO A CONVEX DOMAIN NIKOLAI NIKOLOV, PETER PFLUG AND W LODZIMIERZ ZWONEK Abstract. We show that the symmetrized bidisc is a C-convex domain. This provides an example of a C-convex domain which cannot be exhausted by domains biholomorphic to convex domains. 1. Introduction Recall that a domain D in C n is called C-convex if any non-empty intersection with a complex line is contractible (cf. [2, 9]). A consequence of the fundamental Lempert theorem (see [12]) is the fact that any bounded C-convex domain D with C 2 boundary has the following property (see [8]): ( ) The Carathéodory distance and Lempert function of D coincide. Any convex domain can be exhausted by smooth bounded convex ones (which are obviously C-convex); therefore, any convex domain satisfies ( ), too. To extend this phenomenon to bounded C-convex domains (see Problem 4 in [14]), it is sufficient to give a positive answer to one of the following questions: (a) Can any bounded C-convex domain be exhausted by (C 2 -)smooth C-convex domains? (See Problem 2 in [14] and Remark in [2].) (b) Is any bounded C-convex domain biholomorphic to a convex domain? (See Problem 4 in [14].) The main aim of this note is to give a negative answer to the question (b). Denote by G 2 the so-called symmetrized bidisc, that is, the image of the bidisc under the mapping whose components are the two elementary symmetric functions of two complex variables. G 2 serves as the first example of a bounded pseudoconvex domain in C 2 with the property 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 32F17. Key words and phrases. C-convex domain, linearly convex domain, symmetrized n-disc. The paper was initiated while the third author s research stay at the Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg which was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The third-named author was also supported by the KBN Research Grant No. 1 PO3A

2 2 NIKOLAI NIKOLOV, PETER PFLUG AND W LODZIMIERZ ZWONEK ( ) which cannot be exhausted by domains biholomorphic to convex domains (see [3, 6]). We shall show that G 2 is a C-convex domain. This fact gives a counterexample to the question (b) and simultaneously, it supports the conjecture that (cf. Problem 4 in [14]) any bounded C- convex domain has property ( ). Note that the answer to the problem (a) for G 2 is not known. The positive answer to this question would imply an alternative (to that of [4] and [1]) proof of the equality of the Carathéodory distance and Lempert function on G 2 whereas the negative answer would solve Problem 2 in [14]. Some additional properties of C-convex sets and symmetrized polydiscs are also given in the paper. 2. Background and results Recall that a domain D in C n is called (cf. [9, 2]): C-convex if any non-empty intersection with a complex line is contractible (i.e. D L is connected and simply connected for any complex affine line L such that L D is not empty); linearly convex if its complement in C n is a union of affine complex hyperplanes; weakly linearly convex if for any a D there exists an affine complex hyperplane through a which does not intersect D. Note that the following implications hold C-convexity linear convexity weak linear convexity. Moreover, these three notions coincide in the case of bounded domains with C 1 boundary. Let D denote the unit disc in C. Let π n = (π n,1,...,π n,n ) : C n C n be defined as follows: π n,k (µ) = µ j1...,µ jk, 1 k n, µ = (µ 1,...,µ n ) C n. 1 j 1 < <j k n The set G n := π n (D n ) is called the symmetrized n-disc (cf. [1], [11]). Recall that G 2 is the first example of a bounded pseudoconvex domain with the property ( ) which cannot be exhausted by domains biholomorphic to convex ones (see [3, 6]). On the other hand, G n, n 3, does not satisfy the property ( ) (see [13]). In particular, it cannot be exhausted by domains biholomorphic to convex domains, either. In this note we shall show the following additional properties of domains G n, n 2. Theorem 1. (i) G 2 is a C-convex domain. (ii) G n, n 3, is a linearly convex domain which is not C-convex.

3 AN EXAMPLE OF A C-CONVEX DOMAIN 3 Theorem 1 (i) together with a result of [3] and [6] gives a negative answer to the following question posed by S. V. Znamenskiĭ (cf. Problem 4 in [14]): Is any bounded C-convex domain biholomorphic to a convex domain? Moreover, it seems to us that Theorem 1 (ii) gives the first example of a linearly convex domain homeomorphic to C n, n 3, which is not C-convex, is not a Cartesian product and does not satisfy property ( ). To see that G n is homeomorphic to C n, observe that ρ λ (z) := (λz 1, λ 2 z 2,...,λ n z n ) G n if z G n and λ C. Then setting h(z) = max { µ j : π n (µ) = z} and g(z) = 1 1 j n 1 h(z), it is easy to see that the function G n z ρ g(z) (z) C n is the desired homeomorphism. These remarks also show that G n is close, in some sense, to a balanced domain, that is, a domain D in C n such that λz D for any z D and λ D. On the other hand, in spite of the properties of G n, one has the following. Proposition 2. Any weakly linearly convex balanced domain is convex. This proposition is a simple extension of Example in [2], where it is shown that any C-convex complete Reinhardt domain is convex. We may also prove some general property of C-convex domains showing that all bounded C-convex domains are c-finitely compact. For definition of the Carathéodory distance c D of the domain D, c-finite compactness, c-completeness and basic properties of these notions we refer the Reader to consult [10]. Proposition 3. Let D be a bounded C-convex domain in C n. Then D is c-finitely compact. In particular, D is hyperconvex and c-complete. Remark 4. The hyperconvexity of G n is simple and well-known (see [7]). The above proposition implies more in dimension two. Namely, it implies that the symmetrized bidisc is c-finitely compact. Although the symmetrized polydiscs in higher dimensions are not C-convex the conclusion of the above proposition, i.e. the c-finite compactness of the symmetrized n-disc G n, holds for any n 2. In fact, it is a straightforward consequence of Corollary 3.2 in [5]. Remark 5. Finally, we mention as a remark that, for n 2, G n is starlike with respect to the origin if and only if n = 2. This observation gives the next difference in the geometric shape of the 2-dimensional and higher dimensional symmetrized discs. Recall that the fact that G 2 is starlike is contained in [1]. For the converse just take the point (3, 3, 1, 0,..., 0).

4 4 NIKOLAI NIKOLOV, PETER PFLUG AND W LODZIMIERZ ZWONEK 3. Proofs To prove Theorem 1 (i), we shall make use of the following description of C-convex domains. For a D, where a D, we denote by Γ(a) the set of all tangent hyperplanes (in P n, that is, the set of directions) to D at a, where an affine hyperplane l is tangent to D at a if a l and l is disjoint from D. Theorem 6. (cf. [2]) Let D be a bounded domain in C n, n > 1. Then D is C-convex iff for any a D the set Γ(a) is non-empty and connected. Proof of Theorem 1 (i). In virtue of Theorem 6, we have to check that Γ(a) is non-empty and connected for any a D. Let us first consider a regular point G 2, that is, a point of the form π 2 (µ), where µ 1 = 1, µ 2 < 1 (or vica versa). Then the (unique) (complex) tangent line to D at a is of the form {π 2 (µ 1, λ) : λ C}, which is obviously disjoint from G 2. So Γ(a) is a singleton. Now we fix a non-regular point of G 2, that is, a point of the form π 2 (µ), where µ 1 = µ 2 = 1. After a rotation we may assume that µ 1 µ 2 = 1, that is, µ 2 = µ 1. Then µ 1 + µ 2 = 2 Reµ 1 =: 2x, where x [ 1, 1]. We shall find all the possible directions of complex lines passing simultaneously through π 2 (µ) and an element of G 2. Any such line is of the form π 2 (µ)+c(π 2 (µ) π 2 (λ)), where λ D 2. So the complement of the set Γ(π 2 (µ)) is actually the set of numbers of the form λ 1+λ 2 2x λ 1 λ 2 1, λ 1, λ 2 D. In particular, Γ(π 2 (µ)) is non-empty. To show the connectedness of Γ(π 2 (µ)) we shall check the simpleconnectedness of the set A := { λ 1 + λ 2 2x λ 1 λ 2 1 : λ 1, λ 2 D}. Let us recall that the mapping z α, where β > 1, maps the unit disc z β D into the disc ( 1 α β, α β ), so the set 1 β 2 β 2 1 {λ+λ 1 2x λλ 1 : λ D} equals 1 ( 2x 2 Reλ 1 1 λ 1 2, 2xλ 1 λ λ 1 2 ) =: A λ1. Consequently the set A = λ 1 D A λ 1 C is simply connected. Proof of Theorem 1 (ii). For the proof of the linear convexity of G n consider the point z = π n (λ) C n \ G n. Without loss of generality we may assume that λ 1 1. Then the set B := {π n (λ 1, µ 1,...,µ n 1 ) : µ 1,...,µ n 1 C}

5 AN EXAMPLE OF A C-CONVEX DOMAIN 5 is disjoint from G n. On the other hand, it is easy to see that B = {(λ 1 +z 1, λ 1 z 1 +z 2,...,λ 1 z n 2 +z n 1, λ 1 z n 1 ) : z 1,...,z n 1 C}, so B is a complex affine hyperplane. Hence G n is linearly convex. To show that G n is not C-convex for n 3, consider the points a t := π n (t, t, t, 0,..., 0) = (3t, 3t 2, t 3, 0,..., 0), b t := π n ( t, t, t, 0,..., 0) = ( 3t, 3t 2, t 3, 0,..., 0), t (0, 1). Obviously a t, b t G n. Denote by L t the complex line passing through a t and b t. We claim that L t G n is not connected for t (0, 1) sufficiently large, which will complete the proof of (ii). Note that L t = {(3t(1 2λ), 3t 2, t 3 (1 2λ), 0,..., 0) : λ C}. It is sufficient to show that for sufficiently large t (0, 1) there is no λ = 1 + iτ, where τ R, such that 2 c τ := (3t(1 2λ), 3t 2, t 3 (1 2λ), 0,..., 0) = ( 6iτt, 3t 2, 2iτt 3, 0,...,0) G n. Let c τ = π n (µ). Then without loss of generality we may assume that µ j = 0, j = 4,...,n and 36τ 2 t 2 = (µ 1 +µ 2 +µ 3 ) 2 = µ 2 1 +µ2 2 +µ2 3 +6t2, so t 2 = µ2 1 +µ2 2 +µ2 3. But the condition for the point c 36τ 2 6 τ to be contained in G n is that µ 1, µ 2, µ 3 < 1, so t 2 3 < 1. Therefore, for 36τ t [ 1 2, 1) there is no τ R such that c τ G n. Proof of Proposition 2. Set D := {w C n :< z, w > 1, z D}. We shall use the fact that a domain D in C n containing the origin is weakly linearly convex if and only if D is a connected component of D (cf. Proposition in [2]). Since our domain D is balanced, it is easy to see that D is balanced. We shall show D is convex. Then, applying this fact to D, we conclude that D is a convex balanced domain. On the other, it follows by our assumption that D is a component of D and hence D = D. To see that D is convex, suppose the contrary. Then we find z D, w 1, w 2 D and t (0, 1) such that < z, tw 1 + (1 t)w 2 >= 1. We may assume that < z, w 1 > 1. Since D is balanced, we get z := z D and < z, w <z,w 1 > 1 >= 1, a contradiction. Proof of Proposition 3. Fix a point from D. Without loss of generality we may assume that it is 0. Since D is C-convex it is linearly convex. Therefore, for any z D we find a vector hyperplane L(z) such that L(z)+z is an affine hyperplane passing through z, which is disjoint from

6 6 NIKOLAI NIKOLOV, PETER PFLUG AND W LODZIMIERZ ZWONEK D. Let l(z) := L(z). Let π z be the orthogonal projection of C n onto l(z) (in the sequel we identify l(z) with C). The set π z (D) is a bounded simply-connected domain in l(z) (see e.g. [2]), in particular, π z (D) is c-finitely compact. Moreover, π z (z) π z (D). Then c D (0, w) sup{c Dz (0, π z (w)) : z D}, w D. The c-finite compactness of π z (D) implies that c Dz (0, π z (w)) as D w z for any z D, which completes the proof. References [1] J. Agler, N. J. Young, The hyperbolic geometry of the symmetrized bidisc, J. Geom. Anal. 14 (2004), [2] M. Andersson, M. Passare, R. Sigurdsson, Complex convexity and analytic functionals, Birkhäuser, Basel Boston Berlin, [3] C. Costara, The symmetrized bidisc and Lempert s theorem, Bull. London Math. Soc. 36 (2004), [4] C. Costara, Dissertation, Université Laval (2004). [5] C. Costara, On the spectral Nevanlinna Pick problem, Studia Math. 170 (2005), [6] A. Edigarian, A note on Costara s paper, Ann. Polon. Math. 83 (2004), [7] A. Edigarian, W. Zwonek, Geometry of the symmetrized polydisc, Arch. Math. (Basel) 84 (2005), [8] D. Jacquet, C-convex domains with C 2 boundary, Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations 51 (2006), [9] L. Hörmander, Notions of convexity, Birkhäuser, Basel Boston Berlin, [10] M. Jarnicki, P. Pflug, Invariant Distances and Metrics in Complex Analysis, Walter de Gruyter, 8 (1993). [11] M. Jarnicki, P. Pflug, Invariant distances and metrics in complex analysis revisited, Diss. Math. 430 (2005), [12] L. Lempert, La métrique de Kobayashi et la représentation des domaines sur la boule, Bull. Soc. Math. France 109 (1981), [13] N. Nikolov, P. Pflug, W. Zwonek, The Lempert function of the symmetrized polydisc in higher dimensions is not a distance, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear (arxiv:math.cv/ ). [14] S. V. Znamenskiĭ, Seven C-convexity problems (in Russian), Complex analysis in modern mathematics. On the 80th anniversary of the birth of Boris Vladimirovich Shabat, E. M. Chirka (ed.), FAZIS, Moscow, 2001, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria address: nik@math.bas.bg Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Fachbereich Mathematik, Postfach 2503, D Oldenburg, Germany address: pflug@mathematik.uni-oldenburg.de

7 AN EXAMPLE OF A C-CONVEX DOMAIN 7 Instytut Matematyki, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Reymonta 4, Kraków, Poland address: Wlodzimierz.Zwonek@im.uj.edu.pl