arxiv: v1 [math.cv] 31 May 2017

Transcription

1 THE JACOBIAN CONJECTURE AND INJECTIVITY CONDITIONS SAMINATHAN PONNUSAMY, AND VICTOR V. STARKOV arxiv: v1 [math.cv] 31 May 217 Abstract. One of the aims of this artice is to provide a cass of poynomia mappings for which the Jacobian conjecture is true. Aso, we state and prove severa goba univaence theorems and present a coupe of appications of them. 1. Introduction and Main Resuts This artice mainy concerns with mappings f : C n C n, written in coordinates as f(z) = (f 1 (Z),...,f n (Z)), Z = (z 1,...,z n ). Wesaythatf isapoynomiamap ifeachcomponentfunctionf i : C n Cisapoynomia inn-variabesz 1,...,z n, for1 i n. Apoynomia mapf : C n C n iscaed invertibe if it has an inverse ( map which is aso a poynomia map. fj Let Df := z i )n n, 1 i,j n, be the Jacobian matrix of f. The Jacobian determinant is denoted by detdf. If a poynomia map f is invertibe and g = f 1, then g f = id and, because detdf detdg = 1, detdf must be a non-zero compex constant. However, the converse question is more difficut. Then the Jacobian conjecture (JC) asserts that every poynomia mapping f : C n C n is gobay invertibe if detdf is identicay equa to a non-zero compex constant. This conjecture remains open for any dimension n 2. We remar that the JC was originay formuated by Keer [13] in 1939 for poynomia maps with integer coefficients. In the case of dimension one, it is simpe. Poynomia map f is caed a Keer map, if detdf is a non-zero compex constant. In fact, Biaynici-Birua and Rosenicht [4] proved that a poynomia map is invertibe if it is injective. ItisasimpeexercisetoseethattheJCistrueifithodsforpoynomiamappingswhose Jacobian determinant is 1 and thus, after suitabe normaization, one can assume that detdf = 1. The JC is attractive because of the simpicity of its statement. Moreover, becausetherearesomanywaystoapproachandmaingitusefu, thejchasbeenstudied extensivey from cacuus to compex anaysis to agebraic topoogy, and from commutative agebra to differentia agebra to agebraic geometry. Indeed, some fauty proofs have even been pubished. The JC is stated as one of the eighteen chaenging probems for the twenty-first century proposed with brief detais by Fied medaist Steve Smae [19]. For the importance, history, a detaied account of the research on the JC and equivaent conjectures, and reated investigations, we refer for exampe to [3] and the exceent boo of van den Essen [11] and the references therein. See aso [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 14, 23, 24]. 2 Mathematics Subject Cassification. Primary: 14R15, 32A1; Secondary: 31A5, 31C1. Key words and phrases. Univaent, injectivity, Jacobian, poynomia map, Keer map, and Jacobian conjecture. Fie: PoStarov3.tex, printed: ,.36. 1

2 2 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov We woud ie to point out that in 198, Wang [22] showed that every Keer map of degree ess than or equa to 2 is invertibe. In 1982, Bass et. a [3] (see aso [5, 25]) showed that it suffices to prove the JC for a n 2 and a Keer mappings of the form f(z) = Z + H(Z), where Z = (z 1,...,z n ), and H is cubic homogeneous, i.e., H = (H 1,...,H n ) with H i (Z) = (L i (Z)) 3 and L i (Z) = a i1 z 1 + +a in z n, 1 i n. Cubic homogeneous map f of this form is caed a Drużowsi or cubic inear map. Moreover, poynomia mappings from C n to C n are we behaved than the poynomia mappings from R n to R n. Indeed, Pinchu [17] constructed an expicit exampe to show that there exists a non-invertibe poynomia map f : R 2 R 2 with detdf(x) for a X R 2. In any case, the study of the JC has given rise to severa surprising resuts and interesting reations in various directions and in different perspective. For instance, Abdesseam [1] formuated the JC as a question in perturbative quantum fied theory and pointed out that any progress on this question wi be beneficia not ony for mathematics, but aso for theoretica physics as it woud enhance our understanding of perturbation theory. The main purpose of this wor is to identify the Keer maps for which the JC is true. Theorem 1. The Jacobian conjecture is true for mappings F(X) = (A f B)(X), where X = (x 1,...,x n ) R n, A and B are inear such that deta.detb, f = (u 1,...,u n ), u (X) = x + [ α2 (x 1 + +x n ) 2 +α 3 (x 1 + +x n ) 3 + +α m (x 1 + +x n ) m] for = 1,...,n, α j, R with n =1 = and m N. Often it is convenient to identify X in C n (resp. R n ) as an n 1 matrix with entries as compex(resp. rea) numbers. It is interesting to now whether there are other poynomia mappings for which the JC is true in C n (resp. R n ). In this connection, we wi notice that for the case n = 2 of Theorem 1 it is possibe to prove the foowing: Theorem 2. With X = (x,y) R 2, consider f(x) = (u 1 (X),u 2 (X)), where u (X) for = 1,2 are as in Theorem 1 and f(x) = (u 1 (X)+W(X),u 2 (X)+w(X)), where W and w are homogeneouspoynomiasof degree(m+1) in x andy. If detd f(x) 1, then f = A 1 F A, where A is inear homogeneous nondegenerate mapping and F(X) = (u 1 (X)+α m+1 (x+y) m+1,u 2 (X) α m+1 (x+y) m+1 ), for some rea constant α m+1. The Jacobian conjecture is true for the mapping f. Remar. It foows from the proof of Theorem 2 that A equas the identity matrix I if f(x) X. Inconnection with Theorems 1 and2, it is interesting to notethat inthecase n = 2, the mappings F defined in Theorem 1 provides a compete description of the Keer mappings F for which degf 3 (see [21]). Next, we denote by P n (m), the set of a poynomia mappings F : R n R n of degree ess than or equa to m such that DF() = I and F() =. Let P n (m) be a subset

3 The Jacobian conjecture and injectivity conditions 3 consisting of mappings f P n (m) which satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1. Aso, we introduce P n (m) = {F P n (m) : F is injective}. If f,g P n (m), then f(x) = X +u(x) and g(x) = X +v(x)δ, where X = (x 1,...,x n ), = ( 1,..., n ), δ = (δ 1,...,δ n ), m m u(x) = α (x 1 + +x n ) and v(x) = β (x 1 + +x n ), =2 such that n =1 δ = n =1 =. Here α s and β s are some constants. It is obvious that f g is injective but it is unexpected that the composition f g aso beongs to P n (m). This circumstance aows us to generaize Theorem 1 significanty. Theorem 3. For n 3, consider the mapping f : R n R n defined by f(x) = (u 1,...,u n ), where u (X) = x +p (2) (x 1 + +x n ) 2 + +p (m) (x 1 + +x n ) m =2 ( = 1,...,n), and p () are constants satisfying the condition n =1 p() = for a = 2,...,m. Then we have f P n (m). From the proofs of Theorems 1, 2 and 3, it is easy to see that these resuts continue to hod even if we repace R n by C n. The proofs of Theorems 1, 2 and 3 wi be presented in Section 3. In Section 2, we present conditions for injectivity of functions defined on a convex domain. 2. Injectivity conditions on convex domains One can find discussion and severa sufficient conditions for goba injectivity [2, 16]. In the foowing, we state and prove severa resuts on injectivity on convex domains. Theorem 4. Let D R n be convex and f : D R n beong to C 1 (D). Then f = (f 1,...,f n ) is injective in D if for every X 1,X 2 D (X 1 X 2 ) and (t) = X 1 +t(x 2 X 1 ) for t [,1], deta, where A = (a ij ) n n with a ij = 1 f j x i ((t))dt, 1 i,j n. Proof. Let X 1,X 2 D be two distinct points. Since D is convex, the ine segment (t) D for t (,1) and thus, we have 1 f(x 2 ) f(x 1 ) = df(ζ) = Df(ζ)dζ = (Df)((t))(X 2 X 1 )dt. Taing into account of the assumptions, we deduce that f(x 2 ) f(x 1 ) for each X 1,X 2 D (X 1 X 2 ) if for every X R n \{}, 1 Df((t))dt X which hods whenever deta. The proof is compete.

4 4 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov We remar that Theorem 4 has obvious generaization for functions ( defined on convex domainsd C n fj. Inthiscase, thejacobianmatrixoff, i.e. Df = z i )n n, 1 i,j n, wi be used. Moreover, using Theorem 4, we may easiy obtain the foowing simpe resut. Coroary 1. Let D R n be a convex domain and f = (f 1,...,f n ) beong to C 1 (D). If for every ine L in R n, with L D, ( ) fj det (X i,j ) for every X i,j L D, x i then f is injective in D. Proof. Let X 1,X 2 D be two distinct points and (t) = X 1 + t(x 2 X 1 ) be the ine segment joining X 1 and X 2, t [,1]. Then, for every i,j = 1,...,n, we have 1 f j x i ((t))dt = f j x i (X i,j ), where X i,j (X 1,X 2 ). The desired concusion foows from Theorem 4. Coroary 2. Let D C be a convex domain, z = x+iy and f(z) = u(x,y)+iv(x,y) be anaytic in D. Then f is injective in D whenever for every z 1,z 2 D, we have [ ] ux (z det 1 ) v x (z 2 ) = u v x (z 2 ) u x (z 1 ) 2 x (z 1)+v x (z 2 ) 2. Coroary 2 shows that if u x or v x in a convex domain D, then the anaytic function f = u+iv is univaent (injective) in D. Thus, it is a sufficient condition for the univaency and is different from the necessary condition f (z), the fact that in the atter case u x and v x have no common zeros in D. The reader may compare with the we-nown Noshiro-Warschawsi theorem which asserts that if f is anaytic in a convex domain D in C and Ref (z) > in D, then f is univaent in D. See aso Coroary 4. Throughout we et R n + = {X = (x 1,...,x n ) R n : x 1 > } and S n 1 = {X R n : X = 1}, the unit sphere in the Eucidean space R n. Theorem 5. Let D R n be a convex domain, f : D R n beong to C 1 (D) and Ω = f(d). Then f is injective if and ony if there exists a φ C 1 (Ω), φ : Ω R n, satisfying the foowing property: for every X S n 1 there exists a unitary matrix U = U(X ) with (1) U (Dφ)(f(X)) Df(X)X R n + for every X D. Proof. Let X 1,X 2 D. Then the ine segment (t) connecting these points given by (t) = X 1 +t(x 2 X 1 ) beongs to the convex domain D for every t [,1]. We denote ψ = φ f and observe that 1 1 ψ(x 2 ) ψ(x 1 ) = dψ(ζ) = d(ψ )(t) = (Dψ)((t)) (X 2 X 1 )dt. If X 2 X 2, we may et X = X 2 X 1 X 2 X 1 S n 1.

5 The Jacobian conjecture and injectivity conditions 5 Sufficiency ( ): Now we assume (1) and show that f is injective on D. Because of the truth of (1), it foows that U(ψ(X 2 ) ψ(x 1 )) = X 2 X 1 1 U(Dψ)((t))X dt. Then the first component a 1 (t) of U(Dψ)((t))X = (a 1 (t),...,a n (t)) R n +, by definition, satisfies the positivity condition a 1 (t) > for each t and thus, 1 a 1(t)dt. Consequenty, f(x 2 ) f(x 1 ) for every X 1,X 2 (X 1 X 2 ) in D. Necessity ( ): Assume that f is injective in D. Then we may et φ = f 1 and assume that U is an unitary matrix such that UX = (1,,...,). This impies that ψ(x) X and thus, U (Dψ)((t))X (1,,...,) and (1) hods. It is now appropriate to state a severa compex variabes anaog of Theorem 5. As with standard practice, for D C n, we consider f C 1 (D), Ω = f(d) C n, φ C 1 (Ω), φ : Ω C n, Z = (z 1,...,z n ) C n, Z = ( z 1,..., z n ), and ψ = φ f. We frequenty, write down these mappings as functions of the independent compex variabes Z and Z, namey, as f(z,z), φ(w,w) and ψ(z,z). Denote as usua ψ = (ψ 1,...,ψ n ) (z 1,...,z n ) = ψ 1 z 1. ψ n z 1 ψ 1 z n. ψ n and ψ = (ψ 1,...,ψ n ) ( z 1,..., z n ). z n At this pace it is convenient to use ψ instead of Dψ. Then for (t) = Z 1 +t(z 2 Z 1 ), t (,1), we have ψ(z 2,Z 2 ) ψ(z 1,Z 1 ) = dψ(z, Z) = 1 Thus, Theorem 5 taes the foowing form. [ ] ψ((t),(t)) (Z 2 Z 1 )+ ψ((t),(t)) (Z 2 Z 1 ) dt. Theorem 6. Let D C n be a convex domain, f : D C n beong to C 1 (D) and Ω = f(d). Then f is injective in D if and ony if there exists a φ C 1 (Ω), φ : Ω C n satisfying the foowing property with ψ = φ f: for every Z C n, Z = 1, there exists a unitary compex matrix U = U(Z ) such that for every Z D, one has U [ ψ(z,z)z + ψ(z,z)z ] {Z C n : Rez 1 > }. In particuar, Theorem 6 is appicabe to puriharmonic mappings. In the case of panar harmonic mappings f = h+g, where h and g are anaytic in the unit dis D := {z C : z < 1}, Theorem 6 taes the foowing form another criterion for injectivity harmonic anaog of Φ-ie mappings, see [12, Theorem 1].

6 6 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov Coroary 3. Let f = h+g be harmonic on a convex domain D C and Ω = f(d). Then f is univaent in D if and ony if there exists a compex-vaued function φ = φ(w,w) in C 1 (Ω) and such that for every ǫ with ǫ = 1, there exists a rea number = (ǫ) satisfying Re { e i( φ(f(z),f(z))+ǫ φ(f(z),f(z)) )} > for a z D, where = z and = z. Severa consequences and exampes of Coroary 3 are discussed in [12] and they seem to be very usefu. Another univaence criterion for harmonic mappings of D = {z C : z < 1} was obtained in [2]. Moreover, using Coroary 3, it is easy to obtain the foowing sufficient condition for the univaency of C 1 functions. Coroary 4. ([15]) Let D be a convex domain in C and f be a compex-vaued function of cass C 1 (D). Then f is univaent in D if there exists a rea number such that Re ( e i f z (z) ) > fz (z) for a z D. For exampe, if f = h+g is a panar harmonic mapping in the unit dis D and if there exists a rea number such that (2) Re { e i h (z)} > g (z) for z D, then f is univaent in D. In[18], it was shown that harmonicfunctions f = h+g satisfying the condition (2) in D are indeed univaent and cose-to-convex in D, i.e., the compement of the image-region f(d) is the union of non-intersecting rays (except that the origin of one ray may ie on another one of the rays). Moreover, using Theorem 6, one can aso obtain a sufficient condition for p-vaent mappings. Coroary 5. Suppose that D R n is a domain such that D = p m=1 D m, where D m s are convex for m = 1,...,p. Furthermore, et f C 1 (D), Ω = f(d) R n, φ C 1 (Ω) such that for every X m S n 1 there exists a unitary matrix U m := U m (X m ) for each m = 1,...,p, such that U m (Dφ)(f(X)) (Df)(X) X m R n + for every X D m, m = 1,...,p. Then f is no more than p-vaent in D. 3. Proofs of Theorems 1, 2 and 3 Proof of Theorem 1. It is enough to prove the Theorem in the case A = B = I. For convenience, we et z = x 1 + +x n. Then u (X) = x + [ α2 z 2 +α 3 z 3 + +α m z m] for = 1,...,n, α j, R with n =1 = and X = (x 1,...,x n ). We first prove that detdf(x) 1. To do this, we begin to introduce Then a computation gives L(X) = 2α 2 z +3α 3 z 2 + +mα m z m 1. u x j = δ j + L.

7 and The Jacobian conjecture and injectivity conditions L 1 L... 1 L detdf = 2 L 1+ 2 L... 2 L.... = I LI 2, n L n L n L where 1... I 1 = 2 L 1+ 2 L... 2 L.... n L n L n L We wi now show by induction that ( n detdf(x) = 1+ )L(X) and I 2 = 2 L 1+ 2 L... 2 L..... n L n L n L Obviousy, for n = 2, we have detdf(x) = 1+( )L for 1, 2 R. Next, we suppose that detdf(x) = 1 + ( p )L hods for p = n 1, where 1,..., p R. We need to show that it is true for p = n. Ceary, 1+ 2 L... 2 L I 1 =... n L n L = 1+( n )L and = I 2 = 1... = Since detdf = I LI 2, using the above and the hypothesis n =1 = that detdf(x) = 1+( n )L(X) 1. Appying Theorem 4, we wi finay show that f is indeed a univaent mapping. Now, for convenience, we denote L = 1 L[(t)]dt and obtain that 1+ ( 1 ) n 1 L 1 L... 1 L u det ((t))dt = 2 L 1+ 2 L... 2 L x j j,=1.... n L n L n L = 1+( n )L = 1 for a (t) as in Theorem 4. Thus, by Theorem 4, f is univaent in R n.

8 8 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov Proof of Theorem 2. Consider f(x) = (u 1 (X),u 2 (X)), where X = (x,y) R 2 and u 1 (x,y) = x+ [ α 2 (x+y) 2 +α 3 (x+y) 3 + +α m (x+y) m] and u 2 (x,y) = y [ α 2 (x+y) 2 +α 3 (x+y) 3 + +α m (x+y) m] for α j R, j = 2,...n. Let f(x) = (u 1 (X)+W(X),u 2 (X)+w(X)), where W and w are as mentioned in the statement. As in the proof of Theorem 1, we see easiy that detd f = 1+L+W x L+W y L+w x 1 L+w y (3) = 1+(1+L)w y +(1 L)W x +LW y Lw x +(W x w y w x W y ) which is identicay 1, by the hypothesis of Theorem 2. Moreover, aowing X in (3), it foows that W x w y w x W y =. We now show that this gives the reation w = λw for some constant λ. We observe that both w and W are not identicay zero simutaneousy. If w and W, then we choose λ =. Because of the symmetry, equaity hods in the ast reation when W and w. Therefore, it suffices to consider the case W w. We denote t = x/y. Using the definition of w(x) and W(X) in the statement, we may convenienty write and simiary, w(x) = m+1 = m+1 α x y m+1 = y m+1 = α t =: y m+1 p(t) (4) W(X) = Using these, we find that m+1 = β x y m+1 =: y m+1 q(t). w x (X) = w y (X) = Simiary, we see that m+1 =1 α x 1 y m+1 = y m p (t), and m (m+1 )α x y m = y m ((m+1)p(t) tp (t)). = W x (X) = y m q (t) and W y (X) = y m ((m+1)q(t) tq (t)).

9 Then W y (X) W x (X) = w y(x) w x (X) The Jacobian conjecture and injectivity conditions 9 (m+1)q(t) tq (t) q (t) q (t) q(t) = p (t) p(t), = (m+1)p(t) tp (t) p (t) and the ast reation, by integration, gives q(t) = λp(t) for some constant λ. Thus, we have the desired caim w = λw. Consequenty, by (3), detd f(x) 1 impies that which, by the reation w = λw, becomes (1+L)w y +(1 L)W x +LW y Lw x (5) (λ+lλ+l)w y +(1 L Lλ)W x. Aowing X in (5), we see that λw y (X)+W x (X) = is equivaent to m+1 [λ(m+1 ( 1))β 1 +β ]x 1 y m+1 =. =1 This gives the condition λ(m+2 )β 1 +β = for = 1,...,m+1. From the ast reation, it foows easiy that and thus, using this and (4), we obtain that Since β = ( λ) (m+1)!!(m+1 )! β for = 1,...,m+1 W(X) = β (y λx) m+1. W x (X) = λ(m+1)β (y λx) m and W y (X) = (m+1)β (y λx) m, aowing X in (5) (and maing use of the expression L in the proof of Theorem 1 for n = 2), we have in case L and α m : α m (1+λ) 2 =, which gives the condition λ = 1. Note that if α m =, we choose the eading argest j for which α j. However, the ast condition gives that λ = 1. Consequenty, we end up with the forms W(X) = β (x+y) m+1 = α m+1 (x+y) m+1 and If L, then w(x) = β (x+y) m+1 = α m+1 (x+y) m+1. f(x) = (x+β (y λx) m+1,y +λβ (y λx) m+1 ). If at the same time λ, then we denote ( ) λ A =, F(X) = A f(a 1 1 (X)) and α m+1 = λβ.

10 1 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov Thus, we have f = A 1 F A and (6) F(X) = (x+α m+1 (x+y) m+1,y α m+1 (x+y) m+1 ). If L and λ =, then w and W(X) = β y m+1 so that f(x) = (x+β y m+1,y). Now, we denote A = ( ) and α m+1 = β. This gives f = A 1 F A and F has the form (6). The proof is compete. Proof of Theorem 3 requires some preparation. Lemma 1. Suppose that G j P n (m) for j = 1,...,N and G j (X) = X + u (j) (X) (j), where u (j) (X) = m =2 a(j) z with z = x 1 + +x n, (j) = ( (j) 1,..., n (j) ), n =1 (j) = for a j, and a (j) are some constants. Then G 1 G N =: F P n (m), and F(X) = X +u (1) (X) (1) + +u (N) (X) (N). Proof. At first we woud ie to prove the emma for N = 2 and then extend it for the composition of N mappings, N 2. Let G j P n (m) for j = 1,2 and Aso, introduce We observe that and therefore, G j (X) = X +u (j) (X) (j). G 2 (X) = (g (2) 1,g (2) 2,...,g (2) n ) and L p (X) = g (2) 1 (X)+ +g (2) n (X) = z + m =2 [ m =2 a (2) a (p) z 1 for p = 1,2. n =1 (2) z ] = z L 1 (G 2 (X)) = L 1 (X) and DG 1 (G 2 (X)) = DG 1 (X). Finay, for the case of N = 2, one has DF(X) = DG 1 (G 2 (X))DG 2 (X) = DG 1 (X)DG 2 (X) = A (1) (L 1 )A (2) (L 2 ) = (r ij ) n n, where A (p) (L p ) for p = 1,2 are the two n n matrices given by 1+ (p) 1 L p (p) 1 L p (p) 1 L p A (p) (L p ) = (p) 2 L p 1+ (p) 2 L p (p) 2 L p. n (p) L p. n (p) L p.., p = 1,2. 1+ n (p) L p If i j, then a computation gives n r ij = (1) i L 1 L 2 (2) + (1) i L 1 + (2) i L 2 = (1) i L 1 + (2) i L 2 ; =1

11 The Jacobian conjecture and injectivity conditions 11 Simiary, for i = j, we have n r ii = (1) i L 1 L 2 (2) +1+ (1) i L 1 + (2) i L 2 = 1+ (1) i L 1 + (2) i L 2. =1 Consequenty, we obtain that (1+ (1) 1 L 1 + (2) 1 L 2) (1) 1 L 1 + (2) 1 L 2 (1) 1 L 1 + (2) 1 L 2 (1) 2 DF(X) = L 1 + (2) 2 L 2 (1+ (1) 2 L 1 + (2) 2 L 2) (1) 2 L 1 + (2) 2 L n (1) L 1 + n (2) L 2 n (1) L 1 + n (2) L 2 (1+ n (1) L 1 + n (2) L 2 ) Moreover, it foows easiy that F(X) = (G 1 G 2 )(X) = = X +u (1) (X) (1) +u (2) (X) (2). x 1 + (1) 1 u (1) (X)+ (2) 1 u (2) (X) x 2 + (1) 2 u (1) (X)+ (2) 2 u (2) (X). x n + (1) n u (1) (X)+ (2) n u (2) (X) Simiary in the case of the composition of three mappings G 1, G 2 and G 3 (i.e. for the case of N = 3), the Jacobian matrix of F = G 1 G 2 G 3 is given by where, for i j, and Moreover, we find that DF(X) = DG 1 ((G 2 G 3 )(X))DG 2 (G 3 (X))DG 3 (X) = DG 1 (X)DG 2 (X)DG 3 (X) = (r ij ) n n, r ij = (1) i L 1 + (2) i L 2 + (3) i L 3, L 3 (X) = m =2 r ii = 1+ (1) i L 1 + (2) i L 2 + (3) i L 3. a (3) z 1 ; F(X) = (G 1 G 2 G 3 )(X) = X +u (1) (X) (1) +u (2) (X) (2) +u (3) (X) (3). The above process may be continued to compete the proof. Remar. We remar that the emma is of interest ony when the dimension of the space is greater than or equa to 3. For n = 2, it does not give anything new in comparison with Theorem 1. However, for n > 2, we obtain from Lemma 1 new mappings from P n (m), not beonging to P n (m)..

12 12 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov Exampe 1. Let m = 3 = n, N = 2, a (1) = 1, a (2) = 2 +, (1) = (1,2, 3), (2) = ( 3,1,2) and appy Lemma 1 for the mappings G 1,G 2 P 3 (3). Define F(X) = (G 1 G 2 )(X) = (u 1 (X),u 2 (X),u 3 (X)), where X = (x 1,x 2,x 3 ), z = x 1 +x 2 +x 3. Since a comparison gives F(X) = X +u (1) (X) (1) +u (2) (X) (2) = X +(z 2 +2z 3 )(1,2, 3)+(4z 2 +5z 3 )( 3,1,2), u 1 (X) = x 1 11z 2 13z 3, u 2 (X) = x 2 +6z 2 +9z 3 and u 3 (X) = x 3 +5z 2 +4z 3. According to Lemma 1, we obtain that F P 3 (3). We now show that F / P 3 (3). For its proof, it is enough to show that there are no such vectors Γ = (Γ 1,Γ 2 ) and A = (A 1,A 2 ) from R 2 that Γ 1 A = ( 11, 13), Γ 2 A = (6,9) and ( Γ 1 Γ 2 )A = (5,4). It is easy to see that the above system of equations has no soution which means that F / P 3 (3). Now, we prove our fina resut which offers functions from P n (m) and generaizes Theorem 1 significanty in a natura way. Proof of Theorem 3. The idea of the proof is in presenting f as a composition of mappings G j P n (m) for j = 1,...,N. For G j, we may write G j (X) = (u (j) 1,...,u(j) n ), where m n u (j) (X) = x + (j) A (j) z, (j) = for a j = 1,...,N, =2 =1 and A (j) are some constants. From Lemma 1, the possibiity of choosing f = G 1 G N means the foowing: there exist two sets of numbers { (j) } n,n =1, j=1 with and { such that for a = 1,...,n, n =1 A (j) (j) = for a j = 1,...,N, } m,n =2, j=1 (7) (1) A(1) + (2) A(2) + + (N) A (N) = p () hods for each = 2,...,m. For the soution of this tas, for every j = 1,...,N, we fix } n { a set of nonzero numbers (j) such that n =1 (j) = and the ran of the matrix { } =1 n,n (j) is equa to (n 1) (we can consider N > n). Then in each of the inear =1, j=1 ( ) n,n system of equations (7) for = 2,...,m, the corresponding matrix of the (j) =1, j=1 system is one and the same and has aso the ran (n 1), and A (1),...,A (N) pay a roe of variabes in the system of equations (7). At the same time in each system (7), the ran of

13 an expanded matrix to (n 1) in each system, since n n p () = = The Jacobian conjecture and injectivity conditions 13 ( ) n,n ( (j) p () as we as the ran of =1, j=1 =1 =1 (j) for each and j. (j) ) n,n =1, j=1 wi be equa Therefore, according to the theorem of Kronecer, each of the system of equations (7) ( = 2,...,m) wi have the soution (A (1),...,A (N) ). It finishes the proof of Theorem 3. Remar. For n 3, Theorem 3 significanty expands the set P n (m) of mappings for which JC is fair. Reay, without parameters of matrices A and B from Theorem 1, the set P n (m) has [(m 1)+(n 1)] free parameters, and the set of poynomia mappings from Theorem 3 has (m 1)(n 1) such parameters. Acnowedgements. The wor of V.V. Starov is supported Russian Science Foundation under grant and performed in Petrozavods State University. The first author is currenty on eave and is woring at ISI Chennai Centre, Chennai, India. References 1. A. Abdesseam, The Jacobian conjecture as a probem of perturbative quantum fied theory, Ann. Henri Poincaré 4 (23), F. G. Avhadiev and L. A. Asent ev, The main resuts on sufficient conditions for an anaytic function to be schicht, Uspehi Mat. Nau 3(4) (1975), 3 6, Engish transation in Russian Math. Surveys 3(4) (1975), H. Bass, E. H. Conne and D. Wright, The Jacobian conjecture: reduction of degree and forma expansion of the inverse, Bu. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 7(2) (1982), A. Biayniy-Birua and M. Rosenicht, Injective morphisms of rea agebraic varieties, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 13(2) (1962), L. M. Drużowsi, An effective approach to Keer s Jacobian conjecture, Math. Ann. 264 (1983), L. M. Drużowsi, A geometric approach to the Jacobian conjecture in C 2, Ann. Poon. Math. 55 (1991), L. M. Drużowsi, The Jacobian conjecture, preprint 492, Institute of Mathematics, Poish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, L. M. Drużowsi, The Jacobian conjecture in case of ran or coran ess than three, J. Pure App. Agebra 85 (1993), L. M. Drużowsi, and K. Ruse, The forma inverse and the Jacobian conjecture, Ann. Poon. Math. 46 (1985), L. M. Drużowsi, and H. Tutaj, Differentia conditions to verify the Jacobian conjecture, Ann. Poon. Math. 57 (1992), A. van den Essen, Poynomia automorphisms and the Jacobian conjecture, Voume 19 of Progress in Mathematics, Birhäuser Verag, Base, S. Yu. Graf, S. Ponnusamy and V. V. Starov, Univaence criterion for harmonic mappings and Φ-ie functions, O. H. Keer, Ganze Cremona-Transformationen, Monatshefte für Mathemati und Physi, 47 (1939),

14 14 S. Ponnusamy, and V. V. Starov 14. V. S. Kuiov, Generaized and oca Jacobian probems, (Russian) Izv. Ross. Aad. Nau Ser. Mat. 56(5) (1992), ; transation in Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math. 41(2) (1993), P. T. Mocanu, Sufficient conditions of univaency for compex functions in the cass C 1, Ana. Numér. Théor. Approx. 1(1) (1981), T. Parthasarathy, On goba univaence theorems, Lecture Notes in Math Springer-Verag, New Yor, S. Pinchu, A counterexampe to the strong rea Jacobian conjecture, Math. Z. 217(1) (1994), S. Ponnusamy, H. Yamamoto and H. Yanagihara, Variabiity regions for certain famiies of harmonic univaent mappings, Compex Var. Eiptic Equ. 58(1) (213), S. Smae, Mathematica probems for the next century, Math. Inteigencer 2(2) (1998), V. V. Starov, Univaence of harmonic functions, hypothesis of Ponnusamy and Sairam, and constructions of univaent poynomias, Prob. Ana. Issues Ana. 21(2) (214), V. V. Starov, Jacobian conjecture, two-dimensiona case, Prob. Ana. Issues Ana. 23(5) (216), S.S.-S. Wang, A Jacobian criterion for separabiity, J. of Agebra 65 (198), D. Wright, On the Jacobian conjecture, Iinois J. of Math. 15(3) (1981), D. Wright, The Jacobian conjecture: Idea membership questions and recent advances, Affine agebraic geometry, 261?276, Contemp. Math., 369, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, A. V. Yagzhev, Keer s probem, Siberian Math. J. 21(5) (198), S. Ponnusamy, Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technoogy Madras, Chennai 6 36, India. E-mai address: samy@isichennai.res.in, samy@iitm.ac.in V. V. Starov, Department of Mathematics, Petrozavods State University, u. Lenina 33, Petrozavods, Russia E-mai address: vstarv@ist.ru