Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $M\subset \mathbb C^2$ be a hypersurface defined by $F(z,w)=0$. Then for some point $p\in M$, I've $$\text{ rank of }\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 &\frac{\partial F}{\partial z} &\frac{\partial F}{\partial w} \\ \frac{\partial F}{\partial z} &\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial ^ 2z} &\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial z\partial w} \\ \frac{\partial F}{\partial w} &\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial w\partial z} & \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial w^2} \\ \end{array} \right)_{\text{ at p}}=2.$$

What does it mean geometrically? Can anyone give a geometric picture near $p$?

Any comment, suggestion, please.

Edit: Actually I was reading about Levi flat points and Pseudo-convex domains. I want to understand the relation between these two concepts. A point p for which the rank of the above matrix is 2 is called Levi flat. If the surface is everywhere Levi flat then it is locally equivalent to $(0,1)\times \mathbb{C}^n$, so I have many examples....but what will happen for others for example take the three sphere in $\mathbb{C}^2$ given by $F(z,w)=|z|^2+|w|^2−1=0$. This doesn't satisfy the rank 2 condition. Can I have precisely these two situations?

share|improve this question
1  
Hint: try some examples, e.g. $F=z^2+w^2-2$ at $(1,1)$. If one first derivative is zero and the other is nonzero, you get another example, e.g. $F=e^{zw}-1$ at $(0,1)$. –  bgins Feb 28 '12 at 7:31
    
@bgins, hmm.. thanks.. But actually i was reading Levi flat point and Pseudo-convex domain, I want to understand relation of these two concept.... The point $p$ for which above matrix rank is 2 is called is levi flat....If surface is everywhere leviflat then it is locally equivalent to $(0,1)\times \mathbb C^n$.... so i have many examples....but what will happen for others for example take two sphere in $\mathbb C^2$ that is $F(z,w)= |z|^2+|w|^2-1=0$ this doesn't satisfy rank 2 condition.... can i have precisely these two situation .. –  zapkm Feb 28 '12 at 7:57
    
So you got an answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/88782/…, but not to mathoverflow.net/questions/85178/every-where-levi-flat, I see. –  bgins Feb 28 '12 at 8:06
1  
@PradipMishra: I edited the question slightly. I hope that I didn't change the meaning of your last sentence (or of anything else for that matter). I don't have time to think about the answer at the moment, but the definition I am familiar with involves the Levi form. A hypersurface in $\mathbb{C}^2$ has a complex line in its tangent bundle (i.e. the subspace of its tangent space that is invariant under multiplication by $i$). If this is an integrable distribution, then we say it is Levi flat. –  Sam Lisi Mar 2 '12 at 23:29
1  
Levi flat and convex are not the only possibilities. I think you might find the following unpublished book of Cieliebak and Eliashberg to be of interest: mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~kai/classes/Stein05/stein.pdf Look especially at Chapter 2. I think section 2.4 will relate to your question, but I am not entirely sure. –  Sam Lisi Mar 2 '12 at 23:36

2 Answers 2

Here is a partial answer: I will givea geometric interpretation of Levi flatness/pseudoconvexity. To fix some notation, let $j$ be endomorphism of the tangent bundle to $\mathbb{C}^2$ induced by its complex structure. (I'm being a bit pedantic, normally we say it is the complex structure, but I want to make it very clear what I am describing.)

If you have a real hypersurface $\Sigma$ in $\mathbb{C}^2$, its tangent bundle has a preferred complex line bundle inside of it. This consists of those vectors in $TM$ such that $j v$ is also in $TM$. Let $\xi$ be this subbundle. We say that $\xi$ is Levi-flat if this distribution is (locally) integrable in the sense of Frobenius.

So what does this mean, geometrically? Suppose that $\Sigma$ is Levi-flat in an open neighbourhood of $p \in \Sigma$. Then, by the Frobenius integrability theorem, you can find a local function $G \colon \Sigma \to \mathbb{R}$ whose level sets have $j$ invariant tangent spaces, i.e. the level set is a complex (local) submanifold of $\mathbb{C}^2$. Again, since we are working locally, this allows you to describe the neighbourhood of $p$ as being of the form $(-\epsilon, \epsilon) \times D^2(\epsilon)$, where $D^2$ is the disk in $\mathbb{C}$.

Levi convexity is a bit harder to explain without appealing to the Levi form. See the reference I gave in the comments above for some definitions and discussion of the concept. In particular, a convex hypersurface in $\mathbb{C}^2$ is Levi convex.

The key fact about flatness/convexity has to do with holomorphic disks whose boundaries are in $\Sigma$. If $\Sigma$ is flat, you can foliate $\Sigma$ locally by such disks. If $\Sigma$ is strictly pseudoconvex, then only the boundary of the disk touches $\Sigma$, the interior of the disk is forced to lie in the interior region bounded by $\Sigma$. (For instance, think of the unit sphere $S^3$ as the typical example of a pseudoconvex hypersurface. Any holomorphic disk with boundary in $S^3$ lives inside the unit ball -- furthermore, only its boundary is allowed to touch the $S^3$.)

In an example like the one you gave, the complex line is $\ker dF \cap \ker dF \circ j$. You then want to compute the two form $\omega := -d (dF \circ j)$ on a pair of (nonzero) vectors $v, jv$, $v \in \xi$. If this is positive, then it is pseudoconvex (at this point). If it is zero, it is Levi-flat.

share|improve this answer

Let $p=(z_0,w_0)$ and define $G(z,w)=F(z,w)-(z_0,w_0)$. Then the matrix is $$ \left( \begin{matrix} G & G_z & G_w \cr G_z & (G_z)_z & (G_z)_w \cr G_w & (G_w)_z & (G_w)_w \cr \end{matrix} \right)_{\text{at }p} $$ Since $G(p)=0$. Is that any help?

share|improve this answer
    
I think you mean $G(z,w)= F(z,w)- F(z_0,w_0)$... I will reply after thinking if this gives some fruitful. thanks. –  zapkm Feb 28 '12 at 8:17
    
the person who has upvoted this answer, and @bgins, will you please explain this... I will be very grateful... –  zapkm Mar 1 '12 at 11:49
    
$G(p)$ is just shorthand $G(z_0,w_0)$. I'm afraid my comment was only very elementary, I don't have the background to answer your question (sorry if saying "Hint" was misleading, this was before you had mentioned Levi flatness & pseudoconvexity). However, writing the matrix this way, it seems to show that the (affine/projective) tangent approximations to $G$, $G_z$ & $G_w$ at $p$ are linearly dependent (rank $<3$). Do you have any good references for this stuff? The best I've found so far are some MIT OCW lecture notes. –  bgins Mar 1 '12 at 12:13

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.