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.

I'd be very grateful if someone could help me understand the proof of Hartogs's theorem appearing in Huybrechts' "Complex Geometry." The statement is:

Let $\mathbb{P}^n \subset \mathbb{C}^n$ be the unit polydisc. Let $\mathbb{P}_c:= \{ \boldsymbol{z} : 0\leq |z_i|<c\}$ for some $0<c<1$. Then if $f: \mathbb{P}^n -\bar{\mathbb{P}}_c \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is holomorphic, then $f$ extends to a holomorphic function on $\mathbb{P}$.

The proof goes as follows: For fixed $\boldsymbol{w} \in \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$, the function $f_w: z \mapsto f(z,\boldsymbol{w})$ defines a holomorphic function on the annular region $A= \{z: c<|z|<1 \}$ in the complex plain. Let $f_w= \Sigma_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} a_k(\boldsymbol{w})z^k$ be the Laurent expansion of $f_w$ in this region. Then the $a_k$ define holomorphic functions on $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ (by a previous lemma) and if $k<0$ then $a_k$ vanishes whenever some $w_i>c$ (since $f_w$ then extends to the whole disc) and so vanishes on all of $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$. Therefore we can write $f|_{A \times \mathbb{P}^{n-1}}= \Sigma_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k(\boldsymbol{w})z^k$.

I understand everything up to this point. What I can't understand is why this sum of holomorphic functions defines a holomorphic function on all of the unit polydisc. Presumably it is supposed to converge uniformly on compact subsets or something? Huybrechts says something like "the $a_k$ attain their suprema on the boundary and so uniform convergence is implied by uniform convergence on the annular region" and I have no idea what boundary or annular region he's talking about. A priori I don't know why I should really know anything about the uniformity of the convergence of the sum outside of a single copy of $A$ i.e. when $\boldsymbol{w}$ is fixed.

Thanks for your time and sorry if this is mostly nonsense.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

This may not be the answer you're looking for but it is how I would approach this theorem. Convergence matters rely on Cauchy's theorem anyway so why don't use that directly in a proof?

Let $c < r < R < 1$ and define $f_r: \{z \mid r < |z| < 1\} \times \mathbb{P}^{n-1} \to \mathbb{C}$ by

$$ f_r(z, w) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i}\int_{|v|=r} \frac{f(v, w)}{v - z}dv. $$

Then $f_r$ is holomorphic and vanishes if $|w_k| > c$ for some index $k$ since $v \mapsto f(v, w)$ is then holomorphic within the contour $|v|=r$. This implies that $f_r$ is identically zero. In particular $f$ has the following representation on $\{z \mid r < |z| < R\} \times \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$

$$ f(z, w) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{|v| = R} \frac{f(v, w)}{v - z}dv. $$

But the right hand side defines a holomorphic function on $\{z \mid |z| < R\} \times \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks WimC. That seems much easier. –  Heather Huskinson Nov 24 '12 at 19:22
add comment

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.