Are these concepts the same? Just to state the definitions

Definition 1 A domain $\Omega \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is a Runge domain if every function $f \in H(\Omega)$ can be approximated, uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega$, by polynomials in $\mathbb{C}^n$.

Here $H$ stands for the space of holomorphic functions. While the definition of polynomial convexity is stated as

Definiton 2 Let $\mathcal{P}$ denote the set of holomorphic polynomials on $\mathbb{C}^n$. Let $K$ be a compact set in $\mathbb{C}^n$ and let $\|P\|_K = \sup\limits_{z\in K}|P(z)|$ be the sup-norm of $P \in \mathcal{P}$ on $K$. The set $$ \hat{K} = \{ z \in \mathbb{C}^n : |P(z)| \leq \|P\|_K \ , \ P \in \mathcal{P} \} $$ is called the polynomially convex hull of $K$. If the compact subsets $K \subset \omega$ have compact polynomial hulls $\hat{K}$, then we have a polynomial convex domain.

I have a book that gives an example [Wermer] which shows a domain $\Omega\in\mathbb{C}^2$ which is biholomorphic to a bidisc, but which is not a runge domain.

However another paper says the following:

"On the other hand , biholomorphic images of polydiscs can fail to be polynomically convex, see [Wermer]"

Just for completeness sake, here is the theorem both papers refers to

Theorem 1 [Wermer]> There is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{C}^2$ which analytically (holomorphic) equivalent to the bidisk, but which is not a runge domain

So one paper refers says that the domain is not Runge, while the other says that it fails to be polynomically convex.

Hence my question is as follows: Is being a Runge domain equivalent to being polynomically convex?

  • $\begingroup$ Your definition of polynomially convex is not correct: the strict inequality sign must be replaced by $\leq$ and you should require that $\hat K$ be compact but not that $\hat K=K$. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg May 22 '15 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ @GeorgesElencwajg I agree with the strict equality sign, but what do you mean by your second comment? I took the definition straight from here encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Polynomial_convexity. $\endgroup$ – N3buchadnezzar May 22 '15 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ I mean exactly what I wrote. The point is that neither you nor the linked article define what a polynomially convex domain is but only what a polynomially convex compact set is. For polynomially convex domains you should require that compact subsets $K\subset \Omega$ have compact polynomial hulls $\hat K$, but not that $K=\hat K$. By the way, with your definition no nonempty domain in the universe is polynomially convex: I challenge you to find just one (even in $\mathbb C$) if you cling to your false definition !! $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg May 22 '15 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with you, I am very new to this subject so sorry for coming of as arrogant. $\endgroup$ – N3buchadnezzar May 23 '15 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ No, no you are not arrogant at all . You have adopted the right atitude: defend your position and if you see that something is indeed wrong, say so. By the way there are excellent books on the subject, written by real masters: Grauert-Fritzsche, L.Kaup-B.Kaup, Shabat . You would certainly profit from them. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg May 23 '15 at 0:12

The concepts are not equivalent:

The open subset $\Omega=\mathbb C^2\setminus\{0\}\subset \mathbb C^2$ is Runge but not polynomially convex: indeed for $K$ the unit sphere $||Z||=1$ centered at the origin $\hat K$ is the non compact set $0\lt||Z||\leq 1$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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