2
$\begingroup$

In the book "Lecture on Riemann surface" of Forster, in the page 23, there is a theorem as follows:

Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are Riemann surfaces, $p: Y\rightarrow X$ is an unbranched holomorphic map and $f:Z\rightarrow X$ is any holomorphic map. Then every lifting $g:Z\rightarrow Y$ of $f$ is holomorphic.

I understand the idea of the proof there, however in the proof, there is a claim :

Let $c$ be an arbitrary in $Z$. Let $b=g(c)$ and $a=p(b)=f(c)$. There exist open neighborhoods $V$ of $b$ and $U$ of $a$ such that $p|V\rightarrow U$ is biholomorphic.

I do not understand why such restriction should be biholomorphic. And I can't even find the definition of biholomorphic map on 2 open subsets of Riemann surfaces from the section 1 to there.

Could you please explain for me : Why $p|V\rightarrow U$ is biholomorphic ?

Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The statement of the theorem in the first box has several typos. Please look back at the book and make fixes (an $X$ is missing and some $X$'s should be $Y$'s and vice versa, probably). $\endgroup$ – KCd Jun 22 '13 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ As far as the definition of "biholomorphic" goes, connected open subsets of Riemann surfaces are themselves Riemann surfaces (Ex. 1.5 (b)), and you may use Definition 1.9 on the subsets. $\endgroup$ – fuglede Jun 22 '13 at 17:19
1
$\begingroup$

I follow Foster's book, as well. Use Corollary 2.5 at pag.11: as $p:Y\rightarrow X$ is a (non constant) unbranched holomorphic map, then it is locally a homeomorphism. Let us denote this homeomorphism by $p|_{V}:V\rightarrow U$. This implies, in particular, that $p|_{V}$ is injective. Now Corollary 2.5 implies that $p|_{V}:V\rightarrow U$ is biholomorphic. The proof of this result uses thm. 2.1. at pag.10.

$\endgroup$

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.