A codimension two CR singular submanifold that is formally equivalent to a symmetric quadric

By a direct computation, we have

Hence, we see that \hbox{span}_{{\Bbb C}}\{|z_1|^2,\cdots,|z_n|^2\}=\hbox{span}_{{\Bbb C}}\{u,v_2,\cdots,v_n\}. The uniqueness assertion in the lemma now is obvious. $height1.5ex width.5em

Since \{|z_i|^2\}_{i=1}^{n} and \{u,v_2,\cdots,v_n\} are the unique linear combinations of each other by Lemma 2.1, one sees the existence of the expansion in (2.2). Also, to complete the proof of Lemma 2.3, it suffices for us to prove the following statement:

Here, we define A(N,N^*)=\{(I,J,K)\in \mathbb{Z}^n\times\mathbb{Z}^n\times\mathbb{Z}^n,\ i_l \cdot j_l=0,\ i_l,j_l,k_l\geq 0\ \mbox{for}\ 1 \leq l \leq n,\ \sum_{l=1}^n(i_l+k_l)=N,\ \sum_{l=1}^{n}(j_l+k_l)=N^*\}. Let P=(p_1,\cdots,p_n) and Q=(q_1,\cdots,q_n) with p_1, \cdots,p_n,q_1,\cdots, q_n non-negative integers be such that |P|=N, |Q|=N^*. We define A(N,N^*;P,Q)=\{(I,J,K)\in A(N,N^*):\ \ i_l \cdot j_l=0,\ i_l,j_l,k_l\geq 0, i_l+k_l=p_l,\ j_l+k_l=q_l,\ \mbox{for}\ 1 \leq l \leq n\}. Now, suppose that \sum\limits_{(I,J,K)\in A(N,N^*)}E_{(I,J)}^{(K)}z^I{\overline{z}}^J|z_1|^{2k_1}\cdots |z_n|^{2k_n}=0. We then get

We next claim that there is at most one element in A(N, N^*;P,Q). Indeed, (I,J,K)\in A(N, N^*;P,Q) if and only if i_l+k_l=p_l,\ j_l+k_l=q_l,\ i_l\cdot j_l=0, for 1\leq l \leq n. Now, if i_l=0, then k_l=p_l. Since j_l=q_l-p_l\geq 0, thus this happens only when q_l\geq p_l. If j_l=0, then k_l=q_l. Since i_l=p_l-q_l\geq 0, we see that this can only happen when p_l\geq q_l. Hence, we see that i_l, j_l are uniquely determined by p_l and q_l when p_l\not =q_l. When p_l=q_l, it is easy to see that i_l=j_l=0, \ k_l=q_l=p_l. We thus conclude the argument for the claim. This completes the proof of Lemma 2.3.

$height1.5ex width.5em

We need to prove that the following equation, with unknowns in (f,g,\ \varphi), can be uniquely solved under the normalization conditions in (2.3) and (?):

Collecting terms of degree t in the above equation, we obtain for each t \geq 3 the following:

where I^{(t)}(z,\bar{z}) is a homogeneous polynomial of degree t depending only on g^{(\sigma)}, f^{(\sigma-1)}, \varphi^{(\sigma)} for \sigma < t. Thus, by an induction argument, we need only to uniquely solve the following equation under the above given normalization:

Indeed, if we can uniquely solve (?), then, we can start with (?) with t=3 and \Gamma=E^{(3)}. We then get (F^{(2)}, G^{(3)}). Now, we transform M by H_2=(z,w)+(F^{(2)}, G^{(3)}). Then the new manifold is normalized up to weighted order 3. Let H=(F,G)=(z+O_{wt}(3),w+O_{wt}(4)) be a normalized map and

consider (?) with t=4. We can then uniquely determine (F^{(3)},G^{(4)}). Transforming the manifold by the map H_2=(z,w)+(F^{(3)}, G^{(4)}), we get one which is normalized up to order 4. Now, by an induction, we can prove the existence part of Theorem 2.3. The uniqueness part of the Theorem follows also from the unique solvability of (?).

Expand \Gamma, \varphi as in (2.2) and (?) and expand f, g as in (?). Making use of Lemma 2.2 and comparing the coefficients in (?) of z^I\-{z}^J with i_l\cdot j_l=0, \ l=1,\cdots, n, we get the following system:

Here we demonstrate in details how the system (?) is uniquely solved. The others are done similarly (and, in fact, more easily). We first substitute (?) to (?) and then collect coefficients of the zeroth order term, linear terms and higher order terms in v_2,\cdots,v_n, respectively, while taking u as a parameter. We obtain, by Lemma 2.2, the following:

Using the normalization in \varphi and letting u=0 in (?) (?), we get \Gamma^{(0)}_{(I,0)}=-g_{(I)}(0)+\varphi^{(0)}_{(I,0)} and \Gamma^{(0)}_{(0,I)}=\varphi^{(0)}_{(0,I)}. By the normalization \varphi^{(0)}_{(I,0)}=\-{\varphi^{(0)}_{(0,I)}}, we get \varphi^{(0)}_{(I,0)}=\-{\Gamma^{(0)}_{(I,0)}} and

Sum up (?) with j=2,\cdots,n and then add it to (?). By the the normaliztaion condition \varphi_{(0,I)}^{(le_1)}=\varphi_{(I,0)}^{(ke_+e_j)}=0 for k\ge 0, l\ge 1, we obtain the following:

Subtracting the complex conjugate of (?) from (?), we obtain

From (?) and (?), we can similarly get

Back to the equation (?), we can inductively get:

Similarly, we get from (?) the following

From (?), we obtain the following:

From (?), we get

From (?), we obtain

where |J|\ge 2 and j_i=0.

Summarizing the solutions just obtained, we have the following formula: (One can also directly verify that they are indeed the solutions of (?)

with the normalization conditions given in (2.3) and (?))

where

This completes the proof of Theorem 2.3. $height1.5ex width.5em

Write w=x+\sqrt{-1}y. Let (F,G)\in Aut_0(M_\infty). Then Im(G(z,|z|^2))\equiv 0 for z\approx 0. Since M_\infty bounds a family of balls near 0 defined by

We see that Im(G(z,x))\equiv 0 for z\approx 0 and x(\in {{\Bbb R}})\approx 0. Therefore, G(z,w)=G(w)=cw+o(w) (c>0) is independent of z and takes real value when w=x is real.

Now F(z,r^2) must be a biholomorphic map from |z|^2 < r^2 to |z|^2 <G(r^2) for any r>0. Using the explicit expression for automorphisms of the unit ball (see [Rud]), we obtain either:

where U(r) is a unitary matrix and v=\sqrt{1-a(r)\bar{a}(r)},\ a\not =0, or we have

Write G(x)=xb(x)\-{b}(x) with b(0)\not = 0 and b(w) holomorphic in w. In the case of (?),

F(z,x)=b(x)zU(r)e^{\sqrt{-1}\theta(x)} is real analytic, where \theta(x) is real-valued real analytic function in x . Hence, b(x)U(r)e^{\sqrt{-1}\theta(x)} is the Jacobian matrix of F in z. Since both e^{\sqrt{-1}\theta(x)} and b(x)(\not =0) are real analytic for x\approx 0, we conclude that U(r) is real analytic in x. Hence, U(w) is also holomorphic in w. Still write U(x) for U(x)e^{i\theta(x)}. We see the proof of Proposition 3.1 in the case of (3.1).

Suppose that a \neq 0. Still write G(w)=wb(w)\-{b}(w) with b(0)\not = 0. We have

Since f(z,w) is holomorphic in (z,w) and f(0,w)=b(w)\sqrt{w}a(\sqrt{w})U^*(\sqrt{w}) with U^*=e^{i\theta}U, we see that \sqrt{w}a(\sqrt{w})U^*(\sqrt{w}) is holomorphic in w . In particular, |a(\sqrt{w})|^2 is real analytic in w. Moreover,

is analytic. Since \sqrt{w}a(\sqrt{w})U^*(\sqrt{w}) is real analytic, we see that

is real analytic, too. Here (\cdot)^t denotes the matrix transpose. Since (|a|^2-v-1)+v=|a|^2-1 is real analytic, we conclude that both ra_i and a_i/r are real analytic in w. Since both \sqrt{w}a(\sqrt{w})U^*(\sqrt{w}) and ra_i are real analytic, we see that U^*(\sqrt{w}) is real analytic. Still denote a for a/r, we further obtain the following with the given properties stated in the Proposition:

This completes the proof of Proposition 3.1. $height1.5ex width.5em

First, it is easy to see that by composing an automorphism of the form w'=|c|^2w,\ z'=czU, we can assume that F=z+O_{wt}(2) and G=w+O_{wt}(3) (see [Hu1]). Here c is a non-zero constant and U is a certain n\times n-unitary matrix.

Let b(w)=1,a_j=\alpha_j(w),a_1=\cdots=a_{j-1}=a_{j+1}=\cdots=a_n=0, and U=I in (3.1). We get the following automorphism of M_\infty

Write

Then a direct computation shows that (_{(j)}F)_{i,(0)}(u)=0 for 1\leq i \leq j. In particular, we have (_{(j)}F)_{i,(0)}(u)=0 for all 1\leq i\leq n.
Still write H for H_n. Next, for i<j, let b(w)=1, a=0, and let

in (3.1), where \cos(\theta_j^i) is at the i^{th} row and the j^{th} column. Then we get an automorphism T_{j}^{i}. Set

Then we can inductively prove that H_j^i satisfies

In particular, we see that H_n^{n-1} satisfies (_n^{n-1}F)_{(0)}=0\ , \ (_n^{n-1}F)_{i,(e_j)}=0\ \mbox{for}\ 1 \leq j < i \leq n.
Still write H for H_n^{n-1} and set H'=T \circ H=(F',G') with

Then H' satisfies

At last, a composition from the left with the rotation map as follows:

makes H' satisfy the normalization condition (2.3). This proves the existence part of the lemma.

Next, suppose both H=(F,G)=(z+O_{wt}(2),w+O_{wt}(3)) and \hat{H}=(\hat{F},\hat{G})= T\circ H=(z+O_{wt}(2),w+O_{wt}(3))

satisfy the normalization condition (2.3). Here T is an automorphism of M_\infty.

Then T must be of the form in (3.1), for T(0,w)=0. Hence,

By the normalization condition (2.3) on H,\ \hat{H}, we have

with U(x) unitary and Im(\hat{F}_{i,(e_i)}(0,u))=Im(F_{i,(e_i)}(0,u))=0. Considering the norm of the first row of the right hand side, we get b(G_{(0)}(w))\cdot \-{b}(G_{(0)}(w))=1 in case G_{(0)}(w)=\-{G_{(0)}(w)}. Since G_0(w)=w+o(w), this implies that b(w)\-{b}(w)\equiv 1 and thus T=(b(w)zU(w),w). Write

We notice that \widetilde{U} is a lower triangular matrix and is unitary when w=x. Thus

we have u_{ii}(w)\-{u_{ii}}(w)= 1 and u_{ij}=0 for i\not = j.

Notice that

Since \hat F_{i,(e_i)}(x),F_{i,(e_i)}(x)=1+o(x) are real, we get u_{ii}(x)=1.

This proves the uniqueness part of the lemma. $height1.5ex width.5em

We seek for a contradiction if s\not = s'. Assume, for instance, that s<s'.

Let T be an automorphism of M_\infty with T \circ H being normalized as in (2.3). Suppose that T transforms w'=|z'|^2+\varphi'(z',\bar{z'}) to w''=|z''|^2+\varphi''(z'',\overline{z''}) with s'' the lowest vanishing order for \varphi''. We claim that s'=s''. Suppose not. We assume, without loss of generality, that s'<s''.

Write the linear part of T (in (z',w')) as (z''=z'B+Dw',w''=dw') with B\in GL(n,{{\Bbb C}}),\ d\not =0. Then a direct computation shows that

This is a contradiction.

Now, T \circ H transforms w=|z|^2+\varphi to w''=|z''|^2+\varphi'' with T\circ H,\ \varphi being normalized as in (2.3) and (?), respectively. Also s<s''. we see that T\circ H transforms w=|z|^2+\varphi^{(s)} to w=|z|^2, moduling O(|(z_1,\cdots,z_n)|^{s+1}). This contradicts the uniqueness part of Theorem 2.3. The proof of Lemma 3.4 is complete. $height1.5ex width.5em

Making use of (?), we have

Since Ord(E)\geq d, by (?) and (?), we see that Ord(\hat{f})\geq d-1 and Ord(\hat{g}) \geq d. Hence, we have

Thus Ord(E'-\hat{\varphi}) \geq 2d-2. By Lemma 3.3 and the assumption that w=|z|^2+E is formally equivalent to w=|z|^2, we have s=\infty. Hence we have Ord(\varphi) \geq 2d-2. The lemma follows.$height1.5ex width.5em

We here give the estimates for |E^{(ke_1)}_{(0,I)}|, |E^{(ke_1+e_j)}_{(0,I)}|. The others can be done similarly. Suppose that E=\sum a_{i_1\cdots i_nj_1\cdots j_n}z_1^{i_1} \cdots z_n^{i_n} \overline{z_1}^{j_l}\cdots \overline{z_1}^{j_l}. Then by (?), we have

Thus we obtain

By the Cauchy estimates, we get

Here we have used the fact that

This completes the proof of Lemma 4.2. $height1.5ex width.5em

Notice that by the definition of \hat{f} given in (?), we have Ord(\hat{f})\ge d-1 and deg_{wt}\leq 2d-4. In terms of (?), we can write, for 2\leq h \leq n,

where

By Lemma 4.2, we have, for B_1, the following

Here and in what follows, we write R'=(2^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}\varrho,2^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}\varrho,2^{-\frac{n-3}{2}}\varrho\cdots,2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\varrho,\varrho). Wee have also used the fact that

For B_2, we have

Similarly, we have \|B_3\|_{\varrho}\leq \frac{2^n(2d)^{2n}\|E\|_r}{r-\varrho} \left(\frac{\varrho}{r}\right)^{d-1}. Thus we obtain:

In the same manner, we have

Hence we get

Now letting \tau=\frac{r+2\varrho}{3} and using the Cauchy estimates, we have the following estimate of the derivatives of F:

Here we have used the fact that

The inequality (?) shows that |\nabla \hat{f}_h|_{\varrho}\leq \frac{3^3n(n+1)\cdot 2^{n+3}(2d)^{2n}\|E\|_r}{(r-r')^3}(\frac{\varrho}{r})^{\frac{d-1}{2}}. The corresponding estimates on \hat{f}_1 and \hat{g} can be achieved similarly.

We next estimate \hat{\varphi}. Notice that -\hat{g}(z,u) +2Re\left(\sum_{h=1}^{n}\bar{z_i}\hat{f}_i(z,u)\right) is only used to cancel terms of with weight < 2d-2 in E. By (?), we have the following:

Here we have used the fact that

This finishes the proof of Proposition 4.3. $height1.5ex width.5em

We need to show that for each (z',w') \in \-{\triangle_{\sigma}}, we can uniquely solve the system:

with (z,w) \in \triangle_{\varrho}. By (?), choosing \delta sufficiently small such that |\nabla \hat{f}|_{\varrho}+|\nabla \hat{g}|_{\varrho}<\frac{1}{2n+4} and |\hat{f}|_{\varrho}+|\hat{g}|_{\varrho}<\frac{1}{2n+4}.(r-\varrho) . Define (z^{[1]},w^{[1]})=(z',w') \in \triangle_{\sigma} and (z^{[j]},w^{[j]}) inductively by

By a standard argument on the Picard iteration procedure, we can get a unique (z,w) \in \triangle_{\varrho} satisfying \Psi^{-1}(z,w)=(z',w'), which gives that \Psi(\triangle_\sigma) \subset \triangle_\varrho. Similarly, we have \Psi(\triangle_{r'}) \subset \triangle_\sigma. Hence we conclude that E' is holomorphic in \triangle_\sigma. Moreover,

where

Notice that

Here we have used the fact that (\frac{\varrho}{r})^{2} < \frac{r'}{r}. (This can be achieved by the same token as for (?).) We also have

By (?)-(?), we obtain:

This completes the proof of Proposition 4.4. $height1.5ex width.5em