Full Ebook of Rational Sphere Maps 1St Edition John P Dangelo Online PDF All Chapter

Rational Sphere Maps 1st Edition John
P. D’Angelo
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/rational-sphere-maps-1st-edition-john-p-dangelo/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Starting Out The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition John Emms
https://ebookmeta.com/product/starting-out-the-c3-sicilian-1st-
edition-john-emms/
Maps for Time Travelers Mark D. Mccoy
https://ebookmeta.com/product/maps-for-time-travelers-mark-d-
mccoy/
Chess Explained The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition Sam Collins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/chess-explained-
the-c3-sicilian-1st-edition-sam-collins/
Rational Points on Elliptic Curves 2nd Edition Joseph H

Silverman John T Tate
https://ebookmeta.com/product/rational-points-on-elliptic-
curves-2nd-edition-joseph-h-silverman-john-t-tate/
curves-2nd-edition-joseph-h-silverman-john-t-tate-2/

curves-2nd-edition-joseph-h-silverman-john-t-tate-3/
Terrible Maps Hilarious Maps for a Ridiculous World

Michael Howe
https://ebookmeta.com/product/terrible-maps-hilarious-maps-for-a-
ridiculous-world-michael-howe/
Electronic Conduction 1st Edition John P. Xanthakis
https://ebookmeta.com/product/electronic-conduction-1st-edition-
john-p-xanthakis/
Relativistic Dynamics of a Charged Sphere Updating the

Lorentz Abraham Model 3rd Edition Arthur D. Yaghjian
https://ebookmeta.com/product/relativistic-dynamics-of-a-charged-
sphere-updating-the-lorentz-abraham-model-3rd-edition-arthur-d-
yaghjian/
Progress in Mathematics
341
John P. D’Angelo
Rational
Sphere
Maps
Volume 341
Series Editors
Antoine Chambert-Loir , Université Paris-Diderot, Paris, France
Jiang-Hua Lu, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Michael Ruzhansky, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, Queen Mary University of
London, London, UK
Yuri Tschinkel, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/4848

John P. D’Angelo
Rational Sphere Maps

John P. D’Angelo
Department of Mathematics
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL, USA
ISSN 0743-1643 ISSN 2296-505X (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-75808-0 ISBN 978-3-030-75809-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75809-7
Mathematics Subject Classification: 32M99, 32A10, 15B57, 32V99
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This book is published under the imprint Birkhäuser, www.birkhauser-science.com by the registered
company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The unit circle S1 in the complex number system C and its self-mappings have
played a major role in the history of mathematics. Below we give many striking
examples. The central theme throughout this book will be to understand higher
dimensional analogues, where things are more subtle and ideas from many fields of
mathematics make their appearance.
In one dimension, if f is holomorphic (complex analytic) in a neighborhood
of the closure of the unit disk B1 , and f maps the circle to itself, then f is a finite
Blaschke product. One can draw the same conclusion assuming only that f is a
proper holomorphic mapping from B1 to itself. In particular such functions are
rational. Our primary topic will be the study of holomorphic rational maps sending
the unit sphere in the source complex Euclidean space Cn to the unit sphere in some
target space CN . We call such mappings rational sphere maps. We use the terms
monomial sphere map and polynomial sphere map with obvious meaning; even
these mappings exhibit remarkably interesting and complicated behavior as the
source and target dimensions rise.
In this book, a rational sphere map f is complex analytic where it is defined. In
other words, f depends on the z variables but not on the z variables. In Chap. 6 we
briefly discuss some differences between holomorphic polynomial sphere maps and
real polynomial sphere maps. In particular, in complex dimension n at least 2, the
only non-constant holomorphic polynomial maps sending the unit sphere to itself
are linear, whereas there are real polynomial sphere maps of every degree.
I considered the title Complex Analytic Rational Sphere Maps to prevent possible
confusion, but the shorter title seems more appealing.
In some sense, this book is a research monograph, as it develops in a systematic
fashion most of the research on rational sphere maps done in the last forty years. It
differs however from many monographs in several ways, which we now describe.
First of all, scattered throughout the book are a large number of computational
examples; the author feels that merging the abstract and concrete enhances both.
Many times in his work on this subject, a theorem resulted from trying to cast a
collection of examples into one framework. Some readers will stare at these
v
vi Preface
formulas, observe subtle patterns, and pose their own open questions. Other readers
may find the formulas distracting. I hope that I have achieved the right balance.
Chaps. 3 and 4 include formulas that could not easily be obtained by hand com-
putation. Mathematica was used to help perform some of these calculations. The
author acknowledges assistance in coding received from Jiri Lebl, Daniel Lichtblau,
Dan Putnam, and Bob Vanderbei. Some results from coding have led to theorems
and others have led to unanswered questions. Both types of results appear here.
Section 4.9 includes recent code by Lichtblau [1].
Second, I have included more than 100 exercises. Most of these are computa-
tional and have a simple purpose: give the reader something to do when things
become confusing. These exercises are numbered by Chapter and often appear in
the middle of a section. Given the many search tools available, this method seems
most appropriate. This book hopes to expose some beautiful mathematics; it is not a
calculus text where long lists of exercises appear at the end of each section. The
exercises are meant for readers who enjoy them but none are indispensable to the
general development.
I have posed fifteen open problems here. They belong to many parts of math-
ematics; the symmetry of the unit sphere is responsible for their variety. These
problems appear within the text but are repeated in a short chapter at the end of the
book. The author hopes that this book will enhance research by engaging others in
both what is known and where this knowledge leads.
Section 1.7 provides a kind of global positioning system for the book. It locates
where in the book some of the fundamental results are discussed and indicates what
happens in each chapter. The author modestly hopes that both experts and novices
find this map to be useful both in learning about rational sphere maps and navi-
gating the book.
To introduce the subject of rational sphere maps, we provide several examples in
one dimension and indicate how to extend the ideas to higher dimensions.
Example 1 Many elementary trigonometric identities are easily proved by
combining the binomial expansion with de Moivre’s formula
ðcosðhÞ þ i sinðhÞÞm ¼ ðeih Þm ¼ eimh ¼ cosðmhÞ þ i sinðmhÞ: ðÞ
In fact every trig identity follows from the following facts:

1. The complex numbers are a field.
iz iz
cosðzÞ ¼ e þ2e and sinðzÞ ¼ e þ2ie :
iz iz
2.
3. For complex numbers z; w we have ez þ w ¼ ez ew .
4. Complex conjugation is continuous, and hence ez ¼ ez .
It is natural to take (2) as the definition of the trig functions. Combining (2) and
(3) yields cos2 ðzÞ þ sin2 ðzÞ ¼ 1. Combining (3) and (4) yields jeih j2 ¼ 1 when h is
real. Item (4) is needed because the exponential function is defined by its power
series; one needs to know that the conjugate of a convergent infinite sum is the
infinite sum of the conjugated terms.
Preface vii
Formula (*) is closely related to the map z ! zm , which sends the circle to itself,
and hence is a monomial sphere map. One higher dimensional analogue of this
mapping will be the tensor product z ! zm for z 2 Cn . The tensor product pro-
vides a monomial sphere map, but requires a higher dimensional target space. We
will encounter restricted tensor products and a kind of tensor division.
Example 2 The unit circle can be regarded as the unitary group Uð1Þ. The m-th
roots of unity form a finite cyclic subgroup Cm under multiplication. The map
z ! zm sends the circle to itself and is invariant under Cm . We will study analogues
in higher dimensions in Chap. 5, by associating both invariant and equivariant
groups with rational sphere maps. The unitary group UðnÞ and the holomorphic
automorphism group of the unit ball arise throughout. In addition, representations
of Cm in Uð2Þ lead in Chap. 3 to interesting combinatorial results.
Example 3 The theory of Fourier series is based upon the complete orthonormal
system feimh g for L2 ðS1 Þ. Closely related is the result that the monomials z ! zm
form a complete orthogonal system for L2 ðB1 Þ. The analogous statement for the
monomials z ! za holds in any dimension.
Example 4 Riemann surfaces arose from trying to visualize the space of solu-
tions to equations such as zm ¼ w. We will study proper mappings from Bn to BN ;
the image of the ball is then an n-dimensional complex variety. We also study a
subvariety of Bn CN associated with a rational sphere map. This variety contains
the graph of the map, but exceptional fibers often arise.
Example 5 Each factor (including the eih term) of the Blaschke product
Ym
aj z
eih
j¼1
1 aj z
can be regarded as an automorphism of the unit disk. In n dimensions, the auto-

morphism group of the unit ball Bn is the Lie group SUðn; 1Þ divided by its center.
We will see tensor products of automorphisms, but (as in Example 1) new phe-
nomena arise. Not every rational sphere map is a tensor product of automorphisms.
Example 6 Example 5 shows that every polynomial q that does not vanish on the
closed unit disk is the denominator of a rational sphere map that is reduced to
lowest terms. Proving the analogous statement in higher dimensions is much more
subtle and seems to require Hermitian analogues of Hilbert’s 17-th problem. Let us
elaborate. Suppose z 2 Cn and rðz; zÞ is a real-valued polynomial. When the values
of r are non-negative, we naturally ask whether r is a Hermitian sum of squares;
that is, can we write
X
k
rðz; zÞ ¼ jf j ðzÞj2
j¼1
for (holomorphic) polynomials f j ? The answer is not necessarily. What can we

say? The resulting ideas (see Chap. 2) enable us to prove the following result. Let q
viii Preface
be a polynomial that does not vanish on the closed unit ball in Cn . Then there is an
integer N and a polynomial mapping p : Cn ! CN such that pq is reduced to lowest
terms and defines a rational sphere map. There are no bounds possible on N nor on
the degree of p that depend only upon n and the degree of q. We emphasize that the
easy proof in one dimension does not require these ideas. This discussion combines
with Hermitian linear algebra to give Theorem 2.15, which provides a general
description of all rational sphere maps.
Example 7 In Chap. 3 we will introduce a class of polynomials in two variables
that arise from considering group-invariant monomial sphere maps. These poly-
nomials turn out to be related to Chebyshev polynomials and they exhibit a long list
of remarkable properties. One of these properties is that the so-called freshman’s
dream: ðx þ yÞd is congruent to xd þ yd modulo d if and only if d ¼ 1 or d is prime,
holds for these polynomials f d ðx; yÞ as well.
Example 8 In Chap. 7 we establish a sharp bound on the volume of the image of
a polynomial sphere map. A one-dimensional version of this result is quite
appealing and we discuss it in detail as well.
The underlying theme in this book derives from the following simple observa-
tions. First, the collection of rational sphere maps with a given source dimension n
and target dimension N has little algebraic structure, unless n ¼ N. In Chap. 2, we
show that there is considerably more structure to the problem if we regard the target
dimension as a variable. Determining the rational sphere maps of degree d in source
dimension n and unspecified target dimension leads to a system of linear equations
for the inner products of unknown vectors. See Theorem 2.15. If we assume these
vectors are orthogonal, then we obtain a linear system for unknown non-negative
numbers. This case is equivalent to the study of monomial sphere maps, which we
investigate in Chaps. 3 and 4. Even in the monomial case, the dimension of the set
of solutions tends to infinity as the degree tends to infinity.
As usual in Mathematics, when there are too many solutions to a problem, one
can restrict the solutions by optimizing various quantities. For example, in Chap. 7,
we discuss the volume of the image of the ball under a polynomial sphere map of
degree d. We show that the homogeneous mapping zd provides the maximum
volume. Chaps. 3 and 4 consider minimizing two somewhat related quantities for
monomial sphere maps of degree d in source dimension n. One of these quantities is
the minimum target dimension; the other is the minimum value of the map at the
point with coordinates all equal to 1. We obtain some rather difficult combinatorial
and asymptotic results about these problems.
Let us a say a few words about prerequisites. The author believes that everything
in this book should be accessible to most mathematicians, including graduate
students. Because of the symmetry of the unit sphere, however, the material
interacts with nearly all fields of mathematics. We use basic facts from complex
analysis, linear algebra, functional analysis, and algebra. We will sometimes use
ideas from elementary differential geometry and we will employ combinatorial
reasoning. No deep theorems are required. The only prerequisite is appreciation
of the ideas.
Preface ix
Numbering in this book is done by Chapter. Thus, for example, Proposition 1.5
means the fifth proposition in Chap. 1. It precedes Corollary 1.1, because there are
no items called corollary before it. We do not number every displayed equation.
This point is worth elaborating. Paul Halmos (I don’t know the precise reference,
but he said so!) once suggested that every equation should be numbered, because
even if the author never refers to a given equation, someone else might. On the
other hand, numbering everything seems to clutter things too much. I hope, unre-
alistically of course, that I have compromised by numbering an equation if and only
if it should be numbered.
I wish to acknowledge various mathematicians who have contributed to my
understanding of the ideas in this book, or who have coded some computations:
Eric Bedford, Dan Burns, Paulo Cordaro, Peter Ebenfelt, Jim Faran, Franc
Forstnerič, Dusty Grundmeier, Zhenghui Huo, Bernhard Lamel, Jiri Lebl, Daniel
Lichtblau, Han Peters, Dan Putnam, Bob Vanderbei, and Ming Xiao. I also
acknowledge Simon Kos, a physicist, who made an important contribution to the
ideas in Chap. 3. Quite a few of the results in this book are outgrowths of work I did
with Jiri Lebl and other work I did with Ming Xiao. Their contributions have been
indispensable. Many other mathematicians have indirectly contributed, primarily
via their own inspiring work. I have also benefited from attending meetings and
conferences over the years. Let me specifically mention programs at the American
Institute of Math, workshops in Serra Negra (Brazil), conferences at the Erwin
Schrödinger Institute (Vienna, Austria), and various special sessions at AMS sec-
tional meetings.
I thank Chris Tominich of Springer for his role as editor and especially for his
solicitation of useful reviews. I thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments;
I modestly hope that I have improved the book by dealing with their suggestions
and criticisms.
During the preparation of this book I have been supported by NSF Grants
DMS-1066177 and DMS 13-61001. I also acknowledge support from the
Kenneth D. Schmidt Professorial Scholar award from the University of Illinois.
I dedicate this book to my wife Annette and our four children John, Lucie, Paul, and
Henry.
Urbana, USA John P. D’Angelo
Reference
1. D. Lichtblau, personal communication.

Contents
1 Complex Euclidean Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Generalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 The Groups AutðB1 Þ, SUð2Þ, and SUð1; 1Þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Automorphisms of the Unit Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Hermitian Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5 Proper Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6 Some Counting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7 A GPS for This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2 Examples and Properties of Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1 Definition and Basic Results about Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . 25
2 Sphere-Ranks and Target-Ranks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3 Ranks of Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4 Juxtaposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5 The Tensor Product Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6 The Restricted Tensor Product Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7 An Abundance of Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8 Some Results in Low Codimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9 A Result in Sufficiently High Codimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10 Homotopy and Target-Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11 Remarks on Degree Bounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12 Inverse Image of a Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
13 The General Rational Sphere Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
14 A Detailed Rational Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
15 An Example in Source Dimension 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3 Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
1 Properties of Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2 Some Remarkable Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3 More on These Remarkable Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
xi
xii Contents
4 Cyclic Groups and Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5 Circulant Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6 The Pell Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7 Elaboration of the Method for Producing Sharp Polynomials . . . . . 97
8 Additional Tricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
9 Maps with Source Dimension 2 and Target Dimension 4 . . . . . . . . 103
10 Target-Ranks for Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4 Monomial Sphere Maps and Linear Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
1 Underdetermined Linear Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2 An Optimization Problem for Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . 113
3 Two Detailed Examples in Source Dimension 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4 Results of Coding and Consequences in Source Dimension 2 . . . . 119
5 Monomial Sphere Maps in Higher Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6 Sparseness in Source Dimension 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7 Sparseness in Source Dimension at Least Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8 The Optimal Polynomials in Degrees 9 and 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
9 Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5 Groups Associated with Holomorphic Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
1 Five Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
2 Examples of the Five Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3 Hermitian-Invariant Groups for Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . 158
4 Additional Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5 Behavior of Cf Under Various Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6 Examples Involving the Symmetric Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7 The Symmetric Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8 Groups Arising from Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9 Different Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
10 Additional Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
11 A Criterion for Being a Polynomial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
6 Elementary Complex and CR Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
1 Subvarieties of the Unit Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
2 The Unbounded Realization of the Unit Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
3 Geometry of Real Hypersurfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4 CR Functions and Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
5 Strong Pseudoconvexity of the Unit Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6 Comparison with the Real Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
7 Varieties Associated with Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
8 Examples of Xf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9 A Return to the Definition of Rational Sphere Map . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Contents xiii
7 Geometric Properties of Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

1 Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
2 A Geometric Result in One Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
3 An Integral Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
4 Volume Inequalities for Polynomial and Rational Sphere Maps . . . 219
5 Comparison with a Real Variable Integral Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . 223
8 List of Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Chapter 1
Complex Euclidean Space
This chapter develops basic properties of complex Euclidean space. Some of the
main ideas are unitary transformations, the holomorphic automorphism group of the
unit ball, the use of Hermitian forms, and proper holomorphic mappings. We also
gather some elementary combinatorial information.
1 Generalities
The notation Cn denotes complex Euclidean space of dimension n. As a set, it

consists of n-tuples of complex numbers z = (z 1 , ..., z n ). The notation includes the
information that Cn is an inner product space. The inner product of vectors z and
w is defined by
n
z, w = z jwj.
j=1
We denote the corresponding squared norm by

n
z2 = z, z = |z j |2 .
j=1
The set Cn is then a metric space with distance function given by z − w. As a
consequence, we have all the usual notions from point-set topology. In particular, a
subset is open if, for each p ∈ , there is a positive such that z − p < implies
z ∈ . We denote the unit ball, centered at the origin, by Bn . Its boundary is the unit
sphere S 2n−1 . Odd dimensional spheres arise throughout this book. We assume the
reader knows such terms as connected, compact, limit, sequence, subsequence and
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1
J. P. D’Angelo, Rational Sphere Maps, Progress in Mathematics 341,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75809-7_1
2 1 Complex Euclidean Space
so on. A domain will be an open, connected set. As a metric space Cn is complete,

and hence Cn is a Hilbert space of dimension n.
Remark 1.1 We use the notations z and z, w for the norm and the inner product in
any (unspecified) dimension. The implication f (z)2 = 1 on z2 = 1 often arises.
Here z and f (z) need not live in the same dimensional space. In one dimension, |ζ|
denotes the magnitude of a complex number ζ.
Several copies of complex Euclidean spaces often arise in the same discussion.
Suppose N = K + L. We will write C N = C K ⊕ C L , where the symbol ⊕ denotes
orthogonal sum. When A is a subspace of C N , we let A⊥ denote the orthogonal com-
plement of A, and thus C N = A ⊕ A⊥ . In these settings, the Pythagorean theorem
holds:
z ⊕ w2 = z2 + w2 .
When M < N , we often regard C M as a subspace of C N . For w ∈ C M , we write

either w ⊕ 0 or (w, 0) for the corresponding element in C N .
We say a bit now about tensor products and discuss them in more detail in Chap. 2.
If v ∈ C M and w ∈ C N , we can form an element v ⊗ w in C M N whose components
are v j wk for 1 ≤ j ≤ M and 1 ≤ k ≤ N in some specified order. It is easy to see that
v ⊗ w2 = v2 w2 ; thus, the squared norm of a tensor product is the product
of the squared norms. See Lemma 2.1.
Let be an open subset of Cn . Suppose f : → C N is a function. Then f is
holomorphic if, for each p ∈ , f is complex differentiable at p. In other words,
there is a (complex) linear map d f ( p) : Cn → C N such that
f ( p + h) = f ( p) + d f ( p)h + error( p, h),
where lim h→0 error(

h
p,h)
= 0. We assume the reader knows possible equivalent defini-
tions; for example, f is locally given by a convergent (vector-valued) power series,
or f satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations. On several occasions we will have
holomorphic mappings defined on open balls, and we use without comment that the
power series expansion converges uniformly on compact subsets of the ball.
Assume is connected. If all the power series coefficients of f vanish at a point
p ∈ , then f vanishes identically. The standard proof is to observe that the set of
such points is both open and closed in .
On occasion, we will need the following form of the maximum principle.
Proposition 1.1 (Maximum principle) Let be a bounded, open, and connected
subset of Cn . Suppose f : → C N is holomorphic and extends continuously to the
boundary ∂. Then:
• For all z ∈ , f (z) ≤ sup∂ f .
• If there exists a z ∈ where f (z) = sup∂ f , then f is a constant.
The following obvious consequence of the maximum principle provides a strong
contrast to the real case. For example, the polynomial (x1 )2 + · · · + (xn )2 is constant
1 Generalities 3
on the unit sphere in Rn but it is not constant. A holomorphic function that is constant
on too large of a set must itself be constant. We need only the following simple case.
Corollary 1.1 Suppose f is holomorphic in a domain containing the closed unit

ball, and f is constant on the sphere. Then f is constant.
Proof If z → f (z) − c vanishes on the sphere, then (by the first part of the maximum
principle) f (z) − c vanishes on the ball. Hence, f − c vanishes identically on its
domain. (Recall that a domain is connected.)
Recall that a linear transformation L : Cn → Cn is unitary if L preserves the inner

product. Thus, Lz, Lw = z, w for all z, w. It follows trivially that Lz2 = z2
for all z. The converse also holds. Thus, L is unitary if and only if Lz2 = z2
for all z. In other words, Lz, Lz = z, z for all z implies the apparently stronger
statement Lz, Lw = z, w for all z, w. This fact provides an easy example of
polarization.
Remark 1.2 (Polarization) It is often crucial in complex analysis to regard z and

its conjugate z as independent variables. In rather general circumstances, when an
identity involving z and z holds for all choices of z, we may replace z by w, and
the identity will hold for all z, w. We will often have identities that hold on the unit
sphere defined by z2 = 1. We may then replace z in the identity with w and the
resulting identity will hold when z, w = 1.
Example 1.1 We give a beautiful example of polarization. Consider a harmonic

function u defined near the origin in R2 . We wish to find a holomorphic function f
whose real part is u. Thus, we must have

f (z) + f (z) z+z z−z
=u , = u(x, y). (1.1)
2 2 2i
We polarize (1.1) by assuming that z and z are independent variables. For example,
if we suppose f (0) = 0 and set z = 0, then we obtain the formula
z z
f (z) = 2u ,. (1.2)
2 2i
Formula (1.2) recovers f from u without the usual process involving differentiation,
integration, and the Cauchy-Riemann equations. Careful thought shows that we are
assuming here that u is real-analytic. Proving that a harmonic function in the plane
is real-analytic is usually done by showing that it is the real part of a holomorphic
function. The result about real-analyticity holds in all dimensions. It can be proved
by estimating the size of the successive derivatives after starting with the mean-value
property.
The following ideas are equivalent to polarization and arise throughout complex
analysis. Consider a polynomial or convergent series

f (z, z) = cab z a z b
a,b

in the variables (z, z) ∈ Cn × Cn with f (0, 0) = 0. The terms in the series ca0 z a
are called holomorphic terms, those in c0b z b are called anti-holomorphic terms,
and the remaining terms are called mixed terms. One says pure terms to mean any
terms that are not mixed. Suppose f (z, z) vanishes identically. Then cab = 0 for
all multi-indices a, b. In particular, the series of holomorphic terms, the series of
anti-holomorphic terms, and the series of mixed terms all vanish identically.
Exercise 1.1 Use the technique of Example 1.1 to find a holomorphic function f
whose real part is the given u(x, y).
• u(x, y) = x 2 − y 2 .
• u(x, y) = e x cos(y).
• u(x, y) = ln(x 2 + y 2 ). (Note that we cannot set z equal to 0 here!)
Unitary transformations arise throughout this book. The definition implies that
the composition of unitary maps is unitary, and the next proposition implies that
the collection U(n) of unitary maps on Cn is a group. We can identify U(n), when
regarded as unitary matrices, as a subset of complex Euclidean space of dimension n 2 .
An n × n matrix is unitary if and only if its column vectors form an orthonormal basis
of Cn . Thus, this subset is closed and bounded. The group operations of multiplication
and taking inverses are smooth. The next two propositions summarize the basic facts
about unitary transformations.
Proposition 1.2 Let L : Cn → Cn be linear. The following are equivalent:
(1) L is unitary.
(2) For all z, w, we have Lz, Lw = z, w.
(3) For all z, we have Lz2 = z2 .
(4) L is invertible and L −1 = L ∗ . (Here, L ∗ is the adjoint of L.)
Proposition 1.3 The unitary group U(n) is a compact Lie group.
A Lie group G is a smooth manifold endowed with a binary operation (g, h) →
gh that makes G into a group, and for which this operation and the operation of
taking inverses are smooth maps. We don’t use any major results from the theory of
Lie groups or their Lie algebras, but specific examples of Lie groups arise throughout
the book. We mention some of the groups that will arise.
The special unitary group SU(n) consists of those unitary maps with determinant
equal to 1. The n-torus T(n) consists of those diagonal maps
z = (z 1 , ..., z n ) → U (z) = (eiθ1 z 1 , ..., eiθn z n ).
We often identify the n-torus with U(1) × · · · × U(1). Notice also that operators
permuting the variables are unitary. Hence, (by Cayley’s theorem) every finite group
is isomorphic to a subgroup of U(n).
2 The Groups Aut(B1 ), SU(2), and SU(1, 1) 5
Let n = p + q. The groups U( p, q) are groups of n-by-n matrices preserving the

Hermitian form
p
n
|z j |2 − |z j |2 .
j=1 j= p+1
The subgroup SU( p, q) consists of those matrices in U( p, q) with determinant 1. In

this book, we use only SU( p, 1), for the following reason. The quotient of the group
SU(n, 1) by its center is isomorphic to the group of holomorphic automorphisms
of the unit ball in Cn , but we prefer a more concrete description in terms of linear
fractional transformations. See Sects. 2 and 3.
An interesting class of examples of finite unitary groups arises in this book. In
each case, the group itself is cyclic of order p, but the representations as subgroups
of U(2) differ.
Example 1.2 Let η be a primitive p-th root of unity and assume q is relatively prime
to p. Let ( p, q) denote the cyclic subgroup of U(2) generated by

η 0
.
0 ηq
The special cases ( p, 1) and (2r + 1, 2) play surprising major roles in this book.
The next proposition has been used innumerable times by the author and will be
applied on several occasions in this book.
Proposition 1.4 Let B denote a ball in Cn . Assume that f : B → C N and g : B →

C M are holomorphic maps. Suppose f (z)2 = g(z)2 on B.
• If M = N , then there is a U ∈ U(N ) such that f (z) = U g(z) for z ∈ B.
• If M < N , then there is a U ∈ U(N ) such that f (z) = U (g(z) ⊕ 0).
Proof See [15] or [19] for a proof.
Exercise 1.2 Determine the real dimensions of U(n) and SU(n). (Proposition 1.7
and Corollary 1.4 give the answers when n = 2.)
We conclude this section by defining rational sphere map. The simplest examples
are given by unitary maps. In Sect. 3, we find all the equi-dimensional examples
(automorphisms of the unit ball when n ≥ 2). Most of our discussion is devoted to
rational sphere maps in the positive codimension case; in other words, when the
target dimension exceeds the source dimension.
Definition 1.1 A rational sphere map is any rational map f = p

q
satisfying the
following properties:
• p : Cn → C N is a (holomorphic) polynomial.
• q : Cn → C is a (holomorphic) polynomial, with q(z) = 0 when z ≤ 1.
• f = qp is reduced to lowest terms.

• p(z)2 = |q(z)|2 when z2 = 1.
Let p : Cn → C N be a polynomial. When p sends the unit sphere in the source

to the unit sphere in the target, we call p a polynomial sphere map. When also each
component of p is a single monomial, we call p a monomial sphere map.
Remark 1.3 By Proposition 1.4, we can draw a very strong conclusion if p2 =
|q|2 holds on the ball. In fact, p = L(q ⊕ 0) for some linear map L. The equality
p2 = |q|2 on the sphere is much weaker; we will spend most of this book studying
its solutions!
2 The Groups Aut(B1 ), SU(2), and SU(1, 1)
Before discussing the automorphism group of the unit ball in Cn , we recall the
situation in one dimension. We also briefly consider the special unitary group SU(2)
and the group SU(1, 1).
Let Aut(B1 ) denote the set of holomorphic maps f : B1 → B1 such that f is
bijective and has a holomorphic inverse. We begin with the famous Schwarz lemma.
Proposition 1.5 (Schwarz lemma) Let f : B1 → C be holomorphic. Suppose

f (0) = 0 and | f (z)| ≤ 1. Then the stronger inequality | f (z)| ≤ |z| holds on B1 .
Proof Since f (0) = 0, the function g defined by g(z) = f (z)

z
is also holomorphic.
For any r < 1, its maximum absolute value on the disk |z| ≤ r is achieved on the
circle |z| = r . Therefore,

| f (z)| 1
|g(z)| ≤ max ≤ . (1.3)
|z|≤r r r
Letting r tend to 1 in (1.3) shows that |g(z)| ≤ 1 and hence | f (z)| ≤ |z|.
Corollary 1.2 Suppose f : B1 → B1 is a holomorphic automorphism with f (0) =

0. Then f is a rotation. Thus, f (z) = eiθ z.
Proof Applying Proposition 1.5 to both f and f −1 gives | f (z)| = |z|. Either the
one-dimensional version of Proposition 1.4 or elementary complex analysis forces
f (z)
z
to be a constant map, and the conclusion follows.
Lemma 1.1 Suppose |w| < 1 , |ζ| < 1, and eiθ is on the unit circle. Then
• |eiθ + ζw|2 = |1 + weiθ ζ|2 .
• |eiθ w + ζ|2 < |eiθ + ζw|2 .
Proof By expanding the squared magnitudes, the equality is equivalent to
1 + 2Re(eiθ ζw) + |ζw|2 = 1 + 2Re(eiθ (wζ)) + |wζ|2
and hence holds. Expanding the squared norms and cancelling the equal real part
terms shows that the inequality is equivalent to |w|2 + |ζ|2 < 1 + |wζ|2 , which is
equivalent to |w|2 (1 − |ζ|2 ) < 1 − |ζ|2 . This inequality holds because both |w| < 1
and |ζ| < 1.
Lemma 1.2 For |w| < 1, |ζ| < 1 put f (z) = eiθ 1−wz
z−w
and g(z) = eiφ 1−ζz
z−ζ
. Then
their composition is of the same form:
z−s
(g ◦ f )(z) = eiγ
1 − sz
e +ζw
iθ
eiθ w+ζ
where eiγ = eiφ 1+we iθ ζ
and s = eiθ +ζw
. Furthermore, |s| < 1.
Proof Compute g( f (z)). Then clear denominators by multiplying by 1 − wz. Factor

(eiθ + ζw) from the numerator and (1 + ζweiθ ) from the denominator. The result
is the claimed formula for s. Also, by Lemma 1.1, the factors we extracted have the
same magnitude. Hence, eiφ times their quotient is on the unit circle. Finally, note
that |s|2 < 1 if and only if |eiθ w + ζ|2 < |eiθ + ζw|2 , which was proved in Lemma
1.1.
Corollary 1.3 The collection of maps in Lemma 1.2 form a group under composi-
tion.
Proof By Lemma 1.2, the composition of such maps is of the same form. Putting
ζ = −eiθ w shows that each such map has an inverse of the same form.
Proposition 1.6 Aut(B1 ) is the set of functions f for which
z−w
f (z) = eiθ , (1.4)
1 − wz
where |w| < 1 and eiθ is on the unit circle.

Proof It follows from Corollary 1.3 that each such f is an automorphism. We must
show that there are no others. Let h be an automorphism with h(0) = w. For f as
in (1.4), f ◦ h is an automorphism sending w to 0. By Corollary 1.2 of Schwarz’s
lemma, f ◦ h is a rotation U , and h = f −1 ◦ U has the desired form.
The following proposition will not be explicitly used in the book, but its impor-
tance in physics and geometry suggests its inclusion. See [38] and its references
for the many uses of SU(2) in physics. It is useful for us because of the major role
the unit sphere, especially in two complex dimensions, plays in this book. Further-
more, comparing SU(2) with SU(1, 1) is interesting and SU(1, 1) is closely related
to Aut(B1 ).
Recall that sets are diffeomorphic if there is a smooth bijective map with a smooth
inverse between them.
Proposition 1.7 The sets SU(2) and the unit sphere S 3 are diffeomorphic.
Proof Given p = (z, w) ∈ C2 , we define U (z, w) to be the 2-by-2 matrix

z w
U ( p) = U (z, w) = .
−w z
The mapping U is obviously injective on all of C2 . Assume |z|2 + |w|2 = 1. Com-

puting U (z, w)U (z, w)∗ gives
2
z w z −w |z| + |w|2 0 1 0
= = .
−w z w z 0 |z|2 + |w|2 0 1
Thus, if (z, w) ∈ S 3 , then U (z, w) is unitary. Furthermore, det(U (z, w)) = 1 as well.
Therefore, U : S 3 → SU(2). The map U is obviously smooth; we need to prove that
it is bijective with a smooth inverse.

a b
A 2-by-2 matrix M = is unitary if these equations are met:
c d
|a|2 + |b|2 = |a|2 + |c|2 = |c|2 + |d|2 = 1
ab + cd = 0.
It is in SU(2) if also ad − bc = 1. First suppose that b = 0. Then |a| = 1 and

hence both c = 0 and |d| = 1. In this case, M = U (a, 0). Suppose that b = 0; then
c = ad−1
b
and we get the equation
ad − 1
ab + d = 0.
b
It follows that 0 = a|b|2 + (ad − 1)d = a(1 − |d|2 ) + a|d|2 − d = a − d and

hence a = d. Thus, c = −b and M= U (a, b). Hence, U is surjective. The inverse
a b
map T sending a unitary matrix to its first row (a, b) is obviously also
c d
smooth.
Corollary 1.4 The sets S 3 × S 1 and U(2) are diffeomorphic.

Proof By the Proposition, it suffices to show that SU(2) ×

S 1 andU(2) are diffeo-
eiθ 0
morphic. Given M ∈ SU(2) and eiθ ∈ S 1 , put A(M, eiθ ) = M. Then A is a
0 1
diffeomorphism.
Proposition 1.7 implies that the unit sphere S 3 is a Lie Group. The only spheres
that are Lie groups are S 1 and S 3 , although this fact is not so easy to prove. Another
useful result in physics (which is easy to prove) is that the quotient of SU(2) by
the subgroup of two elements ±I is the special orthogonal group SO(3). For us, it
will be important (and shown in Chapter 6) that all odd dimensional spheres have an
unbounded realization associated with the Heisenberg group.
Exercise 1.3 What is the group multiplication on S 3 determined by Proposition

1.7? In other words, let p1 = (z 1 , w1 ) and p2 = (z 2 , w2 ) be points on the sphere.
Define p1 ∗ p2 by applying the inverse map T to the product U ( p1 )U ( p2 ). Thus,
p1 ∗ p2 = T (U ( p1 )U ( p2 )). Find this formula.
Exercise 1.4 In proving Corollary 1.4, what would go wrong if we defined A by

A(M, eiθ ) = eiθ M?
Let n = p + q. The groups SU( p, q) are groups of n-by-n matrices with deter-
minant 1 and preserving the Hermitian form

p

n
|z j |2 − |z j |2 .
j=1 j= p+1
In the special case where n = 2, we determinethe relationship

between SU(1, 1) and
1 0
the automorphisms of the unit disk. Put J = . A matrix M lies in SU(1, 1)
0 −1

ab
if and only if det(M) = 1 and M ∗ J M = J . Assuming that M = , we see, in
cd
a manner similar to the proof of Proposition 1.7, that M ∈ SU(1, 1) if and only if M
has the form
ab
M= (1.5)
ba
where now |a|2 − |b|2 = 1. Note the minus sign and that a = 0. Since |a|2 − |b|2 = 1
allows |a| to be arbitrarily large, formula (1.5) shows that SU(1, 1) is not compact.
Notice also that the center of SU(1, 1) consists of the matrices ±I . (The center of a
group G is the set of elements g such that gh = hg for all h ∈ G.)
Let us identify a fraction wζ with the row vector (ζ w). Thus, the complex number
z is identified with the row vector (z 1). Given M in SU(1, 1), we multiply the
row vector (z 1) on the right by M to obtain the row vector (az + b bz + a). Our
identification ∼ with this row vector as a fraction yields

a z+ b
(z 1)M ∼ a
. (1.6)
a 1+ b
a
z
Writing aa in the form eiθ , we see that (z 1)M ∼ eiθ ψ(z) where ψ is a holomorphic
automorphism of the unit disk. If we replace (a, b) by (−a, −b), then the map on
the right-hand side of (1.6) is unchanged. We obtain the following conclusion.
Proposition 1.8 The group Aut(B1 ) is isomorphic to the quotient of SU(1, 1) by its
center ±I .
Proof Let M be as in (1.5). Define a map T : SU(1, 1) → Aut(B1 ) by putting T (M)

to be the map on the right-hand side in (1.6). Note that aa is an arbitrary element of
the unit circle and ab is an arbitrary element of the unit disk. Thus, by Proposition
1.6, T is surjective. Lemma 1.2 implies that T is a group homomorphism. It is not
an isomorphism, because T (−M) = T (M), but it is two-to-one. The conclusion
follows.
In dimension n, there is an isomorphism from SU(n, 1) divided by its center to

Aut(Bn ). We prefer the concrete expression, from Theorem 1.1 in the next section,
in terms of the linear fractional transformations generalizing (1.4).
3 Automorphisms of the Unit Ball
Let be a set and let Aut() denote the group of its automorphisms. Let us clarify
what we mean by the term automorphism. An automorphism must be a bijection
from to itself. When has some given algebraic structure, an automorphism must
preserve this structure. An automorphism of a finite set is simply a permutation of
that set. An automorphism of a vector space V is an invertible linear map from V
to itself. For us, will be an open subset of complex Euclidean space Cn and a
holomorphic automorphism will be a biholomorphic mapping from to itself.
Thus, f : → is holomorphic (complex analytic), injective, and surjective. The
inverse mapping f −1 is also holomorphic. Since the composition of functions is an
associative operation, it follows that Aut() is a group under composition. When
is an open subset of some complex Euclidean space, the notation Aut() denotes
the group of holomorphic automorphisms of .
Remark 1.4 By definition, a mapping f : → is a holomorphic automorphism

if f : → is holomorphic, injective, surjective, and the inverse mapping is also
holomorphic. One can show that the holomorphicity of the inverse mapping follows
automatically. By contrast, however, things differ for smooth functions. The function
x → x 3 on R is of class C ∞ , injective, and surjective, but the inverse function is not
smooth at 0. For holomorphic maps, this situation does not arise.
3 Automorphisms of the Unit Ball 11
Next, we give a concrete description of the automorphism group of the unit ball.
The book [71] has a similar treatment and also contains a huge amount of analytic
information about holomorphic functions on the unit ball.
Let a ∈ Cn satisfy a2 < 1. Write s = 1 − a2 . Define a linear map L a by
z, a
L a (z) = a + sz. (1.7)
s+1
We define a rational map φa by
a − La z
φa (z) = . (1.8)
1 − z, a
For each a ∈ Bn , we will show that φa is an automorphism of the unit ball Bn .

Furthermore, φa is a rational sphere map.
Lemma 1.3 For L a as in (1.7), and φa as in (1.8), the following holds:

• L a (a) = a.
• L a z, a = z, a.
• L a (L a (z)) = z, aa + (1 − a2 )z.
• φa (a) = 0.
Proof The first item:
a, a a2 1 − s2
L a (a) = a + sa = a + sa = a + sa = a.
s+1 s+1 1+s
The second item:

z, aa z, a
L a z, a = , a + sz, a = (1 − s 2 ) + sz, a = z, a.
s+1 s+1
The third item:

z, a z, a z, a
L a (L a (z)) = L a a + sz = L a (a) + s a + sz
s+1 s+1 s+1
z, a
= (1 + s)a + s 2 z = z, aa + (1 − a2 )z.
s+1
The final item follows from the first item.
Lemma 1.4 φa maps the unit sphere to itself.
Proof It suffices to show on the unit sphere that (1.9) holds:
a − L a z2 = a2 − 2Rea, L a z + L a z2 = |1 − z, a|2 . (1.9)

In anticipation of a later calculation we will show that
a − L a z2 − |1 − z, a|2 = (a2 − 1)(1 − z2 ). (1.10)
The conclusion follows from (1.10) upon setting z2 = 1. To prove (1.10), we
expand everything using L a (z) = z,a
s+1
+ sz and the second item of Lemma 1.3. We
also use 2Rez, a = 2Rea, z. Putting these things together shows that the left-hand
side of (1.10) equals

1 − s2 2s
(a − 1) + |z, a|
2 2
+ − 1 + s 2 z2 = (a2 − 1) + s 2 z2 .
(s + 1)2 s+1
Finally, we use s 2 = 1 − a2 to obtain (1.10).
Lemma 1.5 φa ◦ φa = I .
Proof After clearing denominators, we use the items in Lemma 1.3:

a−L a (z)
a − La 1−z,a
φa (φa (z)) = a (z)
1 − a−L
1−z,a
, a
(1 − z, a)a − L a (a) + L a (L a (z))

=
1 − z, a − a − L a (z), a
(1 − a2 )z
= = z.
(1 − a2 )
Exercise 1.5 Write down an explicit formula for the automorphism φa when a =
(0, ..., 0, α).
The automorphism group Aut(Bn ) is the real Lie Group SU(n, 1)/Z . Here Z
denotes the center of the group SU(n, 1). See Exercise 1.6. Rather than regarding
Aut(Bn ) in this way, we give explicit formulas as rational mappings in Theorem
1.1. To better understand Aut(Bn ), we need Corollary 1.5 below, an analogue of
Schwarz’s lemma (Proposition 1.5) in n-dimensions, and also Corollary 1.6.
Corollary 1.5 Let f : Bn → B N be holomorphic and f (0) = 0. Then f (z) ≤

z holds for z ∈ Bn .
Proof Choose a non-zero z ∈ Bn . Let l be a linear functional on C N with l( f (z)) =

ζz
f (z) ≤ 1 and l ≤ 1. Define the linear map L : C → C N by ζ → z . Then
L = 1 as well. Put g = l ◦ f ◦ L. Then g satisfies the hypotheses of Schwarz’s
lemma in one dimension and therefore |g(ζ)| ≤ |ζ|. Put ζ = z. We get
f (z) = l( f (z)) = l( f ((Lζ)) = g(ζ) ≤ |ζ| = z.

Corollary 1.6 Let f : Bn → Bn be an automorphism with f (0) = 0. Then f is a

unitary map.
Proof By Corollary 1.5, applied to both f and f −1 , we have
z2 ≤ f (z)2 ≤ z2 .
Hence, f (z)2 = z2 and f is unitary.
Theorem 1.1 A holomorphic self-map f of Bn is an automorphism of Bn if and only

if there are a unitary U and a φa such that f = U ◦ φa .
Proof By Lemma 1.5, φa is its own inverse. By Lemma 1.4, φa maps the unit sphere
to itself. Since φa is not a constant, the maximum principle implies that φa maps the
ball to itself. Thus, φa is an automorphism.
It is obvious that each unitary map is an automorphism of the unit ball. Hence, U ◦
φa is an automorphism. We must show there are no others. Let f be an automorphism.
Put a = f −1 (0). Then f ◦ φa = L is an automorphism that preserves the origin.
Note that f ◦ φa = L is equivalent to f = L ◦ φa . By Corollary 1.6, which relied
on Schwarz’s lemma, L(0) = 0 implies that L is unitary. Thus, f is the composition
of a φa with a unitary map.
Corollary 1.7 The sets Aut(Bn ) and U(n) × Bn are diffeomorphic. Hence, the real
dimension of Aut(Bn ) is n 2 + 2n.
Proof Given (U, a) ∈ U(n) × Bn , the map T defined by T (U, a) = U φa is a dif-

feomorphism. Thus, each pair (U, a) determines a unique automorphism U φa and
each automorphism determines a unitary U and a point a in the ball. By Exercise
1.2, the real dimension of the unitary group U(n) is n 2 . The real dimension of the
open ball is 2n. Hence, the real dimension of Aut(Bn ) is n 2 + 2n.

I 0
The purpose of the next exercise is to investigate SU(n, 1). Put J = ,
0 −1
where I is the identity matrix in n space, the 0 in the top right denotes the column
vector 0 in n-space, and the 0 in the bottom left denotes the row vector 0 in n-space.
Then an (n + 1)-by-(n + 1) matrix is in SU(n, 1) if M ∗ J M = J and det(M) = 1.

Ab
Exercise 1.6 Put M = , where A is an n-by-n matrix, b is a column vector,
c d
c is a row vector and d is a scalar. Determine the conditions of A, b, c, d such
that M ∗ J M = J . For M to be in SU(n, 1), we also require det(M) = 1. Show that
this condition determines d, and hence c. Now write down the generalization of
(1.5). Determine the center of SU(n, 1). Hint: To be in the center, M must be a
multiple of the identity. If you are ambitious, use the analogue of (1.6) to discover
the automorphisms φa .
Automorphisms of the ball are rational mappings that send the unit sphere to itself.
In one dimension, we can multiply automorphisms together and obtain Blaschke
products that also map the circle to itself. See Proposition 1.13. The analogous idea
for dimensions at least 2 requires allowing higher dimensional target spheres and
will be a major theme throughout this book.
Remark 1.5 Aut(Bn ) is transitive. Given any pair of points a, b in the ball, there is
an automorphism mapping a to b. To see why, first apply φa to move to the origin,
and then apply φb to move to b.
Remark 1.6 Let be an open, connected set in Cn for n ≥ 2. When is bounded, its
automorphism group, with the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets,
is a finite-dimensional real Lie group.
Exercise 1.7 Assume that the automorphism group G of a domain is transitive.

Show that G must be non-compact.
Exercise 1.8 Let p be a positive integer. Let be the set of (z, w) ∈ C2 for which
|z|2 + |w|2 p < 1. First show, for |a| < 1, that there is a number c such that

a−z cw
,
1 − az (1 − az) 1p
is a holomorphic automorphism of . Use this formula to show that Aut() is non-

compact.
Exercise 1.9 Let be as in Exercise 1.8. Show that there is no linear map mapping
bijectively to the ball. Harder: Show that there is no biholomorphic map from
to the ball.
For results on the dimensions of automorphism groups see [37] and [50]. One can
also consult [2] for an extensive introductory treatment of real and complex matrix
groups.
Remark 1.7 The unitary group forms the maximal compact subgroup of Aut(Bn ).
The collection of maps φa is identified with the open ball itself and is non-compact.
We close this section by mentioning two topics we do not pursue in this book.
Wong [80] proved the following result in 1977. If the automorphism group of a
smoothly bounded strongly pseudoconvex domain in Cn is non-compact, then the
domain is biholomorphic to the unit ball. Since then many additional results have
been proved; the main idea is that of a boundary accumulation point. For example,
Rosay [70] proved the following statement for an arbitrary bounded domain ⊆ Cn .
Suppose that there is a compact subset K of , a sequence z k ∈ K , and a sequence of
automorphisms Tk such that Tk (z k ) converges to a strongly pseudoconvex boundary
point. Then is biholomorphic to the unit ball.
Among many papers, see [3], [39], [51] for results in the weakly pseudoconvex
case, and see also [40] for a broader treatment. The complete characterization of
domains for which Aut() is non-compact remains an open problem.
We briefly mention the the so-called Iwasawa decomposition of a semi-simple Lie
Group. See [9] for an excellent exposition. The author Bump begins by considering
the example of the complex general linear group G L(n, C), whose maximal compact
subgroup is the unitary group U(n). Then, using the Gram-Schmidt process, each
g ∈ G L(n, C) can be factored as g = α ◦ v ◦ U , where α is diagonal with positive
eigenvalues, where v is upper-triangular and with diagonal elements equal to 1, and
where U is unitary. The Iwasawa decomposition generalizes this factorization by
writing G = A × N × K for appropriate subgroups A, N , K . Here A is Abelian, N
unipotent, and K compact.
4 Hermitian Forms
Let r (z, z) be a real-valued polynomial on Cn . We can write

r (z, z) = cab z a z b . (1.11)
a,b
We call (cab ) the underlying matrix of coefficients of r . A polynomial written as

in (1.11) is real-valued if and only if the matrix (cab ) is Hermitian; that is cba = cab
for all multi-indices a, b. By diagonalizing (cab ), or directly, one sees that there are
linearly independent holomorphic polynomials f 1 , · · · , f N+ , g1 , · · · , g N− (where we
allow these indices to be 0) such that

N+

N−
r (z, z) = f (z)2 − g(z)2 = | f j (z)|2 − |gk (z)|2 . (1.12)
j=1 k=1
We call (N+ , N− ) the signature pair of r .

We next make the connection with rational sphere maps. Let f = qp be a rational
sphere map with source dimension n and target dimension N . Since p(z)2 −
|q(z)|2 vanishes on the unit sphere, as a polynomial in z, z it is divisible by z2 − 1.
Write the quotient polynomial as A(z)2 − B(z)2 . Then
(A2 − B2 )(z2 − 1) = A2 z2 + B2 − B2 z2 − A2 .
We write this equation in cleaner notation:
(A2 − B2 )(z2 − 1) = (z ⊗ A) ⊕ B2 − (z ⊗ B) ⊕ A2 . (1.13)

Thus, when qp is a rational sphere map, there are holomorphic polynomial maps
A(z), B(z) such that
p(z)2 − |q(z)|2 = (z ⊗ A) ⊕ B2 − (z ⊗ B) ⊕ A2 . (1.14)
Conversely, let A and B be vector-valued holomorphic polynomial maps. Denote

the right-hand side of (1.14) by ρ(z, z). The following simple result summarizes this
discussion.
Proposition 1.9 Let A and B be vector-valued holomorphic polynomial maps. The

right-hand side of (1.14) determines a rational sphere map if and only if three things
are true:
• The signature pair of ρ is (N , 1) for some N .
• The function q does not vanish on the closed unit ball.
• qp is reduced to lowest terms.
Example 1.3 Put A(z)2 = 1 + z2 + · · · + z2m−2 and B(z) = 0. Then
(A2 − B2 )(z2 − 1) = z2m − 1 = z ⊗m 2 − 1
and we obtain one of the most important examples of a rational sphere map.
Let f = qp be a rational sphere map. Assume that the maximum degree of p and
q is d. We define the Hermitian norm H( f ) by

H( f ) = p(z)2 − |q(z)|2 = cab z a z b . (1.15)
a,b
The underlying matrix C has one negative eigenvalue. We often think of (1.15) as
defining a Hermitian form on the vector space of polynomials of degree at most d in
n variables. For a unitary map, the underlying Hermitian form is simply z2 − 1.
We study what happens when we compose with an automorphism.
Proposition 1.10 Let f = p

q
= U φa be an automorphism of Bn . Then
H( f ) = (1 − a2 )(z2 − 1). (1.16)
More generally, let f = qp be a rational sphere map with f (0) = 0. Let ψa be an

automorphism of the source ball with ψa (0) = a. Put F = QP = ψa ◦ f . Then
H(F) = P2 − |Q|2 = (1 − a2 )( p2 − |q|2 ). (1.17)
Proof Formula (1.16) was established in the proof of Lemma 1.4. Formula (1.17)
holds via a similar computation, noting that ψa = U ◦ φa where φa is as in (1.8) and
U is unitary.
4 Hermitian Forms 17
Proposition 1.10 and Hermitian norms arise often in this book. Given a rational
sphere map f and a source automorphism γ, we will need to know whether there
is a target automorphism μ such that f ◦ γ = μ ◦ f . Such a μ exists if and only if
H( f ◦ γ) is a constant times H( f ). We can prove the following result now.
Proposition 1.11 Let f = qp be a rational sphere map with source dimension n and
target dimension N . Suppose γ ∈ Aut(Bn ). Then there is a μ ∈ Aut(B N ) for which
f ◦ γ = μ ◦ f if and only if there is a constant cγ such that
H( f ◦ γ) = cγ H( f ). (1.18)
Proof First assume that (1.18) holds. Write f = qp and f ◦ γ = QP . By convention

we assume q(0) = Q(0) = 1 and that the fractions are in lowest terms. After compos-
ing with automorphisms of the target we may also assume p(0) = 0 and P(0) = 0.
Our assumption (1.18) yields
P2 − |Q|2 = Cγ ( p2 − |q|2 ), (1.19)
and thus the constant Cγ must equal 1. Write Q = 1 + H and q = 1 + h and plug
in (1.19). Equating pure terms yields
2Re(H ) = 2Re(h).
Since H, h are polynomials vanishing at 0 we obtain H = h, and thus Q = q.

Equating mixed terms then gives P2 − |H |P2 = p2 . By Proposition 1.4,
P = U p for some unitary U ∈ U(N ). Thus, f ◦ γ = U ◦ f for some unitary auto-
morphism U .
The converse is easy: we are given that f ◦ γ = μ ◦ f and we need to prove (1.18).
If ϕ is an automorphism of the target ball, then ϕ = U ◦ φa where φa satisfies (1.4).
We may assume f (0) = 0. Hence, by (1.17),
H(ϕ ◦ f ) = (1 − a2 )H( f ). (1.20)
The equality f ◦ γ = ψγ ◦ f and (1.17) guarantee that
H( f ◦ γ) = H(ψγ ◦ f ) = cγ H( f ) (1.21)
for a non-zero constant cγ . Hence (1.18) holds.

Corollary 1.8 Let qp be a non-constant rational sphere map with source dimension
n and target dimension N .
• If N = n, then p2 − |q|2 is a non-zero constant multiple of (1 − z2 ) if and
only if qp is an automorphism.
• If N > n, and p(0) = 0, then p2 − |q|2 is a non-zero constant multiple of (1 −

z2 ) if and only if there is a U ∈ U(N ) such that p = U (z ⊕ 0) and q = 1.
Proof First suppose N = n. If qp is an automorphism then the conclusion was

established in Proposition 1.10. Conversely, consider a rational sphere map f = qp
whose Hermitian norm is a constant multiple of (1 − z2 ). We compose with an
automorphism to make ( f ◦ γ)(0) = 0. The Hermitian norm P(z)2 − |Q(z)|2
remains a constant multiple of (1 − z2 ). We may assume Q(0) = 1. Thus,
P(z)2 − |Q(z)|2 = z2 − 1. As in the proof of Proposition 1.11, we conclude
that Q is a constant (hence Q = 1) and P(z)2 = z2 . Still assuming n = N we
conclude that P is unitary and hence qp is an automorphism.
Suppose next that N > n. Since p(0) = 0, as before, the condition implies q =
q(0) = 1 and p(z)2 = 1. By Proposition 1.4, p = U (z ⊕ 0) for some U ∈ U(N ).
Conversely, if p has this form, and q = 1 is constant, then p2 − |q|2 = z2 − 1.
In Chapter 6, we will show when N = n ≥ 2 that a non-constant rational sphere

map must in fact be an automorphism. Hence, when N = n ≥ 2, the only if part of
the Corollary is not particularly interesting. When N = n = 1, it is easy to check
that a Blaschke product with more than one factor does not satisfy the condition on
its Hermitian norm.
Remark 1.8 When γ ∈ U(n), the constant cγ from (1.18) must equal 1.
Exercise 1.10 Prove (1.17).
Exercise 1.11 Let h and H be holomorphic mappings with the same domain and
assume Re(h) = Re(H ). If h(0) = H (0), show that h = H .
Exercise 1.12 In each case, verify that the given real-valued polynomial r (z, z)
r (z,z)
vanishes on the unit sphere. Then compute the quotient z 2 −1 .
r (z, z) = |z 1 |2 + |z 1 z 2 |2 + |z 2 |4 − 1.
r (z, z) = |z 1 |6 + 3|z 1 |2 |z 2 |2 + |z 2 |6 − 1.
r (z, z) = (|z 1 |2 + |z 2 |2 )2 − (|z 1 |2 + |z 2 |2 )3 .
Exercise 1.13 In each case, give an example of a real-valued polynomial r (z, z) on

C2 satisfying the given property.
• The underlying matrix of coefficients of r has eigenvalues of both signs, but
r (z, z) ≥ 0 for all z.
• r (z, z) > 0 for all z and inf(r (z, z)) = 0.
• r (z, z) = 0 for z on the unit sphere, r is of degree 4 but r (z, z) is not (|z 1 |2 +
|z 2 |2 − 1)2 .
5 Proper Mappings 19
5 Proper Mappings
Let X, Y be locally compact topological spaces. The reader can imagine that they
are open subsets of complex Euclidean spaces. A continuous map f : X → Y is
called proper if, whenever K is compact in Y , f −1 (K ) is compact in X . There
is a simple intuition arising from compactifications. Suppose we take the one point
compactifications X ∪ ∞ and Y ∪ ∞, and we extend a continuous map f to a map F
between the compactifications by putting F(∞) = ∞ and F(x) = f (x) otherwise.
We put the usual topology on the compactifications. Then f is proper if and only if
F is continuous on the compactifications. This concept will be particularly useful
in this book when X and Y are unit balls. As a consequence, we have the following
simple equivalent definition.
Proposition 1.12 A holomorphic mapping f : 1 → 2 between domains in com-
plex Euclidean spaces is proper if and only if, whenever {z ν } is a sequence in 1
that tends to the boundary of 1 , the image sequence { f (z ν )} tends to the boundary
of 2 .
Proof Left to the reader.
Exercise 1.14 Prove Proposition 1.12.
Exercise 1.15 In each case decide whether the map f : R2 → R is proper.
• f (x, y) = x 2 + y 2 .
• f (x, y) = x 2 − y 2 .
• f (x, y) = |x| + |y|.
• f (x, y) = (x y − 1)2 + y 2 .
Remark 1.9 Our work emphasizes maps between balls in the positive codimension
case. In other words, our main concern is when the source ball lies in a lower dimen-
sional space than the target ball. We pause to mention several standard results for
domains in the equi-dimensional case. Let f : 1 → 2 be a proper holomorphic
mapping between bounded domains in Cn .
• f is an open mapping. If A ⊆ 1 is open, then f (A) is open in 2 .
• f is surjective. Thus, f (1 ) = 2 .
• Let V denote the zero-set of the Jacobian determinant of f . There is a positive
integer m (the multiplicity of f ) such that the following holds. For w ∈ 2 but not
in f (V ), the cardinality of f −1 (w) equals m. For w ∈ 2 ∩ f (V ), the cardinality
of f −1 (w) is smaller than m.
Exercise 1.16 Let 1 be the domain in C2 defined by |z|2a + |w|2b < 1. Let 2
be the unit ball. Put f (z, w) = (z a , w b ). Then f : 1 → 2 is proper. What is the
multiplicity of f ?
Exercise 1.17 Let 1 be the domain in C2 defined by |z 2 − w 3 |2 + |zw|2 < 1. Let
2 be the unit ball. Put f (z, w) = (z 2 − w 3 , zw). Then f : 1 → 2 is proper.
What is the multiplicity of f ?
We return to our discussion of proper mappings between balls. Let f : Bn → B N

be a proper holomorphic mapping, and suppose f has a continuous extension to
the unit sphere in the source. Then f maps the unit sphere in the source to the
unit sphere in the target. When f is a rational function, we get a rational sphere
map. Furthermore, Forstnerič proved, in source dimension at least 2, that a proper
holomorphic mapping between balls with sufficiently many continuous derivatives at
the sphere must be rational [36]. When the source and target dimensions both equal
1, every proper holomorphic map between balls is rational. The next result gives a
complete description in one dimension.
Proposition 1.13 Let f : B1 → B1 be a proper holomorphic mapping. Then f is
a finite Blaschke product. Thus, there are finitely many points a j in the unit disk,
positive integers m j , and a point eiθ on the circle, such that
K m j
aj − z
f (z) = eiθ . (1.22)
j=1
1 − ajz
Proof Consider f −1 (0). Since f is not identically 0, this set is a discrete collection
of points. Since f is proper and a single point is compact, this set is finite. By Exercise
1.21, it is non-empty. To each a j let m j denote the multiplicity of the 0 at a j . Put
K m j
aj − z
B(z) = .
j=1
1 − ajz
f (z)
Note that B is also proper. We will show that B(z)
= 1, and hence f
B
is a constant
iθ f
e . Note that is also holomorphic on the disk, because each zero of B is cancelled
B
by a zero of f . Given > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that both 1 − < | f (z)| < 1 and
1 − < |B(z)| < 1 on 1 − δ ≤ |z| < 1. Thus,
f (z) 1
1−< <
B(z) 1−
there. Since Bf is holomorphic, the maximum principle guarantees that the same
inequality holds on |z| < 1 − δ and hence on the disk. Letting tend to 0 shows
that | Bf | = 1. Either by standard complex analysis, or by the one-dimensional case
of Proposition 1.4, we conclude that there is an eiθ such that f = eiθ B.
Corollary 1.9 Assume f is holomorphic in a neighborhood of the closed unit disk,
and suppose that f maps the circle to the circle. Then either f is a constant or f is
of the form (1.22).
Corollary 1.10 Let q be a polynomial in one variable; assume that q(z) = 0 on the
closed unit disk. Then there is a polynomial p such that qp is reduced to lowest terms
and maps the circle to itself.
5 Proper Mappings 21
Proof If q = c is constant, put p(z) = cz. If q is not constant, we may assume

q(0) = 1. Since q has no zeroes on the closed unit ball, we can factor it, writing
m
q(z) = (1 − a j z),
j=1
where |a j | < 1 for each j. We allow the a j to be repeated. Define p by
m
p(z) = (a j − z).
j=1
The fraction qp is reduced to lowest terms. Also | p(z)|2 = |q(z)|2 on the circle, by
formula (1.16) in one dimension.
Remark 1.10 The higher dimensional analogues of Proposition 1.11 and its corol-
laries are much more subtle, and they will occupy most of this book. The heuristic
explanation is that multiplication gets replaced by the tensor product and tensor
products of automorphisms require larger dimensional target spaces. Furthermore,
not all rational sphere maps are constructed via the tensor product operation alone.
The analogue of Corollary 1.10 holds, but it is much harder to prove, and there is no
analogous formula for p. Both the degree and target dimension of p depend on the
coefficients of q. See Corollary 2.6 from the next Chapter.
For later purposes we introduce the following standard bit of terminology.
Definition 1.2 Assume f, g are proper holomorphic maps from Bn to B N . We say

that f is spherically equivalent to g if there are automorphisms γ and ξ such that
f ◦ γ = ξ ◦ g.
Example 1.4 A proper linear fractional transformation between balls is spherically

equivalent to z → (z, 0).
Exercise 1.18 Suppose f, g are spherically equivalent rational sphere maps. Show
that they are of the same degree. Here the degree means the degree of the numerator.
See Definition 2.3.
Exercise 1.19 Let f be a Blaschke product with 3 factors. When is f spherically

equivalent to z 3 ?
Exercise 1.20 Let {an } be a sequence of points in the unit disk. Assume that {an }
satisfies the Blaschke condition
∞

(1 − |an |) < ∞.
n=1
|an |
Put einθ = an
when an = 0. If an = 0, put einθ = 1. Show that the infinite Blaschke
product
∞
an − z
einθ
n=1
1 − an z
converges to an analytic function B(z) on the unit disk. Explain why z → B(z) is
not a proper holomorphic mapping from the disk to itself.
Exercise 1.21 Let f be a non-constant holomorphic function in a neighborhood of
the closed unit disk. Suppose that | f (z)| = 1 on |z| = 1. Our proof that f is a finite
Blaschke product considered f −1 (0), and assumed that it is non-empty. How do we
know that f has a zero inside the unit disk?
Exercise 1.22 Put z = w−i
w+i
. Express the condition that |z|2 < 1 in terms of w. Com-
ment: A generalization of this computation will be important for us in Chapter 6,
when we discuss an unbounded realization of the unit sphere.
6 Some Counting
Throughout this book, we will be studying rational sphere maps. Doing so will lead
to various underdetermined linear systems of equations; there will be usually more
unknowns than there are equations, and hence there will be many solutions. For that
reason, we need to recall some standard combinatorial facts.
Lemma 1.6 Let n denote the number of variables.

• There are n+m−1
m
independent homogeneous polynomials of degree m.
• There are n+m
m
independent polynomials of degree at most m, and
m

n+k−1 n+m
= .
k=0
k m
Proof The first item has a well-known beautiful proof. Let α be a multi-index of
degree m. We count the total of such α by choosing n − 1 dividers among n +
m − 1 locations. We put α1 items before the first divider, α2 between the first and
second dividers, and so on. There is a one-to-one correspondence between then+m−1
multi-
indices of length m and the choice of dividers. Hence there are n+m−1
n−1
= m
independent homogeneous polynomials of degree m in n variables.
The second item also has an elegant proof. Consider the number of homogeneous
polynomials of degree m in one additional variable, namely n+m m
by the first item.
This number equals the number of polynomials of degree at most m in n variables,
because we can simply set the additional
variable equal to 1 to dehomogenize. Alter-
n+k−1
natively, the answer equals the sum m . This sum can be simplified to
n+m
k=0 k
m
.
6 Some Counting 23
Symmetric polynomials will arise often in this book. Given a monomial f in

n variables, we can symmetrize it by considering the average of f ◦ σ over all
permutations of the coordinates.
Lemma 1.7 Let n be the number of variables.

• There are n(n−1)
2
independent quadratic monomials x j xk with j = k.
• Put p(x1 , x2 ) = x1a x2b where a = b. The symmetrization of p has n(n − 1) terms.
Proof For quadratics, we are simply counting the number of ways to choose 2 indices
from among n. For the second statement, there are n2 ways to choose the 2 variables,
and each choice contributes the two terms x a y b + x b y a , since a, b are distinct. Hence
n
there are 2 2 = n(n − 1) terms.
Lemma 1.8 Assume n = 2. If d = 2r + 1 is odd, then there are (r + 1)(r + 2)

independent symmetric monomials of degree at most d. If d = 2r is even, then there
are (r + 1)2 independent symmetric monomials of degree at most d.
Proof We need to count the number of pairs (a, b) such that a ≥ b and a + b ≤ d.
When d = 2r + 1 we get
1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + · · · + r + r + r + 1 + r + 1 = (r + 1)(r + 2).
When d = 2r , using the result for d = 2r + 1, we get the sum
1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + · · · + r + r + r + 1 = (r + 1)(r + 2) − (r + 1) = (r + 1)2 .
Exercise 1.23 How many independent symmetric homogeneous polynomials of

degree 3 in four variables are there?
Exercise 1.24 Show that the generic polynomial of degree at least 2 in two or more
complex variables is irreducible. Suggestion: Suppose f is of degree d and f = gh
where the degrees of g, h are each at least one and their sum is d. Count the number of
constants needed to determine f . Show that this number is smaller than the number
n+d
n
needed to descrbe polynomials of degree d in n variables.
Exercise 1.25 Suppose f (x) is a polynomial in one real variable of degree at least
2 with non-negative coefficients. For x, y > 0, prove that
f (x + y) + f (0) > f (x) + f (y).
Can you use this result in the previous exercise?

7 A GPS for This Book
We have defined rational sphere map in Definition 1.1. This short section provides
the location of where each fundamental result is discussed, thereby giving the reader a
kind of global positioning system for the book. We also indicate briefly what happens
in each chapter.
Let n denote the source dimension and N the target dimension of a rational sphere
map f = qp .
• When N < n, f is a constant. See Proposition 6.2.
• When N = n = 1, f is a finite Blaschke product. See Proposition 1.13.
• When N = n ≥ 2, f is an automorphism of the ball. See Theorem 6.4.
• If q is a polynomial that does not vanish on the closed unit ball in Cn , then there
is a target dimension N and a numerator p such that qp is a rational sphere map
(reduced to lowest terms). See Theorem 2.7.
• If f is a proper rational map between balls, then f is a rational sphere map. See
Theorem 6.8.
• Chapter 2 discusses a wide variety of results about rational sphere maps. In par-
ticular, Theorem 2.15 shows how to find a numerator p, given a denominator q,
by solving a system of linear equations obtained by equating Hermitian forms.
• Chapter 3 discusses combinatorial results about monomial sphere maps. In particu-
lar, the chapter spends considerable time developing properties of some remarkable
polynomials in two variables.
• Chapter 4 discusses optimization results about monomial sphere maps. This
chapter includes output obtained by coding. Some but not all of those results
have been proved, and thus this chapter suggests opportunities for research.
• Chapter 5 discusses groups associated with rational sphere maps.
• Chapter 6 discusses some of the relevant CR Geometry.
• Chapter 7 discusses a sharp inequality in the volume of the image of a rational
sphere map.
• Chapter 8 provides a list of 15 open problems with references to where in the text
the problem is stated.
Chapter 2
Examples and Properties of Rational
Sphere Maps
We recall the definition and then amplify some of the basic issues. Allowing the
circle and the torus to act on the sphere yields some fundamental identities for
rational sphere maps which get used throughout the book. We discuss a wide variety
of results concerning the impact of the target dimension on the possibilities. We
introduce juxtaposition and tensor products, both of which get used extensively.
We show that the denominator of a rational sphere map can be any polynomial not
vanishing on the closed ball, but only if we allow a sufficiently large target dimension.
To do so, we prove that the first few components of a rational sphere map can be any
rational function that maps the closed ball in the source strictly inside the open ball
in the target. This statement shows that the collection of rational sphere maps with
a fixed source dimension has an arbitrarily large dimension as the target dimension
increases. The chapter also includes a result about the inverse image of a point under
a rational sphere map and its relationship with a reflection principle.
Secttion 13 provides a universal method to find all rational sphere maps. The idea
is to first fix the denominator, and then find a numerator of the lowest degree that
works. Then one uses the tensor product operation to put the numerator in a certain
form. Doing so reduces the problem of solving a very large system of linear equations
for the inner products of unknown vectors. In Sect. 14, we provide a rather detailed
complicated example of this method.
1 Definition and Basic Results about Rational Sphere Maps
We begin by recalling the definition and conventions of rational sphere maps. We

continue by writing down the equations satisfied by the coefficients of the numerator
and denominator.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 25

J. P. D’Angelo, Rational Sphere Maps, Progress in Mathematics 341,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75809-7_2
26 2 Examples and Properties of Rational Sphere Maps
Definition 2.1 A rational sphere map is any rational map f = p

q
satisfying the
following properties:
• p : Cn → C N is a (holomorphic) polynomial.
• q : Cn → C is a (holomorphic) polynomial, with q(z) = 0 when z ≤ 1.
• f = qp is reduced to lowest terms.
• p(z)2 = |q(z)|2 when z2 = 1.
Definition 2.1 allows constant maps. When n = 1, the second item eliminates
maps such as z → 1z (or Blaschke factors with |a| > 1) which map the circle to itself
and are rational, but which are not holomorphic on the open unit disk. When n ≥ 2,
if f is assumed to be rational and the fourth condition holds, then either f is constant
or f is proper. The condition that q(z) = 0 on the closed ball is thus not necessary
when n ≥ 2. In Theorem 6.8, we show the following. If f is a proper rational map
between balls, reduced to the lowest terms, then q(z) = 0 on the closed ball. If f
is proper and q has a zero on the sphere, then p and q must have a common factor.
Thus, the assumption that q = 0 on the closed ball is superfluous when n ≥ 2.
We will assume that q(0) = 1. When q is a constant, we use the terms polynomial
sphere map and monomial sphere map with obvious meaning. We call n the source
dimension and N the target dimension. For n ≥ 2, all rational mappings for which
the image of the unit sphere in the source lies in the unit sphere in the target are
rational sphere maps. Such an f is either constant or proper. As noted above, when
f is proper and reduced to the lowest terms, Theorem 6.8 implies the remaining
condition.
Remark 2.1 The assumption q(0) = 1 has a simple consequence; the numerator of a
rational sphere map determines the denominator. Suppose qp and rp are rational sphere
maps. Since q, r are not zero on the closed ball, both qr and qr are holomorphic. They
have the same absolute value on the sphere. By the maximum principle, r is a constant
multiple of q. Since r (0) = q(0), we conclude r = q.
Remark 2.2 Let g be a rational sphere map with source dimension k and target
dimension n, and let f be a rational sphere map with source dimension n and target
dimension N . Then the composition g ∗ ( f ) = f ◦ g defines a rational sphere map
with source dimension k and target dimension N . Perhaps one might need to cancel
common factors from the numerator and denominator of g ∗ ( f ). The key point of
course is that g maps the unit sphere in its source to the unit sphere in its target, and
that f maps that unit sphere to the unit sphere in its target.
We next turn to a fundamental tool used throughout the book. The unit circle acts
on the unit sphere via the map z → eiθ z. After replacing z by eiθ z, we obtain various
useful Fourier series.
Definition 2.2 Let p : Cn→ C N be a polynomial of degree d. Its homogeneous

expansion is written p = dj=0 p j , where p j (ζz) = ζ j p j (z) for ζ ∈ C.
1 Definition and Basic Results about Rational Sphere Maps 27
Exercise 2.1 With p as in Definition 2.2, show that

2π
1
p j (z) = p(eiθ z)e−i jθ dθ.
2π 0
Definition 2.3 The degree of a rational sphere map is the degree of the numerator
p as a polynomial.
We will prove below that the degree of q is always at most the degree of p; in
fact, if f (0) = 0, then the degree of q is strictly smaller than the degree of p. When
f is a rational sphere map, then either f is a constant or its restriction to the unit ball
is a proper holomorphic mapping between unit balls. Conversely, by the theorem
of Forstnerič, when n ≥ 2, a proper map between balls Bn and B N with sufficiently
many continuous derivatives at the boundary sphere is a rational sphere map [36].
We discuss this result in Chap. 6.
Proposition 2.1 Let f = p

q
: Bn → B N be a rational sphere map. Then
• The degree of q is less than or equal to the degree of p.
• If p(0) = 0, then the degree of q is less than the degree of p.

Proof Let D be the maximum of the two degrees. We let p = Dj=0 p j and q =
D
j=0 q j be the homogeneous expansions of p and q. For z on the sphere, we have
p(z)2 = |q(z)|2 and hence

p(z)2 = p j (z), pk (z) = q j (z)qk (z) = |q(z)|2 . (2.1)
j,k j,k
Replace z by eiθ z and use homogeneity. Equate Fourier coefficients and replace the
index j by k + m. We obtain (for each m) the following identity:

D
D
pk+m (z), pk (z) = qk+m (z)qk (z). (2.2)
k=0 k=0
When m = D, we must have k = 0 and therefore
p D (z), p0 = q D (z)q0 = q D (z).
If q D = 0, then p D = 0 as well, and the first statement holds. If p(0) = 0, then

q D = 0 and the second statement holds.
The identities (2.2) and their homogenized form appear throughout this book.
They arise from letting the circle act on the sphere. The next two corollaries provide
consequences of (2.2) in the polynomial case. In the next section, we give an important
consequence in the general rational case and Sect. 13 applies these identities to give
a general description of all rational sphere maps. To prepare for later discussion, we
will often write D for the degree of p and d for the degree of q.
Corollary 2.1 Let p be a polynomial sphere map. Suppose that the order of vanish-
ing of p at 0 is ν and the degree of p is D. Assume that ν < D. (In other words, p
is not homogeneous.) Then p D , pν = 0.
Thus, when p is not homogeneous, the lowest and highest order parts of p map
into orthogonal subspaces. Corollary 2.1 will have several applications later in the
book. The next result, Corollary 2.2, is useful because it provides a necessary and
sufficient condition for a polynomial to be a polynomial sphere map.
Corollary 2.2 Let p : Cn → C N be a polynomial of degree D. Then p is a polyno-

mial sphere map if and only if the following conditions on its homogeneous expansion
hold. First,
D
pk 2 z2D−2k = z2D . (2.3)
k=0
Also, for each m > 0,

D
pk+m , pk z2D−2k = 0. (2.4)
k=0
Also, if p is not a constant, then the polynomial p D 2 is divisible by z2 .
Proof Put q = 1 in (2.2) and then homogenize. We obtain (2.3) and (2.4). Formula
(2.3) implies the last statement, because, if D ≥ 1, then the right-hand side of (2.3)
and every term in the sum in (2.3) except for p D 2 is divisible by z2 . Hence,
p D 2 also is.
An analogue of the last statement holds in the rational case; see Theorem 2.3.
p
Exercise 2.2 Let q
be a rational sphere map where q is degree 1. Prove that
p D (z), p D−1 (z)

q1 (z) = .
z2D−2
One can also let the n-torus T(n) act on the sphere and obtain additional identities.
We write them down after we offer a notational warning about multi-index notation
and then introduce an efficient way to express the identities.
Remark 2.3 Assume z ∈ Cn and that α is an n-tuple of non-negative integers. Then

the following holds:

n
α
zα = zj j
j=1

n
|z|2α = |z α |2 = |z j |2α j .
j=1
Definition 2.4 Let G(z, z) be a polynomial (possibly vector-valued) that is homoge-

neous of degree a in the z variables and of degree b in the z variables. In other words,
G(sz, sz) = s a s b G(z, z) for all complex numbers s. We say that G is bihomogeneous
of bi-degree (a, b).
The most important case of bihomogeneity is when a = b. Sometimes the phrase

G is bihomogeneous is used to imply that a = b.
In order to fully benefit from the various identities satisfied by rational sphere
maps, we introduce the following operation L sending (possibly vector-valued) holo-
morphic polynomials of degree D into Hermitian forms.
Let f : C → C be a holomorphic polynomial of degree at most

n N
Definition 2.5
D. Let f = f j denote its expansion in homogeneous parts. For 0 ≤ k ≤ D, define
polynomials in (z, z) by the formulas

D−k
Lk ( f ) = f j+k , f j z2D−2 j−2k (2.5)
j=0
Then define a real-valued polynomial by
D

S( f ) = L0 ( f ) + Lk ( f ) + Lk ( f ) = cαβ z α z β . (2.6)
k=1
The polynomials Lk ( f ) are of bi-degree (D, D − k). To make the bi-degree homo-
geneity more transparent, we can also write (2.5) as

D−k
Lk ( f ) = f j+k ⊗ z ⊗(D− j−k) , f j ⊗ z ⊗(D− j−k) .
j=0
Notice that L0 ( f ) is real-valued, and hence S( f ) also is. The matrix cαβ in (2.6) is
therefore Hermitian symmetric. We call this matrix L( f ).
We make an important comment. Definition 2.5 makes sense independent of the

target dimension N . When qp is a rational sphere map with target dimension N we
will apply the map L in Definition 2.5 both to p (with target dimension N ) and to
q (with target dimension 1). The map L depends on the degree D. When we write
L(q) the degree D will be the degree of p. Thus, Proposition 2.1 is significant.
Theorem 2.1 below will be a crucial tool for us, so we express it in two ways.
Theorem 2.1 Let qp be a rational sphere map.

• Put p(z) = Cα z α and q(z) = bα z α . For each multi-index δ, the following
holds on the unit sphere:

Cβ+δ , Cβ − bβ+δ bβ z δ |z|2β = 0. (2.7)
β
D d
• Write p = k=0 pk and q = k=0 q j . Then L( p) = L(q).
iθ − |q(z)|iθ = 0 on the sphere. Let T(n)

Proof We write out the condition that p(z) 2 2
act by replacing z with e z. Here e z = e z 1 , · · · , e n z n . Expanding the squared

iθ iθ 1
norms yields
Cα , Cβ − bα bβ z α z β ei(α−β)θ = 0. (2.8)
This multiple Fourier series vanishes for z on the unit sphere and for all θ. We then
replace α by β + δ and equate Fourier coefficients to obtain (2.7).
The second item follows by homogenizing (2.2). For 0 ≤ m ≤ D, we obtain

D
D
p j+m (z), p j (z) z2D−2 j−2m = q j+m (z)q j (z)z2D−2 j−2m (2.9)
j=0 j=0
The equations in (2.9) are precisely Lm ( p) = Lm (q). Hence, L( p) = L(q).

Corollary 2.3 Let p(z) = Cα z α be a polynomial sphere map. Put
m(z) = (. . . , Cα z α , . . . ).
Then m is a monomial sphere map.

Proof When p is a polynomial sphere map, q(z) = 1. Thus, bβ = 0 for β = 0. Also
put δ = 0 in (2.7). We obtain

Cβ 2 |z|2β = 1
β
on the unit sphere, and the conclusion follows.

Corollary 2.4 Each polynomial sphere map is a composition L ◦ m of a linear map
and a monomial sphere map.
The linear map L from Corollary 2.4 typically decreases dimensions. Each mono-
mial arising in p contributes to the target dimension of m, but the vector coefficients
need not be linearly independent, and hence the target dimension of p is typically
smaller.
Example 2.1 Let u jk be the components of an element of U(2). Define a polynomial

sphere map by
p(z, w) = (u 11 z + u 12 w, u 21 z 2 + u 22 zw, u 21 zw + u 22 w 2 ).
Then p has target dimension 3, but the monomial map m from Corollary 2.3 has
target dimension 5. Thus, L : C5 → C3 .
The degree of a polynomial is more useful than measurements such as the number
of inverse images of points. First, we note the following standard fact.
Remark 2.4 A proper holomorphic map is a finite map; the number of inverse images
of a point is finite. The inverse image of a single point is a compact complex analytic
subvariety. We will see in Chap. 6 that such objects must be finite sets; we allow the
empty set as a possibility.
Remark 2.5 The degree of a rational sphere map is defined to be the degree of the
numerator p. Here, we mean the degree as a polynomial. Because our maps are not
in general equi-dimensional, measurements such as the generic or maximum number
of inverses images do not in general equal the degree.
The next example illustrates why it is difficult to assign multiplicities to points

when maps are not equi-dimensional. The reader should contrast this example with
Remark 1.9.
Example 2.2 Put f (z 1 , z 2 ) = (z 1 , z 1 z 2 , z 1 z 22 , z 23 ). Then f is a monomial sphere map.

Consider a point w = (a, b, c, d) ∈ C4 . If a = 0, and w is in the image of f , then
f −1 (w) is the single point (a, ab ). What happens when a = 0? If w = (0, 0, 0, 0),
then f −1 (w) is the single point (0, 0). If w = (0, 0, 0, d) with d = 0, then f −1 (w)
consists of the three points (0, α) where α3 = d. If a = 0 but b = 0 or c = 0, then
f −1 (w) is empty. Thus, it is not clear how to assign an integer that measures the
singularity at (0, 0).
2 Sphere-Ranks and Target-Ranks
Let f be holomorphic. At times it is convenient to consider maps of the form f ⊕ 0 =

( f, 0). Then f 2 = f ⊕ 02 . Hence, if f is a rational sphere map, then so is f ⊕ 0.
We can think of ( f, 0) as the composition of f with an injection of the target sphere
into the equator of a larger dimensional target sphere. Deciding whether to regard
f and f ⊕ 0 as essentially the same maps is a persistent nuisance throughout the
subject. One way to be precise is to introduce the notion of target-rank. In the next
definition, we could replace the target space with any Hilbert space without essential
change.
Definition 2.6 Let f : Bn → C N be holomorphic. For vectors Ca , we write

f (z) = Ca z a
a

f (z)2 = Ca , Cb z a z b .
a,b
• The target-rank of f is the rank of the Hermitian matrix (cab ) defined by cab =
Ca , Cb .
• The sphere-rank of f is the smallest k for which there is a holomorphic map h
with target-rank k and f 2 = h2 on the unit sphere. If no such k exists, then
we say the sphere-rank is infinite.
The sphere-rank of a rational sphere map equals 1. Note that the target-rank of
f ⊕ 0 equals the target-rank of f . When f (0) = 0, the target-rank of f is the smallest
number k for which the image of f lies in a subspace of dimension k.
When f is a holomorphic mapping, perhaps taking values in a Hilbert space, its
target-rank is the number N+ obtained by putting r (z, z) = f (z)2 . In this case, the
rank of the matrix (cab ) equals the minimum number k of terms for which

k
f (z)2 = |h j (z)|2 .
j=1
This rank is sometimes called the Hermitian length or the Pythagoras number of
r (z, z). Also, often one says that r is a Hermitian square.
The next examples clarify the distinction between target-rank and sphere-rank.
Example 2.3 Consider the holomorphic map (z 1 , z 2 , z 3 ) → f (z) = (z 1 , bz 2 , cz 3 ).
The following statements are all obvious.
• If b = c = 0, then the target-rank of f is 1.
• If b = 0 but c = 0, then the target-rank of f is 2.
• If b, c = 0, then the target-rank of f is 3.
• If |b| = |c| = 1, then the sphere-rank of f is 1.
• If 1 < |b| < |c|, then the sphere-rank of f is 3.
√ 2.4 Put f (z 1 , z 2 ) = (z 1 , cz 1 z 2 , z 2 ). For c = 0 the target-rank of f is 3. If

3 3
Example
|c| = 3, then the sphere-rank of f is 1, as f is a monomial sphere map in this case.
If |c|2 > 3, then the sphere-rank of f is 2. The reason is that, on the sphere, we can
write
f (z)2 = 1 + (|c|2 − 3)|z 1 z 2 |2 .
We recall the related idea of signature pairs. Let r (z, z) be real-analytic in a ball
centered at 0 in Cn . Assume that r takes real values. The matrix of Taylor coefficients
(cab ) of r at 0 is then Hermitian. We can always write
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
a few liberal-minded men, nearly all the members from the cotton-
growing states opposed the application strongly.
[178] Ibid., pp. 55-57.
Whitney combined in a singular degree high inventive capacity

with clear judgment and steady determination. By 1798 he saw that
his hopes for any large return from the cotton gin were uncertain. He
turned to the manufacture of firearms and by steady, sure steps built
up another business and died a well-to-do man. In this second
enterprise he developed the interchangeable system of manufacture
and thereby influenced modern society almost as greatly as he had
in the invention of the cotton gin, although this is little realized by the
general public.
In the chapter on “The Rise of Interchangeable Manufacture” we
traced Whitney’s work as a gun manufacturer from 1798, when he
first applied for his contract for ten thousand muskets. His
undertaking of this contract required courage and self-confidence.
Although he was not a trained gun maker, he proposed “from the
start” to manufacture guns by a new method, which was ridiculed by
those familiar with the manufacture of firearms at that time. He had
to build a plant, design and equip it with new and untried types of
tools; and to educate workmen to his methods. Furthermore, he did
this work, involving $134,000, under bond for satisfactory
performance. The high estimation in which Whitney was held by
those who knew him is evidenced by the fact that, although he was
already embarrassed and embarking on an entirely new kind of
enterprise, ten of the foremost men of New Haven signed his bond
for the faithful performance of his contract.
A contemporary, intimately acquainted with his work, has outlined
his method of manufacture in words which describe the
interchangeable system, as it exists today, so accurately that we give
it in full:
The several parts of the muskets were, under this system, carried along through
the various processes of manufacture, in lots of some hundreds or thousands of
each. In their various stages of progress, they were made to undergo successive
operations by machinery, which not only vastly abridged the labor, but at the same
time so fixed and determined their form and dimensions, as to make comparatively
little skill necessary in the manual operations. Such were the construction and
arrangement of this machinery, that it could be worked by persons of little or no
experience, and yet it performed the work with so much precision, that when, in
the later stages of the process, the several parts of the musket came to be put
together, they were as readily adapted to each other, as if each had been made for
its respective fellow.... It will be readily seen that under such an arrangement any
person of ordinary capacity would soon acquire sufficient dexterity to perform a
branch of the work. Indeed, so easy did Mr. Whitney find it to instruct new and
inexperienced workmen, that he uniformly preferred to do so, rather than to
attempt to combat the prejudices of those who had learned the business under a
different system.[179]
[179] Ibid., pp. 53-54.
It took him a much longer time to fulfill the contract than he had
anticipated; two years elapsed before his plant was ready. Only 500
guns were delivered the first year instead of 4000, and the entire
contract required eight years instead of two from the time when he
began actual manufacture. In spite of this delay he kept the
confidence of the government officials, who were very liberal in their
treatment of him; so much had been advanced to him to help him
develop his machinery that when the contract was completed only
$2450 out of the total of $134,000 remained to be paid. The work
was highly satisfactory, and in 1812 he was awarded another
contract for 15,000 muskets from the United States Government and
one for a similar number from the State of New York. What is known
of his methods and machinery is given in the chapter referred to,
which shows also how they spread to other armories throughout the
country.
The business which Mr. Whitney started was carried on for ninety
years. After his death in 1825 the armory was managed for ten years
by Eli Whitney Blake, later inventor of the Blake stone crusher, and
Philos Blake, his nephews. From 1835 to 1842 it was managed by
ex-Governor Edwards, a trustee of Mr. Whitney’s estate. His son, Eli
Whitney, Jr., then became of age and assumed the management,
and that same year obtained a contract for making the “Harper’s
Ferry” rifle,—the first percussion lock rifle, all guns before that date
having had flint locks.
Eli Whitney, Jr., continued to develop the art of gun making. He
introduced improvements in barrel drilling and was the first to use
steel for gun barrels. In 1847, during the Mexican War, Jefferson
Davis, then a colonel in a Mississippi regiment, wrote to the
Ordnance Department at Washington, that it was his opinion that the
steel-barreled muskets from the Whitney armory were “the best rifles
which had ever been issued to any regiment in the world.” The
Whitney Arms Company supplied the Government with more than
30,000 rifles of this model. The company continued in existence until
1888, when the plant was sold to the Winchester Repeating Arms
Company. It was operated by them for a number of years in the
manufacture of 22-calibre rifles. This work was subsequently
removed to their main works and the plant was sold to the Acme
Wire Company, and later to the Sentinel Gas Appliance Company, its
present owner. Some of the original buildings are still standing. It
may be of interest to note that at the time the works were first built, a
row of substantial stone houses was built by Whitney for his
workmen, which are said to have been the first workmen’s houses
erected by an employer in the United States.
In person Mr. Whitney was tall and dignified. He had a cultivated
mind and a manner at once refined, frank and agreeable. He was
familiar with the best society of his day and was a friend of every
president of the United States from George Washington to John
Quincy Adams. He had a commanding influence among all who
knew him. Seldom has a great inventor been more sane, for his
powers of invention were under perfect control and never ran wild.
Unlike those who devise many things but complete few, he left
nothing half executed. Robert Fulton said that Arkwright, Watt and
Whitney were the three of his contemporaries who had done the
most for mankind.[180] Lord Macaulay is quoted as saying, “What
Peter the Great did to make Russia dominant, Eli Whitney’s
invention of the cotton gin has more than equaled in its relation to
the progress and power of the United States.”[181] He contributed
immeasureably to the agriculture and the manufacturing methods of
the whole world and few mechanics have had a greater influence.
[180] Blake: “History of Hamden, Conn.,” p. 303.
[181] Devans: “Our First Century,” p. 153.
Simeon North was born at Berlin, Conn., the same year as
Whitney, and like him, started life as a farmer. In 1795 he began
making scythes in an old mill adjoining his farm. Just when he began
making pistols is not clear. It is said that he made some for private
sale as early as the time of the Revolution, and it is probable that he
had begun their manufacture in a small way prior to receiving his first
government contract. He may have learned the rudiments of the
trade from Elias Beckley, who had a gun shop about a mile from
North’s birthplace.[182]
[182] The fullest account of Simeon North is given in the “Memoir of
Simeon North,” by S. N. D. North and R. H. North. Concord, N. H., 1913.
In March of 1799, about a year after Whitney received his first

contract for muskets, North received his first contract for horse-
pistols, 500, which were to be delivered in one year. This was
followed by others for 1500 in 1800; 2000 in 1802; 2000 in 1808;
1000 in 1810, and others not known. By 1813 he had made at least
10,000 and was employing forty or fifty men. In none of these
contracts was there any mention made of interchangeability, but
some time during these years North began to use interchangeable
methods. The correspondence quoted in the previous chapter and
the quotations already given show that Whitney was working on the
same basis from the start. It is a great pity that Colonel North’s
papers were destroyed after his death, as they might have thrown
some light on the question as to how and when he began to use
interchangeable methods. It is impossible now to say how much
Whitney and North influenced each other if they did at all. In 1812
the Secretary of War visited North’s shop at Berlin, Conn., and urged
him to increase his plant. On receiving the contract of 1813, North
purchased land in Middletown, Conn., and built a dam and a three-
story brick armory, 86 x 36 feet, on the best lines known at that time,
involving in all an expenditure of $100,000. The old factory was run
in conjunction with the new one until 1843, when it was closed.
North began making barrels of steel in 1848, only a year or two
after Eli Whitney, Jr., and contributed many improvements in the
design of the pistols and guns which he built. The Remington Arms
Company, the Savage Fire Arms Company, the Maynard Rifle
Company and the Massachusetts Arms Company, all trace back in
some way to him, and, like Whitney, he deeply influenced the
practice of the United States Government in its armories at
Springfield and Harper’s Ferry.
Colonel North’s first contract with the Government was made in
1799; his last was finished in 1853, a year after his death, covering
in all about 50,000 pistols and 33,000 rifles. He worked under
sixteen administrations, representing all parties, and in all the fifty-
three years he never received a reproof or a criticism of his work.
He had an old-fashioned sense of honor. In 1826 he was called on
to pay a note for $68,000 which he had indorsed. Although advised
that he could not be held legally, he said that his name was there
and he would stand by it. He placed a mortgage on his property, and
it was twenty-two years before he had made good the loss, which,
principal and interest, amounted to over $100,000. But for this
endorsement he would have died, for that time, a wealthy man.
Colonel North was a country-bred man, strong, quiet and almost
painfully modest. He lacked Whitney’s education and influence, but
like him he represented the best which American mechanical and
business life has produced.
CHAPTER XIII
THE COLT ARMORY
The city of Hartford has been more closely identified with the later
development of interchangeable manufacture than almost any other
city. The gun makers have been so vital an element in its industrial
life that, before leaving them, we will trace their influence.
The grist and saw mills, always the pioneers, had made their
appearance in the seventeenth century. With recurring attempts at
silk manufacture, most of the meager industrial life was directed
toward some branch of textiles up to and even after 1800.
In 1747 Col. Joseph Pitkin started a prosperous forge for making
bar iron and a mill for iron slitting. It was killed by the Act of
Parliament of 1750, already referred to, but the Pitkin family
balanced the account by using the buildings during the Revolution to
make powder for the Continental army. Later the buildings were put
to their original use. The Pitkins were industrial leaders for many
years in textiles, and in the manufacture of silverware, clocks,
watches, and heating apparatus. Henry and James F. Pitkin made
the old “American lever” watches in 1834, and many of the early
workmen who went to Waltham were trained by them.
Figure 31. Samuel Colt
The assessors’ returns for 1846 to the Secretary of State gave for
Hartford only three “machine factories” with a total capital of
$25,000, an annual output of $35,000, and forty-five men employed.
There were two boiler shops, a screw factory, a plow factory, a pin
factory, two brass and four iron foundries, and one poor gun maker
who did a business of $625 a year. Taken together, these enterprises
averaged only about $15,000 in capital, $20,000 in annual output
and fifteen employees each. This is hardly more than would be
expected in any town of its size, and certainly does not mark the city
as a manufacturing center. Book publishing employed over twice,
and clothing shops more than four times, as many men as all the
machine shops together.
In 1821 Alpheus and Truman Hanks purchased a small foundry
and began the business which later became Woodruff & Beach. This
firm had a long and successful career in building heavy machinery,
engines and boilers, and was among the earliest makers of iron
plows. In 1871 it became H. B. Beach & Son, boiler makers, and the
firm is still running, H. L. Beach being now (1914) the only survivor of
the old works.
In 1834 Levi Lincoln started the Phœnix Iron Works. Under various
names (George S. Lincoln & Company, Charles L. Lincoln &
Company, The Lincoln Company, The Taylor & Fenn Company) the
business has been maintained by his descendants to this day. Levi
Lincoln invented a number of machines, among them the first
successful hook-and-eye machine for Henry North of New Britain,
which became very valuable and helped to lay the foundation of the
prosperity of that town. George S. Lincoln & Company built machine
tools, architectural iron work and vaults. Their name is permanently
associated with the “Lincoln” miller, which was first built in 1855 in
their shop for the new Colt Armory, from the design of F. A. Pratt. It
was an adaptation and improvement of a Robbins & Lawrence miller
which had been brought to Hartford a year or two before. Few
machines have changed so little or have been used so widely. It has
been said that more than 150,000 of them have been built in this
country and abroad. Even in Europe, the type is definitely known by
this name.
The building of the Colt Armory in 1853 to 1854 marks a definite
era in Hartford’s history and the beginning of manufacturing there on
a large scale. Samuel Colt had an adventurous life, and died in the
midst of his success while less than fifty years old. Born in Hartford
in 1814, he had a rather stormy career as a schoolboy and shipped
before the mast to Calcutta before he was sixteen. After his return
from this voyage, he worked for some months in his father’s dye
works at Ware, Mass., where he got a smattering of chemistry. At
eighteen he started out again, this time as a lecturer under the name
of “Dr. Coult,” giving demonstrations of nitrous-oxide, or laughing
gas, which was little known to the public at that time. Dr. Coult’s
“lectures” were frankly popular, with a view more to laughter than the
imparting of knowledge, but he was clever and a good advertiser. It
is said that he gave laughing gas to more men, women and children
than any other lecturer since chemistry was first known. For three
years he drifted over the country from Quebec to New Orleans,
getting into all kinds of experiences, from administering gas for
cholera when impressed into service on account of his assumed title,
to fleeing the stage from big blacksmiths who took laughing gas too
seriously and actively.
He made the first crude model of his revolver on his voyage to
Calcutta and used the means derived from his “lectures” for
developing the invention. In 1835 he went to England and took out
his first patent there and on his return in 1836 he took out his first
American patent. These covered a firearm with a rotating cylinder
containing several chambers, to be discharged through a single
barrel. The same year, 1836, he organized the Patent Fire Arms
Company at Paterson, N. J., and tried to get the revolver adopted by
the United States Government. In 1837 an army board reported “that
from its complicated character, its liability to accident, and other
reasons, this arm was entirely unsuited to the general purposes of
the service.”
Colt’s first market was secured on the Texas frontier. His earliest
revolvers are known as the Walker and Texas models, and the hold
which he acquired with frontiersmen at that time has never been lost.
The Seminole War in Florida gave Colt an opportunity to
demonstrate the value of the revolver. In 1840 two government
boards gave it a qualified approbation and two small orders followed,
one for one hundred and the other for sixty weapons. The pistols,
however, were expensive, the sales small, and in 1842 the Paterson
company failed and ceased business.
In the next few years the tide turned. The superiority of the
revolvers outstanding was creating a great demand. With the
breaking out of the Mexican War in 1846 came two orders for 1000
pistols each, and from that time onward Colt’s career was one of
rapid and brilliant success.
As his Paterson plant had closed, Colt had the first of the large
government orders made at the Whitney Armory in New Haven,
where he followed minutely every detail of their manufacture. The
following year, 1848, Colt moved to Hartford and for a few years
rented a small building near the center of the city. With rapidly
increasing business, larger quarters soon became necessary.
In 1853 he began his new armory, shown in Fig. 32. South of the
city on the river front, lay an extensive flat, overflowed at high water
and consequently nearly valueless. He purchased a large tract of
this, built a protective dike 30 feet high and 1³⁄₄ miles long, and
drained it. His armory built on this site marks an epoch not only in
the history of Hartford, but in American manufacturing.
After the failure of his first venture at Paterson, Colt had seen the
advantage of interchangeable manufacture at the Whitney shop, and
determined to carry it even further in his new plant. So thoroughly
was this done that the methods crystallized there, and many of the
tools installed have undergone little change to this day. Machine
work almost wholly superseded hand work. Modern machines were
developed, and interchangeability and standards of accuracy given
an entirely new meaning.
The building was in the form of an “H,” 500 feet long and 3¹⁄₂
stories high. It contained over 1400 machines, the greater part of
which were designed and built on the premises. The tools and
fixtures cost about as much as the machines themselves, a
proportion unheard of before. In 1861 the plant was doubled. Three
years later the first building was burned to the ground, but was
immediately rebuilt. This plant was the largest private armory in the
world and far-and-away the best then existing for economical and
accurate production of a high-grade output. Many rivals have sprung
up in the past sixty years, but the Colt Armory is still one of the
leading gun factories of the world.
Colonel Colt was a remarkable man, masterful, daring and brilliant.
He started the larger industrial development of his city, and affected
manufacturing methods more than any other man of his generation.
Figure 32. The Colt Armory
From an Old Wood-Cut
One of the elements of his success was his ability to gather and
hold about him men of the highest order. Among these was Elisha K.
Root, one of the ablest mechanics New England has ever produced.
Root was a Massachusetts farmer’s boy, a few years older than Colt.
He served an apprenticeship, worked at Ware and at Chicopee Falls,
and came to the Collins Company, axe makers, at Collinsville,
Conn., in 1832. He began work there as a lathe hand in the repair
shop, but very soon became foreman and virtual superintendent. His
inventions and methods converted a primitive shop into a modern
factory and gave the Collins Company control, for a long time, of the
American market, and opened up a large export trade. In 1845 he
was made superintendent, and that same year was offered three
important positions elsewhere, one of them that of master armorer at
Springfield.
In 1849 Colt offered him the position of superintendent at a large
salary. It was characteristic of Colt that, although he was just starting
and still in small rented quarters, he outbid three others to get the
best superintendent in New England. Root moved to Hartford,
designed and built the new armory and installed its machinery. Many
of the machines devised by him at that time are still running, holding
their own in accuracy and economy of production with those of
today. Almost every process used in the plant felt his influence. He
invented the best form of drop hammer then in use, machines for
boring, rifling, making cartridges, stock turning, splining, etc., and
worked out the whole system of jigs, fixtures, tools and gauges. The
credit for the revolver belongs to Colt; for the way they were made,
mainly to Root. Fig. 33, a chucking lathe, and Fig. 34, a splining
machine, are two of Mr. Root’s machines which are still at work.
When Colonel Colt died, Mr. Root became president of the company
and continued until his death in 1865, receiving, it is said, the highest
salary paid in the state of Connecticut. He was a mechanic and
inventor of high order, a wise executive, and the success of the two
companies he served was in a large measure due to him. He was
quiet, thoughtful and modest. His influence went into flesh and blood
as well as iron and steel, for under him have worked F. A. Pratt and
Amos Whitney, Charles E. Billings and C. M. Spencer, George A.
Fairfield, of the Hartford Machine Screw Company, William Mason
and a host of others whom we cannot mention here. Like a parent, a
superintendent may be judged, in some measure, by the children he
rears, and few superintendents can show such a family.
Within a few years after the building of the Colt Armory,
manufacturing at Hartford had taken a definite character. From that
day to this it has centered almost wholly on high-grade products,
such as guns, sewing machines, typewriters, bicycles, automobiles
and machine tools. Naturally, during the past generation, the skilled
mechanics of the city have attracted many new and important
industries, only indirectly connected with the armory, which we
cannot consider here.
In 1848 Christian Sharps invented his breech-loading rifle, and in
1851 a company was formed at Hartford to manufacture it. Richard
S. Lawrence came from Windsor, Vt., as its master armorer, and is
said to have brought with him the first miller used in the city. They did
a large business for some years, but later moved to Bridgeport, and
the plant was sold to the Weed Sewing Machine Company. C. E.
Billings and George A. Fairfield, both “Colt men,” were
superintendents of this plant. When the Columbia bicycles were
introduced, the Weed Sewing Machine Company made them for the
Pope Manufacturing Company of Boston. Later this company bought
the plant, and it became one of the greatest bicycle factories in the
world. Of late years it has been used for the manufacture of
automobiles.
Figure 33. Root’s Chucking Lathe
About 1855
Figure 34. Root’s Splining Machine
About 1855
Two great industries sprang up in the neighborhood of Hartford in

the early days and had a vigorous life quite independent of it. We
have noted that Levi Lincoln contributed to the establishment of the
hardware industry at New Britain. Although New Britain is but a few
miles from Hartford, its manufactures have moved in a distinctly
different direction. In fact, by 1820 it had taken its character as a
hardware manufacturing center. North & Shipman had begun making
sleigh-bells, hooks and plated goods, and Lee was making buttons
and saddlery hardware. In 1839 Henry E. Russell and Cornelius B.
Erwin became active partners in Stanley, Russell & Company, the
beginning of the Russell & Erwin Manufacturing Company. The
Stanley Works and Landers, Frary & Clark had their beginnings in
1842; P. & F. Corbin in 1848, and the Stanley Rule & Level Company
in 1854. About the same time, Elnathan Peck, after a partnership
with George Dewey and Henry Walter, sold out to J. B. Sargent, who
later moved to New Haven. Mr. Peck also moved to New Haven and
started what is now Peck Brothers. It is a remarkable case of the
localization of a great industry. These companies, all large and
important, started within fifteen years in one small village of only a
few thousand inhabitants.
The other industry which started near Hartford but has developed
separately is the manufacture of clocks. Early in the nineteenth
century Eli Terry, first at Windsor, just north of Hartford, and later at
what is now Thomaston, Conn., began using machinery in making
wooden clocks, and by 1840 he had reduced the price for a
movement from $50 to $5. About 1840 Chauncey Jerome, an
apprentice of Terry’s, introduced the one-day brass clock which
could be made for less than fifty cents. In 1842 he shipped his first
consignment to England. They were promptly confiscated at their
invoice prices by the customs authorities for under-valuation. This
was perfectly agreeable to Jerome, as it furnished him with a spot-
cash buyer at full price, with no selling expenses. He therefore sent
another and larger shipment, which shared the same fate. When a
third still larger one arrived, the authorities withdrew from the clock
business and let it in. The exports soon spread everywhere, and
today Connecticut manufactures three-fifths of the clocks produced
in the United States.
Nearly all the great clock companies of Connecticut, like the New
Haven, Seth Thomas and Waterbury companies, trace back directly
or indirectly to Jerome and Terry.
CHAPTER XIV
THE COLT WORKMEN—PRATT & WHITNEY
At least two of the superintendents of the Colt Armory should be
mentioned—Prof. Charles B. Richards and William Mason.
Mr. Richards was not primarily a tool builder, but his contributions
to mechanical engineering are too great to pass without notice.
About 1860 he helped Charles T. Porter develop the design of the
first high-speed steam engine, and in order to study the action of this
engine he invented the Richards steam engine indicator. Indicators,
more or less crude, had been in use from the time of Watt, but the
Richards indicator was the first one accurate enough and delicate
enough to meet the demands of modern engine practice; and its
influence has been far-reaching. After a few years in New York as a
consulting engineer, he was for many years in the Colt Armory as
engineering superintendent under Mr. Root, and later was
superintendent of the Southwark Foundry & Machine Company in
Philadelphia. In 1884 he became Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University,
where he remained for twenty-five years as the head of the
mechanical engineering department.
William Mason was another of those who helped make the Colt
Armory what it was. He was a modest, kindly man, little known
outside of his immediate associates, but of singular fertility in
invention and almost unerring mechanical judgment. He learned his
trade with the Remington Arms Company at Ilion, N. Y., and after a
long association with them he was for sixteen years superintendent
of the Colt Armory. In 1885 he became master mechanic of the
Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven, and held that
position until his death in 1913. He had granted to him more than
125 patents, most of them in connection with arms and ammunition
and tools for their manufacture, but they included many appliances
for looms and weaving, steam pumps, and bridge work, and he
assisted with the development of the Knowles steam pump and
Knowles looms.
Asa Cook, a brother-in-law of F. A. Pratt, was for years a foreman
and contractor at Colt’s. He was afterwards a designer and
manufacturer of machinery for making wood screws, bolt machinery
and many other types of tools. George A. Fairfield, another Colt
foreman, became superintendent of the Weed Sewing Machine
factory and later president of the Hartford Machine Screw Company;
another workman, A. F. Cushman, of the Cushman Chuck Company,
for many years manufactured lathe chucks. In fact, there is hardly a
shop in Hartford which dates from the seventies and eighties which
does not trace back in some way to the Colt Armory. Its influence is
by no means confined to Hartford, for such men as Bullard and
Gleason carried its standards and methods to other cities.
Four of the Colt workmen formed two partnerships of wide
influence: Charles E. Billings and Christopher M. Spencer, who
organized the Billings & Spencer Company, and Francis A. Pratt and
Amos Whitney, of the Pratt & Whitney Company.
Charles E. Billings was a Vermonter, who served his
apprenticeship in the old Robbins & Lawrence shop at Windsor, Vt.
When twenty-one, he came to Colt’s, in 1856, as a die sinker and
tool maker and became their expert on the drop forging process. In
1862 he went to E. Remington & Sons, where he built up their
forging plant, increasing its efficiency many times, saving $50,000, it
is said, by one improvement in frame forging alone. At the end of the
war he returned to Hartford as the superintendent of the Weed
Sewing Machine Company, which had taken over the old Sharps
Rifle Works, built by Robbins & Lawrence. For a short time in 1868
Mr. Billings was at Amherst, Mass., associated with Spencer in the
Roper Repeating Arms Company. The venture was not a success,
and the next year, 1869, they came back to Hartford and formed the
Billings & Spencer Company. This company has probably done more
than any other for the art of drop forging, not only in developing the
modern board drop hammer itself, but in extending the accuracy and
application of the process. Mr. Billings was president of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1895.
Christopher M. Spencer was born at Manchester, Conn. He served
his apprenticeship in the machine shops of the silk mills there from
1847 to 1849, and remained for several years as a journeyman
machinist with Cheney Brothers. In 1853 he went to Rochester, N.
Y., to learn something of the other kinds of machinery, working in a
tool building shop and a locomotive shop. After some years at the
Colt Armory he went back to Cheney Brothers and soon obtained his
first patent for an automatic silk-winding machine. This was adopted
by the Willimantic Linen Company, with some modifications made by
Hezekiah Conant, and was the machine which Pratt & Whitney
began manufacturing in their first rented room in Hartford.
Mr. Spencer has had a passion for firearms from boyhood. In 1860
he obtained a patent for the Spencer repeating rifle. The Civil War
created a tremendous demand for it, and the Government ordered
first 1000, then 10,000, and before the war was over it had
purchased about 200,000. In 1862, while the first contracts were
pending, Spencer saw President Lincoln at Washington. He and
Lincoln went down on the White House grounds with the new rifle,
set up a board and shot at it. Lincoln enjoyed it like a schoolboy, and
shot well, too. He tore his coat pocket in the process, but told
Spencer not to worry over it, as he “never had anything of value in it
to lose.”
At the close of the war Spencer went to Amherst and was there
first associated with C. E. Billings in the Roper Company, as we
noted. A year later he joined in starting the Billings & Spencer
Company and coöperated with him in the development of the drop
hammer.
A successful machine which Spencer invented for turning sewing
machine spools suggested to Spencer the possibility of making
metal screws automatically. The result was his invention of the
automatic turret lathe. The importance of the blank cam cylinder, with
its flat strips adjustable for various jobs, was wholly over-looked by
his patent attorney, with the result that Spencer obtained no patent
right on the most valuable feature in the whole machine.

Full Ebook of Rational Sphere Maps 1St Edition John P Dangelo Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Rational Sphere Maps 1St Edition John P Dangelo Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rational Sphere Maps 1st Edition John

Starting Out The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition John Emms

Maps for Time Travelers Mark D. Mccoy

Chess Explained The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition Sam Collins

Rational Points on Elliptic Curves 2nd Edition Joseph H

Rational Points on Elliptic Curves 2nd Edition Joseph H

Terrible Maps Hilarious Maps for a Ridiculous World

Electronic Conduction 1st Edition John P. Xanthakis

Relativistic Dynamics of a Charged Sphere Updating the

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/4848

Rational Sphere Maps

ISSN 0743-1643 ISSN 2296-505X (electronic)

ðcosðhÞ þ i sinðhÞÞm ¼ ðeih Þm ¼ eimh ¼ cosðmhÞ þ i sinðmhÞ: ðÞ

In fact every trig identity follows from the following facts:

can be regarded as an automorphism of the unit disk. In n dimensions, the auto-

for (holomorphic) polynomials f j ? The answer is not necessarily. What can we

Urbana, USA John P. D’Angelo

1. D. Lichtblau, personal communication.

1 Complex Euclidean Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4 Cyclic Groups and Monomial Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

7 Geometric Properties of Rational Sphere Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

The notation Cn denotes complex Euclidean space of dimension n. As a set, it

We denote the corresponding squared norm by

so on. A domain will be an open, connected set. As a metric space Cn is complete,

When M < N , we often regard C M as a subspace of C N . For w ∈ C M , we write

f ( p + h) = f ( p) + d f ( p)h + error( p, h),

where lim h→0 error(

Corollary 1.1 Suppose f is holomorphic in a domain containing the closed unit

Recall that a linear transformation L : Cn → Cn is unitary if L preserves the inner

Remark 1.2 (Polarization) It is often crucial in complex analysis to regard z and

Example 1.1 We give a beautiful example of polarization. Consider a harmonic

z = (z 1 , ..., z n ) → U (z) = (eiθ1 z 1 , ..., eiθn z n ).

Let n = p + q. The groups U( p, q) are groups of n-by-n matrices preserving the

The subgroup SU( p, q) consists of those matrices in U( p, q) with determinant 1. In

Proposition 1.4 Let B denote a ball in Cn . Assume that f : B → C N and g : B →

Proof See [15] or [19] for a proof.

Definition 1.1 A rational sphere map is any rational map f = p

• f = qp is reduced to lowest terms.

Let p : Cn → C N be a polynomial. When p sends the unit sphere in the source

2 The Groups Aut(B1 ), SU(2), and SU(1, 1)

Proposition 1.5 (Schwarz lemma) Let f : B1 → C be holomorphic. Suppose

Proof Since f (0) = 0, the function g defined by g(z) = f (z)

Corollary 1.2 Suppose f : B1 → B1 is a holomorphic automorphism with f (0) =

Proof By expanding the squared magnitudes, the equality is equivalent to

1 + 2Re(eiθ ζw) + |ζw|2 = 1 + 2Re(eiθ (wζ)) + |wζ|2

Proof Compute g( f (z)). Then clear denominators by multiplying by 1 − wz. Factor

where |w| < 1 and eiθ is on the unit circle.

Proof Given p = (z, w) ∈ C2 , we define U (z, w) to be the 2-by-2 matrix

The mapping U is obviously injective on all of C2 . Assume |z|2 + |w|2 = 1. Com-

|a|2 + |b|2 = |a|2 + |c|2 = |c|2 + |d|2 = 1

It is in SU(2) if also ad − bc = 1. First suppose that b = 0. Then |a| = 1 and

It follows that 0 = a|b|2 + (ad − 1)d = a(1 − |d|2 ) + a|d|2 − d = a − d and

Corollary 1.4 The sets S 3 × S 1 and U(2) are diffeomorphic.

Proof By the Proposition, it suffices to show that SU(2) ×

Exercise 1.3 What is the group multiplication on S 3 determined by Proposition

Exercise 1.4 In proving Corollary 1.4, what would go wrong if we defined A by

In the special case where n = 2, we determinethe relationship

Proof Let M be as in (1.5). Define a map T : SU(1, 1) → Aut(B1 ) by putting T (M)

In dimension n, there is an isomorphism from SU(n, 1) divided by its center to

3 Automorphisms of the Unit Ball

Remark 1.4 By definition, a mapping f : → is a holomorphic automorphism

We define a rational map φa by

For each a ∈ Bn , we will show that φa is an automorphism of the unit ball Bn .