Domains of existence for finely holomorphic functions
Bent Fuglede, Alan Groot, Jan Wiegerinck

TL;DR
This paper characterizes certain fine domains in the complex plane as domains of existence for finely holomorphic functions, highlighting conditions under which they are or are not such domains.
Contribution
It establishes criteria for when fine domains are domains of existence for finely holomorphic functions, including Euclidean $F_\sigma$ and $G_\delta$ properties and regularity.
Findings
Euclidean $F_\sigma$ and $G_\delta$ fine domains are domains of existence.
Regular fine domains are also domains of existence.
Certain fine domains with polar set complements are not domains of existence.
Abstract
We show that fine domains in with the property that they are Euclidean and , are in fact fine domains of existence for finely holomorphic functions. Moreover \emph{regular} fine domains are also fine domains of existence. Next we show that fine domains such as or , more specifically fine domains with the properties that their complement contains a non-empty polar set that is of the first Baire category in its Euclidean closure and that , are NOT fine domains of existence.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Domains of existence for finely holomorphic functions
Bent Fuglede
Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Copenhagen
Universitetsparken 5
2100 København,
Denmark
,
Alan Groot
and
Jan Wiegerinck
KdV Institute for Mathematics
University of Amsterdam
Science Park 105-107
P.O. box 94248, 1090 GE Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Abstract.
We show that fine domains in with the property that they are Euclidean and , are in fact fine domains of existence for finely holomorphic functions. Moreover regular fine domains are also fine domains of existence. Next we show that fine domains such as or , more specifically fine domains with the properties that their complement contains a non-empty polar set that is of the first Baire category in its Euclidean closure and that , are not fine domains of existence.
Key words and phrases:
finely holomorphic function, domain of existence
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
30G12, 30A14, 31C40
We are grateful to Jan van Mill for many enlightening discussions.
Introduction
It was already known to Weierstrass that every domain in is a domain of existence, roughly speaking, it admits a holomorphic function that cannot be extended analytically at any boundary point of . In his thesis [Bo94] Borel showed, however, that it may be that can be (uniquely) extended to a strictly larger set in an ”analytic” way, albeit that is no longer Euclidean open. This eventually led Borel to the introduction of his Cauchy domains and monogenic functions, cf. [Bo17]. Finely holomorphic functions on fine domains in as introduced by the first named author, are the natural extension and setting for Borel’s ideas, see [Fu81a], also for some historic remarks on Borel’s work. In this paper we will study fine domains of existence, roughly speaking, fine domains in that admit a finely holomorphic function that cannot be extended as a finely holomorphic function at any fine boundary point. Definition 2.1 contains a precise definition. Here the results are different from both the classical Weierstrass case of one variable and the classical several variable case, where Hartogs showed that there exist domains in with the property that every holomorphic function on extends to the larger domain .
Our results are as follows. In Section 2 we show that every fine domain that is a Euclidean as well as a Euclidean is a fine domain of existence. Euclidean domains are of this form and therefore are fine domains of existence. We also show that regular fine domains are fine domains of existence. Noting that on Euclidean domains holomorphic and finely holomorphic functions are the same, our Theorem 2.9 includes Weierstrass’ theorem. In Section 3, however, we show that fine domains with the property that their complement contains a non-empty polar set that is of the first Baire category in its Euclidean closure (in particular, has no Euclidean isolated points) and , are not fine domains of existence.
Pyrih showed in [Pyr] that the unit disc is a fine domain of existence, and that as a corollary of the proof, the same holds for simply connected Euclidean domains by the Riemann mapping theorem.
The starting point of our research was the following observation. Edlund [Edl] showed that every closed set admits a continuous function such that the graph of is completely pluripolar in . It is easy to see that by construction this is finely holomorphic on the fine interior of . In [EEW] the main result can be phrased as follows: *If a finely holomorphic function on a fine domain admits a finely holomorphic extension to a strictly larger fine domain , then the graph of over is not completely pluripolar. * Hence, if is the fine interior of a Euclidean closed set, every fine component of is a fine domain of existence. This is extended by our Theorem 2.9 because the fine interior of any finely closed set is regular.
In the next section we recall relevant results about the fine topology and fine holomorphy.
1. Preliminaries on the fine topology and finely holomorphic functions
Recall that a set is thin at if or else if there exists a subharmonic function on an open neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
The fine topology was introduced by H. Cartan in a letter to Brelot as the weakest topology that makes all subharmonic functions continuous. He pointed out that is thin at if and only if is not in the fine closure of . The fine topology has the following known features. Finite sets are the only compact sets in the fine topology, which follows easily from the fact that every polar set is discrete in the fine topology, it consists of finely isolated points. The fine topology is Hausdorff, completely regular, Baire, and quasi–Lindelöf, i.e. a union of finely open sets equals the union of a countable subfamily and a polar set, cf. e.g. [ArGa, Lemma71.2] . For our purposes fine connectedness is important.
Recall the following
Theorem 1.1** (Fuglede).**
The fine topology on is locally connected. That is, for any and any fine neighborhood of , there exists a finely connected finely open neighborhood of with .
See [Fu72, p.92] (or see [EMW] for a proof using only elementary properties of subharmonic functions).
In fact, the fine topology is even locally polygonally arcwise connected as was shown in [Fu72], but we need something stronger.
Definition 1.2**.**
A wedge is a polygonal path consisting of two line segments and of equal length.
The result we need is as follows,
Theorem 1.3** ([Fu80]).**
Let be a finely open set in and . Then for every , there exists a fine neighborhood of such that any two distinct points can be connected by a wedge contained in of total length less than .
Lyons, see [Lyo, p. 16] had already proven that and can be connected by a polygonal path consisting of two line segments of total length less than and his proof essentially contained Theorem 1.3. For an even stronger result see Gardiner, [Gar, Theorem A].
We will also need the following elementary lemma. Let denote the open disc with radius about , its closure, and let denote its boundary.
Lemma 1.4**.**
Let be a fine neighborhood of . Then there exists such that for and every there exists with .
Proof.
We can assume . A local basis at [math] for the fine topology consists of the sets , where , is subharmonic on and . See [EMW, Lemma 3.1] for a proof. Thus for some and we have and is contained in , which is Euclidean open, hence an , that is thin at [math], because contains the finely open set which contains [math]. Theorem 5.4.2 in [Ran] states for given that there is a constant such that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Let . For each interval of the form is contained in , but can not be contained in . Hence there exists such that , that is, . ∎
For more information on the fine topology see [Do, Part I, Chapter XI], [ArGa, Chapter VII].
There are several equivalent definitions for finely holomorphic functions on a fine domain in , cf. [Fu81, Fu81a, Fu88, Lyo].
Definition 1.5**.**
A function on a fine domain is called finely differentiable at with fine complex derivative if there exists such that for every there exists a fine neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
In other words, the limit exists as finely.
The function is finely holomorphic on if and only if is finely differentiable at every point of and is finely continuous on .
We will use the following characterizations of fine holomorphy.
Theorem 1.6** ([Fu81a]).**
Let be a complex valued function on a fine domain . The following are equivalent
- (1)
The function is finely holomorphic on . 2. (2)
Every point admits a fine neighborhood such that is a uniform limit of rational functions on . 3. (3)
The functions and are both (complex valued) finely harmonic functions on .
In the following theorem we collect properties of finely holomorphic functions that indicate how much this theory resembles classical function theory.
Theorem 1.7** ([Fu81]).**
Let be finely holomorphic. Then
- (1)
The function has fine derivatives of all orders , and these are finely holomorphic on . 2. (2)
Every point admits a fine neighborhood such that for every
[TABLE]
is bounded on for . 3. (3)
At any point of the Taylor expansion (1.1) uniquely determines on . (If all coefficients equal 0, then is identically [math].)
We now introduce finely isolated singularities.
Definition 1.8**.**
Let be a fine domain, , and finely holomorphic on .
- •
If extends as a finely holomorphic function to all of , then has a removable singularity at .
- •
If for finely, has a pole at .
- •
If has no pole at nor a removable singularity, then has an essential singularity at .
Theorem 1.9**.**
Let be a fine domain and . Let be finely holomorphic on and suppose that is bounded on a fine neighborhood of . Then is a removable singularity of .
Proof.
(As indicated in [Fu88].) We apply Theorem 1.6, no. 3. Clearly and are bounded, finely harmonic functions on . [Fu72, Corollary 9.15] states that these functions extend to be finely harmonic on all of and again by Theorem 1.6 is finely holomorphic on . ∎
2. Fine domains of existence
For a set in , we denote its fine interior by , its fine closure by and its fine boundary by .
Definition 2.1**.**
A fine domain is called a fine domain of existence if there exists a finely holomorphic function on with the property that for every fine domain that intersects and for every fine component of , the restriction admits no finely holomorphic extension to .
Definition 2.2**.**
Let be a fine domain in . If there exist compact sets such that with , then the sequence is called a fine exhaustion of . If, moreover, the have the property that every bounded component of contains a point from , we call a special fine exhaustion of .
We have the following lemma, which is a consequence of the Lusin–Menchov property of the fine topology.
Lemma 2.3** ([LMN, Corollary 13.92]).**
Let be a finely open set and let be a compact subset of . Then there exists a Borel finely open set such that .
Proposition 2.4**.**
Let be a fine domain that is a Euclidean . Then admits a special fine exhaustion.
Proof.
Let for compact sets . Fix a strictly increasing sequence tending to infinity such that for all . We put . For the construction of , note that is a compact subset of . By Lemma 2.3, there exists a finely open set such that . Then the set is compact and
[TABLE]
As induction hypothesis, suppose that for some , we have found compact sets such that for all , for all and for all and that we have found finely open sets such that for all .
We now prove the induction step. Note that the set is a compact subset of . By the previous lemma, there exists a finely open set such that . The set is compact, contained in and in and
[TABLE]
and therefore and . This proves the induction step.
Consequently, we can find compact subsets of such that and for all . It follows that , which proves that admits a fine exhaustion.
We will next adapt this fine exhaustion so that every bounded component of contains a point from . Observe that , where for each the are the countably, possibly infinitely, many mutually disjoint open components of . Let be the unbounded component. Then for any and any finite or infinite sequence the set is compact too. For every we set , where the are those components, if any, of that are completely contained in . We claim that .
Indeed, if then . Now let . For the proof that we may suppose that . Then belongs to a (necessarily bounded) component of that is completely contained in , hence . It follows that and as is Euclidean open, . This proves the claim. ∎
We will need the following lemma. Figure 1 illustrates its content.
Lemma 2.5**.**
Let be an open disc, a finely open subset of , and let where is an open circular arc contained in with the property that has two components.
Then there exists a sequence of positive numbers decreasing to 0, such that for every there exists a compact set , which is the union of four arcs, such that
- (1)
* is connected;* 2. (2)
; 3. (3)
Every wedge with that meets also meets .
Proof.
By Theorem 1.3 there exists a fine neighborhood of such that any two distinct points can be connected by a wedge of length less than . Lemma 1.4 provides us with a sequence such that .
After scaling and rotating we may assume that and that . We can also assume all less than and so small that . Now we fix and set
[TABLE]
is contained in along with , therefore , respectively , (both on ) can be connected to by a wedge , respectively , of length less than contained inside . Observe that the wedges are contained in , and in fact is contained in the closed square with diagonal and similarly is contained in the closed square with diagonal , see Figure 1.
Let be any wedge with that meets and assume that does not meet . Then one of its constituting segments, say , meets and because , it meets in a point with . Therefore, as , is contained in , as indicated in Figure 1.
Now we define , and is the the union of three circular arcs and one arc consisting of two straight segments, all contained in . Clearly meets and is connected. ∎
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let be a nonempty fine domain that is a Euclidean and let be an increasing sequence of compact sets in . Then there exist sequences and of nonempty compact sets such that
- (a)
* and ,* 2. (b)
* for all ,* 3. (c)
* for all ,* 4. (d)
for any , every two points in the same component of also lie in the same component of , 5. (e)
every bounded component of contains a point from , 6. (f)
every wedge of length at least that meets and , also meets .
Moreover, there exists a sequence of rational functions with poles in such that
- (1)
the sup-norm for all and 2. (2)
* on for all .*
The sequence converges uniformly on any to a function that is finely holomorphic on and has the property that on for any .
Proof.
For we take a special fine exhaustion of , , which exists in view of Proposition 2.4. We next construct a sequence of compact sets such that and for all .
Let . The set is compact and is therefore covered (uniquely) by those finitely many components of that meet . We denote these components by . Since and are compact and , it follows that . Consequently,
[TABLE]
Since , by Lemma 1.4 each is the center of a circle contained in of radius less than . We will now construct by constructing the intersections (with some abuse of notation) in each of the components and taking the union of these sets.
Fix a component . Since is compact and is covered by the open disks where , it follows that there are finitely many points such that . Note that is a finite union of closed circular arcs –and possibly finitely many points disjoint from these arcs– of the components of . We define a compact set . Also note that every path , in particular every wedge, that connects a point and a point must intersect one of the arcs in , because in view of (2.1), and . The open set has only finitely many, say , components as each of the belongs to the boundary of two of these components. We will replace by in the following way to achieve that is connected and the properties (a), (b) and (c) are kept.
To do this, note that belongs to the boundary of two components of . Pick a point of that is not an endpoint of this closed arc. Since , clearly , and again since lies in the relative interior of the arc , we see that for all small enough, and is contained in the relative interior of .
We apply Lemma 2.5 with , , and obtain a compact . Then has components. If belongs to the boundary of two different components of we replace it by likewise, reducing the number of components of the complement by one again. If belongs to the boundary of only one component, we just put . Proceeding in this way, we end with , the complement of which is connected. By setting , we now find that any two points that are in the same component of are in the same component of as well, while Lemma 2.5 guarantees that (f) is satisfied. Also, note that , so that . It follows that for every . We have obtained sequences and of compact sets that satisfy the properties (a) – (f).
Because of property (b), we can apply Runge’s theorem recursively for each to the holomorphic function that equals [math] on an open set containing and is equal to on an open set containing . Thus there exists for each a rational function with
[TABLE]
while has at most one pole in a preassigned point in each of the bounded components of . Because of property (e) these poles may be taken from . Set
[TABLE]
Then clearly satisfies (1) and (2). It now follows from (1) and (a) that there exists a function on such that uniformly on any . Note that is finely holomorphic on , because if , then for some and, by property (a), is a compact fine neighborhood of on which uniformly. Furthermore, it follows from (2) and (c) above that for any and
[TABLE]
Finally, follows immediately from (1) and (2). ∎
We shall prove in Theorem 2.9 that under suitable conditions on the fine domain, the function that we have just constructed admits no finely holomorphic extension outside the domain. We need some facts about (regular) fine domains.
It is known that every regular fine domain is an because is a base in the sense of Brelot, and hence a . Moreover, we need the following Lemma, which is (iv) of [ArGa, Theorem 7.3.11].
Lemma 2.7**.**
Every finely closed set is the disjoint union of a (Euclidean) and a polar set.
Lemma 2.8**.**
Let be fine domains and let be a polar subset of . Then either there exists a point , or for the polar set , whereby is empty and hence in case is a regular fine domain.
Proof.
If is empty then , hence the fine boundary of relative to is empty. Since is finely open and finely connected along with , by [Fu72, Theorem 12.2], and since this means that , that is, as claimed. If is regular then is empty because and are disjoint and is finely open. ∎
Theorem 2.9**.**
Let be a non-empty fine domain that is either (1) both Euclidean and Euclidean , or (2) a regular fine domain. Then is a fine domain of existence.
Proof.
In both cases is an , and we can write with compact subsets of . Because of Lemma 2.7, , where with compact in , is a Euclidean and is a polar set which we can assume to be empty in Case (1). Let be compact sets and a finely holomorphic function on as constructed in Proposition 2.6.
Let be a fine domain that meets and let be a fine component of . Then , because if there would be a finely connected fine neighborhood of contained in , contradicting that is a fine component of . Suppose that admits a finely holomorphic extension defined on . By Lemma 2.8 applied to in place of , there is a point , whereby in Case (1) and hence . In Case (2), if , then , which is impossible because is a regular domain. Hence .
Again by Proposition 2.6 there is a compact fine neighborhood of in on which is the uniform limit of rational functions with poles off . In particular, is continuous and bounded on , say on . Choose a fine domain containing and such that, for given , any two distinct points of can be joined by a wedge of total length less than contained in , see Theorem 1.3.
Choose . By the above and by Lemma 1.4, there exists for every an with such that . Choose with (possible since ). There is a path joining and and meeting at a point of . Thus . Recall that also . Let with be a wedge of total length less than contained in . Since , we have for all large enough. Also, , hence for all large enough. Therefore we can take an large enough such that and and such that and hold simultaneously. Then by Proposition 2.6 (f), meets .
Let . Since , we have . On the other hand, since , we have and by (2) in Proposition 2.6 , which is a contradiction. We conclude that does not admit a finely holomorphic extension and that is a fine domain of existence. ∎
In the rest of this section we extend the above theorem a little.
Lemma 2.10**.**
Let and be fine domains of existence, and suppose that . Then every fine component of is a fine domain of existence.
Proof.
The assertion amounts to being a “finely open set of existence” (if nonvoid) in the obvious sense. Because we have, writing ,
[TABLE]
By hypothesis there exists for a finely holomorphic function on such that for any fine domain that intersects and any fine component of , does not extend finely holomorphically to .
Let be any fine domain that intersects and let be a fine component of . Without loss of generality we may assume that intersects , and by shrinking that . Then is a fine component of .
The function is then finely holomorphic on . Because is finely holomorphic on , the function is extendible to if and only if is extendible over , and that is not the case. Therefore is a finely open set of existence. ∎
Theorem 2.11**.**
Every fine domain such that the set of irregular fine boundary points for is both an and a is a fine domain of existence.
Proof.
In the above lemma take (the regularization of ) and . Since is polar, is a fine domain along with . Since is finely connected so is . In fact, , where denotes the polar set of finely isolated points of . If with finely open and disjoint then
[TABLE]
with and finely open and disjoint. It follows that for example and hence , showing that indeed is finely connected. By hypothesis, the complement of and hence itself is an and a . Then by Theorem 2.9 and are fine domains of existence. By Theorem 2.9, is indeed a fine domain of existence. ∎
3. Fine domains that are not domains of existence
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let be a sequence in that converges to . Suppose that is a fine neighborhood of of the form
[TABLE]
where is a subharmonic function on such that and on . Then is a (possibly deleted) fine neighborhood of .
Proof.
Let . Then there exists such that for the function is defined on . Let
[TABLE]
on and let denote its upper semi-continuous regularization. Then is subharmonic, , and . Let . Then is a fine neighborhood of , since is finely continuous. Because the set is polar, it is finely closed, therefore the set is a fine neighborhood of .
We claim that . Indeed, if then hence for some , and . ∎
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let be a non-empty polar set in and suppose that is of the first Baire category in its Euclidean closure . Suppose that is finely holomorphic on a finely open set such that . Then there exist a Euclidean open ball that meets , and a finely open fine neighborhood of such that is bounded on .
Proof.
Let . Denote by a finely open subset of containing and having the property stated in Theorem 1.3 applied to . By shrinking we may arrange that has the form
[TABLE]
where is a subharmonic function on such that and on .
Let be the set of such that , and on and that satisfies Lemma 1.4 with . Then , hence by the Baire category theorem, there exist and an open Euclidean ball which we may assume to be the unit disc , such that (the Euclidean closure of ).
Let . Then for a sequence in . As , Proposition 3.1 gives us that is a (possibly deleted) fine neighborhood of on which and is a fine neighborhood of . If , on . In fact, is finely holomorphic on , hence is finely continuous on the finely open set which contains because . If then on some fine neighborhood of , which contradicts that meets because has no finely isolated points.
The set is a finely open fine neighborhood of with the property that on on . ∎
Remark 3.3*.*
The reader should be aware that the condition is of the first Baire category in its Euclidean closure prevents sets like . Indeed, can not be written as countable union of nowhere dense subsets in its Euclidean closure , because this set is relatively open in .
Theorem 3.4**.**
Suppose that and are as in Proposition 3.2, and that is a fine domain such that and . Then (1) and (2) is not a fine domain of existence.
Proof.
For (1) observe that , because is connected and therefore not thin at any of its Euclidean boundary points. Thus it suffices to show that . We have , a countable union of nowhere dense subsets of , which is of the second category in itself. Therefore, is contained in the closure of . If not, suppose to reach a contradiction, that were an open set in not meeting , then , a countable union of nowhere dense sets, contradicting that is of the second category. As is contained in the domain , we find that must be contained in the Euclidean closure of and hence in because .
For (2) let be finely holomorphic on . By Proposition 3.2 there exist an open ball that meets (and hence ) and a finely open set containing such that is bounded on . Because is polar, is a deleted finely open fine neighborhood of every point in , hence each point of is a finely isolated singularity of . Theorem 1.9 implies that extends over each and hence has a finely holomorphic continuation to the finely open set , which contains properly because . ∎
Example 3.5**.**
Let , , and . Then , , and satisfy the conditions of Theorem 3.4, therefore is not a domain of existence for finely holomorphic functions.
Similarly is not a domain of existence for finely holomorphic functions.
Question 3.6**.**
From Theorem 3.4 and Example 3.5 it is clear that the requirement that be an in Theorem 2.9 can not be dropped. But is it perhaps true that every fine domain that is a Euclidean is a fine domain of existence? It would suffice to prove this for with a polar , see the proof of Theorem 2.11.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[Ar Ga] Armitage, D. H. and Gardiner, S. J. Classical potential theory , Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2001.
- 2[Bo 94] Borel, É. Sur quelques points de la théorie des fonctions , Thèse, Paris 1894. Annales Scientifiques de l’É.N.S. 12 , (1895), 9–55.
- 3[Bo 17] Borel, É. Leçons sur les fonctions monogènes uniformes d’une variable complexe , Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1917.
- 4[Cho] G. Choquet, Sur les points d’effilement d’un ensemble , Ann. Inst. Fourier 9 (1959), 91–101.
- 5[Do] Doob, J.L. Classical Potential Theory and Its Probabilistic Counterpart , Grundl. math. Wiss. 262 , Springer, 1984.
- 6[Edl] Edlund, T. Complete pluripolar curves and graphs , Ann. Polon. Math. 84 , (2004) 1, 75–86.
- 7[EEW] Edigarian, A., El Marzguioui, S., Wiegerinck, J. The image of a finely holomorphic map is pluripolar , Ann. Polon. Math. 97 , (2010), no. 2, 137–149.
- 8[EMW] El Marzguioui, S. and Wiegerinck, J. The Pluri-Fine Topology is Locally Connected , Potential Anal. 25 , (2006) 283–288.
