This paper explores the properties of slice regular quaternionic functions, demonstrating they are orientation-preserving, characterizing their fibers and singular sets, and establishing a maximum modulus principle with sharp results and explicit examples.
Contribution
It introduces new concepts like the 'wing' of a function and provides a comprehensive analysis of the Jacobian, fibers, and singular sets of slice regular functions, extending classical complex analysis results.
Findings
01
Slice regular functions are orientation-preserving.
02
The singular set equals the branch set where the function is not locally a homeomorphism.
03
The maximum modulus principle holds for these functions in full generality.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present several new, sometimes surprising, results concerning a class of hyperholomorphic functions over quaternions, the so-called slice regular functions. The concept of slice regular function is a generalization of the one of holomorphic function in one complex variable. The results we present here show that such a generalization is multifaceted and highly non-trivial. We study the behavior of the Jacobian Jf of a slice regular function f proving in particular that det(Jf)≥0, i.e. f is orientation-preserving. We give a complete characterization of the fibers of f making use of a new notion we introduce here, the one of wing of f. We investigate the singular set Nf of f, i.e. the set in which Jf is singular. The singular set Nf turns out to be equal to the branch set of f, i.e. the set of points y such that f is not a…
Equations126
H=J∈SH⋃CJ, where CJ∩CK=R for every J,K∈SH with J=±K.
H=J∈SH⋃CJ, where CJ∩CK=R for every J,K∈SH with J=±K.
SRR(Ω)={f∈SR(Ω):∃a,b∈H, ∃g∈SRR(Ω) such that a=0, f=ga+b}.
SRR(Ω)={f∈SR(Ω):∃a,b∈H, ∃g∈SRR(Ω) such that a=0, f=ga+b}.
SRC(Ω)={f∈SR(Ω):∃a,b∈H, ∃g∈SRC(Ω) such that a=0, f=ga+b}.
SRC(Ω)={f∈SR(Ω):∃a,b∈H, ∃g∈SRC(Ω) such that a=0, f=ga+b}.
SC(Ω)⊊SRR(Ω)⊊SRC(Ω)⊊SR(Ω).
SC(Ω)⊊SRR(Ω)⊊SRC(Ω)⊊SR(Ω).
(F1−Re(c))F2=⟨F1−c,F2⟩=0
(F1−Re(c))F2=⟨F1−c,F2⟩=0
∣c−b∣=∣d−b∣ and (c−d)a−1∈CJ⊥.
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.
Full text
On a class of orientation-preserving maps of R4
Riccardo Ghiloni and Alessandro Perotti
(
Department of Mathematics, University of Trento, I–38123, Povo-Trento, Italy
The purpose of this paper is to present several new, sometimes surprising, results concerning a class of hyperholomorphic functions over quaternions, the so-called slice regular functions. The concept of slice regular function is a generalization of the one of holomorphic function in one complex variable. The results we present here show that such a generalization is multifaceted and highly non-trivial. We study the behavior of the Jacobian matrix Jf of a slice regular function f proving in particular that det(Jf)≥0, i.e. f is orientation-preserving. We give a complete characterization of the fibers of f making use of a new notion we introduce here, the one of wing of f. We investigate the singular set Nf of f, i.e. the set in which Jf is singular. The singular set Nf turns out to be equal to the branch set of f, i.e. the set of points y such that f is not a homeomorphism locally at y. We establish the quasi-openness properties of f. As a consequence we deduce the validity of the Maximum Modulus Principle for f in its full generality. Our results are sharp as we show by explicit examples.
Keywords: Quaternionic hyperholomorphic functions, Orientation-preserving maps, Singular and branch sets of differentiable maps, Quasi-openness, Maximum Modulus Principle.
1 Introduction
Holomorphic functions of a complex variable are of central importance in mathematics. The deep interplay between the analytic nature and the algebraic nature of these functions is one of their peculiar features, which makes possible their applications to many areas of science.
Holomorphy is equivalent to complex analyticity, in particular complex polynomials are holomorphic. On a domain D of C the fibers of a non-constant holomorphic function f are discrete, in particular f admits a holomorphic reciprocal out of a discrete set, provided f≡0. These are examples of basic properties having relevant analytic and algebraic consequences for holomorphic functions. A remarkable differential characteristic of holomorphic functions is represented by the equality between the determinant of the Jacobian matrix of f and the squared norm of its complex derivative, i.e. det(Jf)=∣f′∣2. As a consequence f is orientation-preserving, i.e. det(Jf)≥0. In addition y is a branch point of f if and only if y is a singular point of f, i.e. f is not a homeomorphism locally at y if and only if the Jacobian matrix Jf(y) is singular. The holomorphic function f is also an open map, independently from the presence of branch points. Consequently, f satisfies the Maximum Modulus Principle.
These are a few fundamental results of the theory of holomorphic functions of a complex variable, which one would desire to have in a generalization of this theory in dimension higher than two. During the last century several generalizations were introduced mainly over quaternions H, octonions O and Clifford algebras Rm, see [5, 27]. These generalized theories share many analytic and differential behaviors with the theory of holomorphic functions of a complex variable. However they do not include the classical theory of polynomials with noncommutative coefficients on one side, see [29].
In 2006 Gentili and Struppa [13, 14] remedied to this ‘algebraic’ lack introducing a new theory, the one of slice regular functions over quaternions. Such a theory was extended to octonions and Clifford algebras in [8, 15, 16]. In paper [20] we gave a unified and generalized approach valid over all real alternative ∗-algebras, based on the concept of stem function. The theory has developed rapidly, see e.g. [12, 23] and references therein. It has proven also its effectiveness in applications to quaternionic functional calculus and mathematical foundation of quaternionic quantum mechanics (see e.g. [9, 17, 18]), classification of orthogonal complex structures in R4 (see e.g. [3, 4, 10]), and operator semigroup theory in noncommutative setting (see e.g. [7, 24, 25]).
The stem function approach over quaternions reads as follows, see [20].
Let H be the real division algebra of quaternions and let SH={J∈H∣J2=−1} be the 2-sphere of its imaginary units. For each J∈SH, we denote by CJ=Span(1,J)≃C the subalgebra of H generated by J. Then we have the ‘slice’ decomposition
[TABLE]
Given a (non-empty) subset D of C, we define the circularization ΩD of D as follows:
[TABLE]
If x=α+Jβ∈CJ and z:=α+iβ∈C, then Ω{z} is denoted by Sx and it is equal to the 2-sphere α+βSH if x∈R and to the singleton {x} if x∈R. A subset S of H is said to be circular if it is equal to ΩD for some D⊂C. This is equivalent to say that Sx⊂S for each x∈S.
In what follows we assume D is an open subset of C, invariant under the complex conjugation.
Consider the complexified algebra H⊗RC={x+y∣x,y∈H} of H, endowed with the product (x+y)(x′+y′):=(xx′−yy′)+(xy′+yx′), so 2=−1. A function F=F1+F2:D→H⊗RC is called stem function if F is even-odd w.r.t. β in the sense that F1(z)=F1(z) and F2(z)=−F2(z) for each z∈D. Note that the function F=F1+F2 is holomorphic if F1 and F2 are of class C1 and
∂β∂F=∂α∂F, i.e. ∂α∂F1=∂β∂F2 and ∂β∂F1=−∂α∂F2.
Consider now the circular open subset ΩD of H. A function f:ΩD→H is called (left) slice regular function if there exists a holomorphic stem function F=F1+F2:D→H⊗RC such that, for each z=α+iβ∈D, for each J∈SH and for each x=α+Jβ∈ΩD,
[TABLE]
If this is the case, we say that f is induced by F and we write f=I(F). The even-odd character of F ensures the coherence of definition of f=I(F). Moreover, the slice regular function f is induced by a unique stem function F.
Denote by SR(ΩD) the real vector space of all slice regular functions on ΩD. The pointwise product FG of two holomorphic stem functions F and G is again a holomorphic stem function. This allows to define the slice product of f=I(F) and g=I(G) in SR(ΩD) by f⋅g:=I(FG). The slice product makes SR(ΩD) a real algebra. Such an algebra preserves derivatives in the following sense: the complex derivative ∂z∂F=∂α∂F of F is again a holomorphic stem function, which induces the element ∂x∂f=I(∂z∂F) of SR(ΩD), called slice derivative of f. As we have just mentioned, a remarkable novelty of slice regularity theory is that the real algebra SR(H) contains as a subalgebra the algebra of polynomials with quaternionic coefficients on the right. Indeed, such a polynomial p(x)=∑n=0dxnan is induced by the polynomial stem function P(α+iβ)=∑n=0d(α+β)nan. Furthermore, the classical product of p(x) with another polynomial q(x)=∑n=0exnbn, obtained by imposing commutativity of the indeterminate with the coefficients, coincides exactly with the slice product (p⋅q)(x)=∑n=0d+exn(∑m+ℓ=nambℓ).
Slice regular functions are real analytic in the usual real sense, see [20, Proposition 7(3)]. Slice regularity is equivalent to spherical analyticity, a new concept introduced in [38] (see also [22]). In particular, locally at a real point a function f is slice regular if and only if it admits a quaternionic series expansion of the form ∑n∈Nxnan.
These facts reveal the algebraic and analytic relevance of slice regular functions.
The nature of the domain of definition ΩD is important in the study of slice regular functions. If ΩD is connected and intersects the real line R, then it is said to be a slice domain. If ΩD is connected and does not intersect R then it is called product domain. In the first case, D is connected (it is a domain of C) and intersects R. In the second, D does not intersect R and has two connected components D+ and D−, switched by complex conjugation; moreover, ΩD is homeomorphic to the topological product SH×D+. In general ΩD decomposes into the disjoint union of its connected components, which are slice domains or product domains. Then, in the study of slice regular functions, we can always assume ΩD is a slice domain or a product domain. It is important to recall that, if ΩD is a slice domain, then the notion of slice regular function f we give above coincides with the original one introduced by Gentili and Struppa [13, 14]; indeed f is slice regular if and only if, for each J∈SH, the restriction of f to ΩD∩CJ is holomorphic w.r.t. the complex structures defined by the left multiplication by J.
In spite of rapid development of the theory and of its applications, until now, some basic features of slice regular functions f:ΩD→H are not well understood yet, as the nature of the fibers of f in the case ΩD is a product domain and for general ΩD the behavior of the Jacobian of f and the resulting structure of branch set of f.
In this paper we give quite an exhaustive study of these basic features. New concepts are introduced. Several new, sometimes surprising, phenomena appear; they describe a manifold geometric scenario, showing how the slice regularity theory is a wealthy and highly non-trivial generalization of holomorphic function theory in one complex variable.
The results presented here are sharp in the sense that we are able to give explicit examples for all the geometric configurations predicted by the results. We prove that the determinant of the Jacobian matrix of f can be expressed in terms of the squared norm of a suitable Hermitian product between the slice derivative ∂x∂f of f and another kind of derivative of f, the so-called spherical derivativefs′ of f. As a consequence f is orientation-preserving. We investigate deeply the structure of fibers of f. We introduce the brand new notion of wing of f. If ΩD is a product domain and JD is the complex structure on ΩD sending α+Jβ with β>0 into the left multiplication by J, then a wing of f is a complex analytic curve of (ΩD,JD) on which f is constant. We denote by Wf the union of all wings of f and give an explicit analytic criterion to detect whether Wf is empty or not. We establish the existence of exactly eight distinct situations in which Wf can be either empty or formed by a unique wing, two wings or a S1-fibration of wings. Combining the above positivity property of the Jacobian of f, the above properties of the fibers of f and some fine results from differential topology, we are able to prove a completely new ‘Quasi-open Mapping Theorem’ for f defined on general ΩD. As a consequence we deduce the Maximum Modulus Principle for f in its full generality. The techniques developed in the paper permit to show that the branch set of f is equal to the singular set of f as in the classical holomorphic case. Furthermore, the singular locus Nf of f decomposes into three subsets, the zero set Df of spherical derivative fs′, the set Wf∖Df and their complement Nf∖(Df∪Wf). Let df=dim(Df), wf=dim(Wf∖Df) and mf=dim(Nf∖(Df∪Wf)). We prove that the triple (df,wf,mf) can assume exactly five values when ΩD is a slice domain and eleven when ΩD is a product domain. Finally we give one more application of the positivity of the Jacobian of f, by presenting a quaternionic counterpart of a classical boundary univalence criterion valid for holomorphic functions of a complex variable.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall briefly some preliminary material. Sections 3 and 4 deal with the sign of the Jacobian of f, and some explicit formulas for Jf. In Sections 5 and 6 we study the fibers, the singular set and the quasi-openness of f. Section 7 concerns the mentioned boundary univalence criterion for f.
2 Preliminaries
Let us recall some basic material concerning slice functions over H, see [20] and also [19, 21, 22] for a full account presented via the stem function approach, including generalizations.
Consider a (non-empty) open subset D of C invariant under complex conjugation. Let us generalize the notion of slice regular function introduced above. A function f:ΩD→H is a (left) slice function if there exists an arbitrary (not necessarily holomorphic) stem function F=F1+F2:D→H⊗RC such that, for each z=α+iβ∈D, for each J∈SH and for each x=α+Jβ∈ΩD, it holds
[TABLE]
We say that f is induced by F and we write f=I(F). Note that the definition of f is coherent. Indeed, if x∈ΩD∩R then z=x, F2(x)=0 and hence f(x)=F1(x). If x∈ΩD∖R then there exist, and are unique, α,β∈R and J∈SH such that β>0 and x=α+Jβ=α+(−J)(−β) so F1(z)+JF2(z)=f(x)=F1(z)+(−J)F2(z), where z=α+iβ∈D. The slice function f is induced by a unique stem function F=F1+F2. Indeed, for each fixed J∈SH, if x=α+Jβ∈ΩD and z=α+iβ∈D, then F1(z)=21(f(x)+f(x)) and F2(z)=−2J(f(x)−f(x)), where x denotes the standard quaternionic conjugation of x. The latter fact implies that the slice function f satisfies the following representation formula: if I∈SH and y=α+Iβ∈ΩD, then
[TABLE]
As a consequence, the slice function f is uniquely determined by its values on ΩD∩CJ. Moreover, f is affine on each 2-sphere Sx if x∈R. We denote by S(ΩD) the real vector space of all slice functions on ΩD, endowed with the standard pointwise defined operations.
Let f=I(F),g=I(G)∈S(ΩD), with F=F1+F2 and G=G1+G2. Evidently, the pointwise product FG=(F1G1−F2G2)+(F1G2+F2G1) is again a stem function. In this way we can define the slice product f⋅g∈S(ΩD) of f and g by setting f⋅g:=I(FG). This product makes S(ΩD) a real algebra, containing SR(ΩD) as a subalgebra.
Given J∈SH, the slice function f=I(F1+F2) is called CJ-slice-preserving if F1 and F2 are CJ-valued. Note that the slice function f is CJ-slice-preserving if and only if f(ΩD∩CJ)⊂CJ. We denote by SRCJ(ΩD) the set of all CJ-slice-preserving slice regular functions on ΩD, which turns out to be a subalgebra of SR(ΩD). We say that f is one-slice-preserving if it is CJ-slice preserving for some J∈SH and we denote by SRC(ΩD) the set of all one-slice-preserving slice regular functions, i.e. SRC(ΩD)=⋃J∈SHSRCJ(ΩD).
The slice function f=I(F1+F2) is called slice-preserving if it is CJ-slice-preserving for each J∈SH. This is equivalent to require that F1 and F2 are real-valued. Note that if f is slice-preserving, the slice product f⋅g coincides with the pointwise product fg for any slice function g. The same is true if f is any slice function and G=G1+G2 takes values in H, i.e. G2≡0. We denote by SRR(ΩD) the set of all slice-preserving slice regular functions on ΩD, which coincides with the subalgebra ⋂J∈SHSRCJ(ΩD) of SR(ΩD).
Consider again the slice function f=I(F)∈S(ΩD), with F=F1+F2. Denote by Fc:D→H⊗RC the stem function defined by Fc(z):=F1(z)+F2(z) for every z∈D. The slice function fc∈S(ΩD) induced by Fc is called conjugate function of f and the slice function N(f):=f⋅fc∈S(ΩD) is said to be the normal function of f. Some authors use the term symmetrizationfs of f instead of normal function N(f) of f. It is immediate to verify that N(f) is slice-preserving, and fc is slice regular if and only if f is. In particular, if f∈SR(ΩD) then N(f)∈SRR(ΩD).
The slice function f=I(F) is called slice-constant if F is locally constant on D. This is equivalent to say that f is slice regular and its slice derivative ∂x∂f (see the Introduction for the definition) vanishes identically on ΩD. We denote by SC(ΩD) the subalgebra of SR(ΩD) formed by slice-constant slice functions on ΩD.
Given a quaternion y, we denote by Re(y) the real part of y and by Im(y) the imaginary part of y, i.e. Re(y)=21(y+y)∈R and Im(y)=y−Re(y)=21(y−y). The normal function of the polynomial x↦x−y is called characteristic polynomial of y. It is denoted by Δy and it holds:
[TABLE]
where ∣y∣ is the Euclidean norm of y∈H≃R4. The zero set of Δy coincides with Sy.
Let us recall the definition of spherical derivative of f=I(F1+F2). The function D∖R→H⊗RC, sending α+iβ into βF2(α+iβ), is β-even so it is a stem function, which takes values in H. The slice function on ΩD∖R induced by such a stem function is denoted by fs′ and it is called spherical derivative of f. The zero set Df of fs′ is called degenerate set of f. It is immediate to verify that f is constant on some Sx with x∈R if and only if fs′(x)=0 or equivalently Sx⊂Df. Furthermore, fs′(x)=21Im(x)−1(f(x)−f(xc)) for every x∈ΩD. As a consequence, if f∈SR(ΩD), then fs′ is real analytic; hence its zero set Df is closed and real analytic in ΩD∖R.
We denote by V(f) the zero set of f=I(F), i.e. V(f)={x∈ΩD:f(x)=0}. A quite important fact is that V(N(f))=⋃y∈V(f)Sy. If ΩD is connected, f∈SR(ΩD) and N(f)≡0, then the elements x of V(f) can be of three types: real zeros of f if x∈R, spherical zeros of f if x∈R and Sx⊂V(f), or isolated non-real zeros of f if Sx⊂V(f).
Finally, we recall the notion of total multiplicity of a zero of f∈SR(ΩD) we will use in Propositions 6.9 and 6.10 below. A point y in ΩD belongs to V(f) if and only if Δy divides N(f) in SR(ΩD). Suppose that y∈V(f) and f≡0 on the connected component of y in ΩD. Given a non-negative integer s, we say that y is a zero of f of total multiplicitys if Δys divides N(f) and Δys+1 does not divide N(f) in SR(ΩD). We denote such a non-negative integer s by mf(y).
Notation 2.1**.**
Throughout the remaining part of the paper, we assume that ΩD is a slice domain or a product domain. Moreover, for simplicity, we often use Ω instead of ΩD.
3 Sign of the Jacobian
Let f=I(F1+F2)∈SR(ΩD). Suppose ΩD is a slice domain. Since F2 is β-odd and real analytic, there exists a (unique) β-even real analytic function F2:D→H such that F2(α,β)=βF2(α,β) on D∖R. Note that F2=∂β∂F2=∂α∂F1=∂x∂f on D∩R. Proposition 7(3) of [20] ensures that I(F2) is a real analytic function. In particular it is the unique continuous extension of fs′ on ΩD. We define the extended spherical derivative fs′ of f as fs′:=I(F2). Note that fs′=fs′ on ΩD∖R and fs′=∂x∂f on ΩD∩R. If ΩD is a product domain, then we set F2:=F2 and fs′:=fs′.
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω), let y∈Ω∩CI and let J∈SH be orthogonal to I. Let ∂x∂f(y)=q0+q1I+q2J+q3IJ and Jfs′(y)=p0+p1I+p2J+p3IJ, with qi,pi∈R for i=0,1,2,3. Then the real differential dfy of f at y is represented w.r.t. the basis {1,I,J,IJ} of H≃R4 by the matrix
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let x=x0+x1I+x2J+x3IJ∈Ω. Let f=I(F). Since ∂x∂f=I(∂z∂F), the Cauchy-Riemann equations satisfied by F give
[TABLE]
We are left to prove that
[TABLE]
Assume y∈Ω∖R.
Let y=α+Iβ with α,β∈R, β>0, and let z:=α+iβ∈C. The smooth arc γJ:R→Sy defined by
γJ(t):=α+Iβcos(t/β)+Jβsin(t/β)
has tangent vector γJ′(0)=J at y. Moreover, f(γJ(t))=F1(z)+(βγJ(t)−α)F2(z). Therefore
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
The second equality in (2) is proved in the same way using the analogous curve γIJ.
If y∈Ω∩R, the result follows by passing to the limit as x∈(Ω∖R)∩CI tends to y.
∎
For any I∈SH, let πI:H→H denote the orthogonal projection onto the real vector subspace CI and let πI⊥=idH−πI. Given a quaternion x, let Lx and Rx be respectively the operators of left and right multiplication by x.
Proposition 3.1 allows to obtain a property of the differential dfy already observed in [10, §3].
Corollary 3.2**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω). If y∈Ω∩CI, then the differential of f at y can be written as
[TABLE]
In particular, if y∈Ω∩R, then dfy=R∂x∂f(y).
Proof.
Let J be as in Proposition 3.1. Since πI(H)=CI=Span(1,I) and πI⊥(H)=Span(J,IJ), the result comes easily from the form of the representing matrix Jf(y).
∎
We can now generalize a result proved in [33, Theorem 1]. For any I∈SH, let (H,LI) denote the complex manifold obtained equipping H with the complex structure LI.
Corollary 3.3**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω) and let y∈Ω∩CI.
The differential dfy is a linear holomorphic mapping from the space (H,LI) into itself.
Proof.
The thesis follows immediately from Corollary 3.2 using the commutativity of LI with the operators of right multiplication and with πI.
∎
Theorem 3.4**.**
Every slice regular function f∈SR(Ω) preserves the orientation of H≃R4. More precisely, for each y∈Ω, the Jacobian matrix Jf(y) has even rank and its determinant is non-negative. When y∈Ω∩R the rank can assume only the values 0 or 4.
Proof.
Let y∈Ω and let I,J∈SH be such that y∈CI and J is orthogonal to I.
The complex manifold (H,LI) is CI-biholomorphic to CI2 by means of the mapping sending x=x0+x1I+x2J+x3IJ to (x0+x1I,x2+x3I). From Corollary 3.3, the linear map dfy:CI2→CI2 is holomorphic, therefore its determinant is the squared norm of a complex Jacobian determinant.
To compute the rank of dfy, consider the representing matrix Jf(y) given in (1). Since the first two columns and the last two ones generate two CI-complex subspaces, the rank is [math], 2 or 4.
The last statement follows from Corollary 3.2.
∎
Remark 3.5**.**
Theorem 3.4 implies in particular that every polynomial with quaternionic coefficients on one side has non-negative Jacobian, a fact recently proved in [36] with completely different techniques. The case of quaternionic powers xn was already considered in [31].
Remark 3.6**.**
The evenness of the rank of dfy was already proved in [10, Proposition 3.3].
4 A formula for the Jacobian
The argument used in the proof of Theorem 3.4 can be applied also to obtain an explicit formula for the Jacobian determinant of a slice regular function f. Equip the manifold H∖R with the quaternionic valued R-bilinear form defined as follows. For y∈(H∖R)∩CI, given two quaternions u,v in the tangent space Ty(H∖R)≃H, we set
[TABLE]
where ⟨u,v⟩I denotes the standard Hermitian product on H w.r.t. the complex structure LI. The choice of a unit J orthogonal to I induces the CI-linear isomorphism (H,LI)≃CI2 sending u=u0+u1I+u2J+u3IJ to (u1,u2)=(u0+u1I,u2+u3I). The product ⟨u,v⟩I does not depend on J, since
[TABLE]
and then ⟨u,v⟩I=u1v1+u2v2=πI(uv).
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω) and let y∈Ω. If y∈Ω∖R then
[TABLE]
If y∈Ω∩R, then det(Jf(y))=∂x∂f(y)4.
Proof.
Let assume y∈(Ω∖R)∩CI. Let ∂x∂f(y)=q=q0+q1I+q2J+q3IJ and Jfs′(y)=p=p0+p1I+p2J+p3IJ be as in Proposition 3.1. Set q1=q0+Iq1, q2=q2+Iq3, p1=p0+Ip1, p2=p2+Ip3∈CI.
From Proposition 3.1, it follows that the differential dfy has CI-valued representing matrix
[TABLE]
w.r.t. the CI-basis {1,J} of (H,LI)≃CI2. Therefore the CI-valued determinant of dfy is
If y∈Ω∩R, the equality \det(J_{f}(y))=\big{|}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(y)\big{|}^{4} follows by passing to the limit as x∈(Ω∖R)∩CI tends to y.
∎
Remark 4.2**.**
At a point y∈(Ω∖R)∩CI, the Hermitian product ⟨u,v⟩I decomposes as follows:
[TABLE]
where ⟨u,v⟩ is the Euclidean scalar product of u,v as vectors in R4, and ωI(u,v)=⟨Iu,v⟩=−⟨u,Iv⟩=u0v1−u1v0+u2v3−u3v2 is the corresponding fundamental form. Therefore
[TABLE]
Since I=Im(y)/∣Im(y)∣, we can write the real Jacobian in terms of the Euclidean product as
[TABLE]
Remark 4.3**.**
In [26], making use of Dieudonné determinant, the authors proved the following partial result: det(Jf(y))=0 if and only if (∂x∂f(y),fs′(y))y=0.
5 The fibers of a slice regular function
In this section we describe the fibers of a slice regular function f∈SR(Ω). Given c∈H, the fiber f−1(c) of f over c is the zero set V(f−c).
If Ω is a slice domain, then the zero set of a not identically vanishing slice regular function on Ω consists of isolated points or isolated 2-spheres of the form Sx (see e.g. [12, Theorem 3.12]). Therefore if f is not constant, every fiber of f has this structure. If Ω is a product domain, a new phenomenon appears. We will show that a fiber of a not slice-constant f can contain also a complex analytic curve. We will also see that the structure of the fiber is controlled by the normal function N(f−c).
On product domains Ω it can happen that N(f)≡0 even if f≡0. In [21, Corollary 4.17], it was shown that if N(f)≡0, then V(f) is a union of isolated points or isolated 2-spheres Sx. Let c∈f(Ω). If N(f−c)≡0, then the fiber f−1(c) is a union of isolated points or isolated 2-spheres. If instead N(f−c)≡0, then every 2-sphere Sx, with x∈Ω, intersects the fiber V(f−c) in a point, or it is entirely contained in V(f−c) (see e.g. [20, Theorem 17]). In the latter case, Sx is contained in the degenerate set Df of f, provided x∈R.
In the next statement, the complex structure on SH≃CP1 is the one induced by the structure J on H∖R defined at x by left multiplication by Im(x)/∣Im(x)∣.
Notation 5.1**.**
We define D+:={α+iβ∈D:β>0} and CJ+:={α+Jβ∈CJ:β>0} for any J∈SH.
Proposition 5.2**.**
Let Ω=ΩD be a product domain and let f∈SR(Ω) be non-constant. Fix c∈f(Ω) such that N(f−c)≡0. Then there exists a holomorphic function ϕ:D+→SH such that the fiber f−1(c) is equal to Df∪Wf,c where
[TABLE]
Moreover, Df is empty or is a union of isolated spheres, and the map sending z=α+iβ∈D+ to α+ϕ(α,β)β∈Wf,c is holomorphic from D+ to (H∖R,J). We call the complex analytic curve Wf,c a wing of f (of value c induced by ϕ).
Proof.
Let f=I(F1+F2). Let D+ be the set of points z∈D+ such that the 2-sphere Ω{z} is not contained in V(f−c). Note that D+∖D+={z∈D+∣F2(z)=0}. By [21, Theorem 4.11] we know that CJ+∩V(f−c) is closed and discrete in ΩJ+=Ω∩CJ+ or it is the whole set ΩJ+. Since f is non-constant, the set CJ+∩V(f−c) is discrete for at least one J∈SH. It follows that D+∖D+ is a closed and discrete subset of D+. Let z=α+iβ∈D+ and let Sx=Ω{z}. Bearing in mind that F2(z)=0, we deduce that the (unique) point α+ϕzβ in the intersection V(f−c)∩Sx is given by the formula
[TABLE]
This formula defines a real analytic map ϕ:D+→SH, sending z to ϕz. Deriving the equality
[TABLE]
and using the holomorphicity of F1+F2, we get
[TABLE]
Since F2=0 on D+, we deduce that the map ϕ:D+→(SH,J) is holomorphic. It remains to show that ϕ extends holomorphically to D+.
Let z0∈D+∖D+ and assume that the punctured open disc B˙(z0,r)=B(z0,r)∖{z0} of C is contained in D+. Let J∈SH be fixed. As we have just recalled CJ+∩V(f−c) is closed and discrete or it is the whole set ΩJ+. In the latter case, ϕ is constantly equal to J on D+, and then it extends to D+. In the other case, taking a smaller r>0 we can assume that ΩB˙(z0,r) does not intersect CJ+∩V(f−c). This means that J∈ϕ(B˙(z0,r)). Repeating the argument with other elements of SH, we obtain r0>0 such that ϕ(B˙(z0,r0)) avoids at least three points in SH. The Big Picard Theorem permits to conclude. If ψ:D+→(H∖R,J) denotes the function ψ(α+iβ)=α+ϕ(α,β)β, then the equality \frac{\partial\beta}{\partial=}\phi\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial}impliesatonce$∂β∂=ϕ∂α∂.
∎
Note that Wf,c is closed in Ω and it is a real analytic submanifold of Ω of dimension 2.
Corollary 5.3**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω) be non-constant.
If Ω is a slice domain, then every fiber of f is the union of a set of isolated points and a set of isolated 2-spheres of the form Sx. If Ω is a product domain, every fiber of f is the union of a set of isolated points, a set of isolated 2-spheres of the form Sx and (possibly) one wing Wf,c. Moreover f−1(c)⊃Wf,c if and only if N(f−c)≡0. In the latter case f−1(c)=Df∪Wf,c.
If there are at least two fibers containing a wing, then Df=∅.
Proof.
It remains to prove the last statement. Since two distinct fibers cannot intersect a 2-sphere Sx where f is constant, if there are two wings the degenerate set Df is empty.
∎
Notation 5.4**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω). If Ω is a product domain, we denote by Wf the union of all the wings of f. If Ω is a slice domain, we say that f has no wing and we define Wf:=∅.
In the following we shall prove some results about the family of wings that a slice regular function can have. In particular, we will show that a not slice-constant regular function has no wings if it is slice-preserving. More generally, this holds for slice regular functions that are slice-preserving up to an invertible quaternionic affine transformation, i.e. in the set
[TABLE]
We shall consider also the larger set of slice regular functions that are one-slice-preserving up to an invertible quaternionic affine transformation:
[TABLE]
Note that the set of invertible quaternionic affine transformation is the group Aut(H) of biregular automorphisms of H, i.e. the slice regular functions f:H→H having slice regular inverse (see [12, Theorem 9.4]).
Denote by SC(Ω) the set of all slice-constant functions. Evidently, SC(Ω) coincides with the set of all constant functions on Ω if and only if Ω is a slice domain. Also in the case of a product domain Ω, every f∈SC(Ω) belongs to SRR(Ω). Indeed, f=I(F1+F2) with F1 and F2 constant; hence we get f(x)=g(x)a+b, where a=F2, b=F1 and g(x)=∣Im(x)∣Im(x)∈SRR(Ω).
For every slice and product domains Ω=ΩD, we have the following chain of inclusions:
[TABLE]
In addition, thanks to the representation formula, if Ω is a product domain and f∈SC(Ω) is non-constant then the set Ω∩CJ+ is a fiber of f for each J∈SH.
Proposition 5.5**.**
Every f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω) has no wings.
Proof.
It is sufficient to prove the result for f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). Indeed, if f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω), then f=ga+b, with g∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω), a,b∈H, a=0, and the fiber f−1(c) coincides with the fiber g−1((c−b)a−1) of g. We then assume that f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). As seen above, we can suppose that Ω is a product domain. Let f=I(F), F=F1+F2, with F1, F2 real-valued. Suppose that there is a fiber f−1(c) which contains a wing Wf,c. This implies that N(f−c)≡0. In particular,
[TABLE]
and then F1≡Re(c) would be constant and hence f would be slice-constant.
∎
Proposition 5.6**.**
Let Ω=ΩD be a product domain and let f∈SRC(Ω)∖SRR(Ω). Suppose there are at least two fibers of f containing (and then equal to) a wing. Then Df=∅ and f has infinite wings, parametrized by a circle C. More precisely, if f=ga+b, with g∈SRCJ(Ω)∖SRR(Ω) for J∈SH, a,b∈H, a=0, and f−1(d)=Wf,d, then f−1(c)=Wf,c if and only if the quaternion c belongs to the circle C defined by the following two conditions:
[TABLE]
Furthermore, the set Wf coincides with f−1(C), it is a real analytic submanifold of Ω and the restriction f∣:Wf→C is a trivial fiber bundle with fiber D+. More precisely, the map χ:D+×C→Wf, defined by χ(z,c):=α+(c−F1(z))F2(z)−1β for every z=α+iβ∈D+ and c∈C, is a real analytic isomorphism such that (f∣∘χ)(z,c)=c for every (z,c)∈D+×C.
Proof.
It is sufficient to prove the result for f∈SRCJ(Ω)∖SRR(Ω). First observe that Df=∅. Otherwise f would be constant, contradicting the hypothesis f∈SRR(Ω). If f−1(d)⊃Wf,d, then N(f−d)≡0, i.e. ∣F1−d∣=∣F2∣ and ⟨F1−d,F2⟩=0. Let c∈H such that ∣c∣=∣d∣ and c−d∈CJ⊥. Then ⟨F1−c,F2⟩=⟨F1−d,F2⟩=0 and
[TABLE]
that is N(f−c)≡0. Conversely, if N(f−d)=N(f−c)≡0, then ⟨F1−c,F2⟩=0=⟨F1−d,F2⟩ and
∣F1−d∣=∣F2∣=∣F1−c∣. It follows that
[TABLE]
Let w∈D+ and let a:=F2(w)=0. If F2a−1 were real-valued, then the holomorphy of F would imply that fa−1 is, up to an additive constant, a slice-preserving function, i.e. f∈SRR(Ω), which is a contradiction. We can then assume that the real vector subspace ⟨F2(D)⟩ of H generated by the image of F2 is the plane CJ. By (5), N(f−c)≡0 if and only if c satisfies (4) (with a=1 and b=0). If f has at least two wings, then d=0 and the set C defined by (4) is a circle.
Thanks to Proposition 5.2, we know that f−1(c)=Wf,c for each c∈C. Consequently, f−1(C)=Wf. To complete the proof, it is now sufficient to observe that the real analytic map Wf→D+×C, y↦(Re(y)+i∣Im(y)∣,f(y)) is the inverse of χ.
∎
Proposition 5.7**.**
Let Ω=ΩD be a product domain and let f∈SR(Ω)∖SRC(Ω). Then there exist at most two fibers of f containing a wing.
Proof.
Let f=I(F)∈SR(Ω)∖SRC(Ω), F=F1+F2. Suppose that there is at least one fiber f−1(d) which contains a wing Wf,d. We can suppose that d=0, otherwise we consider the slice regular function f−d. This means that
N(f)≡0, i.e.
[TABLE]
Let c=0. The fiber f−1(c) contains a wing Wf,c if and only if N(f−c)≡0, that is ∣F1−c∣=∣F2∣ and ⟨F1−c,F2⟩=0. By (6), the latter equations are equivalent to the following
[TABLE]
Let w∈D+ be such that F2(w)=0. We can suppose that F2(w)=1, otherwise we replace f with fF2(w)−1. We distinguish three cases. First suppose that F2 is real-valued. In this case, the holomorphy of F would imply that f is, up to an additive constant, a slice-preserving function, which is a contradiction. Assume now that the real vector subspace ⟨F2(D)⟩ of H generated by the image of F2 is a CJ-plane for some J∈SH. Then, using again the holomorphy of F, we infer the existence of a constant q∈H such that F1−q is CJ-valued. Therefore f∈SRC(Ω) which is a contradiction.
The third case is the one in which the image F2(D) contains three elements {1,q,q′} independent over R.
From the second equation in (7) we get that c belongs to a real line of H≃R4 through the origin. Being F1 not identically zero, from the first equation in (7) we have that c belongs to a sphere through the origin. Therefore there is at most one value c=0 satisfying (7).
∎
Combining the results [12, Proposition 3.9 & Theorem 3.12] and [21, Corollary 4.17] mentioned above with Propositions 5.2, 5.5 and 5.6, one immediately obtains a quite explicit description of all the fibers of an arbitrary slice regular function.
Theorem 5.8**.**
Let f=I(F1+F2)∈SR(ΩD) and let c∈H. Define D≥, N(f,c) and Ns′(f,c) by
[TABLE]
Then each of the subsets N(f,c) and Ns′(f,c) of D≥ is closed and discrete or it coincides with the whole D≥, and one of the following holds:
If N(f,c)=Ns′(f,c)=D≥ then f≡c.
2. 2.
If N(f,c)=D≥ and Ns′(f,c) is discrete then ΩD is a product domain and f−1(c)=Df∪Wf,c, where Df coincides with the circularization of Ns′(f,c) and Wf,c is a wing of f induced by the unique holomorphic function ϕ:D≥=D+→SH such that ϕ(z)=(c−F1(z))F2(z)−1 for every z∈D+∖Ns′(f,c).
3. 3.
If N(f,c) and Ns′(f,c) are discrete, then f−1(c)=SZ⊔RZ⊔INRZ, where
•
SZ=⋃z∈Ns′(f,c)∖RΩ{z}* is the set of spherical zeros of f−c,*
•
RZ=⋃z∈Ns′(f,c)∩R{z}* is the set of real zeros of f−c,*
•
INRZ=⋃z=α+iβ∈N(f,c)∖Ns′(f,c){α+(c−F1(z))F2(z)−1β}* is the set of isolated non-real zeros of f−c.*
In particular, f(ΩD)={c∈H:N(f,c)=∅}.
Furthermore Wf=∅ when ΩD is a slice domain. When Ω=ΩD is a product domain the set Wf is closed in Ω and it holds:
Wf=Ω* if f∈SC(Ω).*
5.
Wf=∅* if f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω).*
6.
If f∈SRC(Ω)∖SRR(Ω), then either Wf=∅, or Wf coincides with a wing, or Wf is a real analytic submanifold of Ω of dimension 3. In the latter case Wf is real analytic isomorphic to D+×C, where C is the circle of H defined in (4).
7.
If f∈SR(Ω)∖SRC(Ω), then either Wf=∅, or Wf coincides with a wing or with the union of two disjoint wings.
All the six possibilities mentioned in points 6 and 7 of the preceding statement can happen.
Examples 5.9**.**
Let Ω:=H∖R and let η∈SC(Ω) be the function η(x)=21(1−Ixi), where Ix:=∣Im(x)∣Im(x). Define f1,f2,f3∈SRCi(Ω)∖SRR(Ω) as follows:
[TABLE]
Making use of Theorem 5.8 it is easy to describe the fibers of the preceding functions over an arbitrary quaternion c=c0+c1i+c2j+c3k with c0,c1,c2,c3∈R:
All the fibers of f1 contains at most two points. It follows that Wf1=∅.
2.
f2* has one planar wing f2−1(0)=Wf2,0=C−i+. All the other fibers of f2 contains at most one point. If c=0, we have: f2−1(c)=∅ if and only if c1≤0, and f2−1(c) is a singleton if and only if c1>0. It follows that Wf2=C−i+. Moreover, f2(Ω)={c1>0}∪{0}.*
3.
f3* coincides with the identity on SH∪Ci+ and has normal function N(f)≡−1. It holds N(f3−c)≡0 if and only if c=aj+bk for a,b∈R, a2+b2=1. Therefore f3 has a circle of wings as fibers. Consequently, Wf3 is a real analytic submanifold of Ω of dimension 3.*
Consider now the functions f4,f5,f6∈SR(Ω)∖SRC(Ω) defined by
[TABLE]
Also in this case it is easy to verify the following:
f4* has no wings. Consequently, Wf4=∅.*
5.
f5* has only one non-planar wing f5−1(0)=Wf5,0=Wf5 given by*
[TABLE]
where ϕ5:C+→SH is defined as follows
[TABLE]
6.
f6* has exactly two wings (see [2, Example 2]): the planar wing f6−1(j)=Wf6,j equal to C−i+ and the non-planar wing f6−1(0)=Wf6,0 equal to the non-planar wing Wf5,0 of f5 (see Remark 5.13 below). It follows that Wf6=C−i+∪Wf5,0.*
We conclude with two examples illustrating the case covered by Proposition 5.2 in which a fiber of a slice regular function is equal to the union of its degenerate set and a wing. Define f2∗∈SRCi(Ω)∖SRR(Ω) and f5∗∈SR(Ω)∖SRC(Ω) by f2∗(x):=(x2+1)η(x) and f5∗(x):=(x2+1)f5(x). It holds:
2∗.
f2∗* has a unique wing Wf2∗,0=C−i+=Wf2∗ and (f2∗)−1(0)=SH∪C−i+.*
5∗.
f5∗* has a unique wing Wf5∗,0=Wf5,0=Wf5∗ and (f5∗)−1(0)=SH∪Wf5,0.*
Remark 5.10**.**
If f is not slice-constant and it has at least two wings as fibers, then at most one of them can be a half-plane CJ+. If not, the representation formula would imply that f is slice-constant.
The next result is a criterion for the existence of at most one wing for a slice regular function. From now on, given any subset S of C, we denote by cl(S) the Euclidean closure of S in C.
Lemma 5.11**.**
Let Ω=ΩD be a product domain and let f=I(F1+F2)∈SR(Ω). Suppose there exists a point z′∈cl(D+) such that limD+∋z→z′F2(z)=0. Then f has at most one wing.
Proof.
Suppose f has two distinct wings Wf,c and Wf,d, where c and d are two different quaternions. Let ϕc and ϕd be the holomorphic maps from D+ to SH inducing Wf,c and Wf,d, respectively. Since F1+ϕcF2=c and F1+ϕdF2=d on D+, it follows that (ϕc−ϕd)F2=c−d. Bearing in mind that ∣ϕc(z)−ϕd(z)∣≤∣ϕc(z)∣+∣ϕd(z)∣=2 for every z∈D+, we deduce
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction.
∎
As a consequence we obtain a ‘wing selection lemma’:
Lemma 5.12**.**
Let Ω=ΩD be a product domain such that cl(D+)∩R=∅ and let f∈SR(Ω) be a slice regular function having at least one wing Wf,c. Suppose there exists a point r∈cl(D+)∩R and a neighborhood U of r in H such that ∣f∣ is bounded on U∩Ω. Then the slice regular function g∈SR(Ω) defined by g(x):=c+(x−r)(f(x)−c) has a unique wing Wg,c and it holds g−1(c)=Wg,c=Wf,c.
Proof.
First, observe that g−1(c)=V(g−c)=V(f−c)=Wf,c. Let f=I(F1+F2) and g=I(G1+G2). Since ∣f∣ is bounded locally at r in Ω, ∣F1∣ and ∣F2∣ are bounded locally at r in D+. Observe that G2(z)=(α−r)F2(z)+β(F1(z)−c) for every z=α+iβ∈D+. Consequently, limD+∋z→rG2(z)=0. The preceding lemma implies the statement.
∎
Remark 5.13**.**
Lemma 5.12 applies to the functions f=f6∈SR(H∖R) and g=f5∈SR(H∖R) defined in Examples 5.9. Indeed, if we put c=r=0 in the statement of the mentioned lemma, we obtain that f5 has a unique wing f5−1(0)=Wf5,0=Wf6,0, as asserted in Examples 5.9. Similar considerations can be repeated if f=η and g=f2.
Remark 5.14**.**
In the statement of Lemma 5.11, the hypothesis ‘limD+∋z→z′F2(z)=0’ can be weakened by requiring the existence of a sequence {zn}n in D+ converging to z′ such that the sequence {F2(zn)}n converges to [math]. As an immediate application of this stronger version, we have the following: if f=I(F1+F2)∈SR(ΩD) has at least two wings then infcl(D+)∣F2∣>0.
We conclude this section describing a technique to construct slice regular functions f with tridimensional Wf.
Proposition 5.15**.**
Let Ω=ΩD be a product domain and let g:Ω∩Ci+→Ci be a holomorphic function such that g is non-constant and nowhere zero. Denote by f∈SR(Ω) the unique slice regular function such that
[TABLE]
Then the fiber f−1(c) is a wing if and only if c∈Ci⊥ and ∣c∣=1. Consequently, Wf is a real analytic submanifold of Ω of dimension 3.
Proof.
Denote by F=F1+F2:D+→H⊗C the stem function inducing f. We have:
[TABLE]
By a direct computation we see that ⟨F1(z),F2(z)⟩=0 and ∣F1(z)∣2−∣F2(z)∣2=−1 for every z∈D+, i.e. N(f)≡−1. It follows that, given c∈H, N(f−c)≡0 if and only if ⟨c,F2(z)⟩=0 and ∣c∣2−2⟨c,F1(z)⟩=1 for every z∈D+. Since F2 is not constant (because g is not), we deduce c∈Ci⊥ and ∣c∣=1.
∎
6 Singular set and quasi-openness
Following the notation of [12, §8.5], we define the singular set of f∈SR(Ω) as the following real analytic subset Nf of Ω:
[TABLE]
We can apply Theorem 4.1 to describe the singular set by means of slice and spherical derivatives. This description is equivalent to the one given in [12, Proposition 8.18].
Corollary 6.1**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω). Then
[TABLE]
In particular, Nf contains V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cup D_{f}.
∎
Remark 6.2**.**
In [34] it was proved that the spherical derivative of a slice regular function is indeed the result of a differential operation. Given the Cauchy-Riemann-Fueter operator
[TABLE]
for every slice regular function f∈SR(Ω) it holds ∂CRFf=−2fs′ on the whole Ω. Therefore we have the following equivalent description of the singular set of f:
[TABLE]
Given f∈SR(Ω), let f~:=∂x∂f⋅(fs′)c. The function f~ is a slice function on Ω∖R, induced by the stem function F~:=∂z∂Fim(z)F2. Observe that, since F2/im(z) takes values in H, the slice product here coincides with the pointwise product: f~(x)=∂x∂f(x)fs′(x) for each x∈Ω∖R.
Let y=α+Iβ∈Nf∖R be fixed (with α,β∈R, I∈SH) and let p=f~s0(y), q=βf~s′(y). Then f~(x)=p+Jq for x=α+Jβ∈Sy. Corollary 6.1 gives
[TABLE]
Let p=p0+p1i+p2j+p3k, q=q0+q1i+q2j+q3k and J=j1i+j2j+j3k. The set Nf∩Sy is the intersection of the 2-sphere Sy with a real affine subspace of H≃R4:
[TABLE]
We now use this description of the singular set to obtain some of its basic properties.
Proposition 6.3**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω).
Given any y∈Ω∖R, one of the following holds: Nf∩Sy is empty, it is a singleton, it consists of two distinct points, it is a circle or it is the whole Sy. Moreover, the latter is true, namely Sy⊂Nf, if and only if Sy⊂Df or {\mathbb{S}}_{y}\subset V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}.
Proof.
Let f~, y=α+Iβ∈Nf∖R, p and q be as above. By (8), Nf∩Sy is the intersection between the 2-sphere Sy of R3≃α+R3 with one of its affine subspaces. Moreover, Nf∩Sy=Sy, i.e. Sy⊂Nf, if and only if p=q=0 or equivalently f~∣Sy≡0. Since fs′ is constant on Sy, if f~∣Sy≡0 and fs′(y)=0 then {\mathbb{S}}_{y}\subset V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}.
∎
Theorem 6.4**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω). The following holds:
f∈SC(Ω)* if and only if Nf has an interior point in Ω or, equivalently, Nf=Ω.*
2. 2.
If f∈SRR(Ω), then N_{f}=V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cup D_{f}. In particular, Nf is a circular set.
3. 3.
Suppose f∈SRCJ0(Ω) for some J0∈SH. Then N_{f}\cap{\mathbb{C}}_{J_{0}}=\left(V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cup D_{f}\right)\cap{\mathbb{C}}_{J_{0}} and the set
N_{f}^{*}:=N_{f}\setminus\left(V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cup D_{f}\cup{\mathbb{C}}_{J_{0}}\right) is empty or it is a S1-fibration in the following sense: for every y∈Nf∗, the set Nf∩Sy is equal to the circle Cy obtained intersecting Sy with the real affine plane of H≃R4 through y and orthogonal to CJ0. Moreover, C_{y}\cap\left(V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cup D_{f}\cup{\mathbb{C}}_{J_{0}}\right)=\emptyset. The same properties hold for any f=ga+b∈SRC(Ω), with g∈SRCJ0(Ω), a,b∈H, a=0.
Proof.
We begin proving 1. If f∈SC(Ω), then N_{f}=V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}=\Omega. Conversely, let U be a non-empty open subset of Ω contained in Nf. We can assume U∩R=∅. Let y∈U. The intersection U∩Sy is a non-empty open subset of Sy and hence p=q=0 in (8). Therefore f~=I(F~)≡0 on every 2-sphere Sy with y∈U. Let D′ be a (non-empty) open subset of D such that ΩD′=⋃x∈USx. On D′ the stem function F~=∂z∂FIm(z)F2 vanishes identically. Consequently, ∂z∂F≡0 or F2≡0 on the connected components of D′. Since F is holomorphic, this means that ∂z∂F≡0 on D′ and then ∂x∂f≡0 on the connected set Ω, i.e. f∈SC(Ω).
Let us show 2. It is sufficient to prove the result for f∈SRR(Ω). In this case p and q are real. Then Nf∩Sy=∅ if and only if p=q=0 and Sy⊂Nf. By Corollary 6.1 and Proposition 6.3, N_{f}\setminus\mathbb{R}=\big{(}V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cup D_{f}\big{)}\setminus\mathbb{R}. Combining this equality with N_{f}\cap\mathbb{R}=V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}\cap\mathbb{R} we obtain 2.
It remains to prove 3. We can assume that J0=i. Let y=α+Iβ∈Nf∗. Since f~∈SCi(Ω∖R), then p,q∈Ci. Let I=i1i+i2j+i3k=±i. From (8) it follows that a point x=α+Jβ with J=j1i+j2j+j3k belongs to Nf∩Sy if and only if p0−j1q1=q0+j1p1=0. Since y∈Nf∗, we deduce that p0−i1q1=q0+i1p1=0 and i1∈(−1,1), ∂x∂f(y)=0, fs′(y)=0 and so f~(y)=∂x∂f(y)fs′(y)=0. In particular p and q are not both null. It follows that j1=i1 is the unique solution of the equations p0−j1q1=q0+j1p1=0 for j1∈R. Therefore Nf∩Sy is equal to the circle Cy={x=α+Jβ∈Sy:j1=i1}. Note that Cy∩CJ0=∅. Also Cy∩Df=∅, because Cy⊂Sy and Sy∩Df=∅.
It remains to show that C_{y}\cap V\big{(}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\big{)}=\emptyset. Let x=α+Jβ∈Cy and let z:=α+iβ∈D. Define ξ:=∂α∂F1(z)∈Ci and η:=∂α∂F2(z)∈Ci. Since ξ+Iη=∂x∂f(y)=0, it holds that either ξ=0 or η=0 and hence, being J=±i, ∂x∂f(x)=ξ+Jη=0. This completes the proof.
∎
Our next aim is to obtain a generalization of the Open Mapping Theorem for slice regular functions (see [11] and [12, Theorems 7.4 and 7.7] for slice domains and [1, Theorem 5.1] for product domains; see also [23]). Our proof of this generalization is completely new. It is based on properties of the Jacobian.
We recall that a continuous map g:X→Y between topological spaces X and Y is called quasi-open if, for each point y∈g(X) and for each open set U in X that contains a compact connected component of g−1(y), y is in the interior of g(U). Note that if g is quasi-open and each of its fibers has a compact component then g(X) is open in Y. The map g is called light if, for each y∈Y, the fiber g−1(y) is totally disconnected. If g is light and quasi-open, then g is open (see e.g. [39]).
From now on, given any subset S of Ω, we denote by Cl(S) and ∂S the Euclidean closure of S and the boundary of S in Ω, respectively.
We are now in position to present our ‘Quasi-open Mapping Theorem’.
Theorem 6.5**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). The following holds:
f* is quasi-open.*
2. 2.
If Ω is a slice domain, then f(Ω) is open in H and the restriction f∣Ω∖Cl(Df) is open.
3. 3.
If Ω is a product domain, then the restriction f∣Ω∖(Df∪Wf) is open. Moreover, if Wf=∅, then f(Ω) is open in H.
Proof.
Point 1 of Theorem 6.4 ensures that the real analytic set Nf has dimension less then four. Since the Jacobian does not change sign on Ω (Theorem 3.4), it follows from results of Titus and Young [39] that f is quasi-open.
If Ω is a slice domain, then the zero set of a not identically vanishing slice regular function on Ω consists of isolated points or isolated 2-spheres of the form Sx. It follows that the connected components of the fibers of f are compact and so f(Ω) is open in H. Moreover the restriction of f to the open set Ω∖Cl(Df) is open because it is light, being f−1(y)∖Cl(Df)=V(f−y)∖Cl(Df) discrete for each y∈H.
If Ω is a product domain, then thanks to the description of the fibers of f (Corollary 5.3) we know that the restriction of f to the open set Ω∖(Df∪Wf) is light, being f−1(y)∖(Df∪Wf) discrete for each y∈H. It follows that also such a restriction is open. Moreover, if Wf=∅ then the connected components of the fibers of f are compact (singletons or Sx indeed) and hence f(Ω) is open in H.
∎
Note that, if f is a non-constant function in SC(Ω), then f(Ω) is a 2-sphere of H≃R4.
Theorem 6.6**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω) and let y∈Ω∖R such that Df=Sy. Then Df∩Cl(Nf∖Df)=∅.
Proof.
Up to restricting Ω around Sy, we can assume Ω is a product domain. Write y=α+Jβ with α,β∈R, β>0 and J∈SH. Define z:=α+iβ∈C∖R and q as the quaternion such that f(Sy)={q}. Suppose the statement is false. Then Wf=∅ and there exists a closed disc E of C centered at z and contained in C∖R such that ΩE⊂Ω and Nf∩ΩE=Df=Sy=f−1(q)∩ΩE. Note that ΩE∖Sy is homeomorphic to (E∖{z})×SH. In particular ΩE∖Sy has the same homotopy type of S1×S2; consequently its fundamental group π1(ΩE∖Sy) is isomorphic to Z. By point 3 of Theorem 6.5, q is an interior point of f(ΩE). Let U be the interior of ΩE in Ω and let g:ΩE→H be the restriction of f to ΩE. The set U is an open neighborhood of g−1(q)=Sy in H contained in ΩE and the map g is proper. It follows that there exists an open ball B of H centered at q such that B⊂g(ΩE) and g−1(B)⊂U. Denote by V the open subset g−1(B) of H and consider the restriction g^:V∖Sy→B∖{q} of g. The map g^ is surjective and a local homeomorphism (a local diffeomorphism indeed).
Let us prove that g^ is a covering space. To do this it suffices to show that the fibers of g^ are finite and the map g^ is proper (or, equivalently, the map g^ is closed). Suppose there exists p∈B∖{q} with g^−1(p) infinite. Bearing in mind that ΩE is compact, there exists an accumulation point p∗ of g^−1(p) in ΩE. Note that g^−1(p)⊂f−1(p) so p∗ is also an accumulation point of the fiber f−1(p) of f and p∗∈f−1(p). It follows that p∗∈Df∪Wf. Since Wf=∅, we have that p∗∈Df=f−1(q), which is impossible (being p=q). This proves that the fibers of g^ are finite. Let C be a closed subset of V∖Sy and let C∗ be a closed subset of ΩE such that C=C∗∩(V∖Sy). The set C∗ is compact in ΩE and hence the set g(C∗) is closed (compact indeed) in H. Consequently, g^(C)=g(C)=g(C∗)∩(B∖{q}) is closed in B∖{q}. This proves that the map g^ is proper and hence it is a covering space.
The base space B∖{q} of g^ is simply connected so the same is true for each connected component of its total space V∖Sy. Choose a small loop γ of ΩE∖Sy around y contained in (V∖Sy)∩CJ+ whose homotopy class in ΩE∖Sy generates π1(ΩE∖Sy). Since the connected component of V∖Sy containing the loop γ is simply connected, the homotopy class of γ in V∖Sy is trivial. Consequently the same is true for the homotopy class of γ in ΩE∖Sy⊃V∖Sy. This is impossible.
∎
It is known that the continuous map g:X→Y is quasi-open if and only if ∂Y(g(U))⊂g(∂XU) for every relatively compact open subset U of X, where ∂Y(g(U)) is the boundary of g(U) in Y and ∂XU the boundary of U in X (see [40, Chap. X, Theorem (4.4)]). In particular, if X=Y=H and g is quasi-open, then maxCl(U)∣g∣=max∂U∣g∣ for every relatively compact open subset U of H. Indeed, thanks to the continuity of g and the compactness of Cl(U), g(Cl(U))⊂Cl(g(U))⊂g(Cl(U)) so g(Cl(U))=Cl(g(U)) and ∂(g(Cl(U)))=∂(Cl(g(U)))⊂∂(g(U)). As a consequence, being g quasi-open, ∂(g(Cl(U)))⊂g(∂U); hence maxCl(U)∣g∣=max∂U∣g∣.
Thanks to the latter property of quasi-open maps we obtain the Maximum Modulus Principle for slice regular functions defined on product domains, see [12, Theorems 7.1 and 7.2] for the case of slice domains and [1, Theorems 4.2] for a partial result in the case of product domains. See also [23] for a different approach.
Theorem 6.7**.**
Let Ω be a product domain, let f∈SR(Ω) and let U be a relatively compact connected open subset of Ω. Then ∣f∣ assumes its maximum value M on Cl(U) at a point of ∂U. Furthermore, if ∣f(p)∣=M for some p∈U and p∈CI+, then f is constant on Ω∩CI+.
Proof.
The statement is evident if f∈SC(Ω). Suppose f is not in SC(Ω). By Theorem 6.5, f is quasi-open. Consequently, M=max∂U∣f∣>0. Suppose there exists p=ξ+Iη∈U, ξ,η∈R with η>0, I∈SH, such that ∣f(p)∣=M. The argument exploited in the proof of [12, Theorem 7.1] ensures that f is constant locally at p in CI. From point 3 of Theorem 6.5, we know that f∣Ω∖(Df∪Wf) is open. It follows that p∈Df or p∈Wf.
Assume that p∈Df. Then ∣f(q)∣=M for every q∈Sp.
Choose a point q=ξ+Jη∈Sp∩U with J=I. Let f=I(F1+F2) and let Ω=ΩD. Then f is constant locally at p in CI and locally at q in CJ. Since F2(z)=(I−J)−1(f(zI)−f(zJ)) and F1(z)=f(zI)−IF2(z) for z=α+iβ∈D, zI=α+Iβ and zJ=α+Jβ, it follows that F1 and F2 are locally constant and hence f∈SC(Ω), which is a contradiction. Therefore p belongs to a wing Wf,c. Since f is locally constant at p in CI, we deduce that Wf,c=Ω∩CI+.
∎
The situation mentioned in the last assertion of the preceding statement can happen.
Example 6.8**.**
Consider the slice regular map f2∈SR(H∖R) defined in Examples 6.. Recall that f2−1(0)=Wf2,0=C−i+ and f2(H∖R)={0}∪{c0+c1i+c2j+c3k∈H:c1>0}. Define g∈SR(H∖R) as the (slice) reciprocal function of i+f2, namely g:=(i+f2)−∙ (see [12, §5.1] and [21, §2] for the definition of the reciprocal function). Then g has a wing Wg,−i=C−i+. From the pointwise formula for the reciprocal function given in [12, Proposition 5.32], it follows that ∣g(x)∣<1 for every x∈H∖(R∪Wg,−i) and hence ∣g(y)∣=1=supx∈H∖R∣g(x)∣ for each y∈Wg,−i.
In the following we need a refinement of [10, Theorem 3.9]
to describe the behavior of the fibers of a slice regular function near a singular point not belonging to Cl(Df)∪Wf. First, we recall a characterization of singular points by means of the normal function, see [10, Proposition 3.6] for slice domains and [2, Theorem 30] for product domains.
Proposition 6.9**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω) and let y∈Ω. Then y∈Nf if and only if the total multiplicity mf−f(y)(y) of f−f(y) at y is at least two. In particular if y∈Nf, N(f−f(y))≡0 and n denotes the integer mf−f(y)(y)≥2, then there exists g∈SRR(Ω) such that N(f−f(y))=Δyng and V(g)∩Sy=∅.
Proposition 6.10**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω), let y∈Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf) and let U be any neighborhood of y in Ω. There exist neighborhoods V,V′ of y in Ω with V⊂V′⊂U, and an integer n≥2 such that, for every x∈V, the fiber f−1(f(x))∩V′ of f∣V′ is finite and the sum of the total multiplicities of the points in f−1(f(x))∩V′ as zeros of f−f(x) is equal to n.
Proof.
Let f=I(F1+F2). First, assume y∈Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf∪R). Let y=α0+J0β0, z0=α0+iβ0∈D+. For every r∈(0,β0), we denote by Vr the open neighborhood of y in H defined by
[TABLE]
Let Θr:={α+iβ∈C+:∣α+iβ−z0∣≤r} and let Ωr=ΩΘr be the circular neighborhood of y in H defined by Θr. We now proceed as in the proof of [10, Theorem 3.9]. Since y∈Wf, the normal function N(f−f(y)) is not identically vanishing. By Proposition 6.9, there exist n≥2 and g∈SRR(Ω) such that N(f−f(y))=Δyng and V(g)∩Sy=∅. After choosing a smaller circular open domain containing y, we can suppose that V(g)∩Ω=∅ and that fs′=0 on Ω∖R. Choose r0∈(0,β0) sufficiently small to have Ωr0⊂Ω. Set M:=maxz∈Θr0(∣F2(z)∣−1)>0. Let r′∈(0,r0] be such that
[TABLE]
for every z,z′∈Θr′. Let ΩJ0+:=Ω∩CJ0+. By Hurwitz’s Theorem (see e.g. [37, §1.4]) applied to the holomorphic function N(f−f(y))∣ΩJ0+, we can find a positive r≤r′ such that, for every y1∈Vr, the function N(f−f(y1))∣ΩJ0+ has exactly n zeros in Ωr′∩ΩJ0+, counted with their multiplicities.
Let y1=α1+J1β1∈Vr and z1:=α1+iβ1∈Θr.
The zero set V(N(f−f(y1)))∩Ωr′ is the union of h disjoint spheres S1,…,Sh, while V(f−f(y1))∩Ωr′={y1,…,yh}, where yk∈Sk is a non-spherical zero of f−f(y1) of total multiplicity mk for each k=1,…,h, with ∑kmk=n.
Since yk=αk+Jkβk∈Ωr′ for k=2,…,h, then zk:=αk+iβk belongs to Θr′. Moreover, since F1(zk)+JkF2(zk)=f(yk)=f(y1)=F1(z1)+J1F2(z1) for every k=2,…,h, it holds
[TABLE]
Therefore ∣Jk−J0∣≤∣Jk−J1∣+∣J1−J0∣<r0+r for every k=2,…,h. We can then set V:=Vr and V′:={α+Jβ∈H:α,β∈R,J∈SH,∣α+iβ−z0∣<r′,∣J−J0∣<r0+r}⊃V. If r0 is sufficiently small, we get the required inclusion V′⊂U.
If y∈Nf∩R, the thesis follows directly from [10, Theorem 3.9].
∎
Let f∈SR(Ω) and let y∈Ω. Recall that f is said to be a local homeomorphism at y if there exists an open neighborhood U of y in Ω such that f(U) is open in H and the restriction of f from U to f(U) is a homeomorphism.
Let Bf denote the branch set of f, the set of points of Ω at which f fails to be a local homeomorphism. Evidently, Cl(Df)∪Wf⊂Bf and, by the Implicit Function Theorem, Ω∖Nf⊂Ω∖Bf. Consequently, it holds:
[TABLE]
Theorem 6.11**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω). Then Nf=Bf. More precisely, if U is a non-empty open subset of Ω such that the restriction f∣U is injective, then Nf∩U=∅. In particular, f is locally injective if and only if Nf=∅.
Proof.
If f∈SC(Ω), then the statement is evident, because Nf=Bf=Ω. Let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). Let U be a non-empty open subset of Ω such that the restriction f∣U is injective. Suppose Nf∩U=∅ and choose y∈Nf∩U. Since f is injective locally at y, it follows that y∈Cl(Df)∪Wf. Let V,V′ be the neighborhoods of y with V⊂V′⊂U given in the statement of Proposition 6.10. By point 1 of Theorem 6.4, V⊂Nf. Choose x∈V∖Nf. From Proposition 6.9 it follows that x has total multiplicity 1 as zero of f−f(x). Then the fiber f−1(f(x)) contains at least two distinct points in V′, which is a contradiction.
∎
We now apply the preceding results to study the local dimension of the singular set Nf.
First we need to recall some basic definitions and facts concerning the dimension of a real analytic set. Let V be a non-empty open subset of some Rn and let A⊂V be a real analytic set. Consider y∈A and denote by Ay the germ at y of A. Let Ay=⋃ν=1kAy,ν be the decomposition of Ay into its irreducible real analytic components and, for every ν∈{1,…,k}, let pν∈N be the dimension of the irreducible real analytic germ Ay,ν, defined by means of Weierstrass’ Preparation Theorem as in [32, Proposition 2, p. 32]. The local dimension dimy(A) of A at y is given by dimy(A):=maxν∈{1,…,k}pν and the dimension dim(A) of A by dim(A):=maxy∈Adimy(A), see [32, Definition 3, p. 40]. If A=∅ then each local dimension dimy(A) and the dimension dim(A) of A are natural numbers ≤n. Moreover, dimy(A)=dim(A∩U′) for every sufficiently small open neighborhood U′ of y in V. For convention, we set dimy(A):=−1 if y∈V∖A and dim(A):=−1 if A=∅. Hence dimy(A)=−1 if and only if y∈V∖A, and dim(A)=−1 if and only if A=∅.
We remark that, since every real analytic set is triangulable (see [30]), the dimension of A as a real analytic subset of V, the one recalled above, coincides with the topological dimension of A as an arbitrary subset of V (see [28]).
The latter fact is important here. Indeed, in the proof of Theorem 6.12 below, we will apply a result of Church [6, Corollary 2.3], that states the following: any light and open map f:Rn→Rn of class Cn (n≥2) has empty branch set Bf or the topological dimension of Bf is equal to n−2. This result holds also locally. In particular, when f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω), it holds: Nf=Bf (Theorem 6.11), the restriction of f to Ω∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf) is light and open (Corollary 5.3 and Theorem 6.5) and, given any y∈Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf), the local dimension dimy(Nf) coincides with the ‘topological dimension’ of a sufficiently small open neighborhood of y in Bf. Consequently, the mentioned result of Church implies that dimy(Nf)=4−2=2.
Let f∈SR(Ω). By point 1 of Theorem 6.4, f∈SC(Ω) if and only if dimy(Nf)=4 for some (or, equivalently, for every) y∈Ω. In particular, if f∈SC(Ω) then dim(Nf)=4. The next result deals with the case f∈SC(Ω).
Theorem 6.12**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). Then the local dimensions dimy(Nf), dimy(Df) and dimy(Wf) belong to {−1,2,3} and the local dimension dimy(Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf)) to {−1,2} for every y∈Ω. In particular, the dimensions dim(Nf), dim(Df) and dim(Wf) belong to {−1,2,3}, and the dimension dim(Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf)) to {−1,2}.
More precisely, we have:
If Ω is a slice domain, then Nf=Cl(Df)∪(Nf∖Cl(Df)) and if Nf=∅ then one of the following holds:
1.1.
Df=∅* and dim(Nf)=2.*
2. 1.2.
dimy(Df)∈{2,3}* for every y∈Df=∅ and
Nf=Cl(Df) or dimy(Nf∖Cl(Df))=2 for every y∈Nf∖Cl(Df)=∅.*
2. 2.
If Ω is a product domain, then Nf=Df∪Wf∪(Nf∖(Df∪Wf)) and one of the following holds:
2.1.
Df=∅, Wf=∅ or dimy(Wf)∈{2,3} for every y∈Wf=∅, and Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅ or dimy(Nf∖(Df∪Wf))=2 for every y∈Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅.
2. 2.2.
dimy(Df)=2* for every y∈Df=∅, Wf=∅ or dimy(Wf)=2 for every y∈Wf=∅, and Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅ or dimy(Nf∖(Df∪Wf))=2 for every y∈Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅. However the case ‘dimy(Df)=2 for every y∈Df=∅, Wf=∅ and Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅’ cannot occur.*
3. 2.3.
dim(Df)=3, Wf=∅, and Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅ or dimy(Nf∖(Df∪Wf))=2 for every y∈Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅.
Proof.
Let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω) and let y∈Nf. Since the function F2:D→H is real analytic and not locally constant, and Df is the circularization of the zero set V(F2) of F2, we have that the local dimensions of V(F2) are either −1 or [math] or 1. Consequently, dimy(Df)∈{2,3} if y∈Df. By Theorem 5.8 and [6, Corollary 2.3], dimy(Wf)∈{2,3} if y∈Wf and dim(Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf))=2 if y∈Nf∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf). Point 1 follows immediately from the fact that Wf=∅ if Ω is a slice domain. Suppose Ω is a product domain. If Df=∅, then dim(Df)=2 (or, equivalently, dimy(Df)=2 for every y∈Df) or dim(Df)=3. Moreover Wf=∅ or Wf consists of a single wing. In the latter case Proposition 5.2 implies that dim(Df)=2. By Theorem 6.6, if dim(Df)=2 and Wf=∅, then Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅. This proves point 2.
∎
Remark 6.13**.**
If in point 2.2 of the preceding statement Df=∅ and Wf=∅, then Df is a union of isolated spheres Sx, Wf is a single wing, the intersection Df∩Wf consists of isolated points and the Jacobian matrix Jf(y) is null, that is ∂x∂f(y)=fs′(y)=0 for every y∈Df∩Wf. This follows immediately from Proposition 5.2, equality (1) and the transversality in H between Df and Wf.
Corollary 6.14**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). The following holds:
If y∈Nf and (Nf)y=⋃ν=1k(Nf)y,ν is the decomposition of (Nf)y into its irreducible real analytic components, then the dimension of each (Nf)y,ν belongs to {2,3}.
2. 2.
Nf* does not have isolated points.*
3. 3.
There does not exist any open subset U of Ω such that Nf∩U is homeomorphic to R.
Proof.
By Theorem 6.12, dimy(Nf)∈{2,3} if y∈Nf; hence dimy(Nf)∈{0,1}.
∎
All the dimensional configurations mentioned in the statement of Theorem 6.12 can happen.
Examples 6.15**.**
Let Ω:=H∖R and let f∈SR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). Define
[TABLE]
By Theorem 6.12.2, the triple (df,wf,mf) can assume at most eleven values:
[TABLE]
We will give examples of f∈SRCi(Ω)∖SC(Ω) in which each of these values is assumed.
First, we recall that η denotes the function in SC(H∖R) defined by η(x):=21(1−Ixi), where Ix:=∣Im(x)∣Im(x). Observe that η(x)=1 if x∈Ci+, η(x)=0 if x∈C−i+, ηc(x)=21(1+Ixi), ηc(x)=0 if x∈Ci+ and ηc(x)=1 if x∈C−i+. Thanks to the representation formula, given any holomorphic function g:Ci∖R→Ci, the unique slice regular function f∈SRCi(H∖R) such that f∣Ci∖R=g can be written as follows:
[TABLE]
Let us present our examples f, denoting F=F1+F2 the stem function of f.
Evidently, if f(x):=x then Nf=∅ and hence df=wf=mf=−1.
2. 2.
Let f(x):=x2−2xi (i.e. f=f1 as in Examples 5.9). We know that Df=Wf=∅. Note that p=i is a point of Nf, because ∂x∂f=2x−2i. In particular, Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=∅. Consequently, (df,wf,mf)=(−1,−1,2). This example was studied in **[10, Section 6]** to construct a new non-constant orthogonal complex structure on open subsets of H.
3. 3.
Let f(x):=xη(x) (i.e. f=f2 as in Examples 5.9). We know that Df=∅ and Wf=C−i+. By Corollary 6.1, Nf is equal to the set of solutions of the equations
\big{\langle}\textstyle\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x),{f^{\prime}_{s}(x)}\big{\rangle}=\big{\langle}\textstyle\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x),\operatorname{Im}(x){f^{\prime}_{s}(x)}\big{\rangle}=0.
By a direct computation, we obtain:
[TABLE]
It follows that Nf=C−i+. Consequently, (df,wf,mf)=(−1,2,−1).
4. 4.
Let f(x):=η(x)g(zx), where g:Ci+→Ci is defined by g(z):=ez2−2zi. Note that F1(z)=21g(z) and F2(z)=−2ig(z) if z∈C+. Consequently, ⟨F1,F2⟩=∣F2∣2−∣F1∣2≡0. Hence N(f−c)≡0 with c∈H if and only if 2⟨F1,c⟩−∣c∣2=⟨F2,c⟩≡0. Since F1 and F2 are Ci-valued, the latter equations imply c=0. This shows that Wf=f−1(0)=C−i+. Since g is nowhere zero, Df=∅. Observe that ∂x∂f(x)=η(x)g′(zx), where g′ is the complex derivative of g. Since g′(i)=0, p=i is a point of Nf∖(Df∪Wf). It follows that (df,wf,mf)=(−1,2,2).
5. 5.
Let f(x):=η(x)zx−ηc(x)zx1 (i.e. f=f3 as in Examples 5.9).
We know that f−1(c)=Wf,c if and only if c∈C, where C:={q2j+q3k∈H:q2,q3∈R,q22+q32=1}. In particular, Df=∅. By a direct computation, we obtain:
[TABLE]
It follows that f(Nf)⊂C. Consequently, Nf=f−1(C)=Wf and hence (df,wf,mf)=(−1,3,−1).
6. 6.
Let f(x):=η(x)ex−ηc(x)ex1, where ex:=ezx2−2zxi. By Proposition 5.15, we know that Wf=f−1(C), where C is as in 5. In particular, Df=∅. Since ∂x∂f(i)=0 and f(i)=e∈C, p=i is a point of Nf∖(Df∪Wf). It follows that (df,wf,mf)=(−1,3,2).
7. 7.
Let f(x)=(x2+4)(x2−2xi−1). Evidently, Wf=∅. By a direct computation, we easily see that F2(z)=0 if and only if z=±2i, so Df=S2i. Since ∂x∂f(i)=0 and i∈S2i, p=i is a point of Nf∖(Df∪Wf). Consequently, (df,wf,mf)=(2,−1,2).
8. 8.
Let f(x):=η(x)(zx2+1)=(x2+1)η(x) (i.e. f=f2∗ as in Examples 5.9). We know that Df=SH and Wf=C−i+. Using Corollary 6.1 again, we obtain
[TABLE]
If follows that Nf=SH∪C−i+=Df∪Wf. Consequently, (df,wf,mf)=(2,2,−1).
9. 9.
Let f(x):=η(x)(zx2−2zxi+3). Since zx2−2zxi+3=0 if and only if zx=3i, and C−i+⊂Wf,0, it follows that Df=S3i and Wf=C−i+. Observe that ∂x∂f(x)=η(x)(2zx−2i) and hence ∂x∂f(i)=0. Since p=i is a point of Nf∖(Df∪Wf), we deduce that (df,wf,mf)=(2,2,2).
10. 10.
Let f(x):=x2. Evidently, Wf=∅. By a direct computation, it is immediate to verify that Nf=Df=Im(H). Consequently, (df,wf,mf)=(3,−1,−1).
11. 11.
Let f(x):=x3+3x. By a direct computation, we easily see that Df is the tridimensional hyperboloid 3Re(x)2−∣Im(x)∣2+3=0, Wf=∅ and Nf∖(Df∪Wf)=SH. Consequently, (df,wf,mf)=(3,−1,2).
We summarize the data of above examples in the following diagram, in which we add nf:=dim(Nf)=max{df,wf,mf}.
[TABLE]
Note that slice regular functions f∈SR(Ω) defined in the preceding examples 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11 extend to slice regular functions f∈SR(H), which give all the five possible values of (df,wf,mf) predicted in Theorem 6.12.1.
Remark 6.16**.**
If f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω),
then dimy(Df)∈{−1,3} for every y∈Ω=ΩD. Indeed, without loss of generality we can assume that f=I(F1+F2)∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω). Then the degenerate set Df is the circularization of the zero set V(F2) of the (real-valued) real analytic function F2. Since F2 is harmonic and non-constant, V(F2) is empty or it is a real analytic curve of D without isolated points. By Proposition 5.5 and Theorem 6.12, we know that, if f∈SRR(Ω)∖SC(Ω), then
[TABLE]
All these four dimensional configurations can happen. For example, if Ω=H∖R, the values (−1,−1,−1), (3,−1,−1) and (3,−1,2) are assumed for the above-mentioned slice functions f(x):=x, f(x):=x2 and f(x):=x3+3x, respectively.
Let f:H∖{0}→H be the slice regular function f(x):=x−x−1. Note that fs′(x)=1+∣x∣−2, so Df=∅; Wf=∅ as well, because H∖{0} is a slice domain. Since ∂x∂f(i)=0, we have that (df,wf,mf)=(−1,−1,2).
7 A boundary univalence criterion
We conclude this work by presenting one more result coming from the sign property of the Jacobian of a slice regular function f∈SR(Ω) and from the lightness of f away from Cl(Df)∪Wf. It extends to four dimensions a classical univalence theorem (see e.g. [35, Lemma 1.1]), which states that if f is holomorphic on an open neighborhood of a closed disc D and injective on the boundary of D, then f is injective on the whole D.
Given any subset S of H, we denote by ClH(S) and ∂HU the closure and the boundary of U in H, respectively. Recall that, if S⊂Ω, Cl(S) denotes the closure of S in Ω and hence Cl(S)=ClH(S)∩Ω.
Theorem 7.1**.**
Let f∈SR(Ω) and let U be a non-empty bounded connected open subset of Ω (not necessarily circular) such that ClH(U)⊂Ω∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf) and f(∂HU)=∂Hf(U). If f is injective on ∂HU, then f is injective on ClH(U) and Nf∩U=∅.
Proof.
Since ∅=ClH(U)⊂Ω′:=Ω∖(Cl(Df)∪Wf), point 1 of Theorem 6.4 implies that f∈SC(Ω). Now, thanks to Theorem 6.5, f(U) is open in H and hence f(U)∩∂Hf(U)=∅. Let d denote the Brouwer degree of f∣U on the connected component of H∖f(∂HU)=H∖∂Hf(U) containing the connected set f(U). Since for regular values y∈f(U) of f∣U it holds det(Jf(x))>0 for every x∈f−1(y)∩U, d is equal to the cardinality of f−1(y)∩U, whence d≥1.
Let us show that d=1. Suppose on the contrary that d≥2. Denote by g:ClH(U)→H the restriction of f to the compact subset ClH(U) of Ω′. Corollary 5.3 implies that g has finite fibers. From Theorem 6.12, it follows that dim(Nf∩Ω′)≤2. Moreover, thanks to Corollary 2 and Theorem VI 7 of [28, p. 46 and pp. 91-92], we deduce that the topological dimension of ∂HU is equal to 3 and the compact set N∗:=g−1(g(Nf∩ClH(U))) has topological dimension ≤2. In particular, (∂HU)∖N∗=∅. Choose x∈(∂HU)∖N∗⊂(∂HU)∖Nf and an open neighborhood V of x in Ω′ such that f∣V is injective. Let {xn}n be a sequence in (U∩V)∖N∗ converging to x. Since d≥2, f∣V is injective and each value f(xn) is a regular value of f∣U, there exists xn′∈U∖V such that f(xn′)=f(xn). Extracting a subsequence if necessary, we can assume that {xn′}n converges to some x′∈ClH(U)∖V. It follows that f(x′)=f(x)∈f(∂HU). If x′∈U then f(x′)∈f(U)∩f(∂HU)=f(U)∩∂H(f(U))=∅, which is impossible. Therefore x′∈∂HU, contradicting the injectivity of f on ∂HU. This proves that d=1.
Let us show that f∣U is injective. Suppose on the contrary that there exist p1,p2∈U such that f(p1)=f(p2). Take disjoint neighborhoods U1 of p1 and U2 of p2 in U. By Theorem 6.5, the sets f(U1) and f(U2) are open in f(U). Consequently, f(U1)∩f(U2) is a non-empty open neighborhood of f(p1). Since the topological dimension of g(Nf∩ClH(U)) is ≤2, we have that M∗:=(f(U1)∩f(U2))∖g(Nf∩ClH(U))=∅. Fix y∈M∗. Observe that y is a regular value of f∣U, U1∩f−1(y)=∅ and U2∩f−1(y)=∅. This implies that d≥2, which is a contradiction. We have just proved that f∣U is injective.
Since f∣∂HU is injective and f(∂HU)∩f(U)=∅, it turns out that f∣ClH(U) is injective as well. The equality Nf∩U=∅ was proved in Theorem 6.11.
∎
In the preceding statement, condition ‘f(∂HU)=∂Hf(U)’ cannot be omitted. Indeed, in our next and last example, we give a slice regular function f:H∖{0}→H and a non-empty circular bounded connected open subset U of H∖{0} such that Df=Wf=∅, ClH(U)⊂H∖{0}, f(∂HU)=∂Hf(U), f is injective on ∂HU, but f is not injective on U.
Example 7.2**.**
Let f:H∖{0}→H be the slice regular function f(x):=x−x−1 and let U:={y∈H:31<∣y∣<4}. Note that fs′(x)=1+∣x∣−2, so Df=∅; Wf=∅ as well, because (H∖{0})∩R=∅. It holds Nf=S. It is also evident that ClH(U)⊂H∖{0}.
Let us prove that f(∂HU)=∂Hf(U). For each r>0, define Sr:={y∈H:∣y∣=r}. Note that ∂HU=S31∪S4. In this way, 38=f(−31)∈f(S31)⊂f(∂HU). On the other hand, 3 is a point of U, f(3)=38, det(Jf(3))=∣1+3−2∣4=0 by Theorem 4.1, and hence 38∈∂Hf(U).
Let us show that f is injective on ∂HU. First, note that f(S31)∩f(S4)=∅. Indeed, if v∈S31 and w∈S4, it holds:
[TABLE]
Let r∈{31,4}. We have to show that f is injective on Sr. Note that f(x)=(∣x∣2x−x)∣x∣−2=(∣x∣2−1)∣x∣−2Re(x)+(∣x∣2+1)∣x∣−2Im(x) for each x∈H∖{0}; consequently, f−1(R)=R∖{0}. Thanks to the latter equality and to the fact that f is slice preserving, it suffices to prove that f is injective on Sr∩Ci. Define the function fr:[0,2π)→H by fr(t):=f(rcos(t)+irsin(t))=(r−r−1)cos(t)+i(r+r−1)sin(t). Since r=1, we have that r−r−1=0; as a consequence, fr is injective. This proves the injectivity of f on the whole ∂HU.
The function f is not injective on U; indeed, 2 and −21 belong to U, and f(2)=23=f(−21).
Acknowledgement. This work was supported by GNSAGA of INdAM, and by the grants “Progetto di Ricerca INdAM, Teoria delle funzioni ipercomplesse e applicazioni”, and PRIN “Real and Complex Manifolds: Topology, Geometry and holomorphic dynamics” of the Italian Ministry of Education.
Bibliography40
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] A. Altavilla. Some properties for quaternionic slice regular functions on domains without real points. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. , 60(1):59–77, 2015.
2[2] A. Altavilla. On the real differential of a slice regular function. Adv. Geom. , 18(1):5–26, 2018.
3[3] A. Altavilla. Twistor interpretation of slice regular functions. J. Geom. Phys. , 123:184–208, 2018.
4[4] A. Altavilla and G. Sarfatti. Slice-polynomial functions and twistor geometry of ruled surfaces in ℂ ℙ 3 ℂ superscript ℙ 3 \mathbb{CP}^{3} . Math. Z. , 291(3-4):1059–1092, 2019.
5[5] F. Brackx, R. Delanghe, and F. Sommen. Clifford analysis , volume 76 of Research Notes in Mathematics . Pitman (Advanced Publishing Program), Boston, MA, 1982.
6[6] P. T. Church. Differentiable open maps on manifolds. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 109:87–100, 1963.
7[7] F. Colombo and I. Sabadini. The quaternionic evolution operator. Adv. Math. , 227(5):1772–1805, 2011.
8[8] F. Colombo, I. Sabadini, and D. C. Struppa. Slice monogenic functions. Israel J. Math. , 171:385–403, 2009.