This paper investigates holomorphic approximation via boundary value problems for the $ar ext{ extdegree}$ operator on annuli, characterizing domain properties through $L^2$ cohomology in a Hilbert space framework.
Contribution
It introduces a novel approach to holomorphic approximation using mixed boundary value problems for $ar ext{ extdegree}$ on annuli, linking domain properties to $L^2$ cohomology.
Findings
01
Characterization of pseudoconvexity via $L^2$ cohomology vanishing.
02
Establishment of Runge type property for annular domains.
03
Development of boundary conditions for $ar ext{ extdegree}$ in Hilbert spaces.
Abstract
In this paper we study holomorphic approximation using boundary value problems for ∂ˉ on an annulus in the Hilbert space setting. The associated boundary conditions for ∂ˉ are the mixed boundary problems on an annulus. We characterize pseudoconvexity and Runge type property of the domain by the vanishing of related L2 cohomology groups.
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsHolomorphic and Operator Theory · Algebraic and Geometric Analysis · Meromorphic and Entire Functions
Full text
Holomorphic approximation and mixed boundary value problems for ∂
Christine Laurent-Thiébaut
Université Grenoble-Alpes, Institut Fourier, CS 40700
38058 Grenoble cedex 9, France and CNRS UMR 5582, Institut Fourier,
Saint-Martin d’Hères, F-38402, France
In this paper, we study holomorphic approximation using boundary value problems for ∂ on an annulus in the Hilbert space setting. The associated boundary conditions for ∂ are the mixed boundary problems on an annulus. We characterize pseudoconvexity and Runge type property of the domain
by the vanishing of related L2 cohomology groups.
The first author would like to thank the university of Notre Dame for its support during her stay in April 2019. The second author was partially supported by National Science Foundation grant DMS-1700003
Holomorphic approximation theory plays an important role in function theory in one and several complex variables. In one complex variable, the classical Runge approximation theorem is related to solving the
∂ equation with compact support (see e.g. Theorem 1.3.1 in Hörmander’s book [9]). In several complex variables, it is shown in [16] that holomorphic approximation can also
be formulated in terms of Dolbeault cohomology groups. We refer the reader to the recent paper [5] for a comprehensive and up-to-date account of this
rich subject.
The purpose of this paper is to associate holomorphic approximation to a mixed boundary value problem for ∂ on an annulus in the L2 setting.
Let Ω1 and Ω2 be two relatively compact domains in a complex hermitian manifold X of complex dimension n such that Ω2⊂⊂Ω1. Consider the annulus Ω=Ω1∖Ω2 between Ω1 and Ω2. Let ∂:Lp,q2(Ω)→Lp,q+12(Ω) denote the maximal closure of ∂ in the weak sense (as defined by Hörmander in [9]). By this we mean that
f∈Dom(∂) if and only if f∈Lp,q2(Ω) and ∂f∈Lp,q+12(Ω) in the weak sense. It is obvious that
Cp,q∞(Ω)⊂Dom(∂). If the boundary of Ω is Lipschitz, the space Cp,q∞(Ω) is dense
in the graph norm of ∂ by the Friedrichs lemma (see [9] or Lemma 4.3.2 in [2]).
Let ∂c:Lp,q2(Ω)→Lp,q+12(Ω) be the (strong) minimal closure of the differential operator ∂ in the sense that
f∈Dom(∂c) if and only if f∈Lp,q2(Ω) and there exists a sequence of forms fν∈Dp,q(Ω) such that fν→f strongly in Lp,q2(Ω) and ∂fν→∂f strongly in Lp,q+12(Ω).
The two operators ∂ and ∂c are naturally dual to each other (see [3]).
The ∂-Neumann problem on a domain arises naturally and is of fundamental importance
in several complex variables (see [9, 10], [6] or [2]).
The ∂-Neumann problem on an annulus between two pseudoconvex domains in Cn has been studied earlier (see [19], [20], [11] and [3]).
Recently, Li and Shaw [17] introduced the following mixed boundary problem for ∂ on the annulus Ω. It was then extended by Chakrabarti and Harrington in [4] where, in particular, they weaken the regularity condition on the inner boundary of the annulus from the earlier work in [19] and [17].
In the L2 setting, the ∂mix operator on the annulus is the closed realization of ∂ which satisfies the ∂-Neumann boundary condition on the outer boundary bΩ1 and the ∂-Cauchy condition on the inner boundary bΩ2.
For 0≤p,q≤n and u∈Lp,q2(Ω), u∈Dom(∂mix) if and only if there exists v∈Lp,q+12(Ω) and a sequence (uν)ν∈N⊂Lp,q2(Ω) which vanish near ∂Ω2 such that uν→u in Lp,q2(Ω) and ∂uν→v in Lp,q+12(Ω). If u∈Dom(∂mix), then we define ∂mixu=v. It is obvious that ∂mix
is a densely defined closed operator from one Hilbert space to another and
[TABLE]
Let D be a domain in X and O(D) denote the space of holomorphic functions in D and W1(D) be the Sobolev 1-space on D.
The following theorem is proved in Theorems 2.2 and 2.4 in [17].
Theorem 0.1**.**
Assume X is Stein and both Ω1 and Ω2 are pseudoconvex with C1,1 boundary then, for any 2≤q≤n and q=0, H∂mix0,q(Ω)=0. When q=1, there exists a continuous bijection
[TABLE]
Moreover, H∂mix0,1(Ω) is infinite dimensional (see [17]). In fact, it is even non-Hausdorff (see section 5 in [4]). The non-Hausdorff property of the quotient group is equivalent to that the space
O(Ω1)∩L2(Ω1) is not a closed subspace in O(Ω2)∩W1(Ω2)
under the W1(Ω2) norm
(see Proposition 4.5 in [23]).
Instead of considering the non-Hausdorff cohomology group H∂mix0,1(Ω), we consider the associated Hausdorff cohomology group σ(HW1p,0(D)/Hp,0(X)) defined by
[TABLE]
where Hp,0(X) is the closure of the space Hp,0(X) under the W1(D)-norm.
It follows from Proposition 1 in [1], that there exists a continuous surjective map
[TABLE]
From (0.2),
if the space O(Ω1)∩L2(Ω1) is dense in O(Ω2)∩W1(Ω2) for the W1 topology on Ω2 then σH∂mix0,1(Ω)=0.
Thus the associated Hausdorff cohomology group σH∂mix0,1(Ω) is directly related to holomorphic approximation. This simple observation motivates the present paper. However, the L2 condition on the holomorphic functions near the boundary of Ω1 is of no interest in holomorphic approximation. We avoid the growth condition and reformulate another ∂ problem with mixed boundary condition which is more suitable for holomorphic approximation.
We consider the more general situation: let D be a relatively compact domain in a complex hermitian manifold X.
For 0≤p,q≤n, we define a new operator ∂Mix on (Lloc2)p,q(X∖D), whose domain is the set of all u∈(Lloc2)p,q(X) such that u is vanishing on D and ∂u∈(Lloc2)p,q+1(X), where ∂u is taken in the sense of currents. Then we set ∂Mixf=∂f in the sense of currents. Compared to the ∂mix operator, we do not assume any growth condition at infinity
of X.
The plan of the paper is as follows: In the first section,
we formulate a new mixed boundary condition of ∂, denoted by ∂Mix, which is associated naturally with holomorphic approximation.
We prove a theorem (see Theorem 1.2) analogous to Theorem 0.1.
In the second section, we introduce the transposed operator t∂Mix to ∂Mix defined on (Lloc2)n−p,n−q−1(X∖D), whose domain is the u∈Ln−p,n−q−12(X∖D) and u is vanishing outside a compact subset of X such that ∂u∈Ln−p,n−q2(X∖D), where ∂u is taken in the sense of currents.
We prove the following characterization of approximation of ∂-closed forms using a version of Serre duality.
Theorem 0.2**.**
Let X be a Stein manifold of complex dimension n≥2, D⊂⊂X a relatively compact pseudoconvex domain in X with Lipschitz boundary. Let q be a fixed integer such that 0≤q≤n−1. Then, for any 0≤p≤n,
the following assertions are equivalent.
(1)
The space of Wloc1∂-closed (p,q)-forms on X is dense in the space of W1∂-closed (p,q)-forms on D for the W1 topology on D;
2. (2)
The natural map
HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X)→Hcn−p,n−q(X) is injective;
3. (3)
Ht∂Mixn−p,n−q−1(X∖D)=0.
Finally, we obtain the following characterization of a pseudoconvex domain satisfying some Runge type property (see Corollary 2.5).
Theorem 0.3**.**
Let X be a Stein manifold of complex dimension n≥2 and D⊂⊂X a relatively compact domain in X with C1,1 boundary such that X∖D is connected. Then
the following assertions are equivalent:
(1)
the domain D is pseudoconvex and the space O(X) is dense in the space O(D)∩W1(D) for the W1 topology on D;
2. (2)
HD,W−1n,r(X)=0, for 2≤r≤n−1, and the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) is injective;
3. (3)
Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D)=0, for all 1≤q≤n−1.
From (1) and (3) in Theorem 0.3, we see that the vanishing of the cohomology groups Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D) for all 1≤q≤n−1 characterizes pseudoconvexity and a Runge type property of D.
This is in contrast to earlier results using cohomology groups on X∖D to characterize holomorphic convexity (see Trapani [22]). It is proved in
[22] that the vanishing of the Dolbeault cohomology groups Hn,q(X∖D) for 1≤q≤n−2 and the Hausdorff property for q=n−1 characterizes the holomorphic convexity of D. More recently,
it is proved in Fu-Laurent-Shaw [7] that the vanishing of the L2 Dolbeault cohomology groups HL2n,q(X∖D) for 1≤q≤n−2 and the Hausdorff property for q=n−1 characterizes pseudoconvexity of D (see [7]). Thus different cohomology groups characterize different holomorphic properties of the domain D. Our results show that ∂Mix and its transpose t∂Mix are naturally associated with holomorphic approximation.
1. W1-Mergelyan domains and L2 theory for ∂ with mixed boundary conditions
Let X be a complex hermitian manifold of complex dimension n, where n≥2.
Definition 1.1**.**
A relatively compact domain D with Lipschitz boundary in a complex manifold X is called W1-Mergelyan in X if and only if O(X) of holomorphic fuctions in X is dense in the space OW1(D) of W1 holomorphic functions in D for the W1 topology on D.
We would like to characterize domains which are W1-Mergelyan in X by means of some adapted mixed boundary value problem for the ∂-operator.
Let Lloc2(X) be the space of Lloc2 functions in X endowed with the Fréchet topology of L2 convergence on compact subsets, and Lc2(X) the space of L2 functions with compact support in X with the inductive limit topology. These two spaces are dual of each other (see [18] or [14]). We use (Lc2)p,q(X) to denote the space of (p,q)-forms with Lc2(X) coefficients.
For 0≤p,q≤n, we define the densely defined operator ∂K from (Lc2)p,q(X) into (Lc2)p,q+1(X), whose domain is the space of all f∈(Lc2)p,q(X) with ∂f∈(Lc2)p,q+1(X), such that for any f∈Dom(∂K), ∂Kf=∂f in the sense of currents. We denote by ∂loc the densely defined transposed operator of ∂K, then ∂loc maps (Lloc2)n−p,n−q−1(X) into (Lloc2)n−p,n−q(X) and the domain of ∂loc is the space of all f∈(Lloc2)n−p,n−q−1(X) such that ∂f∈(Lloc2)n−p,n−q(X).
Let D be a relatively compact domain with Lipschitz boundary in a complex manifold X. We are interested in the study in the L2 setting of some operators ∂Mix on X∖D such that ∂K⊆∂Mix⊆∂loc, where ∂K and ∂loc are the previously defined operators. The domain of ∂Mix is defined as follows:
For 0≤p,q≤n and u∈(Lloc2)p,q(X∖D), u∈Dom(∂Mix) if and only if u∈(Lloc2)p,q(X), u is vanishing on D and ∂u∈(Lloc2)p,q+1(X), where ∂u is taken in the sense of currents. Then we set ∂Mixf=∂f in the sense of currents. The transposed operator t∂Mix is then an operator whose domain is given by the set of all u∈(Lloc2)n−p,n−q−1(X∖D), u∈Ln−p,n−q−12(X∖D), ∂u∈Ln−p,n−q2(X∖D), where ∂u is taken in the sense of currents, and u is vanishing outside a compact subset of X.
For any 0≤p≤n, we get two new differential complexes ((Lloc2)p,∙(X∖D),∂Mix) and ((Lloc2)n−p,∙(X∖D),t∂Mix), which are dual complexes since the boundary of D is Lipschitz (see [15]). We denote by H∂Mixp,q(X∖D) and Ht∂Mixp,q(X∖D), 0≤q≤n, the cohomology groups of the complexes (Lp,∙2(X∖D),∂Mix) and (Ln−p,∙2(X∖D),t∂Mix) respectively. We endow the cohomology groups with quotient topology. Then it follows from Serre duality [18] that H∂Mixp,q(X∖D) is Hausdorff if and only if Ht∂Mixn−p,n−q+1(X∖D) is Hausdorff. Moreover, if Ht∂Mixp,q(X∖D)
is Hausdorff, then Ht∂Mixp,q(X∖D) is the dual space of σH∂Mixn−p,n−q(X∖D) the Hausdorff group associated to H∂Mixn−p,n−q(X∖D).
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let X be a Stein manifold of complex dimension n≥2 with a hermitian metric and D a relatively compact pseudoconvex domain with C1,1 boundary in X. Then, for any 0≤p≤n, we have
(1)
H∂Mixp,q(X∖D)=0, if 2≤q≤n or q=0.
2. (2)
There exists a linear continuous bijection
[TABLE]
Proof.
The proof is similar to the proof of Theorems 2.2 and 2.4 in [17].
If q=0, H∂Mixp,0(X∖D) is the space of holomorphic (p,0)-forms in X, which vanish identically on D. Since X is Stein, hence connected, by analytic continuation we get H∂Mixp,0(X∖D)=0.
We now assume that 2≤q≤n. Let f∈ker(∂Mix)∩Dom(∂Mix). Then f∈(Lloc2)p,q(X), f=0 in D and ∂f=0 in X. Since X is Stein, Hp,q(X)=0 and by the Dolbeault isomorphism and the interior regularity of the ∂, we get HLloc2p,q(X)=0. More precisely there exists v∈(Wloc1)p,q−1(X) such that ∂v=f. Moreover we have ∂v=0 on D.
Since q>1 and D is a relatively compact pseudoconvex domain with C1,1 boundary, it follows from
[8] or Theorem 2.2 in [4] (see also [12] for smooth boundary) that there exists w∈Wp,q−21(D) such that ∂w=v in D. Let w be a Wloc1 extension of w to X. We set u=v−∂w. Then u is in (Lloc2)p,q−1(X), u vanishes on D and satisfies ∂u=f. This proves (1).
We now consider the case when q=1. For any f∈HW1p,0(D), we extend f as a Wloc1(p,0)-form f=E(f) on X, where E is a continuous extension operator from Wp,01(D) into (Wloc1)p,0(X). This is possible since the boundary of D is C1,1. Then ∂f∈(Lloc2)p,1(X) and
∂f=0 on D. Thus ∂Mix(∂f)=0 in X∖D. We define a map
[TABLE]
by l(f)=[∂f].
First, we show that l is well-defined. If f1 is another Wloc1 extension of f to X, then
[TABLE]
Since f=f1=f on D, f−f1 vanishes on D and ∂f−∂f1=∂Mix(f−f1), that is
[TABLE]
Thus the map l is well-defined and it is continuous if H∂Mixp,1(X∖D) is endowed with the quotient topology.
We will show that the kernel of the map l is Hp,0(X). Let f∈HW1p,0(D) such that l(f)=[0]. First we extend f as a Wloc1(p,0)-form on X. Thus we have that ∂f is a ∂Mix-closed form and, since l(f)=[0], it is ∂Mix-exact. Therefore there exists g∈(Lloc2)p,0(X) such that g=0 on D and ∂Mixg=∂f. Let F=f−g. Then F is holomorphic in X and F=f on D. Thus l(f)=0 implies that f can be extended as a holomorphic (p,0)-form in X.
Next we prove that l is surjective. Let f∈(Lloc2)p,1(X)∩ker(∂Mix), then f=0 in D and ∂f=0 in X. Since X is a Stein manifold, using Dolbeault isomorphism and the interior regularity of the ∂ operator, there exists a (p,0)-form u∈(Wloc1)p,0(X) such that ∂u=f in X. Moreover u∣D is a W1 holomorphic (p,0)-form in D. Hence l(u∣D)=[∂u]=[f].
which is one-to-one continuous and onto, if we endow the quotient space HW1p,0(D)/Hp,0(X) with the quotient topology.
∎
Using the same arguments as in [17], one can show that H∂Mix0,1(X∖D) is infinite dimensional. In fact, one has the following results using arguments in [4].
Corollary 1.3**.**
The space H∂Mix0,1(X∖D) is non-Hausdorff.
Proof.
We first show that HW1p,0(D)/Hp,0(X) is non-Hausdorff.
The non-Hausdorff property of the quotient space HW1p,0(D)/Hp,0(X) is equivalent to that the space
Hp,0(X) is not a closed subspace in HW1p,0(D)
(see Proposition 4.5 in [23]). The proof of this is exactly the same as in [4] and we repeat the arguments
for the benefit of the reader.
Let R:Hp,0(X)→HW1p,0(D) be the restriction map.
From the Montel theorem, R is a compact operator.
Suppose
R(Hp,0(X)) is a closed subspace in HW1p,0(D). It follows from the open mapping theorem, the unit ball in R(Hp,0(X)) is relatively compact and hence R(Hp,0(X))
is finite dimensional. This is a contradiction since X is Stein. Thus R(Hp,0(X)) is not closed and HW1p,0(D)/Hp,0(X) is non-Hausdorff.
If H∂Mix0,1(X∖D) is Hausdorff, then from (1.1) and the open mapping theorem, the space H∂Mix0,1(X∖D)
is topologically isomorphic to HW1p,0(D)/Hp,0(X), which is non-Hausdorff. This is a contradiction.
We conclude that H∂Mix0,1(X∖D) is also non-Hausdorff. The corollary is proved.
∎
Definition 1.4**.**
We define the associated Hausdorff quotient
[TABLE]
where Hp,0(X) is the closure of the space Hp,0(X) under the W1(D)-norm.
Corollary 1.5**.**
Assume X is a Stein manifold of complex dimension n≥2 and D a relatively compact pseudoconvex domain with C1,1 boundary in X.
Suppose that D is W1-Mergelyan. Then Ht∂Mixn,n−1(X∖D)=0.
Proof.
From (2) in Theorem 1.2 and (1.3), there exists a map
[TABLE]
which is continuous and onto (see Proposition 1 in [1]). Therefore, if Hp,0(X)=HW1p,0(D), then σH∂Mixp,1(X∖D)=0.
Thus if D is W1-Mergelyan in X, σH∂Mix0,1(X∖D)=0.
It follows from Serre duality and from Theorem 1.2 that Ht∂Mixn,n−1(X∖D) is Hausdorff, since H∂Mix0,2(X∖D)=0. Using again Serre duality, we get Ht∂Mixn,n−1(X∖D)=0.
∎
2. The W1q-Mergelyan density property
Let X be a complex hermitian manifold of complex dimension n, where n≥1.
In this section we extend the approximation results to arbitrary (p,q)-forms.
Definition 2.1**.**
A relatively compact domain D with Lipschitz boundary in X is W1(p,q)-Mergelyan, for 0≤p≤n and 0≤q≤n−1, if and only if the space ZWloc1p,q(X) of Wloc1∂-closed (p,q)-forms in X is dense in the space ZW1p,q(D) of W1∂-closed (p,q)-forms in D for the W1 topology on D.
For p=q=0, we will simply say that the domain is W1-Mergelyan in X.
If D⊂⊂X is a relatively compact domain with Lipschitz boundary in X, we denote by HD,W−1r,s(X) the Dolbeault cohomology groups of W−1 currents with prescribed support in D and by Ht∂Mixr,s(X∖D) the Dolbeault cohomology groups of L2 forms in X∖D vanishing outside a compact subset of X.
We have that Ws(D) is a reflexive Banach space, i.e. (WD−s(X))′=Ws(D).
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let X be a non compact complex manifold of complex dimension n≥1, D⊂⊂X a relatively compact domain with Lipschitz boundary in X and p and q be fixed integers such that 0≤p≤n and 0≤q≤n−1. Assume that Hcn−p,n−q(X) and HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X) are Hausdorff. Then D is a W1(p,q)-Mergelyan domain in X if and only if the natural map
HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X)→Hcn−p,n−q(X)
is injective.
Proof.
Assume D is W1(p,q)-Mergelyan in X and let T∈Wn−p,n−q−1(X) with support contained in D such that ∂T=0. We assume that the cohomological class [T] of T vanishes in Hcn−p,n−q(X), which means that there exists S∈Wn−p,n−q−1−1(X) with compact support in X such that T=∂S. Since HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X) is Hausdorff, then [T]=0 in HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X) if and only if, for any form φ∈ZW1p,q(D), we have <T,φ>=0. But, as D is W1(p,q)-Mergelyan in X, there exists a sequence (φk)k∈N of Wloc1∂-closed (p,q)-forms in X which converge to φ in W1(D). So
[TABLE]
Conversely, by the Hahn-Banach theorem, it is sufficient to prove that, for any form g∈ZW1p,q(D) and any (n−p,n−q)-current T in Wn−p,n−q−1(X) with compact support in D such that <T,f>=0 for any form f∈ZWloc1p,q(X), we have <T,g>=0. Since Hcn−p,n−q(X) is Hausdorff, the hypothesis on T implies that there exists a W−1(n−p,n−q−1)-current S with compact support in X such that T=∂S. The injectivity of the natural map
HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X)→Hcn−p,n−q(X) implies that there exists a W−1(n−p,n−q−1)-current U with compact support in D such that T=∂U. Hence since the boundary of D is Lipschitz, for any g∈ZW1p,q(D), we get
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let X be a non compact complex manifold of complex dimension n≥2, D⊂⊂X a relatively compact domain in X with Lipschitz boundary and p and q fixed integers such that 0≤p≤n and 0≤q≤n−2. Assume that Hcn−p,n−q−1(X)=0. Then Ht∂Mixn−p,n−q−1(X∖D)=0 if and only if the natural map
HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X)→Hcn−p,n−q(X)
is injective.
Proof.
We first consider the necessary condition. Let T∈Wn−p,n−q−1(X) be a ∂-closed current with support contained in D such that the cohomological class [T] of T vanishes in Hcn−p,n−q(X). By the interior regularity property of the ∂-operator and the Dolbeault isomorphism, there exists g∈Ln−p,n−q−12(X) and compactly supported such that T=∂g. Since the support of T is contained in D, we have ∂g=0 on X∖D. Therefore the vanishing of the group Ht∂Mixn−p,n−q−1(X∖D) implies that there exists u∈Ln−p,n−q−22(X∖D) vanishing outside a compact subset of X and such that ∂u=g on X∖D. Since the boundary of D is Lipschitz there exists u a L2 extension of u to X, we set S=g−∂u, then S∈W−1(X) satisfies T=∂S and suppS⊂D.
Conversely, let g be a ∂-closed (n−p,n−q−1)-form in Ln−p,n−q−12(X∖D) which vanishes outside a compact subset of X and g an L2 extension of g to X, then g has compact support in X and T=∂g is a current in Wn−p,n−q−1(X) with support in D. By the injectivity of the natural map
HD,W−1n−p,n−q(X)→Hcn−p,n−q(X), there exists S∈Wn−p,n−q−1−1(X) with support contained in D and such that ∂S=T. We set U=g−S. Then U is a W−1∂-closed (n−p,n−q−1)-current with compact support in X such that U∣X∖D=g in X∖D. Since Hcn−p,n−q−1(X)=0, by the interior regularity property of the ∂-operator and the Dolbeault isomorphism, we have U=∂w for some w∈Ln−p,n−q−22(X) with compact support in X. Finally we get g=U∣X∖D=∂(w∣X∖D).
∎
Corollary 2.4**.**
Let X be a Stein hermitian manifold of complex dimension n≥2 and D⊂⊂X a relatively compact pseudoconvex domain with C1,1 boundary in X. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
i) the domain D is W1-Mergelyan in X,
ii) the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X)
is injective,
iii) Ht∂Mixn,n−1(X∖D)=0.
Proof.
Since X is Stein, we have Hcn,n−1(X)=0 and Hcn,n(X) is Hausdorff. The domain D being relatively compact, pseudoconvex with C1,1 boundary in X, we have HW10,1(D)=0. Then Serre duality implies that HD,W−1n,n(X) is Hausdorff.
The corollary follows then from Theorem 2.2 and Proposition 2.3.
∎
Finally using the characterization of pseudoconvexity by means of W1 cohomology and Serre duality, we can prove the following corollary.
Corollary 2.5**.**
Let X be a Stein hermitian manifold of complex dimension n≥2 and D⊂⊂X a relatively compact domain in X with C1,1 boundary such that X∖D is connected. Then
the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) the domain D is pseudoconvex and W1-Mergelyan in X;
(ii) HD,W−1n,r(X)=0, for 2≤r≤n−1, and the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) is injective;
(iii) Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D)=0, for all 1≤q≤n−1.
Proof.
Consider the equivalence between (i) and (ii).
We first notice that a domain D with C1,1 boundary is pseudoconvex if and only if HW10,q(D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−1.
This follows from [8] or Theorem 2.2 in [4] for the necessary condition and Theorem 5.1 in [7] for the sufficient condition.
Recall that applying Serre duality, we get that HD,W−1n,n−r+1(X) is Hausdorff if and only if HW10,r(D) is Hausdorff for each 0≤r≤n and, when both are Hausdorff, HD,W−1n,r(X) is the dual space of HW10,n−r(D).
Let us prove that (i) implies (ii).
From the previous remarks we get that if D is pseudoconvex then HW10,q(D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−1 and therefore HD,W−1n,r(X)=0 for all 2≤r≤n−1 and HD,W−1n,n(X) is Hausdorff. If moreover D is also W1-Mergelyan in X, then the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) is injective by Corollary 2.4.
Conversely we first prove that the injectivity of the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) implies that HD,W−1n,n(X) is Hausdorff. Let T be a W−1(n,n)-current with support in D such that <T,φ>=0 for any W1 holomorphic function φ on D. In particular <T,φ>=0 for any holomorphic function φ on X. Since X is Stein, Hcn,n(X) is Hausdorff and therefore T=∂S for some W−1(n,n−1)-current S with compact support in X, i.e. [T]=0 in Hcn,n(X). By the injectivity of the map HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X), we get that T=∂U for some W−1(n,n−1)-current U with support in D, which ends the proof.
Now assume (ii) is satisfied. Then D satisfies HD,W−1n,r(X)=0 for all 2≤r≤n−1 and HD,W−1n,n(X) is Hausdorff.
Applying Serre duality we get HW10,q(D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−2 and HW10,n−1(D) is Hausdorff but, as X is Stein and X∖D is connected, HW10,n−1(D)=0 (see section 3 in [15]).
Therefore D is pseudoconvex by the characterization given at the begining of the proof.
It remains to use Corollary 2.4 to get that D is W1-Mergelyan in X.
We next prove the equivalence between (ii) and (iii).
Above we proved in particular that if X is Stein and X∖D is connected, then HD,W−1n,r(X)=0 for all 2≤r≤n−1 and HD,W−1n,n(X) is Hausdorff if and only if HW10,q(D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−1. Recall also that the injectivity of the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) implies that HD,W−1n,n(X) is Hausdorff.
Therefore assertion (ii) implies HW10,q(D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−1 , which is equivalent to HL2n,q(X∖D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−2 and HL2n,n−1(X∖D) is Hausdorff by Theorem 4.8 in [7].
Since X is Stein, by Proposition 2.3, the injectivity of the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) implies Ht∂Mixn,n−1(X∖D)=0. Therefore to get that (ii) implies (iii),
it remains to prove that for each
1≤q≤n−2, HL2n,q(X∖D)=0 implies Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D)=0.
To get this it is sufficient to prove that the natural map from Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D) into HL2n,q(X∖D) is injective.
Let f∈Ln,q2(X∖D) be a ∂-closed form which vanishes outside a compact subset K of X. Assume [f]=0 in HL2n,q(X∖D), then there exists g∈Ln,q−12(X∖D) such that f=∂g on X∖D. Consider a function χ with compact support in X such that χ≡1 on a neighborhood of D∪K. We set g=χg. Then ∂g=∂χ∧g+χ∂g=∂χ∧g+f and the form ∂χ∧g can be extended by [math] to an L2∂-closed (n,q)-form with compact support in X. Since X is Stein, there is an h∈(Lloc2)n,q−1(X) with compact support such that ∂h=∂χ∧g on X and it follows that ∂g=∂h+f on X∖D. Then u=g−h vanishes outside a compact subset of X and ∂u=f, which ends the proof of the injectivity.
Now assume (iii) holds, i.e. Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D)=0, for all 1≤q≤n−1.
We first prove that, for each
1≤q≤n−2, Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D)=0 implies HL2n,q(X∖D)=0 and that Ht∂Mixn,n−1(X∖D)=0, implies HL2n,n−1(X∖D) is Hausdorff.
Since X is a Stein manifold, there exists a relatively compact strictly pseudoconvex domain U in X with C2 boundary such that D⊂⊂U. As already noticed previously, the properties of U imply that HL2n,q(X∖U)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−2 and HL2n,n−1(X∖U) is Hausdorff.
Let 1≤q≤n−2 and f∈Ln,q2(X∖D) a ∂-closed form, then there exists g∈Ln,q−12(X∖U) such that f=∂g on X∖U. Let V⊂⊂X be a neighborhood of U and χ a smooth function equal to 1 on X∖V and with support contained in X∖U.
Therefore the form f−∂(χg)=(1−χ)f−∂χ∧g vanishes outside the compact subset V and belongs to the domain of t∂Mix. So if Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D)=0, then f−∂(χg)=∂u for some u∈Ln,q−12(X∖D) and f=∂(χg+u), which means HL2n,q(X∖D)=0.
Let f∈Ln,n−12(X∖D) a ∂-closed form such that ∫Xf∧φ=0 for any ∂-closed L2(0,1)-form φ on X which vanishes on the closure of D and outside a compact subset of X and in particular for any ∂-closed L2(0,1)-form φ on X which vanishes on the closure of U and outside a compact subset of X. Since HL2n,n−1(X∖U) is Hausdorff, there exists g∈Ln,q−12(X∖U) such that f=∂g on X∖U. Then we can repeat the end of the proof of the previous assertion.
Therefore (iii) implies HW10,q(D)=0 for all 1≤q≤n−1 (see Theorem 4.8 in [7]) and we get HD,W−1n,r(X)=0 for all 2≤r≤n−1 by Serre duality.
Finally using Proposition 2.3, we obtain that the natural map
HD,W−1n,n(X)→Hcn,n(X) is injective, which ends the proof.
∎
From Corollary 2.5, the vanishing of the cohomology groups Ht∂Mixn,q(X∖D) characterizes pseudoconvexity and W1-Mergelyan property of D.
Bibliography23
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] A. Cassa, Coomologia separata sulle varietà analitiche complesse , Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa 25 (1971), 290–323.
2[2] S. C. Chen and M.-C. Shaw, Partial Differential Equations in Several Complex Variables , AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 19, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI; International Press, Boston, MA, 2001.
3[3] D. Chakrabarti and M.-C. Shaw, L 2 superscript 𝐿 2 L^{2} Serre Duality on Domains in Complex Manifolds and Applications , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 364 (2012), 3529-3554.
4[4] D. Chakrabarti and P. Harrington, A modified Morrey-Kohn-Hörmander identity and applications to the ∂ ¯ ¯ \overline{\partial} -problem , Preprint.
5[5] J. E. Fornaess, F. Forstneric and E. F. Wold, Holomorphic approximation: the legacy of Weierstrass, Runge, Oka-Weil, and Mergelyan , Preprint.
6[6] G. B. Folland and J. J. Kohn, The Neumann Problem for the Cauchy-Riemann Complex, Annals of Math. Studies 75. Princeton Universities Press, Princeton, NJ, 1972.
7[7] S. Fu, C. Laurent-Thiébaut and M.-C. Shaw, Hearing pseudoconvexity in Lipschitz domains with holes via ∂ ¯ ¯ \overline{\partial} , Math. Zeit. 287 (2017), 1157–1181.
8[8] P. Harrington, Sobolev estimates for the Cauchy-Riemann complex on 𝒞 1 superscript 𝒞 1 \mathcal{C}^{1} pseudoconvex domains , Math. Zeit. 262 (2009), 199–217.