This paper investigates the structure of the centralizer of a germ of vector fields at the origin in complex space, with a focus on the special case of two-dimensional vector fields.
Contribution
It provides new insights into the properties of the centralizer of vector fields, especially in two dimensions, enhancing understanding of their symmetries and invariants.
Findings
01
Characterization of the centralizer in dimension two
02
Identification of special cases with unique properties
03
Extension of known results to higher dimensions
Abstract
In this paper we study the centralizer C(X) of a germ of vector field at 0∈\Cn. A particular atention is given to the case of dimension two.
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
Commuting vector fields
D. Cerveau
and
A. Lins Neto
Abstract.
In this paper we study the centralizer C(X) of a germ of vector field at 0∈Cn.
A particular atention is given to the case of dimension two.
Key words and phrases:
foliation, homogeneous component
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
37F75 (primary); 32G34, 32S65 (secondary)
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
37F75, 34M15
The 1st author was supported by CNRS and ANR-16-CE40-0008 project "Foliage".
The 2nd author was partially supported by CNPq (Brazil) and University of Rennes 1.
Let On be the ring of germs at 0∈Cn of holomorphic functions and Xn be the On-modulus of germs at 0∈Cn of holomorphic vector fields.
We say that X,Y∈Xncommute if [X,Y]=0, where [.,.] denotes the Lie bracket.
We denote by C(X) the set of germs of Xn commuting with X. Note that C(X) is a C-vector subspace of Xn and its complex dimension will be denoted as d(X).
The purpose of this paper is to give examples and properties of the spaces C(X) for a large class of vector fields X, in particular in dimension two.
For instance, if λ∈C then λX∈C(X), so that d(X)≥1.
When d(X)=1 then C(X)=C.X and we will say also that C(X) is trivial.
There are examples in which
d(X)=∞.
For instance, if X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral, say f, and g=Φ∘f, where Φ∈O1 then Y=g.X∈C(X), because g is a first integral of X:
[TABLE]
In theorem 1 of § 2.1 we will prove the converse when n=2: if X∈X2 and
d(X)=∞ then X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral.
Another important observation is that C(X) is a Lie algebra: if Y,Z∈C(X) then [Y,Z]∈C(X), which is a consequence of Jacobi’s identity
[TABLE]
If X has no non-constant meromorphic first integral then C(X) is a finite dimensional Lie algebra (see proposition 4 of § 2.3).
Given Y1,...,Yr∈Xn, we say that they are generically linearly independent (briefly g.l.i) if
Y1∧...∧Yr≡0. In other words, the analytic subset of (Cn,0) given by
[TABLE]
is proper.
Given X∈Xn we define:
[TABLE]
Note that, in general
[TABLE]
Moreover, if d(X)>r(X) then X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral (see proposition 2 in § 2.1).
Let us see some simple examples.
Example 1**.**
Let X=∂z1∂∈Xn, n≥2. Then Y∈C(X) if, and only if, Y=f(z2,...,zn).v, where f∈On−1 and v is a constant vector field.
We can say that
[TABLE]
so that r(X)=n and d(X)=∞.**
Example 2**.**
The radial vector field in Cn is given by R=∑j=1nzj∂zj∂.
It is easy to check that Y∈Xn commutes with R if, and only if, Y is a linear vector field
[TABLE]
where (aij) is a n×n matrix with constant entries.
In particular, we have r(X)=n and d(X)=n2.**
Example 3**.**
Let X be the diagonal vector field X=∑j=1nλjzj∂zj∂, where we will assume that 0=λi=λj∀i=j.
It is easy to see that if Y∈C(X) is a linear vector field then Y is also a diagonal vector field Y=∑j=1nμjzj∂zj∂.
If the eigenvalues λ1,...,λn satisfy the non-resonant conditions:
[TABLE]
then C(X)= the set of diagonal vector fields and d(X)=r(X)=n.
However, if the eigenvalues have a resonance, say λi=∑j=1nkjλj, then the non-linear vector field Y=Πj=1nzjkj.∂zi∂ commutes with X.
If we denote the set of diagonal vector fields by Dn then
[TABLE]
where the notation ⟨A⟩C denotes the C-vector space generated by the set A.
In particular, if the eigenvalues have a resonance then r(X)=n<d(X)≤∞.**
More examples in the case n=2 will be seen in § 2.3.
In § 3 the case of dimension two will be studied in detail.
We will see that in this case, if r(X)=2 then the foliation FX, induced by X, is Liouvillian integrable: it can be defined by a closed meromorphic 1-form (see § 3.1).
In § 3.2 we study C(X) when X∈X2 is a generalized curve (see [3]) and has just one separatrix.
In this case, we will see that r(X)=1 and that, either d(X)=1, or d(X)=∞ (if X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral).
Recall that a separatrix of X is a germ of curve through the origin, say γ:(C,0)→(Cn,0), which is regular outside [math] and is X-invariant. This means that γ(0)=0 and 0=γ′(t)∈C.X(γ(t)) if t=0.
In the two dimensional case we say that X is non-dicritical if it has a finite number of irreducible separatrices. Otherwise, we say that it is dicritical.
In § 3.3 we study the so-called generalized curves.
We will see that if X is a non-dicritical generalized curve, with an isolated singularity at the origin, DX(0) is nilpotent and has in its reduction of singularities a singularity with non-rational characteristic number then C(X) is trivial.
In § 3.4 we study homogeneous and quasi-homogeneous vector fields.
We will see that if X∈X2 is quasi-homogeneous and r(X)=2 then X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral.
Another result, in this case, is that if X is non-dicritical has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 and DX(0) is nilpotent then r(X)=1 and, either d(X)=1, or X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral and d(X)=∞ (theorem 5).
In § 3.5 we study the dicritical case, when the vector field X has infinitely many separatrices through 0∈C2. We will see that 1≤d(X)≤4 and we will describe completely the cases d(X)=3 and d(X)=4:
if d(X)∈{3,4} then X is linearizable and, modulo a multiplicative constant, X is conjugated to the radial vector field (if d(X)=4) or to a linear vector field of the form z1∂z1∂+nz2∂z2∂, where n∈N≥2 (if d(X)=3).
When d(X)≤2 we will see that d(X)=r(X) in the dicritical case.
We finish this section by fixing more notations that be will used along the paper.
On= the ring of formal power le at 0∈Cn.
Mn=M(Cn,0)= the field of germs at 0∈Cn of meromorphic functions.
2.
Diff(Cn,0)= the group of germs of holomorphic diffeomorphisms of (Cn,0) fixing 0∈Cn.
3.
Given a subring R⊂On and vector fields Y1,...,Ys∈Xn
we denote
[TABLE]
the sub R-modulus generated by the Yj‘s.
4.
Given a germ Y at 0∈Cn of holomorphic vector field, function or form, we will denote by μ(Y,0) its algebraic multiplicity at [math] (the order of the first non-zero jet of Y).
5.
The ring of holomorphic first integrals of a vector field X∈Xn will be denoted by
I(X): I(X)={f∈On∣X(f)=0}.
If z=(z1,...,zn) is a local coordinate system, and X=∑i=1nXi(z)∂zi∂, then f∈I(X) iff
[TABLE]
The field of meromorphic first integrals of X∈Xn will be denoted by M(X):
[TABLE]
Note that C⊂I(X)⊂M(X).
A function f∈M(X) is said to be a pure meromorphic first integral if f,1/f∈/I(X).
Observe that I(X).X⊂C(X): if f∈I(X) then
[TABLE]
For instance, if X(0)=0, i.e. X is non-singular, then in some local coordinate system z=(z1,...,zn) we have X=∂z1∂.
In this case I(X)=C{z2,...,zn}, the ring of convergent power series on the variables z2,...,zn, and
[TABLE]
Remark 1.1**.**
We have seen that 1≤r(X)≤min{n,d(X)}.
About this inequality, we would like to remark the following:
a.
When r(X)<d(X) then X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral.
b.
When n=2, r(X)<d(X) and [math] is an isolated singularity of X then I(X)⊋C, that is X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral.
c.
When r(X)=n, then X is Liouvillian integrable: there exists a closed meromorphic (n−1)-form ω such that iXω=0.
Some of the above remarks will be proved in § 2.**
2. First properties and examples
2.1. General properties.
In this section we state some elementary properties that will be used along the paper.
Some of the remarks stated in § 1 will be proved here.
Proposition 1**.**
Let X∈Xn, X≡0, with r(X)=r≥1. Given z∈(Cn,0) consider the vector subspace D(X)(z) of Cn defined as
[TABLE]
Then:
(a).
The set V:={z∈(Cn,0)∣dimC(D(X)(z))=r} is the complement of a proper analytic subset on (Cn,0). In particular, it is open and dense in (Cn,0).
(b).
D(X)* defines an integrable distribution of dimension r on V.*
Proof. For simplicity, from now on we will work with representatives of the germs (of functions or vector fields) without specify their domain: we will write z∈(Cn,0) to denote that z belongs to some domain where some representative of the germs are defined.
Consider the set
[TABLE]
Note that z∈S if, and only if, for any Y1,...,Yr∈C(X) then Y1(z)∧...∧Yr(z)=0.
In particular, we have
[TABLE]
The set S is analytic because it is an intersection of analytic subsets of (Cn,0).
On the other hand, by the definition of r=r(X) there exist Y1,...,Yr∈C(X) such that Y1∧...∧Yr≡0.
Hence S is a proper analytic subset of (Cn,0). This proves (a).
Assertion (b) follows from the fact that C(X) is a Lie algebra: Y,Z∈C(X)⟹[Y,Z]∈C(X).
∎
Proposition 2**.**
Let X∈Xn, X≡0, be such that r=r(X)<d(X). Then M(X)=C.
Proof. Let Y1,...,Yr∈C(X) be generically independent vector fields of C(X).
Since d(X)>r there exists Y∈C(X) such that Y∈/⟨Y1,...,Yr⟩C.
By the definition of r=r(X) we have Y∧Y1∧...∧Yr≡0.
Let
[TABLE]
Note that V is the complement of an analytic subset of (Cn,0).
Moreover, if z∈V then Y(z)∈⟨Y1(z),...,Yr(z)⟩C, so that we can write
[TABLE]
where f1,...,fr∈O(V). Since
[TABLE]
the functions f1,...,fr extend to meromorphic functions in a neighborhood of [math]: fj∈Mn, 1≤j≤r.
Since Y∈/⟨Y1,...,Yr⟩C at least one of the functions is non-constant.
Finally, relation (1) implies
[TABLE]
Corollary 2.1**.**
Let X∈Xn having an isolated singularity at 0∈Cn. Then:
If r(X)=1<d(X) then I(X)=C.
2.
If r(X)<d(X) then M(X)=C. In particular, if n=2 and X is non-dicritical (has finitely many separatrices through the origin) then I(X)=C.
Proof.
If r=r(X)=1 and d(X)>1, then there exists Y∈C(X)∖C.X. Note that Y∧X=0, because r=1. Since X has an isolated singularity at [math] we have Y=f.X, where f∈On∖C. Finally, X(f)=0 and so f∈I(X)∖C.
If r(X)<d(X) then, as we have seen in proposition 2, X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral, say f∈M(X). If n=2 and f is purely meromorphic then X is dicritical.
∎In the next section we will see examples of X∈X2 such that r(X)=2<d(X) and I(X)=C. By corollary 2.1 these examples are dicritical.
When M(X)=C then d(X), although finite, can be arbitrarily big, as shows the following example in any dimension n≥2:
Example 4**.**
Let R=∑j=1nzj∂zj∂ be the radial vector field and X=(z1...zn)k.R, where k∈N. It can be verified that
C(X)=L⊕A, where L=
Let X∈X2, X≡0, be a vector field with d(X)=∞. Then I(X)=C.
Proof.
We will assume first that the vector space D(X)={Y∈C(X)∣Y∧X=0} is infinite dimensional.
By corollary 2.1 we can assume that the origin is not an isolated singularity of X.
In particular, we can write X=g.T, where g∈O2, g(0)=0 and T∈X2 has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.
If Y∈D(X)∖{0} then Y∧T=0 and since [math] is an isolated singularity of T we can write Y=fY.T, where fY∈O2∖{0}.
Note that fY/g∈M(X) because Y∈C(X) and Y=gfYX. In particular, we can assume that fY(0)=0 for all Y∈D(X), for otherwise g/fY∈I(X)∖C and we are done.
From now on, we will assume that M(X)=C and, by contradiction, that I(X)=C.
Denote V(X):=⟨fY∣Y∈D(X)⟩C, the C-vector subspace of O2 generated by the fY, Y∈D(X). Since dim(D(X))=∞ we must have dim(V(X))=∞.
As a consequence, the set μ(X):={μ(fY,0)∣Y∈D(X)}⊂N is unbounded.
In fact, let jN:O2→O2/m2N+1 be the Nth-jet map and JN=jN∣V(X) be its restriction to V(X). Note that ker(JN)=⟨fY∈V(X)∣μ(fY,0)>N⟩C.
Since dim(JN(V(X)))<∞ we get dim(ker(JN))=∞ for all N∈N.
Hence, μ(X) is unbounded.
Let {Yn}n be a sequence of vector fields in D(X) such that the sequence
μn:=μ(fYn,0) is increasing.
Recall that, by Seidenberg‘s resolution theorem [16], there exists a blowing-up process
Π:(M,E)→(C2,0) such that the strict transform Π∗(FT) of the foliation FT is generically transverse to some irreducible component D of the exceptional divisor E. In particular, at some generic point p∈D there are local coordinates (x,t):(M,p)→(C2,0) such that:
(i).
x(p)=t(p)=0 and Dp=(x=0).
(ii).
Π∗(FX) is defined at p by dt=0.
(iii).
g∘Π(x,t)=xk.g(x,t), where x∣g. We can choose p in such a way that g is an unity.
(iv).
fYn∘Π(x,t)=xkn.fn(x,t), where x∣fn.
Set hn:=gfYn∘Π=xkn−k.hn, where hn=fn/g. Since fYn/g∈M(T) we get hn∈M(dt) and this implies
[TABLE]
However, it is known that if f1,f2∈O2 and μ(f1,0)<μ(f2,0) then μ(f1∘Π,p)<μ(f2∘Π,p) and this implies that n→∞ℓimkn=∞, a contradiction.
Let us consider the general case: d(X)=∞. We will assume also that dim(D(X))<∞, so that dim(C(X)/D(X)=∞.
Fix a local coordinate system (x,y) around 0∈C2 and set
μ=∂x∂∧∂y∂.
Given Y∈C(X)∖D(X) we can write Y∧X=fY.μ, where fY∈O2.
Note that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where ∇X=∂x∂X(x)+∂y∂X(y).
Let {Yn}n be a sequence in C(X)∖D(X) such that the sequence μn:=μ(fYn,0) is increasing and set fn:=fYn.
From (2) we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, we can apply the same argument of the first case to the sequence of meromorphic first integrals fn/f1.
∎We finish this section with the following result:
Proposition 3**.**
Let X∈Xn, X≡0. If r(X)=n then there exists a closed meromorphic (n−1)-form anihilating X.
Proof.
Fix a local coordinate system (z1,...,zn) around 0∈Cn and let ν=dz1∧...∧dzn and X=∑j=1nXj∂zj∂.
Set
[TABLE]
where dzj means the omission of dzj in the product.
Since r(X)=n there are vector fields Y1,...,Yn∈C(X) such that Y1∧...∧Yn≡0.
Set
[TABLE]
where g∈On and μ=∂z1∂∧...∧∂zn∂.
From (3) we get
[TABLE]
where ∇X=∑j∂zj∂Xj. Since Yj∈C(X), 1≤j≤n, we get from (4)
[TABLE]
X(g)=∇X.g.
In particular
[TABLE]
Therefore, the meromorphic form gω is closed and satisfies iXgω=0.
∎
2.2. More general remarks.
We begin by the case in which C(X) is a finite dimensional Lie algebra.
Proposition 4**.**
Let X∈Xn be a germ of holomorphic vector field, where n≥2. Suppose that M(X)=C, that is X has no non constant meromorphic first integral. Then C(X) is a finite dimensional Lie algebra of dimension r(X). In particular, d(X)=r(X).
Proof.
Let Y1,...,Yr∈C(X), r=r(X), be such that Y1∧...∧Yr≡0.
If Y∈C(X) then there exist f1,...,fr∈Mn such that
[TABLE]
In particular, we have:
[TABLE]
Since M(X)=C we must have fj∈C, 1≤j≤r.
∎
A particular case of proposition 4 is the following:
Corollary 2.2**.**
Let X∈Xn, where n≥2. Suppose that M(X)=C and that C(X)⊂mn2.Xn. Then C(X) is nilpotent.
Corollary 2.2 is a direct consequence of the following:
Proposition 5**.**
Let L⊂Xn be a finite dimensional Lie algebra of germs of vector fields.
Suppose that L⊂mn2.Xn. Then L is nilpotent.
Proof. Proposition 5 is a direct consequence of Engel-Lie theorem [9].
In fact, given Y∈L consider the operator
[TABLE]
Then the eigenvalues of adY are all zero, because
[TABLE]
Therefore L is nilpotent by the Engel-Lie theorem [9].
∎
Remark 2.1**.**
In fact, proposition 5 can be generalized to finite dimensional Lie algebras L⊂mn.Xn such that the linear part j1L is nilpotent.**
As a consequence we have:
Corollary 2.3**.**
Let L⊂mn.Xn be a finite Lie algebra and J1:L→gl(n,C) be the morphism J1(X)=DX(0). Then ker(J1)=L∩mn2.Xn is nilpotent.
Remark 2.2**.**
In example 4C(X)=L⊕A is solvable but not nilpotent: in fact, as the reader can check [L⊕A,L⊕A]=[L,A]⊂A, and [A,A]=0, but [L,[L,A]]=[L,A].**
Another important result in this direction is the following (cf. [8] and [7]):
Theorem 2**.**
(R. Hermann, V. Guillemin, S. Sternberg)*
Let L⊂mn.Xn be a semi-simple Lie algebra. Then L is linearizable, that is there exists ϕ∈Diff(Cn,0) such that ϕ∗(L) is a Lie algebra of linear vector fields.*
As a consequence, we have the following:
Corollary 2.4**.**
Let X∈mn.Xn and assume that M(X)=C. Then, up to conjugacy the Levi-Malcev decomposition (see [10]) is of the form C(X)=Rad⊕L, where L is a semi-simple Lie algebra of linear vector fields and Rad is the solvable radical of C(X).
Some easy consequences in small dimension when M(X)=C:
If r(X)=1 then C(X)=C.X.
2.
If r(X)=2 then C(X) is abelian.
3.
If r(X)=3 then, either C(X) is abelian, or C(X)≃C⨁A, where A is the affine Lie algebra, or C(X) is isomorphic to the Heisenberg algebra:
[TABLE]
Example 5**.**
Let X be the "Poincaré-Dulac" vector field defined as
[TABLE]
Then M(X)=C and C(X)=⟨ym∂x∂,yn∂z∂,X⟩C is abelian of dimension three.**
Problem 2**.**
Is there X∈X3 such that M(X)=C, r(X)=3 the origin is an isolated singularity of X and C(X) is isomorphic to, either C⊕A or to the Heisenberg algebra?
In his work on commuting vector fields [11] the second author shows the following result:
Theorem [11].Let X∈X2 with X=∑j≥kXj its Taylor series, where Xj is homogeneous of degree j and Xk=0. Assume that
(a).
k≥2* and Xk has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.*
(b).
Xk* has no meromorphic first integral.*
Then C(X)=C.X.
A generalization of this result is the following:
Proposition 6**.**
Let X∈Xn with X=∑j≥kXj its Taylor series, where Xj is homogeneous of degree j and Xk=0. Assume that
(a).
k≥2* and Xk has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.*
(b).
The foliation FXk, induced by Xk on Pn−1, has no algebraic invariant set of dimension ℓ, where 0<ℓ<n−1.
Then C(X)=C.X.
Proof.
The proof is based in the following:
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let Xk be as in (a) and (b) of proposition 6. Let Yℓ∈Xn be homogeneous of degree ℓ be such that [Xk,Yℓ]=0. Then:
(i).
If ℓ=k then Yℓ=0.
(ii).
If ℓ=k then Yk=λ.Xk, where λ∈C.
Let us prove the proposition using lemma 2.1. Let Y∈Xn be such that [X,Y]=0 with Taylor series Y=∑j≥ℓYj, where Yj is homogeneous of degree j and Yℓ=0.
Since [Xr,Ys] is homogeneous of degree r+s−1, we can write the Taylor series of [X,Y] as
[X,Y]=∑j≥k+ℓ−1Zj, where Zk+ℓ−1=[Xk,Yℓ].
Therefore [Xk,Yℓ]=0, and by lemma 2.1 we get ℓ=k and Yk=λ.Xk, where λ∈C∗.
Now, if we set W=Y−λ.X then [X,W]=0 and
[TABLE]
by lemma 2.1. Hence, Y=λ.X and Y∈C.X.
∎Proof of lemma 2.1.
First of all, hypothesis (b) of the proposition implies that if A is an irreducible analytic subset of (Cn,0) of dimension dim(A)≥1 and Xk-invariant then A is a straigth line through the origin, corresponding to a singularity in Pn−1 of FXk.
In particular, we have M(Xk)=C.
Let Yℓ=0 be homogeneous of degree ℓ such that [Xk,Yℓ]=0.
It is sufficient to prove that Xk∧Yℓ≡0. In fact, since Xk has an isolated singularity at the origin this implies that Yℓ=f.Xk, where Xk(f)=0. Since M(Xk)=C we get ℓ=k and Yℓ∈C.Xk.
Suppose by contradiction that Xk∧Yℓ=0.
Let R=∑j=1nzj∂zj∂ be the radial vector field.
Note that Xk∧R=0, because otherwise [math] would not be an isolated singularity of Xk.
We have two possibilities:
1st. Xk∧Yℓ∧R≡0.
In this case, we can write
[TABLE]
where f and g are meromorphic.
Note that g=0. In fact, from (5) we get
where in the above relation we have used that [R,Xk]=(k−1).Xk.
Since M(Xk)=C we get g∈C∗ and so Xk(f)=(k−1)g∈C∗. Finally Xk(f)=0, because [math] is a singularity of Xk, a contradiction with g=0.
2nd. Xk∧Yℓ∧R≡0. Let A={z∈Cn∣Xk(z)∧Yℓ(z)∧R(z)=0}.
Observe first that dim(A)≥2: it is well known that the set of zeroes of a totally decomposable r-vector has dimension ≥r−1, unless it is empty.
We assert that A is Xk-invariant.
In fact, first of all we have
[TABLE]
If we write
[TABLE]
then the ideal defining A is I(A)=⟨Aijk∣1≤i<j<k≤n⟩.
Finally, relation (6) implies that Xk(I(A))⊂I(A), as the reader can check. Hence, A is Xk-invariant and dim(A)≥2, a contradiction with hypothesis (b).
Therefore, Xk∧Yℓ=0 which proves the lemma.
∎
2.3. Examples.
The aim of this section is to introduce some simple examples.
2.3.1. Linear vector fields on C2 and the saddle-node.
A non-zero linear vector field X on C2 is one that can be written as X=A(x,y)∂x∂+B(x,y)∂y∂, where A and B are linear.
According to Jordan’s normal form, after a linear change of variables and multiplication by a constant, it can be written in one of the following forms:
a. X=Xλ=x∂x∂+λ.y∂y∂, where λ∈C (semi-simple case).
b. X=x∂y∂ (nilpotent case).
c. X=x∂x∂+(x+y)∂y∂.
The saddle-node is more complicated. The germ X∈X2 has a saddle-node at 0∈C2 when it has an isolated singularity at [math] and the linear part DX(0) has one eigenvalue zero and the other non-zero. In this case, it is known that, after a formal change of variables and a multiplication by a constant, then the saddle-node can written as:
d. X=xp+1∂x∂+y(1+λxp)∂y∂ ,
where p∈N and λ∈C.
The formal invariants are the multiplicity μ=p+1 and
λ∈C.
The saddle-node in the formal normal form (d) is Liouvillian integrable, in the sense that the associated foliation can be defined also by a meromorphic closed form. The dual form, ω:=iXdx∧dy, has an integrating factor d(y.xp+11.ω)=0 :
[TABLE]
For this reason, λ is called the residue.
In the next table we specify C(X), r(X) and d(X) in the above cases.
In the above table, examples 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have d(X)>r(X). In examples 3, 4 and 6 we have I(X)=C.
Examples 1 and 5 are dicritical and have purely meromorphic first integrals (see corollary 2.1 in § 2.1).
2.3.2. Commuting vector fields and the Cauchy-Riemann equations.
Let Z=f(z)∂z∂ be a germ at 0∈C of holomorphic vector field.
We can split Z into real and imaginary parts, Z=X+iY, where X and Y are germs at 0∈R2 of real analytic vector fields. Explicitly, if we write z=x+iy, f(z)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y) and ∂z∂=∂x∂−i∂y∂, then Z=X+iY, where X=u(x,y)∂x∂+v(x,y)∂y∂ and Y=v(x,y)∂x∂−u(x,y)∂y∂.
The Cauchy-Riemann equations imply that X and Y commute: [X,Y]=0. Since X and Y are real analytic we can consider their complexification, that we will denote again by X and Y.
This classical construction gives examples of non-homogeneous pairs of commuting vector fields on (C2,0) with r(X)=2.
Up to conjugacy, the vector field f(z)∂z∂ can be written as
a. ∂z∂, if f(0)=0. In this case, X and Y are two commuting constant vector fields.
b. μz∂z∂, f(0)=0 and f′(0)=μ=0. In this case, X and Y are two linear vector fields with eigenvalues μ=a+ib, μ=a−ib and λ=b+ia, λ=b−ia, respectively.
c. Xp,λ=1+λzpzp+1∂z∂, if f has multiplicity p+1≥2 at the origin.
In this case, if λ=0 then X and Y are homogeneous and have a non-constant meromorphic first integral. If λ=0 then X and Y have no meromorphic first integral.
In fact, the above construction can be generalized in any dimension. Given Z∈Xn we can write Z=X+iY, where X and Y are germs of real analytic vector fields on (R2n,0). Their complexifications, called still X and Y, are two commuting vector fields on (C2n,0).
If Z(0)=0 then the distribution generated by X and Y has a singular locus of dimension ≥1: the set {z∈(C2n,0)∣X(z)∧Y(z)=0}.
For instance, if n=2 then the Camacho-Sad theorem on the existence of an analytic separatrix of Z (cf. [2]), gives a holomorphic separatrix γ for Z through 0∈C2. The germ of surface obtained by complexification of γ, considered as real surface on R4≃C2, is invariant by both vector fields X and Y. This motivates the following problem:
Problem 3**.**
Let X and Y be two germs at 0∈Cn, n≥3, of commuting vector fields such that X∧Y≡0. Does there exists a germ a complex surface through 0∈Cn which is simultaneously X and Y invariant.**
In the case n=3 problem 3 has positive answer [15].
However, we would like to note that in general, if X∧Y≡0 then there is an analytic set of dimension ≥1 invariant by both vector fields, X and Y.
This is a consequence of the following result:
Proposition 7**.**
Let X∈Xn and assume that the unique proper analytic subset of (Cn,0) which is X-invariant is the origin {0}.
Then C(X)=C.X.
Proof.
The hypothesis implies that 0∈Sing(X): if not, then the orbit of [math] by the local flow of X has dimension one and is X-invariant. Note also that [math] is an isolated singularity of X.
Assume by contradiction that C(X)=C.X. In this case, we have two possibilities:
1st.
r(X)=1 and d(X)>1.
2nd.
r(X)>1.
In the first case we have I(X)=C, which is not possible with the hypothesis.
In the second case, there exists Y∈C(X) such that X∧Y≡0.
Consider the analytic set
[TABLE]
Note that dim(Σ)≥1, because 0∈Σ.
On the other hand, if zo=0 and zo∈Σ then there are local coordinates (U,x=(x1,...,xn)) at zo such that x(zo)=0 and:
(a).
X∣U=∂x1∂, because X(zo)=0.
(b).
Y(x)=∑j=1naj(x2,...,xn)∂xj∂, because [X,Y]=0.
Since zo∈Σ we get
[TABLE]
the analytic subset A=(x2=...=xn=0)⊂U is contained in Σ and is X-invariant, contradicting the hypothesis.
∎As an imediate consequence we have:
Corollary 2.5**.**
Let X∈Xn and assume that d(X)≥2. Then there exists a proper X-invariant analytic subset Σ⊂(Cn,0) with dim(Σ)≥1.
3. The case of dimension two
In this section we study the case of dimension two.
A crucial fact that will be used is that if X∈X2 has a non-constant holomorphic first integral, then there exists f∈I(X) such that I(X)=C{f} (see [14]). The first integral f is called a minimal first integral of X.
Another remark is that when X∈X2 has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2, r(X)=1 and d(X)≥2, then X has a non-constant holomorphic minimal first integral f, so that C(X)=C{f}.X and d(X)=∞.
In fact, since r(X)=1 and d(X)≥2 there exists Y∈C(X) such that Y∈/C.X.
But, r(X)=1 implies that Y∧X=0 and so Y=g.X where g∈O2∖C by Hartogs extension theorem (here we use that X has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2). Note that X(g)=0 because
[TABLE]
3.1. The case r(X)=2 in dimension two.
We have proved in proposition 3 that if X∈X2 and r(X)=2 then X is Liouvillian integrable: the foliation FX is also defined by a germ of closed meromorphic 1-form. In other words, the dual form of X, ω:=iXdx∧dy, has an integrating factor
g:
d(gω)=0.
For instance, the saddle-node in the formal normal form is Liouvillian integrable.
In the general case, if the decomposition of the integrating factor g into irreducible factors is
Πj=1rfjkj then it is proved in [4] that:
[TABLE]
where
f1,...,fr∈O2 are the poles of ω, φ∈O2 and fj does not divides φ, 1≤j≤r.
2.
λj∈C is the residue of fω along fj, 1≤j≤r.
3.
kj∈N is the multiplicity of fω at the pole fj, 1≤j≤r.
The foliation FX is said to be logarithmic if φ/f1k1−1...frkr−1 is holomorphic, or equivalently k1=...=kr=1.
Remark 3.1**.**
Each irreducible component of the pole f of fω defines a separatrix Γj:=(fj=0) of FX.
Another observation is that the "multivalued" function ∑jλjlog(fj)+φ/fk1−1...frkr−1 is a first integral of X.**
Suppose now that X1 and X2 are two holomorphic germs on (C2,0) of commuting vector fields such that X1∧X2≡0.
Claim 3.1**.**
There are unique closed meromorphic 1-forms α1 and α2 such that αi(Xj)=δij, i,j=1,2, where δij=1 if i=j and [math] otherwise.
Proof.
As we have seen in the proof of proposition 3, if we set X1∧X2=g∂z1∂∧∂z2∂, ω1=iX2dz1∧dz2 and ω2=−iX1dz1∧dz2, then the forms α1:=gω1 and α2:=gω2 are closed.
As the reader can check, we have also αi(Xj)=δij, 1≤i,j≤2.
∎As a consequence, we have the following:
Proposition 8**.**
Given X∈X2∖{0} we have three possibilities:
(a).
r(X)=d(X)=1. In this case, C(X)=C.X.
(b).
d(X)≥2* and r(X)=1. In this case, X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral.*
(c).
r(X)=2. In this case X is Liouvillian integrable.
Corollary 3.1**.**
Let X∈X2 be a saddle-node. Then X is holomorphically normalisable if, and only if, r(X)=2.
Corollary 3.2**.**
Let X∈X2 with DX(0)=x∂x∂+λy∂y∂, with λ∈C∗∖Q.
Then X is linearizable if, and only if, r(X)=2.
Another interesting consequence is the following:
Corollary 3.3**.**
Let X∈X2 with r(X)=2. Let Π:(M,E)→(C2,0) be the Seidenberg resolution of singularities of X and FX be the strict transform of the foliation defined by Π∗(X) (cf. [16] and § 3.2). Then the holonomy of FX in any non-dicritical irreducible component of E is abelian.
3.2. Germs of vector fields with just one irreducible separatrix.
In the case of dimension two, an important class of foliations on (C2,0) are the so-called "generalized curves" defined in [3]. These foliations have no saddle nodes in their reduction of singularities. According to Seidenberg‘s resolution theorem [16], given a germ at 0∈C2 of foliation F there exists a blowing-up procedure Π:(M,D)→(C2,0) such that the strict transform Π∗(F) of F has only reduced singularities on the exceptional divisor D.
We say that a singularity p∈D of Π∗(F) is reduced if the germ at p of the foliation is represented by a vector field Y such that its linear part DY(p) at p has eigenvalues λ1,λ2, where:
•
either λ1=0 and λ2=0 (or vice-versa). In this case, the singularity is a saddle-node,
•
or λ1.λ2=0 and λ2/λ1∈/Q+.
We will say that X∈X2 is a generalized curve (briefly G.C) if the associated foliation has no saddle-node in its resolution of singularities.
In this case, we have the following result:
Theorem 3**.**
Let X∈X2 be a G.C vector field with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 and with just one separatrix. Then r(X)=1. In particular,
C(X)=I(X).X.
When a germ X∈X2 has a holomorphic first integral f, whoose decomposition into irreducible factors is f=Πj=1rfjkj, then the separatrices of X through 0∈C2 are the curves
(fj=0), 1≤j≤r. In this case, X is non-dicritical.
In particular, if X has an irreducible holomorphic first integral, say f , then (f=0) is the unique irreducible separatrix of X. In this case, we have the following:
Corollary 3.4**.**
Let X∈X2 and assume that [math] is an isolated singularity of X and that X has an irreducible first integral f∈O2.
Then r(X)=1 and C(X)=C{f}.X. Moreover, there exists a local coordinate system (x,y) around 0∈C2 such that X=Hf, where Hf=fy∂x∂−fx∂y∂ is the Hamiltonian of f.
Before proving theorem 3 we will see two examples in which the conclusion of theorem 3 is not true.
Example 6**.**
If X is non singular, X(0)=0, then in some coordinate system (x,y) around [math] we have X=∂x∂. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that
[TABLE]
Example 7**.**
If f is not irreducible then the theorem is not true in general. For instance, if
X=x∂x∂−y∂y∂=Hx.y then x.y is a minimal first integral of X: I(X)=C{x.y}, but
[TABLE]
which is not of the form C{f}.X.**
Proof of theorem 3.
Observe first that the irreducibility of f implies that if I(X)=C then, modulo an unit, we can assume that f is a minimal first integral of X
(see [14]). Since f∈I(X) the curve Γ:=(f=0) is X-invariant (it is a separatrix of X). In fact, we have the following:
Lemma 3.1**.**
If Y∈C(X) then Γ is Y-invariant. Moreover, there exists λ∈C such that
Y∣Γ=λ.X∣Γ.
Proof.
We will assume Y≡0.
In some coordinate system (x,y) around 0∈C2 we can write X=X1∂x∂+X2∂y∂ and
[TABLE]
and g(0)=0.
1st case. g≡0. In this case, we have Y=ϕ.X, where ϕ∈O2, because X has an isolated singularity at [math].
Since Y∈C(X) we get Y(ϕ)=0 and ϕ∈I(X).
If ϕ∈C∗ we are done. If ϕ is non-constant then I(X)=C and we can assume that f∈I(X).
From [X,Y]=0 we get
[TABLE]
Γ is Y-invariant.
2nd case. g≡0.
If L denotes the Lie derivative then
[TABLE]
which implies g∣X(g) and so g is X-invariant and each irreducible component of g is a separatrix of X.
Since Γ is the unique separatrix of X we must have g=u.fk, where u∈O2∗ and k≥1.
Analogously,
[TABLE]
Γ is Y-invariant.
Let γ(t)=(x(t),y(t)) be a Puiseux‘s parametrization of Γ. Since Γ is X and Y-invariant we can write γ∗(X)=ϕ(t)∂t∂
and γ∗(Y)=φ(t)∂t∂. Note that ϕ(0)=0, but ϕ≡0, for otherwise [math] would not be an isolated singularity of X. On the other hand, [X,Y]=0 implies
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
which proves lemma 3.1.
∎End of the proof of theorem 3.
Let Z1=Y−λ.X.
From Z1∣Γ=0 we get Z1=fk1.Y1, where Y1∈X2 and k1≥1.
We have two possibilities:
1st* case:* I(X)=C. In this case, we can assume that I(X)=C{f}.
Since Z1∈C(X) and f∈I(X) we get Y1∈C(X). From lemma 3.1 we get again
Y1=λ1.X+fk2.Y2, where λ1∈C, Y2∈X2 and k2≥1, so that
[TABLE]
where [X,Y2]=0. Using the above argument inductively we get a formal series g(z)=∑j=0∞λjzj such that Y=g(f).X. Since X and Y are holomorphic, it is clear that the series g is convergent and so Y∈C{f}.X and r(X)=1.
2nd* case:* I(X)=C. We have two sub-cases:
2.a. X∧Y≡0. In this case, we have Y=h.X where h∈O2, because X has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.
Here h∈I(X) and since I(X)=C we get h∈C and so h=λ and Y=λ.X∈C.X.
2.b. X∧Y≡0. We will see that I(X)=C, a contradiction.
In fact, let Y∈C(X) be such that X∧Y=0.
We assert that the set Γ:={z∈(C2,0)∣X(z)∧Y(z)=0} is X-invariant:
The set Γ is an analytic curve through 0∈C2: if we fix local coordinates (x,y) around [math], then X∧Y=g.μ, where μ:=∂x∂∧∂y∂, and Γ=(g=0). On the other hand,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where ∇X=∂x∂X(x)+∂y∂X(y). Therefore, Γ is X-invariant and is the unique separatrix of X. In particular, Γ=(f=0) and after multiplying g by an unit we can assume g=fk.
Let α and β be the meromorphic closed 1-forms with α(X)=β(Y)=0 and α(Y)=β(X)=1. As we have seen before α=fk1iXν and β=fk1iYν, ν=dx∧dy.
In particular, we can write [4]
[TABLE]
where λ∈C, H∈O2, and, either k=1 and λ=0, or k>1.
When k>1 we will assume also that f does not divides H.
If λ=0 and k=1 then f:=f.eλ−1H is an irreducible holomorphic first integral of X, because
[TABLE]
If k>1 then H≡0 and we can write H=h0+h, where h0=H(0). We have four possilities:
1st.
h0=0 and λ=0. In this case, X is dicritical, because f does not divides
H=h and all curves of the form (fk−1−ch=0), c∈C, are X-invariant, so that X has more than one separatrix.
2nd.
h0=0 and λ=0. In this case, there exists ϕ∈O2∗ such that ϕk−1=H and f:=f/ϕ is an irreducible holomorphic first integral of X.
3rd.
h0=0 and λ=0. In this case, we have
[TABLE]
We see that fkα is the pull-back by the morphism (x,y)↦(f,h)=(u,v) of the 1-form
[TABLE]
Since α(0)=−(k−1)h0du=0, by Frobenius theorem α has a holomorphic first integral
F(u,v) of the form (u,v)↦F(u,v)=u+h.o.t., so that X has a first integral of the form
F(g,h)=f+.... Since (f=0) is a separatrix of X, we must have F(f,h)=u.f:=f,
u∈O2∗, so that
X has an irreducible holomorphic first integral.
4th. h0=0 and λ=0. In this case (8) can be written as
[TABLE]
and fk−1.α is the pull-back of the 1-form
[TABLE]
by the map (x,y)↦(f,h)=(u,v). The dual vector field of the above 1-form is
[TABLE]
which is in the Poincaré-Dulac normal form. If λ=0 then this vector field has a saddle-node in its redution of singularities [14].
This implies that X, the original vector field, has the same property and so is not G.C.
Hence, in all possible cases, X has an irreducible holomorphic first integral.
∎Proof of corollary 3.4.
Since X has a holomorphic first integral f it is G.C (cf. [3]). Since f is irreducible
X has an unique separatrix.
Therefore, by theorem 3 we have C(X)=C{f}.X.
It remains to prove that in some coordinate system aroud 0∈C2 we have X=Hf.
Fix a local coordinate system (u,v). Since X(f)=0 and 0∈C2 is an isolated singularity of X and of df, there exists an unity ϕ∈O2∗ such that
ϕ.iXdu∧dv=df. If we consider the change of variables x=u and y=φ.v, where φ∈O2∗, then we get
[TABLE]
The p.d.e. v.φv+φ=ϕ has a solution φ∈O2∗. Hence in the new coordinate system we have
[TABLE]
Remark 3.2**.**
Given f,g∈O2∖{0}, with f(0)=g(0)=0, it is easy to check that [Hf,Hg]=0 if, and only if, the jacobian determinant of detJ(f,g) is a constant λ. When λ=0 then the map (f,g):(C2,0)→(C2,0) is a germ of biholomorphism. In particular, f is a submersion and Hf(0)=0.
If λ=0 then, after [14], we can write f=ϕ(h) and g=ψ(h), where ϕ,ψ∈O1 and h is a primitive first integral of Hf. We are essentially in the situation of theorem
3: Hf,Hg∈C(Hh) and r(Hf)=1.
In contrast, in dimension n≥3 we have examples of f∈On irreducible, but with r(Hf)>1.
This type of example can be constructed as follows: let Cn=E1⊕...⊕Es be a linear decomposition of Cn, Xi∈X(Ei,0), i=1,...,s, and set X=X1+...+Xs∈Xn.
Then it is clear that
[TABLE]
where I(Xj)⊂O(Ej,0) is the subring of first integrals of Xj, 1≤j≤s.
For instance, let C2n=C2⊕...⊕C2 with the sympletic form Ω=dx1∧dy1+...+dxn∧dyn.
For each j=1,...,n let fj=fj(xj,yj) and f=f1+...+fn, so that the associated hamiltonian is given by df=iHfΩ,
[TABLE]
The ring R:=C{f1,...,fn} is a subring of I(Hf) and C(Hf) contains
[TABLE]
In fact, given h1,h2∈R then [Hh1,Hh2]=0.**
3.3. Generalized curves.
In this section we will study commuting G.C vector fields of a particular type.
Definition 1**.**
We say that X∈X2 has an isolated non-rational singularity at 0∈C2 if its linear part DX(0) has non-vanishing eigenvalues, λ1,λ2, with λ2/λ1∈/Q.
When the quotient λ2/λ1∈Q we will say that [math] is an isolated rational singularity.
We say that Y∈X2 has a non-rational singularity at 0∈C2 if Y=g.X, where g∈O2 and X has an isolated non-rational singularity at [math].
If X∈X2 has a non-reduced singularity at 0∈C2 then we say that it is of non-rational type if it has a non-rational singularity in its reduction of singularities.**
Our main result in this section is the following:
Theorem 4**.**
Let X∈X2 be a G.C (non-dicritical) with an isolated and non-rational singularity at
0∈C2. If DX(0) is nilpotent then C(X)=C.X.
Proof.
We need a lemma.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let Z∈X2 with a singularity at 0∈C2 and Π:(C2,D)→(C2,0) be a blowing-up with exceptional divisor D≃P1. If DZ(0)=0 then:
(a).
Π∗(Z)∣D≡0.
(b).
For any singularity p∈D of the strict transform of Π∗(Z) then DΠ∗(Z)(p)=0.
Proof. The proof relies in the Seidenberg’s reduction process of Z [16]. Write the Taylor series of Z as
[TABLE]
where Zj is homogeneous of degre j and Zν is the first non-zero jet of Z. Since DZ(0)=0 we have μ(Z,0)=ν≥2.
Locally, in suitable coordinates, Π is a quadratic map Π(x,t)=(x,t.x) and Π−1(0)=(x=0). If Z=A(x,y)∂x∂+B(x,y)∂y∂ then
[TABLE]
If Z=∑j≥νZj, as before, where Zj=Aj(x,y)∂x∂+Bj(x,y)∂y∂ then we get π∗(Z)=∑j≥νΠ∗(Zj), where
[TABLE]
From the above formula, we have two possibilities:
1st.
Bν(1,t)−t.Aν(1,t)≡0. We see that Π∗(Z)=xν−1.Z, where Z has isolated singularities on the exceptional divisor D, which is Z-invariant. This is case of a non-dicritical blow-up. The foliation on C2 induced by Z is called the strict transform of Z and denoted as FZ.
Observe also that
1.1.
Sing(FZ)∩D=∅.
1.2.
If p∈Sing(FZ)∩D then the algebraic multiplicity of Π∗(Z) at p, μ(Π∗(Z),p)≥ν.
2nd.
Bν(1,t)−t.Aν(1,t)≡0. We see that Π∗(Z)=xν.Z, where Z has isolated singularities on D, which is not Z-invariant. This is the case of a dicritical blow-up. Note that this happens if, and only if, Xν is colinear with the radial vector field x∂x∂+y∂y∂.
Let us continue the proof of theorem 4.
In the non-dicritical hypothesis of theorem 4 we are excluding the 2nd possibility in any step of the reduction process for X.
Let Π:(M,D)→(C2,0) be the reduction of the vector field X, where D:=Π−1(0) is the exceptional divisor. Let D=⋃j=1rDj be the decomposition of D into irreducible components. Denote by FX the foliation induced by Π∗(X).
We will assume that D1 is strict transform by Π of the divisor obtained at the first step of the resolution.
Remark 3.3**.**
When DX(0)=0 is nilpotent we can assume DX(0)=y∂x∂. In this case, in the first blow-up Π1:(C2,D1)→(C2,0) we find just one singularity on the divisor D1, the point p∈D1 corresponding to the direction y=0. The vector field Π1∗(X) is not identically zero on D1, but μ(Π1∗(X),p)=2 (see [14]). The point p is not a simple singularity for the foliation defined by Π1∗(X) and so we have to blow-up more times in the resolution process. If X is G.C and at each step of the resolution we blow-up only at singularities of the strict transform then lemma 3.2 implies that Π∗(X)∣Dj≡0 for all j≥2. As a consequence, we have the following:
Corollary 3.5**.**
Let Dk be an irreducible component of D where there is a non-rational singularity of FX. Then Π∗(X)∣Dk≡0.
In the above resolution if i=j then, either Di∩Dj=∅, or Di cuts Dj transversely in just one point.
Denote as FX the strict transform of the foliation induced by the vector field Π∗(X).
As a consequence of the above computation, we can conclude that:
(i).
The strict transform FX has singularities in all components Dj of the exceptional divisor (see [1] and [14]). This follows from the hypothesis that X is non-dicritical.
(ii).
The vector field Π∗(X), which is holomorphic on M, vanishes identically along all components Dj of exceptional divisor, except perhaps at D1.
Claim 3.2**.**
Let p∈D be a non-rational singularity of FX. Then:
(a).
There are local coordinates around p, (x,y):(M,p)→(C2,0), such that the first non-zero jet of Π∗(X) is of the form
xpyq(x∂x∂+λy∂y∂), where
λ∈/Q and p+q≥1.
(b).
The germ of Π∗(X) at p is formally conjugated to xpyq(x∂x∂+λy∂y∂).
Proof.
First of all, we have two possibilities for p∈D:
(1).
p∈Dj and p∈/Di if i=j.
(2).
p∈Di∩Dj, with i=j, and p∈/Ds, s=i,j.
Note that there are local coordinates around p, (x,y):(U,p)→(C2,0), in which in the first case we have D∩U=Dj∩U=(x=0) and in the second case we have D∩U=(Di∪Dj)∩U=(x.y=0).
It follows from (ii) above that Π∗(X) vanishes in a certain order ≥1 along each Di⊂D, so that, in both cases we can write Π∗(X)=xpyqZ, where p+q≥1 and Z has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.
In case (1) we have p≥1 and q=0, whereas in case (2) we have p,q≥1.
Since p is a non-rational singularity of FX, then det(DZ(0))=0 and the eigenvalues λ1,λ2 of DZ(0) satisfy λ2/λ1∈/Q. In particular, Z has two smooth and transverse separatrices through p (see [14]). In case (2) necessarily these separatrices are contained in Di∪Dj=(x.y=0), whereas in case (1), one of the separatrices is contained in the exceptional divisor (x=0) and the other, after a holomorphic change of variables, we can assume that is (y=0).
In both cases, after dividing Z by λ1, we can assume that the first jet of Z at 0∈C2 is of the form x∂x∂+λy∂y∂, λ=λ2/λ1.
In this case, by Poincaré’s linearization theorem [13], Z is formally conjugated to its linear part x∂x∂+λy∂y∂ by a formal Φ∈Diff(Cn,0) such that Φ(u,v)=(uΦ1(u,v),vΦ2(u,v))=(x,y):
Φ∗(Z)=u∂u∂+λv∂v∂:=Z.
In this case, we must have
[TABLE]
where ϕ∈O2∗, and ϕ(0)=1.
Consider now a formal diffeomorphism of the form Ψ(x,y)=(eα.x,eλα.y)=(u,v), where α(0)=0.
With a straightforward computation we have
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
This reduces the proof of the claim to find a solution of the differential equation
[TABLE]
If we set w=e(p+λq)α then the above differential equation becomes
[TABLE]
Since λ∈/Q the linear operator
[TABLE]
is surjective, as the reader can check. Hence, the differential equation (9) has a formal solution. This proves the claim.
∎Let us suppose by contradiction that C(X)=C.X and let Y∈C(X)∖C.X. We have two possibilities:
1st. Y∧X≡0. In this case, since X has an isolated singularity at [math], we must have Y=f.X, where f∈O2 is a non-constant first integral of X. But, when X has a non-constant first integral all singularities of the strict transform FX are rational (see [14]).
2nd. Y∧X≡0. Set Y∧X=f.∂x∂∧∂y∂,
f∈O2, f(0)=0. As we have seen in the proof of theorem 3 in § 3.2, the curve (f=0) is X and Y-invariant: if f=Πj=1rfjkj is the decomposition of f into irreducible factors, then the curves Γj=(fj=0), 1≤j≤r, are all simultaneously
X and Y-invariant.
Moreover, if α=f1iYdx∧dy and β=−f1iXdx∧dy then
α(X)=β(Y)=1, α(Y)=β(X)=0 and dα=dβ=0. The curve Γ:=(f1...fr=0) is called the reduced separatrix of X.
We denote Γj=(fj=0), 1≤j≤r.
Let Π:(M,D)→(C2,0) be the minimal reduction of singularities of X. Denote as FX and FY the foliations given by the strict transforms of Π∗(X) and Π∗(Y), respectively.
Claim 3.3**.**
In the above situation we have
(a).
μ(Y,0)≥μ(X,0).
(b).
Sing(FX)∩D⊂Sing(FY)∩D.
(c).
For any p∈Sing(FX)∩D we have μ(Π∗(X),p)≤μ(Π∗(Y),p).
Proof. Since X is G.C, a result of [3] says that the reduction of X coincides with the reduction of the curve Γ, which in fact, coincides with the reduction of singularities of the foliation given by d(f1...fr)=0.
Note that X has no other separatrices than that defined by the fj′s.
Moreover, in [3] is also proved that:
(i).
μ(X,0)=μ(d(f1...fr),0)=∑j=1rμ(fj,0)−1.
(ii).
If Z is any vector field such that Γ1,...,Γr are separatrices of Z then μ(Z,0)≥μ(X,0).
(iii).
If Z is as in (ii) and Dj is any irreducible component of the exceptional divisor D, then the order of annulment of Π∗(Z) along Dj is ≥ the order of annulment of Π∗(X) along Dj. In other words, if in local coordinates (x,y) near some z∈Dj we have Dj=(x=0), Π∗(X)=xkX and Π∗Z=xℓZ, where X and Z have isolated singularities, then k≤ℓ. We will denote ℓ:=μ(Π∗(Z),Dj).
In particular, (ii) ⟹ (a). Let us prove (b) and (c).
Since the reduction of singularities of X and d(f1...fr)=0 coincide, if p∈Sing(FX)∩D then:
I.
either p is a corner of D: p=Di∩Dj, i=j,
II.
or p corresponds to the intersection of the strict transform of some of the curves Γj with some irreducible component Di of
D. In this case, p∈/Dℓ if ℓ=i.
In any case, I or II, p must be also a singularity of the strict transform FY, because all the curves Γj, 1≤j≤r, are Y-invariant.
Since all singularities of FX are reduced, we have μ(FX,p)=1≤μ(FY,p).
Finally, in case I, p=Di∩Dj, we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
whereas in case II, we have
[TABLE]
Let us finish the proof of theorem 4. Let p be a non-rational singularity of FX. By claim 3.2, after a formal change of variables Φ and multiplication by a constant, we have
[TABLE]
where p+q≥1 and λ∈/Q. Set also Y:=Φ∗(Π∗(Y)). Note that [X,Y]=0 implies that [X,Y]=0.
On the other hand, the vector field Z:=qx∂x∂−py∂y∂ commutes with X: [Z,X]=0. Since X∧Z≡0 we can write
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
ϕ and ψ are (formal) meromorphic first integrals of X and also of x∂x∂+λy∂y∂. But, since λ∈/Q, ϕ and ψ must be constants, which implies ϕ=c∈C and ψ=0 (because μ(Y,p)>1). Hence, Y=c.X and Y∈C.X.
∎
This motivates the following problem:
Problem 4**.**
Let X∈X2 be a non-dicritical G.C with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 and DX(0)=0.
Assume also that r(X)=2. Is it true that X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral?
When DX(0)=0 then the answer is negative, as shows the following example:
Example 8**.**
Let
[TABLE]
where λ∈/Q. Then C(X)=⟨X,x∂x∂−y∂y∂⟩C, so that r(X)=d(X)=2, but I(X)=C.**
3.4. Homogeneous and quasi-homogeneous vector fields.
Let P=(p1,...,pn)∈Z≥1n with gcd(p1,...,pn)=1. We say that f∈On is P
quasi-homogenous of degree k∈N if
[TABLE]
It is known that (10) implies that f is a polynomial.
We would like to observe the following: let S be the linear vector field S=∑j=1npjzj∂zj∂. Then
[TABLE]
We will say also that f is S quasi-homogeneous.
When S=R=∑jzj∂zj∂, the radial vector field, then R(f)=k.f⟺f is homogeneous of degree k.
By analogy, in the case of vector fields, we will say that X is S quasi-homogeneous if [S,X]=k.X for some k∈Z. For instance, if S=R then [R,X]=k.X⟺ the coefficients of X are homogeneous polynomials of degree k+1.
Note also thar, if S=∑jpjzj∂zj∂ and X=∑jXj∂zj∂ then [S,X]=kX⟺Xj is P quasi-homogeneous of degree
k+pj, 1≤j≤n.
Remark 3.4**.**
Let S=∑j=1npjzj∂zj∂, pj∈N, 1≤j≤n.
Let Fk:={f∈On∣S(f)=k.f} and Ek:{X∈Xn∣[S,X]=k.X}.
The following facts are well known:
If f∈Fk (resp. X∈Ek) then f is a polynomial (resp. X is a polynomial vector field).
2.
On=⨁k≥0Fk and Xn=⨁k∈ZEk. In particular, any f∈On
(resp. any X∈Xn) can be expressed as a convergent series f=∑k≥0fk (resp.
X=∑k∈ZXk), where fk∈Fk (resp. Xk∈Ek), for all k.
Analogously, any f∈On (resp. X∈Xn) can be decomposed as a formal power series in
⨁k≥0Fk (resp. ⨁k∈ZEk).
3.
If f∈Fk, g∈Fℓ and X∈Em then f.g∈Fk+ℓ, f.X∈Ek+m and X(f)∈Fk+m.
4.
Let f∈Ek∖{0}, k>0, so that f(0)=0. Let f=Πj=1rfjmjbe the decomposition of f into irreducible factors. Then we can assume that fj is S quasi-homogeneous; S(fj)=kj.fj, 1≤j≤r, where k=∑jmjkj.
5.
If X∈Ek and Y∈Eℓ then [X,Y]∈Ek+ℓ
In the two dimensional case we have the following:
Proposition 9**.**
Let S=px∂x∂+qy∂y∂ and X=X1∂x∂+X2∂y∂∈X2 with [S,X]=kX. Let
ω:=iXdx∧dy=X1dy−X2dx. Assume that S∧X=h.∂x∂∧∂y∂, where
h=px.X2−q.yX1≡0. Then h∈Fk+tr(S), tr(S)=p+q, and is an integrating factor of ω: d(hω)=0.
Moreover, if h=Πj=1rhjkj is the decomposition of h into S quasi-homogeneous factors, then
(a).
There exist λ1,...,λr∈C and φ, S quasi-homogeneous, such that
[TABLE]
(b).
The curves Γj:=(hj=0), 1≤j≤r, are all separatrices of X and S.
(c).
If X has other separatrices than the Γj‘s then X is dicritical.
Proof.
Set μ=∂x∂∧∂y∂. If Y=Y1∂x∂+Y2∂y∂∈X2 then LYμ=−∇Y.μ where ∇Y=∂x∂Y1+∂y∂Y2.
In particular
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The proof that h is an integrating factor of ω and of (11) can be found in [4].
Let us prove that (h=0) is X-invariant.
It is enough to prove that h∣X(h) (see [4]). We have
[TABLE]
From the above relation and h=Πjhjkj we get
[TABLE]
Γj is X-invariant, 1≤j≤r.
Let us prove (c). Let t∈C↦St:=exp(t.S) be the flow of S. We assert that St sends separatrices of X onto separatrices of X.
In fact, relation [S,X]=kX is equivalent to St∗(X)=ekt.X.
Let f be an equation of a separatrix of X, so that X(f)=g.f. If t∈C is fixed, we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
(f∘St=0) is a separatrix of X.
If X has a separatrix Γ∈/{Γ1,...,Γr} then this separatrix cannot be
St-invariant, because otherwise its equation would be contained in the equation h=0
(remember that S∧X=hμ). In this case, the set {St(Γ)∣t∈C} would contain a non-countable set of separatrices of X and X is dicritical.
∎Concerning the existence of non constant first integrals in the case of dimension two, we have the following:
Proposition 10**.**
Let X,Y∈X2∖{0} be S quasi-homogeneous, where S=px∂x∂+qy∂y∂, p,q∈Z≥1. Assume that Y∈C(X), S∧X=hμ and X∧Y=fμ, where h≡0.
Then f/h is a first integral of X. Moreover, if X∈Ek, Y∈Eℓ and 0=ℓ=k then f/h is non-constant.
Proof.
We assume f=0.
As we have seen S∧X=hμ implies that X(h)=∇X.h. On the other hand, [X,Y]=0 implies that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
f/h is a first integral of X.
Assume now that X∈Ek, Y∈Eℓ and 0=ℓ=k. We have two possibilities:
1st. f=0. We have
[TABLE]
Similarly, h∈Fk+tr(S). In particular, S(f/h)=ℓf/h=0 and so f/h is a non constant first integral of X.
2nd. f=0. In this case, there exists a vector field Z, with isolated singularity at [math], and ϕ,ψ∈O2∖{0}, such that X=ϕ.Z and Y=ψ.Z, so that Y=g.X, g=ψ/ϕ. In particular, [X,Y]=0 implies that X(g)=0. Since X∈Ek and Y∈Eℓ,
ℓ=k, the function g cannot be constant.
∎
Theorem 5**.**
Let X∈X2 be S=px∂x∂+qy∂y∂ quasi-homogeneous with [S,X]=k.X, k>0. Assume that
X has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 and is non-dicritical.
If C(X)=C.X then I(X)=C{f}, where f=0 is S quasi-homogeneous and C(X)=C{f}.X.
Remark 3.5**.**
The condition [S,X]=k.X, k>0, implies that DX(0) is nilpotent.**
Proof.
The hypothesis implies that there exists Y∈C(X) such that [X,Y]=0 and Y∈/C.X.
Our purpose is to prove that Y=φ(f).X, where f∈I(X) and φ∈O1.
Let Y=∑j∈ZYj be the decomposition of Y into X2=⨁j∈ZEj. Note that
[TABLE]
because [X,Yℓ]∈Ek+ℓ, ∀ℓ.
Let us see how Yℓ looks like.
1st case: ℓ∈/{0,k}. Let Yℓ=0 be such that [X,Yℓ]=0. As we have seen in proposition 8, in this case X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral, say f. Since X is non-dicritical we can assume that f is holomorphic and minimal, so that I(X)=C{f}: if f was pure meromorphic then X would have infinitely many separatrices and would be dicritical.
We can assume that f is quasi-homogeneous.
In fact, if f=∑j≥1fj is the decomposition of f into O2=⨁j≥0Fj then
X(f)=0 implies that X(fj)=0 for all j≥1. Since f=0, there is r such that fr=0, so that f=fr∈Fr because f is minimal.
We are going to prove that Yℓ(f)=0.
Assume that Yℓ(f)=0. Relation [X,Yℓ]=0 implies that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Since Yℓ(f)∈Fℓ+r and aj.fj∈Fjr we must have
[TABLE]
In this case, we have also rm=ℓ+r and ℓ=r(m−1)⟹m>1.
where in the last implication we have used proposition 8.
From this and (13) we get
[TABLE]
However, since g∈Fℓ−k and Yℓ∈Eℓ we get
[TABLE]
as we wished. Finally, since f∈I(X)∩I(Yℓ) we get Yℓ=h.X, so that X(h)=0 and h∈C{f}. In particular, we have Yℓ∈I(X).X.
2nd case: ℓ=k. In this case, we have shown in proposition 8 that if X∧Yk=ψμ and S∧X=ϕμ, where μ=∂x∂∧∂y∂, then X(ψ/ϕ)=0 (note that ϕ=0, because otherwise X would be a multiple of S). Since LSμ=−tr(S)μ we get ψ∈F2k+tr(s) and ϕ∈Fk+tr(s) and so S(ψ/ϕ)=k.ψ/ϕ.
We have two possibilities:
2.1. ψ/ϕ=c, where c∈C. In this case, necessarily c=0 and ψ=0, which implies Yk=gX, where g∈F0, so that g is a constant and Yk∈C.X.
2.2. ψ/ϕ is not a constant. In this case, X has a non constant first integral. Since X is non-dicritical, it has a holomorphic minimal first integral, say f, where f∈Fk. As in the
1st case, Yk(f)∈C{f} and Yk(f)=amfm, where f∈Fr and k=r(m−1), so that m>1.
As in the 1st case, we can write
[TABLE]
but now g∈F0 and so it is a constant. Hence,
[TABLE]
Therefore, in both cases we get Yk∈C.X⊂I(X).X.
3rd case: ℓ=0. We assert that Y0=0. In fact, as before, set X∧Y0=ψμ and S∧X=ϕμ,
ϕ=0, so that X(ψ/ϕ)=0. Note that ψ,ϕ∈Fk+tr(s) and so S(ψ/ϕ)=0. Therefore, if ψ/ϕ is not a constant then X and S would be colinear, a contradiction: X would be dicritical.
Hence, X∧Y0=cS∧X⟹X∧(Y0+cS)=0⟹Y0=−cS, because X has an isolated singularity at [math]. If
c=0 then X∧S=0, a contradiction. Therefore Y0=0.
In this section we will assume that X∈X2 is dicritical. In this case, if
Π:(M,D)→(C2,0) is Seidenberg’s reduction of the singularities of X, then some of the irreducible components of the divisor D are dicritical: non-invariant for the strict transform
FX of the foliation FX, defined by X.
For instance, the foliation whoose leaves are the levels of a non-constant holomorphic function is non-dicritical, whereas the foliation whoose leaves are the levels of of pure meromorphic function is dicritical.
Example 9**.**
An interesting dicritical foliation (see [4]) is the one whoose leaves are the levels of the meromorphic function (y2+x3)/x2. The associated vector field is
[TABLE]
As a consequence of the next result we will prove that C(X)=C.X.**
Example 10**.**
An example of dicritical vector field X∈X2 for which μ(X,0)=n≥2 and r(X)=2 is
[TABLE]
If n≥2 then C(X)=C.x2∂x∂+C.y2∂y∂ and r(X)=d(X)=2.
If n=1 then X is the radial vector field and d(X)=4.
When n≥2 then X has the meromorphic first integral (yn−1−xn−1)/xn−1.yn−1.**
In the next result we consider a germ of dicritical vector field X∈X2 with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.
Let
[TABLE]
be the blowing-up process of resolution of singularities of X.
Denote by Fm the strict transform of FX by the composition
Πm:=Π1∘...∘Πm:(Mm,Em)→(C2,0).
Definition 2**.**
Let Z∈X2 with first non-zero jet Zν=jν(Z,0), ν≥1, such that Zν∧R≡0. We will say that Z has a purely radial singularity at [math] if ν=1. In this case we have Z=α.R+h.o.t., where R is the radial vector field and α∈C∗.
If 0∈C2 is an isolated singularity of Z and ν>1 we will say that Z has non purely radial singularity at [math] (briefly n.p.r.s).
In this case, we have necessarily
[TABLE]
where f is a homogeneous polynomial of degree ν−1.
We will assume that at some step of the resolution, say Πs:(Ms,Es)→(Ms−1,Es−1), 1≤s≤r, we have the following:
(1).
Πs is the blowing-up at a dicritical singularity po∈Es−1 of Fs−1.
(2).
If s>1 then po belongs
(2.a).
either to a unique divisor D⊂Es−1, which is a non-dicritical divisor of Fs−1,
(2.b).
or to a corner D1∩D2 of Es−1, where both divisors are non-dicritical for Fs−1.
(3).
The germ of Fs−1 is defined by a germ at po of vector field X with a n.p.r.s at po. In other words, in some coordinates (x,y) around po, the first non-zero jet Xν of X is of the form
[TABLE]
where R=x∂x∂+y∂y∂ is the radial vector field and f=f(x,y) is a non-constant homogeneous polynomial of degree ν−1≥1.
Theorem 6**.**
If X has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 and is as above then C(X)=C.X.
Proof.
The proof will be based in the following lemma:
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let Z,W∈X2 be such that [W,Z]=0 and Π:(M,E)→(C2,0) be a blowing-up process, where E is the exceptional divisor.
Let FZ and FW denote the strict transforms of the foliations FZ and FW by Π, respectively.
Suppose that the exceptional divisor E has an irreducible component D such that:
(a).
D* is dicritical for FZ.*
(b).
Π∗(W)∣D≡0.
Then Z∧W≡0.
Proof.
Since D is dicritical for FZ, if we fix a generic point p∈D then there are local coordinates (U,(x,y)) around p such that
(i).
x(p)=y(p)=0 and E∩U=D∩U=(y=0).
(ii).
FZ is transverse to D at p.
In particular, the germ of FZ is represented by a vector field Z transverse to D at p.
After a local change of variables and taking a smaller U if necessary, we can assume that Z∣U=∂y∂.
Since Π∣U∖D is a biholomorphism, we must have Π∗(Z)∣U=φ∂y∂, where φ(q)=0 for all
q∈U∖D.
Now, let
[TABLE]
where A,B∈O(U). From [Z,W]=0 we get
[TABLE]
A direct computation shows that the component of ∂x∂ of [Π∗(Z),Π∗(W)] is ±φ.Ay, which implies that Ay=0 and A=A(x), so that Π∗(W)=A(x)∂x∂+B(x,y)∂y∂. Since Π∗(W)∣D≡0 we get A≡0, and so Π∗(Z)∧Π∗(W)=0 on U. But this implies Z∧W≡0.
∎As an application we will prove theorem 6 when po=0∈C2, that is when X=∑j≥νXj, where Xν=f.R, f homogeneous of degree ν−1≥1.
Corollary 3.6**.**
If X has a non purely radial singularity at 0∈C2 and [math] is an isolated singularity of X then C(X)=C.X.
Proof.
Fix Y∈C(X).
Let Π:(M,D)→(C2,0) be the blow-up at 0∈C2.
Then D is dicritical for Π∗(X). We will divide the proof in two cases:
1st* case:* μ(Y,0)≥2. In this case Π∗(Y)∣D≡0 and we can apply lemma 3.3 to show that
Y∧X≡0. Since X has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 we get Y=h.X, where h∈I(X). But since X is dicritical we get h∈C and Y∈C.X.
2nd* case:* μ(Y,0)=1. We will see that this is impossible.
In fact, in this case we have X∧Y=h.∂x∂∧∂y∂, where h(0)=0 and h≡0.
We have seen that any irreducible component of h is invariant by both vector fields X and Y.
Let g be an irreducible component of h. By lemma 3.1 there exists λ∈C such that Y−λX=g.Z, where Z∈X2.
Since μ(Y,0)=1 and μ(X,0)≥2 we get
[TABLE]
μ(g,0)=1 and μ(Z,0)=0, because g(0)=0 and g≡0. Since Z(0)=0, after a change of variables we can suppose that Z=∂x∂, so that Y−λ.X=g.∂x∂, where μ(g,0)=1. Let g1=ax+by be the linear part of g at 0∈C2. We assert that a=0 and b=0.
In fact, if a=0 then for some λ′=λ the origin will be a saddle-node of W:=Y−λ′X, but this is impossible: corollary 3.1 implies that W is holomorphically normalizable and in § 2.3 it is proved that the pencil generated by X and Y must be equivalent to
[TABLE]
but then ϵ=1 and X=Z0=xpR and [math] is not an isolated singularity of X.
Hence, a=0 and after dision by b we can assume that Y−λX=y∂x∂.
However, again by § 2.3, we must have X∈C{y}.⟨R,∂x∂⟩ which implies that X cannot have an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 with Xν=f.R, deg(f)≥1.
∎In the general case, the idea is similar.
Recall the blowing-up process of the resolution of singularities of X in (15) with r≥1 steps.
In the kth step Πk:(Mk,Ek)→(C2,0) we have called Fk the foliation induced by the strict transform Πk∗(X). From now on we will assume r≥2 and that the point po which is a n.p.r.s of Fs−1 appears in the (s−1)-step, where s≥2.
Fix Y∈C(X). Given 1≤m≤r let us denote by FmY the strict transform of the foliation defined by Y∗:=Πm∗(Y).
In order to apply lemma 3.3, we have to prove that it is possible to find a n.p.r.s po∈Sing(Fs−1) with the property that μ(Y∗,po)≥2. In this case, if we blow-up at po, Πs:(Ms,D)→(Ms−1,po) then D will be dicritical for Fs and Πs(Y∗)∣D≡0, so that we can apply lemma 3.3.
In order to simplify the proof we will assume the following about the blowing-up process:
•
When we pass from the (m−1)th step to the mth step by Πm:(Mm,Em)→(Mm−1,Em−1) we don’t blow-up at a point
q∈Sing(Fm−1) if it is a n.p.r.s or if it is purely radial.
In other words, the blow-up Πm is done at a point p∈Sing(Fm−1) only if it is not a simple singularity and if Π−1(p)=D⊂Em is a non-dicritical divisor for Fm.
Although the final foliation in this process has non-simple singularities, if Πn=Π1∘Π2∘...∘Πn:(Mn,En)→(C2,0)
is the final step, with this convention, then Fn satisfies the following:
All irreducible components of En are non-dicritical for Fn.
2.
A non-simple singularity p∈Sing(Fn) is, either purely radial, or n.p.r.s.
3.
Fn has at least one n.p.r.s, say po∈En.
If we suppose that 0∈C2 is not n.p.r.s then:
Claim 3.4**.**
We have two possibilities for X:
1st.
μ(X,0)≥2. In this case, in any step Πm:(Mm,Em)→(C2,0) of the blowing-up process, in all non-dicritical divisors D⊂Em we have Π∗(X)∣D≡0.
2nd.
μ(X,0)=1* and the linear part of X at [math] is nilpotent. Moreover, if D is a non-dicritical irreducible component of Em which is not the strict transform of E1 by*
[TABLE]
then Πm∗(X)∣D≡0.
Proof.
The 1st assertion is proved applying inductively lemma 3.2 in the process.
We leave the details for the reader.
On the other hand, if μ(X,0)=1, the first blow-up is not dicritical for X and λ1 and λ2 are the eigenvalues of DX(0) then:
(i).
If λ1,λ2=0 then in the process of resolution of X there is no n.p.r.s.
(ii).
If λ1=0 and λ2=0 then [math] is a saddle-node for X, which is not possible with our hypothesis.
Therefore, DX(0) is nilpotent and we can assume that DX(0)=y∂x∂.
In this case, in the first blow-up Π1:(M1,E1)→(C2,0) then Π1∗(X) has only one singularity at E1≃P1 corresponding to the direction p=(y=0). This singularity is of algebraic multiplicity μ(Π1∗(X),p)=2.
Therefore, the 2nd assertion is also consequence of lemma 3.2.
∎Now, given Y∈C(X) let FnY be as before, the strict transform of the foliation associated to Πn∗(Y).
Suppose, by contradiction that X∧Y≡0.
Note first that all irreducible components of En are non-dicritical for FnY.
Let us prove this fact.
Suppose first that μ(X,0)≥2. In this case, if D is an irreducible component of En then Πn∗(X)∣D≡0 by claim 3.4.
On the other hand, if D was dicritical for FnY then X∧Y≡0 by lemma 3.3, a contradiction.
Suppose now that μ(X,0)=1 and DX(0)=y∂x∂. Since Πn∗(X)∣D≡0 except for D1, the strict transform of E1, we conclude from lemma 3.3 that the unique irreducible component that could be dicritical for FnY is D1.
On the other hand, if D1 was dicritical for FnY then necessarily E1 is dicritical for the first blow-up of Y.
This implies that the first non-zero jet of Y is of the form Yk=g.R, where g is a homogeneous polynomial. The polynomial g is necessarily non constant, for otherwise by Poincaré linearization theorem we can assume that Y=R, which implies that X is a linear vector field contradicting the hypothesis. Now, with an argument similar to the 2nd case in the argument of the proof of corollary 3.6 it can be proved that this is impossible.
We leave the details for the reader.
∎Given an irreducible component D⊂Em we denote as μ(Y,D) (resp. μ(X,D)) the order of annihilation of Πm∗(Y) (resp. Πm∗(X)) along D. In other words, given p∈D and a local coordinate system (U,(x,y)) such that D∩U=(y=0) then μ(Y,D)=k if Πm∗(Y)=ykY where y∤Y.
We have the following:
Claim 3.5**.**
Let p∈D⊂Em. Assume that:
(a).
p* is not a singularity of FmY.*
(b).
μ(Y,D)=k≥0.
Then:
(1).
If k=0 then p is not a singularity of Fm.
(2).
If k≥1 and p∈Sing(Fm) then p is a non-degenerate singularity of Fm. Moreover, the germ of Fm at p is equivalent to the Poincaré-Dulac normal form (kx+α.yk)∂x∂+y∂y∂.
Proof.
Since D is non-dicritical for FmY and p∈/Sing(FmY) we can find a local coordinate system (U,(x,y)) around p such that D∩U=(y=0) and FmY is defined by Y=∂x∂.
Since μ(Y,D)=k, we can assume that Πm∗(Y)∣U=yk.∂x∂.
Let Π∗(X)∣U=yℓX, where ℓ≥0, X=A(x,y)∂x∂+B(x,y)∂y∂
and y∤X. From [Πm∗(X),Πm∗(Y)]=0 we get
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
As the reader can check directly, the last relation implies that Bx=0 and y.Ax=k.B, so that
[TABLE]
If k=0 then, either A(0)=0, or B(0)=0, because y∤X and so X(p)=0.
If k≥1 and p∈Sing(Fm) then a(0)=0 and b(0)=0, for otherwise y∣X.
In particular, the eigenvalues of DX(0) are b(0) and kb(0).
This implies the last assertion of (2).
∎
Corollary 3.7**.**
If in some step of the resolution of X, say Πm:(Mm,Em)→(Mm−1,Em−1), where 1≤m<n, we explode at a point p that is not a singularity of Fm−1Y then Πm∘...∘Πn(po)=p, where po∈En is the n.p.r.s singularity of Fn.
Proof.
The proof is by contradiction: if not, then let m be the smallest step in which we explode at a point p∈Em−1 which is not a singularity of Fm−1Y. Then, since p is a singularity of Fm−1, by claim 3.5 the germ of Fm−1 at p is represented by a vector field X which is equivalent to the Poincaré-Dulac normal form
[TABLE]
But when we continue the process after the resolution of X we don’t obtain any n.p.r.s singularity, a contradiction.
∎
Let us see how looks like Πm∗(Y) in a neighborhood of a point p∈Em, 1≤m≤n.
Denote as FmY the strict transform of FY by Πm.
For the first blow-up we have the following:
Claim 3.6**.**
(a).
If μ(X,0)≥2 and μ(Y,0)=1 then DY(0) is nilpotent.
(b).
If μ(X,0)=1 and DX(0) is nilpotent then DY(0) is also nilpotent and DY(0)∧DX(0)=0.
Proof.
Let DY(0)=S+N, where S=λ1x∂x∂+λ2y∂y∂ is semi-simple and N is nilpotent and [S,N]=0.
We assert that S=0.
In fact, suppose by contradiction that S=0. Let μ(X,0)=k and Xk=jk(X,0) be the first non-zero jet of X.
Note that
[TABLE]
Suppose first that k≥2. In this case, we must have λ1,λ2=0, for otherwise for α∈C∗ we have Z:=Y+α.X∈C(X) has a saddle-node at 0∈C2, which is not possible with our hypothesis.
On the other hand, if λ1,λ2=0, then [S,Xk]=0 implies that S has a resonance and necessarily, after multiplying by a constant is equivalent to either S=x∂x∂+ny∂y∂, n∈N, or to S=mx∂x∂−ny∂y∂, m,n∈N.
Let po∈En be the n.p.r.s singularity of Fn and consider the sequence of images of po
[TABLE]
By corollary 3.7 all points in the sequence are singularities of the strict transform of FY.
Given 1≤j≤n let Dj:=Πj−1(pn−j+1) be the irreducible component of Ej obtained in the blowing-up Πj.
We assert that μ(Πj∗(Y),pn−j)=1 and μ(Πj∗(Y),Dj)=0, 1≤j≤n.
The above assertion is consequence of the following:
A. When we blow-up a non-degenerated and non radial singularity of a germ at 0∈C2 of vector field Z, say by Π:(C2,D)→(C2,0), μ(Π∗(Z),D)=0 and we have two possibilites for the singularities of Π∗(Z):
A.1.
Π∗(Z) has two non-degenerated singularities in the divisor D.
A.2.
Π∗(Z) has only one singularity in D, which is saddle-node. This happens only when DZ(0) is equivalent to R+y∂x∂.
B. When we blow-up at a saddle-node then it appears two singularities at the divisor, one non-degenerated and the other a saddle-node.
If we apply A and B inductivelly we obtain the assertions. Moreover, at the end of the process the vector field Y∗:=Πn∗(Y) has, either a non-degenerated singularity, or a saddle-node at po. However this is not possible because Πn∗(X) has a n.p.r.s singularity at po, as the reader can check.
Suppose now that k=1. In this case DX(0) is nilpotent and we can assume that DX(0)=y∂x∂.
Since DY(0) and DX(0) commute we can write DY(0)=aR+bDX(0), R the radial vector field.
We assert that a=0.
In fact, if a=0 then by Poincaré’s linearization theorem we can assume that Y=a.R+bDX(0).
However, in this case X cannot satisfy hypothesis (3) (see § 2.3).
Therefore, DY(0) is nilpotent and DX(0)∧DY(0)=0.
∎
Now, let po∈En be a n.p.r.s: the germ at po of Fn is defined by X, where the first non-zero jet of X is Xk=f.R, f homogeneous of degree ν−1≥1.
In order to apply lemma 3.3 it is suficient to prove that μ(Πn∗(Y),po)≥2.
Note that, in principle, po could be a pole of Πn∗(Y), if at some steps of the process we had blow-up at points that are not singularities of strict transform of FY.
However, this doesn’t happens by corollary 3.7.
Proof that μ(Πn∗(Y),po)≥2. Suppose by contradition that μ(Πn∗(Y),po)=1.
Recall that po∈Sing(FnY) by corollary 3.7.
This implies that po is an isolated singularity of Πn∗(Y):=Y, so that Y defines the germ at po of FnY.
Choose coordinates (U,(x,y)) such that x(po)=y(po)=0 and
(iii).
po∈D, where D is an irreducible component of En. Moreover, D∩U=(y=0) and μ(Πn∗(X),D)=k≥0.
(iv).
The germ of Fn is defined by X∈X2 where jν(X)=Xν=f.R, where f is homogeneous of degree ν−1.
Moreover, Πn∗(X)=ykX.
(v).
Y=A(x,y)∂x∂+B(x,y)∂y∂, where DY(0)=0. We have seen before that DY(0) is nilpotent, so that we can suppose that DY(0)=y∂x∂.
Since [Πn∗(X),Y]=0, if we set Πn∗(X)∧Y=g.∂x∂∧∂y∂, then any irreducible component of g is Y and Πn∗(X) invariant.
Let h be an irreducible component of g. Then there exists λ∈C such that h∣Y−λ.Πn∗(X):
[TABLE]
From the above relation we get
[TABLE]
As in the proof of corollary 3.6 we can assume that Z=∂x∂ (recall that D is non-dicritical for Y) and h=y.
The vector field Πn∗(X) in the new coordinate system can still be written as ykX where 0=po is an isolated singularity of X, as the reader can check.
In particular,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
but then po cannot be a singularity of the type n.p.r.s.
This finishes the proof of theorem 6.
∎We have the following consequence of theorem 6:
Corollary 3.8**.**
Let X∈X2 be a dicritical vector field with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2 such that r(X)=2.
Let Π:(M,E)→(C2,0) be the minimal resolution of the singularities of X and Di⊂E be a dicritical divisor of E.
Then Di2=−1 (the self intersection number) and Di is obtained by the blowing-up of a purely radial singularity on a non-dicritical divisor of the previous step of the resolution.
Another interesting result is the following:
Proposition 11**.**
Let X∈X2 be a dicritical vector field with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.
Asume that DX(0) is nilpotent. If r(X)=2 then d(X)=2.
Proof.
As in the proof of theorem 6, consider the blowing-up process Πr=Π1∘...∘Πr:(Mr,Er)→(C2,0) as in 15.
By theorem 6 during the process it never appears a n.p.r.s singularity.
As a consequence, there is at least a dicritical exceptional divisor D⊂Er such that D2=−1, which was obtained by blowing-up at a purely radial singularity on a non-dicritical divisor of a previous step.
Without lost of generality, we will assume that D=Πr−1(po), where po∈D′⊂En, n=r−1, is the purely radial singularity, and D′ is the irreducible component of En that contains po.
Given 1≤m≤n, set as before Πm=Π1∘...∘Πm:(Mm,Em)→(C2,0) and let Fm be the strict transform of FX at the level m: Πm=Πm∗(FX).
Remark 3.6**.**
If D′⊂En is the irreducible component that contains po then μ(Πn∗(X),D′)≥1.
This is a direct consequence of claim 3.4.**
Claim 3.7**.**
There are coordinates (U,(x,y)) around po such that:
D′∩U=(y=0)* and x(po)=y(po)=0.*
2.
Πn∗(X)=yk.R, where k=μ(Πn∗(X),D′)≥1 and R is the radial vector field.
Proof.
Let (U′,(u,v)) be local coordinates such that u(po)=v(po)=0 and D′∩U′=(v=0).
Since μ(Πn∗(X),D′)=k we can write Πn∗(X)=vk.X, where v∤X.
By assumption DX(0)=αR, where α=0, so that by Poincaré’s linearization theorem, after a change of variables, we can assume that X=αR, D′∩U′=(v=0) and Πn∗(X)=ϕ.vk.R, where ϕ(0)=0.
If we consider a change of variables of the form h(u,v)=(ρ.u,ρ.v)=(x,y), where ρ(0)=0, then
[TABLE]
Now, we use the fact that the differential equation R(ρ)+ρ=ϕ−1ρk+1 has a solution ρ such that ρk(0)=ϕ(0).
We leave the details for the reader.
∎Now, let Y∈C(X) be such that X∧Y≡0.
We can assume that [math] is an isolated singularity of Y: if not then instead of Y take Y′=Y+α.X, where α=0.
Denote as FmY the strict transform of Πm∗(FY) on Mm, where F0=FY.
As before, consider the sequence of images of po:
[TABLE]
Note that pn−m∈Em if 1≤m≤n.
Define S(Y)={m∣0≤m≤n and pn−m∈Sing(FmY)}.
Claim 3.8**.**
There exists 0<ℓ<n such that S(Y)={k∣0≤k≤ℓ}. Moroever μ(Πn∗(Y),D)=1.
In other words po∈/Sing(FnY) and Πn∗(Y)=y.Y, where Y(po)=0 and (y=0) is a local equation on D′.
Proof.
Of course 0=pn∈Sing(FY). We will prove at the end that S(Y)={0,...,n}. Assuming that S(Y)={0,...,n}, there exists 0≤m<n such that 0,...,m−1∈S(Y), but m∈/S(Y).
Let Y and X be germs at pn−m of vector fields representing FmY and Fm, respectively.
By claim 3.5, there are local coordinates (U,(u,v)) around pn−m and ℓ≥1 such that u(pn−m)=v(pn−m)=0 and
(i).
Em∩U=(v=0).
(ii).
Y=∂u∂ and Πm∗(Y)=vℓ.Y.
(iii).
X=(ℓ.u+αvℓ)∂u∂+v∂v∂.
Note that α=0 because otherwise the singularity pn−m would not be dicritical.
Following the resolution of ℓ.u∂u∂+v∂v∂, we see that the radial singularity po appears after ℓ−1 blowing-ups and m=n−ℓ+1.
Moreover, the composition Π:=Πn−ℓ+2∘...∘Πn:(Mn,po)→(Mn−ℓ+1,pn−m) in the chart that appears the radial singularity po is of the form Π(x,y)=(x.yℓ−1,y)=(u,v) with inverse Π−1(u,v)=(u/vℓ−1,v)=(x,y).
It follows that
[TABLE]
This proves (b).
It remains to prove that S(Y)={0,...,n}.
Suppose by contradiction that S(Y)={0,...,n}.
In this case, all points in the sequence p0,...,pn are singularities of the strict transform of FY.
Note that DY(0) is nilpotent. The proof of this fact is similar to the proof of claim 3.6. We leave the details for the reader.
Since all points of the sequence are singularities of the strict transform of FY, when we apply lemma 3.2 inductively we find that μ(Πm∗(Y),pn−m)≥2 if 1≤m≤n. In particular, μ(Πn∗(Y),po)≥2. This implies that when we apply the blowing-up Πn+1:(Mr,D)→(Mn,po) then we have Πn+1∗Πn∗(Y)∣D≡0, which is impossible by lemma 3.3.
∎Let us finish the proof of proposition 11.
Let (U,(x,y)) be a coordinate system around po as in claim 3.7:
(I).
x(po)=y(po)=0 and D′∩U=(y=0).
(II).
Πn∗(X)=yk.R.
We assert that
[TABLE]
In fact, let Z∈C(ykR) and write Z=∑j≥0Zj where Zj is homogeneous of degre j≥0.
From [Z,yk.R]=0 we get
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
From (17) we get Z0=0 and Zj∧R=0 if j≥2.
In particular, we can write Z=Z1+h.R, where h∈O2 and h(0)=0.
Note that the term of degree 2 of the right side of (17) vanishes and this implies that Z1(y)=0 so that Z1=(αx+βy)∂x∂ and [Z1,ykR]=0. It follows that
[TABLE]
From the above we can assume that Πn∗(Y)=y∂x∂+cykR, where c∈C.
Let W∈C(X) with W∧X=0. Since Πn∗(W)∣D′≡0, by the above argument we must have
[TABLE]
where g is homogeneous of degree k. Since W−αY∈C(X) and Πn∗(W−αY)∧R≡0 we obtain (W−αY)∧X≡0.
Therefore W=αY+βX, β∈C.
This finishes the proof of proposition 11.
∎
Example 11**.**
An example satisfying proposition 11 is X=y∂x∂+xnR, R the radial vector field.
Note that X is dicritical because admits the meromorphic first integral yn1−n+1n(yx)n+1.
In this case we have C(X)=⟨X,ynR⟩.**
As a consequence of proposition 11, we have the following:
Corollary 3.9**.**
Let X∈X2 be a dicritical germ of vector field with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2.
Then d(X)≤4. Moreover:
(a).
If d(X)=3 then X is equivalent, modulo a multiplicative constant, to x∂x∂+ny∂y∂ where n∈N∖{1}.
(b).
If d(X)=4 then X is equivalent, modulo a multiplicative constant, to the radial vector field.
Proof.
By proposition 11 if r(X)=2 and d(X)>2 then DX(0) cannot be nilpotent.
Since X is dicritical and cannot have a saddle-node at the origin 0∈C2, we obtain that the semi-simple part of DX(0), after multiplication by a constant, is of the form mx∂x∂+ny∂y∂, where m,n∈N and gcd(m,n)=1.
In fact, from Poincaré’s linearization and Poincaré-Dulac theorems we can assume that, after multiplication by a constant, that X is conjugated to one of the following vector fields:
mx∂x∂+ny∂y∂, where 1<m<n. In this case we have d(X)=2 (see § 2.3).
2.
x∂y∂+ny∂y∂, n>1. In this case we have d(X)=3.
3.
X=R, the radial vector field. In this case we have d(X)=4.
Therefore, the corollary is a direct consequence of the examples in § 2.3.
∎Another consequence of theorem 6 and of proposition 11 is the following:
Corollary 3.10**.**
Let X∈X2 with an isolated singularity at 0∈C2. If d(X)>4 then X has a non-constant holomorphic first integral.
In particular d(X)=∞.
Proof.
Note first that X cannot be dicritical by corollary 3.9, because d(X)>4.
Moreover, d(X)>2≥r(X) and X has a non-constant meromorphic first integral by proposition 2.
In particular, all leaves of FX are closed and since X is non-dicritical it has a non-constant holomorphic first integral by [14].
∎
Remark 3.7**.**
When the origin is not an isolated singularity of X∈X2 then d(X) can be arbitrarily large and finite.
An example is Xk=(xy)k.R, where R=x∂x∂+y∂y∂ is the radial vector field.
It can be checked that
[TABLE]
which has dimension d(X)=2k+2 (see also example 4 in § 2.1).**
This motivates the following:
Problem 5**.**
Let X∈X2 with d(X)=∞ and non-isolated singularity at 0∈C2. Is I(X)=C ?**
Remark 3.8**.**
Example 10 with n≥2 has two distinguished separatrices: (x=0) and (y=0). In fact, consider the pencil of commuting vector fields Xλ=xn∂x∂+λyn∂y∂, λ∈C∗. Then (xn−1−λyn−1)/xn−1yn−1 is a first integral of Xλ. In particular, if λ=0,1 then the unique commom separatrices of X1=X and Xλ are the curves (x=0) and (y=0).
If λ=0, when we blow-up once at 0∈C2, Π:(C2,D)→(C2,0), the strict transform Fλ of the foliation defined by Π∗(Xλ) has n+1 singularities, all non-degenerated, two of them are non-dicritical and the others dicritical. The non-dicritical singularities correspond to the directions (x=0) and (y=0) and don’t change with the parameter. The dicritical singularities move along the divisor D with the parameter λ. If n=2 the dicritical singularity is purely radial, whereas if n>2 then at any dicritical singularity the foliation Fλ has a meromorphic first integral which in some cordinate system (u,v) is of the form vn−1/u, where the local equation of D is v=0.
This motivates the following:
Problem 6**.**
Is the above situation general?
More specifically, suppose that X∈X2 is dicritical, has an isolated singularity at 0∈C2, μ(X,0)≥2 and r(X)=2. Let Y∈C(X) such that X∧Y=0 and consider the pencil λ↦Xλ:=X+λY.
1st question: is there a blowing-up process Π:(M,E)→(C2,0), where E has an irreducible component D which contains movables non-degenerated singularities with local meromorphic first integrals?
2nd question: does there exists a holomorphic family λ↦fλ of non-constant meromorphic first integrals: Xλ(fλ)=0?**
Bibliography16
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Brunella, M.: "Birational geometry of foliations"; First Latin American Congress of Mathematics, IMPA (2000).
2[2] Camacho, C. & Sad, P.: "Invariant varieties through singularities of holomorphic vector fields"; Ann. of Math. 115 (1982), pg. 579-595.
3[3] Camacho, C. & Lins Neto, A. & Sad, P.: "Topological invariants and equidesingularization for holomorphic vector fields"; J. of Diff. Geometry, vol. 20, n o 1 (1984), pg. 143–174.
4[4] Cerveau, D. & Mattei, J. F.: "Formes intégrables holomorphes singulières"; Astérisque, vol.97 (1982).
5[5] Coutinho, S. C. & Pereira, J. V.: "On the density of algebraic foliations without algebraic invariant sets"; J. Reine Angew. Math. 594 (2006)
6[6] Erdmann, K. & Wilder, M.: "Introduction to Lie algebras"; Springler, 2006.
7[7] Guillemin, V. W., and Sternberg, S.: "Remarks on a paper of Hermann"; Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.130(1968), 110 - 116.
8[8] Hermann, R.: "The formal linearization of a semisimple Lie algebra of vector fields about a singular point"; Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.130(1968) 105 105 105 - 109 109 109 .