Talk:Function of several complex variables: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
 
(116 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{mathsWikiProject ratingbanner shell|class=Start|importance=Mid|field=analysis}}
{{WikiProject Mathematics|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{merged-from|Reinhardt ___domain|2020-11-20}}
{{merged-from|Holomorphically convex hull|2020-11-25}}
{{Archives}}
 
== I'm considering merge the ___domain of holomorphy into Several complex variables, but the ___domain of holomorphy (theory) may be the title of this page ==
== Vote for new external link ==
 
The reason for branching into several complex variables from the trunk of complex analysis is that, unlike the case of one variable, the boundaries of all domains do not always become natural boundaries. I think the purpose of this page is to explain the mathematical elements that have become the elements that branch off from the trunk of complex analysis into several complex variables. This mathematical element seems to be called the ___domain of holomorphy, and since holomorphically convex and local Levi property etc. are conditions that make it a ___domain of holomorphy (And the theory of sheaf seems to be used to elucidate this condition. ), it seemed like we could read the ___domain of holomorphy as the theory that led to the branching of several complex variables from the trunk complex analysis. However, on the contrary, it seems good to rename the title of this page to the ___domain of holomorphy (theory). The lack of a page called several complex variables in [[Encyclopedia of Mathematics|EOM]] makes me think about this. The title of the textbook uses several complex variables, so my idea may be off the mark. thanks!--[[User:SilverMatsu|SilverMatsu]] ([[User talk:SilverMatsu|talk]]) 05:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's my website full of example problems from complex variables. Someone please put it in the external links section if you think it's helpful!
 
I forgot to say it. Redirecting to the title of this page instead of section redirecting to the ___domain of holomorphy is also a suggestion choice.--[[User:SilverMatsu|SilverMatsu]] ([[User talk:SilverMatsu|talk]]) 05:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Complex_Variables
: Not relevant, the link is about 1 variable, not several, like this article. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:Agree with Oleg — not relevant. - [[User:Gauge|Gauge]] 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:I don't think I agree with the assertion that several complex variables is distinct from complex analysis in one variable only in the sense that it is the study of domains of holomorphy/Stein manifolds. The interesting phenomena that occur in several complex variables are fundamentally important to the study of compact complex manifolds and projective complex varieties for example, and has a different flavour to complex analytic geometry in <math>\mathbb{C}^n</math> or on Stein manifolds, which is what the current lead gives most of its weight to.
:: When ''several complex'' people agree on the same thing, it must be true! :) [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 02:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:I don't think it is standard anywhere to refer to the theory of complex functions of several variables as "domains of holomorphy theory" so Wikipedia should definitely avoid presenting that as the main name of the subject. As you point out however, people do refer to "several complex variables" and that is the title of the main book on the subject, so that is surely the better name for the article. I think we probably agree that the area is different enough in flavour to complex analysis of a single variable that it deserves its own article. I wouldn't be opposed to merging with [[complex analysis]], which is quite a thin article, but I don't think there is any particular need to. In particular I think complex analysis of a single variable gets a very different (and much broader) treatment pedagogically, and that is an article looked at frequently by people who are not pure mathematicians interested in several complex variables (engineers, physicists) and presenting all the definitions on that page in their largest generality would serve more to obfuscate the point rather than elucidate it for most visitors. Just my two cents. Thank you for improving the articles in complex analysis! [[User:Tazerenix|Tazerenix]] ([[User talk:Tazerenix|talk]]) 05:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
== Deformations of complex structures ==
::Thank you very much for teaching me. Thanks for giving me many interesting examples of other manifolds. Sure, it seems too narrow, so I turn the suggestion into a section redirect to the ___domain of holomorphism. Then, I will modify the lead sentence and correct it to say, "One of the reasons why this field has come to be studied is that the boundary does not become a natural boundary." thanks!--[[User:SilverMatsu|SilverMatsu]] ([[User talk:SilverMatsu|talk]]) 08:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
::Withdraw from merge the ___domain of holomorphy. I might suggest merging conditions that are equivalent to the ___domain of holomorphy, but I thought that should be considered on the ___domain of holomorphy. Writing the ___domain of holomorphy on this page has no effect on withdrawal. thanks!--[[User:SilverMatsu|SilverMatsu]] ([[User talk:SilverMatsu|talk]]) 13:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 
== A memo about the structure of the section ==
On the sixth paragraph (the one that starts "from this points onwards there was a foundational theory...") mentions deformation theory of complex structures. Why is this on the foundations of the theory? I would find it quite interesting if a reason for the study of deformations of complex structures was given - and why it is considered to be one of the pillars (foundations) of the subject.
 
The [https://math.berkeley.edu/courses/choosing/course-descriptions#math212 course catalog]. --[[User:SilverMatsu|SilverMatsu]] ([[User talk:SilverMatsu|talk]]) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would also find it quite nice if some applications of several complex variables to PDEs were mentioned.
 
== Is this right? ==
I think that if this, quite nice, entry on several complex variables would include these two things, it would become even more enlightening.
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:155.198.157.113|155.198.157.113]] ([[User talk:155.198.157.113|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/155.198.157.113|contribs]]) 18:57, 21 July 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 
The section '''Stein manifold''' begins as follows:
== Typesetting reversion ==
 
"''Since a non-compact (open) Riemann surface always has a non-constant single-valued holomorphic function, and satisfies the [[second axiom of countability]], the open Riemann surface can be thought of ''1''-dimensional complex manifold to have a holomorphic embedding into a complex plane <math>\Complex</math>.''"
I {{diff|title=Several_complex_variables|diff=560297495|oldid=555819538|label=reverted}} since there was an inconsistent mixture of typography: LaTeX ''and'' {{tl|bigmath}}/{{tl|math}} for inline and displayed formulae. The IP cleaned up the mixture. I'll check in detail if there were any typos the IP introduced in his/her {{diff|title=Several_complex_variables|diff=555807195|oldid=554851354|label=edit}}, which may have motivated {{diff|title=Several_complex_variables|diff=555819538|oldid=555807195|label=this reversion}} by Incnis Mrsi. [[user:Maschen|'''M&and;''Ŝ''''']][[special:contributions/Maschen|''c''<sup>2</sup>''ħ''ε]][[user talk:maschen|''И<sub>τlk</sub>'']] 14:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
: Could you look for [[user talk:99.241.86.114|IP’s user_talk]] before igniting an edit war? {{visible anchor|I}} reverted and will revert unconditionally an illegible crap like “−[[identity matrix|''I'']]”. The “[[imaginary unit]] ''i''” also looks ugly, although I would not revert it were this one the only degradation. BTW, I do not see anything bad with “LaTeX ''and'' {{tl|bigmath}}/{{tl|math}} mixture of typography”: the purpose of &#123;{math}} is namely to match appearance of &lt;math> more closely than wiki code does. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|talk]]) 14:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 
But wait. A holomorphic embedding is certainly also a topological embedding. But most non-compact surfaces do not have any topological embeddings into the complex plane.
::But the fonts in {{tl|math}} are still different to LaTeX and people think it's jarring. I anticipated you'd say all this. Which is why, if there are no edit conflicts, I'll insert {{tl|math}} uniformly inline leaving LaTeX displayed. [[user:Maschen|'''M&and;''Ŝ''''']][[special:contributions/Maschen|''c''<sup>2</sup>''ħ''ε]][[user talk:maschen|''И<sub>τlk</sub>'']] 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
: Also, consult [[WP:MOSMATH #Blackboard bold]] please. There are plenty of article where formatting is really poor. Why people like you and 99.241.86.114 start quarrels over typesetting preferences in relatively clean articles? [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|talk]]) 14:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 
For instance, the torus with one point removed (the "punctured torus") has no topological embedding into the plane.
:::I ''don't'' want to start an edit war, nor quarrel over my own preferences, just trying to to clean up the silly mix is all. You say this is a "relatively clean" article when LaTeX, HTML, and WP templates are used all over the place (LaTeX is inline and {{tl|math}} displayed). As for the pointer to [[WP:MOSMATH]], the article has a mix of '''C'''<sup>''n''</sup> and <math>\mathbb{C}^n</math>, so tried to make them all consistent as blackboard bold - if others insist they could all be changed to bold after. [[user:Maschen|'''M&and;''Ŝ''''']][[special:contributions/Maschen|''c''<sup>2</sup>''ħ''ε]][[user talk:maschen|''И<sub>τlk</sub>'']] 15:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
:::: I do not obstruct any change which unambiguously improves at least something and does not make any [[#I|demonstrable harm]] to the rest of code. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|talk]]) 15:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 
Question: Is it possible that the phrase "holomorphic embedding" should be replaced with '''holomorphic immersion'''? Or just '''holomorphic mapping'''? [[Special:Contributions/2601:200:C000:1A0:9AE:98DB:C7E0:3910|2601:200:C000:1A0:9AE:98DB:C7E0:3910]] ([[User talk:2601:200:C000:1A0:9AE:98DB:C7E0:3910|talk]]) 17:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I tried again in this {{diff|title=Several_complex_variables|diff=560428284|oldid=560304511|label=edit}}, and assumed bold was the preference instead of blackboard bold for the real and complex number sets . [[user:Maschen|'''M&and;''Ŝ''''']][[special:contributions/Maschen|''c''<sup>2</sup>''ħ''ε]][[user talk:maschen|''И<sub>τlk</sub>'']] 10:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 
:Apparently Gunning and Narasimhan proved that every non-compact Riemann surface '''does''' in fact '''immerse''' in the complex plane.
== Too technical ==
:(R. C. Gunning and Raghavan Narasimhan, Immersion of open Riemann surfaces, Math. Annalen 174 (1967), 103–108.)
:Therefore I will correct the text to reflect this fact. [[Special:Contributions/2601:200:C000:1A0:9AE:98DB:C7E0:3910|2601:200:C000:1A0:9AE:98DB:C7E0:3910]] ([[User talk:2601:200:C000:1A0:9AE:98DB:C7E0:3910|talk]]) 18:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 
== Please say what you mean by superscript n ==
I hope it's OK that I added the "technical" template at the top of the article. The reason is that the article doesn't give an overview that's comprehensible to someone who isn't already quite familiar with the subject. The lead is fine, but the next paragraph assumes intimate familiarity with the subject. The article could really do with a first section that introduces the subject to someone who's familiar with the prerequisites (e.g. single-variable complex analysis, multivariable real calculus) but who hasn't studied multivariable calculus ''per se''. (Unfortunately I cannot write such a section, as I am a member of this target audience.) [[User:Nathanielvirgo|Nathaniel Virgo]] ([[User talk:Nathanielvirgo|talk]]) 13:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 
:You need to be still more specific. The paragraph following the lead is in the history section. Such a section is not even intended to be understood mathematically (for those unfamiliar with the subject). The section after that is on {{math|ℂ<sup>''n''</sup>}}. Is it here you get stuck? [[User:YohanN7|YohanN7]] ([[User talk:YohanN7|talk]]) 16:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition of a '''coherent sheaf''' is given as follows:
 
"''A '''coherent sheaf''' on a [[ringed space]] <math>(X, \mathcal O_X)</math> is a sheaf <math>\mathcal F</math> satisfying the following two properties:
<ol type="1">
<li> <math>\mathcal F</math> is of ''finite type'' over <math>\mathcal O_X</math>, that is, every point in <math>X</math> has an [[open neighborhood]] <math>U</math> in <math>X</math> such that there is a surjective morphism <math>\mathcal{O}_X^n|_{U} \to \mathcal{F}|_{U} </math> for some natural number <math>n</math>;</li>
<li> for arbitrary open set <math>U\subseteq X</math>, arbitrary natural number <math>n</math>, and arbitrary morphism <math>\varphi: \mathcal{O}_X^n|_{U} \to \mathcal{F}|_{U} </math> of <math>\mathcal O_X</math>-modules, the kernel of <math>\varphi</math> is of finite type.''"</li></ol>
 
But what does the superscript n mean in the symbol "<math>\mathcal{O}_X^n|_{U}</math>"?
 
The article does not say, and nothing in the linked article [[ringed space]] uses this notation.
 
I can guess two distinct possibilities for what "<math>\mathcal{O}_X^n|_{U}</math>" means.
 
I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can explain the notation and avoid having thousands of future readers of Wikipedia also have to guess what it means. [[Special:Contributions/2601:200:C082:2EA0:E1A8:CCAE:61A1:827C|2601:200:C082:2EA0:E1A8:CCAE:61A1:827C]] ([[User talk:2601:200:C082:2EA0:E1A8:CCAE:61A1:827C|talk]]) 02:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 
== Bad English and grammar ==
 
Someone please proofread this article. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:6B6F:E98D:400:9BF:E37:5EAC:CB2C|2A02:6B6F:E98D:400:9BF:E37:5EAC:CB2C]] ([[User talk:2A02:6B6F:E98D:400:9BF:E37:5EAC:CB2C|talk]]) 22:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)