Differential invariance of the multiplicity of real and complex analytic sets (Q2075314)

This paper is concerned with proving a real analytic counterpart of a result proved in [\textit{Y. N. Gau} and \textit{J. Lipman}, Invent. Math. 73, 165--188 (1983; Zbl 0498.32003)] on the differential invariance of the multiplicity of complex analytic sets. Specifically, the result proved by Gau and Lipman states that if \(X, Y \subset \mathbb{C}^n \) are two complex analytic sets, and \( \varphi : (\mathbb{C}^n, X, 0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{C}^n, Y, 0) \) is a homeomorphism such that \( \varphi\) and \(\varphi^{-1} \) have a derivative at the origin (when considered as mappings from \( (\mathbb{R}^{2n}, 0) \) to \( (\mathbb{R}^{2n}, 0)\)), then \( m(X, 0) = m(Y, 0) \), where \( m(X, 0), m(Y, 0) \) denote the multiplicity of \(X\) and \(Y\) at zero respectively. In the real case, as demonstrated by Example 3.6 in the paper, a similar result with \( \mathbb{C} \) replaced by \( \mathbb{R} \) yielding equality of multiplicities cannot be obtained. This paper establishes an real analogue of Gau and Lipman's result for differential invariance of multiplicities modulo 2. This result, Corollary 3.2, is obtained as a consequence of the more general result, Theorem 3.1, which states that if \( X, Y \subset \mathbb{R}^N \) are two real analytic sets with \( 0 \in X \cap Y \), and there exists a mapping \( \varphi: (\mathbb{R}^N, 0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^N, 0) \) such that \( \varphi|_X: (X, 0) \rightarrow (Y, 0) \) is a homeomorphism with a derivative at the origin that is an isomorphism, then \( m(X) \equiv m(Y) \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2\). This is one of the main results of the paper. Significantly, using the techniques used to prove Theorem 3.1, the author also manages to obtain, in the case of complex analytic sets, a generalization (Theorem 4.1) of Gau and Lipman's result. In Theorem 4.1, the condition imposed on the multiplicity preserving map \( \varphi \) in the statement of Gau and Lipman's result (i.e., of being a homeomorphism such that both \( \varphi \) and \( \varphi^{-1} \) have derivatives at the origin) is replaced by the complex analogue of the weaker condition appearing in Theorem 3.1. The author shows in Example 4.2, that Theorem 4.1 is indeed a generalization, by demonstrating its application to a situation which does not satisfy the hypotheses of Gau and Lipman's result.