A discriminant criterion for the two dimensional Jacobian problem (Q752091)

There are some gaps in the paper under review. To indicate them, let us formulate the main result. Let \(f\in {\mathbb{C}}[X,Y]\). Define \(f_{\lambda}:=f+\lambda\), \(\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\), and let \(F^*_{\lambda}(X,Y,Z)\) be the homogenization of \(f_{\lambda}\). By \(\Delta_ X(f_{\lambda})(Y,\lambda)\) we denote the discriminant of \(f_{\lambda}\) with respect to X. The author's main theorem is: If f,g\(\in {\mathbb{C}}[X,Y]\), \(Jac(f,g)=1\) and f satisfies the conditions: (a) \(f(0,0)=0,\) (b) the degree form of f is equal to \(X^ n\) for some \(n\geq 2,\) (c) f has no multiple factors, then the following conditions are equivalent: (i) f,g is a polynomial automorphism of \({\mathbb{C}}^ n,\) (ii) f has only one point at infinity, (iii) f has only one place at infinity, (iv) \(D_{\lambda}:=\{f^*_{\lambda}(X,1,Z)=0\}\), \(\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\) is an equisingular family (in the sense of Zariski) of plane algebroid curves at \(P=(0,0)\) (v) the Y-degree of \(\Delta_ X(f_{\lambda})\) is independent of \(\lambda\). Now the remarks: 1. \(Jac(f,g)=1\) immediately implies (c), 2. (b) implies (ii) (by definition), 3. For the equivalence (i)\(\Leftrightarrow\)(ii)\(\Leftrightarrow\)(iii), the author wrongly cites theorem 19.4 in a paper by \textit{S. S. Abhyankar} [``Expansion techniques in algebraic geometry'' (Tata Inst. Fundamental Res. Bombay 1977)]. If (i)\(\Leftarrow\)(ii) were true, then it would imply in a simple way the jacobian conjecture. 4. However, the equivalence (i)\(\Leftrightarrow\)(iii) can easily be deduced from corollary 3.14 in Singularities, Summer Inst., Arcata/Calif. 1981, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 40, Part 1, 353-359 (1983; Zbl 0537.14020) by \textit{R. Ephraim}. 5. In the proof of (iii)\(\Rightarrow\)(iv) the author applies with no justification the fact that if (iii) holds for f, then it holds for any \(f_{\lambda}\), \(\lambda\in {\mathbb{C}}\) [it is a theorem of \textit{T. T. Moh} in Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 44, 22-24 (1974; Zbl 0309.14011)]. So, we can conclude that, with the above remarks, conditions (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) are equivalent.