scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2079447
The authors survey some results on the holomorphic equivalence and formal equivalence of real submanifolds in \({\mathbb C}^n\). There are two major developments on normal forms of real submanifolds in \({\mathbb C}^n\): the \textit{S. S. Chern} and \textit{J. K. Moser} normal form for real analytic smooth hypersurfaces [Acta Math. 133 (1974), 219--271 (1975; Zbl 0302.32015)] and the \textit{J. K. Moser} and \textit{S. M. Webster} normal form for real surfaces in \({\mathbb C}^2\) [Acta Math. 150, 255--296 (1983; Zbl 0519.32015)]. One distinguishing feature between those two normal forms is that the Moser-Webster normal form is associated with real surfaces which have a non-exceptional Bishop invariant, in particular for non CR surfaces. The results on the convergence of normalization are strikingly different. Moser and Webster showed that whether the normal form can be realized by convergent transformations or not is completely determined by a pair of involutions intrinsically attached to the real submanifold, when its Bishop invariant is non-zero. They also found a real algebraic surface in \({\mathbb C}^2\) with a hyperbolic complex tangent point that is formally but not holomorphic equivalent to their (algebraic) normal form. On the other hand, the Chern-Moser normal form can always be realized by convergent transformations. The proof of Chern and Moser on the convergence of normalization is by no means simple. In fact, the second proof, under the additional assumption that the normal form itself is convergent, was given by \textit{M. S. Baouendi, P. Ebenfelt} and \textit{L. P. Rothschild} [Asian J. Math. 1, No. 1, 1--16 (1997; Zbl 0943.32021)]. The authors focus on the theory developed along the lines of work of Baouendi, Ebenfelt and Rothschild. Here the main questions are the following two: If a formal map of the ambient space sends a real analytic CR submanifold into another one of the same dimension, is the formal map actually convergent? If the answer is in the negative, is there a convergent one identifying the two real analytic CR submanifolds? The first question is already meaningful after ruling out some simple situations. The questions remain open in general. However, many positive results have been obtained by the authors and their coauthors. The survey is well-written. The authors formulate several conjectures, indicating directions present results might give rise to. For the entire collection see [Zbl 1027.00017].
- A Bishop surface with a vanishing Bishop invariant
- On formal maps between generic submanifolds in complex space
- Convergence of formal CR mappings into strongly pseudoconvex Cauchy-Riemann manifolds
- Normal forms in Cauchy-Riemann geometry
- Algebraic approximation in CR geometry
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2138214 (Why is no real title available?)
- Local equivalence problems for real submanifolds in complex spaces
- A note on CR mappings of positive codimension
- Formal versus analytic CR mappings
- Remarks on the rigidity of CR-manifolds
This page was built for publication:
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4471407)
