License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2401.06364v2 [math.CV] 10 Apr 2024

Proper maps of ball complements & differences and rational sphere maps

Abdullah Al Helal Department of Mathematics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-5061 [email protected] ,Β  JiΕ™Γ­ Lebl Department of Mathematics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-5061 [email protected] Β andΒ  Achinta Kumar Nandi Department of Mathematics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-5061 [email protected]
(Date: April 10, 2024)
Abstract.

We consider proper holomorphic maps of complements and differences of balls in complex euclidean space of dimension at least 2222. We prove that every proper map of ball complements gives a polynomial proper map of balls, and conversely, every polynomial proper map of balls whose norm goes to infinity at infinity is a proper map of ball complements. The case of ball differences is more complex and naturally leads to what we call rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere maps, that is, rational maps taking mπ‘šmitalic_m zero-centric spheres to mπ‘šmitalic_m zero-centric spheres. A proper map of the difference of zero-centric balls is automatically a rational 2222-fold sphere map. We show that a polynomial mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m or less is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map, that is, a map that takes infinitely many (and hence every) zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. Similarly, every rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map of degree less than mπ‘šmitalic_m is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. We then show that ∞\infty∞-fold sphere maps are up to a unitary transformation direct sums of a finite number of homogeneous sphere maps. We construct rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold degree-mπ‘šmitalic_m sphere maps that do not take any other zero-centric sphere to a zero-centric sphere. In particular, every first-degree rational proper map of the difference of zero-centric balls is a unitary composed with an affine linear embedding; however, there exist nonpolynomial second-degree rational maps of a difference of balls.

Key words and phrases:
rational sphere maps, proper holomorphic map**s
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
32H35, 32A08, 32H02
The second author was in part supported by Simons Foundation collaboration grant 710294.

1. Introduction

Studying proper holomorphic maps between domains is a common problem in several complex variables. In general, such maps do not exist unless we choose specific domains. If the domain has many symmetries, such as the unit ball 𝔹nβŠ‚β„‚nsubscript𝔹𝑛superscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, many maps exist. AlexanderΒ [alexander-1977-proper] proved that every proper holomorphic map f:𝔹n→𝔹n:𝑓→subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑛f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{n}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1, is an automorphism, and hence rational. On the other hand, DorΒ [dor-1990-proper] showed that there exist proper holomorphic maps from 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹n+1subscript𝔹𝑛1\mathbb{B}_{n+1}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that are continuous up to the boundary and are not rational. Forstnerič [forstneric-1989-extending] proved that if for some neighborhood Uπ‘ˆUitalic_U of a point p𝑝pitalic_p on the sphere, a sufficiently smooth f:Uβˆ©π”ΉnΒ―β†’β„‚N:π‘“β†’π‘ˆΒ―subscript𝔹𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon U\cap\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : italic_U ∩ overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is holomorphic on Uβˆ©π”Ήnπ‘ˆsubscript𝔹𝑛U\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}italic_U ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and f⁒(U∩S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚S2⁒Nβˆ’1π‘“π‘ˆsuperscript𝑆2𝑛1superscript𝑆2𝑁1f(U\cap S^{2n-1})\subset S^{2N-1}italic_f ( italic_U ∩ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then f𝑓fitalic_f is rational and extends to a proper map of 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Moreover, the degree of f𝑓fitalic_f is bounded by a function of n𝑛nitalic_n and N𝑁Nitalic_N alone. We will make extensive use of Forstnerič’s result in this work. RudinΒ [rudin-1984-homogeneous] proved that every homogeneous polynomial proper map of balls is unitarily equivalent to the symmetrized mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold tensor product of the identity map, while D’AngeloΒ [dangelo-1988-polynomial] found a much simpler proof of Rudin’s result and moreover gave complete procedure for constructing all polynomial proper maps of balls. A key idea in D’Angelo’s work, and one that we will make use of, is that given two vector valued polynomials p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚m:𝑝→superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptβ„‚π‘šp\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{m}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and q:β„‚nβ†’β„‚k:π‘žβ†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptβ„‚π‘˜q\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{k}italic_q : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2=βˆ₯q⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯π‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert q(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_q ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all z𝑧zitalic_z, there is a unitary map Uπ‘ˆUitalic_U such that U⁒(pβŠ•0)=qβŠ•0π‘ˆdirect-sum𝑝0direct-sumπ‘ž0U(p\oplus 0)=q\oplus 0italic_U ( italic_p βŠ• 0 ) = italic_q βŠ• 0. By βŠ•0direct-sum0\oplus 0βŠ• 0 we mean we add zero components if they are needed to match the target dimensions. For more information on this subject, seeΒ [faran-1982-maps, forstneric-1993-proper, huang-1999-linearity, hamada-2005-rational, huang-2006-new, huang-2014-third, lebl-2023-exhaustion] and the references therein. In particular, the books by D’AngeloΒ [dangelo-1993-several, dangelo-2019-hermitian, dangelo-2021-rational] are relevant.

We change the point of view slightly and consider the complements of balls and the differences of balls, that is, without loss of generality we study maps between the sets of the form β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and 𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―subscript𝔹𝑛¯subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG, where Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘B_{r}(c)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) denotes the ball of radius rπ‘Ÿritalic_r centered at c𝑐citalic_c. We remark that proper maps to domains that are complements of balls have been studied previously; seeΒ [forstnerivc-2014-oka]. However, we wish the domain of the map to also be a ball complement. First, we characterize all proper maps of ball complements.

Theorem 1.1.

Suppose f:β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―β†’β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}% \setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, is a proper holomorphic map. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial map, and when this polynomial is restricted to 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it gives a proper map to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Conversely, suppose p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑝normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a polynomial that takes 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT properly. Then

  1. (i)

    p⁒(β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―)βŠ‚β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉN¯𝑝superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁p(\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}})\subset\mathbb{C}^{N}% \setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}italic_p ( blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, and

  2. (ii)

    if also βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ β†’ ∞ as βˆ₯zβˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ β†’ ∞, then p𝑝pitalic_p is a proper map of β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG to β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG.

It is not clear if the hypothesis on the norm is necessary. We prove that the condition is satisfied if the polynomial takes the origin to the origin, or more trivially, if the top degree terms of p𝑝pitalic_p do not vanish on the sphere.

That the proper map of ball complements is polynomial follows from a combination of the Hartogs phenomenon and Forstnerič’s theorem mentioned above. The key is then to show that polynomial maps of balls are precisely those that also take the outside to the outside. The theorem does not hold if n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1: β„‚βˆ–π”»Β―β„‚Β―π”»\mathbb{C}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}blackboard_C βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_D end_ARG is biholomorphic to the punctured disc 𝔻*superscript𝔻\mathbb{D}^{*}blackboard_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT * end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which properly, and certainly not rationally, embeds into β„‚Nsuperscriptℂ𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT via the classical theorem of Remmert–Bishop–Narasimhan (seeΒ [forstneric-2017-stein-manifolds]*TheoremΒ 2.4.1 and also AlexanderΒ [alexander-1977-punctured-disc] for an explicit embedding into β„‚2superscriptβ„‚2\mathbb{C}^{2}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). Such a map certainly avoids some small closed ball. What is true, even in one dimension, is that a rational map f:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚N:𝑓⇒superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that restricts to a proper map of 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT takes all the (non pole) points of β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG to β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG; see LemmaΒ 2.1.

Proper maps of differences of balls are somewhat more complicated. Via a similar argument, again heavily dependent on the result of Forstnerič, we prove the following result.

Theorem 1.2.

Suppose nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and Br⁒(c)βŠ‚β„‚nsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘superscriptℂ𝑛B_{r}(c)\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, BR⁒(C)βŠ‚β„‚Nsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢superscriptℂ𝑁B_{R}(C)\subset\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are two balls such that Br⁒(c)βˆ©π”Ήnβ‰ βˆ…subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛B_{r}(c)\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}\not=\varnothingitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  βˆ… and BR⁒(C)βˆ©π”ΉNβ‰ βˆ…subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁B_{R}(C)\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}\not=\varnothingitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  βˆ…. Suppose f:𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)¯→𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛normal-Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus% \overline{B_{R}(C)}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG is a proper holomorphic map. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is rational and extends to a rational proper map of balls f:𝔹n→𝔹Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that takes the sphere (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to the sphere (βˆ‚BR⁒(C))βˆ©π”ΉNsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁(\partial B_{R}(C))\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If c=0𝑐0c=0italic_c = 0 and C=0𝐢0C=0italic_C = 0 and f=pqπ‘“π‘π‘žf=\frac{p}{q}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG is written in lowest terms, then deg⁑q<deg⁑pdegreeπ‘ždegree𝑝\deg q<\deg proman_deg italic_q < roman_deg italic_p. Conversely, every proper holomorphic map f:𝔹n→𝔹Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that takes the sphere (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to the sphere (βˆ‚BR⁒(C))βˆ©π”ΉNsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁(\partial B_{R}(C))\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is rational and restricts to a proper map of 𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―subscript𝔹𝑛normal-Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG to 𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―subscript𝔹𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG.

If n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1, the theorem need not hold. For example the function z↦1zmaps-to𝑧1𝑧z\mapsto\frac{1}{z}italic_z ↦ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_z end_ARG takes an annulus centered at the origin to an annulus, swaps the inside and outside circles and does not extend to the entire disc. The theorem leads us to study what we call rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere maps.

Definition 1.3.

A rational map f:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚N:𝑓⇒superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map if there exist 2⁒m2π‘š2m2 italic_m numbers 0<r1<r2<β‹―<rm<∞0subscriptπ‘Ÿ1subscriptπ‘Ÿ2β‹―subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘š0<r_{1}<r_{2}<\cdots<r_{m}<\infty0 < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < β‹― < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ and 0<R1,R2,…,Rm<∞formulae-sequence0subscript𝑅1subscript𝑅2…subscriptπ‘…π‘š0<R_{1},R_{2},\ldots,R_{m}<\infty0 < italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞, such that the pole set of f𝑓fitalic_f misses rj⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—superscript𝑆2𝑛1r_{j}S^{2n-1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and f⁒(rj⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚Rj⁒S2⁒Nβˆ’1𝑓subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—superscript𝑆2𝑛1subscript𝑅𝑗superscript𝑆2𝑁1f(r_{j}S^{2n-1})\subset R_{j}S^{2N-1}italic_f ( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all j=1,…,m𝑗1β€¦π‘šj=1,\ldots,mitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_m. If there are infinitely many such numbers rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then we say that f𝑓fitalic_f is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. We will call spheres such as r⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1π‘Ÿsuperscript𝑆2𝑛1rS^{2n-1}italic_r italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT zero-centric spheres and balls such as r⁒𝔹nπ‘Ÿsubscript𝔹𝑛r\mathbb{B}_{n}italic_r blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT zero-centric balls.

In light of this definition, the theorem above says that every proper holomorphic map of ball complements centered at the origin is a rational 2222-fold sphere map. We remark that by PropositionΒ 3.2, we can assume that R1<R2<β‹―<Rmsubscript𝑅1subscript𝑅2β‹―subscriptπ‘…π‘šR_{1}<R_{2}<\cdots<R_{m}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < β‹― < italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

For the tensor of two polynomial maps we find that βˆ₯fβŠ—gβˆ₯2=βˆ₯fβˆ₯2⁒βˆ₯gβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯tensor-product𝑓𝑔2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑔2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f\otimes g}\right\rVert^{2}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert f}\right\rVert^{2}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert g% }\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f βŠ— italic_g βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_f βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_g βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Hence βˆ₯zβŠ—dβˆ₯2=βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒dsuperscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯superscript𝑧tensor-productabsent𝑑2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2𝑑\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z^{\otimes d}}\right\rVert^{2}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2d}βˆ₯ italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and so zβŠ—dsuperscript𝑧tensor-productabsent𝑑z^{\otimes d}italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a homogeneous ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. The map zβŠ—dsuperscript𝑧tensor-productabsent𝑑z^{\otimes d}italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT does not have linearly independent components for dβ‰₯2𝑑2d\geq 2italic_d β‰₯ 2, but after applying a unitary and a projection we find a symmetrized homogeneous map Hdsubscript𝐻𝑑H_{d}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with linearly independent components such that βˆ₯zβŠ—dβˆ₯2=βˆ₯Hd⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯superscript𝑧tensor-productabsent𝑑2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscript𝐻𝑑𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z^{\otimes d}}\right\rVert^{2}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert H_{d}(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where the number of components of Hdsubscript𝐻𝑑H_{d}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the rank of the underlying hermitian form of βˆ₯zβŠ—dβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯superscript𝑧tensor-productabsent𝑑2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z^{\otimes d}}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For example in β„‚2superscriptβ„‚2\mathbb{C}^{2}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, (z1,z2)βŠ—2=(z12,z1⁒z2,z2⁒z1,z22)superscriptsubscript𝑧1subscript𝑧2tensor-productabsent2superscriptsubscript𝑧12subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧2subscript𝑧2subscript𝑧1superscriptsubscript𝑧22(z_{1},z_{2})^{\otimes 2}=(z_{1}^{2},z_{1}z_{2},z_{2}z_{1},z_{2}^{2})( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is symmetrized to H2⁒(z1,z2)=(z12,2⁒z1⁒z2,z22)subscript𝐻2subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝑧122subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧2superscriptsubscript𝑧22H_{2}(z_{1},z_{2})=(z_{1}^{2},\sqrt{2}z_{1}z_{2},z_{2}^{2})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). See D’AngeloΒ [dangelo-1993-several].

By Rudin’s theorem we mentioned above, a homogeneous 1111-fold sphere map is unitarily equivalent to a scalar multiple of Hdsubscript𝐻𝑑H_{d}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus every homogeneous 1111-fold sphere map is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. Similarly, if we take a direct sum of properly scaled homogeneous sphere maps, we get an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. In fact, we have the following:

Theorem 1.4.

Suppose that f:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, is a rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map, where 1≀mβ‰€βˆž1π‘š1\leq m\leq\infty1 ≀ italic_m ≀ ∞.

  1. (i)

    If m<βˆžπ‘šm<\inftyitalic_m < ∞ and f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m or less, then f𝑓fitalic_f is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map.

  2. (ii)

    If m<βˆžπ‘šm<\inftyitalic_m < ∞ and f𝑓fitalic_f is a rational map of degree mβˆ’1π‘š1m-1italic_m - 1 or less, then f𝑓fitalic_f is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map.

If f𝑓fitalic_f is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map, then f𝑓fitalic_f is polynomial and for every r>0π‘Ÿ0r>0italic_r > 0 there exists an R>0𝑅0R>0italic_R > 0 such that f⁒(r⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚R⁒S2⁒Nβˆ’1π‘“π‘Ÿsuperscript𝑆2𝑛1𝑅superscript𝑆2𝑁1f(rS^{2n-1})\subset RS^{2N-1}italic_f ( italic_r italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_R italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Moreover, there exists a unitary U∈U⁒(β„‚N)π‘ˆπ‘ˆsuperscriptℂ𝑁U\in U(\mathbb{C}^{N})italic_U ∈ italic_U ( blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and homogeneous sphere maps (possibly constant) hj:β„‚nβ†’β„‚β„“jnormal-:subscriptβ„Žπ‘—normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptβ„‚subscriptnormal-ℓ𝑗h_{j}\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{\ell_{j}}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_β„“ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\ldots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k and where β„“1+β‹―+β„“k=Nsubscriptnormal-β„“1normal-β‹―subscriptnormal-β„“π‘˜π‘\ell_{1}+\cdots+\ell_{k}=Nroman_β„“ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + β‹― + roman_β„“ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N, such that

f=U⁒(h1βŠ•β‹―βŠ•hkβŠ•0).π‘“π‘ˆdirect-sumsubscriptβ„Ž1β‹―subscriptβ„Žπ‘˜0f=U(h_{1}\oplus\cdots\oplus h_{k}\oplus 0).italic_f = italic_U ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• β‹― βŠ• italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• 0 ) .

The question then arises about the existence of other maps than the ∞\infty∞-fold sphere maps. For every kπ‘˜kitalic_k and mβ‰₯kπ‘šπ‘˜m\geq kitalic_m β‰₯ italic_k, we will show that there exists a rational (nonpolynomial) kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m that is not a (k+1)π‘˜1(k+1)( italic_k + 1 )-fold sphere map. We will also show (LemmaΒ 3.10) that the denominator of a kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map for k>1π‘˜1k>1italic_k > 1 must be necessarily of a lower degree than the numerator, extending the analogous result by D’Angelo (see e.g.Β [dangelo-2019-hermitian]*PropositionΒ 5.1) for sphere maps that also fix the origin.

Finally, we consider proper maps of ball differences to ball complements and vice versa. Using the result of Forstnerič, one can prove that when dimension is at least 2222, no proper holomorphic maps exist between the two different sets.

Proposition 1.5.

Suppose nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, 𝔹n∩Br⁒(c)β‰ βˆ…subscript𝔹𝑛subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\cap B_{r}(c)\not=\varnothingblackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) β‰  βˆ…, and 𝔹N∩BR⁒(C)β‰ βˆ…subscript𝔹𝑁subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\cap B_{R}(C)\not=\varnothingblackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) β‰  βˆ…. There exist no proper holomorphic maps f:𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―β†’β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛normal-Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘superscriptℂ𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus% \overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG nor f:β„‚nβˆ–π”Ήn¯→𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}% \setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG.

If n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1, start with a proper embedding of the disc into β„‚Nsuperscriptℂ𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (e.g. Remmert–Bishop–Narasimhan again). We can construct a nonrational proper map from π”»βˆ–rβ’π”»Β―π”»Β―π‘Ÿπ”»\mathbb{D}\setminus\overline{r\mathbb{D}}blackboard_D βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_r blackboard_D end_ARG to β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG: Take a proper holomorphic embedding f:𝔻→ℂN:𝑓→𝔻superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{D}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_D β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Take a small closed ball BΒ―βŠ‚β„‚N¯𝐡superscriptℂ𝑁\overline{B}\subset\mathbb{C}^{N}overΒ― start_ARG italic_B end_ARG βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT so that fβˆ’1⁒(BΒ―)superscript𝑓1¯𝐡f^{-1}(\overline{B})italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( overΒ― start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) is a connected set with more than one point and π”»βˆ–fβˆ’1⁒(BΒ―)𝔻superscript𝑓1¯𝐡\mathbb{D}\setminus f^{-1}(\overline{B})blackboard_D βˆ– italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( overΒ― start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) is connected. Then it is classical that the doubly connected domain π”»βˆ–fβˆ’1⁒(BΒ―)𝔻superscript𝑓1¯𝐡\mathbb{D}\setminus f^{-1}(\overline{B})blackboard_D βˆ– italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( overΒ― start_ARG italic_B end_ARG ) is biholomorphic to an annulus π”»βˆ–rβ’π”»Β―π”»Β―π‘Ÿπ”»\mathbb{D}\setminus\overline{r\mathbb{D}}blackboard_D βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_r blackboard_D end_ARG for some 0<r<10π‘Ÿ10<r<10 < italic_r < 1. Composition of the maps and taking B𝐡Bitalic_B to the unit ball obtains the desired map. To construct the second map when n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1, β„‚βˆ–π”»Β―β„‚Β―π”»\mathbb{C}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}blackboard_C βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_D end_ARG is biholomorphic to the punctured disc 𝔻*superscript𝔻\mathbb{D}^{*}blackboard_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT * end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which can be properly embedded into some 𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―subscript𝔹𝑁¯subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG in many ways (e.g., linearly).

Interestingly, it is not difficult to construct many nontrivial proper maps of 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG when N>n𝑁𝑛N>nitalic_N > italic_n, but the proposition says that if nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, there is no way to properly map the annulus to the complement of the ball.

The organization of this paper is the following. In sectionΒ 2, we study proper maps of ball complements and prove TheoremΒ 1.1. In sectionΒ 3, we study the rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere maps and prove TheoremΒ 1.4. Finally, in sectionΒ 4, we study proper map**s of ball differences and we prove TheoremΒ 1.2.

2. Proper map**s of ball complements

We start with a lemma about where rational proper holomorphic maps of balls take the complement of the ball. We remark that unlike many of the results we consider, this lemma still holds in n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1.

Lemma 2.1.

If f:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a rational map such that the restriction of f𝑓fitalic_f to 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a proper map to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯>1delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert>1βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ > 1 for every zβˆ‰π”Ήn¯𝑧normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑛z\notin\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}italic_z βˆ‰ overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG that is not a pole of f𝑓fitalic_f.

Proof.

Write f=pqπ‘“π‘π‘žf=\frac{p}{q}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG for polynomials p𝑝pitalic_p and qπ‘žqitalic_q. As f𝑓fitalic_f takes the sphere S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the sphere S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, there is a real polynomial Q⁒(z,zΒ―)𝑄𝑧¯𝑧Q(z,\bar{z})italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) such that

βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2βˆ’βˆ₯q⁒(z)βˆ₯2=Q⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’1)orβˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2βˆ’1=Q⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’1)formulae-sequencesuperscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯π‘žπ‘§2𝑄𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧21orsuperscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧21𝑄𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧21\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}-\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert q(z)}\right\rVert^{2}=Q(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-1\bigr{)}\quad\text{or}\quad% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}-1=\frac{Q(z,\bar{z})% }{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}\bigl{(}\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-1\bigr{)}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - βˆ₯ italic_q ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) or βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 = divide start_ARG italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 )

outside the set where q=0π‘ž0q=0italic_q = 0. Polarization gives us

⟨f⁒(z),f⁒(w)βŸ©βˆ’1=Q⁒(z,wΒ―)q⁒(z)⁒q¯⁒(wΒ―)⁒(⟨z,wβŸ©βˆ’1),𝑓𝑧𝑓𝑀1π‘„π‘§Β―π‘€π‘žπ‘§Β―π‘žΒ―π‘€π‘§π‘€1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle f(z),f(w)}\right\rangle-1=\frac{Q(z,\bar{% w})}{q(z)\bar{q}(\bar{w})}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle z,w}% \right\rangle-1\bigr{)},⟨ italic_f ( italic_z ) , italic_f ( italic_w ) ⟩ - 1 = divide start_ARG italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_q ( italic_z ) overΒ― start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( overΒ― start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) end_ARG ( ⟨ italic_z , italic_w ⟩ - 1 ) ,

where βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β‹…β‹…\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle\cdot,\cdot}\right\rangle⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ is the standard Hermitian inner product.

Suppose zβˆ‰π”Ήn¯𝑧¯subscript𝔹𝑛z\notin\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}italic_z βˆ‰ overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG is not a pole of f𝑓fitalic_f. Set w=zβˆ₯zβˆ₯2𝑀𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2w=\frac{z}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}}italic_w = divide start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG so that 0<βˆ₯wβˆ₯=1βˆ₯zβˆ₯<10delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑀1delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧10<\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert w}\right\rVert=\frac{1}{\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert}<10 < βˆ₯ italic_w βˆ₯ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ end_ARG < 1. As f𝑓fitalic_f has no poles in the ball, g⁒(w)β‰ 0𝑔𝑀0g(w)\not=0italic_g ( italic_w ) β‰  0. Hence βˆ₯f⁒(w)βˆ₯<1delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑀1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(w)}\right\rVert<1βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_w ) βˆ₯ < 1 and ⟨z,w⟩=1𝑧𝑀1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle z,w}\right\rangle=1⟨ italic_z , italic_w ⟩ = 1. Then

(1) ⟨f⁒(z),f⁒(zβˆ₯zβˆ₯2)⟩=1.𝑓𝑧𝑓𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧21\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle f(z),f\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(\frac% {z}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}}}\right)}\right% \rangle=1.⟨ italic_f ( italic_z ) , italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ⟩ = 1 .

Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives

1=⟨f⁒(z),f⁒(w)βŸ©β‰€βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯⁒βˆ₯f⁒(w)βˆ₯<βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯.∎1𝑓𝑧𝑓𝑀delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑀delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧1=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle f(z),f(w)}\right\rangle\leq\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f% (w)}\right\rVert<\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert.\qed1 = ⟨ italic_f ( italic_z ) , italic_f ( italic_w ) ⟩ ≀ βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_w ) βˆ₯ < βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ . italic_∎

The lemma proves the converse statement of TheoremΒ 1.1. That is, if f:β„‚nβ†’β„‚N:𝑓→superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a polynomial map such that its restriction to 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a proper map to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it takes the sphere S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the sphere S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and the lemma says that it takes β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG to β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. If we furthermore assume that βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ β†’ ∞ as βˆ₯zβˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ β†’ ∞, we find that f𝑓fitalic_f is proper.

It is not clear if the norm of a polynomial proper of balls always goes to infinity at infinity thereby giving a proper map of β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG to β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. We provide a proof in some natural special cases.

Proposition 2.2.

Suppose p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑝normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a polynomial which is also a proper map of 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Suppose that

  1. (i)

    p⁒(0)=0𝑝00p(0)=0italic_p ( 0 ) = 0, or

  2. (ii)

    p=p0+p1+β‹―+pd𝑝subscript𝑝0subscript𝑝1β‹―subscript𝑝𝑑p=p_{0}+p_{1}+\cdots+p_{d}italic_p = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + β‹― + italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the decomposition into homogeneous parts and pdsubscript𝑝𝑑p_{d}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not zero on the unit sphere.

Then βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯β†’βˆžnormal-β†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ β†’ ∞ as βˆ₯zβˆ₯β†’βˆžnormal-β†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ β†’ ∞.

Proof.

Suppose first that p⁒(0)=0𝑝00p(0)=0italic_p ( 0 ) = 0 and suppose for contradiction that the conclusion does not hold. Then without loss of generality, there is a sequence (zk)βŠ‚β„‚nsubscriptπ‘§π‘˜superscriptℂ𝑛(z_{k})\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that βˆ₯zkβˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscriptπ‘§π‘˜\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z_{k}}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ β†’ ∞ and p⁒(zk)β†’Lβˆˆβ„‚N→𝑝subscriptπ‘§π‘˜πΏsuperscriptℂ𝑁p(z_{k})\to L\in\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β†’ italic_L ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Letting kβ†’βˆžβ†’π‘˜k\to\inftyitalic_k β†’ ∞ in the reflection principleΒ 1 with z=zk𝑧subscriptπ‘§π‘˜z=z_{k}italic_z = italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we get 1=⟨L,p⁒(0)⟩=⟨L,0⟩=01𝐿𝑝0𝐿001=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\langle L,p(0)}\right\rangle=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\langle L,0}\right\rangle=01 = ⟨ italic_L , italic_p ( 0 ) ⟩ = ⟨ italic_L , 0 ⟩ = 0, a contradiction.

Next, suppose that pdsubscript𝑝𝑑p_{d}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is not zero on the unit sphere. Let C>0𝐢0C>0italic_C > 0 be a lower bound for βˆ₯pd⁒(z)βˆ₯delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscript𝑝𝑑𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p_{d}(z)}\right\rVertβˆ₯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ for z∈S2⁒nβˆ’1𝑧superscript𝑆2𝑛1z\in S^{2n-1}italic_z ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Writing any zβˆˆβ„‚n𝑧superscriptℂ𝑛z\in\mathbb{C}^{n}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as r⁒uπ‘Ÿπ‘’ruitalic_r italic_u with rβ‰₯0π‘Ÿ0r\geq 0italic_r β‰₯ 0 and u∈S2⁒nβˆ’1𝑒superscript𝑆2𝑛1u\in S^{2n-1}italic_u ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we have

βˆ₯pd⁒(z)βˆ₯=rd⁒βˆ₯pd⁒(u)βˆ₯β‰₯C⁒rd.delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscript𝑝𝑑𝑧superscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘‘delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscript𝑝𝑑𝑒𝐢superscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘‘\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p_{d}(z)}\right\rVert=r^{d}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert p_{d}(u)}\right\rVert\geq Cr^{d}.βˆ₯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) βˆ₯ β‰₯ italic_C italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

As βˆ₯pd⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscript𝑝𝑑𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p_{d}(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the top degree homogeneous part of βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we find that βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ β†’ ∞ as βˆ₯zβˆ₯β†’βˆžβ†’delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert\to\inftyβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ β†’ ∞. ∎

We remark that the conclusion of the proposition also follows if the polynomial proper map of balls is constructed using tensoring only starting with the identity in the procedure of D’AngeloΒ [dangelo-1988-proper].

The rest of TheoremΒ 1.1 follows from the following lemma.

Lemma 2.3.

Suppose f:β„‚nβˆ–π”ΉnΒ―β†’β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}% \setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, is a proper holomorphic map. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial map, and when this polynomial is restricted to 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it gives a proper map to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

The Hartogs phenomenon says that f𝑓fitalic_f extends to a holomorphic map of β„‚nsuperscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to β„‚Nsuperscriptℂ𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This extended map is continuous on the sphere, so f⁒(S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚β„‚N𝑓superscript𝑆2𝑛1superscriptℂ𝑁f(S^{2n-1})\subset\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f ( italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By the properness of f𝑓fitalic_f, we have f⁒(S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚S2⁒Nβˆ’1𝑓superscript𝑆2𝑛1superscript𝑆2𝑁1f(S^{2n-1})\subset S^{2N-1}italic_f ( italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The theorem of Forstnerič says that f𝑓fitalic_f is rational and when restricted to 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT gives a proper map to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As f𝑓fitalic_f is holomorphic on β„‚nsuperscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, it must necessarily be polynomial. ∎

3. mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere maps

3.1. Polynomial mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere maps

We remark that unlike many of the results we consider and except for PropositionsΒ 3.2 andΒ 3.7, the results in this section still hold in n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1.

Definition 3.1.

For kβ‰₯1π‘˜1k\geq 1italic_k β‰₯ 1, distinct rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs and rj,Rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑅𝑗0r_{j},R_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k, we define the divided differences as

[Rj2]delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2\displaystyle[R_{j}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] =Rj2,j=1,…,k,formulae-sequenceabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2𝑗1β€¦π‘˜\displaystyle=R_{j}^{2},\quad j=1,\dots,k,= italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_k ,
[R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2\displaystyle[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] =[R12,…,Rjβˆ’12,Rβ„“2]βˆ’[R12,…,Rjβˆ’12,Rj2]rβ„“2βˆ’rj2,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\displaystyle=\frac{[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j-1}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}]-[R_{1}^{2},% \dots,R_{j-1}^{2},R_{j}^{2}]}{r_{\ell}^{2}-r_{j}^{2}},= divide start_ARG [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] - [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,
β„“=j+1,…,k,j=1,…,kβˆ’1.formulae-sequenceℓ𝑗1β€¦π‘˜π‘—1β€¦π‘˜1\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\ell=j+1,\dots,k,\quad j=1,\dots,k-1.roman_β„“ = italic_j + 1 , … , italic_k , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_k - 1 .

For j=1,…,kβˆ’1𝑗1β€¦π‘˜1j=1,\dots,k-1italic_j = 1 , … , italic_k - 1, we write

bj=[R12,…,Rj2,Rj+12]subscript𝑏𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12b_{j}=[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{j+1}^{2}]italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]

and define the degree-j𝑗jitalic_j Newton polynomial of the indeterminate xπ‘₯xitalic_x as the real polynomial

b0+b1⁒(xβˆ’r12)+β‹―+bj⁒(xβˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(xβˆ’rj2).subscript𝑏0subscript𝑏1π‘₯superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12β‹―subscript𝑏𝑗π‘₯superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…π‘₯superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2b_{0}+b_{1}(x-r_{1}^{2})+\dots+b_{j}(x-r_{1}^{2})\dots(x-r_{j}^{2}).italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + β‹― + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( italic_x - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
Proposition 3.2.

Let kβ‰₯2π‘˜2k\geq 2italic_k β‰₯ 2, nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and f:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a nonconstant rational kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map, that is, it takes rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres to Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres, where all rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs are distinct and rj,Rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑅𝑗0r_{j},R_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Then rj<rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscriptπ‘Ÿnormal-β„“r_{j}<r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT implies Rj<Rβ„“subscript𝑅𝑗subscript𝑅normal-β„“R_{j}<R_{\ell}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and in particular, the divided differences b0subscript𝑏0b_{0}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and b1subscript𝑏1b_{1}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are positive.

Proof.

We notice that

b0=[R12]=R12>0.subscript𝑏0delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅120b_{0}=[R_{1}^{2}]=R_{1}^{2}>0.italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0 .

Suppose that rj<rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{j}<r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As f𝑓fitalic_f is a nonconstant rational map that takes rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere to Rβ„“subscript𝑅ℓR_{\ell}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, it is a rational proper map of rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-ball to Rβ„“subscript𝑅ℓR_{\ell}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-ball. As rj<rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{j}<r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, f⁒(rj⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚Rℓ⁒𝔹N𝑓subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—superscript𝑆2𝑛1subscript𝑅ℓsubscript𝔹𝑁f(r_{j}S^{2n-1})\subset R_{\ell}\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f ( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so that Rj<Rβ„“subscript𝑅𝑗subscript𝑅ℓR_{j}<R_{\ell}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

In particular,

b1=[R12,R22]=R22βˆ’R12r22βˆ’r12>0.∎subscript𝑏1superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅22superscriptsubscript𝑅22superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ22superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ120b_{1}=[R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2}]=\frac{R_{2}^{2}-R_{1}^{2}}{r_{2}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}}>0.\qeditalic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = divide start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG > 0 . italic_∎

In the following few results, we will obtain convenient expressions of βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT reminiscent of a Newton polynomial of indeterminate βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for the polynomial mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map p𝑝pitalic_p.

Lemma 3.3.

Let 1≀k≀m1π‘˜π‘š1\leq k\leq m1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_m and p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑝normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a polynomial kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m, that is, it takes rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres to Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres, where all rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs are distinct and rj,Rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑅𝑗0r_{j},R_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Let Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧normal-¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k, there is a real polynomial Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧normal-¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) such that

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})\Big{|}_{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j}}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

which becomes

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’bjβˆ’1=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2),subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏𝑗1subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-b_{j-1}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)},italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

and for β„“=j+1,…,knormal-ℓ𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜\ell=j+1,\dots,kroman_β„“ = italic_j + 1 , … , italic_k, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧normal-¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿnormal-β„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals [R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12normal-…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅normal-β„“2[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ].

Proof.

We prove the result by induction on j𝑗jitalic_j. For j=1𝑗1j=1italic_j = 1, on the r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT equals R12=[R12]=b0superscriptsubscript𝑅12delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅12subscript𝑏0R_{1}^{2}=[R_{1}^{2}]=b_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and so is constant on the r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere. Thus there is a real polynomial Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) such that

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=r1=Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12),subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿ1subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})-Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})\Big{|}_{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert=r_{1}}=Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)},italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

that is,

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’b0=Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12).subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏0subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})-b_{0}=Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

As Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of bidegree (m,m)π‘šπ‘š(m,m)( italic_m , italic_m ) and βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of bidegree (1,1)11(1,1)( 1 , 1 ), Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree (mβˆ’1,mβˆ’1)π‘š1π‘š1(m-1,m-1)( italic_m - 1 , italic_m - 1 ). As for β„“=2,…,kβ„“2β€¦π‘˜\ell=2,\dots,kroman_β„“ = 2 , … , italic_k, Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant and equals Rβ„“2=[Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2R_{\ell}^{2}=[R_{\ell}^{2}]italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals

[Rβ„“2]βˆ’[R12]rβ„“2βˆ’r12=[R12,Rβ„“2].delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2\frac{[R_{\ell}^{2}]-[R_{1}^{2}]}{r_{\ell}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}}=[R_{1}^{2},R_{\ell}^% {2}].divide start_ARG [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] - [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

Suppose that for some j𝑗jitalic_j, 1≀j<k1π‘—π‘˜1\leq j<k1 ≀ italic_j < italic_k, there is a real polynomial Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) such that Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ), and for β„“=j+1,…,kℓ𝑗1β€¦π‘˜\ell=j+1,\dots,kroman_β„“ = italic_j + 1 , … , italic_k, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals [R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ].

Now, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on the rj+1subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1r_{j+1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere. Thus there is a real polynomial Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) such that

Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj+1=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj+12).subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})-Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\Big{|}_{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert=r_{j+1}}=Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

As Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) and βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of bidegree (1,1)11(1,1)( 1 , 1 ), Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree (mβˆ’jβˆ’1,mβˆ’jβˆ’1)π‘šπ‘—1π‘šπ‘—1(m-j-1,m-j-1)( italic_m - italic_j - 1 , italic_m - italic_j - 1 ). As for β„“=j+2,…,kℓ𝑗2β€¦π‘˜\ell=j+2,\dots,kroman_β„“ = italic_j + 2 , … , italic_k, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals [R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ], Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals

[R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]βˆ’[R12,…,Rj2,Rj+12]rβ„“2βˆ’rj+12=[R12,…,Rj+12,Rβ„“2].superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2\frac{[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}]-[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{j% +1}^{2}]}{r_{\ell}^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}}=[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j+1}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}].divide start_ARG [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] - [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

Moreover, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj+1=[R12,…,Rj2,Rj+12]=bjevaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12subscript𝑏𝑗Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\big{|}_{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_% {j+1}}=[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{j+1}^{2}]=b_{j}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, that is,

Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’bj=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj+12).subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})-b_{j}=Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

The result then follows by induction. ∎

Lemma 3.4.

Let 1≀k≀m1π‘˜π‘š1\leq k\leq m1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_m and p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑝normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a polynomial kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m, that is, it takes rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres to Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres, where all rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs are distinct and rj,Rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑅𝑗0r_{j},R_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Then

βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\displaystyle\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =b0+b1⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)+b2⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)+…absentsubscript𝑏0subscript𝑏1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12subscript𝑏2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ22italic-…\displaystyle=b_{0}+b_{1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}+b_{2}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\bigr{)}+\dots= italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_…
+bkβˆ’1⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rkβˆ’12)+Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rk2)subscriptπ‘π‘˜1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜12subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§Β―π‘§superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+b_{k-1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\dots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k-1}^{2}\bigr{)}+Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\dots% \bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k}^{2}\bigr{)}+ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

for a real polynomial Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§normal-¯𝑧Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree (mβˆ’k,mβˆ’k)π‘šπ‘˜π‘šπ‘˜(m-k,m-k)( italic_m - italic_k , italic_m - italic_k ). In other words, βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be written as a Newton polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with the leading coefficient replaced by a bidegree-(mβˆ’k,mβˆ’k)π‘šπ‘˜π‘šπ‘˜(m-k,m-k)( italic_m - italic_k , italic_m - italic_k ) real polynomial.

Proof.

Let Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯pβˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By LemmaΒ 3.3, for j=1,…,k𝑗1β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k, there is a real polynomial Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) such that

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’bjβˆ’1=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2).subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏𝑗1subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-b_{j-1}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Inductively, we get

βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\displaystyle\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)absentsubscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle=Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})= italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG )
=b0+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)(b1+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)(b2+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r32)(…\displaystyle=b_{0}+\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert% ^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\biggl{(}b_{1}+\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\bigr{)}\Bigl{(}b_{2}+\bigl{(}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{3}^{2}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\dots= italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( …
+bkβˆ’1+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rk2)Qk(z,zΒ―))))\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+b_{k-1}+\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k}^{2}\bigr{)}Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})\bigr{)}\Bigr{)}\biggr{)}+ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ) ) )
=b0+b1⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)+b2⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)+…absentsubscript𝑏0subscript𝑏1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12subscript𝑏2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ22…\displaystyle=b_{0}+b_{1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}+b_{2}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\bigr{)}+\dots= italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + …
+bkβˆ’1⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rkβˆ’12)+Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rk2),subscriptπ‘π‘˜1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜12subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§Β―π‘§superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+b_{k-1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\dots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k-1}^{2}\bigr{)}+Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\dots% \bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k}^{2}\bigr{% )},+ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§Β―π‘§Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is a real polynomial of bidegree (mβˆ’k,mβˆ’k)π‘šπ‘˜π‘šπ‘˜(m-k,m-k)( italic_m - italic_k , italic_m - italic_k ). This is formally a degree-mπ‘šmitalic_m Newton polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that passes through the kπ‘˜kitalic_k points (r12,R12),…,(rk2,Rk2)superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2superscriptsubscriptπ‘…π‘˜2(r_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{2}),\dots,(r_{k}^{2},R_{k}^{2})( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , … , ( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). ∎

As an immediate consequence, we obtain the following, proving the first part of TheoremΒ 1.4.

Theorem 3.5.

Let p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚Nnormal-:𝑝normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a polynomial mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m. Then βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In particular, p𝑝pitalic_p is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. In fact, p𝑝pitalic_p takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres.

Proof.

The Qm⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘šπ‘§Β―π‘§Q_{m}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) from LemmaΒ 3.4 is of bidegree (0,0)00(0,0)( 0 , 0 ), that is, a constant. So βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and hence p𝑝pitalic_p takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. In particular, p𝑝pitalic_p is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. ∎

This gives us the following:

Corollary 3.6.

A polynomial ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres.

Proof.

Let p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚N:𝑝→superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a polynomial ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m. Then it is a polynomial mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map. By TheoremΒ 3.5, it takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. ∎

The mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold requirement in TheoremΒ 3.5 is necessary. In fact, we have the following:

Theorem 3.7.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, 1≀k<m1π‘˜π‘š1\leq k<m1 ≀ italic_k < italic_m. Then there exist some Nβ‰₯n𝑁𝑛N\geq nitalic_N β‰₯ italic_n and monomial maps (see 2 below) of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m from β„‚nsuperscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to β„‚Nsuperscriptℂ𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that are kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere maps, but not (k+1)π‘˜1(k+1)( italic_k + 1 )-fold sphere maps. In particular, these maps do not take all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres.

Proof.

Take arbitrary distinct rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—0r_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Consider the bidegree-(k,k)π‘˜π‘˜(k,k)( italic_k , italic_k ) real polynomial

Q′′⁒(z,zΒ―)superscript𝑄′′𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle Q^{\prime\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) =∏j=1k(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\displaystyle=\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
=∏j=1k(|z1|2+β‹―+|zn|2βˆ’rj2)absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptsubscript𝑧12β‹―superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑛2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\displaystyle=\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}% }\right\rvert^{2}+\dots+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{n}}\right\rvert% ^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + β‹― + | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀kcα⁒|zΞ±|2,absentsubscript0π›Όπ‘˜subscript𝑐𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k}c_{\alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right% \rvert^{2},= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

which is constant on βˆ₯zβˆ₯=sdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧𝑠\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=sβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_s for all s>0𝑠0s>0italic_s > 0. Choose c𝑐citalic_c such that

c>max⁑{|cΞ±|:0≀|Ξ±|≀k}>0,𝑐:subscript𝑐𝛼0π›Όπ‘˜0c>\max\bigl{\{}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert c_{\alpha}}\right\rvert:0% \leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k\bigr{\}}>0,italic_c > roman_max { | italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | : 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k } > 0 ,

write

βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(k+1)=(|z1|2+β‹―+|zn|2)k+1=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1dα⁒|zΞ±|2,superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘˜1superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑧12β‹―superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑛2π‘˜1subscript0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑑𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(k+1)}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left(\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}}\right\rvert^{2}+% \dots+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{n}}\right\rvert^{2}}\right)^{k+1}% =\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k+1}d_{% \alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2},βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_k + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + β‹― + | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and consider

Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle Q^{\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) =1c⁒|z1|2⁒Q′′⁒(z,zΒ―)+βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(k+1)absent1𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑧12superscript𝑄′′𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘˜1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{c}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}}\right% \rvert^{2}Q^{\prime\prime}(z,\bar{z})+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2(k+1)}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) + βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_k + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=|z1|2β’βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀kcΞ±c⁒|zΞ±|2+βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1dα⁒|zΞ±|2absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑧12subscript0π›Όπ‘˜subscript𝑐𝛼𝑐superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2subscript0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑑𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}}\right\rvert^{2}\sum_{% 0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k}\frac{c_{% \alpha}}{c}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2}+% \sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k+1}d_{% \alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2}= | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1,Ξ±1>0cΞ±1βˆ’1,Ξ±2,…,Ξ±nc⁒|zΞ±|2+βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1dα⁒|zΞ±|2absentsubscriptformulae-sequence0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝛼10subscript𝑐subscript𝛼11subscript𝛼2…subscript𝛼𝑛𝑐superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2subscript0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑑𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k+1,\alpha_{1}>0}\frac{c_{\alpha_{1}-1,\alpha_{2},\dots,\alpha_{n}}% }{c}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2}+\sum_{0% \leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k+1}d_{\alpha}% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2}= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1eα⁒|zΞ±|2,absentsubscript0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑒𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k+1}e_{\alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right% \rvert^{2},= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where

eΞ±={dΞ±,Ξ±1=0dΞ±+cΞ±1βˆ’1,Ξ±2,…,Ξ±nc,Ξ±1>0.subscript𝑒𝛼casessubscript𝑑𝛼subscript𝛼10subscript𝑑𝛼subscript𝑐subscript𝛼11subscript𝛼2…subscript𝛼𝑛𝑐subscript𝛼10e_{\alpha}=\begin{cases}d_{\alpha},&\alpha_{1}=0\\ d_{\alpha}+\frac{c_{\alpha_{1}-1,\alpha_{2},\dots,\alpha_{n}}}{c},&\alpha_{1}>% 0\end{cases}.italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , end_CELL start_CELL italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_CELL end_ROW .

We see that Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧Q^{\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on βˆ₯zβˆ₯=sdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧𝑠\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=sβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_s for only s=r1,…,rk𝑠subscriptπ‘Ÿ1…subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜s=r_{1},\dots,r_{k}italic_s = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT due to the |z1|2superscriptsubscript𝑧12\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT term, and is of bidegree (k+1,k+1)π‘˜1π‘˜1(k+1,k+1)( italic_k + 1 , italic_k + 1 ). Moreover, each |cΞ±1βˆ’1,Ξ±2,…,Ξ±nc|<1subscript𝑐subscript𝛼11subscript𝛼2…subscript𝛼𝑛𝑐1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\frac{c_{\alpha_{1}-1,\alpha_{2},\dots,% \alpha_{n}}}{c}}\right\rvert<1| divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | < 1 and each dΞ±β‰₯1subscript𝑑𝛼1d_{\alpha}\geq 1italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 1, so that each eΞ±>0subscript𝑒𝛼0e_{\alpha}>0italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0. This lets us write Qβ€²superscript𝑄′Q^{\prime}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as a sum of squared norms of polynomial maps, that is,

Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1|eα⁒zΞ±|2superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧subscript0π›Όπ‘˜1superscriptsubscript𝑒𝛼superscript𝑧𝛼2Q^{\prime}(z,\bar{z})=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}% \right\rvert\leq k+1}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\sqrt{e_{\alpha}}z^{% \alpha}}\right\rvert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | square-root start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

is the squared norm of the map

(eα⁒zΞ±)0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1.subscriptsubscript𝑒𝛼superscript𝑧𝛼0π›Όπ‘˜1(\sqrt{e_{\alpha}}z^{\alpha})_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}% \right\rvert\leq k+1}.( square-root start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Finally, we form

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) =βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)⁒Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)absentsuperscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘šπ‘˜1superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(m-k-1)}Q^{% \prime}(z,\bar{z})= βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG )
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ²|≀mβˆ’kβˆ’10≀|Ξ±|≀k+1fβ⁒eα⁒|zΞ²|2⁒|zΞ±|2,absentsubscript0π›½π‘šπ‘˜10π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑓𝛽subscript𝑒𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛽2superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert\beta}\right\rvert\leq m-k-1\\ 0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k+1\end{% subarray}}f_{\beta}e_{\alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\beta}}% \right\rvert^{2}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2},= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ² | ≀ italic_m - italic_k - 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where

βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ²|≀mβˆ’kβˆ’1fβ⁒|zΞ²|2,superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘šπ‘˜1subscript0π›½π‘šπ‘˜1subscript𝑓𝛽superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛽2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(m-k-1)}=\sum_{0\leq% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\beta}\right\rvert\leq m-k-1}f_{\beta}% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\beta}}\right\rvert^{2},βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ² | ≀ italic_m - italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

so that each fβ⁒eΞ±>0subscript𝑓𝛽subscript𝑒𝛼0f_{\beta}e_{\alpha}>0italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0, as fΞ²β‰₯1subscript𝑓𝛽1f_{\beta}\geq 1italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 1 and eΞ±>0subscript𝑒𝛼0e_{\alpha}>0italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0. We see that Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is constant on βˆ₯zβˆ₯=sdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧𝑠\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=sβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_s for only s=r12,…,rk2𝑠superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2s=r_{1}^{2},\dots,r_{k}^{2}italic_s = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and is of bidegree (m,m)π‘šπ‘š(m,m)( italic_m , italic_m ).

As mentioned in the introduction, βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘šπ‘˜1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(m-k-1)}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the squared norm of the map zβŠ—(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)superscript𝑧tensor-productabsentπ‘šπ‘˜1z^{\otimes(m-k-1)}italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We get that Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is the squared norm of the map

(2) p⁒(z)=zβŠ—(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)βŠ—(eα⁒zΞ±)0≀|Ξ±|≀k+1.𝑝𝑧tensor-productsuperscript𝑧tensor-productabsentπ‘šπ‘˜1subscriptsubscript𝑒𝛼superscript𝑧𝛼0π›Όπ‘˜1p(z)=z^{\otimes(m-k-1)}\otimes(\sqrt{e_{\alpha}}z^{\alpha})_{0\leq\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k+1}.italic_p ( italic_z ) = italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— ( square-root start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

This defines a family of maps for some N𝑁Nitalic_N, where each member is a monomial kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map p:β„‚nβ†’β„‚N:𝑝→superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁p\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_p : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of degree of mπ‘šmitalic_m that is not a (k+1)π‘˜1(k+1)( italic_k + 1 )-fold sphere map. ∎

3.2. Rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere maps

In the following few results, we will obtain convenient expressions of βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT reminiscent of a Newton polynomial of indeterminate βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for the rational mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map pqπ‘π‘ž\frac{p}{q}divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG.

Notation 3.8.

We write Q⁒(z,zΒ―)[d,d]𝑄superscript𝑧¯𝑧𝑑𝑑Q(z,\bar{z})^{[d,d]}italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ italic_d , italic_d ] end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to denote the bidegree-(d,d)𝑑𝑑(d,d)( italic_d , italic_d ) homogeneous part of a real polynomial Q⁒(z,zΒ―)𝑄𝑧¯𝑧Q(z,\bar{z})italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ), and write q⁒(z)[d]π‘žsuperscript𝑧delimited-[]𝑑q(z)^{[d]}italic_q ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ italic_d ] end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to denote the degree-d𝑑ditalic_d homogeneous part of a polynomial q⁒(z)π‘žπ‘§q(z)italic_q ( italic_z ).

Remark 3.9.

For convenience, we consider the zero real polynomial as a bidegree-(βˆ’1,βˆ’1)11(-1,-1)( - 1 , - 1 ) real polynomial in (z,zΒ―)𝑧¯𝑧(z,\bar{z})( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ).

Lemma 3.10.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, 1≀k≀m+11π‘˜π‘š11\leq k\leq m+11 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_m + 1, and f=pq:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚Nnormal-:π‘“π‘π‘žnormal-β‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f=\frac{p}{q}\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a rational kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m in reduced terms, that is, it takes rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres to Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres, where all rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs are distinct and rj,Rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑅𝑗0r_{j},R_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Let Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧normal-¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k, there is a real polynomial Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧normal-¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree at most (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) such that

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

which becomes

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’bjβˆ’1⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2),subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏𝑗1superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-b_{j-1}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right% \rvert^{2}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)},italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

and for β„“=j+1,…,knormal-ℓ𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜\ell=j+1,\dots,kroman_β„“ = italic_j + 1 , … , italic_k, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧normal-¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿnormal-β„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals [R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12normal-…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅normal-β„“2[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ].

Moreover, if bjβ‰ 0subscript𝑏𝑗0b_{j}\neq 0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  0, then q⁒(z)π‘žπ‘§q(z)italic_q ( italic_z ) is of degree at most mβˆ’jπ‘šπ‘—m-jitalic_m - italic_j.

We remark that by PropositionΒ 3.2, both b0subscript𝑏0b_{0}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and b1subscript𝑏1b_{1}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are always nonzero, so an immediate consequence is that if f=pqπ‘“π‘π‘žf=\frac{p}{q}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG is a rational 2222-fold sphere map, then deg⁑q<deg⁑pdegreeπ‘ždegree𝑝\deg q<\deg proman_deg italic_q < roman_deg italic_p.

Proof.

The result is trivial if f𝑓fitalic_f is constant, so we assume otherwise. The proof is essentially the same as that of LemmaΒ 3.3. We prove the result by induction on j𝑗jitalic_j. For j=1𝑗1j=1italic_j = 1, on the r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}=\frac{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG equals R12=[R12]=b0superscriptsubscript𝑅12delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅12subscript𝑏0R_{1}^{2}=[R_{1}^{2}]=b_{0}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and so is constant on the r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere. Rearranging,

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=r1⁒|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿ1superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{1}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

on the r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, so that there is a real polynomial Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) such that

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=r1⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12),subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿ1superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})-\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{1}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}=Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)},italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

that is,

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’b0⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12).subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏0superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})-b_{0}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2% }=Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{% 2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

We get

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2βˆ’Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=r1=Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2evaluated-atsubscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿ1subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}-\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{}\mathclose% {{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{1}}=\frac{Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{% }\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

outside the pole set.

As f𝑓fitalic_f is a nonconstant rational map that takes r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere to R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, it is a rational proper map of r1⁒𝔹nsubscriptπ‘Ÿ1subscript𝔹𝑛r_{1}\mathbb{B}_{n}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to R1⁒𝔹Nsubscript𝑅1subscript𝔹𝑁R_{1}\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. ByΒ [dangelo-2019-hermitian]*PropositionΒ 5.1, deg⁑q≀deg⁑p=mdegreeπ‘ždegreeπ‘π‘š\deg q\leq\deg p=mroman_deg italic_q ≀ roman_deg italic_p = italic_m. As Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of bidegree (m,m)π‘šπ‘š(m,m)( italic_m , italic_m ) and |q⁒(z)|2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of bidegree at most (m,m)π‘šπ‘š(m,m)( italic_m , italic_m ), Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree (mβˆ’1,mβˆ’1)π‘š1π‘š1(m-1,m-1)( italic_m - 1 , italic_m - 1 ). As for β„“=2,…,kβ„“2β€¦π‘˜\ell=2,\dots,kroman_β„“ = 2 , … , italic_k, Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant and equals Rβ„“2=[Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2R_{\ell}^{2}=[R_{\ell}^{2}]italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, Q1⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{1}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals

[Rβ„“2]βˆ’[R12]rβ„“2βˆ’r12=[R12,Rβ„“2].delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2\frac{[R_{\ell}^{2}]-[R_{1}^{2}]}{r_{\ell}^{2}-r_{1}^{2}}=[R_{1}^{2},R_{\ell}^% {2}].divide start_ARG [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] - [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

Suppose that for some j𝑗jitalic_j, 1≀j<k1π‘—π‘˜1\leq j<k1 ≀ italic_j < italic_k, there is a real polynomial Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree at most (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) such that

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2),subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)},italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

and for β„“=j+1,…,kℓ𝑗1β€¦π‘˜\ell=j+1,\dots,kroman_β„“ = italic_j + 1 , … , italic_k, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals [R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ].

Now, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on the rj+1subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1r_{j+1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere. Rearranging,

Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj⁒|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

on the rj+1subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1r_{j+1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, so that there is a real polynomial Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) such that

(3) Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj+1⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj+12).subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})-\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{% \mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{% }\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j+1}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}=Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{% }\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

We get

Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2βˆ’Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj+1=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj+12)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2evaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}-\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left.\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}}\right|_{\mathopen{}\mathclose% {{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j+1}}=\frac{Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{% }\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}\bigr{)}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

outside the pole set.

As for β„“=j+2,…,kℓ𝑗2β€¦π‘˜\ell=j+2,\dots,kroman_β„“ = italic_j + 2 , … , italic_k, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals [R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}][ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ], Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right% \rvert^{2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on the rβ„“subscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“r_{\ell}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere and equals

[R12,…,Rj2,Rβ„“2]βˆ’[R12,…,Rj2,Rj+12]rβ„“2βˆ’rj+12=[R12,…,Rj+12,Rβ„“2].superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿβ„“2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12superscriptsubscript𝑅ℓ2\frac{[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}]-[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{j% +1}^{2}]}{r_{\ell}^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}}=[R_{1}^{2},\dots,R_{j+1}^{2},R_{\ell}^{2}].divide start_ARG [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] - [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

Moreover, Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2|βˆ₯zβˆ₯=rj+1=[R12,…,Rj2,Rj+12]=bjevaluated-atsubscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2delimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—1superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗12subscript𝑏𝑗\frac{Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}\big{|}_{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=r_{j+1}}=[R_{1% }^{2},\dots,R_{j}^{2},R_{j+1}^{2}]=b_{j}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, that is,

Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’bj⁒|q⁒(z)2|=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj+12).subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧subscriptπ‘π‘—π‘žsuperscript𝑧2subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})-b_{j}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)^{2}}\right% \rvert=Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

If bj=0subscript𝑏𝑗0b_{j}=0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, then

Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj+12).subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—12Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})=Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{j+1}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

As Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree at most (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ), Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree at most (mβˆ’jβˆ’1,mβˆ’jβˆ’1)π‘šπ‘—1π‘šπ‘—1(m-j-1,m-j-1)( italic_m - italic_j - 1 , italic_m - italic_j - 1 ).

If bjβ‰ 0subscript𝑏𝑗0b_{j}\neq 0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  0, suppose for contradiction that the degree β„“β„“\ellroman_β„“ of qπ‘žqitalic_q is bigger than mβˆ’jπ‘šπ‘—m-jitalic_m - italic_j. As Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree at most (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) and |q⁒(z)|2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of bidegree (β„“,β„“)β„“β„“(\ell,\ell)( roman_β„“ , roman_β„“ ), Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree (β„“βˆ’1,β„“βˆ’1)β„“1β„“1(\ell-1,\ell-1)( roman_β„“ - 1 , roman_β„“ - 1 ). Collecting bidegree-(β„“,β„“)β„“β„“(\ell,\ell)( roman_β„“ , roman_β„“ ) terms on both sides of 3 and using the notation from 3.8, we get

βˆ’bj⁒|q⁒(z)[β„“]|2=Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)[β„“βˆ’1,β„“βˆ’1]⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯2.subscript𝑏𝑗superscriptπ‘žsuperscript𝑧delimited-[]β„“2subscript𝑄𝑗1superscript𝑧¯𝑧ℓ1β„“1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2-b_{j}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)^{[\ell]}}\right\rvert^{2}=Q_{j+% 1}(z,\bar{z})^{[\ell-1,\ell-1]}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2}.- italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_β„“ ] end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_β„“ - 1 , roman_β„“ - 1 ] end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

By Huang’s lemmaΒ [huang-1999-linearity]*LemmaΒ 3.2, a product of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that is not zero cannot be a sum or difference of fewer than n𝑛nitalic_n hermitian squares, and so

|q⁒(z)[β„“]|2=0,Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)[β„“βˆ’1,β„“βˆ’1]=0,formulae-sequencesuperscriptπ‘žsuperscript𝑧delimited-[]β„“20subscript𝑄𝑗1superscript𝑧¯𝑧ℓ1β„“10\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)^{[\ell]}}\right\rvert^{2}=0,\quad Q_{% j+1}(z,\bar{z})^{[\ell-1,\ell-1]}=0,| italic_q ( italic_z ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_β„“ ] end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ roman_β„“ - 1 , roman_β„“ - 1 ] end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 ,

as n>1𝑛1n>1italic_n > 1 and bjβ‰ 0subscript𝑏𝑗0b_{j}\neq 0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  0, contradicting deg⁑q=β„“degreeπ‘žβ„“\deg q=\ellroman_deg italic_q = roman_β„“. Thus q⁒(z)π‘žπ‘§q(z)italic_q ( italic_z ) is of degree at most mβˆ’jπ‘šπ‘—m-jitalic_m - italic_j. As both Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) and |q⁒(z)|2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are of bidegree at most (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ), Qj+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree at most (mβˆ’jβˆ’1,mβˆ’jβˆ’1)π‘šπ‘—1π‘šπ‘—1(m-j-1,m-j-1)( italic_m - italic_j - 1 , italic_m - italic_j - 1 ). The result then follows by induction. ∎

Lemma 3.11.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, 1≀k≀m+11π‘˜π‘š11\leq k\leq m+11 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_m + 1, and f=pq:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚Nnormal-:π‘“π‘π‘žnormal-β‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f=\frac{p}{q}\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a rational kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m in reduced terms, that is, it takes rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres to Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-spheres, where all rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs are distinct and rj,Rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—subscript𝑅𝑗0r_{j},R_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Then

βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\displaystyle\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =(b0+b1(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)+b2(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)+β‹―\displaystyle=\Bigl{(}b_{0}+b_{1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}+b_{2}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\bigr{)}+\cdots= ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + β‹―
+bkβˆ’1(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)β‹―(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rkβˆ’12))|q(z)|2\displaystyle\phantom{=\Bigl{(}}+b_{k-1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\cdots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose% {{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k-1}^{2}\bigr{)}\Bigr{)}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}+ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‹― ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒⋯⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rk2)subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§Β―π‘§superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12β‹―superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\cdots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k}^{2}\bigr{)}+ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‹― ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

for a real polynomial Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§normal-¯𝑧Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree at most (mβˆ’k,mβˆ’k)π‘šπ‘˜π‘šπ‘˜(m-k,m-k)( italic_m - italic_k , italic_m - italic_k ). In other words, βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be written as a Newton polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with the leading coefficient replaced by a real polynomial of bidegree (mβˆ’k,mβˆ’k)π‘šπ‘˜π‘šπ‘˜(m-k,m-k)( italic_m - italic_k , italic_m - italic_k ) and the rest of the Newton polynomial multiplied by |q⁒(z)|2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

Let Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯pβˆ₯2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By LemmaΒ 3.10, for j=1,…,k𝑗1β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k, there is a real polynomial Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) of bidegree at most (mβˆ’j,mβˆ’j)π‘šπ‘—π‘šπ‘—(m-j,m-j)( italic_m - italic_j , italic_m - italic_j ) such that

Qjβˆ’1⁒(z,zΒ―)βˆ’bjβˆ’1⁒|q⁒(z)|2=Qj⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2).subscript𝑄𝑗1𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏𝑗1superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscript𝑄𝑗𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2Q_{j-1}(z,\bar{z})-b_{j-1}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right% \rvert^{2}=Q_{j}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) - italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Inductively, we get

βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2\displaystyle\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)absentsubscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle=Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})= italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG )
=b0|q(z)|2+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)(b1|q(z)|2+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)(b2|q(z)|2\displaystyle=b_{0}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}+% \bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{% )}\Biggl{(}b_{1}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}+% \bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\bigr{% )}\biggl{(}b_{2}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}= italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r32)(β‹―+bkβˆ’1|q(z)|2+(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rk2)Qk(z,zΒ―))))\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{3}^{2}\bigr{)}\Bigl{(}\cdots+b_{k-1}\mathopen{}\mathclose{% {}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}+\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k}^{2}\bigr{)}Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})\Bigr{)}\biggr{)}% \Biggr{)}+ ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( β‹― + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ) ) )
=(b0+b1(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)+b2(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)+β‹―\displaystyle=\Bigl{(}b_{0}+b_{1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}+b_{2}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{2}\bigr{)}+\cdots= ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + β‹―
+bkβˆ’1(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)β‹―(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rkβˆ’12))|q(z)|2\displaystyle\phantom{=\Bigl{(}}+b_{k-1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\cdots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose% {{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k-1}^{2}\bigr{)}\Bigr{)}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}+ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‹― ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒⋯⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rk2),subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§Β―π‘§superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12β‹―superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\cdots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{k}^{2}\bigr{)},+ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‹― ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where Qk⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘˜π‘§Β―π‘§Q_{k}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is a real polynomial of bidegree at most (mβˆ’k,mβˆ’k)π‘šπ‘˜π‘šπ‘˜(m-k,m-k)( italic_m - italic_k , italic_m - italic_k ). For q≑1π‘ž1q\equiv 1italic_q ≑ 1, this becomes formally a degree-mπ‘šmitalic_m Newton polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that passes through the kπ‘˜kitalic_k points (r12,R12),…,(rk2,Rk2)superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptsubscript𝑅12…superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜2superscriptsubscriptπ‘…π‘˜2(r_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{2}),\dots,(r_{k}^{2},R_{k}^{2})( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , … , ( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). ∎

As a consequence, we obtain the following, proving the second part of TheoremΒ 1.4.

Theorem 3.12.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and f=pq:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚Nnormal-:π‘“π‘π‘žnormal-β‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f=\frac{p}{q}\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a rational (m+1)π‘š1(m+1)( italic_m + 1 )-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map. In particular, it takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres.

Proof.

By LemmaΒ 3.11,

βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2=Q⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒|q⁒(z)|2+Qm+1⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rm+12),superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2𝑄𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2subscriptπ‘„π‘š1𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘š12\displaystyle\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}=Q(z,% \bar{z})\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}+Q_{m+1}(z,% \bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{% 2}\bigr{)}\dots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-% r_{m+1}^{2}\bigr{)},βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where

Q⁒(z,zΒ―)=b0+b1⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)+…+bm⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rm2)𝑄𝑧¯𝑧subscript𝑏0subscript𝑏1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…subscriptπ‘π‘šsuperscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘š2Q(z,\bar{z})=b_{0}+b_{1}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}+\dots\\ +b_{m}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}% \bigr{)}\dots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_% {m}^{2}\bigr{)}italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + … + italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

is a polynomial of βˆ₯zβˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and Qm+1⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘š1𝑧¯𝑧Q_{m+1}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is of bidegree at most (βˆ’1,βˆ’1)11(-1,-1)( - 1 , - 1 ), hence zero. Thus outside the set where q=0π‘ž0q=0italic_q = 0, we have βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2=βˆ₯p⁒(z)βˆ₯2|q⁒(z)|2=Q⁒(z,zΒ―)superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑝𝑧2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2𝑄𝑧¯𝑧\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}=\frac{\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert p(z)}\right\rVert^{2}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}=Q(z,\bar{z})βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_p ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ).

Suppose that f=pqπ‘“π‘π‘žf=\frac{p}{q}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG is in lowest terms. As f𝑓fitalic_f takes r1subscriptπ‘Ÿ1r_{1}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere to R1subscript𝑅1R_{1}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-sphere, q⁒(0)π‘ž0q(0)italic_q ( 0 ) is not zero, and so f𝑓fitalic_f has a power series expansion at the origin, and hence so does βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The (infinite) matrix of coefficients of this power series is positive semidefnite (being a squared norm) and as the matrix of coefficients of Q⁒(z,zΒ―)𝑄𝑧¯𝑧Q(z,\bar{z})italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is a principal submatrix of this infinite matrix, it is itself positive semidefinite. Thus there is a polynomial map P𝑃Pitalic_P such that Q⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯P⁒(z)βˆ₯2𝑄𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑃𝑧2Q(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert P(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_P ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. But then P=U⁒f=U⁒pqπ‘ƒπ‘ˆπ‘“π‘ˆπ‘π‘žP=Uf=\frac{Up}{q}italic_P = italic_U italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_U italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG for some unitary matrix Uπ‘ˆUitalic_U near the origin, again using the result of D’Angelo. This means that q≑q⁒(0)π‘žπ‘ž0q\equiv q(0)italic_q ≑ italic_q ( 0 ) and so f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial.

Since f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial (m+1)π‘š1(m+1)( italic_m + 1 )-fold sphere map, it is a polynomial mπ‘šmitalic_m-fold sphere map, so by TheoremΒ 3.5, it is an ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map and takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. ∎

This gives us the following, generalizing CorollaryΒ 3.6.

Corollary 3.13.

A rational ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres.

Proof.

Let f:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚N:𝑓⇒superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a rational ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m. Then it is a rational (m+1)π‘š1(m+1)( italic_m + 1 )-fold sphere map. By TheoremΒ 3.12, it takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. ∎

The (m+1)π‘š1(m+1)( italic_m + 1 )-fold requirement in TheoremΒ 3.12 is necessary. In fact, we have the following:

Theorem 3.14.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, 1≀k<m+11π‘˜π‘š11\leq k<m+11 ≀ italic_k < italic_m + 1. Then there exist an integer Nβ‰₯n𝑁𝑛N\geq nitalic_N β‰₯ italic_n and rational maps (see 4 below) of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m from β„‚nsuperscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to β„‚Nsuperscriptℂ𝑁\mathbb{C}^{N}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that are kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere maps, but not (k+1)π‘˜1(k+1)( italic_k + 1 )-fold sphere maps. In particular, these maps do not take all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres.

Proof.

Take any arbitrary degree-1111 polynomial function q:β„‚nβ†’β„‚:π‘žβ†’superscriptℂ𝑛ℂq\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}italic_q : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C, that is, of the form a0+aβ‹…z=a0+a1⁒z1+β‹―+an⁒znsubscriptπ‘Ž0β‹…π‘Žπ‘§subscriptπ‘Ž0subscriptπ‘Ž1subscript𝑧1β‹―subscriptπ‘Žπ‘›subscript𝑧𝑛a_{0}+a\cdot z=a_{0}+a_{1}z_{1}+\dots+a_{n}z_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a β‹… italic_z = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + β‹― + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which after a unitary transformation becomes a0+a1⁒z1subscriptπ‘Ž0subscriptπ‘Ž1subscript𝑧1a_{0}+a_{1}z_{1}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with a1βˆˆβ„‚subscriptπ‘Ž1β„‚a_{1}\in\mathbb{C}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C, which after another unitary transformation becomes a0+a1⁒z1subscriptπ‘Ž0subscriptπ‘Ž1subscript𝑧1a_{0}+a_{1}z_{1}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with a1>0subscriptπ‘Ž10a_{1}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0. If qπ‘žqitalic_q is the denominator of a rational map, qπ‘žqitalic_q can be scaled to have q⁒(0)=1π‘ž01q(0)=1italic_q ( 0 ) = 1. Thus without loss of generality, assume that q⁒(z)=1+a⁒z1,a>0formulae-sequenceπ‘žπ‘§1π‘Žsubscript𝑧1π‘Ž0q(z)=1+az_{1},a>0italic_q ( italic_z ) = 1 + italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a > 0.

Take arbitrary distinct rj>0subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—0r_{j}>0italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for j=1,…,k𝑗1β€¦π‘˜j=1,\dots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k. Consider the bidegree-(k,k)π‘˜π‘˜(k,k)( italic_k , italic_k ) real polynomial

Q′′⁒(z,zΒ―)superscript𝑄′′𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle Q^{\prime\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) =∏j=1k(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\displaystyle=\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
=∏j=1k(|z1|2+β‹―+|zn|2βˆ’rj2)absentsuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptsubscript𝑧12β‹―superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑛2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\displaystyle=\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}% }\right\rvert^{2}+\dots+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{n}}\right\rvert% ^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}= ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + β‹― + | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀kcα⁒|zΞ±|2,absentsubscript0π›Όπ‘˜subscript𝑐𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k}c_{\alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right% \rvert^{2},= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

which is constant on βˆ₯zβˆ₯=sdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧𝑠\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=sβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_s for all s>0𝑠0s>0italic_s > 0. Choose c𝑐citalic_c such that

c>max⁑{|cΞ±|:0≀|Ξ±|≀k}>0,𝑐:subscript𝑐𝛼0π›Όπ‘˜0c>\max\bigl{\{}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert c_{\alpha}}\right\rvert:0% \leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k\bigr{\}}>0,italic_c > roman_max { | italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | : 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k } > 0 ,

write

βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(kβˆ’1)=(|z1|2+β‹―+|zn|2)kβˆ’1=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀kβˆ’1dα⁒|zΞ±|2,superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘˜1superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑧12β‹―superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑛2π‘˜1subscript0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑑𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(k-1)}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left(\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{1}}\right\rvert^{2}+% \dots+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z_{n}}\right\rvert^{2}}\right)^{k-1}% =\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k-1}d_{% \alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right\rvert^{2},βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + β‹― + | italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and consider

Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle Q^{\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) =1c⁒Q′′⁒(z,zΒ―)+βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(kβˆ’1)absent1𝑐superscript𝑄′′𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘˜1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{c}Q^{\prime\prime}(z,\bar{z})+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(k-1)}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) + βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀kcΞ±c⁒|zΞ±|2+βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀kβˆ’1dα⁒|zΞ±|2absentsubscript0π›Όπ‘˜subscript𝑐𝛼𝑐superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2subscript0π›Όπ‘˜1subscript𝑑𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k}\frac{c_{\alpha}}{c}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha% }}\right\rvert^{2}+\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k-1}d_{\alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right% \rvert^{2}= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=βˆ‘0≀|Ξ±|≀keα⁒|zΞ±|2,absentsubscript0π›Όπ‘˜subscript𝑒𝛼superscriptsuperscript𝑧𝛼2\displaystyle=\sum_{0\leq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right% \rvert\leq k}e_{\alpha}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert z^{\alpha}}\right% \rvert^{2},= βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≀ | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where

eΞ±={cΞ±c,|Ξ±|=kcΞ±c+dΞ±,|Ξ±|≀kβˆ’1subscript𝑒𝛼casessubscriptπ‘π›Όπ‘π›Όπ‘˜subscript𝑐𝛼𝑐subscriptπ‘‘π›Όπ›Όπ‘˜1e_{\alpha}=\begin{cases}\frac{c_{\alpha}}{c},&\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left% \lvert\alpha}\right\rvert=k\\ \frac{c_{\alpha}}{c}+d_{\alpha},&\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}% \right\rvert\leq k-1\end{cases}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG , end_CELL start_CELL | italic_Ξ± | = italic_k end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL | italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k - 1 end_CELL end_ROW

We see that for |Ξ±|=kπ›Όπ‘˜\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert=k| italic_Ξ± | = italic_k, each cΞ±=1>0subscript𝑐𝛼10c_{\alpha}=1>0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 > 0, so that each eΞ±>0subscript𝑒𝛼0e_{\alpha}>0italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0, and for |Ξ±|≀kβˆ’1π›Όπ‘˜1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\alpha}\right\rvert\leq k-1| italic_Ξ± | ≀ italic_k - 1, each |cΞ±c|<1subscript𝑐𝛼𝑐1\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert\frac{c_{\alpha}}{c}}\right\rvert<1| divide start_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG | < 1 and each dΞ±β‰₯1subscript𝑑𝛼1d_{\alpha}\geq 1italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰₯ 1, so that each eΞ±>0subscript𝑒𝛼0e_{\alpha}>0italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0. Thus the matrix (Qβ€²)superscript𝑄′(Q^{\prime})( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of coefficients of Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧Q^{\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is positive definite.

Now consider

Q⁒(z,zΒ―)𝑄𝑧¯𝑧\displaystyle Q(z,\bar{z})italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) =1c⁒Q′′⁒(z,zΒ―)+|q⁒(z)|2⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(kβˆ’1).absent1𝑐superscript𝑄′′𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘˜1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{c}Q^{\prime\prime}(z,\bar{z})+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2(k-1)}.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) + | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

As aβ†’0β†’π‘Ž0a\to 0italic_a β†’ 0, we get that qβ†’1β†’π‘ž1q\to 1italic_q β†’ 1, Q⁒(z,zΒ―)β†’Q′⁒(z,zΒ―)→𝑄𝑧¯𝑧superscript𝑄′𝑧¯𝑧Q(z,\bar{z})\to Q^{\prime}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) β†’ italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) and the matrix (Q)𝑄(Q)( italic_Q ) approaches (Qβ€²)superscript𝑄′(Q^{\prime})( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), which is positive definite. This means that (Q)𝑄(Q)( italic_Q ) is also positive definite for small enough a>0π‘Ž0a>0italic_a > 0. Thus there is a polynomial map p0subscript𝑝0p_{0}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that Q⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯p0⁒(z)βˆ₯2𝑄𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯subscript𝑝0𝑧2Q(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert p_{0}(z)}\right\rVert^{2}italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Finally, we form

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’k)⁒Q⁒(z,zΒ―)=βˆ₯zβŠ—(mβˆ’k)βŠ—p0⁒(z)βˆ₯2.subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘šπ‘˜π‘„π‘§Β―π‘§superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯tensor-productsuperscript𝑧tensor-productabsentπ‘šπ‘˜subscript𝑝0𝑧2Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(m-k)}Q(% z,\bar{z})=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z^{\otimes(m-k)}\otimes p_{0}(z% )}\right\rVert^{2}.italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) = βˆ₯ italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— ( italic_m - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This gives us

Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\displaystyle\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}% \right\rvert^{2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG =1c⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’k)⁒∏j=1k(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)+βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’1)⁒|q⁒(z)|2|q⁒(z)|2absent1𝑐superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘šπ‘˜superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘š1superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\displaystyle=\frac{\frac{1}{c}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2(m-k)}\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2(m-1)}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}% }{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}}= divide start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
=1c⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’k)⁒∏j=1k(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)|q⁒(z)|2+βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒(mβˆ’1).absent1𝑐superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘šπ‘˜superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘š1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{c}\frac{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right% \rVert^{2(m-k)}\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}% \right\rVert^{2}-r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}% \right\rvert^{2}}+\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2(m-1)}.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_c end_ARG divide start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_m - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Now, ∏j=1k(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-% r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) has a finite bidegree and hence can be divisible by |1+a⁒z1|2superscript1π‘Žsubscript𝑧12\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert 1+az_{1}}\right\rvert^{2}| 1 + italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for only a finite number of values of aπ‘Žaitalic_a. So assume that a>0π‘Ž0a>0italic_a > 0 is small enough so that |q⁒(z)|2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT does not divide ∏j=1k(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rj2)superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1π‘˜superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—2\prod_{j=1}^{k}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-% r_{j}^{2}\bigr{)}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). We see that Q0⁒(z,zΒ―)|q⁒(z)|2subscript𝑄0𝑧¯𝑧superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\frac{Q_{0}(z,\bar{z})}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^% {2}}divide start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG | italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is constant on βˆ₯zβˆ₯=sdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧𝑠\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert=sβˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ = italic_s for only s=r1,…,rk𝑠subscriptπ‘Ÿ1…subscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘˜s=r_{1},\dots,r_{k}italic_s = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT due to the |q⁒(z)|2superscriptπ‘žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lvert q(z)}\right\rvert^{2}| italic_q ( italic_z ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT term and gives a rational map in reduced terms

p⁒(z)q⁒(z)=zβŠ—(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)βŠ—p0⁒(z)1+a⁒z1.π‘π‘§π‘žπ‘§tensor-productsuperscript𝑧tensor-productabsentπ‘šπ‘˜1subscript𝑝0𝑧1π‘Žsubscript𝑧1\frac{p(z)}{q(z)}=\frac{z^{\otimes(m-k-1)}\otimes p_{0}(z)}{1+az_{1}}.divide start_ARG italic_p ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_q ( italic_z ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .

Replacing 1+a⁒z11π‘Žsubscript𝑧11+az_{1}1 + italic_a italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with a more general denominator q⁒(z)=1+aβ‹…zπ‘žπ‘§1β‹…π‘Žπ‘§q(z)=1+a\cdot zitalic_q ( italic_z ) = 1 + italic_a β‹… italic_z with small enough nonzero aβˆˆβ„‚nπ‘Žsuperscriptℂ𝑛a\in\mathbb{C}^{n}italic_a ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT gives a rational map in reduced terms

(4) f⁒(z)=p⁒(z)q⁒(z)=zβŠ—(mβˆ’kβˆ’1)βŠ—p0⁒(z)1+aβ‹…z.π‘“π‘§π‘π‘§π‘žπ‘§tensor-productsuperscript𝑧tensor-productabsentπ‘šπ‘˜1subscript𝑝0𝑧1β‹…π‘Žπ‘§f(z)=\frac{p(z)}{q(z)}=\frac{z^{\otimes(m-k-1)}\otimes p_{0}(z)}{1+a\cdot z}.italic_f ( italic_z ) = divide start_ARG italic_p ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_q ( italic_z ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— ( italic_m - italic_k - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_a β‹… italic_z end_ARG .

This defines a family of maps for some N𝑁Nitalic_N, where each member is a rational kπ‘˜kitalic_k-fold sphere map f=pq:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚N:π‘“π‘π‘žβ‡’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁f=\frac{p}{q}\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of degree of mπ‘šmitalic_m that is not a (k+1)π‘˜1(k+1)( italic_k + 1 )-fold sphere map. ∎

The description of βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in TheoremΒ 3.5 enables us to obtain a normal form of f𝑓fitalic_f when f𝑓fitalic_f is a rational ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map, proving the last part of TheoremΒ 1.4.

Theorem 3.15.

If f𝑓fitalic_f is a rational ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map, then f𝑓fitalic_f is polynomial and for every r>0π‘Ÿ0r>0italic_r > 0 there exists an R>0𝑅0R>0italic_R > 0 such that f⁒(r⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1)βŠ‚R⁒S2⁒Nβˆ’1π‘“π‘Ÿsuperscript𝑆2𝑛1𝑅superscript𝑆2𝑁1f(rS^{2n-1})\subset RS^{2N-1}italic_f ( italic_r italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βŠ‚ italic_R italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Moreover, there exists a unitary U∈U⁒(β„‚N)π‘ˆπ‘ˆsuperscriptℂ𝑁U\in U(\mathbb{C}^{N})italic_U ∈ italic_U ( blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and homogeneous sphere maps (possibly constant) hj:β„‚nβ†’β„‚β„“jnormal-:subscriptβ„Žπ‘—normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptβ„‚subscriptnormal-ℓ𝑗h_{j}\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\to\mathbb{C}^{\ell_{j}}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_β„“ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, j=1,…,k𝑗1normal-β€¦π‘˜j=1,\ldots,kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_k and where β„“1+β‹―+β„“k=Nsubscriptnormal-β„“1normal-β‹―subscriptnormal-β„“π‘˜π‘\ell_{1}+\cdots+\ell_{k}=Nroman_β„“ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + β‹― + roman_β„“ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N, such that

(5) f=U⁒(h1βŠ•β‹―βŠ•hkβŠ•0).π‘“π‘ˆdirect-sumsubscriptβ„Ž1β‹―subscriptβ„Žπ‘˜0f=U(h_{1}\oplus\cdots\oplus h_{k}\oplus 0).italic_f = italic_U ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• β‹― βŠ• italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• 0 ) .
Proof.

The first part of the statement follows from Theorem 3.12.

Suppose the degree of the polynomial f𝑓fitalic_f is mπ‘šmitalic_m. To obtain the stated presentation of f𝑓fitalic_f, we use the expression of βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in TheoremΒ 3.5:

βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2\displaystyle\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =[R12]+[R12,R22]⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)+[R12,R22,R32]⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r22)+…absentdelimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅22superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptsubscript𝑅12superscriptsubscript𝑅22superscriptsubscript𝑅32superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ22…\displaystyle=[R_{1}^{2}]+[R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2}]\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{% }\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}+[R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2},R_{3}^{% 2}]\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}% \bigr{)}\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{2}^{% 2}\bigr{)}+\dots= [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + [ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + …
+Qm⁒(z,zΒ―)⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’r12)⁒…⁒(βˆ₯zβˆ₯2βˆ’rm2),subscriptπ‘„π‘šπ‘§Β―π‘§superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿ12…superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘š2\displaystyle\phantom{={}}+Q_{m}(z,\bar{z})\bigl{(}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{1}^{2}\bigr{)}\dots\bigl{(}\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}-r_{m}^{2}\bigr{)},+ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … ( βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where Qm⁒(z,zΒ―)subscriptπ‘„π‘šπ‘§Β―π‘§Q_{m}(z,\bar{z})italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG ) is a constant, and f𝑓fitalic_f maps a sphere of radius rjsubscriptπ‘Ÿπ‘—r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT centered at the origin to a sphere of radius Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT centered at the origin.

Now as f𝑓fitalic_f is a degree-mπ‘šmitalic_m polynomial, βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a bidegree-(m,m)π‘šπ‘š(m,m)( italic_m , italic_m ) polynomial in the coordinates zj,zΒ―jsubscript𝑧𝑗subscript¯𝑧𝑗z_{j},\bar{z}_{j}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , overΒ― start_ARG italic_z end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and it must be of the above form. Thus βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of the form:

βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2=C0+C1⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯2+C2⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯4+β‹―+Cm⁒βˆ₯zβˆ₯2⁒m,superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2subscript𝐢0subscript𝐢1superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2subscript𝐢2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧4β‹―subscriptπΆπ‘šsuperscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑧2π‘š\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}=C_{0}+C_{1}\mathopen% {}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{2}+C_{2}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}% \left\lVert z}\right\rVert^{4}+\dots+C_{m}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert z% }\right\rVert^{2m},βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + β‹― + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_z βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where the Cjsubscript𝐢𝑗C_{j}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPTs are nonnegative real numbers, and Cm>0subscriptπΆπ‘š0C_{m}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 since f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial map** of degree mπ‘šmitalic_m. Set hj⁒(z)=Cj⁒Hj⁒(z)superscriptβ„Žπ‘—π‘§subscript𝐢𝑗subscript𝐻𝑗𝑧h^{j}(z)=\sqrt{C_{j}}H_{j}(z)italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = square-root start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) (where h0⁒(z)superscriptβ„Ž0𝑧h^{0}(z)italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ) is the constant map** C0subscript𝐢0\sqrt{C_{0}}square-root start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG), the scaled and symmetrized j𝑗jitalic_j-fold tensor of the identity map with itself. Suppose d1<d2<β‹―<dksubscript𝑑1subscript𝑑2β‹―subscriptπ‘‘π‘˜d_{1}<d_{2}<\cdots<d_{k}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < β‹― < italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are exactly the degrees for which Cdj>0subscript𝐢subscript𝑑𝑗0C_{d_{j}}>0italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0. Let hj=hdjsubscriptβ„Žπ‘—superscriptβ„Žsubscript𝑑𝑗h_{j}=h^{d_{j}}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then h=h1βŠ•β‹―βŠ•hkβ„Ždirect-sumsubscriptβ„Ž1β‹―subscriptβ„Žπ‘˜h=h_{1}\oplus\cdots\oplus h_{k}italic_h = italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• β‹― βŠ• italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a ∞\infty∞-fold sphere map with linearly independent components. We have that βˆ₯f⁒(z)βˆ₯2=βˆ₯h⁒(z)βˆ₯2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯𝑓𝑧2superscriptdelimited-βˆ₯βˆ₯β„Žπ‘§2\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lVert f(z)}\right\rVert^{2}=\mathopen{}% \mathclose{{}\left\lVert h(z)}\right\rVert^{2}βˆ₯ italic_f ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_h ( italic_z ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all z𝑧zitalic_z, thus by a result of D’AngeloΒ [dangelo-1993-several], after possibly adding zero components to hβ„Žhitalic_h, there is a unitary Uπ‘ˆUitalic_U such that (5) holds. ∎

Remark 3.16.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2. Given any nonconstant rational map F:β„‚nβ‡’β„‚N:𝐹⇒superscriptℂ𝑛superscriptℂ𝑁F\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_F : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‡’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that takes rπ‘Ÿritalic_r-sphere to R𝑅Ritalic_R-sphere, we can scale it by f⁒(z)=1R⁒F⁒(r⁒z)𝑓𝑧1π‘…πΉπ‘Ÿπ‘§f(z)=\frac{1}{R}F(rz)italic_f ( italic_z ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_R end_ARG italic_F ( italic_r italic_z ), giving us a rational sphere map and hence a rational proper map of balls f:𝔹n→𝔹N:𝑓→subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Thus our results can be stated for rational proper maps of balls as the following:

Theorem 3.17.

Let nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2. Let f=pq:𝔹n→𝔹Nnormal-:π‘“π‘π‘žnormal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁f=\frac{p}{q}\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a rational proper map of balls that takes mβˆ’1π‘š1m-1italic_m - 1 zero-centric spheres in 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to zero-centric spheres in 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

  1. (i)

    If f𝑓fitalic_f is rational of degree less than mπ‘šmitalic_m, then f𝑓fitalic_f is a polynomial and takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. The limit mπ‘šmitalic_m is strict.

  2. (ii)

    If f𝑓fitalic_f is polynomial of degree at most mπ‘šmitalic_m, then f𝑓fitalic_f takes all zero-centric spheres to zero-centric spheres. The limit mπ‘šmitalic_m is strict.

4. Proper map**s of ball differences

The first part of TheoremΒ 1.2 is the following lemma.

Lemma 4.1.

Suppose nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and Br⁒(c)βŠ‚β„‚nsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘superscriptℂ𝑛B_{r}(c)\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, BR⁒(C)βŠ‚β„‚Nsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢superscriptℂ𝑁B_{R}(C)\subset\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are two balls such that Br⁒(c)βˆ©π”Ήnβ‰ βˆ…subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛B_{r}(c)\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}\not=\varnothingitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  βˆ… and BR⁒(C)βˆ©π”ΉNβ‰ βˆ…subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁B_{R}(C)\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}\not=\varnothingitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  βˆ…. Suppose f:𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)¯→𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛normal-Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus% \overline{B_{R}(C)}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG is a proper holomorphic map. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is rational and extends to a rational proper map of balls f:𝔹n→𝔹Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that takes the sphere (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to the sphere (βˆ‚BR⁒(C))βˆ©π”ΉNsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁(\partial B_{R}(C))\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

Since (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is nonempty and f𝑓fitalic_f is defined on the pseudoconcave side of it, we find that f𝑓fitalic_f extends locally past βˆ‚Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\partial B_{r}(c)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) at some point. As f𝑓fitalic_f is proper it means that f𝑓fitalic_f must take a small piece of βˆ‚Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\partial B_{r}(c)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) to some piece of the boundary of 𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―subscript𝔹𝑁¯subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG. As the derivative of f𝑓fitalic_f is of full rank at most points, we find that f𝑓fitalic_f must take this small piece of the sphere to the pseudoconcave part of 𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―subscript𝔹𝑁¯subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG, that is, it must go to some part of βˆ‚BR⁒(C)subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\partial B_{R}(C)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ). Via Forstnerič’s result, we find that f𝑓fitalic_f is rational, and extends to a proper map of Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘B_{r}(c)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) to BR⁒(C)subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢B_{R}(C)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ). In particular, f𝑓fitalic_f extends past the boundary at some points of S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then again it must take those points to the sphere S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT via the same argument as above, and again it extends to a rational proper map of 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. That it takes (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to (βˆ‚BR⁒(C))βˆ©π”ΉNsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁(\partial B_{R}(C))\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT follows as the map we started with was proper. ∎

If the two spheres are concentric with the unit ball, that is, c=0𝑐0c=0italic_c = 0 and C=0𝐢0C=0italic_C = 0, then the hypotheses on the spheres mean that r<1π‘Ÿ1r<1italic_r < 1 and R<1𝑅1R<1italic_R < 1. The conclusion of the lemma is then that f𝑓fitalic_f is a rational proper map of the unit balls, hence takes S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Moreover, the lemma says that f𝑓fitalic_f also takes r⁒S2⁒nβˆ’1π‘Ÿsuperscript𝑆2𝑛1rS^{2n-1}italic_r italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to R⁒S2⁒Nβˆ’1𝑅superscript𝑆2𝑁1RS^{2N-1}italic_R italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and thus is a rational 2222-fold sphere map. Hence, by LemmaΒ 3.10, we find that the degree of the denominator is less than the degree of the numerator, proving the next part of TheoremΒ 1.2.

For the last part of TheoremΒ 1.2 we prove the following lemma.

Lemma 4.2.

Suppose nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and Br⁒(c)βŠ‚β„‚nsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘superscriptℂ𝑛B_{r}(c)\subset\mathbb{C}^{n}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, BR⁒(C)βŠ‚β„‚Nsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢superscriptℂ𝑁B_{R}(C)\subset\mathbb{C}^{N}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) βŠ‚ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are two balls such that Br⁒(c)βˆ©π”Ήnβ‰ βˆ…subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛B_{r}(c)\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}\not=\varnothingitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  βˆ… and BR⁒(C)βˆ©π”ΉNβ‰ βˆ…subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁B_{R}(C)\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}\not=\varnothingitalic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  βˆ…. Suppose f:𝔹n→𝔹Nnormal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a holomorphic proper map that takes the sphere (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to the sphere (βˆ‚BR⁒(C))βˆ©π”ΉNsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁(\partial B_{R}(C))\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then f𝑓fitalic_f is rational and restricts to a proper map of 𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―subscript𝔹𝑛normal-Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG to 𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―subscript𝔹𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG.

Proof.

The first part of the theorem follows by Forstnerič’s result again as we get that the piece of the sphere (βˆ‚Br⁒(c))βˆ©π”Ήnsubscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘subscript𝔹𝑛(\partial B_{r}(c))\cap\mathbb{B}_{n}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is taken to the piece of the sphere (βˆ‚BR⁒(C))βˆ©π”ΉNsubscript𝐡𝑅𝐢subscript𝔹𝑁(\partial B_{R}(C))\cap\mathbb{B}_{N}( βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) ) ∩ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So f𝑓fitalic_f is rational. As f𝑓fitalic_f is a rational proper map of balls 𝔹nsubscript𝔹𝑛\mathbb{B}_{n}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it extends past the boundary by the result of Cima–SuffridgeΒ [cima-1990-boundary], and hence takes the the sphere S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the sphere S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Similarly, as the application of Forstnerič’s theorem gave a proper rational map of Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘B_{r}(c)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) to BR⁒(C)subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢B_{R}(C)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ), we get that f𝑓fitalic_f takes βˆ‚Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\partial B_{r}(c)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) to βˆ‚BR⁒(C)subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\partial B_{R}(C)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ). To be a proper map of the differences, we need no point of 𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―subscript𝔹𝑛¯subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG to go to a point of BR⁒(C)Β―Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\overline{B_{R}(C)}overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG. An even stronger conclusion holds, as f𝑓fitalic_f is a proper rational map of Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘B_{r}(c)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) to BR⁒(C)subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢B_{R}(C)italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ), LemmaΒ 2.1 gives that no point of the complement of Br⁒(c)Β―Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\overline{B_{r}(c)}overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG in β„‚nsuperscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can go to BR⁒(C)Β―Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\overline{B_{R}(C)}overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG. ∎

TheoremΒ 1.2 is now proved. Finally, we prove PropositionΒ 1.5: there are no proper maps from the difference of balls to the complement of balls or vice-versa.

Proposition 4.3.

Suppose nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2, 𝔹n∩Br⁒(c)β‰ βˆ…subscript𝔹𝑛subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\cap B_{r}(c)\not=\varnothingblackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) β‰  βˆ…, and 𝔹N∩BR⁒(C)β‰ βˆ…subscript𝔹𝑁subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢\mathbb{B}_{N}\cap B_{R}(C)\not=\varnothingblackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) β‰  βˆ…. There exist no proper holomorphic maps f:𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―β†’β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’subscript𝔹𝑛normal-Β―subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘superscriptℂ𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus% \overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG nor f:β„‚nβˆ–π”Ήn¯→𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―normal-:𝑓normal-β†’superscriptℂ𝑛normal-Β―subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁normal-Β―subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}% \setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG.

Proof.

First, suppose f:𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―β†’β„‚Nβˆ–π”ΉNΒ―:𝑓→subscript𝔹𝑛¯subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘superscriptℂ𝑁¯subscript𝔹𝑁f\colon\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}\to\mathbb{C}^{N}\setminus% \overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}italic_f : blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG β†’ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG is a proper holomorphic map. As before, f𝑓fitalic_f extends holomorphically across some piece of the pseudoconcave boundary βˆ‚Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\partial B_{r}(c)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ). Hence it takes some piece of βˆ‚Br⁒(c)subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\partial B_{r}(c)βˆ‚ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) to a bounded set, and as the map is proper it must go to the boundary of the target, that is, S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By the theorem of Forstnerič, f𝑓fitalic_f is rational. As f𝑓fitalic_f is rational, we can also extend to most points of S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. But this means that this extension is a holomorphic map that takes a piece of the sphere S2⁒nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑛1S^{2n-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the finite part of the boundary, that is, S2⁒Nβˆ’1superscript𝑆2𝑁1S^{2N-1}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Again, Forstnerič says that this map is actually a proper map of 𝔹n→𝔹Nβ†’subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{n}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. That is impossible as f𝑓fitalic_f takes 𝔹nβˆ–Br⁒(c)Β―subscript𝔹𝑛¯subscriptπ΅π‘Ÿπ‘\mathbb{B}_{n}\setminus\overline{B_{r}(c)}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c ) end_ARG to the complement of 𝔹NΒ―Β―subscript𝔹𝑁\overline{\mathbb{B}_{N}}overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG.

Next, suppose that we are given a proper holomorphic map f:β„‚nβˆ–π”Ήn¯→𝔹Nβˆ–BR⁒(C)Β―:𝑓→superscriptℂ𝑛¯subscript𝔹𝑛subscript𝔹𝑁¯subscript𝐡𝑅𝐢f\colon\mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}\to\mathbb{B}_{N}% \setminus\overline{B_{R}(C)}italic_f : blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG β†’ blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– overΒ― start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_C ) end_ARG. By Hartogs, f𝑓fitalic_f extends to all of β„‚nsuperscriptℂ𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By the maximum principle f𝑓fitalic_f takes 𝔹nΒ―Β―subscript𝔹𝑛\overline{\mathbb{B}_{n}}overΒ― start_ARG blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG to 𝔹Nsubscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}_{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, but that violates Liouville’s theorem. ∎

References