1: \documentclass[12pt]{amsart} \usepackage{latexsym, amssymb}

2: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

3: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

4: \usepackage{pstricks}

5: 

6: % theorem environments

7: 

8: \newtheoremstyle{slthm}% name

9:   {9pt}%      Space above, empty = `usual value'

10:   {5pt}%      Space below

11:   {\slshape}% Body font

12:   {}%         Indent amount (empty = no indent, \parindent = para indent)

13:   {\bfseries}% Thm head font

14:   {.}%        Punctuation after thm head

15:   {.5em}%     Space after thm head: " " = normal interword space;

16:         %       \newline = linebreak

17:   {\thmname{#1}\thmnumber{ #2}\thmnote{ (#3)}}% Thm head spec

18: 

19: \newtheoremstyle{prcl}% name

20:   {9pt}%      Space above, empty = `usual value'

21:   {5pt}%      Space below

22:   {\slshape}% Body font

23:   {}%         Indent amount (empty = no indent, \parindent = para indent)

24:   {\bfseries}% Thm head font

25:   {.}%        Punctuation after thm head

26:   {.5em}%     Space after thm head: " " = normal interword space;

27:         %       \newline = linebreak

28:   {\thmname{#3}\thmnumber{ #2}}% Thm head spec

29: 

30: \newtheoremstyle{prblm}% name

31:   {9pt}%      Space above, empty = `usual value'

32:   {5pt}%      Space below

33:   {\rm}% Body font

34:   {}%         Indent amount (empty = no indent, \parindent = para indent)

35:   {\bfseries}% Thm head font

36:   {.}%        Punctuation after thm head

37:   {.5em}%     Space after thm head: " " = normal interword space;

38:         %       \newline = linebreak

39:   {\thmname{#3}\thmnumber{ #2}}% Thm head spec

40: 

41: \theoremstyle{slthm}

42: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]

43: \newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}

44: \newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}

45: \newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}

46: \newtheorem{fact}[thm]{Fact}

47: \newtheorem{facts}[thm]{Facts}

48: 

49: \theoremstyle{definition}

50: \newtheorem{exr}[thm]{Exercise}

51: \newtheorem{df}[thm]{Definition}

52: \newtheorem{dfs}[thm]{Definitions}

53: \newtheorem{rmkdf}[thm]{Remark and Definition}

54: \newtheorem{nrmk}[thm]{Remark}

55: \newtheorem{nrmks}[thm]{Remarks}

56: \newtheorem{expl}[thm]{Example}

57: \newtheorem{expls}[thm]{Examples}

58: \newtheorem{pgf}[thm]{}

59: \newtheorem{asmpt}[thm]{Assumption}

60: \newtheorem*{claim}{Claim}

61: \newtheorem*{term}{Terminology}

62: \newtheorem*{notation}{Notation}

63: 

64: \theoremstyle{remark}

65: \newtheorem*{rmk}{Remark}

66: \newtheorem*{rmks}{Remarks}

67: \newtheorem*{ntn}{Notation}

68: 

69: \theoremstyle{prcl}

70: \newtheorem*{prclaim}{Proclaim}

71: \newtheorem{nprclaim}[thm]{}

72: 

73: \theoremstyle{prblm}

74: \newtheorem*{problem}{Problem}

75: 

76: % change default numbering for enumerate environment to be in parentheses

77: 

78: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\rm (\theenumi)}

79: 

80: % enumerate environment with roman numbering

81: 

82: \newenvironment{renumerate}

83:         {\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\rm (\roman{enumi})}

84:          \begin{enumerate}}

85:         {\end{enumerate}}

86: 

87: %enumerate environment with first number chosen

88: \newcounter{flexnummark} 

89: \newenvironment{flexnum}[1]

90:       {\begin{list}{(\arabic{flexnummark})}{\usecounter{flexnummark}

91:             \setcounter{flexnummark}{#1}

92:             \addtocounter{flexnummark}{-1}}} {\end{list}}

93: 

94: 

95: %% various math operators (for closure, boundary, etc.)

96: 

97: \DeclareMathOperator{\length}{length}

98: \DeclareMathOperator{\cl}{cl}

99: \DeclareMathOperator{\fr}{fr}

100: \DeclareMathOperator{\bd}{bd}

101: \DeclareMathOperator{\ir}{int}

102: \DeclareMathOperator{\dom}{dom}

103: \DeclareMathOperator{\codim}{codim}

104: \DeclareMathOperator{\Reg}{Reg}

105: \DeclareMathOperator{\mr}{MR}

106: \DeclareMathOperator{\tp}{tp}

107: \DeclareMathOperator{\id}{id}

108: \DeclareMathOperator{\rk}{rk}

109: \DeclareMathOperator{\fracf}{F}

110: \DeclareMathOperator{\puis}{P}

111: \DeclareMathOperator{\im}{Im}

112: \DeclareMathOperator{\re}{Re}

113: \DeclareMathOperator{\supp}{supp}

114: \DeclareMathOperator{\ord}{ord}

115: \DeclareMathOperator{\sord}{sord}

116: \DeclareMathOperator{\sign}{sgn}

117: \DeclareMathOperator{\ima}{im}

118: \DeclareMathOperator{\Span}{span}

119: \DeclareMathOperator{\bh}{b}

120: \DeclareMathOperator\Un{Un}

121: \DeclareMathOperator\An{An}

122: \DeclareMathOperator\cut{cut}

123: \DeclareMathOperator\val{val}

124: \DeclareMathOperator\Pos{Pos}

125: \DeclareMathOperator\st{st}

126: \DeclareMathOperator\gr{gr}

127: \DeclareMathOperator\bl{b}

128: \DeclareMathOperator\Bl{B}

129: \DeclareMathOperator\blh{bh}

130: \DeclareMathOperator\ex{e}

131: \DeclareMathOperator\tr{t}

132: \DeclareMathOperator\h{h}

133: \DeclareMathOperator\sh{sh}

134: \DeclareMathOperator\rh{rh}

135: \DeclareMathOperator\ph{ph}

136: \DeclareMathOperator\wh{wh}

137: \DeclareMathOperator\mh{mh}

138: \DeclareMathOperator\dih{dih}

139: \DeclareMathOperator\true{\bf T}

140: \DeclareMathOperator\false{\bf F}

141: \DeclareMathOperator\inv{i}

142: \DeclareMathOperator\dist{dist}

143: \DeclareMathOperator\Arg{Arg}

144: 

145: \newcommand{\grad}{\nabla}

146: \newcommand{\linf}{\Lambda^{\infty}}

147: \newcommand{\tinf}{\text{\rm T}^{\infty}}

148: \newcommand{\fsigma}{\text{\rm F}_{\sigma}}

149: 

150: % my spacing

151: 

152: \newcommand{\mdots}{\dots}

153: 

154: % logic NOT

155: 

156: \newcommand{\negsim}{\sim\!}

157: 

158: % \nsubseteq

159: 

160: %\DeclareMathSymbol{\ssneq}{\mathalpha}{AMSb}{"20}

161: %\renewcommand{\nsubseteq}{\ \ssneq\ }

162: 

163: % the infamous restriction sign!

164: 

165: \newcommand{\rest}[1]{|_{#1}}

166: 

167: % long arrow for functions:  f:A \into B

168: 

169: \newcommand{\into}{\longrightarrow}

170: 

171: % changes \hat, \tilde and \bar to \widehat, \widetilde and \overline

172: % (looks better!)

173: 

174: \renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}

175: \renewcommand{\tilde}{\widetilde}

176: \renewcommand{\bar}{\overline}

177: \newcommand{\mdot}{\ \!\cdot\ \!}

178: 

179: % Onshuus's Independence Defs. (\ind produces the anchor, \nind the

180: % same with a slash through it.)

181: 

182: \def\Ind#1#2{#1\setbox0=\hbox{$#1x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$#1\mid$\hss}

183: \lower.9\ht0\hbox to 0pt{\hss$#1\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0}

184: \def\ind{\mathop{\mathpalette\Ind{}}}

185: \def\Notind#1#2{#1\setbox0=\hbox{$#1x$}\kern\wd0\hbox to 0pt{\mathchardef

186: \nn=12854\hss$#1\nn$\kern1.4\wd0\hss}\hbox to

187: 0pt{\hss$#1\mid$\hss}\lower.9\ht0 \hbox to

188: 0pt{\hss$#1\smile$\hss}\kern\wd0}

189: \def\nind{\mathop{\mathpalette\Notind{}}}

190: 

191: % norm and set

192: 

193: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\|#1\right\|}

194: \newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}

195: \newcommand{\lst}[1]{\left(#1\right)}

196: 

197: % blackboard letters for naturals, rationals, reals etc.

198: 

199: \newcommand{\NN}{\mathbb{N}}

200: \newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathbb{Z}}

201: \newcommand{\PP}{\mathbb{P}}

202: \newcommand{\QQ}{\mathbb{Q}}

203: \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}}

204: \newcommand{\CC}{\mathbb{C}}

205: \renewcommand{\AA}{\mathbb{A}}

206: 

207: % various "curly" letters

208: 

209: \newcommand{\curly}[1]{\mathcal{#1}}

210: \newcommand{\A}{\curly{A}}

211: \newcommand{\B}{\curly{B}}

212: \newcommand{\C}{\curly{C}}

213: \newcommand{\D}{\curly{D}}

214: \newcommand{\E}{\curly{E}}

215: \newcommand{\F}{\curly{F}}

216: \newcommand{\G}{\curly{G}}

217: \renewcommand{\H}{\curly{H}}

218: \newcommand{\I}{\curly{I}}

219: \newcommand{\J}{\curly{J}}

220: \newcommand{\K}{\curly{K}}

221: \newcommand{\Le}{\curly{L}}

222: \newcommand{\M}{\curly{M}}

223: \newcommand{\N}{\curly{N}}

224: \renewcommand{\O}{\curly{O}}

225: \renewcommand{\P}{\curly{P}}

226: \newcommand{\Q}{\curly{Q}}

227: \newcommand{\R}{\curly{R}}

228: \renewcommand{\S}{\curly{S}}

229: \newcommand{\T}{\curly{T}}

230: \newcommand{\U}{\curly{U}}

231: \newcommand{\V}{\curly{V}}

232: \newcommand{\W}{\curly{W}}

233: \newcommand{\X}{\curly{X}}

234: \newcommand{\Y}{\curly{Y}}

235: \newcommand{\Z}{\curly{Z}}

236: 

237: % various fraktur letters

238: 

239: \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}}

240: \renewcommand{\b}{\mathbf{b}}

241: \newcommand{\f}{\mathbf{f}}

242: \newcommand{\g}{\mathbf{g}}

243: \renewcommand{\k}{\mathbf k}

244: \renewcommand{\l}{\mathbf l}

245: \newcommand{\m}{\mathbf{m}}

246: \newcommand{\p}{\mathbf{p}}

247: \newcommand{\q}{\mathbf{q}}

248: \renewcommand{\r}{\mathbf{r}}

249: \newcommand{\s}{\mathbf{s}}

250: \renewcommand{\t}{\mathbf{t}}

251: \newcommand{\frB}{\mathbf{B}}

252: \newcommand{\frL}{\mathbf{L}}

253: 

254: 

255: % Borel and Laplace transforms

256: 

257: \newcommand{\bo}{\curly{B}}

258: \newcommand{\la}{\curly{L}}

259: 

260: % various expansions of the field of reals

261: 

262: \newcommand{\Rbar}{\overline{\RR}}

263: \newcommand{\Rtilde}{\,\tilde\RR\,}

264: \newcommand{\pfaff}{\P\big(\Rtilde\big)}

265: \newcommand{\Ibar}{\bar{I}\,}

266: \newcommand{\Ran}{\RR_{\text{an}}}

267: \newcommand{\Ranexp}{\RR_{\text{an,exp}}}

268: \newcommand{\Rf}{\RR_{\F}}

269: \newcommand{\Rg}{\RR_{\G}}

270: \newcommand{\Rq}{\RR_{\Q}}

271: \newcommand{\Lg}{L_{\G}}

272: \newcommand{\Tg}{T_{\G}}

273: \newcommand{\Ranstar}{\RR_{\text{an}^*}}

274: \newcommand{\Ranomega}{\RR_{\text{an}^{\omega}}}

275: \newcommand{\Rb}{\RR_{\curly{B}}}

276: \newcommand{\Ra}{\R\langle a \rangle}

277: 

278: % general power series ring

279: 

280: \newcommand{\Rgamma}{\RR\left(\left(t^{\Gamma}\right)\right)}

281: 

282: % power series with blackboard font coefficients.

283: % these commands have two arguments: the first is for the ring of coefficients,

284: % which will appear in blackboard font, the second is for the indeterminate(s).

285: % Use as follows:   \Ps{R}{X} gives the usual power series with real

286: % coefficients,

287: % and \Pc{R}{X,Y} gives the ring of convergent power series with real

288: % coefficients

289: % and indeterminates X and Y.

290: 

291: \newcommand{\Ps}[2]{\mathbb{#1}[\![#2]\!]}

292: \newcommand{\Pc}[2]{\mathbb{#1}\{#2\}}

293: 

294: % power series with normal font coefficients.

295: % same as above, except that the ring of coefficients will be in normal font.

296: % (Used for example over a general ring A.)

297: 

298: \newcommand{\As}[2]{#1[\![#2]\!]}

299: \newcommand{\Ac}[2]{#1\{#2\}}

300: 

301: % fractions with \pi in the numerator.

302: % example: \piover{k} gives the fraction \pi/k.

303: 

304: \newcommand{\piover}[1]{\frac {\pi}{#1}}

305: 

306: % closed sector

307: 

308: \newcommand{\Sbar}{\overline{S}}

309: 

310: % regular part of cell decomposition

311: 

312: \newcommand{\Creg}{\C_{\text{reg}}}

313: \newcommand{\Cregtan}{\C_{\text{reg}}^{\text{tan}}}

314: 

315: % page settings

316: 

317: %\voffset = -0.8cm

318: %\topmargin = 0in

319: %\evensidemargin = 0in

320: %\oddsidemargin = 0in

321: %\textheight = 9in

322: %\headheight = 12pt

323: %\textwidth = 6.5in

324: %\evensidemargin = 0.5in

325: %\oddsidemargin = 0.5in

326: %\textwidth = 5.5in

327: %\headheight = 12pt

328: 

329: % equation numbering

330: 

331: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

332: 

333: % display breaks

334: 

335: \allowdisplaybreaks[2]

336: 

337: 

338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.

339: %\usepackage{hyperref}

340: %\usepackage{pstricks}

341: 

342: %\usepackage{babel}

343: %\makeatother

344: 

345: 

346: \begin{document}

347: 

348: \title{Transition maps at non-resonant hyperbolic

349:   singularities are o-minimal}

350: 

351: 

352: \author{T. Kaiser, J.-P. Rolin and P. Speissegger}

353: 

354: \address{Universit\"at Regensburg \\ NWF I-Mathematik \\ 93040

355:   Regensburg, \linebreak Germany}

356: \email{tobias.kaiser@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de}

357: 

358: \address{Universit\'e de Bourgogne \\ UFR Sciences et Techniques \\ 9

359:   avenue Alain Savary - B.P. 47870 \\ 21078 Dijon Cedex \\ France}

360: \email{Jean-Philippe.Rolin@u-bourgogne.fr} 

361: 

362: \address{McMaster University \\ Department of Mathematics \&

363:   Statistics, \linebreak 1280 Main Street West \\ Hamilton, Ontario L8S

364:   4K1 \\ Canada} \email{speisseg@math.mcmaster.ca}

365: 

366: \subjclass {37C27, 37E35, 03C64}

367: 

368: \keywords {Vector fields, transition maps, o-minimal structures}

369: 

370: \thanks {Supported by DFG, CNRS and NSERC}

371: 

372: \date{\today; Preprint.}

373: 

374: \begin{abstract}

375:   We construct a model complete and o-minimal expansion $\Rq$ of the

376:   field of real numbers such that, for any planar analytic vector

377:   field $\xi$ and any isolated, non-resonant hyperbolic singularity

378:   $p$ of $\xi$, a transition map for $\xi$ at $p$ is definable in

379:   $\Rq$.  This expansion also defines all convergent generalized power

380:   series with natural support and is polynomially bounded.

381: \end{abstract}

382: 

383: \maketitle

384: \markboth{T. Kaiser, J.-P. Rolin and P. Speissegger}{Transition maps

385:   at non-resonant hyperbolic singularities}

386: %\tableofcontents{}

387: 

388: \section*{Introduction}

389: 

390: One of the motivations for this paper is the following: let $\xi$ be a

391: (real) analytic vector field on $\RR^2$ such that $\xi^{-1}(0) =

392: \{p\}$ is an isolated singularity of $\xi$.  We assume here that the

393: flow of $\xi$ near $p$ is as pictured in Figure 1 below:

394: there are two trajectories of $\xi$ at $p$, one incoming to $p$,

395: called $\gamma^-$, and the other outgoing from $p$, called $\gamma^+$.

396: To describe the flow of $\xi$ near these trajectories, we fix two

397: small segments $\Lambda^-$ and $\Lambda^+$ transverse to $\xi$ and

398: equipped with analytic charts $x$ and $y$ such that $x = 0$ is the

399: intersection point of $\gamma^-$ with $\Lambda^-$ and $x>0$ to the

400: right of $\gamma^-$, and similarly $y=0$ is the intersection point of

401: $\gamma^+$ with $\Lambda^+$ and $y>0$ above $\gamma^+$.  Then for all

402: sufficiently small $x>0$, the trajectory of $\xi$ crossing $\Lambda^-$

403: in the point $x$ later crosses $\Lambda^+$ in the point $y = g(x)$ of

404: $\Lambda^+$.

405: 

406: \begin{figure}[htbp]

407:   \begin{center}

408:     \input{transitionmap.pst}

409:   \end{center}

410:   \caption{\label{cap:Transition-map}Transition map $g$ at the

411:     hyperbolic singular point $p$}

412: \end{figure}

413: 

414: For any sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$, the map $g:(0,\epsilon)

415: \into (0,\infty)$ defined in this way is called a \textbf{transition

416:   map} of $\xi$ at $p$.  The study of transition maps is at the heart

417: of Ilyashenko's solution of Dulac's Problem \cite{ily:dulac}.

418: Somewhat more precisely, Ilyashenko proves that any finite composition

419: of such transition maps has only finitely many isolated fixed points.

420: (Independently, Ecalle \cite{eca:dulac} proves that these maps are

421: \textit{analyzable} and deduces his own proof of Dulac's Problem.)

422: 

423: Ilyashenko's analysis of transition maps suggests to us the following

424: \medskip

425: 

426: \noindent\textbf{Question:} are the transition maps of $\xi$ near

427: $p$ definable in some \textit{fixed} \hbox{o-minimal} expansion $\R$

428:   of the real field?  \medskip

429: 

430: If the answer to this question is positive, it would follow that some

431: \textit{Poincar\'e return map near any polycycle of $\xi$} (see

432: Section \ref{family} for details) is also definable in $\R$, because

433: the family of functions definable in $\R$ is closed under composition.

434: It would then follow from Dulac's arguments \cite{dul:cycles} that

435: $\xi$ has at most finitely many limit cycles.

436: 

437: In this paper, we give a positive answer to the above question under

438: some restrictions on $\xi$.  First, we assume that the singularity $p$

439: of $\xi$ is \textbf{hyperbolic}, that is, the linear part of $\xi$ at

440: $p$ has two nonzero real eigenvalues of opposite signs.  In this

441: situation, Dulac proves in \cite[chapters 23 and 35]{dul:cycles} that

442: for a transition map $g$ as above, there exist a choice of charts $x$

443: and $y$, a $p_0>0$, real polynomials $p_j$ in one variable for $j = 1,

444: 2, \dots$, and real numbers $0 < \nu_0 < \nu_1 < \cdots$, such that

445: $\lim_j \nu_j = +\infty$ and for every $n \in \NN$ the following

446: asymptotic relation holds:

447: \begin{itemize}

448: \item[(D)] $g(x) - p_0x^{\nu_0} - \sum_{j=1}^n p_j(\log x) x^{\nu_j} =

449:   o\left(x^{\nu_n}\right)$ as $x \to 0$.

450: \end{itemize}

451: Moreover, Ilyashenko obtains the following strengthening in Chapter 1

452: of \cite{ily:dulac}: a set $W \subseteq \CC$ is a \textbf{standard

453:   quadratic domain} if there are constant $c \in \RR$ and $C > 0$ such

454: that $$W = \set{z \in \CC:\ \re z < c - C \sqrt{|\im z|}}.$$ Then for

455: $g$ as above,

456: \begin{itemize}

457: \item[(I1)] there exists a standard quadratic domain $W \subseteq \CC$

458:   such that $g \circ \exp$ extends to a holomorphic mapping $G:W \into

459:   \CC$;

460: \item[(I2)] for all $n \in \NN$, we have the asymptotic relation

461:   \begin{equation*}

462:     G(z) - p_0 e^{\nu_0 z} - \sum_{j=1}^n p_j(z) e^{\nu_j z} =

463:     o\left(e^{\nu_n \re z}\right) \text{ as } |z| \to +\infty \text{

464:       in } W.

465:   \end{equation*}

466: \end{itemize}

467: Slightly abusing notations (to be clarified in Section

468: \ref{asymptotic_section} below), we summarize here conditions (I1) and

469: (I2) by saying that there is a standard quadratic domain $W \subseteq

470: \CC$ such that $g \sim_W p_0 x^{\nu_0} + \sum_{n=1}^\infty p_j(\log x)

471: x^{\nu_n}$.  A Phragmen-Lindel\"of argument \cite[p. 23]{ily:dulac}

472: shows that these conditions suffice to conclude that $g$ has at most

473: finitely many isolated fixed points.

474: 

475: The main body of Ilyashenko's proof consists in extending this

476: Phrag\-men-Lindel\"of argument to \textit{finite compositions} of

477: transition maps (not just in the hyperbolic case).  In contrast, our

478: approach is to try to prove that all transition maps generate an

479: o-minimal expansion of the real field.  Since finite compositions of

480: functions definable in an \hbox{o-minimal} structure are again

481: definable in that same structure, it would then follow that all finite

482: compositions of transition maps have finitely many isolated fixed

483: points.

484: 

485: In this paper, we carry out our approach under the additional

486: hypotheses of hyperbolicity and

487: \begin{itemize}

488: \item[(NR)] the singularity $p$ is \textbf{non-resonant}, that is, the

489:   ratio of the two eigenvalues of the linear part of $\xi$ at $p$ is

490:   an irrational number.

491: \end{itemize}

492: It follows from Dulac's argument that under the assumption (NR), the

493: polynomials $p_j$ in the asymptotic series of $g$ above are all

494: constant.  

495: 

496: Thus, we let $\Ps{R}{X^*}^\omega$ be the set of all formal power

497: series $F = \sum_{\alpha \ge 0} a_\alpha X^\alpha$ such that $a_\alpha

498: \in \RR$ for each $\alpha \ge 0$ and the support

499: \begin{equation*}

500:   \supp(F) := \set{\alpha \ge 0:\ a_\alpha \ne 0}

501: \end{equation*}

502: of $F$ is such that $\supp(F) \cap [0,R]$ is finite for every $R>0$.

503: Note that $\Ps{R}{X^*}^\omega$ is a subset of the set $\Ps{R}{X^*}$ of

504: all generalized power series defined by Van den Dries and Speissegger

505: in \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}.  (In the latter, o-minimality is

506: established for the expansion of the real field by all

507: \textit{convergent} generalized power series; in contrast, the

508: generalized power series studied here are in general not convergent.)

509: Since we do not use the larger class $\Ps{R}{X^*}$ here, we shall

510: routinely omit the superscript $\omega$.

511: 

512: Next, for every $\epsilon > 0$, we let $\Q_\epsilon$ be the set of all

513: functions $f:[0,\epsilon] \into \RR$ for which there exist an $F \in

514: \Ps{R}{X^*}$ and a standard quadratic domain $W \subseteq \CC$ such

515: that $(0,\epsilon] \subseteq \exp(W)$ and $f \sim_W F$.  (Thus by

516: definition, for any $f \in \Q_\epsilon$ the only point in

517: $[0,\epsilon]$ where $f$ is not necessarily analytic is $0$.)  Our

518: goal here is to prove that the expansion of the real field by all

519: functions in $\Q_1$ is o-minimal; to do so, we follow the method

520: developed in \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}.

521: 

522: Roughly speaking, the method in \cite{vdd-spe:genpower} goes as

523: follows: starting from a quasianalytic class $\C$ of functions in

524: several variables, we consider ``mixed'' functions that behave like

525: functions in $\C$ for some of the variables and are analytic in the

526: remaining variables \cite[section 5]{vdd-spe:genpower}.  We show that

527: the algebra of these mixed functions possesses certain closure

528: properties \cite[section 6]{vdd-spe:genpower}, most notably closure

529: under blow-up substitutions (which correspond to the charts of certain

530: blowings-up) and under Weierstrass preparation with respect to the

531: analytic variables.  These closure properties allow us \cite[section 7

532: and Proposition 8.4]{vdd-spe:genpower} to use resolution of

533: singularities to describe \textit{$\C$-sets}, which are defined by

534: equations and inequalities among functions from $\C$; in particular,

535: we show that $\C$-sets have finitely many connected components.  We

536: then adapt in \cite[section 8]{vdd-spe:genpower} Gabrielov's fiber

537: cutting argument to conclude that the complement of a projection of

538: a $\C$-set is again the projection of a $\C$-set.  The o-minimality

539: of the expansion of the real field by the functions in $\C$ follows as

540: outlined in \cite[section 2]{vdd-spe:genpower}.

541: 

542: This means in particular that we need to define classes $\Q_\rho$,

543: where $\rho \in (0,\infty)^m$ is a polyradius, of functions

544: $f:[0,\rho_1] \times \cdots \times [0,\rho_m] \into \RR$ with

545: analytic-extension and asymptotic properties in several variables

546: corresponding to (I1) and (I2) above.  It turns out, however, that the

547: most natural definition of these $\Q_\rho$ is insufficient to obtain

548: all the necessary closure properties, and we refer the reader to

549: Section \ref{division} for the correct definition of these classes.

550: 

551: Once the classes $\Q_\rho$ are introduced we define, for each $m \in

552: \NN$ and $m$-variable function $f \in \Q_{1, \dots, 1}$, a total

553: function $\tilde{f}:\RR^m \into \RR$ given by

554: \begin{equation*}

555:   \tilde{f}(x) := \begin{cases} f(x) &\text{if } x \in [0,1]^m, \\ 0

556:     &\text{otherwise.} \end{cases}

557: \end{equation*}

558: We let $\Rq := \left(\RR, <, 0, 1, +, -, \mdot, \left(\tilde{f}:\ f

559:     \in \Q_{1, \dots, 1}, m \in \NN\right)\right)$; note that in

560: particular, every function in $\Q_\epsilon$, for any $\epsilon > 0$,

561: is definable in $\Rq$.  Our partial answer to the question above is

562: the following:

563: 

564: \begin{prclaim}[Theorem A]

565:   The structure $\Rq$ is model complete, o-minimal and admits analytic

566:   cell decomposition. 

567: \end{prclaim}

568: 

569: Moreover, our method of proving Theorem A also gives a kind of

570: ``Puiseux theorem'' for the one-variable functions definable in $\Rq$:

571: 

572: \begin{prclaim}[Theorem B]

573:   Let $\epsilon > 0$ and $f:(0,\epsilon) \into \RR$ be definable in

574:   $\Rq$.  Then there are a function $g \in \Q_\delta$ for some $\delta

575:   \in (0,\epsilon)$ and an $r \in \RR$ such that $g(0) \ne 0$ and

576:   $f(x) = x^r g(x)$ for all $x \in (0,\delta)$.

577: \end{prclaim}

578: 

579: Our discussion above of transition maps now implies:

580: 

581: \begin{prclaim}[Corollary]

582:   Assume that $p$ is a non-resonant hyperbolic singularity of $\xi$,

583:   and let $g:(0,\epsilon) \into (0,\infty)$ be a transition map of

584:   $\xi$ at $p$, expressed in the charts $x$ and $y$ such that (D)

585:   holds.  Then for every $\delta \in (0,\epsilon)$, the function

586:   $g\rest{(0,\delta)}$ is definable in $\Rq$.  \qed

587: \end{prclaim}

588: 

589: The transition maps discussed here are not the only functions of

590: interest definable in $\Rq$: in two forthcoming papers, the first

591: author shows that both the Riemann maps and the solutions of

592: Dirichlet's Problem on certain subanalytic domains with non-analytic

593: boundary are definable in $\Rq$.  

594: 

595: Moreover, we construct in Section \ref{family} of this paper an

596: \textit{analytic unfolding $\xi_\mu$} of $\xi$ in a neighbourhood of a

597: polycycle $\Gamma$ of $\xi$, in the spirit of Roussarie

598: \cite{rou:bifurcations}.  The unfolding $\xi_\mu$ is such that each

599: $\xi_\mu$ has the same set of singularities as $\xi$ and each of these

600: singularities is non-resonant hyperbolic.  Thus we obtain an analytic

601: family of transition maps at each of these singularities; in fact, we

602: show that each such family of transition maps is definable in $\Rq$.

603: It follows that there is a definable family of functions $P_\mu$ such

604: that for every $\mu$, the function $P_\mu$ is a Poincar\'e return map

605: for $\xi_\mu$ near $\Gamma$.  The uniform finiteness property of

606: o-minimal structures \cite[chapter 3, section 3]{vdd:vol1} then

607: implies that there is a uniform bound on the number of fixed points of

608: these functions $P_\mu$.  The question whether such uniform bounds

609: exist is related to Hilbert's 16th problem and remains open for

610: general $\xi$ and $\Gamma$.  (See \cite{ily:history} for a survey on

611: Hilbert's 16th problem and \cite{rou:bifurcations} for the

612: relationship between Hilbert's 16th problem and analytic unfoldings.)

613: 

614: Except for Section \ref{family}, the content of this paper is entirely

615: focussed on the construction of the o-minimal structure $\Rq$.  There

616: are various related questions that we do not know how to answer at

617: this point, such as:

618: \begin{enumerate}

619: \item Is $\Rg$, the o-minimal structure generated by all functions

620:   that are multisummable in the positive real direction

621:   \cite{vdd-spe:multisummable}, a reduct of $\Rq$?  Or is $\Rq$ a

622:   reduct of the Pfaffian closure of $\Rg$ (see \cite{spe:pfaffian})?

623: \item Are transition maps near \textit{resonant} hyperbolic

624:   singularities of $\xi$ definable in the Pfaffian closure of $\Rq$?

625: \end{enumerate}

626: 

627: This paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{natural}, we

628: define the class of generalized power series with natural support, and

629: we establish some truncation properties needed later.  Our first and

630: most straightforward attempt at defining the classes $\Q_\rho$ is made

631: in Section \ref{asymptotic_section}, where we also establish some

632: useful criteria for functions to belong to these classes.  The reasons

633: why this first attempt is insufficient are explained in Section

634: \ref{tdte}, which lead us to a correct definition in Section

635: \ref{division}, where we also establish the first closure properties

636: needed to apply the method of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}.  In fact, in

637: order to apply this method, we need to introduce corresponding

638: ``mixed'' functions that are, roughly speaking, of asymptotic type

639: (I1) and (I2) in some variables and analytic in the other variables.

640: One of the reasons for studying these mixed classes is discussed

641: in Section \ref{weierstrass}, where we show that they admit

642: Weierstrass preparation with respect to the analytic variables.  To

643: reduce the study of sets defined by functions in the $\Q_\rho$ to that

644: of sets defined by functions in the mixed classes, we use the

645: blow-up substitutions introduced in Section \ref{blowups}.  Having

646: established all the properties necessary to apply the method of

647: \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}, we obtain Theorems A and B in Section

648: \ref{o-minimal}.

649: 

650: 

651: \section{Generalized power series with natural

652:   support}  \label{natural} 

653: 

654: Let $m \in \NN$, and let $X = (X_1, \dots, X_m)$ be a tuple of

655: indeterminates.  For $\alpha= (\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_m) \in

656: [0,\infty)^m$, we write $X^\alpha := X_1^{\alpha_1} \cdots

657: X_m^{\alpha_m}$, and we let $X^*$ be the multiplicative monoid

658: consisting of all such $X^\alpha$, multiplied according to $X^\alpha

659: \cdot X^\beta = X^{\alpha+\beta}$.  The identity element of $X^*$ is

660: $X^0 = 1$, where $0 = (0, \dots, 0)$.  

661: 

662: Let $A$ be a commutative ring with $1 \ne 0$.  We let $\As{A}{X^*}$

663: denote the set of all formal power series $f(X) = \sum_{\alpha \ge 0}

664: a_\alpha X^\alpha$ such that $a_\alpha \in A$ for each $\alpha \ge 0$

665: and the \textbf{support} $\supp(f) := \set{\alpha \ge 0:\ a_\alpha \ne

666:   0}$ of $f$ is well-ordered, as defined in Section 4.4 of

667: \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}.  The elements of $\As{A}{X^*}$ are called

668: \textbf{generalized power series}.

669: 

670: \begin{df}

671:   \label{df:natural}

672:   A set $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^m$ is \textbf{natural} if

673:   $\Pi_{X_i}(S) \cap [0,R]$ is finite for every $R>0$ and each $i=1,

674:   \dots, m$, where $\Pi_{X_i}:\RR^m \into \RR$ is the projection on

675:   the coordinate $X_i$.

676: 

677:   We denote by $\As{A}{X^*}^\omega$ the set of all generalized power

678:   series in $X$ whose support is a natural subset of $[0,\infty)^m$.

679: \end{df}

680: 

681: \subsection*{Convention}

682: All results established in Section 4 of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower} go

683: through literally with $\As{A}{X^*}^\omega$ in place of $\As{A}{X^*}$,

684: as already pointed out in the second concluding remark of that paper.

685: To simplify notations, we shall from now on omit the superscript

686: $\omega$.  Thus, throughout this paper, every series in $\As{A}{X^*}$

687: is assumed to have natural support, and all results in

688: \cite{vdd-spe:genpower} referenced here are interpreted in this

689: context.  \medskip

690: 

691: Let $Y = (Y_1, \dots, Y_n)$ be another tuple of indeterminates.  For

692: $a,b \in \RR^k$, we write $a\le b$ (resp. $a < b$) if and only if $a_i

693: \le b_i$ (resp. $a_i < b_i$) for $i=1, \dots, k$.

694: 

695: \begin{df}

696:   \label{truncation_division}

697:   Let $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^{m} \times \NN^n$ and $F = \sum

698:   a_{(\alpha,\beta)} X^{\alpha} Y^\beta \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$.  We define

699:   $\inf S = (a,b) = (a_1, \dots, a_m, b_1, \dots, b_n)$, where $a_i

700:   := \inf(\Pi_{X_i}(S))$ for $i=1, \dots, m$ and $b_i :=

701:   \min(\Pi_{Y_i}(S))$ for $i=1, \dots, n$, and we put

702:   \begin{equation*}

703:     F_{S} := \sum_{(\alpha,\beta) \in S}

704:     a_{(\alpha,\beta)} X^{\alpha-a} Y^{\beta-b}, 

705:     \quad\text{an element of } \As{A}{X^*,Y}.  

706:   \end{equation*}

707:   For $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m \times \NN^n$, we write $F_\gamma$ in

708:   place of $F_{\{\alpha:\ \alpha \ge \gamma\}}$.

709: \end{df}

710: 

711: \begin{rmk}

712: %  \label{truncation_properties}

713:   Let $F,G \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$ and $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m \times

714:   \NN^n$.  Then $(F+G)_\gamma = F_\gamma + G_\gamma$.

715: \end{rmk}

716: 

717: In the remainder of this section, we study how the operation $F

718: \mapsto F_\gamma$ behaves with respect to various other operations on

719: natural power series.  

720: 

721: \subsection*{Differentiation}

722: 

723: Let $F = \sum a_{(\alpha,\beta)} X^\alpha Y^\beta \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$.

724: For $\beta \in \NN^n$ and $j=1, \dots, n$, we put $\beta^j :=

725: (\beta_1, \dots, \beta_{j-1}, \beta_j-1, \beta_{j+1}, \dots,

726: \beta_n)$.  We define

727: \begin{equation*}

728:   \partial_i F := \sum \alpha_i \cdot a_{(\alpha,\beta)} X^\alpha

729:   Y^\beta \quad\text{for } i=1, \dots, m,

730: \end{equation*}

731: and

732: \begin{equation*}

733:   \frac{\partial F}{\partial Y_j} := \sum \beta_j \cdot

734:   a_{(\alpha,\beta)} X^{\alpha} Y^{\beta^j}

735:   \quad\text{for } j = 1, \dots, n.

736: \end{equation*}

737: Note that each $\partial_i F$ and each $\partial F/\partial Y_j$

738: belongs to $\As{A}{X^*,Y}$.  Since each $\partial_i$ is a derivation

739: on $\As{A}{X^*,Y}$, we obtain:

740: 

741: \begin{lemma}

742:   \label{derivation_truncation}

743:   Let $F \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$ and $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$.  Then:

744:   \begin{enumerate}

745:   \item $(\partial F/\partial Y_j)_{(\gamma,0)}

746:     = \partial (F_{(\gamma,0)})/\partial Y_j$ for each $j = 1, \dots, n$.

747: %   \item If $i \in K$ and $\gamma_i > 0$, then $X^{\gamma^i}

748: %     (\partial_i F)_{\gamma^i} = \partial_i\left(X^\gamma \cdot

749: %       F_\gamma\right)$.

750:   \item $(\partial_i F)_{(\gamma,0)} = \gamma_i \cdot F_{(\gamma,0)} +

751:     \partial_i(F_{(\gamma,0)})$ for each $i=1, \dots, m$; in

752:     particular, if $\gamma_i = 0$, then $(\partial_i F)_{(\gamma,0)}

753:     = \partial_i(F_{(\gamma,0)})$.

754:   \end{enumerate}

755: \end{lemma}

756: 

757: \begin{proof}

758:   Parts (1) straightforward.  Since $X^\gamma \cdot G_\gamma$ is just

759:   the truncation of $G$ at $\gamma$ for any $G \in \As{A}{X^*}$, we have

760:   $X^\gamma \cdot (\partial_i F)_{(\gamma,0)} = \partial_i \left(X^\gamma

761:     \cdot F_{(\gamma,0)}\right)$.  Part (2) follows from the latter, because

762:   $\partial_i$ is a derivation.

763: \end{proof}

764: 

765: Before continuing with the behavior of the operation $F \mapsto

766: F_\gamma$, we make some crucial observations.

767: 

768: \subsection*{Representation}

769: Let $I \subset \{1,\dots,m\}$.  Below we write $X_I := (X_{i})_{i\in

770:   I}$, and if $x \in \RR^{m}$ we write $x_I:=(x_{i})_{i\in I}$.  We

771: let $\Pi_I:\RR^{m+n} \into \RR^{|I|}$ be the projection defined by

772: $\Pi_I(x,y) := x_I$.  We write $\bar{I} := \{1, \dots, m\} \setminus

773: I$.  For $F \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$ and $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, we put

774: $B_{\gamma,\emptyset} := \{0\}$, and for nonempty $I \subset

775: \{1,\dots,m\}$, we put $$B_{\gamma,I}=B_{\gamma,I}(F) :=

776: \set{\alpha\in \Pi_I(\supp F):\ \alpha < \gamma_I}.$$

777: 

778: \begin{lemma}

779:   \label{lemma:representation}

780:   Let $F \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$ and $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$.  Then for

781:   each $I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}$, the set $B_{\gamma,I}$ is

782:   finite, and for each $\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}$, there is a unique

783:   $F_{\gamma, I, \alpha} \in \As{A}{X_{\bar I}^*,Y}$ such that

784:   \begin{equation}

785:     \label{eq:representation}

786:     F(X,Y) = \sum_{I \subset \{1,\dots,m\}} X_{\bar I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}}

787:     \left(\sum_{\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}} X_I^{\alpha}

788:       F_{\gamma,I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I},Y)\right).

789:   \end{equation}

790: \end{lemma}

791: 

792: \begin{proof}

793:   For each $(\alpha,\beta) \in \supp F$, there is a unique $I

794:   \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}$ such that for all $i=1, \dots, m$, we

795:   have $\alpha_i < \gamma_i$ iff $i \in I$.  Moreover, $\alpha_I \in

796:   B_{\gamma,I}$ and $X^\alpha / \left(X_{\bar I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}}

797:     X_I^{\alpha_I}\right)$ is a monomial in $X_{\bar I}$.

798: \end{proof}

799: 

800: \begin{df}

801:   \label{df:representation}

802:   Let $F \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$ and $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$.  We call

803:   the right-hand side of equation \eqref{eq:representation} the

804:   \textbf{$\gamma$-representation} of $F$.  For each $I \subseteq \{1,

805:   \dots, m\}$, we put

806:   \begin{equation*}

807:     F_{\gamma,I}(X,Y) := \sum_{\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}} X_I^{\alpha}

808:     F_{\gamma,I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I},Y),

809:   \end{equation*}

810:   so that $F(X,Y) = \sum_{I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}} X_{\bar

811:     I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}} F_{\gamma,I}(X,Y)$.

812: \end{df}

813: 

814: \begin{nrmk}

815:   \label{rmk:elementary}

816:   In the situation of Definition \ref{df:representation}, we have

817:   $F_{(\gamma,0)} = F_{\gamma,\emptyset,0}$.  More generally, for each

818:   $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, each $I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}$ and

819:   each $\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}$, the series

820:   $F_{\gamma,I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I},Y)$, considered as an element of

821:   $\As{A}{X^*,Y}$, is equal to $F_S$ for some $S \subseteq

822:   [0,\infty)^m \times \NN^n$ of the following form:

823: \end{nrmk}

824: 

825: \begin{df}

826:   \label{elementary}

827:   Recall that a box in $\RR^k$ is a set of the form $B = \set{\alpha

828:     \in \RR^k:\ a_i \ast_{i,1} \alpha_i \ast_{i,2} b_i \text{ for each

829:     } i}$, where $a,b \in (\RR \cup \{\infty\})^k$ and $\ast_{i,1},

830:   \ast_{i,2} \in \{<,\le\}$.  A set $E \subseteq \RR^k$ is

831:   \textbf{elementary} if $E$ is a finite Boolean combination of boxes.

832: \end{df}

833: 

834: \begin{nrmk}

835:   \label{boolean}

836:   If $B \subseteq [0,\infty)^k$ is a box, then $[0,\infty)^k \setminus

837:   B$ is a finite union of pairwise disjoint boxes; also, any finite

838:   intersection of boxes is a box.  Therefore, every elementary set is

839:   a finite union of pairwise disjoint boxes.

840: \end{nrmk}

841: 

842: \begin{expl}

843:   \label{elementary_example}

844:   \begin{enumerate}

845:   \item For each $i \in \{1, \dots, k\}$ and every $a>0$, the set

846:     $\{\alpha \in [0,\infty)^k:\alpha_i = a\}$ is elementary.

847:   \item For all $a_1, \dots, a_k,b \ge 0$ and every natural set $S

848:     \subseteq [0,\infty)^k$, there is an elementary set $E \subseteq

849:     \RR^k$ such that $$S \cap \set{\alpha \in

850:       [0,\infty)^k:\sum_{i=1}^k a_i \cdot \alpha_i \ge b} = S \cap

851:     E.$$

852:   \end{enumerate}

853: \end{expl}

854: 

855: Intersections of natural sets and boxes can be further

856: simplified:

857: 

858: \begin{lemma}

859:   \label{natural_elementary}

860:   Let $B \subseteq [0,\infty)^k$ be a box and $S \subseteq

861:   [0,\infty)^k$ be a natural set.  Then there exist $\gamma, \delta^1,

862:   \dots, \delta^k \in [0,\infty)^k$ such that $\gamma \le \delta^j$

863:   for each $j$ and $S \cap B = S \cap \{\alpha \ge \gamma\} \setminus

864:   \bigcup_{j=1}^k S \cap \{\alpha \ge \delta^j\}$.

865: \end{lemma}

866: 

867: \begin{proof}

868:   Say $B = \set{\alpha \in \RR^k:\ a_i \ast_{i,1} \alpha_i \ast_{i,2}

869:     b_i \text{ for each } i}$, where $a,b \in (\RR \cup \{\infty\})^k$

870:   and $\ast_{i,1}, \ast_{i,2} \in \{<,\le\}$.  For each $i \in \{1,

871:   \dots, k\}$, we define $\gamma_i := \min\set{r \in \Pi_{X_i}(S): a_i

872:     \ast_{i,1} r}$ and $\delta_i := \max\set{r \in \Pi_{X_i}(S): r

873:     \ast_{i,2} b_i}$.  Then $S \cap B = S \cap \set{\gamma \le \alpha

874:     \le \delta}$, so the lemma follows with $\delta^j$ defined by

875:   $\delta^j_i := \gamma_i$ if $i \ne j$ and $\delta^j_j :=

876:   \min\{r \in \Pi_{X_j}(S):\ r > \delta_j\}$. 

877: \end{proof}

878: 

879: We now return to the study of the operation $F \mapsto F_\gamma$.

880: Since the observations below are rather technical and not clearly

881: motivated at this point, the reader may want to skip the rest of this

882: section and come back to it later as needed (while reading Section

883: \ref{division}, say).

884: 

885: \subsection*{Blow-up substitutions}

886: 

887: Let $i,j \in \{1, \dots, m\}$ be such that $i \ne j$, and let $\rho >

888: 0$ and $\lambda \ge 0$.  Using the binomial expansion

889: \begin{equation*}

890:   (\lambda + X_j)^\beta := \sum_{p \in \NN} \begin{pmatrix} \beta \\

891:     p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\beta-p} X_j^p \quad\text{if } \lambda >

892:   0 \text{ and } \beta \ge 0,

893: \end{equation*}

894: we let $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{ij}:\As{A}{X^*} \into \As{A}{X^*}$ be the

895: unique $A$-algebra homomorphism satisfying

896: \begin{equation*}

897:   \frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{ij}(X_k) =

898:   \begin{cases}

899:     X_k &\text{if } k \ne i, \\ X_j^\rho (\lambda + X_i) &\text{if } k

900:     = i.

901:   \end{cases}

902: \end{equation*}

903: The homomorphism $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{ij}$ is called a \textbf{blow-up

904:   substitution}; we call $\frB^{\rho,0}_{ij}$ \textbf{singular}, and if

905: $\lambda > 0$, we call $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{ij}$ \textbf{regular}.  We

906: shall often write $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{ij} F$ in place of

907: $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{ij}(F)$, for $F \in \As{A}{X^*}$.

908: 

909: \begin{nrmk}

910:   \label{singular_expl}

911:   The substitution $\frB^{\rho,0}_{ij}$ is the $A$-algebra

912:   homomorphism $s^\rho_{ij}$ defined in Section 4.13 of

913:   \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}. 

914: \end{nrmk}

915: 

916: \begin{prop}

917:   \label{blowup_truncation}

918:   Let $F \in \As{A}{X^*}$ and put $X' := (X_1, \dots, X_{m-1})$.  

919:   \begin{enumerate}

920:   \item For $\lambda > 0$, we have $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1} F \in

921:     \As{A}{(X')^*,X_m}$.

922:   \item Let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, and assume that $\gamma_m = 0$

923:     if $\lambda > 0$.  Then there are $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_k \in

924:     [0,\infty)^m$ and elementary sets $E_1, \dots, E_k \subseteq

925:     [0,\infty)^m$ such that

926:     \begin{equation*}

927:       \left(\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1} F\right)_\gamma = \sum_{l=1}^k

928:       X^{\alpha_l} \cdot \frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1} F_{E_l}. 

929:     \end{equation*}

930:   \end{enumerate}

931: \end{prop}

932: 

933: \begin{proof}

934:   Part (1) follows from the binomial expansion.  Next, for $k=1,

935:   \dots, m$, we put

936:   \begin{equation*}

937:     \delta_k :=

938:     \begin{cases}

939:       \gamma_k &\text{if } k \ne m, \\ \max\set{\gamma_m,

940:         \frac{\gamma_{m-1}}{\rho}} &\text{if } k=m,

941:     \end{cases}

942:   \end{equation*}

943:   and $\delta := (\delta_1, \dots, \delta_m)$.  Let

944:   \begin{equation*}

945:     F(X) = \sum_{I \subset \{1, \dots, m\}} X_{\bar I}^{\delta_{\bar

946:         I}} \left( \sum_{\alpha \in B_{\delta,I}} X_I^\alpha

947:       F_{\delta,I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I}) \right)

948:   \end{equation*}

949:   be the $\delta$-representation of $F$.  Put $B'_{\delta,I} :=

950:   B_{\delta,I}$ if $I = \emptyset$ or $I = \{m-1\}$,

951:   $B'_{\delta,\{m\}} := \set{\alpha \in B_{\delta,I}:\ \alpha_m \ge

952:     \gamma_m}$ and $$B'_{\delta,\{m-1,m\}} := \set{\alpha \in

953:     B_{\delta,I}:\ \alpha_m \ge \gamma_m,\,\alpha_{m-1} + \rho

954:     \alpha_m \ge \gamma_{m-1}}.$$ Then by the hypothesis on $\gamma$,

955:   \begin{multline*}

956:     X^\gamma \cdot \left(\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1}F(X)\right)_\gamma

957:     \\ = \sum_{I \subseteq \{m-1,m\}} \sum_{\alpha \in B'_{\delta,I}}

958:     \frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1} \left(X_{\bar I}^{\delta_{\bar I}}

959:       X_I^\alpha\right) \cdot \frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1}

960:     (F_{\delta,I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I})).

961:   \end{multline*}

962:   Since each term $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1} \left(X_{\bar

963:       I}^{\delta_{\bar I}} X_I^\alpha\right)$ on the right-hand side

964:   is divisible by $X^\gamma$, part (2) follows.

965: \end{proof}

966: 

967: \subsection*{Composition}

968: 

969: Let $F \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$.  For the next lemma, we also let $\q =

970: (\q_1, \dots, \q_n) \in \NN^n$ and put $\k := |\q|$.  We let $Z =

971: (Z_1, \dots, Z_\k)$ be a tuple of indeterminates and define

972: \begin{equation*}

973:   F_{\q}(X,Z) := F\left(X, Z_1 + \cdots +

974:     Z_{\q_1}, \dots, 

975:     Z_{\q_1 + \cdots + \q_{n-1}+1} + \cdots + Z_\k\right).  

976: \end{equation*}

977: Note that $F_\q \in \As{A}{X^*,Z}$.  

978: 

979: \begin{prop}

980:   \label{comp_representation}

981:   Let $G = (G_1, \dots, G_n) \in (\As{A}{X^*,Y})^n$ be such that $G(0)

982:   = 0$.  Then the series $F(X,G(X,Y))$ belongs to $\As{A}{X^*,Y}$, and

983:   for each $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, there are

984:   \begin{renumerate}

985:   \item a $p \in \NN$ and a tuple $\q \in \NN^n$ and, with

986:     $\k:= |\q|$,

987:   \item elementary $E_1, \dots, E_p \subseteq

988:     [0,\infty)^m \times \NN^\k$ and $B_{i,j} \subseteq [0,\infty)^{m}

989:     \times \NN^n$ for each pair $(i,j)$ satisfying $i \in \{1, \dots,

990:     n\}$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, \q_i\}$,

991:   \end{renumerate}

992:   such that, with $G_B := ((G_1)_{B_{1,1}}, \dots,

993:   (G_1)_{B_{1,\q_1}}, (G_2)_{B_{2,1}}, \dots,

994:   (G_n)_{B_{n,\q_n}})$, we have $G_B(0) = 0$, each term

995:   $(X,G_B(X,Y))^{\inf E_j}$ is divisible by $X^\gamma$ in

996:   $\Ps{A}{X^*,Y}$ and $$F(X,G(X,Y))_{(\gamma,0)} = \sum_{j=1}^p \frac

997:   {(X,G_B(X,Y))^{\inf E_j}}{X^\gamma} \cdot

998:   (F_\q)_{E_j}(X,G_B(X,Y)).$$

999: \end{prop}

1000: 

1001: \begin{proof}

1002:   It is standard to check that $F(Y,G(X,Y)) \in \As{A}{X^*,Y}$; we

1003:   leave the details to the reader.  Let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, and

1004:   for each $j \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, we let

1005:   \begin{equation*}

1006:     G_j = \sum_{I \subseteq

1007:       \{1,\dots,m\}} X_{\bar

1008:       I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}}  \left(\sum_{\alpha \in 

1009:         B_{I}(G_j)} X_I^\alpha \cdot

1010:       (G_j)_{I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I},Y)\right) 

1011:   \end{equation*}

1012:   be the $\gamma$-representation of $G_j$.  (We omit the subscript

1013:   $\gamma$ in these notations for the duration of this proof.)  We let

1014:   $\J$ be the set of all triples $(j,I,\alpha)$ such that $j \in \{1,

1015:   \dots, n\}$, $I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}$ and $\alpha \in

1016:   B_{I}(G_j)$, and we put $\kappa:= |\J|$ and fix a bijection

1017:   $\sigma:\{1, \dots, \kappa\} \into \J$.  Below, we write

1018:   $\sigma(\lambda) = (j(\lambda),I(\lambda),\alpha(\lambda))$ for

1019:   $\lambda = 1, \dots, \kappa$; without loss of generality, we may

1020:   assume that $j(\lambda) \le j(\lambda')$ whenever $\lambda \le

1021:   \lambda'$.

1022: 

1023:   For each $\lambda = 1, \dots, \kappa$, we let $Z_\lambda$

1024:   be a new indeterminate and put

1025:   \begin{equation*}

1026:     G_\lambda(X,Y) := X_{\bar

1027:       I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}} X_I^\alpha \cdot

1028:     (G_j)_{I,\alpha}(X_{\bar I},Y)

1029:   \end{equation*}

1030:   with $(j,I,\alpha) = (j(\lambda),I(\lambda),\alpha(\lambda))$.  We

1031:   write $G_B := (G_1, \dots, G_\kappa)$; note that $G_B(0) = 0$.  We

1032:   also put

1033:   \begin{equation*}

1034:     H(X,Z) := F\left(X, \sum_{j(\lambda)=1} Z_\lambda\,,

1035:       \dots, \sum_{j(\lambda)=n} Z_\lambda\right), 

1036:   \end{equation*}

1037:   and we write $H(X,Z) = \sum c_{\mu,\nu} X^\mu Z^\nu$, where $\mu$

1038:   ranges over $[0,\infty)^m$ and $\nu$ ranges over $\NN^\kappa$.  Note

1039:   that $F(X,G(X,Y)) = H(X,G_B(X,Y))$ and $H = F_{\q}$ for some

1040:   $\q \in \NN^n$ with $|\q| = \kappa$.

1041: 

1042:   For $Q \subseteq \{1, \dots, \kappa\}$, we put $I_Q :=

1043:   \bigcap_{\lambda \in Q} I(\lambda)$.  Let $\mu \in [0,\infty)^{m}$

1044:   and $\nu \in \NN^\kappa$, and put $Q(\nu) := \set{\lambda:\

1045:     \nu_\lambda \ne 0}$.  Then

1046:   \begin{multline}

1047:     \label{term_truncation}

1048:     X^\gamma \cdot

1049:     \left(X^\mu G_B(X,Y)^\nu\right)_{(\gamma,0)} = \\

1050:     \begin{cases}

1051:       X^\mu G_B(X,Y)^\nu &\text{if } \mu_i + \sum_{\lambda=1}^\kappa

1052:       \nu_\lambda\cdot

1053:       \alpha(\lambda)_i \ge \gamma_i \text{ for each } i \in I_{Q(\nu)}, \\

1054:       0 &\text{otherwise.}

1055:     \end{cases}

1056:   \end{multline}

1057:   Therefore, for each $Q \subseteq \{1, \dots, \kappa\}$, we let $S_Q

1058:   \subseteq [0,\infty)^{m} \times \NN^k$ be the set defined by

1059:   \begin{multline*}

1060:     S_Q := \Big\{(\mu,\nu) \in \supp(H):\ \nu_\lambda = 0 \text{ iff }

1061:     \lambda \notin Q,\\ \quad \mu_i + \sum_{\lambda \in Q}

1062:     \nu_\lambda\cdot \alpha(\lambda)_i \ge \gamma_i \text{ for each }

1063:     i \in I_Q \Big\}.

1064:   \end{multline*}

1065:   $S_Q$ is in turn the disjoint union of the following sets: for each

1066:   map $\eta:I_Q \into Q$, we define

1067:   \begin{multline*}

1068:     S_{Q, \eta} := \Big\{ (\mu,\nu) \in S_Q:\ \mu_i +

1069:     \sum_{\lambda \in Q,\,\lambda < \eta(i)} \nu_\lambda \cdot \alpha(\lambda)_i

1070:     < \gamma_i \text{ and } \\ \mu_i + \sum_{\lambda \in Q,\,\lambda \le

1071:       \eta(i)} \nu_\lambda \cdot \alpha(\lambda)_i \ge \gamma_i \text{ for

1072:       each } i \in I_Q\Big\}.

1073:   \end{multline*}

1074:   Then $S_Q = S_{Q,0} \cup \bigcup_{\eta} S_{Q,\eta}$, where $S_{Q,0}

1075:   := \set{(\mu,\nu) \in S_Q:\ \mu_{I_Q} \ge \gamma_{I_Q}}$.  Moreover

1076:   for each $\eta:I_Q \into Q$, we write $\max \eta := \max_{i \in I_Q}

1077:   \eta(i)$ and $J_\eta := \{\lambda < \max\eta:\ \alpha(\lambda)_i >

1078:   0$ for some $i \in I_Q\}$.  Then the set $C_{Q,\eta} :=

1079:   \set{(\mu_{I_Q},\nu_{J_\eta}):\ (\mu,\nu) \in S_{Q,\eta}}$ is finite,

1080:   and $S_{Q,\eta}$ is the disjoint union of the sets $S_{Q,\eta} \cap

1081:   E_{Q,\eta,\beta}$ as $\beta$ ranges over $C_{Q,\eta}$, where

1082:   \begin{multline*}

1083:     E_{Q,\eta,\beta} := \Big\{ (\mu,\nu):\

1084:     (\mu_{I_Q},\nu_{J_\eta}) = \beta, \\

1085:     \nu_{\max\eta} \cdot \alpha(\max\eta)_i \ge \gamma_i - \mu_i -

1086:     \sum_{\lambda \in Q,\,\lambda < \max\eta} \nu_\lambda \cdot

1087:     \alpha(\lambda)_i \text{ for each } i \in I_Q\Big\}.

1088:   \end{multline*}

1089: 

1090:   By Example \ref{elementary_example}, each set $E_{Q,\eta,\beta}$ is

1091:   elementary.  It follows from \eqref{term_truncation} above that

1092:   \begin{multline*}

1093:     X^\gamma \cdot F(X,G(X,Y))_{(\gamma,0)} = \\

1094:     \sum_{Q,\eta,\beta} (X,G_B(X,Y))^{\inf E_{Q,\eta,\beta}} \cdot

1095:     H_{E_{Q,\eta,\beta}}(X,G_B(X,Y)),

1096:   \end{multline*} 

1097:   and it follows from the definition of each $E_{Q,\eta,\beta}$ that

1098:   $X^\gamma$ divides the factor $(X,G_B(X,Y))^{\inf E_{Q,\eta,\beta}}$

1099:   in $\Ps{A}{X^*,Y}$, as required.

1100: \end{proof}

1101: 

1102: 

1103: 

1104: \section{Natural asymptotic expansions}  \label{asymptotic_section}

1105: 

1106: Throughout this paper, we denote by $\|z\|$ the Euclidean norm of $z

1107: \in \CC^n$, and we put $|z|:= z_1 + \cdots + z_n$ for such $z$.

1108: We let $\frL = \set{(r,\varphi):\ r>0,\, \varphi \in \RR}$ be the

1109: Riemann surface of the logarithm.  We fix an arbitrary

1110: $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and write $$x = (x_1, \dots, x_m) = ((r_1,\varphi_1),

1111: \dots, (r_m, \varphi_m))$$ for elements of $\frL^{m}$.  For such $x$,

1112: we put $\|x\| := \|(r_1, \dots, r_m)\|$, $\arg(x) := (\varphi_1,

1113: \dots, \varphi_m)$ and $$\log_m x := (\log r_1+i\varphi_1, \dots, \log

1114: r_m + i\varphi_m) \in \CC^m;$$ we omit the subscript $m$ whenever it

1115: is clear from context.  Note that $\log:\frL^m \into \CC^m$ is an

1116: analytic isomorphism.  Below, we let $z = (z_1, \dots, z_m)$ range

1117: over $\CC^m$.

1118: 

1119: Recall that for an open set $U \subseteq \frL$, a function $f:U \into

1120: \CC$ is holomorphic if the function $f\circ\log^{-1}: \log(U) \into

1121: \CC$ is holomorphic.  The set of holomorphic functions on $U$ is

1122: denoted by $\O(U)$.

1123: 

1124: \begin{df}

1125:   \label{df:holomorphic}

1126:   Let $U \subseteq \frL^m$ be open.  For $f \in \O(U)$ and $i \in \{1,

1127:   \dots, m\}$, we define $\partial_i f:U \into \CC$ by $$\partial_i

1128:   f(x) := \frac{\partial (f \circ \log^{-1})}{\partial z_i} (\log

1129:   x).$$

1130: 

1131:   Note that $\partial_i f \in \O(U)$.

1132: \end{df}

1133: 

1134: \begin{expl}

1135:   \label{expl:powers}

1136:   Let $\alpha = (\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{m}) \in \CC^{m}$.  We put

1137:   $x^\alpha := x_{1}^{\alpha_{1}} \cdots x_{m}^{\alpha_{m}}$, where

1138:   $x_i^{\alpha_i} := \exp(\alpha_i \log(x_i))$ for each $i$. The

1139:   function $(\cdot)^{\alpha} : \frL^{m} \longrightarrow \CC$ is

1140:   holomorphic and $\partial_i(x^\alpha) = \alpha_i x^\alpha$ for each

1141:   $i$.  

1142: \end{expl}

1143: 

1144: For $R>0$, we write $B_\frL(R):= \set{x \in \frL:\ \|x\| < R}$.

1145: 

1146: \begin{df}

1147:   \label{quadratic}

1148:   Let $W \subseteq \frL$.  The set $W$ is a \textbf{standard quadratic

1149:     domain} if there are constants $c,C>0$ such that

1150:   \begin{equation*}

1151:     W = \set{(r,\varphi) \in \frL:\ 0 < r < c \exp\left( -C \sqrt{|\varphi|}

1152:       \right)}. 

1153:   \end{equation*}

1154: \end{df}

1155: 

1156: Below, we put $\frL_0 := \frL \cup \{0\}$, and we extend the topology

1157: on $\frL$ to a topology on $\frL_0$ by taking the set $B_\frL(R) \cup

1158: \{0\}$, for $R>0$, as a basis of open neighborhoods of $0$ in

1159: $\frL_0$.  For a subset $W$ of $\frL^m$, we shall write $\cl_0(W)$ for

1160: the topological closure of $W$ in $\frL_0^m$.

1161: 

1162: \begin{rmk}

1163:   Note that if $W \subseteq \frL$ is a standard quadratic domain, then

1164:   $W \cup \{0\}$ is not an open neighborhood of $0$ in $\frL_0$.

1165:   In particular, $\ir(\cl_0(W)) = W$.

1166: \end{rmk}

1167: 

1168: \begin{df}

1169:   \label{quadratic2}

1170:   A set $W \subseteq \frL$ is a \textbf{quadratic domain} if $W$

1171:   contains a standard quadratic domain and $\ir(\cl_0(W)) = W$.

1172: 

1173:   Let $U \subseteq \frL^m$ and $k \le m$.  We say that $U$ is

1174:   \textbf{$k$-quadratic} if 

1175:   \begin{renumerate}

1176:   \item there is a quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL$ and an $R>0$

1177:     such that $W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k} \subseteq U$;

1178:   \item $0 \notin \ir(\cl_0(\Pi_{X_i} U))$ for each $i=1, \dots, k$.

1179:   \end{renumerate}

1180: \end{df}

1181: 

1182: \begin{nrmks}

1183:   \label{rmk:quadratic}

1184:   Let $k \le m$.

1185:   \begin{enumerate}

1186:   \item Let $R>0$ and $W \subseteq \frL$ be a quadratic domain such

1187:     that $W \subseteq B_\frL(R)$.  If $l \ge k$, then $W^l \times

1188:     B_\frL(R)^{m-l} \subseteq W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}$; therefore, every

1189:     $k$-quadratic domain in $\frL^m$ contains an $l$-quadratic domain.

1190:   \item Let $U \subseteq \frL^m$ be a $k$-quadratic domain, and let

1191:     $r \in (0,\infty)^m$.  Then the set $V := \log^{-1}(\log(U) - r)$

1192:     is a $k$-quadratic domain.

1193:   \end{enumerate}

1194: \end{nrmks}

1195: 

1196: We now fix an $m$-quadratic domain $U \subseteq \frL^m$.

1197: 

1198: \begin{df}

1199:   \label{asymptotic}

1200:   Let $f \in \O(U)$ and $F = \sum a_\alpha X^\alpha \in \Ps{C}{X^*}$.  We say

1201:   that $f$ has \textbf{asymptotic expansion} $F$ on $U$ and write $f

1202:   \sim_U F$, if for each $\a>0$ there is an $m$-quadratic domain $U_{\a}

1203:   \subseteq U$ such that

1204:   \begin{equation*}

1205:     f(x) - \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a} a_{\alpha} x^{\alpha} =

1206:     o\left(\|x\|^{\a}\right) \quad\text{as } \|x\| \to 0 \text{ on }

1207:     U_\a.  

1208:   \end{equation*}

1209:   Note that in this situation, $F$ is the unique series $G \in

1210:   \Ps{C}{X^*}$ with $f \sim_U G$; we therefore also write $Tf := F$,

1211:   and we put $f(0) := \lim_{\|x\| \to 0,\,x \in U_\a} f(x)$ for any

1212:   $\a > 0$.  We let $\A(U)$ be the set of all $f \in \O(U)$ for which

1213:   there is an $F \in \Ps{C}{X^*}$ such that $f \sim_U F$.

1214: \end{df}

1215: 

1216: \begin{nrmk}

1217:   \label{O-rmk}

1218:   \begin{enumerate}

1219:   \item If $f \in \A(U)$ and $n \ge m$, then we consider $f$ as an

1220:     holomorphic function $f:U \times \frL^{n-m}$ in the obvious way;

1221:     under this identification, we get $\A(U) \subseteq \A(U

1222:     \times \frL^{n-m})$.

1223:   \item Let $f \in \O(U)$ and $V \subseteq U$.  Then $f\rest{V} \in

1224:     \A(V)$ if and only if $f \in \A(U)$.

1225:   \item The set $\A(U)$ is a $\CC$-algebra, and the map $T:\A(U) \into

1226:     \Ps{C}{X^*}$ given by $T(f) := Tf$ is a $\CC$-algebra homomorphism

1227:     satisfying $f(0) = (Tf)(0)$.

1228:   \end{enumerate}

1229: \end{nrmk}

1230: 

1231: For $R>0$, we  put

1232: \begin{equation*}

1233:   (0,R)_\frL := \set{x \in \frL:\ \|x\| < R \text{ and } \arg(x) = 0}.

1234: \end{equation*}

1235: 

1236: \begin{prop}

1237:   \label{asymptotic_to_0}

1238:   The map $T:\A(U) \into \Ps{C}{X^*}$ is injective.

1239: \end{prop}

1240: 

1241: \begin{proof}

1242:   Let $f \in \A(U)$, and assume that $f \sim_U 0$; it suffices to show

1243:   that $f = 0$.  Let $c,C>0$ and $$W := \set{(r,\varphi) \in \frL:\

1244:     0<r<c \exp\left(-C\sqrt{|\varphi|}\right)}$$ be such that $W^m

1245:   \subseteq U$.  For $s=(s_{1},\dots,s_{m}) \in (0,1]^{m}$, we define

1246:   $f_{s}: W \into \CC$ by $f_s(r,\varphi) := f((s_{1}r,\varphi),

1247:   \dots, (s_{m}r,\varphi))$.  Then $f_s \in \O(W)$, and our hypothesis

1248:   implies that $f_s \sim_W 0$.  This means that

1249:   \begin{equation*}

1250:     \|f_s \circ \log^{-1}(z)\| = o(e^{-n\re z}) \quad\text{as } \re

1251:     z \to -\infty \text{ in } \log(W) 

1252:   \end{equation*}

1253:   for every $n \in \NN$; hence $f_s = 0$ by Theorem 2 on p. 23 of

1254:   \cite{ily:dulac}.  In particular, $f((s_1c,0), \dots, (s_mc,0))

1255:   = 0$ for all $s \in (0,1)^m$, that is, $f \rest{(0,c)_\frL^{m}} = 0$.

1256:   Therefore, the holomorphic map $h := f \circ \log^{-1}$ vanishes on

1257:   $(-\infty,\log c)^{m}$.  Since $\log(U) \subseteq \CC^{m}$ is

1258:   connected, it follows that $h=0$ and hence that $f=0$.

1259: \end{proof}

1260: 

1261: \begin{prop}

1262:   \label{prop:bad_derivatives}

1263:   Let $f \in \A(U)$ and $i \in \{1, \dots, m\}$.  Then $\partial_i f$

1264:   belongs to $\A(U)$ and satisfies $T(\partial_i f) = \partial_i(Tf)$.

1265: \end{prop}

1266: 

1267: \begin{proof}

1268:   Let $\a>0$, and assume that $U$ is an $m$-quadratic domain and

1269:   $\|f(x)\| = o(\|x\|^\a)$ as $\|x\| \to 0$ with $x \in U$.  By Remark

1270:   \ref{O-rmk}(2) and Example \ref{expl:powers}, it suffices to find an

1271:   $m$-quadratic domain $V \subseteq U$ such that $\|\partial_i f(x)\|

1272:   = o(\|x\|^\a)$ as $\|x\| \to 0$ with $x \in V$.

1273: 

1274:   We claim that $V := \log^{-1}(\log(U)-(1, \dots, 1))$ works; by

1275:   Remark \ref{rmk:quadratic}(2), $V$ is an $m$-quadratic domain

1276:   contained in $U$.  To see the claim, for each $r>0$, we put

1277:   \begin{equation*}

1278:     M_r := \max\set{\|f(x)\|:\ x \in U \text{ and } \|x\| \le r}

1279:   \end{equation*}

1280:   and

1281:   \begin{equation*}

1282:     N_r := \max\set{\|\partial_i f(x)\|:\ x \in V \text{ and } \|x\| \le

1283:       r}. 

1284:   \end{equation*}

1285:   By assumption, we have $M_r / r^\a \to 0$ as $r \to 0$; we need to

1286:   show that $N_r / r^\a \to 0$ as $r \to 0$.  To do so, it suffices to

1287:   show that $N_r \le M_{r \cdot e}$ for each $r>0$, where $e :=

1288:   \exp(1)$.  By the Cauchy estimates, we have for all $x \in V$ with

1289:   $\|x\| \le r$ that

1290:   \begin{equation*}

1291:     \|\partial_if(x)\| = \left\|\frac{\partial (f \circ \log^{-1})} {\partial

1292:       z_i} (\log x)\right\| \le M_{r \cdot e},

1293:   \end{equation*}

1294:   because $M_{r \cdot e}$ is the maximum of all $\|(f \circ

1295:   \log^{-1})(z)\|$ such that $z \in \log(U)$ and $\re z_j \le \log r

1296:   - 1$ for each $j$.  This finishes the proof of the proposition.

1297: \end{proof}

1298: 

1299: We now also fix a $k \le m$.

1300: 

1301: \begin{df}

1302:   \label{hol_proj}

1303:   We let $\A^m_k(U)$ be the set of all $f \in \A(U)$ such that $Tf \in

1304:   \Ps{C}{X_{\{1, \dots, k\}}^*, X_{\{k+1, \dots, m\}}}$.  We also let

1305:   $\pi^m_k:\frL_0^m \into \frL_0^k \times \CC^{m-k}$ be the map

1306:   defined by $\pi^m_k(x) = (y_1, \dots, y_m)$, where

1307:   \begin{equation*}

1308:     y_i :=

1309:     \begin{cases}

1310:       x_i &\text{if } i \le k, \\ x_i^1 &\text{if } i>k \text{

1311:         and } x_i \ne 0, \\ 0 &\text{otherwise.}

1312:     \end{cases}

1313:   \end{equation*}

1314: \end{df}

1315: We also denote by $\cl_0$ the topological closure in $\frL_0^k \times

1316: \CC^{m-k}$.  As usual, we shall omit the superscript $m$ if clear from

1317: context.

1318: 

1319: Finally, for each $i = 1, \dots, m$, we let $p_i:\frL^m \into \frL^m$

1320: be the map defined by $p_i(x) := y$ with $y_j:= x_j$ if $j \ne i$,

1321: $\|y_i\| := \|x_i\|$ and $\arg(y_i):= \arg(x_i)+2\pi$.

1322: 

1323: \begin{prop}

1324:   \label{prop:characterization}

1325:   Let $f \in \A(U)$.  The following are equivalent:

1326:   \begin{enumerate}

1327:   \item $f \in \A_k(U)$.

1328:   \item There are a $k$-quadratic domain $V \subseteq \frL^m$ and a

1329:     holomorphic $f^\sharp : \ir(\cl_0(\pi_k(V))) \into \CC$ such that

1330:     $f(x) = f^\sharp(\pi_k(x))$ for all $x \in U \cap V$.

1331:   \item For every $i = k+1, \dots, m$ and every $x \in U$ satisfying

1332:     $p_i(x) \in U$, we have $f(x) = f(p_i(x))$.

1333:   \end{enumerate}

1334: \end{prop}

1335: 

1336: \begin{proof}

1337:   (2) $\Rightarrow$ (3): straightforward, since $U$ is connected.

1338:   \smallskip 

1339: 

1340:   \noindent (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2): without loss of generality, we may

1341:   assume that $U = W^m$ for some quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL$.

1342:   Let $R>0$ be such that $B(0,R) \subseteq \ir(\cl(\pi^1_0(W)))$, and

1343:   put $V := W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}$.  Then the assumption on $f$ and

1344:   Riemann's theorem on removable singularities imply that there is a

1345:   holomorphic $g : \ir(\cl_0(\pi_k(V))) \into \CC$ such that $f(x) =

1346:   g(\pi_k(x))$ for all $x \in U \cap V$, which proves (2).  \smallskip

1347: 

1348:   \noindent (3) $\Rightarrow$ (1): Assume (3) and let $i \in \{k+1,

1349:   \dots, m\}$.  Write $Tf(X) = \sum a_\alpha X^\alpha$, and let

1350:   $\alpha \in [0,\infty)^m$ be such that $\alpha_i \notin \NN$; we

1351:   need to show that $a_\alpha = 0$.  Permuting coordinates if

1352:   necessary, we may assume that $i=m$.  Let $R>0$ be such that the set

1353:   $V := (0,R)_\frL^m \cup p_m((0,R)_\frL^m)$ is contained in $U$.

1354: 

1355:   Put $\a:= |\alpha|>0$, and define $g:V \into \CC$ by $g(x) := f(x) -

1356:   \sum_{|\beta| \le \a} a_\beta x^\beta$.  Since $f \in \A(U)$, we

1357:   have $g(x) = o\left(\|x\|^\a\right)$ as $\|z\| \to 0$ in $V$; in

1358:   particular, for $s \in (0,R)$ and any $t \in (0,1)^m$, we have

1359:   \begin{equation}

1360:     \label{eq:diff_asym}

1361:     g(st_1, \dots, st_m) - g(p_m(st_1, \dots, st_m)) = o(s^\a)

1362:     \quad\text{as } s \to 0.

1363:   \end{equation}

1364:   On the other hand, 

1365:   \begin{equation*}

1366:     g(st_1, \dots, st_m) - g(p_m(st_1, \dots, st_m)) =

1367:     \sum_{\substack{|\beta| \le \a \\ \beta_m \notin \NN}} a_\beta

1368:     \left(e^{2\pi i \cdot 

1369:         \beta_m}-1\right) t^\beta s^{|\beta|}.

1370:   \end{equation*}

1371:   It follows from \eqref{eq:diff_asym} that $\sum_{\substack{|\beta| \le

1372:       \a \\ \beta_m \notin \NN}} a_\beta \left(e^{2\pi i \cdot

1373:       \beta_m}-1\right) t^\beta = 0$.  Since $t \in (0,1)^m$ was

1374:   arbitrary, we obtain that $a_\beta = 0$ for every $\beta \in

1375:   [0,\infty)^m$ satisfying $|\beta|\le \a$ and $\beta_m \notin \NN$;

1376:   in particular, $a_\alpha = 0$.  \smallskip

1377: 

1378:   \noindent (1) $\Rightarrow$ (3): assume that $Tf \in \Ps{C}{X_{\{1,

1379:       \dots, k\}}^*, X_{\{k+1, \dots, m\}}}$, and let $i \in \{k+1,

1380:   \dots, m\}$.  Then there is a quadratic domain $V \subseteq U$ such

1381:   that $p_i(V) \subseteq U$, and we define $g:V \into \CC$ by $g(x) :=

1382:   f(x) - f(p_i(x))$.  Then $g \in \O(V)$, and since $Tf \in

1383:   \Ps{C}{X_{\{1, \dots, k\}}^*, X_{\{k+1, \dots, m\}}}$, we have $g

1384:   \sim_V 0$.  Thus $g = 0$ by Proposition \ref{asymptotic_to_0}, which

1385:   proves (3).

1386: \end{proof}

1387: 

1388: Assume that $U$ is a $k$-quadratic domain and let $f \in \A_k(U)$.

1389: Let $V$ and $f^\sharp$ be as in Proposition

1390: \ref{prop:characterization}(2); by analytic continuation, we may

1391: assume that $U = V$.  We extend $f$ to a function on

1392: $\pi_k^{-1}(\ir(\cl_0(\pi_k(U))))$ by putting $f(x) :=

1393: f^\sharp(\pi_k(x))$.  For example, we let $W \subseteq \frL$ be a

1394: quadratic domain and $R>0$ be such that $W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}

1395: \subseteq U$.  Then the value $f(x',0)$ is well defined for all

1396: $x' \in W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k-1}$, and we have:

1397: 

1398: \begin{cor}

1399:   \label{value_at_0}

1400:   The function $g:W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k-1} \into \CC$ defined by $g(x')

1401:   := f(x',0)$ belongs to $\A_k^{m-1}(W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k-1})$ and

1402:   satisfies $Tg(X') = Tf(X',0)$. \qed

1403: \end{cor}

1404: 

1405: Moreover, we let $i \in \{k+1, \dots, m\}$.  Then the partial

1406: derivative $\partial f^\sharp/\partial z_i:\pi_k(U) \into \CC$ is

1407: defined as usual; using this, we define the partial derivative

1408: $\partial f/\partial x_i:U \into \CC$ by

1409: \begin{equation*}

1410:   \frac {\partial f}{\partial x_i} (x) := \frac {\partial

1411:     f^\sharp}{\partial z_i}(\pi_k(x)).

1412: \end{equation*}

1413: 

1414: Using the Cauchy estimates (similarly as in the proof of Proposition

1415: \ref{prop:bad_derivatives}) and Proposition \ref{asymptotic_to_0}, we

1416: obtain:

1417: 

1418: \begin{cor}

1419:   \label{good_derivatives}

1420:   Assume that $U$ is a $k$-quadratic domain, and let $f \in \A_k(U)$.

1421:   Then for every $i=k+1, \dots, m$, the partial derivative $\partial

1422:   f/\partial x_i$ belongs to $\A_k(U)$ and satisfies $T(\partial

1423:   f/\partial x_i) = \partial (Tf)/\partial X_i$; in particular, $x_i

1424:   \cdot (\partial f/\partial x_i)(x) = \partial_i f(x)$ for all $x \in

1425:   U$. \qed

1426: \end{cor}

1427: 

1428: Finally, we establish some criteria for membership in $\A_k(U)$: we

1429: fix an $l \in \{k, \dots, m\}$.  For $x \in \frL^m$ we write $Y :=

1430: (X_1, \dots, X_{l})$, $y := (x_1, \dots, x_{l})$, $Z:= (X_{l+1},

1431: \dots, X_m)$ and $z := (x_{l+1}, \dots, x_m)$.  We assume that $U =

1432: W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}$ for some quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL$

1433: and some $R>0$, and we let $f \in \A_k(U)$.  By Proposition

1434: \ref{prop:characterization}, for each $x = (y,z) \in U$ we have a

1435: convergent power series representation

1436: \begin{equation*}

1437:   f(x) = \sum_{p \in \NN^{m-l}} a_p(y) z^p.

1438: \end{equation*}

1439: Writing $Tf = \sum_{\substack{p \in \NN^{m-l} \\ \alpha \in [0,\infty)^k

1440:     \times \NN^{l-k}}} a_{p,\alpha} \cdot Y^\alpha Z^p$, we put

1441: \begin{equation*}

1442:   A_p(Y) := \sum_{\alpha \in [0,\infty)^k \times \NN^{l-k}} a_{p,\alpha} \cdot

1443:   Y^\alpha, \quad\text{for each } p \in \NN^{m-l}.

1444: \end{equation*}

1445: Shrinking $U$ if necessary, there is an $M>0$ such that $\|f(x)\| \le

1446: M$ for all $x \in U$.  Finally, we put $U' := W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{l-k}$.

1447: Since $a_p(y) = \frac1{p!} \cdot \partial^p f/\partial (z)^p(y,0)$ for

1448: all $p \in \NN^{m-l}$ and all $y \in U'$, we obtain from the Cauchy

1449: estimates and Corollaries \ref{value_at_0} and \ref{good_derivatives}: 

1450: 

1451: \begin{prop}

1452:   \label{coefficients}

1453:   For each $p \in \NN^{m-l}$, the function $a_p:U' \into \CC$ belongs

1454:   to $\A^l_k(U')$ and satisfies $Ta_p = A_p$ and $\|a_p(y)\| \le

1455:   M/R^{|p|}$ for all $y \in U'$.  \qed

1456: \end{prop}

1457: 

1458: The following converse to Proposition \ref{coefficients} is our

1459: principal test for membership in $\A_k(U)$:

1460: 

1461: \begin{prop}

1462:   \label{O-membership}

1463:   Let $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^k \times \NN^{l-k}$ be natural, let

1464:   $A>0$, and for each $p \in \NN^{m-l}$ let $b_p \in \A^l_k(U')$ be

1465:   such that

1466:   \begin{renumerate}

1467:   \item $\supp(Tb_p) \subseteq S$;

1468:   \item $||b_p(y)\| \le A/R^{|p|}$ for all $y \in U'$.

1469:   \end{renumerate}

1470:   Then the function $g:U \into \CC$ defined by $g(x) := \sum_{p \in

1471:     \NN^{m-l}} b_p(y) \cdot z^p$ belongs to $\A_k(U)$ and satisfies

1472:   $Tf = \sum_{p \in \NN^{m-l}} Tb_p(Y) \cdot Z^p$.

1473: \end{prop}

1474: 

1475: \begin{proof}

1476:   It follows from the assumptions that $g$ is holomorphic on $U$; it

1477:   remains to show that $g \sim_U \sum_{p \in \NN^{m-l}} Tb_p(Y) Z^p$.

1478:   Let $\a>0$; for each $p \in \NN^{m-l}$, we write $Tb_p = \sum

1479:   b_{p,\alpha} Y^\alpha$ and define $\epsilon_p: U' \into \CC$ by

1480:   \begin{equation*}

1481:     \epsilon_p(y) := b_p(y) - \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a-|p|} b_{p,\alpha}

1482:     y^\alpha. 

1483:   \end{equation*}

1484:   After shrinking $W$ if necessary, there is a constant $C>0$ such

1485:   that $|\epsilon_p(y)| \le C\|y\|^{\a-|p|}$ whenever $|p| \le \a$ and

1486:   $y \in U'$.  For every $x \in U$, we have

1487:   \begin{equation*}

1488:     g(x) - \sum_{|(\alpha,p)| \le \a} b_{p,\alpha} y^\alpha z^p

1489:     = \sum_{|p| \le \a} \epsilon_p(y) z^p + \sum_{|p| > \a}

1490:     b_p(y) z^p.

1491:   \end{equation*}

1492:   By the above, $\sum_{|p| \le \a} \epsilon_p(y) z^p =

1493:   o\left(\|x\|^\a\right)$ as $\|x\| \to 0$ in $U$; so it suffices to

1494:   show, after shrinking $U$ again if necessary, that $\sum_{|p| > \a}

1495:   b_p(y) z^p = o\left(\|x\|^\a\right)$ as $\|x\| \to 0$ in $U$.  Let

1496:   $\rho:= \inf\set{|p|-\a:\ |p| > \a} > 0$.  By assumption (ii), we have

1497:   for $x \in U$ satisfying $\|z\| \le \frac \rho 2$ that

1498:   \begin{equation*}

1499:     \left|\sum_{|p| > \a} b_p(y) z^p \right| \le \frac{A}{R^{\a+\rho}}

1500:     \left(\sum_{|p| \ge \a + \rho} 2^{\a+\rho-|p|}\right) \cdot

1501:     \|z\|^{\a+\rho} = o\left(\|x\|^\a\right) 

1502:   \end{equation*}

1503:   as $\|x\| \to 0$, as required.

1504: \end{proof}

1505: 

1506: The following criterion for membership in $\A_k(U)$ will be

1507: useful in Section \ref{family}:

1508: 

1509: \begin{cor}

1510:   \label{uniform_criterion}

1511:   Let $f:U \into \CC$ be holomorphic, and let $W \subseteq \frL$ be a

1512:   quadratic domain and $R>0$ be such that $W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}

1513:   \subseteq U$.  Let $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^k$ be a natural set, and

1514:   assume that for each $\alpha \in S$, there is a holomorphic function

1515:   $a_\alpha:B_\frL(R)^{m-k} \into \CC$ such that

1516:   \begin{renumerate}

1517:   \item for every $z \in B_\frL(R)^{m-k}$, the function $f_z:W^k \into \CC$

1518:     defined by $f_z(y):= f(y,z)$ belongs to $\A_k(W^k)$ with $Tf_z =

1519:     \sum_{\alpha \in S} a_\alpha(z) y^\alpha$;

1520:   \item for each $\nu>0$, there are constants $K_\nu, \epsilon_\nu >

1521:     0$ and a quadratic domain $W_\nu \subseteq W$ such that $\left\|

1522:       f(y,z) - \sum_{|\alpha| \le \nu} a_\alpha(z) y^\alpha \right\|

1523:     \le K_\nu \|y\|^{\nu+\epsilon_\nu}$ for all $(y,z) \in W_\nu^k

1524:     \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}$.

1525:   \end{renumerate}

1526:   Then $f \in \A_k\left(W^k \times B_\frL(R)^{m-k}\right)$, and if

1527:   $Ta_\alpha = \sum a_{\alpha,p} z^p$ for each $\alpha \in S$, then

1528:   $Tf = \sum a_{\alpha,p} y^\alpha z^p$.

1529: \end{cor}

1530: 

1531: \begin{proof}

1532:   By assumption (i) and Proposition \ref{O-membership}, it suffices to

1533:   show that the function $f^{(l)} : W^k \into \CC$ defined by

1534:   $f^{(l)}(y) := (\partial^l f/\partial y^l)(y,0)$ belongs to

1535:   $\A_k(W^k)$ for each $l \in \NN^{m-k}$.  But for any such $l$, any

1536:   $\nu>0$ and any $y \in W_\nu$, we get from the Cauchy estimates that

1537:   \begin{align*}

1538:     \left\| f^{(l)}(y) - \sum_{|\alpha| \le \nu} a_\alpha^{(l)}(0)

1539:       y^\alpha \right\| &= \left\| \frac{\partial^l}{\partial y^l}\left(

1540:         f(y,z) - \sum_{|\alpha| \le \nu} a_\alpha(z) y^\alpha \right)

1541:       (y,0)\right\| \\ &\le \frac {K_\nu}{R^{|l|}} \|y\|^{\nu+\epsilon_\nu},

1542:   \end{align*}

1543:   as required.

1544: \end{proof}

1545: 

1546: 

1547: \section{Truncation-division, Taylor expansion and composition in the holomorphic variables}

1548: \label{tdte}

1549: 

1550: It will be convenient from now on to more explicitely separate the

1551: holomorphic variables from the non-holomorphic ones.  Thus, we let

1552: $m,n \in \NN$, and let $U \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ be an $m$-quadratic

1553: domain.  Below, we let $y = (y_1, \dots, y_n)$ range over $\frL^n$ and

1554: $Y = (Y_1, \dots, Y_n)$ be indeterminates.

1555: 

1556: \begin{nrmk}

1557:   \label{permutations}

1558:   Let $\sigma$ be a permutation of $\{1, \dots, m\}$ and $\tau$ be a

1559:   permutation of $\{1, \dots, n\}$.  We associate to $\sigma$ and

1560:   $\tau$ the substitution automorphisms $\sigma,\tau:\Ps{C}{X^*,Y}

1561:   \into \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$ defined by $\sigma(X,Y) := (X_{\sigma(1)},

1562:   \dots, X_{\sigma(m)},Y)$ and $\tau(X,Y):= (X,Y_{\tau(1)}, \dots,

1563:   Y_{\tau(n)})$ and the maps $\sigma, \tau:\frL^{m+n} \into

1564:   \frL^{m+n}$ defined by $\sigma(x,y) := (x_{\sigma(1)}, \dots,

1565:   x_{\sigma(m)},y)$ and $\tau(x,y) := (x,y_{\tau(1)}, \dots,

1566:   y_{\tau(n)})$. Then for every $f \in \A_m(U)$, we have $f \circ

1567:   \sigma \in \A_m(\sigma^{-1}(U))$ with $T(f \circ \sigma) =

1568:   \sigma(Tf)$ and $f \circ \tau \in \A_m(\tau^{-1}(U))$ with $T(f

1569:   \circ \tau) = \tau(Tf)$.

1570: \end{nrmk}

1571: 

1572: \subsection*{Truncation-division}  First, we show that the natural

1573: operations of truncation and division by monomials in the $Y$

1574: variables of $Tf$, where $f \in \A_m(U)$, lead to new functions in

1575: $\A_m(U)$. 

1576: 

1577: \begin{prop}

1578:   \label{holo_division}

1579:   Let $f \in \A_m(U)$ and $\delta \in \NN^n$.  

1580:   \begin{enumerate}

1581:   \item Assume that $Tf = Y^\delta \cdot G$ for some $G \in

1582:     \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$.  Then there is a $g \in \A_m(U)$ such that $Tg =

1583:     G$.

1584:   \item There is an $f_{(0,\delta)} \in \A_m(U)$ such that

1585:     $Tf_{(0,\delta)} = (Tf)_{(0,\delta)}$.

1586:   \end{enumerate}

1587: \end{prop}

1588: 

1589: \begin{proof}

1590:   Below, we write $\hat{y}_j := (y_1, \dots, y_{j-1}, 0, y_{j+1},

1591:   \dots, y_n)$ for each $j = 1, \dots, n$.  

1592: 

1593:   (1) Working by induction on $|\delta|$ and using Remark

1594:   \ref{permutations}, we may assume that $\delta = (0, \dots, 0, 1)$.

1595:   Given $h \in \A_m(U)$, the function $I(h):U \into \CC$ defined by

1596:   \begin{equation*}

1597:     I(h)(x,y) := \int_0^1 h(x,y_1, \dots, y_{n-1}, ty_n) dt

1598:   \end{equation*}

1599:   belongs to $\A_m(U)$, where $t \cdot (r,\varphi) := (tr,\varphi)$

1600:   for $t>0$ and $(r,\varphi) \in \frL$.  Since $f(x,\hat{y}_n) = 0$,

1601:   we get from the fundamental theorem of calculus that $f(x,y) = y_n

1602:   \cdot I(\partial f/\partial y_n)(x,y)$ for all $(x,y) \in U$, so

1603:   part (1) follows from Corollary \ref{good_derivatives}.

1604: 

1605:   (2) We define $h:U \into \CC$ by

1606:   \begin{equation*}

1607:     h(x,y) := f(x,y) - \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{p=0}^{\delta_j-1} \frac1{p!}

1608:     \frac {\partial^p f}{\partial y_j^p}(x,\hat{y}_j) \cdot y_j^p.

1609:   \end{equation*}

1610:   By Corollaries \ref{value_at_0} and \ref{good_derivatives}, the

1611:   function $h$ belongs to $\A_m(U)$ and $Th = Y^\delta \cdot G$ for

1612:   some $G \in \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$.  Part (2) now follows from part (1).

1613: \end{proof}

1614: 

1615: \begin{nrmk}

1616:   \label{truncation_remark}

1617:   We do not know whether, in the situation of Proposition

1618:   \ref{holo_division}, a corresponding statements holds for all

1619:   variables, that is, whether

1620:   \begin{itemize}

1621:   \item[$(\ast)_f$] for every elementary set $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^m

1622:     \times \NN^n$, there are an $m$-quadratic $V \subseteq U$ and an

1623:     $f_S \in \A_m(V)$ such that $T f_S = (Tf)_S$.

1624:   \end{itemize}

1625:   This is the first of two reasons to eventually restrict our

1626:   attention to a subclass of $\A_m(U)$ introduced in Section

1627:   \ref{division}.

1628: \end{nrmk}

1629: 

1630: \subsection*{Taylor expansion}

1631: Next, we establish a Taylor expansion result with respect to the $y$

1632: variables.  Let $V \subseteq \frL^p$ be open; recall that a map $\f:V

1633: \into \frL^p$ is holomorphic if the function $\log_p \circ \f \circ

1634: \log_p^{-1}:\log_p(V) \into \CC^p$ is holomorphic.  Note that if $W

1635: \subseteq \frL^q$ and $\g:W \into \frL^p$ is holomorphic such that

1636: $\g(W) \subseteq V$, then the composition $\f \circ g:W \into \frL^p$

1637: is holomorphic.

1638: 

1639: \begin{df}[Translation]

1640:   \label{shift}

1641:   Let $\lambda \in \CC$ be nonzero, and denote by $\Arg\lambda \in

1642:   (-\frac\pi2, \frac\pi2]$ the standard argument of $\lambda$.  We

1643:   put $$\CC_\lambda := \set{z \in \CC:\ \Arg\lambda - \frac\pi2 < \arg

1644:     z < \Arg\lambda + \frac\pi2},$$ and we let $\l_\lambda:\CC_\lambda

1645:   \into \frL$ be defined by $\l_\lambda(z) := (|z|,\arg z)$ and put

1646:   $D(\lambda) := \l_\lambda(B(\lambda,|\lambda|))$.  We let

1647:   $\t_\lambda:B_\frL(\lambda) \into D(\lambda)$ be the holomorphic map

1648:   defined by $\t_\lambda(x) := \l_\lambda\left(\lambda +

1649:     (x)^1\right)$.

1650:   

1651:   For completeness' sake, we also define $\t_0:\frL \into \frL$ by

1652:   $\t_0(x) := x$.

1653: \end{df}

1654: 

1655: For $\lambda \in \CC^p$ and $w \in \frL^p$, we write $\t_\lambda(w) :=

1656: (\t_{\lambda_1}(w_1), \dots, \t_{\lambda_p}(w_p))$.  Abusing

1657: notation, we identify the set $\big\{x \in \frL^p_0:\ -\pi < \arg

1658:   x_i \le \pi$ for each $i \big\}$ with $\CC^p$.

1659: 

1660: \begin{nrmk}

1661:   \label{translate_derivative}

1662:   Let $\lambda \in \CC^{m+n} \cap \cl_0(U)$ and $f \in \O(U)$.  An

1663:   elementary calculation shows that for each $i \in \{1, \dots, m\}$,

1664:   we have

1665:   \begin{equation*}

1666:     \partial_i(f \circ \t_\lambda) = \Big((\partial_i f) \circ

1667:     \t_\lambda\Big) \cdot \frac {x_i^1}{\lambda_i + x_i^1}.

1668:   \end{equation*}

1669: \end{nrmk}

1670: 

1671: We now let $l \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, and we write $y' := (y_1, \dots,

1672: y_{n-l})$, \linebreak $Y' := (Y_1, \dots, Y_{n-l})$, $z = (z_1, \dots,

1673: z_l):= (y_{n-l+1}, \dots, y_n)$ and $Z = (Z_1, \dots, Z_l) :=

1674: (Y_{n-l+1}, \dots, Y_n)$. We assume that $U = W^m \times B_\frL(R)^n$ for

1675: some quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL$ and some $R>0$.  We let $f

1676: \in \A_m(U)$ and $\lambda \in B(0,R)^l$, and we put $U':= W^m \times

1677: B_\frL(R)^{n-l}$.

1678: 

1679: \begin{lemma}

1680:   \label{real_constants}

1681:   Assume $(\ast)_f$ holds.  Then the formal sum $Tf(X,Y',\lambda)$

1682:   gives a series in $\Ps{C}{X^*,Y'}$.  Moreover, the function $(x,y')

1683:   \mapsto f(x,y',\lambda):U' \into \CC$, denoted simply by

1684:   $f(x,y',\lambda)$, satisfies $(\ast)_{f(x,y',\lambda)}$ with

1685:   $$T(f(x,y',\lambda)) = (Tf)(X,Y',\lambda).$$

1686: \end{lemma}

1687: 

1688: \begin{proof}

1689:   We assume that $l=1$; the general case follows by induction on

1690:   $l$.  Throughout this proof, we let $\gamma$ and $p$ range over

1691:   $[0,\infty)^m \times \NN^{n-1}$ and $\NN$, respectively.  We write

1692:   $f(x,y) = \sum a_p(x,y') z^p$ as a convergent power series in $z =

1693:   y_n$ and $Tf = \sum a_{(\gamma,p)} (X,Y')^\gamma Z^p$.  From

1694:   $(\ast)_f$ and Propositions \ref{coefficients} and

1695:   \ref{asymptotic_to_0}, we see that $(\ast)_{a_p}$ holds (with $n-1$

1696:   in place of $n$) for each $p \in \NN$.  Hence

1697:   \begin{renumerate}

1698:   \item $f_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y) = \sum (a_p)_\gamma(x,y') z^p$ for all

1699:     $\gamma$ and all sufficiently small $(x,y) \in U$;

1700:   \item $a_{(\gamma,p)} = (a_p)_\gamma(0,0)$ for all $\gamma$ and $p$.

1701:   \end{renumerate}

1702:   It follows from (ii) and Proposition \ref{coefficients} that

1703:   $$Tf(X,Y',\lambda) = \sum_\gamma

1704:   \left(\sum_p a_{(\gamma,p)} \lambda^p\right) (X,Y')^\gamma$$ belongs

1705:   to $\Ps{C}{X^*,Y'}$, which proves the first assertion.

1706: 

1707:   Next, we let $\a>0$ and consider the finite set $$S_\a :=

1708:   \set{\gamma \in \Pi_{m+n-1}(\supp Tf):\ |\gamma| \le \a}.$$ Note

1709:   that, by (ii) above and Proposition \ref{coefficients}, for every

1710:   $\gamma \in S_\a$ we have $f_{\{\gamma\} \times \NN}(x,y) = \sum_p

1711:   a_{(\gamma,p)} z^p$ for all sufficiently small $(x,y) \in U$.

1712:   Therefore, after shrinking $U$ if necessary, the function $$g(x,y)

1713:   := f(x,y) - \sum_{\gamma \in S_\a} f_{\{\gamma\} \times \NN}(x,y)

1714:   \cdot (x,y')^\gamma$$ belongs to $\A_m(U)$ and satisfies $Tg = Tf -

1715:   \sum_{\gamma \in S_\a} (Tf)_{\{\gamma\} \times \NN} \cdot

1716:   (X,Y')^\gamma$.  By the above, it follows that $$Tg(X,Y) = Tf(X,Y) -

1717:   \sum_{\gamma \in S_\a} \sum_p a_{(\gamma,p)} \cdot (X,Y')^\gamma

1718:   Z^p\ ;$$ in particular, $f(x,y',\lambda) - \sum_{|\gamma| \le \a}

1719:   \left(\sum_p a_{(\gamma,p)} \lambda^p \right) \cdot (x,y')^\gamma =

1720:   o(\|(x,y')\|^\a)$ as $\|(x,y')\| \to 0$ in $U'$.  Hence

1721:   $f(x,y',\lambda) \in \A_m(U')$ with $T(f(x,y',\lambda)) =

1722:   (Tf)(X,Y',\lambda)$.

1723: 

1724:   Finally, given an elementary set $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^m \times

1725:   \NN^{n-1}$ and arguing as above with $f_{S \times \{0\}}$ in place

1726:   of $f$, we see that $(\ast)_{f(x,y',\lambda)}$ holds.

1727: \end{proof}

1728: 

1729: We put $R':= \min_{i=1, \dots, l} (R - |\lambda_i|)$ and $V := W^m

1730: \times B_\frL(R)^{n-l} \times B_\frL(R')^l$.  From the Taylor expansion theorem

1731: for holomorphic functions, Propositions \ref{coefficients} and

1732: \ref{O-membership} and Lemma \ref{real_constants}, we obtain:

1733: 

1734: \begin{cor}

1735:   \label{taylor}

1736:   Assume $(\ast)_f$ holds.  Then the function $g:V \into \CC$ defined

1737:   by $g(x,y) := f(x,y',\t_\lambda(z))$ satisfies $(\ast)_g$ with

1738:   \begin{equation*}

1739:     Tg(X,Y) = \sum_{p \in \NN^l} \frac1{p!} \frac

1740:     {\partial^p (Tf)}{\partial Z^p}(X,Y',\lambda) \cdot

1741:     Z^p.  \qed

1742:   \end{equation*}

1743: \end{cor}

1744: 

1745: In the situation of Corollary \ref{taylor}, we also write

1746: $\t_{(0,\lambda)} f$ and $T_{(0,\lambda)} f$ for the function $g$ and

1747: the series $Tg$, respectively.

1748: 

1749: \begin{nrmk}

1750:   \label{taylor_remark}

1751:   We are not aware of a statement corresponding to Corollary

1752:   \ref{taylor}  for translation in the $x$ variables.  This is the

1753:   second reason to restrict our attention to a subclass of $\A_m(U)$,

1754:   done in Section \ref{division}.  

1755: \end{nrmk}

1756: 

1757: \subsection*{Composition} Let $f \in \A_m(U)$.  Let $V \subseteq

1758: \frL^{m+n}$ be an $m$-quadratic domain and let $g = (g_1, \dots, g_n)

1759: \in \A_m(V)^n$.  Abusing notation, for $(x,y) \in V$ we write

1760: $(x,g(x,y)) \in U$ to mean $(x, g(x,y)) \in \ir(\cl_0(\pi_m(U)))$, and

1761: if the latter is the case, we also write $f(x,g(x,y))$ in place of

1762: $f^\sharp(x,g(x,y))$.  

1763: 

1764: For the next lemma, we assume that $g(0,0) = 0$ and $(x, g(x,y))

1765: \in U$ for all $(x,y) \in V$, and we define the holomorphic function

1766: $h:V \into \CC$ by $ h(x,y) := f(x,g(x,y)).  $

1767: 

1768: \begin{prop}

1769:   \label{A-composition}

1770:   The function $h$ belongs to $\A_m(V)$ and $Th(X,Y) =

1771:   Tf(X,Tg(X,Y))$.

1772: \end{prop}

1773: 

1774: We will deduce this proposition from the following two special cases:

1775: 

1776: \begin{lemma}

1777:   \label{comp1}

1778:   Assume that $Tg(X,0) = Tg(X,Y)$.  Then $h \in \A_m(V)$ and $Th(X,Y)

1779:   = Tf(X,Tg(X,Y))$.

1780: \end{lemma}

1781: 

1782: \begin{proof}

1783:   We write $Tf(X,Y) = \sum a_{\gamma,p} X^\gamma Y^p$ and $Tg_j(X) =

1784:   \sum b_{j,\delta} X^\delta$; note that $b_{j,0} = 0$ for each $j$.

1785:   Then $(Tf)(X,(Tg)(X,Y)) = \sum c_\alpha X^\alpha$, where for each

1786:   $\alpha \in [0,\infty)^m$,

1787:   \begin{multline*}

1788:     \Sigma(\alpha) := \big\{(\gamma,p,\delta):\ \gamma \in

1789:     \Pi_m(\supp(Tf)),\, p \in \NN^n, \text{ and } \\ \delta =

1790:     (\delta^1, \dots, \delta^{|p|}) \in \left(\bigcup

1791:       \supp(g_j)\right)^{|p|} \text{ with } \gamma + \delta^1 + \cdots

1792:     \delta^{|p|} = \alpha\big\}

1793:   \end{multline*}

1794:   and

1795:   \begin{equation*}

1796:     c_\alpha := \sum_{(\gamma,p,\delta) \in \Sigma(\alpha)}

1797:     a_{\gamma,p} \cdot \prod_{j=1}^n \prod_{l=p_1 + \cdots + p_{j-1} +

1798:       1}^{p_1 + \cdots + p_l} b_{j,\delta^l}.

1799:   \end{equation*}

1800:   Since each $b_{j,0} = 0$, each set $\Sigma(\alpha)$ is finite; in

1801:   fact, with

1802:   \begin{equation*}

1803:     q(r) := \sum_{i=1}^m \left| \Pi_{X_i}\left(\set{\beta \in

1804:         \bigcup\supp(g_j):\ |\beta| \le r}\right) \right|,

1805:   \end{equation*}

1806:   we have $|p| \le q(|\alpha|)$ for all $(\gamma,p,\delta) \in

1807:   \Sigma(\alpha)$. 

1808: 

1809:   Let now $\a > 1$, and for all suitable $(x,y) \in \frL^{m+n}$, we

1810:   define

1811:   \begin{equation*}

1812:     f^\a(x,y) := f(x,y) - \sum_{|\gamma| + |p| \le \a + q(\a)}

1813:     a_{\gamma,p} x^\gamma y^p

1814:   \end{equation*}

1815:   and

1816:   \begin{equation*}

1817:     g_j^\a(x) := g_j(x,0) - \sum_{|\delta| \le \a} b_{j,\delta}

1818:     x^\delta, \quad\text{for } j=1, \dots, n.

1819:   \end{equation*}

1820:   Then $f^\a(x,y) = o\left(\|(x,y)\|^{\a+q(\a)}\right)$ as $\|(x,y)\| \to

1821:   0$ in some $m$-quadratic domain, and $g_j^\a(x) = o(\|x\|^\a)$ for

1822:   each $j$ as $\|x\| \to 0$ in some quadratic domain.  Thus,

1823:   $f^\a(x,g^a(x)) = o(\|x\|^\a)$, and there is a polynomial $P(x) = \sum

1824:   d_\beta X^\beta$ such that $|\beta| > \a$ whenever $d_\beta \ne 0$

1825:   and

1826:   \begin{equation*}

1827:     P(x) = f(x,g(x,0)) - f^\a(x,g^\a(x)) - \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a}

1828:     c_\alpha x^\alpha

1829:   \end{equation*}

1830:   for all sufficiently small $x$.  In particular, $f(x,g(x,0)) -

1831:   \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a} c_\alpha x^\alpha = o(\|x\|^\a)$, which proves

1832:   the lemma.

1833: \end{proof}

1834: 

1835: \begin{lemma}

1836:   \label{comp2}

1837:   Assume that $Tg(X,0) = 0$.  Then $h \in \A_m(V)$ and $Th(X,Y)

1838:   = Tf(X,Tg(X,Y))$.

1839: \end{lemma}

1840: 

1841: \begin{proof}

1842:   After shrinking $U$ and $V$ if necessary, we may assume that $f$ is

1843:   bounded on $U$.  By Proposition \ref{coefficients}, we can write

1844:   $f(x) = \sum a_p(x) y^p$ for all $(x,y) \in U$ and $g_j(x,y) = \sum

1845:   b_{j,p}(x) y^p$ for all $(x,y) \in V$ and $j=1, \dots, n$, and there

1846:   are an $m$-quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL^m$ and constants

1847:   $A,B>0$ such that $a_p, b_{j,p} \in \A_m(W^m)$ and $\|a_p(x)\|,

1848:   \|b_{j,p}(x)\| \le AB^{|p|}$ for all $x \in W^m$, $p \in \NN^n$ and

1849:   $j=1, \dots, n$.  Our assumption on $g$ implies that $b_{j,0} = 0$

1850:   for each $j$.  Thus, after shrinking $W$ if necessary, there is an

1851:   $R>0$ such that for all $(x,y) \in W \times B_\frL(R)^n$,

1852:   \begin{equation*}

1853:     h(x,y) = f(x,g(x,y)) = \sum_{p \in \NN^n} a_p(x) g(x,y)^p = \sum_{r

1854:       \in \NN^n} c_r(x) y^r,

1855:   \end{equation*}

1856:   where, for $r \in \NN^n$ and $x \in W^m$, we put

1857:   \begin{equation*}

1858:     c_r(x) := \sum_{(p,q) \in \Sigma(r)} a_p(x) \cdot \prod_{i=1}^n

1859:     \prod_{j=p_1 + \cdots + p_{i-1}+1}^{p_1 + \cdots + p_i} b_{i,q^j}(x)

1860:   \end{equation*}

1861:   with 

1862:   \begin{multline*}

1863:     \Sigma(r) := \big\{(p,q):\ p \in \NN^n \text{ with } |p| \le |r|,

1864:     \text{ and } \\ q = (q^1, \dots, q^{|p|}) \in (\NN^n

1865:     \setminus\{0\})^{|p|} \text{ with } q^1 + \cdots + q^{|p|} =

1866:     r\big\}.

1867:   \end{multline*}

1868:   Note that each $\Sigma(r)$ is finite, because $|p| \le |r|$ for each

1869:   $(p,q) \in \Sigma(r)$; we only need to consider such $p$, because

1870:   each $b_{j,0} = 0$.)  Since $h$ is bounded and holomorphic on $W^m

1871:   \times B_\frL(R)^n$, there are $C,D>0$ such that $\|c_r(x)\| \le

1872:   CD^{|r|}$ for all $x \in W^m$ and $r \in \NN^n$.  Finally, writing

1873:   $Tf(X,Y) = \sum_{p \in \NN^n} A_p(X) Y^p$ and $Tg_j(X,Y) = \sum_{q

1874:     \in \NN^n} B_{j,p}(X) Y^q$ for $j=1, \dots, n$, it follows from

1875:   Remark \ref{O-rmk}(3) that each $c_r$ belongs to $\A_m(W^m)$ and

1876:   satisfies

1877:   \begin{equation*}

1878:     T c_r(X) = \sum_{(p,q) \in \Sigma(r)} A_p(X) \cdot \prod_{i=1}^n

1879:     \prod_{j=p_1 + \cdots + p_{i-1}+1}^{p_1 + \cdots + p_i} B_{i,q^j}(x).   

1880:   \end{equation*}

1881:   The claim now follows from Proposition \ref{O-membership}, because

1882:   $\supp(Tc_r) \subseteq \Pi_m\big(\supp Tf(X,Tg(X,Y))\big)$ for

1883:   each $r \in \NN^n$ and the latter is a natural set by Proposition

1884:   \ref{comp_representation}.

1885: \end{proof}

1886: 

1887: \begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{A-composition}]

1888:   We define $f'(x,z,y) := f(x,z+y)$, $g^0(x) := g(x,0)$ and $g'(x,y)

1889:   := g(x,y) - g(x,0)$ for all suitable $x \in \frL^m$ and $y,z \in

1890:   \frL^n$.  By Lemma \ref{comp2}, there is an $m$-quadratic $U'

1891:   \subseteq \frL^{m+2n}$ such that $f' \in \A_m(U')$.  Note that

1892:   $T(g^0)(X,0) = T(g^0)(X,Y)$ and $T(g')(X,0) = 0$.  Hence by Lemmas

1893:   \ref{real_constants} and \ref{comp1}, there is an $m$-quadratic $V'

1894:   \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ such that $f'(x,g^0(x,y),y) \in \A_m(V')$, and

1895:   by Lemma \ref{comp2}, there is an $m$-quadratic $V'' \subseteq

1896:   \frL^{m+n}$ such that $f'(x,g^0(x,y),g'(x,y)) \in \A_m(V'')$.  Since

1897:   $f(x,g(x,y)) = f'(x,g^0(x),g'(x,y))$ for all suitable $(x,y) \in

1898:   \frL^{m+n}$, the proposition follows from Remark \ref{O-rmk}(2).

1899: \end{proof}

1900: 

1901: 

1902: \section{Blow-up substitutions in the non-holomorphic variables}

1903: \label{blowups}

1904: 

1905: We continue to work with $m,n \in \NN$ and an $m$-quadratic domain $U

1906: \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$.  For each real $\rho > 0$, the map

1907: $\p^\rho:\frL \into \frL$ defined by

1908: \begin{equation*}

1909:   \p^\rho(r,\varphi) := (r^\rho,\rho\varphi)

1910: \end{equation*}

1911: is holomorphic, and the map $\m:\frL^2 \into \frL$ defined by

1912: \begin{equation*}

1913:   \m((r_1,\varphi_1),(r_2,\varphi_2)) := (r_1r_2, \varphi_1+\varphi_2)

1914: \end{equation*}

1915: is holomorphic.  Note that for all $x,x_1,x_2 \in \frL$, we have

1916: $(\p^\rho(x))^1 = x^\rho$ for each $\rho > 0$ and $(\m(x_1,x_2))^1 =

1917: (x_1)^1 \cdot (x_2)^1$.  

1918: 

1919: If $m \ge 2$ and $\rho \in (0,\infty)^m$, we define the holomorphic

1920: map $\p^\rho:\frL^m \into \frL$ by induction on $m$:

1921: \begin{equation*}

1922:   \p^\rho(x) := \m\left(\p^{\rho'}(x'), \p^{\rho_m}(x_m)\right),

1923: \end{equation*}

1924: where $x' := (x_1, \dots, x_{m-1})$ and $\rho' := (\rho_1, \dots,

1925: \rho_{m-1})$.

1926: 

1927: \begin{df}

1928:   \label{singular_blowup}

1929:   Let $m \ge 2$ and $i,j \in \{1, \dots, m\}$ be such that $i \ne j$,

1930:   and let $\rho > 0$.  The \textbf{singular blowing-up} $\s^\rho_{ij}

1931:   : \frL^{m+n} \into \frL^{m+n}$ is defined as $\s^\rho_{ij} (x,y) =

1932:   (z,y)$, where

1933:   \begin{equation*}

1934:    z_k :=

1935:    \begin{cases}

1936:      x_k &\text{if } k \ne i, \\ \m(\p^\rho(x_j),x_i) &\text{if } k =

1937:      i. 

1938:    \end{cases}

1939:   \end{equation*}

1940: \end{df}

1941: 

1942: \begin{prop}

1943:   \label{singular_prop}

1944:   Let $ m \ge 2$ and $f \in \A_m(U)$.  Then the there is an

1945:   $m$-quadratic $V \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ such that $\s^\rho_{ij}(V)

1946:   \subseteq U$ and the function $f \circ \s^\rho_{ij}$ belongs to

1947:   $\A_m(V)$ and satisfies $T\left(f \circ \s^\rho_{ij}\right) =

1948:   \frB^{\rho,0}_{ij}(Tf)$.

1949: \end{prop}

1950: 

1951: \begin{proof}

1952:   Without loss of generality, we may assume that $i = m$ and $j =

1953:   m-1$.  Below, we write $\s$ and $\frB$ in place of $\s^\rho_{ij}$

1954:   and $\frB^{\rho,0}_{ij}$.  Let $W \subseteq \frL$ be quadratic and

1955:   $1 > R>0$ be such that $f \in \A_m(W^m \times B_\frL(R)^n)$; we may

1956:   assume that

1957:   \begin{equation*}

1958:     W = \set{(r,\varphi) \in \frL:\ 0 < r <

1959:       c\exp\left(-C\sqrt{|\varphi|}\right)} 

1960:   \end{equation*}

1961:   for some $c,C>0$ satisfying $c<R$.  We let $D :=

1962:   C/\min\{\sqrt{\rho},1\}$ and put

1963:   \begin{equation*}

1964:     W' := \set{(r,\varphi) \in \frL:\ 0 < r <

1965:       c\exp\left(-D\sqrt{|\varphi|}\right)} \subseteq W

1966:   \end{equation*}

1967:   and $V := (W')^m \times B_\frL(R)^n$; we claim that $\s(V) \subseteq U$.

1968:   To see this, we write $x_k = (r_k,\varphi_k)$ for $k=1, \dots, m$.

1969:   Then

1970:   \begin{align*}

1971:     \left\|\left(\s(x)\right)_m\right\| &\le c^{\rho+1}

1972:     \exp\left( -D\left( \rho\sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} +

1973:         \sqrt{|\varphi_m|} \right)\right) \\ &\le c \exp\left(

1974:       -D\left( \rho\sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} + \sqrt{|\varphi_m|}

1975:       \right)\right);

1976:   \end{align*}

1977:   since 

1978:   \begin{align*}

1979:     C \sqrt{|\rho\varphi_{m-1} + \varphi_m|} &\le C\left( \sqrt\rho

1980:       \sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} + \sqrt{|\varphi_m|}\right) \\ &\le D

1981:     \left(\rho \sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} + \sqrt{|\varphi_m|}\right),

1982:   \end{align*}

1983:   the claim follows.

1984: 

1985:  Since $f

1986:   \circ \s$ is holomorphic on $V$, for each $\beta \in \NN^n$ the function

1987:   $a_\beta:(W')^m \into \CC$ defined by

1988:   \begin{equation*}

1989:     a_\beta(x') := \frac1{\beta!} \left(\frac {\partial^\beta

1990:         f}{\partial y^\beta} \circ \s\right) (x,0)  

1991:   \end{equation*}

1992:   is holomorphic.  By Proposition \ref{O-membership}, it suffices to

1993:   show that $a_\beta \in \A((W')^m)$ for each $\beta$.  We

1994:   fix $\beta \in \NN^n$ and write $T\left(\frac {\partial^\beta

1995:       f}{\partial y^\beta}(X,0)\right) = \sum a_{\alpha} X^\alpha$,

1996:   and we let $\a>0$.  Shrinking $W$ and $W'$ if necessary, we may

1997:   assume by Lemma \ref{real_constants} that

1998:   \begin{equation}

1999:     \label{preblow_asymptotic}

2000:     \left\|\frac {\partial^\beta f}{\partial y^\beta}(x,0) -

2001:       \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a} a_{\alpha} 

2002:       x^\alpha \right\|

2003:     = o\left(\|x\|^\a\right) \quad\text{as } \|x\| \to 0

2004:     \text{ in }  W^m.

2005:   \end{equation}

2006:   We now define $\rho:[0,\infty)^m \into [0,\infty)^m$

2007:   by $$\rho(\alpha) := (\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{m-2},

2008:   \alpha_{m-1}+\rho\alpha_m, \alpha_m).$$ Note that

2009:   $\frB(T(\partial^\beta f/\partial Y^\beta))(X,0) = \sum a_{\alpha}

2010:   X^{\rho(\alpha)}$ and $\s(x)^{\alpha} = x^{\rho(\alpha)}$ for all $x

2011:   \in (W')^m$ and $\alpha \in [0,\infty)^m$.  Since $W \subseteq

2012:   B_\frL(1)$, we have $\|\s(x)\| \le \|x\|$, so it follows from

2013:   \eqref{preblow_asymptotic} that

2014:   \begin{equation}

2015:     \label{blow_asymptotic}

2016:     \left\| \left(\frac {\partial^\beta

2017:         f}{\partial y^\beta} \circ \s\right)(x,0) - \sum_{|\alpha|

2018:         \le \a} a_{\alpha} x^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\|  =

2019:     o\left(\|x\|^\a\right)

2020:   \end{equation}

2021:   as $\|x\| \to 0$ in $(W')^m$.  Finally, for $x \in W^m$ we have

2022:   \begin{multline*}

2023:     \left\|\left(\frac {\partial^\beta f}{\partial y^\beta} \circ

2024:         \s\right) (x,0) - \sum_{|\rho(\alpha)| \le \a} a_{\alpha}

2025:       x^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\| \\ \le \left\| \left(\frac

2026:         {\partial^\beta f}{\partial y^\beta} \circ \s\right)(x,0) -

2027:       \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a} a_{\alpha}

2028:       x^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\|  +

2029:     \left\|\sum_{|\alpha| \le \a < |\rho(\alpha)|} a_{\alpha}

2030:       x^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\|.

2031:   \end{multline*}

2032:   The right-hand side above is $o\left(\|x\|^\a\right)$ as $\|x\| \to

2033:   0$ in $(W')^m$, by \eqref{blow_asymptotic} and because the sum in

2034:   the second summand is finite and each of its summands has an

2035:   exponent $\gamma$ satisfying $|\gamma| > \a$.  This proves the

2036:   proposition. 

2037: \end{proof}

2038: 

2039: \begin{df}

2040:   \label{regular_blowup}

2041:   Let $m \ge 2$ and $\lambda > 0$.  The \textbf{regular blowing-up}

2042:   $\r^{\rho,\lambda}: \frL^{m-1} \times B_\frL(\lambda) \times \frL^n \into

2043:   \frL^{m+n}$ is defined as $\r^{\rho,\lambda}(x,y) = (z,y)$, where

2044:   \begin{equation*}

2045:     z_k :=

2046:     \begin{cases}

2047:       x_k &\text{if } k < m, \\ \m\left( \p^\rho(x_{m-1}),

2048:         \t_\lambda(x_m) \right) &\text{if } k=m.

2049:     \end{cases}

2050:   \end{equation*}

2051: \end{df}

2052: 

2053: \begin{prop}

2054:   \label{regular_prop}

2055:   Let $m \ge 2$, $\lambda > 0$ and $f \in \A_m(U)$.  Then there is an

2056:   $(m-1)$-quadratic $V \subseteq \frL^{m-1} \times B_\frL(\lambda) \times

2057:   \frL^n$ such that $\r^{\rho,\lambda}(V) \subseteq U$ and the

2058:   function $f \circ \r^{\rho,\lambda}:V \into \CC$ belongs to

2059:   $\A_{m-1}(V)$ and satisfies $T\left(f \circ \r^{\rho,\lambda}\right)

2060:   = \frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1}(Tf)$.

2061: \end{prop}

2062: 

2063: \begin{proof}

2064:   Below, we write $\r$ and $\frB$ in place of $\r^{\rho,\lambda}$ and

2065:   $\frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1}$.  Let $W' \subseteq \frL$ be quadratic

2066:   and $\min\{1,\lambda\} > R>0$ be such that $U':= (W')^m \times

2067:   B_\frL(R)^n \subseteq U$; we may assume that

2068:   \begin{equation*}

2069:     W' = \set{(r,\varphi) \in \frL:\ 0 < r <

2070:       c\exp\left(-C\sqrt{|\varphi|}\right)} 

2071:   \end{equation*}

2072:   for some $c,C>0$ satisfying $c<R$.  We let 

2073:   \begin{equation*}

2074:     D:= \frac C{\min\{\sqrt\rho,1\}} \quad\text{and}\quad d :=

2075:     \min\set{c, \left( 

2076:         \frac c{2\lambda \exp\left(D \sqrt{\pi/2}\right)} \right)^{1/\rho}},

2077:   \end{equation*}

2078:   and we put

2079:   \begin{equation*}

2080:     W := \set{(r,\varphi) \in \frL:\ 0 < r <

2081:       d\exp\left(-D\sqrt{|\varphi|}\right)} \subseteq W'

2082:   \end{equation*}

2083:   and $V := W^{m-1} \times B_\frL(R)^{n+1}$; we claim that $\r(V) \subseteq

2084:   U$.  To see this, we write $x_k = (r_k,\varphi_k)$ for $k=1, \dots,

2085:   m$.  Then

2086:   \begin{align*}

2087:     \left\|\left(\r(x)\right)_m\right\| &\le d^\rho \exp\left( -D

2088:       \rho\sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|}\right) \cdot 2\lambda \\ &\le c

2089:     \exp\left( -D\left( \rho\sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} +

2090:         \sqrt{\pi/2} \right)\right).

2091:   \end{align*}

2092:   Since $|\arg(\t_\lambda(w))| \le \pi/2$ for all $w \in \frL$, we

2093:   also get

2094:   \begin{align*}

2095:     C \sqrt{|\rho\varphi_{m-1} + \arg(\t_\lambda(x_m))|} &\le C\left(

2096:       \sqrt\rho \sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} + \sqrt{\pi/2}\right) \\

2097:     &\le D \left(\rho \sqrt{|\varphi_{m-1}|} +

2098:       \sqrt{\pi/2}\right).

2099:   \end{align*}

2100:   The claim follows.  

2101: 

2102: 

2103:   We write $x' := (x_1, \dots, x_{m-1})$ for $x \in \frL^m$.  Since $f

2104:   \circ \r$ is holomorphic on $V$, for each $p \in \NN$ and each

2105:   $\beta \in \NN^n$ the function $a_{(p,\beta)}:(W')^{m-1} \into \CC$

2106:   defined by

2107:   \begin{equation*}

2108:     a_{(p,\beta)}(x') := \frac1{p! \beta!} \frac {\partial^p((\partial

2109:       f/\partial y^\beta) \circ \r)}{\partial

2110:       x_m^p} (x',\lambda,0) 

2111:   \end{equation*}

2112:   is holomorphic.  Moreover, we put $X' := (X_1, \dots, X_{m-1})$, and

2113:   $\alpha' := (\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{m-1})$, and we fix $p \in \NN$

2114:   and $\beta \in \NN^n$ and write $T\left(\frac {\partial^\beta

2115:       f}{\partial y^\beta}(X,0)\right) = \sum a_{\alpha} X^\alpha$.

2116:   By the above and Proposition \ref{O-membership}, it now suffices to

2117:   show that $a_{(p,\beta)} \in \A((W')^{m-1})$ with $Ta_{(p,\beta)} =

2118:   \frac1{\beta!} A_{(p,\beta)}$,

2119:   where $$A_{(p,\beta)}(X') := \sum_{\alpha} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_m \\

2120:     p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m - p} a_{\alpha} (X')^{\alpha'}

2121:   X_{m-1}^{\rho\alpha_m}.$$ Let $\a>0$, and choose $\a' >

2122:   \a/\min\{\rho,1\}$.  Shrinking $W$ and $W'$ if necessary, we may

2123:   assume by Lemma \ref{real_constants} that

2124:   \begin{equation*}

2125:     \left\|\frac {\partial^\beta f}{\partial y^\beta}(x,0) -

2126:       \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a'} a_{\alpha} 

2127:       x^\alpha \right\|

2128:     = o\left(\|x\|^{\a'}\right) \quad\text{as } \|x\| \to 0

2129:     \text{ in }  W^m.

2130:   \end{equation*}

2131:   Therefore,

2132:   \begin{equation}

2133:     \label{blow_asymptotic2}

2134:     \left\| \left(\frac {\partial^\beta

2135:           f}{\partial y^\beta} \circ \r\right)(x,0) -

2136:       \sum_{|\alpha| \le \a'} a_{\alpha} \cdot

2137:       (\r(x))^{\alpha} \right\|  =

2138:     o\left(\|\r(x)\|^{\a'}\right)

2139:   \end{equation}

2140:   as $\|x\| \to 0$ in $(W')^m$.  We now define $\rho:[0,\infty)^m

2141:   \into [0,\infty)^{m-1}$ by $\rho(\alpha) := (\alpha_1, \dots,

2142:   \alpha_{m-2}, \alpha_{m-1}+\rho\alpha_m)$.  Note that formally

2143:   $A_{(p,\beta)}(X') = \sum_{\alpha} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_m \\

2144:     p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m - p} a_{\alpha}

2145:   (X')^{\rho(\alpha)}$, and for all $x \in (W')^m$ and $\alpha

2146:   \in [0,\infty)^m$ that $\r(x)^{\alpha} =

2147:   (x')^{\rho(\alpha)} \cdot \sum_{q \in \NN} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_m

2148:     \\ q \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m-q} x_m^q$.  Differentiating

2149:   \eqref{blow_asymptotic2}, it follows from the Cauchy estimates and

2150:   our choice of $\a'$ that

2151:   \begin{equation*}

2152:     \left\| \beta! \cdot a_{(p,\beta)}(x') - \sum_{|\alpha| \le

2153:         \a'} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_m \\

2154:         p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m-p} a_{\alpha}

2155:       (x')^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\|  =

2156:     o\left(\|x'\|^\a\right)

2157:   \end{equation*}

2158:   as $\|x'\| \to 0$ in $(W')^{m-1}$.  Finally, for $x' \in (W')^{m-1}$ we

2159:   have

2160:   \begin{multline*}

2161:     \left\| \beta! \cdot a_{(p,\beta)}(x') - \sum_{|\rho(\alpha)|

2162:         \le

2163:         \a} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_m \\

2164:         p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m-p} a_{\alpha}

2165:       (x')^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\| \\ \le \left\| \beta! \cdot

2166:       a_{(p,\beta)}(x') - \sum_{|\alpha| \le

2167:         \a'} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_m \\

2168:         p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m-p} a_{\alpha}

2169:       (x')^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\| \\ +

2170:     \left\|\sum_{\substack{|\alpha| \le

2171:           \a' \\ |\rho(\alpha)| > \a}} \begin{pmatrix}  \alpha_m \\

2172:         p \end{pmatrix} \lambda^{\alpha_m-p} a_{\alpha}

2173:       (x')^{\rho(\alpha)} \right\|.

2174:   \end{multline*}

2175:   The right-hand side above is $o\left(\|x'\|^\a\right)$ as $\|x'\|

2176:   \to 0$ in $(W')^{m-1}$, by \eqref{blow_asymptotic2} and because the

2177:   sum in the second summand is finite and each of its summands has an

2178:   exponent $\beta$ satisfying $|\beta| > \a$, as $|\rho(\alpha)| \ge

2179:   |\alpha| \min\{\rho,1\}$ for all $\alpha$.  This proves the

2180:   proposition. 

2181: \end{proof}

2182: 

2183: 

2184: \section{The class $\Q$}

2185: \label{division}

2186: 

2187: Let $m,n \in \NN$, and let $U \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ be an

2188: $m$-quadratic domain.  Below, we let $y = (y_1, \dots, y_n)$ range

2189: over $\frL^n$ and $Y = (Y_1, \dots, Y_n)$ be indeterminates.

2190: 

2191: With Remarks \ref{truncation_remark} and \ref{taylor_remark} in mind,

2192: we now restrict our attention to a subclass of $\A_m(U)$.  

2193: Abusing notation, we identify $[0,\infty)$ with the set $\{0\} \cup

2194: (0,\infty)_\frL \subseteq \frL_0$.

2195: 

2196: \begin{df}

2197:   \label{Q}

2198:   We define the class $\Q^{m+n}_m(U)$ to be the set of all $f \in

2199:   \A_m(U)$ such that for every $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, 

2200:   \begin{itemize}

2201:   \item[(TD)] there are an $m$-quadratic $V = V(f,\gamma)

2202:     \subseteq U$ and an $f_{(\gamma,0)} \in \A_m(V)$ such that $T

2203:     f_{(\gamma,0)} = (Tf)_{(\gamma,0)}$;

2204:   \item[(TE)]for every $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ with $(\kappa,0) \in

2205:     \cl_0(U)$, there is an $m$-quadratic $W= W(f_{(\gamma,0)},\kappa)

2206:     \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ such that $(\t_\kappa(x),y) \in V$ for all

2207:     $(x,y) \in W$ and the function $\t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma,0)} : W

2208:     \into \CC$ defined by $(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma,0)})(x,y) :=

2209:     f_{(\gamma,0)}(\t_\kappa(x),y)$ belongs to $\A_m(W)$.

2210:   \end{itemize}

2211: \end{df}

2212: 

2213: We shall omit the superscript $m+n$ whenever clear from context.

2214: 

2215: \begin{nrmks}

2216:   \label{quasirmks}

2217:   \begin{enumerate}

2218:   \item By Proposition \ref{asymptotic_to_0}, for each $f \in \Q_m(U)$

2219:     and each $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, the function $f_{(\gamma,0)}$

2220:     in the definition above is unique in $\A_m(V(f,\gamma))$.

2221:   \item Let $f:U \into \CC$ be holomorphic, and let $V \subseteq U$ be

2222:     an $m$-quadratic domain.  Then by Remark \ref{O-rmk}(2) and the

2223:     above definition, $f\rest{V} \in \Q_m(V)$ iff $f \in \Q_m(U)$.

2224:   \item By definition, the collection $\Q_1(U)$ is equal to the set of

2225:     all $f \in \A_1(U)$ such that (TD) holds for every $\gamma \in

2226:     [0,\infty)^m$; in particular, $\Q^1_1(U) = \A^1_1(U)$.  Moreover,

2227:     $\A_0(U) = \Q_0(U)$ by Proposition \ref{holo_division} and

2228:     Corollary \ref{taylor}.

2229:   \item Let $\sigma$ be a permutation of $\{1, \dots, m\}$ and $\tau$

2230:     be a permutation of $\{1, \dots, n\}$, and let $f \in \Q_m(U)$.

2231:     Then $f \circ \sigma$ and $f \circ \tau$ belong to $\Q_m(U)$.

2232:   \end{enumerate}

2233: \end{nrmks}

2234: 

2235: For $p \in \NN$ and $q \in \{1, \dots, p\}$, we say that $\rho \in

2236: [0,\infty)^p$ is \textbf{$q$-zero} if $\rho_1 = \cdots = \rho_q =

2237: 0$ and $\rho_{q+1}, \dots, \rho_p > 0$.  From Proposition

2238: \ref{prop:characterization}, we obtain:

2239: 

2240: \begin{cor}

2241:   \label{strongQ}

2242:   Let $f \in \Q_m(U)$, and let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, $k \in \{1,

2243:   \dots, m\}$, $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ be $k$-zero such that

2244:   $(\kappa,0) \in \cl_0(U)$ and $\sigma$ a permutation of $\{1, \dots,

2245:   m\}$.  Then there is a $k$-quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$

2246:   such that $\sigma(\t_\kappa(x),y) \in V(f,\gamma)$ for all $(x,y)

2247:   \in W$ and the function $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(f_{(\gamma,0)} \circ

2248:   \sigma)$ belongs to $\A_k(W)$. \qed

2249: \end{cor}

2250: 

2251: \begin{df}

2252:   \label{germs}

2253:   Let $\E^{m+n}_m$ be the union of all $\Q_m(U)$ as $U$ ranges over

2254:   the $m$-quadratic domains in $\frL^{m+n}$.  We define an equivalence

2255:   relation $\equiv$ on $\E^{m+n}_m$ as follows: $f \equiv g$ if and

2256:   only of there is an $m$-quadratic domain $U \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$

2257:   such that $f \rest{U} = g\rest{U}$.  We let $\Q^{m+n}_m$ be the set

2258:   of all $\equiv$-equivalence classes.

2259: \end{df}

2260: 

2261: We shall omit the superscript $m+n$ whenever it is clear from context.

2262: We will not distinguish between $f \in \Q_m(U)$ and its equivalence

2263: class in $\Q_m$, which we also denote by $f$.  With this

2264: identification, whenever $U \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ is an $m$-quadratic

2265: domain, we have $\Q_m(U) \subseteq \Q_m$.  Moreover, for every $f,g

2266: \in \E_m$ such that $f \equiv g$, we have $Tf = Tg$; hence, the map $f

2267: \mapsto Tf:\E_m \into \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$ induces a map $f \mapsto Tf:\Q_m

2268: \into \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$.  Finally, for $r \ge 0$ we simply write $x^r$

2269: for the germ of the function $x \mapsto x^r:\frL \into \CC$.

2270: 

2271: \begin{lemma}

2272:   \label{Q-addition}

2273:   \begin{enumerate}

2274:   \item Let $f,g \in \Q_m$ and $a \in \CC$.  Then $f+g \in \Q_m$

2275:     and $af \in \Q_m$.  

2276:   \item If $m+n \ge l \ge m$, then $\Q_m \subseteq \Q_l$.

2277:   \item Let $f \in \Q_m$ and $(\lambda,\mu) \in (0,\infty)^{m+n}$.

2278:     Then the function $$f(\m(\lambda_1,x_1), \dots, \m(\lambda_m,x_m),

2279:     \m(\mu_1,y_1), \dots, \m(\mu_n,y_n))$$ belongs to $\Q_m$.

2280:   \end{enumerate}

2281: \end{lemma}

2282: 

2283: \begin{proof}

2284:   (1) Let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$; then $(Tf)_{(\gamma,0)} +

2285:   (Tg)_{(\gamma,0)} = (T(f+g))_{(\gamma,0)}$ and $a (Tf)_{(\gamma,0)}

2286:   = T(af)_{(\gamma,0)}$.  Let also $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ be

2287:   sufficiently small.  Then $f \circ \t_{(\kappa,0)} + g \circ

2288:   \t_{(\kappa,0)} = (f+g) \circ \t_{(\kappa,0)}$ and $a (f \circ

2289:   \t_{(\kappa,0)}) = (af) \circ \t_{(\kappa,0)}$, so we define

2290:   $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(f+g) := \t_{(\kappa,0)}f + \t_{(\kappa,0)}g$ and

2291:   $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(af) := a \t_{(\kappa,0)} f$.

2292: 

2293:   (2) Let $m+n \ge l \ge m$, and let $f \in \Q_m$ and $\rho \in

2294:   [0,\infty)^l$.  Let also $\rho'$ be the least $\tau \in [0,\infty)^m

2295:   \times \NN^{l-m}$ such that $\tau \ge \rho$.  Then we can take

2296:   $f_{(\rho,0)} := (x,y)^{\rho'-\rho} \cdot f_{(\rho',0)}$.  It

2297:   follows easily that $f \in \Q_l$.

2298: 

2299:   (3)   Writing $\m((\lambda,\mu),(x,y)):= (\m(\lambda_1,x_1), \dots,

2300:   \m(\mu_n,y_n))$, and writing $(\lambda,\mu) \cdot (X,Y) :=

2301:   (\lambda_1 X_1, \dots, \mu_n Y_n)$, we see that

2302:   \begin{equation*}

2303:     Tf((\lambda,\mu) \cdot (X,Y))_{(\gamma,0)} =

2304:     (Tf)_{(\gamma,0)}((\lambda,\mu) \cdot (X,Y))

2305:   \end{equation*}

2306:   for all $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, and that

2307:   \begin{equation*}

2308:     \t_{(\kappa,0)}(f(\m((\lambda,\mu),(x,y)))) =

2309:     (\t_{(\lambda\kappa,0)} f)(\m((\lambda,\mu),(x,y)))

2310:   \end{equation*}

2311:   for all sufficiently small $(x,y) \in \frL^{m+n}$, where

2312:   $\lambda\kappa := (\lambda_1\kappa_1, \dots, \lambda_m\kappa_m)$.

2313:   Part (3) follows.

2314: \end{proof}

2315:  

2316: \begin{prop}

2317:   \label{Q-basics}

2318:   Let $f \in \Q_m$.  

2319:   \begin{enumerate}

2320:   \item For every elementary set $S \subseteq [0,\infty)^m \times

2321:     \NN^n$, there is a unique $f_S \in \Q_m$ such that $T(f_S) =

2322:     (Tf)_S$.

2323:   \item For every $k \in \{1, \dots, m\}$, every sufficiently small

2324:     $k$-zero $(\kappa,\lambda) \in [0,\infty)^m \times \RR^n$ and

2325:     every permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, \dots, m\}$, the function

2326:     $\t^\sigma_{(\kappa,\lambda)} f := f \circ \sigma \circ

2327:     \t_{(\kappa,\lambda)}$ belongs to $\Q_k$.

2328:   \end{enumerate}

2329: \end{prop}

2330: 

2331: \begin{proof}

2332:   (1) By Remark \ref{boolean} and Lemmas \ref{natural_elementary} and

2333:   \ref{Q-addition}, it suffices to consider $S = \set{((\alpha,\beta)

2334:     \in [0,\infty)^m \times \NN^n:\ (\alpha,\beta) \ge

2335:     (\gamma,\delta)}$ for some $(\gamma,\delta) \in [0,\infty)^m

2336:   \times \NN^n$.  By Lemma \ref{Q-addition} and Proposition

2337:   \ref{asymptotic_to_0}, we may even assume that either $\gamma = 0$

2338:   or $\delta = 0$.  We assume first that $\delta = 0$ and let

2339:   $f_{(\gamma,0)}$ be as in (TD); we need to show that $f_{(\gamma,0)}

2340:   \in \Q_m$.  So let $\gamma' \in [0,\infty)^m$ and $\kappa \in

2341:   [0,\infty)^m$ be sufficiently small.  Since

2342:   $(Tf)_{(\gamma+\gamma',0)} = (Tf_{(\gamma,0)})_{(\gamma',0)}$, we

2343:   can take $(f_{(\gamma,0)})_{(\gamma',0)} := f_{(\gamma+\gamma',0)}$

2344:   and $\t_{(\kappa,0)}\big((f_{(\gamma,0)})_{(\gamma',0)}\big)

2345:   := \t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma+\gamma',0)}$.  Second, the case

2346:   $\gamma = 0$ follows from Proposition \ref{holo_division} and

2347:   Corollary \ref{taylor}.

2348: 

2349:   (2) Let $k \in \{1, \dots, m\}$ and $(\kappa,\lambda) \in

2350:   [0,\infty)^m \times \RR^n$ be sufficiently small and $k$-zero; by

2351:   Remark \ref{quasirmks}(4), it suffices to prove that

2352:   $\t_{(\kappa,\lambda)} f$ belongs to $\Q_k$.  Since

2353:   $\t_{(\kappa,\lambda)} f = \t_{(\kappa,0)}(\t_{(0,\lambda)} f)$, we

2354:   may assume by Corollary \ref{taylor} that $\lambda = 0$.  Let

2355:   $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^k \times \{0\}^{m-k}$.  By (1), there is for

2356:   each $I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}$ and each $\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}

2357:   = B_{\gamma,I}(Tf)$ a unique $f_{\gamma,I, \alpha} \in \Q_m$ such

2358:   that

2359:   \begin{equation*}

2360:     f = \sum_{I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}} x_{\bar

2361:       I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}} \left( \sum_{\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}}

2362:       x_I^\alpha \cdot f_{\gamma,I,\alpha} \right)

2363:   \end{equation*}

2364:   and each $f_{\gamma,I,\alpha}$ depends only on the variables

2365:   $x_{\bar I}$ and $y$.  Since $\gamma_{k+1} = \cdots = \gamma_m = 0$,

2366:   we have $B_{\gamma,I} = \emptyset$ whenever $I \nsubseteq \{1,

2367:   \dots, k\}$.  Therefore,

2368:   \begin{equation*}

2369:     \t_{(\kappa,0)} f = \sum_{I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}} x_{\bar

2370:       I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}} \left( \sum_{\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}}

2371:       x_I^\alpha \cdot \t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{\gamma,I,\alpha} \right),

2372:   \end{equation*}

2373:   and hence $T(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f) = \sum_I X_{\bar I}^{\gamma_{\bar

2374:       I}} \left( \sum_\alpha X_I^\alpha \cdot T(\t_{(\kappa,0)}

2375:     f_{\gamma,I,\alpha}) \right)$ is the unique

2376:   $\gamma$-representation of $T(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f)$.  Since

2377:   $f_{\gamma,\emptyset,0} = f_{(\gamma,0)}$, it follows that we can

2378:   take $(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f)_{(\gamma,0)} := \t_{(\kappa,0)}

2379:   f_{(\gamma,0)}$.  Moreover, if $\kappa' \in [0,\infty)^k \times

2380:   \{0\}^{m-k}$ is sufficiently small, then

2381:   $$\t_{(\kappa',0)}((\t_{(\kappa,0)} f)_{(\gamma,0)}) =

2382:   \t_{(\kappa',0)}(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma,0)}) =

2383:   \t_{(\kappa+\kappa',0)} f_{(\gamma,0)},$$ so part (2) follows.

2384: \end{proof}

2385: 

2386: From Proposition \ref{Q-basics} and Lemma \ref{lemma:representation},

2387: we obtain:

2388: 

2389: \begin{cor}

2390:   \label{cor:Q-basics}

2391:   Let $f \in \Q_m$ and $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$.  Then for each

2392:   $I \subset \{1, \dots, m\}$ and each $\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I} =

2393:   B_{\gamma,I}(Tf)$, there is a unique $f_{\gamma,I,\alpha} \in \Q_m$

2394:   such that

2395:     \begin{equation*}

2396:       f = \sum_{I \subset \{1, \dots, m\}} x_{\bar I}^{\gamma_{\bar

2397:           I}} \left( \sum_{\alpha \in B_{\gamma,I}} x_I^\alpha \cdot 

2398:         f_{\gamma,I,\alpha} \right)

2399:     \end{equation*}

2400:     and each $f_{\gamma,I,\alpha}$ depends only on the variables

2401:     $x_{\bar I}$ and $y$. \qed

2402: \end{cor}

2403: 

2404: \begin{prop}

2405:   \label{Q-derivatives}

2406:   Let $f \in \Q_m$.

2407:   \begin{enumerate}

2408:   \item For each $i=1, \dots, m$, the function $\partial_i f$ belongs to

2409:     $\Q_m$ and satisfies $T(\partial_i f) = \partial_i(Tf)$.

2410:   \item For each $j = 1, \dots, n$, the function $\partial f/\partial

2411:     y_j$ belongs to $\Q_m$ and satisfies $T(\partial f/\partial y_j)

2412:     = \partial (Tf)/\partial Y_j$.

2413:   \item The function $g := f(x,y_1, \dots, y_{n-1},0)$ belongs to

2414:     $\Q^{m+n-1}_m$.

2415:   \end{enumerate}

2416: \end{prop}

2417: 

2418: \begin{proof}

2419:   Let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$.  It follows from Propositions

2420:   \ref{prop:bad_derivatives} and \ref{Q-basics} and Lemmas

2421:   \ref{derivation_truncation} and \ref{Q-addition} that $(\partial_i

2422:   f)_{(\gamma,0)} := \gamma_i \cdot f_{(\gamma,0)}

2423:   + \partial_i(f_{(\gamma,0)})$ belongs to $\A_m(V)$ for a suitable $V

2424:   \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ and satisfies $T((\partial_i f)_{(\gamma,0)})

2425:   = \partial_i((Tf)_{(\gamma,0)})$.  Moreover, we let $k \in \{1,

2426:   \dots, m\}$ and a $k$-zero $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ be sufficiently

2427:   small.  If $i \le k$, then $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(\partial_i f_{(\gamma,0)})

2428:   = \partial_i(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma,0)})$ by Remark

2429:   \ref{translate_derivative}.  If $i > k$, then $\t_{(\kappa,0)}

2430:   f_{(\gamma,0)}$ belongs to $\Q_k$ by Proposition \ref{Q-basics}(2),

2431:   and it follows from Corollary \ref{good_derivatives} and Remark

2432:   \ref{translate_derivative} that

2433:   \begin{equation*}

2434:     x_i^1 \cdot \frac {\partial}{\partial x_i} (\t_{(\kappa,0)}

2435:     f_{(\gamma,0)}) = \partial_i (\t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma,0)}) =

2436:     \frac {x_i^1} {\kappa_i + x_i^1} \cdot \t_{(\kappa,0)} (\partial_i

2437:     f_{(\gamma,0)}).

2438:   \end{equation*}

2439:   Therefore, $\t_{(\kappa,0)} (\partial_i f_{(\gamma,0)})$ belongs to

2440:   $\A_m(V)$ for some suitable $V$ with $T(\t_{(\kappa,0)} (\partial_i

2441:   f_{(\gamma,0)})) = (\kappa_i + X_i) \cdot (\partial/\partial

2442:   X_i)(T(\t_{(\kappa,0)} f_{(\gamma,0)}))$, which proves part (1).

2443: 

2444:   Part (2) is more straightforward and follows from Corollary

2445:   \ref{good_derivatives}, Proposition \ref{Q-basics} and Lemmas

2446:   \ref{derivation_truncation} and \ref{Q-addition}.  For (3), note

2447:   that for all $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, we can take $g_{(\gamma,0)}

2448:   := f_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y_1, \dots, y_{n-1},0)$.  Then for every

2449:   sufficiently small $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$, we have

2450:   $$\t_{(\kappa,0)} g_{(\gamma,0)} = (\t_{(\kappa,0)}

2451:   f_{(\gamma,0)})(x,y_1, \dots, y_{n-1},0),$$ and part (3) follows.

2452: \end{proof}

2453: 

2454: 

2455: \subsection*{Composition}

2456: 

2457: Let $f \in \Q_m(U)$.  For the next lemma, we let $\q = (\q_1, \dots,

2458: \q_n) \in \NN^n$ and put $\k := |\q|$.  We let $z = (z_1, \dots,

2459: z_\k)$ range over $\frL^\k$ and $U' \subseteq \frL^{m+\k}$ be an

2460: $m$-quadratic domain such that $(x, z_1 + \cdots + z_{\q_1}, \dots,

2461: z_{\q_1 + \cdots + \q_{n-1}+1} + \cdots + z_\k) \in U$ for all $(x,z)

2462: \in U'$.  In this situation, we define the holomorphic function $f_\q:

2463: U' \into \CC$ by $$f_\q(x,z) := f(x, z_1 + \cdots + z_{\q_1}, \dots,

2464: z_{\q_1 + \cdots + \q_{n-1}+1} + \cdots + z_\k).$$

2465: 

2466: \begin{lemma}

2467:   \label{sum_composition}

2468:   We have $f_\q \in \Q_m(U')$ and $T(f_\q) = (Tf)_\q$.

2469: \end{lemma}

2470: 

2471: \begin{proof}

2472:   We first show that $f_\q \in \A_m(U')$ and $T(f_\q) = (Tf)_\q$.

2473:   Arguing by induction on $\k$ (simultaneously for all $m$) and

2474:   permuting the last $n$ coordinates if necessary, it suffices to

2475:   consider the case where $n = 1$ and $\k = \q_1 = 2$.  In this

2476:   situation, by Proposition \ref{coefficients} and after shrinking $U$

2477:   if necessary, we can write $f(x,y) = \sum_{p \in \NN} a_p(x) y^p$

2478:   for all $(x,y) \in U$, and there are a quadratic domain $W \subseteq

2479:   \frL$ and constants $A,B>0$ such that $a_p \in \A_m(W^m)$ and

2480:   $\|a_p(x)\| \le AB^p$ for all $x \in W^m$ and each $p \in \NN$.

2481:   Hence

2482:   \begin{equation*}

2483:     f_\q(x,z) = \sum_{p \in \NN} a_p(x)

2484:     (z_1+z_2)^p = \sum_{p,q \in 

2485:       \NN} b_{p,q}(x) z_1^p z_2^q

2486:   \end{equation*}

2487:   for all sufficiently small $(x,z) \in U'$, where $b_{p,q} :=

2488:   \begin{pmatrix} p+q \\ p \end{pmatrix} a_{p+q}$ for all $p,q \in

2489:   \NN$.  Since $\|b_{p,q}\| \le A (2B)^{p+q}$, it follows from

2490:   Propositions \ref{coefficients} and \ref{O-membership} that $f_\q

2491:   \in \A_m(U')$, as required.

2492: 

2493:   Next, for every $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, we have

2494:   $T(f_{(\gamma,0)})_\q) = (T f_\q)_{(\gamma,0)}$, so we can take

2495:   $(f_\q)_{(\gamma,0)} := (f_{(\gamma,0)})_\q$.  Moreover, for every

2496:   sufficiently small $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$, the previous paragraph

2497:   and Proposition \ref{O-membership} now also show that

2498:   $\t_{(\kappa,0)} (f_\q)_{(\gamma,0)}$ belongs to $\A_m(V')$ for some

2499:   appropriate $V'$.

2500: \end{proof}

2501: 

2502: For the next proposition, we let $g = (g_1, \dots, g_n) \in \Q_m(V)^n$

2503: be such that $g(0) = 0$ and $(x, g(x,y)) \in U$ for all $(x,y) \in V$,

2504: and we define the holomorphic function $h:V \into \CC$ by $ h(x,y) :=

2505: f(x,g(x,y)).  $

2506: 

2507: \begin{prop}

2508:   \label{Q-composition}

2509:   The function $h$ belongs to $\Q_m(V)$ and $Th(X,Y) =

2510:   Tf(X,Tg(X,Y))$.

2511: \end{prop}

2512: 

2513: \begin{proof}

2514:   First, let $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ be such that $(\kappa,0) \in

2515:   \cl_0(V)$.  Then $\t_{(\kappa,0)} h =

2516:   (\t_{(\kappa,0)}f)(x,\t_{(\kappa,0)} g)$, so Corollary \ref{taylor}

2517:   (with $\lambda$ there equal to $\t_{(\kappa,0)}g(0,0)$) and

2518:   Proposition \ref{A-composition} show that $\t_{(\kappa,0)}h \in

2519:   \A_m(W)$ for some appropriate $W$.

2520: 

2521:   Second, let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$; we need to find an

2522:   $m$-quadratic domain $V' \subseteq V$ and an $h' \in \A_m(V')$ such

2523:   that $T(h') = (Th)_{(\gamma,0)}$.  By Proposition

2524:   \ref{comp_representation}, there are $p \in \NN$, a tuple $\q \in

2525:   \NN^n$ and, with $\k:= |\q|$, elementary sets $E_1, \dots, E_p

2526:   \subseteq [0,\infty)^m \times \NN^\k$ and $B_{i,j} \subseteq

2527:   [0,\infty)^m \times \NN^n$ for each pair $(i,j)$ satisfying $i \in

2528:   \{1, \dots, n\}$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, \q_i\}$, such that

2529:   \begin{equation*}

2530:     Tf(X,Tg)_{(\gamma,0)} = \sum_{q=1}^p \frac {(X,(Tg)_B)^{\inf

2531:         E_q}}{X^\gamma} \cdot ((Tf)_\q)_{E_q}(X,(Tg)_B) 

2532:   \end{equation*}

2533:   with $(Tg)_B := ((Tg_1)_{B_{1,1}}, \dots, (Tg_n)_{B_{n,\q_n}})$ and

2534:   each $(X,(Tg)_B)^{\inf E_q}$ divisible by $X^\gamma$.  After

2535:   shrinking $V$ if necessary and writing $g_B := ((g_1)_{B_{1,1}},

2536:   \dots, (g_n)_{B_{n,\q_n}})$, we get from Lemma

2537:   \ref{sum_composition}, Proposition \ref{Q-basics} and the above

2538:   that, for each $q =1 , \dots, p$, the function $$h_q := x^{-\gamma}

2539:   \cdot (x,g_B)^{\inf E_q} \cdot (f_\q)_{E_q}(x,g_B)$$ belongs to

2540:   $\A_m(V)$ and satisfies $$T h_\q = X^{-\gamma} \cdot

2541:   (X,(Tg)_B)^{\inf E_q} \cdot ((Tf)_\q)_{E_q}(X,(Tg)_B).$$ Hence by

2542:   Lemma \ref{Q-addition}, we can take $h' := h_1 + \cdots + h_p$.

2543: 

2544:   Finally, it follows from the last paragraph and the first

2545:   observation above that $h \in \Q_m$.

2546: \end{proof}

2547: 

2548: Here are some immediate applications of Proposition \ref{Q-composition}:

2549: 

2550: \begin{prop}

2551:   \label{Q-algebra}

2552:   The set $\Q_m$ is a $\CC$-algebra, and the map $f \mapsto Tf: \Q_m

2553:   \longrightarrow \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$ is an injective $\CC$-algebra

2554:   homomorphism such that $f(0) = (Tf)(0)$ for all $f \in \Q_m$.

2555: \end{prop}

2556: 

2557: \begin{proof}

2558:   Let $f,g \in \Q_m$; we need to show that $fg \in \Q_m$.  Put $f_1 :=

2559:   f - f(0)$ and $g_1 := g - g(0)$; then $f_1, g_1 \in \Q_m$ by Lemma

2560:   \ref{Q-addition}, and $fg = P(f_1,g_1)$ with $P(Y_1,Y_2) := (f(0) +

2561:   Y_1) (g(0) + Y_2)$.  Hence $fg \in \Q_m$ by Proposition

2562:   \ref{Q-composition}.

2563: \end{proof}

2564: 

2565: \begin{prop}

2566:   \label{Q-units}

2567:   Let $f \in \Q_m$.  Then 

2568:   \begin{enumerate}

2569:   \item $f$ is a unit in $\Q_m$ if and only if $f(0) \ne 0$;

2570:   \item if $f(0) = 0$, then there are $(\gamma,\delta) \in

2571:     (0,\infty)^m \times (\NN \setminus \{0\})^n$ and $f_1, \dots,

2572:     f_{m+n} \in \Q_m$ such that $f = X_1^{\gamma_1} f_1 + \cdots +

2573:     Y_n^{\delta_n} f_{m+n}$.

2574:   \end{enumerate}

2575: \end{prop}

2576: 

2577: \begin{proof}

2578:   (1) Assume first that $f$ is a unit in $\Q_m$, and let $g \in Q_m$

2579:   be such that $f\cdot g = 1$.  Then $Tf \cdot Th = 1$ and hence $f(0)

2580:   = Tf(0) \ne 0$.  Conversely, assume that $f(0) \ne 0$; we may assume

2581:   that $f(0) = 1$, and we put $f_1:= 1 - f \in \Q_m$.  Let $\a>0$ and

2582:   $U_\a \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ be an $m$-quadratic domain such that

2583:   $f_1(x,y) = o(\|(x,y)\|^{\a})$ as $\|(x,y)\| \to 0$ in $U_{\a}$.

2584:   Thus, there is an $m$-quadratic domain $U \subseteq U_{\a}$ such

2585:   that $\|f_1(x,y)\| \leq \frac{1}{2}$ for all $(x,y) \in U$.  Let

2586:   $\phi: B(0,1) \into \CC$ be the holomorphic function defined by

2587:   $\phi(z) := \frac{1}{1-z}$, and define $g:U \into \CC$ by $g(x,y) :=

2588:   \phi(f_1(x,y))$.  Then $f \cdot g = 1$, and $g \in \Q_m(U)$ by

2589:   Proposition \ref{Q-composition}.

2590: 

2591:   (2) follows from Lemma 4.8 of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower} and

2592:   Proposition \ref{Q-basics}.

2593: \end{proof}

2594: 

2595: Finally, Proposition \ref{Q-composition} allows us to make sense of

2596: certain substitutions in the $x$-variables:

2597: 

2598: \begin{df}

2599:   \label{x-substitution}

2600:   Let $W \subseteq \frL$ be a quadratic domain and $R>0$, and let $f

2601:   \in \Q_m(W^m \times B_\frL(R))$.  Let also $V \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ be

2602:   $m$-quadratic and $g = (g_1, \dots, g_m) \in \Q_m(V)^m$ be such that

2603:   $\lambda := g(0,0) \in W^m \cap (0,\infty)^m$.  Then $g(x,y) =

2604:   \lambda + h(x,y)$ with $h \in \Q_m(V)^m$ satisfying $h(0) = 0$, and

2605:   we define $f(g(x,y),y) := (\t_{(\lambda,0)} f) (h(x,y),y)$.

2606: \end{df}

2607: 

2608: \begin{cor}

2609:   \label{bad_substitution_1}

2610:   The function $f(g(x,y),y)$ in Definition \ref{x-substitution}

2611:   belongs to $\Q_m$. \qed

2612: \end{cor}

2613: 

2614: Some of the substitutions not covered by the previous corollary are

2615: the blow-up substitutions:

2616: 

2617: \begin{prop}

2618:   \label{blowup_homom}

2619:   Let $\rho,\lambda > 0$ and $i,j \in \{1, \dots, m\}$ be distinct.

2620:   \begin{enumerate}

2621:   \item The function $f \circ \s^\rho_{i,j}$ belongs to $\Q_m$ for

2622:     every $f \in \Q_m$, and the map $\s^\rho_{ij}:\Q_m \into \Q_m$

2623:     defined by $\s^\rho_{ij}(f) := f \circ \s^\rho_{ij}$ is a

2624:     $\CC$-algebra homomorphism such that $T \circ \s^\rho_{ij} =

2625:     \frB^{\rho,0}_{ij} \circ T$.

2626:   \item The function $f \circ \r^{\rho,\lambda}$ belong to $\Q_{m-1}$

2627:     for every $f \in \Q_m$, and the map $\r^{\rho,\lambda}:\Q_m \into

2628:     \Q_{m-1}$ defined by $\r^{\rho,\lambda}(f) := f \circ

2629:     \r^{\rho,\lambda}$ is a $\CC$-algebra homomorphism such that $T

2630:     \circ \r^{\rho,\lambda} = \frB^{\rho,\lambda}_{m,m-1} \circ T$.

2631:   \end{enumerate}

2632: \end{prop}

2633: 

2634: Whenever convenient, we shall write $\s^\rho_{ij} f$ and

2635: $\r^{\rho,\lambda} f$ in place of $\s^\rho_{ij}(f)$ and

2636: $\r^{\rho,\lambda}(f)$.

2637: 

2638: \begin{proof}

2639:   The proofs for parts (1) and (2) are similar; we prove (1) here and

2640:   leave (2) to the reader.  We may assume that $i=m$ and $j=m-1$, and

2641:   we write $\s$ and $\B$ in place of $\s^\rho_{m,m-1}$ and

2642:   $\B^\rho_{m,m-1}$.  Let $f \in \Q_m$; if suffices to prove that $f

2643:   \circ \s \in \Q_m$.  

2644: 

2645:   To do so, we let $W \subseteq \frL$ be quadratic and $1 > R>0$ be

2646:   such that $f \in \A_m(W^m \times B_\frL(R)^n)$, and we let $W'$ and $V$

2647:   be as in the proof of Proposition \ref{singular_prop}.  We also let

2648:   $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ be nonzero such that $(\kappa,0) \in

2649:   \cl_0(V)$, and let $W_\kappa \subseteq W'$ be quadratic such that

2650:   $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(x,y) \in V$ for all $(x,y) \in V_\kappa :=

2651:   (W_\kappa)^m \times B_\frL(R)^n$.  By Propositions

2652:   \ref{blowup_truncation} and \ref{Q-basics}, it remains to prove that

2653:   \begin{itemize}

2654:   \item[$(\ast)$] $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(f \circ \s)$ belongs to

2655:     $\A_m(V_\kappa)$.  

2656:   \end{itemize}

2657:   Writing $\kappa'\:= (\kappa_1, \dots, \kappa_{m-2})$ and $\kappa'':=

2658:   (\kappa_{m-1}, \kappa_m)$, we see that $\t_{(\kappa,0)}(f \circ \s)

2659:   = \t_{(0,\kappa'',0)}( \t_{(\kappa',0,0)}(f \circ \s))$; since

2660:   $\t_{(\kappa',0,0)}(f \circ \s) = (\t_{(\kappa',0,0)} f) \circ \s$,

2661:   we may even assume that $\kappa_1 = \cdots = \kappa_{m-2} = 0$.  We

2662:   now distinguish three cases: \medskip

2663: 

2664:   \noindent\textbf{Case 1:} both $\kappa_{m-1}$ and $\kappa_m$ are

2665:   nonzero.  Then

2666:   \begin{equation*}

2667:     \t_{(\kappa,0)}(f \circ \s)(x,y) =

2668:     (\t_{(0,\kappa_{m-1},\kappa_{m-1}^\rho \kappa_m,0)}

2669:     f)(x',g(x_{m-1}, x_m),y),

2670:   \end{equation*}

2671:   where $x' := (x_1, \dots, x_{m-1})$ and $g$ is an analytic function

2672:   satisfying $g(0) = 0$.  Since $\t_{(0,\kappa_{m-1},\kappa_{m-1}^\rho

2673:     \kappa_m,0)} f$ belongs to $\Q_{m-2}$ by Proposition

2674:   \ref{Q-basics}, $(\ast)$ follows from Proposition

2675:   \ref{Q-composition} in this case.  \medskip

2676: 

2677:   \noindent\textbf{Case 2:} $\kappa_{m-1} = 0$ and $\kappa_m > 0$.

2678:   Then $\t_{(\kappa,0)} (f \circ \s) = f \circ \r^{\rho,\kappa_m}$,

2679:   so $(\ast)$ follows from Proposition \ref{regular_prop} in this

2680:   case. 

2681:   \medskip

2682: 

2683:   \noindent\textbf{Case 3:} $\kappa_{m-1} \ne 0$ and $\kappa_m = 0$.

2684:   We define $\phi(z_1, \dots, z_{m+1},y) := \t_{(\kappa,0)} f(z_1,

2685:   \dots, z_{m-1},z_{m+1},y)$.  Then $\phi \in \Q_{m+1}$, and there is

2686:   an analytic one-variable function $g$ with $g(0) = 0$ such that

2687:   \begin{equation*}

2688:     \t_{(\kappa,0)} (f \circ \s)(x,y) = \left(\phi \circ

2689:     \r^{1,\kappa_{m-1}^\rho}\right) (x, g(x_{m-1}),y).  

2690:   \end{equation*}

2691:   Thus, $(\ast)$ follows from Propositions \ref{regular_prop} and

2692:   \ref{A-composition} in this case.

2693: \end{proof}

2694: 

2695: As a consequence of Proposition \ref{blowup_homom}, we extend

2696: Corollary \ref{bad_substitution_1} to certain functions with zero

2697: constant coefficient:

2698: 

2699: \begin{df}

2700:   \label{x-substitution_2}

2701:   Let $m \ge 1$, let $W \subseteq \frL$ be a quadratic domain and

2702:   $R>0$, and let $f \in \Q_m(W^m \times B_\frL(R)^n)$.  Let also $V

2703:   \subseteq \frL$ be a quadratic domain and $g \in Q_1(V)$ be such

2704:   that $g(t) \in W \cap (0,\infty)$ for all $t \in V \cap (0,\infty)$.

2705:   Then $g(t) = t^\rho(\lambda + h(t))$ for some $\rho, \lambda > 0$

2706:   and some $h \in \Q_1(V)$ with $h(0) = 0$.  We write $x' := (x_1,

2707:   \dots, x_{m-1})$ and let $\tilde{f} \in \Q_{m+1}(W^{m+1} \times

2708:   B_\frL(R)^n)$ be the function defined by $\tilde{f}(x',u,v,y) :=

2709:   f(x',v,y)$.  Then $\r^{\rho,\lambda} \tilde{f} \in \Q_m^{m+n+1}$,

2710:   and we define

2711:   $$f(x',g(t),y) := \left(\r^{\rho,\lambda} \tilde{f}\right)

2712:   (x',t,h(t),y).$$

2713: \end{df}

2714: 

2715: \begin{cor}

2716:   \label{bad_substitution_2}

2717:   The function $f(x',g(t),y)$ in Definition \ref{x-substitution_2}

2718:   belongs to $\Q_m^{m+n}$. \qed

2719: \end{cor}

2720: 

2721: 

2722: \section{Weierstrass Preparation}  \label{weierstrass}

2723: 

2724: We continue to work in the setting of the previous section.  In this

2725: section, we establish a Weierstrass Preparation Theorem for the

2726: classes $\Q_m$.  We follow Brieskorn and Kn\"orrer's exposition in

2727: Section 8.2 of \cite{bri-kno:plane}; to do so, we need to first

2728: establish an implicit function theorem and a theorem on symmetric

2729: functions.  We thank Lou van den Dries for his helpfull suggestions on

2730: this section, especially the proof of Corollary \ref{multi_implicit}

2731: below.

2732: 

2733: We start with a single implicit variable and write $y' :=

2734: (y_1, \dots, y_{n-1})$ and $Y' := (Y_1, \dots, Y_{n-1})$.

2735: 

2736: \begin{prop}

2737:   \label{implicit}

2738:   Let $f \in \Q_m^{m+n}$, and assume that $f(0) = 0$ and $\partial

2739:   f/\partial y_n(0) \ne 0$.  Then there is an $h \in \Q_m^{m+n-1}$ such

2740:   that $h(0) = 0$ and $f(x,y',h) = 0$.

2741: \end{prop}

2742: 

2743: \begin{proof}

2744:   We let $U = W^m \times B_\frL(R)^n$ for some quadratic $W \subseteq \frL$

2745:   and $R>0$ be such that $f \in \Q_m(U)$, and we put $V := W^m \times

2746:   B_\frL(R)^{n-1}$.  During the proof below, we may have to shrink $W$ and

2747:   $R$ (and all related quantities introduced below) on various

2748:   occasions; we will not explicitely mention this.  By Proposition

2749:   \ref{Q-derivatives}, the function $(\partial f/\partial

2750:   y_n)(x,y',0)$ belongs to $\Q_m(V)$.  Hence by hypothesis, there is a

2751:   constant $c>0$ such that $|(\partial f/\partial y_n)(x,y',0)| \ge c$

2752:   for all $(x,y') \in V$.  On the other hand, by Proposition

2753:   \ref{coefficients}, we can write $f(x,y) = \sum_{p \in \NN} a_{p}(x,y')

2754:   y_n^p$ with each $a_{p} \in \O_m(V)$.

2755: 

2756:   Define $g:U \into \CC$ by $g(x,y):= f(x,y) - a_0(x,y')$; note that

2757:   $g \in \O_m(U)$.  By the above and the usual arguments for the

2758:   inverse function theorem, there is a $\rho>0$ such that for every

2759:   $(x,y') \in V$, we have $\|a_0(x,y')\| \le \rho/2$ and the function

2760:   $g_{x,y'}:B_\frL(R) \into \CC$ defined by $g_{x,y'}(y_n) := g(x,y)$ is

2761:   injective and satisfies $g_{x,y'}(0) = 0$ and $B(0,\rho) \subseteq

2762:   g_{x,y'}(B_\frL(R))$, and such that its compositional inverse

2763:   $g_{x,y'}^{-1}:B_\frL(\rho) \into \CC$ is given by a convergent power

2764:   series

2765:   \begin{equation*}

2766:     g^{-1}_{x,y'}(z) = \sum_{p \in \NN} b_p(x,y') y_n^p.

2767:   \end{equation*}

2768: 

2769:   We claim that the function $H:V \times B_\frL(\rho/2) \into \CC$ defined

2770:   by $H(x,y) := g_{x,y'}^{-1}(y_n)$ belongs to $\Q_m(V \times

2771:   B_\frL(\rho/2))$.  The proposition follows from this claim by defining

2772:   $h:V \into \CC$ as $h(x,y') := H(x,y',y_n-a_0(x,y'))\rest{y_n=0}$.

2773: 

2774:   To see the claim, we note first from the Lagrange inversion formula

2775:   (see for instance Whittaker and Watson

2776:   \cite[p. 133]{whi-wat:analysis}) that for all $p \in \NN$,

2777:   \begin{equation*}

2778:     b_p(x,y') = \frac1{p!} \left[ \frac{\partial^{p-1}}{\partial y_n^{p-1}}

2779:       \left( \frac {y_n}{g(x,y)} \right)^p \right]_{y_n=0}.

2780:   \end{equation*}

2781:   Since $a_1(0) \ne 0$ by hypothesis, it follows from Propositions

2782:   \ref{Q-units}, \ref{Q-algebra} and \ref{Q-derivatives} and Remark

2783:   \ref{quasirmks}(2) that $b_p \in \Q_m(V)$ for each $p$.

2784: 

2785:   Second, we let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$, and we claim that

2786:   $H_{(\gamma,0)} \in \A_m(V \times B_\frL(\rho/2))$.  It suffices, by

2787:   Propositions \ref{O-membership} and \ref{holo_division}, to find

2788:   constants $A,B > 0$ such that $\|(b_p)_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y')\| \le A

2789:   B^p$ for all $p \in \NN$ and $(x,y') \in V$.  To do so, we shall

2790:   assume that $U \subseteq B_\frL(1)^{m+n}$, and we put $\g(x,y) :=

2791:   y_n/g(x,y) \in \Q_m(U)$.  We let $\J$ be the set of all ordered

2792:   pairs $(I,\alpha)$ such that $I \subseteq \{1, \dots, m\}$ and

2793:   $\alpha \in B_I = B_{\gamma,I}(T\mathfrak{g})$, where the latter is

2794:   defined as in Lemma \ref{lemma:representation}.  By Corollary

2795:   \ref{cor:Q-basics}, there is a constant $C>0$ and for each

2796:   $(I,\alpha) \in \J$ a function $\g_{I,\alpha} \in \Q_m(U)$,

2797:   depending only on the variables $x_{\bar I}$ and $y$, such that

2798:   \begin{equation*}

2799:     \g(x,y) = \sum_{(I,\alpha) \in \J} x_{\bar I}^{\gamma_{\bar I}}

2800:     x_I^\alpha \g_{I,\alpha}(x,y)

2801:   \end{equation*}

2802:   and $\|\g_{I,\alpha}(x,y)\| \le C$ for all $(x,y) \in U$.  We fix $p

2803:   \in \NN$ and write $\g^p(x,y) := (\g(x,y))^p$ for all $(x,y) \in U$.

2804:   Since

2805:   \begin{multline*}

2806:     \g^p(x,y) = \\ \sum_{((I_1,\alpha_1), \dots, (I_p, \alpha_p))

2807:       \in \J^p} x_{I_1}^{\alpha_1} \cdots x_{I_p}^{\alpha_p} \cdot

2808:     x_{\bar{I_1}}^{\gamma_{\bar{I_1}}} \cdots

2809:       x_{\bar{I_p}}^{\gamma_{\bar{I_p}}} \cdot

2810:         \g_{I_1,\alpha_1}(x,y) \cdots

2811:         \g_{I_p,\alpha_p}(x,y),

2812:   \end{multline*}

2813:   and since each $\mathfrak{g}_{I,\alpha}$ only depends on the

2814:   variables $x_{\bar I}$ and $y$, we get that

2815:   \begin{multline*}

2816:     (\g^p)_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y) = \\ \sum_{((I_1,\alpha_1), \dots, (I_p,

2817:       \alpha_p)) \in \J_p} \frac {x_{I_1}^{\alpha_1} \cdots

2818:       x_{I_p}^{\alpha_p} \cdot x_{\bar{I_1}}^{\gamma_{\bar{I_1}}}

2819:       \cdots x_{\bar{I_p}}^{\gamma_{\bar{I_p}}}} {x^\gamma} \cdot

2820:     \g_{I_1,\alpha_1}(x,y) \cdots

2821:     \g_{I_p,\alpha_p}(x,y),

2822:   \end{multline*}

2823:   where $\J_p$ is the set of all $((I_1, \alpha_1), \dots,

2824:   (I_p,\alpha_p)) \in \J^p$ such that the monomial $x_{I_1}^{\alpha_1}

2825:   \cdots x_{I_p}^{\alpha_p} \cdot x_{\bar{I_1}}^{\gamma_{\bar{I_1}}}

2826:   \cdots x_{\bar{I_p}}^{\gamma_{\bar{I_p}}}$ is divisible by

2827:   $x^\gamma$.  As $U \subseteq B_\frL(1)^{m+n}$, it follows for all $x

2828:   \in U$ that

2829:   \begin{align*}

2830:     \left\|(\g^p)_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y)\right\| &\le

2831:     \sum_{((I_1,\alpha_1), \dots, (I_p, \alpha_p)) \in \J^p}

2832:     \|\g_{I_1,\alpha_1}(x,y)\| \cdots

2833:     \|\g_{I_p,\alpha_p}(x,y)\| \\ &= \left(\sum_{(I,\alpha) \in \J}

2834:       \|\g_{I,\alpha}(x,y)\|\right)^p \\ &\le \left(|\J|

2835:       C\right)^p. 

2836:   \end{align*}

2837:   It follows from Lemma \ref{derivation_truncation} and the Cauchy

2838:   estimates that

2839:   \begin{equation*}

2840:     \|(b_p)_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y')\| = \frac 1{p!} \left\| \frac {\partial^{p-1}

2841:         (\g^p)_{(\gamma,0)}} {\partial y_n^{p-1}} (x,y',0) \right\| \le \frac

2842:     {\left(|\J|C\right)^p} {\rho^{p-1}} 

2843:   \end{equation*}

2844:   for all $(x,y') \in V$; so we can take $A := \rho$ and $B :=

2845:   |\J|C/\rho$.

2846: 

2847:   Finally, let $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ be such that $(\kappa,0) \in

2848:   \cl_0(V \times B_\frL(\rho/2))$.  Then $\t_{(\kappa,0)} (b_p)_{(\gamma,0)}

2849:   \in \A_m(V')$ for some appropriate $V'$ independent of $p$ by Remark

2850:   \ref{O-rmk}(2).  Since $\|\t_{(\kappa,0)} (b_p)_{(\gamma,0)}(x,y')\|

2851:   \le AB^p$ for all $(x,y') \in V'$ by the above, it follows that

2852:   $\t_{(\kappa,0)} H_{(\gamma,0)}$ belongs to $\A_m(V' \times

2853:   B_\frL(\rho/2))$, and the proposition is proved.

2854: \end{proof}

2855: 

2856: The case of several implicit variables can be reduced to that of one

2857: implicit variable: below, we let $l \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, and we write

2858: $y' := (y_1, \dots, y_{n-l})$, $z = (z_1, \dots, z_l):= (y_{n-l+1},

2859: \dots, y_n)$, $Y' := (Y_1, \dots, Y_{n-l})$ and $Z = (Z_1, \dots, Z_l)

2860: := (Y_{n-l+1}, \dots, Y_n)$.

2861: 

2862: \begin{cor}[Implicit Function Theorem]

2863:   \label{multi_implicit}

2864:   Let $f \in (\Q_m)^l$  such that $f(0) = 0$ and $\partial

2865:   f/\partial z(0) \ne 0$.  Then there is an $h \in (\Q_m^{m+n-l})^l$

2866:   such that $h(0) = 0$ and $f(x,y',h) = 0$.

2867: \end{cor}

2868: 

2869: \begin{proof}

2870:   By induction on $l$; the case $l=1$ corresponds to Proposition

2871:   \ref{implicit}, so we assume that $n \ge l>1$ and the corollary

2872:   holds for lower values of $l$.  After permuting the component

2873:   functions of $f$, we may assume that $\partial f_l/\partial y_n(0)

2874:   \ne 0$.  Hence, writing $z' := (y_{n-l+1}, \dots, y_{n-1})$, we

2875:   obtain from Proposition \ref{implicit} a function $w \in

2876:   \Q_m^{m+n-1}$ such that $f_l(x,y', z', w) = 0$.  Moreover, there are

2877:   constants $c_1, \dots, c_{l-1} \in \CC$ such that for each $i=1,

2878:   \dots, l-1$, defining $f'_i := f_i - c_i f_l$ gives $(\partial

2879:   f'_i/\partial y_n)(0) = 0$.  By the hypothesis of the corollary, the

2880:   map $g \in (\Q_m^{m+n-1})^{l-1}$ defined by

2881:   \begin{equation*}

2882:     g_i(x,y',z') := f'_i(x,y',z',w(x,y',z')) \quad\text{for } i=1,

2883:     \dots, l-1 

2884:   \end{equation*}

2885:   satisfies $g(0) = 0$ and $(\partial g / \partial z')(0) \ne 0$.

2886:   Hence by the inductive hypothesis, there is an $h' \in

2887:   (\Q_m^{m+n-l})^{l-1}$ such that $g(x,y',h') = 0$.  The corollary

2888:   follows with $h \in (\Q_m^{m+n-l})^l$ defined by $h_i := h'_i$ if $i

2889:   = 1, \dots, l-1$ and $h_l(x,y') := w(x,y',h'(x,y'))$.

2890: \end{proof}

2891: 

2892: For the next proposition, we let $\sigma = (\sigma_1, \dots,

2893: \sigma_l)$ be the elementary symmetric functions in the variables $z$.

2894: Recall that $f \in \Q_m$ is \textbf{symmetric in the variables $z$} if

2895: $f(x,y',z) = f(x,y', \lambda(z))$ for every permutation $\lambda$ of

2896: $\{1, \dots, l\}$.

2897: 

2898: \begin{prop}[Symmetric Function Theorem]

2899:   \label{symmetric}

2900:   Let $f \in \Q_m$ be symmetric in the variables $z$.  Then there is a

2901:   $g \in \Q_m$ such that $f(x,y',z) = g(x,y',\sigma)$.

2902: \end{prop}

2903: 

2904: \begin{proof}

2905:   First, let $\gamma \in [0,\infty)^m$ and assume there is a $G \in

2906:   \Ps{C}{X^*,Y',Z}$ such that $Tf(X,Y',Z) = G(X,Y',\sigma_1(Z), \dots,

2907:   \sigma_l(Z))$.  Then $(Tf)_{(\gamma,0,0)}$ is symmetric in $Z$

2908:   and $$(Tf)_{(\gamma,0,0)}(X,Y',Z) =

2909:   G_{(\gamma,0,0)}(X,Y',\sigma_1(Z), \dots, \sigma_l(Z)).$$ Moreover,

2910:   if $g \in \A_m(V)$ is such that $f(x,y',z) = g(x,y',\sigma)$, and if

2911:   $\kappa \in [0,\infty)^m$ is sufficiently small, then

2912:   $\t_{(\kappa,0,0)} f$ is symmetric in $z$ and $\t_{(\kappa,0,0)}

2913:   f(x,y',z) = \t_{(\kappa,0,0)} g(x,y',\sigma)$.

2914: 

2915:   Therefore, we assume that $f \in \A_m(U)$ for some $m$-quadratic $U

2916:   \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ and we need to find, after shrinking $U$ if

2917:   necessary, a $g \in \A_m(U)$ such that $f(x,y',z) = g(x,y',\sigma_1,

2918:   \dots, \sigma_l)$ for all $(x,y',z) \in U$.  Without loss of

2919:   generality, we also assume that $U = W^m \times B_\frL(R)^n$ for some

2920:   quadratic domain $W \subseteq \frL$ and some $R>0$, and we put $U'

2921:   := W^m \times B_\frL(R)^{n-l}$.

2922: 

2923:   By Proposition \ref{coefficients}, there are $a_q \in

2924:   \A_m^{m+n-l}(U')$, for $q \in \NN^l$, and constants $B,C>0$ such

2925:   that $\|a_q(x,y')\| \le B C^{|q|}$ for each $q$ and $f(x,y',z) =

2926:   \sum_{q \in \NN^l} a_q(x,y') z^q$.  Let also $\sim$ be the

2927:   equivalence relation on $\NN^l$ defined by $p \sim q$ if and only if

2928:   there is a permutation $\lambda$ of $\{1, \dots, l\}$ such that $p =

2929:   (q_{\sigma(1)}, \dots, q_{\sigma(l)})$, and let $E_1, E_2, \dots$ be

2930:   an enumeration of all equivalence classes of $\sim$.  Since $f$ is

2931:   symmetric in $z$, we get for all $j \in \NN$ that $a_p = a_q$ for

2932:   all $p,q \in E_j$.  Thus, for each $j \in \NN$,  we define $b_j :=

2933:   a_p$ for some $p \in E_j$; then

2934:   \begin{equation*}

2935:     \sum_{p \in E_j} a_p(x,y') z^p = b_j(x,y') \cdot \sum_{p \in E_j}

2936:     z^p \quad\text{for all } j \in \NN.

2937:   \end{equation*}

2938:   Let $j \in \NN$, and note that the sum $\sum_{p \in E_j} z^p$ is a

2939:   symmetric polynomial in $z$ that is homogeneous of degree $d_j :=

2940:   |p|$ for any $p \in E_j$.  By the main theorem on symmetric

2941:   polynomials (see for instance Van der Waerden \cite{vdw:algebra}),

2942:   there is a unique polynomial $S_j \in \CC[Z]$ of weighted degree

2943:   $d_j$ such that $\sum_{p \in E_j} z^p = S_j(\sigma_1(z), \dots,

2944:   \sigma_l(z))$.  (Here ``of weighted degree $d_j$'' means that any

2945:   term $c z^p$ occurring in $S_j$ satisfies $p_1 + 2p_2 + \cdots +

2946:   lp_l = d_j$.)

2947: 

2948:   We now define $S \in \Ps{C}{Z}$ by $S(Z) := \sum_{j \in \NN}

2949:   S_j(Z)$; we claim that $S$ is convergent.  To see this, note that

2950:   the product $\Pi_{i=1}^l (1-Z_i)$ is a symmetric polynomial; hence,

2951:   there is a polynomial $P \in \CC[Z]$ such that $P(\sigma_1(Z),

2952:   \dots, \sigma_l(Z)) = \Pi_{i=1}^l (1-Z_i)$.  Since $P(0) \ne 0$, we

2953:   have that $1/P \in \Ps{C}{Z}$ converges; but $(1/P)(\sigma_1(Z),

2954:   \dots, \sigma_l(Z)) = \sum_{q \in \NN^l} z^q$, and the claim

2955:   follows. 

2956: 

2957:   We now claim that the sum $g(x,y',z) := \sum_{j \in \NN} b_j(x,y')

2958:   S_j(z)$ defines a function $g \in \A_m(U)$.  Assuming the claim

2959:   holds, we necessarily have $Tg(X,Y',Z) = G(X,Y',Z) := \sum_{j \in \NN}

2960:   Tb_j(X,Y') S_j(Z)$, so $g$ has the required properties by the

2961:   injectivity of the map $T$ and because $Tf(X,Y',Z) = G(X,Y',

2962:   \sigma_1(Z), \dots, \sigma_l(Z))$.

2963: 

2964:   To see the claim, we first need to rewrite the sum: for each $q \in

2965:   \NN^l$, we put $D_q := \{j \in \NN:\ q \in \supp S_j\}$ and $c_q :=

2966:   \sum_{j \in D_q} b_j$, so that $g(x,y',z) = \sum_{q \in \NN^l}

2967:   c_q(x,y') z^q$ for all $(x,y',z) \in U$.  Note that for all $q \in

2968:   \NN^l$, $j \in D_q$ and $p \in E_j$, we have $|p| = q_1 + 2q_2 +

2969:   \cdots + lq_l \le l|q|$.  Hence, for each $q \in \NN^l$, there is a

2970:   set $C_q \subseteq \set{r \in \NN^l:\ |r| \le l|q|}$ such that $c_q

2971:   = \sum_{r \in C_q} a_r$.  Since $|C_q| \le (l|q|)^l$, it follows

2972:   that there are constants $\a,\b > 0$ such that $\|c_q(x,y')\| \le

2973:   \a\b^{|q|}$ for every $q \in \NN^l$ and all $(x,y') \in U'$.  Since

2974:   $c_q \in \A_m^{m+n-l}(U')$ for every $q \in \NN^l$, the claim

2975:   follows from Proposition \ref{O-membership}.

2976: \end{proof}

2977: 

2978: For the remainder of this section, we write again $Y' = (Y_1, \dots,

2979: Y_{n-1})$.  We recall from Definition 4.16 of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}

2980: that $F \in \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$ is regular in $Y_n$ of order $d \in \NN$ if

2981: $F(0,0,Y_n) = c Y_n^d + $ terms of higher order in $Y_n$.  

2982: 

2983: \begin{prop}[Weierstrass Preparation]

2984:   \label{wp_theorem}

2985:   Assume that $n>0$, and let $f \in \Q_m$ be such that $Tf$ is regular

2986:   in $Y_n$ of order $d \in \NN$.  

2987:   \begin{enumerate}

2988:   \item For every $g \in \Q_m$, there are a unique $q \in \Q_m$ and a

2989:     unique $r \in \Q_m^{m+n-1}[Y_n]$ such that $g = qf + r$ and

2990:     $\deg_{Y_n}(r) < d$.

2991:   \item There are a unique unit $u \in \Q_m$ and a unique $w \in

2992:     \Q_m^{m+n-1}[Y_n]$ such that $f = uw$ and $w$ is monic of degree

2993:   $d$ in $Y_n$.

2994:   \end{enumerate}

2995: \end{prop}

2996: 

2997: \begin{proof}

2998:   The proof of Theorems 1 and 2 on p. 338 of \cite{bri-kno:plane} goes

2999:   through almost literally, using the properties established for the

3000:   classes $\Q_m$ in the previous sections as well as the Implicit

3001:   Function Theorem and the Symmetric Function Theorem above, except

3002:   for the following trivial changes: the variable $t$ and $z_1, \dots,

3003:   z_n$ there correspond to $y_n$ and $x_1, \dots, x_m, y_1, \dots,

3004:   y_{n-1}$ here, and the roles of $f$ and $g$ are exchanged.  (Note

3005:   that the uniqueness also follows directly from Proposition 4.17 in

3006:   \cite{vdd-spe:genpower} and the injectivity of the map $T:\Q_m \into

3007:   \Ps{C}{X^*,Y}$.)

3008: \end{proof}

3009: 

3010: 

3011: \section{$\Q$-semianalytic sets and model completeness}

3012:   \label{o-minimal}

3013: 

3014: In this section we prove model completeness and o-minimality of $\Rq$.

3015: We also show that $\Rq$ admits analytic cell decomposition.  (An

3016: o-minimal expansion $\Rtilde$ of the ordered field of real numbers is

3017: said to admit \textbf{analytic cell decomposition} if for any $A_{1},

3018: \dots, A_{k} \subseteq \RR^{m}$ definable in $\Rtilde$, there is a

3019: decomposition of $\RR^{m}$ into analytic cells definable in $\Rtilde$

3020: and compatible with each $A_{i}$.)

3021: 

3022: We let $m,n \in \NN$ and $\rho \in (0,\infty)^{m+n}$, and we put

3023: \begin{equation*}

3024:   I_{m,n;\rho} := [0,\rho_1] \times \cdots \times [0,\rho_m] \times

3025:   [-\rho_{m+1}, \rho_{m+1}] \times \cdots \times [-\rho_{m+n},

3026:   \rho_{m+n}],

3027: \end{equation*}

3028: a subset of $\RR^{m+n}$.  We also write $I_{m,n;\epsilon}$ instead of

3029: $I_{m,n;(\epsilon, \dots, \epsilon)}$, for $\epsilon > 0$, and we put

3030: $I_{m,n;\infty} := [0,\infty)^m \times \RR^n$.  Abusing notation, we

3031: identify $I_{m,n;\rho}$ with the set

3032: \begin{multline*}

3033:   \{(x,y) \in [0,\infty)_{\frL_0}^m \times \RR^n:\ 0 \le \|x_i\| \le

3034:   \rho_i \text{ and } \\ -\rho_{m+j} \le y_j \le \rho_{m+j} \

3035:   \text{for } i=1, \dots, m \text{ and } j=1, \dots, n\}.

3036: \end{multline*}

3037: Given an $m$-quadratic $U \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ such that

3038: $I_{m,n;\rho} \subseteq \ir(\cl(\pi^{m+n}_m(U))$, and given an $f \in

3039: \Q_m(U)$, we write $f\rest{I_{m,n;\rho}}$ for the function

3040: $f^\sharp\rest{I_{m,n;\rho}}$.

3041: 

3042: \begin{df}

3043:   \label{real_Q}

3044:   We let $\Q_{m,n;\rho}$ be the set of all functions $f:I_{m,n;\rho}

3045:   \into \RR$ for which there exist an $m$-quadratic domain $U

3046:   \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ and a $g \in \Q_m(U)$ such that $I_{m,n;\rho}

3047:   \subseteq \ir(\cl(\pi^{m+n}_m(U))$ and $f = g \rest{I_{m,n;\rho}}$.

3048: \end{df}

3049: 

3050: \begin{nrmk}

3051:   \label{restricted}

3052:   For every $f \in \Q_{m,n;\rho}$, there are $\rho' > \rho$ and $g \in

3053:   \Q_{m,n,\rho'}$ such that $f = g\rest{I_{m,n;\rho}}$.

3054: \end{nrmk}

3055: 

3056: \begin{prop}

3057:   \label{specialize}

3058:   Let $U \subseteq \frL^{m+n}$ be $m$-quadratic such that $I_{m,n;\rho}

3059:   \subseteq \ir(\cl(\pi^{m+n}_m(U))$, and let $f \in \Q_m(U)$.  Then

3060:   $f\rest{I_{m,n;\rho}} \in \Q_{m,n;\rho}$ if and only if $Tf \in

3061:     \Ps{R}{X^*,Y}$. 

3062: \end{prop}

3063: 

3064: \begin{proof}

3065:   The necessity is clear from Definition \ref{asymptotic}, so we

3066:   assume that $Tf \in \Ps{R}{X^*,Y}$.  Define $\bar{(r,\varphi)} :=

3067:   (r,-\varphi)$ for $(r,\varphi) \in \frL$ and $\bar{(x,y)} :=

3068:   (\bar{x_1}, \dots, \bar{y_n})$ for $(x,y) \in \frL^{m+n}$.  Then the

3069:   function $\bar{f}:U \into \CC$ defined by $\bar{f}(x) :=

3070:   \bar{f(\bar{x})}$ belongs to $\A(U)$ and satisfies

3071:   $T\left(\bar{f}\right) = Tf$.  Hence by Proposition

3072:   \ref{asymptotic_to_0}, we have $\bar{f} = f$, which proves the

3073:   proposition.

3074: \end{proof}

3075: 

3076: Correspondingly, we put $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\rho} := \set{Tf:\ f \in

3077:   \Q_{m,n;\rho}}$. If $\epsilon > 0$, we write

3078: $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\epsilon}$ and $\Q_{m,n;\epsilon}$ instead of

3079: $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,(\epsilon,\mdots, \epsilon)}$ and

3080: $\Q_{m,n;(\epsilon,\mdots, \epsilon)}$.  Next, we

3081: put $$\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q} := \bigcup_{\rho \in (0, \infty)^{m+n}}

3082: \Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\rho}.$$ For $n=0$ we just write

3083: $\Pc{R}{X^*}_{\Q,\rho}$ instead of $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\rho}$.

3084: 

3085: The properties described Sections \ref{division}, \ref{weierstrass}

3086: and \ref{blowups} of the algebras $\Q_m(U)$ are easily seen to imply

3087: corresponding properties of the algebras $\Q_{m,n;\rho}$ and

3088: $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\rho}$.  Due to Proposition \ref{Q-algebra}, we

3089: need no longer formally distinguish between $f \in \Q_{m,n;\rho}$ and

3090: $Tf \in \Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\rho}$; in particular, the notations in

3091: Sections 7, 8 and 9 of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower} make sense in our

3092: setting. 

3093: 

3094: \begin{df} 

3095:   \label{basicset} 

3096:   A set $A \subseteq I_{m,n;\rho}$ is called a \textbf{basic

3097:     $\Q_{m,n;\rho}$-set} if there are $f,g_1,\mdots, g_k \in

3098:   \Q_{m,n;\rho}$ such that $$A = \set{z \in I_{m,n;\rho} :\ f(z) = 0,\

3099:     g_1(z) > 0,\mdots,\ g_k(z) > 0}.$$ A \textbf{$\Q_{m,n;\rho}$-set}

3100:   is a finite union of basic $\Q_{m,n;\rho}$-sets.  Note that the

3101:   $\Q_{m,n;\rho}$-sets form a boolean algebra of subsets of

3102:   $I_{m,n;\rho}$.

3103: \end{df}

3104: 

3105: Given a point $a = (a_1,\mdots, a_{m+n}) \in \RR^{m+n}$ and a choice

3106: of signs $\sigma \in \{-1, 1\}^m$, we let $h_{a,\sigma} :\ \RR^{m+n}

3107: \longrightarrow \RR^{m+n}$ be the bijection given by $$h_{a,\sigma}(z)

3108: := \left(a_1 + \sigma_1 z_1, \mdots, a_{m+n} + z_{m+n}\right). $$ Note

3109: that the maps $h_{a,\sigma}$ (with $a \in \RR^{m+n}$ and $\sigma \in

3110: \{-1, 1\}^m$) form a group of permutations of $\RR^{m+n}$.

3111: 

3112: \begin{df} 

3113:   \label{gensemianalytic} 

3114:   A set $X \subseteq \RR^{m+n}$ is \textbf{$\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic at

3115:     $a \in \RR^{m+n}$} if there is an $\epsilon > 0$ such that for

3116:   each $\sigma \in \{-1, 1\}^m$ there is a $\Q_{m,n;\epsilon}$-set

3117:   $A_{\sigma} \subseteq I_{m,n;\epsilon}$ with $$X \cap

3118:   h_{a,\sigma}(I_{m,n;\epsilon}) = h_{a,\sigma}(A_{\sigma}).$$ A set

3119:   $X \subseteq \RR^{m+n}$ is \textbf{$\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic} if it is

3120:   $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic at every point $a \in \RR^{m+n}$.  For

3121:   convenience, if $X \subseteq \RR^m$ is $\Q_{m,0}$-semianalytic we

3122:   also simply say that $X$ is $\Q_m$-semianalytic.

3123: \end{df}

3124: 

3125: \begin{nrmk} 

3126:   \label{gensemrmk}

3127:   \begin{enumerate}

3128:   \item If $X, Y \subseteq \RR^{m+n}$ are $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic at

3129:     $a$, then so are $X \cup Y$, $X \cap Y$ and $X \setminus Y$.

3130:   \item Let $X \subseteq \RR^{m+n}$ be $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic, $a \in

3131:     \RR^{m+n}$ and $\sigma \in \{-1, 1\}^m$. Then the set

3132:     $h_{a,\sigma}(X)$ is $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic. Moreover by Lemma

3133:     \ref{Q-addition}(3), for each $\lambda \in (0, \infty)^{m+n}$ the

3134:     set $E_{\lambda}(X)$ is $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic, where

3135:     $E_{\lambda} : \RR^{m+n} \longrightarrow \RR^{m+n}$ is defined by

3136:     $E_{\lambda}(z) := (\lambda_1 z_1, \dots, \lambda_{m+n} z_{m+n})$.

3137:   \item If $X \subseteq \RR^n$ is semianalytic, then $X$ is

3138:     $\Q_{0,n}$-semianalytic.

3139:   \end{enumerate}

3140: \end{nrmk}

3141: 

3142: Below we write $0$ for the point $(0,\mdots, 0) \in \RR^{m+n}$.  The

3143: following lemma is now proved just as in \cite[Section

3144: 7]{vdd-spe:genpower} with obvious changes: ``$\R_{\mdots}$-set'' is

3145: replaced by ``$\Q_{\dots}$-set'', $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}$ by

3146: $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q}$ and the algebras $\R_{m,n,\dots}$ by

3147: $\Q_{m,n;\dots}$.  Also, the results from Sections 4, 5 and 6 there

3148: need to be replaced by the corresponding results of Sections

3149: \ref{division}, \ref{weierstrass} and \ref{blowups} here.  (For

3150: example, we use Proposition \ref{Q-basics}(2) here in place of

3151: Corollary 6.7 there; the other replacements are more straightforward.) 

3152: 

3153: \begin{lemma} \label{gensembasics}

3154:   \begin{enumerate}

3155:   \item Let $A \subseteq \RR^{m+n}$ be $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic at $0$

3156:     and let $\sigma$ be a permutation of $\set{1,\mdots, m}$. Then

3157:     $\sigma(A)$ is $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic at $0$.

3158:   \item If $n \geq 1$, then each $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic subset of

3159:     $\,\RR^{m+n}$ is also $\Q_{m+1,n-1}$-semianalytic.

3160:   \item Every $\Q_{m,n;\rho}$-set $A \subseteq I_{m,n;\rho}$ is

3161:     $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic. \qed

3162:   \end{enumerate}

3163: \end{lemma}

3164: 

3165: Note that Remark \ref{gensemrmk}(3) and Lemma \ref{gensembasics}(2)

3166: imply in particular that every semianalytic subset of $\RR^{m+n}$ is

3167: $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic.  Also, since every $f \in \R_{m,n,\rho}$

3168: extends to a holomorphic function $g:B_\frL(\rho') \into \CC$ for some

3169: $\rho'>\rho$, we see that $\R_{m,n,\rho}^\omega \subseteq

3170: \Q_{m,n;\rho}$, where $\R_{m,n,\rho}^\omega$ consists of all $f \in

3171: \R_{m,n,\rho}$ with natural support.  In particular, every

3172: $\R_{m,n}^\omega$-semianalytic subset of $\RR^{m+n}$ is

3173: $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic.

3174: 

3175: We now consider the system $\Lambda = (\Lambda_p)_{p \in \NN}$, where

3176: $$\Lambda_p := \set{A \subseteq I^p:\ A \text{ is }

3177:   \Q_{p} \text{-semianalytic}}.$$ Note that if $A \subseteq I^p$ is

3178: $\Q_{m,n}$-semianalytic with $m+n=p$, then $A$ is also

3179: $\Q_{p}$-semianalytic by Lemma \ref{gensembasics}(2), so $A \in

3180: \Lambda_p$.  A set $A \subseteq \RR^m$ is called a

3181: \textbf{$\Lambda$-set} if $A \in \Lambda_n$, and $B \subseteq \RR^m$

3182: is called a \textbf{sub-$\Lambda$-set} if there exist $n \in \NN$ and

3183: a $\Lambda$-set $A \subseteq \RR^{m+n}$ such that $B = \Pi_m(A)$.

3184: 

3185: \begin{prop} \label{mc+om1}

3186: Let $A \subseteq [-1,1]^m$ be a sub-$\Lambda$-set.  Then $[-1,1]^m

3187: \setminus A$ is also a sub-$\Lambda$-set.

3188: \end{prop}

3189: 

3190: \begin{proof}[Sketch of proof]

3191:   By Theorem 2.7 of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}, we need to establish

3192:   Axioms (I)-(IV) listed in \cite[Section 2]{vdd-spe:genpower}; the

3193:   first three are straightforward.  For Axiom (IV), the proof proceeds

3194:   almost literally as for \cite[Corollary 8.15]{vdd-spe:genpower},

3195:   with the obvious changes indicated earlier, as well as the

3196:   following: $\Pc{R}{X^*, Y}_{\dots}$ there is replaced by

3197:   $\Pc{R}{X^*,Y}_{\Q,\dots}$ here, and the facts of Section

3198:   \ref{o-minimal} here are used in place of the corresponding facts

3199:   from Section 7 there.  Moreover, note that Lemma 6.1 there goes

3200:   through unchanged here.

3201: \end{proof}

3202: 

3203: Recall that by the remarks after Definition \ref{real_Q}, $$\Rq =

3204: \left(\RR, <, 0, 1, +, -, \mdot, \left(\tilde{f}:\ f \in

3205:     \Q_{m,0;1}\right)\right).$$ It is clear from Remark

3206: \ref{gensemrmk}(2) that every \textit{bounded} $\ \Q_p$-semianalytic

3207: set, for $p \in \NN$, is quantifier-free definable in $\Rq$.  We are

3208: now ready to prove Theorem A.

3209: 

3210: \begin{thm}

3211: The expansion $\Rq$ is model complete, o-minimal and admits analytic

3212: cell decomposition.

3213: \end{thm}

3214: 

3215: \begin{proof}

3216: The theorem follows from the previous remark in view of Propositions

3217: \ref{mc+om1} above and \cite[Corollary 2.9]{vdd-spe:genpower}.  For

3218: analytic cell decomposition, we proceed exactly as in the proof of

3219: Corollary 6.10 of \cite{vdd-spe:multisummable}.

3220: \end{proof}

3221: 

3222: For Theorem B, we proceed as in Section 9 of \cite{vdd-spe:genpower},

3223: with the following changes: we do not need 9.3 there, and use

3224: Corollaries \ref{bad_substitution_1} and \ref{bad_substitution_2} here

3225: in place of Lemma 9.4 there.  Moreover, we do not need 9.7 and Lemma

3226: 9.8 there, and we give a much simpler proof of Lemma 9.9 there:

3227: 

3228: \begin{lemma}

3229:   \label{comp_inverse}

3230:   Let $0 < f \in \Pc{R}{T^*}_\Q$ with $f(0) = 0$.  Then there exists

3231:   $g \in \Pc{R}{T^*}_\Q$ such that $g > 0$, $g(0) = 0$ and $f(g(T)) =

3232:   T$. 

3233: \end{lemma}

3234: 

3235: \begin{proof}

3236:   By the hypotheses, there are $\lambda,\alpha > 0$ and $h \in

3237:   \Pc{R}{T^*}_\Q$ such that $f(t) = t^\alpha(\lambda + h(t))$ and

3238:   $h(0) = 0$. We put $\rho := 1/\alpha$ and let $F,H \in

3239:   \Pc{R}{T^*,Y^*}_\Q$ be defined by $F(T,Y) := f(Y)$ and $H(T,Y):=

3240:   h(Y)$.  By Proposition \ref{blowup_homom}, the functions

3241:   $\r^{\rho,\lambda} F(t,y)$ and $\r^{\rho,\lambda} H(t,y)$ belong to

3242:   $\Pc{R}{T^*,Y}_\Q$.  We define

3243:   \begin{equation*}

3244:     \phi(t,y) := (\lambda+y)^\alpha \left(\lambda + \r^{\rho,\lambda}

3245:       H(t,y)\right); 

3246:   \end{equation*}

3247:   then $\r^{\rho,\lambda} F(t,y) = t \cdot \phi(t,y)$, so $\phi \in

3248:   \Pc{R}{T^*,Y}_\Q$ by Proposition \ref{Q-basics}(1).  Moreover, we

3249:   have $\phi(0,0) = \lambda^{\alpha+1}$ and $\frac {\partial

3250:     \phi}{\partial y}(0,0) = \alpha\lambda^\alpha > 0$; hence by the

3251:   implicit function theorem, there is a $\psi \in \Pc{R}{T^*}_\Q$ such

3252:   that $\phi(t,\psi(t)) = 1$.  Therefore, we have $\r^{\rho,\lambda} F

3253:   (t,\psi(t)) = t$, so we take $g(t) := t^{1/\alpha} (\lambda +

3254:   \psi(t))$.

3255: \end{proof}

3256: 

3257: Using this lemma in place of Lemma 9.9 in \cite{vdd-spe:genpower}, we

3258: finish the proof of Theorem B as it is done there, and we obtain

3259: corresponding corollaries for $1$-dimensional sets definable in

3260: $\Rq$. 

3261: 

3262: 

3263: \section{Example of a definable family of transition maps}

3264: \label{family}

3265: 

3266: Let $\xi$ be an analytic vector field in $\RR^2$.  A

3267: \textbf{polycycle} $\Gamma$ of $\xi$ is a cyclically ordered finite

3268: set of singular points $p_0 = p_k, p_{1},\dots, p_{k}, p_{k+1} = p_1$

3269: (with possible repetitions), called \textbf{vertices}, and

3270: trajectories $\gamma_{1},\dots, \gamma_{k}$, called

3271: \textbf{separatrices}, connecting the vertices in the order following

3272: the flow of $\xi$, as in Figure 2.  We assume here that each $p_i$ is

3273: a non-resonant hyperbolic singularity of $\xi$.  For each $i$, we fix

3274: two segments $\Lambda_i^-$ and $\Lambda_i^+$ transverse to $\xi$ and

3275: intersecting the separatrices $\gamma_{i-1}$ and $\gamma_i$,

3276: respectively, close to $p_i$.

3277: 

3278: \begin{figure}[htbp]

3279:   \label{cap:poly}

3280:   \begin{center}

3281:     \input{polycycle.pst}

3282:   \end{center}

3283:   \caption{The polycycle $\Gamma$ of $\xi = \xi_0$}

3284: \end{figure}

3285: 

3286: For each $i$, we fix analytic charts $x_i:(-1,1) \into \Lambda_i^-$

3287: and $y_i:(-1,1) \into \Lambda_i^+$ such that $x_i(0)$ and $y_i(0)$ are

3288: the points of intersection of $\Lambda_i^-$ with $\gamma_{i-1}$ and of

3289: $\Lambda_i^+$ with $\gamma_i$, respectively, and such that $x_i(t)$

3290: and $y_i(t)$ lie inside the region circumscribed by $\Gamma$ for all

3291: $t \in (0,1)$.  We denote by $g_i:(0,1) \into (0,1)$ the corresponding

3292: transition map in the coordinates $x_i$ and $y_i$; we extend $g_i$ to

3293: all of $(-1,1)$ by putting $g_i(t) := 0$ for $t \in (-1,0]$.  After an

3294: analytic change of coordinates if necessary, it follows from the

3295: general theory of analytic differential equations that there are

3296: analytic functions $f_i:(-1,1) \into (-1,1)$, for $i=1, \dots, k$,

3297: representing the flow of $\xi$ from $\Lambda_{i-1}^+$ to $\Lambda_i^-$

3298: in the charts $y_{i-1}$ and $x_i$.  In fact, these functions $f_i$ are

3299: \textit{restricted analytic}, that is, they extend analytically to a

3300: neighbourhood of $[-1,1]$; in particular, they are definable in $\Rq$.

3301: The restriction of $P := f_k \circ g_k \circ f_{k-1} \circ \cdots

3302: \circ f_1 \circ g_1$ to $(0,1)$ represents the Poincar\'e first return

3303: map of $\xi$ at $p_1$ in the chart $x_1$.

3304: 

3305: By the corollary and the explanations in the introduction each $g_i$,

3306: and hence $P$, is definable in $\Rq$.  Our goal in this section is to

3307: show that for certain analytic unfoldings $\xi_\mu$ of the vector

3308: field $\xi$, the corresponding Poincar\'e return map \textit{with

3309:   parameter} $\mu$ is also definable in $\Rq$.

3310: 

3311: More precisely, we let $\xi_{\mu}$ be an analytic unfolding of $\xi$,

3312: with $\mu \in \RR^p$ and $\xi_0 = \xi$, defined in a neighborhood $U$

3313: of $\Gamma$ containing each $\Lambda_i^-$ and $\Lambda_i^+$, with the

3314: same singular points inside $U$ and \textit{with the same linear part

3315:   at each of these singular points as $\xi$}.  We assume that the

3316: unfolding is small, in the sense that for each $\mu \in \RR^p$ and

3317: each $i \in \{1, \dots, k\}$, both $\Lambda_i^-$ and $\Lambda_i^+$

3318: remain transverse to $\xi_\mu$, the transition map of $\xi_\mu$ at

3319: $p_i$ is given by a function $g_{\mu,i}:(0,1) \into (0,1)$ in the

3320: charts $x_i$ and $y_i$ (with the latter as above, independent of

3321: $\mu$), and there are analytic functions $f_{\mu,i}:(-1,1) \into

3322: (-1,1)$ representing the flow of $\xi_\mu$ from $\Lambda_{i-1}^+$ to

3323: $\Lambda_i^-$ in the charts $y_{i-1}$ and $x_i$.  We extend each

3324: $g_{\mu,i}$ to $(-1,1)$ by putting $g_{\mu,i}(t) := 0$ if $t \in

3325: (-1,0]$.  Then the restriction of $P_\mu:= f_{\mu,k} \circ g_{\mu,k}

3326: \circ f_{\mu,k-1} \circ \cdots \circ f_{\mu,1} \circ g_{\mu,1}$ to

3327: $(0,1)$ represents the Poincar\'e first return map of $\xi_\mu$ at

3328: $p_1$ in the chart $x_1$.

3329: 

3330: We define $g_i:(-1,1) \times \RR^p \into (-1,1)$, $f_i:(-1,1) \times

3331: \RR^p \into (-1,1)$ and $P:(-1,1) \times \RR^p \into (-1,1)$ by

3332: $g_i(t,\mu):= g_{\mu,i}(t)$, $f_i(t,\mu):= f_{\mu,i}(t)$ and

3333: $P(t,\mu):= P_\mu(t)$.  Since the chosen unfolding $\xi_\mu$ is small,

3334: each $f_i$ is a restricted analytic map and hence definable in $\Rq$.

3335: Moreover, we have the following:

3336: 

3337: \begin{prop}

3338:   \label{finite_cyclicity}

3339:   Each $g_i$ is definable in the structure $\Rq$.  In particular, $P$

3340:   is definable in $\Rq$, and the number of isolated fixed points of

3341:   $P_\mu$ is uniformly bounded in $\mu$.

3342: \end{prop}

3343: 

3344: For the proof of this proposition, we assume that $p_1 = 0 \in \RR^2$

3345: and show that $g_1$ is definable in $\Rq$.  First, since the ratio

3346: $\lambda = \lambda_2/\lambda_1$ of the eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ (with

3347: respect to $x_1$) and $\lambda_2$ (with respect to $y_1)$ of $\xi_\mu$

3348: at $0$ is irrational and independent of $\mu$, we may assume, after a

3349: change of coordinates that is analytic in both $(x,y)$ and $\mu$, that

3350: the incoming and outgoing separatrices of $\xi_\mu$ at $0$ are

3351: represented by the $x$-axis and the $y$-axis, respectively, for every

3352: $\mu$.  In this situation, the normalization method in

3353: \cite[pp. 70--73]{dul:cycles} goes through uniformly in the parameter

3354: $\mu$ and yields:

3355: 

3356: \begin{lemma}

3357:   \label{dulac_reduction}

3358:   Let $N \in \NN$ be positive.  Then there exist analytic functions

3359:   $\phi_N,A_N:\RR^{2+p} \into \RR$ such that $A_N(0,0,0) = 0$, the map

3360:   $\Phi^N:\RR^{2+p} \into \RR^{2+p}$ defined by $(u,v,\mu) =

3361:   \Phi^N(x,y,\mu) := (x,\phi_N(x,y,\mu),\mu)$ is a change of coodinates

3362:   fixing $0$ and for each $\mu \in \RR^p$, the push-forward

3363:   $\Phi^N_*\xi_\mu$ satisfies the equations

3364:   \begin{equation}

3365:   \begin{split}

3366:     \label{normal_form}

3367:     \dot{u} & = u\\

3368:     \dot{v} & =

3369:     v\left(\lambda+u^{N}v^{N}A_N\left(u,v,\mu\right)\right). \qed

3370:   \end{split}

3371:   \end{equation}

3372: \end{lemma}

3373: 

3374: Second, we fix a segment $\Lambda^-:= (0,\epsilon) \times \{y_0\}$,

3375: parametrized by the $x$-coordinate along $\Lambda^-$, and a segment

3376: $\Lambda^+:= \{x_0\} \times (0,\epsilon)$, parametrized by the

3377: $y$-coordinate along $\Lambda^+$.  We assume that $x_0$, $y_0$ and

3378: $\epsilon$ are small enough such that $\Lambda^-$ and $\Lambda^+$ are

3379: transverse to each $\Phi_*^N \xi_\mu$.  We denote by

3380: $g^N_\mu:(0,\epsilon) \into (0,\epsilon)$ the corresponding transition

3381: map of $\Phi_*^N\xi_\mu$, and we define $g^N:(0,\epsilon) \times

3382: \RR^p \into (0,\epsilon)$ by $g^N(t,\mu):= g^N_\mu(t)$.  In this

3383: situation, the estimates obtained on pp. 24--29 in \cite{ily:dulac} go

3384: through uniformly in $\mu$; in particular, the domain $\Omega$ defined

3385: by inequality $( \overset{*}{_{**}} )$ on p. 29 is independent of

3386: $\mu$.  Therefore, we obtain:

3387: 

3388: \begin{lemma}

3389:   \label{dulac_parameter}

3390:   Let $\nu>0$.  Then there exist an integer $N = N(\nu) > 0$,

3391:   constants $K = K(\nu) > 0$ and $\epsilon = \epsilon(\nu) > 0$ and a

3392:   quadratic domain $\Omega = \Omega(\nu)$ such that

3393:   \begin{enumerate}

3394:   \item the map $g^N$ is analytic in the variable $\mu$ and admits an

3395:     analytic extension to $\Omega \times \RR^p$;

3396:   \item $\left|g^N(t,\mu) - t^{\lambda}\right| \le

3397:     K|t|^{\nu+\epsilon}$ for all $(t,\mu) \in \Omega \times

3398:     \RR^p$. \qed

3399:   \end{enumerate}

3400: \end{lemma}

3401: 

3402: Third, it follows from the theory of analytic differential equations

3403: that for each $N \in \NN$, there are analytic functions $h_N^-:(-1,1)

3404: \times \RR^p \into (-\epsilon,\epsilon) \times \RR^p$ and

3405: $h_N^+:(-\epsilon,\epsilon) \times \RR^p \into (-1,1) \times \RR^p$

3406: such that $h_N^-(0,\mu) = h_N^+(0,\mu) = 0$ for all $\mu$ and

3407: $g_1(t,\mu) = h_N^+(g^N(h_N^-(t,\mu),\mu),\mu)$ for all $(t,\mu)$.

3408: 

3409: We write $\langle 1,\lambda \rangle$ for the additive submonoid of

3410: $\RR$ generated by $1$ and $\lambda$.  By the binomial theorem, there

3411: is for each $\alpha \in \langle 1,\lambda \rangle$ and each $N \in

3412: \NN$ an analytic function $c_{\alpha,N}:\RR^p \into \RR$ such that for

3413: each $\mu \in \RR^p$,

3414: \begin{equation*}

3415:   h_N^+\left( (h_N^-(t,\mu))^\lambda,\mu\right) = \sum_{\alpha \in

3416:     \langle 1,\lambda \rangle} c_{\alpha,N}(\mu) \cdot t^\alpha.

3417: \end{equation*}

3418: On the other hand, given $\nu >0$, it follows from Lemma

3419: \ref{dulac_parameter} for each $\mu \in \RR^p$ and each $N \ge N(\nu)$

3420: that

3421: \begin{equation*}

3422:   g_1(t,\mu) - \sum_{\alpha \le \nu} c_{\alpha,N}(\mu) \cdot

3423:   t^\alpha = o\left(\|t\|^\nu\right) \quad\text{as } \|t\| \to 0;

3424: \end{equation*}

3425: in particular, $c_{\alpha,N} = c_{\alpha,N'}$ whenever $|\alpha| \le

3426: \nu$ and $N,N' \ge N(\nu)$.  Thus, for each $\alpha \in \langle

3427: 1,\lambda \rangle$ we put $c_\alpha := c_{\alpha,N(|\alpha|)}$; then

3428: by Lemma \ref{dulac_parameter} again, we have for every $\nu > 0$ and

3429: all $(t,\mu) \in \Omega(N(\nu)) \times \RR^p$ that

3430: \begin{equation}

3431:   \label{uni_estimate}

3432:   \left\|g_1(t,\mu) - \sum_{\alpha \le \nu} c_\alpha(\mu) \cdot

3433:     t^\alpha\right\| \le K(\nu) \cdot \|t\|^{\nu+\epsilon(\nu)}.

3434: \end{equation}

3435: It follows from Corollary \ref{uniform_criterion} that $g_1 \in

3436: \A_1(\Omega(0) \times \RR^p)$.  Finally, given any $\nu > \gamma \ge

3437: 0$, we define $(g_1)_\gamma:\Omega(N(\gamma)) \times \RR^p \into \RR$

3438: by 

3439: \begin{equation*}

3440:   (g_1)_\gamma(t,\mu) := t^{-\gamma} \left(g_1(t,\mu) - \sum_{\alpha <

3441:       \gamma} 

3442:     c_\alpha(\mu) t^\alpha\right).

3443: \end{equation*}

3444: Then by \eqref{uni_estimate} again, we have for all $(t,\mu) \in

3445: \Omega(N(\nu)) \times \RR^p$ that

3446: \begin{equation*}

3447:   \left\|(g_1)_\gamma(t,\mu) - \sum_{\gamma \le \alpha \le \nu}

3448:     c_\alpha(\mu) \cdot 

3449:     t^{\alpha-\gamma}\right\| \le K(\nu) \cdot

3450:   \|t\|^{\nu+\epsilon(\nu)-\gamma}. 

3451: \end{equation*}

3452: Hence by Corollary \ref{uniform_criterion}, each $(g_1)_\gamma$

3453: belongs to $\A_1(\Omega(N(\gamma)) \times \RR^p)$, that is, $g_1$

3454: satisfies condition (TE).  It follows that $g_1$ belongs to

3455: $\Q_1(\Omega(0) \times \RR^p)$, which proves Proposition

3456: \ref{finite_cyclicity}.

3457: 

3458: 

3459: 

3460: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

3461: \itemsep -0cm

3462: 

3463: \bibitem{bri-kno:plane}

3464: {\em E.~Brieskorn and H.~Kn\"orrer}, Plane algebraic curves, Birkh\"auser

3465:   Verlag, 1986.

3466: 

3467: \bibitem{vdd:vol1}

3468: {\em L.~van~den Dries}, Tame Topology and O-minimal Structures, no.~248 in LMS

3469:   Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

3470: 

3471: \bibitem{vdd-spe:genpower}

3472: {\em L.~van~den Dries and P.~Speissegger}, The real field with convergent

3473:   generalized power series is model complete and o-minimal, Trans. Amer. Math.

3474:   Soc., {\bf 350} (1998), ~4377--4421.

3475: 

3476: \bibitem{vdd-spe:multisummable}

3477: \leavevmode\vrule height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, The field of reals with

3478:   multisummable series and the exponential function, Proc. London Math. Soc.

3479:   (3), {\bf 81} (2000), ~513--565.

3480: 

3481: \bibitem{dul:cycles}

3482: {\em H.~Dulac}, Sur les cycles limites, Bull. Soc. Math. France, {\bf 51}

3483:   (1923), ~45--188.

3484: 

3485: \bibitem{eca:dulac}

3486: {\em J.~Ecalle}, Introduction aux fonctions analysables et preuve constructive

3487:   de la conjecture de Dulac, Hermann, Paris, 1992.

3488: 

3489: \bibitem{ily:dulac}

3490: {\em Yu.~S. Ilyashenko}, Finiteness theorems for limit cycles, vol.~94 of

3491:   Translations of Mathematical Monographs, American Mathematical Society, 1991.

3492: 

3493: \bibitem{ily:history}

3494: \leavevmode\vrule height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, Centennial history of

3495:   {H}ilbert's sixteenth problem, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., {\bf 39} (2002),

3496:   ~301--354.

3497: 

3498: \bibitem{rou:bifurcations}

3499: {\em R.~Roussarie}, Bifurcations of planar vector fields and {H}ilbert's

3500:   sixteenth problem, vol.~164 of Progress in Mathematics, Birkh\"auser Verlag,

3501:   Basel, 1998.

3502: 

3503: \bibitem{spe:pfaffian}

3504: {\em P.~Speissegger}, The {P}faffian closure of an o-minimal structure, J.

3505:   Reine Angew. Math., {\bf 508} (1999), ~189--211.

3506: 

3507: \bibitem{vdw:algebra}

3508: {\em B.L. van~der Waerden}, Algebra, Springer Verlag, 1967.

3509: 

3510: \bibitem{whi-wat:analysis}

3511: {\em E.~Whittaker and G.~Watson}, A Course of Modern Analysis, Cambridge, 1927.

3512: 

3513: \end{thebibliography}

3514: 

3515: 

3516: \end{document}

3517: