Skip to main content
16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 24, 2013 at 2:43 comment added Piojo @NateBottman: Definitely you're right! Just modified my post. Thank you!
Oct 23, 2013 at 16:00 comment added Francesco Polizzi @Piojo: oh right, Cartan B. Thanks!
Oct 23, 2013 at 15:44 comment added Piojo @FrancescoPolizzi: See mathoverflow.net/questions/1878/… for instance.
Oct 23, 2013 at 15:43 comment added Piojo @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez: Sorry for the vagueness, I simply mean an extension such that $g_1^2+\dots+g_n^2=z_1^2+\dots+z_n^2$.
Oct 23, 2013 at 15:40 history edited Piojo CC BY-SA 3.0
added 114 characters in body
Oct 23, 2013 at 15:20 comment added Francesco Polizzi @Piojo: ok, inversion is an automorphism of the projective quadric. But, still, I do not understand why any automorphism of $V$ should extend to $\mathbb{C}^n$. Maybe this is trivial, but could you please explain this point?
Oct 23, 2013 at 15:13 comment added Mariano Suárez-Álvarez What do you mean by good extension?
Oct 23, 2013 at 14:35 history edited Piojo CC BY-SA 3.0
added 15 characters in body
Oct 23, 2013 at 14:30 comment added Piojo To David: For n=1, 1/z=z is the extension you want.
Oct 23, 2013 at 14:29 comment added Piojo To Polizzi: I guess your map is not defined at the points $(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{4}i,\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{4}i)$ and $(\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{4}i,\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{4}i)$.
Oct 23, 2013 at 14:16 history edited Piojo CC BY-SA 3.0
added 43 characters in body
Oct 23, 2013 at 13:52 comment added emperordali I also do not understand. For n = 1 isn't 1/z holomorphic on V but not on $\mathbb{C}$?
Oct 23, 2013 at 13:51 comment added Francesco Polizzi There is something I do not understand. Take $z_1^2+z_2^2-1=0$ in $\mathbb{C}^2$ and consider the inversion with respect to the point $(1,1)$. Then we obtain the automorphism of $V$ given by $$z_1 \to 1 + \frac{z_1-1}{3-2z_1-2z_2}, \quad z_2 \to 1 + \frac{z_2-1}{3-2z_1-2z_2}.$$ It seems to me that it does not extend to an automorphism of $\mathbb{C}^2$. Am I missing something?
Oct 23, 2013 at 13:30 comment added Nathaniel Bottman I think this is not true. Set $g: V \to V$ to be the identity, and define $g_1, \ldots, g_n$ by setting $g_1(z) := z_1 + \left(z_1^2 + \cdots + z_n^2 - 1\right)$ and $g_i(z) := z_i$ for $i > 1$. Am I missing something?
Oct 23, 2013 at 12:01 review First posts
Oct 23, 2013 at 12:12
Oct 23, 2013 at 11:42 history asked Piojo CC BY-SA 3.0