text:
# On Peak-interpolation Manifolds for 𝑨(𝛀) for Convex Domains in ℂ^𝒏

## 1. Statement of Main Result

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded domain in $`^n`$, and let $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be the algebra of functions holomorphic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and continuous upto the boundary. Recall that a compact subset $`K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called a peak-interpolation set for $`A\mathbf{(}𝛀\mathbf{)}`$ if given any $`f𝒞(K)`$, $`f0`$, there exists a function $`FA(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`F|_K=f`$ and $`|F(\zeta )|<sup_K|f|`$ for every $`\zeta \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}K`$.

We are interested in determining when a sufficiently smooth submanifold $`𝑴\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a strictly pseudoconvex domain having $`𝒞^2`$ boundary, and $`𝑴`$ is of class $`𝒞^2`$, the situation is very well understood; refer to the works of Henkin & Tumanov , Nagel , and Rudin . In the strictly pseudoconvex setting, $`𝑴`$ is a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ if and only if $`𝑴`$ is complex-tangential, i.e. $`T_p(𝑴)H_p(\mathrm{\Omega })p𝑴`$. Here, and in what follows, for any submanifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`T_p()`$ will denote the real tangent space to $``$ at the point $`p`$, while $`H_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ will denote the maximal complex subspace of $`T_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Very little is known, however, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a weakly pseudoconvex of finite type (There are several notions of type for domains in $`^n,n3`$. We shall not define them at this juncture; the interested reader may refer to , , , .). In view of a result by Nagel & Rudin , it is still necessary for $`𝑴`$ to be complex-tangential. However, showing even that any smooth, (topologically) closed complex-tangential arc in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, for a general smoothly bounded weakly pseudoconvex domain of finite type, is a difficult problem. This is because doing so would necessarily imply that every point in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a peak point for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Whether or not this is true for general pseudoconvex domains of finite type is an extremely difficult open question in the theory of functions in several complex variables. In this paper we show that when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a convex domain and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝑴`$ are real-analytic, it suffices for $`𝑴`$ to be complex-tangential for it to be a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Our main result is as follows :

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded (weakly) convex domain in $`^n,n2`$, having real-analytic boundary, and let $`𝐌`$ be a real-analytic submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`𝐌`$ is complex-tangential, then $`𝐌`$ (and thus, every compact subset of $`𝐌`$) is a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

## 2. Some notation and introductory remarks

In what follows, the notation $`,`$ will denote the usual real inner product on $`^d`$. Furthermore, given vectors $`v,w^d`$ and a real $`d\times d`$ matrix $`M=[m_{jk}]`$, the notation $`v|M|w`$ will be defined as

$$v|M|w:=\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{d}{}}m_{jk}v_jw_k.$$

In what follows, $`B_d(a;r)`$ will denote the open ball in $`^d`$ centered at $`a^d`$ and having radius $`r`$, while $`𝔹_d(a;r)`$ will denote the closure of $`B_d(a;r)`$.

Let $`\rho `$ be a defining function for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Recall that for $`p\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a vector $`vT_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the second fundamental form for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`p`$ is the quadratic form

$$T_p(\mathrm{\Omega })vv|(\rho )(p)|v,$$

where $`\rho `$ denotes the real Hessian of $`\rho `$. We define $`𝔑_pT_p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to be the null space of the second fundamental form at $`p`$, i.e. $`𝔑_p=\{vT_p(\mathrm{\Omega }):v|(\rho )(p)|v=0\}`$

A final piece of notation : if $`\varphi `$ is a $`𝒞^1`$ function defined in some open set in $`^n`$, $`_k\varphi `$ and $`_{\overline{k}}\varphi `$ will denote

$$_k\varphi =\frac{\varphi }{z_k},_{\overline{k}}\varphi =\frac{\varphi }{\overline{z}_k}.$$

A standard approach to proving that $`𝑴\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a peak-interpolation set – $`𝑴`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ smooth and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n,n2`$ – which is encountered in the papers  and , is to use Bishop’s theorem , which states :

###### Theorem 2.1 (Bishop).

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded domain in $`^n`$ and let $`K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a compact subset. If $`K`$ is a totally-null set – i.e. if for every annihilating measure $`\mu A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`|\mu |(K)=0`$ – then $`K`$ is a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

In the above theorem, an annihilating measure refers to a regular, complex Borel measure on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ which, viewed as a bounded linear functional on $`𝒞(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, annihilates $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Bishop’s theorem implies that it suffices to show that $`𝑴`$ is a countable union of totally-null sets, which is the approach taken in . The essential difference between the proof of Theorem 1.1 and the earlier results lies in the very particular manner in which we decompose $`𝑴\mathrm{\Omega }`$, in the weakly convex setting, into countably many totally-null subsets. As we shall see, the manner in which we decompose $`𝑴`$ is necessitated by the fact that there may be submanifolds of $`𝑴`$ along which the second fundamental form for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not strictly positive – a phenomenon that is absent in the strictly convex setting.

The proof of Theorem 1.1 relies on four main ingredients. We need, for our proof, to show that :

1. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }^N,N2`$, is a convex domain having a smooth boundary that contains no line segments, there cannot be a smooth curve $`\sigma :I\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of class $`𝒞^1`$ with $`\sigma ^{}(t)𝔑_{\sigma (t)}`$ on an entire interval. Consequently – as we will show in Section 3 – if $`𝑴\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a smooth submanifold, $`𝔑_\zeta T_\zeta (𝑴)=\{0\}`$ for each $`\zeta `$ belonging to an open, dense subset of $`𝑴`$.
2. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }^N,N2`$, is a bounded convex domain with real-analytic boundary, $`𝑴\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a real-analytic submanifold and $`p𝑴`$, there is a neighbourhood $`Vp`$ and a stratification of $`𝑴V`$ into finitely many real-analytic submanifolds (not necessarily closed) of $`\mathrm{\Omega }V`$ such that if $``$ is a stratum of positive dimension, $`T_\zeta ()𝔑_\zeta =\{0\}\zeta `$.
3. For each stratum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the aforementioned local stratification with $`\text{dim}_{}()1`$, and for each $`q`$, there is a small neighbourhood $`Uq`$ such that the compact $`\overline{U}`$ is a totally-null set.

The central idea in  is to show that one can write $`𝑴=_jK_j`$, where each $`K_j`$ is compact, in such a manner that each $`K_j`$ is totally-null. This relies on the ability to construct a family of functions $`\{h_\delta \}_{\delta >0}A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ that is uniformly bounded on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, such that $`h_\delta (z)0`$ as $`\delta 0`$, for each $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and which, in the limit, has a specified behaviour on an $`𝑴`$-open neighbourhood of $`K_j`$. The analogue of this construction, in our context, is the following claim, which is valid in the more general setting of smoothly bounded, weakly convex domains. Item (3) above is a consequence of the following claim, which is the last key ingredient in the proof of our main theorem.

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n,n2`$, be a bounded, weakly convex domain having a smooth boundary that contains no line segments, and let $`\gamma :B_d(0;R)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a smooth imbedding whose image is complex-tangential. Also assume that $`d\gamma (x)(^d)𝔑_{\gamma (x)}=\{0\}x`$. There exists a $`\varrho >0`$ such that if $`f𝒞_c[B_d(0;\varrho );]`$, then defining

$$h_\delta (z)=_{B_d(0;\varrho )}\frac{\delta ^df(x)/G(x)dx}{\left\{\delta ^2+_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]\right\}^d},z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$

where $`G`$ is defined as

$$G(x)=_^d\left\{1+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j\overline{[d\gamma (x)v]}_k+_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j[d\gamma (x)v]_k\right)\right\}^d𝑑v,$$

we have :

1. $`\{h_\delta \}_{\delta >0}A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and is uniformly bounded on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,
    2. $`lim_{\delta 0}h_\delta (z)=0`$ if $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\gamma [B_d(0;\varrho )]`$,
    3. $`lim_{\delta 0}h_\delta [\gamma (s)]=f(s)sB_d(0;\varrho )`$.

We remark that the object $`\gamma [𝔹_d(0;\varrho )]`$$`\gamma ,\varrho `$ as above – is the prototye for compact sets of the sort described in item (3). Furthermore, we observe that the family of integrals given above is the same as that appearing in , although that paper is about a result similar to Theorem 1.1 but which applies only to strictly convex domains. Item (4) says that if for every $`xB_d(0;R)`$ the second fundamental form for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strictly positive on $`T_{\gamma (x)}\gamma [B_d(0;R)]T_{\gamma (x)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the aforementioned integrals have the estimates similar to those in . We present these estimates in Section 5, Theorem 5.5.

In Section 3, we state and prove propositions relating to item (1) above. The geometric results from Section 3 and real-analyticity are both crucial to the claim made in item (2) above. The existence of a local stratification of $`𝑴`$ having certain geometric properties is proved in Section 4 below. This local stratification is essential to our proof, and the need for it is what necessitates the hypothesis of real-analyticity in Theorem 1.1. We finally complete the proof of Theorem 1.1 in Section 6.

## 3. Results on Convex Domains

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a convex domain in $`^N,N2`$, having a $`𝒞^2`$ boundary and containing no line segments in its boundary. Then, there is no smooth curve $`\sigma :I\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of class $`𝒞^1`$ with $`\sigma ^{}(t)𝔑_{\sigma (t)}tI`$ (where $`I`$ is some interval of the real line).

###### Proof.

Assume the result is false. Let $`\sigma :I\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a curve with $`\sigma ^{}(t)𝔑_{\sigma (t)}tI`$ ($`I`$ is some interval). Let $`\rho `$ be a defining function for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`\rho =1`$. For $`tI`$, set

$`n(t)`$ $`=\rho (\sigma (t))^N,`$
$`H(t)`$ $`=(\rho )(\sigma (t))^{N\times N}.`$
We compute that

(3.1)
$$n^{}(t)=H(t)\sigma ^{}(t).$$

Now, notice that as $`\sigma ^{}(t)𝔑_{\sigma (t)}`$ by assumption, and as $`H(t)`$ is a symmetric matrix and is positive semi-definite on $`T_{\sigma (t)}(\mathrm{\Omega })tI`$, we have

$$H(t)\sigma ^{}(t),v=\sigma ^{}(t),H(t)v=0vT_{\sigma (t)}(\mathrm{\Omega }),tI.$$

The last equality follows from the fact that, since $`H(t)`$ is positive semi-definite on $`T_{\sigma (t)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, for any $`vT_{\sigma (t)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ we have

$$0\sigma ^{}(t)+\lambda v,H(t)(\sigma ^{}(t)+\lambda v)=\lambda ^2v,H(t)v+2\lambda \sigma ^{}(t),H(t)v\lambda ,$$

which forces $`\sigma ^{}(t),H(t)v`$ to vanish. Thus, by (3.1), $`n^{}(t)`$ is orthogonal to $`T_{\sigma (t)}(\mathrm{\Omega }),tI`$.

Next, observe that

$`n(t),n(t)`$ $`=1`$
$`2n^{}(t),n(t)`$ $`=0,\text{[by differentiating the above equation]}`$
whence $`n^{}(t)`$ is orthogonal to the outward unit normal at $`\sigma (t)`$ for each $`tI`$. We infer, thus, that $`n^{}(t)=0tI`$. Thus $`n`$ is constant on $`I`$.

Write $`c=n(t)`$, and define a function

$$G(s,t)=\sigma (s)\sigma (t),c,s,tI.$$

Clearly

$$\frac{G}{s}=\frac{G}{t}=0,\text{[since }\sigma ^{}()n()\text{]}$$

whence $`G\text{const}`$. Since $`G(s,s)=0`$, $`G0`$. Thus,

(3.2)
$$\sigma (s)\sigma (t)T_{\sigma (t)}(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

By the convexity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the line segment joining $`\sigma (s)`$ and $`\sigma (t)`$ must lie in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. In view of (3.2), this means that the line segment joining $`\sigma (s)`$ to $`\sigma (t)`$ lies in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is a contradiction, whence the initial assumption if false. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a convex domain in $`^N,N2`$, having a $`𝒞^2`$ boundary and containing no line segments in its boundary, and let $`𝐌`$ be a submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of class $`𝒞^2`$. Then, the set $`\{p𝐌|T_p(𝐌)𝔑_p=\{0\}\}`$ is open and dense in $`𝐌`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\text{dim}_{}(𝑴)=d>0`$. Define

$$𝔖=\{p𝑴|T_p(𝑴)𝔑_p\{0\}\}.$$

Let $`\gamma :(B_d(0;\epsilon ),0)(𝑴,p)`$ be a non-singular parametrization of $`𝑴`$ near $`p𝑴`$ of class $`𝒞^2`$. We will show that $`𝔖\gamma [B_d(0;\epsilon )]`$ cannot contain an open subset of $`𝑴`$. Define

$`H(s)`$ $`=d\gamma (s)^T(\rho )(\gamma (s))d\gamma (s),`$
$`𝒩_s`$ $`=\{v^d:v|H(s)|v=0\},`$
Consider the function $`G:B_d(0;\epsilon )\times ^d\{0\}`$ defined by

$$G:(s;v_1,\mathrm{},v_d)d\gamma (s)v|(\rho )(\gamma (s))|d\gamma (s)v.$$

Observe that the matrix of derivatives with respect to $`v`$

$$d_vG(s,v)=2v^TH(s)^{1\times d}.$$

Assume that $`\text{int}[𝔖\gamma [B_d(0;\epsilon )]]\mathrm{}`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists an $`\epsilon _{}(0,\epsilon ]`$ such that $`\gamma [B_d(0;\epsilon _{})]𝔖\gamma [B_d(0;\epsilon )]`$. We then have the following situations :

Case (i). There is a $`v^0S^{d1}`$ and $`s_0B_d(0;\epsilon _{})`$ such that $`d_vG(s_0,v^0)0`$. This means that $`\text{rank}_{}G(s_0,v^0)`$ is maximal. Therefore, by the implicit function theorem, there is a $`\delta (0,\epsilon _{}]`$ and a non-vanishing vector-field $`F=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_d):B_d(s_0;\delta )^d\{0\}`$ of class $`𝒞^2`$ such that

$`G(s,F(s))`$ $`=0sB_d(s_0;\delta ),`$
$`F(s_0)`$ $`=v^0.`$
Case (ii). For each $`sB_d(0;\epsilon _{})`$ and $`v^d\{0\}`$, $`d_vG(s,v)=0`$. In this situation, $`𝒩_s=^dsB_d(0;\epsilon _{})`$. In this case let $`F=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_d):B_d(0;\epsilon _{})^d\{0\}`$ be any non-vanishing vector field of class $`𝒞^2`$.

In either of the above cases, we have

(3.3)
$$F_1(s)\frac{\gamma }{s_1}(s)+\mathrm{}+F_d(s)\frac{\gamma }{s_d}(s)𝔑_{\gamma (s)}sB(s_0;\delta ).$$

Let $`\sigma :(a,a)B_d(s_0;\delta )`$ be the integral curve to $`F`$ through $`s_0`$, i.e.

$`\sigma (0)`$ $`=s_0,`$
$`\sigma ^{}(t)`$ $`=F(\sigma (t))t(a,a).`$
Then

(3.4)
$$(\gamma \sigma )^{}(t)=F_1(\sigma (t))\frac{\gamma }{s_1}(\sigma (t))+\mathrm{}+F_d(\sigma (t))\frac{\gamma }{s_d}(\sigma (t))t(a,a).$$

From (3.3) and (3.4),

$$(\gamma \sigma )^{}(t)𝔑_{\gamma \sigma (t)}t(a,a)$$

which is impossible, by Lemma 3.1. Thus, $`𝔖`$ does not contain any open subsets of $`𝑴`$.

In particular $`𝑴𝔖\mathrm{}`$. Consider a point $`p𝑴𝔖`$, and let $`\gamma :(B_d(0;\epsilon ),0)(𝑴,p)`$ be as before. Consider $`G:B_d(0;\epsilon )\times S^{d1}`$ defined exactly as above. $`G^1[\{0\}]`$ is an open set and $`G^1[\{0\}]\{0\}\times S^{d1}`$, since $`p𝑴𝔖`$. From this, we infer that there is an $`𝑴`$-open neighbourhood of $`p`$ contained in $`𝑴𝔖`$. This last fact completes the proof. ∎

## 4. A Stratification Theorem

In this section, we shall state precisely, and prove, the informally stated fact in item (2) in Section 2. A key fact that we will use to do so is the structure theorem for real-analytic subvarieties of $`^N,N2`$. This theorem is due to Łojasiewicz , which we now state.

###### Theorem 4.1 (Łojasiewicz).

Let $`F`$ be a non-constant real-analytic function defined in a neighbourhood of $`0^N`$, and assume that $`V(F)=F^1\{0\}0`$. Then, there is a small neighbourhood $`U0`$ such that $`V(F)U`$ has the decomposition

$$V(F)U=_{j=0}^{N1}S_j,$$

where each $`S_j`$ is a finite, disjoint union of (not necessarily closed) $`j`$-dimensional real-analytic submanifolds contained in $`U`$, such that each connected component of $`S_j`$ is a closed real-analytic submanifold of $`U\left(_{k=0}^{j1}S_k\right),j=1,\mathrm{},(N1)`$.

We remark that although the above theorem describes the local structure of the zero-set of a single real-analytic function, it, in fact, describes the local structure of a variety near the origin. This is because, given finitely many real-analytic functions $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_M`$ that vanish at the origin, their set of common zeros is exactly the zero-set of the real-analytic function $`F:=|f_1|^2+\mathrm{}+|f_M|^2`$.

The following theorem is a precise statement of item (2) in Section 2.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded convex domain in $`^N,N2`$, having real-analytic boundary, and let $`𝐌\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional real-analytic submanifold. Let $`p𝐌`$. There is a neighbourhood $`Vp`$ such that

(4.1)
$$𝑴V=_{j=0}^dM_j,$$

where

1. Each $`M_j`$ is a disjoint union of finitely many (not necesarily closed) $`j`$-dimensional real-analytic submanifolds contained in $`V`$.
2. Each connected component of $`M_j`$ is a closed, real-analytic submanifold of $`V\left(_{k=0}^{j1}M_k\right),j=1,\mathrm{},d`$.
3. For any $`j0`$, if $`M_{j,\alpha }`$ is a connected component of $`M_j`$, $`𝔑_\zeta T_\zeta (M_{j,\alpha })=\{0\}\zeta M_{j,\alpha }`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`p𝑴`$. Let $`\gamma :(B_d(0;\epsilon ),0)(𝑴,p)`$ be a real-analytic parametrization of $`𝑴`$ near $`p`$ such that $`\text{rank}_{}[d\gamma (x)]`$ is maximal $`x`$. Consider the real-analytic function $`𝔉:B_d(0;\epsilon )`$ defined by

$$𝔉(x)=\text{det}\left[d\gamma (x)^T(\rho )(\gamma (x))d\gamma (x)\right].$$

The matrix in the above expression is simply the pull-back of the Hessian $`\rho `$ by $`\gamma `$. By Lemma 3.2, $`𝔉0`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that if $`𝔉^1\{0\}\mathrm{}`$, then $`𝔉^1\{0\}0`$. By Łojasiewicz’s theorem , there is a neighbourhood $`U0`$, $`UB_d(0;\epsilon )`$, such that

(4.2)
$$𝔉^1\{0\}U=_{j=0}^{d1}𝒮_j,$$

where each $`𝒮_j`$ is a disjoint union of finitely many $`j`$-dimensional real-analytic submanifolds, and each connected component of $`𝒮_j`$ is a closed submanifold of $`U\left(_{k=0}^{j1}𝒮_k\right),j=1,\mathrm{},d1`$. Write $`𝒮_d=U\left(_{j=0}^{d1}𝒮_j\right)`$.

We plan to demonstrate the present result by induction. We make the following inductive hypothesis :

For $`m<d1`$ we have, shrinking $`U`$ if necessary, a stratification of $`U`$

(4.3)
$$U=_{j=0}^dS_j,$$

where,

1. Each $`S_j`$ is a disjoint union of finitely many (not necesarily closed) $`j`$-dimensional real-analytic submanifolds contained in $`U`$.
2. Each connected component of $`S_j`$ is a closed, real-analytic submanifold of $`U\left(_{k=0}^{j1}S_k\right),j=1,\mathrm{},d`$.
3. For each $`k=0,\mathrm{},m`$ and each connected component $`S_{dk,\alpha }`$, of $`S_{dk}`$, $`T_{\gamma (x)}[\gamma (S_{dk,\alpha })]𝔑_{\gamma (x)}=\{0\}xS_{dk,\alpha }`$.
4. $`_{j=0}^{(dm1)}S_j`$ is a real-analytic subvariety of $`U`$.

Consider the real-analytic subvariety $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ of $`U`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}=\left(_{j=0}^{(dm1)}S_j\right)\{xU:\text{rank}_{}\left[d\gamma (x)^T(\rho )(\gamma (x))d\gamma (x)\right](dm2)\},$$

where the $`S_j`$’s come from the stratification in (4.3). We consider $`S_{dm1,\alpha }`$ : a connected component of $`S_{dm1}`$. $`_{dm1}^\alpha =\gamma (S_{dm1,\alpha })`$ is a real-analytic submanifold contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By Lemma 3.2, there is an $`_{dm1}^\alpha `$-open set $`𝒱`$ such that $`T_\zeta (_{dm1}^\alpha )𝔑_\zeta =\{0\},\zeta 𝒱`$. Write $`𝒰=\left(\gamma |_{S_{dm1,\alpha }}\right)^1(𝒱)`$. $`𝒰`$ is open in $`S_{dm1,\alpha }`$, and for any $`x𝒰`$ and any $`v[T_x(S_{dm1,\alpha })\{0\}]`$, $`d\gamma (x)v𝔑_{\gamma (x)}`$. In other words, for each $`x𝒰`$,

$$\text{ker}\left\{d\gamma (x)^T(\rho )(\gamma (x))d\gamma (x)|_{T_x(S_{dm1,\alpha })}\right\}=\{0\},$$

where we identify the matrices $`d\gamma (x)^T(\rho )(\gamma (x))d\gamma (x)`$ with linear transformations. So, for each $`S_{dm1,\alpha }`$, the real-analytic subvariety $`(\stackrel{~}{V}S_{dm1,\alpha })S_{dm1,\alpha }`$. From this, we infer that $`\text{dim}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V})<(dm1)`$. By Łojasiewicz’s theorem, shrinking $`U`$ if necessary, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{V}U=_{j=0}^{(dm2)}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_j$$

where each connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_j`$ is a closed submanifold of $`U\left(_{k=0}^{j1}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_k\right),j=1,\mathrm{},dm2`$. Now write

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}S_jU,\hfill & \text{if }j(dm)\hfill \\ (S_{dm1,\alpha }\stackrel{~}{V})U,\hfill & \text{if }j=(dm1)\hfill \\ (S_j\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_j)U,\hfill & \text{if }j(dm2),\hfill \end{array}$$

shrinking $`U`$ further if necessary so that

$$U=_{j=0}^d\stackrel{~}{S}_j$$

is a stratification of $`U`$ that satisfies $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ above with $`\stackrel{~}{S}_j`$ replacing $`S_j`$. By construction, each connected component $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{dm1,\alpha }`$, of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{dm1}`$, satisfies $`(c)_{m+1}`$ and $`\left(_{j=0}^{(dm2)}\stackrel{~}{S}_j\right)=\stackrel{~}{V}U`$ satisfies $`(d)_{m+1}`$.

Notice that the stratification in (4.2) establishes the case $`m=0`$ for the inductive hypothesis above. By induction, therefore, we can find, shrinking $`U`$ if necessary, a stratification

(4.4)
$$U=_{j=0}^dS_j$$

where each connected component $`S_{j,\alpha }`$, of $`S_j,j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, is a closed, real-analytic submanifold of $`U\left(_{k=0}^{j1}S_k\right)`$, and for each $`j1`$ and each $`\alpha `$, $`T_\zeta [\gamma (S_{j,\alpha })]𝔑_\zeta =\{0\},\zeta \gamma (S_{j,\alpha })`$. We now find a suitably small neighbourhood, say $`V`$, of $`p`$ so that writing

$$M_j=\gamma (S_j)V,𝑴V=_{j=0}^dM_j$$

\[where the $`S_j`$’s come from (4.4)\] gives us the result. ∎

## 5. Quantitative Results

In this section, we work with bounded convex domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n,n2`$, having smooth boundaries containing no line segments. Let $`\gamma :(B_d(0;R),0)(\mathrm{\Omega },q)`$ be a smooth imbedding whose image is complex-tangential, and for which $`d\gamma (x)(^d)𝔑_{\gamma (x)}=\{0\}x`$. For the remainder of this section, $`\gamma `$ and $`R>0`$ will have the specific meaning just introduced. In the context of Theorem 1.1, given a point $`p𝑴`$, $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$ serves as the prototype for an open subset of a stratum of positive dimension in the local stratification (4.1) of $`𝑴`$ near $`p`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as above, $`\rho `$ a smooth defining function for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`z^n`$, we write $`G(\zeta ,z)=_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\zeta )(\zeta _jz_j)`$. For a fixed $`\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the equation $`G(\zeta ,z)=0`$ defines $`H_\zeta (\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and the real part of $`G(z,\zeta )`$ is the perpendicular distance of $`z`$ from $`T_\zeta (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Thus, by the convexity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, if $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\text{Re}[G(\zeta ,z)]0`$ and $`G(\zeta ,z)=0z=\zeta `$. In other words, $`\{G(\zeta ,)\}_{\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a smoothly varying family of peak functions for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

We now prove a technical lemma, which we will need later in this section.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`R`$ be as described above. For each $`r(0,R/2)`$, there exists an open set $`𝒰(r)\gamma [B_d(0;2r)]`$ such that for each $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r)`$, there exists a $`y_r^zB_d(0;2r)`$ satisfying

(5.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z))[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\right\}\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]\right\}\text{for every }x\text{ belonging}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{to a small neighbourhood, }U_zB_d(0;R)\text{, of }y_r^z\text{.}\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

In what follows, we will write $`\text{Re}\left\{_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\zeta )(\zeta _jz_j)\right\}=F(\zeta ,z)`$. For $`\zeta \gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$, we define

$$N_\zeta (\gamma ;\epsilon ):=\{zN_\zeta (\gamma [B_d(0;R)]):|z\zeta |<\epsilon \},$$

where $`N_\zeta (\gamma [B_d(0;R)])`$ denotes the normal space of $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$ in $`^n`$ at $`\zeta `$. Let $`\sigma >0`$ be so small that if $`z`$ lies in a tube around $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$,

$$\text{dist}[z,\gamma [B_d(0;R)]]\sigma \text{there is a unique }xB_d(0;R)\text{ such that }z\overline{N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;\sigma )}\text{.}$$

Also we will assume (shrinking $`R>0`$ if necessary) that for each $`r(0,R/2)`$ and each $`xB_d(0;2r)`$, $`N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;2\sigma )\gamma [𝔹_d(0;2r)]=\mathrm{}`$. We now fix $`r(0,R/2)`$ for the remainder of this proof. For each $`t(0,2r)`$, define the function $`𝔉_t:\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(_{|x|t}\overline{N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;\sigma )}\right)\times \gamma [𝔹_d(0;2r)][0,\mathrm{})`$ by

$$𝔉_t:(z,\xi )F(\xi ,z).$$

For a fixed $`t(0,2r)`$, $`𝔉_t(z,\xi )>0`$, by convexity and by the foregoing choices for $`R`$ and $`\sigma `$. Thus, there exists a $`m_t>0`$ such that $`𝔉_t(z,\xi )m_t(z,\xi )\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(_{|x|t}\overline{N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;\sigma )}\right)\times \gamma [𝔹_d(0;2r)]`$. Write $`s_t=\mathrm{min}\{m_t/2,\sigma \}`$. Then

(5.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(_{|x|t}\overline{N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;s_t)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill F(\zeta ^z,z)=\text{dist}[z,T_{\zeta ^z}(\mathrm{\Omega })]s_t<F(\xi ,z),\xi \gamma [𝔹_d(0;2r)],\end{array}$$

where $`\zeta ^z\gamma [𝔹_d(0;t)]`$ such that $`zN_{\zeta ^z}(\gamma [B_d(0;R)])`$. We define

$$𝒰(r)=\text{int}\left[_{t(0,2r)}\left\{_{|x|t}N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;s_t)\right\}\right],$$

and for each $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r)`$, we define $`y_r^z`$ by

$$F(\gamma (y_r^z),z)=\underset{x𝔹_d(0;2r)}{inf}F(\gamma (x),z).$$

If we could show that $`y_r^z𝔹_d(0;2r)`$, then we would be done. For each $`z𝒰(r)`$, let $`x^zB_d(0;2r)`$ be such that $`zN_{\gamma (x^z)}(\gamma [B_d(0;R)])`$. If $`z_{|x|t}N_{\gamma (x)}(\gamma ;s_t)`$ for some $`t(0,2r)`$, then $`|x^z|t`$. In view of (5.2)

$$F(\gamma (y_r^z),z)F(\gamma (x^z),z)<F(\gamma (s),z)s𝔹_d(0;2r).$$

Hence, $`y_r^z𝔹_d(0;2r)`$, and we have our result. ∎

So far, we have not made use of the fact that $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$ is complex-tangential. We shall do so in the next three lemmas.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\gamma `$, $`y_r^zB_d(0;2r)`$ and $`𝒰(r)`$ be as in Lemma 5.1. Then, for $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r)`$

(5.3)
$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{jk}^2\rho [\gamma (y_r^z)]\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]+_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho [\gamma (y_r^z)]\overline{\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)}[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\right\}=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{},d.$$

###### Proof.

If $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r)`$, then $`y_r^z`$ is a local minimum of the function

$$B_d(0;2r)xF(\gamma (x),z).$$

Therefore, taking the partial derivative of the above with respect to $`x_\mu `$ and evaluating at $`x=y_r^z`$, we get

(5.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Re}\{\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{jk}^2\rho [\gamma (y_r^z)]\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]+\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho [\gamma (y_r^z)]\overline{\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)}[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z))\frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)\}=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{},d.\end{array}$$

Since $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$ is complex-tangential, we have

(5.5)
$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z))\frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{},d.$$

The result follows from (5.4) and (5.5). ∎

In the next lemma, we exploit the fact that $`d\gamma (x)(^d)𝔑_{\gamma (x)}=\{0\}xB_d(0;R)`$.

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\gamma `$ be as described above. There exist uniform constants $`\delta \delta (\gamma )>0`$ and $`CC(\gamma )>0`$ such that

(5.6)
$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)]\right\}C|xy|^2x,yB_d(0,\delta ).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. We Taylor expand the function

$$\eta \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\eta )(\eta _jz_j)$$

about $`\eta =\xi `$ to get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\eta )(\eta _jz_j)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\xi )(\xi _jz_j)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\xi )(\eta _j\xi _j)+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{jk}^2\rho (\xi )(\xi _jz_j)(\eta _k\xi _k)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\xi )(\xi _jz_j)(\overline{\eta _k}\overline{\xi _k})+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{jk}^2\rho (\xi )(\eta _j\xi _j)(\eta _k\xi _k)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\xi )(\eta _j\xi _j)(\overline{\eta _k}\overline{\xi _k})+O(|\xi z||\eta \xi |^2,|\eta \xi |^3).`$
Substituting $`z=\gamma (y),\eta =\gamma (x)\text{and}\xi =\gamma (y)`$ in the above expression, we get

(5.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)]=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)]+\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (y))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)][\gamma _k(x)\gamma _k(y)]\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (y))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)][\overline{\gamma _k(x)}\overline{\gamma _k(y)}]+O(|\gamma (x)\gamma (y)|^3),\end{array}$$

for $`x,yB_d(0;R)`$. Taylor expanding $`\gamma `$ around $`yB_d(0;R)`$, and substituting in (5.7), we have

(5.8) $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)]`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (y))\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }}(y)(x_\mu y_\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\gamma _j}{x_\mu x_\nu }}(y)(x_\mu y_\mu )(x_\nu y_\nu )\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (y))\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }}(y){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _k}{x_\nu }}(y)(x_\mu y_\mu )(x_\nu y_\nu )\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (y))\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }}(y)\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _k}{x_\nu }}(y)}(x_\mu y_\mu )(x_\nu y_\nu )\right\}`$
$`+O(|xy|^3)x,yB_d(0;R).`$
We now use the fact that $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$ is complex-tangential. For $`yB_d(0;R)`$, we have

(5.9)
$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y))\frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }(y)=0,\mu =1,\mathrm{},d.$$

Differentiating the above expression with respect to $`x_\nu `$ and evaluating at $`x=y`$ yields

(5.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (y))\frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }(y)\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\nu }(y)+\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (y))\frac{\gamma _j}{x_\mu }(y)\overline{\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\nu }(y)}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y))\frac{^2\gamma _j}{x_\mu x_\nu }(y)=0,\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},d.\end{array}$$

From (5.8), (5.9) and (5.10), we get

$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)]\right\}=\frac{1}{2}d\gamma (y)(xy)|(\rho )(\gamma (y))|d\gamma (y)(xy)+O(|xy|^3).$$

This statement, in conjunction with the strict positivity of $`(\rho )(\zeta )`$ on $`T_\zeta (\gamma [B_d(0;R)])T_\zeta (\mathrm{\Omega })\zeta \gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$, allows us to infer that there are uniform constants $`\delta \delta (\gamma )>0`$ and $`CC(\gamma )>0`$ such that

$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(y)]\right\}C|xy|^2x,yB_d(0;\delta ).$$

###### Lemma 5.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`R`$ be as described above. Then

(5.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\text{Re}\left\{\frac{1}{\delta ^2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x+\delta v))[\gamma _j(x+\delta v)\gamma _j(x)]\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{2}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j\overline{[d\gamma (x)v]}_k+_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j[d\gamma (x)v]_k\right)\end{array}$$

for any $`xB_d(0;R)`$ and $`v^d`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from (5.8), (5.9) and (5.10) in the proof of Lemma 5.3

###### Theorem 5.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n,n2`$, be a bounded, weakly convex domain having a smooth boundary that contains no line segments, and let $`\gamma :B_d(0;R)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a smooth imbedding whose image is complex-tangential. Also assume that $`d\gamma (x)(^d)𝔑_{\gamma (x)}=\{0\}x`$. There exists a $`\varrho \varrho (\gamma )>0`$ such that if $`f𝒞_c[B_d(0;\varrho );]`$, then defining

(5.12)
$$h_\delta (z)=_{B_d(0;\varrho )}\frac{\delta ^df(x)/G(x)dx}{\left\{\delta ^2+_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]\right\}^d},z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$

where $`G`$ is defined as

(5.13)
$$G(x)=_^d\left\{1+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j\overline{[d\gamma (x)v]}_k+_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j[d\gamma (x)v]_k\right)\right\}^d𝑑v,$$

we have

1. $`\{h_\delta \}_{\delta >0}A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and is uniformly bounded on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$,
2. $`lim_{\delta 0}h_\delta (z)=0`$ if $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\gamma [B_d(0;\varrho )]`$,
3. $`lim_{\delta 0}h_\delta [\gamma (s)]=f(s)sB_d(0;\varrho )`$.

###### Proof.

Consider any $`r(0,R/3)`$ and any $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r)`$, where $`𝒰(r)`$ is as described in Lemma 5.1. We first estimate the quantity

$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z+x))_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z))\right][\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\right\},$$

(where $`y_r^z`$ is as introduced in Lemma 5.1) given that $`(y_r^z+x)B_d(0;R)`$. Taylor expanding about $`y_r^z`$ and using the complex-tangency hypothesis for $`\gamma [B_d(0;R)]`$, we have

(5.14)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z+x))_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z))\right][\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill =\text{Re}\left\{\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\left[\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{jk}^2\rho [\gamma (y_r^z)]\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]+_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho [\gamma (y_r^z)]\overline{\frac{\gamma _k}{x_\mu }(y_r^z)}[\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\right]x_\mu \right\}+O(|x|^2)|\gamma (y_r^z)z|.\end{array}$$

In view of Lemma 5.2, we can find uniform constants $`c>0`$ and $`\epsilon _{}>0`$ such that

(5.15) $`\left|\text{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z+x))_j\rho (\gamma (y_r^z))\right][\gamma _j(y_r^z)z_j]\right\}\right|c|x|^2|\gamma (y_r^z)z|`$ $`r(0,R/3),`$
$`|x|\epsilon _{},`$
$`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r).`$
Let $`r_{}(0,R/3)`$ be so small that for every $`r(0,r_{}]`$,

$`|\gamma (x)z|{\displaystyle \frac{C(\gamma )}{2c}}`$ $`xB_d(0;r),`$
$`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(r),`$
where $`c`$ is as in (5.15) and $`C(\gamma )`$ is the constant appearing in Lemma 5.3. We now define a constant

$$\varrho \varrho (\gamma ):=\mathrm{min}\{1/2,r_{},\delta (\gamma )/2,\epsilon _{}/3\},$$

where $`\delta (\gamma )`$ is the constant appearing in Lemma 5.3. In what follows, we will use the notation $`y^zB_d(0;2\varrho )`$ to mean $`y^z=y_\varrho ^z`$. From the preceding estimate and (5.15), we have the estimate

(5.16) $`\left|\text{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+x))_j\rho (\gamma (y^z))\right][\gamma _j(y^z)z_j]\right\}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{C(\gamma )}{2}}|x|^2`$ $`|x|\epsilon _{},`$
$`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(\varrho ).`$
Now, consider any $`f𝒞_c[B_d(0;\varrho );]`$. For each $`\delta >0`$, define $`h_\delta `$ according to (5.12) above. We remark that by our assumption on $`\gamma `$, the form

$$^dv\text{Re}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j\overline{[d\gamma (x)v]}_k+_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (x))[d\gamma (x)v]_j[d\gamma (x)v]_k\right)$$

is strictly positive definite for each $`xB_d(0;\varrho )`$. Using this fact, it can be shown – see \[10, Lemma 2.4\] –that the integrals (5.13) converge, and that $`G(x)0`$. From the discussion at the beginning of this section, we conclude that the real part of $`_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]`$, which occurs in the denominator of the integral in (5.12) is non-negative when $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Thus, $`h_\delta A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for each $`\delta >0`$.

Claim (i) $`\{h_\delta \}_{\delta >0}`$ is uniformly bounded on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

We first consider the case when $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(\varrho )`$. We indulge in a slight abuse of notation : we will define the integrand in (5.12) to be $`0`$ when $`xB_d(0;\varrho )`$, whence $`B_d(0;\varrho )`$ may be replaced by $`^d`$ in (5.12), but we will continue to refer to this extension to $`^d`$ by the expression of the integrand given above. Making a change of variable $`x=y^z+\delta v`$, we get

(5.17)
$$h_\delta (z)=_^d\frac{f(y^z+\delta v)/G(y^z+\delta v)dv}{\left\{1+\delta ^2_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)z_j]\right\}^d}.$$

Observe that

(5.18)
$$\left|1+\delta ^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)z_j]\right|1+\delta ^2\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)z_j]\right\}.$$

We compute

(5.19) $`\text{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)z_j]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)\gamma (y^z)]+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z)z_j]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Re}\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)\gamma (y^z)]+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z))[\gamma _j(y^z)z_j]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))_j\rho (\gamma (y^z))][\gamma _j(y^z)z_j]\}`$
From the fact that $`\text{Re}\left\{_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (y^z))[\gamma _j(y^z)z_j]\right\}0z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, and from Lemma 5.3 and (5.16), we have

(5.20)
$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (y^z+\delta v))[\gamma _j(y^z+\delta v)z_j]\right\}\frac{C(\gamma )}{2}\delta ^2|v|^2z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(\varrho ).$$

From (5.18) and (5.20) we have

(5.21)
$$|h_\delta (z)|f/G_{\mathrm{}}_^d\left\{1+\frac{C(\gamma )}{2}|v|^2\right\}^d𝑑vz\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(\varrho ).$$

We note here that \[10, Lemma 2.4\] makes it clear that $`1/G_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$.

We now consider the case when $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(\varrho )`$. Due to the fact that $`\gamma [𝔹_d(0;\varrho )]𝒰(\varrho )`$, we can find a uniform constant $`c^{}>0`$ such that

(5.22)
$$\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]\right\}c^{}\text{Re}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)\gamma _j(0)]\right\}xB_d(0;\varrho ).$$

This time, we make a change of variable $`x=\delta v`$. For $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰(\varrho )`$, this results in

(5.23)
$$h_\delta (z)=_^d\frac{f(\delta v)/G(\delta v)dv}{\left\{1+\delta ^2_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (\delta v))[\gamma _j(\delta v)z_j]\right\}^d}.$$

From Lemma 5.3 and (5.22) we can deduce that

(5.24)
$$|h_\delta (z)|f/G_{\mathrm{}}_^d\{1+c^{}|v|^2\}^d𝑑vz\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝒰\varrho .$$

Claim (i) follows from (5.21) and (5.24).

The above argument actually yields the following observation, which we record.

Fact. There exists a uniform constant $`\kappa >0`$ such that the integrands occuring in (5.17) and (5.23) are dominated by the $`𝕃^1`$ function

$$^dvf/G_{\mathrm{}}\{1+\kappa |v|^2\}^d.$$

Claim (ii) $`lim_{\delta 0}h_\delta (z)=0`$ if $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\gamma [B_d(0;\varrho )]`$.

Notice that if $`z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\gamma [B_d(0;\varrho )]`$, then $`\text{Re}\left\{_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]\right\}>0xB_d(0;\varrho )`$. Thus

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{\delta ^df(x)/G(x)}{\left\{\delta ^2+_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (x))[\gamma _j(x)z_j]\right\}^d}=0.$$

In view of the fact recorded above, we can apply the dominated convergence theorem to (5.12). This results in Claim (ii).

Claim (iii) $`lim_{\delta 0}h_\delta [\gamma (s)]=f(s)sB_d(0;\varrho )`$.

Refer to Lemma 5.1. When $`z=\gamma (s)`$ in that lemma, $`y^z=\gamma (s)`$. Equation (5.17) reads as

$$h_\delta [\gamma (s)]=_^d\frac{f(s+\delta v)/G(s+\delta v)dv}{\left\{1+\delta ^2_{j=1}^n_j\rho (\gamma (s+\delta v))[\gamma _j(s+\delta v)\gamma _j(s)]\right\}^d}.$$

In view of 5.11, the integrands occuring above tend to

$$\frac{f(s)}{G(s)}\left\{1+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(_{j\overline{k}}^2\rho (\gamma (s))[d\gamma (s)v]_j\overline{[d\gamma (s)v]}_k+_{jk}^2\rho (\gamma (s))[d\gamma (s)v]_j[d\gamma (s)v]_k\right)\right\}^d,\text{as }\delta 0.$$

Once again, Claim (iii) follows from the dominated convergence theorem. ∎

## 6. The proof of Theorem 1.1

For a $`p𝑴`$, let $``$ stand for an arbitrary $`d`$-dimensional stratum, $`d1`$, of the local stratification (4.1) of $`𝑴`$ near $`p`$. Let $`q`$ and let $`\gamma :(B_d(0;R),0)(,q)`$ be a non-singular, real-analytic parametrization of $``$ near $`q`$. Notice that by the definition of $``$, $`\gamma `$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 5.5. In view of Bishop’s theorem (refer back to Theorem 2.1), it would suffice to show that for any compact $`KB_d(0;\varrho )`$ and any annihilating measure $`\mu A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\mu [\gamma (K)]=0`$, where $`\varrho \varrho (\gamma )>0`$ is the constant introduced in Theorem 5.5.

Now, given a compact $`KB_d(0;\varrho )`$, let $`\{𝔇_\nu \}_\nu `$ be a shrinking family of compact subsets such that

1. $`𝔇_\nu B_d(0;\varrho )`$,
2. $`𝔇_{\nu +1}\text{int}(𝔇_\nu )`$,
3. $`_\nu =K`$.

Let $`\chi _\nu 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(B_d(0;\varrho );[0,1])`$ be a bump function with

$$\chi _\nu |_{𝔇_{\nu +1}}1,\text{supp}\chi _\nu 𝔇_\nu .$$

We define $`h_\delta ^\nu A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ by taking $`f=\chi _\nu `$ in the equation (5.12). Let $`\mu A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. By Theorem 5.5 and the bounded convergence theorem, we have

$$0=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}h_\delta ^\nu 𝑑\mu =_{\gamma [B_d(0;\varrho )]}\stackrel{~}{\chi _\nu }𝑑\mu ,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _\nu }`$ are given by the equations $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _\nu }[\gamma (x)]=\chi _\nu (x)xB_d(0;\varrho )`$. Another passage to the limit gives $`\mu [\gamma (K)]=0`$, and this is true for any $`\mu A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

We have just shown that each $``$ is a countable union of peak-interpolation sets for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Since each of the finitely many points in $`M_0`$ ($`M_0`$ as given by (4.1)) are peak points for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is convex) , $`𝑴`$ is a compact subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that is a countable union of peak-interpolation sets for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Using Bishop’s theorem again, we conclude that $`𝑴`$ is a peak-interpolation set for $`A(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.


format: text

text:
# Quantum nonlocality and applications in quantum information processing of hybrid entangled states

\[

## Abstract

The hybrid entangled states generated, e.g., in a trapped-ion or atom-cavity system, have exactly one ebit of entanglement, but are not maximally entangled. We demonstrate this by showing that they violate, but in general do not maximally violate, Bell’s inequality due to Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt. These states are interesting in that they exhibit the entanglement between two distinct degrees of freedom (one is discrete and another is continuous). We then demonstrate these entangled states as a valuable resource in quantum information processing including quantum teleportation, entanglement swapping and quantum computation with “parity qubits”. Our work establishes an interesting link between quantum information protocols of discrete and continuous variables.

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 03.65.Ta

\]

In the burgeoning field of quantum information theory , many practical applications heavily depend on quantum entanglement  as a necessary resource. Initially most of the concepts (e.g., quantum teleportation , quantum error correction , entanglement swapping  and quantum computation ) in quantum information theory were developed for qubit systems with discrete quantum variables. Quantum information protocols (including quantum teleportation , quantum error correction , quantum computation  and entanglement swapping ) for continuous quantum variables have also been proposed very recently in parallel.

Another issue closely related to quantum entanglement is quantum nonlocality. Starting from local realism, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Based on Bohm’s  version of the EPR entangled states Bell derived his famous inequalities , enabling to test quantum mechanics against local reality . However, further studies of quantum nonlocality used mainly Bohm’s version  of the EPR states instead of the original EPR states with continuous degrees of freedom. In recent years, quantum nonlocality for position-momentum variables associated with the original EPR states was analyzed . In particular, violations of the Bell-type inequalities by the “regularized” EPR states produced in a pulsed nondegenerate optical parametric amplifier was experimentally observed by using homodyning with weak coherent fields and photon counting .

In connection with the applicability of quantum superposition principle on a macroscopic scale, Schrödinger  described a gedanken experiment, in which a cat is placed in a quantum superposition of being dead and alive while entangled with a single radioactive atom. The mesoscopic equivalents of the Schrödinger-cat states \[called hybrid entangled states (HES) in the subsequent discussion\] have been experimentally realized for a 9Be+ ion in traps  and atoms in high-$`Q`$ cavities . Particularly, in the trapped ion experiment , the HES were generated by entangling ion’s internal states ($`|,`$ in the terminology of spin-$`1/2`$ particles) with discrete spectrum and motional states with continuous spectrum:

$$|\mathrm{HES}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(||x_1+||x_2\right),$$
(1)
where the motional states $`|x_1`$ and $`|x_2`$ of the ion are two distinguishable wave packets of a harmonic oscillator and thus denote quantum states with continuous variables. For the atom-cavity system, the entanglement of the type (1) occurs between a microwave cavity field and an atom . These HES are of great theoretical interest in addressing some fundamental issues, such as decoherence and the quantum/classical boundary . The trapped-ion system is a strong candidate for quantum computation . In this paper we demonstrate the HES as a valuable resource in quantum information processing, building an interesting link between quantum information protocols of discrete and continuous variables. Quantum nonlocality of the HES is also analyzed by using the recently developed formulation .

For usual two-qubit (qubit-$`1`$ and qubit-$`2`$) systems, one can introduce the following Bell-basis spanned by the two-qubit states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|_1|_2\pm |_1|_2\right),`$ (2)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|_1|_2\pm |_1|_2\right).`$ (3)
The pairs of qubits are maximally entangled when they are in these states. An analogous Bell-basis spanned by four HES

$`|\psi _{1,2}^\pm \left(z\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|_1|z_{o2}\pm |_1|z_{e2}\right),`$ (4)
$`|\varphi _{1,2}^\pm \left(z\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|_1|z_{e2}\pm |_1|z_{o2}\right),`$ (5)
where $`|z_e`$ ($`|z_o`$) is the even (odd) coherent state defined in terms of the number states $`|n`$

$`|z_e`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cosh}\left|z\right|^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{2n}}{\sqrt{(2n)!}}}|2n,`$ (6)
$`|z_o`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sinh}\left|z\right|^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{2n+1}}{\sqrt{(2n+1)!}}}|2n+1.`$ (7)
The HES $`|\psi _{1,2}^\pm `$ and $`|\varphi _{1,2}^\pm `$ can be created, e.g., by properly tailoring laser pulses for the trapped-ion system . A crucial property of $`|\psi _{1,2}^\pm `$ and $`|\varphi _{1,2}^\pm `$ is that they have precisely the same amount of the entanglement entropy (one ebit) as the four Bell-basis states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}^\pm `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^\pm `$ for any $`z`$, as can be easily checked. Nevertheless, the HES are generally not maximally entangled for $`z0`$.

To uncover quantum nonlocality of the HES, one needs to consider whether or not they violate Bell’s inequalities . Here we show the violation of Bell’s inequality due to Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) by the HES . For this purpose, we can introduce the following “pseudospin” operators for a harmonic oscillator

$`s_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[|2n2n||2n+12n+1|\right],`$ (8)
$`s_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|2n2n+1|=(s_{})^{},`$ (9)
The operator $`s_z`$ is the parity operator $`(1)^N`$ ($`N`$ is the number operator), while $`s_+`$ and $`s_{}`$ are the “parity-flip” operators. Then the commutation relations

$$[s_z,s_\pm ]=\pm 2s_\pm ,[s_+,s_{}]=s_z$$
(10)
immediately follow from Eq. (9) and are identical to those of the spin-$`1/2`$ systems. Therefore pseudospin operators $`\widehat{𝐬}=(s_x,s_y,s_z)`$, where $`s_x\pm is_y=2s_\pm `$, have the same algebra as the spin operator $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. Let us define the following operator (the “Bell operator” )

$``$ $`=`$ $`(𝐚\widehat{\sigma })(𝐛\widehat{𝐬})+(𝐚\widehat{\sigma })(𝐛^{}\widehat{𝐬})`$ (12)
$`+(𝐚^{}\widehat{\sigma })(𝐛\widehat{𝐬})(𝐚^{}\widehat{\sigma })(𝐛^{}\widehat{𝐬}).`$
Here $`𝐚`$, $`𝐚^{}`$, $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐛^{}`$ are four unit vectors, e.g., $`𝐚=(\mathrm{sin}\theta _a,0,\mathrm{cos}\theta _a)`$ with $`\theta _a`$ being the “polar” angle of $`𝐚`$. Obviously, $`(𝐚\widehat{\sigma })^2=(𝐚^{}\widehat{\sigma })^2=I_{2\times 2}`$ and $`(𝐛\widehat{𝐬})^2=(𝐛^{}\widehat{𝐬})^2=I`$, where $`I_{2\times 2}`$ ($`I`$) is the identity operator in the Hilbert space of the discrete variable (continuous variable) states. This fact implies that eigenvalues of $`𝐚\widehat{\sigma }`$ and $`𝐛\widehat{𝐬}`$ are $`\pm 1`$, similarly to the usual spin-$`1/2`$ systems. Then local realistic theories impose the following Bell-CHSH inequality :

$$\left|\right|2,$$
(13)
where $``$ is the expectation value of $``$ with respect to a given quantum state of the present Schrödinger-cat-like system. Quantum mechanically, $`\left|\right|`$ is bounded by $`2\sqrt{2}`$, known as the Cirel’son bound .

Now we can calculate $``$ with respect to $`|\psi _{1,2}^\pm `$ and $`|\varphi _{1,2}^\pm `$. For example,

$`\varphi _{1,2}^+\left|\right|\varphi _{1,2}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\theta _b+K\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _b`$ (17)
$`+\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\theta _b^{}+K\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _b^{}`$
$`+\mathrm{cos}\theta _a^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _b+K\mathrm{sin}\theta _a^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _b`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _a^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _b^{}K\mathrm{sin}\theta _a^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _b^{},`$
where

$`K(z)`$ $``$ $`{}_{2e}{}^{}z\left|s_{2+}\right|z_{o2}^{}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}2z^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{4n+1}}{\sqrt{(2n)!(2n+1)!}}}<1,`$ (19)
and we have chosen $`z`$ to be positive without loss of generality. Setting $`\theta _a=0`$, $`\theta _a^{}=\pi /2`$ and $`\theta _b=\mathrm{tan}^1K=\theta _b^{}`$, we have

$$\varphi _{1,2}^+\left|\right|\varphi _{1,2}^+=2\sqrt{1+K^2}.$$
(20)
Similar results can be obtained for $`|\varphi _{1,2}^{}`$ and $`|\psi _{1,2}^\pm `$, indicating that the HES always violate the Bell-CHSH inequality (13). However the violation, which depends on the overlap between $`s_{2+}|z_{o2}`$ and $`|z_{e2}`$, is not maximal ($`K<1`$) unless $`z=0`$ \[$`K(z=0)=1`$\]. It is interesting to compare our result with Ref. , where a similar problem has been considered in a different route.

Now some remarks are in order. The above discussion on quantum nonlocality of the HES is applicable when the two parties involved in the HES are space-like separated. For the atom-cavity system, the requirement of the space-like separation between a microwave cavity field and an atom can be easily imposed. However, this is not the case for the trapped-ion system, where entanglement occurs between two different degrees of freedom of a single ion and as such, the space-like separation can not be achieved. Thus for the latter system, it will be more appropriate to consider quantum contextuality . Non-contextual hidden variable theories predict that the value of an observable is predetermined and thus independent on the experimental context, i.e., what other co-measurable observable is simultaneously measured, and whether or not the space-like separation condition is fulfilled. In fact, the HES for the trapped-ion system might be an alternative single-particle state that is suitable for testing the non-contextual hidden variable theories versus quantum mechanics. Other single-particle states for this purpose have been proposed in Ref. . There is also an issue on how to measure the pseudospin operators $`\widehat{𝐬}`$ experimentally. In Ref. , a generic, yet feasible, approach has been suggested for achieving this, though it is experimentally challenging.

As is now well known, the nonlocal correlations, as uncovered here for the HES, can be exploited to perform classically impossible tasks in the context of quantum information theory. But for the trapped-ion realization of the HES, quantum contextuality, rather than quantum nonlocality, might also be of practical importance for the quantum information tasks, as will become clear later.

Quantum teleportation is a process that transmits an unknown quantum state from a sender (Alice) to a receiver (Bob) via a quantum channel with the help of some classical information. For transmitting the unknown qubit state with fidelity $`1`$, the quantum channel is a maximally entangled state (e.g., $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}^+`$) . It can be the HES realized with either the atom-cavity system or the trapped-ion one in the present case. Here we propose a protocol using $`|\varphi _{2,3}^+`$ (one of the HES of the trapped-ion system) hold by Alice as the quantum channel to “teleport” an unknown spin state of another ion (initially hold also by Alice)

$$|\phi _1=\alpha |_1+\beta |_1$$
(21)
with $`\left|\alpha \right|^2+\left|\beta \right|^2=1`$. The initial state of the whole system before teleportation is therefore

$`|\phi _1|\varphi _{2,3}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^+(\alpha |z_{e3}+\beta |z_{o3})`$ (25)
$`+|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^{}(\alpha |z_{e3}\beta |z_{o3})`$
$`+|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}^+(\alpha |z_{o3}+\beta |z_{e3})`$
$`+|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}^{}(\alpha |z_{o3}\beta |z_{e3})].`$
Now, similarly to the original proposal , Alice performs the spin Bell-state measurement with four measurement outcomes ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^\pm `$, each with probability $`1/4`$). According to the standard quantum measurement theory, after her measurement, the motional state in the quantum channel must be one of the following four states

$`\alpha |z_{e3}+\beta |z_{o3},\alpha |z_{e3}\beta |z_{o3},`$ (26)
$`\alpha |z_{o3}+\beta |z_{e3},\alpha |z_{o3}\beta |z_{e3}.`$ (27)
In the case of the first outcome $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}^+`$, the state $`\alpha |z_{e3}+\beta |z_{o3}`$ has already been a replica of $`|\phi _1`$; but now the “parity state” $`|z_{e3}`$ ($`|z_{o3}`$) with parity $`+1`$ ($`1`$) plays the same role as the spin state $`|_3`$ ($`|_3`$). In the remaining three cases, Alice needs to perform one of the unitary operations $`(s_{3z},s_{3x},s_{3y})`$, yielding, respectively, $`\alpha |z_{e3}+\beta |z_{o3}`$, $`\alpha (s_{3+}|z_{o3})+\beta (s_3|z_{e3})`$, and $`i[\alpha (s_{3+}|z_{o3})+\beta (s_3|z_{e3})]`$. In this way Alice’s motional state in the quantum channel is converted into a replica of her spin state $`|\phi _1`$ (except for an irrelevant phase factor). Note here that $`s_{3+}|z_{o3}`$ ($`s_3|z_{e3}`$) has parity $`+1`$ ($`1`$) and thus plays again the same role as the spin state $`|_3`$ ($`|_3`$). The remaining three HES in Eq. (5) can also be used as the quantum channel.

The present teleportation protocol can be regarded as a realization of continuous variable qubit encoded in parity: Though the teleported state $`\alpha |z_{e3}+\beta |z_{o3}`$ has continuous spectrum, it carries the same information as a usual qubit when only parity measurement is performed. Such a qubit encoding for a single bosonic mode has been proposed in Ref. . It is also interesting to compare the present teleportation scheme to the “two-particle scheme” for quantum teleportation  when the HES of the trapped-ion system are used: Here the quantum channel consists of entanglement between two different degrees of freedom of a single ion.

Similarly to teleporting the spin state (21), Alice can also teleport an unknown state $`|\phi (z^{\prime \prime })_3=\alpha |z^{\prime \prime }_{e3}+\beta |z^{\prime \prime }_{o3}`$ of a continuous variable qubit via one of $`|\psi _{1,2}^\pm `$ and $`|\varphi _{1,2}^\pm `$, converting her state into (21). In this case, Alice needs to perform the “parity Bell-state measurement” collapsing her state into one of the four “parity Bell-basis” states:

$`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{1,2}^\pm (z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|z_{e1}|z^{}_{e2}\pm |z_{o1}|z^{}_{o2}\right),`$ (28)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1,2}^\pm (z,z^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|z_{e1}|z^{}_{o2}\pm |z_{o1}|z^{}_{e2}\right).`$ (29)
Any of $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{1,2}^\pm (z,z^{})`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{1,2}^\pm (z,z^{})`$ has one ebit of entanglement for any $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ and thus can be used to teleport one parity qubit. The parity Bell states (29) can be regarded as “entangled two-cat states” consisting of two macroscopically distinguishable wave packets. A related issue in this respect is the entangled coherent states .

Entanglement swapping is in fact teleportation of entanglement . Here we consider entanglement swapping between two HES $`|\varphi _{1,2}^{}\left(z\right)`$ and $`|\varphi _{3,4}^{}\left(z^{}\right)`$. In terms of the spin Bell-basis (3) and the parity Bell-basis (29), the initial state before entanglement swapping is

$`|\chi `$ $`=`$ $`|\psi _{1,2}^{}\left(z\right)|\psi _{3,4}^{}\left(z^{}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\right|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,3}^+|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{2,4}^+(z,z^{})|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,3}^{}|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{2,4}^{}(z,z^{})`$ (32)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,3}^+|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{2,4}^+(z,z^{})+|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,3}^{}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{2,4}^{}(z,z^{})].`$
By performing a joint spin Bell-state measurement, the discrete-variable state is projected onto one of the Bell states (3). This measurement automatically collapses the continuous-variable states into one of the parity Bell state (29). This entanglement swapping procedure can thus be regarded as producing the parity Bell state (29).

When the quantum channel is the HES of the atom-cavity system, the above protocol is still valid. But an crucial difference is that now both Alice and Bob are involved in the teleportation, as in the original quantum teleportation protocol. Thus, the quantum state transfer may be implemented with two distinct quantum channels. For the HES of the atom-cavity system, the quantum channel possesses nonlocal correlations that are essential for succeeding in quantum teleportation. However, for the trapped-ion realization of the HES, there is no quantum nonlocality, but quantum contextuality; in this case quantum “teleportation” is in fact the quantum state local (not remote) transfer. Actually, in the context of quantum information processing it is more important to consider the utility of quantum correlations , e.g., quantum nonlocality and quantum contextuality.

How practical are the present protocols on quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping? Here we consider this problem by taking the trapped-ion system as an example. For the purpose of high precision spectroscopy and frequency standard, preparation and manipulation of quantum states of the trapped ion system are a mature technology. The internal states of ions can be measured using the quantum jump technique with nearly $`100\%`$ detection efficiency . Recently, it has been shown  that we are able to deterministically generate all the spin Bell states (3), which can then be detected by resonance fluorescence shelving methods. Thus the present protocol of entanglement swapping should be realizable with current experimental technology. To implement perfect teleportation of the spin state (21) via the shared entanglement $`|\varphi _{2,3}^+`$, one needs to perform the local unitary operations $`(s_{3z},s_{3x},s_{3y})`$. But presently, how to practically realize these operations still remains an open question. Nevertheless, the teleportation protocol does succeed in teleporting (21) into the parity state $`\alpha |z_{e3}+\beta |z_{o3}`$ faithfully, or up to one of the local operations $`(s_{3z},s_{3x},s_{3y})`$. In the latter three cases, the output states are the transformed version of the desired parity qubits. Similarly to the analysis made in Ref. , this feature of the protocol might be potentially useful, e.g., in realizing the difficult-to-implement logic operations $`(s_z,s_x,s_y)`$.

The ions in traps are a promising system to implement quantum computing . In such a Cirac-Zoller quantum computer, the relevant motional states of ions are $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ only, approximately treating the harmonic oscillator as a two-level system. The teleportation protocol proposed in this work has realized the continuous variable parity qubits. This might motivate quantum computing with these parity qubits. Several essential components for this purpose have already been demonstrated in Ref. . These include the unitary construction of parity qubits, one and two qubit logical operations on the parity states and error correction of the qubits. The two-qubit (one is the usual qubit and the other is the parity qubit) logical operations is also possible . Thus it seems feasible that the trapped-ion system can be used to implement quantum computation on the hybrid (parity and spin) qubits.

Finally, we point out that the parity qubits, including these in quantum channels, are encoded by odd and even coherent states in our discussion. However there is, in principle, no reason to insist on such an encoding. In fact, one can also encode the parity qubits as $`|\mathrm{p}=\alpha |++\beta |`$, where $`|+`$ ($`|`$) denotes an arbitrary parity state with parity $`+1`$ ($`1`$). The complex probability amplitudes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ represent quantum information when only the parity measurement is concerned; the remaining unknown quantum information in $`|+`$ and $`|`$ is meaningful merely in continuous variable quantum protocols. When applied to the atom-cavity system, the proposed scheme might be useful in quantum information processing based on the quantum network consisting of many atom-cavities (“nodes”) connected by light field , whose parity states carry quantum information.

In summary, the HES have been shown to violate the Bell-CHSH inequality. Quantum nonlocality of the HES is thus uncovered. We then demonstrate the HES, each of which carries exactly one ebit of entanglement, as a valuable resource in quantum information processing, such as quantum teleportation, entanglement swapping and quantum computation over continuous variable parity qubits. Since the entanglement of the HES occurs between the states with both discrete spectrum and with continuous spectrum, our work establishes an interesting link between quantum information protocols of discrete and continuous variables.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 10104014, No. 19975043 and No. 10028406, and by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.


text:
# Inclusion-exclusion and Segre classes

## 1. Introduction

Notwithstanding their fundamental rôle in modern intersection theory (cf. \[Ful84\], Chapters 4 and 6), Segre classes remain a somewhat esoteric concept: with a few notable exceptions, they have been used more for foundational purposes than for actual computations of concrete intersection products. This is due to the effective inaccessibility of Segre classes: essentially no techniques are known to compute the Segre class $`s(Z,M)`$ of a scheme $`Z`$ in a scheme $`M`$, other than its raw definition; which is perhaps a little too close to the ideal of $`Z`$ for comfort, in almost every geometrically significant problem. The main virtue of the Segre class—that is, its sensitivity to the fine structure of $`Z`$—turns out being the main problem in handling it in concrete situations.

In this article we propose an a variation ($`s^{}(Z,M)`$, Definition 2.2) of the notion of Segre class of a subscheme $`Z`$ in a nonsingular variety $`M`$, by imposing on it an inclusion-exclusion principle, which makes $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ well-behaved with respect to naive set-theoretic operations. The class we define does not work as a Segre class in a definition of an intersection product, but shares with Segre classes several notable properties: our $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ agrees with $`s(Z,M)`$ if $`Z`$ is nonsingular; and behaves with respect to different embeddings of $`Z`$ in nonsingular varieties or to smooth maps in precisely the same way the ordinary Segre class would.

We collect these and other properties in Theorem 2.3. We find these observations very remarkable. First, it is very puzzling that the definition of $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ makes sense at all. The definition of $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ is given in terms of any collection of hypersurfaces cutting out $`Z`$, and consists of a rather complicated combination of conventional Segre classes. That the end-result should not depend on the choices of the hypersurfaces must amount to massive cancellations occurring among the Segre classes involved in the definition; to our knowledge, there is no direct explanation for these cancellations. Second, the definition turns out to only depend on the support of $`Z`$; given the sensitivity to scheme structure of ordinary Segre classes, we find this fact rather astonishing, again amounting to remarkable cancellations which must take into account and then eliminate the contributions of nilpotents to the class. We illustrate such ‘cancellations’ with a couple of simple examples; the reader is warmly invited to work out more complex ones.

Our perspective is that the properties listed in Theorem 2.3 must reflect some unknown and powerful features of ordinary Segre classes. We view Theorem 2.3 as ‘experimental evidence’ for these features, and the main purpose of this article is to advertise this evidence. With this understood, it is remarkable that Theorem 2.3 can be proved without uncovering or even being able to state precisely these features. In fact, the proof of Theorem 2.3 is essentially immediate once it is realized that $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ is closely tied to another important class, defined for all singular varieties. This relationship is exposed in Theorem 3.1; Theorem 2.3 follows easily from this.

Unfortunately, being able to prove something is not the same as understanding it. While we do prove Theorem 2.3, the properties of Segre classes which must be responsible for it remain just as unknown after the fact. We believe that establishing these properties would be exceedingly interesting. If Segre classes were computable objects, then a great many problems in enumerative geometry would become a routine exercise. Given the (unreasonable?) relevance of enumerative geometry in recent developments in algebraic geometry, clarifying the notion of Segre class seems a very worthwhile goal.

This goal seems to us largely unmet—with the exception of the seminal work of Steven Kleiman and his collaborators, in which Segre classes play an important part (cf. for example \[Kle94\] and \[KT96\]).

This is the first article in a series planned to explore ‘inclusion-exclusion’ phenomena in the theory of Segre classes. In \[Alu02\] we will propose a different variation on the theme of Segre classes, also satisfying an inclusion-exclusion principle, and yielding a simple computation of $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ in certain cases.

Acknowledgments I thank the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in Bonn, Germany, for the hospitality and support.

## 2. SM-Segre classes

Throughout this section, $`M`$ denotes a nonsingular variety (over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0, although this does not seem to be essential).

We will consider a proper subscheme $`Z`$ of $`M`$, and a finite family $`\{X_i\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},r}`$ of hypersurfaces cutting out $`Z`$ in $`M`$:

$$Z=X_1\mathrm{}X_r;$$

note that we are putting no restriction on $`r`$, and no other restrictions on the hypersurfaces (they may be nonreduced, there may be repetitions in the list, etc.). In fact, the requirement on the hypersurfaces will be further relaxed later on, cf. Remark 2.4.

For a hypersurface $`X`$, we define its SM-Segre class as follows111SM is supposed both to evoke the connection with Schwartz-MacPherson classes, which is the key to the main properties of the class, and the fact that we view this notion as a ‘smooting’ of the notion of conventional Segre class. Let $`Y`$ be the singularity subscheme of $`X`$, that is, the subscheme locally defined by the partial derivatives of a local generator for the ideal of $`X`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

The SM-Segre class of $`X`$ in $`M`$ is the class

$$s^{}(X,M)=s(X,M)+c(𝒪(X))^1(s(Y,M)^{}_M𝒪(X)).$$

This definition uses notations—e.g., for the tensor of a rational equivalence class by a line bundle—introduced in \[Alu94\], Def. 2; in more conventional (but less manageable) terms, the component of dimension $`m`$ in $`s^{}(X,M)`$ is

$$s(X,M)_m+(1)^{nm}\underset{j=0}{\overset{nm}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nm}{j}\right)X^js(Y,M)_{m+j}$$

where $`n=dimM`$; a formula that is reminiscent of classical residual intersection formulas (cf. \[Ful84\], Prop. 9.2). In \[Alu94\] and \[Alu99\] the class $`s^{}(X,M)`$ is denoted $`s(XY,M)`$; no analogs for schemes other than hypersurfaces were considered there.

As given in Definition 2.1, the SM-Segre class of a hypersurface $`X`$ lives naturally in the Chow group $`A_{}X`$ of $`X`$. In view of the upgrade to arbitrary subschemes $`Z`$ of $`M`$ that follows, however, it will be more natural to view it for the moment as an element of the Chow group $`A_{}M`$ of the ambient nonsingular variety. We will omit such evident push-forwards from our notations, as well as evident pull-backs.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`Z`$ be a proper subscheme of $`M`$, and let $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_r`$ be hypersurfaces cutting out $`Z`$:

(1)
$$Z=X_1\mathrm{}X_r.$$

Then the SM-Segre class of $`Z`$ in $`M`$ is obtained by applying inclusion-exclusion to the SM-Segre classes of the hypersurfaces $`X_i`$. Explicitly, we set

$$s^{}(Z,M)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}s^{}(X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s},M)A_{}M.$$

Here $`X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s}`$ is the hypersurface whose ideal is the product of the ideals of $`X_{i_1},\mathrm{},X_{i_s}`$ (so $`XXX`$!); but see Remark 2.4 below. Also, while we are defining the class in $`A_{}M`$ at this stage, Theorem 3.1 will imply that it is the image of class naturally defined on $`Z`$ itself; also cf. Remark 2.6.

The terminology inclusion-exclusion is adapted from the similar-looking formula for the number of elements in the intersection $`Z`$ of $`r`$ finite sets $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_r`$:

$$\mathrm{\#}Z=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}\mathrm{\#}(X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s});$$

this is immediately proved by induction on $`r`$.

Concerning Definition 2.2, the reader should now expect a proof that $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ does not depend on the specific choice of hypersurfaces cutting out $`Z`$. We isolate this and other properties of the definition in the following statement.

###### Theorem 2.3.

1. The definition of $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ is independent of the choices.
2. If $`Z_{\text{r}ed}`$ is the support of $`Z`$, then $`s^{}(Z,M)=s^{}(Z_{\text{r}ed},M)`$.
3. If $`Z`$ is nonsingular, then $`s^{}(Z,M)=s(Z,M)=c(N_ZM)^1[Z]`$.
4. If $`ZMM^{}`$, where $`M^{}`$ is a nonsingular variety and $`MM^{}`$ is a closed embedding, then

$$s^{}(Z,M^{})=c(N_MM^{})^1s^{}(Z,M).$$
5. If $`ZUM`$, where $`U\stackrel{j}{}M`$ is an open embedding, then $`s^{}(Z,U)=j^{}s^{}(Z,M)`$.
6. More generally: if $`p:M^{}M`$ is a smooth morphism, $`ZM`$ a subscheme, and $`Z^{}=p^1(Z)`$ its inverse image, then $`s^{}(Z^{},M^{})=p^{}s^{}(Z,M)`$.
7. The class $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ satisfies a full inclusion-exclusion principle, in the sense that if $`Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_r`$ are subschemes of $`M`$ such that $`Z=Z_1\mathrm{}Z_r`$, then

$$s^{}(Z,M)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}s^{}(Z_{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{i_s},M),$$

where $`Z_{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{i_s}`$ is the subscheme of $`M`$ whose ideal is the product of the ideals of $`Z_{i_1},\mathrm{},Z_{i_s}`$.

We are separating these statements from their Ursprung, which is Theorem 3.1 below, in the attempt to highlight them independently of our technical bias. Theorem 2.3 will follow from Theorem 3.1, but we strongly feel that these statements are of substantial independent interest, and call for a straightforward intersection-theoretic proof; with the exclusion of parts 5.-7., which are formal exercises (left to the reader), we do not know such a proof.

We delay the (rather anticlimatic) proof of Theorem 2.3 until the next section. The rest of this section is taken by several comments meant to further highlight the content of the theorem.

###### Remark 2.4.

By part 2., the equality (1) in Definition 2.2 need only hold set-theoretically. By the same token, we can in fact replace the unions $`X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s}`$ in that definition, or the union $`Z_{i_1}\mathrm{}Z_{i_s}`$ in part 7., by any other schemes supported on such unions (for example, we could take the ideals defined by the intersection of the ideals, rather than their product, or take radicals throughout). ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

In view of parts 3. and 4, it is consistent to define $`s^{}(M,M)=[M]`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.6.

The formulas in part 4. and 5., ruling the behavior of the SM-Segre class under different embeddings of $`Z`$, hold in precisely the same terms for the ordinary Segre class (this follows from \[Ful84\], Example 4.2.6(a)). In fact, part 4 suggests that $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ should be, up to a correction term $`c(TM)`$, a class intrinsic of $`Z`$ (and living in $`A_{}Z`$). This is precisely the case, as will follow from Theorem 3.1. ∎

###### Remark 2.7.

By part 3. and 5., if $`Z`$ is reduced then the difference between $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ and $`s(Z,M)`$ is supported within the singular locus $`Z_s`$ of $`Z`$. Indeed, letting $`U=MZ_s`$, the classes $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ and $`s(Z,M)`$ restrict (by part 5.) to the same (by part 3.) class in $`A_{}U`$, so the difference comes from $`A_{}Z_s`$ by \[Ful84\], Proposition 1.8. ∎

###### Remark 2.8.

The behavior of $`s^{}`$ under smooth morphisms, prescribed by part 6., also matches the behavior of conventional Segre classes. In fact, for Segre classes the same behavior extends to the more general case of flat maps, by \[Ful84\], Proposition 4.2(b); this is not so for SM-Segre classes. Another key property of Segre classes, that is, birational invariance (cf. Proposition 4.2(a) in \[Ful84\]) also does not hold for SM-Segre classes.

On the other hand, by part 2. of Theorem 2.3, the stated equality for SM-Segre classes under smooth morphisms holds as soon as $`Z^{}`$ equals $`p^1(Z)`$ set-theoretically; for the ordinary Segre class, this equality has to hold scheme-theoretically. ∎

To give a sense of what might go into a ‘direct argument’ as envisioned above, here is a direct proof of a very particular case of the innocuous-looking part 3.

###### Proof.

We will prove part 3. in the particular case in which $`Z`$ is the complete intersection of two transversal nonsingular hypersurfaces $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$. In this case, Definition 2.1 gives

$$s^{}(X_1,M)=\frac{[X_1]}{1+X_1},s^{}(X_2,M)=\frac{[X_2]}{1+X_2}$$

(where we employ the convenient shorthand $`\frac{[X]}{1+X}=[X][X^2]+[X^3]\mathrm{}=s(X,M)`$). As for $`X_1X_2`$, it is easily verified that $`Z`$ is itself the singularity subscheme of this hypersurface; hence

$`s^{}(X_1X_2,M)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{[X_1+X_2]}{1+X_1+X_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+X_1+X_2}}\left(s(Z,M)^{}𝒪(X_1+X_2)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{[X_1+X_2]}{1+X_1+X_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+X_1+X_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{[X_1X_2]}{(1X_1)(1X_2)}}𝒪(X_1+X_2)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{[X_1+X_2]}{1+X_1+X_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+X_1+X_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[X_1X_2]}{(1+X_2)(1+X_1)}}`$
where we have used Proposition 1 in \[Alu94\]. Thus, according to Definition 2.2:

$`s^{}(Z,M)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{[X_1]}{1+X_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{[X_2]}{1+X_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{[X_1+X_2]}{1+X_1+X_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+X_1+X_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[X_1X_2]}{(1+X_2)(1+X_1)}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{[X_1X_2]}{(1+X_1)(1+X_2)}}`$
by trivial formal manipulations. Since $`Z`$ is the complete intersection of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$, the right-hand-side is $`s(Z,M)`$, as prescribed by part 3 of Theorem 2.3. ∎

The whole of Theorem 2.3, especially the crucial parts 1. and 2., ought to have a similarly direct explanation, but none is available to us at this time. For Theorem 2.3 to hold, drastic cancellations (of which the simplifications occurring in the proof presented a moment ago must be the simplest instance) must be at work behind the scenes. This can be also be observed in any concrete computation of SM-Segre classes; we give two simple examples for illustration purposes.

###### Example 2.9.

The curve $`C`$ consisting of two lines meeting at a point in $`^3`$ can be realized as the intersection of a nonsingular quadric $`Q`$ and a tangent plane $`H`$. Applying the definition of SM-Segre classes (noting that $`Y=\mathrm{}`$ for a nonsingular hypersurface) gives

$$s^{}(H,^3)=s(H,^3)=[^2][^1]+[^0]$$

$$s^{}(Q,^3)=s(Q,^3)=2[^2]4[^1]+8[^0].$$

The singularity subscheme $`Y`$ of $`HQ`$ consists of the two lines, with an embedded point at the intersection point. A blow-up computation gives

$$s(Y,^3)=2[^1]4[^0]$$

yielding, according to Definition 2.1,

$$s^{}(HQ,^3)=3[]^27[]^1+13[^0].$$

Thus (Definition 2.2):

$`s^{}(C,^3)`$ $`=([^2][^1]+[^0])+(2[^2]4[^1]+8[^0])(3[]^27[]^1+13[^0])`$
$`=2[^1]4[^1].`$
On the other hand, $`C`$ is itself a hypersurface, in $`M^{}=^2`$, with singularity subscheme a point. By Definition 2.1,

$$s^{}(C,^2)=\frac{[C]}{1+C}+[^0]=2[^1]3[^0].$$

As prescribed by part 4. of Theorem 2.3,

$$s^{}(C,^3)=c(N_^2^3)^1s^{}(C,^2).$$

###### Example 2.10.

Now let $`C`$ be the subscheme defined by the homogeneous ideal $`(xy,x^2)`$ in $`^2`$; that is, a line with an embedded point. Thus, $`C`$ is the intersection of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$, where $`X_1`$ is a union of two lines, and $`X_2`$ is the double line with ideal $`(x^2)`$. By Example 2.9 we have

$$s^{}(X_1,^2)=2[^1]3[^0].$$

The singularity subscheme of $`X_2`$ consist of a (single) line, so Definition 2.1 gives

$`s^{}(X_2,^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{[X_2]}{1+X_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+X_2}}((s(^1,^2)^{}_^2(X_2))`$
$`=2[^1]4[^0]([^1]3[^0])=[^1][^0].`$
Next, $`X_1X_2`$ has ideal $`(x^3y)`$, hence its singularity subscheme has ideal $`(x^2y,x^3)`$. Computing (conventional) Segre classes and using again Definition 2.1 gives

$$s^{}(X_1X_2,^2)=2[^1]3[^0].$$

Thus

$$s^{}(C,^2)=(2[^1]3[^0])+([^1][^0])(2[^1]3[^0])=[^1][^0].$$

This is in agreement with parts 2. and 3. of Theorem 2.3: the support of $`C`$ is $`^1`$, hence

$$s^{}(C,^2)=s^{}(^1,^2)=s(^1,^2)=[^1][^0]$$

as obtained ‘by hand’.

## 3. The proof, and comments about Milnor classes

Theorem 2.3 can be proved rather indirectly, by applying one previous result and a piece of a well-established theory. Once more, our goal in this article is really to suggest that Theorem 2.3 ought to have a direct proof in terms of the theory of Segre classes, and that finding this argument would tell us something very interesting about Segre classes. Our proof does not shed much light in this direction.

We denote by $`c_{\text{SM}}`$ the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class, cf. \[Mac74\] (and \[Ken90\] for a treatment over an arbitrary algebraically closed field of characteristic 0).

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`Z`$ be a subscheme of a nonsingular variety $`M`$. Then

$$c_{\text{SM}}(Z_{\text{red}})=c(TM)s^{}(Z,M).$$

###### Proof.

The Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class satisfies inclusion-exclusion. Indeed, if

$$Z=X_1\mathrm{}X_n,$$

then one easily checks that

$$11_Z=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}11_{X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s}},$$

where $`11_X`$ denotes the constructible function which is 1 at points of $`X`$, and 0 outside of $`X`$; and note $`11_X=11_{X_{\text{red}}}`$ trivially. Applying MacPherson’s natural transformation gives then

$$c_{\text{SM}}(Z_{\text{red}})=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}(1)^{s1}\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}c_{\text{SM}}((X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_s})_{\text{red}})$$

in $`A_{}M`$. This observation reduces the statement of the theorem to the case in which $`Z`$ is a hypersurface in a nonsingular variety, which is shown in \[Alu99\] (Theorem I.1 and Corollary II.2). ∎

Theorem 2.3 follows immediately as a corollary; the details are left to the reader.

We also note that since $`s^{}(Z,M)=c(TM)^1c_{\text{SM}}(Z_{\text{red}})`$, it follows that $`s^{}(Z,M)`$ is naturally the image of a class in $`A_{}Z`$, although this is far from clear from Definition 2.2 (cf. Remark 2.6).

We end with comments regarding the so-called Milnor class of a scheme.

Theorem 3.1 writes the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class in a way that the informed reader will recognize immediately as a companion to the definition of an intrinsic class given by William Fulton (cf. \[Ful84\], 4.2.6 for the definition of this class and of a kindred notion, the Fulton-Johnson class): if $`Z`$ is a subscheme of a nonsingular variety $`M`$, Fulton’s class is defined by

$$c_F(Z)=c(TM)s(Z,M).$$

According to several authors, but with slightly different conventions of sign and context, the Milnor class measures the difference between the Chern-Schwartz-MacPherson class of a variety and other classes such as Fulton’s or Fulton-Johnson’s. Determining this discrepancy has been identified as a Verdier-Riemann-Roch type problem, cf. \[Yok99\]. The hypersurface case is rather well understood, cf. \[PP01\]; complete intersections are treated in \[BLSS99\] and in the recent \[Sch\].

Our viewpoint on the problem is perhaps a little different from the one taken by these authors. For us, the Milnor class of $`Z`$ should be measured by a Segre-class type of invariant defined on the singularity subscheme of $`Z`$; in fact our motivation in pursuing any such formula is precisely to learn something new about Segre classes. In this sense, the problem seems wide open for anything but hypersurfaces.

In the context of the present article, the relevant remark is the following consequence of Theorem 3.1: the Milnor class of a reduced scheme $`Z`$ embedded in a nonsingular variety $`M`$ is (up to sign)

$$c(TM)m(Z,M),$$

where

$$m(Z,M):=s^{}(Z,M)s(Z,M).$$

Note that the class $`m(Z,M)`$ is localized on the singularities of $`Z`$ (see Remark 2.7).

From our perspective, the main problem in the study of Milnor classes is the explicit determination of $`m(Z,M)`$ in terms of conventional intersection-theoretic operations.

###### Example 3.2.

If $`X`$ is a hypersurface, with singularity subscheme $`Y`$, then

$$m(X,M)=c(𝒪(X))^1(s(Y,M)^{}_M𝒪(X)).$$

This formula, now incorporated in the definition of $`s^{}`$, is the main result of \[Alu94\] and \[Alu99\]. Similarly explicit formulas for $`m(Z,M)`$ for more general $`Z`$, in terms of Chern/Segre-class type invariants of the singularity subscheme of $`Z`$, would be highly desirable. To our knowledge, it is not even known whether $`m(Z,M)`$—and hence the Milnor class of $`Z`$—is determined by the singularity subscheme of $`Z`$; even when $`Z`$ is a complete intersection of codimension 2.