### November 27, 2006

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 32H35, 32C25.
<ph f="cmbx">Proper discs in </ph> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>q</mi> </math> <ph f="cmbx">-convex manifolds</ph>

### Barbara Drinovec Drnovšek

Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail address : Barbara.Drinovec@fmf.uni-lj.si
• Abstract. Let $X$  be a $q$  -complete complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2$  with $1\le q\le n-1$  . We prove that there are proper holomorphic discs in $X$  through any given point.

1 Introduction and the results

Denote by $△$  the open unit disc in $\mathbb{C}$  . Let $X$  be a complex manifold and let $U$  be an open subset of $X$  . We will always assume that manifolds are connected. We say that a function $\rho \in {C}^{\infty }\left(U,\mathbb{R}\right)$  is q-convex if its Levi form has at every point of $U$  at most $q-1$  nonpositive $\left(\le 0\right)$  eigenvalues. A manifold $X$  is called $q$  -convex if there exists an exhaustion function on $X$  which is $q$  -convex outside a compact subset $K$  of $X$  , and is called $q$  -complete if $K$  may be taken to be the empty set. The survey [Colgives a list of examples (with references) and some open questions concerning $q$  -convexity.
It is known that for any point $p$  in a Stein manifold $X$  of dimension at least $2$  there is a proper holomorphic map $f:△\to X$  such that $f\left(0\right)=p$  [Glo, FG1. Note that Stein manifolds are precisely the $1$  -complete manifolds.
We extend the above result to $q$  -complete manifolds for $2\le q\le n-1$  .
Theorem 1.1. Let $X$  be a $q$  -complete complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2$  with $1\le q\le n-1$  . Given $p\in X$  there is a proper holomorphic map $f:△\to X$  such that $f\left(0\right)=p$  .
It is a consequence of our theorem and of Remmert proper mapping theorem that every $q$  -complete manifold contains many $1$  -dimensional complex analytic subvarieties. There are examples of $q$  -complete manifolds for $q>1$  without nonconstant holomorphic functions (e.g. complements of certain complex analytic submanifolds in compact complex manifolds; see examples in [BS, Col). So one may ask whether there exist any subvarieties of dimension bigger than one in a general $q$  -complete manifold ( $q>1$  ). Is there a bound on the dimension of subvarieties in a general $q$  -complete manifold?
The conclusion of the theorem is not valid for $n$  -complete manifolds, where $n$  equals the dimension of the manifold. Indeed, in [FG1the authors constructed for every $n\ge 2$  a smoothly bounded domain $D\subset \subset \mathbb{C}n$  and a point $p\in D$  such that there is no proper holomorphic map $f:△\to D$  with $p\in f\left(△\right)$  . Since every noncompact $n$  -dimensional complex manifold is $n$  -complete [GWwe get the desired example for which the conclusion of Theorem  1.1 fails.
A. Dor [Dorproved that there exists a bounded domain $\Omega$  in ${\mathbb{C}}^{n}$  $\left(n\ge 2\right)$  such that there is no proper holomorphic mapping from the unit disc to $\Omega$  .
Our main result is the following theorem, which easily implies Theorem  1.1 .
Theorem 1.2. Let $X$  be a $\left(n-1\right)$  -convex complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2$  and assume that $\rho :X\to \mathbb{R}$  is an exhaustion function which is $\left(n-1\right)$  -convex in $\left\{\rho >M\right\}$  for some $M\in \mathbb{R}$  . Let $d$  be a complete metric on $X$  which induces the manifold topology.
Given $\varepsilon >0$  , $0  , and a continuous map $f:\overline{△}\to X$  such that $\rho \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)>M$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  there is a proper holomorphic map $g:△\to X$  such that
• (i) $d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\varepsilon$  for $|\zeta |  ,
• (ii) $g\left(0\right)=f\left(0\right)$  .
In the proof we shall push the boundary of a given analytic disc in $X$  outside a given sublevel set of $\rho$  . Since our manifold does not necessarily lie in Euclidean space, we are not able to do this by adding a suitable polynomial map as it was done in [Glo. Instead we use convex bumps. At the first step we push the boundary outside the given sublevel set union one bump. At the next step the boundary will lie outside the sublevel set union two bumps. These bumps are constructed in such a way that they fill the space between two level sets of $\rho$  . In a finite number of steps the boundary of the disc lies outside the bigger sublevel set.
In section  2 we prove that we can push the boundary of a given holomorphic disc along a continuous family of small holomorphic discs attached to the boundary; these small discs are not constant only in a fixed coordinate neighborhood. To do this we first apply [Glo,Lemma5.1locally and then we glue our initial holomorphic disc with corrected holomorphic discs, which all lie in the given coordinate neighborhood. In this construction we obtain a smooth disc with small $\overline{\partial }$  derivative, with the boundary where it is supposed to be, and it is “restricted”. It is a result of J.-P. Rosay [Ro1that one can approximate restricted discs with small $\overline{\partial }$  derivative by holomorphic discs.
In section  3 we construct convex bumps which provide the continuous family of holomorphic discs, and for this family we use the result from section  2 .
We prove Theorem  1.2 in section  4 .

2 The main lemma

The following lemma, which holds for any complex manifold of dimension at least two, is the main tool in the inductive construction of a proper holomorphic disc. The proof depends on an approximation result for almost holomorphic discs by holomorphic ones due to J.-P. Rosay [Ro1.
Lemma 2.1. Let $X$  be a complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2$  endowed with a Riemannian metric, which induces the distance function $d$  on $X$  . Assume that $\Omega \subset \subset X$  is an open set, which is biholomorphic to an open convex set in $\mathbb{C}n$  , and ${\Omega }_{0}\subset \subset \Omega$  . Let $f$  be a holomorphic map from a neighborhood of $\overline{△}$  to $X$  . Let $K$  be a compact subset of $X$  and $r$  , $0  , such that $K\cap \Omega =\varnothing$  and $f\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  . Assume that $H:b△×\overline{△}\to X$  is a continuous map with the following properties
• (i) for each $\zeta \in b△$  the map $\eta ↦H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)$  is holomorphic on $△$  ,
• (ii) $H\left(\zeta ,0\right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  ,
• (iii) if for some $\zeta \in b△$  we have $f\left(\zeta \right)/\in {\Omega }_{0}$  then $H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  ,
• (iv) if for some $\zeta \in b△$  we have $f\left(\zeta \right)\in {\Omega }_{0}$  then $H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)\in \Omega$  $\left(\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  .
Given $\varepsilon >0$  there is a continuous map $g:\overline{△}\to X$  , holomorphic on $△$  , such that
• (i') $d\left(H\left(\zeta ,b△\right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\varepsilon$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  ,
• (ii') $d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\varepsilon$  $\left(\zeta \in r\overline{△}\right)$  ,
• (iii') $g\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  ,
• (iv') $f\left(0\right)=g\left(0\right)$  .
• Proof. Choose a biholomorphic map $\Phi$  from $\Omega$  to a convex subset of $\mathbb{C}n$  and choose an open set ${\Omega }_{1}$  such that ${\Omega }_{0}\subset \subset {\Omega }_{1}\subset \subset \Omega$  , $\Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right)$  is convex and $H\left({f}^{-1}\left({\overline{\Omega }}_{0}\right),\overline{△}\right)\subset {\Omega }_{1}$  . Denote by $\mathbb{B}$  the unit ball in $\mathbb{C}n$  .
There is $\alpha >0$  so small that  $\begin{array}{ccc}\Phi \left(H\left({f}^{-1}\left({\overline{\Omega }}_{0}\right),\overline{△}\right)\right)+\alpha \mathbb{B}\subset \Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right)\text{, and}& & \end{array}$ (1)
 $\begin{array}{ccc}\text{if}z,{z}^{\prime }\in \Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right),|z-{z}^{\prime }|<\alpha \text{, then}d\left({\Phi }^{-1}\left(z\right),{\Phi }^{-1}\left({z}^{\prime }\right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}.& & \end{array}$ (2)
By decreasing $\varepsilon >0$  if necessary we may assume that  $\begin{array}{ccc}d\left(K,f\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\right)>\varepsilon \text{and}d\left(K,{\Omega }_{1}\right)>\varepsilon .& & \end{array}$ (3)
By a slight perturbation of ${\overline{\Omega }}_{0}$  one can assume that the set ${f}^{-1}\left({\overline{\Omega }}_{0}\right)\cap b△$  is at most finite union of disjoint closed arcs. Denote these arcs by $\left\{{I}_{j}{\right\}}_{j\in \mathcal{J}}$  where $\mathcal{J}$  is finite and where ${I}_{j}$  are pairwise disjoint. For each ${I}_{j}$  one can find a smooth simple closed curve ${\Gamma }_{j}\subset \overline{△}\r\overline{△}$  such that ${\Gamma }_{j}\cap b△$  is a neighborhood of ${I}_{j}$  in $b△$  and ${\Gamma }_{j}$  are pairwise disjoint. Choose an open arc ${J}_{j}$  such that ${I}_{j}\subset {J}_{j}\subset {\Gamma }_{j}\cap b△$  . Each ${\Gamma }_{j}$  bounds a domain ${D}_{j}\subset △\r\overline{△}$  , which is conformally equivalent to the unit disc. Since $f\left({I}_{j}\right)\subset {\Omega }_{0}$  one can choose ${\Gamma }_{j}$  in such a way that, in addition to the above, we have $f\left({\overline{D}}_{j}\right)\subset {\Omega }_{1}$  $\left(j\in \mathcal{J}\right)$  .
Choose a homeomorphic map ${h}_{j}$  from $\overline{△}$  to ${\overline{D}}_{j}$  , which is holomorphic on $△$  , and let ${V}_{j}=\overline{△}\\left\{t{h}_{j}^{-1}\left(\zeta \right);\zeta \in {I}_{j},t\in \left[0,1\right]\right\}$  . Let ${\chi }_{j}:\overline{△}\to \left[0,1\right]$  be a smooth function such that $suppd{\chi }_{j}\subset {h}_{j}\left({V}_{j}\right)$  , ${\chi }_{j}|{I}_{j}\equiv 1$  and ${\chi }_{j}$  equals $0$  in some neighborhood of ${\Gamma }_{j}\{J}_{j}$  in $\overline{△}$  .
By assumption there is $\rho >1$  such that $f$  is holomorphic on $\rho △$  . Choose ${\rho }^{\prime }$  , $1<{\rho }^{\prime }<\rho$  . Define the map $\stackrel{~}{f}:\rho △\to X×\mathbb{C}$  by $\stackrel{~}{f}\left(\zeta \right)=\left(f\left(\zeta \right),\zeta \right)$  .
Note that $\stackrel{~}{f}$  is a holomorphic embedding (not proper), so there is an open neighborhood ${\stackrel{~}{\Omega }}_{2}$  of $\stackrel{~}{f}\left({\rho }^{\prime }△\right)$  in $X×\mathbb{C}$  and a biholomorphic map from ${\stackrel{~}{\Omega }}_{2}$  onto a bounded open subset of ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$  (see [Roy,[LS,[Ro2,Lemma1.1). One can choose a compact neighborhood ${\stackrel{~}{K}}_{2}$  of $\stackrel{~}{f}\left(\overline{△}\right)$  in ${\stackrel{~}{\Omega }}_{2}$  . Let ${\stackrel{~}{\Omega }}_{1}=\Omega ×3△$  and ${\stackrel{~}{K}}_{1}={\overline{\Omega }}_{1}×2\overline{△}$  . By construction the sets ${\stackrel{~}{\Omega }}_{1}$  and ${\stackrel{~}{\Omega }}_{2}$  are biholomorphic to open sets in ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$  . For each $j\in \mathcal{J}$  one can choose a neighborhood ${D}_{j}^{\prime }$  of ${\overline{D}}_{j}$  in $\rho △$  such that ${D}_{j}^{\prime }$  are pairwise disjoint and $f\left({D}_{j}^{\prime }\right)\subset {\Omega }_{1}$  . Denote by ${U}_{1}$  the union ${\cup }_{j}{D}_{j}^{\prime }$  and by ${U}_{2}$  the set ${\rho }^{\prime }△\\overline{{\cup }_{j}{D}_{j}}$  . Note that open sets ${U}_{1}$  and ${U}_{2}$  satisfy $\overline{△}\subset {U}_{1}\cup {U}_{2}$  .
We endow the manifold $X×\mathbb{C}$  by the Riemannian metric $〈\left({t}_{x},{t}_{z}\right),\left({t}_{x}^{\prime },{t}_{z}^{\prime }\right)〉=〈{t}_{x},{t}_{x}^{\prime }〉+〈{t}_{z},{t}_{z}^{\prime }〉\left({t}_{x},{t}_{x}^{\prime }\in {T}_{x}X,{t}_{z},{t}_{z}^{\prime }\in {T}_{z}\mathbb{C}\right).$  This Riemannian metric induces a distance function $\stackrel{~}{d}$  on $X×\mathbb{C}$  such that $d\left(x,{x}^{\prime }\right)\le \stackrel{~}{d}\left(\left(x,z\right),\left({x}^{\prime },{z}^{\prime }\right)\right)$  for $x,{x}^{\prime }\in X,z,{z}^{\prime }\in \mathbb{C}$  .
We call a map $\stackrel{~}{u}:△\to X×\mathbb{C}$  restricted if $\stackrel{~}{u}\left({U}_{j}\cap △\right)\subset {\stackrel{~}{K}}_{j}$  $\left(j=1,2\right)$  .
By [Ro1,Proposition1there is $\delta >0$  such that for any restricted map $\stackrel{~}{u}:△\to X×\mathbb{C}$  with $|\overline{\partial }\stackrel{~}{u}\left(\zeta \right)|\le \delta$  there is a holomorphic map $\stackrel{~}{v}:△\to X×\mathbb{C}$  such that $\stackrel{~}{d}\left(\stackrel{~}{u}\left(\zeta \right),\stackrel{~}{v}\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  $\left(\zeta \in △\right)$  and $\stackrel{~}{u}\left(0\right)=\stackrel{~}{v}\left(0\right)$  .
For each $j\in \mathcal{J}$  define the map ${H}_{j}:{\Gamma }_{j}×\overline{△}\to X$  by ${H}_{j}\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in {I}_{j},\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  and ${H}_{j}\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in {\Gamma }_{j}\{I}_{j},\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  . Property (iii) implies that ${H}_{j}$  is continuous, and by (i) ${H}_{j}$  is holomorphic in the second variable. By ( 1 ) and as $f\left({\overline{D}}_{j}\right)\subset {\Omega }_{1}$  there is an ${\alpha }_{j}$  , $0<{\alpha }_{j}<\alpha$  , so small that  $\begin{array}{c}\Phi \left({H}_{j}\left({\Gamma }_{j},\overline{△}\right)\right)+{\alpha }_{j}\mathbb{B}\subset \Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right).\end{array}$ (4)
Let ${c}_{j}=max\left\{|\overline{\partial }{\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)|;\zeta \in \overline{△}\right\}\cdot max\left\{||\left({\Phi }^{-1}{\right)}^{\prime }\left(z\right)||;z\in \Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right)\right\},$  where $||\left({\Phi }^{-1}{\right)}^{\prime }\left(z\right)||$  denotes the operator norm of the differential of ${\Phi }^{-1}$  in the given pair of metrics. Using [Glo,Lemma5.1for the map ${G}_{j}\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=\Phi \left({H}_{j}\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)\right)-\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)$  $\left(\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)\in {\Gamma }_{j}×\overline{△}\right)$  we get the map ${P}_{j}$  on ${\overline{D}}_{j}$  such that the map ${\phi }_{j}:{\overline{D}}_{j}\to \mathbb{C}n$  , defined by ${\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)={P}_{j}\left(\zeta \right)+\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)$  $\left(\zeta \in {\overline{D}}_{j}\right)$  , is continuous, holomorphic on ${D}_{j}$  , and  $\begin{array}{ccc}{\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\in \Phi \left({H}_{j}\left(\zeta ,b△\right)\right)+\alpha \mathbb{B}\left(\zeta \in {\Gamma }_{j}\right),& & \end{array}$ (5)
 $\begin{array}{ccc}{\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\in \Phi \left({H}_{j}\left({\Gamma }_{j},\overline{△}\right)\right)+{\alpha }_{j}\mathbb{B}\left(\zeta \in {\overline{D}}_{j}\right),& & \end{array}$ (6)
 $\begin{array}{ccc}|{\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)-\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)|<\frac{\delta }{{c}_{j}}\left(\zeta \in {h}_{j}\left({V}_{j}\right)\right).& & \end{array}$ (7)
Note that by ( 4 ) and ( 6 ) we get ${\phi }_{j}\left({\overline{D}}_{j}\right)\subset \Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right)$  . Since $\Phi \left({\Omega }_{1}\right)$  is convex, we can glue these maps and the map $\Phi \circ f$  together by taking $u\left(\zeta \right)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}{\Phi }^{-1}\left({\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right){\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)+\left(1-{\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)\right)& \zeta \in {\overline{D}}_{j},\\ f\left(\zeta \right)& \zeta \in \overline{△}\{\cup }_{j}{D}_{j}.\end{array}$  By the properties of ${\chi }_{j}$  and ${D}_{j}$  the map $u$  is a smooth map from the closed unit disc to $X$  . Note that $u\left({D}_{j}^{\prime }\cap △\right)\subset {\Omega }_{1}$  . For $\zeta \in △\{\cup }_{j}{D}_{j}$  the map $u$  equals $f$  and since $f$  is holomorphic, it follows that $\overline{\partial }u\left(\zeta \right)=0$  . For $\zeta \in {\overline{D}}_{j}\cap {h}_{j}\left({V}_{j}\right)$  we have $|\overline{\partial }u\left(\zeta \right)|\le {c}_{j}|{\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)-\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)|,$  which is less than $\delta$  by ( 7 ). Take $\zeta \in {\overline{D}}_{j}\{h}_{j}\left({V}_{j}\right)$  . Since $d{\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)=0$  and the maps ${\phi }_{j}$  and $f$  are holomorphic, it follows that $\overline{\partial }u\left(\zeta \right)=0$  . Therefore we have obtained $|\overline{\partial }u\left(\zeta \right)|\le \delta$  $\left(\zeta \in △\right)$  . Let $\stackrel{~}{u}\left(\zeta \right)=\left(u\left(\zeta \right),\zeta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in △\right)$  . It is easy to see that $\stackrel{~}{u}$  is a restricted map from $△$  to $X×\mathbb{C}$  . It follows by the above that $|\overline{\partial }\stackrel{~}{u}\left(\zeta \right)|\le \delta$  $\left(\zeta \in △\right)$  . Therefore there is a holomorphic map $\stackrel{~}{g}$  from $△$  to $X×\mathbb{C}$  such that $\stackrel{~}{d}\left(\stackrel{~}{u}\left(\zeta \right),\stackrel{~}{g}\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  $\left(\zeta \in △\right)$  and $\stackrel{~}{u}\left(0\right)=\stackrel{~}{g}\left(0\right)$  . Denote by $\Pi :X×\mathbb{C}\to X$  the canonical projection to the first factor. As it was noted above we get $d\left(u\left(\zeta \right),\left(\Pi \circ \stackrel{~}{g}\right)\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  $\left(\zeta \in △\right)$  .
Since $u$  is uniformly continuous on $\overline{△}$  we may choose $R$  , $r  , so close to $1$  that $d\left(u\left(R\zeta \right),u\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  for each $\zeta \in \overline{△}$  . The map $g\left(\zeta \right)=\left(\Pi \circ \stackrel{~}{g}\right)\left(R\zeta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in \overline{△}\right)$  is continuous, holomorphic on $△$  , and by the above we obtain  $\begin{array}{c}d\left(g\left(\zeta \right),u\left(\zeta \right)\right)\le d\left(\left(\Pi \circ \stackrel{~}{g}\right)\left(R\zeta \right),u\left(R\zeta \right)\right)+d\left(u\left(R\zeta \right),u\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{2\varepsilon }{3}\left(\zeta \in \overline{△}\right).\end{array}$ (8)
To prove (i') choose $\zeta \in b△$  . If $\zeta \in {I}_{j}$  then it follows by the properties of ${\chi }_{j}$  and by ( 5 ) and ( 2 ) that $d\left(u\left(\zeta \right),H\left(\zeta ,b△\right)\right)=d\left({\Phi }^{-1}\left({\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\right),{H}_{j}\left(\zeta ,b△\right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  . If $\zeta \in {J}_{j}\{I}_{j}$  then $H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  and by ( 5 ) it holds that $|{\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right){\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)+\left(1-{\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\right)\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)-\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)|=|{\chi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\left({\phi }_{j}\left(\zeta \right)-\Phi \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)\right)|\le \alpha$  and by ( 2 ) we obtain $d\left(u\left(\zeta \right),H\left(\zeta ,b△\right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  . If $\zeta \in b△\{\cup }_{j}{J}_{j}$  then $d\left(u\left(\zeta \right),H\left(\zeta ,b△\right)\right)=d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),f\left(\zeta \right)\right)=0$  . So we have $d\left(u\left(\zeta \right),H\left(\zeta ,b△\right)\right)<\frac{\varepsilon }{3}$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  , which by ( 8 ) proves (i'). As $f$  equals $u$  outside the sets ${D}_{j}$  , which all lie in $\overline{△}\r△$  , ( 8 ) implies (ii'). For $\zeta \in \overline{△}\\left({\cup }_{j}{D}_{j}\cup r△\right)$  we have $u\left(\zeta \right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  ; therefore ( 8 ) implies that $d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\varepsilon$  which by ( 3 ) gives $g\left(\zeta \right)/\in K$  . Take $\zeta \in {D}_{j}$  for some $j\in \mathcal{J}$  . Then $u\left(\zeta \right)\in {\Omega }_{1}$  and ( 8 ) together with ( 3 ) implies that $g\left(\zeta \right)/\in K$  . This proves (iii'). It is easy to see that (iv') holds and the proof is complete.

3 Convex bumps

We will construct convex bumps introduced by Grauert (see [HL) in order to provide a continuous family of analytic discs, which is needed to use Lemma  2.1 in the inductive proof of Theorem  1.2 .
Definition 3.1. $\left[U,\rho ,\phi ,D\right]$  will be called a convex $q$  -convex configuration in $\mathbb{C}n$  if the following hold:
• (i) $U$  is open convex in $\mathbb{C}n$  , and $\phi :U\to \mathbb{R}$  is a convex ${\mathcal{C}}^{2}$  function such that the sublevel set $\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0\right\}$  is nonempty and relatively compact in $U$  ,
• (ii) $\rho :U\to \mathbb{R}$  is strictly convex in the first $\left(n-q+1\right)$  coordinates, i.e., for any $p\in U$  the restriction of $\rho$  to the slice $\left\{z\in U;{z}_{n-q+2}={p}_{n-q+2},{z}_{n-q+3}={p}_{n-q+3},\dots ,{z}_{n}={p}_{n}\right\}$  is strictly convex,
• (iii) $d\rho \wedge d\phi \ne 0$  for $z\in U$  with $\rho \left(z\right)=\phi \left(z\right)=0$  , and
• (iv) $D=\left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)<0,\phi \left(z\right)<0\right\}$  is neither empty nor equal to $\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0\right\}$  .
Sometimes we shall write only $\left[U,\rho ,\phi \right]$  to denote a convex $q$  -convex configuration.
Remark. Note that this definition differs from the definition of $q$  -convex configuration [HL,Definition7.4in (ii); we assume that $\rho$  is strictly convex with respect to the first $n-q+1$  coordinates instead of normalized $q$  -convex.
This implies that $\rho$  does not have any critical points in $U$  . Moreover, if $\rho$  is $q$  -convex and if ${z}_{0}$  is a regular point of $\rho$  then by [HL,Theorem4.6there is a biholomorphic change of coordinates $\Phi$  from a neighborhood $V$  of ${z}_{0}$  to a neighborhood of $0$  in $\mathbb{C}n$  such that $\Phi \left({z}_{0}\right)=0$  and the restriction of $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  to $\Phi \left(V\right)\cap \left\{{z}_{n-q+2}=0,\dots ,{z}_{n}=0\right\}$  is strictly convex. This implies that for any $p$  small enough it holds that $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  restricted to $\Phi \left(V\right)\cap \left\{{z}_{n-q+1}={p}_{n-q+1},\dots ,{z}_{n}={p}_{n}\right\}$  is strictly convex. Therefore an analogue of [HL,Lemma7.5holds for convex $q$  -convex configurations:
Lemma 3.2. Let $\rho$  be a $q$  -convex function on a complex manifold $X$  . Then for any point $p\in X$  , which is a regular point of $\rho$  , there exist holomorphic coordinates $\Phi :V\to \mathbb{C}n$  in some neighborhood of $p$  such that $\Phi \left(V\right)$  is the open unit ball, $\Phi \left(p\right)=0$  , and for $0  , $\left[\Phi \left(V\right),\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1},|z{|}^{2}-{r}^{2}\right]$  defines a convex $q$  -convex configuration.
Definition 3.3. Given domains ${A}_{1}$  , ${A}_{2}$  , $V$  in $X$  we say that $\left[{A}_{1},{A}_{2},V\right]$  is a convex $q$  -convex extension element if
• (i) ${A}_{1}\subset {A}_{2}$  ,
• (ii) ${A}_{2}\{A}_{1}\subset \subset V\subset \subset X$  ,
• (iii) there exist convex $q$  -convex configurations
$\left[{U}_{j},{\rho }_{j},{\phi }_{j},{D}_{j}\right]$  in $\mathbb{C}n$  $\left(j=1,2\right)$  such that $U={U}_{1}={U}_{2}$  , $\phi ={\phi }_{1}={\phi }_{2}$  and for some biholomorphic map $\Psi$  from $U$  to a neighborhood of $\overline{V}$  where $V=\Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0\right\}\right)$  we have $V\cap {A}_{j}=\Psi \left({D}_{j}\right)$  , $\left(j=1,2\right)$  .
Remark. This definition differs from the definition of $q$  -convex extension element [HL,Definition12.2in part (iii) where we use convex $q$  -convex configurations instead of $q$  -convex configurations. The following lemma is [HL,Lemma12.3.
Lemma 3.4. Let $X$  be a complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2$  and let $1\le q\le n-1$  . Let $D\subset \subset G\subset \subset X$  be two domains with $bD$  compact and let $\rho$  be a $q$  -convex function without degenerate critical points in a neighborhood $U$  of $\overline{G\D}$  such that $D\cap U=\left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)<0\right\}$  and $G\cap U=\left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)<1\right\}$  and $\rho$  does not have local minima in $U$  .
Then there exists a finite number of domains $D={A}_{0}\subset {A}_{1}\subset \cdots \subset {A}_{m}=G$  such that ${A}_{j}$  can be obtained from ${A}_{j-1}$  by means of a $q$  -convex extension element.
Moreover, for any open covering $\left\{{U}_{i}{\right\}}_{i\in I}$  of $X$  these domains ${A}_{j}$  can be in addition chosen such that for each $j$  , $1\le j\le n$  , there are an index $i\in I$  and $V\subset \subset {U}_{i}$  such that $\left[{A}_{j-1},{A}_{j},V\right]$  is a $q$  -convex extension element.
Remark. Let $\left\{{U}_{i}{\right\}}_{i\in I}$  be an open covering of $X$  and assume that for some $i$  there exist a biholomorphic map ${\Phi }_{i}:{U}_{i}\to {\Phi }_{i}\left({U}_{i}\right)\subset \mathbb{C}n$  and a convex map ${\phi }_{i}:{\Phi }_{i}\left({U}_{i}\right)\to \mathbb{R}$  such that $\left[{\Phi }_{i}\left({U}_{i}\right),\rho \circ {\Phi }_{i}^{-1},{\phi }_{i}\right]$  is a convex $q$  -convex configuration. Since strict convexity is preserved by small perturbations we get with almost no change in the proof that the domains ${A}_{j}$  can be in addition chosen in such a way that the $q$  -convex extension element $\left[{A}_{j-1},{A}_{j},V\right]$  with $V\subset {U}_{i}$  is in fact a convex $q$  -convex extension element. Lemma  3.2 implies the following: if $\rho$  does not have any critical points in $\overline{G\D}$  then all $q$  -convex extension elements can be in addition chosen to be convex $q$  -convex extension elements.
Lemma 3.5. Let $X$  be a complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2$  , equipped with some metric $d$  and let $1\le q\le n-1$  . Let $\left[{A}_{1},{A}_{2},V\right]$  be a convex $q$  -convex extension element and let $K$  be a compact subset of ${A}_{1}$  such that $V\cap K=\varnothing$  . Assume that $f:\overline{△}\to X$  is a continuous map, holomorphic on $△$  , such that $f\left(b△\right)\cap {A}_{1}=\varnothing$  , and $r$  , $0  , such that $f\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  . Given $\varepsilon >0$  there is a continuous map $g:\overline{△}\to X$  , holomorphic on $△$  , with the following properties
• (i) $g\left(b△\right)\cap {A}_{2}=\varnothing$  ,
• (ii) $d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\varepsilon$  $\left(|\zeta |\le r\right)$  ,
• (iii) $g\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  ,
• (iv) $f\left(0\right)=g\left(0\right)$  .
• Proof. Note that we may assume that $f$  is holomorphic in a neighborhood of $\overline{△}$  .
Since $\left[{A}_{1},{A}_{2},V\right]$  is a convex $q$  -convex extension element we have that ${A}_{1}\subset {A}_{2}$  , ${A}_{2}\{A}_{1}\subset \subset V\subset \subset X$  and there exist convex $q$  -convex configurations $\left[{U}_{j},{\rho }_{j},{\phi }_{j},{D}_{j}\right]$  in $\mathbb{C}n$  $\left(j=1,2\right)$  such that $U={U}_{1}={U}_{2}$  , $\phi ={\phi }_{1}={\phi }_{2}$  and for some biholomorphic map $\Psi$  from $U$  to a neighborhood of $\overline{V}$  where $V=\Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0\right\}\right)$  we have $V\cap {A}_{j}=\Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0,{\rho }_{j}\left(z\right)<0\right\}\right)$  , $\left(j=1,2\right)$  . We can choose $\lambda >0$  so small that $f\left(b△\right)\cap \Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0,{\rho }_{1}\left(z\right)<\lambda \right\}\right)=\varnothing$  and the set ${V}_{0}=\Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0,{\rho }_{1}\left(z\right)>\lambda ,{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)<\lambda \right\}\right)$  is relatively compact in $V$  .
Fix $\mu$  , $0\le \mu \le 1$  . The function $\mu \left({\rho }_{1}-\lambda \right)+\left(1-\mu \right)\left({\rho }_{2}-\lambda \right)$  is defined on $U$  and it is strictly convex in the first two coordinates. Choose a point $q\in \left\{z\in U;\phi \left(z\right)<0,{\rho }_{1}\left(z\right)>\lambda ,{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)<\lambda \right\}$  and write $q=\left({q}_{1},{q}_{2},{q}^{\prime \prime }\right)$  .
There is exactly one $\mu$  , $0\le \mu \le 1$  , such that $\mu \left({\rho }_{1}\left(q\right)-\lambda \right)+\left(1-\mu \right)\left({\rho }_{2}\left(q\right)-\lambda \right)=0$  . Denote by ${M}_{\mu ,{q}^{\prime \prime }}$  the set $\left\{\left({z}_{1},{z}_{2},{q}^{\prime \prime }\right)\in U;\mu \left({\rho }_{1}\left({z}_{1},{z}_{2},{q}^{\prime \prime }\right)-\lambda \right)+\left(1-\mu \right)\left({\rho }_{2}\left({z}_{1},{z}_{2},{q}^{\prime \prime }\right)-\lambda \right)=0\right\}$  . Note that ${M}_{\mu ,{q}^{\prime \prime }}$  is a real submanifold of dimension $3$  in $\mathbb{C}2×\left\{{q}^{\prime \prime }\right\}$  . Denote by ${T}_{q}{M}_{\mu ,{q}^{\prime \prime }}$  its real tangent space at $q$  . The intersection ${E}_{q}={T}_{q}{M}_{\mu ,{q}^{\prime \prime }}\cap ı{T}_{q}{M}_{\mu ,{q}^{\prime \prime }}$  is a complex line. By strict convexity the intersection of $\left\{q\right\}+{E}_{q}$  with $\left\{z\in U;{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)=\lambda \right\}$  is a bounded connected convex subset of $\left\{q\right\}+{E}_{q}$  therefore it is conformally equivalent to the unit disc. If we vary $q$  smoothly these convex sets vary smoothly. Therefore with a proof similar to the proof of [Glo,Lemma4.1we get the following.
Sublemma. Let $I$  be a closed arc. Given a continuous map $\gamma :I\to \left\{z\in U;{\rho }_{1}\left(z\right)>\lambda ,{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)\le \lambda \right\}$  there is a continuous map ${H}_{\gamma }:I×\overline{△}\to X$  such that
• (a) for each $\zeta \in I$  the map ${H}_{\gamma }\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)$  is holomorphic in $\eta$  ,
• (b) ${H}_{\gamma }\left(\zeta ,0\right)=\gamma \left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in I\right)$  ,
• (c) ${H}_{\gamma }\left(I,\overline{△}\right)\subset \left\{z\in U;{\rho }_{1}\left(z\right)>\lambda ,{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)\le \lambda \right\}$  ,
• (d) ${\rho }_{2}\left({H}_{\gamma }\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)\right)=\lambda$  $\left(\zeta \in I,\eta \in b△\right)$  .
We note that if ${\rho }_{2}\left(\gamma \left(\zeta \right)\right)=\lambda$  then ${H}_{\gamma }\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=\gamma \left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  . By patching up the maps $\Psi \circ {H}_{\gamma }$  one gets a continuous map $H:b△×△\to X$  such that
• (a') for each $\zeta \in b△$  the map $H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)$  is holomorphic in $\eta$  ,
• (b') $H\left(\zeta ,0\right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  ,
• (c') if for some $\zeta \in b△$  we have $f\left(\zeta \right)/\in V$  then $H\left(\zeta ,\eta \right)=f\left(\zeta \right)$  $\left(\eta \in \overline{△}\right)$  ,
• (d') if for some $\zeta \in b△$  we have $f\left(\zeta \right)\in V$  then $H\left(\zeta ,\overline{△}\right)\subset V$  .
Take ${\varepsilon }_{0}$  , $0<{\varepsilon }_{0}<\varepsilon$  , so small that  $\begin{array}{ccc}d\left(\Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)=\lambda ,{\rho }_{1}\left(z\right)\ge \lambda \right\}\right),\Psi \left(\left\{z\in U;{\rho }_{2}\left(z\right)\le 0\right\}\right)\right)>{\varepsilon }_{0}.& & \end{array}$ (9)
Now we use Lemma  2.1 to get the map $g$  such that
• (i') $d\left(H\left(\zeta ,b△\right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<{\varepsilon }_{0}$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  ,
• (ii') $d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<{\varepsilon }_{0}$  $\left(\zeta \in r\overline{△}\right)$  ,
• (iii') $g\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  ,
• (iv') $f\left(0\right)=g\left(0\right)$  .
Properties (ii), (iii) and (iv) follow from (ii'), (iii') and (iv'). By ( 9 ), (d) and (i') we get (i).

4 Proof of Theorem  1.2

If $dimX=2$  then the function $\rho$  is strictly plurisubharmonic in the set $\left\{\rho >M\right\}$  and in this case theorem was proved in [Glo,[FG2,Theorem1.1.
Therefore from now on we only need to treat the case $dimX\ge 3$  .
Lemma 4.1. Let $X$  be a complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$  and let $1\le q\le n-1$  . Let $U\subset \subset X$  and let $\rho :U\to \mathbb{R}$  be a $\left(n-q+1\right)$  -convex function such that $\left\{z\in U;a\le \rho \left(z\right)\le b\right\}\subset \subset U$  . Assume that $\rho$  has at most one critical point in $\left\{z\in U;a\le \rho \left(z\right)\le b\right\}$  and if $p$  is a critical point of $\rho$  then $a<\rho \left(p\right)  . Let $K$  be a compact subset of $X$  such that $K\cap U=\varnothing$  . Assume that $f:\overline{△}\to X$  is a continuous map, holomorphic on $△$  , such that $f\left(b△\right)\subset \left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)>a\right\}$  and choose $r$  , $0  , such that $f\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  . Given $\varepsilon >0$  there exists a continuous map $g:\overline{△}\to X$  , holomorphic on $△$  , with the following properties
• (i) $g\left(b△\right)\subset \left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)>b\right\}$  ,
• (ii) $d\left(f\left(\zeta \right),g\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\varepsilon$  $\left(|\zeta |\le r\right)$  ,
• (iii) $g\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  ,
• (iv) $f\left(0\right)=g\left(0\right)$  .
• Proof. If $\rho$  does not have any critical points in the set $\left\{z\in U;a\le \rho \left(z\right)\le b\right\}$  then we proceed as follows. By Lemma  3.4 and by the remark following the lemma there exist finitely many domains $\left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)  such that ${A}_{j}$  can be obtained from ${A}_{j-1}$  by means of a convex $q$  -convex extension element. Now we obtain the map $g$  by using Lemma  3.5  $m$  times where each time we push the boundary of the disc to the complement of the set ${A}_{j}$  .
Now assume that $p$  is a critical point of $\rho$  with $a<\rho \left(p\right)  . It is enough to prove the lemma in the case $q=n-1$  . By a small perturbation of $\rho$  in the neighborhood of $p$  we may in addition assume that $p/\in f\left(b△\right)$  . If $p$  is a local minimum then the boundary of the disc already lies above the critical level set and we proceed in the same way as if there were no critical points.
Therefore from now on we may assume that $p$  is not a local minimum. We can choose a biholomorphic change of coordinates $\Phi$  from a neighborhood of $p$  to a neighborhood $V$  of $0$  in $\mathbb{C}n$  such that $\Phi \left(p\right)=0$  and $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}|V$  is strictly plurisubharmonic in the first two coordinates. Denote by $L$  the complex $2$  -dimensional subspace generated by ${z}_{1},{z}_{2}$  . Let ${V}_{0}\subset \subset V$  be a neighborhood of $0$  . Then for every small perturbation ${L}^{\prime }$  of $L$  and for each $z\in {V}_{0}$  the map $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  is strictly plurisubharmonic on $\left(z+{L}^{\prime }\right)\cap {V}_{0}$  . Therefore one can choose three complex linear subspaces ${L}_{1}$  , ${L}_{2}$  and ${L}_{3}$  in $\mathbb{C}n$  such that ${L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2}\cap {L}_{3}=\left\{0\right\}$  and for each $j$  , $1\le j\le 3$  , and for $z\in {V}_{0}$  the map $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  is strictly plurisubharmonic on $\left(z+{L}_{j}\right)\cap {V}_{0}$  . There is a $\delta >0$  so small that $\left\{z\in \mathbb{C}n;dist\left(z,{L}_{j}\right)<\delta ,1\le j\le 3\right\}\subset \subset {V}_{0}$  . Denote this set by ${V}_{1}$  . By taking smaller $\delta$  if necessary we may assume that $f\left(b△\right)\cap {V}_{1}=\varnothing$  .
For each $w\in \left\{z\in U;a\le \rho \left(z\right)\le b\right\}\{\Phi }^{-1}\left({V}_{0}\right)$  we can choose a coordinate neighborhood ${U}_{w}$  , a biholomorphic map ${\Phi }_{w}:{U}_{w}\to {\Phi }_{w}\left({U}_{w}\right)\subset \mathbb{C}n$  and a convex map ${\phi }_{w}:{\Phi }_{w}\left({U}_{w}\right)\to \mathbb{R}$  such that $\left[{\Phi }_{w}\left({U}_{w}\right),\rho \circ {\Phi }_{w}^{-1},{\phi }_{w}\right]$  is a convex $\left(n-1\right)$  -convex configuration. We can further assume that ${U}_{w}\subset \subset U\{\Phi }^{-1}\left({V}_{1}\right)$  .
For each $w\in {\Phi }^{-1}\left({V}_{0}\\left\{z\in \mathbb{C}n;dist\left(z,{L}_{j}\right)<\frac{\delta }{2},1\le j\le 3\right\}\right)$  there is $j$  , $1\le j\le 3$  , such that $dist\left(\Phi \left(w\right),{L}_{j}\right)\ge \frac{\delta }{2}$  . By the above $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  is strictly plurisubharmonic on $\left(\Phi \left(w\right)+{L}_{j}\right)\cap {V}_{0}$  . Hence there is a biholomorphic change of coordinates on $\Phi \left(w\right)+{L}_{j}$  near $\Phi \left(w\right)$  such that in the new coordinates $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  is strictly convex on $\Phi \left(w\right)+{L}_{j}$  near $\Phi \left(w\right)$  . Since strict convexity is preserved by small perturbations it follows that there is a neighborhood ${U}_{w}$  of $w$  in $X$  such that $\rho \circ {\Phi }^{-1}$  is strictly convex in the new coordinates on $\left(\Phi \left(z\right)+{L}_{j}\right)\cap \Phi \left({U}_{w}\right)$  for each $z\in {U}_{w}$  . By construction the small tangent discs corresponding to $\Phi \left(z\right)$  along which we lift in Lemma  3.5 lie in $\Phi \left(z\right)+{L}_{j}$  .
Denote by ${U}_{p}$  the set ${\Phi }^{-1}\left(\left\{z\in \mathbb{C}n;dist\left(z,{L}_{j}\right)<\frac{\delta }{2},1\le j\le 3\right\}\right)$  . Now we use Lemma  3.4 together with the remark following the lemma for the covering $\left\{{U}_{p}\right\}\cup \left\{{U}_{w};w\in U,a\le \rho \left(w\right)\le b,w/\in {U}_{p}\right\}$  to get a finite number of domains $\left\{z\in U;\rho \left(z\right)  such that for each $j$  , $1\le j\le m$  , there is a set ${U}_{w}$  from the covering such that ${A}_{j}\{A}_{j-1}\subset {U}_{w}$  and if $w\ne p$  then ${A}_{j}$  can be obtained from ${A}_{j-1}$  by means of a convex $q$  -convex extension element.
We construct the map $g$  inductively. At each step we construct a continuous map ${f}_{j}:\overline{△}\to U$  , holomorphic on $△$  , with the following properties
• (a) ${f}_{j}\left(\overline{△}\r△\right)\cap K=\varnothing$  ,
• (b) ${f}_{j}\left(b△\right)\cap \left({\overline{U}}_{p}\cup {A}_{j}\right)=\varnothing$  ,
• (c) $d\left({f}_{j}\left(\zeta \right),f\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{j}{m}\varepsilon$  $\left(|\zeta |\le r\right)$  ,
• (d) ${f}_{j}\left(0\right)=f\left(0\right).$
Let ${f}_{0}=f$  and note that ${f}_{0}$  satisfies all the properties. Assume that we have already constructed the map ${f}_{j}$  with the properties (a), (b), (c) and (d) for some $j$  , $0\le j\le m-1$  . If ${A}_{j+1}\{A}_{j}\subset {U}_{p}$  then we put ${f}_{j+1}={f}_{j}$  . Then ${f}_{j+1}$  obviously satisfies (a), (c) and (d). The property (b) follows from the fact that ${A}_{j+1}\{A}_{j}\subset {U}_{p}$  and that the map ${f}_{j}$  satisfies (b). Otherwise, if ${A}_{j+1}\{A}_{j}\subset {U}_{w}$  , $w\ne p$  , then we use Lemma  3.5 for the convex $q$  -convex extension element $\left[{A}_{j-1},{A}_{j},{U}_{w}\right]$  to get the map ${f}_{j+1}$  . The fact that ${f}_{j+1}\left(b△\right)$  misses ${\overline{U}}_{p}$  follows from the properties of the covering; if $\Phi \left({U}_{w}\right)$  misses ${V}_{1}$  then obviously ${f}_{j+1}\left(b△\right)$  misses ${\overline{U}}_{p}$  . Otherwise, there is $j$  , $1\le j\le 3$  , such that $dist\left(\Phi \left({U}_{w}\right),{L}_{j}\right)\ge \frac{\delta }{2}$  . By (b) the boundary of the disc does not intersect ${\overline{U}}_{p}$  therefore at each boundary point $\zeta \in b△$  we have $dist\left(\Phi \left({f}_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\right),{L}_{j}\right)>\delta$  .
The family of small tangent discs along which we lift the boundary of the disc ${f}_{j}$  lies at each boundary point ${f}_{j}\left(\zeta \right)$  in the local coordinates in the plane $\Phi \left({f}_{j}\left(\zeta \right)\right)+{L}_{j}$  . Therefore if the perturbation constants are small enough it holds that $dist\left(\Phi \left({f}_{j+1}\left(\zeta \right)\right),{L}_{j}\right)>\delta$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  . This proves (b).
The properties (a), (b) and (d) are easily satisfied. The construction is finished. The map $g={f}_{m}$  has all the required properties and the proof is complete.
• Proof of Theorem  1.2 . By Morse theory ([HL,Observation4.15and [HL,Proposition0.5) we get an exhaustion function $\rho$  of class ${\mathcal{C}}^{\infty }$  without degenerate critical points and ${M}^{\prime }$  such that $\rho$  is $\left(n-1\right)$  -convex on $\left\{\rho >{M}^{\prime }\right\}$  and such that for $\zeta \in b△$  it holds that $\rho \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)>{M}^{\prime }$  . We may additionally assume that there is only one critical point on each critical level set.
Choose an increasing sequence ${a}_{j}$  of regular values of $\rho$  , converging to $\infty$  and such that $\rho \left(f\left(\zeta \right)\right)>{a}_{1}$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  and for each $j\in \mathbb{N}$  there is at most one critical value on $\left({a}_{j},{a}_{j+1}\right)$  . Choose a decreasing sequence ${\varepsilon }_{j}>0$  such that  $\begin{array}{c}z\in X,\rho \left(z\right)\le {a}_{j},w\in X,d\left(z,w\right)\le {\varepsilon }_{j}\text{then}|\rho \left(z\right)-\rho \left(w\right)|<1.\end{array}$ (10)
Using Lemma  4.1 one can construct inductively a sequence of continuous maps ${f}_{n}:\overline{△}\to X$  , holomorphic on $△$  , and an increasing sequence ${r}_{n}$  of positive numbers converging to $1$  , such that for each $n$  ,
• (a) $\rho \left({f}_{n}\left(\zeta \right)\right)>{a}_{n}$  $\left(\zeta \in b△\right)$  ,
• (b) $\rho \left({f}_{n}\left(\zeta \right)\right)>{a}_{n-1}-1$  $\left({r}_{n}\le |\zeta |\le 1\right)$  ,
• (c) $d\left({f}_{n}\left(\zeta \right),{f}_{n-1}\left(\zeta \right)\right)<\frac{{\varepsilon }_{n}}{{2}^{n}}$  $\left(|\zeta |\le {r}_{n}\right)$  ,
• (d) ${f}_{n}\left(0\right)=f\left(0\right)$  .
By (c) the sequence ${f}_{n}$  converges uniformly on compacta on $△$  and the limit map $g$  is holomorphic on $△$  . By (d) we obtain that $g\left(0\right)=f\left(0\right)$  . Suppose $n\in \mathbb{N}$  and ${r}_{n}\le |\zeta |\le {r}_{n+1}$  . Then we get by (c) that $|{f}_{n}\left(\zeta \right)-g\left(\zeta \right)|\le |{f}_{n}\left(\zeta \right)-{f}_{n+1}\left(\zeta \right)|+|{f}_{n+1}\left(\zeta \right)-{f}_{n+2}\left(\zeta \right)|+\cdots$  $\le \frac{{\varepsilon }_{n+1}}{{2}^{n+1}}+\frac{{\varepsilon }_{n+2}}{{2}^{n+2}}+\cdots <{\varepsilon }_{n}.$  If $\rho \left(g\left(\zeta \right)\right)\le {a}_{n}$  then this together with (b) and ( 10 ) implies that $\rho \left(g\left(\zeta \right)\right)>{a}_{n-1}-2$  $\left({r}_{n}\le |\zeta |\le {r}_{n+1}\right)$  . Since ${lim}_{n\to \infty }{r}_{n}=1$  and since ${lim}_{n\to \infty }{a}_{n}=\infty$  , it follows that $g$  is a proper map. This completes the proof.
Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thank F. Forstnerič for useful discussions while working on this paper. She would also like to thank J. Globevnik, S. Strle and J. Winkelmann for helpful remarks.
This research has been supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Slovenia through research program Analysis and Geometry, Contract No. P1-0291 and research project No. J1-6173-0101-04. References

1. D. Barlet, A. Silva, Convexité holomorphe intermediaire, Math. Ann. 296 (1993), 649–665.
2. M. Colţ oiu, $Q$  -convexity. A survey, Complex analysis and geometry (Trento, 1995), 83–93, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., 366, Longman, Harlow, 1997.
3. A. Dor, A domain in ${\mathbb{C}}^{m}$  not containing any proper image of the unit disc, Math. Z. 222 (1996) 615–625.
4. F. Forstnerič, J. Globevnik, Discs in pseudoconvex domains, Comment. Math. Helvetici 67 (1992), 129–145.
5. F. Forstnerič, J. Globevnik, Proper holomorphic discs in $\mathbb{C}2$  , Math. Res. Lett. 8 (2001), 257–274.
6. J. Globevnik, Discs in Stein manifolds, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 49 (2000), 553–574.
7. R. E. Greene, H. Wu, Embedding of open Riemannian manifolds by harmonic functions, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 25 (1975), 215–235.
8. G. M. Henkin, J. Leiterer, Andreotti-Grauert theory by integral formulas, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1988.
9. L. Hörmander, An introduction to complex analysis in several variables, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1973.
10. F. Lárusson, R. Sigurdsson, Plurisubharmonic functions and analytic discs on manifolds, J. Reine Angew. Math. 501 (1998), 1–39.
11. J.-P. Rosay, Approximation of non-holomorphic maps, and Poletsky theory of discs, J. Korean Math. Soc. 40 (2003), 423–434.
12. J.-P. Rosay, Poletsky theory of disks on holomorphic manifolds, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 (2003), 157–169.
13. H. L. Royden, The extension of regular holomorphic maps, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 43 (1974), 306–310.

Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail address : Barbara.Drinovec@fmf.uni-lj.si