Abstract

This survey is about irreducibility for germs of a holomorphic functions
$f$
. I will show that when the dimension of the domain
$U$
of this holomorphic function
$f$
is greater than 2, the irreducibility of germs are not necessary to be stable.
That means, if the germ of
$f$
at point
$p$
is irreducible in the stalk of holomorphic functions at
$p$
, this does NOT means there exists an open neighborhood
$V\subset U$
of this point
$p$
, such that for any point
$q\in V$
, the germ of
$f$
at
$q$
is irreducible at the stalk of holomorphic functions at
$q$

1 Introduction

Let
$U$
be an open set in C
${}^{n}$
which contains 0,
$f$
be a holomorphic function defined on
$U$
,
${f}_{p}$
is the germ of
$f$
at point
$p\in U$
.

For any two holomorphic functions
$g,h$
defined on
$U$
,if
${g}_{0},{h}_{0}$
are relatively prime with each other, then with the help of resultants, we know that
$g,h$
are relatively prime with each other nearby. Precisely to say, that means their exists an open neighborhood
$V\subset U$
of 0, such that for any point
$q\in V$
,
${g}_{q}$
and
${h}_{q}$
are relatively prime with each other. In this sense, we can say that Being co-prime is a stable property.

Can we say Irreducibility is a stable property?In the case of dimension 2, the answer is positive, and the proof is easy. But in the case of dimension 3, I will present a polynomial as counter-example.

2 Proof for the Case of Dimension 2

Statement: For any holomorphic function
$f=f({z}_{1},{z}_{2})$
on
$U\subset $
C
${}^{2}$
(
$0\in U$
), and the germ of f at origin is irreducible, then their exists an open neighborhood
$V\subset U$
of 0, such that for any point
$q\in V$
,
${f}_{q}$
is irreducible.(Remark:If
$f\left(p\right)\ne 0$
, the
$f$
is irreducible at
$p$
. So we only need to care about zero points of
$f$
.) Proof: Without the loss of generality, we can assume
$f(0,{z}_{2})$
is not identically 0 near the origin, and
$f(0,0)=0$
.

let
$w={z}_{2}^{d}+{e}_{1}\left({z}_{1}\right){z}_{2}^{d-1}+\cdots +{e}_{d-1}\left({z}_{1}\right)+{e}_{d}\left({z}_{1}\right)$
be a Weierstrass polynomial of
$f$
near 0.

Because
$w$
is irreducible at 0, so
$w$
and
$\frac{\partial w}{\partial {z}_{2}}$
are relatively prime near 0. Then the resultant of
$w$
and
$\frac{\partial w}{\partial {z}_{2}}$
is not zero. Then the common zero loci of
$w$
and
$\frac{\partial w}{\partial {z}_{2}}$
are discrete near 0.

From above, we know that their exists an open set
$V(0\in V\subset U)$
, such that in
$\mathbf{U}$
, (0,0) is the only zero point of
$w$
which is POSSIBLE to be singular.(since for other points in
$q\in U$
,
$\frac{\partial w}{\partial {z}_{2}}\left(p\right)\ne 0$
).We can conclude that at any zero point
$p(p\ne 0)$
of
$w$
in
$V$
,
$w$
is a local complex parameter near
$p$
. Since
$w$
is a local complex parameter near
$p$
, then the germ of
$w$
at
$p$
is irreducible.

Finally, because
$w$
is a Weierstrass polynomial of
$f$
at 0, then we know that in
$V$
, the irreducibility of
$f$
is as the same as t that of
$w$
.
$\square $

3 A Counter Example in Dimension 3

In the case of dimension 3, the statement should be:

Statement: For any holomorphic function
$f=f({z}_{1},{z}_{2},{z}_{3})$
on
$U\subset $
C
${}^{3}$
(
$0\in U$
), and the germ of f at origin is irreducible, then their exists an open neighborhood
$V\subset U$
of 0, such that for any point
$q\in V$
,
${f}_{q}$
is irreducible.

But unfortunately, this statement is not true.In this section, I will present, a polynomial of three variables, as a counter example.

This polynomial is
$f={z}_{3}^{2}-{z}_{1}{z}_{2}^{2}$
.

3.1 Irreducibility of $f$ at origin

Obviously, near 0,
$f$
is a Weierstrass polynomial of itself(we choose
${z}_{3}$
as the polynomial variable).Now, we will show the irreducibility at origin by means of contradiction.

If
$f$
is not irreducible at origin, then its Weierstrass polynomial is decomposable at origin as a Weierstrass Polynomial.Assume that,near origin,
$f=({z}_{3}-{g}_{(}{z}_{1},{z}_{2})\left)\right({z}_{3}-h({z}_{1},{z}_{2}))$
, here
$g,h$
are holomorphic functions of variable
${z}_{1},{z}_{2}$
near 0, and g(0,0)=h(0,0)=0.

From the factorization
$f=({z}_{3}-{g}_{(}{z}_{1},{z}_{2})\left)\right({z}_{3}-h({z}_{1},{z}_{2}))$
, we know that
$g+h=0,gh=-{z}_{1}{z}_{2}^{2}$
, which implies
${g}^{2}={z}_{1}{z}_{2}^{2}$
near 0.

But if
${g}^{2}={z}_{1}{z}_{2}^{2}$
near 0. Then for some
$\varepsilon \in $
C whose norm is small enough,
${g}^{2}({z}_{1},\varepsilon )={\varepsilon}^{2}{z}_{1}$
near 0. But just from elementary knowledge of functions of one complex variable, we know this is not possible.

From argument above, we know
$f$
is irreducible at origin.

3.2 Further Argument

At point
$p=(z,0,0)(z\ne 0)$
, we know that
$f\left(p\right)=0$
, and easily we can factorize
$f$
as
$f=({z}_{3}+{z}_{2}r)({z}_{3}-{z}_{2}r)$
near
$p$
, here
$r$
is a one-variable holomorphic function such that
${r}^{2}={z}_{1}$
near
$(z,0,0)$
(Because z is not 0, so we can take square-root of
${z}_{1}$
near by.).

From the argument in 3.2, we know that, in any neighborhood
$U$
of origin, there EXISTS some point
$p$
such that
$f$
is not irreducible at
$p$
. This fact can destroy our statement at the beginning of this section.