LOG-RIEMANN SURFACES K. Biswas, R. P´erez-Marco * Table of contents. Introduction: Motivations and contents. I. Geometric theory of log-Riemann surfaces. I.1) Definition of log-Riemann surfaces. I.1.1) Definition. I.1.2) Examples I.2) Euclidean metric and ramification points. I.2.1) Definition. I.2.2) Ramification points. I.2.3) Log-euclidean geometry and charts. I.2.3.1) Preliminaries. I.2.3.2) Constructions of charts. I.2.3.3) Other applications. I.2.3.4) The Kobayashi-Nevanlinna net. I.3) Topology of log-Riemann surfaces. I.3.1) The skeleton. I.3.2) Skeleton and fundamental group. I.4) Ramified coverings. I.4.1) Ramified coverings and formal Riemann surfaces. arXiv:1512.03776v1 [math.CV] 11 Dec 2015 I.4.2) Ramified coverings and log-Riemann surfaces. I.4.3) Ramified coverings of formal Riemann surfaces. I.4.4) Universal covering of log-Riemann surfaces. I.4.5) Ramified coverings and degree. I.5) Ramification surgery. I.5.1) Grafting of ramification points. I.5.2) Pruning of ramification points. * CNRS, LAGA, UMR 7539, Universit´eParis 13, France. 1 II. Analytic theory of log-Riemann surfaces. II.1) Type of log-Riemann surfaces. II.1.1) General facts. II.1.2) Kobayashi-Nevanlinna criterium. II.2) Boundary behaviour of the universal cover. II.3) Caratheodory theorem for log-Riemann surfaces. II.3.1) Kernel convergence. II.3.2) Caratheodory theorem. II.3.3) Conformal radius. II.3.4) Closure of algebraic log-Riemann surfaces. II.3.5) Stolz continuity. II.3.6) Functions holomorphic at ramification points. II.3.7) General Weierstrass theorem. II.4) Quasi-conformal theory of log-Riemann surfaces. II.4.1) Complex automorphisms of log-Riemann surfaces. II.4.2) Teichm¨uller distance. II.4.3) Teichm¨uller space of a finite log-Riemann surface. II.5) Uniformization of finite log-Riemann surfaces. II.5.1) A fundamental example. II.5.2) On the general case. II.5.3) Uniformization theorem. II.5.4) Uniformization and Schwarz-Christoffel formula. II.5.5) General uniformization theorem. II.6) Cyclotomic log-Riemann surfaces. II.6.1) Definition. II.6.2) Ramification values . II.6.3) Subordination of cyclotomic log-Riemann surfaces. II.6.4) Caratheodory limits of cyclotomic log-Riemann surfaces. II.6.5) Continued fraction expansion of the uniformizations. II.6.6) Relation to the incomplete Gamma function. II.6.7) Relation to Hermite polynomials. II.7) Uniformization of infinite log-Riemann surfaces. 2 III. Algebraic theory of log-Riemann surfaces. III.1) A ring of special functions. III.1.1) Definition. III.1.2) Asymptotics. III.1.3) Linear independence. III.1.4) Algebraic independence. III.1.5) Integrals. III.1.6) Differential ring structure. III.1.7) Picard-Vessiot extensions. III.1.8) Liouville classification. III.2) Refined analytic estimates. III.2.1) Decomposition of the end at infinity. III.2.2) Analytic estimates. III.3) Liouville theorem on log-Riemann surfaces. III.4) The structural ring. III.4.1) Definition. III.4.2) Points of ∗ as maximal ideals. S III.4.3) The ramificant determinant. III.4.4) Infinite ramification points. Bibliography. Mathematics Subject Classification 2010: 30F99, 30D99 Key-Words : log-Riemann surfaces, entire functions, Dedekind-Weber theory, ramified coverings, exponential periods. date of compilation : 14-12-2015. 3 INTRODUCTION Historical motivation. Since the revolutionary ideas of Bernhard Riemann in the XIXth century the notion of Riemann surface has experienced dramatic changes. The motivation of Riemann’s fun- damental memoir [Ri1] is the study of Abelian Integrals which are in the XIXth century the ”new” transcendental functions attracting the attention since the work of Abel, Galois and Jacobi. The arithmetico-geometric history of transcendental functions is very instruc- tive. The first transcendental functions are associated to the geometry of the circle. These have been studied since the origins of Mathematics (the famous Babylonian clay tablet Plimpton 322, of the Plimpton collection, is a tabulation of arctangents for Pythagorean triangles, see [Fr] and [Va]). These elementary trigonometric functions, are also obtained by integration of elementary algebraic differentials. For instance, z dx arcsin z = . √1 x2 Z − These functions satisfy addition formulae as arcsin z + arcsin w = arcsin z 1 w2 + w 1 z2 . − − p p The close relation of trigonometric functions to the complex exponential was unveiled by L. Euler. J. Wallis (1655) attempted the computation of the arc-length of ellipses leading to Elliptic Integrals of the form z dx , P (x) Z where P is a polynomial of degree 3 or 4. Ellipticp Integrals form a new family of transcen- dental functions that are associated to the geometry of elliptic curves or genus 1 algebraic curves. Giulio Fagnano (1716) and L. Euler (1752, 1757) discovered addition theorems for them, as z dx w dx ξ dx + = , 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 (1 x )(1 k x ) 0 (1 x )(1 k x ) 0 (1 x )(1 k x ) Z − − Z − − Z − − where kpis the parameter of the ellipticp integral and ξ is determinedp by ξ(1 k2z2w2) = w (1 z2)(1 k2z2) + z (1 w2)(1 k2w2) . − − − − − Elliptic Integrals were laterp studied by A.M. Legendrep and C.F. Gauss, and later by N.H. Abel, C. Jacobi, Ch. Hermite,... who also studied more general Hyperelliptic Integrals of the form z R(x) dx , P (x) Z p 4 where R is a rational function and P is a polynomial of arbitrary degree. The next important progress was achieved by N.H. Abel who considered general Abelian Integrals of the general form z R(x,y) dx , Z where y is an algebraic function of x, i.e. satisfies an algebraic equation with polynomial coefficients in x or P (x,y)=0 for P (x,y) C[x,y]. Abel proved his famous general addition theorem for these Abelian integrals. The∈ sum x1 x2 xn R(x,y) dx + R(x,y) dx + ... + R(x,y) dx Z Z Z taken with extremes at (x1,...,xn), which are the intersection points of the curve P (x,y)=0 and a family of algebraic curves Q(x,y,a1,...,an)=0 , is a rational function plus logarithmic terms of (a1,...,am), the parameters that param- eterize the intersecting family of algebraic curves (the usual modern formulation of Abel theorem is only a weaker particular case of the original result). It is understandable the sensation that this result caused (even if it was ignored for some time): Abel’s result shows that the algebraic theory of these very general new tran- scendental functions is very rich. Abel’s result seems to have been also discovered inde- pendently by E.´ Galois, as can be found in the ”brouillons” left by Galois (see [Gal] p.187 and p.518). The corresponding geometry of general Abelian Integrals are general algebraic curves. These new transcendental functions motivated several fundamental theories. The close inspection of the manuscripts of Galois shows that his motivation to build what is now called Galois theory was well beyond the problem of resolution of algebraic equations. His ultimate goal was a full classification of transcendental functions. He did made important progress for Abelian Integrals dividing them into three kinds and studying their periods (see [Pi] volume III p.472). Riemann discovered that Abelian Integrals live naturally on Riemann surfaces spread over the Riemann sphere. Well before Riemann, Euler was well aware of the natural multivaluedness of algebraic and other important functions special functions (see [Eu] chapter I where he defines ”Functiones multiformes”, and his famous writings on the logarithm of negative numbers). The audacious idea of Riemann is to pass at once from 5 the ”multivaluedness” of the function to a geometric dissociation of the space were the function lives by imagining new sheets were each branch of the function is univalued. Riemann surfaces, as Riemann understood them, are abstract manifolds, in the sense that they are not embedded in any ambient space. Riemann had a clear understanding of the notion of abstract manifold as is demonstrated by his Inaugural Dissertation on the foundations of geometry (see [Ri2]). One cannot explain otherwise the consideration of non- Riemannian metrics. But Riemann surfaces, in the view of Riemann, are always spread over the complex plane C or the Riemann sphere C. These are called today Riemann domains. They come equipped with canonical coordinates or charts. This is why some schools, as the German or the Russian around the middle of the XXth century, gave them the name of ”concrete Riemann surfaces”. The equipment with canonical charts or coordinates enriches the Riemann surface structure. In particular it enables the link between the geometry and the transcendental functions. The modern notion of Riemann surface (we should say ”abstract Riemann surface”) does not come equipped with a preferred set of charts. This modern notion was conceived by T. Rado and H. Weyl (see [Wey]) and marks the origin of intrinsic differential geometry. The influence of Riemann’s ideas was deep in the Mathematics of the XIXth cen- tury. R. Dedekind assisted in 1855-1856, to Riemann’s lectures in G¨ottingen on Abelian Functions. They were close friends, and one may wonder how much of his achievements in Algebraic Number Theory were influenced by Riemann’s theory of algebraic curves. Dedekind’s theory of ideals, extending E. Kummer ”ideal numbers”, marks the birth point of Commutative Algebra. It allows the unification of the theory of Number Fields and that of Function Fields on algebraic curves (or compact Riemann surfaces). The culmination of this unification is his article with H.