Documentation

LeanPool.Rado.Surface.HolomorphicCompat

C^1 compatibility over is holomorphic compatibility #

The Radó statement takes its surface hypothesis in Mathlib's standard form,

[ChartedSpace ℂ X] [IsManifold (modelWithCornersSelf ℂ ℂ) 1 X]

and it is worth recording why that is the Riemann-surface hypothesis rather than a weaker topological one, since the smoothness index 1 invites the opposite reading.

IsManifold I n X asks that the chart transitions lie in contDiffGroupoid n I, whose defining property is ContDiffOn 𝕜 n for the field 𝕜 of the model I. For I = modelWithCornersSelf ℂ ℂ that field is , so the transitions are C^1 over — complex differentiable, not merely real differentiable. By Goursat a map that is complex differentiable on an open set is holomorphic, hence analytic, so C^1 compatibility over already forces analytic compatibility.

The two results below make that precise, and they are the reason the hypothesis is not a weakening:

Two contrasts are worth keeping in view. The genuinely topological hypothesis is index 0, not 1: Mathlib proves contDiffGroupoid_zero_eq : contDiffGroupoid 0 I = continuousGroupoid H, so IsManifold I 0 X is exactly a topological manifold and carries no analytic content. And because 1 ≤ ω, assuming 1 is the weaker hypothesis, so proving Radó's theorem from it is strictly stronger than proving it from ω; by isManifold_omega_of_one the two hypotheses are in fact equivalent here.

Over , the C^1 chart-transition groupoid is contained in the analytic one. ContDiffOn ℂ 1 is complex differentiability, and a complex-differentiable map on an open set is holomorphic, hence analytic.

The C^1 hypothesis over is the Riemann-surface hypothesis. A charted space modelled on whose transitions are C^1 over has holomorphic transitions, so it is an analytic manifold. This is what makes [ChartedSpace ℂ X] [IsManifold (modelWithCornersSelf ℂ ℂ) 1 X] a faithful rendering of "X is a Riemann surface".