text:
# 0 Introduction

## 0 Introduction

We are interested in classifying all connected complex manifolds $`M`$ of dimension $`n2`$ admitting effective actions of the unitary group $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations.

One motivation for our study was the following question that we learned from S. Krantz: assume that the group $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ of all biholomorphic automorphisms of $`M`$ and the group $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ of all biholomorphic automorphisms of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ are isomorphic as topological groups equipped with the compact-open topology; does it imply that $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}^n`$? The group $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ is very large (see, e.g., \[AL\]), and it is not that clear from the start what automorphisms of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ one can use to approach the problem. The isomorphism between $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ induces a continuous effective action on $`M`$ of any subgroup $`G\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$. If $`G`$ is a Lie group, then this action is in fact real-analytic. We consider $`G=U_n`$ which, as it turns out, results in a very short list of manifolds that can occur.

In Section 1 we find all possible dimensions of orbits of a $`U_n`$-action on $`M`$. It turns out (see Proposition 1.1) that an orbit is either a point (hence $`U_n`$ has a fixed point in $`M`$), or a real hypersurface in $`M`$, or a complex hypersurface in $`M`$, or the whole of $`M`$ (in which case $`M`$ is homogeneous).

Manifolds admitting an action with fixed point were found in \[K\] (see Remark 1.2).

In Section 2 we classify manifolds with a $`U_n`$-action such that all orbits are real hypersurfaces. We show that such a manifold is either a spherical layer in $`\mathrm{}^n`$, or a Hopf manifold, or the quotient of one of these manifolds by the action of a discrete subgroup of the center of $`U_n`$ (Theorem 2.7).

In Section 3 we consider the situation when every orbit is a real or a complex hypersurface in $`M`$ and show that there can exist at most two orbits that are complex hypersurfaces. Moreover, such orbits turn out to be biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$ and can only arise either as a result of blowing up $`\mathrm{}^n`$ or a ball in $`\mathrm{}^n`$ at the origin, or adding the hyperplane $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$ to the exterior of a ball in $`\mathrm{}^n`$, or blowing up $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$ at one point, or taking the quotient of one of these examples by the action of a discrete subgroup of the center of $`U_n`$ (Theorem 3.3).

Finally, in Section 4 we consider the homogeneous case. In this case the manifold in question must be equivalent to the quotient of a Hopf manifold by the action of a discrete central subgroup (Theorem 4.5).

Thus, Remark 1.2, Theorem 2.7, Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.5 provide a complete list of connected manifolds of dimension $`n2`$ admitting effective actions of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. An easy consequence of this classification is the following characterization of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ by its automorphism group that we obtain in Section 5:

THEOREM 5.1 Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $`n`$. Assume that $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ are isomorphic as topological groups. Then $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}^n`$.

We acknowledge that this work started while the second author was visiting Centre for Mathematics and its Applications, Australian National University.

## 1 Dimensions of Orbits

In this section we obtain the following result, which is similar to Satz 1.2 in \[K\].

###### Proposition 1.1

Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Let $`pM`$ and let $`O(p)`$ be the $`U_n`$-orbit of $`p`$. Then $`O(p)`$ is either

(i) the whole of $`M`$ (hence $`M`$ is compact), or

(ii) a single point, or

(iii) a complex compact hypersurface in $`M`$, or

(iv) a real compact hypersurface in $`M`$.

Proof: For $`pM`$ let $`I_p`$ be the isotropy subgroup of $`U_n`$ at $`p`$, i.e., $`I_p:=\{gU_n:gp=p\}`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the continuous homomorphism of $`U_n`$ into $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ (the group of biholomorphic automorphisms of $`M`$) induced by the action of $`U_n`$ on $`M`$. Let $`L_p:=\{d_p(\mathrm{\Psi }(g)):gI_p\}`$ be the linear isotropy subgroup, where $`d_pf`$ is the differential of a map $`f`$ at $`p`$. Clearly, $`L_p`$ is a compact subgroup of $`GL(T_p(M),\mathrm{})`$. Since the action of $`U_n`$ is effective, $`L_p`$ is isomorphic to $`I_p`$. Let $`VT_p(M)`$ be the tangent space to $`O(p)`$ at $`p`$. Clearly, $`V`$ is $`L_p`$-invariant. We assume now that $`O(p)M`$ (and therefore $`VT_p(M)`$) and consider the following three cases.

Case 1. $`d:=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}(V+iV)<n`$.

Since $`L_p`$ is compact, one can consider coordinates on $`T_p(M)`$ such that $`L_pU_n`$. Further, the action of $`L_p`$ on $`T_p(M)`$ is completely reducible and the subspace $`V+iV`$ is invariant under this action. Hence $`L_p`$ can in fact be embedded in $`U_d\times U_{nd}`$. Since $`\text{dim}O(p)2d`$, it follows that

$$n^2d^2+(nd)^2+2d,$$

and therefore either $`d=0`$ or $`d=n1`$. If $`d=0`$, then we obtain (ii). If $`d=n1`$, then the above relation is in fact the equality $`\text{dim}O(p)=2d=2n2`$, and therefore $`iV=V`$, which yields (iii).

Case 2. $`T_p(M)=V+iV`$ and $`r:=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}(ViV)>0`$.

As above, $`L_p`$ can be embedded in $`U_r\times U_{nr}`$ (clearly, we have $`r<n`$). Moreover, $`ViVV`$ and since $`L_p`$ preserves $`V`$, it follows that $`\text{dim}L_p<r^2+(nr)^2`$. We have $`\text{dim}O(p)2n1`$, and therefore

$$n^2<r^2+(nr)^2+2n1,$$

which shows that $`\text{dim}O(p)=2n1`$. This yields (iv).

Case 3. $`T_p(M)=ViV`$.

In this case $`\text{dim}V=n`$ and $`L_p`$ can be embedded in the real orthogonal group $`O_n(\mathrm{})`$, and therefore

$$\text{dim}L_p+\text{dim}O(p)\frac{n(n1)}{2}+n<n^2,$$

which is a contradiction.

The proof of the proposition is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.2

It is shown in \[K\] (see Folgerung 1.10 there) that if $`U_n`$ has a fixed point in $`M`$, then $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to either

(i) the unit ball $`B^n\mathrm{}^n`$, or

(ii) $`\mathrm{}^n`$, or

(iii) $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$.

The biholomorphic equivalence $`f`$ can be chosen to be an isomorphism of $`U_n`$-spaces, more precisely,

$$f(gq)=\gamma (g)f(q),$$

where either $`\gamma (g)=g`$ or $`\gamma (g)=\overline{g}`$ for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qM`$ (here $`B^n`$, $`\mathrm{}^n`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$ are considered with the standard actions of $`U_n`$).

## 2 The Case of Real Hypersurface Orbits

We shall now consider orbits in $`M`$ that are real hypersurfaces. We require the following algebraic result.

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`G`$ be a connected closed subgroup of $`U_n`$ of dimension $`(n1)^2`$, $`n2`$. Then either $`G`$ contains the center of $`U_n`$, or $`G`$ is conjugate in $`U_n`$ to the subgroup of all matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 0\\ 0& \beta \end{array}\right),$$
(2.1)
where $`\alpha U_1`$ and $`\beta SU_{n1}`$, or for some $`k_1,k_2\mathrm{}`$, $`(k_1,k_2)=1`$, $`k_20`$, it is conjugate to the subgroup $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$ of all matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right),$$
(2.2)
where $`BU_{n1}`$ and $`a(detB)^{\frac{k_1}{k_2}}:=\mathrm{exp}(k_1/k_2\text{Ln}(detB))`$.

Proof: Since $`G`$ is compact, it is completely reducible, i.e., $`\mathrm{}^n`$ splits into a sum of $`G`$-invariant pairwise orthogonal complex subspaces, $`\mathrm{}^n=V_1\mathrm{}V_m`$, such that the restriction $`G_j`$ of $`G`$ to each $`V_j`$ is irreducible. Let $`n_j:=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}V_j`$ (hence $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_m=n`$) and let $`U_{n_j}`$ be the group of unitary transformations of $`V_j`$. Clearly, $`G_jU_{n_j}`$, and therefore $`\text{dim}Gn_1^2+\mathrm{}+n_m^2`$. On the other hand $`\text{dim}G=(n1)^2`$, which shows that $`m2`$.

Let $`m=2`$. Then there exists a unitary change of coordinates $`\mathrm{}^n`$ such that in the new variables elements of $`G`$ are of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right),$$
(2.3)
where $`aU_1`$ and $`BU_{n1}`$. We note that the scalars $`a`$ and the matrices $`B`$ in (2.3) corresponding to the elements of $`G`$ form compact connected subgroups of $`U_1`$ and $`U_{n1}`$, respectively; we shall denote them by $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ as above.

If $`\text{dim}G_1=0`$, then $`G_1=\{1\}`$, and therefore $`G_2=U_{n1}`$. Thus we get the form (2.2) with $`k_1=0`$.

Assume that $`\text{dim}G_1=1`$, i.e., $`G_1=U_1`$. Then $`(n1)^21\text{dim}G_2(n1)^2`$. Let $`\text{dim}G_2=(n1)^21`$ first. The only connected subgroup of $`U_{n1}`$ of dimension $`(n1)^21`$ is $`SU_{n1}`$. Hence $`G`$ is conjugate to the subgroup of matrices of the form (2.1). Now let $`\text{dim}G_2=(n1)^2`$, i.e., $`G_2=U_{n1}`$. Consider the Lie algebra $`g`$ of $`G`$. It consists of matrices of the following form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}l(b)& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right),$$
(2.4)
where $`b`$ is an arbitrary matrix in $`u_{n1}`$ and $`l(b)0`$ is a linear function of the matrix elements of $`b`$ ranging in $`i\mathrm{}`$. Clearly, $`l(b)`$ must vanish on the commutant of $`u_{n1}`$, which is $`su_{n1}`$. Hence matrices (2.4) form a Lie algebra if and only if $`l(b)=c\text{trace}b`$, where $`c\mathrm{}\{0\}`$. Such an algebra can be the Lie algebra of a subgroup of $`U_1\times U_{n1}`$ only if $`c\mathrm{}\{0\}`$. Hence $`G`$ is conjugate to the group of matrices (2.2) with some $`k_1,k_2\mathrm{}`$, $`k_20`$, and one can always assume that $`(k_1,k_2)=1`$.

Now let $`m=1`$. We shall proceed as in the proof of Lemma 2.1 in \[IK\]. Let $`gu_ngl_n`$ be the Lie algebra of $`G`$ and $`g^{\mathrm{}}:=g+iggl_n`$ its complexification. Then $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ acts irreducibly on $`\mathrm{}^n`$ and by a theorem of É. Cartan (see, e.g., \[GG\]), $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ is either semisimple or the direct sum of a semisimple ideal $`h`$ and the center of $`gl_n`$ (which is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}`$). Clearly, the action of the ideal $`h`$ on $`\mathrm{}^n`$ must be irreducible.

Assume first that $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ is semisimple, and let $`g^{\mathrm{}}=g_1\mathrm{}g_k`$ be its decomposition into the direct sum of simple ideals. Then (see, e.g., \[GG\]) the irreducible $`n`$-dimensional representation of $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ given by the embedding of $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`gl_n`$ is the tensor product of some irreducible faithful representations of the $`g_j`$. Let $`n_j`$ be the dimension of the corresponding representation of $`g_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Then $`n_j2`$, $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}g_jn_j^21`$, and $`n=n_1\mathrm{}n_k`$. The following observation is simple.

> Claim: If $`n=n_1\mathrm{}n_k`$, $`k2`$, $`n_j2`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, then $`_{j=1}^kn_j^2n^22n`$.

Since $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}g^{\mathrm{}}=(n1)^2`$, it follows from the above claim that $`k=1`$, i.e., $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ is simple. The minimal dimensions of irreducible faithful representations of complex simple Lie algebras are well-known (see, e.g., \[VO\]). In the table below $`V`$ denotes representations of minimal dimension.

| $`g`$ | $`\text{dim}V`$ | $`\text{dim}g`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`sl_k`$ $`k2`$ | $`k`$ | $`k^21`$ |
| $`o_k`$ $`k7`$ | $`k`$ | $`\frac{k(k1)}{2}`$ |
| $`sp_{2k}`$ $`k2`$ | $`2k`$ | $`2k^2+k`$ |
| $`e_6`$ | 27 | 78 |
| $`e_7`$ | 56 | 133 |
| $`e_8`$ | 248 | 248 |
| $`f_4`$ | 26 | 52 |
| $`g_2`$ | 7 | 14 |

Since $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}g^{\mathrm{}}=(n1)^2`$, it follows that none of the above possibilities realize. Hence $`g^{\mathrm{}}`$ contains the center of $`gl_n`$, and therefore $`g`$ contains the center of $`u_n`$. Thus $`G`$ contains the center of $`U_n`$.

The proof of the lemma is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2

Let $`M`$ be a complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Let $`pM`$ and let the orbit $`O(p)`$ be a real hypersurface in $`M`$. Then the isotropy subgroup $`I_p`$ is isomorphic to $`U_{n1}`$.

Proof: Since $`O(p)`$ is a real hypersurface in $`M`$, it arises in Case 2 in the proof of Proposition 1.1. We shall use the notation from that proof. Let $`W`$ be the orthogonal complement to $`ViV`$ in $`T_p(M)`$. Clearly, $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}ViV=n1`$ and $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}W=1`$. The group $`L_p`$ is a subgroup of $`U_n`$ and preserves $`V`$, $`ViV`$, and $`W`$; hence it preserves the line $`WV`$. Therefore, it can act only as $`\pm \text{id}`$ on $`W`$. Since $`\text{dim}L_p=(n1)^2`$, the identity component $`L_p^c`$ of $`L_p`$ must in fact be the group of all unitary transformations preserving $`ViV`$ and acting trivially on $`W`$. Thus, $`L_p^c`$ is isomorphic to $`U_{n1}`$ and acts transitively on directions in $`ViV`$. Hence $`O(p)`$ is either Levi-flat or strongly pseudoconvex.

We claim that $`O(p)`$ cannot be Levi-flat. For assume that $`O(p)`$ is Levi-flat. Then it is foliated by complex hypersurfaces in $`M`$. Let $`m`$ be the Lie algebra of all holomorphic vector fields on $`O(p)`$ corresponding to the automorphisms of $`O(p)`$ generated by the action of $`U_n`$. Clearly, $`m`$ is isomorphic to $`u_n`$. For $`qO(p)`$ we denote by $`M_q`$ the leaf of the foliation passing through $`q`$ and consider the subspace $`l_qm`$ of all vector fields tangent to $`M_q`$ at $`q`$. Since vector fields in $`l_q`$ remain tangent to $`M_q`$ at each point in $`M_q`$, $`l_q`$ is in fact a Lie subalgebra of $`m`$. Clearly, $`\text{dim}l_q=n^21`$, and therefore $`l_q`$ is isomorphic to $`su_n`$. Since there exists only one way to embed $`su_n`$ in $`u_n`$, we obtain that the action of $`SU_nU_n`$ preserves each leaf $`M_q`$ for $`qO(p)`$. Hence each leaf $`M_q`$ is a union of $`SU_n`$-orbits. But such an orbit must be open in $`M_q`$, and therefore the action of $`SU_n`$ is transitive on each $`M_q`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{I}_q`$ be the isotropy subgroup of $`q`$ in $`SU_n`$. Clearly, $`\text{dim}\stackrel{~}{I}_q=(n1)^2`$. It now follows from Lemma 2.1 that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_q^c`$, the connected identity component of $`\stackrel{~}{I}_q`$, is conjugate in $`U_n`$ to the subgroup $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$ (see (2.2)) with $`k_1=k_2=1`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{I}_q`$ contains the center of $`SU_n`$. The elements of the center act trivially on $`SU/\stackrel{~}{I}_q`$ (which is equivariantly diffeomorphic to $`M_q`$). Thus, the central elements of $`SU_n`$ act trivially on each $`M_q`$, and therefore on $`O(p)`$. Consequently, the action of $`U_n`$ on the real hypersurface $`O(p)`$, and therefore on $`M`$, is not effective, which is a contradiction showing that $`M`$ is strongly pseudoconvex.

Hence $`L_p`$ can only act identically on $`W`$. Thus, $`L_p`$ is isomorphic to $`U_{n1}`$ and so is $`I_p`$.

The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now classify real hypersurface orbits up to equivariant diffeomorphisms.

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`M`$ be a complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Let $`pM`$ and assume that the orbit $`O(p)`$ is a real hypersurface in $`M`$. Then $`O(p)`$ is isomorphic as a homogeneous space to a lense manifold $`_m^{2n1}:=S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ obtained by identifying each point $`xS^{2n1}`$ with $`e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}x`$, where $`m=|nk+1|`$, $`k\mathrm{}`$ (here $`_m^{2n1}`$ is considered with the standard action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$).

Proof: By Proposition 2.2, $`I_p`$ is isomorphic to $`U_{n1}`$. Hence it follows from Lemma 2.1 that $`I_p`$ either contains the center of $`U_n`$ or is conjugate to some group $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$ of matrices of the form (2.2) with $`k_1,k_2\mathrm{}`$. The first possibility in fact cannot occur, since in that case the action of $`U_n`$ on $`O(p)`$, and therefore on $`M`$, is not effective.

Assume that $`K:=k_1(n1)k_2\pm 1,0`$. Since $`(k_1,k_2)=1`$, either $`k_1`$ or $`k_2`$ is not a multiple of $`K`$. We set $`t:=2\pi k_1/K`$ in the first case and $`t:=2\pi k_2/K`$ in the second case. Then $`e^{it}\text{id}`$ is a nontrivial central element of $`U_n`$ that belongs to $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$. Hence the action of $`U_n`$ on $`O(p)`$ is not effective, which is a contradiction. Further, assuming that $`K=0`$ we obtain $`k_1=\pm 1`$ and $`k_2=\pm (n1)`$. But the center of $`U_n`$ clearly lies in $`H_{1,n1}`$, which yields that the action is not effective again. Hence $`K=\pm 1`$.

Now let $`K=1`$. It is not difficult to show that each element of the corresponding group $`H_{k_1,k_1(n1)+1}`$ can be expressed in the following form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}(detB)^k& 0\\ 0& (detB)^kB\end{array}\right),$$
(2.5)
where $`BU_{n1}`$ and $`k:=k_1`$. In a similar way, if $`K=1`$, then each element of the corresponding group $`H_{k_1,k_1(n1)1}`$ can be expressed in the form (2.5) with $`k:=k_1`$.

Let $`m:=|nk+1|`$ and consider the lense manifold $`_m^{2n1}`$. We claim that $`O(p)`$ is isomorphic to $`_m^{2n1}`$. We identify $`\mathrm{}_m`$ with the subgroup of $`U_n`$ consisting of the matrices $`\sigma \text{id}`$ with $`\sigma ^m=1`$ and consider the standard action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ on $`_m^{2n1}`$. The isotropy subgroup $`S`$ of the point in $`_m^{2n1}`$ represented by the point $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)S^{2n1}`$ is the standard embedding of $`U_{n1}`$ in $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$, namely, it consists of elements $`C\mathrm{}_m`$, where

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right)$$

and $`BU_{n1}`$. The manifold $`(U_n/\mathrm{}_m)/S`$ is equivariantly diffeomorphic to $`_m^{2n1}`$. We now show that it is also isomorphic to $`O(p)`$. Indeed, consider the Lie group isomorphism

$$\varphi _{n,m}:U_n/\mathrm{}_mU_n,\varphi _{n,m}(A\mathrm{}_m)=(\text{det}A)^kA,$$
(2.6)
where $`AU_n`$. Clearly, $`\varphi _{n,m}(S)U_n`$ is the subgroup of matrices of the form (2.5), that is, $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$. Thus, it is conjugate in $`U_n`$ to $`I_p`$, and therefore $`(U_n/\mathrm{}_m)/S`$ is isomorphic to $`U_n/I_p`$ and to $`O(p)`$. More precisely, the isomorphism $`f:_m^{2n1}O(p)`$ is the following composition of maps:

$$f=f_1\varphi _{n,m}^{}f_2,$$
(2.7)
where $`f_1:U_n/H_{k_1,k_2}O(p)`$ and $`f_2:_m^{2n1}(U_n/\mathrm{}_m)/S`$ are the standard equivariant equivalences and the isomorphism $`\varphi _{n,m}^{}:(U_n/\mathrm{}_m)/SU_n/H_{k_1,k_2}`$ is induced by $`\varphi _{n,m}`$ in the obvious way. Clearly, $`f`$ satisfies

$$f(gq)=\varphi _{n,m}(g)f(q),$$
(2.8)
for all $`gU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`q_m^{2n1}`$.

Thus, $`f`$ is an isomorphism between $`_m^{2n1}`$ and $`O(p)`$ regarded as homogeneous spaces, as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next result shows that isomorphism (2.7) in Proposition 2.3 is either a CR or an anti-CR diffeomorphism.

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`M`$ be a complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. For $`pM`$ suppose that $`O(p)`$ is a real hypersurface in $`M`$ isomorphic as a homogeneous space to a lense manifold $`_m^{2n1}`$. Then an isomorphism $`:_m^{2n1}O(p)`$ can be chosen to be a CR-diffeomorphism that satisfies either the relation

$$(gq)=\varphi _{n,m}(g)(q),$$
(2.9)
or the relation

$$(gq)=\varphi _{n,m}(\overline{g})(q),$$
(2.10)
for all $`gU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`q_m^{2n1}`$ (here $`_m^{2n1}`$ is considered with the CR-structure inherited from $`S^{2n1}`$).

Proof: Consider the standard covering map $`\pi :S^{2n1}_m^{2n1}`$ and the induced map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:=f\pi :S^{2n1}O(p)`$, where $`f`$ is defined in (2.7). It follows from (2.8) that the covering map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ satisfies

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }(gq)=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{n,m}(g)\stackrel{~}{\pi }(q),$$
(2.11)
for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qS^{2n1}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{n,m}:=\varphi _{n,m}\rho _{n,m}`$ and $`\rho _{n,m}:U_nU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is the standard projection.

Using $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ we can pull back the CR-structure from $`O(p)`$ to $`S^{2n1}`$. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{2n1}`$ the sphere $`S^{2n1}`$ equipped with this new CR-structure. It follows from (2.11) that the CR-structure on $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{2n1}`$ is invariant under the standard action of $`U_n`$ on $`S^{2n1}`$.

We now prove the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.5

There exist exactly two CR-structures on $`S^{2n1}`$ invariant under the standard action of $`U_n`$, namely, the standard CR-structure on $`S^{2n1}`$ and the structure obtained by conjugating the standard one.

Proof of Lemma 2.5: For $`q_0:=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)S^{2n1}`$ let $`I_{q_0}`$ be the isotropy subgroup of this point with respect to the standard action of $`U_n`$ on $`S^{2n1}`$. Clearly, $`I_{q_0}=U_{n1}`$, where $`U_{n1}`$ is embedded in $`U_n`$ in the standard way. Let $`L_{q_0}`$ be the corresponding linear isotropy subgroup. Clearly, the only $`(2n2)`$-dimensional subspace of $`T_{q_0}(S^{2n1})`$ invariant under the action of $`L_{q_0}`$ is $`\{z_1=0\}`$. Hence there exists a unique contact structure on $`S^{2n1}`$ invariant under the standard action of $`U_n`$.

On the other hand there exist exactly two ways to introduce in $`\mathrm{}^{2n2}`$ a $`U_{n1}`$-invariant structure of complex linear space: the standard complex structure and its conjugation (this is obvious for $`n=2`$, and easy to show for $`n3`$, and therefore we shall omit the proof). Let $`J_q`$ be the operator of complex structure in the corresponding subspace of $`T_q(S^{2n1})`$, $`qS^{2n1}`$. Since there exist only two possibilities for $`J_q`$, and $`J_q`$ depends smoothly on $`q`$, the lemma follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 2.4 easily follows from Lemma 2.5. Indeed, if the CR-structure of $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{2n1}`$ is identical to that of $`S^{2n1}`$, then we set $`:=f`$. Clearly, $``$ is a CR-diffeomorphism and satisfies (2.9). On the other hand, if the CR-structure of $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{2n1}`$ is obtained from the structure of $`S^{2n1}`$ by conjugation, then we set $`(t):=f(\overline{t})`$ for $`t_m^{2n1}`$. Clearly, $``$ is a CR-diffeomorphism and satisfies (2.10).

The proof of the proposition is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

We introduce now additional notation.

###### Definition 2.6

Let $`d\mathrm{}\{0\}`$, $`|d|1`$, let $`M_d^n`$ be the Hopf manifold constructed by identifying $`z\mathrm{}^n\{0\}`$ with $`dz`$, and let $`[z]`$ be the equivalence class of $`z`$. Then we denote by $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, with $`m\mathrm{}`$, the complex manifold obtained from $`M_d^n`$ by identifying $`[z]`$ and $`[e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}z]`$.

We are now ready to prove the following theorem.

###### THEOREM 2.7

Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Suppose that all orbits of this action are real hypersurfaces. Then there exists $`k\mathrm{}`$ such that, for $`m=|nk+1|`$, $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to either

(i) $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, where $`S_{r,R}^n:=\{z\mathrm{}^n:r<|z|<R\}`$, $`0r<R\mathrm{}`$, is a spherical layer, or

(ii) $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$.

The biholomorphic equivalence $`f`$ can be chosen to satisfy either the relation

$$f(gq)=\varphi _{n,m}^1(g)f(q),$$
(2.12)
or the relation

$$f(gq)=\varphi _{n,m}^1(\overline{g})f(q),$$
(2.13)
for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qM`$, where $`\varphi _{n,m}`$ is defined in (2.6) (here $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ are equipped with the standard actions of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$).

Proof: Assume first that $`M`$ is non-compact. Let $`pM`$. By Propositions 2.3 and 2.4, for some $`m=|nk+1|`$, $`k\mathrm{}`$, there exists a CR-diffeomorphism $`f:O(p)_m^{2n1}`$ such that either (2.12) or (2.13) holds for all $`qO(p)`$. Assume first that (2.12) holds. The map $`f`$ extends to a biholomorphic map of a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`O(p)`$ onto a neighborhood of $`_m^{2n1}`$ in $`(\mathrm{}^n\{0\})/\mathrm{}_m`$. We can take $`U`$ to be a connected union of orbits. Then the extended map satisfies (2.12) on $`U`$, and therefore maps $`U`$ biholomorphically onto the quotient of a spherical layer by the action of $`\mathrm{}_m`$.

Let $`D`$ be a maximal domain in $`M`$ such that there exists a biholomorphic map $`f`$ from $`D`$ onto the quotient of a spherical layer by the action of $`\mathrm{}_m`$ that satisfies a relation of the form (2.12) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qD`$. As shown above, such a domain $`D`$ exists. Assume that $`DM`$ and let $`x`$ be a boundary point of $`D`$. Consider the orbit $`O(x)`$. Extending a map from $`O(x)`$ into a lense manifold to a neighborhood of $`O(x)`$ as above, we see that the orbits of all points close to $`x`$ have the same type as $`O(x)`$. Therefore, $`O(x)`$ is also equivalent to $`_m^{2n1}`$. Let $`h:O(x)_m^{2n1}`$ be a CR-isomorphism. It satisfies either relation (2.12) or relation (2.13) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qO(x)`$.

Assume first that (2.12) holds for $`h`$. The map $`h`$ extends to some neighborhood $`V`$ of $`O(x)`$ that we can assume to be a connected union of orbits. The extended map satisfies (2.12) on $`V`$. For $`sVD`$ we consider the orbit $`O(s)`$. The maps $`f`$ and $`h`$ take $`O(s)`$ into some surfaces $`r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$, respectively, where $`r_1,r_2>0`$. Hence $`F:=hf^1`$ maps $`r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ onto $`r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and satisfies the relation

$$F(ut)=uF(t),$$
(2.14)
for all $`uU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`tr_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$. Let $`\pi _1:r_1S^{2n1}r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`\pi _2:r_2S^{2n1}r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ be the standard projections. Clearly, $`F`$ can be lifted to a map between $`r_1S^{2n1}`$ and $`r_2S^{2n1}`$, i.e., there exists a CR-isomorphism $`G:r_1S^{2n1}r_2S^{2n1}`$ such that

$$F\pi _1=\pi _2G.$$
(2.15)
We see from (2.14) and (2.15) that, for all $`gU_n`$ and $`yr_1S^{2n1}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi _2(G(gy))=F(\pi _1(gy))=F(\rho _{n,m}(g)\pi _1(y))=\hfill \\ \rho _{n,m}(g)F(\pi _1(y))=\rho _{n,m}(g)\pi _2(G(y))=\pi _2(gG(y)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\rho _{n,m}:U_nU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is the standard projection. Since the fibers of $`\pi _2`$ are discrete, this leads to the relation

$$G(gy)=gG(y),$$
(2.16)
for all $`gU_n`$ and $`yr_1S^{2n1}`$.

The map $`G`$ extends to a biholomorphic map of the corresponding balls $`r_1B^n`$, $`r_2B^n`$, and the extended map satisfies (2.16) on $`r_1B^n`$. Setting $`y=0`$ in (2.16) we see that $`G(0)`$ is a fixed point of the standard action of $`U_n`$ on $`r_2B^n`$, and therefore $`G(0)=0`$. Combined with (2.16) this shows that $`G=d\text{id}`$, where $`d\mathrm{}\{0\}`$. This means, in particular, that $`F`$ is biholomorphic on $`(\mathrm{}^n\{0\})/\mathrm{}_m`$. Now,

$$H:=\{\begin{array}{c}Ff\text{on }D\hfill \\ h\text{on }V\hfill \end{array}$$

is a holomorphic map on $`DV`$, provided that $`DV`$ is connected.

We now claim that we can choose $`V`$ such that $`DV`$ is connected. We assume that $`V`$ is small enough, hence the strictly pseudoconvex orbit $`O(x)`$ partitions $`V`$ into two pieces. Namely, $`V=V_1V_2O(x)`$, where $`V_1V_2=\mathrm{}`$ and each intersection $`V_jD`$ is connected. Indeed, there exist holomorphic coordinates on $`D`$ in which $`V_jD`$ is a union of the quotients of spherical layers by the action of $`\mathrm{}_m`$. If there are several such “factorized” layers, then there exists a layer with closure disjoint from $`O(x)`$ and hence $`D`$ is disconnected, which is impossible. Therefore, $`V_jD`$ is connected and, if $`V`$ is sufficiently small, then each $`V_j`$ is either a subset of $`D`$ or is disjoint from $`D`$. If $`V_jD`$ for $`j=1,2`$, then $`M=DV`$ is compact which contradicts our assumption. Thus, only one set of $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ lies in $`D`$, and therefore $`DV`$ is connected. Hence the map $`H`$ is well-defined. Clearly, it satisfies (2.12) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qDV`$.

We will now show that $`H`$ is one-to-one on $`DV`$. Obviously, $`H`$ is one-to-one on each of $`V`$ and $`D`$. Assume that there exist points $`p_1D`$ and $`p_2V`$ such that $`H(p_1)=H(p_2)`$. Since $`H`$ satisfies (2.12) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qDV`$, it follows that $`H(O(p_1))=H(O(p_2))`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau )`$, $`0\tau 1`$ be a continuous path in $`DV`$ joining $`p_1`$ to $`p_2`$. For each $`0\tau 1`$ we set $`\rho (\tau )`$ to be the radius of the sphere corresponding to the lense manifold $`H(O(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau )))`$. Since $`\rho `$ is continuous and $`\rho (0)=\rho (1)`$, there exists a point $`0<\tau _0<1`$ at which $`\rho `$ attains either its maximum or its minimum on $`[0,1]`$. Then $`H`$ is not one-to-one in a neighborhood of $`O(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau _0))`$, which is a contradiction.

We have thus constructed a domain containing $`D`$ as a proper subset that can be mapped onto the quotient of a spherical layer by the action of $`\mathrm{}_m`$ by means of a map satisfying (2.12). This is a contradiction showing that in fact $`D=M`$.

Assume now that $`h`$ satisfies (2.13) (rather than (2.12)) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qO(x)`$. Then $`h`$ extends to a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`O(x)`$ and satisfies (2.13) there. For a point $`sVD`$ we consider its orbit $`O(s)`$. The maps $`f`$ and $`h`$ take $`O(s)`$ into some lense manifolds $`r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$, respectively, where $`r_1,r_2>0`$. Hence $`F:=hf^1`$ maps $`r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ onto $`r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and satisfies the relation

$$F(ut)=\overline{u}F(t),$$
(2.17)
for all $`uU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`tr_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$. As above, $`F`$ can be lifted to a map $`G`$ from $`r_1S^{2n1}`$ into $`r_2S^{2n1}`$. By (2.17) and (2.15), for all $`gU_n`$ and $`yr_1S^{2n1}`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi _2(G(gy))=F(\pi _1(gy))=F(\rho _{n,m}(g)\pi _1(y))=\hfill \\ \overline{\rho _{n,m}(g)}F(\pi _1(y))=\rho _{n,m}(\overline{g})\pi _2(G(y))=\pi _2(\overline{g}G(y)).\hfill \end{array}$$

As above, this shows that

$$G(gy)=\overline{g}G(y),$$
(2.18)
for all $`gU_n`$ and $`yr_1S^{2n1}`$.

The map $`G`$ extends to a biholomorphic map between the corresponding balls $`r_1B^n`$, $`r_2B^n`$, and the extended map satisfies (2.18) on $`r_1B^n`$. By setting $`y=0`$ in (2.18) we see similarly to the above that $`G(0)`$ is a fixed point of the standard action of $`U_n`$ on $`r_1B^n`$, and thus $`G(0)=0`$. Hence $`G=dU`$, where $`d\mathrm{}\{0\}`$ and $`U`$ is a unitary matrix. This, however, contradicts (2.18), and therefore $`h`$ cannot satisfy (2.13) on $`O(x)`$.

The proof in the case when $`f`$ satisfies (2.13) on $`O(p)`$ is analogous to the above. In this case we obtain an extension to the whole of $`M`$ satisfying (2.13). This completes the proof in the case of non-compact $`M`$.

Assume now that $`M`$ is compact. We consider a domain $`D`$ as above and assume first that the corresponding map $`f`$ satisfies (2.12). Since $`M`$ is compact, $`DM`$. Let $`x`$ be a boundary point of $`D`$, and consider the orbit $`O(x)`$. We choose a connected neighborhood $`V`$ of $`O(x)`$ as above, and let $`V=V_1V_2O(x)`$, where $`V_1V_2=\mathrm{}`$ and each $`V_j`$ is either a subset of $`D`$ or is disjoint from $`D`$. If one domain of $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ is disjoint from $`D`$, then, arguing as above, we arrive at a contradiction with the maximality of $`D`$. Hence $`V_jD`$, $`j=1,2`$, and $`M=DO(x)`$.

We can now extend $`f|_{V_1}`$ and $`f|_{V_2}`$ to biholomorphic maps $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$, respectively, that are defined on $`V`$, map it onto spherical layers factorized by the action of $`\mathrm{}_m`$, and satisfy (2.12) on $`V`$. Then $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ map $`O(x)`$ onto $`r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$, respectively, for some $`r_1,r_2>0`$. Clearly, $`r_1r_2`$. Hence $`F:=f_2f_1^1`$ maps $`r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ onto $`r_2S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and satisfies (2.14). This shows, similarly to the above, that $`F(<t>_1)=<dt>_2`$ for all $`<t>_1r_1S^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$, where $`d\mathrm{}\{0\}`$ and $`<t>_jr_jS^{2n1}/\mathrm{}_m`$ is the equivalence class of $`tr_jS^{2n1}`$, $`j=1,2`$. Since $`r_1r_2`$, it follows that $`|d|1`$. Now, the map

$$H:=\{\begin{array}{c}f\text{on }D\hfill \\ f_1\text{on }O(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

establishes a biholomorphic equivalence between $`M`$ and $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ and satisfies (2.12).

The proof in the case when $`f`$ satisfies (2.13) on $`D`$ is analogous to the above. In this case we obtain an extension $`H`$ that satisfies (2.13).

The proof of the theorem is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The Case of Complex Hypersurface Orbits

We now discuss orbits that are complex hypersurfaces. We start with several examples.

###### Example 3.1

Let $`B_R^n`$ be the ball of radius $`0<R\mathrm{}`$ in $`\mathrm{}^n`$ and let $`\widehat{B_R^n}`$ be its blow-up at the origin, i.e.,

$$\widehat{B_R^n}:=\{(z,w)B_R^n\times \mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}:z_iw_j=z_jw_i,\text{for all }i,j\},$$

where $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ are the standard coordinates in $`\mathrm{}^n`$ and $`w=(w_1:\mathrm{}:w_n)`$ are the homogeneous coordinates in $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. We define an action of $`U_n`$ on $`\widehat{B_R^n}`$ as follows. For $`(z,w)\widehat{B_R^n}`$ and $`gU_n`$ we set

$$g(z,w):=(gz,gw),$$

where in the right-hand side we use the standard actions of $`U_n`$ on $`\mathrm{}^n`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. The points $`(0,w)\widehat{B_R^n}`$ form an orbit $`O`$, which is a complex hypersurface biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. All other orbits are real hypersurfaces that are the boundaries of strongly pseudoconvex neighborhoods of $`O`$.

We fix $`m\mathrm{}`$ and denote by $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ the quotient of $`\widehat{B_R^n}`$ by the equivalence relation $`(z,w)e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}(z,w)`$. Let $`\{(z,w)\}\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ be the equivalence class of $`(z,w)\widehat{B_R^n}`$. We now define in a natural way an action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ on $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$: for $`\{(z,w)\}\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`gU_n`$ we set

$$(g\mathrm{}_m)\{(z,w)\}:=\{g(z,w)\}.$$

The points $`\{(0,z)\}`$ form the unique complex hypersurface orbit $`O`$, which is biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$, and each real hypersurface orbit is the boundary of a strongly pseudoconvex neighborhood of $`O`$.

Now let $`S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n=\{z\mathrm{}^n:|z|>r\}`$, $`r>0`$, be a spherical layer with infinite outer radius and let $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}`$ be the union of $`S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n`$ and the hypersurface at infinity in $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$, namely,

$$\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}:=\{(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n:(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n,z_0=0,1\}.$$

We shall equip $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}`$ with the standard action of $`U_n`$. For $`(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}`$ and $`gU_n`$ we set

$$g(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n):=(z_0:u_1:\mathrm{}:u_n),$$

where $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n):=g(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$. The points $`(0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)`$ at infinity form an orbit $`O`$, which is a complex hypersurface biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. All other orbits are real hypersurfaces that are the boundaries of strongly pseudoconcave neighborhoods of $`O`$.

We fix $`m\mathrm{}`$ and denote by $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ the quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}`$ by the equivalence relation $`(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)`$. Let $`\{(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\}\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ be the equivalence class of $`(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}`$. We consider $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ with the standard action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$, namely, for $`\{(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\}\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`gU_n`$ we set

$$(g\mathrm{}_m)\{(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\}:=\{g(z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\}.$$

The points $`\{(0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\}`$ form a unique complex hypersurface orbit $`O`$ which is biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$, and each real hypersurface orbit is the boundary of a strongly pseudoconcave neighborhood of $`O`$.

Finally, let $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}`$ be the blow-up of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$ at the point $`(1:0:\mathrm{}:0)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}:=\{((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n\times \mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}:z_iw_j=z_jw_i\hfill \\ \text{for all }i,j0\text{}z_0=0,1\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`w=(w_1:\mathrm{}:w_n)`$ are the homogeneous coordinates in $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. We define an action of $`U_n`$ in $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}`$ as follows. For $`((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}`$ and $`gU_n`$ we set

$$g((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w):=((z_0:u_1:\mathrm{}:u_n),gw),$$

where $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n):=g(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$. This action has exactly two orbits that are complex hypersurfaces: the orbit $`O_1`$ consisting of the points $`((1:0:\mathrm{}:0),w)`$ and the orbit $`O_2`$ consisting of the points $`((0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)`$. Both $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. The real hypersurface orbits are the boundaries of strongly pseudoconvex neighborhoods of $`O_1`$ and strongly pseudoconcave neighborhoods of $`O_2`$.

We fix $`m\mathrm{}`$ and denote by $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ the quotient of $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}`$ by the equivalence relation $`((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)`$. Let $`\left\{((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\right\}\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ be the equivalence class of $`((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}`$. We shall consider $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ with the standard action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$, namely, for $`\left\{((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\right\}\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ and $`gU_n`$ we set:

$$(g\mathrm{}_m)\left\{((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\right\}:=\left\{g((z_0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\right\}.$$

As above, there exist exactly two orbits that are complex hypersurfaces: the orbit $`O_1`$ consisting of the points $`\left\{((1:0:\mathrm{}:0),w)\right\}`$ and the orbit $`O_2`$ consisting of the points $`\left\{((0:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\right\}`$. Both $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{n1}`$. The real hypersurface orbits are the boundaries of strongly pseudoconvex neighborhoods of $`O_1`$ and strongly pseudoconcave neighborhoods of $`O_2`$.

We show below that the complex hypersurface orbits in Example 3.1 are in fact the only ones that can occur.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Suppose that each orbit is a real or a complex hypersurface in $`M`$. Then there exist at most two complex hypersurface orbits.

Proof: We fix a smooth $`U_n`$-invariant distance function $`\rho `$ on $`M`$. Let $`O`$ be an orbit that is a complex hypersurface. Consider the $`ϵ`$-neighborhood of $`U_ϵ(O)`$ of $`O`$ in $`M`$:

$$U_ϵ(O):=\{pM:\underset{qO}{inf}\rho (p,q)<ϵ\}.$$

If $`ϵ`$ is sufficiently small, then the boundary of $`U_ϵ(O)`$,

$$U_ϵ(O)=\{pM:\underset{qO}{inf}\rho (p,q)=ϵ\},$$

is a smooth connected real hypersurface in $`M`$. Clearly, $`U_ϵ`$ is $`U_n`$-invariant, and therefore it is a union of orbits. If $`U_ϵ(O)`$ contains an orbit that is a real hypersurface, then $`U_ϵ(O)`$ obviously coincides with that orbit.

Assume that $`U_ϵ(O)`$ contains an orbit that is a complex hypersurface. Then $`U_ϵ(O)`$ is a union of such orbits. It follows from the proof of Proposition 1.1 (see Case 1 there) that if an orbit $`O(p)`$ is a complex hypersurface, then $`I_p`$ is isomorphic to $`U_1\times U_{n1}`$. By Lemma 2.1 of \[IK\], $`I_p`$ is in fact conjugate to $`U_1\times U_{n1}`$ embedded in $`U_n`$ in the standard way. Hence the action of the center of $`U_n`$ on $`O(p)`$ is trivial. Thus, the center of $`U_n`$ acts trivially on each complex hypersurface orbit and hence on the entire $`U_ϵ(O)`$. Then its action on $`M`$ is also trivial, which contradicts the assumption of the effectiveness of the action of $`U_n`$ on $`M`$.

Hence, if $`ϵ`$ is sufficiently small, then $`U_ϵ(O)`$ contains no complex hypersurface orbits other than $`O`$ itself, and the boundary of $`U_ϵ(O)`$ is a real hypersurface orbit. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the manifold obtained by removing all complex hypersurface orbits from $`M`$. Since such an orbit has a neighborhood containing no other complex hypersurface orbits, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is connected. It is also clear that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is non-compact. Hence, by Theorem 2.7, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ can be mapped onto $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, for some $`0r<R\mathrm{}`$, by a biholomorphic map $`f`$ satisfying either (2.12) or (2.13). The manifold $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ has two ends at infinity, and therefore the number of removed complex hypersurfaces is at most two, which completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now prove the following theorem.

###### THEOREM 3.3

Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Suppose that each orbit of this action is either a real or complex hypersurface and at least one orbit is a complex hypersurface. Then there exists $`k\mathrm{}`$ such that, for $`m=|nk+1|`$, $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to either

(i) $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$, $`0<R\mathrm{}`$, or

(ii) $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$, $`0r<\mathrm{}`$, or

(iii) $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$.

The biholomorphic equivalence $`f`$ can be chosen to satisfy either (2.12) or (2.13) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qM`$.

Proof: Assume first that only one orbit $`O`$ is a complex hypersurface. Consider $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=MO`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is clearly non-compact, by Theorem 2.7 there exists $`k\mathrm{}`$ such that for $`m=|nk+1|`$ and some $`r`$ and $`R`$, $`0r<R\mathrm{}`$, the manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ by means of a map $`f`$ satisfying either (2.12) or (2.13) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`q\stackrel{~}{M}`$. We shall assume that $`f`$ satisfies (2.12) because the latter case can be dealt with in the same way.

Suppose first that $`n3`$. We fix $`pO`$ and consider $`I_p`$. We denote for the moment by $`HU_n`$ the standard embedding of $`U_1\times U_{n1}`$ in $`U_n`$. As mentioned in the proof of Proposition 3.2, there exists $`gU_n`$ such that $`I_p=g^1Hg`$. For an arbitrary real hypersurface orbit $`O(q)`$ we set

$$N_{p,q}:=\{sO(q):I_sI_p\}.$$

Since $`I_s`$ is conjugate in $`U_n`$ to a subgroup $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$, where $`k_1:=k`$ and $`k_2=k(n1)+10`$ (see (2.5) in the proof of Proposition 2.3), it follows that

$$N_{p,q}=\{sO(q):I_s=g^1H_{k_1,k_2}g\}.$$

It is easy to show now that if we fix $`tN_{p,q}`$, then $`N_{p,q}=\{ht\}`$, where

$$h=g^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 0\\ 0& \text{id}\end{array}\right)g,\alpha U_1.$$

Let $`N_p`$ be the union of the $`N_{p,q}`$’s over all real hypersurface orbits $`O(q)`$. Also let $`N_p^{}`$ be the set of points in $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ whose isotropy subgroup with respect to the standard action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is $`\varphi _{n,m}^1(g^1H_{k_1,k_2}g)`$ (see (2.6) for the definition of $`\varphi _{n,m}`$). It is easy to verify that $`N_p^{}`$ is a complex curve in $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ biholomorphically equivalent to either an annulus of modulus $`(R/r)^m`$ (if $`0<r<R<\mathrm{}`$), or a punctured disk (if $`r=0`$, $`R<\mathrm{}`$ or $`r>0`$, $`R=\mathrm{}`$), or $`\mathrm{}0`$ (if $`r=0`$ and $`R=\mathrm{}`$). Clearly, $`f^1(N_p^{})=N_p`$, and hence $`N_p`$ is a complex curve in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

Obviously, $`N_p`$ is invariant under the action of $`I_p`$. By Bochner’s theorem there exist local holomorphic coordinates in the neighborhood of $`p`$ such that the action of $`I_p`$ is linear in these coordinates and coincides with the action of the linear isotropy subgroup $`L_p`$ introduced in the proof of Proposition 1.1 (upon the natural identification of the coordinate neighborhood in question and a neighborhood of the origin in $`T_p(M)`$). Recall that $`L_p`$ has two invariant complex subspaces in $`T_p(M)`$: $`T_p(O)`$ and a one-dimensional subspace, which correspond in our coordinates to $`O`$ and some holomorphic curve. It can be easily seen that $`\overline{N_p}`$ is precisely this curve. Hence $`\overline{N_p}`$ near $`p`$ is an analytic disc with center at $`p`$, and therefore $`N_p^{}`$ cannot in fact be equivalent to an annulus, and we have either $`r=0`$ or $`R=\mathrm{}`$.

Assume first that $`r=0`$ and $`R<\mathrm{}`$. We consider a holomorphic embedding $`\nu :S_{0,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ defined by the formula

$$\nu (<z>):=\{(z,w)\},$$

where $`w=(w_1:\mathrm{}:w_n)`$ is uniquely determined by the conditions $`z_iw_j=z_jw_i`$ for all $`i,j`$, and $`<z>(\mathrm{}^n\{0\})/\mathrm{}_m`$ is the equivalence class of $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)\mathrm{}^n\{0\}`$. Clearly, $`\nu `$ is $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$-equivariant. Now let $`f_\nu :=\nu f`$. We claim that $`f_\nu `$ extends to $`O`$ as a biholomorphic map of $`M`$ onto $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$.

Let $`\widehat{O}`$ be the orbit in $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ that is a complex hypersurface and let $`\widehat{p}\widehat{O}`$ be the (unique) point such that its isotropy subgroup $`I_{\widehat{p}}`$ (with respect to the action of $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ on $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ as described in Example 3.1) is $`\varphi _{n,m}^1(I_p)`$. Then $`\{\widehat{p}\}\nu (N_p^{})`$ is a smooth complex curve. We define the extension $`F_\nu `$ of $`f_\nu `$ by setting $`F_\nu (p):=\widehat{p}`$ for each $`pO`$.

We must show that $`F_\nu `$ is continuous at each point $`pO`$. Let $`\{q_j\}`$ be a sequence of points in $`M`$ accumulating to $`p`$. Since all accumulation points of the sequence $`\{F_\nu (q_j)\}`$ lie in $`\widehat{O}`$ and $`\widehat{O}`$ is compact, it suffices to show that each convergent subsequence $`\{F_\nu (q_{j_k})\}`$ of $`\{F_\nu (q_j)\}`$ converges to $`\widehat{p}`$. For every $`q_{j_k}`$ there exists $`g_{j_k}U_n`$ such that $`g_{j_k}^1I_{q_{j_k}}g_{j_k}I_p`$, i.e., $`g_{j_k}^1q_{j_k}\overline{N_p}`$. We select a convergent subsequence $`\{g_{j_{k_l}}\}`$ and denote its limit by $`g`$. Then $`\{g_{j_{k_l}}^1q_{j_{k_l}}\}`$ converges to $`g^1p`$. Since $`g^1pO`$ and $`g_{j_{k_l}}^1q_{j_{k_l}}\overline{N_p}`$, it follows that $`g^1p=p`$, i.e, $`gI_p`$. The map $`F_\nu `$ satisfies (2.12) for all $`gU_n`$ and $`qM`$, hence $`F_\nu (q_{j_{k_l}})\overline{N_{\varphi _{n,m}^1(g_{j_{k_l}})\widehat{p}}}`$, where $`N_{\varphi _{n,m}^1(g_{j_{k_l}})\widehat{p}}\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ is constructed similarly to $`N_p\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Therefore the limit of $`\{F_\nu (q_{j_{k_l}})\}`$ (equal to the limit of $`\{F_\nu (q_{j_k})\}`$) is $`\widehat{p}`$. Hence $`F_\nu `$ is continuous, and therefore holomorphic on $`M`$. It obviously maps $`M`$ biholomorphically onto $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$.

The case when $`r>0`$ and $`R=\mathrm{}`$ can be treated along the same lines, but one must consider the holomorphic embedding $`\sigma :S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n/\mathrm{}_m\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$ such that

$$\sigma (<z>):=\{(1:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n)\},$$

the map $`f_\sigma :=\sigma f`$, and prove that $`f_\sigma `$ extends to $`O`$ as a biholomorphic map of $`M`$ onto $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$.

If $`r=0`$ and $`R=\mathrm{}`$, then precisely one of $`f_\nu `$ and $`f_\sigma `$ extends to $`O`$, and the extension defines a biholomorphic map from $`M`$ to either $`\widehat{\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$, or $`\stackrel{~}{S_{0,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$.

Let now $`n=2`$. We fix $`pO`$ and consider $`I_p`$. There exists $`gU_2`$ such that $`I_p=g^1Hg`$. As above, we introduce the sets $`N_{p,q}`$, i.e., for an arbitrary real hypersurface orbit $`O(q)`$ we set

$$N_{p,q}:=\{sO(q):I_sI_p\}.$$

Since $`I_s`$ is conjugate in $`U_2`$ to a subgroup $`H_{k_1,k_2}`$, where $`k_1:=k`$ and $`k_2=k+10`$, it follows that

$$N_{p,q}=\{sO(q):I_s=g^1H_{k_1,k_2}g\}\{sO(q):I_s=g^1h_0H_{k_1,k_2}h_0g\},$$

where

$$h_0:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$

i.e., for $`n=2`$, $`N_{p,q}`$ has two connected components. We denote them $`N_{p,q}^1`$ and $`N_{p,q}^2`$, respectively. It is easy to show now that if we fix $`tN_{p,q}`$, then $`N_{p,q}^1=\{ht\}`$ and $`N_{p,q}^2=\{g^1h_0ght\}`$, where

$$h=g^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)g,\alpha U_1.$$

We now consider the corresponding sets $`N_p^1`$ and $`N_p^2`$. The point $`p`$ is the accumulation point in $`O`$ for exactly one of these sets. As above, we obtain that either $`r=0`$, or $`R=\mathrm{}`$. For example, assume that $`r=0`$ and $`R<\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\widehat{O}`$ be the orbit in $`\widehat{B_R^2}/\mathrm{}_m`$ that is a complex hypersurface. There are precisely two points in $`\widehat{O}`$ whose isotropy subgroups in $`U_2/\mathrm{}_m`$ coincide with $`\varphi _{2,m}^1(I_p)`$. These points $`\widehat{p}_1`$ and $`\widehat{p}_2`$ are the accumulation points in $`\widehat{O}`$ of $`\nu (N_p^{}_{}{}^{}1)`$ and $`\nu (N_p^{}_{}{}^{}2)`$, where $`N_p^{}_{}{}^{}1,N_p^{}_{}{}^{}2S_{0,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ are the sets of points with isotropy subgroups equal to $`\varphi _{2,m}^1(g^1H_{k_1,k_2}g)`$ and $`\varphi _{2,m}^1(g^1h_0H_{k_1,k_2}h_0g)`$ respectively. We then define the extension $`F_\nu `$ of $`f_\nu `$ by setting $`F_\nu (p)=\widehat{p}_1`$ if $`N_p^1`$ accumulates to $`p`$ and $`F_\nu (p)=\widehat{p}_2`$ if $`N_p^2`$ accumulates to $`p`$. The proof of the continuity of $`F_\nu `$ proceeds as for $`n3`$. The arguments in the cases $`r>0`$, $`R=\mathrm{}`$ and $`r=0`$, $`R=\mathrm{}`$ are analogous to the above.

Assume now that two orbits $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ in $`M`$ are complex hypersurfaces. As above, we consider the manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ obtained from $`M`$ by removing $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. For some $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`m=|nk+1|`$, and some $`r`$ and $`R`$, $`0r<R\mathrm{}`$, it is biholomorphically equivalent to $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ by means of a map $`f`$ satisfying either (2.12) or (2.13). Arguments very similar to the ones used above show that in this case $`r=0`$, $`R=\mathrm{}`$, and $`f_\tau :=\tau f`$ extends to a biholomorphic map $`M\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$. Here $`\tau :(\mathrm{}^n\{0\})/\mathrm{}_m\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is a $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$-equivariant map defined as

$$\tau (<z>):=\left\{((1:z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n),w)\right\},$$

where $`w=(w_1:\mathrm{}:w_n)`$ is uniquely determined from the conditions $`z_iw_j=z_jw_i`$ for all $`i,j`$.

The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The Homogeneous Case

We consider now the case when the action of $`U_n`$ on $`M`$ is transitive.

###### Example 4.1

Examples of manifolds on which $`U_n`$ acts transitively and effectively are the Hopf manifolds $`M_d^n`$ (see Definition 2.6). Let $`\lambda `$ be a complex number such that $`e^{\frac{2\pi (\lambda i)}{nK}}=d`$ for some $`K\mathrm{}\{0\}`$. We define an action of $`U_n`$ on $`M_d^n`$ as follows. Let $`AU_n`$. We can represent $`A`$ in the form $`A=e^{it}B`$, where $`t\mathrm{}`$ and $`BSU_n`$. Then we set

$$A[z]:=[e^{\lambda t}Bz].$$
(4.1)
Of course, we must verify that this action is well-defined. Indeed, the same element $`AU_n`$ can be also represented in the form $`A=e^{i(t+\frac{2\pi k}{n}+2\pi l)}(e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{n}}B)`$, $`0kn1`$, $`l\mathrm{}`$. Then formula (4.1) yields

$$A[z]=[e^{\lambda (t+\frac{2\pi k}{n}+2\pi l)}e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{n}}Bz]=[d^{kK+nKl}e^{\lambda t}Bz]=[e^{\lambda t}Bz].$$

It is also clear that (4.1) does not depend on the choice of representative in the class $`[z]`$.

The action in question is obviously transitive. It is also effective. For let $`e^{it}B[z]=[z]`$ for some $`t\mathrm{}`$, $`BSU_n`$, and all $`z\mathrm{}^n\{0\}`$. Then, for some $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`B=e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{n}}\text{id}`$, and some $`s\mathrm{}`$ the following holds

$$e^{\lambda t}e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{n}}=d^s.$$

Using the definition of $`\lambda `$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}t=\frac{2\pi s}{nK},\hfill \\ e^{\frac{2\pi ik}{n}}=e^{\frac{2\pi is}{nK}}\hfill \end{array}.$$

Hence $`e^{it}B=\text{id}`$, and thus the action is effective.

The isotropy subgroup of the point $`[(1,0,\mathrm{},0)]`$ is $`G_{K,1}SU_{n1}`$, where $`SU_{n1}`$ is embedded in $`U_n`$ in the standard way and $`G_{K,1}`$ consists of all matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \beta \text{id}\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\beta ^{(n1)K}=1`$.

Another example is provided by the manifolds $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ (see Definition 2.6). Let $`\{[z]\}M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ be the equivalence class of $`[z]`$. We define an action of $`U_n`$ on $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ by the formula $`g\{[z]\}:=\{g[z]\}`$ for $`gU_n`$. This action is clearly transitive; it is also effective if, e.g., $`(n,m)=1`$ and $`(K,m)=1`$.

The isotropy subgroup of the point $`\{[(1,0,\mathrm{},0)]\}`$ is $`G_{K,m}SU_{n1}`$, where $`G_{K,m}`$ consists of all matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 0\\ 0& \beta \text{id}\end{array}\right),$$
(4.2)
with $`\alpha ^m=1`$ and $`\alpha ^K\beta ^{K(n1)}=1`$. Note that in this case every orbit of the induced action of $`SU_n`$ is equivariantly diffeomorphic to the lense manifold $`_m^{2n1}`$.

One can consider more general actions by choosing $`\lambda `$ such that $`e^{\frac{2\pi (\lambda i)}{n}}=d^K`$, but not all such actions are effective.

We shall now describe complex manifolds admitting effective transitive actions of $`U_n`$. It turns out that such a manifold is always biholomorphically equivalent to one of the manifolds $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$. To prove this we shall look at orbits of the induced action of $`SU_n`$. We require the following algebraic lemma first.

###### Lemma 4.2

Let $`G`$ be a connected closed subgroup of $`U_n`$ of dimension $`n^22n`$, $`n2`$. Then either

(i) $`G`$ is irreducible as a subgroup of $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$, or

(ii) $`G`$ is conjugate to $`SU_{n1}`$ embedded in $`U_n`$ in the standard way, or

(iii) for $`n=3`$, $`G`$ is conjugate to $`U_1\times U_1\times U_1`$ embedded in $`U_3`$ in the standard way, or

(iv) for $`n=4`$, $`G`$ is conjugate to $`U_2\times U_2`$ embedded in $`U_4`$ in the standard way.

Proof: We start as in the proof of Lemma 2.1. Since $`G`$ is compact, it is completely reducible, i.e., $`\mathrm{}^n`$ splits into a sum of $`G`$-invariant pairwise orthogonal complex subspaces, $`\mathrm{}^n=V_1\mathrm{}V_m`$, such that the restriction $`G_j`$ of $`G`$ to every $`V_j`$ is irreducible. Let $`n_j:=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}V_j`$ (hence $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_m=n`$) and let $`U_{n_j}`$ be the unitary transformation group of $`V_j`$. Clearly, $`G_jU_{n_j}`$, and therefore $`\text{dim}Gn_1^2+\mathrm{}+n_m^2`$. On the other hand $`\text{dim}G=n^22n`$, which shows that $`m2`$ for $`n3`$. If $`n=3`$, then it is also possible that $`m=3`$, which means that $`G`$ is conjugate to $`U_1\times U_1\times U_1`$ embedded in $`U_3`$ in the standard way.

Now let $`m=2`$. Then either there exists a unitary transformation of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ such that each element of $`G`$ has in the new coordinates the form (2.3) with $`aU_1`$ and $`BU_{n1}`$ or, for $`n=4`$, $`G`$ is conjugate to $`U_2\times U_2`$. We note that, in the first case, the scalars $`a`$ and the matrices $`B`$, that arise from elements of $`G`$ in (2.3) form compact connected subgroups of $`U_1`$ and $`U_{n1}`$ respectively; we shall denote them by $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ as above.

If $`\text{dim}G_1=0`$, then $`G_1=\{1\}`$, and therefore $`G_2=SU_{n1}`$.

Assume that $`\text{dim}G_1=1`$, i.e., $`G_1=U_1`$. Therefore, $`n3`$. Then $`(n1)^22\text{dim}G_2(n1)^21`$. It follows from Lemma 2.1 of \[IK\] that, for $`n3`$, we have $`G_2=SU_{n1}`$. For $`n=3`$ it is also possible that $`G_2=U_1\times U_1`$, and therefore $`G`$ is conjugate to $`U_1\times U_1\times U_1`$ embedded in $`U_3`$ in the standard way. Assume that $`G_2=SU_{n1}`$ and consider the Lie algebra $`g`$ of $`G`$. It consists of all matrices of the form (2.4) with $`b`$ an arbitrary matrix in $`su_{n1}`$ and $`l(b)`$ a linear function of the matrix elements of $`b`$ ranging in $`i\mathrm{}`$. However, $`l(b)`$ must vanish on the commutant of $`su_{n1}`$ which is $`su_{n1}`$ itself. Consequently, $`l(b)0`$, which contradicts our assumption that $`G_1=U_1`$.

The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`M`$ be a complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective transitive action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Then there exists $`m\mathrm{}`$, $`(n,m)=1`$, such that for each $`pM`$ the orbit $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ of the induced action of $`SU_n`$ is a real hypersurface in $`M`$ that is $`SU_n`$-equivariantly diffeomorphic to the lense manifold $`_m^{2n1}`$ endowed with the standard action of $`SU_nU_n/\mathrm{}_m`$.

Proof: Since $`M`$ is homogeneous under the action of $`U_n`$, for every $`pM`$ we have $`\text{dim}I_p=n^22n`$. We now apply Lemma 4.2 to the identity component $`I_p^c`$. Clearly, if $`I_p^c`$ contains the center of $`U_n`$, then the action of $`U_n`$ on $`M`$ is not effective, and therefore cases (iii) and (iv) cannot occur. We claim that case (i) does not occur either.

Since $`M`$ is compact, the group $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ of all biholomorphic automorphisms of $`M`$ is a complex Lie group. Hence we can extend the action of $`U_n`$ to a holomorphic transitive action of $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$ on $`M`$ (see \[H\], pp. 204–207). Let $`J_p`$ be the isotropy subgroup of $`p`$ with respect to this action. Clearly, $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}J_p=n^2n`$. Consider the normalizer $`N(J_p^c)`$ of $`J_p^c`$ in $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$. It is known from results of Borel-Remmert and Tits (see Theorem 4.2 in \[A2\]) that $`N(J_p^c)`$ is a parabolic subgroup of $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$. We note that $`N(J_p^c)GL_n(\mathrm{})`$. For otherwise $`J_p^c`$ would be a normal subgroup of $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$. But $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$ contains no normal subgroup of dimension $`n^2n`$. Indeed, considering the intersection of such a subgroup with $`SL_n(\mathrm{})`$, we would obtain a normal subgroup of $`SL_n(\mathrm{})`$ of positive dimension thus arriving at a contradiction.

All parabolic subgroups of $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$ are well-known. Let $`n=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_r`$, $`n_j1`$, and let $`P(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ be the group of all matrices that have blocks of sizes $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_r`$ on the diagonal, arbitrary entries above the blocks, and zeros below. Then an arbitrary parabolic subgroup of $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$ is conjugate to some subgroup $`P(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$.

Since the normalizer $`N(J_p^c)`$ does not coincide with $`GL_n(\mathrm{})`$, it is conjugate to a subgroup $`P(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ with $`r2`$. Hence there exists a proper subspace of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ that is invariant under the action of $`N(J_p^c)`$, and therefore under the action of $`I_p^c`$. Thus, $`I_p^c`$ cannot be irreducible.

Hence there exists $`gU_n`$ such that $`gI_p^cg^1=SU_{n1}`$, where $`SU_{n1}`$ is embedded in $`U_n`$ in the standard way. Clearly, the element $`g`$ can be chosen from $`SU_n`$, and hence $`I_p^c`$ is contained in $`SU_n`$ and is conjugate in $`SU_n`$ to $`SU_{n1}`$.

Consider now the orbit $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ of a point $`pM`$ under the induced action of $`SU_n`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{I}_pSU_n`$ be the isotropy subgroup of $`p`$ with respect to this action. Clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p=I_pSU_n`$. Since $`I_p^c`$ lies in $`SU_n`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p^c=I_p^c`$. In particular, $`\text{dim}\stackrel{~}{I}_p=n^22n`$, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ is a real hypersurface in $`M`$.

Assume now that $`n3`$. We require the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $`G`$ be a closed subgroup of $`SU_n`$, $`n3`$, such that $`G^c=SU_{n1}`$, where $`SU_{n1}`$ is embedded in $`SU_n`$ in the standard way. Let $`m`$ be the number of connected components of $`G`$. Then $`G=G_{1,m}SU_{n1}`$, where the group $`G_{1,m}`$ is defined in (4.2).

Proof of Lemma 4.4: Let $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_m`$ be the connected components of $`G`$ with $`C_1=SU_{n1}`$. Clearly, there exist $`g_1=\text{id},g_2,\mathrm{},g_m`$ in $`SU_n`$ such that $`C_j=g_jSU_{n1}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Moreover, for each pair of indices $`i,j`$ there exists $`k`$ such that $`g_iSU_{n1}g_jSU_{n1}=g_kSU_{n1}`$, and therefore

$$g_k^1g_iSU_{n1}g_j=SU_{n1}.$$
(4.3)
Applying (4.3) to the vector $`v:=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, which is preserved by the standard embedding of $`SU_{n1}`$ in $`SU_n`$, we obtain

$$g_k^1g_iSU_{n1}g_jv=v,$$

i.e.,

$$SU_{n1}g_jv=g_i^1g_kv,$$

which implies that $`g_jv=(\alpha _j,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, $`|\alpha _j|=1`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Hence $`g_j`$ has the form

$$g_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _j& 0\\ 0& A_j\end{array}\right),$$

where $`A_jU_{n1}`$ and $`detA_j=1/\alpha _j`$. Since $`A_j`$ can be written in the form $`A_j=\beta _jB_j`$ with $`B_jSU_{n1}`$, we can assume without loss of generality that $`A_j=\beta _j\text{id}`$. Clearly, each matrix

$$g_j\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \sigma \text{id}\end{array}\right)$$

where $`j`$ is arbitrary and $`\sigma ^{n1}=1`$, also belongs to $`G`$. Further, it is clear that the parameters $`\alpha _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$, are all distinct and form a finite subgroup of $`U_1`$, which is therefore the group of $`m`$th roots of unity.

Thus, $`G=G_{1,m}SU_{n1}`$, as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

It now follows from Lemma 4.4 that if $`n3`$, then for each $`pM`$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p`$ is conjugate in $`SU_n`$ to one of the groups $`G_{1,m}SU_{n1}`$ with $`m\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ is $`SU_n`$-equivariantly diffeomorphic to $`_m^{2n1}`$. Clearly, the $`SU_n`$-action is effective on $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ only if $`(n,m)=1`$. The integer $`m`$ does not depend on $`p`$ since all isotropy subgroups $`I_p`$ are conjugate in $`U_n`$. This proves Proposition 4.3 for $`n3`$.

Now let $`n=2`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ is a homogeneous real hypersurface, it is either strongly pseudoconvex or Levi-flat. Assume that $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ is Levi-flat. Then it is foliated by complex curves. Let $`m`$ be the Lie algebra of all holomorphic vector fields on $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ corresponding to the automorphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ generated by the action of $`SU_2`$. Clearly, $`m`$ is isomorphic to $`su_2`$. Let $`M_p`$ be the leaf of the foliation passing through $`p`$, and consider the subspace $`lm`$ of vector fields tangent to $`M_p`$ at $`p`$. The vector fields in $`l`$ remain tangent to $`M_p`$ at each point $`qM_p`$, and therefore $`l`$ is in fact a Lie subalgebra of $`m`$. However, $`\text{dim}l=2`$ and $`su_2`$ has no 2-dimensional subalgebras. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ must be strongly pseudoconvex.

Similarly to the proof of Proposition 2.2, we can now show that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`U_1`$. This means that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p`$ is a finite cyclic group, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p=\{A^l,0l<m\}`$ for some $`ASU_2`$ and $`m\mathrm{}`$ such that $`A^m=\text{id}`$. Choosing new coordinates in which $`A`$ is in the diagonal form, we see that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p`$ is conjugate in $`SU_2`$ to the group of matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & 0\\ 0& \alpha ^1\end{array}\right),\alpha ^m=1.$$

Hence $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ is $`SU_2`$-equivariantly diffeomorphic to the lense manifold $`_m^3`$. Clearly, the action of $`SU_2`$ is effective on $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ only if $`m`$ is odd. The integer $`m`$ does not depend on $`p`$ since all isotropy subgroups $`I_p`$ are conjugate in $`U_2`$. This proves Proposition 2.2 for $`n=2`$ and completes the proof in general. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now establish the following result.

###### THEOREM 4.5

Let $`M`$ be a complex manifold of dimension $`n2`$ endowed with an effective transitive action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations. Then $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to some manifold $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, where $`m\mathrm{}`$ and $`(n,m)=1`$. The equivalence $`f:MM_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ can be chosen to satisfy either the relation

$$f(gq)=gf(q),$$
(4.4)
or, for $`n3`$, the relation

$$f(gq)=\overline{g}f(q),$$
(4.5)
for all $`gSU_n`$ and $`qM`$ (here $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is considered with the standard action of $`SU_n`$).

Proof: We claim first that $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to some manifold $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$. For a proof we only need to show that $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^1\times _m^{2n1}`$ for some $`m\mathrm{}`$ such that $`(n,m)=1`$. Then biholomorphic equivalence will follow from Theorem 3.1 of \[A1\].

Choose $`m`$ provided by Proposition 4.3. For $`pM`$ we consider the $`SU_n`$-orbit $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$. Let $`t_0:=\mathrm{min}\{t>0:e^{it}p\stackrel{~}{O}(p)\}`$. Clearly, $`t_0>0`$. For each point $`q\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ there exists $`BSU_n`$ such that $`q=Bp`$. Hence

$$e^{it_0}q=e^{it_0}(Bp)=(e^{it_0}B)p=(Be^{it_0})p=B(e^{it_0}p),$$
(4.6)
and $`e^{it_0}\stackrel{~}{O}(p)=\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$. This shows that $`M^{}:=_{0t<t_0}e^{it}\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ is a closed submanifold of $`M`$ of dimension $`n`$. Since $`M`$ is connected, it follows that $`M^{}=M`$.

Let $`p_t:=e^{it}p`$, $`0tt_0`$. We consider a curve $`\gamma :[0,t_0]M`$ such that $`\gamma (0)=\gamma (t_0)=p`$, $`\gamma (t)\stackrel{~}{O}(p_t)`$ for each $`t`$, and $`\gamma ([0,t_0])`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^1`$. We can assume that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_p=G_{1,m}SU_{n1}`$, which is also the isotropy subgroup, with respect to the standard action of $`SU_n`$ on $`_m^{2n1}`$, of the point $`q_m^{2n1}`$ represented by the point $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)S^{2n1}`$. Further, for each $`0<t<t_0`$, there exists $`g_tSU_n`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\gamma (t)}=g_t\stackrel{~}{I}_pg_t^1`$. Clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_{\gamma (t)}`$ is the isotropy subgroup of the point $`q_t:=g_tq`$ in $`_m^{2n1}`$. Hence the map

$$\varphi _t(h\gamma (t))=hq_t,$$

where $`hSU_n`$, maps the orbit $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p_t)`$ diffeomorphically (and $`SU_n`$-equivariantly) onto $`_m^{2n1}`$, $`0tt_0`$ (here we set $`g_0:=g_{t_0}:=\text{id}`$, $`q_0:=q_{t_0}:=q`$).

We define now a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:MS^1\times _m^{2n1}`$. For each $`xM`$ there exists a unique $`0t<t_0`$, such that $`x\stackrel{~}{O}(p_t)`$. We set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=(e^{\frac{2\pi it}{t_0}},\varphi _t(x)).$$

It is clear that $`g_t`$, and therefore $`q_t`$ can be chosen so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a diffeomorphism. Hence $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to one of the manifolds $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$.

Let $`F:MM_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ be a holomorphic equivalence. Using $`F`$, the action of $`SU_n`$ on $`M`$ can be pushed to an action of $`SU_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations on $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$. The group $`\text{Aut}(M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ of all biholomorphic automorphisms of $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is isomorphic to $`Q_{d,m}^n:=(GL_n(\mathrm{})/\{d^k\text{id},k\mathrm{}\})/\mathrm{}_m`$ (this can be seen, for example, by lifting automorphisms of $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ to its universal cover $`\mathrm{}^n\{0\}`$). Each maximal compact subgroup of this group is conjugate to a subgroup of the form $`(U_n/\mathrm{}_m)\times K`$, where $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ is embedded in $`Q_{d,m}^n`$ in the standard way, and $`K`$ is isomorphic to $`S^1`$. The action of $`SU_n`$ on $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ induces an embedding $`\tau :SU_nQ_{d,m}^n`$. Since $`SU_n`$ is compact, there exists $`sQ_{d,m}^n`$ such that $`\tau (SU_n)`$ is contained in $`s((U_n/\mathrm{}_m)\times K)s^1`$. However, there exists no nontrivial homomorphism from $`SU_n`$ into $`S^1`$, and therefore $`\tau (SU_n)s(U_n/\mathrm{}_m)s^1`$. Since $`(n,m)=1`$, it follows that $`\tau (SU_n)=sSU_ns^1`$, where $`SU_n`$ in the right-hand side is embedded in $`Q_{d,m}^n`$ in the standard way.

We now set $`f:=\widehat{s}^1F`$, where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the automorphism of $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ corresponding to $`sQ_{d,m}^n`$. Pushing now the action of $`SU_n`$ on $`M`$ to an action of $`SU_n`$ on $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ by means of $`f`$ in place of $`F`$, for the corresponding embedding $`\tau _s:SU_nQ_{d,m}^n`$ we obtain the equality $`\tau _s(SU_n)=SU_n`$, where $`SU_n`$ in the right-hand side is embedded in $`Q_{d,m}^n`$ in the standard way. Thus, there exists an automorphism $`\gamma `$ of $`SU_n`$ such that

$$f(gq)=\gamma (g)f(q),$$

for all $`gSU_n`$ and $`qM`$.

Assume first that $`n3`$. Then each automorphism of $`SU_n`$ has either the form

$$gh_0gh_0^1,$$
(4.7)
or the form

$$gh_0\overline{g}h_0^1,$$
(4.8)
for some fixed $`h_0SU_n`$ (see, e.g., \[VO\]). If $`\gamma `$ has the form (4.7), then considering in place of $`f`$ the map $`qh_0^1f(q)`$ we obtain a biholomorphic map satisfying (4.4). If $`\gamma `$ has the form (4.8), then considering in place of $`f`$ the map $`qh_0^1f(q)`$ we obtain a biholomorphic map satisfying (4.5).

Let $`n=2`$. Then each automorphism of $`SU_2`$ has the form (4.7) and arguing as above we obtain a biholomorphic map satisfying (4.4).

The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.6

For $`n3`$ Theorem 4.5 can be proved without referring to the results in \[A1\]. We note first that the $`SU_n`$-equivariant diffeomorphism between $`_m^{2n1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}(p)`$ constructed in Proposition 4.3 is either a CR or an anti-CR map (here we consider $`_m^{2n1}`$ is with the CR-structure inherited from $`S^{2n1}`$). The corresponding proof is similar to the proof of Proposition 2.4. We must only replace $`U_n`$ and $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ by $`SU_n`$ and $`\varphi _{n,m}`$ by the identity map. Further we argue as in the second part of the proof of Theorem 2.7 for compact $`M`$, replacing there $`U_n`$ by $`SU_n`$.

###### Remark 4.7

Ideally, one would like the biholomorphic equivalence in Theorem 4.5 to be $`U_n`$-equivariant, rather than just $`SU_n`$-equivariant. However, as Example 4.1 shows, there is no canonical transitive action of $`U_n`$ on $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$.

## 5 A Characterization of $`\text{C}^n`$

In this section we apply the results obtained above to prove the following theorem.

###### THEOREM 5.1

Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold of dimension $`n`$. Assume that $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ are isomorphic as topological groups. Then $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to $`\mathrm{}^n`$.

Proof: The theorem is trivial for $`n=1`$, so we assume that $`n2`$. Since $`M`$ admits an effective action of $`U_n`$ by biholomorphic transformations, $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to one of the manifolds listed in Remark 1.2, Theorem 2.7, Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.5. The automorphism groups of the following manifolds are clearly Lie groups: $`B^n`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n`$, $`S_{r,R}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ for $`r>0`$ or $`R<\mathrm{}`$, $`M_d^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, $`\widehat{B_R^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S_{r,\mathrm{}}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n}/\mathrm{}_m`$. Since $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ is isomorphic to $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ is not locally compact, $`\text{Aut}(M)`$ cannot be isomorphic to a Lie group and hence $`M`$ is not biholomorphically equivalent to any of the above manifolds.

Therefore, $`M`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to either $`\mathrm{}^n`$, or $`\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, where $`\mathrm{}^n:=\mathrm{}^n\{0\}`$ and $`m=|nk+1|`$ for some $`k\mathrm{}`$. We will now show that the groups $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ are not isomorphic.

Let first $`m=1`$. The group $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ consists of exactly those elements of $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ that fix the origin. Suppose that $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ are isomorphic and let $`\psi :\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ denote an isomorphism. Clearly, $`\psi (U_n)`$ induces an action of $`U_n`$ on $`\mathrm{}^n`$, and therefore, by our results above, there is $`F\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ such that for the isomorphism $`\psi _F:\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$, $`\psi _F(g):=F\psi (g)F^1`$, we have: either $`\psi _F(g)=g`$, or $`\psi _F(g)=\overline{g}`$ for all $`gU_n`$.

Consider $`U_{n1}`$ embedded in $`U_n`$ in the standard way, and consider its centralizer $`C`$ in $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$, i.e.,

$$C:=\{f\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n):fg=gf\text{for all }gU_{n1}\}.$$

It is easy to show that $`C`$ consists of maps $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}f_1=az_1+b,\hfill \\ f^{}=h(z_1)z^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.1)
where $`z^{}:=(z_2,\mathrm{},z_n)`$, $`f^{}:=(f_2,\mathrm{},f_n)`$, $`a,b\mathrm{}`$, $`a0`$, $`h(z_1)`$ is a nowhere vanishing entire function. Similarly, let $`C^{}`$ be the centralizer of $`U_{n1}`$ in $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$. It consists of maps $`f=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}f_1=az_1,\hfill \\ f^{}=h(z_1)z^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.2)
where $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`a0`$, $`h(z_1)`$ is entire and nowhere vanishing. Clearly, $`\psi _F(C)=C^{}`$.

Let $`C^{}`$ and $`C^{^{}}`$ denote the commutants of $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ respectively. Clearly, $`\psi _F(C^{})=C^{^{}}`$. It is easy to check that $`C^{^{}}`$ consists exactly of all maps of the form (5.2) where $`a=1`$ and $`h(0)=1`$. In particular, $`C^{^{}}`$ is Abelian. We will now show that $`C^{}`$ is not Abelian. Indeed, consider the following elements of $`C`$ (see (5.1)):

$$\begin{array}{c}f(z_1,z^{}):=(z_1+1,z^{}),\hfill \\ g(z_1,z^{}):=(2z_1,z^{}),\hfill \\ u(z_1,z^{}):=(z_1+1,e^{z_1}z^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

We now see that

$$\begin{array}{c}F(z_1,z^{}):=fgf^1g^1=(z_11,z^{}),\hfill \\ G(z_1,z^{}):=ugu^1g^1=(z_11,e^{\frac{z_12}{2}}z^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly, $`F,GC^{}`$, and we have

$$\begin{array}{c}FG=(z_12,e^{\frac{z_12}{2}}z^{}),\hfill \\ GF=(z_12,e^{\frac{z_13}{2}}z^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence $`FGGF`$, and thus $`C^{}`$ is not Abelian. Therefore, $`C^{}`$ and $`C^{^{}}`$ are not isomorphic. This contradiction shows that $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ are not isomorphic.

Let now $`m>1`$. For $`z\mathrm{}^n`$ denote as before by $`<z>\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$ its equivalence class. Let

$$H_m^n:=\{f\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n):<f(z)>=<f(\stackrel{~}{z})>,\text{if }<z>=<\stackrel{~}{z}>\}.$$

The group $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ is isomorphic in the obvious way to $`H_m^n/\mathrm{}_m`$. Suppose that $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ are isomorphic and let $`\psi :\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ denote an isomorphism. Clearly, $`\psi (U_n)`$ induces an action of $`U_n`$ on $`\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m`$, and therefore there is $`F\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ such that for the isomorphism $`\psi _F:\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$, $`\psi _F(g):=F\psi (g)F^1`$, we have: either $`\psi _F(g)=\varphi _{n,m}^1(g)`$, or $`\psi _F(g)=\varphi _{n,m}^1(\overline{g})`$ for all $`gU_n`$, where we consider $`U_n/\mathrm{}_m`$ embedded in $`H_m^n/\mathrm{}_m`$.

The rest of the proof proceeds as for the case $`m=1`$ above with obvious modifications. We consider the centralizer $`C_m^{}`$ of $`\varphi _{n,m}^1(U_{n1})=\varphi _{n,m}^1(\overline{U_{n1}})H_m^n/\mathrm{}_m`$. Clearly, $`\psi _F(C)=C_m^{}`$. Then we find the commutant $`C_m^{^{}}`$ of $`C_m^{}`$, and we have $`\psi _F(C^{})=C_m^{^{}}`$. As above, it turns out that $`C_m^{^{}}`$ is Abelian. Therefore, $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(\mathrm{}^n/\mathrm{}_m)`$ cannot be isomorphic.

The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

Centre for Mathematics and Its Applications
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
AUSTRALIA
E-mail address: Alexander.Isaev@anu.edu.au
Department of Complex Analysis
Steklov Mathematical Institute
42 Vavilova St.
Moscow 117966
RUSSIA
E-mail address: kruzhil@ns.ras.ru