text:
# Motivic invariants of Arc-Symmetric sets and Blow-NASH Equivalence

## Introduction

In the study of real analytic function germs, the choice of a good equivalence relation is an important question. Whereas a topological equivalence is too coarse and a $`C^1`$-equivalence too fine, blow-analytic equivalence, a notion introduced by T.-C. Kuo in 1985 ( see , and  for a survey) seems to behave better, especially with respect to finiteness properties. In this paper we will focus on a particular case of blow-analytic equivalence, say blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence. Let $`f,g:(^d,0)(,0)`$ be real analytic function germs; $`f`$ and $`g`$ are said to be blow-$`Nash`$ equivalent if there exist two algebraic modifications $`\pi _f:(M_f,\pi _f^1(0))(^d,0)`$ and $`\pi _g:(M_g,\pi _g^1(0))(^d,0)`$, and a $`Nash`$-isomorphism, that is an analytic isomorphism with semi-algebraic graph, $`\varphi :(M_f,\pi _f^1(0))(M_g,\pi _g^1(0))`$ which respects the multiplicity of the jacobian determinants of $`\pi _f`$ and $`\pi _g`$ and which induces a homeomorphism $`h:(^d,0)(^d,0)`$ such that $`f=gh`$. Here by a modification of $`f`$ we mean a proper birational map which is an isomorphism over the complement of the zero locus of $`f`$. One can define such an equivalence relation on germs of real analytic varieties, and S. Koike proved () that finiteness properties hold in this case. However in the case of germs of functions, the question of moduli is still an open question.

A common issue for blow-analytic equivalence and blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence is to prove that, when it is the case, two given function germs are not equivalent. The difficulty rises in the lack of invariants known for these equivalence relations. Up to now, just one kind of invariants have been known: the Fukui invariants. To an analytic function germ $`f`$, the Fukui invariants associate the set of possible orders $`n`$ of series $`f\gamma (t)=a_nt^n+\mathrm{},a_n0`$, for $`\gamma :(,0)(^d,0)`$ an analytic arc (). There exists also a version of the Fukui invariants related to the sign of $`f`$.

Using motivic integration conbined with the construction of a computable motivic invariant for arc-symmetrics sets, the virtual Betti numbers, we introduce in this paper zeta functions $`Z(T),Z^\pm (T)`$ of a real analytic function germ that belong to $`[u,u^1][[T]]`$, and take into account not only the orders of series $`f\gamma (t)`$ but also the geometry of the sets $`\chi _n(f)`$ of arcs $`\gamma `$ that realize a given order $`n`$ (for precise definitions, see section 4.1). These zeta functions are similar to the motivic zeta functions of Denef & Loeser . We prove that actually they are invariants for blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence. The proof is directly inspired by the work of Denef & Loeser via their formulae for the zeta functions in terms of a modification of the zero locus of the analytic function germ (propositions 4.2, 4.4). It uses the powerfull machinery of motivic integration, a theory introduced by M. Kontsevitch in 1995  and developped by J. Denef and F. Loeser , in particular the fundamental change of variable formula (4.16).

In order to dispose of computable invariants, motivic integration requires computable measures, or in other words Generalized Euler Characteristics. A Generalized Euler Characteristic is an additive and multiplicative invariant defined on the level of the Grothendieck group of varieties. In our setting of the blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence, we need invariants of the Zariski constructible sets over real algebraic varieties $`\chi _n(f)`$ ( real algebraic variety is the sense of  ), and we ask it to be respected by $`Nash`$-isomorphisms. It leads naturally to the category of $`Nash`$-varieties, and more generally of arc-symmetric sets.

Arc-symmetric sets have been introduced in 1988 by K. Kurdyka  in order to study “rigid components” of semi-algebraic sets. Arc-symmetric sets enabled him to prove Borel theorem  which says that injective endomorphisms of real algebraic sets are surjective. With a slightly different definition of arc-symmetric sets A. Parusiński has proved the same result by using the fact that these sets form a constructible category .

In section 2, we give conditions on an invariant defined on connected components of compact nonsingular real algebraic varieties such that it extends to a additive invariant on the constructible category of arc-symmetric sets. Additive means that $`\chi (A)=\chi (B)+\chi (AB)`$ for $`BA`$ an inclusion of arc-symmetric sets. Let us stress the fact that the unique such additive invariant known up to now in the real case is the classical Euler characteristic with compact support, and as a matter of fact it is the unique Generalized Euler Characteristic for semi-algebraic sets up to homeomorphism . As a fundamental example, we prove that the Betti numbers with $`_2`$-coefficient defined on connected components $`A`$ of compact nonsingular real algebraic sets by $`b_k(A)=dimH_k(A,_2)`$, give such an invariant $`\beta _k`$ on arc-symmetric sets for each $`k`$ (corollary 2.4), called $`k`$-Virtual Betti number. We make them multiplivative by putting $`\beta (A)=_{k=0}^{dimA}\beta _k(A)u^k[u]`$, called virtual Poincaré polynomial of $`A`$. This invariant is different from the classical Euler characteristic with compact support, and in particular it enables to distinguish homeomorphic real algebraic sets which are not isomorphic. Moreover it respects dimension as put in light by the formula $`\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta (A)\right)=dim(A)`$ (see remark 2.8) whereas the Euler characteristic with compact support identifies the dimension. These numbers have been proven to be additive invariant of real algebraic varieties recently by C. McCrory and Adam Parusiński in ; in this paper we extend the virtual Betti numbers to the more general context of arc-symmetric sets, and we prove the invariance not only under algebraic isomorphisms but also under $`Nash`$-isomorphisms (see 3.2).

Note that the virtual Betti numbers over real algebraic sets have been introduced independly by C. McCrory and A. Parusiński , and by B. Totaro . Moreover S. Koike and A. Parusiński have defined in the same way zeta functions, by using the classical Euler characteristic with compact support, which are invariant for blow-analytic equivalence (). The advantage of our zeta functions, whose invariance is proven only for blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence, is that the Virtual Betti numbers have a better behaviour with respect to algebraicity and analyticity that the classical Euler characteristic with compact support which is merely topological.

In the first section we study the behaviour of arc-symmetric sets with respect to closure, irreductibility, nonsingularity and overall resolution of singularities (proposition 1.12). In the second one we show that, under certain conditions, an invariant defined over connected components of compact nonsingular algebraic sets can be extended to an additive invariant on all arc-symmetric sets (cf theorem 2.3). Here by invariant we mean up to algebraic isomorphisms (see 1.10). This result requires the use of the Weak Factorization Theorem () and of the desingularisation Theorem of H. Hironaka , and is in the spirit of the description of the naive Grothendieck group of $`k`$-varieties, with $`k`$ a field of characteristic zero, given by F. Bittner in . In particular this part leads to the existence of the Generalized Euler Characteristic $`\beta `$, defined from the Betti numbers, for arc-symmetric sets. Then we extend the invariance of $`\beta `$ in section 3, not only to algebraic isomorphisms of arc-symmetric sets but also to $`Nash`$-isomorphisms (for a precise definition see 3.2). In the final part we define zeta functions of a real analytic function germ and we prove, by the way of motivic integration, the main theorem of this part: $`Z(T),Z^\pm (T)`$ are invariants for blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence. In particular we state Denef & Loeser formulae for the zeta functions (proposition 4.2,4.4). Finally we apply these invariants to sketch the blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence classes of Brieskorn polynomials in two variables, and to give some examples in three variables.

Acknowledgement. I am greatly indebted to Adam Parusiński, my thesis advisor, for his help during this work at the university of Angers.

## 1. Arc-Symmetric sets

### 1.1. Arc-Symmetric sets and closure

We fix a compactification of $`^n`$, for instance $`^n^n`$.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`A^n`$ be a semi-algebraic set. We say that $`A`$ is arc-symmetric if one of the two equivalent conditions holds:

1. for every real analytic arc $`\gamma :]ϵ,ϵ[^n`$ such that $`\gamma (]ϵ,0[)A`$ there exists $`ϵ^{}>0`$ such that $`\gamma (]0,ϵ^{}[)A`$,
2. for every real analytic arc $`\gamma :]ϵ,ϵ[^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{int}\gamma ^1(A)\mathrm{}`$ there exists $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]ϵ,ϵ[`$ such that $`\gamma (]ϵ,ϵ[\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_n\})A`$.

Remark that an arc-symmetric set need not to be an analytic variety (cf , example 1.2).

This definition is the one of A. Parusiński . Note that a closed arc-symmetric set is necessarily compact. This definition differs from the one of K. Kurdyka  who only considers closed arc-symmetric sets in $`^n`$. One can think our arc-symmetric sets as projective constructible arc-symmetric sets. Remark that the arc-symmetric sets form a constructible category $`𝒜𝒮`$ of semi-algebraic sets:

* $`𝒜𝒮`$ contains the algebraic sets,
* $`𝒜𝒮`$ is stable under set-theoretic operations $`,,`$,
* $`𝒜𝒮`$ is stable by inverse images of $`𝒜𝒮`$-map (i-e whose graph is in $`𝒜𝒮`$) and images of injective $`𝒜𝒮`$-map,
* each $`A𝒜𝒮`$ has a well-defined fundamental class with coefficients in $`_2`$.

In particular there is a notion of closure in $`𝒜𝒮`$ (we refer to  for a proof).

###### Proposition 1.2.

Every $`A𝒜𝒮`$ admits a smallest arc-symmetric set, denoted by $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$, containing $`A`$ and closed in $`^n`$.

###### Remark 1.3.

Even if $`A𝒜𝒮`$, we do not have that $`\overline{A}𝒜𝒮`$. Consider for $`A`$ the regular part of the Whitney umbrella $`zx^2=y^2`$ (see figure 1). The closure of $`A`$ in $`𝒜𝒮`$ is the entire Whitney umbrella.

One can consider irreducible arc-symmetric sets: $`A𝒜𝒮`$ is irreducible if $`A=BC`$, with $`B`$ and $`C`$ closed in $`A`$ and arc-symmetric, implies that $`BC`$ or $`CB`$. Remark that an irreducible arc-symmetric set is not necessarily connected with our definition of arc-symmetric sets (as an example consider a hyperbola in the plane). Nethertheless, as proven in , an arc-symmetric set $`A`$ admits a unique decomposition as a finite union of irreducible arc-symmetric sets closed in $`A`$. Note that $`𝒜𝒮`$-closure has a good behaviour with respect to irreducibility:

###### Proposition 1.4.

If $`A𝒜𝒮`$ is irreducible, then so is $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$.

Proof. Suppose $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=BC`$ with $`B`$ and $`C`$ arc-symmetric and closed in $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$. Then $`B`$ and $`C`$ are closed and $`A`$ splits in $`A=AA^{𝒜𝒮}=(AB)(AC)`$, with $`AB`$ and $`AC`$ arc-symmetric and closed in $`A`$. But $`A`$ is irreducible so, for instance, $`ABAC`$. Then $`A=AC`$, so $`AC`$ and $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=C`$ because $`C`$ is arc-symmetric and closed.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.5.

The hypothesis “$`B`$ and $`C`$ closed” is essential. Let $`A`$ be the regular part of the Whitney umbrella. The $`𝒜𝒮`$-closure of $`A`$ is the entire Whitney umbrella which is the disjoint union of two arc-symmetric sets: $`A`$ and the vertical line.

Recall that the dimension of an arc-symmetric set is its dimension as a semi-algebraic set, and also the dimension of its Zariski closure in the projective space  (here by real algebraic variety we mean is the sense of ). In particular, if $`A𝒜𝒮`$ one has $`dimA=dim\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=dim\overline{A}^Z`$.

###### Proposition 1.6.

Let $`A𝒜𝒮`$. Then $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=A\overline{\overline{A}A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$. In particular $`dim\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A<dimA`$.

Proof. As a union of arc-symmetric sets $`F=A\overline{\overline{A}A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is arc-symmetric. Moreover $`F=A(\overline{A}A)(\overline{\overline{A}A}^{𝒜𝒮})=\overline{A}\overline{\overline{A}A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ thus $`F`$ is closed. So we have proved that $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}F`$. Moreover $`\overline{A}\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ because $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is closed, thus $`\overline{\overline{A}A}^{𝒜𝒮}\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$, hence $`F\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$. Consequently $`F=\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

We can adapt proposition 1.5 of  to our definition of arc-symmetric sets.

###### Proposition 1.7.

Let $`A𝒜𝒮`$ be irreducible, and $`BA`$ be a closed arc-symmetric subset of $`A`$ of the same dimension. Then $`B=A`$.

Proof.$`A`$ can be decomposed into the union of two arc-symmetric sets closed in $`A`$: $`A=B(\overline{AB}^{𝒜𝒮}A)`$. Then, by irreducibility of $`A`$, either $`B\overline{AB}^{𝒜𝒮}A`$ or $`\overline{AB}^{𝒜𝒮}AB`$. In the second case $`B=A`$, and in the first one $`B(\overline{AB}^{𝒜𝒮})(AB)`$. But this can not happen because the dimension of this arc-symmetric set is stricly less than $`dimB`$ by proposition 1.6.

$`\mathrm{}`$

### 1.2. Nonsingular arc-symmetric sets

Let us define a nonsingular arc-symmetric set with relation to its Zariski closure in the projective space.

###### Definition 1.8.

An arc-symmetric set $`A`$ is nonsingular if $`A\text{Sing}(\overline{A}^Z)=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Lemma 1.9.

A nonsingular and connected arc-symmetric set is irreducible.

Proof. Let $`C𝒜𝒮`$ be nonsingular and connected, and $`AC`$ a closed connected arc-symmetric set of the same dimension. We are going to prove that $`A=C`$.

Denote by $`A_0`$ the semi-algebraic set consisting of the part of maximal dimension of $`A`$, and put $`A_1=\overline{A_0}`$. Then $`A_1`$ is a closed semi-algebraic subset of $`C`$, contained in $`A`$. But $`A_1`$ is also open in $`C`$: take $`aA_1`$; there exists an open ball $`D`$ with center $`a`$ included in $`C`$. Then $`dimDA_0=dimA`$, therefore $`DA`$ because $`A`$ is arc-symmetric (one can fill $`D`$ with analytic arcs whose interiors intersect $`A_0`$ in non empty sets). Moreover $`DA_0`$, by definition of $`A_0`$, and then $`A_1`$ is an open neighbourhood of $`a`$. Finally $`A_1`$ is a connected component of $`C`$, so $`A_1=C`$. But $`A_1A`$, therefore $`A=C`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us state the definition of an isomorphism between arc-symmetric sets.

###### Definition 1.10.

Let $`A,B𝒜𝒮`$. Then $`A`$ is isomorphic to $`B`$ if and only if there exist Zariski open subsets $`U`$ and $`V`$ in $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$ containing $`A`$ and $`B`$, and an algebraic isomorphism $`\varphi :UV`$ such that $`\varphi (A)=B`$.

The following proposition says that closed and nonsingular arc-symmetric sets are very similar to compact nonsingular real algebraic varieties.

###### Proposition 1.11.

Let $`A𝒜𝒮`$ be compact and nonsingular. Then $`A`$ is isomorphic to a union of connected components of some compact nonsingular real algebraic variety.

Proof. Let $`X=\overline{A}^𝒵`$ be the Zariski closure of $`A`$ in the projective space, and $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ a resolution of singularities of $`X`$. Remark that $`dimA=dimX=dim\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and that $`A`$ is isomorphic to the subset $`\pi ^1(A)=\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ because $`A\mathrm{Reg}(X)`$ and $`\mathrm{Reg}(X)`$ is a Zariski open subset of $`X`$ isomorphic to $`\pi ^1\left(\mathrm{Reg}(X)\right)\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{X}=_{iI}C_i`$ the decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ in connected components. Each $`C_i,iI`$ is a closed and nonsingular arc-symmetric set, hence irreducible by proposition 1.9. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{A}C_i=C_i`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ because of proposition 1.7, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is a union of connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ as claimed.

$`\mathrm{}`$

### 1.3. Arc-Symmetric sets and resolution of singularities

The following proposition is just an adaptation of Theorem 2.6 of  to our definition of arc-symmetric sets.

###### Proposition 1.12.

Let $`A𝒜𝒮`$ be irreducible. Let $`X`$ be a real algebraic variety containing $`A`$ with $`dimX=dimA`$, and $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ a resolution of singularities for $`X`$ (cf ). There exists a unique connected component $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ such that $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})=\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}`$.

Proof. Let $`\stackrel{~}{A_0}`$ be an irreducible arc-symmetric component of dimension $`dimA`$ of $`\pi ^1(A)`$ ( such an $`\stackrel{~}{A_0}`$ exists because $`dim\pi ^1(A)=dimA`$). Then $`\stackrel{~}{A_0}`$ is contained in some connected component $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Actually $`\stackrel{~}{A_0}\overline{\stackrel{~}{A_0}}^{𝒜𝒮}`$, which is irreducible because so is $`\stackrel{~}{A_0}`$ (proposition 1.4) and which is closed, is connected (proposition1.11). Now $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{A}_0}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is included in some connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, and is equal to it by proposition 1.7. We can put $`\stackrel{~}{A}=\overline{\stackrel{~}{A_0}}^{𝒜𝒮}`$.

Let us show that $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})=\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}`$. In fact, it suffices to show that $`dim\overline{\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})}^{𝒜𝒮}\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})<dimA`$, what will be done in the next lemma. Indeed, on one hand $`\overline{\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})}^{𝒜𝒮}=\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ by proposition 1.7, so $`dim\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})<dimA`$. Now $`\mathrm{Reg}(A)\left(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\right)`$ is an open subset of $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ of dimension stricly less than $`dimA`$, so $`\mathrm{Reg}(A)\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})=\mathrm{}`$. This implies $`\mathrm{Reg}(A)\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$. On the other hand, if $`E`$ denotes the exceptionnal divisor of the resolution, one has $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A}E)\mathrm{Reg}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮})`$. However $`\mathrm{Reg}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮})\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}`$ because $`dim\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A<dimA`$ by proposition 1.6.

Thus we have the following inclusions $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A}E)\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$ which gives the conclusion by taking the closure.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 1.13.

Let $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ be as in the proof of proposition 1.12. Then

$$dim\overline{\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})}^{𝒜𝒮}\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})<dimA.$$

Proof. Let us show that $`\overline{\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})}^{𝒜𝒮}F=\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\overline{\pi (E)}^{𝒜𝒮}`$. Remark that if $`F`$ is closed and arc-symmetric the result is proved. As $`\pi `$ is proper $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$ is closed and so is $`F`$. Now, let $`\gamma :]ϵ,ϵ[^n`$ be an real analytic arc such that $`\mathrm{int}\gamma ^1(F)\mathrm{}`$. Then either $`\mathrm{int}\gamma ^1(\overline{\pi (E)}^{𝒜𝒮})\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma (]ϵ,ϵ[)\overline{\pi (E)}^{𝒜𝒮}`$, or $`\mathrm{int}\gamma ^1(\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\overline{\pi (E)}^{𝒜𝒮})\mathrm{}`$. In the latter case there exists a unique analytic arc $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:]ϵ,ϵ[^n`$ such that $`\pi \stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma `$. One has $`\mathrm{int}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^1(\stackrel{~}{A})\mathrm{}`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(]ϵ,ϵ[)\stackrel{~}{A}`$ anf finally $`\gamma (]ϵ,ϵ[)\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})F`$. Thus $`F`$ is arc-symmetric.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.14.

Denote by $`D`$ the singular locus of $`X`$ and by $`E`$ the exceptionnal divisor of the resolution. Then $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{A}E\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}D`$ is an isomorphism of arc-symmetric sets (restriction of an algebraic ismorphism).

If we add the assumption that $`A`$ is nonsingular, then the conclusion becomes $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})=\overline{A}`$. Moreover $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{A}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(A)\right)A`$ is an isomorphism of arc-symmetric sets, and $`dim\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(A)<dimA`$.

One can describe with precision the differences between $`A`$ and $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$. Actually the symmetric difference of $`A`$ and $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$ consists of a semi-algebraic set of dimension stricly less than $`dimA`$, and more precisely one has the following proposition.

###### Proposition 1.15.

Let $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ be as in proposition 1.12. Then

$$A(\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})A)=\{x\mathrm{Sing}(A),dim_xA<dimA\}$$

and

$$\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\left(A\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\right)=\mathrm{Reg}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮})A\{x\mathrm{Sing}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A),dim_x\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=dimA\}$$

$$=\{x\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A,dim_x\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=dimA\}.$$

Proof. For the first equality, remark that $`A(\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})A)\text{Sing}(A)`$ and that $`\text{Sing}(A)`$ splits in $`\{x\mathrm{Sing}(A),dim_xA<dimA\}\{x\mathrm{Sing}(A),dim_xA=dimA\}`$. But recall that $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})=\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}`$, and so $`\mathrm{Sing}(A)\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})=\mathrm{Sing}(A)\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}=\{x\mathrm{Sing}(A),dim_xA=dimA\}`$.

In the same way, $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\left(A\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\right)\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A`$ and $`\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A=\mathrm{Reg}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A)S_1S_2`$ with $`S_1=\{x\mathrm{Sing}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A)),dim_x\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}=dimA\}`$ and $`S_2=\{x\mathrm{Sing}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A)),dim_x\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}<dimA\}`$. One has $`S_2\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`S_1\overline{\mathrm{Reg}(A)}`$. Moreover the remark 1.14 induces that $`\mathrm{Reg}(\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}A)\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}D\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$, hence the conclusion.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 1.16.

Consider once more the Whitney umbrella $`zx^2=y^2`$. One can resolve the singularities by blowing-up along the $`z`$-axis. Let $`\sigma (u,v,w)=(u,uv,w)`$ denote the chart which contains the hole strict transform of the Whitney umbrella; then it has equation $`w=v^2`$, while the exceptional disisor has equation $`u=0`$ ( figure 2).

On one hand, if $`A`$ is just the regular part minus the circle in dotted line, then $`A\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})`$ and $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\left(A\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})\right)`$ consists of the circle and the closed upper part of the vertical line. On the other and if $`A`$ is the entire Whitney umbrella, then $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})A`$ and $`A(\pi (\stackrel{~}{A})A)`$ is the open bottom part of the vertical line.

Let us finish this section by giving the well-known particular case of the “blow-up” of a closed nonsingular arc-symmetric set. We state the proposition in terms of connected component of nonsingular compact algebraic varieties (recall proposition 1.11).

###### Proposition 1.17.

Let $`YX`$ be compact nonsingular algebraic varieties such that $`dimY<dimX`$, and $`AX`$ be a connected component of $`X`$. Denote by $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ the blow-up of $`X`$ along $`Y`$. Then $`\pi `$ is surjective and $`\pi ^1(A)`$ is a connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

## 2. Generalized Euler characteristic of arc-symmetric sets

###### Definition 2.1.

An additive map on $`𝒜𝒮`$ with values in an abelian group is a map $`\chi `$ defined on $`𝒜𝒮`$ such that

1. for $`A`$ and $`B`$ arc-symmetric sets with $`A`$ isomorphic to $`B`$, then $`\chi (A)=\chi (B)`$,
2. for $`BA`$ inclusion of arc-symmetric sets, then $`\chi (A)=\chi (B)+\chi (AB)`$.

If moreover $`\chi `$ satisfies $`\chi (A\times B)=\chi (A)\times \chi (B)`$ for $`A,B`$ arc-symmetric sets, then we say that $`\chi `$ is a generalized Euler characteristic on $`𝒜𝒮`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

The Euler characteristic with compact supports is a generalized Euler characteristic on $`𝒜𝒮`$. Actually if we consider just semi-algebraic sets, with isomorphism replaced by homeomorphism, the Euler characteristic with compact support is the unique generalized Euler characteristic (see ). However, for complex algebraic varieties, there exist a lot of such generalized Euler characteristic, for example given by mixed Hodge structure (see )

The aim of this section is to give sufficiently good conditions on an invariant $`\chi `$ over the closed (i-e compact) and nonsingular arc-symmetric sets such that $`\chi `$ extends to an additive map on $`𝒜𝒮`$. We state the theorem in terms of connected components of real algebraic varieties thanks to proposition 1.11. The method is inspired from the one of , and the main result is:

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`\chi `$ be a map defined on connected components of compact nonsingular real algebraic varieties with values in an abelian group and such that

$`\chi (\mathrm{})=0`$,

if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are connected components of compact nonsingular real algebraic varieties which are isomorphic as arc-symmetric sets, then $`\chi (A)=\chi (B)`$,

with notations and assumptions of proposition 1.17,

$$\chi \left(\pi ^1(A)\right)\chi \left(\pi ^1(A)\pi ^1(AY)\right)=\chi (A)\chi (AY).$$

Then $`\chi `$ extends to an additive map defined on $`𝒜𝒮`$.

Before giving the proof of the theorem, let us give some consequences. First this result enables us to give one example of such an additive map by considering the homology with $`_2`$ coefficients.

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let $`\beta _i`$ be defined on a connected component $`A`$ of a compact nonsingular algebraic variety by $`\beta _i(A)=dimH_i(A,_2)`$, the Betti number mod-2 of $`A`$, for $`i`$. Then $`\beta _i`$ extends to an additive map defined on $`𝒜𝒮`$.

Proof. Property P1 and P2 of theorem 2.3 are clear. Let us prove property P3. With notations of P3, the exact sequences with coefficients in $`/2`$ of the pairs $`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B))`$ and $`(A,B)`$ give the following commutative diagram

where the vertical arrows are induced by $`\pi `$. Note that $`\pi _{}:H_{i1}(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B))H_{i1}(A,B)`$ is an isomorphism because $`\pi `$ is a homeomorphism between $`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B)`$ and $`AB`$, and that $`\pi _{}:H_i(\stackrel{~}{A})H_i(A)`$ is surjective because $`\pi `$ is of degre 1 and the varieties are $`/2`$-oriented. Now it is an easy game to check that the following sequence

$$0H_i(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B))H_i(B)H_i(\stackrel{~}{A})H_i(A)0$$

is exact, hence

$$\beta _i(\stackrel{~}{A})\beta _i\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B)\right)=\beta _i(A)\beta _i(B).$$

Then we can apply theorem 2.3.

$`\mathrm{}`$

It turns out to be easy to adapt theorem 2.3 in order to obtain not only additive maps but also generalized Euler characteristics.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let $`\chi `$ be as in theorem 2.3. Assume moreover that $`\chi `$ takes values in a commutative ring, and that for connected components of compact nonsingular real algebraic varieties $`A,B`$ the relation $`\chi (A\times B)=\chi (A)\chi (B)`$ holds. Then the extension of $`\chi `$ on $`𝒜𝒮`$ of theorem 2.3 is a generalized Euler characteristic.

The following corollary is an immediate consequence of Künneth formula.

###### Corollary 2.6.

Let $`\beta `$ be defined on $`A𝒜𝒮`$ by

$$\beta (A)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{dimA}{}}\beta _i(A)u^i.$$

Then $`\beta `$ is a generalized Euler characteristic on $`𝒜𝒮`$.

###### Example 2.7.

1. If $`^k`$ denote the real projective space of dimension $`k`$, which is nonsingular and compact, then $`\beta (^k)=1+u+\mathrm{}+u^k`$. Now, compactify $``$ in $`^1`$ by adding one point at the infinity. By additivity $`\beta ()=\beta (^1)\beta (point)=u`$, and so $`\beta (^k)=u^k`$.
2. Let $`W`$ be the Whitney umbrella, and $`L`$ the line included in $`W`$. Therefore $`\beta (W)=\beta (WL)+\beta (L)`$ and $`WL`$ is isomorphic, by blowing-up, to the strict transform of $`W`$ minus a parabola $`P`$. So

$$\beta (WL)=\beta (𝔸_{}^1\times P)\beta (P)=(\beta (𝔸_{}^1)1)\beta (P)=(u1)u.$$

Finally $`\beta (W)=u^2`$.
3. The real algebraic varieties of figure 3 (clearly, one can find reduced equations for such curves) are not isomorphic whereas they are homeomorphic. Indeed one can compute $`\beta (C_1)`$ and $`\beta (C_2)`$ by considering the resolutions given by blowing-up the singular point of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. One finds $`\beta (C_1)=u`$ and $`\beta (C_2)=2u1`$. Remark that the Euler characteristic (one can recover by evaluating $`u`$ at $`1`$ in this example) does not distinguish these two curves.

###### Remark 2.8.

The invariant $`\beta `$ has the following property as we will see in the proof; let $`A𝒜𝒮`$. Then

$$dim(A)=\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta (A)\right).$$

Let us give the proof of theorem 2.3 first, and later of theorem 2.5.

Proof of theorem 2.3. We prove theorem 2.3 by induction on dimension; the rank $`n`$ inductive hypothesis claims that $`\chi `$ is defined on arc-symmetric sets of dimension less than or equal to $`n`$, invariant under isomorphism of arc-symmetric sets, and additive.

For $`n=0`$ the arc-symmetric sets are just finite unions of points and the result is clearly true. Assume that the inductive hypothesis is true for $`n1`$. We prove the result at rank $`n`$ in two steps:

1. if $`\chi `$ is an additive map on the nonsingular elements of $`𝒜𝒮`$ of dimension less than or equal to $`n`$, then $`\chi `$ extends to an additive map on all arc-symmetric sets of dimension less than or equal to $`n`$,
2. if $`\chi `$ satisfies property P1,P2 and P3, then $`\chi `$ extends to an additive map on the nonsingular elements of $`𝒜𝒮`$ of dimension less than or equal to $`n`$.

Step 1 Let $`A𝒜𝒮`$ of dimension $`n`$. There exists a stratification $`\overline{A}^𝒵=_{S𝒮}S`$ of $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ with nonsingular algebraic strata, that is the union is a disjoint union of locally closed algebraic varieties (note in particular that we do not ask the strata to be connected). Then $`SA`$, for each $`S𝒮`$, is a nonsingular arc-symmetric set, and $`\chi (SA)`$ is defined. Put $`\chi (A)=_{S𝒮}\chi (SA)`$. One has to check that $`\chi (A)`$ is well-defined and satisfies the property of an additive function over $`𝒜𝒮`$.

We show firstly that $`\chi (A)=_{S𝒮}\chi (SA)`$ in the case where $`A`$ is nonsingular, by induction on the number of elements in $`𝒮`$. Indeed take $`N_0𝒮`$, then $`\chi (A)=\chi \left(A(AN_0)\right)+\chi (AN_0)`$ and $`\chi \left(A(AN_0)\right)=_{S𝒮\{N_0\}}\chi (SA)`$ by induction, hence the result.

Now, if $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ are two stratifications of $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$, one can find a common refinement $`𝒮`$. The independence in the nonsingular case induces that $`_{S𝒮_1}\chi (SA)=_{S𝒮}\chi (SA)=_{S𝒮_2}\chi (SA)`$, then $`\chi `$ does not depend on the choice of the stratification.

Let us show that $`\chi `$ is additive; let $`B,A𝒜𝒮`$ with $`BA`$ of dimension less than or equal to $`n`$. One can choose a stratification $`_{S𝒮}S`$ of $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ such that $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$ and $`\overline{AB}^𝒵`$ are union of strata. Then

$$\underset{S𝒮}{}\chi (SB)+\underset{S𝒮}{}\chi \left(S(AB)\right)=\underset{S𝒮}{}\left(\chi (SB)+\chi \left(S(AB)\right)\right)$$

and $`\chi \left(S(AB)\right)+\chi (SB)=\chi (SA)`$ because the strata are nonsingular, so $`\chi `$ is additive.

Step 2 The second step constitutes the heart of the work. Define $`\chi `$ over the nonsingular arc-symmetric sets of dimension $`n`$ in the following way:

if $`A=_{iI}A_i`$ denotes the decomposition of $`A`$ into irreducible components, put $`\chi (A)=_{iI}\chi (A_i)`$,

if $`A𝒜𝒮`$ is nonsingular and irreducible, then $`\chi (A)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(A)\right)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is the connected component of a resolution of singularities of $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ given by remark 1.14 and $`E`$ the exceptionnal divisor of the resolution.

We have to prove that $`\chi `$ is well-defined, invariant under isomorphisms and additive over the nonsingular elements of $`𝒜𝒮`$.

The following lemma will be usefull in the sequel.

###### Lemma 2.9.

Let $`A,B𝒜𝒮`$ be nonsingular, irreducible and isomorphic. Suppose that $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$ are nonsingular, and denote by $`\stackrel{~}{A}\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}\overline{B}^𝒵`$ the connected components containing $`A`$ and $`B`$. Then $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi (\stackrel{~}{A}A)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{B})\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}B)`$.

Proof. By definition of an isomorphism between arc-symmetric sets, we know that $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$ are birationally equivalent, and the weak factorization theorem  factors this birational isomorphism in a succession of blow-ups and blow-downs. In particular we can assume that the birational isomorphism is just a blow-up $`\pi :\overline{A}^𝒵\overline{B}^𝒵`$ along a nonsingular variety $`C`$ such that $`CB=\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`\pi ^1(\stackrel{~}{B})=\stackrel{~}{A}`$ by proposition 1.17.

Now $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}B)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}C)+\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{B}(BC)\right)`$ by the additivity inductive hypothesis for $`dim\stackrel{~}{B}B<dimB`$ by proposition 1.6. Moreover $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{B})\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}C)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(C)\right)`$ by property P3, and $`\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{B}(BC)\right)=\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\left(A\pi ^1(C)\right)\right)`$ by the inductive hypothesis on invariance under isomorphism. Therefore $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{B})\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}B)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(C)\right)\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\left(A\pi ^1(C)\right)\right)`$ which is equal to $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi (\stackrel{~}{A}A)`$ by the additivity inductive hypothesis.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us check that the definition of $`\chi `$ for the nonsingular and irreducible arc-symmetric sets of dimension $`n`$ does not depend on the choice of the resolution of singularities of remark 1.14.

Let $`A𝒜𝒮`$ be nonsingular and irreducible, and let $`\pi _i:\stackrel{~}{X_i}\overline{A}^𝒵`$ for $`i\{1,2\}`$ be resolutions of singularities of $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{A_i}`$ be the connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{X_i}`$ given by proposition 1.12. One has to show that

$$\chi (\stackrel{~}{A_1})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A_1}\pi _1^1(A)\right)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A_2})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A_2}\pi _2^1(A)\right).$$

But $`\pi _1^1(A)`$ and $`\pi _2^1(A)`$ are isomorphic irreducible nonsingular arc-symmetric sets because $`\pi _i`$ is an isomorphism on a Zariski open subsets of $`\stackrel{~}{X_i}`$ containing $`\pi _i^1(A)`$, for $`i\{1,2\}`$. Therefore lemma 2.9 applies and $`\chi `$ is well-defined.

Now let us show that $`\chi `$ is invariant under isomorphisms of arc-symmetric sets. The proof is very similar to the last one. Let $`A,B𝒜𝒮`$ be irreducible and isomorphic, which means that there exists Zariski open subsets $`U`$ and $`V`$ in $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$, and an algebraic isomorphism $`\varphi :UV`$ such that $`\varphi (A)=B`$. Choose resolutions of singularities $`\pi _A:\stackrel{~}{X}\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\pi _B:\stackrel{~}{Y}\overline{B}^𝒵`$ for $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$ and $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$. Then $`\pi _A^1(A)`$ and $`\pi _B^1(B)`$ are isomorphic as arc-symmetric sets, and then by lemma 2.9 $`\chi \left(\pi _A^1(A)\right)=\chi \left(\pi _B^1(B)\right)`$. Moreover one has $`\chi \left(\pi _A^1(A)\right)=\chi (A)`$ because both are equal to $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi _A^1(A)\right)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is the connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ given by proposition 1.12. In the same way one has $`\chi \left(\pi _B^1(B)\right)=\chi (B)`$, hence

$$\chi (A)=\chi \left(\pi _A^1(A)\right)=\chi \left(\pi _B^1(B)\right)=\chi (B).$$

In the case where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not irreducible, it suffices to decompose $`A`$ and $`B`$ in irreducible components, and apply the property D1 because an isomorphism between arc-symmetric sets respects the irreducible components.

Finally, let us check that $`\chi `$ is additive. Let $`BA`$ be an inclusion of nonsingular arc-symmetric sets. Note that by definition of $`\chi `$ we need to prove the result only in the case where $`A`$ is irreducible.

If $`dimB=dimA`$, then $`\overline{B}^{𝒜𝒮}=\overline{A}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ by proposition 1.7, and $`\overline{B}^𝒵=\overline{A}^𝒵`$. Now choose a resolution of singularities $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}\overline{A}^𝒵`$ for $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ denotes the connected component of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ given by proposition 1.12 for $`A`$, then it is also the component associated to $`B`$, and therefore $`\chi (B)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B)\right)`$. Now $`\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(B)\right)=\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(A)\right)+\chi \left(\pi ^1(A)\pi ^1(B)\right)`$ by the inductive hypothesis on additivity. So $`\chi (B)=\chi (A)\chi (AB)`$ because $`\chi \left(\pi ^1(A)\pi ^1(B)\right)=\chi (AB)`$ by the invariance under isomorphism in dimension smaller that $`n`$.

If $`dimB<dimA`$, choose a resolution of singularities $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}\overline{A}^𝒵`$ for $`\overline{A}^𝒵`$. Then it is also a resolution of singularities of $`\overline{AB}^𝒵=\overline{A}^𝒵`$. Then $`\chi (AB)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(AB)\right)`$. Now

$$\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(AB)\right)=\chi \left(\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(A)\right)\pi ^1(B)\right)=\chi \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\pi ^1(A)\right)+\chi \left(\pi ^1(B)\right)$$

by the inductive assumption, and once more by the inductive assumption one has $`\chi \left(\pi ^1(B)\right)=\chi (B)`$. Finally $`\chi (AB)=\chi (A)\chi (B)`$.

This achieves the proof of step 2, and thus the proof of theorem 2.3.

$`\mathrm{}`$

As it was the case for the previous proof, we are going to prove theorem 2.5 by induction on dimension. The following relations will be usefull:

(1)
$$\chi (_{i=1}^kA_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\chi (A_i),$$

where the union of the arc-symmetric sets $`A_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ is disjoint, and

(2)
$$\chi (A)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi (\stackrel{~}{A}A),$$

where $`A`$ is a nonsingular arc-symmetric set whose arc-symmetric closure $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is nonsingular.

Proof of theorem 2.5. Put, as an inductive hypothesis at rank $`n`$, that $`\chi `$ is multiplicative for all arc-symmetric sets of dimension stricly less than or equal to $`n`$.

Remark that we can restrict our attention to the nonsingular case because by considering stratifications of arc-symmetric sets with nonsingular strata, we prove the multiplicativity directly with formula (1).

Assume therefore that $`A,B`$ are nonsingular arc-symmetric sets of dimension less than or equal to $`n`$; suppose that $`dimA=n`$ for instance.

In case $`A`$ compact, the result follows from a finite induction on the dimension of $`B`$: indeed, resolving the singularities of $`\overline{B}^𝒵`$, one can assume that $`B\stackrel{~}{B}`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ the nonsingular arc-symmetric closure of $`B`$. Then, by (2)

$$\chi (A\times B)=\chi (A\times \stackrel{~}{B})\chi \left(A\times (\stackrel{~}{B}B)\right)$$

However $`\chi (A\times \stackrel{~}{B})=\chi (A)\chi (\stackrel{~}{B})`$ for they are compact and nonsingular, and

$$\chi (A\times (\stackrel{~}{B}B))=\chi (A)\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}B))$$

as we can see by stratifying $`\stackrel{~}{B}B`$ with nonsingular strata and using the inductive assumption of the finite induction because $`dim\stackrel{~}{B}B<dimB`$ by lemma 1.6. Consequently

$$\chi (A\times B)=\chi (A)\left(\chi (\stackrel{~}{B})\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}B)\right)=\chi (A)\chi (B).$$

If $`A`$ is no longer compact, then compactify $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}`$, and assume that $`\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are nonsingular even if it means resolving singularities, as before.

Then, by additivity,

$$\chi (A\times B)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A}\times B)\chi \left((\stackrel{~}{A}A)\times \stackrel{~}{B}\right)+\chi \left((\stackrel{~}{A}A)\times (\stackrel{~}{B}B)\right).$$

The multiplicativity of the first two terms comes from the preceding case (in the second one, stratify the possibly singular set $`\stackrel{~}{A}A`$), and the multiplicativity of the third is obtained by the inductive assumption for $`\mathrm{max}(dim\stackrel{~}{A}A,dim\stackrel{~}{B}B)<n`$ by lemma 1.6. Therefore

$$\chi (A\times B)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{A})\chi (B)\chi (\stackrel{~}{A}A)\chi (\stackrel{~}{B})+\chi (\stackrel{~}{A}A)\chi (\stackrel{~}{B}B)=\chi (A)\chi (B),$$

and theorem 2.5 is proven.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Invariance of $`\beta `$ under $`Nash`$-isomorphisms

The definition of isomorphism between arc-symmetric sets is algebraic, via birational morphisms. But arc-symmetric sets are also closely related to analytic objects. As an example, the following proposition emphasizes the good behaviour of $`\beta `$ with respect to compact algebraic varieties which are nonsingular as analytic varieties. Recall that by $`b_i(X)`$ we denote the i-th Betti number of $`X`$ with mod-2 coefficients, and let us put $`b(X)=_{i=0}^{dimX}b_i(X)u^i`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be a compact algebraic variety which is nonsingular as an analytic space. Then $`\beta (X)=b(X)`$.

Proof. One can desingularize the algebraic singularities of $`X`$ by a sequence of blowings-up with smooth centers (). At each step of the desingularization one has the following relation, where $`Bl_CX`$ designs the blowing-up of $`X`$ along the nonsingular subvariety $`C`$ with exceptionnal divisor $`E`$:

$$\beta (Bl_CX)\beta (E)=\beta (X)\beta (C)$$

because the blowing-up is birational and

$$b(Bl_CX)b(E)=b(X)b(C)$$

because $`X`$ and $`C`$ are smooth and the blowing-up is a degree one morphism. Remark that $`\beta (E)=b(E)`$ and $`\beta (C)=b(C)`$ because $`E`$ and $`C`$ are nonsingular and compact arc-symmetric sets, and the same is true for $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, the desingularization of $`X`$. Then $`\beta (X)`$ and $`b(X)`$ can be expressed by the same formulae in terms of $`\beta `$ for the former and $`b`$ for the latter, where the spaces involved are nonsingular and compact. Therefore for each one of these spaces $`\beta `$ and $`b`$ coincide, and then $`\beta (X)=b(X)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Actually we will see later that the assumption “$`X`$ is an algebraic variety” can be replaced by the weaker “$`X`$ is a semi-algebraic set”, and so “$`X`$ is a $`Nash`$-manifold”.

In order to relate the analytic aspect of arc-symmetric sets and the behaviour of $`\beta `$, we propose the following definition of $`Nash`$-isomorphism between arc-symmetric sets.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`A,B𝒜𝒮`$, and assume that there exist compact analytic varieties $`V_1,V_2`$ containing $`A,B`$ respectively, and an analytic isomorphism $`\varphi :V_1V_2`$ such that $`\varphi (A)=B`$. If moreover one can choose $`V_1,V_2`$ to be semi-algebraic sets and $`\varphi `$ a semi-algebraic map, then one say that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`Nash`$-isomorphic.

One wants this new definition of isomorphism respects the invariance of $`\beta `$ and, actually, one has the following result.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`A_1,A_2𝒜𝒮`$ be $`Nash`$-isomorphic arc-symmetric sets. Then $`\beta (A_1)=\beta (A_2)`$.

Proof. Once more, we are going to prove the result by induction on dimension. As a first step, let us generalize the result of proposition 3.1.

Step 1 Let $`A`$ be a compact arc-symmetric set which is also a nonsingular analytic subspace of the Zariski closure $`X`$ of $`A`$. Then $`\beta (A)=b(A)`$.

In order to prove this claim, one wants to apply the same method as in the proof of proposition 3.1, but if $`C`$ is a smooth center of blowing-up for $`X`$ it is not true in general that $`CA`$ is nonsingular, so the equality $`\beta (CA)=b(CA)`$ does no longer hold. In order to solve this problem, consider the algebraic normalization $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$. There exists $`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ the analytic normalization of $`A`$ (), which is analytically isomorphic to $`A`$ because $`A`$ if nonsingular as an analytic space. Then $`b(A)=b(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ because $`b`$ is invariant under homeomorphism.

Moreover $`\beta (A)=\beta (\stackrel{~}{A})`$; actually the algebraic normalization is a birational map, hence an algebraic isomorphism outside compact subvarieties $`E`$ and $`D`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`X`$ respectively, of dimension stricly less than $`dimX=dimA`$. Thus $`\beta (\stackrel{~}{A}E)=\beta (AD)`$ by corollary 2.4, and the algebraic normalization restricted to $`\stackrel{~}{A}E`$ is an analytic isomorphism onto $`AD`$, so $`\beta (\stackrel{~}{A}E)=\beta (AD)`$ by the inductive assumption.

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is locally analyticaly irreducible as a normal space, therefore $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is a union of connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Now it is true that $`C\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is nonsingular when $`C`$ is nonsingular, and the method of the proof of proposition 3.1 applies, therefore $`\beta (\stackrel{~}{A})=b(\stackrel{~}{A})`$. It follows that $`\beta (A)=\beta (\stackrel{~}{A})=b(\stackrel{~}{A})=b(A)`$.

Step 1 is acheived.

Step 2 Let us prove the theorem in the particular case where $`A_i`$ is a nonsingular arc-symmetric set for $`i=1,2`$, and moreover, with assumptions of the definition of a $`Nash`$-isomorphism, the compact analytic variety $`V_i`$ is supposed to be smooth as an analytic space, for $`i=1,2`$.

* First we show that $`\beta (\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})=\beta (\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮})`$.

Remark that $`\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is a union of connected components of $`V_2`$ by proposition 1.12. Thus $`\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is also nonsingular as an analytic variety and $`\beta (\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})=b(\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})`$ by step 1.

Moreover $`\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is isomorphic to $`\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ by $`\varphi `$: indeed $`\varphi ^1(\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})`$ is a closed arc-symmetric set because $`\varphi `$ have an arc-symmetric graph and is continuous, and it contains $`A_1`$ so $`\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮}\varphi ^1(\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})`$. The reverse inclusion comes from the fact that the image by an injective algebraic map of an arc-symmetric set is still an arc-symmetric set (recall that $`𝒜𝒮`$ form a constructible category, cf section 1). Consequently $`\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ is nonsingular as an analytic variety because so is $`\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is an analytic isomorphism, hence $`\beta (\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮})=b(\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮})`$ by the first step.

Remark also that $`b(\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})=b(\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮})`$ because $`\varphi `$ is a homeomorphism between these two smooth compact topological varieties.

These equalities imply that $`\beta (\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})=\beta (\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮})`$.
* Then, remark that $`\beta (\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮}A_1)=\beta (\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}A_2)`$. Indeed this follows from the inductive hypothesis for $`\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮}A_1`$ and $`\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}A_2`$ are $`Nash`$-isomorphic arc-symmetric sets of dimension strictly less than $`dimA_2`$.
* Finally $`\beta (A_1)=\beta (A_2)`$. Actually

$$\beta (A_1)=\beta (\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮})\beta (\overline{A_1}^{𝒜𝒮}A_1)$$

and

$$\beta (A_2)=\beta (\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮})\beta (\overline{A_2}^{𝒜𝒮}A_2),$$

and we have proved that the second members are equal, so $`\beta (A_1)=\beta (A_2)`$ by additivity of $`\beta `$.

Step 3 Reduction of the problem to Step 2.

By definition of a $`Nash`$-isomorphism, there exist compact analytic varieties $`V_1,V_2`$ containing $`A,B`$, and an analytic isomorphism $`\varphi :V_1V_2`$ such that $`\varphi (A_1)=A_2`$, and moreover $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are semi-algebraic sets and $`\varphi `$ is a semi-algebraic map.

Denote by $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ the Zariski closures of $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$.

As a first step, we are going to obtain a regular morphism rather than a semi-algebraic map. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the graph of $`\varphi `$. This graph is semi-algebraic and analytic, thus arc-symmetric. Then the projection $`p_i`$ from $`Z=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^𝒵`$ onto $`X_i`$, for $`i\{1,2\}`$, is a regular morphism whose restriction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an analytic isomorphism with $`V_i`$. Moreover the preimages by these restrictions of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ coincide, so one can put $`B=p^1(A)`$, where $`A=A_iV_i=VX_i=X`$ for $`i\{1,2\}`$ and $`p:ZX`$ denote the natural projection. Therefore $`B`$ is an arc-symmetric set $`Nash`$-isomorphic to $`A`$, and the issue is now to prove that $`\beta (B)=\beta (A)`$.

In order to do this, we want to come down to nonsingular objects.

Desingularize $`X`$ by a sequence of blowings-up with respect to coherent algebraic sheaves of ideals (this is possible by ). Blowing-up $`Z`$ with respect to the corresponding inverse image ideal sheaves, one has at each step a regular morphism which lifts the projection $`p:ZX`$ to the corresponding blowing-up by the universal property of algebraic blowing-up. Let $`\pi _X:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ denote the resolution of singularities of $`X`$ and $`\pi _Z:\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$ the corresponding composition of blowings-up of $`Z`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ denotes the morphism obtained between $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ by universal property, one has the following commutative diagram:

Moreover $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ restricted to the analytic strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an analytic isomorphism onto the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ of $`V`$ because so is $`p`$ between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`V`$ (here we consider the blowing-up as an analytic one).

Now we reduce to the case where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are nonsingular by the inductive hypothesis. Actually the singular part of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not necessarily exchanged by $`p_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, but $`\mathrm{Sing}(A)p_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}^1\left(\mathrm{Sing}(B)\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{Sing}(B)p_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\mathrm{Sing}(A)\right)`$ are $`Nash`$-isomorphic by the restriction of $`p_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Moreover the dimension of these arc-symmetric sets is stricly less than $`dimA=dimB`$, so they have the same image by $`\beta `$ by the inductive hypothesis. Let us denote by $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ the complement of these sets in $`A`$ and $`B`$. So $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ are nonsingular.

As $`A^{}`$ is nonsingular, it is isomorphic, in the sense of birational morphism, with its preimage in the desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$. Consequently $`B^{}`$ is also isomorphic to its preimage in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ by commutativity of the first diagram. As a consequence $`\beta (A^{})=\beta \left(\pi ^1(A^{})\right)`$ and $`\beta (B^{})=\beta \left(\pi ^1(B^{})\right)`$, and we have reduced the problem to step 2.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Zeta functions and blow-Nash equivalence

### 4.1. Zeta functions

This section is directly inspired by the work of J. Denef & F. Loeser on their motivic zeta functions . We first define zeta functions for an analytic germ of functions. Then we will give a formula to compute these zeta functions in terms of a modification.

Denote by $``$ the space of analytic arcs at the origin $`0^d`$:

$$=(^d,0)=\{\gamma :(,0)(^d,0)|\gamma \text{ is analytic}\},$$

and by $`_n`$ the space of truncated analytic arcs

$$_n=_n(^d,0)=\{\gamma |\gamma (t)=a_1t+a_2t^2+\mathrm{}a_nt^n,a_i^d\}.$$

Let $`\pi _n:_n`$ and $`\pi _{n,i}:_n_i`$, with $`ni`$, be the truncation morphisms.

Consider $`f:(^d,0)(,0)`$ an analytic function germ. We define the naive zeta function $`Z_f(T)`$ of $`f`$ as the following element of $`[u,u^1]((T))`$:

$$Z_f(T)=\underset{n1}{}\beta (\chi _n)u^{nd}T^n,$$

where

$$\chi _n=\{\gamma _n|ord(f\gamma )=n\}=\{\gamma _n|f\gamma (t)=bt^n+\mathrm{},b0\},$$

and the “monodromic” zeta functions, or zeta functions with signs, as

$$Z_f^\pm (T)=\underset{n1}{}\beta (\chi _n^\pm )u^{nd}T^n,$$

where

$$\chi _n^\pm =\{\gamma _n|f\gamma (t)=\pm t^n+\mathrm{}\}.$$

Remark that $`\chi _n,\chi _n^\pm `$, for $`n1`$, are constructible subsets of $`^{nd}`$, hence belong to $`𝒜𝒮`$.

###### Example 4.1.

Let $`f:(,0)(,0)`$ be defined by $`f(x)=x^k,k1`$. Then

$$\chi _n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\gamma =a_mt^m+\mathrm{}+a_nt^n|a_m0\}^{}\times ^{nm}\hfill & \text{if n=mk}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore $`\beta (\chi _n)=(u1)u^{nm}`$ if $`n=mk`$ and $`0`$ otherwise, hence

$$Z_f(T)=\underset{m1}{}(u1)u^{mkm}\left(\frac{T}{u}\right)^{mk}=(u1)\frac{T^k}{uT^k}.$$

To compute the zeta functions with signs, we have to consider the case $`k=2p`$ and $`k=2p+1`$. If $`k=2p`$, then $`\chi _n^{}=\mathrm{}`$ and

$$\chi _n^+=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\gamma =\pm t^m+\mathrm{}+a_nt^n|a_m0\}\{\pm 1\}\times ^{nm}\hfill & \text{if n=mk}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

so

$$Z_f^+(T)=\underset{m1}{}2u^{mkm}\left(\frac{T}{u}\right)^{mk}=2\frac{T^k}{uT^k}.$$

If $`k=2p+1`$, then

$$\chi _n^\pm =\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\gamma =\pm t^m+\mathrm{}+a_nt^n|a_m0\}\{\pm 1\}\times ^{nm}\hfill & \text{if n=mk}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$Z_f^+(T)=Z_f^{}(T)=\underset{m1}{}u^{mkm}\left(\frac{T}{u}\right)^{mk}=\frac{T^k}{uT^k}.$$

It may be convenient to express zeta functions in terms of a modification of $`f`$, that is a proper birational map which is an isomorphism over the complement of the zero locus of $`f`$. Actually there exists a formula, called Denef & Loeser formula, which enables to do this. In the naive case, the Denef & Loeser formula is given by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`\sigma :(M,\sigma ^1(0))(^d,0)`$ be a modification of $`^d`$ such that $`f\sigma `$ and the jacobian determinant $`\mathrm{jac}\sigma `$ are normal crossings simultaneously, and assume moreover that $`\sigma `$ is an isomorphism over the complement of the zero locus of $`f`$.

Let $`(f\sigma )^1(0)=_{jJ}E_j`$ be the decomposition into irreducible components of $`(f\sigma )^1(0)`$, and assume that $`\sigma ^1(0)=_{kK}E_k`$ for some $`KJ`$.

Put $`N_i=\mathrm{mult}_{E_i}f\sigma `$ and $`\nu _i=1+\mathrm{mult}_{E_i}\mathrm{jac}\sigma `$, and for $`IJ`$ denote by $`E_I^0`$ the set $`(_{iI}E_i)(_{jJI}E_j)`$. Then

$$Z_f(T)=\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}(u1)^{|I|}\beta \left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\underset{iI}{}\frac{u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}{1u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}.$$

###### Example 4.3.

Let $`f_k:(^2,0)(,0)`$ be defined by $`f_k(x,y)=x^k+y^k`$, $`k2`$. The blowing-up at the origin give a suitable modification $`\sigma `$ for $`f`$. Here $`(f\sigma )^1(0)`$ consists of just the exceptional divisor $`^1`$ in case $`k`$ even, and furthemore, in case $`k`$ odd, of the strict transform of $`f`$ which is a smooth curve crossing transversally the exceptional divisor. Then

$$Z_{f_k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(u^21)u^2\frac{T^k}{1u^2T^k}\hfill & \text{if k is even}\hfill \\ (u1)\frac{u^2T^k}{1u^2T^k}(u+(u1)\frac{u^1T}{1u^1T})\hfill & \text{if k is odd}\hfill \end{array}$$

Note in particular that for $`kk^{}`$ the zeta function $`Z_{f_k}`$ and $`Z_{f_k^{}}`$ are different.

When we are dealing with signs, one defines coverings $`\stackrel{~}{E_I^{0,\pm }}`$ of $`E_I^0`$ in the following way. Let $`U`$ be an affine open subset of $`M`$ such that $`f\sigma =u_{iI}y_i^{N_i}`$ on $`U`$, with $`u`$ a unit. Let us put $`R_U^\pm =\{(x,t)(E_I^0U)\times :t^m=\pm \frac{1}{u(x)}\}`$, where $`m=gcd(N_i)`$. Then the $`R_U^\pm `$ glue together along the $`E_I^0U`$ to give $`\stackrel{~}{E_I^{0,\pm }}`$.

###### Proposition 4.4.

With assumptions and notations of proposition 4.2, then

$$Z_f^\pm (T)=\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}(u1)^{|I|1}\beta \left(\stackrel{~}{E_I^{0,\pm }}\sigma ^1(0)\right)\underset{iI}{}\frac{u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}{1u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}.$$

We will prove these results in section 4.4.

###### Example 4.5.

1. Let $`f:^d`$ be defined by $`f(x)=u(x)_{i=1}^kx_i^{N_i}`$, with $`N_i`$. Then $`f`$ has already normal crossings, and

$$Z_f(T)=(u1)^k\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{u^1T^{N_i}}{1u^1T^{N_i}}.$$

Now, if there exists at least one $`N_i`$ odd, then $`Z_f^+(T)=Z_f^{}(T)=\frac{1}{u1}Z_f(T)`$. On the other hand, if all $`N_i`$ are even, then $`Z_f^{}(T)=0`$ and $`Z_f^+(T)=\frac{2}{u1}Z_f(T)`$ if $`u`$ is positive, the converse otherwise..
2. Let $`f:^2`$ be defined by $`f(x,y)=x^2+y^2`$. As $`f`$ is positive, $`Z_f^{}(T)=0`$. We obtain a modification by the same way as in example 4.3, and $`\stackrel{~}{E_I^{0,+}}`$ is here the boundary of a Mobius band, hence homeomorphic to $`^1`$. Therefore $`Z_f^+(T)=(u+1)\frac{u^2T^2}{1u^2T^2}=\frac{1}{u1}Z_f(T)`$.
3. Let $`f:^2`$ be defined by $`f(x,y)=x^2+y^4`$. One can solve the singularities of $`f`$ by two successive blowings-up, and one obtains that the exceptional divisor $`E`$ has two irreducible components $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ with $`N_1=2,\nu _1=2,N_2=4,\nu _2=3`$. Therefore

$$Z_f(T)=(u1)^2\frac{u^2T^2}{1u^2T^2}\frac{u^3T^4}{1u^3T^4}+(u1)u\frac{u^2T^2}{1u^2T^2}+(u1)u\frac{u^3T^4}{1u^3T^4}.$$

Moreover in this case $`\stackrel{~}{E_{\{1\}}^{0,+}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E_{\{2\}}^{0,+}}`$ are homeomorphic to a circle minus two points, so

$$Z_f^+(T)=2(u1)\frac{u^2T^2}{1u^2T^2}\frac{u^3T^4}{1u^3T^4}+(u1)\frac{u^2T^2}{1u^2T^2}+(u1)\frac{u^3T^4}{1u^3T^4}.$$

Note that in this case one has neither $`Z_f(T)=(u1)Z_f^+(T)`$ nor $`Z_f(T)=\frac{u1}{2}Z_f^+(T)`$, whereas it was the case in the preceding examples.

###### Remark 4.6.

It would be convenient to have a Thom-Sebastiani formula to compute the zeta functions of the function $`fg`$ defined by $`(x,y)f(x)+g(y)`$ from the ones of $`f`$ and $`g`$, as it is the case in . But it seems to be impossible to find in general such formulae with our zeta functions. However in the particular case of two positive (respectively negative) functions, one has the following formulae.

###### Proposition 4.7.

Let $`f:^{d_1}`$ and $`g:^{d_2}`$ be two positive or two negative functions. Let us put $`Z_f(T)=_{n1}a_nT^n`$ and $`Z_g(T)=_{n1}b_nT^n`$, and $`A_n=1_{j=1}^na_j`$, $`B_n=1_{j=1}^nb_j`$. Then the naive zeta function of $`fg:^{d_1+d_2}`$ defined by $`fg(x,y)=f(x)+g(y)`$ is $`Z_{fg}(T)=_{n1}c_nT^n`$ with

$$c_n=a_nB_n+A_nb_n+a_nb_n.$$

###### Example 4.8.

1. Let $`h:^2`$ be defined by $`h(x,y)=x^2+y^2`$. Recall that $`Z_f(T)=(u^21)_{n1}\frac{T^{2n}}{u^{2n}}`$ (cf example 4.3). Putting $`f(x)=g(x)=x^2`$, then $`h=fg`$ and by example 4.1 we get that $`a_{2n}=b_{2n}=\frac{u1}{u^n}`$ and $`a_{2n+1}=b_{2n+1}=0`$, hence $`A_{2n}=A_{2n+1}=\frac{1}{u^n}`$. Then by proposition 4.7 we rederive $`c_{2n}=\frac{u^21}{u^{2n}}`$ and $`c_{2n+1}=0`$.
2. Consider $`f`$ as in example 4.5.3. The odd coefficients are zero because $`f`$ and $`g`$ are positive, and it is easy to verify that

$$a_{2n}=\frac{u1}{u^n},A_{2n}=\frac{1}{u^n},$$

and

$$b_{4n}=\frac{u1}{u^n},b_{4n+2}=0,B_{4n}=\frac{1}{u^n}=B_{4n+2}.$$

Therefore

$$c_{4n}=\frac{u^21}{u^{3n}},c_{4n+2}=\frac{u1}{u^{3n+1}},$$

which was not so clear on the Denef & Loeser formula.

Proof. Remark first that $`u^{nd_1}A_n=\beta (\{\gamma _n:ord(f\gamma )>n\})`$. Actually

$$_n=\pi _{n,1}^1(\chi _1)\mathrm{}\pi _{n,n}^1(\chi _n)\{\gamma _n:ord(f\gamma )>n\},$$

hence by applying $`\beta `$ one gets

$$u^{nd_1}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iu^{nd_1}+\beta (\{\gamma _n:ord(f\gamma )>n\})$$

and the result follows.

Now take $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)_n(^{d_1})\times _n(^{d_2})=_n(^{d_1+d_2})`$; then $`ord(f\gamma _1+g\gamma _2)`$ is greater than $`n`$ if and only if $`ord(f\gamma _1)`$ and $`ord(g\gamma _2)`$ are greater than $`n`$ because $`f`$ and $`g`$ are of the same sign. Therefore we have to distinguish the cases $`ord(f\gamma _1)=n`$ and $`ord(g\gamma _2)>n`$, $`ord(f\gamma _1)>n`$ and $`ord(g\gamma _2)=n`$, and finally $`ord(f\gamma _1)=n`$ and $`ord(g\gamma _2)=n`$:

$$u^{n(d_1+d_2)}\beta \left(\chi _n(fg)\right)=\beta \left(\chi _n(f)\right)u^{nd_2}B_n+u^{nd_1}A_n\beta \left(\chi _n(g)\right)+\beta \left(\chi _n(f)\right)\beta \left(\chi _n(g)\right).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.2. Blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence

Let $`f,g:(^d,0)(,0)`$ be two germs of real analytic functions. They are said to be blow-$`Nash`$ equivalent if there exist two modifications $`\sigma _f:(M_f,\sigma _f^1(0))(^d,0)`$ and $`\sigma _g:(M_g,\sigma _g^1(0))(^d,0)`$, that is proper birational maps which are isomorphisms over the complement of the zero locus of $`f`$ and $`g`$, and a Nash-isomorphism ( that is a semi-algebraic map which is an analytic isomorphism) $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ between $`(M_f,\sigma _f^1(0))`$ and $`(M_g,\sigma _g^1(0))`$ which preserves the multiplicities of the jacobian determinants of $`\sigma _f`$ and $`\sigma _g`$ along the components of the exceptional divisors, and which induces a homeomorphism $`\varphi :(^d,0)(^d,0)`$ such that $`f=g\varphi `$:

Blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence is a particular case of blow-analytic equivalence, for which we add algebraic data. A difficult issue with this kind of equivalence relation is to find invariants, and actually we know just the Fukui invariants  and the Zeta functions of S. Koike and A. Parusiński , defined with the Euler characteristic with compact support.

Note that the naive zeta function generalizes the Fukui invariants which asign to $`f`$ the possible orders of series $`f\gamma `$ where $`\gamma `$ is a real analytic arc at the origin. Indeed $`\beta \left(\chi _n(f)\right)0`$ as soon as $`\chi _n(f)\mathrm{}`$ (recall remark 2.8), and thus the Fukui invariants are the nonzero exponents of $`Z_f(T)`$.

The following result is the main one of this section. Its proof is directly inspired from , theorem 4.5, and is a direct consequence of lemma 4.17 (see section 4.4 below).

###### Theorem 4.9.

The zeta functions $`Z_f(T),Z_f^\pm (T)`$ of a germ of analytic functions are invariants of blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence.

Proof. Let $`f,g:(^d,0)(,0)`$ be two blow-Nash equivalent analytic function germs. By definition there exist modifications $`\sigma _f:(M_f,\sigma _f^1(0))(^d,0)`$ and $`\sigma _g:(M_g,\sigma _g^1(0))(^d,0)`$, and a Nash-isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:(M_f,\sigma _f^1(0))(M_g,\sigma _g^1(0))`$. By  one can assume that $`f\sigma _f`$ and the jacobian determinant $`\mathrm{jac}\sigma _f`$ (respectively $`g\sigma _g`$ and the jacobian determinant $`\mathrm{jac}\sigma _g`$ ) are normal crossing simultaneously, and thus the assumptions of lemma 4.17 are verified. Now It suffices to prove that the Denef & Loeser formulae for the zeta functions given by lemma 4.17 coincide. But $`\beta `$ is invariant under Nash-isomorphism by theorem 3.3, and moreover $`\varphi `$ preserves

-the multiplicities of $`f\sigma _f`$ and $`g\sigma _g`$ because it is an isomorphism

-the multiplicities of the jacobians of $`\sigma _f`$ and $`\sigma _g`$ along the components of the exceptional divisors by definition of blow-Nash equivalence.

Therefore the zeta functions of $`f`$ and $`g`$ coincide.

$`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3. Application to Brieskorn polynomials

We apply our zeta functions to sketch the classification of two variables Brieskorn polynomials under blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence, and to give examples in three variables. Brieskorn polynomials in two or three variables are polynomials of the type $`\epsilon _px^p+\epsilon _qy^q(+\epsilon _rz^r)`$, $`pqr,\epsilon _p,\epsilon _q,\epsilon _r\{\pm 1\}`$.

Remark that if $`p=1`$ then $`\epsilon _px+\epsilon _qy^q(+\epsilon _rz^r)`$ is $`Nash`$-isomorphic to $`x`$. Therefore we will restrict our attention to the case $`p2`$.

Actually the classification under blow-analytic equivalence has been done completely in the two variable case, and almost completely in the three variables case in  using zeta functions defined with Euler characteristic with compact support and the Fukui invariants( see , theorem 7.3; for the Fukui invariant, see ). There are just one case they can not discuss, and the following example shows that we can discuss it under blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence. However this it is not sufficient to conclude for blow-analytic equivalence.

###### Example 4.10.

Let $`f_{p,k}`$ be the Brieskorn polynomial defined by $`f_{p,k}=\pm (x^p+y^{kp}+z^{kp})`$, $`p`$ even, $`k`$. We are going to prove that for fixed $`p`$ and different $`k`$, to such polynomials are not blow-$`Nash`$ equivalent.

In order to do this we calculate directly the zeta function of $`f_{p,k}`$. For $`n`$ we compute $`\beta (\chi _n)`$. First it is clear that $`\chi _n=\mathrm{}`$ when $`n`$ is not a multiple of $`p`$. If $`n`$ is a multiple of $`p`$, write $`n=p(mk+r)`$ with $`mk+r`$ the euclidean division of $`\frac{n}{p}`$ by $`k`$. If $`\gamma _n`$, put $`\gamma =(a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_nt^n,b_1t+\mathrm{}+b_nt^n,c_1t+\mathrm{}+c_nt^n)`$.

Then if $`r0`$, the first non zero term of $`f\gamma `$ is given by the first component of $`\gamma `$, hence

$$\chi _n=\{\gamma |a_{mk+r}0,a_1=\mathrm{}=a_{mk+r1}=b_1=\mathrm{}=b_m=c_1=\mathrm{}=c_m=0\}.$$

In the case where $`r=0`$, the three components of $`\gamma `$ play a part, and

$$\chi _n=\{\gamma |(a_{mk},b_m,c_m)(0,0,0),a_1=\mathrm{}=a_{mk1}=b_1=\mathrm{}=b_{m1}=c_1=\mathrm{}=c_{m1}=0\}.$$

Therefore

$$\chi _n\{\begin{array}{cc}^{}\times ^{(p1)(mk+r)}\times (^{p(mk+r)m})^2\hfill & \text{if }r0\hfill \\ (^3)^{}\times ^{(p1)mk}\times (^{pmkm})^2\hfill & \text{if }r=0\hfill \end{array}$$

hence the coefficient of $`T^n`$ is

$$\beta (\chi _n)u^{3n}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(u1)u^{(mk+r)2m}\hfill & \text{if }n=p(mk+r),0<r<k\hfill & \\ (u^31)u^{mk2m}\hfill & \text{if }n=pmk\hfill & \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Therefore the zeta function of $`f_{p,k}`$ looks like

$$Z_{f_{p,k}}=(u1)\left(u^1T^p+u^2T^{2p}+\mathrm{}+u^{(k1)}T^{(k1)p}\right)+(u^31)u^{k2}T^{kp}$$

$$+(u1)\left(u^{(k+3)}T^{(k+1)p}+u^{(k+4)}T^{(k+2)p}+\mathrm{}+u^{(2k+1)}T^{(2k1)p}\right)+(u^31)u^{2(k2)}T^{2kp}+\mathrm{}$$

Now it suffices to note that, for $`p`$ fixed and $`k<k^{}`$ the $`pk`$-coefficient of $`Z_{f_{p,k}}`$ is $`(u^31)u^{k2}`$ whereas the one of $`Z_{f_{p,k^{}}}`$ is $`(u1)u^k`$.

###### Remark 4.11.

The case of two variables Brieskorn polynomials have been dealt with in , using their zeta functions and the Fukui invariants. Actually the only case where the equivalence class of Brieskorn polynomials of two variables can not be distinguished using only their zeta functions, and which requires the use of the Fukui invariants, is the following: $`f_k(x,y)=\pm (x^k+y^k)`$, $`k2`$ even. Remark that we have seen in example 4.3 that for $`kk^{}`$ the zeta function $`Z_{f_k}`$ and $`Z_{f_k^{}}`$ are different, therefore our zeta function distinguishes this case, for blow-$`Nash`$ equivalence.

Actually, one can say more. Indeed, for two variables Brieskorn polynomials the naive zeta function determines the coefficients $`p`$ and $`q`$.

###### Proposition 4.12.

Let $`g=\pm x^p\pm y^q`$ be a two variable Brieskorn polynomial. Then $`p`$ and $`q`$ are uniquely determined by the naive zeta function $`Z_g(T)=_{n1}g_nT^n`$. More precisely

$$p=min\{n:g_n0\}$$

and if $`l=min\{n:g_na_nu^n\}`$, where $`_{n1}a_nT^n`$ denote the naive zeta function of $`\pm x^p`$, then

$$q=\{\begin{array}{cc}l1\hfill & \text{if }p\text{ id odd, }p|l1\text{ and }g_l(u1)u^k\text{ for some }k\hfill \\ l\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. The characterization of $`p`$ is clear. Now, if $`pq`$, then $`q=l`$ and $`g_q=(u1)u^k`$ for some $`k`$.

If $`q=kp`$ for some $`k`$, then $`g_{kp}=\beta (\{\pm a^p\pm b^{kp})\})u^{2kpk1}`$ and thus

$$g_{kp}=a_{kp}u^{kp}\beta \left(\{\pm a^p\pm b^{kp}0\}\right)=u(u1)podd.$$

In that case $`g_{kp+1}=(u1)^2u^{2kpk2}`$, so $`l=kp+1`$.

Therefore if $`p`$ is even $`q=l`$, and if $`p`$ is odd either $`q=l`$ or $`q=l1`$. More precisely if $`g_l=(u1)u^k`$ then $`pq`$ and $`q=l`$, whereas if $`g_l=(u1)^2u^k`$, then $`p|l1`$ and $`q=l1`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

To find the signs in front of $`x^p`$ and $`y^q`$, the naive zeta function is not sufficient as shown by the following example.

###### Example 4.13.

Let $`f_\pm :(^2,0)(,0)`$ be defined by $`f_\pm (x,y)=x^3\pm y^4`$. One can solve the singularities of $`f_\pm `$ by a succession of four blowing-ups. The resolution tree of this modification $`\sigma `$ is drawn in figure 4, where $`Z_\pm `$ denotes the strict transform of $`f_\pm `$, and $`E(N,\nu )`$ denote an irreducible component of the exceptional divisor such that $`\mathrm{mult}_Ef_\pm \sigma =N`$ and $`1+\mathrm{mult}_Edet\mathrm{jac}\sigma =\nu `$. By Denef & Loeser formula $`Z_{f_+}=Z_f_{}`$, but $`f_+`$ and $`f_{}`$ are not blow-Nash equivalent (they are not even blow-analytically equivalent, see , theorem 6.1 for example).

Actually the zeta functions with signs enable to discuss the signs for two variables Brieskorn polynomials except in one case. The followoing proposition details the possibilities. Note that $`(x,y)(\pm x,\pm y)`$ give an action on the blow-$`Nash`$ classes, hence when the coefficient $`p`$ or $`q`$ is odd, the corresponding sign can not be determined. By convention, in the case $`p=q`$ and the sign are opposite, we consider $`x^py^p`$ rather than $`x^p+y^p`$.

###### Proposition 4.14.

Let $`Z_g(T)=_{n1}g_nT^n`$ be the naive motivic zeta function of $`\epsilon _px^p+\epsilon _qy^q`$, with $`\epsilon _p,\epsilon _q\{\pm 1\}`$. If $`p`$ is even

$$\epsilon _p=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1\hfill & \text{if }g_p^+0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

and if $`q`$ is even, but not multiple of an odd $`p`$, then

$$\epsilon _q=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1\hfill & \text{if }g_p^{}=0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 4.15.

In the case $`p`$ odd and $`q=kp`$ with $`k`$ even, we do not know if $`x^p+y^{kp}`$ and $`x^py^{kp}`$ are blow-$`Nash`$ equivalent or not. They are blow-analytically equivalent by an argument of integration of vector field, but this method no longer holds in the $`Nash`$ setting.

### 4.4. Motivic integration and the proof of Denef & Loeser formula

The proof of Denef & Loeser formula, which is a simplification of the one of , theorem 2.2.1 to our setting, uses the theory of motivic integration on arc spaces for real algebraic varieties (for motivic integration, we refer to ). In particular we will use the change of variables formula, which is a fundamental result for this theory (, and , lemma 3.3). We will recall these notions, without proofs.

Let $`\sigma :(M,\sigma ^1(0))(^d,0)`$ be a real modification. Let

$$(M,\sigma ^1(0))=\{\gamma :(,0)(M,\sigma ^1(0))|\gamma \text{ is analytic}\}$$

be the arc space associated to $`(M,\sigma ^1(0))`$. Denote by $`\pi _n:_n`$ the natural truncation morphisms, for $`n`$, where $``$ denote eitheir $`(M,\sigma ^1(0))`$ or $`(^d,0)`$. A subset $`A`$ is called stable if $`A=\pi _n^1(C)`$ for $`C_n`$ constructible and some $`n0`$. Then we can define the measure of such a stable set $`A`$ in $`[u,u^1]`$ by

$$\beta (A)=u^{(n+1)d}\beta \left(\pi _n(A)\right)$$

for $`n`$ large enough ($`\beta \left(\pi _n(A)\right)`$ is well defined for Zariski constructible real algebraic varieties are arc-symmetric sets). Indeed, $`\beta (A)`$ does not depend on $`n`$ because the natural projections $`_{n+1}_n`$ are locally trivial fibrations with fiber $`^d`$.

Let $`\theta :A[u,u^1]`$ be a map with finite image and whose fibers are stable sets. Then the integral of $`\theta `$ over $`A`$ with respect to $`\beta `$ is defined by the formula

$$_A\theta 𝑑\beta :=\underset{c[u,u^1]}{}c\beta \left(\theta ^1(c)\right).$$

We can state now the Kontsevich change of variables formula.

###### Proposition 4.16.

() Let $`A(^d,0)`$ be stable, and suppose that $`\mathrm{ord}_tdet(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )`$ is bounded on $`\sigma ^1(A)`$. Then

$$\beta (A)=_{\sigma ^1(A)}u^{\mathrm{ord}_tdet(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )}𝑑\beta .$$

Before giving the proof of Denef & Loeser formula, let us give some notations. The modification $`\sigma `$ induces applications $`\sigma _{}`$ (respectively $`\sigma _{,n}`$) between $`(M,\sigma ^1(0))`$ and $`(^d,0)`$ (respectively $`_n(M,\sigma ^1(0)`$ and $`_n(^d,0)`$). We put $`𝒵_n(f)=\pi _n^1(\chi _n)`$ and $`𝒵_n(f\sigma )=\sigma _{}^1\left(𝒵_n(f)\right)`$. Finally for $`e1`$, put $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e=\{\gamma (M,\sigma ^1(0))|\mathrm{ord}_tdet(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )\left(\gamma (t)\right)=e\}`$, and $`𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )=𝒵_n(f\sigma )\mathrm{\Delta }_e`$.

Let us state a preliminary lemma.

###### Lemma 4.17.

Let $`\sigma :(M,\sigma ^1(0))(^d,0)`$ be a modification of $`^d`$ such that $`f\sigma `$ and the jacobian determinant $`\mathrm{jac}\sigma `$ are normal crossings simultaneously, and assume moreover that $`\sigma `$ is an isomorphism over the complement of the zero locus of $`f`$.

Let $`(f\sigma )^1(0)=_{jJ}E_j`$ be the decomposition into irreducible components of $`(f\sigma )^1(0)`$, and assume that $`\sigma ^1(0)=_{kK}E_k`$ for some $`KJ`$.

Put $`N_i=\mathrm{mult}_{E_i}f\sigma `$ and $`\nu _i=1+\mathrm{mult}_{E_i}\mathrm{jac}\sigma `$, and for $`IJ`$ denote by $`E_I^0`$ the set $`(_{iI}E_i)(_{jJI}E_j)`$. Then there exists $`c`$ such that

$$Z_f(T)=u^d\underset{n1}{}T^n\underset{ecn}{}u^e\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}\beta (\{\gamma _n(M,E_I^0)\pi _n(\mathrm{\Delta }_e):f\sigma \gamma (t)=bt^n+\mathrm{},b0\})$$

and

$$Z_f^\pm (T)=u^d\underset{n1}{}T^n\underset{ecn}{}u^e\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}\beta (\{\gamma _n(M,E_I^0)\pi _n(\mathrm{\Delta }_e):f\sigma \gamma (t)=\pm t^n+\mathrm{}\}).$$

Proof. Let us prove the lemma for $`Z_f(T)`$, the argument is the same for $`Z_f^\pm `$.

For $`n1`$, $`𝒵_n(f)`$ is stable, so $`\beta \left(𝒵_n(f)\right)`$ is defined and equals $`u^{(n+1)d}\beta (\chi _n)`$, hence $`Z_f(T)=u^d_{n1}\beta \left(𝒵_n(f)\right)T^n`$.

Moreover $`𝒵_n(f\sigma )`$ equals the disjoint union $`_{e1}𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )`$. Actually this union is finite: take $`\gamma 𝒵_n(f\sigma )`$; there exits $`IJ`$ such that $`\pi _0(\gamma )E_I^0`$. Then in a neighbourhood of $`\gamma (0)`$ one can choose coordinates such that $`f\sigma =unit_{iI}y_i^{N_i}`$ and $`det(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )=unit_{iI}y_i^{\nu _i1}`$ where by $`unit`$ we denote a non-vanishing function. Let us write $`\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _d)`$, and $`k_i=\mathrm{ord}_t\gamma _i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Then $`\mathrm{ord}_tf\sigma \left(\gamma (t)\right)=_{i=1}^dN_ik_in`$ and therefore

$$\mathrm{ord}_tdet(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )\left(\gamma (t)\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}(\nu _i1)k_i\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}(\frac{\nu _i1}{N_i})\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}N_ik_i\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}(\frac{\nu _i1}{N_i})n.$$

Putting $`c=\mathrm{max}_i(\frac{\nu _i1}{N_i})`$, we have shown thus that $`_{e1}𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )=_{ecn}𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )`$ which is a finite union.

Now Kontsevich change of variables formula induces that

$$\beta \left(𝒵_n(f)\right)=\underset{ecn}{}u^e\beta \left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\right),$$

and then

$$Z_f(T)=u^d\underset{n1}{}T^n\underset{ecn}{}u^e\beta \left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\right).$$

We are going to compute $`\beta \left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\right)`$ using the fact that $`𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )`$ equals the disjoint union

$$_I\mathrm{}𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1\left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right),$$

thus

$$\beta \left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\right)=\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}\beta \left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1\left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\right).$$

Choose $`I\mathrm{}`$. Then $`\pi _n(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0))`$ is just the set

$$\{\gamma _n(M,\sigma ^1(0))|\gamma (0)E_I^0\sigma ^1(0),\mathrm{ord}_tf\sigma \left(\gamma (t)\right)=n,\mathrm{ord}_tdet(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )\left(\gamma (t)\right)=e\}.$$

The results follows directly from the additivity of $`\beta `$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The proofs of propositions 4.2 and 4.4 just consist of computing the value of $`\beta `$ on the sets which appear in the formulae of lemma 4.17. Let us first prove proposition 4.2.

Proof of proposition 4.2. Take $`\gamma \pi _n(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0))`$. On a neighbourhood of $`\gamma (0)`$ one can choose coordinates such that $`f\sigma =unit_{iI}y_i^{N_i}`$ and moreover $`det(\mathrm{jac}\sigma )=unit_{iI}y_i^{\nu _i1}`$, hence $`\pi _n(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0))`$ is isomorphic to

$$\{\gamma _n(M,\sigma ^1(0))|\gamma (0)E_I^0\sigma ^1(0),\underset{iI}{}k_iN_i=n,\underset{iI}{}k_i(\nu _i1)=e\},$$

where $`k_i=\mathrm{ord}_t\gamma _i`$ for $`iI`$. As a consequence

$$\pi _n\left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1\left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\right)_{kA(n,e)}\left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\times (^{})^{|I|}\left(\underset{iI}{}^{nk_i}\right)\times (^n)^{d|I|}$$

where $`A(n,e)`$ is the subset of $`k^d`$ such that $`_{i=1}^dN_ik_i=n`$ and $`_{i=1}^d(\nu _i1)k_i=e`$.

By taking the image by $`\beta `$ we obtain

$$\beta \left(\pi _n\left(𝒵_{n,e}(f\sigma )\pi _0^1\left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\right)\right)=\beta \left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)(u1)^{|I|}u^{nd_{i=1}^dk_i},$$

hence

$$Z_f(T)=\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}(u1)^{|I|}\beta \left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\underset{n1}{}\underset{ecn}{}\underset{kA(n,e)}{}u^{e_{i=1}^dk_i}T^n.$$

Remark that $`\{kA(n,e)|n1,ecn\}`$ is in bijection with $`^{|I|}`$, therefore

$$\underset{n1}{}\underset{ecn}{}\underset{kA(n,e)}{}u^{e_{i=1}^dk_i}T^n=\underset{k}{}\underset{iI}{}(u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i})^{k_i}=\underset{iI}{}\frac{u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}{1u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}.$$

Finally

$$Z_f(T)=\underset{I\mathrm{}}{}(u1)^{|I|}\beta \left(E_I^0\sigma ^1(0)\right)\underset{iI}{}\frac{u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}}{1u^{\nu _i}T^{N_i}},$$

which is the result.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The proof of proposition 4.4 is a little bit more complicated due to the fact that we have to introduce a covering $`\stackrel{~}{E_I^{0,\pm }}`$ of $`E_I^{0,\pm }`$ in order to compute $`Z_f^\pm (T)`$. Recall that if $`U`$ is an affine open subset of $`M`$ such that $`f\sigma =u_{iI}y_i^{N_i}`$ on $`U`$, with $`u`$ a unit, then by $`R_U^\pm `$ we mean $`R_U^\pm =\{(x,t)(E_I^0U)\times :t^m=\pm \frac{1}{u(x)}\}`$, where $`m=gcd(N_i)`$. Now $`\stackrel{~}{E_I^{0,\pm }}`$ is the gluing of the $`R_U^\pm `$ along the $`E_I^0U`$.

Proof of proposition 4.4. Let $`U`$ be an affine open subset of $`M`$ such that $`f\sigma =u_{iI}y_i^{N_i}`$ on $`U`$, with $`u`$ a unit. What we have to compute is the value of $`\beta `$ on

$$W^\pm =\{(x,y)(E_I^0U)\times (^{})^{|I|}:u(x)\underset{iI}{}y_i^{N_i}=\pm 1\}.$$

Denote by $`m`$ the greatest common divisor of the $`N_i`$, $`iI`$, and choose $`n_i`$, $`iI`$ such that $`_{iI}n_iN_i=m`$. Assume that $`I=\{1,\mathrm{},s\}`$. Remark that $`W^\pm `$ is isomorphic to

$$W^{{}_{}{}^{},\pm }=\{(x,y,t)(E_I^0U)\times (^{})^{|I|}\times ^{}:t^m=\frac{\pm 1}{u(x)},\underset{iI}{}y_i^{N_i/m}=1\},$$

by $`W^{{}_{}{}^{},\pm }W^\pm ,(x,y,t)(x,t^{n_1}y_1,\mathrm{},t^{n_s}y_s)`$. The inverse is the morphism given by $`(x,y)(x,_{iI}y_i^{N_i/m},(_{iI}y_i^{N_i/m})^{n_1}y_1,\mathrm{},(_{iI}y_i^{N_i/m})^{n_s}y_s)`$.

Now it is easier to compute $`\beta (W^{{}_{}{}^{},\pm })`$ for $`W^{{}_{}{}^{},\pm }R_U^\pm \times (^{})^{|I|1}`$. This last isomorphism comes from the fact that at least one $`\frac{N_i}{m}`$ is odd. Therefore $`\beta (W^\pm )=(u1)^{|I|1}\beta (R_U^\pm )`$, and the same computation as in the naive case gives the formula.

$`\mathrm{}`$