{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06036465372122247, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017308011475448703, 'mean_word_length': 3.687951539402023, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 24, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 45, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 70, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discrete holomorphic local dynamical systems

This is a survey on local dynamics of holomorphic maps in one and several complex variables, discussing in particular normal forms and the structure of local stable sets in the non-hyperbolic case, and including several proofs and a vast bibliography. It updates and enlarge the previous survey arXiv:math/0310089v1.

For instance, what is the asymptotic behavior of the orbits? Do they converge to p, or have they a chaotic behavior? Is there a dense orbit? Do there exist proper f -invariant subsets, that is sets L ⊂ K f such that f (L) ⊆ L? If they do exist, what is the dynamics on them?
To answer all these questions, the most efficient way is to replace f by a "dynamically equivalent" but simpler (e.g., linear) map g. In our context, "dynamically equivalent" means "locally conjugated"; and we have at least three kinds of conjugacy to consider. Definition 1.4: Let f 1 : U 1 → M 1 and f 2 : U 2 → M 2 be two holomorphic local dynamical systems at p 1 ∈ M 1 and p 2 ∈ M 2 respectively. We shall say that f 1 and f 2 are holomorphically (respectively, topologically) locally conjugated if there are open neighbourhoods W 1 ⊆ U 1 of p 1 , W 2 ⊆ U 2 of p 2 , and a biholomorphism (respectively, a homeomorphism) ϕ: W 1 → W 2 with ϕ(p 1 ) = p 2 such that If f 1 : U 1 → M 1 and f 2 : U 2 → M 2 are locally conjugated, in particular we have and thus K f2|W 2 = ϕ(K f1|W 1 ) .
So the local dynamics of f 1 about p 1 is to all purposes equivalent to the local dynamics of f 2 about p 2 .
Remark 1.4: Using local coordinates centered at p ∈ M it is easy to show that any holomorphic local dynamical system at p is holomorphically locally conjugated to a holomorphic local dynamical system at O ∈ C n , where n = dim M .
Whenever we have an equivalence relation in a class of objects, there are classification problems. So the third natural question in local holomorphic dynamics is (Q3) Find a (possibly small) class F of holomorphic local dynamical systems at O ∈ C n such that every holomorphic local dynamical system f at a point in an n-dimensional complex manifold is holomorphically (respectively, topologically) locally conjugated to a (possibly) unique element of F , called the holomorphic (respectively, topological) normal form of f . Unfortunately, the holomorphic classification is often too complicated to be practical; the family F of normal forms might be uncountable. A possible replacement is looking for invariants instead of normal forms: (Q4) Find a way to associate a (possibly small) class of (possibly computable) objects, called invariants, to any holomorphic local dynamical system f at O ∈ C n so that two holomorphic local dynamical systems at O can be holomorphically conjugated only if they have the same invariants. The class of invariants is furthermore said complete if two holomorphic local dynamical systems at O are holomorphically conjugated if and only if they have the same invariants. As remarked before, up to now all the questions we asked made sense for topological local dynamical systems; the next one instead makes sense only for holomorphic local dynamical systems.
A holomorphic local dynamical system at O ∈ C n is clearly given by an element of C 0 {z 1 , . . . , z n } n , the space of n-uples of converging power series in z 1 , . . . , z n without constant terms. The space C 0 {z 1 , . . . , z n } n is a subspace of the space C 0 [[z 1 , . . . , z n ]] n of n-uples of formal power series without constant terms. An element Φ ∈ C 0 [[z 1 , . . . , z n ]] n has an inverse (with respect to composition) still belonging to C 0 [[z 1 , . . . , z n ]] n if and only if its linear part is a linear automorphism of C n . Definition 1.5: We shall say that two holomorphic local dynamical systems f 1 , f 2 ∈ C 0 {z 1 , . . . , z n } n are formally conjugated if there exists an invertible Φ ∈ C 0 [[z 1 , . . . , z n ]] n such that It is clear that two holomorphically locally conjugated holomorphic local dynamical systems are both formally and topologically locally conjugated too. On the other hand, we shall see examples of holomorphic local dynamical systems that are topologically locally conjugated without being neither formally nor holomorphically locally conjugated, and examples of holomorphic local dynamical systems that are formally conjugated without being neither holomorphically nor topologically locally conjugated. So the last natural question in local holomorphic dynamics we shall deal with is (Q5) Find normal forms and invariants with respect to the relation of formal conjugacy for holomorphic local dynamical systems at O ∈ C n .
In this survey we shall present some of the main results known on these questions, starting from the onedimensional situation. But before entering the main core of the paper I would like to heartily thank François Berteloot, Kingshook Biswas, Filippo Bracci, Santiago Diaz-Madrigal, Graziano Gentili, Giorgio Patrizio, Mohamad Pouryayevali, Jasmin Raissy and Francesca Tovena, without whom none of this would have been written.

One complex variable: the hyperbolic case
Let us then start by discussing holomorphic local dynamical systems at 0 ∈ C. As remarked in the previous section, such a system is given by a converging power series f without constant term: f (z) = a 1 z + a 2 z 2 + a 3 z 3 + · · · ∈ C 0 {z} .
Definition 2.1: The number a 1 = f ′ (0) is the multiplier of f .
Since a 1 z is the best linear approximation of f , it is sensible to expect that the local dynamics of f will be strongly influenced by the value of a 1 . For this reason we introduce the following definitions: Definition 2.2: Let a 1 ∈ C be the multiplier of f ∈ End (C, 0). Then -if |a 1 | < 1 we say that the fixed point 0 is attracting; -if a 1 = 0 we say that the fixed point 0 is superattracting; -if |a 1 | > 1 we say that the fixed point 0 is repelling; -if |a 1 | = 0, 1 we say that the fixed point 0 is hyperbolic; -if a 1 ∈ S 1 is a root of unity, we say that the fixed point 0 is parabolic (or rationally indifferent); -if a 1 ∈ S 1 is not a root of unity, we say that the fixed point 0 is elliptic (or irrationally indifferent).
As we shall see in a minute, the dynamics of one-dimensional holomorphic local dynamical systems with a hyperbolic fixed point is pretty elementary; so we start with this case.
Remark 2.1: Notice that if 0 is an attracting fixed point for f ∈ End(C, 0) with non-zero multiplier, then it is a repelling fixed point for the inverse map f −1 ∈ End (C, 0). Assume first that 0 is attracting for the holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End (C, 0). Then we can write f (z) = a 1 z + O(z 2 ), with 0 < |a 1 | < 1; hence we can find a large constant M > 0, a small constant ε > 0 and 0 < δ < 1 such that if |z| < ε then |f (z)| ≤ (|a 1 | + M ε)|z| ≤ δ|z| . (2.1) In particular, if ∆ ε denotes the disk of center 0 and radius ε, we have f (∆ ε ) ⊂ ∆ ε for ε > 0 small enough, and the stable set of f | ∆ε is ∆ ε itself (in particular, a one-dimensional attracting fixed point is always stable). Furthermore, |f k (z)| ≤ δ k |z| → 0 as k → +∞, and thus every orbit starting in ∆ ε is attracted by the origin, which is the reason of the name "attracting" for such a fixed point. If instead 0 is a repelling fixed point, a similar argument (or the observation that 0 is attracting for f −1 ) shows that for ε > 0 small enough the stable set of f | ∆ε reduces to the origin only: all (non-trivial) orbits escape.
It is also not difficult to find holomorphic and topological normal forms for one-dimensional holomorphic local dynamical systems with a hyperbolic fixed point, as shown in the following result, which can be considered as the beginning of the theory of holomorphic dynamical systems: Theorem 2.1: (Koenigs, 1884 [Koe]) Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a one-dimensional holomorphic local dynamical system with a hyperbolic fixed point at the origin, and let a 1 ∈ C * \ S 1 be its multiplier. Then: (i) f is holomorphically (and hence formally) locally conjugated to its linear part g(z) = a 1 z. The conjugation ϕ is uniquely determined by the condition ϕ ′ (0) = 1. (ii) Two such holomorphic local dynamical systems are holomorphically conjugated if and only if they have the same multiplier. (iii) f is topologically locally conjugated to the map g < (z) = z/2 if |a 1 | < 1, and to the map g > (z) = 2z if |a 1 | > 1.
Proof : Let us assume 0 < |a 1 | < 1; if |a 1 | > 1 it will suffice to apply the same argument to f −1 .
Put ϕ k = f k /a k 1 ; we claim that the sequence {ϕ k } converges to a holomorphic map ϕ: ∆ ε → C. Indeed we have for all z ∈ ∆ ε , and so the telescopic series k (ϕ k+1 − ϕ k ) is uniformly convergent in ∆ ε to ϕ − ϕ 0 .
Remark 2.3: The proof of this theorem is based on two techniques often used in dynamics to build conjugations. The first one is used in part (i). Suppose that we would like to prove that two invertible local dynamical systems f , g ∈ End(M, p) are conjugated. Set ϕ k = g −k • f k , so that Therefore if we can prove that {ϕ k } converges to an invertible map ϕ as k → +∞ we get ϕ • f = g • ϕ, and thus f and g are conjugated, as desired. This is exactly the way we proved Theorem 2.1.(i); and we shall see variations of this techniques later on.
To describe the second technique we need a definition.
There are other possible definitions of a fundamental domain, but this will work for our aims.
Suppose that we would like to prove that two open continuous maps f 1 : X 1 → X 1 and f 2 : X 2 → X 2 are topologically conjugated. Assume we have fundamental domains D j ⊂ X j for f j (with j = 1, 2) and a homeomorphism χ: Then we can extend χ to a homeomorphismχ: X 1 → X 2 conjugating f 1 and f 2 by setting The definition of fundamental domain and (2.2) imply thatχ is well-defined. Clearlyχ • f 1 = f 2 •χ; and using the openness of f 1 and f 2 it is easy to check thatχ is a homeomorphism. This is the technique we used in the proof of Theorem 2.1.(iii); and we shall use it again later.
Thus the dynamics in the one-dimensional hyperbolic case is completely clear. The superattracting case can be treated similarly. If 0 is a superattracting point for an f ∈ End(C, 0), we can write f (z) = a r z r + a r+1 z r+1 + · · · with a r = 0.
Definition 2.4: The number r ≥ 2 is the order (or local degree) of the superattracting point.
An argument similar to the one described before shows that for ε > 0 small enough the stable set of f | ∆ε still is all of ∆ ε , and the orbits converge (faster than in the attracting case) to the origin. Furthermore, we can prove the following Theorem 2.2: (Böttcher, 1904 [Bö]) Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a one-dimensional holomorphic local dynamical system with a superattracting fixed point at the origin, and let r ≥ 2 be its order. Then: (i) f is holomorphically (and hence formally) locally conjugated to the map g(z) = z r , and the conjugation is unique up to multiplication by an (r − 1)-root of unity; (ii) two such holomorphic local dynamical systems are holomorphically (or topologically) conjugated if and only if they have the same order.
Proof : First of all, up to a linear conjugation z → µz with µ r−1 = a r we can assume a r = 1. Now write f (z) = z r h 1 (z) for a suitable holomorphic germ h 1 with h 1 (0) = 1. By induction, it is easy to see that we can write f k (z) = z r k h k (z) for a suitable holomorphic germ h k with h k (0) = 1. Furthermore, (2.4) Choose 0 < δ < 1. Then we can clearly find 1 > ε > 0 such that M ε < δ, where M = max z∈∆ε |h 1 (z)|; we can also assume that h 1 (z) = 0 for all z ∈ ∆ ε . Since we have f (∆ ε ) ⊂ ∆ ε , as anticipated before. We also remark that (2.4) implies that each h k is well-defined and never vanishing on ∆ ε . So for every k ≥ 1 we can choose a unique ψ k holomorphic in ∆ ε such that ψ k (z) r k = h k (z) on ∆ ε and with ψ k (0) = 1.
Since ϕ ′ k (0) = 1 for all k ∈ N, we have ϕ ′ (0) = 1 and so, up to possibly shrink ε, we can assume that ϕ is a biholomorphism with its image. Moreover, we have and thus ϕ k • f = [ϕ k+1 ] r . Passing to the limit we get f = ϕ −1 • g • ϕ, as claimed.
If ψ is another local biholomorphism conjugating f with g, we must have ψ • ϕ −1 (z r ) = ψ • ϕ −1 (z) r for all z in a neighbourhood of the origin; comparing the series expansions at the origin we get ψ • ϕ −1 (z) = az with a r−1 = 1, and hence ψ(z) = aϕ(z), as claimed.
Finally, (ii) follows because z r and z s are locally topologically conjugated if and only if r = s (because the order is the number of preimages of points close to the origin).
Therefore the one-dimensional local dynamics about a hyperbolic or superattracting fixed point is completely clear; let us now discuss what happens about a parabolic fixed point.
Definition 3.1: The rational number p/q ∈ Q ∩ [0, 1) is the rotation number of f , and the number r + 1 ≥ 2 is the multiplicity of f at the fixed point. If p/q = 0 (that is, if the multiplier is 1), we shall say that f is tangent to the identity.
The first observation is that such a dynamical system is never locally conjugated to its linear part, not even topologically, unless it is of finite order: Proposition 3.1: Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ, and assume that λ = e 2iπp/q is a primitive root of the unity of order q. Then f is holomorphically (or topologically or formally) locally conjugated to g(z) = λz if and only if f q ≡ id.
Conversely, assume that f q ≡ id and set Then it is easy to check that ϕ ′ (0) = 1 and ϕ • f (z) = λϕ(z), and so f is holomorphically (and topologically and formally) locally conjugated to λz.
In particular, if f is tangent to the identity then it cannot be locally conjugated to the identity (unless it was the identity to begin with, which is not a very interesting case dynamically speaking). More precisely, the stable set of such an f is never a neighbourhood of the origin. To understand why, let us first consider a map of the form f (z) = z(1 + az r ) for some a = 0. Let v ∈ S 1 ⊂ C be such that av r is real and positive. Then for any c > 0 we have moreover, |f (cv)| > |cv|. In other words, the half-line R + v is f -invariant and repelled from the origin, that Conversely, if av r is real and negative then the segment [0, |a| −1/r ]v is f -invariant and attracted by the origin. So K f neither is a neighbourhood of the origin nor reduces to {0}. This example suggests the following definition: Definition 3.2: Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be tangent to the identity of multiplicity r + 1 ≥ 2. Then a unit vector v ∈ S 1 is an attracting (respectively, repelling) direction for f at the origin if a r+1 v r is real and negative (respectively, positive).
Clearly, there are r equally spaced attracting directions, separated by r equally spaced repelling directions: if a r+1 = |a r+1 |e iα , then v = e iθ is attracting (respectively, repelling) if and only if Furthermore, a repelling (attracting) direction for f is attracting (repelling) for f −1 , which is defined in a neighbourhood of the origin. It turns out that to every attracting direction is associated a connected component of K f \ {0}.

Definition 3.3:
Let v ∈ S 1 be an attracting direction for an f ∈ End(C, 0) tangent to the identity. The basin centered at v is the set of points z ∈ K f \ {0} such that f k (z) → 0 and f k (z)/|f k (z)| → v (notice that, up to shrinking the domain of f , we can assume that f (z) = 0 for all z ∈ K f \ {0}). If z belongs to the basin centered at v, we shall say that the orbit of z tends to 0 tangent to v.
A slightly more specialized (but more useful) object is the following: Theorem 3.2: (Leau, 1897 [L]; Fatou, 1919-20 [F1-3]) Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity with multiplicity r + 1 ≥ 2 at the fixed point. Let v + 1 , . . . , v + r ∈ S 1 be the r attracting directions of f at the origin, and v − 1 , . . . , v − r ∈ S 1 the r repelling directions. Then (i) for each attracting (repelling) direction v ± j there exists an attracting (repelling) petal P ± j , so that the union of these 2r petals together with the origin forms a neighbourhood of the origin. Furthermore, the 2r petals are arranged ciclically so that two petals intersect if and only if the angle between their central directions is π/r. (ii) K f \ {0} is the (disjoint) union of the basins centered at the r attracting directions. (iii) If B is a basin centered at one of the attracting directions, then there is a function ϕ: B → C such that ϕ • f (z) = ϕ(z) + 1 for all z ∈ B. Furthermore, if P is the corresponding petal constructed in part (i), then ϕ| P is a biholomorphism with an open subset of the complex plane containing a right half-plane -and so f | P is holomorphically conjugated to the translation z → z + 1.
Proof : Up to a linear conjugation, we can assume that a r+1 = −1, so that the attracting directions are the r-th roots of unity. For any δ > 0, the set {z ∈ C | |z r − δ| < δ} has exactly r connected components, each one symmetric with respect to a different r-th root of unity; it will turn out that, for δ small enough, these connected components are attracting petals of f , even though to get a pointed neighbourhood of the origin we shall need larger petals.
For j = 1, . . . , r let Σ j ⊂ C * denote the sector centered about the attractive direction v + j and bounded by two consecutive repelling directions, that is Notice that each Σ j contains a unique connected component P j,δ of {z ∈ C | |z r − δ| < δ}; moreover, P j,δ is tangent at the origin to the sector centered about v j of amplitude π/r. The main technical trick in this proof consists in transfering the setting to a neighbourhood of infinity in the Riemann sphere P 1 (C). Let ψ: C * → C * be given by it is a biholomorphism between Σ j and C * \ R − , with inverse ψ −1 (w) = (rw) −1/r , choosing suitably the r-th root. Furthermore, ψ(P j,δ ) is the right half-plane When |w| is so large that ψ −1 (w) belongs to the domain of definition of f , the composition F = ψ•f •ψ −1 makes sense, and we have Thus to study the dynamics of f in a neighbourhood of the origin in Σ j it suffices to study the dynamics of F in a neighbourhood of infinity. The first observation is that when Re w is large enough then Re F (w) > Re w + 1 2 ; this implies that for δ small enough H δ is F -invariant (and thus P j,δ is f -invariant). Furthermore, by induction one has which implies that F k (w) → ∞ in H δ (and f k (z) → 0 in P j,δ ) as k → ∞. Now we claim that the argument of w k = F k (w) tends to zero. Indeed, (3.2) and (3.3) yield so Cesaro's theorem on the averages of a converging sequence implies and thus arg w k → 0 as k → ∞. Going back to P j,δ , this implies that f k (z)/|f k (z)| → v j for every z ∈ P j,δ . Since furthermore P j,δ is centered about v + j , every orbit converging to 0 tangent to v + j must intersect P j,δ , and thus we have proved that P j,δ is an attracting petal.
Arguing in the same way with f −1 we get repelling petals; unfortunately, the petals obtained so far are too small to form a full pointed neighbourhood of the origin. In fact, as remarked before each P j,δ is contained in a sector centered about v j of amplitude π/r; therefore the repelling and attracting petals obtained in this way do not intersect but are tangent to each other. We need larger petals.
So our aim is to find an f -invariant subset P + j of Σ j containing P j,δ and which is tangent at the origin to a sector centered about v + j of amplitude strictly greater than π/r. To do so, first of all remark that there are R, C > 0 such that as soon as |w| > R. Choose ε ∈ (0, 1) and select δ > 0 so that 4rδ < R −1 and ε > 2C(4rδ) 1/r . Then |w| > 1/(4rδ) implies |F (w) − w − 1| < ε/2 .
Set M ε = (1 + ε)/(2rδ) and letH If w ∈H ε we have |w| > 1/(2rδ) and hence Re F (w) > Re w + 1 − ε/2 and | Im F (w) − Im w| < ε/2 ; (3.6) it is then easy to check that F (H ε ) ⊂H ε and that every orbit starting inH ε must eventually enter H δ . Thus P + j = ψ −1 (H ε ) is as required, and we have proved (i). To prove (ii) we need a further property ofH ε . If w ∈H ε , arguing by induction on k ≥ 1 using (3.6) we get This implies that for every w 0 ∈H ε there exists a k 0 ≥ 1 so that we cannot have F k0 (w) = w 0 for any w ∈H ε . Coming back to the z-plane, this says that any inverse orbit of f must eventually leave P + j . Thus every (forward) orbit of f must eventually leave any repelling petal. So if z ∈ K f \ {O}, where the stable set is computed working in the neighborhood of the origin given by the union of repelling and attracting petals (together with the origin), the orbit of z must eventually land in an attracting petal, and thus z belongs to a basin centered at one of the r attracting directions -and (ii) is proved.
To prove (iii), first of all we notice that we have inH ε . Indeed, (3.5) says that if |w| > 1/(2rδ) then the function w → F (w) − w − 1 sends the disk of center w and radius |w|/2 into the disk of center the origin and radius C/(|w|/2) 1/r ; inequality (3.7) then follows from the Cauchy estimates on the derivative. Now choose w 0 ∈ H δ , and setφ k (w) = F k (w) − F k (w 0 ). Given w ∈H ε , as soon as k ∈ N is so large that F k (w) ∈ H δ we can apply Lagrange's theorem to the segment from F k (w 0 ) to F k (w) to get a t k ∈ [0, 1] such that where we used (3.7) and (3.4), and the constant C ′ is uniform on compact subsets ofH ε (and it can be chosen uniform on H δ ).
As a consequence, the telescopic product kφ k+1 /φ k converges uniformly on compact subsets ofH ε (and uniformly on H δ ), and thus the sequenceφ k converges, uniformly on compact subsets, to a holomorphic functionφ:H ε → C. Since we havẽ In particular,φ is not constant; being the limit of injective functions, by Hurwitz's theorem it is injective. We now prove that the image ofφ contains a right half-plane. First of all, we claim that But this means that if Re w o is large enough then the difference between the variation of the argument ofφ − w o along a suitably small closed circle around w o and the variation of the argument of w − w o along the same circle will be less than 2π -and thus it will be zero. Then the argument principle implies thatφ − w o and w − w o have the same number of zeroes inside that circle, and thus w o ∈φ(H δ ), as required.
So setting ϕ =φ • ψ, we have defined a function ϕ with the required properties on P + j . To extend it to the whole basin B it suffices to put where k ∈ N is the first integer such that f k (z) ∈ P + j . Remark 3.1: It is possible to construct petals that cannot be contained in any sector strictly smaller than Σ j . To do so we need an F -invariant subsetĤ ε of C * \ R − containingH ε and containing eventually every half-line issuing from the origin (but R − ). For M >> 1 and C > 0 large enough, replace the straight lines boundingH ε on the left of Re w = −M by the curves Then it is not too difficult to check that the domainĤ ε so obtained is as desired (see [CG]).
So we have a complete description of the dynamics in the neighbourhood of the origin. Actually, Camacho has pushed this argument even further, obtaining a complete topological classification of onedimensional holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity (see also [BH,Theorem 1.7

]):
Theorem 3.3: (Camacho, 1978 [C]; Shcherbakov, 1982 [S]) Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity with multiplicity r + 1 at the fixed point. Then f is topologically locally conjugated to the map The formal classification is simple too, though different (see, e.g., Milnor [Mi]): Proposition 3.4: Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity with multiplicity r + 1 at the fixed point. Then f is formally conjugated to the map where β is a formal (and holomorphic) invariant given by where the integral is taken over a small positive loop γ about the origin.
Proof : An easy computation shows that if f is given by (3.10) then (3.11) holds. Let us now show that the integral in (3.11) is a holomorphic invariant. Let ϕ be a local biholomorphism fixing the origin, and set .
in a neighbourhood of the origin, where the last inequality follows from the fact that ϕ ′ (0) = 0. This means that the two meromorphic functions 1/ w − F (w) and ϕ ′ (w)/ ϕ(w) − ϕ( F (w) differ by a holomorphic function; so they have the same integral along any small loop surrounding the origin, and as claimed.
To prove that f is formally conjugated to g, let us first take a local formal change of coordinates ϕ of the form Then using the Taylor expansion of ϕ −1 we get This means that if d = r + 1 we can use a polynomial change of coordinates of the form ϕ(z) = z + µz d to remove the term of degree r + d from the Taylor expansion of f without changing the lower degree terms.
So to conjugate f to g it suffices to use a linear change of coordinates to get a r+1 = −1, and then apply a sequence of change of coordinates of the form ϕ(z) = z + µz d to kill all the terms in the Taylor expansion of f but the term of degree z 2r+1 .
Finally, formula (3.13) also shows that two maps of the form (3.10) with different β cannot be formally conjugated, and we are done.
Definition 3.5: The number β given by (3.11) is called index of f at the fixed point. The iterative residue of f is then defined by The iterative residue has been introduced byÉcalle [É1], and it behaves nicely under iteration; for instance, it is possible to prove (see [BH,Proposition 3.10]) that The holomorphic classification of maps tangent to the identity is much more complicated: as shown bý Ecalle [É2-3] and Voronin [V] in 1981, it depends on functional invariants. We shall now try and roughly describe it; see [I2], [M1-2], [K], [BH] and the original papers for details.
Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be tangent to the identity with multiplicity r + 1 at the fixed point; up to a linear change of coordinates we can assume that a r+1 = −1. Let P ± j be a set of petals as in Theorem 3.2.(i), ordered so that P + 1 is centered on the positive real semiaxis, and the others are arranged cyclically coun- the shift z → z + 1 in a right (respectively, left) half-plane given by Theorem 3.2.(iii) -applied to f −1 for the repelling petals. If we moreover require that It is not difficult to see that V ± j and W ± j are invariant by translation by 1, and that V + j and W + j contain an upper half-plane while V − j and W − j contain a lower half-plane. Moreover, we have H ± j (z +1) = H ± j (z)+1; therefore using the projection π(z) = exp(2πiz) we can induce holomorphic maps h ± j : π(V ± j ) → π(W ± j ), where π(V + j ) and π(W + j ) are pointed neighbourhood of the origin, and π(V − j ) and π(W − j ) are pointed neighbourhood of ∞ ∈ P 1 (C).
It is possible to show that setting h + j (0) = 0 one obtains a holomorphic germ h + j ∈ End (C, 0), and that setting h − j (∞) = ∞ one obtains a holomorphic germ h + j ∈ End P 1 (C), ∞ . Furthermore, denoting by λ + j (respectively, λ − j ) the multiplier of h + j at 0 (respectively, of h − j at ∞), it turns out that Now, if we replace f by a holomorphic local conjugatef = ψ −1 •f •ψ, and denote byh ± j the corresponding germs, it is not difficult to check that (up to a cyclic renumbering of the petals) there are constants α j , This suggests the introduction of an equivalence relation on the set of 2r-uple of germs (h ± 1 , . . . , h ± r ). Definition 3.6: Let M r denote the set of 2r-uple of germs h , ∞ , and whose multipliers satisfy (3.15). We shall say that h,h ∈ M r are equivalent if up to a cyclic permutation of the indeces we have (3.16) for suitable α j , β j ∈ C * . We denote by M r the set of all equivalence classes.
The procedure described above allows then to associate to any f ∈ End(C, 0) tangent to the identity with multiplicity r + 1 an element µ f ∈ M r . Definition 3.7: Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be tangent to the identity. The element µ f ∈ M r given by this procedure is the sectorial invariant of f .

Then the holomorphic classification proved byÉcalle and Voronin is
Theorem 3.5: (Écalle, 1981 [É2-3]; Voronin, 1981 [V]) Let f , g ∈ End(C, 0) be two holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity. Then f and g are holomorphically locally conjugated if and only if they have the same multiplicity, the same index and the same sectorial invariant. Furthermore, for any r ≥ 1, β ∈ C and µ ∈ M r there exists f ∈ End(C, 0) tangent to the identity with multiplicity r + 1, index β and sectorial invariant µ.
Remark 3.2: In particular, holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity give examples of local dynamical systems that are topologically conjugated without being neither holomorphically nor formally conjugated, and of local dynamical systems that are formally conjugated without being holomorphically conjugated.
Finally, if f ∈ End(C, 0) satisfies a 1 = e 2πip/q , then f q is tangent to the identity. Therefore we can apply the previous results to f q and then infer informations about the dynamics of the original f , because of the following Lemma 3.6: Let f , g ∈ End(C, 0) be two holomorphic local dynamical systems with the same multiplier e 2πip/q ∈ S 1 . Then f and g are holomorphically locally conjugated if and only if f q and g q are.
Proof : One direction is obvious. For the converse, let ϕ be a germ conjugating f q and g q ; in particular, The germ ψ is a local biholomorphism, because ψ ′ (0) = q = 0, and it is easy to check that ψ • f = g • ψ.
Proposition 3.7: Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ ∈ S 1 , and assume that λ is a primitive root of the unity of order q. Assume that f q ≡ id. Then there exist n ≥ 1 and α ∈ C such that f is formally conjugated to Definition 3.8: The number n is the parabolic multiplicity of f , and α ∈ C is the index of f ; the iterative residue of f is then given by Proposition 3.8: (Camacho) Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ ∈ S 1 , and assume that λ is a primitive root of the unity of order q. Assume that f q ≡ id, and has parabolic multiplicity n ≥ 1. Then f is topologically conjugated to Theorem 3.9: (Leau-Fatou) Let f ∈ End(C, 0) be a holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ ∈ S 1 , and assume that λ is a primitive root of the unity of order q. Assume that f q ≡ id, and let n ≥ 1 be the parabolic multiplicity of f . Then f q has multiplicity nq + 1, and f acts on the attracting (respectively, repelling) petals of f q as a permutation composed by n disjoint cycles. Finally, Furthermore, it is possible to define the sectorial invariant of such a holomorphic local dynamical system, composed by 2nq germs whose multipliers still satisfy (3.15), and the analogue of Theorem 3.5 holds.

One complex variable: the elliptic case
We are left with the elliptic case: with θ / ∈ Q. It turns out that the local dynamics depends mostly on numerical properties of θ. The main question here is whether such a local dynamical system is holomorphically conjugated to its linear part. Let us introduce a bit of terminology.
Definition 4.1: We shall say that a holomorphic dynamical system of the form (4.1) is holomorphically linearizable if it is holomorphically locally conjugated to its linear part, the irrational rotation z → e 2πiθ z. In this case, we shall say that 0 is a Siegel point for f ; otherwise, we shall say that it is a Cremer point.
It turns out tha for a full measure subset B of θ ∈ [0, 1] \ Q all holomorphic local dynamical systems of the form (4.1) are holomorphically linearizable. Conversely, the complement [0, 1] \ B is a G δ -dense set, and for all θ ∈ [0, 1] \ B the quadratic polynomial z → z 2 + e 2πiθ z is not holomorphically linearizable. This is the gist of the results due to Cremer, Siegel, Bryuno and Yoccoz we shall describe in this section.
The first worthwhile observation in this setting is that it is possible to give a topological characterization of holomorphically linearizable local dynamical systems. Proof : If f is holomorphically linearizable it is topologically linearizable, and if it is topologically linearizable (and |λ| = 1) then it is stable. Assume that 0 is stable, and set The stability of 0 implies that there are bounded open sets V ⊂ U containing the origin such that f k (V ) ⊂ U for all k ∈ N. Since |λ| = 1, it follows that {ϕ k } is a uniformly bounded family on V , and hence, by Montel's theorem, it admits a converging subsequence. But (4.2) implies that a converging subsequence converges to a conjugation between f and the rotation z → λz, and so f is holomorphically linearizable.
The second important observation is that two elliptic holomorphic local dynamical systems with the same multiplier are always formally conjugated: Then f is formally conjugated to its linear part, by a unique formal power series tangent to the identity.
Proof : We shall prove that there is a unique formal power series where X j is a polynomial in j − 2 variables with coefficients depending on a 2 , . . . , a j−1 . It follows that the coefficients of h are uniquely determined by induction using the formula In particular, h j depends only on λ, a 2 , . . . , a j .
Remark 4.1: The same proof shows that any holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ = 0 and not a root of unity is formally conjugated to its linear part.
The formal power series linearizing f is not converging if its coefficients grow too fast. Thus (4.4) links the radius of convergence of h to the behavior of λ j − λ: if the latter becomes too small, the series defining h does not converge. This is known as the small denominators problem in this context.
It is then natural to introduce the following quantity: for λ ∈ S 1 and m ≥ 1. Clearly, λ is a root of unity if and only if Ω λ (m) = 0 for all m greater or equal to some m 0 ≥ 1; furthermore, lim m→+∞ Ω λ (m) = 0 for all λ ∈ S 1 . The first one to actually prove that there are non-linearizable elliptic holomorphic local dynamical systems has been Cremer, in 1927 [Cr1]. His more general result is the following: Theorem 4.3: (Cremer, 1938 [Cr2]) Let λ ∈ S 1 be such that Then there exists f ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ which is not holomorphically linearizable. Furthermore, the set of λ ∈ S 1 satisfying (4.5) contains a G δ -dense set.
Proof : Choose inductively a j ∈ {0, 1} so that |a j + X j | ≥ 1/2 for all j ≥ 2, where X j is as in (4.4). Then f (z) = λz + a 2 z 2 + · · · ∈ C 0 {z} , while (4.5) implies that the radius of convergence of the formal linearization h is 0, and thus f cannot be holomorphically linearizable, as required.
Finally, let C(q 0 ) ⊂ S 1 denote the set of λ = e 2πiθ ∈ S 1 such that for some p/q ∈ Q in lowest terms, with q ≥ q 0 . Then it is not difficult to check that each C(q 0 ) is a dense open set in S 1 , and that all λ ∈ C = q0≥1 C(q 0 ) satisfy (4.5). Indeed, if λ = e 2πiθ ∈ C we can find q ∈ N arbitrarily large such that there is p ∈ N so that (4.6) holds. Now, it is easy to see that for all t ∈ [−1/2, 1/2]. Then let p 0 be the integer closest to qθ, so that |qθ − p 0 | ≤ 1/2. Then we have for arbitrarily large q, and (4.5) follows.
On the other hand, Siegel in 1942 gave a condition on the multiplier ensuring holomorphic linearizability: Theorem 4.4: (Siegel, 1942 [Si]) Let λ ∈ S 1 be such that there exists β > 1 and γ > 0 so that Then all f ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ are holomorphically linearizable. Furthermore, the set of λ ∈ S 1 satisfying (4.7) for some β > 1 and γ > 0 is of full Lebesgue measure in S 1 .

Remark 4.3:
It is interesting to notice that for generic (in a topological sense) λ ∈ S 1 there is a non-linearizable holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ, while for almost all (in a measuretheoretic sense) λ ∈ S 1 every holomorphic local dynamical system with multiplier λ is holomorphically linearizable.
Theorem 4.4 suggests the existence of a number-theoretical condition on λ ensuring that the origin is a Siegel point for any holomorphic local dynamical system of multiplier λ. And indeed this is the content of the celebrated Bryuno-Yoccoz theorem: Theorem 4.5: (Bryuno, 1965 [Bry1-3], Yoccoz, 1988 [Y1-2]) Let λ ∈ S 1 . Then the following statements are equivalent: (i) the origin is a Siegel point for the quadratic polynomial f λ (z) = λz + z 2 ; (ii) the origin is a Siegel point for all f ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ; Bryuno, using majorant series as in Siegel's proof of Theorem 4.4 (see also [He] and references therein) has proved that condition (iii) implies condition (ii). Yoccoz, using a more geometric approach based on conformal and quasi-conformal geometry, has proved that (i) is equivalent to (ii), and that (ii) implies (iii), that is that if λ does not satisfy (4.8) then the origin is a Cremer point for some f ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ -and hence it is a Cremer point for the quadratic polynomial f λ (z). See also [P9] for related results.
Remark 4.4: Condition (4.8) is usually expressed in a different way. Write λ = e 2πiθ , and let {p k /q k } be the sequence of rational numbers converging to θ given by the expansion in continued fractions. Then (4.8) is equivalent to See [He], [Y2], [Mi] and references therein for details.
Remark 4.5: A clear obstruction to the holomorphic linearization of an elliptic f ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ = e 2πiθ ∈ S 2 is the existence of small cycles, that is of periodic orbits contained in any neighbourhood of the origin. Perez-Marco [P1], using Yoccoz's techniques, has shown that when the series +∞ k=0 log log q k+1 q k converges then every germ with multiplier λ is either linearizable or has small cycles, and that when the series diverges there exists such germs with a Cremer point but without small cycles.
The complete proof of Theorem 4.5 is beyond the scope of this survey. We shall limit ourselves to describe a proof (adapted from [Pö]) of the implication (iii)=⇒(ii), to report two of the easiest results of [Y2], and to illustrate what is the connection between condition (4.8) and the radius of convergence of the formal linearizing map.
Proof : We already know, thanks to Proposition 4.2, that there exists a unique formal power series we shall prove that h is actually converging. To do so it suffices to show that Since f is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of the origin, there exists a number M > 0 such that |a k | ≤ M k for k ≥ 2; up to a linear change of coordinates we can assume that M = 1, that is |a l | ≤ 1 for all k ≥ 2. (4.11) Therefore Define inductively Then it is easy to check by induction that |h k | ≤ α k δ k for all k ≥ 2. Therefore, to establish (4.10) it suffices to prove analogous estimates for α k and δ k .
To estimate α k , let α = k≥1 α k t k . We have This equation has a unique holomorphic solution vanishing at zero defined for |t| small enough. Hence, as we wanted.
To estimate δ k we have to take care of small divisors. First of all, for each k ≥ 2 we associate to δ k a specific decomposition of the form δ k = ε −1 k δ k1 · · · δ kν , (4.12) with k > k 1 ≥ · · · ≥ k ν , k = k 1 + · · · + k ν and ν ≥ 2, and hence, by induction, a specific decomposition of the form where l 0 = k and k > l 1 ≥ · · · ≥ l q ≥ 2. For m ≥ 2 let N m (k) be the number of factors ε −1 l in the expression (4.13) of δ k satisfying Notice that Ω λ (m) is non-increasing with respect to m and it tends to zero as m goes to infinity. The next lemma contains the key estimate.
Lemma 4.7: For all m ≥ 2 we have Proof : We argue by induction on k. If l ≤ k ≤ m we have ε l ≥ Ω λ (m), and hence N m (k) = 0. Assume now k > m, so that 2k/m − 1 ≥ 1. Write δ k as in (4.12); we have a few cases to consider.
and applying the induction hypotheses to each term we get N (k) ≤ (2k/m) − 1.
and we are done in this case too.
Case 2.3.2: k 1 > k − m. The crucial remark here is that ε −1 k1 gives no contribute to N (k 1 ). Indeed, assume by contradiction that ε k1 < 1 4 Ω λ (m). Then because Ω λ (m) ≤ 2. Since k − k 1 < m, it follows that contradiction. Therefore case 1 applies to δ k1 and we have with k > k 1 > k 11 ≥ · · · ≥ k 1ν 1 and k 1 = k 11 +· · ·+k 1ν 1 . We can repeat the argument for this decomposition, and we finish unless we run into case 2.3.2 again. However, this loop cannot happen more than m + 1 times, and we eventually have to land into a different case. This completes the induction and the proof.
Let us go back to the proof of Theorem 4.6. We have to estimate By Lemma 4.7, for ν ≥ 1. It is also easy to see from the definition of δ k that the number of factors ε −1 lj is bounded by 2k − 1. In particular, and we are done.
The second result we would like to present is Yoccoz's beautiful proof of the fact that almost every quadratic polynomial f λ is holomorphically linearizable: Proposition 4.8: The origin is a Siegel point of f λ (z) = λz + z 2 for almost every λ ∈ S 1 .
Proof : (Yoccoz [Y2]) The idea is to study the radius of convergence of the inverse of the linearization of f λ (z) = λz + z 2 when λ ∈ ∆ * . Theorem 2.1 says that there is a unique map ϕ λ defined in some neighbourhood of the origin such that ϕ ′ λ (0) = 1 and ϕ λ • f = λϕ λ . Let ρ λ be the radius of convergence of ϕ −1 λ ; we want to prove that ϕ λ is defined in a neighbourhood of the unique critical point −λ/2 of f λ , and that ρ λ = |ϕ λ (−λ/2)|.
Let Ω λ ⊂⊂ C be the basin of attraction of the origin, that is the set of z ∈ C whose orbit converges to the origin. Notice that setting ϕ λ (z) = λ −k ϕ λ f λ (z) we can extend ϕ λ to the whole of Ω λ . Moreover, since the image of ϕ −1 λ is contained in Ω λ , which is bounded, necessarily ρ λ < +∞.
and ϕ λ is invertible in U λ , the function f cannot have critical points in U λ .

Then
Theorem 4.10: (Yoccoz [Y2]) Let λ ∈ S 1 be such that the origin is a Siegel point for f λ (z) = λz + z 2 . Then the origin is a Siegel point for every f ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ.

Sketch of proof : Write
f (z) = λz + a 2 z 2 + k≥3 a k z k , and let f a (z) = λz + az 2 + k≥3 a k z k , so that f = f a2 . If |a| is large enough then the germ is defined on ∆ 3/2 and |ψ a (z)| < C for all z ∈ ∆ 3/2 , where C is the constant given by Theorem 4.9. It follows that g a is topologically conjugated to f λ . By assumption, f λ is topologically linearizable; hence g a is too. Proposition 4.1 then implies that g a is holomorphically linearizable, and hence f a is too. Furthermore, it is also possible to show (see, e.g., [BH,Lemma 2.3]) that if |a| is large enough, say |a| ≥ R, then the domain of linearization of g a contains ∆ r , where r > 0 is such that ∆ 2r is contained in the domain of linearization of f λ . So we have proven the assertion if |a 2 | ≥ R; assume then |a 2 | < R. Since λ is not a root of unity, there exists (Proposition 4.2) a unique formal power seriesĥ a ∈ C[[z]] tangent to the identity such that g a •ĥ a (z) =ĥ a (λz). If we writeĥ a (z) = z + henceĥ a2 is convergent, and we are done.
Finally, we would like to describe the connection between condition (4.8) and linearization. From the function theoretical side, given θ ∈ [0, 1) set r(θ) = inf{r(f ) | f ∈ End(C, 0) has multiplier e 2πiθ and it is defined and injective in ∆}, where r(f ) ≥ 0 is the radius of convergence of the unique formal linearization of f tangent to the identity.
If 0 is a Siegel point for f ∈ End(C, 0), the local dynamics of f is completely clear, and simple enough. On the other hand, if 0 is a Cremer point of f , then the local dynamics of f is very complicated and not yet completely understood. Pérez-Marco (in [P2, 4-7]) and Biswas ([B1,2]) have studied the topology and the dynamics of the stable set in this case. Some of their results are summarized in the following Theorem 4.12: (Pérez-Marco, 1995 [P6, 7]) Assume that 0 is a Cremer point for an elliptic holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End(C, 0). Then: it is not locally connected at any point distinct from the origin.

(ii) Any point of K f \ {0} is recurrent (that is, a limit point of its orbit). (iii) There is an orbit in K f which accumulates at the origin, but no non-trivial orbit converges to the origin.
Theorem 4.13: (Biswas, 2007 [B2]) The rotation number and the conformal class of K f are a complete set of holomorphic invariants for Cremer points. In other words, two elliptic non-linearizable holomorphic local dynamical systems f and g are holomorphically locally conjugated if and only if they have the same rotation number and there is a biholomorphism of a neighbourhood of K f with a neighbourhood of K g .
Remark 4.6: So, if λ ∈ S 1 is not a root of unity and does not satisfy Bryuno's condition (4.8), we can find f 1 , f 2 ∈ End(C, 0) with multiplier λ such that f 1 is holomorphically linearizable while f 2 is not. Then f 1 and f 2 are formally conjugated without being neither holomorphically nor topologically locally conjugated.
Remark 4.7: Yoccoz [Y2] has proved that if λ ∈ S 1 is not a root of unity and does not satisfy Bryuno's condition (4.8) then there is an uncountable family of germs in End(C, O) with multiplier λ which are not holomorphically conjugated to each other nor holomorphically conjugated to any entire function.
See also [P1, 3] for other results on the dynamics about a Cremer point.

Several complex variables: the hyperbolic case
Now we start the discussion of local dynamics in several complex variables. In this setting the theory is much less complete than its one-variable counterpart.
Definition 5.1: Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system at O ∈ C n , with n ≥ 2.
The homogeneous expansion of f is f (z) = P 1 (z) + P 2 (z) + · · · ∈ C 0 {z 1 , . . . , z n } n , where P j is an n-uple of homogeneous polynomials of degree j. In particular, P 1 is the differential df O of f at the origin, and f is locally invertible if and only if P 1 is invertible.
We have seen that in dimension one the multiplier (i.e., the derivative at the origin) plays a main rôle. When n > 1, a similar rôle is played by the eigenvalues of the differential. Other cases are clearly possible, but for our aims this list is enough. In this survey we shall be mainly concerned with hyperbolic and parabolic fixed points; however, in the last section we shall also present some results valid in other cases.
Let us begin assuming that the origin is a hyperbolic fixed point for an f ∈ End(C n , O) not necessarily invertible. We then have a canonical splitting where E s (respectively, E u ) is the direct sum of the generalized eigenspaces associated to the eigenvalues of df O with modulus less (respectively, greater) than 1. Then the first main result in this subject is the famous stable manifold theorem (originally due to Perron [Pe] and Hadamard [H]; see [FHY, HK, HPS, Pes, Sh, AM] for proofs in the C ∞ category, Wu [Wu] for a proof in the holomorphic category, and [A3] for a proof in the non-invertible case): Theorem 5.1: Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system with a hyperbolic fixed point at the origin. Then: (i) the stable set K f is an embedded complex submanifold of (a neighbourhood of the origin in) C n , tangent to E s at the origin; (ii) there is an embedded complex submanifold W f of (a neighbourhood of the origin in) C n , called the The proof is too involved to be summarized here; it suffices to say that both K f and W f can be recovered, for instance, as fixed points of a suitable contracting operator in an infinite dimensional space (see the references quoted above for details).
Remark 5.1: If the origin is an attracting fixed point, then E s = C n , and K f is an open neighbourhood of the origin, its basin of attraction. However, as we shall discuss below, this does not imply that f is holomorphically linearizable, not even when it is invertible. Conversely, if the origin is a repelling fixed point, then E u = C n , and K f = {O}. Again, not all holomorphic local dynamical systems with a repelling fixed point are holomorphically linearizable.
If a point in the domain U of a holomorphic local dynamical system with a hyperbolic fixed point does not belong either to the stable set or to the unstable set, it escapes both in forward time (that is, its orbit escapes) and in backward time (that is, it is not the end point of an infinite orbit contained in U ). In some sense, we can think of the stable and unstable sets (or, as they are usually called in this setting, stable and unstable manifolds) as skewed coordinate planes at the origin, and the orbits outside these coordinate planes follow some sort of hyperbolic path, entering and leaving any neighbourhood of the origin in finite time.
Actually, this idea of straightening stable and unstable manifolds can be brought to fruition (at least in the invertible case), and it yields one of the possible proofs (see [HK,Sh,A3] and references therein) of the Grobman-Hartman theorem: Theorem 5.2: (Grobman, 1959 [G1-2]; Hartman, 1960 [Har]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a locally invertible holomorphic local dynamical system with a hyperbolic fixed point. Then f is topologically locally conjugated to its differential df O .
Thus, at least from a topological point of view, the local dynamics about an invertible hyperbolic fixed point is completely clear. This is definitely not the case if the local dynamical system is not invertible in a neighbourhood of the fixed point. For instance, already Hubbard and Papadopol [HP] noticed that a Böttcher-type theorem for superattracting points in several complex variables is just not true: there are holomorphic local dynamical systems with a superattracting fixed point which are not even topologically locally conjugated to the first non-vanishing term of their homogeneous expansion. Recently, Favre and Jonsson (see, e.g., [Fa] and [FJ1,2]) have begun a very detailed study of superattracting fixed points in C 2 , study that might lead to their topological classification. We shall limit ourselves to quote one result.
Definition 5.3: Given f ∈ End(C 2 , O), we shall denote by Crit(f ) the set of critical points of f . Put we shall say that f is rigid if (as germ in the origin) Crit ∞ (f ) is either empty, a smooth curve, or the union of two smooth curves crossing transversally at the origin. Finally, we shall say that f is dominant if det(df ) ≡ 0.
Rigid germs have been classified by Favre [Fa], which isthe reason why next theorem can be useful for classifying superattracting dynamical systems: Coming back to hyperbolic dynamical systems, the holomorphic and even the formal classification are not as simple as the topological one. The main problem is caused by resonances.
Definition 5.4: Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system, and let denote by λ 1 , . . . , λ n ∈ C the eigenvalues of df O . A resonance for f is a relation of the form λ k1 1 · · · λ kn n − λ j = 0 (5.1) for some 1 ≤ j ≤ n and some k 1 , . . . , k n ∈ N with k 1 + · · · + k n ≥ 2. When n = 1 there is a resonance if and only if the multiplier is a root of unity, or zero; but if n > 1 resonances may occur in the hyperbolic case too.
Resonances are the obstruction to formal linearization. Indeed, a computation completely analogous to the one yielding Proposition 4.2 shows that the coefficients of a formal linearization have in the denominators quantities of the form λ k1 1 · · · λ kn n − λ j ; hence Proposition 5.4: Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a locally invertible holomorphic local dynamical system with a hyperbolic fixed point and no resonances. Then f is formally conjugated to its differential df O .
Definition 5.5: We shall say that a monomial z k1 1 · · · z kn n in the j-th coordinate of f is resonant if k 1 + · · · + k n ≥ 2 and λ k1 1 · · · λ kn n = λ j . Then Proposition 5.4 can be generalized to (see [Ar,p. 194] or [IY,p. 53] for a proof): Proposition 5.5: (Poincaré [Po], Dulac [Du]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a locally invertible holomorphic local dynamical system with a hyperbolic fixed point. Then it is formally conjugated to a g ∈ C 0 [[z 1 , . . . , z n ]] n such that dg O is in Jordan normal form, and g has only resonant monomials.
Definition 5.6: The formal series g is called a Poincaré-Dulac normal form of f .
The problem with Poincaré-Dulac normal forms is that they are not unique. In particular, one may wonder whether it could be possible to have such a normal form including finitely many resonant monomials only (as happened, for instance, in Proposition 3.4). This is indeed the case (see, e.g., Reich [Re1]) when f belongs to the Poincaré domain, that is when df O is invertible and O is either attracting or repelling. As far as I know, the problem of finding canonical formal normal forms when f belongs to the Siegel domain is still open.
It should be remarked that, in the hyperbolic case, the problem of formal linearization is equivalent to the problem of smooth linearization. This has been proved by Sternberg  and Chaperon [Ch]: Theorem 5.6: (Sternberg, 1957 [St1-2]; Chaperon, 1986 [Ch]) Let f , g ∈ End (C n  Even without resonances, the holomorphic linearizability is not guaranteed. The easiest positive result is due to Poincaré [Po] who, using majorant series, proved the following Theorem 5.7: (Poincaré, 1893 [Po]) Let f ∈ End (C n

, O) be a locally invertible holomorphic local dynamical system in the Poincaré domain. Then f is holomorphically linearizable if and only if it is formally linearizable. In particular, if there are no resonances then f is holomorphically linearizable.
Reich [Re2] describes holomorphic normal forms when df O belongs to the Poincaré domain and there are resonances (see also [ÉV]); Pérez-Marco [P8] discusses the problem of holomorphic linearization in the presence of resonances.
When df O belongs to the Siegel domain, even without resonances, the formal linearization might diverge. To describe the known results, let us introduce the following definition: Definition 5.7: For λ 1 , . . . , λ n ∈ C and m ≥ 2 set Ω λ1,...,λn (m) = min |λ k1 1 · · · λ kn n − λ j | k 1 , . . . , k n ∈ N, 2 ≤ k 1 + · · · + k n ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ n . which is the reason why, even without resonances, the formal linearization might be diverging, exactly as in the one-dimensional case. As far as I know, the best positive and negative results in this setting are due to Bryuno  (see also [Rü]), and are a natural generalization of their one-dimensional counterparts, whose proofs are obtained adapting the proofs of Theorems 4.6 and 4.3 respectively: Theorem 5.8: (Bryuno, 1971 [Bry2-3]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system such that f belongs to the Siegel domain, has no resonances, and df O is diagonalizable. Assume moreover that Then f is holomorphically linearizable.
Remark 5.2: These theorems hold even without hyperbolicity assumptions.
Remark 5.3: It should be remarked that, contrarily to the one-dimensional case, it is not yet known whether condition (5.3) is necessary for the holomorphic linearizability of all holomorphic local dynamical systems with a given linear part belonging to the Siegel domain. However, it is easy to check that if λ ∈ S 1 does not satisfy the one-dimensional Bryuno condition then any f ∈ End(C n , O) of the form f (z) = λz 1 + z 2 1 , g(z) is not holomorphically linearizable: indeed, if ϕ ∈ End(C n , O) is a holomorphic linearization of f , then ψ(ζ) = ϕ(ζ, O) is a holomorphic linearization of the quadratic polynomial λz + z 2 , against Theorem 4.5.
Pöschel [Pö] shows how to modify (5.2) and (5.3) to get partial linearization results along submanifolds, and [R] (see also [Ro1]) explains when it is possible to pass from a partial linearization to a complete linearization even in presence of resonances. See also Russmann [Rü] for another proof of Theorem 5.8, and Il'yachenko [I1] for an important result related to Theorem 5.9. Finally, in [DG] are discussed results in the spirit of Theorem 5.8 without assuming that the differential is diagonalizable.
6. Several complex variables: the parabolic case A first natural question in the several complex variables parabolic case is whether a result like the Leau-Fatou flower theorem holds, and, if so, in which form. To present what is known on this subject in this section we shall restrict our attention to holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity; consequences on dynamical systems with a more general parabolic fixed point can be deduced taking a suitable iterate (but see also the end of this section for results valid when the differential at the fixed point is not diagonalizable).
So we are interested in the local dynamics of a holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End(C n , O) of the form f (z) = z + P ν (z) + P ν+1 (z) + · · · ∈ C 0 {z 1 , . . . , z n } n , (6.1) where P ν is the first non-zero term in the homogeneous expansion of f .
Definition 6.1: If f ∈ End(C n , O) is of the form (6.1), the number ν ≥ 2 is the order of f .
The two main ingredients in the statement of the Leau-Fatou flower theorem were the attracting directions and the petals. Let us first describe a several variables analogue of attracting directions.
Definition 6.2: Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be tangent at the identity and of order ν. A characteristic direction for f is a non-zero vector v ∈ C n \ {O} such that P ν (v) = λv for some λ ∈ C. If P ν (v) = O (that is, λ = 0) we shall say that v is a degenerate characteristic direction; otherwise, (that is, if λ = 0) we shall say that v is non-degenerate. We shall say that f is dicritical if all directions are characteristic; non-dicritical otherwise.
Remark 6.1: It is easy to check that f ∈ End(C n , O) of the form (6.1) is dicritical if and only if P ν ≡ λ id, where λ: C n → C is a homogeneous polynomial of degree ν − 1. In particular, generic germs tangent to the identity are non-dicritical.
Remark 6.2: There is an equivalent definition of characteristic directions that shall be useful later on. The n-uple of ν-homogeneous polynomials P ν induces a meromorphic self-map of P n−1 (C), still denoted by P ν . Then, under the canonical projection C n \ {O} → P n−1 (C) non-degenerate characteristic directions correspond exactly to fixed points of P ν , and degenerate characteristic directions correspond exactly to indeterminacy points of P ν . In generic cases, there is only a finite number of characteristic directions, and using Bezout's theorem it is easy to prove (see, e.g., [AT1]) that this number, counting according to a suitable multiplicity, is given by (ν n − 1)/(ν − 1). Remark 6.3: The characteristic directions are complex directions; in particular, it is easy to check that f and f −1 have the same characteristic directions. Later on we shall see how to associate to (most) characteristic directions ν − 1 petals, each one in some sense centered about a real attracting direction corresponding to the same complex characteristic direction.
The notion of characteristic directions has a dynamical origin. Definition 6.3: We shall say that an orbit {f k (z 0 )} converges to the origin tangentially to a direc- (C), where [·]: C n \ {O} → P n−1 (C) denotes the canonical projection.
Then Proposition 6.1: Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic dynamical system tangent to the identity. If there is an orbit of f converging to the origin tangentially to a direction [v] ∈ P n−1 (C), then v is a characteristic direction of f . Sketch of proof : ( [Ha2]) For simplicity let us assume ν = 2; a similar argument works for ν > 2.
If v is a degenerate characteristic direction, there is nothing to prove. If not, up to a linear change of coordinates we can assume [v] = [1 : v ′ ] and write where z ′ = (z 2 , . . . , z n ) ∈ C n−1 , f = (f 1 , f ′ ), P j = (p 1 j , p ′ j ) and so on, with p 1 2 (1, v ′ ) = 0. Making the substitution which is a change of variable off the hyperplane z 1 = 0, the map f becomes is a characteristic direction of f with p 1 2 (1, v ′ ) = 0. Now, the hypothesis is that there exists an orbit {f k (z 0 )} converging to the origin and such that Then, arguing as in the proof of (3.4), it is not difficult to prove that and then that (w ′ ) k+1 − (w ′ ) k is of order r(v ′ )/k. This implies r(v ′ ) = O, as claimed, because otherwise the telescopic series would not be convergent.
The several variables analogue of a petal is given by the notion of parabolic curve.
Then the first main generalization of the Leau-Fatou flower theorem to several complex variables is due toÉcalle and Hakim (see also Weickert [W]): Theorem 6.2: (Écalle, 1985 [É4]; Hakim, 1998 [Ha2]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity of order ν ≥ 2. Then for any non-degenerate characteristic direction [v] ∈ P n−1 (C) there exist (at least) ν − 1 parabolic curves for f tangent to [v].
Sketch of proof :Écalle proof is based on his theory of resurgence of divergent series; we shall describe here the ideas behind Hakim's proof, which depends on more standard arguments.
For the sake of simplicity, let us assume n = 2; without loss of generality we can also assume [v] = [1 : 0]. Then after a linear change of variables and a transformation of the kind (6.2) we are reduced to prove the existence of a parabolic curve at the origin for a map of the form where ψ is holomorphic with ψ(O) = 0, and λ ∈ C. Given δ > 0, set D δ,ν = {ζ ∈ C | |ζ ν−1 − δ| < δ}; this open set has ν − 1 connected components, all of them satisfying condition (a) on the domain of a parabolic curve. Furthermore, if u is a holomorphic function defined on one of these connected components, of the form u(ζ) = ζ 2 u o (ζ) for some bounded holomorphic function u o , and such that then it is not difficult to verify that ϕ(ζ) = ζ, u(ζ) is a parabolic curve for f tangent to [v]. So we are reduced to finding a solution of (6.4) in each connected component of D δ,ν , with δ small enough. For any holomorphic u = ζ 2 u o defined in such a connected component, let f u (ζ) = f 1 ζ, u(ζ) , put and define the operator T by setting (T u) Then, if δ > 0 is small enough, it is possible to prove that T is well-defined, that u is a fixed point of T if and only if it satisfies (6.4), and that T is a contraction of a closed convex set of a suitable complex Banach space -and thus it has a fixed point. In this way if δ > 0 is small enough we get a unique solution of (6.4) for each connected component of D δ,ν , and hence ν − 1 parabolic curves tangent to [v].
Definition 6.5: A set of ν − 1 parabolic curves obtained in this way is a Fatou flower for f tangent to [v].
Remark 6.5: When there is a one-dimensional f -invariant complex submanifold passing through the origin tangent to a characteristic direction [v], the previous theorem is just a consequence of the usual onedimensional theory. But it turns out that in most cases such an f -invariant complex submanifold does not exist: see [Ha2] for a concrete example, and [É4] for a general discussion.
We can also have f -invariant complex submanifolds of dimension strictly greater than one attracted by the origin.
Definition 6.6: Given a holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End(C n , O) tangent to the identity of order ν ≥ 2, and a non-degenerate characteristic direction [v] ∈ P n−1 (C), the eigenvalues α 1 , . . . , α n−1 ∈ C of the linear operator d(P ν ) [v] − id: Then, using a more elaborate version of her proof of Theorem 6.2, Hakim has been able to prove the following: Theorem 6.3: (Hakim, 1997 [Ha3]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity of order ν ≥ 2. Let [v] ∈ P n−1 (C) be a non-degenerate characteristic direction, with directors α 1 , . . . , α n−1 ∈ C. Furthermore, assume that Re α 1 , . . . , Re α d > 0 and Re α d+1 , . . . , Re α n−1 ≤ 0 for a suitable d ≥ 0. Then: (i) There exists an f -invariant (d + 1)-dimensional complex submanifold M of C n , with the origin in its boundary, such that the orbit of every point of M converges to the origin tangentially to [v]; (ii) f | M is holomorphically conjugated to the translation τ (w 0 , w 1 , . . . , w d ) = (w 0 + 1, w 1 , . . . , w d ) defined on a suitable right half-space in C d+1 .
Remark 6.6: In particular, if all the directors of [v] have positive real part, there is an open domain attracted by the origin. However, the condition given by Theorem 6.3 is not necessary for the existence of such an open domain; see Rivi [Ri1] for an easy example, and Ushiki [Us] for a more elaborate example with an open domain attracted by the origin where f cannot be conjugate to a translation.
In his monumental work [É4]Écalle has given a complete set of formal invariants for holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity with at least one non-degenerate characteristic direction. For instance, he has proved the following Theorem 6.4: (Écalle, 1985 [É4]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity of order ν ≥ 2. Assume that (a) f has exactly (ν n − 1)/(ν − 1) distinct non-degenerate characteristic directions and no degenerate characteristic directions; (b) the directors of any non-degenerate characteristic direction are irrational and mutually independent over Z. Choose a non-degenerate characteristic direction [v] ∈ P n−1 (C), and let α 1 , . . . , α n−1 ∈ C be its directors. Then there exist a unique ρ ∈ C and unique (up to dilations) formal series R 1 , . . . , R n ∈ C[[z 1 , . . . , z n ]], where each R j contains only monomial of total degree at least ν + 1 and of partial degree in z j at most ν − 2, such that f is formally conjugated to the time-1 map of the formal vector field Other approaches to the formal classification, at least in dimension 2, are described in [BM] and in [AT2]. Using his theory of resurgence, and always assuming the existence of at least one non-degenerate characteristic direction,Écalle has also provided a set of holomorphic invariants for holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity, in terms of differential operators with formal power series as coefficients. Moreover, if the directors of all non-degenerate characteristic directions are irrational and satisfy a suitable diophantine condition, then these invariants become a complete set of invariants. See [É5] for a description of his results, and [É4] for the details. Now, all these results beg the question: what happens when there are no non-degenerate characteristic directions? For instance, this is the case for f 1 (z) = z 1 + bz 1 z 2 + z 2 2 , f 2 (z) = z 2 − b 2 z 1 z 2 − bz 2 2 + z 3 1 , for any b ∈ C * , and it is easy to build similar examples of any order. At present, the theory in this case is satisfactorily developed for n = 2 only. In particular, in [A2] is proved the following Theorem 6.5: (Abate, 2001 [A2]) Every holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End(C 2 , O) tangent to the identity, with an isolated fixed point, admits at least one Fatou flower tangent to some direction.
Remark 6.7: Bracci and Suwa have proved a version of Theorem 6.5 for f ∈ End(M, p) where M is a singular variety with not too bad a singularity at p; see [BrS] for details.
Let us describe the main ideas in the proof of Theorem 6.5, because they provide some insight on the dynamical structure of holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity, and on how to deal with it. A shorter proof, deriving this theorem directly from Camacho-Sad theorem [CS] on the existence of separatrices for holomorphic vector fields in C 2 , is presented in [BCL] (see also [DI2]); however, such an approach provides fewer informations on the dynamical and geometrical structures of local dynamical systems tangent to the identity.
The first idea is to exploit in a systematic way the transformation (6.2), following a procedure borrowed from algebraic geometry.
Definition 6.7: If p is a point in a complex manifold M , there is a canonical way (see, e.g., [GH] or [A1]) to build a complex manifoldM , called the blow-up of M at p, provided with a holomorphic projection π:M → M , so that E = π −1 (p), the exceptional divisor of the blow-up, is canonically biholomorphic to P(T p M ), and π|M \E :M \ E → M \ {p} is a biholomorphism. In suitable local coordinates, the map π is exactly given by (6.2). Furthermore, if f ∈ End(M, p) is tangent to the identity, there is a unique way to lift f to a mapf ∈ End(M , E) such that π •f = f • π, where End(M , E) is the set of holomorphic maps defined in a neighbourhood of E with values inM and which are the identity on E.
In particular, the characteristic directions of f become points in the domain of the lifted mapf ; and we shall see that this approach allows to determine which characteristic directions are dynamically meaningful.
The blow-up procedure reduces the study of the dynamics of local holomorphic dynamical systems tangent to the identity to the study of the dynamics of germs f ∈ End(M, E), where M is a complex ndimensional manifold, and E ⊂ M is a compact smooth complex hypersurface pointwise fixed by f . In [A2], [BrT] and [ABT1] we discovered a rich geometrical structure associated to this situation.
Let f ∈ End(M, E) and take p ∈ E. Then for every h In [ABT1] we proved that ν f does not depend on p, and that where (U, z) is any local chart centered at p ∈ E and z = (z 1 , . . . , z n ). In particular, if the local chart (U, z) is such that E ∩ U = {z 1 = 0} (and we shall say that the local chart is adapted to E) then setting f j = z j • f we can write f j (z) = z j + (z 1 ) ν f g j (z) , (6.5) where at least one among g 1 , . . . , g n does not vanish identically on U ∩ E.
for some (and hence any) point p ∈ E.
Choosing a local chart (U, z) adapted to E so that we can express the coordinates of f in the form (6.5), it turns out that f is tangential if and only if g 1 | U∩E ≡ 0.
The g j 's in (6.5) depend in general on the chosen chart; however, in [ABT1] we proved that setting . Therefore the section X f induces a morphism still denoted by X f : N Definition 6.10: The morphism X f : N ⊗ν f E → T M | E just defined is the canonical morphism associated to f ∈ End(M, E).
Remark 6.8: It is easy to check that f is tangential if and only if the image of X f is contained in T E. Furthermore, if f is the lifting of a germ f o ∈ End(C n , O) tangent to the identity, then (see [ABT1]) f is tangential if and only if f o is non-dicritical; so in this case tangentiality is generic. Finally, in [A2] we used the term "non degenerate" instead of "tangential".
Definition 6.11: Assume that f ∈ End(M, E) is tangential. We shall say that p ∈ E is a singular point for f if X f vanishes at p.
By definition, p ∈ E is a singular point for f if and only if g 1 (p) = · · · = g n (p) = 0 for any local chart adapted to E; so singular points are generically isolated.
In the tangential case, only singular points are dynamically meaningful. Indeed, a not too difficult computation (see [A2], [AT1] and [ABT1]) yields the following Proposition 6.6: Let f ∈ End(M, E) be tangential, and take p ∈ E. If p is not singular, then the stable set of the germ of f at p coincides with E.
The notion of singular point allows us to identify the dynamically meaningful characteristic directions.
Definition 6.12: Let M be the blow-up of C n at the origin, and f the lift of a non-dicritical holomorphic local dynamical system f o ∈ End(C n , O) tangent to the identity. We shall say that [v] ∈ P n−1 (C) = E is a singular direction of f o if it is a singular point off .
It turns out that non-degenerate characteristic directions are always singular (but the converse does not necessarily hold), and that singular directions are always characteristic (but the converse does not necessarily hold). Furthermore, the singular directions are the dynamically interesting characteristic directions, because Propositions 6.1 and 6.6 imply that if f o has a non-trivial orbit converging to the origin tangentially to [v] ∈ P n−1 (C) then [v] must be a singular direction.
The important feature of the blow-up procedure is that, even though the underlying manifold becomes more complex, the lifted maps become simpler. Indeed, using an argument similar to one (described, for instance, in [MM]) used in the study of singular holomorphic foliations of 2-dimensional complex manifolds, in [A2] it is shown that after a finite number of blow-ups our original holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End(C 2 , O) tangent to the identity can be lifted to a mapf whose singular points (are finitely many and) satisfy one of the following conditions: (o) they are dicritical; or, (⋆) in suitable local coordinates centered at the singular point we can write with (⋆ 1 ) λ 1 , λ 2 = 0 and λ 1 /λ 2 , λ 2 /λ 1 / ∈ N, or (⋆ 2 ) λ 1 = 0, λ 2 = 0. Remark 6.9: This "reduction of the singularities" statement holds only in dimension 2, and it is not clear how to replace it in higher dimensions.
It is not too difficult to prove that Theorem 6.2 can be applied to both dicritical and (⋆ 1 ) singularities; therefore as soon as this blow-up procedure produces such a singularity, we get a Fatou flower for the original dynamical system f .
So to end the proof of Theorem 6.5 it suffices to prove that any such blow-up procedure must produce at least one dicritical or (⋆ 1 ) singularity. To get such a result, we need another ingredient.
Let again f ∈ End(M, E), where E is a smooth complex hypersurface in a complex manifold M , and assume that f is tangential; let E o denote the complement in E of the singular points of f . For simplicity of exposition we shall assume dim M = 2 and dim E = 1; but this part of the argument works for any n ≥ 2 (even when E has singularities, and it can also be adapted to non-tangential germs).
Since dim E = 1 = rk N E , the restriction of the canonical morphism Then in [ABT1] we showed that it is possible to define a holomorphic connection ∇ on N E o by setting where: s is a local section of ; and X f is locally given by (6.6). In a chart (U, z) adapted to E, a local generator of In particular, ∇ is a meromorphic connection on N E , with poles in the singular points of f .
Definition 6.13: The index ι p (f, E) of f along E at a point p ∈ E is by definition the opposite of the residue at p of the connection ∇: ι p (f, E) = −Res p (∇) .
In particular, ι p (f, E) = 0 if p is not a singular point of f .
Remark 6.10: If [v] is a non-degenerate characteristic direction of a non-dicritical f o ∈ End(C 2 , O) with non-zero director α ∈ C * , then it is not difficult to check that where f is the lift of f o to the blow-up of the origin.
Then in [A2] we proved the following index theorem (see [Br1], [BrT] and [ABT1,2] for multidimensional versions and far reaching generalizations): Theorem 6.7: ([A2], [ABT1]) Let E be a compact Riemann surface inside a 2-dimensional complex manifold M . Take f ∈ End(M, E), and assume that f is tangential to E. Then Now, a combinatorial argument (inspired by Camacho and Sad [CS]; see also [Ca] and [T]) shows that if we have f ∈ End(C 2 , O) tangent to the identity with an isolated fixed point, and such that applying the reduction of singularities to the lifted mapf starting from a singular direction [v] ∈ P 1 (C) = E we end up only with (⋆ 2 ) singularities, then the index off at [v] along E must be a non-negative rational number. But the first Chern class of N E is −1; so there must be at least one singular directions whose index is not a non-negative rational number. Therefore the reduction of singularities must yield at least one dicritical or (⋆ 1 ) singularity, and hence a Fatou flower for our map f , completing the proof of Theorem 6.5.
Actually, we have proved the following slightly more precise result: Remark 6.11: This latter statement has been generalized in two ways. Degli Innocenti [DI1] has proved that we can allow E to be singular at p (but irreducible; in the reducible case one has to impose conditions on the indeces of f along all irreducible components of E passing through p). Molino [Mo], on the other hand, has proved that the statement still holds assuming only ι p (f, E) = 0, at least for f of order 2 (and E smooth at p); it is natural to conjecture that this should be true for f of any order.
As already remarked, the reduction of singularities via blow-ups seem to work only in dimension 2. This leaves open the problem of the validity of something like Theorem 6.5 in dimension n ≥ 3; see [AT1] and [Ro2] for some partial results.
As far as I know, it is widely open, even in dimension 2, the problem of describing the stable set of a holomorphic local dynamical system tangent to the identity, as well as the more general problem of the topological classification of such dynamical systems. Some results in the case of a dicritical singularity are presented in [BM]; for non-dicritical singularities a promising approach in dimension 2 is described in [AT3].
Let f ∈ End(M, E), where E is a smooth Riemann surface in a 2-dimensional complex manifold M , and assume that f is tangential; let E o denote the complement in E of the singular points of f . The connection ∇ on N E o described above induces a connection (still denoted by ∇) on N ⊗ν f E o . Definition 6.14: In this setting, a geodesic is a curve σ: I → E o such that It turns out that σ is a geodesic if and only if the curve X −1 f (σ ′ ) is an integral curves of a global holomorphic vector field G on the total space of N ⊗ν f E o ; furthermore, G extends holomorphically to the total space of N ⊗ν f E . Now, assume that M is the blow-up of the origin in C 2 , and E is the exceptional divisor. Then there exists a canonical ν f -to-1 holomorphic covering map χ ν f : Moreover, if f is the lift of a non-dicritical f o ∈ End(C 2 , O) of the form (6.1) with P ν = (P 1 ν , P 2 ν ), then ν f = ν − 1 and it turns out that χ ν f maps integral curves of the homogeneous vector field Q ν = P 1 ν ∂ ∂z 1 + P 2 ν ∂ ∂z 2 onto integral curves of G. In particular, to study the dynamics of the time-1 map (which is tangent to the identity and of the form (6.1))of a non-dicritical homogeneous vector field Q ν it suffices to study the dynamics of such a geodesic vector field G. This is done in [AT3]; in particular, we get a complete description of the local dynamics in a full neighbourhood of the origin for a large class of holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity. Since results like Theorem 3.3 seems to suggest that generic holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity might be topologically conjugated to the time-1 map of a homogeneous vector field, this approach might eventually lead to a complete topological description of the dynamics for generic holomorphic local dynamical systems tangent to the identity in dimension 2.
We end this section with a couple of words on holomorphic local dynamical systems with a parabolic fixed point where the differential is not diagonalizable. Particular examples are studied in detail in [CD], [A4] and [GS]. In [A1] it is described a canonical procedure for lifting an f ∈ End(C n , O) whose differential at the origin is not diagonalizable to a map defined in a suitable iterated blow-up of the origin (obtained blowing-up not only points but more general submanifolds) with a canonical fixed point where the differential is diagonalizable. Using this procedure it is for instance possible to prove the following Corollary 6.9: ([A2]) Let f ∈ End(C 2 , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system with df O = J 2 , the canonical Jordan matrix associated to the eigenvalue 1, and assume that the origin is an isolated fixed point. Then f admits at least one parabolic curve tangent to [1 : 0] at the origin.

Several complex variables: other cases
Outside the hyperbolic and parabolic cases, there are not that many general results. Theorems 5.8 and 5.9 apply to the elliptic case too, but, as already remarked, it is not known whether the Bryuno condition is still necessary for holomorphic linearizability. However, another result in the spirit of Theorem 5.9 is the following: Theorem 7.1: (Yoccoz, 1995 [Y2]) Let A ∈ GL(n, C) be an invertible matrix such that its eigenvalues have no resonances and such that its Jordan normal form contains a non-trivial block associated to an eigenvalue of modulus one. Then there exists f ∈ End(C n , O) with df O = A which is not holomorphically linearizable.
A case that has received some attention is the so-called semi-attractive case Definition 7.1: A holomorphic local dynamical system f ∈ End(C n , O) is said semi-attractive if the eigenvalues of df O are either equal to 1 or with modulus strictly less than 1.
The dynamics of semi-attractive dynamical systems has been studied by Fatou [F4], Nishimura [N], Ueda [U1-2], Hakim [H1] and . Their results more or less say that the eigenvalue 1 yields the existence of a "parabolic manifold" M -in the sense of Theorem 6.3.(ii) -of a suitable dimension, while the eigenvalues with modulus less than one ensure, roughly speaking, that the orbits of points in the normal bundle of M close enough to M are attracted to it. For instance, Rivi proved the following Theorem 7.2: (Rivi, 1999 [Ri1-2]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system. Assume that 1 is an eigenvalue of (algebraic and geometric) multiplicity q ≥ 1 of df O , and that the other eigenvalues of df O have modulus less than 1. Then: (i) We can choose local coordinates (z, w) ∈ C q × C n−q such that f expressed in these coordinates becomes f 1 (z, w) = A(w)z + P 2,w (z) + P 3,w (z) + · · · , f 2 (z, w) = G(w) + B(z, w)z, where: A(w) is a q × q matrix with entries holomorphic in w and A(O) = I q ; the P j,w are q-uples of homogeneous polynomials in z of degree j whose coefficients are holomorphic in w; G is a holomorphic self-map of C n−q such that G(O) = O and the eigenvalues of dG O are the eigenvalues of df O with modulus strictly less than 1; and B(z, w) is an (n − q) × q matrix of holomorphic functions vanishing at the origin. In particular, f 1 (z, O) is tangent to the identity. (ii) If v ∈ C q ⊂ C m is a non-degenerate characteristic direction for f 1 (z, O), and the latter map has order ν, then there exist ν − 1 disjoint f -invariant (n − q + 1)-dimensional complex submanifolds M j of C n , with the origin in their boundary, such that the orbit of every point of M j converges to the origin tangentially to Cv ⊕ E, where E ⊂ C n is the subspace generated by the generalized eigenspaces associated to the eigenvalues of df O with modulus less than one.
Rivi also has results in the spirit of Theorem 6.3, and results when the algebraic and geometric multiplicities of the eigenvalue 1 differ; see [Ri1,2] for details.
As far as I know, the only results on the formal or holomorphic classification of semi-attractive holomorphic local dynamical systems are due to Jenkins [J]. However, building on work done by Canille Martins [CM] in dimension 2, and using Theorem 3.3 and general results on normally hyperbolic dynamical systems due to Palis and Takens [PT], Di Giuseppe has obtained the topological classification when the eigenvalue 1 has multiplicity 1 and the other eigenvalues are not resonant: Theorem 7.3: (Di Giuseppe, 2004 [Di]) Let f ∈ End(C n , O) be a holomorphic local dynamical system such that df O has eigenvalues λ 1 , λ 2 , . . . , λ n ∈ C, where λ 1 is a primitive q-root of unity, and |λ j | = 0, 1 for j = 2, . . . , n. Assume moreover that λ r2 2 · · · λ r n n = 1 for all multi-indeces (r 2 , . . . , r n ) ∈ N n−1 such that r 2 + · · · + r n ≥ 2. Then f is topologically locally conjugated either to df O or to the map z → (λ 1 z 1 + z kq+1 1 , λ 2 z 2 , . . . , λ n z n ) for a suitable k ∈ N * . We end this survey by recalling results by Bracci and Molino, and by Rong. Assume that f ∈ End(C 2 , O) is a holomorphic local dynamical system such that the eigenvalues of df O are 1 and e 2πiθ = 1. If e 2πiθ satisfies the Bryuno condition, Pöschel [Pö] proved the existence of a 1-dimensional f -invariant holomorphic disk containing the origin where f is conjugated to the irrational rotation of angle θ. On the other hand, Bracci and Molino give sufficient conditions (depending on f but not on e 2πiθ , expressed in terms of two new holomorphic invariants, and satisfied by generic maps) for the existence of parabolic curves tangent to the eigenspace of the eigenvalue 1; see [BrM] for details, and [Ro3] for generalizations to n ≥ 3.