Oka-Weil approximation theorem for polynomials with exponents in compact convex sets in \mathbb R^n

A good exponent \beta satisfies z^\beta\ne0 if and only if \beta\in\mathbb R^J, which gives the equivalence inside (1). If (1) holds and w\in F(z), then w^\beta=z^\beta\ne0 and

so F(z)=\{z\} and (3) holds.

Assume that (2) fails. If M_J does not span \mathbb R^J, choose a nonzero v\in\mathbb R^J orthogonal to M_J and put, for t\in\mathbb R,

If \alpha\in M_\Gamma is supported in J, then w(t)^\alpha=z^\alpha e^{t\langle\alpha,v\rangle}=z^\alpha; otherwise both w(t)^\alpha and z^\alpha vanish. Thus the unbounded curve w(t) lies in F(z). If for some i\notin J no \alpha\in M_\Gamma\cap\mathbb R^{J\cup\{i\}} has \alpha_i>0, then every \alpha\in M_\Gamma either has \alpha_i=0 or has a positive coordinate outside J\cup\{i\}, and in both cases w\mapsto w^\alpha is constant on the line z+\mathbb C e_i; hence this line lies in F(z). Therefore (3) implies (2).

Assume (2). Choose linearly independent \gamma^1,\ldots,\gamma^{|J|}\in M_J, let C\subset\Gamma be the cone they generate, and let \gamma=\gamma^1+\cdots+\gamma^{|J|} (with \gamma=0 if J=\varnothing). Then \gamma lies in the interior of C relative to \mathbb R^J: in the basis \gamma^1,\ldots,\gamma^{|J|} of \mathbb R^J the cone C is the positive orthant, and \gamma has all coordinates equal to 1. Since \gamma+e_j/k\to\gamma as k\to\infty, for j\in J we have

For i\notin J let \alpha be as in (2) and write \alpha/\alpha_i=e_i+v_i with v_i\in\mathbb R^J. For large k we have k\gamma-v_i=k(\gamma-v_i/k)\in C for the same reason, and hence, since \Gamma is closed under addition and \alpha/\alpha_i\in\Gamma,

Taking one large integer k for all indices, we obtain \beta=k\gamma\in G_\Gamma\cap\mathbb R^J.

Every element of \mathcal P^\Gamma is constant on F(z), so F(z) is contained in both hulls of K when z\in K. Hence F(z) is bounded and Lemma 2.1 gives K\subset U_\Gamma; the finite cover follows from compactness. If \beta\in G_\Gamma, then e_j=(\beta+e_j)-\beta lies in the linear span of M_\Gamma for every j, so \Gamma has nonempty interior. If 0\in K, then condition (2) of Lemma 2.1 with J=\varnothing gives e_i\in\Gamma for all i, so \Gamma=\mathbb R^n_+.

Let z^\alpha\in\mathcal B. Since \alpha+|\alpha|\beta=\sum_j\alpha_j(\beta+e_j), we have the identity

between products of elements of \mathcal B; here |\alpha|=\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_n, and all factors belong to \mathcal B because z^\alpha\in\mathcal B and \beta\in G(\mathcal B). Since \varphi is multiplicative and \varphi(z^{\beta+e_j})=z_j\,\varphi(z^\beta) by the definition of z_j, applying \varphi gives

hence \varphi(z^\alpha)=z^\alpha. For \alpha=\beta this gives z^\beta=\varphi(z^\beta)\ne0, and the assertion follows by linearity.

Let X be \widehat L or \mathcal R(L); it is compact and, respectively, polynomially or rationally convex. Since L and E are disjoint compact sets, they have disjoint open neighbourhoods V_L and V_E, and the function equal to 0 on V_L and to 1 on V_E is holomorphic on the neighbourhood V_L\cup V_E of X. By the Oka–Weil theorem or its rational version [Stout, Ch. 1] there is a polynomial, respectively a rational function G=P/Q with Q\ne0 on X, such that

In the polynomial case every y\in E satisfies |G(y)|\le\|G\|_L<1/4 because y\in\widehat L, a contradiction. In the rational case let y\in E and c=G(y). The polynomial P-cQ vanishes at y\in\mathcal R(L), hence at some x\in L, and G(x)=c because Q(x)\ne0; this contradicts |c|>3/4>|G(x)|.

Choose \beta^1,\ldots,\beta^r\in G(\mathcal B) such that the sets \{z^{\beta^k}\ne0\} cover K. Enlarging the set of generators we may assume that z^{\beta^k}=g_{i_k}, so that

where w_1,\ldots,w_N are the coordinates of \mathbb C^N. Put L=\pi(K).

(a) Let W=\widehat L. For w\in W and b=Q\circ\pi\in\mathcal B put \varphi_w(b)=Q(w). This is well defined, since Q\circ\pi=Q'\circ\pi implies

Thus \varphi_w is a unital homomorphism with |\varphi_w(b)|\le\|b\|_K. Let

If w\in W\setminus E, then \varphi_w(z^{\beta^k})\ne0 for some k, and Lemma 3.1 gives a point z with \varphi_w(b)=b(z) for all b\in\mathcal B. Then |b(z)|\le\|b\|_K for all b, so z\in\widehat K^\mathcal B=K, and

Hence W=L\cup E. The set E is closed in the compact set W, being a common zero set of coordinate functions, and hence compact. It is disjoint from L, because every point of K has some z^{\beta^k}\ne0. Therefore Lemma 3.2 gives W=L.

Let \psi be a character of A=A_\mathcal B(K) and put w=(\psi(g_1),\ldots,\psi(g_N)). For every polynomial Q on \mathbb C^N we have Q(w)=\psi(Q\circ\pi), hence

and w\in W=L. Thus w=\pi(z) with z\in K, and \psi agrees with the evaluation at z on the generators, hence on \mathcal B and, by continuity, on A.

Since K is covered by the sets \{z^{\beta^k}\ne0\} and every character is the evaluation at a point of K, no character of A vanishes on all the functions z^{\beta^k}. By (G3) there are h_k\in A with

Choose \eta>0 with \eta\sum_k\|z^{\beta^k}\|_K<1 and q_k\in\mathcal B with \|h_k-q_k\|_K<\eta. Then

which is (?). Moreover, on K we have

so every coordinate function belongs to the algebra A, and hence every polynomial does. Since \widehat K\subset\widehat K^\mathcal B=K, the set K is polynomially convex, and the classical Oka–Weil theorem shows that every function holomorphic near K lies in the closure of the polynomials on K, which is contained in A.

(b) Let R=\mathcal R(L). For w\in R and b=Q\circ\pi put again \varphi_w(b)=Q(w); if Q\circ\pi=Q'\circ\pi, then Q-Q' vanishes on L, so that (Q-Q')(w)\in(Q-Q')(L)=\{0\}. If \varphi_w(z^{\beta^k})\ne0 for some k, Lemma 3.1 gives z with \varphi_w(b)=b(z) for all b, and

so z\in\mathcal R_\mathcal B(K)=K and w=\pi(z)\in L. As before, R=L\cup E with E compact and disjoint from L, and Lemma 3.2 gives R=L.

Let \psi be a character of A^{\mathrm{rat}}=A^{\mathrm{rat}}_\mathcal B(K) and w=(\psi(g_1),\ldots,\psi(g_N)). If Q is a polynomial with Q(w)=0, then Q has a zero on L. Otherwise b=Q\circ\pi has no zero on K, so that 1/b\in A^{\mathrm{rat}} and

Applying this to Q-Q(w) we get w\in R=L, so w=\pi(z) with z\in K. Then \psi(b)=b(z) on \mathcal B, and \psi(b/c)=b(z)/c(z) for every admissible quotient because \psi(b)=\psi(c)\psi(b/c); by continuity \psi is the evaluation at z. The argument of (a) now shows that the coordinate functions belong to A^{\mathrm{rat}}. A polynomial q without zeros on K therefore belongs to A^{\mathrm{rat}}, and no character vanishes on it because characters are point evaluations at points of K; by (G3), 1/q\in A^{\mathrm{rat}}. Thus A^{\mathrm{rat}} contains every rational function without poles on K. Finally \mathcal R(K)\subset\mathcal R_\mathcal B(K)=K, and the rational Oka–Weil theorem [Stout, Ch. 1] completes the proof.

We first show that \mathcal P^\Gamma is a finitely generated monomial algebra. After clearing denominators, \Gamma is the set of nonnegative linear combinations of finitely many integer vectors v_1,\ldots,v_m. Let \alpha\in M_\Gamma and write \alpha=\sum_lt_lv_l with t_l\ge0. Splitting each t_l into its integer part \lfloor t_l\rfloor and its fractional part t_l-\lfloor t_l\rfloor\in[0,1), we get

The vector \gamma=\alpha-\sum_l\lfloor t_l\rfloor v_l has integer coordinates and lies in \Gamma\subset\mathbb R^n_+, so \gamma\in M_\Gamma; moreover \gamma lies in the bounded set \Pi=\{\sum_ls_lv_l:\ 0\le s_l<1\}, which contains only finitely many lattice points. Hence M_\Gamma is generated, as a semigroup, by v_1,\ldots,v_m and the finitely many points of M_\Gamma\cap\Pi, and \mathcal P^\Gamma is generated by the corresponding monomials. (This is the usual proof of Gordan’s lemma [CLS, Proposition 1.2.17].) If K is \Gamma-convex, Corollary 2.2 gives K\subset U_\Gamma, and Theorem 3.3(a) shows that \pi(K) is polynomially convex and that the Oka–Weil property holds. Conversely, assume that K\subset U_\Gamma and that \pi(K) is polynomially convex. By (?),

If \pi(z)=\pi(z') with z'\in K, then every element of \mathcal P^\Gamma takes the same value at z and at z'. Choosing \beta\in G_\Gamma with z'^\beta\ne0 we get z^\beta=z'^\beta\ne0 and

Hence \widehat K^\Gamma=K. Part (b) follows in the same way from Corollary 2.2 and Theorem 3.3(b).

(i)\Rightarrow(ii). By (i), A_\Gamma(K) contains all polynomials, so it is the uniform closure P(K) of the polynomials on K. If \psi is a character and w=(\psi(z_1),\ldots,\psi(z_n)), then

so w\in\widehat K\subset\widehat K^\Gamma=K. Thus \psi is the evaluation at w on the polynomials, and hence, by the continuity (G1) of \psi, on P(K).

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii). By Corollary 2.2, K is covered by finitely many sets \{z^{\beta^k}\ne0\} with \beta^k\in G_\Gamma. By (ii), no character of A_\Gamma(K) vanishes on all z^{\beta^k}, and (G3) gives h_k\in A_\Gamma(K) with \sum_kz^{\beta^k}h_k=1 on K. Choosing q_k\in\mathcal P^\Gamma with \|h_k-q_k\|_K<\eta, where \eta\sum_k\|z^{\beta^k}\|_K<1, we obtain (iii) exactly as in the proof of Theorem 3.3.

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv). Put

and consider the set D of all z\in\mathbb C^n such that

for all k and j. It is a sparse polyhedron around K: the defining functions 1-F, q_k and z^{\beta^k+e_j} belong to \mathcal P^\Gamma, and each bound exceeds the norm on K of the corresponding function, since (1+\vartheta)/2>\vartheta. On D the first inequality gives |F(z)|\ge1-|1-F(z)|>(1-\vartheta)/2, and the second gives |F(z)|\le\sum_k|z^{\beta^k}|\,|q_k(z)|\le C\max_k|z^{\beta^k}|. Thus

so some k satisfies |z^{\beta^k}|\ge\delta/C, and then

Hence D is bounded.

(iv)\Rightarrow(v). Let \mathcal B_0 be generated by the monomials occurring in the polynomials p_j that define the polyhedron D. Every z\in\widehat K^{\mathcal B_0} satisfies

so the closed set \widehat K^{\mathcal B_0} lies in the bounded set D.

(v)\Rightarrow(i). Let f be holomorphic in an open set \Omega\supset K. By Corollary 2.2 there are \beta^1,\ldots,\beta^r\in G_\Gamma with

and we may assume \Omega\subset V. Enumerate M_\Gamma=\{\alpha^1,\alpha^2,\ldots\} and let \mathcal B_j be the algebra generated by \mathcal B_0, the monomials z^{\beta^k} and z^{\beta^k+e_i} for all k and i, and z^{\alpha^1},\ldots,z^{\alpha^j}. The sets

are closed subsets of the compact set \widehat K^{\mathcal B_0}, they decrease, and

because \bigcup_j\mathcal B_j=\mathcal P^\Gamma. Hence K_j\subset\Omega for some j: otherwise the sets K_j\setminus\Omega would form a decreasing sequence of nonempty compact sets, and a point in their intersection would be a point of K\setminus\Omega. For b\in\mathcal B_j we have \|b\|_{K_j}\le\|b\|_K by the definition of K_j, and \|b\|_K\le\|b\|_{K_j} because K\subset K_j; hence \widehat{K_j}^{\mathcal B_j}=\widehat K^{\mathcal B_j}=K_j, that is, K_j is \mathcal B_j-convex, and K_j\subset V\subset U_{\mathcal B_j} because every \beta^k belongs to G(\mathcal B_j). Theorem 3.3(a) shows that f is a uniform limit on K_j, and hence on K, of elements of \mathcal B_j\subset\mathcal P^\Gamma.

For the last assertion, let D be the bounded polyhedron constructed in the proof of (iii)\Rightarrow(iv) and let \Omega\supset K be open. For each w in the compact set \overline D\setminus\Omega there are p_w\in\mathcal P^\Gamma and t_w>0 with

because w\notin K=\widehat K^\Gamma. Finitely many of the open sets \{|p_w|>t_w\} cover \overline D\setminus\Omega, and intersecting D with the corresponding sets \{|p_w|<t_w\} gives a bounded sparse polyhedron D' around K. The closure of D' is contained in \overline D\cap\bigcap\{|p_w|\le t_w\}, which does not meet \overline D\setminus\Omega; hence \overline{D'}\subset\Omega. This is the sparse analogue of the classical fact that a polynomially convex set has a basis of neighbourhoods consisting of polynomial polyhedra [Hor, Section 2.7].

Clearly (1) implies (2). Assume (2) and let p=\sum c_\alpha z^\alpha\in\mathcal P^\Gamma. For w\in K the torus \{(w_1e^{i\theta_1},\ldots,w_ne^{i\theta_n})\} lies in K, and the Cauchy formula

gives |c_\alpha|\,|w^\alpha|\le\|p\|_K. Hence

where N(p) is the number of monomials of p. Applying this to p^k\in\mathcal P^\Gamma, whose number of monomials is at most \binom{k+N-1}{N-1}\le(k+1)^{N-1} when p has N monomials, we get

and letting k\to\infty after taking k-th roots gives |p(z)|\le\|p\|_K. This use of high powers is the standard device for passing from estimates of coefficients to estimates of values.

For (2)\Leftrightarrow(3) note that \|z^\alpha\|_K=e^{h_A(\alpha)}, so that (2) says

This inequality extends to \Gamma_M. Indeed, if s=\sum_l(a_l/b)\alpha_l with \alpha_l\in M_\Gamma and nonnegative integers a_l, b\ge1, then bs\in M_\Gamma because M_\Gamma is a semigroup, and the positive homogeneity of h_A gives \langle s,x\rangle=b^{-1}\langle bs,x\rangle\le b^{-1}h_A(bs)=h_A(s); such s are dense in \Gamma_M, and both sides are continuous in s. The closed convex set \operatorname{conv}(A)-\Gamma_M^\vee has support function h_A on \Gamma_M and +\infty elsewhere, because \Gamma_M^{\vee\vee}=\Gamma_M; hence

Let \gamma be a lattice point in the interior of \Gamma_S, which exists because the interior is a nonempty open cone; its coordinates are positive because \Gamma_S\subset\mathbb R^n_+. The same choice of an interior lattice point is used in [Sig, Proposition 2.1]. Then k\gamma+e_j\in\Gamma_S for all j and all large k, so \beta=k\gamma\in G_S for a suitable k. The function z^{-\beta} is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of K, and Sigurðardóttir’s theorem [Sig, Theorem 1.1] gives q\in\mathcal P^S with \|z^{-\beta}-q\|_K<1/\|z^\beta\|_K. Then

which is condition (iii) of Theorem 4.1.

In both parts we show that, for a suitable finitely generated algebra \mathcal B\supset\mathbb C[z_i,z_i^{m_{ik}}z_k] and some \varepsilon>0,

This suffices. On \widehat K^\mathcal B we have |z_i|\le\|z_i\|_K for i\in I, and for k\notin I we choose i\in I with |z_i|\ge\varepsilon and obtain

Thus the closed set \widehat K^\mathcal B is bounded, and Theorem 4.1 gives the Oka–Weil property when K is \Gamma-convex.

(a) The algebra \mathcal B contains all polynomials in (z_i)_{i\in I}, so

The latter is a compact set not containing 0, which gives (Proof).

(b) By (A2), every nonzero \alpha\in M_\Gamma has a positive coordinate indexed by I. Hence every element of \mathcal P^\Gamma is constant on the unbounded set

and the compact \Gamma-convex set K does not meet V_I; in particular 0\notin K. Choose

For \alpha\in F choose i(\alpha)\in I and \delta_\alpha>0 as in (A2), and integers N_\alpha,j_\alpha\ge1 with j_\alpha/N_\alpha<\delta_\alpha. The point \alpha-(j_\alpha/N_\alpha)e_{i(\alpha)} lies on the segment between \alpha and \alpha-\delta_\alpha e_{i(\alpha)}, hence in \Gamma, and therefore

Let \mathcal B be generated by the z_i, the z_i^{m_{ik}}z_k, and the monomials z^\alpha and z^{\gamma_\alpha} for \alpha\in F. The identity N_\alpha\alpha=j_\alpha e_{i(\alpha)}+\gamma_\alpha gives, for z\in\widehat K^\mathcal B,

Consequently, for z\in\widehat K^\mathcal B,

The right-hand side tends to 0 as \rho(z)\to0, so there is \varepsilon>0 such that it is smaller than |c|-\|p\|_K whenever \rho(z)<\varepsilon. For such z the reverse triangle inequality gives |p(z)|>\|p\|_K, which is impossible for z\in\widehat K^\mathcal B because p\in\mathcal B. Hence \rho\ge\varepsilon on \widehat K^\mathcal B, which is (Proof).

The argument combines Corollary 5.3 with lower bounds for coordinates obtained from monomial inequalities, as in [Sig, Lemma 2.3]. By (B1) the cone \mathbb R_+S_J has nonempty interior in \mathbb R^J. The set H_J is a compact S_J-convex subset of (\mathbb C^*)^J, and Corollary 5.3, applied in \mathbb C^J, gives \beta\in G_{S_J} with all coordinates positive and q\in\mathcal P^{S_J} with

Let \mathcal B_J be generated by the monomials of q and by z^\beta and z^{\beta+e_j}, j\in J. Since \|b\|_{H_J}=\|b\|_{\operatorname{pr}_J(K)} for b\in\mathcal P^{S_J}, every w in the \mathcal B_J-hull H' of \operatorname{pr}_J(K) satisfies

and hence

Since all coordinates of \beta are positive, these bounds give, for each j\in J,

Thus H' is a compact subset of (\mathbb C^*)^J.

Let \mathcal B\subset\mathcal P^S be generated by the monomials of \mathcal B_J, regarded as polynomials on \mathbb C^n, and by z^{\alpha^{(k)}}, k\notin J. If z\in\widehat K^\mathcal B, then \operatorname{pr}_J(z)\in H', so that 0<c\le|z_j|\le C for j\in J with constants independent of z. For k\notin J the inequality |z^{\alpha^{(k)}}|\le\|z^{\alpha^{(k)}}\|_K gives

Hence \widehat K^\mathcal B is bounded, and it is closed. The last assertion follows from Theorem 4.1.

We may assume K\ne\varnothing, so that \Gamma=\Gamma_S has nonempty interior by Corollary 2.2. If e_1,e_2\in\Gamma, then \Gamma=\mathbb R^2_+ and the classical Oka–Weil theorem applies. If e_1,e_2\notin\Gamma, then every nonzero \alpha\in M_\Gamma has two positive coordinates, every good exponent is nonzero, U_\Gamma\subset (\mathbb C^*)^2, and Corollaries 2.2 and 5.3 apply.

By symmetry it remains to consider the case e_1\in\Gamma, e_2\notin\Gamma. Then x_1>0 for every x\in\Gamma\setminus\{0\}, and we put

For 0\le\tau<\sigma there is x\in\Gamma with \sigma'=x_2/x_1>\tau, and

is a nonnegative combination of e_1 and x, so (1,\tau)\in\Gamma. If \Gamma is generated by e_1 and a lattice point, then \Gamma is rational polyhedral, and Theorems 3.4 and 4.1 apply. Otherwise we verify (A1) and (A2) for I=\{1\}. Condition (A1) holds because

Let \alpha=(a,b)\in M_\Gamma\setminus\{0\}, so that a\ge1 and b/a\le\sigma. If b/a<\sigma, choose 0<\delta<a with b/(a-\delta)<\sigma; then

If b/a=\sigma, then \Gamma lies in \{x_2\le\sigma x_1\}\cap\mathbb R^2_+, which is the cone generated by e_1 and the lattice point \alpha; since both lie in \Gamma, this is the excluded rational polyhedral case. Theorem 5.4(b) completes the proof.

For p\in\mathcal P^S we have \|p|_{\mathbb C^J}\|_K=\|p\|_K. If w lies in the \mathcal P^{S_J}-hull of K in \mathbb C^J, then

so w\in\widehat K^S=K. If f is holomorphic near K in \mathbb C^n, then f|_{\mathbb C^J} is holomorphic near K in \mathbb C^J; approximating it on K by elements of \mathcal P^{S_J} and regarding these as elements of \mathcal P^S gives the second assertion. If |J|=2, Corollary 5.8 applies in \mathbb C^J. If |J|=1, say J=\{j\}, Corollary 2.2 in \mathbb C^J shows that \mathbb R_+S_J is the ray \mathbb R_+e_j, so that \mathcal P^{S_J}=\mathbb C[z_j] and the classical one-variable theorem applies.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii). Choose p\in\mathcal P^\Gamma with p(z)=1>\|p\|_K; this is possible for every compact K. The polynomials

satisfy p_0(z)=0 and |p_t|\ge1+t-\|p\|_K>0 on K, and \{p_t=0\} escapes because p is bounded on compact sets. Since \mathcal P^S_m contains the constants, p_t\in\mathcal P^S_m whenever p\in\mathcal P^S_m.

(ii)\Rightarrow(i). By Remark 4.2, H=\widehat K^\Gamma is compact and the Oka–Weil property holds on H. Suppose that z\in H and let

Then 0\in T because z\in H, and T is bounded because the hypersurfaces escape and H is compact. Moreover T is closed: if t_l\in T, t_l\to t, and y_l\in H satisfy p_{t_l}(y_l)=0, then a subsequence of (y_l) converges to some y\in H, and p_t(y)=0 by the joint continuity of (t,w)\mapsto p_t(w). Let t_*=\max T and choose y\in H with p_{t_*}(y)=0. For t>t_* the function 1/p_t is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of H, so it is a uniform limit on H of elements a_j\in\mathcal P^\Gamma. Since y\in H and |a_j(y)|\le\|a_j\|_K, we get

The right-hand side is bounded for t\in(t_*,t_*+1], because p_t(w)\ne0 on the compact set [t_*,t_*+1]\times K, whereas the left-hand side tends to +\infty as t\downarrow t_*, because p_t(y)\to p_{t_*}(y)=0 and p_t(y)\ne0 for t>t_* (indeed y\in H and t\notin T). This contradiction proves (i).

Case (a) is Theorem 3.4(b). In case (b) we repeat the proof of (v)\Rightarrow(i) in Theorem 4.1 with

These sets are closed subsets of the compact set \mathcal R_{\mathcal B_0}(K), they decrease, and \bigcap_jK_j=\mathcal R_\Gamma(K)=K. Moreover \mathcal R_{\mathcal B_j}(K_j)=K_j, because b(K_j)\subset b(K) for b\in\mathcal B_j. Let f be holomorphic on an open set \Omega\supset K. By Corollary 2.2, K lies in a finite union V of good charts \{z^{\beta^k}\ne0\}, and we may assume \Omega\subset V and that every \mathcal B_j contains the monomials z^{\beta^k} and z^{\beta^k+e_i}. As in the proof of Theorem 4.1, for large j we have K_j\subset\Omega\subset V\subset U_{\mathcal B_j}, and Theorem 3.3(b), applied to K_j and \mathcal B_j, shows that f is a uniform limit on K_j, hence on K, of quotients b/c with b,c\in\mathcal B_j\subset\mathcal P^\Gamma and c\ne0 on K_j\supset K.

For (c) and the last assertion, \Gamma has nonempty interior by Corollary 2.2 in case (c) and by assumption otherwise. Choose a lattice point \beta in the interior of \Gamma; its coordinates are positive. For a polynomial p and a large integer k, all exponents of z^{k\beta}p lie in \Gamma, since

Let L\subset(\mathbb C^*)^n be compact. A point with a vanishing coordinate is not in \mathcal R_\Gamma(L), since z^\beta vanishes there and not on L. If w\in(\mathbb C^*)^n\setminus\mathcal R(L), a polynomial p vanishes at w and not on L, and so does z^{k\beta}p\in\mathcal P^\Gamma. Hence \mathcal R_\Gamma(L)\subset\mathcal R(L), and the opposite inclusion is clear. In case (c), K=\mathcal R(K) is rationally convex, so a function holomorphic near K is a uniform limit of rational functions p/q with q\ne0 on K, and