ScalingStacks

ALF gravitational instantons and collapsing Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface

Foscolo, Lorenzo

Original paper

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

ALF gravitational instantons and collapsing Ricci-flat metrics on the K​3K3 surface

Lorenzo Foscolo Address: Mathematics Department, State University of New York at Stony Brook Email address: lorenzo.foscolo@stonybrook.edu
Abstract.

We construct large families of new collapsing hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface. The limit space is a flat Riemannian 33–orbifold T3/ℤ2T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}. Away from finitely many exceptional points the collapse occurs with bounded curvature. There are at most 2424 exceptional points where the curvature concentrates, which always contains the 88 fixed points of the involution on T3T^{3}. The geometry around these points is modelled by ALF gravitational instantons: of dihedral type (DkD_{k}) for the fixed points of the involution on T3T^{3} and of cyclic type (AkA_{k}) otherwise.

The collapsing metrics are constructed by deforming approximately hyperkähler metrics obtained by gluing ALF gravitational instantons to a background (incomplete) S1S^{1}–invariant hyperkähler metric arising from the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz over a punctured 33–torus.

As an immediate application to submanifold geometry, we exhibit hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface that admit a strictly stable minimal sphere which cannot be holomorphic with respect to any complex structure compatible with the metric.

[02GG]

1. Introduction

Soon after Yau’s proof of the Calabi Conjecture showed that the (smooth 44–manifold underlying a complex) K3 surface carries Kähler Ricci-flat metrics, Gibbons and Pope [18] suggested the construction (further explored by Page in [36]) of explicit approximately Ricci-flat metrics on Kummer surfaces. They considered the quotient of a flat 44–torus by an involution and resolved the 1616 orbifold singularities by gluing in copies of the Eguchi–Hanson metric. This Kummer construction was later made rigorous by Topiwala [39] and LeBrun–Singer [26] using twistor methods. Much more recently Donaldson [16] gave a different proof using analysis, closest to the approach taken in the current paper.

From a broader perspective the Kummer construction furnishes the prototypical example of the appearance of orbifold singularities in non-collapsing sequences of Einstein 44–manifolds. In [1, Theorem C] Anderson showed that a sequence of Einstein 44–manifolds (Mi,gi)(M_{i},g_{i}) with a uniform lower bound on volume and upper bounds on diameter and Euler characteristic converges (up to subsequences) to an Einstein 44–orbifold M∞M_{\infty} with finitely many singular points. The formation of orbifold singularities is modelled on complete Ricci-flat ALE spaces which appear as rescaled limits, or “bubbles”, of the sequence (Mi,gi)(M_{i},g_{i}) around points that approach one of the singularities of the orbifold M∞M_{\infty}.

In the Ricci-flat case collapsing can also occur. Anderson [2, Theorem II] showed that every sequence of Ricci-flat metrics (M,gi)(M,g_{i}) of unit volume but unbounded diameter collapses everywhere, i.e. injgi​(x)→0\text{inj}_{g_{i}}(x)\rightarrow 0 for all x∈Mx\in M. The collapse is in the sense of Cheeger–Gromov outside finitely many points x1,…,xnx_{1},\dots,x_{n}, i.e. injgi​(x)→0\text{inj}_{g_{i}}(x)\rightarrow 0 and injgi​(x)2​|Rmgi|gi​(x)≤ϵ0\text{inj}_{g_{i}}(x)^{2}|\text{Rm}_{g_{i}}|_{g_{i}}(x)\leq\epsilon_{0} for all x∈M∖{x1,…,xn}x\in M\setminus\{x_{1},\dots,x_{n}\}, for a universal constant ϵ0>0\epsilon_{0}>0. In fact, Cheeger and Tian [10, Theorems 0.1 and 0.8] have shown that the collapse occurs with bounded curvature away from a definite number of points.

Contrary to the case of orbifold singularities, almost nothing is known about the structure of the singular points arising in collapsing sequences of Ricci-flat metrics [3, §6]. One would expect that the geometry around these points is modelled on complete Ricci-flat manifolds with non-maximal volume growth. A simple example of the expected phenomena was suggested by Page [37] in 1981. Consider the Kummer construction of Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface along a family of split tori T4=T3×Sℓ1T^{4}=T^{3}\times S^{1}_{\ell} with a circle factor of length ℓ→0\ell\rightarrow 0. We can then think of the 22–spheres arising in the resolution of the 1616 singularities of T4/ℤ2T^{4}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} as coming in pairs aligned along the collapsing circle over each of the 88 singular points of T3/ℤ2T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}. If we now rescale the sequence of Kähler Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface by ℓ−2\ell^{-2} around one of these pairs, Page suggests, in the limit ℓ→0\ell\rightarrow 0 we should obtain a complete Ricci-flat (hyperkähler) metric on a noncompact space which at infinity looks like (ℝ3×S1)/ℤ2(\mathbb{R}^{3}\times S^{1})/\mathbb{Z}_{2}.

In this paper we regard this example as a simple case of a more general construction of sequences of Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface that collapse to a 33–dimensional limit. In this more general construction, the 44–torus T3×Sℓ1T^{3}\times S^{1}_{\ell} is replaced by a non-trivial circle bundle over a (punctured) 33–torus and the role of Page’s “periodic but nonstationary gravitational instanton” is played by other ALF gravitational instantons.

A gravitational instanton is a complete hyperkähler 44–manifold with decaying curvature at infinity. Since every hyperkähler manifold is in particular Ricci-flat, gravitational instantons have constrained volume growth: the volume of a geodesic ball of radius rr grows at most as r4r^{4}. Gravitational instantons of maximal volume growth are the ALE spaces constructed and classified by Kronheimer [25] following earlier work of Eguchi–Hanson, Gibbons–Hawking and Hitchin. We have seen how ALE spaces arise as models for the formation of orbifold singularities of non-collapsed sequences of Einstein 44–manifolds. In [34] Minerbe showed that if Vol⁡(Br​(p))=O⁡(ra)\operatorname{Vol}\big(B_{r}(p)\big)=O(r^{a}) for some 3≤a<43\leq a<4 and all pp, then we must have a=3a=3. Gravitational instantons of cubic volume growth are called ALF. By [34] the (unique) end of an ALF space looks like a circle fibration over the complement of a ball in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} or ℝ3/ℤ2\mathbb{R}^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} with fibres of asymptotically finite length. If the base of the circle fibration at infinity is ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} (respectively, ℝ3/ℤ2\mathbb{R}^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}) then we say that the ALF space is of cyclic (dihedral) type, since the boundary of large geodesic balls is diffeomorphic to S3/ΓS^{3}/\Gamma, where Γ⊂S​U​(2)\Gamma\subset SU(2) is a cyclic group in the first case and a binary dihedral group in the second.

The prototypical example of an ALF space of cyclic type is the Taub–NUT metric on ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4}. This metric is explicit and the circle fibration at infinity is induced by the Hopf projection S3→S2S^{3}\rightarrow S^{2}. The first example of an ALF metric of dihedral type was found by Atiyah–Hitchin [5] by studying moduli spaces of magnetic monopoles on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}, i.e. the solutions of the dimensional reduction of the Yang–Mills self-duality equations from 44 to 33 dimensions. The Atiyah–Hitchin manifold is diffeomorphic to the complement of a Veronese ℝ​ℙ2\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{2} in 𝕊4\mathbb{S}^{4} and the metric is explicitly given in terms of elliptic integrals.

Recently ALF gravitational instantons have been the focus of intense research with the aim of constructing and classifying examples. Minerbe [35] classified ALF spaces of cyclic type. These are all explicitly given by the Gibbons–Hawking construction of hyperkähler 44–manifolds with a triholomorphic circle action [19]. Most (if not all) the known methods of construction of hyperkähler metrics have been applied to the dihedral ALF case: twistor methods [23, 12], hyperkähler quotient constructions [14], gauge-theoretic constructions as in the case of the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold [12], Kummer-type constructions [8] and complex Monge–Ampère methods [6, 7]. For example, Page’s “periodic but nonstationary” gravitational instantons of [37], more commonly known as D2D_{2} ALF spaces, were first constructed rigorously by Hitchin [23] using twistor methods and more recently by Biquard–Minerbe [8] using an extension of the Kummer construction to non-compact spaces. The D2D_{2} ALF spaces can also be thought of as the moduli spaces of centred charge 22 S​O​(3)SO(3) monopoles on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with two singularities endowed with their natural L2L^{2}–metric [13]. The fact that all these constructions yield equivalent families of ALF metrics was shown only recently by Chen–Chen [11].

Despite this rich theory of ALF gravitational instantons, until now it has remained unclear how they can appear as models for the formation of singularities in collapsing sequences of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface. The aim of this paper is to exploit singular perturbation methods to construct examples of Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface collapsing to a 33–dimensional limit and exhibit ALF gravitational instantons as the “bubbles” appearing in the process.

[02GH]
Theorem 1.1.

Every collection of 88 ALF spaces of dihedral type M1,…,M8M_{1},\dots,M_{8} and n≤16n\leq 16 ALF spaces of cyclic type N1,…,NnN_{1},\dots,N_{n} satisfying

∑j=18χ⁡(Mj)+∑i=1nχ⁡(Ni)=24\sum_{j=1}^{8}{\chi(M_{j})}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\chi(N_{i})}=24

arises as the collection of “bubbles” forming in a sequence of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface which collapse to T3/ℤ2T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} with bounded curvature away from n+8n+8 points.

We refer to Theorem 6.15 for a more precise statement.

In [20] Gross–Wilson studied hyperkähler metrics on elliptic K3 surfaces with fibres of small size. They considered the generic case when all singular fibres (2424 of them) are of Kodaira type I1I_{1} (i.e. a pinched torus). The hyperkähler metric is approximated by a semi-flat metric on the locus of the smooth fibres and by a certain (incomplete) explicit hyperkähler metric, the Ooguri–Vafa metric, in the neighbourhood of each singular fibre. As the size of the fibres converges to zero, the K3 surface collapses to a metric on S2S^{2} (the base of the elliptic fibration) with 2424 singular points. To the knowledge of the author, besides Gross–Wilson’s work, Theorem 1.1 is the only study of collapsing sequences of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface.

Now, one way to make precise Page’s observations in [37] about the Kummer construction for a degenerating family of tori is to consider a gluing construction in which one glues 88 copies of the D2D_{2} ALF space to the ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2} quotient of the trivial circle bundle T3×S1T^{3}\times S^{1} over the flat 33–torus. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is also based on a gluing construction. In order to allow for more general ALF spaces to appear as rescaled limits, the main idea is to replace T3×S1T^{3}\times S^{1} with an (incomplete) background hyperkähler metric on a non-trivial circle bundle over a punctured 33–torus. The tool to construct such a background metric is the Gibbons–Hawking construction of hyperkähler metrics with a triholomorphic S1S^{1} symmetry, i.e. an isometric circle action that also preserves the 22–sphere of complex structures compatible with the metric. The S1S^{1}–invariant hyperkähler metrics we seek are explicitly given in terms of a positive harmonic function hh on T3T^{3} with prescribed singularities at a finite number of points. For most configurations of punctures the harmonic function hh becomes negative somewhere. However, by multiplying hh by a small number ϵ>0\epsilon>0 (which geometrically corresponds to making the circle fibres have small length) it is possible to construct highly collapsed hyperkähler metrics gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} outside of an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of the punctures. Furthermore, the construction of this background metric can be made invariant under the action of an involution.

The key observation now is that the asymptotic model of any ALF metric (up to a double cover in the dihedral case) can be written in Gibbons–Hawking coordinates. By choosing the configuration of punctures appropriately it is then possible to glue in copies of ALF spaces to extend the Gibbons–Hawking metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} to an approximately hyperkähler metric gϵg_{\epsilon}: close to a fixed point of the ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–action on T3T^{3} we glue in an ALF space of dihedral type (this explains why we need 88 of them in Theorem 1.1); close to a puncture which is not a fixed point of the ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–action we glue in an ALF space of cyclic type. The Euler characteristic constraint in the statement of Theorem 1.1 is necessary for the resulting 44–manifold to have the same Euler characteristic as the K3 surface, but it can also be reinterpreted as the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the harmonic function hh in the first place.

The approximate solution gϵg_{\epsilon} is then deformed into an exact hyperkähler metric by means of the Implicit Function Theorem. Since some of the ALF spaces are not biholomorphic to their asymptotic model outside a compact set, it is necessary to set up the problem as a gluing problem for hyperkähler structures, rather than the most standard procedure (as in the classical Kummer construction) of first constructing a complex surface using complex geometry and then solving a complex Monge–Ampère equation on this given complex manifold.

[02GI]
Remark.

At least in some form this “Gibbons–Hawking approximation” of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface seems to be known to physicists in the context of the duality between M theory compactified on the K3 surface and Type IIA String theory compactified on T3/ℤ2T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}. For example, in [38] Sen discusses the physical interpretation of dihedral ALF spaces thought of as a “superposition” of Taub–NUT spaces and the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold, cf. Remark 3.7.

[02GJ]
Remark.

One can also wonder what happens when we start from an arbitrary orientable flat 33–manifold instead of a 33–torus. There are 66 of these: in the notation of [41, §3.5] they are 𝒢1=T3\mathcal{G}_{1}=T^{3}, 𝒢i=T3/ℤi\mathcal{G}_{i}=T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{i} for i=2,3,4i=2,3,4, 𝒢5=T3/ℤ6\mathcal{G}_{5}=T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{6} and 𝒢6=T3/(ℤ2×ℤ2)\mathcal{G}_{6}=T^{3}/(\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2}). Only 𝒢1\mathcal{G}_{1} has b1=3b_{1}=3, b1​(𝒢i)=1b_{1}(\mathcal{G}_{i})=1 in all other cases except for 𝒢6\mathcal{G}_{6} which has purely torsion first homology [29, Equation (2.5)]. By working on the 33–torus equivariantly with respect to a finite group action, the Gibbons–Hawking construction then yields (incomplete) Ricci-flat metrics on circle bundles over a punctured flat 33–manifold MM which are hyperkähler only when M=T3M=T^{3}, Kähler if M=𝒢iM=\mathcal{G}_{i} for i=2,3,4,5i=2,3,4,5 and have generic holonomy when M=𝒢6M=\mathcal{G}_{6}. Moreover, Luft–Sjerve [29, Theorem 1.1] have shown that only 𝒢1,𝒢2\mathcal{G}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{2} and 𝒢6\mathcal{G}_{6} admit an involution with finitely many fixed points (88, 44 and 22 of them, respectively). Hence only in these 33 cases are we able to construct background Ricci-flat metrics that can be extended to complete metrics by gluing in copies of ALF spaces of cyclic and dihedral type. On the other hand, Hitchin [22, Theorem 1] showed that the only Ricci-flat 44–manifolds covered by the K3 surface are the Enriques surfaces (quotients of a K3 surface by an involution without fixed points) with their Kähler Ricci-flat metrics and the quotient of an Enriques surface by an anti-holomorphic involution without fixed points. Carrying out our gluing construction equivariantly with respect to a finite group action then allows us to produce collapsing sequences of Ricci-flat metrics on an Enriques surface (the metrics are Kähler in this case) and its quotient by an anti-holomorphic involution: the collapsed limit is 𝒢2/ℤ2\mathcal{G}_{2}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} and 𝒢6/ℤ2\mathcal{G}_{6}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}, respectively, and ALF gravitational instantons appear as “bubbles”.

We leave aside for future work the question of understanding the relation between the metric degenerations described in this paper and degenerations of a compatible complex structure on the K3 surface. Similarly, it would be very interesting to understand to what extent the collapsing behaviour exhibited in this paper is typical of an arbitrary sequence of Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface collapsing to a 33–dimensional limit.

We give instead an application of our gluing construction to the theory of minimal surfaces. It is well known that holomorphic submanifolds of a Kähler manifold minimise volume in their homology class. A classical problem in minimal surface theory is to understand to what extent area minimising surfaces (and more generally stable minimal surfaces) in Kähler manifolds must be (anti)holomorphic. For example, in 1993 Yau asked whether it is possible to classify all stable minimal 22–spheres in a simply connected Kähler Ricci-flat manifold [42, Question 64]. In [32] Micallef showed that every stable minimal surface in a flat 44–torus must be holomorphic for some complex structure compatible with the metric. For some time there was hope to prove a similar result in the case of the K3 surface endowed with a hyperkähler metric. Eventually, Micallef–Wolfson [31] showed that this is not the case. A simple application of our gluing construction allows us to give an alternative (simpler) counterexample: there exist hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface that admit a strictly stable minimal sphere which is not holomorphic with respect to any complex structure compatible with the metric, cf. Theorem 7.1.

[02GK]

Plan of the paper

As we have already mentioned, in this paper we will need to glue hyperkähler structures rather than solving a complex Monge–Ampère equation on a given complex manifold. In Section 2, following Donaldson [15], we explain how to set up the problem of deforming approximately hyperkähler metrics based on the notion of definite triples.

Section 3 is a detailed summary of the theory of ALF spaces: we give precise definitions, describe detailed asymptotics for such metrics and recall the construction and classification of examples.

In Section 4 we use the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz to construct (incomplete) hyperkähler metrics on circle bundles over a punctured 33–torus. In Section 5 we use ALF spaces of cyclic and dihedral type together with the metrics constructed in Section 4 to produce families of approximately hyperkähler metrics. In Section 6 we use analysis to deform these approximate solutions into exact hyperkähler metrics. This is done by means of an Implicit Function Theorem in weighted Hölder spaces. As usual in gluing problems, most of the work goes into showing that the relevant linear operator has no small eigenvalues as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and the geometry degenerates.

Finally, Section 7 contains the proof of Theorem 7.1 about the existence of non-holomorphic strictly stable minimal spheres.

[02GL]

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Bobby Acharya, Mark Haskins and Johannes Nordström for an inspiring conversation at the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach in February 2015 which was the original inspiration for this work. He also wishes to thank Mark Haskins for reading an earlier version of the paper and for many discussions and suggestions for improvement. Discussions with Mark Haskins on this work and related topics were also made possible thanks to the support of his EPSRC grant EP/L001527/1, “Singular spaces of special and exceptional holonomy”. The paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1440140 while the author was in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Spring 2016 semester.

[02GM]

2. Definite triples and hyperkähler structures on 44–manifolds

The standard approach in the Kummer construction of Kähler Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface is to proceed in two steps. First one constructs a complex surface with vanishing first Chern class by blowing up the singularities of a flat orbifold T4/ℤ2T^{4}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}. On this given complex manifold one then constructs a Kähler Ricci-flat metric by solving a complex Monge-Ampère equation. Some of the building blocks we are going to use in the gluing construction of this paper are not biholomorphic to their asymptotic model outside a compact set. This will force us to adopt a different strategy and glue hyperkähler structures all together. In this initial preliminary section we explain how Donaldson [15] suggested an approach to this problem, based on the notion of definite triples.

Recall that the space of 22–forms on an oriented 44–dimensional vector space carries a natural non-degenerate bilinear form of signature (3,3)(3,3).

[02GN]
Definition 2.1.

Let (M4,μ0)(M^{4},\mu_{0}) be an oriented 44–manifold with volume form μ0\mu_{0}. A definite triple is a triple 𝝎¯=(ω1,ω2,ω3)\bm{\underline{\omega}}=(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3}) of 22–forms on MM such that Span​(ω1,ω2,ω3)\text{Span}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3}) is a 33–dimensional positive definite subspace of Λ2​Tx∗​M\Lambda^{2}T^{\ast}_{x}M at every point x∈Mx\in M.

Given a triple 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} of 22–forms on (M,μ0)(M,\mu_{0}) we consider the matrix Q∈Γ⁡(M,Sym2​(ℝ3))Q\in\Gamma\big(M,\text{Sym}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\big) defined by

(2.2) 12​ωi∧ωj=Qi​j​μ0.\tfrac{1}{2}\,\omega_{i}\wedge\omega_{j}=Q_{ij}\,\mu_{0}.

𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} is a definite triple if and only if QQ is a positive definite matrix.

To every definite triple 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} we associate a volume form μ𝝎¯\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} by

(2.3) μ𝝎¯=(detQ)13​μ0\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}=\left(\det Q\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\mu_{0}

and the new matrix Q𝝎¯=(detQ)−13​QQ_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}=\left(\det{Q}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}Q which satisfies (2.2) with μ𝝎¯\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} in place of μ0\mu_{0}. Note that the volume form μ𝝎¯\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} and the matrix Q𝝎¯Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} are independent of the choice of volume form μ0\mu_{0}. We refer to μ𝝎¯\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} and Q𝝎¯Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} as the associated volume form and intersection matrix of the definite triple 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}}.

Now, let (M4,μ0)(M^{4},\mu_{0}) be an oriented 44–dimensional manifold. It is well known that the choice of a 33–dimensional positive definite subspace of Λ2​Tx∗​M\Lambda^{2}T^{\ast}_{x}M for all x∈Mx\in M is equivalent to the choice of a conformal class on MM. Thus every definite triple defines a Riemannian metric g𝝎¯g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} by requiring that Span​(ω1,ω2,ω3)|x=Λ+​Tx∗​M\text{Span}(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3})|_{x}=\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}_{x}M for all x∈Mx\in M and dvg𝝎¯=μ𝝎¯\operatorname{dv}_{g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}}=\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}.

[02GP]
Definition 2.4.

A definite triple 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} is said

  1. (i)

    closed if d​ωi=0d\omega_{i}=0 for i=1,2,3i=1,2,3;

  2. (ii)

    an S​U​(2)SU(2)–structure if Q𝝎¯≡idQ_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\equiv\text{id};

  3. (iii)

    hyperkähler if it is both closed and an S​U​(2)SU(2)–structure.

The metric g𝝎¯g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} associated to a hyperkähler triple is hyperkähler, in the sense that it has holonomy contained in S​p​(1)≃S​U​(2)Sp(1)\simeq SU(2).

[02GQ]

2.1. The deformation problem

In Section 5 we will construct closed definite triples 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} which are approximately hyperkähler, in the sense that the intersection matrix Q𝝎¯Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} is close to the identity. We now explain how to formulate the problem of deforming such a triple 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} into a hyperkähler structure.

Let 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} be a closed definite triple on a 44–manifold MM and assume that ‖Q𝝎¯−id‖C0<σ\|Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}-\text{id}\|_{C^{0}}<\sigma for some small σ>0\sigma>0. We want to deform 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} into a hyperkähler triple, i.e. we look for a triple of closed 22–forms 𝜼¯=(η1,η2,η3)\bm{\underline{\eta}}=(\eta_{1},\eta_{2},\eta_{3}) on MM such that

(2.5) 12​(ωi+ηi)∧(ωj+ηj)=δi​j​μ𝝎¯.\tfrac{1}{2}\left(\omega_{i}+\eta_{i}\right)\wedge\left(\omega_{j}+\eta_{j}\right)=\delta_{ij}\,\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}.

Decompose 𝜼¯\bm{\underline{\eta}} into self-dual and anti-self dual parts 𝜼¯=𝜼¯++𝜼¯−\bm{\underline{\eta}}=\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{+}+\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-} with respect to g𝝎¯g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}. The self-dual part can be written in terms of a M3×3​(ℝ)M_{3\times 3}(\mathbb{R})–valued function AA by

ηi+=∑j=13Ai​j​ωj.\eta_{i}^{+}=\sum_{j=1}^{3}{A_{ij}\,\omega_{j}}.

Denote by 𝜼¯−∗𝜼¯−\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}\ast\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-} the symmetric (3×3)(3\times 3)–matrix with entries (12​ηi−∧ηj−)/μ𝝎¯(\tfrac{1}{2}\,\eta_{i}^{-}\wedge\eta_{j}^{-})/\mu_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}. Then we can rewrite (2.5) as

(2.6) Q𝝎¯+Q𝝎¯​AT+A​Q𝝎¯+A​Q𝝎¯​AT+𝜼¯−∗𝜼¯−=id.Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}+Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}+\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}\ast\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}=\text{id}.

Now, consider the map

M3×3​(ℝ)⟶S​y​m2​(ℝ3);A⟼Q𝝎¯​AT+A​Q𝝎¯+A​Q𝝎¯​ATM_{3\times 3}(\mathbb{R})\longrightarrow Sym^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3});\qquad A\longmapsto Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}

and its differential A↦Q𝝎¯​AT+A​Q𝝎¯A\mapsto Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}. Since Q𝝎¯Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} is arbitrarily close to the identity, this linear map induces an isomorphism S​y​m2​(ℝ3)→S​y​m2​(ℝ3)Sym^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\rightarrow Sym^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) for σ\sigma sufficiently small. We can therefore define a smooth function ℱ:S​y​m2​(ℝ3)→S​y​m2​(ℝ3)\mathcal{F}\colon\thinspace Sym^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\rightarrow Sym^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) such that Q𝝎¯​AT+A​Q𝝎¯+A​Q𝝎¯​AT=SQ_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}=S if and only if A=ℱ⁡(S)A=\mathcal{F}(S).

[02GR]
Remark.

When 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} is hyperkähler (thus Q𝝎¯=idQ_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}=\text{id}) the kernel of A↦Q𝝎¯​AT+A​Q𝝎¯A\mapsto Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\,A^{T}+A\,Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} corresponds to infinitesimal hyperkähler rotations.

Hence we reformulate (2.6) as

(2.7) 𝜼¯+=ℱ⁡((id−Q𝝎¯)−𝜼¯−∗𝜼¯−).\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{+}=\mathcal{F}\left((\text{id}-Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}})-\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}\ast\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}\right).

Now, let ℋ𝝎¯+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} be the space of self-dual harmonic 22–forms with respect to g𝝎¯g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}. If a solution of (2.6) exists on a compact manifold MM then MM must be either a 44–torus or a K3 surface with the standard orientation and therefore ℋ𝝎¯+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} is 33–dimensional. Since ω1,ω2,ω3\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3} are closed and self-dual (therefore harmonic) and linearly independent (since 𝝎¯\bm{\underline{\omega}} is a definite triple) we deduce that ℋ𝝎¯+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} consist of constant linear combinations of ω1,ω2,ω3\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3}.

By Hodge theory with respect to g𝝎¯g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} we can finally rewrite (2.7) as the elliptic equation

(2.8) d+​𝒂¯+𝜻¯=ℱ⁡((id−Q𝝎¯)−𝜼¯−∗𝜼¯−),d∗​𝒂¯=0,d^{+}\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}=\mathcal{F}\left((\text{id}-Q_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}})-\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}\ast\bm{\underline{\eta}}^{-}\right),\qquad d^{\ast}\bm{\underline{a}}=0,

for a triple 𝒂¯\bm{\underline{a}} of 11–forms on MM and a triple 𝜻¯∈ℋ𝝎¯+⊗ℝ3\bm{\underline{\zeta}}\in\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}. Here 2d+a=da+∗da2\,d^{+}a=da+\ast da is the self-dual part of d​ada.

[02GS]
Remark.

Note that in general it is necessary to deform the cohomology classes of ω1,ω2,ω3\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3} since every hyperkähler triple must satisfy

12​⟨[ωi]∪[ωj],[M]⟩=δi​j​Volg𝝎¯⁡(M).\tfrac{1}{2}\langle\,[\omega_{i}]\cup[\omega_{j}],[M]\,\rangle=\delta_{ij}\operatorname{Vol}_{g_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}}(M).

The linearisation of (2.8) is

(2.9) (D⊕id)⊗ℝ3:(Ω1​(M)⊕ℋ𝝎¯+)⊗ℝ3⟶(Ω0​(M)⊕Ω+​(M))⊗ℝ3,(D\oplus\text{id})\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}\colon\thinspace\left(\Omega^{1}(M)\oplus\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\right)\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}\longrightarrow\left(\Omega^{0}(M)\oplus\Omega^{+}(M)\right)\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3},

where DD is the Dirac-type operator

(2.10) D=d∗⊕d+:Ω1​(M)⟶Ω0​(M)⊕Ω+​(M).D=d^{\ast}\oplus d^{+}\colon\thinspace\Omega^{1}(M)\longrightarrow\Omega^{0}(M)\oplus\Omega^{+}(M).

Note that the operator in (2.9) is always surjective with kernel consisting of harmonic 11–forms.

[02GT]

3. ALF gravitational instantons

In this section we collect known results about gravitational instantons of type ALF, with an emphasis on their asymptotic geometry. ALF gravitational instantons will appear as local models for the geometry of high curvature regions in sequences of hyperkähler metrics on K3 collapsing to a 33–dimensional limit.

A gravitational instanton is a complete hyperkähler 44–manifold (M,g)(M,g) with decaying Riemannian curvature at infinity. The minimum requirement (automatically satisfied for rescaled limits of Einstein metrics on 44–manifolds with bounded Euler characteristic by the Chern–Gauss–Bonnet formula) is that (M,g)(M,g) has finite energy ‖Rm‖L2\|\text{Rm}\|_{L^{2}}. In order to say something about the structure of gravitational instantons it has often been necessary to strengthen this finite energy assumption to faster than quadratic curvature decay |Rm|=O⁡(r−2−ϵ)|\text{Rm}|=O(r^{-2-\epsilon}), ϵ>0\epsilon>0 (or a slightly weaker finite weighted energy assumption). Note however that there are examples of gravitational instantons which do not satisfy this stronger decay assumption [21, Theorem 1.5].

Since hyperkähler manifolds are in particular Ricci-flat, gravitational instantons have only one end and constrained volume growth: the volume of a geodesic ball of radius rr can grow at most as r4r^{4} and at least linearly. An initial rough classification of gravitational instantons can be given in terms of their volume growth. The gravitational instantons of maximal volume growth are the ALE spaces classified by Kronheimer [25] following earlier work of Eguchi–Hanson, Gibbons–Hawking and Hitchin. Under the assumption of faster than quadratic curvature decay (or a slightly weaker finite weighted energy assumption) Minerbe [34, Theorem 0.1] has shown that if we assume Vol⁡(Br​(p))=O⁡(ra)\operatorname{Vol}\big(B_{r}(p)\big)=O(r^{a}) for some 3≤a<43\leq a<4 and all pp, then a=3a=3. Minerbe also described the asymptotic geometry of gravitational instantons of cubic volume growth and faster than quadratic curvature decay: they are all ALF spaces, in the following sense.

[02GU]
Definition 3.1.

A gravitational instanton (M,g)(M,g) is called ALF if there exists a compact set K⊂MK\subset M, R>0R>0 and a finite group Γ<O⁡(3)\Gamma<O(3) acting freely on 𝕊2\mathbb{S}^{2} such that M∖KM\setminus K is the total space of a circle fibration π:M∖K→(ℝ3∖BR)/Γ\pi\colon\thinspace M\setminus K\rightarrow(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus B_{R})/\Gamma and the metric is asymptotically a Riemannian submersion

(3.2) g=π∗​gℝ3/Γ+θ2+O⁡(r−τ)g=\pi^{\ast}g_{\mathbb{R}^{3}/\Gamma}+\theta^{2}+O(r^{-\tau})

for a connection θ\theta on π\pi and some τ>0\tau>0. There are two possibilities for the finite group Γ\Gamma: if Γ=id\Gamma=\text{id} we say that MM is an ALF gravitational instanton of cyclic type; if Γ=ℤ2\Gamma=\mathbb{Z}_{2} we say that MM is an ALF gravitational instanton of dihedral type.

We are interested in refining these asymptotics. In order to describe a more precise model for the end of an ALF gravitational instanton it is necessary to recall the explicit construction of 44–dimensional hyperkähler metrics with a triholomorphic circle action known as the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz. We will use this same ansatz later in the paper to construct (incomplete) hyperkähler metrics on circle bundles over a punctured 33–torus.

[02GV]

3.1. The Gibbons–Hawking ansatz

The Gibbons–Hawking ansatz describes 44–dimensional hyperkähler metrics with an isometric S1S^{1}–action that also preserves the whole hyperkähler structure. Such an S1S^{1} action is therefore called triholomorphic.

Let UU be an open set of ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and π:P→U\pi\colon\thinspace P\rightarrow U be a principal U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle. Suppose that there exists a positive harmonic function hh on UU such that ∗d​h\ast dh is the curvature d​θd\theta of a connection θ\theta on PP. Then

(3.3a) ggh=h​π∗​gℝ3+h−1​θ2g^{\textup{gh}}=h\,\pi^{\ast}g_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}+h^{-1}\theta^{2}
is a hyperkähler metric. Indeed, we can exhibit an explicit hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯gh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}} that induces the metric gghg^{\textup{gh}}. Fix coordinates (x1,x2,x3)(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}) on U⊂ℝ3U\subset\mathbb{R}^{3} and define
(3.3b) ωigh=d​xi∧θ+h​d​xj∧d​xk.\omega^{\textup{gh}}_{i}=dx_{i}\wedge\theta+h\,dx_{j}\wedge dx_{k}.

Here and in the rest of the paper we use the convention that for every i=1,2,3i=1,2,3 the indices j,kj,k are chosen so that ϵi​j​k=1\epsilon_{ijk}=1. One can check explicitly that 𝝎¯g​h\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{gh} defines an S​U​(2)SU(2)–structure and it induces the Riemannian metric gg​hg^{gh}. Moreover, the requirement that 𝝎¯g​h\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{gh} is also closed is equivalent to the abelian monopole equation

(3.4) ∗d​h=d​θ\ast dh=d\theta

The fibre-wise circle action on PP preserves 𝝎¯gh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}} and π\pi is nothing but a hyperkähler moment map for this action. Conversely, every 44–dimensional hyperkähler metric with a triholomorphic circle action is described by (3.3).

The basic example of the Gibbons–Hawking construction is given in terms of so-called Dirac monopoles on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}. Fix a set of distinct points p1,…,pnp_{1},\dots,p_{n} in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and consider the harmonic function

h=λ+∑j=1nkj2​|x−pj|,h=\lambda+\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\frac{k_{j}}{2|x-p_{j}|}},

where λ>0\lambda>0 and k1,…,knk_{1},\dots,k_{n} are constants. Since ℝ3∖{p1,…,pn}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\} has non-trivial second homology, we must require kj∈ℤk_{j}\in\mathbb{Z} for all jj in order to be able to solve (3.4). If these integrality constraints are satisfied then ∗d​h\ast dh defines the curvature d​θd\theta of a connection θ\theta (unique up to gauge transformations) on a principal U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle PP over ℝ3∖{p1,…,pn}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\} which restricts to the principal U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle associated with the line bundle 𝒪⁡(kj)→S2\mathcal{O}(k_{j})\rightarrow S^{2} on a small punctured neighbourhood of pjp_{j}. The pair (h,θ)(h,\theta) is a solution of (3.4) which we call a Dirac monopole with singularities at p1,…,pnp_{1},\dots,p_{n}.

The Gibbons–Hawking ansatz (3.3) associates a hyperkähler metric gghg^{\textup{gh}} to every Dirac monopole on the open set where h>0h>0. When kj>0k_{j}>0 then gghg^{\textup{gh}} is certainly defined on the restriction of PP to a small punctured neighbourhood of pjp_{j}. By a change of variables one can check that gg​hg^{gh} can be extended to a smooth (orbifold) metric modelled on ℂ2/ℤkj\mathbb{C}^{2}/\mathbb{Z}_{k_{j}} by adding a single point. In particular gghg^{\textup{gh}} is a complete metric whenever λ≥0\lambda\geq 0 and kj=1k_{j}=1 for all j=1,…,nj=1,\dots,n. One can check that gghg^{\textup{gh}} is an ALE metric when λ=0\lambda=0 and an ALF metric of cyclic type when λ>0\lambda>0. Note also that when λ>0\lambda>0 we can always rescale the metric so that λ=1\lambda=1.

[02GW]

3.2. Families of ALF gravitational instantons

We are now going to use the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz to define a refined asymptotic model for ALF gravitational instantons.

Let HkH^{k} be the total space of the principal U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle associated with the line bundle 𝒪⁡(k)\mathcal{O}(k) over S2S^{2} radially extended to ℝ3∖BR\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus B_{R} for any R>0R>0. θk\theta_{k} will denote the S​O​(3)SO(3)–invariant connection on HkH^{k}. The Gibbons–Hawking ansatz (3.3) yields a hyperkähler metric

(3.5) gk=(1+k2​ρ)​(d​ρ2+ρ2​g𝕊2)+(1+k2​ρ)−1​θk2g_{k}=\left(1+\frac{k}{2\rho}\right)(d\rho^{2}+\rho^{2}g_{\mathbb{S}^{2}})+\left(1+\frac{k}{2\rho}\right)^{-1}\theta_{k}^{2}

on HkH^{k} for all k∈ℤk\in\mathbb{Z}. Here ρ\rho is a radial function on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}. We denote by 𝝎¯k\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{k} the associated hyperkähler triple defined by (3.3b). Note that we could replace the harmonic function 1+k2​ρ1+\frac{k}{2\rho} with λ+k2​ρ\lambda+\frac{k}{2\rho} for any λ>0\lambda>0 but we can always reduce to the case λ=1\lambda=1 by scaling.

Finally, on H2​kH^{2k} we consider the ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–action which is defined as the simultaneous standard involutions on the base ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and the fibre. Here the involution on the fibre S1=ℝ/2​π​ℤS^{1}=\mathbb{R}/2\pi\mathbb{Z} is the one induced by the standard involution on the universal cover ℝ\mathbb{R}. Throughout the paper we refer to this as the standard involution of S1S^{1}.

[02GX]
Definition 3.6.

Let (M4,g)(M^{4},g) be an ALF gravitational instanton of cyclic type. By scaling assume that the length of the circle fibres at infinity is 11.

  1. (i)

    We say that MM is of type AkA_{k} for some k≥−1k\geq-1 if there exists a compact set K⊂MK\subset M, R>0R>0 and a diffeomorphism ϕ:Hk+1→M∖K\phi\colon\thinspace H^{k+1}\rightarrow M\setminus K such that

    |∇gk+1l(gk+1−ϕ∗​g)|gk+1=O⁡(r−3−l)|\nabla^{l}_{g_{k+1}}(g_{k+1}-\phi^{\ast}g)|_{g_{k+1}}=O(r^{-3-l})

    for every l≥0l\geq 0.

  2. (ii)

    We say that MM is of type DmD_{m} for some m≥0m\geq 0 if there exists a compact set K⊂MK\subset M, R>0R>0 and a double cover ϕ:H2​m−4→M∖K\phi\colon\thinspace H^{2m-4}\rightarrow M\setminus K such that the group ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2} of deck transformations is generated by the standard involution on H2​m−4H^{2m-4} and

    |∇g2​m−4l(g2​m−4−ϕ∗​g)|g2​m−4=O⁡(r−3−l)|\nabla^{l}_{g_{2m-4}}(g_{2m-4}-\phi^{\ast}g)|_{g_{2m-4}}=O(r^{-3-l})

    for every l≥0l\geq 0.

By [11, Theorem 1.1] every ALF gravitational instanton is either of type AkA_{k} for some k≥−1k\geq-1 or DmD_{m} for some m≥0m\geq 0 (the constraints k≥−1k\geq-1 and m≥0m\geq 0 follow from [33, Theorem 0.1] and [8, Corollary 3.2], respectively).

[02GY]
Remark.

In the cyclic case Chen–Chen [11, Theorem 1.1] have a worse decay O⁡(r−2)O(r^{-2}) of an ALF metric of type AkA_{k} to gk+1g_{k+1}. However, from the explicit description of cyclic ALF gravitational instantons as multi-Taub–NUT spaces, as we will recall below, it is clear that one can always change coordinates by a translation on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} so that every AkA_{k} ALF space satisfies the stronger decay stated in Definition 3.6.(i).

[02GZ]

3.2.1. ALF spaces of cyclic type

We saw that gravitational instantons of type AkA_{k} can be constructed from Dirac monopoles on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with k+1k+1 singularities via the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz. These are usually called multi-Taub–NUT metrics. The case k=0k=0 is the Taub–NUT metric on ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4} and k=−1k=-1 is ℝ3×𝕊1\mathbb{R}^{3}\times\mathbb{S}^{1} with its flat metric. Minerbe [35, Theorem 0.2] has shown that every ALF space of cyclic type must be isometric to a multi-Taub–NUT metric.

From their explicit description one can easily compute basic information about cyclic ALF spaces: the fundamental group π1​(M)\pi_{1}(M), the second Betti number b2​(M)b_{2}(M), the Euler characteristic and the dimension of the moduli space ℳ\mathcal{M} of AkA_{k} metrics:

kk π1​(M)\pi_{1}(M) b2​(M)b_{2}(M) χ⁡(M)\chi(M) dim​(ℳ)\text{dim}(\mathcal{M})
−1-1 ℤ\mathbb{Z} 00 00 00
k>−1k>-1 11 kk k+1k+1 3​k3k

Here we assume that the asymptotic length of the circle fibre is normalised to be 11 so that dim​(ℳ)\text{dim}(\mathcal{M}) does not include rescalings.

[02H0]

3.2.2. ALF spaces of dihedral type

ALF metrics of dihedral type are not globally given by the Gibbons–Hawking construction and in most cases are not explicit. A number of different constructions have appeared over the past 30 years, but only recently Chen–Chen [11, Theorem 1.2] have shown that all these constructions yield equivalent families of ALF metrics. We distinguish the cases m=0,1,2m=0,1,2 and m≥3m\geq 3.

  • m=0m=0:

    The D0D_{0} ALF manifold is the moduli space of centred charge 22 monopoles on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with its natural L2L^{2}–metric, known as the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold. The metric admits a cohomogeneity one isometric action of S​U​(2)SU(2) and is explicitly given in terms of elliptic integrals [5, Chapter 11]. The Atiyah–Hitchin manifold is diffeomorphic to the complement of a Veronese ℝ​ℙ2\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{2} in 𝕊4\mathbb{S}^{4} and therefore it retracts to ℝ​ℙ2\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{2}. The Atiyah–Hitchin metric does not admit deformations as a D0D_{0} ALF metric except for scaling.

  • m=1m=1:

    The double cover of the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold is a D1D_{1} ALF space. As a smooth manifold it is diffeomorphic to the complement of ℝ​ℙ2\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{2} in ℂ​ℙ2\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{2}, or equivalently to the total space of 𝒪⁡(−4)\mathcal{O}(-4) over S2S^{2}. Exploiting the rotational invariance of the metric it can be shown [30, Proposition 5.5] that the 22–sphere in the interior is a strictly stable minimal sphere which is not holomorphic with respect to any complex structure compatible with the metric, a fact that will play a crucial role in the proof of Theorem 7.1. This rotationally invariant D1D_{1} ALF metric admits a 33–dimensional family of D1D_{1} ALF deformations, sometimes referred to as the Dancer metrics.

[02H1]
Remark.

The fact that the double cover of the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold admits a 33–parameter family of D1D_{1} ALF deformations can also be shown using methods similar to the ones developed in this paper. Indeed, it is known [24, §5.4] that the rotationally invariant D1D_{1} ALF metric admits a unique L2L^{2}–integrable (in fact, exponentially decaying) anti-self-dual harmonic form η\eta. This form yields a 33–dimensional space of infinitesimal hyperkähler deformations and an extension of the analysis needed for the proof of Theorem 6.15 could be used to integrate these infinitesimal deformations to genuine D1D_{1} ALF metrics. In fact Dancer [14] has constructed a 33–parameter family of hyperkähler deformations of the rotationally invariant D1D_{1} ALF metric using Nahm’s equations and hyperkähler quotient techniques: there exists a hyperkähler 88–manifold 𝒩\mathcal{N} constructed as a moduli space of solutions to Nahm’s equations which admits a triholomorphic U⁡(1)U(1)–action. Denote by μ:𝒩→ℝ3\mu\colon\thinspace\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3} the corresponding hyperkähler moment map. Dancer identifies the rotationally symmetric D1D_{1} ALF metric with the hyperkähler quotient μ−1​(0)/U​(1)\mu^{-1}(0)/U(1). By varying the level set of the moment map he then obtains a 33–parameter family of hyperkähler deformations of the Atiyah–Hitchin metric. By a general formula for the infinitesimal deformation of the symplectic form of a symplectic quotient corresponding to varying the level set of the moment map [17], the infinitesimal deformations of the Atiyah–Hitchin metric corresponding to Dancer’s metrics coincide with those determined by the L2L^{2} harmonic form η\eta, which is interpreted in this context as the curvature of the natural hyperholomorphic connection on the U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle μ−1​(0)→μ−1​(0)/U⁡(1)\mu^{-1}(0)\rightarrow\mu^{-1}(0)/U(1) induced by the Levi–Civita connection of 𝒩\mathcal{N}.

  • m=2m=2:

    D2D_{2} ALF metrics were constructed by Hitchin [23, §7] using twistor methods and by Biquard–Minerbe [8, Theorem 2.4] using a non-compact version of the Kummer construction: one considers the quotient of ℝ3×𝕊1\mathbb{R}^{3}\times\mathbb{S}^{1} by an involution and resolves the two singularities gluing in copies of the Eguchi–Hanson metric.

[02H2]
Remark.

Biquard–Minerbe [8, Theorem 2.4] use singular perturbation methods to solve a complex Monge–Ampère equation on the minimal resolution of (ℝ3×𝕊1)/ℤ2(\mathbb{R}^{3}\times\mathbb{S}^{1})/\mathbb{Z}_{2}. Using the more general approach adopted in this paper to glue hyperkähler structures one could extend their construction to recover a 66–dimensional family of D2D_{2} ALF metrics.

  • m≥3m\geq 3:

    DmD_{m} ALF metrics (for all m≥1m\geq 1) appeared in the work of Cherkis–Kapustin [13] on moduli spaces of singular monopoles on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and were rigorously constructed by Cherkis–Hitchin [12] using twistor methods and the generalised Legendre transform. In the case m≥3m\geq 3 a more transparent construction due to Biquard–Minerbe [8, Theorem 2.5] yields DmD_{m} ALF metrics by desingularising the quotient of the Taub–NUT metric by the binary dihedral group 𝒟m\mathcal{D}_{m} of order 4​(m−2)4(m-2) using ALE dihedral spaces. Using complex Monge–Ampère methods Auvray [6, 7] has then constructed 3​m3m–dimensional families of DmD_{m} ALF metrics on the smooth 44–manifold underlying the minimal resolution of ℂ2/𝒟m\mathbb{C}^{2}/\mathcal{D}_{m}.

[02H3]
Remark 3.7.

The gluing construction presented in this paper could be extended to the non-compact setting to yield yet another construction of dihedral ALF metrics. Indeed, one considers a Gibbons–Hawking metric obtained from the harmonic function

h=λ−2|x|+∑i=1m12​|x−xi|+12​|x+xi|h=\lambda-\frac{2}{|x|}+\sum_{i=1}^{m}{\frac{1}{2|x-x_{i}|}+\frac{1}{2|x+x_{i}|}}

for mm distinct points x1,…,xm∈ℝ3∖{0}x_{1},\dots,x_{m}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0\}. Observe that for λ>0\lambda>0 sufficiently large h>0h>0 outside an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of the origin. Since the configuration of punctures is invariant under the standard involution of ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}, this (incomplete) metric descends to a hyperkähler metric on a ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2} quotient. For λ\lambda sufficiently large one can then complete this metric by gluing in a copy of the D0D_{0} ALF space close to the origin. This approximate solution could then be deformed to an exact hyperkähler metric in a way similar to the proof of Theorem 6.15.

We summarise some of the properties of a DmD_{m} ALF gravitational instanton MM in the following table:

mm π1​(M)\pi_{1}(M) b2​(M)b_{2}(M) χ⁡(M)\chi(M) dim​(ℳ)\text{dim}(\mathcal{M})
00 ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2} 00 11 00
m>0m>0 11 mm m+1m+1 3​m3m

As in the cyclic case, ℳ\mathcal{M} is the moduli space of DmD_{m} ALF metrics modulo scaling.

[02H4]

4. Gibbons–Hawking ansatz on a punctured 33–torus

In this section we use the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz (3.3) to construct families {gϵgh}ϵ>0\{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}\}_{\epsilon>0} of (incomplete) hyperkähler metrics on circle bundles over a punctured 33–torus modulo an involution. The parameter ϵ>0\epsilon>0 essentially determines the length of the circle fibres. As ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} collapses to the flat orbifold T3/ℤ2T^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} with bounded curvature away from the punctures. The family {gϵgh}ϵ>0\{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}\}_{\epsilon>0} will serve as the model for a family of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface collapsing to a 33–dimensional limit in the region where the collapsing occurs with bounded curvature. In the next section we will use ALF gravitational instantons as models for high curvature regions to extend the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} to a complete almost hyperkähler metric.

[02H5]

4.1. Dirac monopoles on a punctured torus

Let 𝕋=ℝ3/Λ\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{R}^{3}/\Lambda be a 33–torus for some lattice Λ≃ℤ3\Lambda\simeq\mathbb{Z}^{3}. Endow 𝕋\mathbb{T} with a flat metric g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}}.

Let τ:𝕋→𝕋\tau\colon\thinspace\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{T} be the standard involution x↦−xx\mapsto-x on 𝕋\mathbb{T} and denote by q1,…,q8q_{1},\dots,q_{8} its fixed points. For each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 choose a non-negative integer mjm_{j}.

Fix a τ\tau–symmetric configuration of further 2​n2n distinct points p1,τ⁡(p1),…,pn,τ⁡(pn)p_{1},\tau(p_{1}),\dots,p_{n},\tau(p_{n}). Sometimes we will use the notation −pi-p_{i} for τ⁡(pi)\tau(p_{i}). Denote by 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} the punctured torus

𝕋∗=𝕋∖{q1,…,q8,p1,τ⁡(p1),…,pn,τ⁡(pn)}.\mathbb{T}^{\ast}=\mathbb{T}\setminus\{q_{1},\dots,q_{8},p_{1},\tau(p_{1}),\dots,p_{n},\tau(p_{n})\}.

Finally choose integer weights k1,…,kn>0k_{1},\dots,k_{n}>0 and assume the following balancing condition holds:

(4.1) ∑j=18mj+∑i=1nki=16.\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}=16.

In particular, n≤∑i=1nki≤16n\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}\leq 16.

For each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 let ρj\rho_{j} denote the distance function from the point qjq_{j} with respect to g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}}. Similarly, by abuse of notation we let ρi\rho_{i} denote the distance function from ±pi\pm p_{i} in 𝕋/τ\mathbb{T}/\tau. By restricting the branched double cover 𝕋→𝕋/τ\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{T}/\tau to a sufficiently small ball centred at ±pi\pm p_{i} in 𝕋/τ\mathbb{T}/\tau we will also regard ρi\rho_{i} as the distance function on 𝕋\mathbb{T} from the point pip_{i} or τ⁡(pi)\tau(p_{i}).

We look for a Dirac monopole (h,θ)(h,\theta) on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} with the following singular behaviour: hh is a harmonic function on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} with prescribed singularities at the punctures

(4.2) h∼2​mj−42​ρj​ as ​ρj→0,h∼ki2​ρi​ as ​ρi→0.h\sim\frac{2m_{j}-4}{2\rho_{j}}\mbox{ as }\rho_{j}\rightarrow 0,\qquad h\sim\frac{k_{i}}{2\rho_{i}}\mbox{ as }\rho_{i}\rightarrow 0.
[02H6]
Proposition 4.3.

Assume the balancing condition (4.1) is satisfied.

  1. (i)

    There exists a harmonic function hh on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} with prescribed singular behaviour (4.2) such that ∗g𝕋dh\ast_{g_{\mathbb{T}}}dh is the curvature d​θd\theta of a connection θ\theta on some principal U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle P→𝕋∗P\rightarrow\mathbb{T}^{\ast}.

  2. (ii)

    The moduli space of Dirac monopoles (h,θ)(h,\theta) on PP is isomorphic to ℝ×𝕋^\mathbb{R}\times\hat{\mathbb{T}}, where 𝕋^\hat{\mathbb{T}} is the dual torus parametrising flat U⁡(1)U(1)–connections on 𝕋\mathbb{T}.

  3. (iii)

    The involution τ\tau lifts to the involution τ~\tilde{\tau} of the U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle PP which acts simultaneously as τ\tau on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} and as the standard involution on the circle fibres.

[02H7]
Proof.

The necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the harmonic function hh is

(4.4) ∑j=182mj−4+2∑i=1nki=12​π∫∂𝕋σ∗dh=0,\sum_{j=1}^{8}{2m_{j}-4}+2\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\partial\mathbb{T}_{\sigma}}{\ast dh}=0,

where 𝕋σ\mathbb{T}_{\sigma} denotes the complement of the union of small balls of radius σ\sigma centred at the punctures. Thus if (4.1) is satisfied, a harmonic function hh with the singular behaviour (4.2) does indeed exists and is unique up to the addition of a constant.

By Lefschetz–Poincaré duality H2​(𝕋∗)≃Hc1​(𝕋∗)H_{2}(\mathbb{T}^{\ast})\simeq H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{T}^{\ast}). The latter group sits in a long exact sequence

0→H0​(𝕋)→ℤ2​n+8→Hc1​(𝕋∗)→H1​(𝕋)→0,0\rightarrow H^{0}(\mathbb{T})\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}^{2n+8}\rightarrow H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{T}^{\ast})\rightarrow H^{1}(\mathbb{T})\rightarrow 0,

where ℤ2​n+8\mathbb{Z}^{2n+8} is generated by the 2​n+82n+8 punctures. Thus H2​(𝕋∗)H_{2}(\mathbb{T}^{\ast}) is (2​n+10)(2n+10)–dimensional and maps onto H2​(𝕋)H_{2}(\mathbb{T}) with kernel spanned by the classes of 2​n+82n+8 spheres centred at the punctures. Note that the sum of these 2​n+82n+8 homology classes vanishes.

Because of (4.2), 2​n+72n+7 of the 2​n+102n+10 integrality constraints on i2​π∗d​h\tfrac{i}{2\pi}\ast dh to represent the first Chern class of a line bundle are automatically satisfied since we chose 2​mj−4,ki∈ℤ2m_{j}-4,k_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}. The remaining 33 constraints can be reinterpreted in terms of the position of the punctures following the arguments in the proof of [9, Proposition 3.5]:

∑j=18(2​mj−8)​qj+∑i=1nki​(pi+τ⁡(pi))∈Λ.\sum_{j=1}^{8}{(2m_{j}-8)\,q_{j}}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}\,\big(p_{i}+\tau(p_{i})\big)}\in\Lambda.

Since the points qjq_{j} belong to the half-lattice 12​Λ\tfrac{1}{2}\Lambda this condition is automatically satisfied.

We have therefore proved the existence of a principal U⁡(1)U(1) bundle P→𝕋∗P\rightarrow\mathbb{T}^{\ast} endowed with a connection θ\theta with curvature ∗d​h\ast dh. Since 𝕋\mathbb{T} is not simply connected θ\theta is uniquely determined up to a flat connection, i.e. a point of the dual torus 𝕋^\hat{\mathbb{T}}. This concludes the proof of (i) and (ii).

By uniqueness up to the addition of a constant the harmonic function hh is τ\tau–invariant and therefore can be thought of as defined on 𝕋∗/τ\mathbb{T}^{\ast}/\tau. Since τ∗(∗dh)=−∗dh\tau^{\ast}(\ast dh)=-\ast dh, we can lift τ\tau (uniquely up to gauge transformations) to an involution τ~\tilde{\tau} of the circle bundle PP by requiring that τ~\tilde{\tau} acts simultaneously as τ\tau on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} and as the standard involution on the circle fibres. ∎

[02H8]

4.2. Collapsed S1S^{1}–invariant hyperkähler metrics

Fix once and for all a Dirac monopole (h,θ)(h,\theta) amongst the ones produced by Proposition 4.3. Via the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz (3.3) we now use (h,θ)(h,\theta) to construct (incomplete) hyperkähler metrics with a triholomorphic circle action with orbits of small length.

Fix a (small) positive number ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and define

(4.5) hϵ=1+ϵ​h.h_{\epsilon}=1+\epsilon h.

The Gibbons–Hawking ansatz (3.3) yields a hyperkähler structure on P|𝒰ϵP|_{\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}}, where 𝒰ϵ\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon} is the open set of 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} where hϵ>0h_{\epsilon}>0. The hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and the induced metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} are

(4.6) ωϵ,igh=ϵ​θi∧θ+hϵ​θj∧θk,gϵgh=hϵ​π∗​g𝕋+ϵ2​hϵ−1​θ2.\omega^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon,i}=\epsilon\,\theta_{i}\wedge\theta+h_{\epsilon}\,\theta_{j}\wedge\theta_{k},\qquad g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}=h_{\epsilon}\,\pi^{\ast}g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\,\theta^{2}.

Here (θ1,θ2,θ3)(\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3}) is a triple of closed 11–forms on 𝕋\mathbb{T} such that g𝕋=θ12+θ22+θ32g_{\mathbb{T}}=\theta_{1}^{2}+\theta_{2}^{2}+\theta_{3}^{2}. Note that the hyperkähler structure 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} is τ~\tilde{\tau}–invariant and therefore defines an induced hyperkähler structure on the quotient Mϵgh=(P|𝒰ϵ)/τ~M^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}=\left(P|_{\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}}\right)/\tilde{\tau}. For ease of notation, we will denote the induced hyperkähler triple and metric on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} with the same symbols.

In the rest of the section we study the properties of the hyperkähler manifold MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}. We aim to (i) study the local structure of the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} close to the punctures, (ii) determine the set where hϵ>0h_{\epsilon}>0, and (iii) understand the limit of gϵg​hg^{gh}_{\epsilon} as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0.

The following asymptotic expansions for the harmonic function hϵh_{\epsilon} close to the punctures are standard. In the case of a fixed point of the involution τ\tau the improved decay follows from the fact that linear harmonic functions on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} are not ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant.

[02H9]
Lemma 4.7.

There exists 0<ρ0<14​inj​g𝕋0<\rho_{0}<\tfrac{1}{4}\textrm{inj}\,g_{\mathbb{T}} such that the balls B2​ρ0​(qj)B_{2\rho_{0}}(q_{j}), j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8, and B2​ρ0​(±pi)B_{2\rho_{0}}(\pm p_{i}), i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n, in 𝕋\mathbb{T} are all disjoint and such that the following holds.

  1. (i)

    For j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 there exists λj∈ℝ\lambda_{j}\in\mathbb{R} such that in B2​ρ0​(qj)B_{2\rho_{0}}(q_{j})

    hϵ=(1+ϵ​λj)+ϵ⁡(mj−2)ρj+O⁡(ϵ​ρj2).h_{\epsilon}=(1+\epsilon\lambda_{j})+\frac{\epsilon(m_{j}-2)}{\rho_{j}}+O(\epsilon\,\rho_{j}^{2}).
  2. (ii)

    For each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n there exists λi∈ℝ\lambda_{i}\in\mathbb{R} and a linear function ℓi\ell_{i} on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with |ℓi|≤C​ρ|\ell_{i}|\leq C\rho such that in B2​ρ0​(±pi)B_{2\rho_{0}}(\pm p_{i})

    hϵ=(1+ϵ​λi)+ϵ​ki2​ρi+ϵ​ℓi+O⁡(ϵ​ρi2).h_{\epsilon}=(1+\epsilon\lambda_{i})+\frac{\epsilon k_{i}}{2\rho_{i}}+\epsilon\,\ell_{i}+O(\epsilon\,\rho_{i}^{2}).

Moreover, ρ0,λj,λi,ℓi\rho_{0},\lambda_{j},\lambda_{i},\ell_{i} depend continuously on the position of the punctures p1,…,pnp_{1},\dots,p_{n} and on the flat metric g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}} and f=O⁡(ϵ​ρ3)f=O(\epsilon\,\rho^{3}) means that there exists a constant CC depending continuously on these data such that |∇kf|≤C​ϵ​ρ3−k|\nabla^{k}f|\leq C\epsilon\rho^{3-k} for k=0,1,2,3k=0,1,2,3.

Since we chose ki>0k_{i}>0 for i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n certainly a punctured neighbourhood of ±pi\pm p_{i} is contained in the set 𝒰ϵ\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon} where hϵ>0h_{\epsilon}>0. As already mentioned, the Gibbons–Hawking metric can be extended by adding a single point to a smooth orbifold metric modelled on ℂ2/ℤki\mathbb{C}^{2}/\mathbb{Z}_{k_{i}}. The obvious way to smooth out such an orbifold singularity is to replace the “multiplicity” kik_{i} point pip_{i} with kik_{i} points each with weight 11. Then the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz yields a smooth metric that is modelled on a rescaled Taub–NUT space in a neighbourhood of pip_{i}. However we prefer to leave the freedom to choose ki>1k_{i}>1 so that we can consider configurations of punctures that “degenerate” as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and see an Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space appearing as a rescaled limit.

[02HA]
Remark.

One could also consider (but we will not pursue this in the paper) more general degenerating families of punctures with various clusters of points coalescing at different rates as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0. One would expect “bubble trees” of ALF and ALE spaces appearing as rescaled limits in this case, cf. [2, Remark 5.2].

Next, we consider the structure of gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} in a neighbourhood of qjq_{j}. By Lemma 4.7.(i) certainly hϵh_{\epsilon} is positive in a punctured neighbourhood of qjq_{j} whenever mj>2m_{j}>2. In this case the Gibbons–Hawking metric on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} can be extended to a smooth orbifold metric with a singularity of the form ℂ2/𝒟mj\mathbb{C}^{2}/\mathcal{D}_{m_{j}}, where 𝒟mj\mathcal{D}_{m_{j}} is the binary dihedral group of order 4​(mj−2)4(m_{j}-2). In contrast with the previous case, there is no explicit way to remove this singularity, but for fixed ϵ>0\epsilon>0 one can imagine using the methods of [8, §2.4] to resolve this singularity by gluing in a rescaled ALE dihedral space. However, we are interested in the limit ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and in the next section we will directly glue in a DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space to resolve this singularity.

Similarly, when mj=2m_{j}=2 one can choose ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small so that 1+ϵ​λj>01+\epsilon\lambda_{j}>0. Note that in this case hϵh_{\epsilon} and the U⁡(1)U(1)–bundle PP are well defined at qjq_{j}. After quotienting by τ~\tilde{\tau}, the Gibbons–Hawking metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} becomes an orbifold metric modelled on (ℝ3×S1)/ℤ2(\mathbb{R}^{3}\times S^{1})/\mathbb{Z}_{2}. As before, the two orbifold singularities could be resolved by (i) fixing ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and gluing in two copies of the Eguchi–Hanson metric, or (ii) letting ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and gluing in a single copy of a D2D_{2} ALF metric. We will follow the second approach.

[02HB]
Remark 4.8.

Note that if mj=2m_{j}=2 for all j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 then n=0n=0 by (4.1) and the bundle PP extends over every puncture: in fact PP is a 44–torus and our construction reduces to the usual Kummer construction along a family of 44–tori collapsing to a 33–dimensional torus. This is the case considered by Page in [37].

It remains to study the case when mj=0,1m_{j}=0,1 for some jj. Assume this is the case for j=1,…,kj=1,\dots,k for some 1≤k≤81\leq k\leq 8. Since ∑j=18mj=16−∑i=1nki≤16−n\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}=16-\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}\leq 16-n, note that k≥1k\geq 1 as soon as n≥1n\geq 1 or n=0n=0 and mj≠2m_{j}\neq 2 for some jj, i.e. in every case except for the usual Kummer construction. The case mj=0,1m_{j}=0,1 is “bad” in the sense that hϵ→−∞h_{\epsilon}\rightarrow-\infty as ρj→0\rho_{j}\rightarrow 0.

[02HC]
Lemma 4.9.

There exists ϵ0>0\epsilon_{0}>0 depending continuously on p1,…,pnp_{1},\dots,p_{n} and g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}} such that for every ϵ<ϵ0\epsilon<\epsilon_{0} we have hϵ>12h_{\epsilon}>\tfrac{1}{2} on the complement of ⋃j=1kB8​ϵ​(qj)\bigcup_{j=1}^{k}{B_{8\epsilon}(q_{j})}.

[02HD]
Proof.

Restrict attention to the ball B2​ρ0​(qj)B_{2\rho_{0}}(q_{j}). First note that 1+ϵ⁡(mj−2)ρ≥1−2​ϵρ=341+\frac{\epsilon\,(m_{j}-2)}{\rho}\geq 1-\frac{2\epsilon}{\rho}=\tfrac{3}{4} for ρ=8​ϵ\rho=8\epsilon. Now choose ϵ0>0\epsilon_{0}>0 so that ϵ⁡(λj+C​ϵ264)≤14\epsilon(\lambda_{j}+C\tfrac{\epsilon^{2}}{64})\leq\tfrac{1}{4} for all ϵ≤ϵ0\epsilon\leq\epsilon_{0}. Here λj,C\lambda_{j},C are the constants of Lemma 4.7.(i). We conclude that hϵ>12h_{\epsilon}>\tfrac{1}{2} on ∂B8​ϵ​(qj)\partial B_{8\epsilon}(q_{j}) for ϵ<ϵ0\epsilon<\epsilon_{0}. Since hϵh_{\epsilon} blows up to +∞+\infty at the punctures qk+1,…,q8,±p1,…,±pnq_{k+1},\dots,q_{8},\pm p_{1},\dots,\pm p_{n} the maximum principle completes the proof. ∎

In other words, by choosing ϵ\epsilon small enough we can assume that hϵ>0h_{\epsilon}>0 outside an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of the points q1,…,qkq_{1},\dots,q_{k} where mj=0,1m_{j}=0,1.

Finally, we consider the limit ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0.

[02HE]
Lemma 4.10.

As ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 the harmonic function hϵh_{\epsilon} converges to the constant function 11. The convergence is in Ck,αC^{k,\alpha} on the complement of the union of balls of radius ϵβ\epsilon^{\beta} around the punctures, where β>0\beta>0 is any number such that β−1>k+1+α\beta^{-1}>k+1+\alpha. In particular, MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} collapses to the flat orbifold 𝕋/τ\mathbb{T}/\tau with bounded curvature away from the punctures.

[02HF]
Proof.

The first statement is a simple application of Lemma 4.7, since close to each puncture we have

ρk​|∇k(hϵ−1)|≤C​ϵ​ρ−1,\rho^{k}|\nabla^{k}(h_{\epsilon}-1)|\leq C\epsilon\rho^{-1},

where ρ\rho is the distance from the puncture. It follows that away from the punctures gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} is Cl​o​ck,αC^{k,\alpha}_{loc}–close to the ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2} quotient of g𝕋+ϵ2​θ2g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}\theta^{2} for any k≥0k\geq 0 and ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small. ∎

[02HG]

5. Approximate hyperkähler metrics

In this section we patch together ALF gravitational instantons and the incomplete hyperkähler structure 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} of the previous section to construct a closed definite triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} which is approximately hyperkähler. In the next section we will use analysis to deform 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} into a genuine hyperkähler structure for each ϵ>0\epsilon>0 sufficiently small.

[02HH]

5.1. The 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon}

Let 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} be the hyperkähler triple defined in (4.6). By Lemma 4.9 for ϵ>0\epsilon>0 small enough we think of 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} as defined on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}, a smooth manifold with boundary obtained by restricting the line bundle PP to the complement of (arbitrarily) small balls centred at the punctures and then taking the quotient by the involution τ~\tilde{\tau}. The boundary of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} has n+8n+8 components, each of which has a collar neighbourhood diffeomorphic either to H2​mj−4/ℤ2H^{2m_{j}-4}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} for j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8, or HkiH^{k_{i}} for i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n.

For each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 let MjM_{j} be the smooth 44–manifold underlying a DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space and for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n let NiN_{i} be the smooth manifold underlying an Aki−2A_{k_{i}-2} ALF space. We construct a smooth 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} by cutting the ends of MjM_{j} and NiN_{i} and gluing the resulting manifolds with boundary to MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} in a neighbourhood of qjq_{j} or ±pi\pm p_{i}, respectively.

We will construct an approximate hyperkähler structure on MϵM_{\epsilon} in the next subsection. Here we pause for a moment to determine the Betti numbers of MϵM_{\epsilon}. While we will not use this result in an essential way in the rest of the paper, it is interesting to note how the balancing condition (4.1) appears naturally in the calculation of the Euler characteristic of MϵM_{\epsilon}.

[02HI]
Proposition 5.1.

The Betti numbers of the compact orientable 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} are

b1​(Mϵ)=0,b2+​(Mϵ)=3,b2−​(Mϵ)=22.b_{1}(M_{\epsilon})=0,\qquad b_{2}^{+}(M_{\epsilon})=3,\qquad b_{2}^{-}(M_{\epsilon})=22.
[02HJ]
Proof.

Decompose MϵM_{\epsilon} into the union of a piece P/τ~P/\tilde{\tau}, an Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n and a DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space for each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. These pieces are identified along their common boundaries, which are homology spheres. Since all components have vanishing first Betti number, the reduced Mayer–Vietoris sequence yields b1​(Mϵ)=0b_{1}(M_{\epsilon})=0. The Euler characteristic is also easily calculated:

χ⁡(Mϵ)=χ⁡(P/ℤ2)+∑i=1nχ⁡(Aki−1)+∑j=18χ⁡(Dmj)=0+∑i=1nki+∑j=18mj+8=24\chi(M_{\epsilon})=\chi(P/\mathbb{Z}_{2})+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\chi(A_{k_{i}-1})}+\sum_{j=1}^{8}{\chi(D_{m_{j}})}=0+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}+\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}+8=24

by the balancing condition (4.1).

It remains to calculate the signature τ⁡(Mϵ)\tau(M_{\epsilon}). Below we will construct a definite triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} on MϵM_{\epsilon} which is close to define a hyperkähler structure. By changing basis of Λ+​T∗​Mϵ\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon} one can always deform this triple to a genuine S​U​(2)SU(2)–structure (without requiring any differential constraint). In particular, MϵM_{\epsilon} can be endowed with an almost complex structure JJ with c1​(Mϵ,J)=0c_{1}(M_{\epsilon},J)=0. Since c2​(Mϵ,J)=χ⁡(Mϵ)=24c_{2}(M_{\epsilon},J)=\chi(M_{\epsilon})=24, Hirzebruch’s Signature Theorem and the equality of characteristic classes p1=c12−2​c2p_{1}=c_{1}^{2}-2c_{2} yield τ⁡(Mϵ)=−16\tau(M_{\epsilon})=-16. ∎

[02HK]
Remark.

In Remark 4.8 we noted that the case where n=0n=0 and mj=2m_{j}=2 for all j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 reduces to the usual Kummer construction. Hence we know that MϵM_{\epsilon} is diffeomorphic to the K3 surface in this special case. It seems likely one can prove that the diffeomorphism type of MϵM_{\epsilon} does not depend on the configuration of punctures satisfying the balancing condition (4.1). Since we are going to construct a hyperkähler metric on MϵM_{\epsilon}, the calculation of the Betti numbers will anyway imply that MϵM_{\epsilon} is always diffeomorphic to the K3 surface.

[02HL]

5.2. The definite triple ω¯ϵ\underline{\omega}_{\epsilon}

We are now going to define an approximately hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} on the 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon}.

For each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 denote by 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} the hyperkähler triple obtained from the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz (3.3) using the harmonic function

(5.2) hqj=(1+ϵ​λj)+ϵ⁡(mj−2)ρ.h_{q_{j}}=(1+\epsilon\lambda_{j})+\frac{\epsilon(m_{j}-2)}{\rho}.

By abuse of notation we think of 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} as defined both on the circle bundle H2​mj−4→ℝ3∖B8​ϵ​(0)H^{2m_{j}-4}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus B_{8\epsilon}(0) as well as on its quotient by the involution that acts as the simultaneous standard involution on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and the circle fibres.

Similarly, for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n let 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} be the hyperkähler triple obtained from the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz using the harmonic function

(5.3) hpi=(1+ϵ​λi)+ϵ​kiρ+ϵ​ℓi.h_{p_{i}}=(1+\epsilon\lambda_{i})+\frac{\epsilon\,k_{i}}{\rho}+\epsilon\,\ell_{i}.

Here λj,λi\lambda_{j},\lambda_{i} and ℓi\ell_{i} are the constants and linear functions appearing in Lemma 4.7. We will assume that ϵ\epsilon is small enough to guarantee that 12<λi,λj<32\tfrac{1}{2}<\lambda_{i},\lambda_{j}<\tfrac{3}{2}.

For all j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 let (Mj,𝝎¯Mj)(M_{j},\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{M_{j}}) be a complete DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space. By Definition 3.6 there exists a compact set K⊂MjK\subset M_{j}, R0>0R_{0}>0 and a diffeomorphism Mj∖K≃H2​mj−4/ℤ2M_{j}\setminus K\simeq H^{2m_{j}-4}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} such that

ϵ2​𝝎¯Mj=𝝎¯qj,ϵ+𝜼¯qj,ϵ\epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{M_{j}}=\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}+\bm{\underline{\eta}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}

for ρ>ϵ​R0\rho>\epsilon R_{0} with 𝜼¯qj,ϵ=O⁡(ϵ3​ρ−3)\bm{\underline{\eta}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}=O(\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) and similar estimates on the derivatives.

For each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n let (Ni,𝝎¯Ni)(N_{i},\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}}) be a complete Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space. By the classification of ALF spaces of cyclic type [35] the hyperkähler structure on NiN_{i} is explicitly given via the Gibbons–Hawking ansatz starting from a harmonic function on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with kik_{i} singularities. We can add to this function the smooth harmonic function ϵ2​ℓi\epsilon^{2}\ell_{i}. Over a ball in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} of radius much smaller than ϵ−2\epsilon^{-2} we can regard the resulting hyperkähler structure as a small perturbation of the ALF Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} hyperkähler structure 𝝎¯Ni\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}}. By abuse of notation we denote this perturbed hyperkähler structure with the same symbol 𝝎¯Ni\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}}. The advantage of this modification is that now ϵ2​𝝎¯Ni\epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}} approaches 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} with a smaller error: by Definition 3.6 there exists a compact set K⊂NiK\subset N_{i}, R0>0R_{0}>0 and a diffeomorphism Ni∖K≃Hki|ℝ3∖BR0N_{i}\setminus K\simeq H^{k_{i}}|_{\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus B_{R_{0}}} such that

ϵ2​𝝎¯Ni=𝝎¯pi,ϵ+𝜼¯pi,ϵ\epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}}=\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}+\bm{\underline{\eta}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}

with (by scaling) 𝜼¯pi,ϵ=O⁡(ϵ3​ρ−3)\bm{\underline{\eta}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}=O(\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) and similar estimates on the derivatives.

[02HM]
Remark.

The choice of perturbing the gravitational instanton NiN_{i} of type Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} by adding a linear function on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} can be regarded as an intermediate choice between resolving the singularity of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} by assuming all punctures pip_{i} have weight ki=1k_{i}=1 and the direct gluing of NiN_{i} to MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}. While not strictly necessary, the choice of perturbing NiN_{i} by a linear function makes the exposition more uniform. In particular, the closed definite triple we will construct below fails to be hyperkähler by the same amount in a neighbourhood of qjq_{j} and ±pi\pm p_{i}.

We will assume that ϵ\epsilon is chosen so small as to make sure that ϵ​R0≪ρ0\epsilon R_{0}\ll\rho_{0}, where ρ0>0\rho_{0}>0 was fixed in Lemma 4.7. By choosing R0R_{0} larger if necessary we can assume that the harmonic functions hqjh_{q_{j}} and hpih_{p_{i}} in (5.2) and (5.3) are as close to constant functions as we please for ϵ​R0≤ρ≤ρ0\epsilon R_{0}\leq\rho\leq\rho_{0}. Then the hyperkähler triples 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} and 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} define metrics gqj,ϵg_{q_{j},\epsilon} and gpi,ϵg_{p_{i},\epsilon} which are uniformly equivalent to g𝕋+ϵ2​θ2g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}\theta^{2} in the regions ϵ​R0≤ρj,ρi≤2​ρ0\epsilon R_{0}\leq\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\leq 2\rho_{0}. In the rest of the section all norms and covariant derivatives will be computed with respect to this metric.

A crucial observation is that we can take 𝜼¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\eta}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} and 𝜼¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\eta}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} to be exact.

[02HN]
Lemma 5.4.
  1. (i)

    For all i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n there exists a triple 𝒂¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{a}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} of 11–forms on HkiH^{k_{i}} such that

    |∇k𝒂¯pi,ϵ|≤C​ϵ3​(1ρ)2+k|\nabla^{k}\bm{\underline{a}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}|\leq C\epsilon^{3}\left(\frac{1}{\rho}\right)^{2+k}

    and ϵ2​𝝎¯Ni=𝝎¯pi,ϵ+d​𝒂¯pi,ϵ\epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}}=\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}.

  2. (ii)

    For all j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 there exists a triple 𝒂¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{a}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} of ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant 11–forms on H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} such that

    |∇k𝒂¯qj,ϵ|≤C​ϵ3​(1ρ)2+k|\nabla^{k}\bm{\underline{a}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}|\leq C\epsilon^{3}\left(\frac{1}{\rho}\right)^{2+k}

    and ϵ2​𝝎¯Mj=𝝎¯qj,ϵ+d​𝒂¯qj,ϵ\epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{M_{j}}=\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}.

[02HP]
Proof.

The proof is identical in the two cases. Set k=kik=k_{i} in case (i) and k=2​mj−4k=2m_{j}-4 in case (ii). In case (ii) we work with ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant forms on the double cover H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4}.

By scaling we can assume that ϵ=1\epsilon=1. It is enough to prove that every closed 22–form η\eta with η=O⁡(ρ−3)\eta=O(\rho^{-3}) can be written as η=d​a\eta=da with |∇ka|=O⁡(ρ−2−k)|\nabla^{k}a|=O(\rho^{-2-k}).

Since the restriction of HkH^{k} to an exterior domain in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} is diffeomorphic to (R,∞)×Σ(R,\infty)\times\Sigma with Σ\Sigma an homology sphere, we can write η=d​ρ∧α+β\eta=d\rho\wedge\alpha+\beta for some ρ\rho–dependent 11–form α\alpha and 22–form β\beta on Σ\Sigma with |α|+|β|=O⁡(ρ−3)|\alpha|+|\beta|=O(\rho^{-3}).

The condition d​η=0d\eta=0 implies ∂ρβ−dΣ​α=0\partial_{\rho}\beta-d_{\Sigma}\alpha=0. We then define a=−∫ρ∞αa=-\int_{\rho}^{\infty}{\alpha}. The Lemma follows. ∎

By a similar radial integration, Lemma 4.7.(i) implies that in the regions ϵ​R0≤ρj≤2​ρ0\epsilon R_{0}\leq\rho_{j}\leq 2\rho_{0} and ϵ​R0≤ρi≤2​ρ0\epsilon R_{0}\leq\rho_{i}\leq 2\rho_{0}, respectively, we can write

(5.5a) 𝝎¯ϵgh=𝝎¯qj,ϵ+d​𝒂¯qj,ϵgh,𝝎¯ϵgh=𝝎¯pi,ϵ+d​𝒂¯pi,ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}=\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{q_{j},\epsilon},\qquad\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}=\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}
for triples 𝒂¯qj,ϵgh\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} and 𝒂¯pi,ϵgh\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} of 11–forms such that
(5.5b) |∇k𝒂¯qj,ϵgh|≤C​ϵ​ρj3−k,|∇k𝒂¯pi,ϵgh|≤C​ϵ​ρi3−k|\nabla^{k}\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}|\leq C\epsilon\rho_{j}^{3-k},\qquad|\nabla^{k}\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}|\leq C\epsilon\rho_{i}^{3-k}

for k=0,1,2,3k=0,1,2,3.

Now, let χqj\chi_{q_{j}} and χpi\chi_{p_{i}} be cut-off functions with the following properties:

(5.6) χqj≡1 for ρj≤ϵ25,χqj≡0 for ρj≥2ϵ25,|∇χqj|≤Cρj−1,χpi≡1 for ρi≤ϵ25,χpi≡0 for ρi≥2ϵ25,|∇χpi|≤Cρi−1.\begin{gathered}\chi_{q_{j}}\equiv 1\text{ for }\rho_{j}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\qquad\chi_{q_{j}}\equiv 0\text{ for }\rho_{j}\geq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\qquad|\nabla\chi_{q_{j}}|\leq C\rho_{j}^{-1},\\ \chi_{p_{i}}\equiv 1\text{ for }\rho_{i}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\qquad\chi_{p_{i}}\equiv 0\text{ for }\rho_{i}\geq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\qquad|\nabla\chi_{p_{i}}|\leq C\rho_{i}^{-1}.\\ \end{gathered}

We finally define a triple of closed 22–forms on MϵM_{\epsilon} by

(5.7) 𝝎¯ϵ={ϵ2​𝝎¯Mjif ​ρj≤ϵ25,𝝎¯qj,ϵ+d⁡(χqj​𝒂¯qj,ϵ+(1−χqj)​𝒂¯qj,ϵgh)if ​ϵ25≤ρj≤2​ϵ25,ϵ2​𝝎¯Niif ​ρi≤ϵ25,𝝎¯pi,ϵ+d⁡(χpi​𝒂¯pi,ϵ+(1−χpi)​𝒂¯pi,ϵgh)if ​ϵ25≤ρi≤2​ϵ25,𝝎¯ϵghif ​ρj≥2​ϵ25​ and ​ρi≥2​ϵ25​ for all ​i,j.\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}=\begin{cases}\epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{M_{j}}&\mbox{if }\rho_{j}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\\ \bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}+d\left(\chi_{q_{j}}\,\bm{\underline{a}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}+(1-\chi_{q_{j}})\,\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}\right)&\mbox{if }\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho_{j}\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\\ \epsilon^{2}\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{N_{i}}&\mbox{if }\rho_{i}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\\ \bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}+d\left(\chi_{p_{i}}\,\bm{\underline{a}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}+(1-\chi_{p_{i}})\,\bm{\underline{a}}^{\textup{gh}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}\right)&\mbox{if }\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho_{i}\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}},\\ \bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}&\mbox{if }\rho_{j}\geq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\mbox{ and }\rho_{i}\geq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\mbox{ for all }i,j.\end{cases}
[02HQ]
Remark.

When ki=1k_{i}=1 there is no need to glue in an A0A_{0} ALF space (ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4} endowed with the Taub–NUT metric), since 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} already extends smoothly over ±pi\pm p_{i}. It is however useful (we will use this in setting up the analysis for the deformation problem) to think of a rescaled Taub–NUT space localised around ±pi\pm p_{i}.

[02HR]

5.2.1. The error

We conclude this section by quantifying the failure of 𝝎¯ϵ=(ωϵ1,ωϵ2,ωϵ3)\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}=(\omega^{1}_{\epsilon},\omega^{2}_{\epsilon},\omega^{3}_{\epsilon}) to define a hyperkähler structure. Since by construction d​ωϵi=0d\omega^{i}_{\epsilon}=0 for all i=1,2,3i=1,2,3, we only have to check that 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} is a definite triple and estimate the difference between the associated intersection matrix and the identity.

In the regions ρj≤ϵ25\rho_{j}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}, ρi≤ϵ25\rho_{i}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} and when ρi,ρj≥2​ϵ25\rho_{i},\rho_{j}\geq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} for all i,ji,j the triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} defines a genuine hyperkähler structure. In the transition regions ϵ25≤ρj≤2​ϵ25\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho_{j}\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} and ϵ25≤ρi≤2​ϵ25\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho_{i}\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} we have, respectively,

𝝎¯ϵ−𝝎¯qj,ϵ=O⁡(ϵ2−15),𝝎¯ϵ−𝝎¯pi,ϵ=O⁡(ϵ2−15).\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}-\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon}=O(\epsilon^{2-\frac{1}{5}}),\qquad\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}-\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon}=O(\epsilon^{2-\frac{1}{5}}).

Since 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} and 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} are hyperkähler triples, we conclude that 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} is a definite triple for ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small.

Let μϵ\mu_{\epsilon}, gϵg_{\epsilon} and QϵQ_{\epsilon} be the volume form, metric and intersection matrix associated to the definite triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} as in Section 2. Using Lemma 5.4, (5.5), (5.6) and the definition of 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} we calculate that

(5.8) |Qϵ−id|≤C​ϵ2−15|Q_{\epsilon}-\text{id}|\leq C\epsilon^{2-\frac{1}{5}}

in every transition region ϵ25≤ρj≤2​ϵ25\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho_{j}\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}, j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8, and ϵ25≤ρi≤2​ϵ25\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho_{i}\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}, i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n. Outside the transition regions Qϵ≡idQ_{\epsilon}\equiv\text{id}.

[02HS]

6. Perturbation to hyperkähler metrics

In the previous section we have constructed a 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} together with a closed definite triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} which is approximately hyperkähler in the sense that the intersection matrix QϵQ_{\epsilon} associated with 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} differs from the identity by arbitrarily small terms as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0. We would like to deform 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} into a genuine hyperkähler triple using analysis. Since the geometry of MϵM_{\epsilon} degenerates as as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 we need to take some care in applying the Implicit Function Theorem.

As explained in Section 2 we can reformulate the problem in terms of an elliptic PDE. Let gϵg_{\epsilon} be the Riemannian metric on MϵM_{\epsilon} defined by 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}. Denote by ℋϵ+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} the space of self-dual harmonic forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}. By Proposition 5.1 ℋϵ+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} is 33–dimensional spanned by ωϵi\omega^{i}_{\epsilon}, i=1,2,3i=1,2,3. The equation we want to solve is (2.8), i.e.

(6.1) d+​𝒂¯+𝜻¯=ℱ⁡((id−Qϵ)−d−​𝒂¯−∗d−​𝒂¯),d∗​𝒂¯=0,d^{+}\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}=\mathcal{F}\left((\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon})-d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}^{-}\ast d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}\right),\qquad d^{\ast}\bm{\underline{a}}=0,

for a triple 𝒂¯\bm{\underline{a}} of 11–forms on MϵM_{\epsilon} and a triple 𝜻¯∈ℋϵ+⊗ℝ3\bm{\underline{\zeta}}\in\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}.

The linearisation of (6.1) is an isomorphism since b1​(Mϵ)=0b_{1}(M_{\epsilon})=0 by Proposition 5.1. Our main task is to show that its inverse has bounded norm as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and to control the non-linearities in (6.1) by introducing appropriate Banach spaces.

[02HT]

6.1. The linear operator d∗+2​d+d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+} for collapsing Gibbons–Hawking metrics

Before introducing weighted Hölder spaces and proving the main estimates, it is helpful to look more closely at the linearisation of (6.1). It involves the operator D=d∗+2​d+:Ω1​(Mϵ)→Ω0​(Mϵ)⊕Ω+​(Mϵ)D=d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+}\colon\thinspace\Omega^{1}(M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow\Omega^{0}(M_{\epsilon})\oplus\Omega^{+}(M_{\epsilon}), where adjoints and projections are computed using the metric gϵg_{\epsilon}.

We are interested in understanding the behaviour of the operator DD (in particular, the presence of small eigenvalues) for a sequence of collapsing metrics in the Gibbons–Hawking form (3.3a).

Consider then the metric

gϵgh=hϵ​g𝕋+ϵ2​hϵ−1​θ2g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}=h_{\epsilon}\,g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\theta^{2}

of (4.6) over the circle bundle π:P→𝒰ϵ⊂𝕋∗\pi\colon\thinspace P\rightarrow\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}\subset\mathbb{T}^{\ast}. By Lemma 4.9 the open sets 𝒰ϵ\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon} form an exhaustion of 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0.

We first consider the geometry of gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and in particular calculate its Levi–Civita connection.

As before let θ1,θ2,θ3\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3} denote closed 11–forms on 𝕋\mathbb{T} such that g𝕋=θ12+θ22+θ32g_{\mathbb{T}}=\theta_{1}^{2}+\theta_{2}^{2}+\theta_{3}^{2}. Let ξ1,ξ2,ξ3\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3} be the dual vector fields with respect to g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}}. We will not distinguish between a vector tangent to 𝕋\mathbb{T} and its horizontal lift to PP with respect to the connection θ\theta. In particular, [ξi,ξj]=−d​θ​(ξi,ξj)​ξ[\xi_{i},\xi_{j}]=-d\theta(\xi_{i},\xi_{j})\,\xi as vector fields on PP. Finally, let ξ\xi be the vertical vector field normalised so that θ⁡(ξ)=1\theta(\xi)=1.

Since θ⁡([ξ,ξi])=−d​θ​(ξ,ξi)=0\theta([\xi,\xi_{i}])=-d\theta(\xi,\xi_{i})=0 and π∗​[ξ,ξi]=[π∗​ξ,ξi]=0\pi_{\ast}[\xi,\xi_{i}]=[\pi_{\ast}\xi,\xi_{i}]=0, we have [ξ,ξi]=0[\xi,\xi_{i}]=0. The Koszul formula

2​⟨∇XY,Z⟩=⟨[X,Y],Z⟩−⟨[Y,Z],X⟩+⟨[Z,X],Y⟩+X⋅⟨Y,Z⟩+Y⋅⟨X,Z⟩−Z⋅⟨X,Y⟩2\langle\nabla_{X}Y,Z\rangle=\langle[X,Y],Z\rangle-\langle[Y,Z],X\rangle+\langle[Z,X],Y\rangle+X\cdot\langle Y,Z\rangle+Y\cdot\langle X,Z\rangle-Z\cdot\langle X,Y\rangle

then allows to calculate the Levi–Civita connection ∇\nabla of the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}:

∇ξξ=−14ϵ2∇𝕋hϵ−2,∇ξiξ=−12hϵ−1(ξi⋅hϵ)ξ+12ϵ2hϵ−2(ξi⌟dθ)♯𝕋,∇ξξi=−12​hϵ−1​(ξi⋅hϵ)​ξ+12​ϵ2​hϵ−2​(ξi​⌟​d​θ)♯𝕋,∇ξjξi=−12​d​θ​(ξi,ξj)​ξ+12​hϵ−1​((ξj⋅hϵ)​ξi−(ξi⋅hϵ)​ξj−δi​j​∇𝕋hϵ).\begin{gathered}\nabla_{\xi}\xi=-\tfrac{1}{4}\epsilon^{2}\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}^{-2},\qquad\nabla_{\xi_{i}}\xi=-\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-2}(\xi_{i}\lrcorner d\theta)^{\sharp_{\mathbb{T}}},\\ \nabla_{\xi}\xi_{i}=-\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-2}(\xi_{i}\lrcorner d\theta)^{\sharp_{\mathbb{T}}},\\ \nabla_{\xi_{j}}\xi_{i}=-\tfrac{1}{2}d\theta(\xi_{i},\xi_{j})\,\xi+\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\left((\xi_{j}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi_{i}-(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\xi_{j}-\delta_{ij}\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}\right).\end{gathered}

Here ∇𝕋\nabla^{\mathbb{T}} and ♯𝕋{}^{\sharp_{\mathbb{T}}} denote gradient and musical isomorphism with respect to the flat metric g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}} and we used the fact that hϵh_{\epsilon} is S1S^{1}–invariant. Since ∇\nabla is a metric connection, we calculate the covariant derivatives of the 11–forms θ,θi\theta,\theta_{i} by duality. Since we will need this later, we write out formulas for ∇ξθ\nabla_{\xi}\theta and ∇ξθi\nabla_{\xi}\theta_{i}:

(6.2) ∇ξθ=12​hϵ−1​d​hϵ,∇ξθi=−12​ϵ2​hϵ−3​(ξi⋅hϵ)​θ+12​ϵ2​hϵ−2​(ξi​⌟​d​θ).\nabla_{\xi}\theta=\tfrac{1}{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}dh_{\epsilon},\qquad\nabla_{\xi}\theta_{i}=-\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-3}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,\theta+\tfrac{1}{2}\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-2}(\xi_{i}\lrcorner d\theta).

Now, the cotangent bundle of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} is trivial as it is spanned by θ,θ1,θ2,θ3\theta,\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3}. Thus we can write every 11–form aa as

(6.3) a=ϵ​a0​θ+a1​θ1+a2​θ2+a3​θ3a=\epsilon\,a_{0}\,\theta+a_{1}\,\theta_{1}+a_{2}\,\theta_{2}+a_{3}\,\theta_{3}

for functions a0,a1,a2,a3a_{0},a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}. Note that

|a|gϵgh2=hϵ​|a0|2+hϵ−1​(|a1|2+|a2|2+|a3|2).|a|^{2}_{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}}=h_{\epsilon}\,|a_{0}|^{2}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\left(|a_{1}|^{2}+|a_{2}|^{2}+|a_{3}|^{2}\right).

A direct computation using the fact that θi\theta_{i} is closed for i=1,2,3i=1,2,3 and (hϵ,ϵ​d​θ)(h_{\epsilon},\epsilon\,d\theta) is a solution of the monopole equation (3.4) with respect to the flat metric g𝕋g_{\mathbb{T}} shows that

(6.4) d∗​a=−hϵ−1​(∑i=13ξi⋅ai+1ϵ​hϵ2​ξ⋅a0),2​d+​a=∑i=13(ξi⋅a0+hϵ−1​(ξj⋅ak−ξk⋅aj)+hϵ−1​(ξi⋅hϵ)​a0−1ϵ​(ξ⋅ai))​ωϵ,igh,\begin{gathered}d^{\ast}a=-h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\xi_{i}\cdot a_{i}}+\tfrac{1}{\epsilon}h_{\epsilon}^{2}\,\xi\cdot a_{0}\right),\\ 2\,d^{+}a=\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\left(\xi_{i}\cdot a_{0}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{j}\cdot a_{k}-\xi_{k}\cdot a_{j})+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}(\xi_{i}\cdot h_{\epsilon})\,a_{0}-\tfrac{1}{\epsilon}(\xi\cdot a_{i})\right)\omega^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon,i}},\end{gathered}

where ωϵ,igh\omega^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon,i}, i=1,2,3i=1,2,3, is the hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯ϵgh\bm{\underline{\omega}}^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} of (4.6).

By Fourier analysis along the circle fibres we define projections Π0\Pi_{0} and Π⟂\Pi_{\perp} onto S1S^{1}–invariant and oscillatory components of functions. Via the trivialisation (6.3) Π0\Pi_{0} and Π⟂\Pi_{\perp} extend to 11–forms. Since hϵh_{\epsilon} is S1S^{1}–invariant we see from (6.4) that the operator DD respects this decomposition.

For any fixed τ∈(0,1)\tau\in(0,1) restrict attention to the region in MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} where ρj,ρi≥c​ϵ1−τ2\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq c\,\epsilon^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}} for all i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n and j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. Then

‖hϵ−1‖C0≤C​ϵ1+τ2,‖∇𝕋hϵ‖C0≤C​ϵτ\|h_{\epsilon}-1\|_{C^{0}}\leq C\epsilon^{\frac{1+\tau}{2}},\qquad\|\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0}}\leq C\epsilon^{\tau}

by Lemma 4.10. We conclude that the operator DD of (6.4) acting on S1S^{1}–invariant 11–forms approaches the Dirac operator

(6.5) D0:Ω0(𝕋)⊕Ω1(𝕋)→Ω0(𝕋)⊕Ω1(𝕋),(f,γ)↦(d∗γ,df+∗dγ)D_{0}\colon\thinspace\Omega^{0}(\mathbb{T})\oplus\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T})\rightarrow\Omega^{0}(\mathbb{T})\oplus\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}),\qquad(f,\gamma)\mapsto(d^{\ast}\gamma,df+\ast d\gamma)

of the flat torus 𝕋\mathbb{T}.

Moreover, using the expressions (6.2) for ∇ξθ\nabla_{\xi}\theta and ∇ξθi\nabla_{\xi}\theta_{i} we find

ϵ2​hϵ−1​|∇a|gϵgh2≥|∇ξa|gϵgh2≥hϵ​|ξ⋅a0|2+hϵ−1​∑i=13|ξ⋅ai|2−C​hϵ−4​|∇𝕋hϵ|g𝕋2​(hϵ​|a0|2+hϵ−1​∑i=13|ai|2).\epsilon^{2}h_{\epsilon}^{-1}|\nabla a|^{2}_{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}}\geq|\nabla_{\xi}a|^{2}_{g^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}}\geq h_{\epsilon}|\xi\cdot a_{0}|^{2}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{|\xi\cdot a_{i}|^{2}}-Ch_{\epsilon}^{-4}|\nabla^{\mathbb{T}}h_{\epsilon}|^{2}_{g_{\mathbb{T}}}\left(h_{\epsilon}|a_{0}|^{2}+h_{\epsilon}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{|a_{i}|^{2}}\right).

Thus in the region where ρj,ρi≥c​ϵ1−τ2\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq c\,\epsilon^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}} for some τ>0\tau>0 we have

(6.6) ‖Π⟂​a‖C0,α​(S1)≤C​ϵ​‖∇a‖C0,α​(S1)\|\Pi_{\perp}a\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(S^{1})}\leq C\epsilon\,\|\nabla a\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(S^{1})}

on each fibre for all ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small.

These two observations — the convergence of the operator DD to the Dirac operator D0D_{0} of the flat 33–torus as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 and the strong control of the oscillatory part of 11–forms — will be crucial in the rest of the section. We will exploit the same remarks when considering blow-downs of ALF gravitational instantons. Let (M,gM)(M,g_{M}) be a complete ALF space. Given a sequence Ri→∞R_{i}\rightarrow\infty consider the blow down Ri−2​gMR_{i}^{-2}g_{M}. Since by Definition 3.6 Ri−2​gMR_{i}^{-2}g_{M} is asymptotic (up to a double cover in the dihedral case) to the Gibbons–Hawking metric

(1+Ri−1​k2​ρ)​gℝ3+Ri−2​(1+Ri−1​k2​ρ)−1​θ2,\left(1+R_{i}^{-1}\frac{k}{2\rho}\right)\,g_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}+R_{i}^{-2}\left(1+R_{i}^{-1}\frac{k}{2\rho}\right)^{-1}\theta^{2},

as i→∞i\rightarrow\infty the behaviour of the operator DD with respect to the metric Ri−2​gMR_{i}^{-2}g_{M} is the same as the one observed for the metric gϵghg^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} as ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 with the flat ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} in place of the flat 33–torus 𝕋\mathbb{T}. Namely, on the region ρ≥c​Ri−1−τ2\rho\geq c\,R_{i}^{-\frac{1-\tau}{2}} (6.6) holds with ϵ=Ri−1\epsilon=R_{i}^{-1} and the operator DD converges to the Dirac operator D0D_{0} of flat space ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}.

[02HU]
Remark.

The behaviour of natural differential operators (the Laplacian acting on pp–forms, the Dirac operator) associated with Riemannian metrics collapsing with bounded curvature and diameter have been studied by many authors, cf. for example [28, 27]. The concrete situation we are interested in is a simple case of this more general theory and it seemed more appropriate to exploit the explicit nature of the Gibbons–Hawking metric rather than appealing to these more general results.

In order to control the growth of differential forms close to the punctures on 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} and on the end of an ALF space we will now introduce weighted Hölder spaces.

[02HV]

6.2. Weighted Hölder spaces

We work on the Riemannian 44–manifold (Mϵ,gϵ)(M_{\epsilon},g_{\epsilon}) constructed in Section 5. The aim of this subsection is to introduce weighted Hölder spaces and prove a weighted Schauder estimate for the operator D=d∗+2​d+D=d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+} associated with the metric gϵg_{\epsilon}.

For R0R_{0} sufficiently large and ϵ=ϵ⁡(R0)\epsilon=\epsilon(R_{0}) sufficiently small we define a weight function ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} as follows: we set

(6.7) ρϵ={ϵif ​ρj≤R0​ϵ,ρjif ​2​R0​ϵ≤ρj≤ρ0,ϵif ​ρi≤R0​ϵ,ρiif ​2​R0​ϵ≤ρi≤ρ0,1if ​ρj,ρi≥2​ρ0​ for all ​j=1,…,8,i=1,…,n,\rho_{\epsilon}=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\mbox{if }\rho_{j}\leq R_{0}\epsilon,\\ \rho_{j}&\mbox{if }2R_{0}\epsilon\leq\rho_{j}\leq\rho_{0},\\ \epsilon&\mbox{if }\rho_{i}\leq R_{0}\epsilon,\\ \rho_{i}&\mbox{if }2R_{0}\epsilon\leq\rho_{i}\leq\rho_{0},\\ 1&\mbox{if }\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq 2\rho_{0}\mbox{ for all }j=1,\dots,8,i=1,\dots,n,\end{cases}

and let ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} interpolate smoothly and monotonically between the various regions. By abuse of notation we think of ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} as defined both on MϵM_{\epsilon} and on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} or its double cover P|𝒰ϵP|_{\mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}}.

[02HW]
Definition 6.8.

For each δ∈ℝ\delta\in\mathbb{R}, k∈ℤ≥0k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) define the weighted Hölder norm Cδk,αC^{k,\alpha}_{\delta} by

‖a‖Cδk,α=∑j=1k‖ρϵ−δ+j​∇ja‖C0+supd⁡(x,y)<inj​gϵ​min⁡{ρϵ​(x)−δ+k+α,ρϵ​(y)−δ+k+α}​|∇ka​(x)−∇ka​(y)||x−y|α.\|a\|_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\delta}}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}{\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{-\delta+j}\nabla^{j}a\|_{C^{0}}}+\text{sup}_{d(x,y)<\text{inj}\,g_{\epsilon}}{\min{\left\{\rho_{\epsilon}(x)^{-\delta+k+\alpha},\rho_{\epsilon}(y)^{-\delta+k+\alpha}\right\}}\frac{|\nabla^{k}a(x)-\nabla^{k}a(y)|}{|x-y|^{\alpha}}}.

Here all norms and covariant derivatives are computed with respect to the metric gϵg_{\epsilon} and ∇ka​(x)\nabla^{k}a(x) and ∇ka​(y)\nabla^{k}a(y) are compared using parallel transport along the unique geodesic connecting xx and yy. Similarly set ‖a‖Cδ0=‖ρ−δ​a‖C0\|a\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}=\|\rho^{-\delta}a\|_{C^{0}}.

The following simple estimate for products in Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} will be used to control the non-linearities.

[02HX]
Lemma 6.9.

For every δ<1\delta<1 there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that

‖u​v‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵδ−1​‖u‖Cδ−10,α​‖v‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\,v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{\delta-1}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.
[02HY]
Proof.

From the definition of the Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm it is immediate to check that

‖u​v‖Cδ−10,α≤C​‖ρϵδ−1‖C0​‖u‖Cδ−10,α​‖v‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\,v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{C^{0}}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Since ρϵ≥c​ϵ\rho_{\epsilon}\geq c\,\epsilon and δ−1<0\delta-1<0 the result follows. ∎

We now consider the operator D=d∗+2​d+D=d^{\ast}+2\,d^{+} acting on 11–forms of class Cδ1,αC^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}. We prove the following weighted Schauder estimate.

[02HZ]
Proposition 6.10.

For every δ∈ℝ\delta\in\mathbb{R} there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that

‖a‖Cδ1,α≤C⁡(‖D​a‖Cδ−10,α+‖a‖Cδ0).\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\leq C\left(\|Da\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}+\|a\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}\right).
[02I0]
Proof.

In order to prove this estimate it is convenient to cut the manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} in various pieces and analyse the geometry separately in each of them. The global estimate follows by combining the “local” estimates obtained in each of these pieces.

Consider first the region ρj≤2​R0​ϵ\rho_{j}\leq 2R_{0}\epsilon for some j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. The rescaled metric ϵ−2​gϵ\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon} is isometric to a compact region in the DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space (Mj,gMj)(M_{j},g_{M_{j}}).

Now, given a 11–form aa on MϵM_{\epsilon}, restrict aa to the region ρj≤2​R0​ϵ\rho_{j}\leq 2R_{0}\epsilon and define a~=ϵ−1−δ​a\tilde{a}=\epsilon^{-1-\delta}a. The standard Schauder estimate for the elliptic operator DD associated with the metric gMjg_{M_{j}} is

‖a~‖C1,α≤C⁡(‖D​a~‖C0,α+‖a~‖C0).\|\tilde{a}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}}\leq C\left(\|D\tilde{a}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}}+\|\tilde{a}\|_{C^{0}}\right).

Since |a~|ϵ−2​gϵ=ϵ−δ​|a|gϵ|\tilde{a}|_{\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon}}=\epsilon^{-\delta}|a|_{g_{\epsilon}} and the norms ∇a~\nabla\tilde{a} and D​a~D\tilde{a} are related in a similar way to those of ∇a\nabla a and D​aDa, the weighted Schauder estimate follows immediately.

The same argument can be applied in the region ρi≤2​R0​ϵ\rho_{i}\leq 2R_{0}\epsilon: the role of MjM_{j} is now played by a small perturbation (cf. the beginning of Section 5.2) of the Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space NiN_{i}.

Consider now the transition region R0​ϵ≤ρj≤ρ0R_{0}\,\epsilon\leq\rho_{j}\leq\rho_{0} for some j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8. We can work on the double cover H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} and restrict to ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant forms. Scaling by ϵ\epsilon as above we reduce to consider the restriction of H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} to the region R0≤ρ≤ρ0ϵR_{0}\leq\rho\leq\frac{\rho_{0}}{\epsilon} in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} endowed with a metric

g=(1+ϵ​λj+mj−2ρ)​gℝ3+(1+ϵ​λj+mj−2ρ)−1​θ2+O⁡(ρ−3)+O⁡(ϵ3​ρ2).g=\left(1+\epsilon\lambda_{j}+\frac{m_{j}-2}{\rho}\right)g_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}+\left(1+\epsilon\lambda_{j}+\frac{m_{j}-2}{\rho}\right)^{-1}\theta^{2}+O(\rho^{-3})+O(\epsilon^{3}\rho^{2}).

Moreover, after rescaling the weight function ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} coincides with the radial function ρ\rho on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}.

Fix a number σ∈(0,1)\sigma\in(0,1). For each point xx let π⁡(x)\pi(x) be its image in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} and set R=σ​ρ​(x)R=\sigma\rho(x). Up to changing R0R_{0} and ρ0\rho_{0} into (1−σ)​R0(1-\sigma)R_{0} and (1+σ)​ρ0(1+\sigma)\rho_{0} we can assume that BR​(π​(x))B_{R}(\pi(x)) is contained in the annulus R0≤ρ≤ρ0ϵR_{0}\leq\rho\leq\frac{\rho_{0}}{\epsilon} and that the restriction of H2​mj−4H^{2m_{j}-4} to this ball is trivial. We can then work on a “square” BR×[−R,R]B_{R}\times[-R,R] in the universal cover of H2​mj−4|BRH^{2m_{j}-4}|_{B_{R}}. Rescaling the metric by R−2R^{-2}, applying standard Schauder estimates, rescaling back and multiplying by R−δR^{-\delta} we obtain

‖a‖Cδ1,α​(BR)≤C⁡(‖D​a‖Cδ−10,α​(BR)+‖a‖Cδ0​(BR)).\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(B_{R})}\leq C\left(\|Da\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(B_{R})}+\|a\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}(B_{R})}\right).

The case of the region R0​ϵ≤ρi≤ρ0R_{0}\epsilon\leq\rho_{i}\leq\rho_{0} is completely analogous.

Finally, in the region where ρj,ρi≥12​ρ0\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq\tfrac{1}{2}\rho_{0} the weight function ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} is uniformly equivalent to the constant 11 and therefore weighted spaces coincide with standard Hölder spaces. Moreover the harmonic function hϵh_{\epsilon} is C∞C^{\infty}–close to the constant 11. The metric gϵg_{\epsilon} is therefore C∞C^{\infty}–close to the metric g∞=g𝕋+ϵ2​θ2g_{\infty}=g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}\theta^{2}. The Schauder estimate for forms supported in this region is immediate since we can restrict to small balls in the torus 𝕋\mathbb{T} on which the circle bundle PP is trivial and then work on the universal cover, which has bounded geometry. ∎

[02I1]

6.3. The linear estimate

We can now prove the main result about the linearisation of (6.1): the operator DD has uniformly bounded inverse.

[02I2]
Proposition 6.11.

For ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small and δ∈(−2,0)\delta\in(-2,0) there exist CC independent of ϵ\epsilon such that

‖a‖Cδ1,α≤C​‖D​a‖Cδ−10,α.\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\leq C\|Da\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.
[02I3]
Proof.

By contradiction assume that there exists a sequence ϵi→0\epsilon_{i}\rightarrow 0 and 11–forms aia_{i} on MϵiM_{\epsilon_{i}} such that ‖ai‖Cδ1,α=1\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}=1 but ‖D​ai‖Cδ−10,α→0\|Da_{i}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\rightarrow 0.

First of all we show that for every compact set KK in MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} which does not contain any puncture we must have ‖ai‖Cδ1,α​(K)→0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(K)}\rightarrow 0.

Over KK we can work on the double cover of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and regard aia_{i} as ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariant forms. Write ai=ϵi​fi​θ+γia_{i}=\epsilon_{i}f_{i}\,\theta+\gamma_{i}, for a function fif_{i} and a 11–form γi\gamma_{i} such that ξ​⌟​γi=0\xi\lrcorner\gamma_{i}=0 (recall that ξ\xi is the vector field dual to θ\theta). Over KK we can also decompose ai=Π0​ai+Π⟂​aia_{i}=\Pi_{0}a_{i}+\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}. Observe that for any 0<τ<10<\tau<1 (6.6) implies that

ϵi1−τ2​‖Π⟂​ai‖Cδ0≤‖Π⟂​ai‖Cδ−10≤C​ϵi​‖a‖Cδ−11,α\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}}\|\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}\leq\|\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon_{i}\|a\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}

provided ρj,ρi≥c​ϵi1−τ2\rho_{j},\rho_{i}\geq c\,\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{1-\tau}{2}}. Since the gluing regions occur for ρj∼ϵi25\rho_{j}\sim\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{2}{5}} and ρi∼ϵi25\rho_{i}\sim\epsilon_{i}^{\frac{2}{5}} we can choose τ>0\tau>0 sufficiently small so that these assumptions are satisfied on MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon}. Thus ‖Π⟂​ai‖Cδ0​(K)→0\|\Pi_{\perp}a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}(K)}\rightarrow 0.

By the Arzelá–Ascoli Theorem we can therefore assume that (fi,γi)(f_{i},\gamma_{i}) converges to (f0,γ)∈Ω0​(𝕋)⊕Ω1​(𝕋)(f_{0},\gamma)\in\Omega^{0}(\mathbb{T})\oplus\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}). By (6.4) (f0,γ)(f_{0},\gamma) satisfies

(6.12) ∗d​γ+d​f0=0=d∗​γ\ast d\gamma+df_{0}=0=d^{\ast}\gamma

on 𝕋\mathbb{T}. The control on ‖ai‖Cδ1,α\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}} guarantees that |f0|+|γ|≤C​ρδ|f_{0}|+|\gamma|\leq C\rho^{\delta} close to the punctures.

We want to conclude that f0f_{0} is constant and γ\gamma is a smooth harmonic 11–form on 𝕋\mathbb{T}. By trivialising the cotangent bundle of the 33–torus 𝕋\mathbb{T} by harmonic 11–forms θ1,θ2,θ3\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3} we can write γ=f1​θ1+f2​θ2+f3​θ3\gamma=f_{1}\theta_{1}+f_{2}\theta_{2}+f_{3}\theta_{3}. Then f0,f1,f2,f3f_{0},f_{1},f_{2},f_{3} are harmonic functions on the punctured 33–torus with controlled blow-up rate at the punctures. Since δ>−2\delta>-2, close to each puncture we must have fi=λi+ci​ρ−1+O⁡(ρ)f_{i}=\lambda_{i}+c_{i}\rho^{-1}+O(\rho) for some constants λi,ci\lambda_{i},c_{i}. However, cic_{i} must vanish for all i=0,1,2,3i=0,1,2,3 if (f0,fi)(f_{0},f_{i}) is a solution of the first order system (6.12) and not only of the second order PDE this implies. Hence the functions fif_{i} are bounded harmonic functions on 𝕋\mathbb{T} and must be constant.

However, by ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2}–invariance of the 11–forms aia_{i} the functions fif_{i} must be odd with respect to the involution τ\tau on 𝕋\mathbb{T} and must therefore vanish. Thus (f0,γ)=0(f_{0},\gamma)=0 and the Schauder estimate of Proposition 6.10 implies that ‖ai‖Cδ1,α​(K)→0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(K)}\rightarrow 0.

Next we look at what happens close to one of the punctures. By what we have just proved and the assumption ‖ai‖Cδ1,α​(Mϵ)=1\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(M_{\epsilon})}=1, there exists at least a j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 or i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n such that ‖ai‖Cδ1,α≥1n+8>0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\geq\tfrac{1}{n+8}>0 in the region ρj≤ϵ25\rho_{j}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} or ρi≤ϵ25\rho_{i}\leq\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}. We fix attention to such a region. Rescaling the metric by ϵi−2\epsilon_{i}^{-2} and replacing aia_{i} with a~i=ϵi−δ−1​ai\tilde{a}_{i}=\epsilon_{i}^{-\delta-1}a_{i}, from now on we will work on a DmD_{m} or an Ak−1A_{k-1} ALF space. Denote either of these non-compact manifolds by MM. Because of the behaviour of the weighted Hölder norm in Definition 6.8 under rescaling, we have ‖a~i‖Cδ1,α=‖ai‖Cδ1,α≥1n+8\|\tilde{a}_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}=\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\geq\tfrac{1}{n+8}. For ease of notation we replace a~i\tilde{a}_{i} with aia_{i} until the end of the proof.

By the Arzelá–Ascoli Theorem over every compact set of MM we can extract a subsequence of {ai}\{a_{i}\} that converges to a solution aa of D​a=0Da=0 on MM. Moreover, |a|≤C​ρδ|a|\leq C\rho^{\delta}. Since δ<0\delta<0 we conclude that a=0a=0. Indeed, the equation D​a=0Da=0 in particular implies that △​a=0\triangle a=0. Since MM is Ricci-flat, the Weitzenböck formula yields |a|​△​|a|≤0|a|\,\triangle|a|\leq 0 and therefore |a|=0|a|=0 by the maximum principle.

Now, if ‖ai‖Cδ0​(M)→0\|a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}(M)}\rightarrow 0 then the Schauder estimate of Proposition 6.10 would yield a contradiction to the assumption ‖ai‖Cδ1,α≥1n+8\|a_{i}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}\geq\frac{1}{n+8}. Assume therefore that there exists some ν>0\nu>0 such that ‖ai‖Cδ0≥ν\|a_{i}\|_{C^{0}_{\delta}}\geq\nu. Since ai→0a_{i}\rightarrow 0 in Cδ1,α​(K)C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(K) for every compact set K⊂MK\subset M there must exists a sequence of points xi∈Mx_{i}\in M going off to infinity (in particular Ri:=ρ⁡(xi)→∞R_{i}:=\rho(x_{i})\rightarrow\infty) such that |ai​(xi)|≥ν​ρ​(xi)δ|a_{i}(x_{i})|\geq\nu\rho(x_{i})^{\delta}.

Now rescale the metric on MM by Ri−2R_{i}^{-2} and replace aia_{i} by Ri−δ−1​aiR_{i}^{-\delta-1}a_{i}. Then (M,Ri−2​gM)(M,R_{i}^{-2}g_{M}) is converging to the tangent cone CC at infinity of MM, i.e. either C=ℝ3C=\mathbb{R}^{3} or C=ℝ3/ℤ2C=\mathbb{R}^{3}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} depending on whether MM is of cyclic or dihedral type.

As in the first step of the proof, we can use (6.4) and (6.6) to conclude that Ri−δ−1​aiR_{i}^{-\delta-1}a_{i} sub-converges over compact subsets of C∖{0}C\setminus\{0\} to a pair (f0,γ)∈Ω0​(C)⊕Ω1​(C)(f_{0},\gamma)\in\Omega^{0}(C)\oplus\Omega^{1}(C) such that

∗d​γ+d​f0=0=d∗​γ,\ast d\gamma+df_{0}=0=d^{\ast}\gamma,

|f|+|γ|≤C​ρδ|f|+|\gamma|\leq C\rho^{\delta} and (|f|+|γ|)​(x0)=ν>0(|f|+|\gamma|)(x_{0})=\nu>0 for some x0∈C∖{0}x_{0}\in C\setminus\{0\}. As before, the fact that δ>−2\delta>-2 implies that f,γf,\gamma are bounded close to the origin in CC. The fact that δ<0\delta<0 then forces (f0,γ)(f_{0},\gamma) to vanish. However this contradicts the fact that (|f|+|γ|)​(x0)>0(|f|+|\gamma|)(x_{0})>0. ∎

[02I4]

6.4. The non-linear problem

We are now ready to deform the triple 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} into a genuine hyperkähler triple by using the following Implicit Function Theorem.

[02I5]
Lemma 6.13.

Let Φ:E→F\Phi\colon\thinspace E\rightarrow F be the smooth function between Banach spaces and write Φ⁡(x)=Φ⁡(0)+L⁡(x)+N⁡(x)\Phi(x)=\Phi(0)+L(x)+N(x), where LL is linear and NN contains the non-linearities. Assume that there exists constants r,C,qr,C,q such that

  1. (i)

    LL is invertible with ‖L−1‖≤C\|L^{-1}\|\leq C;

  2. (ii)

    ‖N⁡(x)−N⁡(y)‖F≤q​‖x+y‖E​‖x−y‖E\|N(x)-N(y)\|_{F}\leq q\|x+y\|_{E}\|x-y\|_{E} for all x,y∈Br​(0)⊂Ex,y\in B_{r}(0)\subset E;

  3. (iii)

    ‖Φ⁡(0)‖F<min⁡{r2​C,14​q​C2}\|\Phi(0)\|_{F}<\min\left\{\frac{r}{2C},\frac{1}{4qC^{2}}\right\}.

Then there exist a unique x∈Ex\in E with ‖x‖E≤2​C​‖Φ⁡(0)‖F\|x\|_{E}\leq 2C\|\Phi(0)\|_{F} such that Φ⁡(x)=0\Phi(x)=0.

In our situation we set

E:=(Cδ1,α​(T∗​Mϵ)⊕ℋϵ+)⊗ℝ3,E:=\left(C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\oplus\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon}\right)\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3},

where ℋϵ+\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} denotes the space of self-dual harmonic forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}, i.e. constant linear combinations of ωϵ1,ωϵ2,ωϵ3\omega^{1}_{\epsilon},\omega^{2}_{\epsilon},\omega^{3}_{\epsilon}. We endow EE with the product of the Cδ1,αC^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}–norm and the norm on the finite dimensional vector space ℋϵ+⊗ℝ3≃ℝ9\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{9} induced by the L2L^{2}–norm. Similarly we set

F:=Cδ−10,α​(ℝ⊕Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)⊗ℝ3F:=C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\mathbb{R}\oplus\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\otimes\mathbb{R}^{3}

endowed with the Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm.

The operator Φ\Phi is the one defined by (6.1). Thus Φ⁡(0)=−ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ)\Phi(0)=-\mathcal{F}(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}), L⁡(𝒂¯+𝜻¯)=D​𝒂¯+𝜻¯L(\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=D\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}} and the non-linear term is

N⁡(𝒂¯+𝜻¯)=ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ)−ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ−d−​𝒂¯∗d−​𝒂¯).N(\bm{\underline{a}}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=\mathcal{F}\left(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}\right)-\mathcal{F}\left(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}-d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}\ast d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}\right).

We need to check that the hypothesis of Lemma 6.13 are satisfied.

We use Proposition 6.11 to show that LL has uniformly bounded inverse for δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0).

[02I6]
Lemma 6.14.

For δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0) and ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that for every triple of self-dual 22–forms 𝛏¯∈Cδ−10,α\bm{\underline{\xi}}\in C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} there exists a unique (𝐚¯,𝛇¯)∈E(\bm{\underline{a}},\bm{\underline{\zeta}})\in E with

‖𝒂¯‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯‖≤C​‖𝝃¯‖Cδ−10,α.\|\bm{\underline{a}}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}\|\leq C\|\bm{\underline{\xi}}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

and L⁡(𝐚¯,𝛇¯)=𝛏¯L(\bm{\underline{a}},\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=\bm{\underline{\xi}}.

[02I7]
Proof.

First of all, note that the 22–forms ωϵi\omega_{\epsilon}^{i} have uniformly bounded Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm. Indeed, outside the gluing regions 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} is a hyperkähler triple and thus ωϵi\omega_{\epsilon}^{i} is parallel and bounded. On the gluing regions, 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} differs from the hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} or 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} by terms of order O⁡(ϵ​ρ2+ϵ3​ρ−3)O(\epsilon\rho^{2}+\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) (with similar estimates on their derivatives). Finally, ρϵ−δ+1\rho_{\epsilon}^{-\delta+1} is bounded above since δ<0\delta<0.

Now, let 𝝎¯~\widetilde{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} be an L2L^{2}–orthonormal triple of harmonic self-dual forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}. Since

∫Mϵωϵi∧ωϵj=2​∫Mϵ(Qϵ)i​j​dvgϵ,\int_{M_{\epsilon}}{\omega_{\epsilon}^{i}\wedge\omega_{\epsilon}^{j}}=2\int_{M_{\epsilon}}{(Q_{\epsilon})_{ij}\,\operatorname{dv}_{g_{\epsilon}}},

QϵQ_{\epsilon} is close to the identity and Volgϵ⁡(Mϵ)=O⁡(ϵ)\operatorname{Vol}_{g_{\epsilon}}(M_{\epsilon})=O(\epsilon) we can assume that

‖𝝎¯~‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ−12​‖𝝎¯ϵ‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ−12.\|\widetilde{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

Finally, observe that for every u∈Cδ−10,αu\in C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} we have

‖u‖L2≤‖ρϵδ−1‖L2​‖u‖Cδ−10,α≤C⁡(ϵ12+ϵδ+1)​‖u‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\|_{L^{2}}\leq\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{L^{2}}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C(\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}+\epsilon^{\delta+1})\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Indeed, using the definition (6.7) of ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} and the construction of 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} it is not difficult to estimate ‖ρϵδ−1‖L2≤C⁡(ϵ12+ϵδ+1)\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{L^{2}}\leq C(\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}+\epsilon^{\delta+1}).

Now let π:Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)→ℋϵ+\pi\colon\thinspace C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} be the L2L^{2}–orthogonal projection

π⁡(ξ)=∑i=13λi​ω~i,λi=∫ξ∧ω~i,\pi(\xi)=\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\lambda_{i}\,\widetilde{\omega}_{i}},\qquad\lambda_{i}=\int{\xi\wedge\widetilde{\omega}_{i}},

and regard id−π\text{id}-\pi as a map Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)→Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon}). By the remarks above we have

|λi|≤C⁡(1+ϵδ+1)​‖ξ‖Cδ−10,α,‖π⁡(ξ)‖Cδ−10,α≤C⁡(1+ϵδ+12)​‖ξ‖Cδ−10,α.|\lambda_{i}|\leq C(1+\epsilon^{\delta+1})\|\xi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}},\qquad\|\pi(\xi)\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C(1+\epsilon^{\delta+\frac{1}{2}})\|\xi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Thus if δ≥−12\delta\geq-\tfrac{1}{2} the projections π\pi and id−π\text{id}-\pi are uniformly bounded. Proposition 6.11 and the surjectivity of LL then yield the result. ∎

Next, we consider the non-linear term NN. Note that this does not involve the harmonic part 𝜻¯\bm{\underline{\zeta}}. The function ℱ\mathcal{F} is pointwise smooth with uniformly controlled norm for ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small. Using the Taylor expansion of ℱ\mathcal{F} at id−Qϵ\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon} and Lemma 6.9 to control products we can therefore find r>0r>0 and CC independent of ϵ\epsilon such that assumption (ii) in Lemma 6.13 is satisfied with rr and q=C​ϵδ−1q=C\epsilon^{\delta-1} for some ϵ\epsilon–independent constant CC.

Finally,

‖ℱ⁡(id−Qϵ)‖Cδ−10,α≤C​‖id−Qϵ‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ2+15−25​δ.\|\mathcal{F}(\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon})\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\|\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{2+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{2}{5}\delta}.

Indeed, setting ρ=ρj\rho=\rho_{j} for j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 or ρ=ρi\rho=\rho_{i} for some i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n, in the region ϵ25≤ρ≤2​ϵ25\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}}\leq\rho\leq 2\epsilon^{\frac{2}{5}} we have |id−Qϵ|=O⁡(ϵ​ρ2+ϵ3​ρ−3)|\text{id}-Q_{\epsilon}|=O(\epsilon\rho^{2}+\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) by (5.8) and ρϵ=ρ\rho_{\epsilon}=\rho by (6.7).

Thus assumption (iii) in Lemma 6.13 is therefore satisfied as soon as ϵ2+15−25​δ≪ϵ1−δ\epsilon^{2+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{2}{5}\delta}\ll\epsilon^{1-\delta}, i.e.

ϵ35​(δ+2)≪1.\epsilon^{\frac{3}{5}(\delta+2)}\ll 1.

If δ>−2\delta>-2 this condition is satisfied for ϵ>0\epsilon>0 sufficiently small.

[02I8]
Theorem 6.15.

Let (𝕋,g𝕋)(\mathbb{T},g_{\mathbb{T}}) be a flat 33–torus with standard involution τ:𝕋→𝕋\tau\colon\thinspace\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{T}. Let q1,…,q8q_{1},\dots,q_{8} be the fixed points of τ\tau and let p1,τ⁡(p1),…,pn,τ⁡(pn)p_{1},\tau(p_{1}),\dots,p_{n},\tau(p_{n}) be further 2​n2n distinct points. Denote by 𝕋∗\mathbb{T}^{\ast} the punctured torus 𝕋∖{q1,…,q8,p1,…,τ⁡(pn)}\mathbb{T}\setminus\{q_{1},\dots,q_{8},p_{1},\dots,\tau(p_{n})\}.

Let m1,…,m8∈ℤ≥0m_{1},\dots,m_{8}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} and k1,…,kn∈ℤ≥1k_{1},\dots,k_{n}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1} satisfy

∑j=18mj+∑i=1nki=16.\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}=16.

For each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 fix a DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space MjM_{j} and for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n an Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space NiN_{i}.

Then there exists a 11–parameter family of hyperkähler metrics {gϵ}ϵ∈(0,ϵ0)\{g_{\epsilon}\}_{\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{0})} on the K3 surface with the following properties. We can decompose the K3 surface into the union of open sets Kϵ∪⋃j=18Mjϵ∪⋃i=1nNiϵK^{\epsilon}\cup\bigcup_{j=1}^{8}{M_{j}^{\epsilon}}\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}{N_{i}^{\epsilon}} such that

  1. (i)

    (Kϵ,gϵ)(K^{\epsilon},g_{\epsilon}) collapses to the flat orbifold 𝕋∗/ℤ2\mathbb{T}^{\ast}/\mathbb{Z}_{2} with bounded curvature away from the punctures;

  2. (ii)

    for each j=1,…,8j=1,\dots,8 and k≥0k\geq 0, (Mjϵ,ϵ−2​gϵ)(M_{j}^{\epsilon},\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon}) converges in Cl​o​ck,αC^{k,\alpha}_{loc} to the DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space MjM_{j};

  3. (iii)

    for each i=1,…,ni=1,\dots,n and k≥0k\geq 0, (Njϵ,ϵ−2​gϵ)(N_{j}^{\epsilon},\epsilon^{-2}g_{\epsilon}) converges in Cl​o​ck,αC^{k,\alpha}_{loc} to the Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space NiN_{i}.

[02I9]
Proof.

Given data as in the statement we constructed a 44–manifold MϵM_{\epsilon} and a 11–parameter family of closed definite triples 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} which are approximately hyperkähler. For ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small we can apply Lemma 6.13 to find unique 𝒂¯ϵ∈Cδ1,α​(T∗​Mϵ)\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\in C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}(T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon}) for δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0) and 𝜻¯ϵ∈ℋϵ+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}\in\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} such that ‖𝒂¯ϵ‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯ϵ‖≤C​ϵ11−2​δ5\|\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}\|\leq C\epsilon^{\frac{11-2\delta}{5}} and 𝝎¯ϵ+d​𝒂¯ϵ+𝜻¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon} is a hyperkähler structure on MϵM_{\epsilon}. In particular, since b1​(Mϵ)=0b_{1}(M_{\epsilon})=0 by Proposition 5.1, MϵM_{\epsilon} must be diffeomorphic to the K3 surface.

Away from the gluing regions 𝒂¯ϵ\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon} solves the elliptic PDE d+​𝒂¯ϵ=ℱ⁡(d−​𝒂¯ϵ∗d−​𝒂¯ϵ)−𝜻¯ϵd^{+}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}=\mathcal{F}(d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\ast d^{-}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon})-\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}, d∗​𝒂¯ϵ=0d^{\ast}\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}=0. By elliptic regularity, for any k≥2k\geq 2 the Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}–norm of 𝒂¯ϵ\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon} on compact sets of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} and (after rescaling) on compact sets of the gravitational instantons MjM_{j} and NiN_{i} is controlled in terms of ‖𝒂¯ϵ‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯ϵ‖\|\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon}\|. In particular, on compact sets of MϵghM^{\textup{gh}}_{\epsilon} the hyperkähler metric induced by 𝝎¯ϵ+d​𝒂¯ϵ+𝜻¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}+d\bm{\underline{a}}_{\epsilon}+\bm{\underline{\zeta}}_{\epsilon} is Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}–close to g𝕋+ϵ2​θ2g_{\mathbb{T}}+\epsilon^{2}\theta^{2}. The statements (i), (ii) and (iii) about the limit ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 now follow. ∎

By varying all parameters involved in the construction we can in fact realise a whole open set in the moduli space of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface. Indeed,

  1. (i)

    the moduli space of flat tori is 66–dimensional;

  2. (ii)

    the choice of punctures p1,…,pnp_{1},\dots,p_{n} yields additional 3​n3n parameters;

  3. (iii)

    once the punctured torus and weights are fixed, the moduli space of abelian Dirac monopoles with prescribed singularities is 44 dimensional (one has to choose ϵ\epsilon and the 33–moduli of a flat connection);

  4. (iv)

    each DmjD_{m_{j}} ALF space contributes 3​mj3m_{j} parameters and every Aki−1A_{k_{i}-1} ALF space contributes 3​(ki−1)3(k_{i}-1) parameters.

Hence the total number of parameters in the construction is

6+3​n+4+3​∑j=18mj+3​∑i=1nki−3​n=10+3×16=58,6+3n+4+3\sum_{j=1}^{8}{m_{j}}+3\sum_{i=1}^{n}{k_{i}}-3n=10+3\times 16=58,

which is exactly the dimension of the moduli space of Ricci-flat metrics on the K3 surface (without any normalisation on volume).

[02IA]

7. Stable minimal surfaces

In this final section we exploit our gluing construction of hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface to deduce some information about their submanifold geometry.

It is well known that holomorphic submanifolds of a Kähler manifold are volume minimising. It is a classical problem in the theory of minimal submanifolds in Kähler manifolds to understand to what extent volume minimising submanifolds must be holomorphic or anti-holomorphic.

In [32] Micallef showed that every stable minimal surface in a flat 44–torus must be holomorphic with respect to a complex structure compatible with the metric. (Note however that this is no longer the case for higher dimensional tori [4].) In view of Micallef’s result it was thought for some time that a similar result could hold for the K3 surface endowed with a hyperkähler metric. Partial results in this direction were established by Micallef–Wolfson [30, Theorem 5.3] and motivation for the conjecture came from the fact that, given an arbitrary hyperkähler metric on the K3 surface, every homology class can be represented by the sum of surfaces each of which is holomorphic with respect to some complex structure compatible with the metric. However, Micallef–Wolfson [31] have eventually shown that no analogue of the result for 44–tori holds for the K3 surface. Indeed they found a class α∈H2​(K​3,ℤ)\alpha\in H_{2}(K3,\mathbb{Z}) and a hyperkähler metric gg on the K3 surface such that the volume minimiser in α\alpha decomposes into a sum of branched minimal surfaces Σ1∪⋯∪Σk\Sigma_{1}\cup\dots\cup\Sigma_{k} not all of which can be holomorphic with respect to some complex structure compatible with gg.

We can use our gluing construction to construct further (simpler) examples of strictly stable minimal spheres with respect to some hyperkähler metric on the K3 surface which cannot be holomorphic for any complex structure compatible with the metric.

[02IB]
Theorem 7.1.

There exist hyperkähler metrics on the K3 surface that contain a strictly stable minimal sphere which is not holomorphic with respect to any complex structure compatible with the metric.

[02IC]
Proof.

In [30, Proposition 5.5] Micallef–Wolfson show that the double cover of the Atiyah–Hitchin manifold, the rotationally symmetric D1D_{1} ALF space, contains a strictly stable minimal 22–sphere Σ\Sigma with [Σ]⋅[Σ]=−4[\Sigma]\cdot[\Sigma]=-4. Since every holomorphic curve Σ\Sigma of genus γ\gamma in a hyperkähler 44–manifold must have [Σ]⋅[Σ]=2​γ−2[\Sigma]\cdot[\Sigma]=2\gamma-2 by the adjunction formula, this minimal 22–sphere cannot be holomorphic with respect to any complex structure. One can also use the isometric action of S​U​(2)SU(2) on the Atiyah–Hitchin metric to prove this fact: the S​U​(2)SU(2) action preserves the metric but rotates the complex structures (equivalently, the hyperkähler triple) and the minimal 22–sphere is an S​U​(2)SU(2)–orbit. Hence the periods ∫Σωi\int_{\Sigma}{\omega_{i}} are forced to vanish.

Now, consider an approximate hyperkähler metric gϵg_{\epsilon} obtained in Section 5 by using the rotationally symmetric D1D_{1} ALF space as one of the building blocks. Thus gϵg_{\epsilon} contains a strictly stable minimal sphere Σ\Sigma with [Σ]⋅[Σ]=−4[\Sigma]\cdot[\Sigma]=-4.

Because of strict stability, Σ\Sigma has no Jacobi fields. Then we can invoke White’s Implicit Function Theorem for minimal immersions with respect to variations of the ambient metric [40, Theorem 2.1] to deform Σ\Sigma into a minimal immersion with respect to the hyperkähler metric produced by Theorem 6.15 starting from gϵg_{\epsilon}. As before, this minimal 22–sphere cannot be holomorphic with respect to any complex structure because of its self-intersection number. It is strictly stable by continuity of the spectrum of the Jacobi operator. ∎

References

  • [1] M. T. Anderson, Ricci curvature bounds and Einstein metrics on compact manifolds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1989), no. 3, 455–490.
  • [2] by same author, The L2L^{2} structure of moduli spaces of Einstein metrics on 44-manifolds, Geom. Funct. Anal. 2 (1992), no. 1, 29–89.
  • [3] by same author, A survey of Einstein metrics on 4-manifolds, Handbook of geometric analysis, No. 3, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), vol. 14, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2010, pp. 1–39.
  • [4] C. Arezzo and M. J. Micallef, Minimal surfaces in flat tori, Geom. Funct. Anal. 10 (2000), no. 4, 679–701.
  • [5] M. Atiyah and N. Hitchin, The geometry and dynamics of magnetic monopoles, M. B. Porter Lectures, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988.
  • [6] H. Auvray, From ALE to ALF gravitational instantons, 2012, arXiv:1210.1654.
  • [7] by same author, From ALE to ALF gravitational instantons. II, 2013, arXiv:1304.3342.
  • [8] O. Biquard and V. Minerbe, A Kummer construction for gravitational instantons, Comm. Math. Phys. 308 (2011), no. 3, 773–794.
  • [9] B. Charbonneau and J. Hurtubise, Singular Hermitian-Einstein monopoles on the product of a circle and a Riemann surface, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2011), no. 1, 175–216.
  • [10] J. Cheeger and G. Tian, Curvature and injectivity radius estimates for Einstein 4-manifolds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (2006), no. 2, 487–525.
  • [11] G. Chen and X. Chen, Gravitational instantons with faster than quadratic curvature decay (II), 2015, arXiv:1508.07908.
  • [12] S. A. Cherkis and N. J. Hitchin, Gravitational instantons of type DkD_{k}, Comm. Math. Phys. 260 (2005), no. 2, 299–317.
  • [13] S. A. Cherkis and A. Kapustin, Singular monopoles and gravitational instantons, Comm. Math. Phys. 203 (1999), no. 3, 713–728.
  • [14] A. S. Dancer, Nahm’s equations and hyper-Kähler geometry, Comm. Math. Phys. 158 (1993), no. 3, 545–568.
  • [15] S. K. Donaldson, Two-forms on four-manifolds and elliptic equations, Inspired by S. S. Chern, Nankai Tracts Math., vol. 11, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2006, pp. 153–172.
  • [16] by same author, Calabi-Yau metrics on Kummer surfaces as a model gluing problem, Advances in geometric analysis, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), vol. 21, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2012, pp. 109–118.
  • [17] J. J. Duistermaat and G. J. Heckman, On the variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space, Invent. Math. 69 (1982), no. 2, 259–268.
  • [18] G. W. Gibbons and C. N. Pope, The positive action conjecture and asymptotically Euclidean metrics in quantum gravity, Comm. Math. Phys. 66 (1979), no. 3, 267–290.
  • [19] G. Gibbons and S. Hawking, Gravitational multi-instantons, Physics Letters B 78 (1978), no. 4, 430–432.
  • [20] M. Gross and P. M. H. Wilson, Large complex structure limits of K​3K3 surfaces, J. Differential Geom. 55 (2000), no. 3, 475–546.
  • [21] H.-J. Hein, Gravitational instantons from rational elliptic surfaces, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (2012), no. 2, 355–393.
  • [22] N. Hitchin, Compact four-dimensional Einstein manifolds, J. Differential Geometry 9 (1974), 435–441.
  • [23] by same author, Twistor construction of Einstein metrics, Global Riemannian geometry (Durham, 1983), Ellis Horwood Ser. Math. Appl., Horwood, Chichester, 1984, pp. 115–125.
  • [24] by same author, L2L^{2}-cohomology of hyperkähler quotients, Comm. Math. Phys. 211 (2000), no. 1, 153–165.
  • [25] P. B. Kronheimer, The construction of ALE spaces as hyper-Kähler quotients, J. Differential Geom. 29 (1989), no. 3, 665–683.
  • [26] C. LeBrun and M. Singer, A Kummer-type construction of self-dual 44-manifolds, Math. Ann. 300 (1994), no. 1, 165–180.
  • [27] J. Lott, Collapsing and Dirac-type operators, Proceedings of the Euroconference on Partial Differential Equations and their Applications to Geometry and Physics (Castelvecchio Pascoli, 2000), vol. 91, 2002, pp. 175–196.
  • [28] by same author, Collapsing and the differential form Laplacian: the case of a smooth limit space, Duke Math. J. 114 (2002), no. 2, 267–306.
  • [29] E. Luft and D. Sjerve, 33-manifolds with subgroups 𝐙⊕𝐙⊕𝐙{\bf Z}\oplus{\bf Z}\oplus{\bf Z} in their fundamental groups, Pacific J. Math. 114 (1984), no. 1, 191–205.
  • [30] M. Micallef and J. Wolfson, The second variation of area of minimal surfaces in four-manifolds, Math. Ann. 295 (1993), no. 2, 245–267.
  • [31] by same author, Area minimizers in a K​3K3 surface and holomorphicity, Geom. Funct. Anal. 16 (2006), no. 2, 437–452.
  • [32] M. J. Micallef, Stable minimal surfaces in Euclidean space, J. Differential Geom. 19 (1984), no. 1, 57–84.
  • [33] V. Minerbe, A mass for ALF manifolds, Comm. Math. Phys. 289 (2009), no. 3, 925–955.
  • [34] by same author, On the asymptotic geometry of gravitational instantons, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 43 (2010), no. 6, 883–924.
  • [35] by same author, Rigidity for multi-Taub-NUT metrics, J. Reine Angew. Math. 656 (2011), 47–58.
  • [36] D. N. Page, A physical picture of the K3 gravitational instanton, Physics Letters B 80 (1978), no. 1-2, 55–57.
  • [37] by same author, A periodic but nonstationary gravitational instanton, Physics Letters B 100 (1981), no. 4, 313–315.
  • [38] A. Sen, A note on enhanced gauge symmetries in M- and string theory, Journal of High Energy Physics 1997 (1997), no. 09, 001.
  • [39] P. Topiwala, A new proof of the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on K​3K3. I, II, Invent. Math. 89 (1987), no. 2, 425–448, 449–454.
  • [40] B. White, The space of minimal submanifolds for varying Riemannian metrics, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 40 (1991), no. 1, 161–200.
  • [41] J. A. Wolf, Spaces of constant curvature, sixth ed., AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2011.
  • [42] S.-T. Yau, Open problems in geometry, Differential geometry: partial differential equations on manifolds (Los Angeles, CA, 1990), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 54, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1993, pp. 1–28.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.