ScalingStacks

Proof. [00RK]

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

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

Proof.

(courtesy of W. Feldman) By passing to the universal cover B2×ℝkB_{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{k}, the standard mean value inequality implies

supB3/2×TkΦ≲−∫|Φ|≲1.\sup_{B_{3/2}\times T^{k}}\Phi\lesssim\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int|\Phi|\lesssim 1.

Let p∈B1×Tkp\in B_{1}\times T^{k}, which lifts to a point pp in B1×ℝkB_{1}\times\mathbb{R}^{k}. Consider the Euclidean ball Bg​(p,ϵ​R)⊂B3/2×ℝkB_{g}(p,\epsilon R)\subset B_{3/2}\times\mathbb{R}^{k}, where R≫1R\gg 1 is a parameter to be chosen. Then by the mean value inequality,

Φ(p)≤−∫Bg​(p,ϵ​R)Φ.\Phi(p)\leq\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)}\Phi.

Define the subset E⊂Bg​(ϵ​R)E\subset B_{g}(\epsilon R) as the union of all interior lattice cubes, then

Bg​(p,ϵ​R)∖E⊂Bg​(p,ϵ​R)∖Bg​(p,ϵ⁡(R−C)),B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)\setminus E\subset B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)\setminus B_{g}(p,\epsilon(R-C)),

and by the lattice periodicity of Φ\Phi we have ∫EΦ=∫Ev\int_{E}\Phi=\int_{E}v. By partitioning the integral ∫Bg​(p,ϵ)Φ\int_{B_{g}(p,\epsilon)}\Phi into the contributions from EE and Bg​(p,ϵ​R)∖EB_{g}(p,\epsilon R)\setminus E,

−∫Bg​(p,ϵ​R)Φ≤−∫Bg​(p,ϵ​R)v+CR−1supBg​(p,ϵ​R)(Φ−v)≤−∫Bg​(p,ϵ​R)v+CR−1.\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)}\Phi\leq\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)}v+CR^{-1}\sup_{B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)}(\Phi-v)\leq\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B_{g}(p,\epsilon R)}v+CR^{-1}.

By the Lipschitz bound of vv, the RHS is bounded above by

v⁡(p)+Lip​(v)​ϵ​R+C​R−1≤v⁡(p)+C⁡(ϵ​R+R−1).v(p)+\text{Lip}(v)\epsilon R+CR^{-1}\leq v(p)+C(\epsilon R+R^{-1}).

Choosing R=ϵ−1/2R=\epsilon^{-1/2} gives Φ⁡(p)≤v⁡(p)+C​ϵ1/2\Phi(p)\leq v(p)+C\epsilon^{1/2}. ∎

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