ScalingStacks

5. Entropy bound of the volume ratio and C 0 bound of Kähler potential [0219]

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

5. Entropy bound of the volume ratio and C0C^{0} bound of Kähler potential

The main goal of this section is to show the C0C^{0} bound of φ\varphi implies a bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} and vice versa:

Theorem 5.1.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be a smooth solution to cscK, then ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} can be bounded in terms of ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Conversely, a bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} implies a bound for ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, in particular ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}.

The most difficult part of above theorem is to show that an upper bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} implies a bound on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, which is the main focus of this section. That ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} implies a bound for ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g} essentially follows from the fact that cscK are minimizers of KK-energy. In particular, having a bound on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} is enough to control ‖F‖0||F||_{0}, hence estimates up to C1,1C^{1,1}, thanks to the results obtained in previous sections. Actually we will see it is enough to have a bound for ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}, where Φ⁡(F)>0\Phi(F)>0 is coercive in FF in the sense that

  1. (1)

    limt→−∞et⋅Φ⁡(t)=0\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow-\infty}\;e^{t}\cdot\Phi(t)=0 and limt→∞Φ⁡(t)=∞\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\;\Phi(t)=\infty

  2. (2)

    limt→∞Φ⁡(t)t<∞.\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\;{{\Phi(t)}\over t}<\infty.\;

We want to show that, under these conditions, an upper bound for ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g} will imply a bound for ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g} for any q<∞q<\infty. This bound can then imply a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, due to the deep result by Kolodziej, [25], but an elementary argument which only uses Alexandrov maximum principle (Lemma 5.5) and avoids pluripotential theory is also possible. This argument is due to Blocki (c.f. [2]). From Corollary 5.4, we obtain a bound for ‖eF‖0||e^{F}||_{0}. We have also shown in Proposition 2.1 that a C0C^{0} bound of φ\varphi will imply a lower bound for FF. Hence a bound for ‖F‖0||F||_{0} can be obtained this way. Then estimates in previous sections can be applied to obtain higher derivatives bound.

Define

(5.1) P(M,g)={ϕ∈C2(M,ℝ):gi​j¯+∂2ϕ∂zi​∂z¯j≥0,supMϕ=0}.P(M,g)=\{\phi\in C^{2}(M,\mathbb{R}):g_{i\bar{j}}+\frac{\partial^{2}\phi}{\partial z_{i}\partial\bar{z}_{j}}\geq 0,\,\sup_{M}\phi=0\}.

The following result of Tian is well-known, whose proof may be found in [32], Proposition 2.1:

Proposition 5.1.

There exists two positive constant α\alpha, C5C_{5}, depending only on (M,g)(M,g), such that

(5.2) ∫Me−α​ϕ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5​, for any ϕ∈P⁡(M,g).\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\phi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5}\textrm{, for any $\phi\in P(M,g)$.}

Here α=α⁡(M,[ω])\alpha=\alpha(M,[\omega]) is the so called α\alpha-invariant. To start, we normalize φ\varphi so that supMφ=0\sup_{M}\varphi=0. We also need to consider the auxiliary Kähler potential ψ∈ℋ\psi\in\mathcal{H}, which solves the following problem:

(5.3) det(gi​j¯+ψi​j¯)=eF​Φ​(F)​det(gi​j¯)∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg,\displaystyle\det(g_{i\bar{j}}+\psi_{i\bar{j}})=\frac{e^{F}\Phi(F)\det(g_{i\bar{j}})}{\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}},
(5.4) supMψ=0.\displaystyle\sup_{M}\psi=0.

The existence of such ψ\psi follows from Yau’s celebrated theorem on Calabi’s volume conjecture (c.f. [35], Theorem 2) . Because of Proposition 5.1, we know that

∫Me−α​φ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5,∫Me−α​ψ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5.\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\varphi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5},\qquad\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\psi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5}.

We will show that the following estimate holds:

Theorem 5.2.

Given any 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1, there exists a constant C5.1C_{5.1}, depending on ε\varepsilon, the background metric gg, the choice of Φ\Phi, and the bound ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}, such that

(5.5) F+ε​ψ−2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)​φ≤C5.1.F+\varepsilon\psi-2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|)\varphi\leq C_{5.1}.
Corollary 5.2.

For any 0<q<∞0<q<\infty, there exists a constant C5.2C_{5.2}, depending only on the background metric gg, the choice of Φ\Phi, the bound ∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}, and qq, such that

(5.6) ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5.2, ‖φ‖0≤C5.2, ‖ψ‖0≤C5.2.\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5.2},\textrm{ $||\varphi||_{0}\leq C_{5.2}$, $||\psi||_{0}\leq C_{5.2}.$}

We will show this important corollary first.

Proof.

First we derive the estimate for ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g} with q>1q>1.

From Theorem 5.2, we know

(5.7) −α​ψ≥αε​(F−2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)​φ−C5.1).-\alpha\psi\geq\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\big(F-2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|)\varphi-C_{5.1}\big).

hence

(5.8) C5≥∫Me−α​ψ​dv​o​lg≥∫Mexp⁡(αε​(F−2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)​φ−C5.1))​𝑑v​o​lg≥∫Mexp⁡(αε​(F−C5.1))​dv​o​lg.\begin{split}C_{5}\geq\int_{M}e^{-\alpha\psi}dvol_{g}\geq&\int_{M}\exp\big(\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}(F-2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|)\varphi-C_{5.1})\big)dvol_{g}\\ &\geq\int_{M}\exp\big(\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}(F-C_{5.1})\big)dvol_{g}.\end{split}

The last inequality holds because we normalized φ\varphi so that φ≤0\varphi\leq 0. Choose ε=αq\varepsilon=\frac{\alpha}{q}, then we immediately get the desired estimate for ∫Meq​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{qF}dvol_{g}. The claimed estimate for φ\varphi and ψ\psi immediately follows from the estimate for ‖eF‖Lq​(q>2)||e^{F}||_{L^{q}}(q>2), given in the lemma below. ∎

Lemma 5.3.

Let ϕ∈P⁡(M,g)\phi\in P(M,g) be such that eF=ωϕnω0ne^{F}={\omega_{\phi}^{n}\over\omega_{0}^{n}} with eF∈L2+s​(M,ω0),e^{F}\in L^{2+s}(M,\omega_{0}),\; for some s>0s>0. Then ‖ϕ‖0≤C5.21||\phi||_{0}\leq C_{5.21}, with C5.21C_{5.21} depending only on the metric ω0\omega_{0}, s>0s>0 and ‖eF‖L2+s​(M,ω0)||e^{F}||_{L^{2+s}(M,\omega_{0})}.

Note that this is a weaker result compared to the famous theorem of Kolodziej [25], which shows eF∈L1+s​(M,ω0)e^{F}\in L^{1+s}(M,\omega_{0}) is already sufficient. However, the weaker result as stated above can be proved in an elementary way using Alexandrov maximum principle, discovered by Blocki [2].

Combining Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 5.2, we immediately conclude:

Corollary 5.4.

There exists a constant C5.2C_{5.2}, depending only on the background metric gg, the upper bound of ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g}, such that

F≤C5.2.F\leq C_{5.2}.
Proof.

Choose Φ⁡(t)=t2+1\Phi(t)=\sqrt{t^{2}+1} and observe that ∫MeF​F2+1​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}\sqrt{F^{2}+1}dvol_{g} is controlled in terms of an upper bound of ∫MeF​F​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}Fdvol_{g}. Then the result follows from Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 5.2. ∎

Now let’s prove Theorem 5.2.

Proof.

(of Theorem 5.2) Let 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1 be given and fixed. Let d0d_{0} be chosen as in the proof of Corollary 5.2. For any p∈Mp\in M, let ηp:M→ℝ+\eta_{p}:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+} be a cut-off function such that ηp​(p)=1\eta_{p}(p)=1, ηp≡1−θ\eta_{p}\equiv 1-\theta outside the ball Bd02​(p)B_{\frac{d_{0}}{2}}(p), with the estimate |∇ηp|2≤4​θ2d02|\nabla\eta_{p}|^{2}\leq\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}}, |∇2ηp|≤4​θd02|\nabla^{2}\eta_{p}|\leq\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}}. Here 0<θ<10<\theta<1 is to be determined later. Let δ>0\delta>0, λ>0\lambda>0 be constants to be determined. Assume the function eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)} achieves maximum at p0∈Mp_{0}\in M. We now compute

(5.9) Δφ​(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0)=Δφ​(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ))​ηp0+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​Δφ​(ηp0)+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​2​δ​∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)⋅∇φηp0=eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0​(δ2​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2+δ​Δφ​(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ))+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​Δφ​(ηp0)+eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​2​δ​∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)⋅∇φηp0.\begin{split}&\Delta_{\varphi}\big(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}}\big)\\ &=\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)})\eta_{p_{0}}+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\Delta_{\varphi}(\eta_{p_{0}})+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}2\delta\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\cdot\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}\\ &=e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}}\big(\delta^{2}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|_{\varphi}^{2}+\delta\Delta_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\big)\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\Delta_{\varphi}(\eta_{p_{0}})+e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}2\delta\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\cdot\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}.\end{split}

First we can estimate

(5.10) eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)Δφ​ηp0≥−eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​|∇2ηp0|​t​rφ​g≥−eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​4​θd02​(1−θ)​ηp0​t​rφ​g.\begin{split}e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}&\Delta_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}\geq-e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}|\nabla^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|tr_{\varphi}g\\ &\geq-e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}\eta_{p_{0}}tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}
(5.11) 2​δ​∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)⋅∇φηp0≥−δ2​ηp0​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2−|∇φηp0|φ2ηp0≥−δ2​ηp0​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2−|∇ηp0|2​t​rφ​gηp0≥−δ2​ηp0​|∇φ(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)|φ2−4​θ2​t​rφ​gd02​(1−θ).\begin{split}&2\delta\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)\cdot\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}\geq-\delta^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|^{2}_{\varphi}-\frac{|\nabla_{\varphi}\eta_{p_{0}}|_{\varphi}^{2}}{\eta_{p_{0}}}\\ &\geq-\delta^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|_{\varphi}^{2}-\frac{|\nabla\eta_{p_{0}}|^{2}tr_{\varphi}g}{\eta_{p_{0}}}\\ &\geq-\delta^{2}\eta_{p_{0}}|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)|_{\varphi}^{2}-\frac{4\theta^{2}tr_{\varphi}g}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}.\end{split}

Finally we compute

(5.12) Δφ​(CLOSEOPENF+ε​ψ−λ​φ)=−(R¯+λ​n)+t​rφ​R​i​c+λ​t​rφ​g+ε​Δφ​ψ≥(−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))+(λ−ε−|R​i​c|)​t​rφ​g.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(&F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)=-(\underline{R}+\lambda n)+tr_{\varphi}Ric+\lambda tr_{\varphi}g+\varepsilon\Delta_{\varphi}\psi\\ &\geq(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))+(\lambda-\varepsilon-|Ric|)tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}

Here AΦ=∫MeF​Φ​(F)​𝑑v​o​lgA_{\Phi}=\int_{M}e^{F}\Phi(F)dvol_{g}. In the above calculation, we noticed that

Δφ​ψ=gφi​j¯(gi​j¯+ψi​j¯)−t​rφ​g≥n​(det(gφi​j¯)​det(gi​j¯+ψi​j¯))1n−t​rφ​g=n​(e−F​eF​Φ​(F)​AΦ−1)1n−t​rφ​g.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}\psi=g_{\varphi}^{i\bar{j}}&(g_{i\bar{j}}+\psi_{i\bar{j}})-tr_{\varphi}g\geq n\big(\det(g_{\varphi}^{i\bar{j}})\det(g_{i\bar{j}}+\psi_{i\bar{j}})\big)^{\frac{1}{n}}-tr_{\varphi}g\\ &=n(e^{-F}e^{F}\Phi(F)A_{\Phi}^{-1})^{\frac{1}{n}}-tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}

Plug (5.10), (5.11), (5.12) back into (5.9), we see

(5.13) Δφ(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0)≥δ​ηp0​eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​(−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))−eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​(δ​ηp0​(λ−ε−|R​i​c|)−4​θd02​(1−θ)​ηp0−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2)​t​rφ​g.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}&\big(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}}\big)\geq\delta\eta_{p_{0}}e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))\\ &-e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\big(\delta\eta_{p_{0}}(\lambda-\varepsilon-|Ric|)-\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}\eta_{p_{0}}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}\big)tr_{\varphi}g.\end{split}

Now we choose various constants δ\delta, λ\lambda and θ\theta appearing above.

Since 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1, first we choose λ=2​(1+maxM⁡|R​i​c|)\lambda=2(1+\max_{M}|Ric|). Then we fix λ\lambda, and choose δ\delta to be 2​n​δ​λ=α2n\delta\lambda=\alpha. We need to make sure the coefficient in front of t​rφ​gtr_{\varphi}g to be positive. This can be achieved by choosing θ\theta to be sufficiently small. Indeed, with above choice of δ\delta and λ\lambda, we may calculate:

(5.14) δ​ηp0​(λ−ε−|R​i​c|)−4​θ​ηp0d02​(1−θ)−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2≥12​δ​(1−θ)​λ−4​θ​ηp0d02​(1−θ)−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2≥(1−θ)​α4​n−4​θd02​(1−θ)−4​θ2d02​(1−θ)2.\begin{split}&\delta\eta_{p_{0}}(\lambda-\varepsilon-|Ric|)-\frac{4\theta\eta_{p_{0}}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}\\ &\geq\frac{1}{2}\delta(1-\theta)\lambda-\frac{4\theta\eta_{p_{0}}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}\geq\frac{(1-\theta)\alpha}{4n}-\frac{4\theta}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)}-\frac{4\theta^{2}}{d_{0}^{2}(1-\theta)^{2}}.\end{split}

Hence if we choose θ\theta small enough, above ≥0\geq 0. After we made all the choices of δ\delta, λ\lambda, θ\theta, we obtain from (5.13) that

(5.15) Δφ​(eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​ηp0)≥δ​ηp0​eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)​(−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F)).\Delta_{\varphi}\big(e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}\eta_{p_{0}})\geq\delta\eta_{p_{0}}e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F)).

Denote u=eδ⁡(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)u=e^{\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}. Now we are ready to apply Alexandroff estimate in Bd0​(p0)B_{d_{0}}(p_{0}):

(5.16) supBd0​(p0)u​ηp0≤sup∂Bd0​(p0)u​ηp0+Cn​d0​(∫Bd0​(p0)u2​n​((−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))−)2​ne−2​F​dv​o​lg)12​n.\begin{split}\sup_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}&u\eta_{p_{0}}\leq\sup_{\partial B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}u\eta_{p_{0}}\\ &+C_{n}d_{0}\bigg(\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}\frac{u^{2n}\big((-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))^{-}\big)^{2n}}{e^{-2F}}dvol_{g}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2n}}.\end{split}

We want to claim the integral appearing on the right hand side is bounded. Indeed, the function been integrated is nonzero only if

−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F)<0.-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F)<0.

By the coercivity of Φ\Phi, this will imply an upper bound for FF, say F≤C5.3F\leq C_{5.3}, where the constant C5.3C_{5.3} depends on ε\varepsilon, the choice of Φ\Phi, the integral bound AΦA_{\Phi}, and the background metric gg. With this observation, we see

(5.17) ∫Bd0​(p0)u2​n​((−R¯−λ​n+ε​n​AΦ−1n​Φ1n​(F))−)2​ne−2​F​𝑑v​o​lg≤∫Bd0(p0)∩{F≤C5.3}e2​n​δ​(F+ε​ψ−λ​φ)e2​F(|R¯|+λn)2​ndvolg≤(|R¯|+λ​n)2​n​e(2​n​δ+2)​C5.3​∫Bd0​(p0)e2​n​δ​ε​ψ−2​n​δ​λ​φ​dv​o​lg.\begin{split}&\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}\frac{u^{2n}\big((-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\varepsilon nA_{\Phi}^{-\frac{1}{n}}\Phi^{\frac{1}{n}}(F))^{-}\big)^{2n}}{e^{-2F}}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})\cap\{F\leq C_{5.3}\}}e^{2n\delta(F+\varepsilon\psi-\lambda\varphi)}e^{2F}(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)^{2n}dvol_{g}\\ &\leq(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)^{2n}e^{(2n\delta+2)C_{5.3}}\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{2n\delta\varepsilon\psi-2n\delta\lambda\varphi}dvol_{g}.\end{split}

But recall ψ≤0\psi\leq 0, and 2​n​δ​λ=α2n\delta\lambda=\alpha, we know

(5.18) ∫Bd0​(p0)e2​n​δ​ε​ψ−2​n​δ​λ​φ​𝑑v​o​lg≤∫Bd0​(p0)e−α​φ​𝑑v​o​lg≤C5.4.\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{2n\delta\varepsilon\psi-2n\delta\lambda\varphi}dvol_{g}\leq\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{-\alpha\varphi}dvol_{g}\leq C_{5.4}.

Denote I=(|R¯|+λ​n)2​n​e(2​n​δ+2)​C5.3​∫Bd0​(p0)e−α​φ​𝑑v​o​lgI=(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)^{2n}e^{(2n\delta+2)C_{5.3}}\int_{B_{d_{0}}(p_{0})}e^{-\alpha\varphi}dvol_{g}. Now we go back to (5.16) and obtain:

(5.19) u⁡(p0)=supMu≤(1−θ)​supMu+Cn​d0​I12​n.u(p_{0})=\sup_{M}u\leq(1-\theta)\sup_{M}u+C_{n}d_{0}I^{\frac{1}{2n}}.

Here we recall that ηp0≡1−θ\eta_{p_{0}}\equiv 1-\theta on ∂Bd0​(p0)\partial B_{d_{0}}(p_{0}). This implies supMu≤Cn​d0​I12​nθ\sup_{M}u\leq\frac{C_{n}d_{0}I^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{\theta}. ∎

Lemma 5.5.

Alexandroff maximum principle (c.f. [21], Lemma 9.3)
Let Ω⊂ℝd\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} be a bounded domain. Suppose u∈C2​(Ω)∩C⁡(Ω¯)u\in C^{2}(\Omega)\cap C(\bar{\Omega}). Denote M=supΩu−sup∂ΩuM=\sup_{\Omega}u-\sup_{\partial\Omega}u. Define

(5.20) Γ−(u,Ω)={x∈Ω:u⁡(y)≤u⁡(x)+∇u​(x)⋅(y−x),for any y∈Ω and |∇u(x)|≤M3​d​i​a​m​Ω}.\begin{split}\Gamma^{-}(u,\Omega)=\{&x\in\Omega:u(y)\leq u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot(y-x),\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\,\,\textrm{for any $y\in\Omega$ and }|\nabla u(x)|\leq\frac{M}{3diam\Omega}\}.\end{split}

Then for some dimensional constant Cd>0C_{d}>0:

M≤Cd​(∫Γ−​(u,Ω)det(−D2​u)​𝑑x)1d.M\leq C_{d}\bigg(\int_{\Gamma^{-}(u,\Omega)}\det(-D^{2}u)dx\bigg)^{\frac{1}{d}}.

In particular, suppose uu satisfies ai​j​∂i​ju≥fa_{ij}\partial_{ij}u\geq f. Here ai​ja_{ij} satisfies the ellipticity condition ai​j​ξi​ξj≥0a_{ij}\xi_{i}\xi_{j}\geq 0. Define D∗=(detai​j)1dD^{*}=(\det a_{ij})^{\frac{1}{d}}. Then the following estimate holds:

(5.21) M≤Cd′​d​i​a​m​Ω​‖f−D∗‖Ld​(Ω).M\leq C_{d}^{\prime}\,diam\,\Omega||\frac{f^{-}}{D^{*}}||_{L^{d}(\Omega)}.

Here Cd′C_{d}^{\prime} is another dimensional constant.

Remark 5.6.

In this section (Proof of Theorem 5.2 and Lemma 5.3), we apply this estimate with d=2​nd=2n to the operator Δφ\Delta_{\varphi}. After rewriting Δφ\Delta_{\varphi} in terms of real coefficients, one can find D∗=(det(gφ)i​j¯)−1n=e−Fn​(detgi​j¯)−1nD^{*}=\big(\det(g_{\varphi})_{i\bar{j}}\big)^{-\frac{1}{n}}=e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\big(\det g_{i\bar{j}}\big)^{-\frac{1}{n}}.

Finally, we want to give a proof to Theorem 5.1.

Proof.

It is well known that in a given Kähler class, cscK metrics is global minimizer of the K-energy functional, by the main result of [1]. In particular, it follows that the K energy functional of φ\varphi is a priori bounded from above. Recall the decomposition formula for K energy functional EE, proved in [7]:

(5.22) K⁡(φ)=∫Mlog⁡ωφnω0n​ωφnn!+J−R​i​c​(φ).K(\varphi)=\int_{M}\log\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{n}}\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{n!}+J_{-Ric}(\varphi).

In the above, J−R​i​cJ_{-Ric} is defined in terms of its derivative, namely

d​J−R​i​cd​t=∫M∂φ∂t​(−t​rφ​R​i​c+R¯)​ωφnn!.\frac{dJ_{-Ric}}{dt}=\int_{M}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}(-tr_{\varphi}Ric+\underline{R})\frac{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}}{n!}.

It is well known in the literature that J−R​i​cJ_{-Ric} can be bounded in terms of C0C^{0} norm of the potential function φ.\varphi.\; A bound for ∫MeF​|F|​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{M}e^{F}|F|dvol_{g} follows from here.

Now we prove the second part of the theorem. First Corollary 5.4 gives a bound for FF from above and Corollary 5.2 gives a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Proposition 2.1 gives a bound for FF from below. ∎

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