2. Background [02AW]
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
2. Background
2.1. Convergence Theory
This subsection is a rapid summary of many formidable results. We will not attempt to give detailed references, but refer to the surveys [4] [5]and the references therein.
Recall that if are two compact metric spaces then the Gromov-Hausdorff distance is the infimum of numbers such that there is a metric on extending the given metrics on the components and such that each of is -dense. The starting point of the theory is Gromov’s Theorem that a sequence of compact -dimensional Riemannian manifolds with bounded diameter and with Ricci curvature bounded below has a Gromov-Hausforff convergent subsequence with some limit , which is a compact metric space. In our situation, with a sequence in the diameter bound follows from the non-collapsing condition (1.2). Passing to this subsequence, we can fix metrics on the disjoint unions such that are dense, where .
Now suppose that, as in our situation, the Ricci tensors of satisfy fixed upper and lower bounds. Suppose also that a non-collapsing condition (1.2) holds and the volumes are bounded below. Then there is a connected, open, dense subset which is an -dimensional -manifold and has a Riemannian metric (for all Hölder exponents .) This is compatible with the metric space structure in the following sense. For any compact we can find a number such that if are points of with then is the infimum of the length of paths in between . Moreover the convergence on this subset is , in the following sense. Given any number and compact subset we can find for large enough open embeddings of an open neighbourhood of into such that:
- (1)
The pull-backs by the of the converge in over to .
- (2)
for all .
The second item here refers to the chosen metric on .
The volume form of the Riemannian metric on the dense set defines a measure on and the volume of is the limit of the volumes of the . The Hausdorff dimension of the singular set does not exceed .
There is a variant of the theory in which one considers spaces with base points and convergence over bounded distance from the base points. In particular we can take a point and any sequence and then consider the sequence of based metric spaces given by scaling by a factor . The compactness theorem implies that, passing to a subsequence, we get convergence and a fundamental result is that, under our hypotheses, the limit of such is a metric cone —a tangent cone of at . Here is a metric space which contains a dense open subset which is a smooth -dimensional Einstein manifold, with Ricci curvature equal to , and the metric and Riemannian structures on are related in a similar way to that above. Likewise for the natural measure on . The singular set has Hausdorff dimension at most . The cone has a smooth Ricci-flat metric outside the singular set (where is the vertex of the cone) and the convergence of the rescaled metrics is in the same sense as before. An important numerical invariant of this situation is the volume ratio
| (2.1) |
The Bishop inequality implies that and if a noncollapsing bound like (1.2) holds for the original manifolds we have .
All of the preceding discussion is in the general Riemannian context. Suppose now that our manifolds are and we have additional structures as in Section 1. We define a polarised limit space to be a metric limit as above, together with extra data as follows
- •
A complex structure on the regular set with respect to which the metric is Kähler with -form .
- •
A line bundle over the regular set;
- •
A connection on with curvature .
(Notice that the integrability theorem for complex structures extends to the situation [16]. Thus in fact we could say that and have smooth structures while the convergence is in . But this is largely irrelevant for our purposes.)
We define convergence of a sequence to such a polarised limit by requiring that for compact we have maps as before but in addition so that the pulled back complex structures converge to (in ) and we have bundle isomorphisms with respect to which the connections converge to in . It is straightforward to extend the compactness theorem to this polarised situation, using the fact that is a covariant-constant tensor with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of .
Likewise, the regular part of a tangent cone at a point in has a smooth, Ricci-flat, Kähler metric which is induced from a Sasaki-Einstein structure on . In particular the Kähler form on the smooth part can be written as , where denotes the distance to the vertex of the cone.
A significant difference in the Kähler case is that the singular sets (both in and in ) are known to have Hausdorff codimension at least . (This is conjectured but not established in the real case.) In particular, which will be crucial for us, the codimension is strictly greater than .
In the case of primary interest—Kähler-Einstein metrics–we obtain convergence on compact subsets of the regular sets. (This is also part of the standard literature.) In addition, if we consider the “Fano case”, when is the anticanonical bundle of , then the limit line bundle is just the anticanonical bundle of the regular set in . The reader may well prefer to restrict to this case. More generally, if we just assume (in addition to (1.1), (1.2)) that the metrics have constant scalar curvature, then one can still establish this convergence, for example using the results of Chen and Weber [6].
2.2. Complex differential geometry: the Hormänder technique
We begin by recalling that, under our hypotheses, there is a uniform Sobolev inequality
| (2.2) |
for functions on a manifold in the class , where depend only on [8]. Here of course we are referring to norms defined by the metric . When working with the line bundle it will be convenient to use the norms defined by the rescaled metrics (for integers ). Thus lengths are scaled by and volumes by . We will use the notation etc. to denote norms defined by these rescaled metrics. Then the scaling weight gives
| (2.3) |
So the scaling only helps in the Sobolev inequality. Of course the Ricci tensor of the rescaled metric is bounded between and .
Proposition 2.1.
- (1)
There are constants , depending only on such that if is in and is a holomorphic section of (for any ) we have
- (2)
If is in then for any the Laplacian on is invertible and .
In the second item , with adjoints defined using the rescaled metric, and the statement is that for all
| (2.4) |
This Proposition summarises results which are well-known to workers in the field and which all hinge on various formulae of Bochner-Weitzenbock type. We use the rescaled metrics throughout the discussion. First on sections of we have
so when is holomorphic which implies that
| (2.5) |
where the lack of differentiability of at the zero set is handled in a standard way. (Note that we use the “geometers convention” for the sign of the Laplacian in this paper.) Now the bound on the norm follows from the Moser iteration argument applied to this differential inequality, using the uniform Sobolev inequality (see [22]).
The first derivative bound is obtained in a similar way. Changing notation slightly, for a holomorphic section with we write where
is defined using the connection. Since we have
where . Then for a holomorphic section , and
Now the Bochner-Weitzenbock formula comparing and on has the form
so
It follows that
and the Moser argument applies as before. Notice that, with some labour, the constants could be computed explicitly in terms of .
For the second item in the Proposition we need a Bochner-Weizenbock formula on i.e. sections of the bundle . We decompose the covariant derivative on this bundle into (0,1) and (1,0) parts: . Then the formula we want is
| (2.6) |
Given this we have, in the operator sense, since from which the invertibility and bound on the inverse follow immediately. An efficient way to derive (2.6) is to make the identification
under which becomes identified with
The formula (2.6) then becomes a special case of the Kodaira-Nakano formula ([13] p.154), using the fact that the Ricci form is the curvature of .
With this background in place we move on to recall a version of the “Hörmander” construction of holomorphic sections. Suppose we have the following data
- •
A (non-compact) manifold , a base point and an open neighbourhood of .
- •
A Hermitian line bundle .
- •
A complex structure and Kähler metric on with Kähler form .
- •
A connection on having curvature .
We use this connection to define a -operator on sections of , and hence a holomorphic structure.
We define a “Property (H)” which this data might have. Fix any .
Property (H):
There is a number and a compactly supported section of such that the following hold.
H1:
H2:
H3: For any smooth section of over a neighbourhood of we have
H4:
H5:
Many of the specific numbers here are arbitrary but it is convenient to fix some definite numbers.
We have
Lemma 2.2.
Property (H) is open with respect to variations in (for fixed ) and the topology of convergence in on compact subsets of .
Notice first that for any choice of data there is some constant for which the bound in (H3) holds. This follows from the elliptic estimate
| (2.7) |
and the Sobolev inequality
Here is some interior domain containing . We can write the -operator on functions for a perturbed complex structure as where is a “Beltrami differential”. Similarly if the variation of the connection is given by a -form then the perturbed -operator on sections can be written as
where is the decomposition into type. It follows that if and are small in then the perturbation of the operator is small in the operator norm and it is then clear that the inequality in the third item holds for the perturbed operator, with a slightly larger constant . For the perturbed structure we use the same section , so the first and second item is automatic. Then it is also clear that, for sufficiently small perturbations, the bounds in the fourth and fifth item (with a slightly larger constant ) are also preserved, since we impose strict inequality.
For a connection on a line bundle write for the induced connection on . The following proposition—basically well-known—will provide the core of our proof of Theorem 1.
Proposition 2.3.
Suppose is in and are as above. Suppose that is an open embedding and the data
has Property (H). Then there is a holomorphic section of with norm at most and with at all points a distance (in the scaled metric) less than from .
To prove this we transport the section using the maps and regard it as a smooth section of over , extending by zero. The norms we considered over match up with the -norms over . We write where . By simple Hodge Theory we have . Now
since . Thus
| (2.8) |
Hence in particular
Now work over the image . Applying item (H3) to the section and using (H4), (H5) we get , so . By the derivative bound, exceeds at points a distance less than from .
To sum up we have the following.
Proposition 2.4.
Suppose that are as above and data has Property (H). Then there is some with the following effect. Suppose that is in . If we can find , an open embedding and a bundle isomorphism such that
then there is a holomorphic section of with norm at most and with at all points a distance (in the scaled metric) less than from
This is just a direct combination of Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.3. (Here we use the notation to indicate the -norm over .)
To illustrate this, take the case when is the ball of radius in with the standard flat metric and standard Kähler form . Let be the trivial holomorphic line bundle with metric so the trivialising section, say, has norm and the induced connection has curvature as required. Let be the origin and be the unit ball. Let be a standard cut-off function of , equal to when and vanishing when . Define . Then we have . The norm of is slightly less than and . The section is holomorphic over , so we get (H4) and there certainly is some constant as in item (H3) of Property (H), independent of . It is clear that, because of the exponential decay, we can fix so that item (H5) is satisfied. So we have a set of data satisfying Property (H). Now let be a point in some X in . Since the ball is simply connected connections over it are determined up to isomorphism by their curvature tensors. It is then clear that, when is sufficiently large, we can find a map with and such that the pull back of differs by an arbitrarily small amount from the model . Then we construct a holomorphic section of , of controlled norm and of a definite positive size on a definite neighbourhood of .
Remark 2.5.
There are many possible variants of our ÒProperty HÓ which will end up having the same effect. In particular one can avoid the theory. In the context we work in, we have a first derivative bound as in Prop. 2.1 (1), and it is easy to show using this that the norm of controls .