3. Proof of Theorem 1.1 [02B4]
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
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
3.1. Reduction to the local case
We begin with a simple observation.
Lemma 3.1.
For any integer and any we have
where is the constant in the -bound of Proposition 2.1.
Transforming the -bound to the unscaled norms gives, for any holomorphic section of :
Write so there is a section with norm and with . Then is a holomorphic section of with
from which the result follows.
We will use this several times below. In the context of our remarks in the Introduction, note that when is large this gives a rather poor estimate compared with what one would hope to be true, but it suffices for our purposes.
Theorem 3.2.
Let be a point in a space which is a Gromov-Hausdorff limit of manifolds in . There are real numbers and an integer with the following effect. Suppose in has Gromov-Hausdorff limit . Then there is some such that for sufficiently large , if is a point in with then .
Here, as before, we assume we have fixed metrics on the .
Proposition 3.3.
Theorem 3.2 implies Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Proposition 3.3
Lemma 3.4.
Let be a limit space then, assuming the truth of Theorem , there is an integer and a such that if has Gromov-Hausdorff limit then for sufficiently large we have .
We first use the compactness of . The -balls centred at points cover so we can find a finite sub-cover by balls of radius centred at points . Let be the minimum of the . Let be large enough that for any there is a point with . In addition suppose that . Then lies in the ball centred at for some and hence . Now Theorem 3.2 states that there are and such that for a suitable we . Take to be the least integer such that each integer less than or equal to each divides . Then Lemma 3.1 implies that a positive lower bound on any gives a positive lower bound on and the Lemma follows.
The same argument, using Lemma 3.1, shows that, given the statement of Lemma 3.4, there are for each integer numbers (depending only on )such that once is sufficiently large. Now we prove Theorem 1.1 (assuming Theorem 3.2) by contradiction. If Theorem 1.1 is false then there are such that tends to zero for fixed as . By Gromov’s Compactness theorem there is no loss in supposing that, for each fixed , the converge to some limit as . Taking a subsequence we can suppose also that the converge to . For large enough the integer divides ; say . Now choose so large that converge to as and also so that . This gives a contradiction.
3.2. Proof of Theorem 3.2
3.2.1. Cut-offs
To begin we fix some sequence so that the scalings of the based space by converge to a tangent cone . For a while we focus attention on this cone. Write for the distance from the vertex. Let be the singular set and .
The only information about the singular set which we need is contained in the following proposition. This is very likely a standard fact but the proof is quite short so we include it.
Proposition 3.5.
For any there is a function on , smooth on , supported in the -neighbourhood of , equal to on some neighbourhood of and with
Recall that has dimension . For clarity in this proof we write . A simple argument using the noncollapsing condition (1.2) and the Bishop inequality in the original manifolds shows that there are fixed numbers such that for and any metric ball in we have
| (3.1) |
We know that is a compact set of Hausdorff dimension strictly less than . By the definition of Hausdorff dimension we can find a number with the following property. For any there is a cover of by a finite number of balls such that
| (3.2) |
We write so, in an obvious notation, the cover is by the balls . By the Vitali argument we can suppose that the balls are disjoint. We take so for each we obviously have .
Let be a standard cut-off function, vanishing for , equal to when and with derivative bounded by . Define
Thus is supported in and equal to in . This function need not be smooth but it is Lipschitz and differentiable almost everywhere, with . Set . Let be a cut-off function, equal to when , with and with derivative bounded by . Put . Then is equal to on a neighbourhood of and is supported in the -neighbourhood of . Also we have
We claim that for some fixed , depending only on . Given this claim we can make as small as we please and then finally approximate by a smooth function to achieve our result. (Note that this approximation only involves working over a compact subset of . )
To establish the claim, divide the index set into subsets
for . A simple packing argument, using the fact that the balls are disjoint, shows that there is a fixed number with the following property. If then for each fixed there are at most balls with which intersect . Now we have
Thus
For fixed there are at most terms which contribute to this last sum. For each term and the integrand is supported on the ball of radius . So for fixed the contribution to the sum is bounded by
Hence, summing over ,
We can find a number such that for we have . Thus
We pick some base point in . We will need 4 parameters in our basic construction, where will be “small” and “large”. In particular .
First we fix so that and where is the constant in our first derivative estimate. We take , with the obvious notation. Fix any neighbourhood of whose closure does not meet the singular set in . For any let be the set of points of distance greater than from . Let be the set of points in such that . We choose the parameters so that contains the closure of . We consider a smooth compactly supported cut-off function on . For such a function we set
Lemma 3.6.
For any given we can choose and a compactly supported function as above such that
- •
on ;
- •
.
To see this we take where
- •
is a standard cut-off function of equal to for .
- •
is likewise a standard cut-off function of , equal to for .
- •
where is a function on of the kind constructed in Proposition (3.5) and is the radial projection from the cone minus the vertex to .
Then the lemma follows from elementary calculations.
3.2.2. The topological obstruction
Recall that the metric on the regular part of the cone has the form . So, just as in the case of , we have a line bundle with connection , curvature the Kähler form and a holomorphic section with . Then is holomorphic on . Note that will now be slightly less than where is the volume ratio as in (2.1).
As we explained, there certainly is some constant C giving the elliptic estimate (H3) and we use the Lemma to choose so that this set of data has Property (H).
The parameters are now all fixed. We set .
Consider now a -small perturbation of the metric and complex structure , and hence a perturbation of We suppose that is the curvature of a unitary connection on a bundle . If we can choose a bundle isomorphism between and such that, under this isomorphism, the connection is a small perturbation of then we can apply Proposition 2.4 to conclude that the data also has Property (H), (for suitably small perturbations). The difficulty is that if a connection on a line bundle is not determined by its curvature. Said in another way, we consider the line bundle with the connection induced from . The curvature of is small but need not be close to a trivial flat connection. There is no real loss of generality in supposing that has smooth boundary ( because we can always replace it by a slightly enlarged domain). Write for the normal vector field on the boundary. We want to recall some Hodge Theory on this manifold with boundary. Fix . .
Proposition 3.7.
- (1)
The infimum of the norm on the closed -forms in a cohomology class defines a norm on .
- (2)
Define to be the set of 1-forms on with and with on the boundary. Then the natural map from to is an isomorphism.
- (3)
If is any exact -form on there is a unique -form such that and is -orthogonal to . We have, for some fixed constant , .
These are fairly standard results. The first item follows from the fact that the extension of the image of is closed. The second asserts the unique solubility of the Neumann boundary value problem for the Laplacian on functions on . The existence and uniqueness of in the third item is similar. The estimate in the third item follows from general theory of elliptic boundary value problems, see [24] for a detailed treatment of this case. Note that in our application the subtleties of the boundary value theory could be avoided by working on a slightly larger domain. Then we can reduce to easier interior estimates. Alternatively one can adjust the set-up to reduce to the standard Hodge theory over a compact “double”.)
Write for the restriction of the connection to the restricted bundle over . A consequence of item (1) is that there is some number such that any closed -form over which represents an integral cohomology class and with is exact. In particular we can apply this to the curvature of the connection , using the fact that this represents an integral class. (Here we are considering as embedded in in the obvious way.) Thus there is a such that if we can apply item (3) of Prop. 3.7 to write over for a small . More precisely, is small in and so in by Sobolev embedding. Then is a flat connection on the restriction of to . This flat connection is determined up to isomorphism by its holonomy: a homomorphism from to .
Fix a direct sum decomposition of into torsion and free subgroups. Then we get
where is a finite abelian group and is a torus. (We will write the group structures multiplicatively.) Thus for our connection with suitably small curvature we get two invariants . If both vanish then the restriction of the connection to is close to the trivial flat connection. When is the connection induced from as above we write .
Proposition 3.8.
We can find a neighbourhood of the identity in and a number to the following effect. If is a set of data on with
- •
- •
;
- •
;
then has Property (H).
This is straightforward. The hypotheses imply that, for small , there is a trivialisation of over in which the connection form is small in and hence in . Then extend this to a trivialisation over by parallel transport along rays. In this trivialisation the radial derivative of the connection form is given by a component of the curvature, so is controlled by . From another point of view this trivialisation is a bundle isomorphism between under which is a small perturbation of .
Let be the order of . Thus for any we have . Fix a slightly smaller neighbourhood of the identity in . By Dirichlet’s theorem we can find an such that for any there is a power which lies in where . Write . Now return to our connection on the bundle over . Recall that for integer we write for the induced connection on over . Suppose that . Then for the invariants are defined and we have:
Proposition 3.9.
We can choose with such that and .
With fixed as above, write
For integers with let be the map (in obvious notation). Thus .
Our model structure is defined over Now consider deformed structures as before but which are also defined over . Suppose that
where here denotes norms over . For integers as above, let be the data over given by pulling back using the map . It is clear that if is sufficiently small then for every we have
It is also clear that, if is sufficiently small, then the invariants are defined.
Proposition 3.10.
If is sufficiently small then we can choose so that and .
We choose according to Prop. 3.9, so that and .
Write . Thus can be regarded as a small element of . It follows from our set-up that there is a trivialisation of the bundle over in which the connection is represented by a -small connection form. Extend this trivialisation to using parallel transport along rays. As above, in the proof of Proposition 3.8, the radial derivative of the connection form in this trivialisation is given by the curvature and it follows easily that if is sufficiently small then in the induced trivialisation the pull-back , restricted to has a -small connection form. In particular, given that we can, by fixing sufficiently small, ensure that the “ invariant” of this connection lies in and the “g-invariant” is . Now the fact that is isomorphic to yields the result stated.
We sum up in the following way.
Proposition 3.11.
We can choose to the following effect. Suppose are structures as above over . Suppose that . Then we can find an integer with such that the data over has Property(H).
3.2.3. Completion of Proof
With this lengthy discussion involving the tangent cone in place, we return to the limit space . Recall that we have a sequence of scalings . We consider embeddings . Given such a we write for the pull-back of the complex structure on and for the pull-back of times the metric.
Proposition 3.12.
There is a so that we can find an embedding as above, such that
- •
- •
This follows easily from the general assertions in Section 2.1 about convergence. We now fix this and define and . We write .
Let be a sequence converging to . We fix distance functions on . We consider embeddings . Given such maps we write for the pull backs of the metric and complex structure, for the pull-back of and for the pulled back connection.
Proposition 3.13.
For large enough we can choose with the following two properties.
- •
- •
.
Again this follows from our general discussion of convergence.
Fix large enough, as in Proposition 3.13. We apply Proposition 3.11 to find a such that the pull-back by of the data has Property (H) over . Now write so . We apply Proposition 2.4 to construct a holomorphic section of , with a fixed bound on the norm and with at points with . Here we are writing for the scaled metric, so in terms of the original metric the condition is .
To finish, suppose has . By construction . Note also that if we set . then
This means that which is less than by our choice of .