3.2.1. Cut-offs [02BB]
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
3.2.1. 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.