ScalingStacks

3.2.2. The topological obstruction [02BE]

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

3.2.2. The topological obstruction

Recall that the metric on the regular part of the cone has the form i2​∂∂¯​|z|2\frac{i}{2}\partial\overline{\partial}|z|^{2}. So, just as in the case of ℂn\mbox{${\mathbb{C}}$}^{n}, we have a line bundle Λ0\Lambda_{0} with connection A0A_{0}, curvature the Kähler form Ω0\Omega_{0} and a holomorphic section σ0\sigma_{0} with |σ0|=exp(−|z|2/4)|\sigma_{0}|=\exp(-|z|^{2}/4). Then σ=β​σ0\sigma=\beta\sigma_{0} is holomorphic on DD. Note that ‖σ‖L22\|\sigma\|_{L^{2}}^{2} will now be slightly less than κ1/2​(2​π)n/2\kappa^{1/2}(2\pi)^{n/2} where κ≤1\kappa\leq 1 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 ϵ,δ,R\epsilon,\delta,R so that this set of data has Property (H).

The parameters ρ,δ,ϵ,R\rho,\delta,\epsilon,R are now all fixed. We set U=U⁡(ρ,δ,ϵ,R)U=U(\rho,\delta,\epsilon,R).

Consider now a C0C^{0}-small perturbation g,Jg,J of the metric and complex structure g0,J0g_{0},J_{0}, and hence a perturbation Ω\Omega of Ω0\Omega_{0} We suppose that −i​Ω-i\Omega is the curvature of a unitary connection AA on a bundle Λ\Lambda. If we can choose a bundle isomorphism between Λ\Lambda and Λ0\Lambda_{0} such that, under this isomorphism, the connection AA is a small perturbation of A0A_{0} then we can apply Proposition 2.4 to conclude that the data J,Ω,AJ,\Omega,A also has Property (H), (for suitably small perturbations). The difficulty is that if H1​(U,ℤ)≠0H_{1}(U;{\mathbb{Z}})\neq 0 a connection on a line bundle is not determined by its curvature. Said in another way, we consider the line bundle Λ⊗Λ0∗\Lambda\otimes\Lambda_{0}^{*} with the connection aa induced from A,A0A,A_{0}. The curvature of aa is small but aa need not be close to a trivial flat connection. There is no real loss of generality in supposing that YϵY_{\epsilon} has smooth boundary ( because we can always replace it by a slightly enlarged domain). Write ν¯\underline{\nu} for the normal vector field on the boundary. We want to recall some Hodge Theory on this manifold with boundary. Fix p>2​np>2n. .

Proposition 3.7.
  1. (1)

    The infimum of the L2L^{2} norm on the closed 22-forms in a cohomology class defines a norm on H2​(Yϵ,ℝ)H^{2}(Y_{\epsilon},\mbox{${\mathbb{R}}$}).

  2. (2)

    Define ℋ1{\mathcal{H}}^{1} to be the set of 1-forms α\alpha on Yϵ¯\overline{Y_{\epsilon}} with d​α=0,d∗​α=0d\alpha=0,d^{*}\alpha=0 and with (α,ν¯)=0(\alpha,\underline{\nu})=0 on the boundary. Then the natural map from ℋ1{\mathcal{H}}^{1} to H1​(Yϵ,ℝ)H^{1}(Y_{\epsilon},\mbox{${\mathbb{R}}$}) is an isomorphism.

  3. (3)

    If FF is any exact 22-form on Yϵ¯\overline{Y_{\epsilon}} there is a unique 11-form α\alpha such that d∗​α=0,d​α=F,(α,ν¯)=0d^{*}\alpha=0,d\alpha=F,(\alpha,\underline{\nu})=0 and α\alpha is L2L^{2}-orthogonal to ℋ1{\mathcal{H}}^{1}. We have, for some fixed constant C8C_{8}, ‖α‖L1p≤C8​‖F‖Lp\|\alpha\|_{L^{p}_{1}}\leq C_{8}\|F\|_{L^{p}}.

These are fairly standard results. The first item follows from the fact that the L2L^{2} extension of the image of dd is closed. The second asserts the unique solubility of the Neumann boundary value problem for the Laplacian on functions on YϵY_{\epsilon}. The existence and uniqueness of α\alpha in the third item is similar. The LpL^{p} 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 a|a| for the restriction of the connection aa to the restricted bundle over YϵY_{\epsilon}. A consequence of item (1) is that there is some number C9>0C_{9}>0 such that any closed 22-form FF over YϵY_{\epsilon} which represents an integral cohomology class and with ‖F‖L2≤C9\|F\|_{L^{2}}\leq C_{9} is exact. In particular we can apply this to the curvature Fa|=i(Ω−Ω0)F_{a|}=i(\Omega-\Omega_{0}) of the connection a|a|, using the fact that this represents an integral class. (Here we are considering YϵY_{\epsilon} as embedded in UU in the obvious way.) Thus there is a C10>0C_{10}>0 such that if ‖Ω−Ω0‖U≤C10\|\Omega-\Omega_{0}\|_{U}\leq C_{10} we can apply item (3) of Prop. 3.7 to write Fa|=dαF_{a|}=d\alpha over YϵY_{\epsilon} for a small α=α⁡(a)\alpha=\alpha(a). More precisely, α\alpha is small in L1pL^{p}_{1} and so in C0C^{0} by Sobolev embedding. Then a|−αa|-\alpha is a flat connection on the restriction of Λ⊗Λ0∗\Lambda\otimes\Lambda_{0}^{*} to YϵY_{\epsilon}. This flat connection is determined up to isomorphism by its holonomy: a homomorphism from H1​(Yϵ,ℤ)H_{1}(Y_{\epsilon},{\mathbb{Z}}) to S1S^{1}.

Fix a direct sum decomposition of H1​(Yϵ,ℤ)H_{1}(Y_{\epsilon},{\mathbb{Z}}) into torsion and free subgroups. Then we get

Hom⁡(H1​(Yϵ,ℤ),S1)=G×T,{\rm Hom}(H_{1}(Y_{\epsilon},{\mathbb{Z}}),S^{1})=G\times T,

where GG is a finite abelian group and T=H1​(Yϵ,ℝ)/H1​(Yϵ,ℤ)T=H^{1}(Y_{\epsilon},\mbox{${\mathbb{R}}$})/H^{1}(Y_{\epsilon},{\mathbb{Z}}) is a torus. (We will write the group structures multiplicatively.) Thus for our connection aa with suitably small curvature we get two invariants g⁡(a)∈G,τ⁡(a)∈Tg(a)\in G,\tau(a)\in T. If both vanish then the restriction of the connection to YϵY_{\epsilon} is close to the trivial flat connection. When aa is the connection induced from A,A0A,A_{0} as above we write g⁡(A,A0),τ⁡(A,A0)g(A,A_{0}),\tau(A,A_{0}).

Proposition 3.8.

We can find a neighbourhood WW of the identity in TT and a number ψ>0\psi>0 to the following effect. If g,J,Ag,J,A is a set of data on UU with

  • •
    ‖g−g0‖U≤ψ,‖J−J0‖U≤ψ;\|g-g_{0}\|_{U}\leq\psi,\|J-J_{0}\|_{U}\leq\psi;
  • •

    g⁡(A,A0)=1g(A,A_{0})=1;

  • •

    τ⁡(A,A0)∈W\tau(A,A_{0})\in W;

then(g,J,A)(g,J,A) has Property (H).

This is straightforward. The hypotheses imply that, for small W,ψW,\psi, there is a trivialisation of Λ⊗Λ0∗\Lambda\otimes\Lambda_{0}^{*} over YϵY_{\epsilon} in which the connection form is small in L1pL^{p}_{1} and hence in C0C^{0}. Then extend this to a trivialisation over UU 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 ψ\psi. From another point of view this trivialisation is a bundle isomorphism between Λ,Λ0\Lambda,\Lambda_{0} under which AA is a small perturbation of A0A_{0}.

Let m1m_{1} be the order of GG. Thus for any g∈Gg\in G we have gm1=1g^{m_{1}}=1. Fix a slightly smaller neighbourhood W′⊂⊂WW^{\prime}\subset\subset W of the identity in JJ. By Dirichlet’s theorem we can find an m2m_{2} such that for any τ∈T\tau\in T there is a power τq\tau^{q} which lies in W′W^{\prime} where 1≤q≤m21\leq q\leq m_{2}. Write m=m1​m2m=m_{1}m_{2}. Now return to our connection a|a| on the bundle Λ⊗Λ0∗\Lambda\otimes\Lambda_{0}^{*} over YϵY_{\epsilon}. Recall that for integer tt we write a|⊗ta|^{\otimes t} for the induced connection on Λt⊗Λ0−t\Lambda^{t}\otimes\Lambda_{0}^{-t} over YϵY_{\epsilon}. Suppose that ∥F(a|)∥U≤C10/m\|F(a|)\|_{U}\leq C_{10}/m. Then for 1≤t≤m1\leq t\leq m the invariants g(a|⊗t),τ(a|⊗t)g(a|^{\otimes t}),\tau(a|^{\otimes t}) are defined and we have:

Proposition 3.9.

We can choose tt with 1≤t≤m1\leq t\leq m such that g(a|⊗t)=1g(a|^{\otimes t})=1 and τ(a|⊗t)∈W′\tau(a|^{\otimes t})\in W^{\prime}.

With mm fixed as above, write

U~=U(m−1/2δ,ϵ,R).\tilde{U}=U(m^{-1/2}\delta,\epsilon,R).

For integers tt with 1≤t≤m1\leq t\leq m let μt:U→U~\mu_{t}:U\rightarrow\tilde{U} be the map μt(z)=t−1/2z\mu_{t}(z)=t^{-1/2}z (in obvious notation). Thus μt∗​(t​Ω0)=Ω0\mu_{t}^{*}(t\Omega_{0})=\Omega_{0}.

Our model structure g0,J0,Λ0,A0g_{0},J_{0},\Lambda_{0},A_{0} is defined over U~\tilde{U} Now consider deformed structures J,Ω,Λ,AJ,\Omega,\Lambda,A as before but which are also defined over U~\tilde{U}. Suppose that

‖g−g0‖U~≤ψ~,‖J−J0‖U~≤ψ~,\|g-g_{0}\|_{\tilde{U}}\leq\tilde{\psi},\|J-J_{0}\|_{\tilde{U}}\leq\tilde{\psi},

where ∥∥U~\|\ \|_{\tilde{U}} here denotes C0C^{0} norms over U~\tilde{U}. For integers tt as above, let gt,Jt,Λt,Atg_{t},J_{t},\Lambda_{t},A_{t} be the data over UU given by pulling back t​g,J,Λt,A⊗ttg,J,\Lambda^{t},A^{\otimes t} using the map μt\mu_{t}. It is clear that if ψ~\tilde{\psi} is sufficiently small then for every tt we have

‖gt−g0‖U≤ψ,‖Jt−J0‖U≤ψ.\|g_{t}-g_{0}\|_{U}\leq\psi\ ,\ \|J_{t}-J_{0}\|_{{U}}\leq\psi.

It is also clear that, if ψ~\tilde{\psi} is sufficiently small, then the invariants g⁡(A0,At),τ⁡(A0,At)g(A_{0},A_{t}),\tau(A_{0},A_{t}) are defined.

Proposition 3.10.

If ψ~\tilde{\psi} is sufficiently small then we can choose t≤mt\leq m so that g⁡(A0,At)=1g(A_{0},A_{t})=1 and τ⁡(A0,At)∈W\tau(A_{0},A_{t})\in W.

We choose tt according to Prop. 3.9, so that g(a|⊗t)=1g(a|^{\otimes t})=1 and τ(a|⊗t)∈W′\tau(a|^{\otimes t})\in W^{\prime}.

Write τ(a|⊗t)=τ\tau(a|^{\otimes t})=\tau. Thus τ\tau can be regarded as a small element of H1​(Yϵ,ℝ)H^{1}(Y_{\epsilon},\mbox{${\mathbb{R}}$}). It follows from our set-up that there is a trivialisation of the bundle Λt⊗Λ0−t\Lambda^{t}\otimes\Lambda_{0}^{-t} over Y0Y_{0} in which the connection a|⊗ta|^{\otimes t} is represented by a C0C^{0}-small connection form. Extend this trivialisation to U~\tilde{U} 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 Fa⊗tF_{a^{\otimes t}} and it follows easily that if ψ~\tilde{\psi} is sufficiently small then in the induced trivialisation the pull-back μt∗​(a⊗t)\mu_{t}^{*}(a^{\otimes t}), restricted to YϵY_{\epsilon} has a C0C^{0}-small connection form. In particular, given that W′⊂⊂WW^{\prime}\subset\subset W we can, by fixing ψ~\tilde{\psi} sufficiently small, ensure that the “τ\tau invariant” of this connection lies in WW and the “g-invariant” is 11. Now the fact that μt∗​(A0⊗t)\mu_{t}^{*}(A_{0}^{\otimes t}) is isomorphic to A0A_{0} yields the result stated.

We sum up in the following way.

Proposition 3.11.

We can choose ψ~>0\tilde{\psi}>0 to the following effect. Suppose g,J,Λ,Ag,J,\Lambda,A are structures as above over U~\tilde{U}. Suppose that ‖g−g0‖U~,‖J−J0‖U~≤ψ~\|g-g_{0}\|_{\tilde{U}},\|J-J_{0}\|_{\tilde{U}}\leq\tilde{\psi}. Then we can find an integer tt with 1≤t≤m1\leq t\leq m such that the data μt∗​(t​g),μt∗​(J),μt∗​(Λt),μt∗​(A⊗t)\mu_{t}^{*}(tg),\mu_{t}^{*}(J),\mu_{t}^{*}(\Lambda^{t}),\mu_{t}^{*}(A^{\otimes t}) over UU has Property(H).

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