ScalingStacks

Lemma 6.14 . [02I6]

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

Lemma 6.14.

For δ∈(−12,0)\delta\in(-\tfrac{1}{2},0) and ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small there exists a constant C>0C>0 independent of ϵ\epsilon such that for every triple of self-dual 22–forms 𝛏¯∈Cδ−10,α\bm{\underline{\xi}}\in C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} there exists a unique (𝐚¯,𝛇¯)∈E(\bm{\underline{a}},\bm{\underline{\zeta}})\in E with

‖𝒂¯‖Cδ1,α+‖𝜻¯‖≤C​‖𝝃¯‖Cδ−10,α.\|\bm{\underline{a}}\|_{C^{1,\alpha}_{\delta}}+\|\bm{\underline{\zeta}}\|\leq C\|\bm{\underline{\xi}}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

and L⁡(𝐚¯,𝛇¯)=𝛏¯L(\bm{\underline{a}},\bm{\underline{\zeta}})=\bm{\underline{\xi}}.

Proof.

First of all, note that the 22–forms ωϵi\omega_{\epsilon}^{i} have uniformly bounded Cδ−10,αC^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}–norm. Indeed, outside the gluing regions 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} is a hyperkähler triple and thus ωϵi\omega_{\epsilon}^{i} is parallel and bounded. On the gluing regions, 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} differs from the hyperkähler triple 𝝎¯qj,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{q_{j},\epsilon} or 𝝎¯pi,ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{p_{i},\epsilon} by terms of order O⁡(ϵ​ρ2+ϵ3​ρ−3)O(\epsilon\rho^{2}+\epsilon^{3}\rho^{-3}) (with similar estimates on their derivatives). Finally, ρϵ−δ+1\rho_{\epsilon}^{-\delta+1} is bounded above since δ<0\delta<0.

Now, let 𝝎¯~\widetilde{\bm{\underline{\omega}}} be an L2L^{2}–orthonormal triple of harmonic self-dual forms with respect to gϵg_{\epsilon}. Since

∫Mϵωϵi∧ωϵj=2​∫Mϵ(Qϵ)i​j​dvgϵ,\int_{M_{\epsilon}}{\omega_{\epsilon}^{i}\wedge\omega_{\epsilon}^{j}}=2\int_{M_{\epsilon}}{(Q_{\epsilon})_{ij}\,\operatorname{dv}_{g_{\epsilon}}},

QϵQ_{\epsilon} is close to the identity and Volgϵ⁡(Mϵ)=O⁡(ϵ)\operatorname{Vol}_{g_{\epsilon}}(M_{\epsilon})=O(\epsilon) we can assume that

‖𝝎¯~‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ−12​‖𝝎¯ϵ‖Cδ−10,α≤C​ϵ−12.\|\widetilde{\bm{\underline{\omega}}}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

Finally, observe that for every u∈Cδ−10,αu\in C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1} we have

‖u‖L2≤‖ρϵδ−1‖L2​‖u‖Cδ−10,α≤C⁡(ϵ12+ϵδ+1)​‖u‖Cδ−10,α.\|u\|_{L^{2}}\leq\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{L^{2}}\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C(\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}+\epsilon^{\delta+1})\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Indeed, using the definition (6.7) of ρϵ\rho_{\epsilon} and the construction of 𝝎¯ϵ\bm{\underline{\omega}}_{\epsilon} it is not difficult to estimate ‖ρϵδ−1‖L2≤C⁡(ϵ12+ϵδ+1)\|\rho_{\epsilon}^{\delta-1}\|_{L^{2}}\leq C(\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}+\epsilon^{\delta+1}).

Now let π:Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)→ℋϵ+\pi\colon\thinspace C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow\mathcal{H}^{+}_{\epsilon} be the L2L^{2}–orthogonal projection

π⁡(ξ)=∑i=13λi​ω~i,λi=∫ξ∧ω~i,\pi(\xi)=\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\lambda_{i}\,\widetilde{\omega}_{i}},\qquad\lambda_{i}=\int{\xi\wedge\widetilde{\omega}_{i}},

and regard id−π\text{id}-\pi as a map Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)→Cδ−10,α​(Λ+​T∗​Mϵ)C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon})\rightarrow C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}(\Lambda^{+}T^{\ast}M_{\epsilon}). By the remarks above we have

|λi|≤C⁡(1+ϵδ+1)​‖ξ‖Cδ−10,α,‖π⁡(ξ)‖Cδ−10,α≤C⁡(1+ϵδ+12)​‖ξ‖Cδ−10,α.|\lambda_{i}|\leq C(1+\epsilon^{\delta+1})\|\xi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}},\qquad\|\pi(\xi)\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}\leq C(1+\epsilon^{\delta+\frac{1}{2}})\|\xi\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta-1}}.

Thus if δ≥−12\delta\geq-\tfrac{1}{2} the projections π\pi and id−π\text{id}-\pi are uniformly bounded. Proposition 6.11 and the surjectivity of LL then yield the result. ∎

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