ScalingStacks

Proof. [031B]

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

Proof.

Recall that ω~t=ω0+t​ωM+−1​∂∂¯​φt\tilde{\omega}_{t}=\omega_{0}+t\omega_{M}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{t}, so that

p∗​T−σ∗​ω~t=p∗​ω0+t​p∗​T−σ∗​ωM+−1​∂∂¯​(φt∘T−σ∘p).p^{*}T_{-\sigma}^{*}\tilde{\omega}_{t}=p^{*}\omega_{0}+tp^{*}T_{-\sigma}^{*}\omega_{M}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}(\varphi_{t}\circ T_{-\sigma}\circ p).

We now fix a compact set K⊂M\SK\subset M\backslash S, which we can assume is sufficiently small so that f⁡(K)⊂Bf(K)\subset B for a ball BB as before, and that there is a compact set K′⊂B×ℂn−mK^{\prime}\subset B\times\mathbb{C}^{n-m} such that p:K′→Tσ​(K)p:K^{\prime}\to T_{\sigma}(K) is a biholomorphism. From (4.16) (together with the L∞L^{\infty} bound for φt\varphi_{t} from [9, 10]) we see that

‖φt∘T−σ∘p‖Ck​(K′,δ)⩽C⁡(k),\|\varphi_{t}\circ T_{-\sigma}\circ p\|_{C^{k}(K^{\prime},\delta)}\leqslant C(k),

and therefore also

(4.17) ‖φt‖Ck​(K,ωM)⩽C⁡(k),\|\varphi_{t}\|_{C^{k}(K,\omega_{M})}\leqslant C(k),

since T−σ∘p:K′→KT_{-\sigma}\circ p:K^{\prime}\to K is a fixed biholomorphism. From [38] we know that φt→f∗​φ\varphi_{t}\to f^{*}\varphi in Cl​o​c1,α​(M\S,ωM)C^{1,\alpha}_{loc}(M\backslash S,\omega_{M}), and so (4.17) implies that φt→f∗​φ\varphi_{t}\to f^{*}\varphi in Cl​o​c∞​(M\S,ωM)C^{\infty}_{loc}(M\backslash S,\omega_{M}), and therefore that ω~t→f∗​ω\tilde{\omega}_{t}\to f^{*}\omega in Cl​o​c∞​(M\S,ωM)C^{\infty}_{loc}(M\backslash S,\omega_{M}). ∎

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