ScalingStacks

Proof. [031L]

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.

Let AA be a countable dense subset of N0N_{0}, and K⊂N0K\subset N_{0} be a compact subset with the interior int⁡K\operatorname{int}K non-empty. Let {Bi}\{B_{i}\} be a finite covering of KK with small Euclidean balls such that each the concentric balls Bi′B_{i}^{\prime} of half radius still cover KK. Let si:Bi→f−1​(Bi)s_{i}:B_{i}\rightarrow f^{-1}(B_{i}) be sections on BiB_{i}, i.e., holomorphic maps with f∘si=idf\circ s_{i}={\rm id}.

Now, we define a map ϕ\phi from A∩K={a1,a2,⋯}A\cap K=\{a_{1},a_{2},\cdots\} to XX. Suppose that the point a1a_{1} lies inside the ball Bi′B_{i}^{\prime}, and consider the points si​(a1)s_{i}(a_{1}) inside MM. Under the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence of (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) to (X,dX)(X,d_{X}), a subsequence of these points converges to a point b1b_{1} in XX, because the diameter of (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) is uniformly bounded. If a1a_{1} also lies inside another ball Bj′B_{j}^{\prime}, then (1.3) (or also [38, (2.10)]) shows that dω~tk​(si​(a1),sj​(a1))→0d_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(s_{i}(a_{1}),s_{j}(a_{1}))\rightarrow 0 when tk→0t_{k}\rightarrow 0. Thus, by passing to subsequences, both si​(a1)s_{i}(a_{1}) and sj​(a1)s_{j}(a_{1}) converge to the same point b1∈Xb_{1}\in X under the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence of (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) to (X,dX)(X,d_{X}). We then define ϕ⁡(a1)=b1\phi(a_{1})=b_{1}. For a2a_{2}, by repeating the above procedure, we obtain that a subsequence sij​(aj)s_{i_{j}}(a_{j}), j=1,2j=1,2, converges to bj∈Xb_{j}\in X, j=1,2j=1,2, respectively. Define ϕ⁡(a2)=b2\phi(a_{2})=b_{2}. By repeating this procedure and with a diagonal argument, we can find a subsequence of (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}), denoted by (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) also, such that sij​(aj)s_{i_{j}}(a_{j}) converges to bj∈Xb_{j}\in X along the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. For any aj∈A∩Ka_{j}\in A\cap K, define ϕ⁡(aj)=bj\phi(a_{j})=b_{j}.

Now, we prove that ϕ:A∩int⁡K→X\phi:A\cap\operatorname{int}K\rightarrow X is injective. If it is not true, there are y1y_{1}, y2∈A∩int⁡Ky_{2}\in A\cap\operatorname{int}K such that y1≠y2y_{1}\neq y_{2}, and ϕ⁡(y1)=ϕ⁡(y2)\phi(y_{1})=\phi(y_{2}), which implies dω~tk​(si1​(y1),si2​(y2))→0d_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(s_{i_{1}}(y_{1}),s_{i_{2}}(y_{2}))\rightarrow 0. If γk\gamma_{k} is a minimal geodesic in (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) connecting si1​(y1)s_{i_{1}}(y_{1}) and si2​(y2)s_{i_{2}}(y_{2}), then

C−1​lengthωN​(f⁡(γk)∩K)⩽lengthω~tk​(γk∩f−1​(K))⩽dω~tk​(si1​(y1),si2​(y2)),C^{-1}{\rm length}_{\omega_{N}}(f(\gamma_{k})\cap K)\leqslant{\rm length}_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(\gamma_{k}\cap f^{-1}(K))\leqslant d_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(s_{i_{1}}(y_{1}),s_{i_{2}}(y_{2})),

by (4.1) for a constant C>0C>0 independent of kk. Thus, if f⁡(γk)⊂Kf(\gamma_{k})\subset K for tk≪1t_{k}\ll 1,

dωN​(y1,y2)⩽C​lengthωN​(f⁡(γk))⟶0,d_{\omega_{N}}(y_{1},y_{2})\leqslant C{\rm length}_{\omega_{N}}(f(\gamma_{k}))\longrightarrow 0,

or, if f⁡(γk)∩N\Kf(\gamma_{k})\cap N\backslash K are not empty by passing to a subsequence,

dωN​(y1,∂K)+dωN​(∂K,y2)⩽C​lengthωN​(f⁡(γk)∩K)⟶0.d_{\omega_{N}}(y_{1},\partial K)+d_{\omega_{N}}(\partial K,y_{2})\leqslant C{\rm length}_{\omega_{N}}(f(\gamma_{k})\cap K)\longrightarrow 0.

In both cases, we obtain contradictions. Thus ϕ:A∩int⁡K→X\phi:A\cap\operatorname{int}K\rightarrow X is injective.

Note that there is a r>0r>0 such that, for any y∈int⁡Ky\in\operatorname{int}K, the metric ball Bω​(y,r)B_{\omega}(y,r) is a geodesically convex set, i.e. for any y1y_{1} and y2∈Bω​(y,r)y_{2}\in B_{\omega}(y,r), there is a minimal geodesic γ⊂Bω​(y,r)\gamma\subset B_{\omega}(y,r) connecting y1y_{1} and y2y_{2}, which implies

dω​(y1,y2)=lengthω​(γ)⩽2​r.d_{\omega}(y_{1},y_{2})={\rm length}_{\omega}(\gamma)\leqslant 2r.

We take r≪1r\ll 1 such that there is a Bi′B_{i}^{\prime} with Bω​(y,2​r)⊂Bi′B_{\omega}(y,2r)\subset B_{i}^{\prime}. If y1,y2∈Ay_{1},y_{2}\in A, by Proposition 4.6,

dX​(ϕ⁡(y1),ϕ⁡(y2))=limtk→0dω~tk​(si​(y1),si​(y2))⩽limtk→0lengthω~tk​(si​(γ))=lengthω​(γ)=dω​(y1,y2).\begin{split}d_{X}(\phi(y_{1}),\phi(y_{2}))&=\lim_{t_{k}\rightarrow 0}d_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(s_{i}(y_{1}),s_{i}(y_{2}))\\ &\leqslant\lim_{t_{k}\rightarrow 0}{\rm length}_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(s_{i}(\gamma))\\ &={\rm length}_{\omega}(\gamma)\\ &=d_{\omega}(y_{1},y_{2}).\end{split}

If γk\gamma_{k} is a minimal geodesic in (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) connecting si​(y1)s_{i}(y_{1}) and si​(y2)s_{i}(y_{2}), then (4.19) implies that

e−ε⁡(tk)2​lengthω​(f⁡(γk)∩Bω​(y,2​r))⩽lengthω~tk​(γk)⟶dX​(ϕ⁡(y1),ϕ⁡(y2)),e^{-\frac{\varepsilon(t_{k})}{2}}{\rm length}_{\omega}(f(\gamma_{k})\cap B_{\omega}(y,2r))\leqslant{\rm length}_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(\gamma_{k})\longrightarrow d_{X}(\phi(y_{1}),\phi(y_{2})),

for some function ε⁡(t)→0\varepsilon(t)\to 0 as t→0t\to 0. If f⁡(γk)⊂Bω​(y,2​r)f(\gamma_{k})\subset B_{\omega}(y,2r) for tk≪1t_{k}\ll 1 by passing to a subsequence,

lengthω​(f⁡(γk))⩾lengthω​(γ),{\rm length}_{\omega}(f(\gamma_{k}))\geqslant{\rm length}_{\omega}(\gamma),

since γ\gamma is a minimal geodesic in (N0,ω)(N_{0},\omega). If f⁡(γk)∩N0\Bω​(y,2​r)f(\gamma_{k})\cap N_{0}\backslash B_{\omega}(y,2r) is not empty for tk≪1t_{k}\ll 1, then there is a y¯∈f⁡(γk)∩N0\Bω​(y,2​r)\bar{y}\in f(\gamma_{k})\cap N_{0}\backslash B_{\omega}(y,2r). Since y1y_{1}, y2∈Bω​(y,r)y_{2}\in B_{\omega}(y,r) and f⁡(γk)f(\gamma_{k}) connects y1y_{1} and y2y_{2},

lengthω​(f⁡(γk)∩Bω​(y,2​r))⩾dω​(y1,y¯)+dω​(y2,y¯)⩾2​r⩾lengthω​(γ).{\rm length}_{\omega}(f(\gamma_{k})\cap B_{\omega}(y,2r))\geqslant d_{\omega}(y_{1},\bar{y})+d_{\omega}(y_{2},\bar{y})\geqslant 2r\geqslant{\rm length}_{\omega}(\gamma).

In both cases,

dω​(y1,y2)=lengthω​(γ)⩽limtk→0lengthω​(f⁡(γk)∩Bω​(y,2​r))⩽dX​(ϕ⁡(y1),ϕ⁡(y2)).\begin{split}d_{\omega}(y_{1},y_{2})&={\rm length}_{\omega}(\gamma)\\ &\leqslant\lim_{t_{k}\rightarrow 0}{\rm length}_{\omega}(f(\gamma_{k})\cap B_{\omega}(y,2r))\\ &\leqslant d_{X}(\phi(y_{1}),\phi(y_{2})).\end{split}

Thus

dω​(y1,y2)=dX​(ϕ⁡(y1),ϕ⁡(y2)),d_{\omega}(y_{1},y_{2})=d_{X}(\phi(y_{1}),\phi(y_{2})),

i.e. ϕ:(A∩int⁡K,dω)⟶(X,dX)\phi:(A\cap\operatorname{int}K,d_{\omega})\longrightarrow(X,d_{X}) is a local isometric embedding. If {y1,j}\{y_{1,j}\} and {y2,j}\{y_{2,j}\} are two sequences in A∩int⁡KA\cap\operatorname{int}K such that limj→∞dω​(yi,j,y)=0\lim\limits_{j\rightarrow\infty}d_{\omega}(y_{i,j},y)=0 for i=1,2i=1,2, then limj→∞dω​(y1,j,y2,j)=0\lim\limits_{j\rightarrow\infty}d_{\omega}(y_{1,j},y_{2,j})=0 and {y1,j,y2,j}⊂Bω​(y,r)\{y_{1,j},y_{2,j}\}\subset B_{\omega}(y,r) for j≫1j\gg 1. Hence dω​(y1,j,y2,j)=dX​(ϕ⁡(y1,j),ϕ⁡(y2,j))d_{\omega}(y_{1,j},y_{2,j})=d_{X}(\phi(y_{1,j}),\phi(y_{2,j})) and dω​(yi,j,yi,j+ℓ)=dX​(ϕ⁡(yi,j),ϕ⁡(yi,j+ℓ))d_{\omega}(y_{i,j},y_{i,j+\ell})=d_{X}(\phi(y_{i,j}),\phi(y_{i,j+\ell})) for j≫1j\gg 1 and any ℓ⩾0\ell\geqslant 0, which implies that {ϕ⁡(y1,j)}\{\phi(y_{1,j})\} and {ϕ⁡(y2,j)}\{\phi(y_{2,j})\} are two Cauchy sequences, and converge to a unique point x∈Xx\in X. By defining ϕ⁡(y)=x\phi(y)=x, ϕ\phi extends to a unique map, denoted still by ϕ\phi, from int⁡K\operatorname{int}K to XX which is also a local isometric embedding.

Now we prove that ϕ⁡(int⁡K)\phi(\operatorname{int}K) is an open subset of XX. Let x∈ϕ⁡(int⁡K)x\in\phi(\operatorname{int}K), i.e. there is a y∈int⁡Ky\in\operatorname{int}K such that ϕ⁡(y)=x\phi(y)=x, and let x′∈Xx^{\prime}\in X with dX​(x,x′)<ρd_{X}(x,x^{\prime})<\rho for a constant ρ<18​dω​(y,∂K)\rho<\frac{1}{8}d_{\omega}(y,\partial K). From the above construction, y∈Bi′y\in B_{i}^{\prime} for a Bi′B_{i}^{\prime}, and si​(y)→xs_{i}(y)\rightarrow x under Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. There is a sequence of points pk∈(M,ω~tk)p_{k}\in(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}) such that pk→x′p_{k}\rightarrow x^{\prime} under the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. If γk′\gamma_{k}^{\prime} is a minimal geodesic connecting si​(y)s_{i}(y) and pkp_{k} in (M,ω~tk)(M,\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}), then

dω~tk​(si​(y),pk)=lengthω~tk​(γk′)⟶dX​(x,x′).d_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(s_{i}(y),p_{k})={\rm length}_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(\gamma_{k}^{\prime})\longrightarrow d_{X}(x,x^{\prime}).

Equation (4.19) implies that, for k≫1k\gg 1,

12​lengthω​(f⁡(γk′)∩K)⩽e−ε⁡(tk)2​lengthω​(f⁡(γk′)∩K)⩽lengthω~tk​(γk′)<2​ρ<14​dω​(y,∂K).\begin{split}\frac{1}{2}{\rm length}_{\omega}(f(\gamma_{k}^{\prime})\cap K)&\leqslant e^{-\frac{\varepsilon(t_{k})}{2}}{\rm length}_{\omega}(f(\gamma_{k}^{\prime})\cap K)\\ &\leqslant{\rm length}_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(\gamma_{k}^{\prime})\\ &<2\rho<\frac{1}{4}d_{\omega}(y,\partial K).\end{split}

Thus f⁡(pk)∈K′⊂int⁡Kf(p_{k})\in K^{\prime}\subset\operatorname{int}K where K′K^{\prime} is a compact subset of int⁡K\operatorname{int}K. By passing to a subsequence, f⁡(pk)→y′f(p_{k})\rightarrow y^{\prime} in (K′,ω)(K^{\prime},\omega). By Proposition 4.6, dω~tk​(pk,sik​(f⁡(pk)))→0d_{\tilde{\omega}_{t_{k}}}(p_{k},s_{i_{k}}(f(p_{k})))\rightarrow 0 when tk→0t_{k}\rightarrow 0, and, thus, sik​(f⁡(pk))→x′s_{i_{k}}(f(p_{k}))\rightarrow x^{\prime} under the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. The above construction shows that ϕ⁡(y′)=x′\phi(y^{\prime})=x^{\prime}, which implies that {x′|dX​(x,x′)<ρ}⊂ϕ⁡(int⁡K)\{x^{\prime}|d_{X}(x,x^{\prime})<\rho\}\subset\phi(\operatorname{int}K). Hence ϕ⁡(int⁡K)\phi(\operatorname{int}K) is open, and ϕ:int⁡K⟶ϕ⁡(int⁡K)\phi:\operatorname{int}K\longrightarrow\phi(\operatorname{int}K) is a homeomorphism.

Let K0⊂⋯⊂Kj⊂Kj+1⊂⋯⊂N0K_{0}\subset\cdots\subset K_{j}\subset K_{j+1}\subset\cdots\subset N_{0} be a family of compact subsets with N0=⋃jint⁡KjN_{0}=\bigcup\limits_{j}\operatorname{int}K_{j}. Given each KjK_{j}, the above argument constructs a local isometric embedding ϕj:(int⁡Kj,ω)⟶(X,dX)\phi_{j}:(\operatorname{int}K_{j},\omega)\longrightarrow(X,d_{X}), which is a homeomorphism onto the image ϕj​(int⁡Kj)\phi_{j}(\operatorname{int}K_{j}). By the same argument as above, ϕj\phi_{j} extends to a local isometric embedding ϕj+1:(int⁡Kj+1,ω)⟶(X,dX)\phi_{j+1}:(\operatorname{int}K_{j+1},\omega)\longrightarrow(X,d_{X}), i.e. ϕj+1|int⁡Kj=ϕj\phi_{j+1}|_{\operatorname{int}K_{j}}=\phi_{j}, which is a homeomorphism onto the image ϕj+1​(int⁡Kj+1)\phi_{j+1}(\operatorname{int}K_{j+1}). By a diagonal argument, we obtain a local isometry ϕ:(N0,ω)⟶(ϕ⁡(N0),dX)⊂(X,dX)\phi:(N_{0},\omega)\longrightarrow(\phi(N_{0}),d_{X})\subset(X,d_{X}). ∎

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