ScalingStacks

Proof. [03GN]

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 Β· Original author HTML

Proof.

Consider the fiberwise average

(2.32) π’±βˆžβ€‹(z)≑1Areag0​(𝕋2)β€‹βˆ«π•‹2Γ—{z}Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)​dvolg0⁑(x,y).\mathcal{V}_{\infty}(z)\equiv\frac{1}{{\rm Area}_{g_{0}}(\mathbb{T}^{2})}\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\{z\}}V_{\infty}(x,y,z)\dvol_{g_{0}}(x,y).

This is well-defined, smooth in zz for z≠0z\neq 0, and continuous at z=0z=0. For z≠0z\neq 0 we have

(2.33) π’±βˆžβ€²β€²(z)=βˆ«π•‹2Γ—{z}d2d​z2V∞=βˆ’βˆ«π•‹2Γ—{z}Δ𝕋2V∞=0.\mathcal{V}_{\infty}^{\prime\prime}(z)=\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\{z\}}\frac{d^{2}}{dz^{2}}V_{\infty}=-\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\{z\}}\Delta_{\mathbb{T}^{2}}V_{\infty}=0.

This implies that π’±βˆžβ€‹(z)\mathcal{V}_{\infty}(z) is a piecewise linear function. Since VR​(x,y,z)β‰€βˆ’CRV_{R}(x,y,z)\leq-C_{R} for |z|β‰₯R|z|\geq R with CRβ†’βˆžC_{R}\to\infty as Rβ†’βˆžR\to\infty, it follows that limzβ†’+∞Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)=βˆ’βˆž\lim\limits_{z\to+\infty}V_{\infty}(x,y,z)=-\infty, and hence for all z>0z>0 that

(2.34) π’±βˆžβ€²β€‹(z)=c​o​n​s​t≑k+<0.\mathcal{V}_{\infty}^{\prime}(z)=const\equiv k_{+}<0.

Denote D0≑Diamg0⁑(𝕋2)D_{0}\equiv\diam_{g_{0}}(\mathbb{T}^{2}). Choose R0>10​D0R_{0}>10D_{0} large enough so that Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)β‰€βˆ’1V_{\infty}(x,y,z)\leq-1 in (𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–BR0​(p)(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus B_{R_{0}}(p). Then for any fixed q∈(𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–B2​R0​(p)q\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus B_{2R_{0}}(p) and r∈(2​D0,4​D0)r\in(2D_{0},4D_{0}), we can apply the Harnack inequality to the harmonic function V∞V_{\infty}, which is negative in the geodesic ball Br​(q)βŠ‚(𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–BR0​(p)B_{r}(q)\subset(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus B_{R_{0}}(p). More precisely, passing to the universal cover and applying the standard Harnack inequality for positive harmonic functions on a fixed ball in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}, we see that there is a uniform constant C0>0C_{0}>0 depending only on D0>0D_{0}>0 such that for all w1,w2∈Br​(q)w_{1},w_{2}\in B_{r}(q),

(2.35) 1C0≀Vβˆžβ€‹(w1)Vβˆžβ€‹(w2)≀C0.\frac{1}{C_{0}}\leq\frac{V_{\infty}(w_{1})}{V_{\infty}(w_{2})}\leq C_{0}.

Since the fiber average π’±βˆžβ€‹(z)\mathcal{V}_{\infty}(z) of V∞V_{\infty} is linear in zz with slope k+<0k_{+}<0, (2.35) yields that

(2.36) βˆ’C2​z≀Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)β‰€βˆ’C1​z-C_{2}z\leq V_{\infty}(x,y,z)\leq-C_{1}z

for z≫1z\gg 1, where the constants C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} depend only on the constants C0C_{0} and k+k_{+}.

We denote by Λ𝕋2={Ξ»j}j=1∞\Lambda_{\mathbb{T}^{2}}=\{\lambda_{j}\}_{j=1}^{\infty} the positive spectrum of βˆ’Ξ”π•‹2-\Delta_{\mathbb{T}^{2}} and expand V∞V_{\infty} according to the eigenfunctions of Δ𝕋2\Delta_{\mathbb{T}^{2}} along the torus fiber 𝕋2Γ—{z}\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\{z\} for each fixed z>0z>0. This yields

(2.37) Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)=(k+​z+Ξ²+)+βˆ‘j=1∞fj​(z)​hj​(x,y),V_{\infty}(x,y,z)=(k_{+}z+\beta_{+})+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}f_{j}(z)h_{j}(x,y),

where k+<0k_{+}<0 is the constant of (2.34) and where

(2.38) fj′′​(z)=Ξ»j​fj​(z),βˆ’Ξ”π•‹2​hj=Ξ»j​hj,βˆ«π•‹2|hj|2=1.\displaystyle f_{j}^{\prime\prime}(z)=\lambda_{j}f_{j}(z),\ -\Delta_{\mathbb{T}^{2}}h_{j}=\lambda_{j}h_{j},\ \int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}}|h_{j}|^{2}=1.

Immediately,

(2.39) fj​(z)=cj​eβˆ’Ξ»j​z+cjβˆ—β€‹eΞ»j​z.f_{j}(z)=c_{j}e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{j}}z}+c_{j}^{*}e^{\sqrt{\lambda_{j}}z}.

Notice that

(2.40) βˆ«π•‹2Γ—{z}|V∞|2=(k+​z+Ξ²+)2+βˆ‘j=1∞|fj​(z)|2.\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\{z\}}|V_{\infty}|^{2}=(k_{+}z+\beta_{+})^{2}+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|f_{j}(z)|^{2}.

By the linear growth property (2.36), we obtain that cjβˆ—=0c_{j}^{*}=0 for all jβˆˆβ„€+j\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}. Therefore,

(2.41) βˆ«π•‹2Γ—{z}|Vβˆžβˆ’(k+​z+Ξ²+)|2=βˆ‘j=1∞|cj|2​eβˆ’2​λj​z=O⁑(eβˆ’2​λ1​z)​as​zβ†’+∞,\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\{z\}}|V_{\infty}-(k_{+}z+\beta_{+})|^{2}=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}|c_{j}|^{2}e^{-2\sqrt{\lambda_{j}}z}=O(e^{-2\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}z})\ \text{as}\ z\to+\infty,

where Ξ»1>0\lambda_{1}>0 is the minimum of Λ𝕋2\Lambda_{\mathbb{T}^{2}}. To see the O⁑(eβˆ’2​λ1​z)O(e^{-2\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}z}) estimate, note that the series converges for z=1z=1. Applying elliptic regularity to the harmonic function V^βˆžβ‰‘Vβˆžβˆ’(k+​z+Ξ²+)\widehat{V}_{\infty}\equiv V_{\infty}-(k_{+}z+\beta_{+}),

(2.42) β€–V^βˆžβ€–W2,2​(Br/2​(q))≀C​‖V^βˆžβ€–L2​(Br​(q))≀C​eβˆ’2​λ1​z\|\widehat{V}_{\infty}\|_{W^{2,2}(B_{r/2}(q))}\leq C\|\widehat{V}_{\infty}\|_{L^{2}(B_{r}(q))}\leq Ce^{-2\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}z}

for all balls Br​(q)B_{r}(q) as above, where CC depends only on the diameter and on the injectivity radius of 𝕋2\mathbb{T}^{2}. By the 33-dimensional Sobolev embedding W2,2β†ͺC0,12W^{2,2}\hookrightarrow C^{0,\frac{1}{2}},

(2.43) |Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)βˆ’(k+​z+Ξ²+)|=O⁑(eβˆ’Ξ»1​z)​as​zβ†’+∞.|V_{\infty}(x,y,z)-(k_{+}z+\beta_{+})|=O(e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}z})\ \text{as}\ z\to+\infty.

Standard elliptic regularity then shows that for any kβˆˆβ„•k\in\mathbb{N},

(2.44) |βˆ‡g0k(Vβˆžβ€‹(x,y,z)βˆ’(k+​z+Ξ²+))|=O⁑(eβˆ’Ξ»1​z)​as​zβ†’+∞.|\nabla_{g_{0}}^{k}(V_{\infty}(x,y,z)-(k_{+}z+\beta_{+}))|=O(e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}z})\ \text{as}\ z\to+\infty.

The same argument applies in the case zβ†’βˆ’βˆžz\rightarrow-\infty.

Now we prove the slope relation (2.30). Fix R>0R>0. Then by Green’s formula,

(2.45) π’±βˆžβ€²β€‹(R)βˆ’π’±βˆžβ€²β€‹(βˆ’R)=βˆ«π•‹2Γ—[βˆ’R,R]Δ​V∞.\mathcal{V}_{\infty}^{\prime}(R)-\mathcal{V}_{\infty}^{\prime}(-R)=\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}\times[-R,R]}\Delta V_{\infty}.

Thus, by the definition of k+k_{+} and the analogous definition of kβˆ’k_{-},

(2.46) k+​Areag0⁑(𝕋2)βˆ’kβˆ’β€‹Areag0⁑(𝕋2)=βˆ’2​π.k_{+}\Area_{g_{0}}(\mathbb{T}^{2})-k_{-}\Area_{g_{0}}(\mathbb{T}^{2})=-2\pi.

It follows that

(2.47) kβˆ’βˆ’k+=2​πAreag0⁑(𝕋2).k_{-}-k_{+}=\frac{2\pi}{\Area_{g_{0}}(\mathbb{T}^{2})}.

Since V∞V_{\infty} is symmetric in zz, it holds that kβˆ’=βˆ’k+k_{-}=-k_{+} and the claim follows. ∎

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