ScalingStacks

Proof. [03HL]

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.

To start with, we choose a closed Sakaki manifold Y3Y^{3} which is given by the level set {Ο±=r0}\{\varrho=r_{0}\} in the Calabi space π’ž\mathcal{C}. Denote by {Ξ›k}k=1∞\{\Lambda_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} be the spectrum of (Y3,h0)(Y^{3},h_{0}), where h0h_{0} is the induced Riemannian metric from gπ’žg_{\mathcal{C}}. Let Ο†k∈Cβˆžβ€‹(Y3)\varphi_{k}\in C^{\infty}(Y^{3}) be the eigenfunctions satisfying

(4.95) βˆ’Ξ”h0​φk=Ξ›k​φkβ„’βˆ‚ΞΈβ€‹Ο†k=βˆ’1jkΟ†k,jkβˆˆβ„•.\begin{split}-\Delta_{h_{0}}\varphi_{k}&=\Lambda_{k}\varphi_{k}\\ \mathcal{L}_{\partial_{\theta}}\varphi_{k}&=\sqrt{-1}j_{k}\varphi_{k},\ j_{k}\in\mathbb{N}.\end{split}

As computed in Section 4.1, separation of variables gives the following expansion,

(4.96) u⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞uk​(z)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š)u(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}u_{k}(z)\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})

where π’šβˆˆY3\bm{y}\in Y^{3}, and uku_{k} satisfies the equation

(4.97) d2​uk​(z)d​z2βˆ’(jk2​z2+Ξ»k)​uk​(z)=0,zβ‰₯1,\frac{d^{2}u_{k}(z)}{dz^{2}}-(j_{k}^{2}z^{2}+\lambda_{k})u_{k}(z)=0,\ z\geq 1,

for some jkβˆˆβ„•j_{k}\in\mathbb{N} and Ξ»kβ‰₯1\lambda_{k}\geq 1. Note that, in Section (4.1), we have shown the relations

(4.98) Ξ›k=Ξ»kz0+2​z0β‹…jk2r02\Lambda_{k}=\frac{\lambda_{k}}{z_{0}}+\frac{2z_{0}\cdot j_{k}^{2}}{r_{0}^{2}}

and Ξ»kβ‰₯jk\lambda_{k}\geq j_{k}, where z0≑(βˆ’log⁑r02)12z_{0}\equiv(-\log r_{0}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}. So all the estimates obtained in the previous sections directly apply here.

Since the harmonic function uu is smooth, so the convergence (4.96) is in the C∞C^{\infty} topology in any compact subset of π’ž\mathcal{C}. Immediately, for kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and for some fixed z0>1z_{0}>1,

|uk​(z0)|\displaystyle|u_{k}(z_{0})| =|∫Y3uβ‹…Ο†k​dvolh0|=|∫Y3uβ‹…(βˆ’Ξ”h0)K0​φk(Ξ›k)K0​dvolh0|\displaystyle=\Big|\int_{Y^{3}}u\cdot\varphi_{k}\dvol_{h_{0}}\Big|=\Big|\int_{Y^{3}}u\cdot\frac{(-\Delta_{h_{0}})^{K_{0}}\varphi_{k}}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}}\dvol_{h_{0}}\Big|
(4.99) ≀1(Ξ›k)K0|∫Y3|(βˆ’Ξ”h0)K0​u|β‹…Ο†k​dvolh0|≀C1(Ξ›k)K0,\displaystyle\leq\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}}\Big|\int_{Y^{3}}|(-\Delta_{h_{0}})^{K_{0}}u|\cdot\varphi_{k}\dvol_{h_{0}}\Big|\leq\frac{C_{1}}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}},

where

(4.100) C1≑‖uβ€–C2​K0​(Y3Γ—{z0})β‹…(Volh0⁑(Y3))1/2.C_{1}\equiv\|u\|_{C^{2K_{0}}(Y^{3}\times\{z_{0}\})}\cdot(\Vol_{h_{0}}(Y^{3}))^{1/2}.

Before discussing the asymptotic behavior of the harmonic function uu, let us give a more precise expression for each ODE solution uku_{k} under the growth condition u=O⁑(eδ​z)u=O(e^{\delta z}) for 0<Ξ΄<δ¯0<\delta<\underline{\delta}. First, for every kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}, there exist constants CkC_{k} and Ckβˆ—C_{k}^{*} such that

(4.101) uk​(z)=Ck⋅𝒰k​(z)+Ckβˆ—β‹…β„±k​(z).u_{k}(z)=C_{k}\cdot\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)+C_{k}^{*}\cdot\mathcal{F}_{k}(z).

The growth condition on uu gives the growth of uku_{k}. Indeed, by assumption for any sufficiently large z∈(2​z0,+∞)z\in(2z_{0},+\infty) with z0>106z_{0}>10^{6}, it holds that

(4.102) |u⁑(z)|≀C0β‹…eδ​z,|u(z)|\leq C_{0}\cdot e^{\delta z},

which implies that

(4.103) |uk​(z)|=|∫Y3uβ‹…Ο†k|≀C0β‹…(Volh0⁑(Y3))1/2​eΞ΄0​z.|u_{k}(z)|=\Big|\int_{Y^{3}}u\cdot\varphi_{k}\Big|\leq C_{0}\cdot(\Vol_{h_{0}}(Y^{3}))^{1/2}e^{\delta_{0}z}.

There are two cases to analyze:

First, we consider the case jk=0j_{k}=0, then uku_{k} satisfies the linear equation

(4.104) uk′′​(z)βˆ’Ξ»kβ‹…uk​(z)=0.u_{k}^{\prime\prime}(z)-\lambda_{k}\cdot u_{k}(z)=0.

We only consider Ξ»k>0\lambda_{k}>0. Otherwise, the solution is just a linear function. In this case, we pick the fundamental solutions

(4.105) β„±k(z)≑eΞ»kβ‹…zand𝒰k(z)≑eβˆ’Ξ»kβ‹…z,\mathcal{F}_{k}(z)\equiv e^{\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z}\ \text{and}\ \mathcal{U}_{k}(z)\equiv e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z},\

We define

(4.106) δ¯≑min⁑{Ξ»k|kβˆˆβ„€+}>0.\underline{\delta}\equiv\min\Big\{\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\Big|k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}\Big\}>0.

If we choose δ∈(0,δ¯)\delta\in(0,\underline{\delta}), then (4.103) implies

(4.107) Ckβˆ—=0C_{k}^{*}=0

for each kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} which satisfies jk=0j_{k}=0, and hence

(4.108) uk(z)=Ckeβˆ’Ξ»kβ‹…z.u_{k}(z)=C_{k}e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z}.

Next, we consider the case kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} such that jkβ‰ 0j_{k}\neq 0. Lemma 4.7 implies that β„±k\mathcal{F}_{k} is growing and 𝒰k\mathcal{U}_{k} is decaying. Therefore, apply (4.103) again, we have

(4.109) Ckβˆ—=0C_{k}^{*}=0

for every kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} which satisfies jkβ‰ 0j_{k}\neq 0.

Combining the above two cases, we conclude that if δ∈(0,δ¯)\delta\in(0,\underline{\delta}), then for every kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}, there exists some constant Ckβˆˆβ„C_{k}\in\mathbb{R} such that

(4.110) uk​(z)=Ck⋅𝒰k​(z)u_{k}(z)=C_{k}\cdot\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)

and hence

(4.111) u⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞Ck⋅𝒰k​(z)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š).u(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}C_{k}\cdot\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y}).

By definition, in our context 𝒰m,h​(z)>0\mathcal{U}_{m,h}(z)>0, so there is no harm to assume uk​(z0)β‰ 0u_{k}(z_{0})\neq 0.

Now we are in a position to estimate the upper bound of the harmonic function uu which satisfies u=O⁑(eδ​z)u=O(e^{\delta z}) with 0<Ξ΄<δ¯0<\delta<\underline{\delta}. We still separate in two cases. First, we consider kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} with jk=0j_{k}=0. For fixed z0>106z_{0}>10^{6}, we apply (4.108), then for every sufficiently large z∈(2​z0,+∞)z\in(2z_{0},+\infty),

(4.112) |uk​(z)uk​(z0)|=|𝒰k​(z)𝒰k​(z0)|=eβˆ’Ξ»kβ‹…(zβˆ’z0)≀eβˆ’Ξ΄Β―β€‹(zβˆ’z0),\Big|\frac{u_{k}(z)}{u_{k}(z_{0})}\Big|=\Big|\frac{\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{U}_{k}(z_{0})}\Big|=e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot(z-z_{0})}\leq e^{-\underline{\delta}(z-z_{0})},

and hence

|βˆ‘k>0jkβ‰₯1uk​(z)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š)|\displaystyle\Big|\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}\geq 1\end{subarray}}u_{k}(z)\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})\Big| =|βˆ‘k>0jk=0uk​(z)uk​(z0)β‹…uk​(z0)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š)|\displaystyle=\Big|\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}=0\end{subarray}}\frac{u_{k}(z)}{u_{k}(z_{0})}\cdot u_{k}(z_{0})\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})\Big|
(4.113) β‰€βˆ‘k>0jk=0|uk​(z)uk​(z0)|β‹…|uk(z0)|β‹…|Ο†k(π’š)|≀Ceβˆ’Ξ΄Β―z/2β‹…βˆ‘k>0jk=01(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1.\displaystyle\leq\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}=0\end{subarray}}\Big|\frac{u_{k}(z)}{u_{k}(z_{0})}\Big|\cdot|u_{k}(z_{0})|\cdot|\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})|\leq Ce^{-\underline{\delta}z/2}\cdot\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}=0\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}.

Next, let kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} satisfy jkβ‰₯1j_{k}\geq 1. For fixed z0>106z_{0}>10^{6} and take z∈(2​z0,∞)z\in(2z_{0},\infty), then we have

(4.114) |uk​(z)uk​(z0)|=|𝒰k​(z)𝒰k​(z0)|≀eβˆ’jk​(z2βˆ’z02)2≀C​eβˆ’3​z28.\Big|\frac{u_{k}(z)}{u_{k}(z_{0})}\Big|=\Big|\frac{\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{U}_{k}(z_{0})}\Big|\leq e^{-\frac{j_{k}(z^{2}-z_{0}^{2})}{2}}\leq Ce^{-\frac{3z^{2}}{8}}.

Taking the sum,

|βˆ‘k>0jkβ‰₯1uk​(z)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š)|\displaystyle\Big|\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}\geq 1\end{subarray}}u_{k}(z)\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})\Big| =|βˆ‘k>0jkβ‰₯1uk​(z)uk​(z0)β‹…uk​(z0)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š)|\displaystyle=\Big|\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}\geq 1\end{subarray}}\frac{u_{k}(z)}{u_{k}(z_{0})}\cdot u_{k}(z_{0})\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})\Big|
(4.115) β‰€βˆ‘k>0jkβ‰₯1|uk​(z)uk​(z0)|β‹…|uk​(z0)|β‹…|Ο†k​(π’š)|≀C​eβˆ’3​z28β€‹βˆ‘k>0jkβ‰₯11(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1.\displaystyle\leq\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}\geq 1\end{subarray}}\Big|\frac{u_{k}(z)}{u_{k}(z_{0})}\Big|\cdot|u_{k}(z_{0})|\cdot|\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})|\leq Ce^{-\frac{3z^{2}}{8}}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}\geq 1\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}.

The estimates in the above two cases imply that

|u⁑(z,π’š)|\displaystyle|u(z,\bm{y})| =|βˆ‘k=1∞uk​(z)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š)|\displaystyle=\Big|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}u_{k}(z)\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})\Big|
(4.116) ≀C(eβˆ’Ξ΄Β―z/2βˆ‘k>0jk=01(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1+eβˆ’3​z28βˆ‘k>0jkβ‰₯11(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1)≀Ceβˆ’Ξ΄Β―z/2βˆ‘k=1∞1(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1.\displaystyle\leq C\Big(e^{-\underline{\delta}z/2}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}=0\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}+e^{-\frac{3z^{2}}{8}}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k>0\\ j_{k}\geq 1\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}\Big)\leq Ce^{-\underline{\delta}z/2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}.

We can choose K0β‰₯3K_{0}\geq 3, applying Weyl’s law, then the above numerical series converges and hence

(4.117) |u⁑(z,π’š)|≀C.|u(z,\bm{y})|\leq C.

Therefore, there exists sufficiently large N0>106N_{0}>10^{6} such that for all z∈(N0,∞)z\in(N_{0},\infty)

(4.118) |u⁑(z)βˆ’(a0​z+b0)|≀C​eβˆ’2​π​z,|u(z)-(a_{0}z+b_{0})|\leq Ce^{-2\pi z},

where CC depends on Volh0⁑(Y3)\Vol_{h_{0}}(Y^{3}) and β€–uβ€–CK0​(Y3Γ—{z0})\|u\|_{C^{K_{0}}(Y^{3}\times\{z_{0}\})} for some fixed z0>106z_{0}>10^{6} and K0β‰₯3K_{0}\geq 3.

∎

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