ScalingStacks

9.1. The injectivity estimate for π’Ÿ g [03JT]

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

9.1. The injectivity estimate for π’Ÿg\mathscr{D}_{g}

For the convenience of the arguments, we start with a standard fact concerning a Liouville theorem on a flat cylinder 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}.

Lemma 9.1.

Let (𝕋2×ℝ,g0)(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R},g_{0}) be a cylinder with a flat product metric g0g_{0}. Denote by Ξ»0>0\lambda_{0}>0 the lowest eigenvalue of the torus 𝕋2\mathbb{T}^{2}. If uu is a harmonic function on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R} with growth control

(9.1) |u⁑(z)|=O⁑(eλ​z)|u(z)|=O(e^{\lambda z})

for some λ∈(0,Ξ»0)\lambda\in(0,\sqrt{\lambda_{0}}), then u≑0u\equiv 0.

Now we state a main technical result which gives the required effective estimate for the Dirac-type operator π’Ÿg\mathscr{D}_{g}.

Proposition 9.2 (The Injectivity Estimate for π’Ÿg\mathscr{D}_{g}).

Consider (β„³,gΞ²)(\mathcal{M},g_{\beta}) with sufficiently large gluing parameter Ξ²>0\beta>0. Assume that the parameters Ξ΄\delta, ΞΌ\mu and Ξ½\nu satisfy

  1. (1)

    0<Ξ΄<1103​min⁑{δ¯1,δ¯2,ϡ¯1,ϡ¯2,Ξ»0,Ξ΄h,Ξ΄q}0<\delta<\frac{1}{10^{3}}\min\{\underline{\delta}_{1},\underline{\delta}_{2},\underline{\epsilon}_{1},\underline{\epsilon}_{2},\lambda_{0},\delta_{h},\delta_{q}\},

  2. (2)

    μ+ν∈(0,1)\mu+\nu\in(0,1),

where δ¯1,δ¯2,ϡ¯1,ϡ¯2\underline{\delta}_{1},\underline{\delta}_{2},\underline{\epsilon}_{1},\underline{\epsilon}_{2} are the fixed constants specified in Section 7.1, Ξ»0>0\lambda_{0}>0 is in Lemma 9.1, Ξ΄h>0\delta_{h}>0 is in Theorem 5.1 and Ξ΄q\delta_{q} is in Corollary 6.5. Then for every α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), there exists a uniform constant C=C⁑(Ξ±,Ξ΄,ΞΌ,Ξ½)>0C=C(\alpha,\delta,\mu,\nu)>0 which is independent of Ξ²\beta such that for every Ο‰βˆˆΞ©1​(β„³)\omega\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}) it holds that

(9.2) β€–Ο‰β€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α​(β„³)≀Cβ‹…β€–π’Ÿgβ​ω‖CΞ΄,Ξ½+1,ΞΌ0,α​(β„³).\|\omega\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha}(\mathcal{M})}\leq C\cdot\|\mathscr{D}_{g_{\beta}}\omega\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(\mathcal{M})}.
Proof.

By Proposition 8.2, it suffices to show that there exists a uniform constant C>0C>0 such that

(9.3) β€–Ο‰β€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(β„³)≀Cβ‹…β€–π’Ÿgβ​ω‖CΞ΄,Ξ½+1,ΞΌ0,α​(β„³)\|\omega\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M})}\leq C\cdot\|\mathscr{D}_{g_{\beta}}\omega\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(\mathcal{M})}

for all Ο‰βˆˆΞ©1​(β„³)\omega\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}). We argue by contradiction and suppose no such a uniform constant exists. Then we have the following:

  1. (1)

    a sequence of spaces (β„³j,gj)(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j}) with the gluing parameter Ξ²jβ†’βˆž\beta_{j}\to\infty such that

    (9.4) (β„³j,gj,pj)β†’G​H(X∞,d∞,p∞).(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j},p_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(X_{\infty},d_{\infty},p_{\infty}).
  2. (2)

    a sequence of 11-forms Ο‰j∈Ω1​(β„³j)\omega_{j}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{j}) such that

    (9.5) β€–Ο‰jβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(β„³j,gj)=1\displaystyle\|\omega_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j})}=1
    (9.6) β€–π’Ÿgj​ωjβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½+1,ΞΌ0,α​(β„³j,gj)β†’0\displaystyle\|\mathscr{D}_{g_{j}}\omega_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j})}\to 0

    as jβ†’βˆžj\rightarrow\infty,

  3. (3)

    a sequence of points 𝒙jβˆˆβ„³j\bm{x}_{j}\in\mathcal{M}_{j} satisfying

    (9.7) |ρj,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(𝒙j)β‹…Ο‰j​(𝒙j)|=1,|\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{j})\cdot\omega_{j}(\bm{x}_{j})|=1,

    where ρj,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)} is a sequence of weight functions in (β„³j,gj)(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j}).

Now we are in a position to rescale the above contradicting sequences to produce a contradiction. To start with, let gjg_{j} be a sequence of contradicting metrics, and we denote the rescaling factors as follows:

  1. (1)

    Rescaling of the metrics:

    Let g~j=Ξ»j2β‹…gj\tilde{g}_{j}=\lambda_{j}^{2}\cdot g_{j}, then with respect to the fixed reference point 𝒙jβˆˆβ„³j\bm{x}_{j}\in\mathcal{M}_{j} picked as the above, we have the convergence,

    (9.8) (β„³j,g~j,𝒙j)β†’G​H(β„³βˆž,d~∞,π’™βˆž).(\mathcal{M}_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{d}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}).
  2. (2)

    Rescaling of the 11-forms:

    Let ΞΊj>0\kappa_{j}>0 be a sequence of rescaling factors which will be determined later, such that

    (9.9) Ο‰~j≑κjβ‹…Ο‰j.\tilde{\omega}_{j}\equiv\kappa_{j}\cdot\omega_{j}.
  3. (3)

    Rescaling of the weight functions:

    Since we need to distinguish between the weight functions on the sequence β„³j\mathcal{M}_{j} and those on the limit spaces, we denote by ρj,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} the weight functions on β„³j\mathcal{M}_{j} and denote by ρ∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)\rho_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} the weight functions on the limit spaces. Fix kβˆˆβ„•k\in\mathbb{N} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), we rescale the weight function ρj,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} by

    (9.10) ρ~j,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)=Ο„j(k+Ξ±)⋅ρj,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±).\tilde{\rho}_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}=\tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}\cdot\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}.

The above rescaling factors are chosen to satisfy the scale-invariance property of the weighted norm,

(9.11) 1\displaystyle 1 ≀τj(0)β‹…ΞΊjβ‹…Ξ»jβˆ’1≀10\displaystyle\leq\tau_{j}^{(0)}\cdot\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-1}\leq 10
(9.12) 1\displaystyle 1 ≀τj(1)β‹…ΞΊjβ‹…Ξ»jβˆ’2≀10\displaystyle\leq\tau_{j}^{(1)}\cdot\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-2}\leq 10
(9.13) 1\displaystyle 1 ≀τj(1+Ξ±)β‹…ΞΊjβ‹…Ξ»jβˆ’2βˆ’Ξ±β‰€10,\displaystyle\leq\tau_{j}^{(1+\alpha)}\cdot\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-2-\alpha}\leq 10,

such that in this way we will obtain a sequence of 11-forms Ο‰~j∈Ω1​(β„³j)\tilde{\omega}_{j}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{j}) with the property

(9.14) β€–Ο‰~jβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(β„³,g~j)=1|ρ~j,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(𝒙j)β‹…Ο‰~j​(𝒙j)|=1β€–π’Ÿg~j​ω~jβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½+1,μα​(β„³,g~j)β†’0.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\|\tilde{\omega}_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j})}=1\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{j})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{j}(\bm{x}_{j})|=1\\ &\|\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{j}}\tilde{\omega}_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{\alpha}(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j})}\to 0.\end{split}

The basic strategy is to combine the compactness arguments and the Liouville theorems. That is, if (β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) is non-collapsed, we apply Proposition 8.3 and the C1,Ξ±C^{1,\alpha}-compactness to obtain a limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞∈(β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) such that

(9.15) β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(β„³βˆž,g~∞)=1|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|=1π’Ÿg~βˆžβ€‹Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty})}=1\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0.\end{split}

We will apply the Liouville theorems to show that the above limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} with controlled weighted norm is in fact vanishing on β„³βˆž\mathcal{M}_{\infty}, which gives a contradiction. Next, for a collapsed limit (β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}), to understand the limiting behavior of the operators π’Ÿg~j\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{j}} and the contradicting 11-forms Ο‰~j\tilde{\omega}_{j}, we will lift everything to an appropriately chosen non-collapsed (local) normal cover such that the C1,Ξ±C^{1,\alpha}-compactness still applies on such a covering space. On the other hand, by the representation lemma of the 11-forms, see Lemma 7.11, there are coefficient functions fjxf_{j}^{x}, fjyf_{j}^{y}, fjzf_{j}^{z} and fjtf_{j}^{t} such that

(9.16) Ο‰~j=fjx​θjx+fjy​θjx+fjz​θjz+fjt​θjt.\tilde{\omega}_{j}=f_{j}^{x}\theta_{j}^{x}+f_{j}^{y}\theta_{j}^{x}+f_{j}^{z}\theta_{j}^{z}+f_{j}^{t}\theta_{j}^{t}.

We will show that the 44-tuples (fjx,fjy,fjz,fjt)(f_{j}^{x},f_{j}^{y},f_{j}^{z},f_{j}^{t}) converge to a

(9.17) (Ο‰~∞,f∞t)≑(f∞x,f∞y,f∞z,f∞t)(\tilde{\omega}_{\infty},f_{\infty}^{t})\equiv(f_{\infty}^{x},f_{\infty}^{y},f_{\infty}^{z},f_{\infty}^{t})

which can be in effect viewed as the limits of the 11-forms Ο‰~j\tilde{\omega}_{j}. In addition, we will also show that at least one of f∞xf_{\infty}^{x}, f∞yf_{\infty}^{y}, f∞zf_{\infty}^{z} and f∞tf_{\infty}^{t} has a positive weighted HΓΆlder norm at π’™βˆž\bm{x}_{\infty}. Therefore, the desired contradiction just arises from various versions of Liouville theorems for harmonic functions in those different collapsed regions.

In accordance with the classification of the geometries of the rescaled limits in Section 7, we will proceed to produce the desired contradiction in each of the regions discussed in Section 7.3. Precisely, we will correctly choose the rescaling factors such that the contradicting 11-forms Ο‰~j∈Ω1​(β„³j)\tilde{\omega}_{j}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{j}) will converge to some limit which satisfies the norm control and satisfies the assumptions in the Liouville theorems in each region.

Region I\I:

Assume that the reference point 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} is Region I\I, then the rescaled limit is the standard Ricci-flat Taub-NUT space (β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) with a limiting monopole pm,∞p_{m,\infty}. We choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.18) Ξ»j=Ξ²j12Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‹…2Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j12)2​μ+Ξ½+k+Ξ±ΞΊj=eΞ΄β‹…2​Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²jβˆ’12)2​μ+Ξ½βˆ’1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2\mu+\nu+k+\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{2\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

In the above way of rescaling, we have dg~βˆžβ€‹(pm,∞,π’™βˆž)≀Cd_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(p_{m,\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty})\leq C and the rescaled weight function in the limit space is

(9.19) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)={1,π’™βˆˆB1​(pm,∞)(dg~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙,pm,∞))ΞΌ+Ξ½+k+Ξ±,π’™βˆˆβ„³βˆžβˆ–B2​(pm,∞).\displaystyle\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=\begin{cases}1,&\bm{x}\in B_{1}(p_{m,\infty})\\ (d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(\bm{x},p_{m,\infty}))^{\mu+\nu+k+\alpha},&\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}).\end{cases}

Then the limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞∈Ω1​(β„³βˆž)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty}) satisfies that

(9.20) π’Ÿg~βˆžβ€‹Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|=1β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(β„³βˆž)=1.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty})}=1.\\ \end{split}

Notice that the above norm bound implies that for all π’™βˆˆβ„³βˆžβˆ–B2​(pm,∞)\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}),

(9.21) |Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙)|≀(dg~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙,pm,∞))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½.|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq(d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(\bm{x},p_{m,\infty}))^{-\mu-\nu}.

Since Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} is in the kernel of π’Ÿg~∞\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}, immediately Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} is harmonic with respect to the Taub-NUT metric g~∞\tilde{g}_{\infty}. Applying Lemma 4.17, we have Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0.

Region II\II:

Now we discuss the case that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are in Region II\II. As what we discussed in Section (7.3), the rescaled geometries were separated in the following cases:

  1. (a)

    There is a uniform constant Οƒ0>0\sigma_{0}>0 such that 2​βjβˆ’12≀dm​(𝒙j)≀1Οƒ0β‹…Ξ²jβˆ’122\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\leq d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq\frac{1}{\sigma_{0}}\cdot\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

  2. (b)

    The distance function dm​(𝒙j)d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}) to a pole pmp_{m} satisfies

    (9.22) dm​(𝒙j)Ξ²jβˆ’12β†’βˆž,dm​(𝒙j)Ξ²j12β†’0.\displaystyle\frac{d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})}{\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\to\infty,\ \frac{d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})}{\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\to 0.
  3. (c)

    There is some uniform constant C0>0C_{0}>0 such that

    (9.23) 0<C0β‹…Ξ²j12≀dm​(𝒙j)≀ι0β€²4β‹…Ξ²j120<C_{0}\cdot\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq\frac{\iota_{0}^{\prime}}{4}\cdot\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}

    for all 1≀m≀m01\leq m\leq m_{0}.

We start with our analysis in Case (a). By Lemma 7.9, the rescaled limit in Case (a) is a Ricci-flat Taub-NUT space (β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) such that the S1S^{1}-fiber at infinity has length at least Οƒ0>0\sigma_{0}>0. The rescaling factors in this case are

(9.24) Ξ»j=(dm​(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‹…2Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j)ΞΌ2β‹…(dm(𝒙j))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=eΞ΄β‹…2​Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j)βˆ’ΞΌ2β‹…(dm​(𝒙j))ΞΌ+Ξ½βˆ’1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{-\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

In the rescaled limit space, the limiting reference point π’™βˆž\bm{x}_{\infty} satisfies dg~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙,pm,∞)=1d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(\bm{x},p_{m,\infty})=1. Moreover, the rescaled weight function in the limit space is given by

(9.25) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)=(dg~βˆžβ€‹(pm,∞,𝒙))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±,π’™βˆˆβ„³βˆžβˆ–B2​(pm,∞),\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=(d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(p_{m,\infty},\bm{x}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha},\ \bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}),

and the limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞∈Ω1​(β„³βˆž)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty}) satisfies

(9.26) π’Ÿg~βˆžβ€‹Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|=1β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(β„³βˆž)≀1.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty})}\leq 1.\\ \end{split}

The above weighted norm bound implies that for every π’™βˆˆβ„³βˆžβˆ–B2​(pm,∞)\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}), the limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} satisfies the pointwise estimate

(9.27) |Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙)|≀(dg~βˆžβ€‹(pm,∞,𝒙))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½.|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq\Big(d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(p_{m,\infty},\bm{x})\Big)^{-\mu-\nu}.

Applying Lemma 4.17, we have Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 on the rescaled limit β„³βˆž\mathcal{M}_{\infty}, which completes the proof of Case (a).

The rescaled limit in Case (b) is the punctured Euclidean space ℝ3βˆ–{03}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\}. In this case, we choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.28) Ξ»j=(dm​(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‹…2Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j)ΞΌ2β‹…(dm(𝒙j))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=eΞ΄β‹…2​Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j)βˆ’ΞΌ2β‹…(dm​(𝒙j))ΞΌ+Ξ½βˆ’1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{-\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

In terms of the above rescaled metric, the reference point π’™βˆž\bm{x}_{\infty} satisfies dg0​(𝒙,03)=1d_{g_{0}}(\bm{x},0^{3})=1. Moreover, the rescaled weight function in the limit space is given by

(9.29) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)=(dg0​(03,𝒙))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±,π’™βˆˆβ„3βˆ–{03}.\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=(d_{g_{0}}(0^{3},\bm{x}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha},\ \bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\}.

Mainly we will analyze the limiting behavior of the operator π’Ÿg~j\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{j}} under the collapsing sequence (β„³,gj,𝒙j)(\mathcal{M},g_{j},\bm{x}_{j}). Specifically, we will construct a globally defined 11-form

(9.30) Ο‰~∞∈Ω1​(ℝ3βˆ–{03})\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\})

and we will also show that the coefficient functions of Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} are harmonic with respect to the Euclidean metric. Our basic strategy is to apply Lemma 7.11 to reduce the convergence of the 11-form Ο‰~j\tilde{\omega}_{j} to the convergence of the coefficient functions. Let

(9.31) Ο‰~j=fjxβ‹…ΞΈjx+fjyβ‹…ΞΈjy+fjzβ‹…ΞΈjz+fjtβ‹…ΞΈjt,\tilde{\omega}_{j}=f_{j}^{x}\cdot\theta_{j}^{x}+f_{j}^{y}\cdot\theta_{j}^{y}+f_{j}^{z}\cdot\theta_{j}^{z}+f_{j}^{t}\cdot\theta_{j}^{t},

then Lemma 7.11 and the circle bundle structure in this case guarantee the convergence of the frames {ΞΈjx,ΞΈjy,ΞΈjz,ΞΈjt}\{\theta_{j}^{x},\theta_{j}^{y},\theta_{j}^{z},\theta_{j}^{t}\}.

Now we are in a position to construct the limits of the above coefficient functions. We start with the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence

(9.32) (β„³,g~j,𝒙j)β†’G​H(ℝ3,g0,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathbb{R}^{3},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty})

with |π’™βˆž|=1|\bm{x}_{\infty}|=1. For any fixed R>10R>10, let A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) be an annulus in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with respect to the Euclidean metric g0g_{0}. The first step is to obtain the limits of the coefficient functions fjxf_{j}^{x}, fjyf_{j}^{y}, fjzf_{j}^{z}, fjtf_{j}^{t} with controlled weighted norms in the flat annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) under the above Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. Next, letting Rβ†’βˆžR\to\infty, we will apply ArzelΓ -Ascoli to obtain global limiting functions.

First, fix any R>0R>0, we consider a Euclidean annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)βŠ‚β„3A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})\subset\mathbb{R}^{3} and we claim that there are limiting functions f∞,Rxf_{\infty,R}^{x}, f∞,Ryf_{\infty,R}^{y}, f∞,Rzf_{\infty,R}^{z} and f∞,Rtf_{\infty,R}^{t} on A1R,Rg0​(03)βŠ‚β„3A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})\subset\mathbb{R}^{3}. For fixed R>0R>0, there are sΒ―0​(R)>0\bar{s}_{0}(R)>0 and N0​(R)>0N_{0}(R)>0 such that {B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)}k=1N\{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\}_{k=1}^{N} with N≀N0N\leq N_{0} is a finite collection of Euclidean balls which covers A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) which satisfies

  1. (1)

    A1R,Rg0​(03)βŠ‚β‹ƒs=1NB2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)βŠ‚A13​R,3​Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})\subset\bigcup\limits_{s=1}^{N}B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\subset A_{\frac{1}{3R},3R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})

  2. (2)

    sΒ―03≀dg0​(π’šβˆž,k,π’šβˆž,kβ€²)≀sΒ―0\frac{\bar{s}_{0}}{3}\leq d_{g_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k},\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}})\leq\bar{s}_{0} for all 1≀k<k′≀N1\leq k<k^{\prime}\leq N.

We will verify that there exists a subsequence (still denoted by jj) such that the above finite cover satisfy the following compatibility:

  1. (C1)

    fjxf_{j}^{x}, fjyf_{j}^{y}, fjzf_{j}^{z} and fjtf_{j}^{t} converge to harmonic functions f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}, f∞,kyf_{\infty,k}^{y}, f∞,kzf_{\infty,k}^{z} and f∞,ktf_{\infty,k}^{t} on every ball B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}).

  2. (C2)

    The above locally defined limiting functions can be patched together in the sense that if B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)∩B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,kβ€²)β‰ βˆ…B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\cap B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}})\neq\emptyset, then

    (9.33) f∞,kx​(π’šβˆž)=f∞,kβ€²x(π’šβˆž),f∞,ky(π’šβˆž)=f∞,kβ€²y(π’šβˆž),f∞,kz​(π’šβˆž)=f∞,kβ€²z​(π’šβˆž),f∞,kt​(π’šβˆž)=f∞,kβ€²t​(π’šβˆž)\displaystyle\begin{split}f_{\infty,k}^{x}(\bm{y}_{\infty})&=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{x}(\bm{y}_{\infty}),\ f_{\infty,k}^{y}(\bm{y}_{\infty})=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{y}(\bm{y}_{\infty}),\\ f_{\infty,k}^{z}(\bm{y}_{\infty})&=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{z}(\bm{y}_{\infty}),\ f_{\infty,k}^{t}(\bm{y}_{\infty})=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{t}(\bm{y}_{\infty})\end{split}

    holds for all π’šβˆžβˆˆB2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)∩B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,kβ€²)\bm{y}_{\infty}\in B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\cap B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}}).

The above compatibility properties immediately imply that there are well-defined harmonic limiting functions f∞,Rxf_{\infty,R}^{x}, f∞,Ryf_{\infty,R}^{y}, f∞,Rzf_{\infty,R}^{z} and f∞,Rtf_{\infty,R}^{t} on A1R,R​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}(0^{3}).

To show property (C1), by taking some subsequence, it suffices to show that for each ball B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}) in the above finite cover, there is some subsequence in the original sequence {j}\{j\} such that the coefficient functions fj,kxf_{j,k}^{x} converge to a harmonic function f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}. For this purpose, we need to locally unwrap the collapsed fibers and discuss the convergence of the coefficient functions fj,kxf_{j,k}^{x} on non-collapsed universal covers.

Now we take a sequence of geodesic balls B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}) with

(9.34) (B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k),g~j)β†’G​H(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k),g0).(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}),\tilde{g}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}),g_{0}).

Denote by β„“j\ell_{j} (β†’0\to 0) the length of the collapsed S1S^{1}-fiber at π’šj\bm{y}_{j} and define

(9.35) Ξ“j=Γϡj(π’šj,k)≑Image[Ο€1(BΟ΅j(π’šj))β†’Ο€1(B2​sΒ―0(π’šj))]\Gamma_{j}=\Gamma_{\epsilon_{j}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})\equiv\Image[\pi_{1}(B_{\epsilon_{j}}(\bm{y}_{j}))\to\pi_{1}(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j}))]

where Ο΅j>0\epsilon_{j}>0 are chosen such that 2​ℓj≀ϡj≀4​ℓj2\ell_{j}\leq\epsilon_{j}\leq 4\ell_{j}. Immediately in our context, Ο€1​(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k))=Ξ“j\pi_{1}(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}))=\Gamma_{j} and Ξ“j\Gamma_{j} is isomorphic to β„€\mathbb{Z}. Now let

(9.36) prj:(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)^,g^j,π’š^j,k)⟢(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k),g~j,π’šj,k)\pr_{j}:(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})},\hat{g}_{j},\hat{\bm{y}}_{j,k})\longrightarrow(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}),\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{y}_{j,k})

be the universal covering map with B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)=B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)^/Ξ“jB_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})=\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})}/\Gamma_{j}. Now on the universal covers, we have the equivariant convergence and the following diagram,

(9.37) (B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)^,g^j,Ξ“j,π’š^j,k)\textstyle{\Big(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})},\hat{g}_{j},\Gamma_{j},\hat{\bm{y}}_{j,k}\Big)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}e​q​G​H\scriptstyle{eqGH}prj\scriptstyle{\pr_{j}}(Y^k,g^∞,Ξ“βˆž,π’š^∞,k)\textstyle{\Big(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\Gamma_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty,k}\Big)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}pr∞\scriptstyle{\pr_{\infty}}(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k),g~j,π’šj,k)\textstyle{\Big(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}),\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{y}_{j,k}\Big)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}G​H\scriptstyle{GH}(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k),g0,π’šβˆž,k)\textstyle{\Big(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}),g_{0},\bm{y}_{\infty,k}\Big)}

which satisfies the following properties:

  1. (e1)

    the universal covers (B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)^,g^j,π’š^j,k)(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})},\hat{g}_{j},\hat{\bm{y}}_{j,k}) are non-collapsed and have uniformly bounded curvatures,

  2. (e2)

    the limiting Lie group Ξ“βˆž\Gamma_{\infty} is diffeomorphic to ℝ\mathbb{R} and acts isometrically on the limit space (Y^k,g^∞,π’š^∞,k)(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty,k}),

  3. (e3)

    the universal covering maps prj\pr_{j} converge to a Riemannian submersion

    (9.38) pr∞:(Y^k,g^∞,π’š^∞,k)⟢(B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k),g0,π’šβˆž,k)\pr_{\infty}:(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty,k})\longrightarrow(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}),g_{0},\bm{y}_{\infty,k})

    with B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)=Y^k/Ξ“βˆžB_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})=\widehat{Y}_{k}/\Gamma_{\infty},

  4. (e4)

    for every 𝒛^∞∈Y^k\hat{\bm{z}}_{\infty}\in\widehat{Y}_{k}, the orbit Ξ“βˆžβ‹…z^∞\Gamma_{\infty}\cdot\hat{z}_{\infty} is a geodesic in Y^k\widehat{Y}_{k} and isometric to (ℝ,d​t2)(\mathbb{R},dt^{2}). In particular, (Y^k,g^∞,π’š^∞)(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty}) is isometric to B2​sΒ―0​(03)×ℝB_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(0^{3})\times\mathbb{R} in the Euclidean space ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4}.

Indeed, property (e1) follows from Lemma 7.7. Property (e2) and (e3) follow from the definition of the equivariant convergence. Property (e4) immediately follows from Lemma 7.13. Actually, by Lemma 7.13, the second fundamental form of each Ξ“βˆž\Gamma_{\infty}-orbit is vanishing. In other words, each Ξ“βˆž\Gamma_{\infty}-orbit is a geodesic in Y^k\widehat{Y}_{k}. Combining with the facts that the limiting projection pr∞\pr_{\infty} is a Riemannian submersion and B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}) is a Euclidean ball, then Y^k≑B2​sΒ―0​(03)×ℝ\widehat{Y}_{k}\equiv B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(0^{3})\times\mathbb{R} and g^∞\hat{g}_{\infty} is isometric to the Euclidean metric.

We will apply the above equivariant convergence to construct harmonic functions f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}, f∞,kyf_{\infty,k}^{y}, f∞,kzf_{\infty,k}^{z} and f∞,ktf_{\infty,k}^{t} in B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}). We only show the construction for f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}. Notice that Proposition 8.3 implies that the Ξ“j\Gamma_{j}-invariant lifted functions f^jx\hat{f}_{j}^{x} satisfy the uniform weighted Schauder estimate

(9.39) β€–f^jxβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α​(B2​sΒ―0​(yj)^)≀C\|\hat{f}_{j}^{x}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha}(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{j})})}\leq C

with respect to the lifted weight function. Applying Arzelà-Ascoli, passing to a subsequence, there is a limiting function f^∞,kx\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x} with

(9.40) β€–f^∞,kxβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α′​(Y^k)≀C\|\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(\widehat{Y}_{k})}\leq C

with 0<Ξ±β€²<Ξ±<10<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. Combining with the above equivariant convergence, we obtain that the limit function f^∞,kx\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x} is Ξ“βˆž\Gamma_{\infty}-invariant which descends to a function f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x} in B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty}). Now we prove that f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x} is a harmonic function on B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty}). In fact, the lifted 11-forms Ο‰^j\hat{\omega}_{j} also satisfies

(9.41) β€–Ο‰^jβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α​(B2​sΒ―0​(yj)^)≀C\|\hat{\omega}_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha}(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{j})})}\leq C

and hence there is a limiting 11-form Ο‰^∞,k\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k} satisfying

(9.42) β€–Ο‰^∞,kβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α′​(Y^k)≀C\|\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(\widehat{Y}_{k})}\leq C

for 0<Ξ±β€²<Ξ±<10<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. The contradiction assumption implies that Ο‰^∞,k\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k} satisfies

(9.43) π’Ÿg^βˆžβ€‹Ο‰^∞,k≑0​in​Y^k.\displaystyle\mathscr{D}_{\hat{g}_{\infty}}\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k}\equiv 0\ \text{in}\ \widehat{Y}^{k}.

The standard elliptic regularity theory for π’Ÿg^∞\mathscr{D}_{\hat{g}_{\infty}} shows that the 11-form Ο‰^∞,k\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k} is C∞C^{\infty}. This implies that f^∞,kx∈Cβˆžβ€‹(Y^k)\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x}\in C^{\infty}(\widehat{Y}_{k}), then by Lemma 7.12 gives the equation

(9.44) Ξ”g^βˆžβ€‹(f^∞,kx)=0.\Delta_{\hat{g}_{\infty}}(\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x})=0.

Applying Property (e4),

(9.45) Ξ”g0​(f∞,kx)=Ξ”g^βˆžβ€‹(f^∞,kx)=0.\Delta_{g_{0}}(f_{\infty,k}^{x})=\Delta_{\hat{g}_{\infty}}(\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x})=0.

The construction of the harmonic limiting functions f∞,kyf_{\infty,k}^{y}, f∞,kzf_{\infty,k}^{z} and f∞,ktf_{\infty,k}^{t} is verbatim.

We are ready to prove the compatibility property (C2). To this end, we take the union

(9.46) Bβˆžβ‰‘B2​sΒ―0​(y∞,k)βˆͺB2​sΒ―0​(y∞,kβ€²)B_{\infty}\equiv B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{\infty,k})\cup B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{\infty,k^{\prime}})

with

(9.47) B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)∩B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,kβ€²)β‰ βˆ….B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\cap B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}})\neq\emptyset.

Let Bj≑B2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,k)βˆͺB2​sΒ―0​(π’šj,kβ€²)B_{j}\equiv B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})\cup B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k^{\prime}}), then

(9.48) (Bj,g~j)β†’G​H(B∞,g0).(B_{j},\tilde{g}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(B_{\infty},g_{0}).

By the same arguments as the above, BjB_{j} has uniformly bounded curvatures and the universal covering space (B~j,g^j)(\widetilde{B}_{j},\hat{g}_{j}) is non-collapsed. Moreover, the equivariant convergence with property (e1)-(e5) as the above still holds in this case. By passing to some subsequence, the lifted coefficient functions f^jx\hat{f}_{j}^{x} are C1,Ξ±β€²C^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}-converging to some invariant limiting function f^∞,k,kβ€²x\hat{f}_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} on B^∞\widehat{B}_{\infty} such that

(9.49) f^∞,k,kβ€²x|Y^k=f^∞,kx\hat{f}_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x}|_{\widehat{Y}_{k}}=\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x}

Therefore, f^∞,k,kβ€²x\hat{f}_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} descends to a function f∞,k,kβ€²xf_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} on B∞B_{\infty} such that

(9.50) f∞,k,kβ€²x|B2​sΒ―0​(π’šβˆž,k)=f∞,kx.f_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x}|_{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})}=f_{\infty,k}^{x}.

In addition, f∞,k,kβ€²xf_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} is harmonic on B∞B_{\infty}, so we have managed to extend the local harmonic limiting function f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x} to the union B∞B_{\infty}. Repeating the above arguments, we can extend the limiting functions to the whole annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}).

Consider the 44-tuple of harmonic functions (f∞,Rx,f∞,Ry,f∞,Rz,f∞,Rt)(f_{\infty,R}^{x},f_{\infty,R}^{y},f_{\infty,R}^{z},f_{\infty,R}^{t}) in the flat annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) obtained from the above construction, and we write

(9.51) Ο‰~∞,R=f∞,Rx​d​x+f∞,Ry​d​y+f∞,Rz​d​z.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty,R}=f_{\infty,R}^{x}dx+f_{\infty,R}^{y}dy+f_{\infty,R}^{z}dz.

Immediately, we have the weighted norm control

(9.52) |ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~∞,R​(π’™βˆž)|+|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…f∞,Rt​(π’™βˆž)|β‰₯130β€–Ο‰~∞,Rβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α′​(A1R,Rg0​(03))+β€–f∞,Rtβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α′​(A1R,Rg0​(03))≀C,\displaystyle\begin{split}|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty,R}({\bm{x}}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty,R}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|&\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ \|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty,R}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}))}+\|f_{\infty,R}^{t}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}))}&\leq C,\end{split}

where 0<Ξ±β€²<Ξ±<10<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. The above construction enables us to define a global harmonic 44-tuple on the punctured Euclidean space ℝ3βˆ–{03}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\} by applying the standard exhaustion arguments. Let Rβ†’+∞R\to+\infty, by applying (9.52) and ArzelΓ -Ascoli, there is a global 44-tuple of harmonic functions (f∞x,f∞y,f∞z,f∞t)(f_{\infty}^{x},f_{\infty}^{y},f_{\infty}^{z},f_{\infty}^{t}) in ℝ3βˆ–{03}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\} and we denote

(9.53) Ο‰~∞=f∞x​d​x+f∞y​d​y+f∞z​d​z.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}=f_{\infty}^{x}dx+f_{\infty}^{y}dy+f_{\infty}^{z}dz.

Then we have the weighted norm control,

(9.54) |ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|+|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…f∞t​(π’™βˆž)|β‰₯130β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,γ​(ℝ3βˆ–{03})+β€–f∞tβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,γ≀C,\displaystyle\begin{split}|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|&\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ \|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\})}+\|f_{\infty}^{t}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\gamma}}&\leq C,\end{split}

where 0<Ξ³<Ξ±β€²<Ξ±<10<\gamma<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. The weighted norm bound implies that the limiting functions have the following controlled behavior,

(9.55) (|f∞x|+|f∞y|+|f∞z|+|f∞t|)​(𝒙)≀C​(dg0​(𝒙,03))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½,βˆ€π’™βˆˆβ„3βˆ–{03}.(|f_{\infty}^{x}|+|f_{\infty}^{y}|+|f_{\infty}^{z}|+|f_{\infty}^{t}|)(\bm{x})\leq C\Big(d_{g_{0}}(\bm{x},0^{3})\Big)^{-\mu-\nu},\ \forall\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\}.

By the standard removable singularity theorem, the 44-tuple of harmonic functions (f∞x,f∞y,f∞z,f∞t)(f_{\infty}^{x},f_{\infty}^{y},f_{\infty}^{z},f_{\infty}^{t}) extend to the entire Euclidean space ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}. Applying the standard Liouville theorem for harmonic functions, we conclude that Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 and f∞t≑0f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0. So the contradiction arises, which completes the proof of Case (b).

Now we consider Case (c). We have shown in Section 7.3 that the rescaled limit in Case (c) is a punctured flat cylinder (𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}}. More precisely, we chose a sequence of punctured unbounded domains Ůj\mathring{U}_{j} containing 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} such that

(9.56) (Ůj,g~j,𝒙j)β†’G​H((𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0,g0,π’™βˆž).(\mathring{U}_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}\Big).

Moreover, the curvatures of the above rescaled spaces are uniformly bounded away from the singular points in 𝒫m0\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}}.

Next we study the limiting weight functions. For any fixed reference point 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} in this case, denote dj≑min1≀m≀m0⁑{dm​(pm,𝒙j)}d_{j}\equiv\min\limits_{1\leq m\leq m_{0}}\{d_{m}(p_{m},\bm{x}_{j})\} and we choose the following rescaling factors

(9.57) Ξ»j=djβˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‹…2Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j)ΞΌ2β‹…(djβˆ’1)ΞΌ+Ξ½+k+Ξ±ΞΊj=eΞ΄β‹…2​Tβˆ’β‹…(Ξ²j)βˆ’ΞΌ2β‹…(dj)ΞΌ+Ξ½βˆ’1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=d_{j}^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{j}^{-1})^{\mu+\nu+k+\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{-\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{j})^{\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

So the rescaled weight function in the limit space satisfies

(9.58) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)={(dg0​(pm,𝒙))ΞΌ+Ξ½+k+Ξ±,π’™βˆˆBΞΉ0β€²β€²g0​(pm)​for some​ 1≀m≀m0,QΞ½,ΞΌ,k,Ξ±,π’™βˆˆβ‹‚m=1m0Amg0​(2​ι0β€²β€²,T0β€²β€²),eδ​z​(𝒙),π’™βˆˆ(𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–β‹ƒm=1m0BT0β€²β€²g0​(pm),\displaystyle\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=\begin{cases}(d_{g_{0}}(p_{m},\bm{x}))^{\mu+\nu+k+\alpha},&\bm{x}\in B_{\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m})\ \text{for some}\ 1\leq m\leq m_{0},\\ Q_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha},&\bm{x}\in\bigcap\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}A_{m}^{g_{0}}(2\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime},T_{0}^{\prime\prime}),\\ e^{\delta z(\bm{x})},&\bm{x}\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\bigcup\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}B_{T_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m}),\end{cases}

where ΞΉ0β€²β€²βˆˆ[1,ΞΉ0β€²C0]\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}\in[1,\frac{\iota_{0}^{\prime}}{C_{0}}] is some definite constant and QΞ½,ΞΌ,k,Ξ±Q_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha} is some uniform constant depending on Ξ½\nu, ΞΌ\mu, kk and Ξ±\alpha.

Similar to Case (b), in order to apply the Liouville theorem in the collapsed limit, we need to construct a global defined 11-form in the collapsed limit and deduce the corresponding equation.

Fix R>0R>0, denote by TR​(S)T_{R}(S) the RR-tubular neighborhood of a compact set SS, applying Lemma 7.7, then we have the following curvature estimate on the sequence of annuli T3​Rg~j​(𝒫m0)βˆ–T1Rg~j​(𝒫m0)T_{3R}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\setminus T_{\frac{1}{R}}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}}):

(9.59) β€–Rmg~jβ€–Lβˆžβ€‹(T3​Rg~j​(𝒫m0)βˆ–T1Rg~j​(𝒫m0))≀K0β‹…R2,\|\Rm_{\tilde{g}_{j}}\|_{L^{\infty}\Big(T_{3R}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\setminus T_{\frac{1}{R}}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\Big)}\leq K_{0}\cdot R^{2},

where K0>0K_{0}>0 is an absolute constant. Applying the same arguments as in Case (b), one can construct a limiting pair

(9.60) OPENOPEN(Ο‰~∞,f∞t)∈Ω1​((𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0))βŠ•Ξ©0​((𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0))(\tilde{\omega}_{\infty},f_{\infty}^{t})\in\Omega^{1}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\Big)\oplus\Omega^{0}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\Big)

such that

(9.61) |ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|+|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…f∞t​(π’™βˆž)|β‰₯130β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,γ​((𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0)≀C,\displaystyle\begin{split}|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}({\bm{x}}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|&\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ \|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\gamma}((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})}&\leq C,\end{split}

where 0<Ξ³<Ξ±<10<\gamma<\alpha<1. Let θ∞x\theta_{\infty}^{x}, θ∞y\theta_{\infty}^{y} and θ∞z\theta_{\infty}^{z} be the canonical parallel 11-forms with unit length on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}, then

(9.62) Ο‰~∞=f∞xβ€‹ΞΈβˆžx+f∞yβ€‹ΞΈβˆžy+f∞zβ€‹ΞΈβˆžz.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}=f_{\infty}^{x}\theta_{\infty}^{x}+f_{\infty}^{y}\theta_{\infty}^{y}+f_{\infty}^{z}\theta_{\infty}^{z}.

Moreover, it holds in the punctured cylinder (𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}} that

(9.63) Ξ”g0​f∞x=Ξ”g0​f∞y=Ξ”g0​f∞z=Ξ”g0​f∞t≑0.\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{x}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{y}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{z}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0.

Next, the weighted norm bound implies that the limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞∈(𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}} has the following controlled behavior,

(9.64) |f∞x​(𝒙)|+|f∞y​(𝒙)|+|f∞z​(𝒙)|+|f∞t​(𝒙)|≀C(dg0(𝒙,pm))βˆ’ΞΌβˆ’Ξ½,π’™βˆˆBΞΉ0β€²β€²g0(pm),|f∞x​(𝒙)|+|f∞y​(𝒙)|+|f∞z​(𝒙)|+|f∞t​(𝒙)|≀Ceβˆ’Ξ΄β€‹z​(𝒙),|z(𝒙)|β‰₯Z0,\displaystyle\begin{split}|f_{\infty}^{x}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{y}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{z}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x})|&\leq C\Big(d_{g_{0}}(\bm{x},p_{m})\Big)^{-\mu-\nu},\ \bm{x}\in B_{\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m}),\\ |f_{\infty}^{x}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{y}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{z}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x})|&\leq Ce^{-\delta z(\bm{x})},\ |z(\bm{x})|\geq Z_{0},\end{split}

for some sufficiently large Z0>0Z_{0}>0. Since we have required that

(9.65) 0<ΞΌ+Ξ½<1,0<\mu+\nu<1,

it is standard that the singularities in 𝒫m0\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}} are removable. It follows that the harmonic functions f∞xf_{\infty}^{x}, f∞yf_{\infty}^{y}, f∞zf_{\infty}^{z} and f∞tf_{\infty}^{t} extend to the entire flat cylinder 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R} and they satisfy the above asymptotic behavior. Applying Lemma 9.1 to the coefficient functions with the growth condition (9.64), we conclude that Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 and f∞t≑0f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0. So the proof of Case (c) is complete.

Region III\III:

The proof for Region III\III is identical to Case (c) of Region II\II.

Regions IVβˆ’\IV_{-} and Region IV+\IV_{+}:

We only focus on the case that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Region IVβˆ’\IV_{-}. The proof for Region IV+\IV_{+} is verbatim. Region IVβˆ’\IV_{-} has two different types of rescaling geometries (see Section 7.3) which are given by the following two cases:

  1. (a)

    There is a uniform constant C0>0C_{0}>0 independent of jj such that

    (9.66) 5​T0′≀dg~j​(pm,𝒙j)≑λjβ‹…dm​(𝒙j)≀C05T_{0}^{\prime}\leq d_{\tilde{g}_{j}}(p_{m},\bm{x}_{j})\equiv\lambda_{j}\cdot d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}

    for each 1≀m≀m01\leq m\leq m_{0}.

  2. (b)

    The reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} in Region IVβˆ’\IV_{-} satisfy

    (9.67) dg~j​(pm,𝒙j)≑λjβ‹…dm​(𝒙j)β†’βˆž.d_{\tilde{g}_{j}}(p_{m},\bm{x}_{j})\equiv\lambda_{j}\cdot d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\to\infty.

For fixed reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} satisfying Case (a), we have the following convergence

(9.68) (Ůj,g~j,𝒙j)β†’G​H((𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–π’«m0,g0,π’™βˆž),(\mathring{U}_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}\Big),

where g0g_{0} is a flat product metric on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}. We choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.69) Ξ»j=(Lβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‘(2​Tβˆ’)β‹…(Lβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=eδ⁑(2​Tβˆ’)β‹…(Lβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))Ξ½βˆ’1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta(2T_{-})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta(2T_{-})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

and the limiting weight function is

(9.70) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)={(dg0​(pm,𝒙))Ξ½+ΞΌ+k+Ξ±,π’™βˆˆBΞΉ0β€²β€²g0​(pm)​for some​ 1≀m≀m0,QΞ½,ΞΌ,k,Ξ±,π’™βˆˆβ‹‚m=1m0Amg0​(2​ι0β€²β€²,T0β€²β€²),eδ​z​(𝒙),π’™βˆˆ(𝕋2×ℝ)βˆ–β‹ƒm=1m0BT0β€²β€²g0​(pm),\displaystyle\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}=\begin{cases}(d_{g_{0}}(p_{m},\bm{x}))^{\nu+\mu+k+\alpha},&\bm{x}\in B_{\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m})\ \text{for some}\ 1\leq m\leq m_{0},\\ Q_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha},&\bm{x}\in\bigcap\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}A_{m}^{g_{0}}(2\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime},T_{0}^{\prime\prime}),\\ e^{\delta z(\bm{x})},&\bm{x}\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\bigcup\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}B_{T_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m}),\end{cases}

where ΞΉ0β€²β€²βˆˆ[1,ΞΉ0C0]\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}\in[1,\frac{\iota_{0}}{C_{0}}] is some definite constant and QΞ½,ΞΌ,k,Ξ±Q_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha} is some uniform constant depending on Ξ½\nu, ΞΌ\mu, kk, Ξ±\alpha. So the rest of the proof is identical to the proof of Case (c) in Region II\II.

Now we prove Case (b). We showed in Section 7.3 that in this case we have the convergence

(9.71) (Uj,g~j,𝒙j)β†’G​H(𝕋2×ℝ,g0,π’™βˆž),(U_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}),

where g0g_{0} is a flat product metric on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}. The rescaling factors are chosen as the following

(9.72) Ξ»j=(Lβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‘(2​Tβˆ’βˆ’zj)β‹…(Lβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=eδ⁑(2​Tβˆ’+zj)β‹…(Lβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))Ξ½βˆ’1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta(2T_{-}-z_{j})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta(2T_{-}+z_{j})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

where zj≑z⁑(𝒙j)z_{j}\equiv z(\bm{x}_{j}). We also translate the zz-coordinate by z~​(𝒙)=z⁑(𝒙)βˆ’zj\tilde{z}(\bm{x})=z(\bm{x})-z_{j}. It gives the limiting weight function

(9.73) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)=eδ​z~​(𝒙),βˆ€π’™βˆˆπ•‹2×ℝ.\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\tilde{z}(\bm{x})},\ \forall\bm{x}\in\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}.

The proof of the next stage is similar to the proof of Case (c) of Region III\III. We follow all the notations there. Applying exactly the same arguments, we obtain the limiting pair (Ο‰~∞,f∞t)∈Ω1​(𝕋2×ℝ)βŠ•Cβˆžβ€‹(𝕋2×ℝ)(\tilde{\omega}_{\infty},f_{\infty}^{t})\in\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\oplus C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}) which satisfy

(9.74) Ξ”g0​f∞x=Ξ”g0​f∞y=Ξ”g0​f∞z=Ξ”g0​f∞t≑0|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|+|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…f∞t​(π’™βˆž)|β‰₯130βˆ₯Ο‰~∞βˆ₯CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ1,α′​(𝕋2×ℝ)≀C, 0<Ξ±β€²<Ξ±<1,\displaystyle\begin{split}&\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{x}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{y}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{z}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})}\leq C,\ 0<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1,\\ \end{split}

which implies that

(9.75) |f∞x​(𝒙)|+|f∞y​(𝒙)|+|f∞z​(𝒙)|+|f∞t​(𝒙)|≀C​eβˆ’Ξ΄β€‹z~​(𝒙),π’™βˆˆπ•‹2×ℝ.\displaystyle|f_{\infty}^{x}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{y}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{z}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x})|\leq Ce^{-\delta\tilde{z}(\bm{x})},\ \bm{x}\in\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}.

Applying Lemma 9.1, we conclude that Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 and f∞t≑0f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0. So we complete the proof of Case (b).

Regions Vβˆ’\V_{-} and V+\V_{+}:

First, we assume that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Vβˆ’\V_{-}. As what was discussed in Section 7.3, it is natural to separate Region Vβˆ’\V_{-} in the following cases

  1. (a)

    Assume zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j)β†’βˆžz_{-}(\bm{x}_{j})\to\infty.

  2. (b)

    Assume that there is some constant C0>0C_{0}>0 independent of the index jj such that 10​΢0βˆ’β‰€zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j)≀C010\zeta_{0}^{-}\leq z_{-}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}.

The rescaled limit in Case (a) is the flat cylinder 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R} and we have the convergence (see Section 7.3),

(9.76) (Uj,g~j,𝒙j)β†’G​H(𝕋2×ℝ,g0,π’™βˆž).(U_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}).

We choose the corresponding rescaling factors

(9.77) Ξ»j=(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β€‹zjβ‹…(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=eδ​zjβ‹…(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))Ξ½βˆ’1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta z_{j}}\cdot(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta z_{j}}\cdot(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

where zj≑zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙j)z_{j}\equiv z_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}). Hence, under the zz-coordinate translation z~βˆ’β€‹(𝒙)=zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙)βˆ’zj\tilde{z}_{-}(\bm{x})=z_{-}(\bm{x})-z_{j}, the limiting weight function is

(9.78) ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)=eΞ΄β‹…z~βˆ’β€‹(𝒙).\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\cdot\tilde{z}_{-}(\bm{x})}.

The remaining arguments are exactly the same as that in Case (b) of Region IVβˆ’\IV_{-}, and the proof of this case is complete.

Next, we prove Case (b) of Region Vβˆ’\V_{-}. If the reference points satisfy 10​΢0βˆ’β‰€d⁑(𝒙j,qβˆ’)≀C010\zeta_{0}^{-}\leq d(\bm{x}_{j},q_{-})\leq C_{0}, we still choose the same rescaling factors

(9.79) Ξ»j=(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))βˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))Ξ½βˆ’1\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1}\end{split}

and we have the convergence

(9.80) (β„³,g~j,𝒙j)β†’C∞(β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{C^{\infty}}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty})

where (β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) is a finite rescaling of (Xbβˆ’4,gbβˆ’,qβˆ’)(X_{b_{-}}^{4},g_{b_{-}},q_{-}).

So limiting weight function, up to some definite constant, has the form

(9.81) ρ∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)​(𝒙)=eΞ΄β‹…zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙)β‹…(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙))Ξ½+k+Ξ±(LΒ―βˆ’β€‹(𝒙j))Ξ½+k+Ξ±.\rho_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\cdot z_{-}(\bm{x})}\cdot\frac{(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}))^{\nu+k+\alpha}}{(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu+k+\alpha}}.

Moreover, the limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞∈Ω1​(Xbβˆ’4)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(X_{b_{-}}^{4}) such that

(9.82) π’Ÿgbβˆ’β€‹Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|=1β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(Xbβˆ’4)=1,\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{g_{b_{-}}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(X_{b_{-}}^{4})}=1,\\ \end{split}

which implies that for some constant C1>0C_{1}>0,

(9.83) |Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙)|≀C1β‹…eβˆ’Ξ΄β€‹zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙)β‹…(zβˆ’β€‹(𝒙))βˆ’Ξ½2,π’™βˆˆXbβˆ’4βˆ–B2​D0βˆ’β€‹(qβˆ’).\displaystyle|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq C_{1}\cdot e^{-\delta z_{-}(\bm{x})}\cdot(z_{-}(\bm{x}))^{-\frac{\nu}{2}},\ \bm{x}\in X_{b_{-}}^{4}\setminus B_{2D_{0}^{-}}(q_{-}).

Since π’Ÿgbβˆ’β€‹Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\mathscr{D}_{g_{b_{-}}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0, by Lemma 7.12, Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} is harmonic with respect to the complete Tian-Yau metric gbβˆ’g_{b_{-}}. Applying Lemma 4.17 to the harmonic 11-form Ο‰~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}, we conclude that Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 on Xbβˆ’4X_{b_{-}}^{4}. So the proof of Case (b) is done.

Now we consider the case that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} belong to Region V+\V_{+}. As the above, we still separate this region in two different pieces:

  1. (a)

    Assume z+​(𝒙j)β†’βˆžz_{+}(\bm{x}_{j})\to\infty.

  2. (b)

    Assume that there is some constant C0>0C_{0}>0 independent of the index jj such that 10​΢0+≀z+​(𝒙j)≀C010\zeta_{0}^{+}\leq z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}.

We skip the argument in Case (a) because it coincides with Case (a) in Region Vβˆ’V_{-}.

So we start to prove Case (b) of Region V+\V_{+}. If the reference points satisfy 10​΢0+≀z+​(𝒙j)≀C010\zeta_{0}^{+}\leq z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}, we choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.84) Ξ»j=(LΒ―+​(𝒙j))βˆ’1Ο„j(k+Ξ±)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‘(2​Tβˆ’+2​T++zj)β‹…(LΒ―+​(𝒙j))βˆ’Ξ½βˆ’kβˆ’Ξ±ΞΊj=eδ⁑(2​Tβˆ’+2​T++zj)β‹…(LΒ―+​(𝒙j))Ξ½βˆ’1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta(2T_{-}+2T_{+}+z_{j})}\cdot(\underline{L}_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta(2T_{-}+2T_{+}+z_{j})}\cdot(\underline{L}_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

where zj≑z+​(𝒙j)z_{j}\equiv z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}). Then we have the convergence

(9.85) (β„³,g~j,𝒙j)β†’C∞(β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{C^{\infty}}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty})

where (β„³βˆž,g~∞,π’™βˆž)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) is a finite rescaling of (Xb+4,gb+,q+)(X_{b_{+}}^{4},g_{b_{+}},q_{+}). Hence, under the zz-coordinate translation z~+​(𝒙)=z+​(𝒙)βˆ’zj\tilde{z}_{+}(\bm{x})=z_{+}(\bm{x})-z_{j}, the limiting weight function has the form

(9.86) ρ∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(k+Ξ±)(𝒙)=eβˆ’Ξ΄β‹…z~+(𝒙),π’™βˆˆXb+4βˆ–B2​D0+(q+).\displaystyle\rho_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{-\delta\cdot\tilde{z}_{+}(\bm{x})},\ \bm{x}\in X_{b_{+}}^{4}\setminus B_{2D_{0}^{+}}(q_{+}).

On the other hand, the limiting 11-form Ο‰~∞∈Ω1​(Xbβˆ’4)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(X_{b_{-}}^{4}) satisfies

(9.87) π’Ÿgb+​ω~βˆžβ‰‘0|ρ~∞,Ξ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ(0)​(π’™βˆž)β‹…Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(π’™βˆž)|=1β€–Ο‰~βˆžβ€–CΞ΄,Ξ½,ΞΌ0​(Xb+4)=1,\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{g_{b_{+}}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(X_{b_{+}}^{4})}=1,\\ \end{split}

which implies which implies the C0C^{0}-estimate

(9.88) |Ο‰~βˆžβ€‹(𝒙)|≀C2β‹…eδ​z~+​(𝒙),π’™βˆˆXb+4βˆ–B2​D0+​(q+).\displaystyle|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq C_{2}\cdot e^{\delta\tilde{z}_{+}(\bm{x})},\ \bm{x}\in X_{b_{+}}^{4}\setminus B_{2D_{0}^{+}}(q_{+}).

Now we are in a position to apply the Liouville theorem for half-harmonic 11-forms. If we choose δ∈(0,δh)\delta\in(0,\delta_{h}), then Theorem 5.1 shows that

(9.89) Ο‰~βˆžβ‰‘0​on​Xb+4.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\ \text{on}\ X_{b_{+}}^{4}.

Regions VIβˆ’\VI_{-} and VI+\VI_{+}:

If 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Region VIβˆ’\VI_{-}, the proof is identical to Case (b) of Region Vβˆ’\V_{-}. If 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Region VI+\VI_{+}, the proof is the same as Case (b) of Region V+V_{+}.

Combining all of the above regions, the proof of Proposition 9.2 is complete.

∎

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