ScalingStacks

7.2 Justification for the conjecture [03M7]

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

7.2 Justification for the conjecture

The author is unable to prove Conjecture 7.4 at present, but here are some reasons for believing it, amounting to a sketch of a partial proof. In §7.1 we started with the fibration f:U→ℝ3f:U\rightarrow\mathbin{\mathbb{R}}^{3}, and extracted the functions ua,b,va,bu_{a,b},v_{a,b} from it. However, any proof of Conjecture 7.4 will probably go the other way, and first construct functions ua,b,va,bu_{a,b},v_{a,b} satisfying (57), and then define the fibres Na,b,cN_{a,b,c} by (54), and put them together to form ff.

It is not obvious that if we did define families of functions ua,b,va,bu_{a,b},v_{a,b} satisfying (57), then the corresponding SL 3-folds Na,b,cN_{a,b,c} would actually be the fibres of a fibration. We will show that part (ii) of Assumption 7.1 comes close to ensuring that they do, because it implies that the Na,b,cN_{a,b,c} are disjoint.

Lemma 7.5

Suppose we are given functions ua,b,va,b:Va,b→ℝu_{a,b},v_{a,b}:V_{a,b}\rightarrow\mathbin{\mathbb{R}} for all a,b∈ℝa,b\in\mathbin{\mathbb{R}} satisfying part (ii) of Assumption 7.1. Define 33-folds Na,b,cN_{a,b,c} in UU for a,b,c∈ℝa,b,c\in\mathbin{\mathbb{R}} by (54). Then Na,b,c∩Na′,b′,c′=∅N_{a,b,c}\cap N_{a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime}}=\emptyset unless (a,b,c)=(a′,b′,c′)(a,b,c)=(a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime}).

Proof. Suppose (z1,z2,z3)(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}) lies in Na,b,c∩Na′,b′,c′N_{a,b,c}\cap N_{a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime}}. Then a=|z1|2−|z2|2=a′a=|z_{1}|^{2}-|z_{2}|^{2}=a^{\prime}, so a=a′a=a^{\prime}. Let x=Re(z3)x=\mathop{\rm Re}(z_{3}) and y=Im(z1​z2)y=\mathop{\rm Im}(z_{1}z_{2}). Then (54) gives

Re(z1​z2)=ua,b​(x,y)=ua′,b′​(x,y),Im(z3)=va,b​(x,y)+c=va′,b′​(x,y)+c′.\mathop{\rm Re}(z_{1}z_{2})=u_{a,b}(x,y)=u_{a^{\prime},b^{\prime}}(x,y),\quad\mathop{\rm Im}(z_{3})=v_{a,b}(x,y)+c=v_{a^{\prime},b^{\prime}}(x,y)+c^{\prime}.

As a=a′a=a^{\prime} the first equation gives ua,b​(x,y)=ua,b′​(x,y)u_{a,b}(x,y)=u_{a,b^{\prime}}(x,y), and part (ii) of Assumption 7.1 shows that b=b′b=b^{\prime}. The second equation then becomes va,b​(x,y)+c=va,b​(x,y)+c′v_{a,b}(x,y)+c=v_{a,b}(x,y)+c^{\prime}, so c=c′c=c^{\prime}. □\square

A 3-dimensional family of disjoint 3-folds in ℂ3\mathbin{\mathbb{C}}^{3} must locally define a fibration. So if we define UU to be the total space of all the Na,b,cN_{a,b,c} then we do have a fibration f:U→ℝ3f:U\rightarrow\mathbin{\mathbb{R}}^{3} with fibres Na,b,cN_{a,b,c}. Therefore, we have more-or-less reduced the problem to finding families of functions ua,b,va,bu_{a,b},v_{a,b}, which need only be defined near (0,0)(0,0) in ℝ2\mathbin{\mathbb{R}}^{2} for small a,ba,b, satisfying Assumption 7.1 and parts (i)–(vi) of Assumption 7.1.

Now by Proposition 6.4, given any real analytic values for ua,bu_{a,b} and va,bv_{a,b} on the xx-axis, there exist unique solutions of (57) near the xx-axis with these values, except when a=0a=0 near points (x,0)(x,0) with u0,b​(x,0)=0u_{0,b}(x,0)=0. But part (v) of Assumption 7.1 gives va,b​(x,0)≡0v_{a,b}(x,0)\equiv 0. Thus the function ua,b​(x,0)u_{a,b}(x,0) captures all the essential information about the behaviour of ua,bu_{a,b} and va,bv_{a,b} near the xx-axis.

Note also that part (ii) of Assumption 7.1 can be restricted to the xx-axis. For if ua,b​(x,0)<ua,b′​(x,0)u_{a,b}(x,0)<u_{a,b^{\prime}}(x,0) for all a,b,b′,xa,b,b^{\prime},x with b<b′b<b^{\prime}, then by continuity of the ua,bu_{a,b} we have ua,b​(x,y)<ua,b′​(x,y)u_{a,b}(x,y)<u_{a,b^{\prime}}(x,y) for sufficiently small yy. Thus part (ii) holds near the xx-axis, so by making UU smaller if necessary we ensure that part (ii) of Assumption 7.1 holds on all of Va,bV_{a,b}.

We may therefore try to proceed as follows. We choose real analytic functions ua,b​(x,0)u_{a,b}(x,0) satisfying the applicable parts of Assumptions 7.1 and 7.1, in a fairly arbitrary way. We then extend these uniquely to satisfy (57) in a small open neighbourhood of the xx-axis. Finally we construct the associated SL 3-folds, and argue that they locally form a fibration of ℂ3\mathbin{\mathbb{C}}^{3}.

The main problem with this approach is when a=0a=0 near the singular points (x,0)(x,0) with u0,b​(x,0)=0u_{0,b}(x,0)=0, as Proposition 6.4 does not apply. To overcome this problem we will need a good understanding of how solutions of (32) behave near isolated singular points of order 1 and 2. If we could prove Conjecture 6.14, then probably we could prove Conjecture 7.4 too.

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