ScalingStacks

2.3. Structure near discriminant locus [03ZT]

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

2.3. Structure near discriminant locus

We now study the metric near the discriminant locus but sufficiently far from the origin, which turns out to be locally modelled on a fibration by Taub-NUT metrics over a flat cylinder. A subtlety is that the smooth topology along 𝔇i\mathfrak{D}_{i} is not a priori prescribed, and needs to be elucidated first.

We focus on the neighbourhood of 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} far from the origin, where Ξ±1∼12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2\alpha_{1}\sim\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}} and Ξ±2,Ξ±3\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3} are smooth. To leading order

V(1)∼VTaub=[12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2+a11a12a21a22],W(1)∼WTaub=A+a222​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2.V_{(1)}\sim V_{\text{Taub}}=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}+a_{11}&a_{12}\\ a_{21}&a_{22}\end{bmatrix},W_{(1)}\sim W_{\text{Taub}}=A+\frac{a_{22}}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}.

The inverse matrix is

V(1)βˆ’1∼VTaubβˆ’1=(A+a222​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2)βˆ’1​[a22βˆ’a21βˆ’a1212​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2+a11].V_{(1)}^{-1}\sim V_{\text{Taub}}^{-1}=({A+\frac{a_{22}}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}})^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}a_{22}&-a_{21}\\ -a_{12}&\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}+a_{11}\end{bmatrix}.

Now if we apply the generalised Gibbons-Hawking ansatz to VTaubV_{\text{Taub}} and WTaubW_{\text{Taub}}, we obtain a model metric

gTaub=VTaubi​j​d​μi​d​μj+WTaub​|d​η|2+(VTaubβˆ’1)i​j​ϑi′​ϑjβ€²g_{\text{Taub}}=V^{ij}_{\text{Taub}}d\mu_{i}d\mu_{j}+W_{\text{Taub}}|d\eta|^{2}+(V^{-1}_{\text{Taub}})^{ij}\vartheta_{i}^{\prime}\vartheta_{j}^{\prime}

where Ο‘1β€²,Ο‘2β€²\vartheta_{1}^{\prime},\vartheta_{2}^{\prime} are the connections. As d​ϑ2β€²=0d\vartheta_{2}^{\prime}=0 we may write Ο‘2β€²=d​θ2β€²\vartheta_{2}^{\prime}=d\theta_{2}^{\prime}. Rewriting the model metric,

(2.13) gTaub=(12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2+Aa22)​(d​μ12+a22​|d​η|2)+a22​(d⁑(ΞΌ2+a12a22​μ1))2+(12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2+Aa22)βˆ’1​(Ο‘1β€²βˆ’a12a22​d​θ2β€²)2+1a22​(d​θ2β€²)2.\begin{split}g_{\text{Taub}}=(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}+\frac{A}{a_{22}})(d\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|d\eta|^{2})+a_{22}(d(\mu_{2}+\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}\mu_{1}))^{2}\\ +(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}+\frac{A}{a_{22}})^{-1}(\vartheta_{1}^{\prime}-\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}d\theta_{2}^{\prime})^{2}+\frac{1}{a_{22}}(d\theta_{2}^{\prime})^{2}.\end{split}

Notice the dual basis for {Ο‘1β€²βˆ’a12a22​d​θ2β€²,Ο‘2β€²}\{\vartheta_{1}^{\prime}-\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}d\theta_{2}^{\prime},\vartheta_{2}^{\prime}\} is given by {βˆ‚βˆ‚ΞΈ1,βˆ‚βˆ‚ΞΈ2+a12a22β€‹βˆ‚βˆ‚ΞΈ1}\{\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{1}},\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{2}}+\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{1}}\}, which corresponds to the moment coordinates ΞΌ1\mu_{1} and ΞΌ2+a12a22​μ1\mu_{2}+\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}\mu_{1}.

The variables ΞΌ2+a12a22​μ1\mu_{2}+\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}\mu_{1} and ΞΈ2β€²\theta_{2}^{\prime} define a cylinder ℝ×S1\mathbb{R}\times S^{1}. Translations in these variables are isometries of the model space. The model space fibres over this cylinder, and restricted to each fibre the metric is recognized as the Taub-NUT metric with parameter Aa22\frac{A}{a_{22}}. The fibration is not always a metric product, because for the generators βˆ‚βˆ‚ΞΈ1\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{1}} and βˆ‚βˆ‚ΞΈ2+a12a22β€‹βˆ‚βˆ‚ΞΈ1\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{2}}+\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{1}} to give rise to an integral basis of H1​(T2)H_{1}(T^{2}) we need a12a22\frac{a_{12}}{a_{22}} to be an integer. On the universal cover the metric becomes the product of Taub-NUT metric with the flat ℝ2\mathbb{R}^{2}, as ΞΈ2\theta_{2} becomes a real variable instead of a circle variable. In particular the universal cover is topologically β„‚2×ℝ2\mathbb{C}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{2}, and the model space is a discrete β„€\mathbb{Z}-quotient of β„‚2×ℝ2\mathbb{C}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{2}, so inherits a smooth topology. The Riemannian curvature on the model metric is bounded but does not decay as we move to infinity along 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1}.

Remark 2.4.

We wish to amplify the idea that the smooth topology of the S1S^{1}-fibration map is subtle. Given a T2T^{2}-fibration M→ℬM\to\mathcal{B} say, the T2T^{2}-invariant smooth functions on MM descend into a sheaf of functions on the base, sitting between the sheaf of smooth functions on ℬ\mathcal{B} and the sheaf of continuous functions on ℬ\mathcal{B}. An example of such a function on our model space is ΞΌ12+a22​|Ξ·|2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}. Had we chosen a different a22a_{22} to begin with, this sheaf would be different. This means assigning a smooth topology on the compactification of a torus bundle across the discriminant locus, is a problem which involves extra data. In general this sheaf depends on functions along 𝔇i\mathfrak{D}_{i}, so carries an infinite amount of information, and is therefore expected to be unstable under deformation. This subtlety is related to Joyce’s observation that special Lagrangian fibrations can fail to be given by smooth maps (cf. review Section 1.1.5 and Section 4.12).

Our next goal is to quantify the idea that the model gTaubg_{\text{Taub}} is a good approximation to the metric ansatz g(1)g^{(1)}. We view both metrics as defined on the same smooth manifold, fibred over the region

(2.14) |ΞΌβ†’|aβ‰₯C1Aβˆ’1/4,|ΞΌβ†’|aβ‰₯C1distga(β‹…,𝔇1)|\vec{\mu}|_{a}\geq C_{1}A^{-1/4},\quad|\vec{\mu}|_{a}\geq C_{1}\text{dist}_{g_{a}}(\cdot,\mathfrak{D}_{1})

where C1C_{1} is a large number as in Section 2.2. In this region the gag_{a}-distance to 𝔇2,𝔇3\mathfrak{D}_{2},\mathfrak{D}_{3} are both O⁑(|ΞΌβ†’|a)O(|\vec{\mu}|_{a}), and distga​(β‹…,𝔇1)\text{dist}_{g_{a}}(\cdot,\mathfrak{D}_{1}) is comparable to A1/4​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2A^{1/4}\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}, so

β„“=Aβˆ’1/4+distga(β‹…,𝔇)∼Aβˆ’1/4+A1/4ΞΌ12+a22​|Ξ·|2.\ell=A^{-1/4}+\text{dist}_{g_{a}}(\cdot,\mathfrak{D})\sim A^{-1/4}+A^{1/4}\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}.

We introduce some weighted HΓΆlder norms associated to the reference metric gTaubg_{\text{Taub}}. The regularity scale of gTaubg_{\text{Taub}} is comparable to β„“\ell. For any T2T^{2}-invariant tensor field TT over the region (2.14) , define the normalised HΓΆlder seminorm

[T]Ξ±=suppℓ​(p)Ξ±β‹…suppβ€²βˆˆBgTaub​(p,β„“/10)|T⁑(p)βˆ’T⁑(pβ€²)|dTaub​(p,pβ€²)Ξ±[T]_{\alpha}=\sup_{p}\ell(p)^{\alpha}\cdot\sup_{p^{\prime}\in B_{g_{\text{Taub}}(p,\ell/10)}}\frac{|T(p)-T(p^{\prime})|}{d_{\text{Taub}}(p,p^{\prime})^{\alpha}}

where we compare T⁑(p)T(p) and T⁑(pβ€²)T(p^{\prime}) using parallel transport along minimal geodesics. The weighted norm of TT is then defined by

β€–Tβ€–CΞ΄,Ο„k,Ξ±=Aβˆ’Ξ΄/4βˆ’Ο„/4βˆ‘j=0kβ€–β„“βˆ’Ξ΄+j|ΞΌβ†’|aβˆ’Ο„βˆ‡jTβ€–L∞+Aβˆ’Ξ΄/4βˆ’Ο„/4[β„“βˆ’Ξ΄+k|ΞΌβ†’|aβˆ’Ο„βˆ‡kT]Ξ±.\left\lVert T\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\delta,\tau}}=A^{-\delta/4-\tau/4}\sum_{j=0}^{k}\left\lVert\ell^{-\delta+j}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}^{-\tau}\nabla^{j}T\right\rVert_{L^{\infty}}+A^{-\delta/4-\tau/4}[\ell^{-\delta+k}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}^{-\tau}\nabla^{k}T]_{\alpha}.

An estimate in this norm can be thought as the higher order version of |T|=O⁑(AΟ„/4+Ξ΄/4​ℓδ​|ΞΌβ†’|aΟ„)|T|=O(A^{\tau/4+\delta/4}\ell^{\delta}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}^{\tau}). Similar weighted HΓΆlder norms are defined in the neighbourhood of 𝔇2\mathfrak{D}_{2} and 𝔇3\mathfrak{D}_{3}.

The deviation between VTaubi​jV^{ij}_{\text{Taub}} and V(1)i​jV^{ij}_{(1)} near 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} is measured by the functions Ξ±1βˆ’12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2\alpha_{1}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}, Ξ±2\alpha_{2} and Ξ±3\alpha_{3}.

Lemma 2.5.

In the above region (2.14) near 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1},

{β€–Ξ±2β€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C​A1/2,β€–Ξ±3β€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C​A1/2,β€–Ξ±1βˆ’12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2β€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C​A1/2.\begin{cases}\left\lVert\alpha_{2}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq CA^{1/2},\\ \left\lVert\alpha_{3}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq CA^{1/2},\\ \left\lVert\alpha_{1}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq CA^{1/2}.\end{cases}

Consequently, if C1C_{1} is chosen to be large enough, then

|V(1)i​jβˆ’VTaubi​j|≀C​A1/4|ΞΌβ†’|aβ‰ͺai​j≀VTaubi​j,|W(1)βˆ’WTaub|≀C​A3/4|ΞΌβ†’|aβ‰ͺA≀WTaub.|V^{ij}_{(1)}-V^{ij}_{\text{Taub}}|\leq\frac{CA^{1/4}}{|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}\ll a_{ij}\leq V^{ij}_{\text{Taub}},\quad|W_{(1)}-W_{\text{Taub}}|\leq\frac{CA^{3/4}}{|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}\ll A\leq W_{\text{Taub}}.
Proof.

The Ξ”a\Delta_{a}-harmonic function Ξ±2,Ξ±3\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3} are both of order O⁑(A1/4|ΞΌβ†’|a)O(\frac{A^{1/4}}{|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}). The function

Ξ±1βˆ’12​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2=βˆ’12​π​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2​arctan⁑(A​μ12+a22​|Ξ·|2a22​μ2+a12​μ1)\alpha_{1}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}=-\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}\arctan(\frac{\sqrt{A}\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}{a_{22}\mu_{2}+a_{12}\mu_{1}})

is also Ξ”a\Delta_{a}-harmonic, and by the Taylor expansion of arctan\arctan is seen to be O⁑(A1/4|ΞΌβ†’|a)O(\frac{A^{1/4}}{|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}) as well. These functions are smooth on the base in the region (2.14) with regularity scale O⁑(|ΞΌβ†’|a)O(|\vec{\mu}|_{a}). The Ξ”a\Delta_{a}-harmonicity takes care of all higher order estimates. ∎

Next we analyse the deviation between the connections Ο‘i\vartheta_{i} and Ο‘iβ€²\vartheta_{i}^{\prime} for i=1,2i=1,2, corresponding to the ansatz g(1)g^{(1)} and the model gTaubg_{\text{Taub}} respectively. This involves the same gauge fixing issue as in Section 2.2. The defining condition on Ο‘i\vartheta_{i} is

d​ϑi=βˆ’1​(12β€‹βˆ‚W(1)βˆ‚ΞΌj​dβ€‹Ξ·βˆ§d​η¯+βˆ‚V(1)i​jβˆ‚Ξ·β€‹d​μi∧dβ€‹Ξ·βˆ’βˆ‚V(1)i​jβˆ‚Ξ·Β―β€‹d​μi∧d​η¯),d\vartheta_{i}=\sqrt{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial W_{(1)}}{\partial\mu_{j}}d\eta\wedge d\bar{\eta}+\frac{\partial V^{ij}_{(1)}}{\partial\eta}d\mu_{i}\wedge d\eta-\frac{\partial V^{ij}_{(1)}}{\partial\bar{\eta}}d\mu_{i}\wedge d\bar{\eta}\right),

and similarly for Ο‘iβ€²\vartheta_{i}^{\prime}. Thus β€–d⁑(Ο‘iβˆ’Ο‘iβ€²)β€–C0,βˆ’2≀C​A1/2\left\lVert d(\vartheta_{i}-\vartheta_{i}^{\prime})\right\rVert_{C^{0,-2}}\leq CA^{1/2} using the higher derivative estimates on V(1)i​jβˆ’VTaubi​jV^{ij}_{(1)}-V^{ij}_{\text{Taub}} etc. Using the d-PoincarΓ© lemma, we can find a gauge fixed choice of the smooth 1-form Ο‘iβˆ’Ο‘iβ€²\vartheta_{i}-\vartheta_{i}^{\prime} such that β€–Ο‘iβˆ’Ο‘iβ€²β€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C​A1/4.\left\lVert\vartheta_{i}-\vartheta_{i}^{\prime}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq CA^{1/4}. Combining the above, and recalling |dΞΌi|≀CAβˆ’1/4|d\mu_{i}|\leq CA^{-1/4}, |dΞ·|≀CAβˆ’1/2|d\eta|\leq CA^{-1/2}, we obtain

Lemma 2.6.

The KΓ€hler structure (g(1),Ο‰(1),J,Ξ©)(g^{(1)},\omega^{(1)},J,\Omega) extends smoothly over the region (2.14). The deviation from the model metric admits the estimates

{β€–g(1)βˆ’gTaubβ€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C,β€–Ο‰(1)βˆ’Ο‰Taubβ€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C,β€–Jβˆ’JTaubβ€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C,β€–Ξ©βˆ’Ξ©Taubβ€–C0,βˆ’1k,α≀C.\begin{cases}\left\lVert g^{(1)}-g_{\text{Taub}}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq C,\quad&\left\lVert\omega^{(1)}-\omega_{\text{Taub}}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq C,\\ \left\lVert J-J_{\text{Taub}}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq C,\quad&\left\lVert\Omega-\Omega_{\text{Taub}}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{0,-1}}\leq C.\end{cases}

In particular, if C1C_{1} is chosen large enough, then the magnitudes of the deviation

|g(1)βˆ’gTaub|β‰ͺ1,|Ο‰(1)βˆ’Ο‰Taub|β‰ͺ1,|Ξ©βˆ’Ξ©Taub|β‰ͺ1,|Jβˆ’JTaub|β‰ͺ1.|g^{(1)}-g_{\text{Taub}}|\ll 1,\quad|\omega^{(1)}-\omega_{\text{Taub}}|\ll 1,\quad|\Omega-\Omega_{\text{Taub}}|\ll 1,\quad|J-J_{\text{Taub}}|\ll 1.

The volume form error function E(1)E^{(1)} satisfies

β€–E(1)β€–Cβˆ’1,βˆ’1k,α≀C.\left\lVert E^{(1)}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{-1,-1}}\leq C.
Remark 2.5.

The same arguments show that the KΓ€hler ansatz is smooth along the entire 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1}, although the smooth topology is not yet defined at the origin; this difficulty will later be resolved by shifting to the complex geometric viewpoint and doing a surgery to the KΓ€hler ansatz.

Remark 2.6.

The metric deviation estimate and the volume form error estimate require A1/4​|ΞΌβ†’|a≳1A^{1/4}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}\gtrsim 1. Heuristically we may think of the discriminant locus 𝔇\mathfrak{D} as the source of gravitating force, and for A1/4​|ΞΌβ†’|≲1A^{1/4}|\vec{\mu}|\lesssim 1 the mutual interactions of 𝔇1,𝔇2,𝔇3\mathfrak{D}_{1},\mathfrak{D}_{2},\mathfrak{D}_{3} become too strong, so the perturbative description breaks down.

Remark 2.7.

Over the subregion of (2.14) where β„“β‰₯2Aβˆ’1/4\ell\geq 2A^{-1/4}, namely outside the curvature scale along 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1}, the model metric gTaubg_{\text{Taub}} is itself locally approximated by the flat model gflatg_{\text{flat}} (cf. Section 2.2) over gag_{a}-balls of radius βˆΌβ„“β‘(x)\sim\ell(x):

β€–gTaubβˆ’gflatβ€–Cβˆ’1,0k,α≀C.\left\lVert g_{\text{Taub}}-g_{\text{flat}}\right\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}_{-1,0}}\leq C.

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