ScalingStacks

3.3. Complex geometric perspective [042H]

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

3.3. Complex geometric perspective

We now proceed to identify the complex structure (J~(1),Ω~(1))(\tilde{J}^{(1)},\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}) on the Kähler ansatz. Our technique is to find a periodic version of the constructions made in Section 2.4 about the Taub-NUT type metric on ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3}, in the same way that the Ooguri-Vafa metric is seen as a periodic version of the Taub-NUT metric. The reader is encouraged to warm up by refering to Section 1.3 and 2.4. In this approach algebraic structures will emerge from relations between transcendental integrals of geometric origin. For the converse viewpoint which starts with the algebra, see the review Section 1.1.6.

The generalised Gibbons-Hawking construction provides the (1,0)(1,0)-forms ζ~i=V~(1)i​j​d​μj+−1​ϑi\tilde{\zeta}_{i}=\tilde{V}_{(1)}^{ij}d\mu_{j}+\sqrt{-1}\vartheta_{i}, and the formula (1.14) computes their differentials. The main idea is to produce holomorphic differentials by adjusting ζ~i\tilde{\zeta}_{i}. We define the functions

β~i(μ1,μ2,η)=limN→∞∑n=−NNβi(μ1,μ2,η+n),i=0,1,2.\tilde{\beta}_{i}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\beta_{i}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n),\quad i=0,1,2.
Lemma 3.7.

The series defining β~i\tilde{\beta}_{i} converge for η∉ℤ\eta\notin\mathbb{Z}, and β~i\tilde{\beta}_{i} are 1-periodic in η\eta. Morever if |x|≤12|x|\leq\frac{1}{2}, then

|β~i−βi|≤C⁡(|η|+|μ1|+|μ2|A1/4).|\tilde{\beta}_{i}-\beta_{i}|\leq C(|\eta|+\frac{|\mu_{1}|+|\mu_{2}|}{A^{1/4}}).
Proof.

Let μ1,μ2\mu_{1},\mu_{2} be fixed. The essential task is to understand the asymptotic behaviour of βi​(μ1,μ2,η+n)\beta_{i}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n) as |n||n| becomes large. We focus on β1\beta_{1}.

Using the homogeneity property of α1,α2,α3\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3} in the μ1,μ2\mu_{1},\mu_{2} and η\eta variables, it is easy to see from the integral definition of β1\beta_{1} that

β1​(0,0,η)=1η​β1​(0,0,1),|β1​(0,0,1)|≤C.\beta_{1}(0,0,\eta)=\frac{1}{\eta}\beta_{1}(0,0,1),\quad|\beta_{1}(0,0,1)|\leq C.

By elementary properties of arctan

α1​(μ1,μ2,η)=14​μ12+a22​|η|2+O⁡(|μ1|+|μ2|μ12+a22​|η|2),\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}+O(\frac{|\mu_{1}|+|\mu_{2}|}{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}),
∂α1∂η=−a22​η¯8​(μ12+a22​|η|2)3/2​(1+O⁡(|μ1|+|μ2|(μ12+a22​|η|2)1/2)),\frac{\partial\alpha_{1}}{\partial\eta}=\frac{-a_{22}\bar{\eta}}{8(\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2})^{3/2}}\left(1+O(\frac{|\mu_{1}|+|\mu_{2}|}{(\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2})^{1/2}})\right),

and similarly

∂α3∂η=−(a11+2​a22+a22)​η¯8​((μ1−μ2)2+(a11+2​a22+a22)​|η|2)3/2​(1+O⁡(|μ1|+|μ2|((μ1−μ2)2+A1/2​|η|2)1/2)).\frac{\partial\alpha_{3}}{\partial\eta}=\frac{-(a_{11}+2a_{22}+a_{22})\bar{\eta}}{8((\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})^{2}+(a_{11}+2a_{22}+a_{22})|\eta|^{2})^{3/2}}\left(1+O(\frac{|\mu_{1}|+|\mu_{2}|}{((\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})^{2}+A^{1/2}|\eta|^{2})^{1/2}})\right).

After integration

|β1​(μ1,μ2,η)−β1​(0,0,η)|≤C⁡(|μ1|+|μ2|)|η|​(1μ12+a22​|η|2+1(μ1−μ2)2+a22​|η|2).\begin{split}|\beta_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)-\beta_{1}(0,0,\eta)|\leq\frac{C(|\mu_{1}|+|\mu_{2}|)}{|\eta|}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}}).\end{split}

This shows the series

∑n∈ℤβ1​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−β1​(0,0,η+n)\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\beta_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\beta_{1}(0,0,\eta+n)

is absolutely convergent if η∉ℤ\eta\notin\mathbb{Z}, and if morever |x|≤12|x|\leq\frac{1}{2} then we have the bound

∑n∈ℤ∖{0}|β1​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−β1​(0,0,η+n)|≤C⁡(|μ1|+|μ2|)A1/4.\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}}|\beta_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\beta_{1}(0,0,\eta+n)|\leq\frac{C(|\mu_{1}|+|\mu_{2}|)}{A^{1/4}}.

Thus the convergence of the series β~1\tilde{\beta}_{1} is equivalent to the convergence of

limN→∞∑n=−NNβ1​(0,0,η+n)=β1​(0,0,1)​limN→∞∑n=−NN1η+n=β1​(0,0,1)​π​cot⁡(π​η),\lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\beta_{1}(0,0,\eta+n)=\beta_{1}(0,0,1)\lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\frac{1}{\eta+n}=\beta_{1}(0,0,1)\pi\cot(\pi\eta),

and similarly for β~2\tilde{\beta}_{2} and β~0\tilde{\beta}_{0}. The periodicity claim follows from standard rearranging theorems for series. The estimate on β~i−βi\tilde{\beta}_{i}-\beta_{i} follows by combining the above discussions. ∎

Lemma 3.8.

Let 0≤θ1∞,θ2∞≤2​π0\leq\theta_{1}^{\infty},\theta_{2}^{\infty}\leq 2\pi be two real numbers to be determined. The holomorphic 1-forms

{ζ~1′=ζ~1+(β~1+β1​(0,0,1)​π​−1−−1​θ1∞)​d​η,ζ~2′=ζ~2+(β~2+β2​(0,0,1)​π​−1−−1​θ2∞)​d​η,ζ~0′=ζ~0+(β~0+β0​(0,0,1)​π​−1+−1​θ1∞+−1​θ2∞)​d​η\begin{cases}\tilde{\zeta}_{1}^{\prime}=\tilde{\zeta}_{1}+(\tilde{\beta}_{1}+\beta_{1}(0,0,1)\pi\sqrt{-1}-\sqrt{-1}\theta_{1}^{\infty})d\eta,\\ \tilde{\zeta}_{2}^{\prime}=\tilde{\zeta}_{2}+(\tilde{\beta}_{2}+\beta_{2}(0,0,1)\pi\sqrt{-1}-\sqrt{-1}\theta_{2}^{\infty})d\eta,\\ \tilde{\zeta}_{0}^{\prime}=\tilde{\zeta}_{0}+(\tilde{\beta}_{0}+\beta_{0}(0,0,1)\pi\sqrt{-1}+\sqrt{-1}\theta_{1}^{\infty}+\sqrt{-1}\theta_{2}^{\infty})d\eta\end{cases}

are closed, namely they are holomorphic differentials.

Proof.

This is the periodic version of Lemma 2.7. The terms βi​(0,0,1)​π​−1\beta_{i}(0,0,1)\pi\sqrt{-1} and θi∞\theta_{i}^{\infty} are added for later convenience. ∎

Lemma 3.9.

The sum β~1+β~2+β~0=π​cot⁡(π​η)\tilde{\beta}_{1}+\tilde{\beta}_{2}+\tilde{\beta}_{0}=\pi\cot(\pi\eta). Equivalently,

ζ~1+ζ~2+ζ~0=d​log⁡(1−e2​π​−1​η).\tilde{\zeta}_{1}+\tilde{\zeta}_{2}+\tilde{\zeta}_{0}=d\log(1-e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\eta}).
Proof.

This is the periodic version of Lemma 2.8, using Euler’s series identity for cot⁡(π​η)\cot(\pi\eta):

limN→∞∑n=−NN1η+n=π​cot⁡(π​η),\lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=-N}^{N}\frac{1}{\eta+n}=\pi\cot(\pi\eta),

and ∑iβi​(0,0,1)=1\sum_{i}\beta_{i}(0,0,1)=1 from Lemma 2.8. ∎

To compute the periods of the integrals ∫ζ~i′\int\tilde{\zeta}_{i}^{\prime}, we recall from the topological description (cf. review Section 1.1.3) that there are three S1S^{1}-cycles generating H1​(T3)H_{1}(T^{3}), two of which come from the T2T^{2}-fibres, and the third comes from lifting the S1S^{1} on the base ℝμ1,μ22×(S1×ℝ)η\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times(S^{1}\times\mathbb{R})_{\eta} to the total space, which involves monodromy issues.

Lemma 3.10.

For appropriate choices of θ1∞,θ2∞\theta^{\infty}_{1},\theta^{\infty}_{2}, the T3T^{3}-periods of the holomorphic differentials ζ~i\tilde{\zeta}_{i} take values in 2​π​−1​ℤ2\pi\sqrt{-1}\mathbb{Z}. In particular, the holomorphic functions

Zi=exp(∫ζ~i),i=0,1,2Z_{i}=\exp(\int\tilde{\zeta}_{i}),\quad i=0,1,2

are defined without multivalue issues. For a suitable choice of multiplicative normalisation on ZiZ_{i}, we have the functional equation

Z0​Z1​Z2=1−e2​π​−1​η.Z_{0}Z_{1}Z_{2}=1-e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\eta}.
Proof.

The periods along the generating cycles in the T2T^{2}-fibres are straightforward:

∫S1ζ~i′=∫S1−1ϑi=2π−1,i=1,2,\int_{S^{1}}\tilde{\zeta}_{i}^{\prime}=\int_{S^{1}}\sqrt{-1}\vartheta_{i}=2\pi\sqrt{-1},\quad i=1,2,

and ∫S1ζ~0′=−−1∫S1ϑ1+ϑ2=−4π−1\int_{S^{1}}\tilde{\zeta}_{0}^{\prime}=-\sqrt{-1}\int_{S^{1}}\vartheta_{1}+\vartheta_{2}=-4\pi\sqrt{-1}.

Computing the period along the other S1S^{1} requires a special trick. As a preparatory subtle remark, the Kähler metric is not globally defined over the base ℝμ1,μ22×(S1×ℝ)η\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times(S^{1}\times\mathbb{R})_{\eta} due to incompleteness issues, but the quantities v~i​j,w~,ϑi\tilde{v}^{ij},\tilde{w},\vartheta_{i} make sense globally. Consider the S1S^{1} on the base defined by {μ1=μ2=0,y=const}\{\mu_{1}=\mu_{2}=0,y=\text{const}\}. If we attempt to lift this S1S^{1} by parallel transport, in general we cannot get a closed loop, and this failure is measured by the holonomy of the T2T^{2}-connection ϑ=(ϑ1,ϑ2)\vartheta=(\vartheta_{1},\vartheta_{2}) along the S1S^{1}. When y→+∞y\to+\infty, due to the exponential decay of the xx-dependent part of v~i​j,w~,ϑi\tilde{v}^{ij},\tilde{w},\vartheta_{i}, this holonomy converges to two real numbers (θ1∞,θ2∞)(\theta_{1}^{\infty},\theta_{2}^{\infty}) modulo 2​π​ℤ2\pi\mathbb{Z}. In particular, if we twist ϑ\vartheta by a flat T2T^{2}-connection, then θ1∞,θ2∞\theta_{1}^{\infty},\theta_{2}^{\infty} receive a corresponding twist so that ζ~i\tilde{\zeta}_{i} is unaffected. Thus we can assume without loss of generality that θi∞=0\theta_{i}^{\infty}=0, namely the asymptotic holonomy of ϑ\vartheta is zero, so in the limit the S1S^{1} cycle lifts to a closed loop, on which we can evaluate the period asymptotically.

By construction ∫S1ϑi=0\int_{S^{1}}\vartheta_{i}=0, and using β~i​(0,0,η)=βi​(0,0,1)​π​cot⁡(π​η)\tilde{\beta}_{i}(0,0,\eta)=\beta_{i}(0,0,1)\pi\cot(\pi\eta) from the proof of Lemma 3.7, we compute

∫S1ζ~i′=∫S1(β~i+βi​(0,0,1)​π​−1)​𝑑ζ=limy→∞∫S1βi​(0,0,1)​(π​cot⁡(π​η)+π​−1)​𝑑η=limy→∞βi​(0,0,1)​∫S1d​log⁡(1−e2​π​−1​η)=0.\begin{split}\int_{S^{1}}\tilde{\zeta}_{i}^{\prime}&=\int_{S^{1}}(\tilde{\beta}_{i}+\beta_{i}(0,0,1)\pi\sqrt{-1})d\zeta\\ &=\lim_{y\to\infty}\int_{S^{1}}\beta_{i}(0,0,1)(\pi\cot(\pi\eta)+\pi\sqrt{-1})d\eta\\ &=\lim_{y\to\infty}\beta_{i}(0,0,1)\int_{S^{1}}d\log(1-e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\eta})=0.\end{split}

From this we see the integrality condition on the periods, so the holomorphic functions ZiZ_{i} are well defined without multivalue issues.

Notice the definition of ZiZ_{i} for i=0,1,2i=0,1,2 involve three unspecified multiplicative constants; by prescribing their product appropriately, the functional equation follows from Lemma 3.9. The remaining two free multiplicative constants will be fixed in later Sections. ∎

We denote Z3=exp⁡(2​π​−1​η)∈ℂ∗Z_{3}=\exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1}\eta)\in\mathbb{C}^{*}. The functional equation gives a map

M+→{Z0Z1Z2=1−Z3}⊂ℂZ1,Z2,Z03×ℂZ3∗.M^{+}\to\{Z_{0}Z_{1}Z_{2}=1-Z_{3}\}\subset\mathbb{C}^{3}_{Z_{1},Z_{2},Z_{0}}\times\mathbb{C}^{*}_{Z_{3}}.

By the same argument as Section 2.4, this is a holomorphic map on M+∖{0}M^{+}\setminus\{0\} and extends continuously at the origin.

Proposition 3.11.

The map M+→{Z0Z1Z2=1−Z3}M^{+}\to\{Z_{0}Z_{1}Z_{2}=1-Z_{3}\} is a holomorphic open embedding. The T2T^{2}-action is identified as

ei​θ1⋅(Z0,Z1,Z2)=(e−i​θ1​Z0,ei​θ1​Z1,Z2),ei​θ2⋅(Z0,Z1,Z2)=(e−i​θ2​Z0,Z1,ei​θ2​Z2),e^{i\theta_{1}}\cdot(Z_{0},Z_{1},Z_{2})=(e^{-i\theta_{1}}Z_{0},e^{i\theta_{1}}Z_{1},Z_{2}),\quad e^{i\theta_{2}}\cdot(Z_{0},Z_{1},Z_{2})=(e^{-i\theta_{2}}Z_{0},Z_{1},e^{i\theta_{2}}Z_{2}),

and the holomorphic volume form is Ω~(1)=−−12​π​Z3​d​Z0∧d​Z1∧d​Z2\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}=-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi Z_{3}}dZ_{0}\wedge dZ_{1}\wedge dZ_{2}.

Proof.

The T2T^{2}-action follows the same argument as Proposition 2.11. The holomorphic volume form is characterised by Ω~(1)(∂∂θ1,∂∂θ2,⋅)=dη.\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{1}},\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{2}},\cdot)=d\eta. Notice also

−dZ0∧dZ1∧dZ2(∂∂θ1,∂∂θ2,⋅)=d(Z0Z1Z2)=−dZ3=−2π−1Z3dη,-dZ_{0}\wedge dZ_{1}\wedge dZ_{2}(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{1}},\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{2}},\cdot)=d(Z_{0}Z_{1}Z_{2})=-dZ_{3}=-2\pi\sqrt{-1}Z_{3}d\eta,

so Ω~(1)=−−12​π​Z3​d​Z0∧d​Z1∧d​Z2\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}=-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi Z_{3}}dZ_{0}\wedge dZ_{1}\wedge dZ_{2}. This formula in particular implies the map M+→{Z0Z1Z2=1−Z3}M^{+}\to\{Z_{0}Z_{1}Z_{2}=1-Z_{3}\} is a local biholomorphism. We finally need to show this map is injective. Since both M+M^{+} and {Z0Z1Z2=1−Z3}\{Z_{0}Z_{1}Z_{2}=1-Z_{3}\} fibre over the ℂ∗\mathbb{C}^{*} coordinate η\eta in a compatible way, it suffices to compare the fibres, which have compatible T2T^{2}-actions, so boils down to the injectivity of (μ1,μ2)↦(log⁡|Z0|,log⁡|Z1|,log⁡|Z2|)(\mu_{1},\mu_{2})\mapsto(\log|Z_{0}|,\log|Z_{1}|,\log|Z_{2}|) for fixed η\eta. ∎

Remark 3.5.

Section 2.5 shows that the algebraic structure on Taub-NUT type ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3} emerges from holomorphic functions with controlled growth at infinity. Since our Kähler ansatz is incomplete, it makes no literal sense to speak of spatial infinity. Instead growth rate is thought in terms of effective estimates. For a holomorphic function ff on M+M^{+} normalised to ‖f‖L2=1\left\lVert f\right\rVert_{L^{2}}=1, if we decompose ff according to the weights of the T2T^{2}-action, then in a smaller metric ball around the origin only Fourier components with small T2T^{2}-weights contribute significantly to |f||f|. The intuition is that T2T^{2}-weights are related to an effective filtration of local holomorphic functions.

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