ScalingStacks

Proof. [0452]

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

Proof.

We use the Green representation of γ¯4\bar{\gamma}_{4}. The total measure

∫SIm​(−1​d​η2′∧d​η¯1′)≤C,\int_{S}\text{Im}(\sqrt{-1}d\eta_{2}^{\prime}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{1}^{\prime})\leq C,

so the contribution to γ¯4\bar{\gamma}_{4} from the ball {|(η1′,η2′,0)|a≲A1/4}⊂S\{|(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime},0)|_{a}\lesssim A^{1/4}\}\subset S is bounded by C​ϱ−1C\varrho^{-1}. The contributions from the 3 ends are neglegible unless the point (y1,y2,μ)(y_{1},y_{2},\mu) inside the region (4.14) is close to SS along some 𝔇i\mathfrak{D}_{i}; we focus on the case of 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1}. The key fact is the exponential decay of the measure: along 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} we have

Im​(−1​d​η2′∧d​η¯1′)≤C​e−2​π​y2′​−1​d​η2′∧d​η¯2′.\text{Im}(\sqrt{-1}d\eta_{2}^{\prime}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{1}^{\prime})\leq Ce^{-2\pi y_{2}^{\prime}}\sqrt{-1}d\eta_{2}^{\prime}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{2}^{\prime}.

Thus the contribution from the end {y2′>1}∩S\{y_{2}^{\prime}>1\}\cap S is controlled by

C​∫0∞e−2​π​y2′​|(y1,y2−y2′,μ)|a′−1​d​y2′≤C​ϱ−1.\begin{split}C\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-2\pi y_{2}^{\prime}}|(y_{1},y_{2}-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)|_{a}^{\prime-1}dy_{2}^{\prime}\leq C\varrho^{-1}.\end{split}

which implies the estimates on γ¯4\bar{\gamma}_{4}.

For γ¯i−γ¯¯i\bar{\gamma}_{i}-\bar{\bar{\gamma}}_{i}, the main point is that SS approaches its asymptotic cylinder at an exponentially fast rate. The rest of the arguments are similar. ∎

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