ScalingStacks

Proof. [0460]

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 focus on the βp​3\beta_{p3} case, and consider A1/4​μ≫|η1|+|η2|+1A^{1/4}\mu\gg|\eta_{1}|+|\eta_{2}|+1. Using Lemma 4.22, the contribution to ∫γp​3​𝑑𝒜\int\gamma_{p3}d\mathcal{A} from the region {|η1−η1′|+|η2−η2′|≤(A1/4μ)1−ϵ}∩S\{|\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}^{\prime}|+|\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}^{\prime}|\leq(A^{1/4}\mu)^{1-\epsilon}\}\cap S is negligible, where 0<ϵ≪10<\epsilon\ll 1 is any small given number. Outside this region SS is asymptotic to 𝔇i×S1\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1} along the three ends up to exponentially small error, and furthermore Lemma 4.23 allows us to replace γp​3\gamma_{p3} by Ip​3I_{p3} without affecting the μ→+∞\mu\to+\infty limit.

We are now left to consider the improper integral

∫∪(𝔇i×S1)Ip​3​(y1−y1′,y2−y2′,μ)​𝑑𝒜​(η1′,η2′).\int_{\cup(\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1})}I_{p3}(y_{1}-y_{1}^{\prime},y_{2}-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)d\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime}).

Using the formula of Ip​3I_{p3} in Lemma 4.21, we can simplify further by setting y1=y2=0y_{1}=y_{2}=0 without affecting the μ→+∞\mu\to+\infty limit. Along the 𝔇1×S1\mathfrak{D}_{1}\times S^{1} end,

∫𝔇1×S1∩{y2′<Λa2​2¯}Ip​3(−y1′,−y2′,μ)d𝒜(η1′,η2′)=∫0Λa2​2¯Ip​3(0,−y2′,μ)a2​2¯dy2′,\int_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}\times S^{1}\cap\{y_{2}^{\prime}<\frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt{a_{2\bar{2}}}}\}}I_{p3}(-y_{1}^{\prime},-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)d\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime})=\int_{0}^{\frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt{a_{2\bar{2}}}}}I_{p3}(0,-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)a_{2\bar{2}}dy_{2}^{\prime},

which we compute as

−ap​2¯​−14​π​A1/2​𝔸​∫0Λa2​2¯a2​2¯​y2′​d​y2′​1|(0,−y2′,μ)|a′​(|(0,−y2′,μ)|a′+A1/2​μ)=−ap​2¯​−1​𝔸8​π​A3/2​∫A​μ2A𝔸​Λ2+A​μ2d​ss1/2​(s1/2+A1/2​μ)=−ap​2¯​−1​𝔸4​π​A3/2​log⁡((𝔸−1​Λ2+μ2)1/2+μ2​μ).\begin{split}&\frac{-a_{p\bar{2}}\sqrt{-1}}{4\pi A^{1/2}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}\int_{0}^{\frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt{a_{2\bar{2}}}}}a_{2\bar{2}}y_{2}^{\prime}dy_{2}^{\prime}\frac{1}{|(0,-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)|_{a}^{\prime}(|(0,-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)|_{a}^{\prime}+A^{1/2}\mu)}\\ =&\frac{-a_{p\bar{2}}\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{8\pi A^{3/2}}\int_{A\mu^{2}}^{\frac{A}{\mathbb{A}}\Lambda^{2}+A\mu^{2}}\frac{ds}{s^{1/2}(s^{1/2}+A^{1/2}\mu)}\\ =&\frac{-a_{p\bar{2}}\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{4\pi A^{3/2}}\log\left(\frac{(\mathbb{A}^{-1}\Lambda^{2}+\mu^{2})^{1/2}+\mu}{2\mu}\right).\end{split}

Similarly, the integrals from 𝔇2×S1\mathfrak{D}_{2}\times S^{1} and 𝔇3×S1\mathfrak{D}_{3}\times S^{1} are respectively

−ap​1¯​−1​𝔸4​π​A3/2​log⁡((𝔸−1​Λ2+μ2)1/2+μ2​μ)\frac{-a_{p\bar{1}}\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{4\pi A^{3/2}}\log\left(\frac{(\mathbb{A}^{-1}\Lambda^{2}+\mu^{2})^{1/2}+\mu}{2\mu}\right)

and

(ap​1¯+ap​2¯)​−1​𝔸4​π​A3/2​log⁡((𝔸−1​Λ2+μ2)1/2+μ2​μ).\frac{(a_{p\bar{1}}+a_{p\bar{2}})\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{4\pi A^{3/2}}\log\left(\frac{(\mathbb{A}^{-1}\Lambda^{2}+\mu^{2})^{1/2}+\mu}{2\mu}\right).

Summing over the three contributions and take the limit Λ→+∞\Lambda\to+\infty,

∫∪(𝔇i×S1)Ip​3​(−y1′,−y2′,μ)​𝑑𝒜​(η1′,η2′)=0.\int_{\cup(\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1})}I_{p3}(-y_{1}^{\prime},-y_{2}^{\prime},\mu)d\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime})=0.

This proves limμ→+∞βp​3​(η1,η2,μ)=0\lim_{\mu\to+\infty}\beta_{p3}(\eta_{1},\eta_{2},\mu)=0 . Likewise with the βp​4\beta_{p4} case.

The ‘morever’ statement follows from a simpler argument. The key is that higher derivatives of the integrand have faster decay at large distance, so that the divergence issues do not arise. ∎

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