ScalingStacks

Proof idea of Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau theorem [048G]

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 idea of Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau theorem

In very sketchy terms, one standard proof of the Donaldson-Uhlenbeck-Yau theorem (closest to Simpson’s approach [72]) proceeds via the heat flow. It has two principal steps:

  • •

    Consider the HYM heat flow

    ∂tH​H−1=−−1​Λ​FH.\partial_{t}HH^{-1}=-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda F_{H}.

    Using certain parabolic maximum principles, one proves long time existence by showing that all derivatives of HH remain bounded for any given finite time. Furthermore, supX∨|Λ​F|\sup_{X^{\vee}}|\Lambda F| and ‖F‖L2\left\lVert F\right\rVert_{L^{2}} are non-increasing in time, so remain uniformly bounded for all time. This step does not use stability.

  • •

    The Donaldson functional is non-increasing in time almost by definition, so has a uniform upper bound for all time. Together with the pointwise bound on Λ​F\Lambda F, which is like a Laplacian bound, one eventually shows that if H⁡(t)H(t) fails to be L∞L^{\infty} bounded for all time, then there exists an L2L^{2}-subbundle of EE with destabilizing properties, which is then interpreted algebraically as a subsheaf. (Roughly, the destabilizing sheaf comes from the eigensubspaces of EE corresponding to the small eigenvalues of H⁡(t)H(t) with respect to a fixed reference metric; compare the variational viewpoint below.) The stability condition rules out this case; one then shows that H⁡(t)H(t) actually converges smoothly at infinite time to a solution of the HYM equation.

Remark 2.11.

An alternative approach by Donaldson [27] in the projective manifold case, is also based on the flow method, but uses a dimensional induction in which the stability condition appears indirectly through alternative algebro-geometric characterisations. The approach of Uhlenbeck and Yau [79] uses the continuity method instead, where the stability condition appears in a way similar to the above.

We now discuss the variational perspective to the HYM equation, even though no proofs have been constructed along such lines. One would try to compactify ℋ\mathcal{H} in some weaker topology (which is not known),2525 25 What is known is how to compactify the space of Kähler potentials via psh functions, see Boucksom [11] for its fantastic application to Kähler-Einstein metrics. In that context, the boundary at infinity is related to non-archimedean geometry. extend the Donaldson functional to this compactification, attempt to find a minimizer of the functional, and then prove its regularity. Since the Donaldson functional is convex, it is natural to expect the existence of minimizer is equivalent to the properness of ℳ\mathcal{M}, or roughly equivalently ℳ\mathcal{M} should grow at the infinity of ℋ\mathcal{H}.

Suppose now that EE fits into an extension sequence

0→E1→E→E2→0.0\to E_{1}\to E\to E_{2}\to 0.

Take arbitrary Hermitian metrics HEH_{E} and HE2H_{E_{2}} on EE and E2E_{2} respectively,2626 26 The fact that the choice of Hermitian metrics will not ultimately matter is an expected feature, analogous to the relation between Kähler potentials and non-archimedean potential theory. and regard HE2H_{E_{2}} as a semi-Hermitian metric on EE. We can then produce a 1-parameter family of Hermitian metrics on EE, via H⁡(s)=e−s​HE+HE2H(s)=e^{-s}H_{E}+H_{E_{2}}. For s≫1s\gg 1, the metric H⁡(s)H(s) can be understood as equal to e−s​HEe^{-s}H_{E} when restricted to E1E_{1}, and almost equal to HE2H_{E_{2}} on the orthogonal complement of E1E_{1}. In terms of bundles with connections, in the limit s→∞s\to\infty we get E1⊕E2E_{1}\oplus E_{2} with the Chern connection for HE|E1⊕HE2H_{E}|_{E_{1}}\oplus H_{E_{2}}. As such, it is an easy exercise to show that to leading order

ℳ(H(s))∼−2πs∫X∨c1(E1)∧ωX∨n−1.\mathcal{M}(H(s))\sim-2\pi s\int_{X^{\vee}}c_{1}(E_{1})\wedge\omega_{X^{\vee}}^{n-1}.

Recall we have assumed c1​(E)=0c_{1}(E)=0 to simplify the definition of the Donaldson functional. Thus the subbundle E1E_{1} destabilizes EE, precisely when the degree of E1E_{1} is positive, so ℳ⁡(H⁡(s))\mathcal{M}(H(s)) goes to −∞-\infty along this 1-parameter family.

If one wants to turn the variational approach into an actual proof, one needs to further show that all possible ways to approach the infinity of (the metric completion of) ℋ\mathcal{H} can be approximated by such 1-parameter families of algebraic origin. For our motivational purpose, it suffices to emphasize the following conceptual points:

  • •

    The interesting limiting behaviour of the Donaldson functional occurs at an infinite distance boundary of (the metric completion of) ℋ\mathcal{H}. This sits well with the non-positive Riemannian curvature of ℋ\mathcal{H}.

  • •

    The stability condition controls the asymptotic behaviour of the Donaldson functional near the boundary of ℋ\mathcal{H}.

Remark 2.12.

The nonlinear analysis concerning special Lagrangians is more difficult than HYM. For instance, the finite time singularities of the LMCF are inevitable. The HYM equation can be viewed as a toy model which shares some, but by no means all, of the high level features with the special Lagrangian equation.

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