ScalingStacks

Proof. [04AR]

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.

Since η\eta is a holomorphic 1-form valued in u∗​T∗​Xu^{*}T^{*}X, Stokes theorem gives

∫Σ⟨∂¯​XH∧η⟩=∫∂Σ⟨XH,η⟩,\int_{\Sigma}\langle\bar{\partial}X_{H}\wedge\eta\rangle=\int_{\partial\Sigma}\langle X_{H},\eta\rangle,

where ⟨,⟩\langle,\rangle stands for the pairing between T​XTX and T∗​XT^{*}X. On ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, we can write η=ω⁡(⋅,Y)​d​s\eta=\omega(\cdot,Y)ds for some vector field YY valued in u∗​T​Xu^{*}TX, and ss is any local coordinate on ∂Σ\partial\Sigma. The cokernel element condition implies ω⁡(v,Y)=0\omega(v,Y)=0 for any v∈u∗​T​Lv\in u^{*}TL, so YY must in fact be valued in the Lagrangian subbundle u∗​T​Lu^{*}TL. Thus

∫∂Σ⟨XH,η⟩=∫∂Σω⁡(XH,Y)​𝑑s=∫∂Σd​H​(Y)​𝑑s.\int_{\partial\Sigma}\langle X_{H},\eta\rangle=\int_{\partial\Sigma}\omega(X_{H},Y)ds=\int_{\partial\Sigma}dH(Y)ds.

We suppose for contradiction, that this pairing vanishes identically for any HH supported in the prescribed ball.

By the holomorphicity of η\eta, its zeros are isolated, so without loss of generality YY does not vanish in the local portion of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma where uu is injective and immersed. Suppose first that YY is not tangent to the image of Σ\Sigma. Then we find some local function hh on a small ball in XX with d​h​(Y)=1dh(Y)=1 and h=0h=0 on the local portion of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, and another cutoff function h2≥0h_{2}\geq 0 with d​h2​(Y)=0dh_{2}(Y)=0 along ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, supported in a small ball. Taking H=h​h2H=hh_{2}, then

∫∂Σd​H​(Y)​𝑑s=∫∂Σh2​𝑑s≠0.\int_{\partial\Sigma}dH(Y)ds=\int_{\partial\Sigma}h_{2}ds\neq 0.

This contradiction shows YY is tangent to the image of Σ\Sigma in the local portion of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma. We can write Y=f∂sY=f\partial_{s} for some local function ff. Then requiring

∫∂ΣdH(Y)ds=∫∂Σf∂sHds=−∫∂ΣH∂sfds\int_{\partial\Sigma}dH(Y)ds=\int_{\partial\Sigma}f\partial_{s}Hds=-\int_{\partial\Sigma}H\partial_{s}fds

for any compactly supported local function HH, implies that ff is constant in the local portion of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma. Thus up to multiplying by a nonzero constant, locally

Y=∂u∂s​d​s,η=ω⁡(⋅,∂u∂s)​d​s.Y=\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}ds,\quad\eta=\omega(\cdot,\frac{\partial u}{\partial s})ds. (29)

We now produce holomorphic vector fields on Σ\Sigma. For holomorphic strips or polygons with k+1≥3k+1\geq 3 corners, we select one input end as pp, and call the output qq as usual, and represent Σ\Sigma as a strip with k−1k-1 boundary punctures. This perspective provides a natural translation vector field ∂u∂s\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}, which have exponential decay along the p,qp,q ends, but may not be L2L^{2} near the other k−1k-1 ends. Instead, by thinking about the k−1k-1 ends as the origin in the upper half plane model, we see

∂u∂s=O⁡(|z|α−1),α=min⁡{ϕ1/π,…​ϕn/π}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}=O(|z|^{\alpha-1}),\quad\alpha=\min\{\phi_{1}/\pi,\ldots\phi_{n}/\pi\}

for the characterizing angles ϕ1,…​ϕn\phi_{1},\ldots\phi_{n} at the Lagrangian intersection point. The T(1,0)​XT^{(1,0)}X part of 2​JX​∂u∂s2J_{X}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s} is JX​∂u∂s+−1​∂u∂sJ_{X}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}+\sqrt{-1}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}. Contracting this with the T∗(1,0)​X⊗T∗(1,0)​ΣT^{*(1,0)}X\otimes T^{*(1,0)}\Sigma part of η\eta yields a 1-form on Σ\Sigma

ζ=η⁡(JX​∂u∂s+−1​∂u∂s)\zeta=\eta(J_{X}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}+\sqrt{-1}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s})

which is also holomorphic, with boundary value along Σ\Sigma

ζ=ω⁡(JX​∂u∂s+−1​∂u∂s,Y)​d​s=ω⁡(JX​∂u∂s,Y)​d​s.\zeta=\omega(J_{X}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s}+\sqrt{-1}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s},Y)ds=\omega(J_{X}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s},Y)ds. (30)

Here ω⁡(∂u∂s,Y)=0\omega(\frac{\partial u}{\partial s},Y)=0 since both vectors satisfy the T​LTL boundary condition. Notably, the boundary condition of ζ\zeta is real valued. In the upper half plane model, the Schwartz reflection principle allows us to extend ζ\zeta meromorphically over ℂ​ℙ1\mathbb{CP}^{1}.

At any of the k−1k-1 ends, since η∈L2\eta\in L^{2}, we know by holomorphicity |η|=O⁡(|z|α)|\eta|=O(|z|^{\alpha}), so ζ=O⁡(|z|2​α−1)\zeta=O(|z|^{2\alpha-1}) in the upper half plane model, hence has no pole. At the p,qp,q ends, by the decay of the holomorphic ∂u∂s\frac{\partial u}{\partial s} and η\eta, we likewise infer that ζ\zeta has no pole in the upper half plane model. In conclusion, the extension of ζ\zeta over ℂ​ℙ1\mathbb{CP}^{1} has no pole, so must in fact vanish. However, by (29)(30), on a local portion of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma

ζ=ω⁡(JX​∂u∂s,∂u∂s)​d​s≠0.\zeta=\omega(J_{X}\frac{\partial u}{\partial s},\frac{\partial u}{\partial s})ds\neq 0.

This contradiction proves the Proposition in the k≥1k\geq 1 case.

Finally, for the teardrop curve case k=0k=0, we replace the holomorphic vector field ∂u∂s\frac{\partial u}{\partial s} by the Möbius vector fields vanishing at the corner, and the rest of the arguments are entirely similar. ∎

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