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 is a holomorphic 1-form valued in , Stokes theorem gives
where stands for the pairing between and . On , we can write for some vector field valued in , and is any local coordinate on . The cokernel element condition implies for any , so must in fact be valued in the Lagrangian subbundle . Thus
We suppose for contradiction, that this pairing vanishes identically for any supported in the prescribed ball.
By the holomorphicity of , its zeros are isolated, so without loss of generality does not vanish in the local portion of where is injective and immersed. Suppose first that is not tangent to the image of . Then we find some local function on a small ball in with and on the local portion of , and another cutoff function with along , supported in a small ball. Taking , then
This contradiction shows is tangent to the image of in the local portion of . We can write for some local function . Then requiring
for any compactly supported local function , implies that is constant in the local portion of . Thus up to multiplying by a nonzero constant, locally
| (29) |
We now produce holomorphic vector fields on . For holomorphic strips or polygons with corners, we select one input end as , and call the output as usual, and represent as a strip with boundary punctures. This perspective provides a natural translation vector field , which have exponential decay along the ends, but may not be near the other ends. Instead, by thinking about the ends as the origin in the upper half plane model, we see
for the characterizing angles at the Lagrangian intersection point. The part of is . Contracting this with the part of yields a 1-form on
which is also holomorphic, with boundary value along
| (30) |
Here since both vectors satisfy the boundary condition. Notably, the boundary condition of is real valued. In the upper half plane model, the Schwartz reflection principle allows us to extend meromorphically over .
At any of the ends, since , we know by holomorphicity , so in the upper half plane model, hence has no pole. At the ends, by the decay of the holomorphic and , we likewise infer that has no pole in the upper half plane model. In conclusion, the extension of over has no pole, so must in fact vanish. However, by (29)(30), on a local portion of
This contradiction proves the Proposition in the case.
Finally, for the teardrop curve case , we replace the holomorphic vector field by the Möbius vector fields vanishing at the corner, and the rest of the arguments are entirely similar. ∎