ScalingStacks

2 Statement of the main results [057B]

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

2 Statement of the main results

Let (X,ω)(X,\omega) be a compact Kähler manifold, χ\chi a closed and non-negative (1,1)(1,1)-form, and set

ωt=χ+t​ω,t∈(0,1].\displaystyle\omega_{t}=\chi+t\omega,\qquad t\in(0,1]. (2.1)

Let f,h∈C∞f,h\in C^{\infty} are smooth functions normalized by

∫Xef​ωn=∫Xeh​ωn=∫Xωn=1,\int_{X}e^{f}\omega^{n}=\int_{X}e^{h}\omega^{n}=\int_{X}\omega^{n}=1,

and consider the following complex Hessian equations

(ωt+i​∂∂¯​ut)k∧ωn−k=ct​ef​ωn,(ωt+i​∂∂¯​vt)k∧ωn−k=ct​eh​ωn(\omega_{t}+i\partial\bar{\partial}u_{t})^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}=c_{t}e^{f}\omega^{n},\quad(\omega_{t}+i\partial\bar{\partial}v_{t})^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}=c_{t}e^{h}\omega^{n} (2.2)

with the constants ctc_{t} given by ct=∫Xωtk∧ωn−kc_{t}=\int_{X}\omega_{t}^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}. We normalize utu_{t} and vtv_{t} so that

maxX⁡(ut−vt)=maxX⁡(vt−ut).\max_{X}(u_{t}-v_{t})=\max_{X}(v_{t}-u_{t}).

We will consider three cases:

𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{I}}}: k=n, and ​t∈(0,1]\displaystyle k=n,\mbox{ and }t\in(0,1]
𝐈𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{II}}}: 1≤k<n, and ​χ=0,t=1.\displaystyle 1\leq k<n,\mbox{ and }\chi=0,\,t=1.
𝐈𝐈𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{III}}}: 1≤k<n, and t∈(0,1],χ is big i.e. ∫Xχn>0\displaystyle 1\leq k<n,\mbox{ and }t\in(0,1],\,\chi\mbox{ is big i.e. $\int_{X}\chi^{n}>0$}

which correspond respectively to the Monge-Ampère equations with degenerations, the kk-th Hessian equation with a fixed background metric, and the kk-th Hessian equation with degenerations. Different cases correspond to different choices of test functions, and constants. So we will treat the cases separately, when necessary.

For each case, we will make the following assumptions and choice of constants,

𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{I}}}: ‖eh‖L1​(log​L)p1​(ωn),‖ef‖L1​(log​L)p1​(ωn)≤K,p1>n\displaystyle\|e^{h}\|_{L^{1}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p_{1}}(\omega^{n})},\|e^{f}\|_{L^{1}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p_{1}}(\omega^{n})}\leq K,\,p_{1}>n
𝐈𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{II}}}: ‖eh‖Lp2​(ωn),‖ef‖Lp2​(ωn)≤K,p2>nk, and ​q2=p2−1p2−n/k\displaystyle\|e^{h}\|_{L^{p_{2}}(\omega^{n})},\|e^{f}\|_{L^{p_{2}}(\omega^{n})}\leq K,\,p_{2}>\frac{n}{k},\mbox{ and }q_{2}=\frac{p_{2}-1}{p_{2}-n/k}
𝐈𝐈𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{III}}}: ‖eh‖Lp3​(ωn),‖ef‖Lp3​(ωn)≤K,p3>n2k, and ​q3=p3−1p3−n/k\displaystyle\|e^{h}\|_{L^{p_{3}}(\omega^{n})},\|e^{f}\|_{L^{p_{3}}(\omega^{n})}\leq K,\,p_{3}>\frac{n^{2}}{k},\mbox{ and }q_{3}=\frac{p_{3}-1}{p_{3}-n/k}

for a fixed constant K>0K>0.

The equations (2.2) admit smooth solutions by [15, 5]. By [9] (also [12, 4]), under the above assumptions, the oscillations osc​ut{\mathrm{osc}}u_{t} and osc​vt{\mathrm{osc}}v_{t} of the solutions are uniformly bounded independently of tt in all three cases 𝐈,𝐈​I{\mathrm{\mathbf{I}}},{\mathrm{\mathbf{I}I}}, and 𝐈​II{\mathrm{\mathbf{I}II}}. Let β0>1\beta_{0}>1 denote such an upper bound depending only on n,k,ω,χ,pan,k,\omega,\chi,p_{a} and 10​K10K.

To start with, we will define a positive function γa​(r)\gamma_{a}(r) with γa​(r)→0\gamma_{a}(r)\to 0 as r→0r\to 0. Each case has different choice of such a function. We define γa\gamma_{a} case by case:

𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{I}}}: γ1​(r)=r1δ1−n+1, where ​δ1=p1−np1​n<1n\displaystyle\gamma_{1}(r)=r^{\frac{1}{\delta_{1}}-n+1},\mbox{ where }\delta_{1}=\frac{p_{1}-n}{p_{1}n}<\frac{1}{n}
𝐈𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{II}}}: γ2​(r)=r(n+1)​q2−n\displaystyle\gamma_{2}(r)=r^{(n+1)q_{2}-n}
𝐈𝐈𝐈:\displaystyle{\mathrm{\mathbf{III}}}: γ3​(r)=r(n+1)​q3−n\displaystyle\gamma_{3}(r)=r^{(n+1)q_{3}-n}
Theorem 1

Let the assumptions and notations be as above. Then we have in all three cases listed in (2)

supX|ut−vt|≤C​‖ef−eh‖L11/(n+3+σa),\sup_{X}|u_{t}-v_{t}|\leq C\|e^{f}-e^{h}\|_{L^{1}}^{1/(n+3+\sigma_{a})}, (2.3)

where in each case, σa>0\sigma_{a}>0 is the power of rr in γa​(r)\gamma_{a}(r), i.e. γa​(r)=rσa\gamma_{a}(r)=r^{\sigma_{a}}, and CC is a constant depending only on n,k,ω,χn,k,\omega,\chi, K>0K>0 and pap_{a}.

We observe that this theorem improves on all results known so far. More specifically in case I, we get uniform stability for a degenerating family, and it does not even matter whether χ\chi is big or not. Kolodziej [12] proved this case for a fixed Kähler metric, and Dinew and Zhang [6] proved it for a fixed big class. In case II, we slightly sharpen the known stability result in [4], where the RHS in the inequality is ‖ef−eh‖Lq′\|e^{f}-e^{h}\|_{L^{q^{\prime}}} for some q′>1q^{\prime}>1, while we are able to prove the inequality for q′=1q^{\prime}=1. In case III, we obtain a uniform stability theorem for Hessian equations when the class remains big. This is completely new, and relies in particular on the uniform L∞L^{\infty} estimate in [9] for solutions with degenerating big classes.

We note that the exponent 1/(n+3+σa)1/(n+3+\sigma_{a}) is not sharp in general. The sharp exponent can be obtained by replacing Lemma 1 below by a result from [6]. We leave the details to the interested readers.

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