ScalingStacks

Verified tagged author-source HTML · 2006.13068v1 · cited publication edition alignment unverified.

00DM

Proof of the diameter upper bound in Theorem 1.1. Let ωt′\omega^{\prime}_{t} be the Kähler metric defined in Proposition 3.1, and let ωFS,t=1|log⁡|t||​ωFS|Xt,\omega_{{\rm FS},t}=\frac{1}{|\log|t||}\omega_{\rm FS}|_{X_{t}}, where ωFS\omega_{\rm FS} is a suitable Fubini-Study metric on ℙN\mathbb{P}^{N} scaled so that ωFS|Xt∈c1​(𝔏)|Xt\omega_{\rm FS}|_{X_{t}}\in c_{1}(\mathfrak{L})|_{X_{t}}. Then the metrics ωt′\omega^{\prime}_{t} and ωFS,t\omega_{{\rm FS},t} are cohomologous, and on Bt⊂XtB_{t}\subset X_{t} in any adapted coordinate chart we have

(4.1) ωt′+ωFS,t⩾C−1​i|log⁡|t||2​∑j=1md​zjzj∧d​zj¯zj¯+C−1​i|log⁡|t||​∑j=m+1nd​zj∧d​zj¯.\omega^{\prime}_{t}+\omega_{{\rm FS},t}\geqslant C^{-1}\frac{i}{|\log|t||^{2}}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\frac{dz_{j}}{z_{j}}\wedge\frac{d\overline{z_{j}}}{\overline{z_{j}}}+C^{-1}\frac{i}{|\log|t||}\sum_{j=m+1}^{n}dz_{j}\wedge d\overline{z_{j}}.

Let us then fix a point x∈EJ0x\in E^{0}_{J}, an adapted coordinate chart near xx, and in these coordinates define a local Kähler metric ω~t\tilde{\omega}_{t} on XtX_{t} by the RHS of (4.1). Inside this coordinate chart intersected XtX_{t}, define also B~t\tilde{B}_{t} to be a Euclidean rectangle which is contained inside BtB_{t} so that in the metric ω~t\tilde{\omega}_{t}, in the first mm complex directions B~t\tilde{B}_{t} has length ∼1\sim 1 in the radial directions and length ∼|log⁡|t||−1\sim|\log|t||^{-1} in the logarithmic angular directions, and in the other n−mn-m complex directions B~t\tilde{B}_{t} has length ∼|log⁡|t||−12\sim|\log|t||^{-\frac{1}{2}}. Therefore, given any x,y∈B~tx,y\in\tilde{B}_{t}, if we denote by γx,y\gamma_{x,y} the Euclidean straight line in B~t\tilde{B}_{t} joining them, parametrized linearly by 0⩽s⩽10\leqslant s\leqslant 1, then |γ˙x,y​(s)|ω~t⩽C|\dot{\gamma}_{x,y}(s)|_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}\leqslant C for a uniform constant CC independent of tt and ss.

On B~t\tilde{B}_{t} we have

C−1|log⁡|t||n​μt⩽ω~tn⩽C|log⁡|t||n​μt,\frac{C^{-1}}{|\log|t||^{n}}\mu_{t}\leqslant\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n}\leqslant\frac{C}{|\log|t||^{n}}\mu_{t},

and again by direct computation in polar coordinates (as in [3]), thanks to the definition of B~t\tilde{B}_{t} and to (3.1) we have that

(4.2) C−1⩽∫B~td​μt⩽1,C^{-1}\leqslant\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}d\mu_{t}\leqslant 1,

and so

C−1|log⁡|t||n⩽∫B~tω~tn⩽C|log⁡|t||n.\frac{C^{-1}}{|\log|t||^{n}}\leqslant\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n}\leqslant\frac{C}{|\log|t||^{n}}.

If we then define

μ~t=ω~tn∫B~tω~tn,\tilde{\mu}_{t}=\frac{\tilde{\omega}^{n}_{t}}{\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n}},

then μ~t\tilde{\mu}_{t} is uniformly comparable to μt\mu_{t} on B~t\tilde{B}_{t} and

(4.3) μt​(B~t)⩾C−1​μt​(Bt)⩾C−1.\mu_{t}(\tilde{B}_{t})\geqslant C^{-1}\mu_{t}(B_{t})\geqslant C^{-1}.

Thanks to (4.1) we have

(4.4) ∫B~ttrω~t⁡ωt​d​μ~t=n​∫B~tωt∧ω~tn−1∫Xtω~tn⩽C|log⁡|t||∫Xtn⁡ωt∧(ωt′+ωFS,t)n−1⩽C​∫Xtc1​(L)⋅c1​(𝔏)n−1⩽C.\begin{split}\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}\omega_{t}d\tilde{\mu}_{t}&=\frac{n\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}\omega_{t}\wedge\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n-1}}{\int_{X_{t}}\tilde{\omega}^{n}_{t}}\leqslant C|\log|t||^{n}\int_{X_{t}}\omega_{t}\wedge(\omega^{\prime}_{t}+\omega_{{\rm FS},t})^{n-1}\\ &\leqslant C\int_{X_{t}}c_{1}(L)\cdot c_{1}(\mathfrak{L})^{n-1}\leqslant C.\end{split}

We wish to use this to prove that

(4.5) ∫B~t×B~tdistωt​(x,y)​d​μ~t​(x)​d​μ~t​(y)⩽C.\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}\text{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,y)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)\leqslant C.

Indeed, since |γ˙x,y​(s)|ω~t⩽C|\dot{\gamma}_{x,y}(s)|_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}\leqslant C, we can estimate

distωt​(x,y)⩽C​∫01(trω~t⁡ωt​(s​y+(1−s)​x))12​𝑑s,\mathrm{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,y)\leqslant C\int_{0}^{1}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(sy+(1-s)x))^{\frac{1}{2}}ds,

and

∫B~t×B~tdistωt​(x,y)​d​μ~t​(x)​d​μ~t​(y)⩽C​∫B~t×B~t∫01(trω~t⁡ωt​(s​y+(1−s)​x))12​𝑑s​d​μ~t​(x)​d​μ~t​(y).\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}\text{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,y)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)\leqslant C\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}\int_{0}^{1}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(sy+(1-s)x))^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\,d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y).

We can then argue as in [5, Lemma 1.3], using Fubini

∫B~t×B~t∫01(trω~t⁡ωt​(s​y+(1−s)​x))12​ds​d​μ~t​(x)​d​μ~t​(y)=∫01∫B~t×B~t(trω~t⁡ωt​(s​y+(1−s)​x))12​d​μ~t​(x)​d​μ~t​(y)​𝑑s=∫012∫B~t×B~t(trω~t⁡ωt​(s​y+(1−s)​x))12​d​μ~t​(x)​d​μ~t​(y)​𝑑s+∫121∫B~t×B~t(trω~tωt(sy+(1−s)x))12dμ~t(y)dμ~t(x)ds\begin{split}&\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}\int_{0}^{1}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(sy+(1-s)x))^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\,d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)\\ &=\int_{0}^{1}\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(sy+(1-s)x))^{\frac{1}{2}}d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)ds\\ &=\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(sy+(1-s)x))^{\frac{1}{2}}d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)ds\\ &+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(sy+(1-s)x))^{\frac{1}{2}}d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)ds\end{split}

and in the two innermost integrals we change variable from xx (resp. yy) to z=s​y+(1−s)​xz=sy+(1-s)x with 0⩽s⩽120\leqslant s\leqslant\frac{1}{2} (resp. 12⩽s⩽1\frac{1}{2}\leqslant s\leqslant 1), noting that μ~t​(x)⩽C​μ~t​(z)\tilde{\mu}_{t}(x)\leqslant C\tilde{\mu}_{t}(z) (resp. μ~t​(y)⩽C​μ~t​(z)\tilde{\mu}_{t}(y)\leqslant C\tilde{\mu}_{t}(z)). Thus both of these innermost integrals can be bounded above by

C​∫B~t(trω~t⁡ωt​(z))12​d​μ~t​(z)⩽C​(∫B~ttrω~t⁡ωt​(z)​d​μ~t​(z))12⩽C,C\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}(\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(z))^{\frac{1}{2}}d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(z)\leqslant C\left(\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}\Tr_{\tilde{\omega}_{t}}{\omega_{t}}(z)d\tilde{\mu}_{t}(z)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\leqslant C,

by (4.4), and (4.5) follows.

But (4.5) is equivalent to

∫B~t×B~tdistωt​(x,x′)​d​μt​(x)​d​μt​(x′)⩽C,\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}\times\tilde{B}_{t}}\text{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,x^{\prime})d\mu_{t}(x)d\mu_{t}(x^{\prime})\leqslant C,

hence for some x′∈B~tx^{\prime}\in\tilde{B}_{t} we have

∫B~tdistωt​(x,x′)​d​μt​(x)⩽C,\int_{\tilde{B}_{t}}\text{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,x^{\prime})d\mu_{t}(x)\leqslant C,

which gives a weak L1L^{1}-estimate

μt​{x∈B~t|distωt​(x,x′)⩾r}⩽Cr.\mu_{t}\{x\in\tilde{B}_{t}\ |\ \text{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,x^{\prime})\geqslant r\}\leqslant\frac{C}{r}.

Taking r≫1r\gg 1 independent of tt, we can ensure that

μt​(Bωt​(x′,r))⩾μt​(B~t∩Bωt​(x′,r))=μt​(B~t)−μt​{x∈B~t|distωt​(x,x′)⩾r}⩾C−1−Cr⩾C−1=C−1​μt​(Xt),\begin{split}\mu_{t}(B_{\omega_{t}}(x^{\prime},r))&\geqslant\mu_{t}(\tilde{B}_{t}\cap B_{\omega_{t}}(x^{\prime},r))\\ &=\mu_{t}(\tilde{B}_{t})-\mu_{t}\{x\in\tilde{B}_{t}\ |\ \text{dist}_{\omega_{t}}(x,x^{\prime})\geqslant r\}\\ &\geqslant C^{-1}-\frac{C}{r}\\ &\geqslant C^{-1}=C^{-1}\mu_{t}(X_{t}),\end{split}

using here (4.3). The Bishop-Gromov volume comparison theorem then gives us that μt​(Bωt​(x′,1))⩾C−1​μt​(Xt),\mu_{t}(B_{\omega_{t}}(x^{\prime},1))\geqslant C^{-1}\mu_{t}(X_{t}), or equivalently

∫Xtωtn∫Bωt​(x′,1)ωtn⩽C.\frac{\int_{X_{t}}\omega_{t}^{n}}{\int_{B_{\omega_{t}}(x^{\prime},1)}\omega_{t}^{n}}\leqslant C.

This bound can then be inserted into a well-known result of Yau (see e.g. [22, Lemma 3.2]): given a complete dd-dimensional Riemannian manifold (M,g)(M,g) with nonnegative Ricci curvature, for any x∈Mx\in M and 1<R<diam⁡(M,g)1<R<\mathrm{diam}(M,g) we have

R−12​d⩽Vol⁡(Bg​(x,2​R+2))Vol​(Bg​(x,1)).\frac{R-1}{2d}\leqslant\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(B_{g}(x,2R+2))}{\mathrm{Vol}(B_{g}(x,1))}.

Indeed, it suffices to choose R=diam⁡(Xt,ωt)−1R=\mathrm{diam}(X_{t},\omega_{t})-1 to obtain the desired uniform diameter upper bound for (Xt,ωt)(X_{t},\omega_{t}). ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.