ScalingStacks

5.1. Nonexistence of Codimension 2 Singularities [01YH]

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

5.1. Nonexistence of Codimension 22 Singularities

In this subsection, we use the tools of Section 4 in order to prove that spaces that are (n−2)(n-2)-symmetric cannot arise as noncollapsed limits of manifolds with bounded Ricci curvature.

Theorem 5.1 ((n−2)(n-2)-Symmetric Limits).

Let (Mjn,gj,pj)(M^{n}_{j},g_{j},p_{j}) be a sequence of Riemannian manifolds satisfying |RicMjn|→0|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\to 0, Vol⁡(B1​(pj))>v>0{\rm Vol}(B_{1}(p_{j}))>{\rm v}>0 and such that

(Mjn,dj,pj)⟶dG​Hℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1).\displaystyle(M_{j}^{n},d_{j},p_{j})\stackrel{{\scriptstyle d_{GH}}}{{\longrightarrow}}\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta})\,. (5.2)

Then β=2​π\beta=2\pi and ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1)=ℝn\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta})=\mathds{R}^{n}.

Proof of Theorem 5.1.

We will prove the result by contradiction. So let us assume it is false. Then there exists a sequence (Mjn,gj,pj)(M^{n}_{j},g_{j},p_{j}) of Riemannian manifolds satisfying |RicMjn|→0|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\to 0, Vol⁡(B1​(pj))>v>0{\rm Vol}(B_{1}(p_{j}))>{\rm v}>0 and such that

(Mjn,dj,pj)→(ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1),d,p),\displaystyle(M_{j}^{n},d_{j},p_{j})\to\big(\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}),d,p\big)\,, (5.3)

with β<2​π\beta<2\pi and pp a vertex.

Note first that by the noncollapsing assumption we have β≥β0​(n,v)\beta\geq\beta_{0}(n,v).

Now by Lemma 1.7, there exists δj\delta_{j}-splitting maps uj:B2​(pj)→ℝn−2u_{j}:B_{2}(p_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} with δj→0\delta_{j}\to 0. Fix some sequence ϵj→0\epsilon_{j}\to 0 which is tending to zero so slowly compared to δj\delta_{j}, that Theorem 1.8 holds for uj:B2​(0)→ℝn−2u_{j}:B_{2}(0)\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} with ϵj\epsilon_{j}. Let Gϵj⊆B1​(0n−2)G_{\epsilon_{j}}\subseteq B_{1}(0^{n-2}) be the corresponding good values of uju_{j}, and let sj∈Gϵj∩B10−1​(0n−2)s_{j}\in G_{\epsilon_{j}}\cap B_{10^{-1}}(0^{n-2}) be fixed regular values.

Note that ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1)\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}) is smooth outside of the singular set 𝒮=ℝn−2×{0}⊆ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1)\mathcal{S}=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times\{0\}\subseteq\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}). In particular on ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1)\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}) we have rh​(x)≈1/d⁡(x,𝒮)r_{h}(x)\approx 1/d(x,\mathcal{S}), where rhr_{h} is the harmonic radius as in Section 1 and dd denotes distance. By the standard ϵ\epsilon-regularity theorem, it follows that the convergence of MjnM^{n}_{j} is in C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} away from 𝒮\mathcal{S}, for every α<1\alpha<1 and q<∞q<\infty. Let fj:Bϵj−1​(p)→Bϵj−1​(pj)f_{j}:B_{\epsilon^{-1}_{j}}(p)\to B_{\epsilon^{-1}_{j}}(p_{j}) be the ϵj\epsilon_{j}-Gromov Hausdorff maps, and let us denote 𝒮j≡fj​(𝒮)⊆Mjn\mathcal{S}_{j}\equiv f_{j}(\mathcal{S})\subseteq M^{n}_{j}. Then by the previous statements, for every τ>0\tau>0, all jj sufficiently large, and x∈B1​(pj)∖Tτ​(𝒮j)x\in B_{1}(p_{j})\setminus T_{\tau}(\mathcal{S}_{j}), we have rh​(x)≥τ2r_{h}(x)\geq\frac{\tau}{2}.

Consider again the submanifold uj−1​(sj)∩B1​(pj)u^{-1}_{j}(s_{j})\cap B_{1}(p_{j}). Define the scale

rj=min⁡{rh​(x):x∈uj−1​(sj)∩B1​(pj)}.\displaystyle r_{j}=\min\{r_{h}(x):x\in u^{-1}_{j}(s_{j})\cap B_{1}(p_{j})\}\,. (5.4)

By the considerations of the previous paragraph, this minimum is actually obtained at some xj∈uj−1​(sj)∩B1​(pj)x_{j}\in u^{-1}_{j}(s_{j})\cap B_{1}(p_{j}), with xj→𝒮j∩B10−1​(pj)x_{j}\to\mathcal{S}_{j}\cap B_{10^{-1}}(p_{j}). Moreover, since Sβ1S^{1}_{\beta}, the cross-section of the cone factor, satisfies 0<β<2​π0<\beta<2\pi, it follows that rj→0r_{j}\to 0. According to Theorem 1.8, there exists a lower triangular matrix Aj∈G​L​(n−2)A_{j}\in GL(n-2) such that vj≡Aj∘(uj−sj):Brj​(xj)→ℝn−2v_{j}\equiv A_{j}\circ\big(u_{j}-s_{j}\big):B_{r_{j}}(x_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} is an ϵj\epsilon_{j}-splitting map. Note that we have renormalized so that each of our regular values is the zero level set.

Now let us consider the sequence (Mjn,rj−1​dj,xj)(M^{n}_{j},r_{j}^{-1}d_{j},x_{j}). After passing to a subsequence if necessary, which we will continue to denote by (Mjn,rj−1​dj,xj)(M^{n}_{j},r_{j}^{-1}d_{j},x_{j}), have

(Mjn,rj−1​dj,xj)⟶dG​H(X,dX,x),\displaystyle(M^{n}_{j},r_{j}^{-1}d_{j},x_{j})\stackrel{{\scriptstyle d_{GH}}}{{\longrightarrow}}(X,d_{X},x)\,, (5.5)

in the pointed Gromov-Hausdorff sense, where XX splits off ℝn−2\mathds{R}^{n-2} isometrically.

We begin by observing that by our noncollapsing assumption we have Vol⁡(B1​(xj))>c⁡(n)​v>0{\rm Vol}(B_{1}(x_{j}))>c(n){\rm v}>0, and hence, in the rescaled spaces, we have Vol⁡(Br​(xj))>c​v​rn{\rm Vol}(B_{r}(x_{j}))>c{\rm v}r^{n} for all r≤Rj→∞r\leq R_{j}\to\infty. In particular, XX has Euclidean volume growth at ∞\infty i.e. Vol⁡(Br​(x′))>c​v​rn{\rm Vol}(B_{r}(x^{\prime}))>c{\rm v}\,r^{n} for all r>0r>0.

After possibly passing to another subsequence, we can limit the functions vjv_{j} to a function v:X→ℝn−2v:X\to\mathds{R}^{n-2}. Note that by our normalization, we have vj:B2​(xj)→ℝn−2v_{j}:B_{2}(x_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} are ϵj\epsilon_{j}-splittings, and that by Theorem 1.11, we have for each R>2R>2 that vj:BR​(xj)→ℝn−2v_{j}:B_{R}(x_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} are C⁡(n,R)​ϵjC(n,R)\epsilon_{j}-splittings. In particular, we can conclude that

X=ℝn−2×S,\displaystyle X=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times S\,, (5.6)

where v:X→ℝn−2v:X\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} is the projection map and S=u−1​(0)S=u^{-1}(0).

Now by construction, in the rescaled spaces we have for any y∈uj−1​(0)y\in u^{-1}_{j}(0) that rh​(y)≥1r_{h}(y)\geq 1. Therefore, the limit XX is C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} in a neighborhood of u−1​(0)u^{-1}(0), and hence S=u−1​(0)S=u^{-1}(0) is a nonsingular surface. Thus, since X=ℝn−2×SX=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times S it follows that XX is at least a C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} manifold with rh≥1r_{h}\geq 1. Since the Ricci curvature is uniformly bounded, in fact tending to zero, we have by the standard ϵ\epsilon-regularity theorem that the convergence (Mjn,rj−1​dj,xj)→(X,dX,x)(M^{n}_{j},r_{j}^{-1}d_{j},x_{j})\to(X,d_{X},x) is in C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q}. Because the convergence is in C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} we have that rhr_{h} converges continuously; [A90]. In particular, we have that rh​(xj′)→rh​(x′)r_{h}(x^{\prime}_{j})\to r_{h}(x^{\prime}) and so rh​(x′)=1r_{h}(x^{\prime})=1.

On the other hand, since |RicMjn|→0|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\to 0 and XX is C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} it follows that XX is a smooth Ricci flat manifold. This is easiest to see by writing directly in harmonic coordinates on XX, see [A90] for the argument. Now since X=ℝn−2×SX=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times S, we can conclude that SS is smooth and Ricci flat, hence flat. In particular, we have that XX is flat. Since we have already shown that XX has Euclidean volume growth, this implies that X=ℝnX=\mathds{R}^{n}. However, we have also already concluded that rh​(x′)=1r_{h}(x^{\prime})=1, which gives us our desired contradiction. ∎

We end this subsection with the following corollary, which states that a noncollapsed limit space is smooth away from a set of codimension 33. We will use this in the next subsection to show (n−3)(n-3)-symmetric splittings cannot arise as limits.

Corollary 5.2.

Let (Mjn,gj,pj)(M^{n}_{j},g_{j},p_{j}) be a sequence of Riemannian manifolds satisfying |RicMjn|≤n−1|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\leq n-1, Vol⁡(B1​(pj))>v>0{\rm Vol}(B_{1}(p_{j}))>{\rm v}>0 and such that

(Mjn,dj,pj)→(X,d,p).\displaystyle(M_{j}^{n},d_{j},p_{j})\to(X,d,p)\,. (5.7)

Then there exists a subset, 𝒮⊆X\mathcal{S}\subseteq X, with dim𝒮≤n−3\dim\mathcal{S}\leq n-3, such that for each x∈X∖𝒮x\in X\setminus\mathcal{S}, we have rh​(x)>0r_{h}(x)>0. In particular, x∈X∖𝒮x\in X\setminus\mathcal{S} is a C1,αC^{1,\alpha} Riemannian manifold.

Proof.

Recall the standard stratification of XX. In particular, if we consider the subset 𝒮n−3⊂X\mathcal{S}^{n-3}\subset X we have that dim𝒮n−3≤n−3\dim\mathcal{S}^{n-3}\leq n-3, and that for every point x∉𝒮n−3x\not\in\mathcal{S}^{n-3} there exists some tangent cone at xx which is isometric to ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1)\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}). That is, there exists ra→0r_{a}\to 0 such that

(X,ra−1​d,x)→ℝn−2×C⁡(Sβ1).\displaystyle(X,r_{a}^{-1}d,x)\to\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta})\,. (5.8)

However by Theorem 5.1 we then have β=2​π\beta=2\pi, which is to say that

(X,ra−1​d,x)→ℝn.\displaystyle(X,r_{a}^{-1}d,x)\to\mathds{R}^{n}\,. (5.9)

Thus, for a∈ℕa\in\mathds{N} sufficiently large, we can apply the standard ϵ\epsilon-regularity theorem, Theorem 2.3, to see that a neighborhood of xx is a C1,αC^{1,\alpha} Riemannian manifold, which proves the corollary. ∎

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