ScalingStacks

Proof of Theorem 5.1 . [01YJ]

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 ยท Original author HTML

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|โ†’0|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\to 0, Volโก(B1โ€‹(pj))>v>0{\rm Vol}(B_{1}(p_{j}))>{\rm v}>0 and such that

(Mjn,dj,pj)โ†’(โ„nโˆ’2ร—Cโก(Sฮฒ1),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 ฮฒ<2โ€‹ฯ€\beta<2\pi and pp a vertex.

Note first that by the noncollapsing assumption we have ฮฒโ‰ฅฮฒ0โ€‹(n,v)\beta\geq\beta_{0}(n,v).

Now by Lemma 1.7, there exists ฮดj\delta_{j}-splitting maps uj:B2โ€‹(pj)โ†’โ„nโˆ’2u_{j}:B_{2}(p_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} with ฮดjโ†’0\delta_{j}\to 0. Fix some sequence ฯตjโ†’0\epsilon_{j}\to 0 which is tending to zero so slowly compared to ฮดj\delta_{j}, that Theorem 1.8 holds for uj:B2โ€‹(0)โ†’โ„nโˆ’2u_{j}:B_{2}(0)\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} with ฯตj\epsilon_{j}. Let GฯตjโІB1โ€‹(0nโˆ’2)G_{\epsilon_{j}}\subseteq B_{1}(0^{n-2}) be the corresponding good values of uju_{j}, and let sjโˆˆGฯตjโˆฉB10โˆ’1โ€‹(0nโˆ’2)s_{j}\in G_{\epsilon_{j}}\cap B_{10^{-1}}(0^{n-2}) be fixed regular values.

Note that โ„nโˆ’2ร—Cโก(Sฮฒ1)\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}) is smooth outside of the singular set ๐’ฎ=โ„nโˆ’2ร—{0}โІโ„nโˆ’2ร—Cโก(Sฮฒ1)\mathcal{S}=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times\{0\}\subseteq\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}). In particular on โ„nโˆ’2ร—Cโก(Sฮฒ1)\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times C(S^{1}_{\beta}) we have rhโ€‹(x)โ‰ˆ1/dโก(x,๐’ฎ)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 ฯต\epsilon-regularity theorem, it follows that the convergence of MjnM^{n}_{j} is in C1,ฮฑโˆฉW2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} away from ๐’ฎ\mathcal{S}, for every ฮฑ<1\alpha<1 and q<โˆžq<\infty. Let fj:Bฯตjโˆ’1โ€‹(p)โ†’Bฯตjโˆ’1โ€‹(pj)f_{j}:B_{\epsilon^{-1}_{j}}(p)\to B_{\epsilon^{-1}_{j}}(p_{j}) be the ฯตj\epsilon_{j}-Gromov Hausdorff maps, and let us denote ๐’ฎjโ‰กfjโ€‹(๐’ฎ)โІMjn\mathcal{S}_{j}\equiv f_{j}(\mathcal{S})\subseteq M^{n}_{j}. Then by the previous statements, for every ฯ„>0\tau>0, all jj sufficiently large, and xโˆˆB1โ€‹(pj)โˆ–Tฯ„โ€‹(๐’ฎj)x\in B_{1}(p_{j})\setminus T_{\tau}(\mathcal{S}_{j}), we have rhโ€‹(x)โ‰ฅฯ„2r_{h}(x)\geq\frac{\tau}{2}.

Consider again the submanifold ujโˆ’1โ€‹(sj)โˆฉB1โ€‹(pj)u^{-1}_{j}(s_{j})\cap B_{1}(p_{j}). Define the scale

rj=minโก{rhโ€‹(x):xโˆˆujโˆ’1โ€‹(sj)โˆฉB1โ€‹(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 xjโˆˆujโˆ’1โ€‹(sj)โˆฉB1โ€‹(pj)x_{j}\in u^{-1}_{j}(s_{j})\cap B_{1}(p_{j}), with xjโ†’๐’ฎjโˆฉB10โˆ’1โ€‹(pj)x_{j}\to\mathcal{S}_{j}\cap B_{10^{-1}}(p_{j}). Moreover, since Sฮฒ1S^{1}_{\beta}, the cross-section of the cone factor, satisfies 0<ฮฒ<2โ€‹ฯ€0<\beta<2\pi, it follows that rjโ†’0r_{j}\to 0. According to Theorem 1.8, there exists a lower triangular matrix AjโˆˆGโ€‹Lโ€‹(nโˆ’2)A_{j}\in GL(n-2) such that vjโ‰กAjโˆ˜(ujโˆ’sj):Brjโ€‹(xj)โ†’โ„nโˆ’2v_{j}\equiv A_{j}\circ\big(u_{j}-s_{j}\big):B_{r_{j}}(x_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} is an ฯตj\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,rjโˆ’1โ€‹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,rjโˆ’1โ€‹dj,xj)(M^{n}_{j},r_{j}^{-1}d_{j},x_{j}), have

(Mjn,rjโˆ’1โ€‹dj,xj)โŸถdGโ€‹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 โ„nโˆ’2\mathds{R}^{n-2} isometrically.

We begin by observing that by our noncollapsing assumption we have Volโก(B1โ€‹(xj))>cโก(n)โ€‹v>0{\rm Vol}(B_{1}(x_{j}))>c(n){\rm v}>0, and hence, in the rescaled spaces, we have Volโก(Brโ€‹(xj))>cโ€‹vโ€‹rn{\rm Vol}(B_{r}(x_{j}))>c{\rm v}r^{n} for all rโ‰คRjโ†’โˆžr\leq R_{j}\to\infty. In particular, XX has Euclidean volume growth at โˆž\infty i.e. Volโก(Brโ€‹(xโ€ฒ))>cโ€‹vโ€‹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:Xโ†’โ„nโˆ’2v:X\to\mathds{R}^{n-2}. Note that by our normalization, we have vj:B2โ€‹(xj)โ†’โ„nโˆ’2v_{j}:B_{2}(x_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} are ฯตj\epsilon_{j}-splittings, and that by Theorem 1.11, we have for each R>2R>2 that vj:BRโ€‹(xj)โ†’โ„nโˆ’2v_{j}:B_{R}(x_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} are Cโก(n,R)โ€‹ฯตjC(n,R)\epsilon_{j}-splittings. In particular, we can conclude that

X=โ„nโˆ’2ร—S,\displaystyle X=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times S\,, (5.6)

where v:Xโ†’โ„nโˆ’2v:X\to\mathds{R}^{n-2} is the projection map and S=uโˆ’1โ€‹(0)S=u^{-1}(0).

Now by construction, in the rescaled spaces we have for any yโˆˆujโˆ’1โ€‹(0)y\in u^{-1}_{j}(0) that rhโ€‹(y)โ‰ฅ1r_{h}(y)\geq 1. Therefore, the limit XX is C1,ฮฑโˆฉW2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} in a neighborhood of uโˆ’1โ€‹(0)u^{-1}(0), and hence S=uโˆ’1โ€‹(0)S=u^{-1}(0) is a nonsingular surface. Thus, since X=โ„nโˆ’2ร—SX=\mathds{R}^{n-2}\times S it follows that XX is at least a C1,ฮฑโˆฉW2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} manifold with rhโ‰ฅ1r_{h}\geq 1. Since the Ricci curvature is uniformly bounded, in fact tending to zero, we have by the standard ฯต\epsilon-regularity theorem that the convergence (Mjn,rjโˆ’1โ€‹dj,xj)โ†’(X,dX,x)(M^{n}_{j},r_{j}^{-1}d_{j},x_{j})\to(X,d_{X},x) is in C1,ฮฑโˆฉW2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q}. Because the convergence is in C1,ฮฑโˆฉW2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} we have that rhr_{h} converges continuously; [A90]. In particular, we have that rhโ€‹(xjโ€ฒ)โ†’rhโ€‹(xโ€ฒ)r_{h}(x^{\prime}_{j})\to r_{h}(x^{\prime}) and so rhโ€‹(xโ€ฒ)=1r_{h}(x^{\prime})=1.

On the other hand, since |RicMjn|โ†’0|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\to 0 and XX is C1,ฮฑโˆฉW2,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=โ„nโˆ’2ร—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=โ„nX=\mathds{R}^{n}. However, we have also already concluded that rhโ€‹(xโ€ฒ)=1r_{h}(x^{\prime})=1, which gives us our desired contradiction. โˆŽ

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