Proof. [01YP]
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.
Let us assume that this is not the case and study such a limit space .
The first observation is that by Corollary 5.2, it follows that is a smooth surface.
Indeed, if there were a point such that . Then since
it would follow that there is a set of codimension at least such that ,
which cannot happen by Corollary 5.2.
Since a manifold and , it follows that is a smooth Einstein manifold satisfying . Because is a surface, this means in particular that has constant sectional curvature . Thus, either or , the unit -sphere, and in the latter case we are done.
So let us study the case . For small, choose to be an -splitting as in Lemma 1.7. Note that away from the singular set we have that the converge to in . If denote the Gromov-Hausdorff maps, we put . Then for small but fixed, we have for sufficiently large, that on , the estimates and hold.
Consider Poisson approximation to the square of distance function on . That is, and on . We have (see for instance [ChCo1]) that uniformly in , and again because the convergence is in we have for sufficiently large that and on . Once again, appealing to the convergence, for all sufficiently large and all we have that is diffeomorphic to . By Sard’s theorem, there exists a regular value . Then for sufficiently large, is a smooth -manifold, whose boundary is diffeomorphic to . However, the second Stiefel-Whitney number of is nonzero, and in particular, does not bound a smooth -manifold. This contradicts .
∎