ScalingStacks

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 ℝn−3×C⁡(Y)\mathds{R}^{n-3}\times C(Y). The first observation is that by Corollary 5.2, it follows that YY is a smooth surface. Indeed, if there were a point y∈Yy\in Y such that rh​(y)=0r_{h}(y)=0. Then since X=ℝn−3×C⁡(Y)X=\mathds{R}^{n-3}\times C(Y) it would follow that there is a set of codimension at least 22 such that rh≡0r_{h}\equiv 0, which cannot happen by Corollary 5.2.

Since YY a C1,α∩W2,qC^{1,\alpha}\cap W^{2,q} manifold and |RicMjn|→0|{\rm Ric}_{M^{n}_{j}}|\to 0, it follows that YY is a smooth Einstein manifold satisfying RicY=g{\rm Ric}_{Y}=g. Because YY is a surface, this means in particular that YY has constant sectional curvature ≡1\equiv 1. Thus, either Y=ℝ​ℙ2Y=\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2} or Y=S2Y=S^{2}, the unit 22-sphere, and in the latter case we are done.

So let us study the case Y=ℝ​ℙ2Y=\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2}. For ϵ>0\epsilon>0 small, choose uj:B2​(pj)→ℝn−3u_{j}:B_{2}(p_{j})\to\mathds{R}^{n-3} to be an ϵ\epsilon-splitting as in Lemma 1.7. Note that away from the singular set 𝒮≡ℝn−3×{0}\mathcal{S}\equiv\mathds{R}^{n-3}\times\{0\} we have that the MjnM_{j}^{n} converge to ℝn−3×C⁡(Y)\mathds{R}^{n-3}\times C(Y) in C1,αC^{1,\alpha}. If fj:B2​(p)→B2​(pj)f_{j}:B_{2}(p)\to B_{2}(p_{j}) denote the Gromov-Hausdorff maps, we put 𝒮j=fj​(𝒮)\mathcal{S}_{j}=f_{j}(\mathcal{S}). Then for τ>0\tau>0 small but fixed, we have for jj sufficiently large, that on B1​(p)∖Tτ​(𝒮j)B_{1}(p)\setminus T_{\tau}(\mathcal{S}_{j}), the estimates |∇uj|>12|\nabla u_{j}|>\frac{1}{2} and |∇2uj|≤1|\nabla^{2}u_{j}|\leq 1 hold.

Consider Poisson approximation hjh_{j} to the square of distance function d2​(x,pj)d^{2}(x,p_{j}) on B2​(pj)B_{2}(p_{j}). That is, Δ​hj=2​n\Delta h_{j}=2n and hj=1h_{j}=1 on ∂B2​(pj)\partial B_{2}(p_{j}). We have (see for instance [ChCo1]) that |hj−d⁡(⋅,pj)|→0|h_{j}-d(\cdot,p_{j})|\to 0 uniformly in B2​(pj)B_{2}(p_{j}), and again because the convergence is in C1,αC^{1,\alpha} we have for jj sufficiently large that |∇h|>δ|\nabla h|>\delta and |∇2h|≤4​n|\nabla^{2}h|\leq 4n on B1​(p)∖Bτ​(𝒮j)B_{1}(p)\setminus B_{\tau}(\mathcal{S}_{j}). Once again, appealing to the C1,αC^{1,\alpha} convergence, for all jj sufficiently large and all s∈B1​(0n−3)s\in B_{1}(0^{n-3}) we have that u−1​(s)∩h−1​(1)u^{-1}(s)\cap h^{-1}(1) is diffeomorphic to ℝ​ℙ2\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2}. By Sard’s theorem, there exists a regular value sj∈B1​(0n−3)s_{j}\in B_{1}(0^{n-3}). Then for jj sufficiently large, uj−1(sj)∩{h≤1}u^{-1}_{j}(s_{j})\cap\{h\leq 1\} is a smooth 33-manifold, whose boundary is diffeomorphic to ℝ​ℙ2\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2}. However, the second Stiefel-Whitney number of ℝ​ℙ2\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2} is nonzero, and in particular, ℝ​ℙ2\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2} does not bound a smooth 33-manifold. This contradicts Y=ℝ​ℙ2Y=\mathds{R}\mathds{P}^{2}.

∎

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