ScalingStacks

2. The volume ratio ω φ n ω n and C 1 bound on Kähler potential [020R]

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

2. The volume ratio ωφnωn{\omega_{\varphi}^{n}\over\omega^{n}} and C1C^{1} bound on Kähler potential

The main theorem in this section is to prove that the first derivative of φ\varphi is pointwisely controlled by volume ratio eFe^{F} from above, assuming a bound for ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Conversely, the bound for ‖∇φ‖0||\nabla\varphi||_{0} can in turn control eF.e^{F}.\; However, this control is much weaker since it is of global nature.

First we show that a C0C^{0} bound for φ\varphi implies a lower bound for FF.

Proposition 2.1.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be smooth solutions to cscK, then there exists a positive constant C2C_{2} depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and the upper bound of the Ricci form of the background metric gg, such that F≥−C2F\geq-C_{2}.

This proposition first appeared in [24]. However, for the convenience of the reader, we include a proof here.

Proof.

This step is relatively easy. Let p∈Mp\in M, we may choose a local normal coordinate in a neighborhood of pp, such that

(2.1) gi​j¯​(p)=δi​j,∇gi​j¯​(p)=0,and​φi​j¯​(p)=φi​i¯​(p)​δi​j.g_{i\bar{j}}(p)=\delta_{ij},\;\;\nabla g_{i\bar{j}}(p)=0,\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\varphi_{i\bar{j}}(p)=\varphi_{i\bar{i}}(p)\delta_{ij}.

In this paper, we will always work under this coordinate unless specified otherwise. Choose the constant C2.1C_{2.1} to be C2.1=2​maxM​Ri​i¯+2​|R¯|n+1C_{2.1}=2\displaystyle\max_{M}R_{i\bar{i}}+\frac{2|\underline{R}|}{n}+1. Under this coordinate, we can calculate:

(2.2) Δφ​(F+C2.1​φ)=−R¯+Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯+C2.1​φi​i¯1+φi​i¯=−R¯+C2.1​n−C2.1−Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯≤−R¯+C2.1​n−n​C2.12​e−Fn≤2​C2.1​n−n​C2.12​e−Fn.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(F+C_{2.1}\varphi)&=-\underline{R}+\frac{R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+C_{2.1}\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &=-\underline{R}+C_{2.1}n-\frac{C_{2.1}-R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\leq-\underline{R}+C_{2.1}n-\frac{nC_{2.1}}{2}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\\ &\leq 2C_{2.1}n-\frac{nC_{2.1}}{2}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}.\end{split}

In the second line above, we used the arithemetic-geometric inequality:

1n​∑i11+φi​i¯≥Πi​(1+φi​i¯)−1n=e−Fn.\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq\Pi_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{-\frac{1}{n}}=e^{-\frac{F}{n}}.

Now let p0p_{0} be such that the function F+C2.1​φF+C_{2.1}\varphi achieves minimum at p0p_{0}, then from (2.2), we see

(2.3) 0≤2​C2.1​n−n​C2.12​e−Fn​(p0).0\leq 2C_{2.1}n-\frac{nC_{2.1}}{2}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}(p_{0}).

This gives a lower bound for FF, depending only on C0C^{0} bound for φ\varphi.

∎

Next we move on to estimate the upper bound of FF in terms of maxM⁡|∇φ|\displaystyle\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|.

Theorem 2.1.

Let (φ,F)(\varphi,F) be smooth solutions to cscK, then there exists a constant C2.2C_{2.2}, depending only on ‖∇φ‖0||\nabla\varphi||_{0} and lower bound of bisectional cruvature of the background metric gg, such that F≤C2.2F\leq C_{2.2}.

Proof.

The argument uses maximum principle again. This time we will calculate Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})) where λ,K>0\lambda,K>0 are constants to be determined later. We choose a normal coordinate (equation (2.1)) and do the following calculations. We have

(2.4) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))\displaystyle\qquad\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})) =\displaystyle= Δφ​(eF−λ​φ)​(K+|∇φ|2)+eF−λ​φ​Δφ​(K+|∇φ|2)\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi})(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\Delta_{\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})
+eF−λ​φ⋅(Fi−λ​φi)​(|∇φ|2)i¯+(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​(|∇φ|2)i1+φi​i¯.\displaystyle+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\cdot\frac{(F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}+(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{i}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.

We can first calculate:

(2.5) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ)=eF−C​φ​|Fi−λ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eF−λ​φ​(Δφ​F−λ​φi​i¯1+φi​i¯)=eF−λ​φ​|Fi−λ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eF−λ​φ​(−R¯−λ​n+λ+Ri​i¯1+φi​i¯).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi})&=e^{F-C\varphi}\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(\Delta_{\varphi}F-\frac{\lambda\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}})\\ &=e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(-\underline{R}-\lambda n+\frac{\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}).\end{split}

By differentiating equation (1.1) in zαz_{\alpha} direction, we obtain

(2.6) ∑iφi​i¯​α1+φi​i¯=Fα​and​∑iφi​i¯​α¯1+φi​i¯=Fα¯.\displaystyle\sum_{i}\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}\alpha}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=F_{\alpha}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\displaystyle\sum_{i}\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}\bar{\alpha}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=F_{\bar{\alpha}}.

Then we calculate

(2.7) Δφ​(|∇φ|2)=Rα​β¯​i​i¯​φα​φβ¯1+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+φα​φα¯​i​i¯+φα¯​φα​i​i¯1+φi​i¯≥−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+φα​Fα¯+φα¯​Fα=−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+φα​(Fα¯−λ​φα¯)+φα¯​(Fα−λ​φα)+2​λ​|φα|2≥−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯−ε⁡(n+Δ​φ)−|Fα−λ​φα|2​|φα|2ε⁡(1+φα​α¯)+2​λ​|φα|2.\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})&=\frac{R_{\alpha\bar{\beta}i\bar{i}}\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\beta}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}i\bar{i}}+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &\geq-\frac{C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\varphi_{\alpha}F_{\bar{\alpha}}+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}F_{\alpha}\\ &=-\frac{C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\varphi_{\alpha}(F_{\bar{\alpha}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}})+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}(F_{\alpha}-\lambda\varphi_{\alpha})+2\lambda|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}\\ &\geq-\frac{C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi^{2}_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\varepsilon(n+\Delta\varphi)-\frac{|F_{\alpha}-\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}}{\varepsilon(1+\varphi_{\alpha\bar{\alpha}})}+2\lambda|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}.\end{split}

Here C2.21C_{2.21} depends only on lower bound of bisectional curvature of gg.

For the last term in (2.4), we estimate in the following way:

(2.8) |(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​(|∇φ|2)i|1+φi​i¯\displaystyle\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{i}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
=\displaystyle= |(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​(φα​φα¯​i+φα¯​φα​i)|1+φi​i¯\displaystyle\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})(\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}i}+\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i})|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
≤\displaystyle\leq |(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​φi​φi​i¯|1+φi​i¯+|(Fi¯−λ​φi¯)​φα¯​φα​i|1+φi​i¯\displaystyle\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})\varphi_{i}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|(F_{\bar{i}}-\lambda\varphi_{\bar{i}})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
≤\displaystyle\leq |Fi−λ​φi|2​|φi|22​ε​(1+φi​i¯)+|Fi−λ​φi|2​|φα|22​ε​(1+φi​i¯)+ε​φi​i¯22​(1+φi​i¯)+ε​|φi​α|22​(1+φi​i¯).\displaystyle\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{2\varepsilon(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}+\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}}{2\varepsilon(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}+\frac{\varepsilon\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{2(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}+\frac{\varepsilon|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{2(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})}.

The other conjugate term satisfies the same estimate as above. Combining above calculations, we obtain:

(2.9) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))eF−λ​φ\displaystyle\frac{\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}))}{e^{F-\lambda\varphi}}
≥\displaystyle\geq (K+|∇φ|2−3​ε−1​|∇φ|2)​|Fi−λ​φi|21+φi​i¯\displaystyle\big(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-3\varepsilon^{-1}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\big)\frac{|F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
+(λ+Ri​i¯)​(K+|∇φ|2)−C2.21​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+(1−ε)​φi​i¯21+φi​i¯−ε⁡(n+Δ​φ)\displaystyle\qquad\qquad+\frac{(\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}})(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{(1-\varepsilon)\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\varepsilon(n+\Delta\varphi)
+|φi​α|2​(1−ε)1+φi​i¯+(−R¯−λ​n)​(K+|∇φ|2).\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}(1-\varepsilon)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+(-\underline{R}-\lambda n)(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}).

Now it’s time to choose the constants ε\varepsilon, λ\lambda, and KK appearing above.

First we choose ε=14\varepsilon=\frac{1}{4}. With this choice, we have

(2.10) ∑i(1−ε)​φi​i¯21+φi​i¯−ε⁡(n+Δ​φ)=34​(n+Δ​φ)−3​n2+34​∑i11+φi​i¯−14​(1+φi​i¯)≥12​(n+Δ​φ)−3​n2.\begin{split}\sum_{i}\frac{(1-\varepsilon)\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\varepsilon(n+\Delta\varphi)&=\frac{3}{4}(n+\Delta\varphi)-\frac{3n}{2}+\frac{3}{4}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-\frac{1}{4}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})\\ &\geq\frac{1}{2}(n+\Delta\varphi)-\frac{3n}{2}.\end{split}

Then we choose λ\lambda so large that λ+Ri​i¯>1\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}}>1. Finally, we choose KK so large that

(2.11) K>C2.21​maxM​|∇φ|2\displaystyle K>C_{2.21}\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}
(2.12) K>3​ε−1​maxM​|∇φ|2=12​maxM​|∇φ|2.\displaystyle K>3\varepsilon^{-1}\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}=12\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}.

With above choices for λ\lambda and KK, we have

(2.13) (λ+Ri​i¯)​(K+|∇φ|2)−C2.21​|∇φ|2≥K−C2.21​|∇φ|2>0.(\lambda+R_{i\bar{i}})(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2})-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\geq K-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}>0.

and also

(2.14) K−3​ε−1​|∇φ|2>0.K-3\varepsilon^{-1}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}>0.

Hence we conclude from (2.9) that

(2.15) Δφ​(eF−λ​φ​(K+|∇φ|2))≥eF−λ​φ​(−(|R¯|+λ​n)​(K+maxM⁡|∇φ|2)−C2.22+14​(n+Δ​φ)).\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{F-\lambda\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}))\geq e^{F-\lambda\varphi}\big(-(|\underline{R}|+\lambda n)(K+\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2})-C_{2.22}+\frac{1}{4}(n+\Delta\varphi)\big).

Denote v=eF−C​φ​(K+|∇φ|2)v=e^{F-C\varphi}(K+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}), it is enough to show vv has an upper bound. we see from (2.15) that there exists constants C2.23>0C_{2.23}>0, C2.24>0C_{2.24}>0, possibly depending on maxM⁡|∇φ|2\displaystyle\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}, such that

(2.16) Δφ​(v)≥v⁡(−C2.23+1C2.24​(n+Δ​φ)).\Delta_{\varphi}(v)\geq v(-C_{2.23}+\frac{1}{C_{2.24}}(n+\Delta\varphi)).

Here we notice that n+Δ​φ≥n​eFnn+\Delta\varphi\geq ne^{\frac{F}{n}}. Hence we obtain from (2.16) that

(2.17) Δφ​(v)≥v⁡(−C2.23+1C2.24​eFn).\Delta_{\varphi}(v)\geq v(-C_{2.23}+\frac{1}{C_{2.24}}e^{\frac{F}{n}}).

Let the maximum of vv be achieved at point pp, then we know −C2.23+eFn​(p)C2.24≤0-C_{2.23}+\frac{e^{\frac{F}{n}(p)}}{C_{2.24}}\leq 0. This gives an upper bound of FF at p0p_{0}, hence an upper bound for vv, where this bound depends on maxM⁡|∇φ|\displaystyle\max_{M}|\nabla\varphi|. ∎

Conversely, we have the following key estimate, which will be needed when we do the W2,pW^{2,p} estimates of φ\varphi.

Theorem 2.2.

There exists a constant C2.3C_{2.3}, depending only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}, lower bound of bisectional curvature and upper bound of Ricci form of gg, such that

|∇φ|2eF≤C2.3.{{|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}\over e^{F}}\leq C_{2.3}.
Proof.

We will consider Δφ​(e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K))\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)). Here λ>0\lambda>0, K>0K>0 are constants to be determined below. Then we have

(2.18) Δφ​(e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K))\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))
=\displaystyle= Δφ​(e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2)​(|∇φ|2+K)+e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​Δφ​(|∇φ|2)\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})
+2​e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ21+φi​i¯​R​e​((−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​(|∇φ|2)i¯).\displaystyle\qquad\qquad+\frac{2e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}Re\big((-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}\big).

For simplicity of notation, set

A⁡(F,φ)=−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2.A(F,\varphi)=-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}.

Similar as before, we may calculate:

(2.19) Δφ​(eA⁡(F,φ))\displaystyle\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A(F,\varphi)})
=\displaystyle= eA​|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eA​(−Δφ​(F+λ​φ)+φ​Δφ​φ)+eA​|φi|21+φi​i¯\displaystyle e^{A}\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{A}\big(-\Delta_{\varphi}(F+\lambda\varphi)+\varphi\Delta_{\varphi}\varphi\big)+e^{A}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}
=\displaystyle= eA​|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+eA​(R¯−λ​n+n​φ+∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯)+eA​|φi|21+φi​i¯.\displaystyle e^{A}\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+e^{A}\bigg(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\bigg)+\frac{e^{A}|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.

Recall the calculation in (2.7):

(2.20) Δφ​(|∇φ|2)=Ri​i¯​α​β¯​φα​φβ¯1+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+Fα¯​φα+Fα​φα¯≥−C2.21|∇φ|∑i2⁡11+φi​i¯+|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+(−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2+2​R​e​((Fα+λ​φα−φ​φα)​φα¯).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})&=\frac{R_{i\bar{i}\alpha\bar{\beta}}\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\beta}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+F_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha}+F_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\\ &\geq-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+2Re\big((F_{\alpha}+\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\varphi_{\alpha})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\big).\end{split}

Again C2.21C_{2.21} depends only on curvature bound of gg. Also

(|∇φ|2)i¯=φα​φα¯​i¯+φi¯​φi​i¯,(|∇φ|2)i=φα¯​φα​i+φi​φi​i¯.(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{\bar{i}}=\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}+\varphi_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}},\,\,(|\nabla\varphi|^{2})_{i}=\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha i}+\varphi_{i}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}.

Hence if we plug in (2.19) and (2.20) back to (2.18), we obtain:

(2.21) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))​e−A≥|∇φ(F+λ​φ)−φ​∇φφ|2​(|∇φ|2+K)+|∇φφ|2​(|∇φ|2+K)+(R¯−λ​n+n​φ+∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯)​(|∇φ|2+K)+−C2.21​|∇φ|2+|φi​α|2+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+(−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2+2​R​e​((Fα+λ​φα−φ​φα)​φα¯)+2​R​e​((−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​(φα​φα¯​i¯+φi¯​φi​i¯))1+φi​i¯.\begin{split}&\quad\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))e^{-A}\\ &\geq|\nabla_{\varphi}(F+\lambda\varphi)-\varphi\nabla_{\varphi}\varphi|^{2}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+|\nabla_{\varphi}\varphi|^{2}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)\\ &+\big(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\big)(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+\frac{-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+2Re\big((F_{\alpha}+\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\varphi_{\alpha})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}\big)\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{2Re\big((-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})(\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}+\varphi_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}})\big)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

We notice the following complete square in the above sum:

(2.22) 11+φi​i¯​|φi​α−(Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φα|2=|φi​α|21+φi​i¯+2​R​e​((−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​φα​φα¯​i¯)1+φi​i¯+|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|2​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯.\begin{split}&\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}|\varphi_{i\alpha}-\big(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i}\big)\varphi_{\alpha}|^{2}\\ &=\frac{|\varphi_{i\alpha}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{2Re\big((-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\alpha}\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}\bar{i}}\big)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}

We will drop this complete square in the following. Next we observe a crucial cancellation, which is the key point of this argument. We look at the last two terms in (2.21) and observe:

(2.23) (Fα+λ​φα−φ​φα)​φα¯+(−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi)​φi¯​φi​i¯1+φi​i¯=(Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φi¯1+φi​i¯.(F_{\alpha}+\lambda\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\varphi_{\alpha})\varphi_{\bar{\alpha}}+\frac{(-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}=\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.

Hence we have

(2.24) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))​e−A≥K​|−Fi−λ​φi+φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+|φi|2​(|∇φ|2+K)1+φi​i¯+∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯(|∇φ|2+K)+(R¯−λn+nφ)(|∇φ|2+K)−C2.21|∇φ|∑i2⁡11+φi​i¯+φi​i¯21+φi​i¯+(−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2+2​R​e​((Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φi¯1+φi​i¯).\begin{split}&\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))e^{-A}\geq K\frac{|-F_{i}-\lambda\varphi_{i}+\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &+\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)+\bigg(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi\bigg)(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)\\ &-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+2Re\bigg(\frac{(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\bigg).\end{split}

Now we make the choices of λ\lambda, KK. We choose λ=10​(supM|Ri​i¯|+‖φ‖0+C2.21+1)\lambda=10(\sup_{M}|R_{i\bar{i}}|+||\varphi||_{0}+C_{2.21}+1) and K=10K=10. With this choice, we now estimate the terms in (2.24), with various constants CiC_{i} which depends only on the curvature bound of gg and ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}.

(2.25) (R¯−λ​n+n​φ)​(|∇φ|2+K)≥−C2.31​(|∇φ|2+1).\big(\underline{R}-\lambda n+n\varphi\big)(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)\geq-C_{2.31}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+1).
(2.26) (−2​λ+2​φ)​|∇φ|2≥−C2.32​|∇φ|2.(-2\lambda+2\varphi)|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\geq-C_{2.32}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}.
(2.27) |(Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi)​φi¯|1+φi​i¯≤12​|Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+12​|φi|21+φi​i¯≤12​|Fi+λ​φi−φ​φi|21+φi​i¯+12​|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯.\begin{split}\frac{|(F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i})\varphi_{\bar{i}}|}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}&\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\\ &\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{|F_{i}+\lambda\varphi_{i}-\varphi\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.\end{split}
(2.28) ∑iλ−Ri​i¯−φ1+φi​i¯​(|∇φ|2+K)−C2.21​|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯≥10|∇φ|∑i2⁡11+φi​i¯.\sum_{i}\frac{\lambda-R_{i\bar{i}}-\varphi}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)-C_{2.21}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq 10|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}.
(2.29) φi​i¯21+φi​i¯≥0.\frac{\varphi_{i\bar{i}}^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\geq 0.

Combining all these estimates, we obtain from (2.24) that

(2.30) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))≥eA​(|φi|2​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+9​|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯−C2.33​(|∇φ|2+1)).\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))\geq e^{A}\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+9|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}-C_{2.33}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+1)\big).

Here C2.33C_{2.33} depends only on curvature bound of gg and ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0}. Using Young’s inequality, we have,

|∇φ|2n​e−Fn≤∑i|φi|2n(1+φi​i¯)1n⋅(1+φi​i¯)1n​e−Fn≤1n​∑i|φi|21+φi​i¯+n−1n​∑i(1+φi​i¯)1n−1​e−Fn−1≤(n−1)​(|φi|21+φi​i¯+1n​∑i(1+φi​i¯)1n−1​e−Fn−1)≤(n−1)​(|φi|21+φi​i¯+(n+Δ​φ)1n−1​e−Fn−1)≤(n−1)​(|φi|21+φi​i¯+∑i11+φi​i¯).\begin{split}|\nabla\varphi|^{\frac{2}{n}}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}&\leq\sum_{i}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{\frac{2}{n}}}{(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n}}}\cdot(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n}}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}\\ &\leq\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{n-1}{n}\sum_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n-1}}e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}\\ &\leq(n-1)\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i}(1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}})^{\frac{1}{n-1}}e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}\big)\\ &\leq(n-1)\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+(n+\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}e^{-\frac{F}{n-1}}\big)\\ &\leq(n-1)\big(\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}\big).\end{split}

Thus,

|φi|2​|∇φ|21+φi​i¯+|∇φ|2​∑i11+φi​i¯≥1n−1​|∇φ|2+2n​e−Fn.\begin{split}\frac{|\varphi_{i}|^{2}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}+|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{1+\varphi_{i\bar{i}}}&\geq\frac{1}{n-1}|\nabla\varphi|^{2+\frac{2}{n}}e^{-\frac{F}{n}}.\end{split}

Hence we get from (2.30) that

(2.31) Δφ​(eA​(|∇φ|2+K))≥e−C​φ+12​φ2​(e−(1+1n)​F​|∇φ|2+2n−C2.33​e−F​|∇φ|2−C2.33​e−F)=e−C​φ+12​φ2​((e−F​|∇φ|2)1+1n−C2.33​e−F​|∇φ|2−C2.33​e−F).\begin{split}\Delta_{\varphi}(e^{A}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K))&\geq e^{-C\varphi+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}\big(e^{-(1+\frac{1}{n})F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2+\frac{2}{n}}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}\big)\\ &=e^{-C\varphi+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}\big((e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2})^{1+\frac{1}{n}}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}\big).\end{split}

Suppose that the function e−(F+C​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K)e^{-(F+C\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K) achieves maximum at pp. Then at point pp, we have

(2.32) 0≥(e−F​|∇φ|2)1+1n−C2.33​e−F​|∇φ|2−C2.33​e−F.0\geq(e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2})^{1+\frac{1}{n}}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}-C_{2.33}e^{-F}.

Recall Proposition 2.1 gives an estimate for e−Fe^{-F} which depends only on ‖φ‖0||\varphi||_{0} and the curvature bound of gg. Therefore, we get a bound for e−F​|∇φ|2​(p)e^{-F}|\nabla\varphi|^{2}(p) with the same dependence. Hence we have a bound for e−(F+λ​φ)+12​φ2​(|∇φ|2+K)​(p)e^{-(F+\lambda\varphi)+\frac{1}{2}\varphi^{2}}(|\nabla\varphi|^{2}+K)(p), with the dependence as stated in the theorem.

But this function achieves maximum at pp, so we are done. ∎

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