ScalingStacks

5. Structure of three dimensional tangent cones [02CC]

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. Structure of three dimensional tangent cones

In this section we make a more detailed study of the structure of the tangent cones occurring in the previous sections, in particular we prove

Theorem 5.1.

In complex dimension three, the link YY of any tangent cone of the Gromov-Hausdorff limit X∞X_{\infty} is a five dimensional Sasaki-Einstein orbifold.

As before we write Y=Yr​e​g∪ΣY=Y^{reg}\cup\Sigma, where Yr​e​gY^{reg} is the smooth part and Σ\Sigma the singular part. We view YY as the radius one link in C⁡(Y)C(Y). For any q∈Σq\in\Sigma, any tangent cone of C⁡(Y)C(Y) at qq splits at least one line, so by general theory(see for example [5]) must have the form ℂ×ℂ2/Γ\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma for some Γ∈U⁡(2)\Gamma\in U(2). Moreover, Γ\Gamma depends only on qq. So the tangent cone of YY at qq is ℝ×ℂ2/Γ\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma.

Lemma 5.2.

Yr​e​gY^{reg} is geodesically convex in YY.

Proof.

For any two points pp, qq in YY, it is a general fact that a minimizing geodesic in C⁡(Y)C(Y) connecting pp and qq must be of the form (r⁡(t),γ⁡(t))(r(t),\gamma(t)) where γ⁡(t)\gamma(t) is a geodesic in YY, and rr is a universal function of dY​(p,q)d_{Y}(p,q) and tt determined by elementary trigonometry. By recent result of Colding-Naber [7] we know C⁡(Yr​e​g)C(Y^{reg}) is geodesically convex in C⁡(Y)C(Y), so the lemma follows. ∎

As usual there is a Reeb field ξ=J​r​∂∂r\xi=Jr\frac{\partial}{\partial r} on C⁡(Yr​e​g)C(Y^{reg}), which is holomorphic, Killing, of unit length, and tangent to Yr​e​gY^{reg}. For any p∈Yr​e​gp\in Y^{reg} we denote by p⁡(t)p(t) the integral curve exp⁡(t​ξ).p\exp(t\xi).p. For |t||t| sufficiently small, p⁡(t)p(t) defines a geodesic segment in Yr​e​gY^{reg}.

Lemma 5.3.

For any p1,p2∈Yr​e​gp_{1},p_{2}\in Y^{reg}, if p1​(t),p2​(t)p_{1}(t),p_{2}(t) are both defined on some interval [0,T][0,T], then f⁡(t)=d⁡(p1​(t),p2​(t))f(t)=d(p_{1}(t),p_{2}(t)) is independent of tt.

Proof.

By Lemma 5.2 for any t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T], the minimizing geodesic γ\gamma connecting p1​(t)p_{1}(t) and p2​(t)p_{2}(t) lies in Yr​e​gY^{reg}. So there is an ϵ>0\epsilon>0 so that the curve γs=exp⁡(s​ξ).γ\gamma_{s}=\exp(s\xi).\gamma is in Yr​e​gY^{reg} for s∈[0,ϵ]s\in[0,\epsilon]. Clearly the length of γs\gamma_{s} is independent of ss. Thus f⁡(t)f(t) is a decreasing function. Replace ξ\xi by −ξ-\xi one sees that ff is also an increasing function. Thus ff is constant.
∎

Proposition 5.4.

ξ\xi generates a one parameter group of isometric actions on YY.

Proof.

Fix any point pp in Yr​e​gY^{reg}, choose a convex embedded ball B⁡(p,r)B(p,r) in Yr​e​gY^{reg}. We claim B⁡(p⁡(t),r)∩Σ=∅B(p(t),r)\cap\Sigma=\emptyset for all tt. For otherwise there is a T>0T>0 such that B⁡(p⁡(t),r)∩Σ=∅B(p(t),r)\cap\Sigma=\emptyset for t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] but ∂B⁡(p⁡(T),r)∩Σ\partial B(p(T),r)\cap\Sigma is non-empty. Choose a point qq in this intersection. Let γ:[0,1]\gamma:[0,1] be the radial geodesic connecting p⁡(T)p(T) and qq, and let pi=γ⁡(1−2−i)p_{i}=\gamma(1-2^{-i}). Then Bi=B⁡(pi,2−i​r)⊂B⁡(p⁡(T),r)B_{i}=B(p_{i},2^{-i}r)\subset B(p(T),r), and d⁡(pi,q)=2−id(p_{i},q)=2^{-i}. Consider the pointed sequence (Y,2i​dY,q)(Y,2^{i}d_{Y},q). By assumption we know as ii tends to infinity by passing to a subsequence this converges to a tangent cone Yq=ℝ×ℂ2/ΓY_{q}=\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma. Then the rescaled balls 2i​Bi2^{i}B_{i} converge to a ball B⁡(p∞,r)B(p_{\infty},r) in YqY_{q} and d⁡(p∞,0)=rd(p_{\infty},0)=r. But BiB_{i} is isometric to a ball in B⁡(p,r)B(p,r) so have uniformly bounded geometry and thus 2i​Bi2^{i}B_{i} converges to a flat ball B∞B_{\infty}. Moreover by Lemma 5.3 the distance between any two points in B∞B_{\infty} is realized by the length of a geodesic within B∞B_{\infty}. Clearly this can not happen on YqY_{q}.

By the claim the isometric action exp⁡(t​ξ)\exp(t\xi) is well defined on Yr​e​gY^{reg} for all tt. Then we can extend the action to an isometric action on YY: given p∈Σp\in\Sigma we pick a Cauchy sequence pi∈Yr​e​gp_{i}\in Y^{reg} converging to qq; for any tt, pi​(t)=exp⁡(t​ξ)p_{i}(t)=\exp(t\xi) is also a Cauchy sequence in Yr​e​gY^{reg}, so there is a unique limit p⁡(t)p(t). We define e​x​p​(t​ξ).p=p⁡(t)exp(t\xi).p=p(t). Clearly exp⁡(t​ξ)\exp(t\xi) is distance preserving. Moreover exp⁡(t​ξ)\exp(t\xi) preserves both Yr​e​gY^{reg} and Σ\Sigma. ∎

We denote by ψ⁡(t)=exp⁡(t​ξ)​(t∈ℝ)\psi(t)=\exp(t\xi)(t\in\mathbb{R}) the above one parameter group action. Then we have

Lemma 5.5.

There is no point in YY fixed by ψ\psi.

Proof.

If qq is a fixed point, then clearly q∈Σq\in\Sigma. Choose a tangent cone Yq=ℝ×ℂ2/ΓY_{q}=\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma at qq. The action of ψ\psi induces a one parameter group of isometric actions on YqY_{q}, which fixes the origin. On the other hand on the smooth part of YqY_{q} the corresponding infinitesimal action is given by a Killing field of constant length. Clearly such a Killing field can not have zeroes. Contradiction. ∎

Now we are ready to conclude that

Proposition 5.6.

Σ\Sigma is a disjoint union of finite many periodic orbits of ψ\psi.

Proof.

Fix any q∈Σq\in\Sigma. Since it is not a fixed point of ψ\psi, we can choose a neighborhood Br​(q)B_{r}(q) such that any path-connected component of the intersection of an orbit of ψ\psi with Br​(q)¯\overline{B_{r}(q)} is compact. Let OqO_{q} be one path-connected component of ψ⁡(q)\psi(q) in Br​(q)B_{r}(q). We claim for s>0s>0 sufficiently small, Σ∩Bs​(q)=Oq∩Bs​(q)\Sigma\cap B_{s}(q)=O_{q}\cap B_{s}(q). If not, then there is a sequence pi∈(Br​(q)∖Oq)∩Σp_{i}\in(B_{r}(q)\setminus O_{q})\cap\Sigma converging to qq. We can choose qiq_{i} on the path-connected component of the orbit of pip_{i} in Br​(q)¯\overline{B_{r}(q)} which has least distance to qq. Then si=d⁡(q,qi)>0s_{i}=d(q,q_{i})>0. For ii sufficiently large we have d⁡(qi,Oq)=sid(q_{i},O_{q})=s_{i}. Now consider the rescaled pointed sequence (Br​(q),si−1​dY,q)(B_{r}(q),s_{i}^{-1}d_{Y},q). As i→∞i\rightarrow\infty, by passing to a subsequence, this converges to ℝ×ℂ2/Γ\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma. Moreover, OqO_{q} converges to ℝ×{0}\mathbb{R}\times\{0\}, and qiq_{i} converges to q∞q_{\infty} which has distance 11 to ℝ×{0}\mathbb{R}\times\{0\}. But qiq_{i} is singular for all ii, so q∞q_{\infty} is also singular. Contradiction. Then the Proposition follows from the claim and an obvious compactness argument. ∎

Now we pick a point qq in Σ\Sigma. Choose a neighborhood UqU_{q} of qq such that Σ∩Uq=Oq\Sigma\cap U_{q}=O_{q} consists of exactly one component. Then one can take a local quotient of UqU_{q} by ψ\psi, and obtain a four dimensional (incomplete) metric ball B⁡(q,200)B(q,200)(say radius is 200200) with an isolated singularity qq. Moreover, the tangent cones at qq are all isometric to ℂ2/Γ\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma for a unique Γ⊂U⁡(2)\Gamma\subset U(2). The metric gg on the smooth part B⁡(q,200)∖{q}B(q,200)\setminus\{q\} is Kähler-Einstein. We write B=B⁡(q,100)B=B(q,100), and B∗=B⁡(q,100)∖{q}B^{*}=B(q,100)\setminus\{q\}. Denote by B^\hat{B} the standard ball of radius 100100 in ℂ2/Γ\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma, and B^∗=B∖{0}\hat{B}^{*}=B\setminus\{0\}.

Theorem 5.7.

There is a diffeomorphism F:B^∗→B∗F:\hat{B}^{*}\rightarrow B^{*} such that F∗​gF^{*}g extends to a smooth orbifold Riemannian metric on B^\hat{B}.

Given this theorem then it is not hard to prove Theorem 5.1. So on the local quotient BB we have an orbifold chart {zi}\{z^{i}\} with Kähler metric ω=−1​∂∂¯​ϕ\omega=\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}\phi. We pull back the coordinate {zi}\{z^{i}\} to UqU_{q}. Let η\eta be the contact form associated to the Sasaki structure on the smooth part Uq0=Uq∖OqU_{q}^{0}=U_{q}\setminus O_{q}. Then the 11-form η′=η−2​I​m​(∂zϕ)\eta^{\prime}=\eta-2Im(\partial_{z}\phi) is closed. Clearly H1​(Uq0,ℝ)=0H^{1}(U_{q}^{0},\mathbb{R})=0, so η′=d​x\eta^{\prime}=dx for some function xx. Then it is easy to see that ξ=∂∂x\xi=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}, in the coordinate (x,z1,z2)(x,z^{1},z^{2}). This gives rise to an orbifold chart for UqU_{q}. The compatibility condition between the orbifold charts follows easily from the local action ψ\psi.

Theorem 5.7 is certainly well-known, due to Anderson [1], Bando-Kasue-Nakajima [2], and Tian [21]. We include a proof here for the convenience of readers. For simplicity of notation we assume Γ\Gamma is trivial, and the proof is the same for a general Γ\Gamma. For any a1<a2a_{1}<a_{2}, we denote A⁡(a1,a2)={p∈B|a1<d⁡(p,q)<a2}A(a_{1},a_{2})=\{p\in B|a_{1}<d(p,q)<a_{2}\} and A^​(a1,a2)={x∈ℂ2|a1<|x|<a2}\hat{A}(a_{1},a_{2})=\{x\in\mathbb{C}^{2}|a_{1}<|x|<a_{2}\}. Since any tangent cone at pp is isometric to ℂ2/Γ\mathbb{C}^{2}/\Gamma, by general results of Anderson, Colding, there is a δ∈(0,110)\delta\in(0,\frac{1}{10}) such that for rr sufficient small there is an embedding ϕr:A^​(1−δ,100+δ)→B⁡(q,200)\phi_{r}:\hat{A}(1-\delta,100+\delta)\rightarrow B(q,200) such that (1−ϵ⁡(r))​|x|≤r−1​d​(q,ϕr​(x))≤(1+ϵ⁡(r))​|x|(1-\epsilon(r))|x|\leq r^{-1}d(q,\phi_{r}(x))\leq(1+\epsilon(r))|x| and |r−2​ϕr∗​g−g0|C4≤ϵ⁡(r)|r^{-2}\phi_{r}^{*}g-g_{0}|_{C^{4}}\leq\epsilon(r), where ϵ⁡(r)\epsilon(r) is a monotone function that goes to 00 as rr tends to 00. Here and from now on, the norm of a quantity defined on an annulus in ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4} is always taken with respect to the Euclidean metric. Then we readily see that for all r<s<1r<s<1, there is a deformation retract from A⁡(r,1)A(r,1) to A⁡(s,1)A(s,1), and BB is homeomorphic to B^\hat{B}. The proof of Theorem 5.7 is divided into four steps:

Step I(C0C^{0} chart):

To construct a chart so that gg is continuous we need to glue together the above almost Euclidean annuli in a controllable way. This is elementary and we begin with the following lemma

Lemma 5.8.

For ϵ>0\epsilon>0 sufficiently small, there is a constant K⁡(ϵ)>0K(\epsilon)>0 which goes to zero as ϵ\epsilon tends to zero, such that for any smooth map ϕ:A^​(30,80)→ℝ4\phi:\hat{A}(30,80)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{4} with |ϕ∗​g0−g0|C4​(A^​(30,80))≤ϵ|\phi^{*}g_{0}-g_{0}|_{C^{4}(\hat{A}(30,80))}\leq\epsilon, there is an isometry PP of ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4} such that |P∘ϕ−I​d|C3​(A^​(40,70))≤K⁡(ϵ)|P\circ\phi-Id|_{C^{3}(\hat{A}(40,70))}\leq K(\epsilon).

Proof.

Assume the statement fails, then there is a constant τ>0\tau>0, a sequence ϵi→0\epsilon_{i}\rightarrow 0, and maps ϕi:A^​(30,80)→ℝ4\phi_{i}:\hat{A}(30,80)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{4} with |ϕi∗​g0−g0|C4​(A^​(30,80))≤ϵi|\phi_{i}^{*}g_{0}-g_{0}|_{C^{4}(\hat{A}(30,80))}\leq\epsilon_{i}, but for any isometry PP we have |P∘ϕi−I​d|C3​(A^​(40,70))≥τ|P\circ\phi_{i}-Id|_{C^{3}(\hat{A}(40,70))}\geq\tau. Then ϕi\phi_{i} converges to a map ϕ∞\phi_{\infty} in C3​(A^​(40,70))C^{3}(\hat{A}(40,70)), such that ϕ∞∗​g0=g0\phi_{\infty}^{*}g_{0}=g_{0}. So ϕ∞\phi_{\infty} is an isometry of ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4}. Since |ϕ∞−1∘ϕi−I​d|C3​(A^​(40,70))|\phi_{\infty}^{-1}\circ\phi_{i}-Id|_{C^{3}(\hat{A}(40,70))} converges to zero as ii goes to infinity. We arrive at a contradiction. ∎

Lemma 5.9.

Suppose two maps f0:A^​(1,100)→B⁡(q,200)f_{0}:\hat{A}(1,100)\rightarrow B(q,200), f1:A^​(1−δ,100+δ)→B⁡(q,200)f_{1}:\hat{A}(1-\delta,100+\delta)\rightarrow B(q,200) satisfy that for i=0,1i=0,1 and some r>0r>0, (1−ϵ)​|x|≤10i​r−1​d​(q,fi​(x))≤(1+ϵ)​|x|,(1-\epsilon)|x|\leq 10^{i}r^{-1}d(q,f_{i}(x))\leq(1+\epsilon)|x|, and |102​i​r−2​fi∗​g−g0|C4≤ϵ|10^{2i}r^{-2}f_{i}^{*}g-g_{0}|_{C^{4}}\leq\epsilon on A^​(10i,10i+1)\hat{A}(10^{i},10^{i+1}). Then there is a constant G=G⁡(ϵ)G=G(\epsilon) with limϵ→0G⁡(ϵ)=0\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}G(\epsilon)=0, a rotation R∈O⁡(4)R\in O(4), and a map f:A^​(10−1,100)→B⁡(q,200)f:\hat{A}(10^{-1},100)\rightarrow B(q,200), with f​(x)=f0​(x)f(x)=f_{0}(x) on A^​(9,100)\hat{A}(9,100), f⁡(x)=f1​(10​R−1​(x))f(x)=f_{1}(10R^{-1}(x)) on A^​(10−1,2)\hat{A}(10^{-1},2), and |r−2​f∗​g−g0|C2≤C⁡(ϵ)|r^{-2}f^{*}g-g_{0}|_{C^{2}}\leq C(\epsilon) on A^​(10−1,100)\hat{A}(10^{-1},100).

Proof.

By the obvious scaling invariance we may assume r=1r=1. Let D=I​m​(f0)∩I​m​(f1)D=Im(f_{0})\cap Im(f_{1}). Since ϵ\epsilon is small, we may assume A^​(3,8)\hat{A}(3,8) is contained in f0−1​(D)f_{0}^{-1}(D). Then there is a constant C1C_{1} independent of ϵ\epsilon such that the map ψ=10−1​f1−1∘f0:A^​(3,8)→ℝ4\psi=10^{-1}f_{1}^{-1}\circ f_{0}:\hat{A}(3,8)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{4} satisfies |ψ∗​g0−g0|C4≤C1​ϵ|\psi^{*}g_{0}-g_{0}|_{C^{4}}\leq C_{1}\epsilon, and (1−3​ϵ)​|x|≤|ψ⁡(x)|≤(1+3​ϵ)​|x|(1-3\epsilon)|x|\leq|\psi(x)|\leq(1+3\epsilon)|x|. By Lemma 5.8 there is an isometry PP of ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4} such that |P∘ψ−I​d|C3≤K⁡(C1​ϵ)|P\circ\psi-Id|_{C^{3}}\leq K(C_{1}\epsilon) on A^​(4,7)\hat{A}(4,7). We write P⁡(x)=R⁡(x+ξ)P(x)=R(x+\xi) for a rotation RR and a translation ξ\xi. Then it is easy to see that |R∘ψ−I​d|C3≤C2​(ϵ)|R\circ\psi-Id|_{C^{3}}\leq C_{2}(\epsilon) with limϵ→0C2​(ϵ)=0\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}C_{2}(\epsilon)=0, and R​(A^​(1−δ,100+δ))R(\hat{A}(1-\delta,100+\delta)) contains A^​(1,100)\hat{A}(1,100). Choose a cut-off function χ⁡(x)\chi(x) on A^​(1,100)\hat{A}(1,100) with χ⁡(x)=1\chi(x)=1 for |x|≤5|x|\leq 5 and χ⁡(x)=0\chi(x)=0 for |x|≥6|x|\geq 6. Using the map f0f_{0} we get a corresponding cut-off function on B⁡(q,200)B(q,200), still denoted by χ\chi. Then |χ|Cg4≤C3|\chi|_{C^{4}_{g}}\leq C_{3} for a constant C3C_{3} independent of ϵ\epsilon. Clearly χ⁡(p)=0\chi(p)=0 when p∉I​m​(f1)p\notin Im(f_{1}) and χ⁡(p)=1\chi(p)=1 when p∉I​m​(f0)p\notin Im(f_{0}). Define h:I​m​f0∪I​m​f1→ℝ4h:Imf_{0}\cup Imf_{1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{4} sending pp to 10−1​χ​(p)​R∘f1−1​(x)+(1−χ⁡(p))​f0−1​(x)10^{-1}\chi(p)R\circ f_{1}^{-1}(x)+(1-\chi(p))f_{0}^{-1}(x). Then for ϵ\epsilon sufficiently small we have h=f0−1h=f_{0}^{-1} on A⁡(8,100)A(8,100) and h=10−1​R∘f1−1h=10^{-1}R\circ f_{1}^{-1} on A⁡(10−1,3)A(10^{-1},3), and |h∗​g0−g|Cg2≤C⁡(ϵ)|h^{*}g_{0}-g|_{C^{2}_{g}}\leq C(\epsilon) with limϵ→0C⁡(ϵ)=0\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}C(\epsilon)=0. Define f=h−1f=h^{-1}. Then f⁡(x)f(x) meets the required properties. ∎

Proposition 5.10.

There is a diffeomorphism F:B^∗→B∗F:\hat{B}^{*}\rightarrow B^{*} such that F∗​gF^{*}g extends to a C0C^{0} metric tensor over BB.

Proof.

Since the problem is local, we may assume for all r≤1r\leq 1 that the above map ϕr\phi_{r} exists and ϵ⁡(1)\epsilon(1) is as small as we like. For simplicity we denote ϕk=ϕ10−k\phi_{k}=\phi_{10^{-k}}, and ϵk=ϵ⁡(10−k)\epsilon_{k}=\epsilon(10^{-k}). Now we first define F0​(x)=ϕ0​(x)F_{0}(x)=\phi_{0}(x) on A^​(1,100)\hat{A}(1,100). Inductively suppose FkF_{k} is defined on A^​(10−k,10−k+2)\hat{A}(10^{-k},10^{-k+2}) satisfying Fk​(x)=ϕk∘Rk−1​(10k​x)F_{k}(x)=\phi_{k}\circ R_{k}^{-1}(10^{k}x) on A^​(10−k,20⋅10−k)\hat{A}(10^{-k},20\cdot 10^{-k}) for some rotation Rk∈O⁡(4)R_{k}\in O(4), then we apply Lemma 5.9 to the two maps ϕk∘Rk−1\phi_{k}\circ R_{k}^{-1} and ϕk+1\phi_{k+1} with r=10−kr=10^{-k} and ϵ=max⁡(ϵk−1,ϵk)\epsilon=\max(\epsilon_{k-1},\epsilon_{k}), and obtain a map fk+1f_{k+1} defined on A^​(1/10,100)\hat{A}(1/10,100) satisfying (2). Then we define Fk+1​(x)F_{k+1}(x) to be fk+1​(10k​x)f_{k+1}(10^{k}x) on A^​(10−k−1,10−k+1)\hat{A}(10^{-k-1},10^{-k+1}). By Lemma 5.9 we see that all the FkF_{k}’s match together to a map FF from B^∗\hat{B}^{*} to B⁡(q,200)B(q,200), and we can modify FF slightly near ∂B^\partial\hat{B} so that the image is exactly B∗B^{*}. It is easy to see that |F∗​g−g0|L∞​(A^​(10−k,10−k+1))=|102​k​fk+1∗​g−g0|L∞​(A^​(10,100))≤G⁡(max⁡(ϵk−1,ϵk))|F^{*}g-g_{0}|_{L^{\infty}(\hat{A}(10^{-k},10^{-k+1}))}=|10^{2k}f_{k+1}^{*}g-g_{0}|_{L^{\infty}(\hat{A}(10,100))}\leq G(\max(\epsilon_{k-1},\epsilon_{k})), and F∗​gF^{*}g extends to a continuous metric tensor over BB. ∎

Step II(Curvature bound):

Now we may assume gg is a C0C^{0} metric on B=B^B=\hat{B}.

Lemma 5.11.

We have

∫B∗|R​m​(g)|2​𝑑v​o​lg<∞.\int_{B^{*}}|Rm(g)|^{2}dvol_{g}<\infty.
Proof.

Let A±A_{\pm} be the connection induced by the Levi-Civita connection of gg on Λg±\Lambda^{\pm}_{g}. The Einstein condition implies A+A_{+} is self-dual and A−A_{-} anti-self-dual with respect to gg. Thus

|R​m​(g)|2​d​v​o​lg=T​r​(FA+∧FA+−FA−∧FA−).|Rm(g)|^{2}dvol_{g}=Tr(F_{A_{+}}\wedge F_{A_{+}}-F_{A_{-}}\wedge F_{A_{-}}).

By the tangent cone condition we can easily find a smooth family of spheres SrS_{r} in B∗B^{*} with the property that as rr tends to zero, (Sr,r−2​g)(S_{r},r^{-2}g) converges smoothly to the round sphere in ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4}, and the restriction to (Sr,r−2​g)(S_{r},r^{-2}g) of the connection A±A_{\pm} converges to the trivial flat connection. Then for any s<rs<r

∫A⁡(s,r)T​r​FA+∧FA+=C​S​(A+,Sr)−C​S​(A+,Ss)​(m​o​𝑑ℤ),\int_{A(s,r)}TrF_{A_{+}}\wedge F_{A_{+}}=CS(A_{+},S_{r})-CS(A_{+},S_{s})(mod\ \mathbb{Z}),

where C​S​(A,M)=∫M𝑑A∧A+23​A∧A∧ACS(A,M)=\int_{M}dA\wedge A+\frac{2}{3}A\wedge A\wedge A is the Chern-Simons invariant of a connection AA over a three manifold MM, defined modulo ℤ\mathbb{Z}. By assumption, C​S​(A+,Sr)=C​S​(A+,1r​Sr)→0CS(A_{+},S_{r})=CS(A_{+},\frac{1}{r}S_{r})\rightarrow 0 as r→0r\rightarrow 0. So we choose rr small enough so that for any s≤rs\leq r we have |C​S​(A+,Sr)|≤1/8|CS(A_{+},S_{r})|\leq 1/8 modulo ℤ\mathbb{Z}. So ∫A⁡(s,r)T​r​FA+∧FA+\int_{A(s,r)}TrF_{A_{+}}\wedge F_{A_{+}} is in [−1/4,1/4][-1/4,1/4] modulo ℤ\mathbb{Z}, and on the other hand it clearly depends continuously on ss, so the integral is uniformly bounded for all s<rs<r. One can similarly deal with A−A_{-}. Together this implies ∫B∗|R​m​(g)|2​𝑑v​o​lg\int_{B^{*}}|Rm(g)|^{2}dvol_{g} is finite.

∎

Proposition 5.12.

For any k≥0k\geq 0, |∇gkR​m​(g)||\nabla^{k}_{g}Rm(g)| is uniformly bounded in B∗B^{*}.

Proof.

Since the metric gg is C0C^{0} equivalent to the flat metric g0g_{0}, the Sobolev space W1,pW^{1,p} is the same with respect to both metrics, and the Moser iteration works for the operator Δ=Δg\Delta=\Delta_{g}. Here again we use the geometers’ convention for the sign. By Bochner formula there is a constant C1>0C_{1}>0 such that

Δ​|R​m|≤C1​|R​m|2,\Delta|Rm|\leq C_{1}|Rm|^{2},

which is on the borderline of applying Moser iteration. Due to Bando-Kasue-Nakajima [2] (Corollary 4.10), there is an improved Kato’s inquality, namely, there are C2>0C_{2}>0 and δ∈(0,1)\delta\in(0,1), such that

Δ​|R​m|1−δ≤C2​|R​m|2−δ.\Delta|Rm|^{1-\delta}\leq C_{2}|Rm|^{2-\delta}.

Let u=|R​m|1−δu=|Rm|^{1-\delta} and f=|R​m|f=|Rm|. Then we can apply [19](Lemma 2.1) with q=11−δq=\frac{1}{1-\delta} and q0=12​(1−δ)q_{0}=\frac{1}{2(1-\delta)} to conclude that |R​m||Rm| is in W1,2W^{1,2}. By Sobolev embedding we see |R​m|∈L4|Rm|\in L^{4}. Also that |∇Rm|∈L2|\nabla Rm|\in L^{2} implies that the inequality Δ​|R​m|≤C1​|R​m|2\Delta|Rm|\leq C_{1}|Rm|^{2} holds weakly on the whole ball BB. Then we can apply the standard Moser iteration to conclude |R​m||Rm| is uniformly bounded. Now consider |∇Rm||\nabla Rm|. For any p∈B∗p\in B^{*} with d⁡(p,q)=r≤1/2d(p,q)=r\leq 1/2, the rescaled ball r−1​B​(p,r/2)r^{-1}B(p,r/2) has uniformly bounded geometry, so standard elliptic regularity for the Einstein equation then implies that |∇Rm|≤C3r−1.|\nabla Rm|\leq C_{3}r^{-1}. for some constant C3>0C_{3}>0. Thus |∇Rm|∈L3|\nabla Rm|\in L^{3}. By Bochner formula again there is a constant C4>0C_{4}>0 such that

Δ|∇Rm|≤C4|Rm||∇Rm|.\Delta|\nabla Rm|\leq C_{4}|Rm||\nabla Rm|.

Let u=|∇Rm|u=|\nabla Rm|, f=C4​|R​m|f=C_{4}|Rm| and apply [19](Lemma 2.1) with q=1q=1, and q0=3/4q_{0}=3/4, we get |∇Rm|∈W1,2|\nabla Rm|\in W^{1,2}. Thus the inequality holds weakly on BB and by Moser iteration |∇Rm||\nabla Rm| is uniformly bounded. Then similarly one can prove the bound for higher covariant derivatives of the curvature tensor. ∎

Step III(C1,αC^{1,\alpha} chart):

To construct a coordinate chart so that gg is C1,αC^{1,\alpha}, we shall use Rauch comparison theorem, following [2]. The following lemma is a direct consequence of the tangent cone condition(by using the maps ϕr\phi_{r}):

Lemma 5.13.

There is a sequence ϵi→0\epsilon_{i}\rightarrow 0 and a sequence of smooth embeddings fif_{i} from S3S^{3} to BB with the properties

  1. (1)

    dG​H​(Si,∂B⁡(i−1))≤i−1​ϵid_{GH}(S_{i},\partial B(i^{-1}))\leq i^{-1}\epsilon_{i} where Si=fi​(S3)S_{i}=f_{i}(S^{3}).

  2. (2)

    |i2​fi∗​g−h0|Ch04≤ϵi|i^{2}f_{i}^{*}g-h_{0}|_{C^{4}_{h_{0}}}\leq\epsilon_{i}, where h0h_{0} is the standard round metric on S3S^{3}.

  3. (3)

    |i−1​ASi+I​d|Ch03≤ϵi,|i^{-1}A_{S_{i}}+Id|_{C^{3}_{h_{0}}}\leq\epsilon_{i}, where ASi:T​Si→T​SiA_{S_{i}}:TS_{i}\rightarrow TS_{i} is the shape operator.

Proposition 5.14.

There is a C3C^{3} diffeomorphism F:B∗→B∗F:B^{*}\rightarrow B^{*} such that F∗​gF^{*}g extends to a C1,1C^{1,1} metric tensor on BB.

Proof.

We define Fi:S3×[i−1,1]F_{i}:S^{3}\times[i^{-1},1], sending (x,t)(x,t) to expfi​(x)⁡((t−i−1)​N​(x))\exp_{f_{i}(x)}((t-i^{-1})N(x)), where N⁡(x)N(x) is the outward normal vector at xx. Consider a Jacobi field J⁡(t)J(t) along a geodesic γx​(t)=Fi​(x,t)\gamma_{x}(t)=F_{i}(x,t). Then since the curvature of gg is uniformly bounded, by Rauch comparison theorem there are constants C1>0C_{1}>0 and δ>0\delta>0 independent of xx and ii such that C1−1​|J⁡(i−1)|g≤|J⁡(t)|g≤C1​i|J⁡(i−1)|gC_{1}^{-1}|J(i^{-1})|_{g}\leq|J(t)|_{g}\leq C_{1}i|J(i^{-1})|_{g} for t∈[i−1,δ]t\in[i^{-1},\delta]. For simplicity of notation we may assume δ=1\delta=1. So for ii large enough FiF_{i} has no critical points in [i−1,1][i^{-1},1]. Indeed FiF_{i} is a diffeomorphism. For otherwise there would be a geodesic loop σ​(s)​(s∈[0,T])\sigma(s)(s\in[0,T]) which is perpendicular to SiS_{i} when s=0s=0 and s=Ts=T. It is then easy to see this could not happen for sufficiently large ii, by passing to a tangent cone.

Now we write Fi∗​g=d​t2+t2​hi​(t)F_{i}^{*}g=dt^{2}+t^{2}h_{i}(t). First we notice that |dg​(0,Fi​(x,t))−t|≤i−1​ϵi|d_{g}(0,F_{i}(x,t))-t|\leq i^{-1}\epsilon_{i}. Now we derive estimates for gi​(t)g_{i}(t). Given a unit tangent vector ξ\xi at x∈S3x\in S^{3}. Let J⁡(t)J(t) be the Jacobi field along γx​(t)\gamma_{x}(t) with J⁡(i−1)=d​fi​(ξ)J(i^{-1})=df_{i}(\xi) and J˙​(i−1)=ASi​(J⁡(i−1))\dot{J}(i^{-1})=A_{S_{i}}(J(i^{-1})). Then J⁡(t)=d​Fi(x,t)​(ξ)J(t)=d{F_{i}}_{(x,t)}(\xi). Clearly ||J⁡(i−1)|g−i−1|≤i−1​ϵi||J(i^{-1})|_{g}-i^{-1}|\leq i^{-1}\epsilon_{i} and |J˙​(i−1)−i​J​(i−1)|g≤2​ϵi|\dot{J}(i^{-1})-iJ(i^{-1})|_{g}\leq 2\epsilon_{i}. Let {e1​(t),⋯,en​(t)=γ˙x​(t)}\{e_{1}(t),\cdots,e_{n}(t)=\dot{\gamma}_{x}(t)\} be an orthonormal frame of parallel vector fields along γx​(t)\gamma_{x}(t), such that J⁡(i−1)=|J⁡(i−1)|g​e1J(i^{-1})=|J(i^{-1})|_{g}e_{1}. Under the decomposition J⁡(t)=∑αJα​(t)​eα​(t)J(t)=\sum_{\alpha}J_{\alpha}(t)e_{\alpha}(t) we have

J¨α​(t)+∑βRα​n​β​n​(γx​(t))​Jβ​(t)=0,\ddot{J}_{\alpha}(t)+\sum_{\beta}R_{\alpha n\beta n}(\gamma_{x}(t))J_{\beta}(t)=0,

where Rα​n​β​n=R⁡(eα,en,eβ,en)R_{\alpha n\beta n}=R(e_{\alpha},e_{n},e_{\beta},e_{n}). From the above discussion we have |J⁡(t)|≤2​C1|J(t)|\leq 2C_{1} for t∈[i−1,1]t\in[i^{-1},1]. So it is easy to see that there is a constant C2>0C_{2}>0 such that

||J⁡(t)|g−t|≤C2​(i−1+ϵi​t+t3).||J(t)|_{g}-t|\leq C_{2}(i^{-1}+\epsilon_{i}t+t^{3}).

Thus

|hi​(t)−h0|Lh0∞≤C2​(i−1​t−1+ϵi+t2).|h_{i}(t)-h_{0}|_{L^{\infty}_{h_{0}}}\leq C_{2}(i^{-1}t^{-1}+\epsilon_{i}+t^{2}).

Now take a unit tangent vector XX at xx, we vary J⁡(i−1)J(i^{-1}) so that ∇X0​J​(i−1)=0\nabla^{0}_{X}J(i^{-1})=0 at xx, and extend XX to a unit tangent vector field in a neighborhood UU of xx in S3S^{3}. We may also view XX as a tangent vector field on U×[i−1,1]U\times[i^{-1},1]. Now we differentiate the Jacobi field equation, and similar arguments as above yield

|∇XJ​(t)|g≤C3​(i−1+ϵi​t+t3),|\nabla_{X}J(t)|_{g}\leq C_{3}(i^{-1}+\epsilon_{i}t+t^{3}),

for a constant C3>0C_{3}>0. This implies that there is a constant C4>0C_{4}>0 such that t−1​|∇0(hi​(t)−h0)|h0≤C4​(i−1​t−2+ϵi​t−1+t).t^{-1}|\nabla^{0}(h_{i}(t)-h_{0})|_{h_{0}}\leq C_{4}(i^{-1}t^{-2}+\epsilon_{i}t^{-1}+t). Similarly one can get bounds on higher derivatives of hi​(t)−h0h_{i}(t)-h_{0}. The point is that for a fixed τ>0\tau>0 as ii goes to infinity we know Fi​(x,t)F_{i}(x,t) converges in C3C^{3} to a limit F∞τ​(x,t)F^{\tau}_{\infty}(x,t) on S3×[τ,1]S^{3}\times[\tau,1]. Then we can let τ→0\tau\rightarrow 0 and obtain a limit F:S3×(0,1]F:S^{3}\times(0,1] with the property that dg​(0,F⁡(x,t))=td_{g}(0,F(x,t))=t, and

t−2​|F∗​g−g0|Cg00+t−1​|F∗​g−g0|Cg01+|​F∗​g−g0|Cg02≤C5,t^{-2}|F^{*}g-g_{0}|_{C^{0}_{g_{0}}}+t^{-1}|F^{*}g-g_{0}|_{C^{1}_{g_{0}}}+|F^{*}g-g_{0}|_{C^{2}_{g_{0}}}\leq C_{5},

for some constant C5>0C_{5}>0. This implies that F∗​gF^{*}g extends to a C1,αC^{1,\alpha} metric on BB. ∎

Step IV(C∞C^{\infty} chart):

Now we may assume gg is a C1,αC^{1,\alpha} metric on BB. Notice the metric gg is also Kähler, and compatible almost complex structure JJ is C1,αC^{1,\alpha} in BB. Thus by the integrability theorem [16], modifying by a C2,α′​(α′<α)C^{2,\alpha^{\prime}}(\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha) diffeomorphism, we may assume JJ is the standard complex structure near the origin. So in a small ball BϵB_{\epsilon} the Kähler form of gg is of the form ω=−1​∂∂¯​ϕ\omega=\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}\phi for a real valued function ϕ\phi with regularity C3,α′C^{3,\alpha^{\prime}}. The Kähler-Einstein equation on Bϵ∗B_{\epsilon}^{*} has the form

(−1​∂∂¯​ϕ)2=e−ϕ+h​ω02,(\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}\phi)^{2}=e^{-\phi+h}\omega_{0}^{2},

where hh is a pluri-harmonic function on Bϵ∗B_{\epsilon}^{*} and ω0\omega_{0} is the standard Kähler form on ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2}. By Hartogs theorem hh extends smoothly to BϵB_{\epsilon}. Then the standard elliptic regularity implies that ϕ\phi and hence gg is smooth on BϵB_{\epsilon}. This finishes the proof of Theorem 5.7.

5.1. Further discussion

We can use this detailed description of the link YY, in the three-dimensional case to get a more precise understanding of the “topological obstruction” of Section 3.2.2. A representation α:π1​(Y∖Σ)→S1\alpha:\pi_{1}(Y\setminus\Sigma)\rightarrow S^{1} defines a covering of Y∖ΣY\setminus\Sigma and it is clear that the metric completion of this is again an orbifold Y~\tilde{Y} with a metric of Ricci curvature (2​n−1)(2n-1). It is clear then that the usual proof of Myers Theorem extends to show that Y~\tilde{Y} is compact, so the representation maps to a finite group. Thus π1​(Y∖Σ)\pi_{1}(Y\setminus\Sigma) is also finite and the torus TT in the discussion of 3.2.2 is in this case trivial. (Of course the set YϵY_{\epsilon} can be assumed to be homotopy equivalent to Y∖ΣY\setminus\Sigma). Moreover it is also clear that the usual proof of the Bishop Theorem extends to this case to show that the volume of Y~\tilde{Y} cannot exceed that of S2​n−1S^{2n-1}. Hence the order of the cover, is bounded by κ−1\kappa^{-1} where κ\kappa is the volume ratio, and hence by c−1c^{-1}. Let D=D⁡(c)D=D(c) be the least integer such that all integers less than or equal to c−1c^{-1} divide DD. Then we see that the power αD\alpha^{D} of any such representation must be trivial. Thus if, from the beginning of the discussion in Section 3, we consider powers LD​kL^{Dk} we never encounter the topological obstruction. The point here of course is that DD is determined in a simple explicit way by cc which in turn, in the Fano case, is known explicitly. In many practical cases of interest DD is not too large.

We expect that in fact the same will be true in higher dimensions (with the same D⁡(c)D(c)). Of course we do not expect that the singularities will always be of orbifold type, but it seems likely that the Bishop theorem can still be extended to the metric completion of a covering, as above. There is a slightly weaker statement which should be easier to prove. Let yy be a point in the singular set ΣY\Sigma_{Y} of a (2​n−1)(2n-1)-dimensional link YY. Let BB be a sufficiently small ball about yy and Breg⊂BB^{{\rm reg}}\subset B the regular set. Suppose that we have found a number EE such that for all such points (in all tangent cones of all limits of manifolds in 𝒦⁡(n,c,V){\mathcal{K}}(n,c,V)) the homology group H1​(Breg,ℤ)H_{1}(B^{{\rm reg}},{\mathbb{Z}}) has order bounded by EE. Let α\alpha be a representation of π1​(Y∖Σ)\pi_{1}(Y\setminus\Sigma) as above. Then in the covering defined by αE\alpha^{E} the pre-image of BregB^{{\rm reg}} is a disjoint union of copies of BregB^{{\rm reg}}. In this situation it is straightforward to apply recent results of Colding and Naber [7] to show that the regular set in the metric completion Y~\tilde{Y} is geodesically convex, and then to extend the Bishop argument to this case. Then we see that if, from the beginning of the discussion in Section 3, we consider powers LD​E​kL^{DEk} then we never encounter the topological obstruction. Arguing by induction on dimension it seems likely that in fact the number E=Dn−2E=D^{n-2} will have the property stated above so, for this weaker statement, we would consider powers LDn−1​kL^{D^{n-1}k}. But, in fact it seems to us most likely that these higher powers of DD are not required.

In this direction we make the following conjecture, which (if true) would be a substantial sharpening of Theorem 1.1.

Conjecture 5.15.

For any n,c,Vn,c,V and η<1\eta<1 there is a number k0​(n,c,V,η)k_{0}(n,c,V,\eta) such that if k≥k0k\geq k_{0} then for any XX in 𝒦⁡(n,c,V){\mathcal{K}}(n,c,V) we have

η​(2​π)−n​(k​D)n≤ρk​D,X≤η−1​c−1​(2​π)−n​(k​D)n,\eta(2\pi)^{-n}(kD)^{n}\leq\rho_{kD,X}\leq\eta^{-1}c^{-1}(2\pi)^{-n}(kD)^{n},

with D=D⁡(c)D=D(c) as above.

To put this in context, recall that for a fixed XX the standard asymptotics is ρk,X∼(2​π)−n​kn\rho_{k,X}\sim(2\pi)^{-n}k^{n} as k→∞k\rightarrow\infty. This essentially follows from the fact that on ℂn\mbox{${\mathbb{C}}$}^{n} we have ρ=(2​π)−n\rho=(2\pi)^{-n}. The conjectural lower bound here is a uniform version of this over 𝒦⁡(n,c,V){\mathcal{K}}(n,c,V), provided we work over multiples of DD. On the other hand the corresponding upper bound—ρk​D,X≤η−1​(2​π)−n​(k​D)n\rho_{kD,X}\leq\eta^{-1}(2\pi)^{-n}(kD)^{n}—almost certainly fails, because at the vertex of a cone C⁡(Y)C(Y) we have ρ=κ−1​(2​π)−n\rho=\kappa^{-1}(2\pi)^{-n} where κ≥c\kappa\geq c is the volume ratio. This is why we believe that the plausible upper bound should include the extra factor c−1c^{-1}. In a similar way, if in fact we do encounter the topological obstruction of 3.2.2 in some limit space, then it seems it would not be true that there is a lower bound on ρk,X\rho_{k,X} for all sufficiently large kk, since the twisting of the line bundle will force ρ\rho to be small as we approach the singularity. This phenomenon—that near to a singularity ρ\rho gets larger or smaller depending on divisibility—is similar to the orbifold situation considered by Ross and Thomas in [17].

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