ScalingStacks

Proof. [031H]

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.

For simplicity of notation call ωy=ωM|My\omega_{y}=\omega_{M}|_{M_{y}} and ω~y=ω~t|My\tilde{\omega}_{y}=\tilde{\omega}_{t}|_{M_{y}}. On each fiber MyM_{y} we have that Ric⁡(ωy)=−1​∂∂¯​Fy\Ric(\omega_{y})=\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}F_{y} for some smooth function FyF_{y} normalized by ∫My(eFy−1)​ωyn−m=0\int_{M_{y}}(e^{F_{y}}-1)\omega_{y}^{n-m}=0. The functions FyF_{y} vary smoothly in y∈N\f⁡(S)y\in N\backslash f(S), because so do the Kähler metrics ωy\omega_{y}. The unique Ricci–flat metric on MyM_{y} cohomologous to ωy\omega_{y} is given by ωS​F,y=ωy+−1​∂∂¯​ζy\omega_{SF,y}=\omega_{y}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\zeta_{y} and solves the complex Monge-Ampère equation on MyM_{y}

ωS​F,yn−m=(ωy+−1​∂∂¯​ζy)n−m=eFy​ωyn−m.\omega_{SF,y}^{n-m}=(\omega_{y}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\zeta_{y})^{n-m}=e^{F_{y}}\omega_{y}^{n-m}.

Recall from [38, Section 2] that we have

ω0m∧ωMn−m=H​ωMn,\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{M}^{n-m}=H\omega_{M}^{n},

where H⩾0H\geqslant 0 is a smooth function on MM that vanishes precisely on SS. A simple calculation [38, (3.5)] shows that on MyM_{y} we have

Ric(ωy)=−−1∂∂¯logH+(Ric(ωM))|My=−−1∂∂¯logH,\Ric(\omega_{y})=-\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\log H+(\Ric(\omega_{M}))|_{M_{y}}=-\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\log H,

since we picked ωM\omega_{M} to be Ricci–flat. It follows that on MyM_{y} the functions FyF_{y} and −log⁡H-\log H differ by a constant, which we can identify as follows: thanks to Yau’s estimates, the functions ζy\zeta_{y} vary smoothly in yy and so they define a smooth function ζ\zeta on M\SM\backslash S. We then defined ωS​F=ωM+−1​∂∂¯​ζ\omega_{SF}=\omega_{M}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\zeta, which is a semi-flat form on M\SM\backslash S (here semi-flat means that its restriction to each fiber MyM_{y} is Ricci–flat). This semi-flat form is in general different from the one constructed locally in section 3, although they are equal when restricted to each fiber MyM_{y}. Even though ωS​F\omega_{SF} is not necessarily nonnegative, on M\SM\backslash S the (n,n)(n,n)-form ωS​Fn−m∧ω0m\omega_{SF}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m} is strictly positive, and so we can define a smooth positive function GG on M\SM\backslash S by

(4.24) G=ωMnω0m∧ωS​Fn−m.G=\frac{\omega_{M}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{SF}^{n-m}}.

It is shown in [35, Lemma 3.3], [38, p.445] that GG is a positive constant on each fiber MyM_{y}, and we claim we have

(4.25) eFy=1G​H.e^{F_{y}}=\frac{1}{GH}.

This is because on MyM_{y} we have

1H=ωMnω0m∧ωMn−m=ωMnω0m∧ωS​Fn−m⋅ωS​F,yn−mωyn−m=G​eFy.\frac{1}{H}=\frac{\omega_{M}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{M}^{n-m}}=\frac{\omega_{M}^{n}}{\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{SF}^{n-m}}\cdot\frac{\omega_{SF,y}^{n-m}}{\omega_{y}^{n-m}}=Ge^{F_{y}}.

On MyM_{y} we can then write, using (1.1), (4.25)

(4.26) (ω~yt)n−m=tm−n​ω~yn−mωyn−m​ωyn−m=tm−n​ω~yn−m∧ω0mωMn−m∧ω0m​ωyn−m=ω~yn−m∧ω0mω~tn⋅ctH​ωyn−m=ω~yn−m∧ω0mω~tn​(ct​G)​eFy​ωyn−m.\begin{split}\left(\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t}\right)^{n-m}&=t^{m-n}\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}}{\omega_{y}^{n-m}}\omega_{y}^{n-m}=t^{m-n}\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\omega_{M}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}\omega_{y}^{n-m}\\ &=\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n}}\cdot\frac{c_{t}}{H}\omega_{y}^{n-m}\\ &=\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n}}(c_{t}G)e^{F_{y}}\omega_{y}^{n-m}.\end{split}

We also have a pointwise identity on MyM_{y}

ω~yn−m∧ω0mω~tn=ω~yn−m∧ω0m(nm)​ω~yn−m∧ω~tm=ωyn−m∧ω0m(nm)​ωyn−m∧ω~tm,\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{n}}=\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\binom{n}{m}\tilde{\omega}_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{m}}=\frac{\omega_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\binom{n}{m}\omega_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{m}},

and we will write

ft=ct​G​ωyn−m∧ω0m(nm)​ωyn−m∧ω~tm,f_{t}=c_{t}G\frac{\omega_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\binom{n}{m}\omega_{y}^{n-m}\wedge\tilde{\omega}_{t}^{m}},

so that we can recast (4.26) as

(4.27) (ω~yt)n−m=ft​ωS​F,yn−m.\left(\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t}\right)^{n-m}=f_{t}\omega_{SF,y}^{n-m}.

Notice that the functions ftf_{t} are the restriction to MyM_{y} of smooth functions on M\SM\backslash S. We claim that as tt approaches zero the functions ftf_{t} converge to 11 in Cl​o​c∞​(M\S,ωM)C^{\infty}_{loc}(M\backslash S,\omega_{M}). To see this, first of all note that by definition we have

(4.28) limt→0ct=(nm)​∫Mω0m∧ωMn−m∫MωMn>0,\lim_{t\to 0}c_{t}=\binom{n}{m}\frac{\int_{M}\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{M}^{n-m}}{\int_{M}\omega_{M}^{n}}>0,

see also [10], [38, (2.6)]. We now use the assumption (4.22), and so the functions ftf_{t} converge smoothly to

(4.29) G​(nm)​∫Mω0m∧ωMn−m∫MωMn⋅ωMn−m∧ω0m(nm)​ωMn−m∧(f∗​ω)m.G\binom{n}{m}\frac{\int_{M}\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{M}^{n-m}}{\int_{M}\omega_{M}^{n}}\cdot\frac{\omega_{M}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\binom{n}{m}\omega_{M}^{n-m}\wedge(f^{*}\omega)^{m}}.

To see why this equals one, recall from [38, (4.3)] that the limit metric ω\omega on N\f⁡(S)N\backslash f(S) satisfies

(4.30) ωm=G​∫Mω0m∧ωMn−m∫MωMn​ωNm,\omega^{m}=G\frac{\int_{M}\omega_{0}^{m}\wedge\omega_{M}^{n-m}}{\int_{M}\omega_{M}^{n}}\omega_{N}^{m},

where our function GG is defined so that it differs from the function FF in [38, (4.3)] by the constant factor ∫M(ω0+ωM)n/∫MωMn\int_{M}(\omega_{0}+\omega_{M})^{n}/\int_{M}\omega_{M}^{n}. Substituting (4.30) into (4.29) we see that the limit of ftf_{t} equals

ωMn−m∧ω0mωMn−m∧(f∗​ωN)m=1.\frac{\omega_{M}^{n-m}\wedge\omega_{0}^{m}}{\omega_{M}^{n-m}\wedge(f^{*}\omega_{N})^{m}}=1.

Note now that from the main result of [38] we have that on each fiber MyM_{y}

(4.31) C−1​ωy⩽ω~yt⩽C​ωy,C^{-1}\omega_{y}\leqslant\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t}\leqslant C\omega_{y},

where CC is uniform as yy varies in a compact set of N\f⁡(S)N\backslash f(S). From the definition on MyM_{y} we have

ω~yt=ωy+−1​∂∂¯​(φtt),\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t}=\omega_{y}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\left(\frac{\varphi_{t}}{t}\right),

where φtt\frac{\varphi_{t}}{t} satisfies the C0C^{0} estimate (4.21). The metrics ω~yt\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t} satisfy the complex Monge-Ampère equations on MyM_{y}

(4.32) (ω~yt)n−m=(ωy+−1​∂∂¯​(φtt))n−m=ft​eFy​ωyn−m,\left(\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t}\right)^{n-m}=\left(\omega_{y}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\left(\frac{\varphi_{t}}{t}\right)\right)^{n-m}=f_{t}e^{F_{y}}\omega_{y}^{n-m},

and we have just shown that the functions ft​eFyf_{t}e^{F_{y}} are bounded in C∞​(My,ωy)C^{\infty}(M_{y},\omega_{y}) and away from zero, so we can apply the theory of Evans-Krylov and Schauder estimates on MyM_{y} to (4.32) (using (4.21) and (4.31)) to get bounds

‖ω~yt‖Ck​(My,ωy)⩽C⁡(k),\left\|\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t}\right\|_{C^{k}(M_{y},\omega_{y})}\leqslant C(k),

independent of tt. It follows that given any sequence ti→0t_{i}\to 0 we can find a subsequence (still denoted by tit_{i}) and a smooth Kähler metric αy\alpha_{y} on MyM_{y} so that ω~yti→αy\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t_{i}}\to\alpha_{y} in C∞​(ωy)C^{\infty}(\omega_{y}). Equation (4.27) in the limit becomes

αyn−m=ωS​F,yn−m,\alpha_{y}^{n-m}=\omega_{SF,y}^{n-m},

and so by the uniqueness of Ricci–flat metrics in a given cohomology class we must have αy=ωS​F,y\alpha_{y}=\omega_{SF,y}. Therefore the whole sequence ω~yt\frac{\tilde{\omega}_{y}}{t} converges smoothly to ωS​F,y\omega_{SF,y} as desired, and the convergence is uniform as yy varies on compact sets of N\f⁡(S)N\backslash f(S). ∎

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