Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.
By Proposition 8.2, it suffices to show that there exists a uniform constant such that
(9.3)
for all .
We argue by contradiction and suppose no such a uniform constant exists. Then we have the following:
(1)
a sequence of spaces with the gluing parameter such that
(9.4)
(2)
a sequence of -forms such that
(9.5)
(9.6)
as ,
(3)
a sequence of points satisfying
(9.7)
where is a sequence of weight functions in .
Now we are in a position to rescale the above contradicting sequences to produce a contradiction.
To start with, let be a sequence of contradicting metrics, and we denote the rescaling factors as follows:
(1)
Rescaling of the metrics:
Let , then with respect to the fixed reference point picked as the above, we have the convergence,
(9.8)
(2)
Rescaling of the -forms:
Let be a sequence of rescaling factors which will be determined later, such that
(9.9)
(3)
Rescaling of the weight functions:
Since we need to distinguish between the weight functions on the sequence
and those on the limit spaces, we denote by the weight functions on and denote by the weight functions on the limit spaces. Fix and , we rescale the weight function by
(9.10)
The above rescaling factors are chosen to satisfy the scale-invariance property of the weighted norm,
(9.11)
(9.12)
(9.13)
such that in this way we will obtain a sequence of -forms with the property
(9.14)
The basic strategy is to combine the compactness arguments and the Liouville theorems. That is, if is non-collapsed, we apply Proposition 8.3 and
the -compactness to obtain a limiting -form such that
(9.15)
We will apply the Liouville theorems to show that the above limiting -form with controlled weighted norm is in fact
vanishing on , which gives a contradiction.
Next, for a collapsed limit , to understand the limiting behavior of the operators and the contradicting -forms , we will lift everything to an appropriately chosen non-collapsed (local) normal cover such that the -compactness still applies on such a covering space.
On the other hand, by the representation lemma of the -forms, see Lemma 7.11, there are coefficient functions , , and such that
(9.16)
We will show that the -tuples converge to a
(9.17)
which can be in effect viewed as the limits of the -forms . In addition, we will also show that at least one of , , and has a positive weighted Hölder norm at .
Therefore, the desired contradiction just arises from various versions of Liouville theorems for harmonic functions in those different collapsed regions.
In accordance with the classification of the geometries of the rescaled limits in Section 7, we will proceed to produce the desired contradiction in each of the regions discussed in Section 7.3. Precisely, we will correctly choose the rescaling factors such that the contradicting -forms will converge to some limit which satisfies the norm control and satisfies the assumptions in the Liouville theorems in each region.
Region :
Assume that the reference point is Region , then
the rescaled limit is the standard Ricci-flat Taub-NUT space with a limiting monopole .
We choose the rescaling factors as follows,
(9.18)
In the above way of rescaling, we have and the rescaled weight function in the limit space is
(9.19)
Then the limiting -form satisfies that
(9.20)
Notice that the above norm bound implies that for all ,
(9.21)
Since is in the kernel of , immediately is harmonic with respect to the Taub-NUT metric .
Applying Lemma 4.17, we have .
Region :
Now we discuss the case that the reference points are in Region .
As what we discussed in Section (7.3), the rescaled geometries were separated in the following cases:
(a)
There is a uniform constant such that .
(b)
The distance function to a pole satisfies
(9.22)
(c)
There is some uniform constant such that
(9.23)
for all .
We start with our analysis in Case (a).
By Lemma 7.9, the rescaled limit in Case (a) is a Ricci-flat Taub-NUT space such that the -fiber at infinity has length at least . The rescaling factors in this case are
(9.24)
In the rescaled limit space,
the limiting reference point satisfies . Moreover, the rescaled weight function in the limit space is given by
(9.25)
and the limiting -form
satisfies
(9.26)
The above weighted norm bound implies that for every , the limiting -form satisfies the pointwise estimate
(9.27)
Applying Lemma 4.17, we have on the rescaled limit , which completes the proof of Case (a).
The rescaled limit in Case (b) is the punctured Euclidean space . In this case, we choose the rescaling factors as follows,
(9.28)
In terms of the above rescaled metric,
the reference point satisfies . Moreover, the rescaled weight function in the limit space is given by
(9.29)
Mainly we will analyze the limiting behavior of the operator under the collapsing sequence . Specifically, we will construct a globally defined -form
(9.30)
and we will also show that the coefficient functions of are harmonic with respect to the Euclidean metric.
Our basic strategy is to apply Lemma 7.11 to reduce the convergence of the -form to the convergence of the coefficient functions.
Let
(9.31)
then Lemma 7.11 and the circle bundle structure in this case guarantee the convergence of the frames .
Now we are in a position to construct the limits of the above coefficient functions.
We start with the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence
(9.32)
with .
For any fixed ,
let be an annulus in with respect to the Euclidean metric .
The first step is to obtain the limits of the coefficient functions , , , with controlled weighted norms in the flat annulus under the above Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. Next, letting , we will apply Arzelà-Ascoli to obtain global limiting functions.
First, fix any , we consider a Euclidean annulus and we claim that there are limiting functions , , and on .
For fixed , there are and such that
with is a finite collection of Euclidean balls which covers which satisfies
(1)
(2)
for all .
We will verify that there exists a subsequence (still denoted by ) such that
the above finite cover satisfy the following compatibility:
(C1)
, , and converge to harmonic functions , , and on
every ball .
(C2)
The above locally defined limiting functions can be patched together in the sense that if , then
(9.33)
holds for all .
The above compatibility properties immediately imply that there are well-defined harmonic limiting functions , , and
on .
To show property (C1), by taking some subsequence, it suffices to show that for each ball in the above finite cover,
there is some subsequence in the original sequence such that the coefficient functions converge to a harmonic function
. For this purpose, we need to locally unwrap the collapsed fibers and discuss the convergence of the coefficient functions on non-collapsed universal covers.
Now we take a sequence of geodesic balls with
(9.34)
Denote by () the length of the collapsed -fiber at and define
(9.35)
where are chosen such that . Immediately in our context,
and is isomorphic to .
Now let
(9.36)
be the universal covering map with .
Now on the universal covers, we have the equivariant convergence and the following diagram,
(9.37)
which satisfies the following properties:
(e1)
the universal covers are non-collapsed and have uniformly bounded curvatures,
(e2)
the limiting Lie group is diffeomorphic to and acts isometrically on the limit space ,
(e3)
the universal covering maps converge to a Riemannian submersion
(9.38)
with
,
(e4)
for every , the orbit is a geodesic in and isometric to . In particular, is isometric to in the Euclidean space .
Indeed, property (e1) follows from Lemma 7.7. Property (e2) and (e3)
follow from the definition of the equivariant convergence. Property (e4) immediately follows from Lemma 7.13. Actually, by Lemma 7.13,
the second fundamental form of each -orbit is vanishing. In other words, each -orbit is a geodesic in . Combining with the facts that the limiting projection is a Riemannian submersion and is a Euclidean ball, then
and is isometric to the Euclidean metric.
We will apply the above equivariant convergence to construct harmonic functions , , and in . We only show the construction for .
Notice that Proposition 8.3 implies that the -invariant lifted functions
satisfy the uniform weighted Schauder estimate
(9.39)
with respect to the lifted weight function.
Applying Arzelà-Ascoli, passing to a subsequence, there is a limiting function with
(9.40)
with .
Combining with the above equivariant convergence, we obtain that the limit function is -invariant which descends to a function in . Now we prove that is a harmonic function on .
In fact, the lifted -forms also satisfies
(9.41)
and hence there is a limiting -form satisfying
(9.42)
for .
The contradiction assumption implies that
satisfies
(9.43)
The standard elliptic regularity theory for shows that the -form is . This implies that
, then by Lemma 7.12 gives the equation
(9.44)
Applying Property (e4),
(9.45)
The construction of the harmonic limiting functions , and is verbatim.
We are ready to prove the compatibility property (C2).
To this end, we take the union
(9.46)
with
(9.47)
Let , then
(9.48)
By the same arguments as the above, has uniformly bounded curvatures and the universal covering space
is non-collapsed. Moreover, the equivariant convergence with property (e1)-(e5) as the above still holds in this case. By passing to some subsequence,
the lifted coefficient functions are -converging to some invariant limiting function on such that
(9.49)
Therefore, descends to a function
on such that
(9.50)
In addition, is harmonic on , so we have managed to extend the local harmonic limiting function to the union . Repeating the above arguments, we can extend the limiting functions to the whole annulus .
Consider the -tuple of harmonic functions in the flat annulus obtained from the above construction, and we write
(9.51)
Immediately, we have the weighted norm control
(9.52)
where .
The above construction enables us to define a global harmonic -tuple
on the punctured Euclidean space by applying the standard exhaustion arguments.
Let , by applying (9.52) and Arzelà-Ascoli, there is a global -tuple of harmonic functions in
and we denote
(9.53)
Then we have the weighted norm control,
(9.54)
where .
The weighted norm bound implies that the limiting functions have the following controlled behavior,
(9.55)
By the standard removable singularity theorem, the -tuple of harmonic functions extend to the entire Euclidean space .
Applying the standard Liouville theorem for harmonic functions, we conclude that and . So the contradiction arises, which completes the proof of Case (b).
Now we consider Case (c).
We have shown in Section 7.3 that the rescaled limit in Case (c) is a punctured flat cylinder . More precisely, we chose a sequence of punctured unbounded domains containing such that
(9.56)
Moreover, the curvatures of the above rescaled spaces are uniformly bounded away from the singular points in .
Next we study the limiting weight functions. For any fixed reference point in this case, denote and we choose the following rescaling factors
(9.57)
So the rescaled weight function in the limit space satisfies
(9.58)
where is some definite constant and is some uniform constant depending on , , and .
Similar to Case (b), in order to apply the Liouville theorem in the collapsed limit, we need to construct a global defined -form in the collapsed limit and deduce the corresponding equation.
Fix , denote by the -tubular neighborhood of a compact set , applying Lemma 7.7, then
we have the following curvature estimate on the sequence of annuli :
(9.59)
where is an absolute constant.
Applying the same arguments as in Case (b), one can construct a limiting pair
(9.60)
such that
(9.61)
where .
Let , and be the canonical parallel -forms with unit length on , then
(9.62)
Moreover, it holds in the punctured cylinder that
(9.63)
Next, the weighted norm bound implies that the limiting -form has the following controlled behavior,
(9.64)
for some sufficiently large .
Since we have required that
(9.65)
it is standard that
the singularities in are removable.
It follows that the harmonic functions , , and extend to the entire flat cylinder and they satisfy the above asymptotic behavior.
Applying Lemma 9.1 to the coefficient functions with the growth condition (9.64), we conclude that and . So the proof of Case (c) is complete.
Region :
The proof for Region is identical to Case (c) of Region .
Regions and Region :
We only focus on the case that the reference points are located in Region . The proof for Region is verbatim. Region has two different types of rescaling geometries (see Section 7.3) which are given by the following two cases:
(a)
There is a uniform constant independent of such that
(9.66)
for each .
(b)
The reference points in Region satisfy
(9.67)
For fixed reference points satisfying Case (a), we have the following convergence
(9.68)
where is a flat product metric on .
We choose the rescaling factors as follows,
(9.69)
and the limiting weight function is
(9.70)
where is some definite constant and is some uniform constant depending on , , , . So the rest of the proof is identical to the proof of Case (c) in Region .
Now we prove Case (b). We showed in Section 7.3 that in this case we have the convergence
(9.71)
where is a flat product metric on .
The rescaling factors are chosen as the following
(9.72)
where .
We also translate the -coordinate by .
It gives the limiting weight function
(9.73)
The proof of the next stage is similar to the proof of Case (c) of Region . We follow all the notations there.
Applying exactly the same arguments, we obtain the limiting pair
which satisfy
(9.74)
which implies that
(9.75)
Applying Lemma 9.1, we conclude that and . So we complete the proof of Case (b).
Regions and :
First, we assume that the reference points are located in .
As what was discussed in Section 7.3, it is natural to separate Region in the following cases
(a)
Assume
.
(b)
Assume that there is some constant independent of the index such that .
The rescaled limit in Case (a) is the flat cylinder and we have the convergence (see Section 7.3),
(9.76)
We choose the corresponding rescaling factors
(9.77)
where .
Hence, under the -coordinate translation , the limiting weight function is
(9.78)
The remaining arguments are exactly the same as that in Case (b) of Region , and the proof of this case is complete.
Next, we prove Case (b) of Region . If the reference points satisfy , we still choose the same rescaling factors
(9.79)
and we have the convergence
(9.80)
where is a finite rescaling of .
So limiting weight function, up to some definite constant, has the form
(9.81)
Moreover, the limiting -form
such that
(9.82)
which implies that for some constant ,
(9.83)
Since , by Lemma 7.12, is harmonic with respect to the complete Tian-Yau metric .
Applying Lemma 4.17 to the harmonic -form , we conclude that
on .
So the proof of Case (b) is done.
Now we consider the case that the reference points belong to Region . As the above, we still separate this region in two different pieces:
(a)
Assume
.
(b)
Assume that there is some constant independent of the index such that .
We skip the argument in Case (a) because it coincides with Case (a) in Region .
So we start to prove Case (b) of Region .
If the reference points satisfy , we choose the rescaling factors as follows,
(9.84)
where .
Then we have the convergence
(9.85)
where is a finite rescaling of .
Hence, under the -coordinate translation ,
the limiting weight function has the form
(9.86)
On the other hand, the limiting -form satisfies
(9.87)
which implies which implies the -estimate
(9.88)
Now we are in a position to apply the Liouville theorem for half-harmonic -forms. If we choose , then Theorem 5.1 shows that
(9.89)
Regions and :
If are located in Region , the proof is identical to Case (b) of Region . If are located in Region , the proof is the same as Case (b) of Region .
Combining all of the above regions, the proof of Proposition 9.2 is complete.