ScalingStacks

Proof. [03JW]

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.

By Proposition 8.2, it suffices to show that there exists a uniform constant C>0C>0 such that

(9.3) ‖ω‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳ)≤C⋅‖𝒟gβ​ω‖Cδ,ν+1,μ0,α​(ℳ)\|\omega\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M})}\leq C\cdot\|\mathscr{D}_{g_{\beta}}\omega\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(\mathcal{M})}

for all ω∈Ω1​(ℳ)\omega\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}). We argue by contradiction and suppose no such a uniform constant exists. Then we have the following:

  1. (1)

    a sequence of spaces (ℳj,gj)(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j}) with the gluing parameter βj→∞\beta_{j}\to\infty such that

    (9.4) (ℳj,gj,pj)→G​H(X∞,d∞,p∞).(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j},p_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(X_{\infty},d_{\infty},p_{\infty}).
  2. (2)

    a sequence of 11-forms ωj∈Ω1​(ℳj)\omega_{j}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{j}) such that

    (9.5) ‖ωj‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳj,gj)=1\displaystyle\|\omega_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j})}=1
    (9.6) ‖𝒟gj​ωj‖Cδ,ν+1,μ0,α​(ℳj,gj)→0\displaystyle\|\mathscr{D}_{g_{j}}\omega_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j})}\to 0

    as j→∞j\rightarrow\infty,

  3. (3)

    a sequence of points 𝒙j∈ℳj\bm{x}_{j}\in\mathcal{M}_{j} satisfying

    (9.7) |ρj,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙j)⋅ωj​(𝒙j)|=1,|\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{j})\cdot\omega_{j}(\bm{x}_{j})|=1,

    where ρj,δ,ν,μ(0)\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)} is a sequence of weight functions in (ℳj,gj)(\mathcal{M}_{j},g_{j}).

Now we are in a position to rescale the above contradicting sequences to produce a contradiction. To start with, let gjg_{j} be a sequence of contradicting metrics, and we denote the rescaling factors as follows:

  1. (1)

    Rescaling of the metrics:

    Let g~j=λj2⋅gj\tilde{g}_{j}=\lambda_{j}^{2}\cdot g_{j}, then with respect to the fixed reference point 𝒙j∈ℳj\bm{x}_{j}\in\mathcal{M}_{j} picked as the above, we have the convergence,

    (9.8) (ℳj,g~j,𝒙j)→G​H(ℳ∞,d~∞,𝒙∞).(\mathcal{M}_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{d}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}).
  2. (2)

    Rescaling of the 11-forms:

    Let κj>0\kappa_{j}>0 be a sequence of rescaling factors which will be determined later, such that

    (9.9) ω~j≡κj⋅ωj.\tilde{\omega}_{j}\equiv\kappa_{j}\cdot\omega_{j}.
  3. (3)

    Rescaling of the weight functions:

    Since we need to distinguish between the weight functions on the sequence ℳj\mathcal{M}_{j} and those on the limit spaces, we denote by ρj,δ,ν,μ(k+α)\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} the weight functions on ℳj\mathcal{M}_{j} and denote by ρ∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)\rho_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} the weight functions on the limit spaces. Fix k∈ℕk\in\mathbb{N} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), we rescale the weight function ρj,δ,ν,μ(k+α)\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} by

    (9.10) ρ~j,δ,ν,μ(k+α)=τj(k+α)⋅ρj,δ,ν,μ(k+α).\tilde{\rho}_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}=\tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}\cdot\rho_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}.

The above rescaling factors are chosen to satisfy the scale-invariance property of the weighted norm,

(9.11) 1\displaystyle 1 ≤τj(0)⋅κj⋅λj−1≤10\displaystyle\leq\tau_{j}^{(0)}\cdot\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-1}\leq 10
(9.12) 1\displaystyle 1 ≤τj(1)⋅κj⋅λj−2≤10\displaystyle\leq\tau_{j}^{(1)}\cdot\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-2}\leq 10
(9.13) 1\displaystyle 1 ≤τj(1+α)⋅κj⋅λj−2−α≤10,\displaystyle\leq\tau_{j}^{(1+\alpha)}\cdot\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-2-\alpha}\leq 10,

such that in this way we will obtain a sequence of 11-forms ω~j∈Ω1​(ℳj)\tilde{\omega}_{j}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{j}) with the property

(9.14) ‖ω~j‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳ,g~j)=1|ρ~j,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙j)⋅ω~j​(𝒙j)|=1‖𝒟g~j​ω~j‖Cδ,ν+1,μα​(ℳ,g~j)→0.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\|\tilde{\omega}_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j})}=1\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{j,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{j})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{j}(\bm{x}_{j})|=1\\ &\|\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{j}}\tilde{\omega}_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{\alpha}(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j})}\to 0.\end{split}

The basic strategy is to combine the compactness arguments and the Liouville theorems. That is, if (ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) is non-collapsed, we apply Proposition 8.3 and the C1,αC^{1,\alpha}-compactness to obtain a limiting 11-form ω~∞∈(ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) such that

(9.15) ‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳ∞,g~∞)=1|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|=1𝒟g~∞​ω~∞≡0.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty})}=1\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0.\end{split}

We will apply the Liouville theorems to show that the above limiting 11-form ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} with controlled weighted norm is in fact vanishing on ℳ∞\mathcal{M}_{\infty}, which gives a contradiction. Next, for a collapsed limit (ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}), to understand the limiting behavior of the operators 𝒟g~j\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{j}} and the contradicting 11-forms ω~j\tilde{\omega}_{j}, we will lift everything to an appropriately chosen non-collapsed (local) normal cover such that the C1,αC^{1,\alpha}-compactness still applies on such a covering space. On the other hand, by the representation lemma of the 11-forms, see Lemma 7.11, there are coefficient functions fjxf_{j}^{x}, fjyf_{j}^{y}, fjzf_{j}^{z} and fjtf_{j}^{t} such that

(9.16) ω~j=fjx​θjx+fjy​θjx+fjz​θjz+fjt​θjt.\tilde{\omega}_{j}=f_{j}^{x}\theta_{j}^{x}+f_{j}^{y}\theta_{j}^{x}+f_{j}^{z}\theta_{j}^{z}+f_{j}^{t}\theta_{j}^{t}.

We will show that the 44-tuples (fjx,fjy,fjz,fjt)(f_{j}^{x},f_{j}^{y},f_{j}^{z},f_{j}^{t}) converge to a

(9.17) (ω~∞,f∞t)≡(f∞x,f∞y,f∞z,f∞t)(\tilde{\omega}_{\infty},f_{\infty}^{t})\equiv(f_{\infty}^{x},f_{\infty}^{y},f_{\infty}^{z},f_{\infty}^{t})

which can be in effect viewed as the limits of the 11-forms ω~j\tilde{\omega}_{j}. In addition, we will also show that at least one of f∞xf_{\infty}^{x}, f∞yf_{\infty}^{y}, f∞zf_{\infty}^{z} and f∞tf_{\infty}^{t} has a positive weighted Hölder norm at 𝒙∞\bm{x}_{\infty}. 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 11-forms ω~j∈Ω1​(ℳj)\tilde{\omega}_{j}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{j}) will converge to some limit which satisfies the norm control and satisfies the assumptions in the Liouville theorems in each region.

Region I\I:

Assume that the reference point 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} is Region I\I, then the rescaled limit is the standard Ricci-flat Taub-NUT space (ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) with a limiting monopole pm,∞p_{m,\infty}. We choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.18) λj=βj12τj(k+α)=e−δ⋅2T−⋅(βj12)2​μ+ν+k+ακj=eδ⋅2​T−⋅(βj−12)2​μ+ν−1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{2\mu+\nu+k+\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{2\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

In the above way of rescaling, we have dg~∞​(pm,∞,𝒙∞)≤Cd_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(p_{m,\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty})\leq C and the rescaled weight function in the limit space is

(9.19) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)={1,𝒙∈B1​(pm,∞)(dg~∞​(𝒙,pm,∞))μ+ν+k+α,𝒙∈ℳ∞∖B2​(pm,∞).\displaystyle\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=\begin{cases}1,&\bm{x}\in B_{1}(p_{m,\infty})\\ (d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(\bm{x},p_{m,\infty}))^{\mu+\nu+k+\alpha},&\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}).\end{cases}

Then the limiting 11-form ω~∞∈Ω1​(ℳ∞)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty}) satisfies that

(9.20) 𝒟g~∞​ω~∞≡0|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|=1‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳ∞)=1.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty})}=1.\\ \end{split}

Notice that the above norm bound implies that for all 𝒙∈ℳ∞∖B2​(pm,∞)\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}),

(9.21) |ω~∞​(𝒙)|≤(dg~∞​(𝒙,pm,∞))−μ−ν.|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq(d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(\bm{x},p_{m,\infty}))^{-\mu-\nu}.

Since ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} is in the kernel of 𝒟g~∞\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}, immediately ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} is harmonic with respect to the Taub-NUT metric g~∞\tilde{g}_{\infty}. Applying Lemma 4.17, we have ω~∞≡0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0.

Region II\II:

Now we discuss the case that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are in Region II\II. As what we discussed in Section (7.3), the rescaled geometries were separated in the following cases:

  1. (a)

    There is a uniform constant σ0>0\sigma_{0}>0 such that 2​βj−12≤dm​(𝒙j)≤1σ0⋅βj−122\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\leq d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq\frac{1}{\sigma_{0}}\cdot\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

  2. (b)

    The distance function dm​(𝒙j)d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}) to a pole pmp_{m} satisfies

    (9.22) dm​(𝒙j)βj−12→∞,dm​(𝒙j)βj12→0.\displaystyle\frac{d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})}{\beta_{j}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\to\infty,\ \frac{d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})}{\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\to 0.
  3. (c)

    There is some uniform constant C0>0C_{0}>0 such that

    (9.23) 0<C0⋅βj12≤dm​(𝒙j)≤ι0′4⋅βj120<C_{0}\cdot\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq\frac{\iota_{0}^{\prime}}{4}\cdot\beta_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}

    for all 1≤m≤m01\leq m\leq m_{0}.

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 (ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) such that the S1S^{1}-fiber at infinity has length at least σ0>0\sigma_{0}>0. The rescaling factors in this case are

(9.24) λj=(dm​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=e−δ⋅2T−⋅(βj)μ2⋅(dm(𝒙j))−μ−ν−k−ακj=eδ⋅2​T−⋅(βj)−μ2⋅(dm​(𝒙j))μ+ν−1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{-\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

In the rescaled limit space, the limiting reference point 𝒙∞\bm{x}_{\infty} satisfies dg~∞​(𝒙,pm,∞)=1d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(\bm{x},p_{m,\infty})=1. Moreover, the rescaled weight function in the limit space is given by

(9.25) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)=(dg~∞​(pm,∞,𝒙))−μ−ν−k−α,𝒙∈ℳ∞∖B2​(pm,∞),\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=(d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(p_{m,\infty},\bm{x}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha},\ \bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}),

and the limiting 11-form ω~∞∈Ω1​(ℳ∞)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty}) satisfies

(9.26) 𝒟g~∞​ω~∞≡0|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|=1‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳ∞)≤1.\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty})}\leq 1.\\ \end{split}

The above weighted norm bound implies that for every 𝒙∈ℳ∞∖B2​(pm,∞)\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{\infty}\setminus B_{2}(p_{m,\infty}), the limiting 11-form ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} satisfies the pointwise estimate

(9.27) |ω~∞​(𝒙)|≤(dg~∞​(pm,∞,𝒙))−μ−ν.|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq\Big(d_{\tilde{g}_{\infty}}(p_{m,\infty},\bm{x})\Big)^{-\mu-\nu}.

Applying Lemma 4.17, we have ω~∞≡0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 on the rescaled limit ℳ∞\mathcal{M}_{\infty}, which completes the proof of Case (a).

The rescaled limit in Case (b) is the punctured Euclidean space ℝ3∖{03}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\}. In this case, we choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.28) λj=(dm​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=e−δ⋅2T−⋅(βj)μ2⋅(dm(𝒙j))−μ−ν−k−ακj=eδ⋅2​T−⋅(βj)−μ2⋅(dm​(𝒙j))μ+ν−1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{-\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

In terms of the above rescaled metric, the reference point 𝒙∞\bm{x}_{\infty} satisfies dg0​(𝒙,03)=1d_{g_{0}}(\bm{x},0^{3})=1. Moreover, the rescaled weight function in the limit space is given by

(9.29) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)=(dg0​(03,𝒙))−μ−ν−k−α,𝒙∈ℝ3∖{03}.\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=(d_{g_{0}}(0^{3},\bm{x}))^{-\mu-\nu-k-\alpha},\ \bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\}.

Mainly we will analyze the limiting behavior of the operator 𝒟g~j\mathscr{D}_{\tilde{g}_{j}} under the collapsing sequence (ℳ,gj,𝒙j)(\mathcal{M},g_{j},\bm{x}_{j}). Specifically, we will construct a globally defined 11-form

(9.30) ω~∞∈Ω1​(ℝ3∖{03})\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\})

and we will also show that the coefficient functions of ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} are harmonic with respect to the Euclidean metric. Our basic strategy is to apply Lemma 7.11 to reduce the convergence of the 11-form ω~j\tilde{\omega}_{j} to the convergence of the coefficient functions. Let

(9.31) ω~j=fjx⋅θjx+fjy⋅θjy+fjz⋅θjz+fjt⋅θjt,\tilde{\omega}_{j}=f_{j}^{x}\cdot\theta_{j}^{x}+f_{j}^{y}\cdot\theta_{j}^{y}+f_{j}^{z}\cdot\theta_{j}^{z}+f_{j}^{t}\cdot\theta_{j}^{t},

then Lemma 7.11 and the circle bundle structure in this case guarantee the convergence of the frames {θjx,θjy,θjz,θjt}\{\theta_{j}^{x},\theta_{j}^{y},\theta_{j}^{z},\theta_{j}^{t}\}.

Now we are in a position to construct the limits of the above coefficient functions. We start with the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence

(9.32) (ℳ,g~j,𝒙j)→G​H(ℝ3,g0,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathbb{R}^{3},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty})

with |𝒙∞|=1|\bm{x}_{\infty}|=1. For any fixed R>10R>10, let A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) be an annulus in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with respect to the Euclidean metric g0g_{0}. The first step is to obtain the limits of the coefficient functions fjxf_{j}^{x}, fjyf_{j}^{y}, fjzf_{j}^{z}, fjtf_{j}^{t} with controlled weighted norms in the flat annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) under the above Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. Next, letting R→∞R\to\infty, we will apply Arzelà-Ascoli to obtain global limiting functions.

First, fix any R>0R>0, we consider a Euclidean annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)⊂ℝ3A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})\subset\mathbb{R}^{3} and we claim that there are limiting functions f∞,Rxf_{\infty,R}^{x}, f∞,Ryf_{\infty,R}^{y}, f∞,Rzf_{\infty,R}^{z} and f∞,Rtf_{\infty,R}^{t} on A1R,Rg0​(03)⊂ℝ3A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})\subset\mathbb{R}^{3}. For fixed R>0R>0, there are s¯0​(R)>0\bar{s}_{0}(R)>0 and N0​(R)>0N_{0}(R)>0 such that {B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)}k=1N\{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\}_{k=1}^{N} with N≤N0N\leq N_{0} is a finite collection of Euclidean balls which covers A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) which satisfies

  1. (1)

    A1R,Rg0​(03)⊂⋃s=1NB2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)⊂A13​R,3​Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})\subset\bigcup\limits_{s=1}^{N}B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\subset A_{\frac{1}{3R},3R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3})

  2. (2)

    s¯03≤dg0​(𝒚∞,k,𝒚∞,k′)≤s¯0\frac{\bar{s}_{0}}{3}\leq d_{g_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k},\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}})\leq\bar{s}_{0} for all 1≤k<k′≤N1\leq k<k^{\prime}\leq N.

We will verify that there exists a subsequence (still denoted by jj) such that the above finite cover satisfy the following compatibility:

  1. (C1)

    fjxf_{j}^{x}, fjyf_{j}^{y}, fjzf_{j}^{z} and fjtf_{j}^{t} converge to harmonic functions f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}, f∞,kyf_{\infty,k}^{y}, f∞,kzf_{\infty,k}^{z} and f∞,ktf_{\infty,k}^{t} on every ball B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}).

  2. (C2)

    The above locally defined limiting functions can be patched together in the sense that if B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)∩B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k′)≠∅B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\cap B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}})\neq\emptyset, then

    (9.33) f∞,kx​(𝒚∞)=f∞,k′x(𝒚∞),f∞,ky(𝒚∞)=f∞,k′y(𝒚∞),f∞,kz​(𝒚∞)=f∞,k′z​(𝒚∞),f∞,kt​(𝒚∞)=f∞,k′t​(𝒚∞)\displaystyle\begin{split}f_{\infty,k}^{x}(\bm{y}_{\infty})&=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{x}(\bm{y}_{\infty}),\ f_{\infty,k}^{y}(\bm{y}_{\infty})=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{y}(\bm{y}_{\infty}),\\ f_{\infty,k}^{z}(\bm{y}_{\infty})&=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{z}(\bm{y}_{\infty}),\ f_{\infty,k}^{t}(\bm{y}_{\infty})=f_{\infty,k^{\prime}}^{t}(\bm{y}_{\infty})\end{split}

    holds for all 𝒚∞∈B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)∩B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k′)\bm{y}_{\infty}\in B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\cap B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}}).

The above compatibility properties immediately imply that there are well-defined harmonic limiting functions f∞,Rxf_{\infty,R}^{x}, f∞,Ryf_{\infty,R}^{y}, f∞,Rzf_{\infty,R}^{z} and f∞,Rtf_{\infty,R}^{t} on A1R,R​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}(0^{3}).

To show property (C1), by taking some subsequence, it suffices to show that for each ball B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}) in the above finite cover, there is some subsequence in the original sequence {j}\{j\} such that the coefficient functions fj,kxf_{j,k}^{x} converge to a harmonic function f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}. For this purpose, we need to locally unwrap the collapsed fibers and discuss the convergence of the coefficient functions fj,kxf_{j,k}^{x} on non-collapsed universal covers.

Now we take a sequence of geodesic balls B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}) with

(9.34) (B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k),g~j)→G​H(B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k),g0).(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}),\tilde{g}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}),g_{0}).

Denote by ℓj\ell_{j} (→0\to 0) the length of the collapsed S1S^{1}-fiber at 𝒚j\bm{y}_{j} and define

(9.35) Γj=Γϵj(𝒚j,k)≡Image[π1(Bϵj(𝒚j))→π1(B2​s¯0(𝒚j))]\Gamma_{j}=\Gamma_{\epsilon_{j}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})\equiv\Image[\pi_{1}(B_{\epsilon_{j}}(\bm{y}_{j}))\to\pi_{1}(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j}))]

where ϵj>0\epsilon_{j}>0 are chosen such that 2​ℓj≤ϵj≤4​ℓj2\ell_{j}\leq\epsilon_{j}\leq 4\ell_{j}. Immediately in our context, π1​(B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k))=Γj\pi_{1}(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}))=\Gamma_{j} and Γj\Gamma_{j} is isomorphic to ℤ\mathbb{Z}. Now let

(9.36) prj:(B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)^,g^j,𝒚^j,k)⟶(B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k),g~j,𝒚j,k)\pr_{j}:(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})},\hat{g}_{j},\hat{\bm{y}}_{j,k})\longrightarrow(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}),\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{y}_{j,k})

be the universal covering map with B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)=B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)^/ΓjB_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})=\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})}/\Gamma_{j}. Now on the universal covers, we have the equivariant convergence and the following diagram,

(9.37) (B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)^,g^j,Γj,𝒚^j,k)\textstyle{\Big(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})},\hat{g}_{j},\Gamma_{j},\hat{\bm{y}}_{j,k}\Big)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}e​q​G​H\scriptstyle{eqGH}prj\scriptstyle{\pr_{j}}(Y^k,g^∞,Γ∞,𝒚^∞,k)\textstyle{\Big(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\Gamma_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty,k}\Big)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}pr∞\scriptstyle{\pr_{\infty}}(B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k),g~j,𝒚j,k)\textstyle{\Big(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k}),\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{y}_{j,k}\Big)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}G​H\scriptstyle{GH}(B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k),g0,𝒚∞,k)\textstyle{\Big(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}),g_{0},\bm{y}_{\infty,k}\Big)}

which satisfies the following properties:

  1. (e1)

    the universal covers (B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)^,g^j,𝒚^j,k)(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})},\hat{g}_{j},\hat{\bm{y}}_{j,k}) are non-collapsed and have uniformly bounded curvatures,

  2. (e2)

    the limiting Lie group Γ∞\Gamma_{\infty} is diffeomorphic to ℝ\mathbb{R} and acts isometrically on the limit space (Y^k,g^∞,𝒚^∞,k)(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty,k}),

  3. (e3)

    the universal covering maps prj\pr_{j} converge to a Riemannian submersion

    (9.38) pr∞:(Y^k,g^∞,𝒚^∞,k)⟶(B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k),g0,𝒚∞,k)\pr_{\infty}:(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty,k})\longrightarrow(B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}),g_{0},\bm{y}_{\infty,k})

    with B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)=Y^k/Γ∞B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})=\widehat{Y}_{k}/\Gamma_{\infty},

  4. (e4)

    for every 𝒛^∞∈Y^k\hat{\bm{z}}_{\infty}\in\widehat{Y}_{k}, the orbit Γ∞⋅z^∞\Gamma_{\infty}\cdot\hat{z}_{\infty} is a geodesic in Y^k\widehat{Y}_{k} and isometric to (ℝ,d​t2)(\mathbb{R},dt^{2}). In particular, (Y^k,g^∞,𝒚^∞)(\widehat{Y}_{k},\hat{g}_{\infty},\hat{\bm{y}}_{\infty}) is isometric to B2​s¯0​(03)×ℝB_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(0^{3})\times\mathbb{R} in the Euclidean space ℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4}.

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 Γ∞\Gamma_{\infty}-orbit is vanishing. In other words, each Γ∞\Gamma_{\infty}-orbit is a geodesic in Y^k\widehat{Y}_{k}. Combining with the facts that the limiting projection pr∞\pr_{\infty} is a Riemannian submersion and B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}) is a Euclidean ball, then Y^k≡B2​s¯0​(03)×ℝ\widehat{Y}_{k}\equiv B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(0^{3})\times\mathbb{R} and g^∞\hat{g}_{\infty} is isometric to the Euclidean metric.

We will apply the above equivariant convergence to construct harmonic functions f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}, f∞,kyf_{\infty,k}^{y}, f∞,kzf_{\infty,k}^{z} and f∞,ktf_{\infty,k}^{t} in B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k}). We only show the construction for f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x}. Notice that Proposition 8.3 implies that the Γj\Gamma_{j}-invariant lifted functions f^jx\hat{f}_{j}^{x} satisfy the uniform weighted Schauder estimate

(9.39) ‖f^jx‖Cδ,ν,μ1,α​(B2​s¯0​(yj)^)≤C\|\hat{f}_{j}^{x}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha}(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{j})})}\leq C

with respect to the lifted weight function. Applying Arzelà-Ascoli, passing to a subsequence, there is a limiting function f^∞,kx\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x} with

(9.40) ‖f^∞,kx‖Cδ,ν,μ1,α′​(Y^k)≤C\|\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(\widehat{Y}_{k})}\leq C

with 0<α′<α<10<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. Combining with the above equivariant convergence, we obtain that the limit function f^∞,kx\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x} is Γ∞\Gamma_{\infty}-invariant which descends to a function f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x} in B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty}). Now we prove that f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x} is a harmonic function on B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞)B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty}). In fact, the lifted 11-forms ω^j\hat{\omega}_{j} also satisfies

(9.41) ‖ω^j‖Cδ,ν,μ1,α​(B2​s¯0​(yj)^)≤C\|\hat{\omega}_{j}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha}(\widehat{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{j})})}\leq C

and hence there is a limiting 11-form ω^∞,k\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k} satisfying

(9.42) ‖ω^∞,k‖Cδ,ν,μ1,α′​(Y^k)≤C\|\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(\widehat{Y}_{k})}\leq C

for 0<α′<α<10<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. The contradiction assumption implies that ω^∞,k\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k} satisfies

(9.43) 𝒟g^∞​ω^∞,k≡0​in​Y^k.\displaystyle\mathscr{D}_{\hat{g}_{\infty}}\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k}\equiv 0\ \text{in}\ \widehat{Y}^{k}.

The standard elliptic regularity theory for 𝒟g^∞\mathscr{D}_{\hat{g}_{\infty}} shows that the 11-form ω^∞,k\hat{\omega}_{\infty,k} is C∞C^{\infty}. This implies that f^∞,kx∈C∞​(Y^k)\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x}\in C^{\infty}(\widehat{Y}_{k}), then by Lemma 7.12 gives the equation

(9.44) Δg^∞​(f^∞,kx)=0.\Delta_{\hat{g}_{\infty}}(\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x})=0.

Applying Property (e4),

(9.45) Δg0​(f∞,kx)=Δg^∞​(f^∞,kx)=0.\Delta_{g_{0}}(f_{\infty,k}^{x})=\Delta_{\hat{g}_{\infty}}(\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x})=0.

The construction of the harmonic limiting functions f∞,kyf_{\infty,k}^{y}, f∞,kzf_{\infty,k}^{z} and f∞,ktf_{\infty,k}^{t} is verbatim.

We are ready to prove the compatibility property (C2). To this end, we take the union

(9.46) B∞≡B2​s¯0​(y∞,k)∪B2​s¯0​(y∞,k′)B_{\infty}\equiv B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{\infty,k})\cup B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(y_{\infty,k^{\prime}})

with

(9.47) B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)∩B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k′)≠∅.B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})\cap B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k^{\prime}})\neq\emptyset.

Let Bj≡B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k)∪B2​s¯0​(𝒚j,k′)B_{j}\equiv B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k})\cup B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{j,k^{\prime}}), then

(9.48) (Bj,g~j)→G​H(B∞,g0).(B_{j},\tilde{g}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(B_{\infty},g_{0}).

By the same arguments as the above, BjB_{j} has uniformly bounded curvatures and the universal covering space (B~j,g^j)(\widetilde{B}_{j},\hat{g}_{j}) 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 f^jx\hat{f}_{j}^{x} are C1,α′C^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}-converging to some invariant limiting function f^∞,k,k′x\hat{f}_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} on B^∞\widehat{B}_{\infty} such that

(9.49) f^∞,k,k′x|Y^k=f^∞,kx\hat{f}_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x}|_{\widehat{Y}_{k}}=\hat{f}_{\infty,k}^{x}

Therefore, f^∞,k,k′x\hat{f}_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} descends to a function f∞,k,k′xf_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} on B∞B_{\infty} such that

(9.50) f∞,k,k′x|B2​s¯0​(𝒚∞,k)=f∞,kx.f_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x}|_{B_{2\bar{s}_{0}}(\bm{y}_{\infty,k})}=f_{\infty,k}^{x}.

In addition, f∞,k,k′xf_{\infty,k,k^{\prime}}^{x} is harmonic on B∞B_{\infty}, so we have managed to extend the local harmonic limiting function f∞,kxf_{\infty,k}^{x} to the union B∞B_{\infty}. Repeating the above arguments, we can extend the limiting functions to the whole annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}).

Consider the 44-tuple of harmonic functions (f∞,Rx,f∞,Ry,f∞,Rz,f∞,Rt)(f_{\infty,R}^{x},f_{\infty,R}^{y},f_{\infty,R}^{z},f_{\infty,R}^{t}) in the flat annulus A1R,Rg0​(03)A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}) obtained from the above construction, and we write

(9.51) ω~∞,R=f∞,Rx​d​x+f∞,Ry​d​y+f∞,Rz​d​z.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty,R}=f_{\infty,R}^{x}dx+f_{\infty,R}^{y}dy+f_{\infty,R}^{z}dz.

Immediately, we have the weighted norm control

(9.52) |ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞,R​(𝒙∞)|+|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅f∞,Rt​(𝒙∞)|≥130‖ω~∞,R‖Cδ,ν,μ1,α′​(A1R,Rg0​(03))+‖f∞,Rt‖Cδ,ν,μ1,α′​(A1R,Rg0​(03))≤C,\displaystyle\begin{split}|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty,R}({\bm{x}}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty,R}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|&\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ \|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty,R}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}))}+\|f_{\infty,R}^{t}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(A_{\frac{1}{R},R}^{g_{0}}(0^{3}))}&\leq C,\end{split}

where 0<α′<α<10<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. The above construction enables us to define a global harmonic 44-tuple on the punctured Euclidean space ℝ3∖{03}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\} by applying the standard exhaustion arguments. Let R→+∞R\to+\infty, by applying (9.52) and Arzelà-Ascoli, there is a global 44-tuple of harmonic functions (f∞x,f∞y,f∞z,f∞t)(f_{\infty}^{x},f_{\infty}^{y},f_{\infty}^{z},f_{\infty}^{t}) in ℝ3∖{03}\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\} and we denote

(9.53) ω~∞=f∞x​d​x+f∞y​d​y+f∞z​d​z.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}=f_{\infty}^{x}dx+f_{\infty}^{y}dy+f_{\infty}^{z}dz.

Then we have the weighted norm control,

(9.54) |ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|+|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅f∞t​(𝒙∞)|≥130‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ1,γ​(ℝ3∖{03})+‖f∞t‖Cδ,ν,μ1,γ≤C,\displaystyle\begin{split}|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|&\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ \|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\gamma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\})}+\|f_{\infty}^{t}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\gamma}}&\leq C,\end{split}

where 0<γ<α′<α<10<\gamma<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1. The weighted norm bound implies that the limiting functions have the following controlled behavior,

(9.55) (|f∞x|+|f∞y|+|f∞z|+|f∞t|)​(𝒙)≤C​(dg0​(𝒙,03))−μ−ν,∀𝒙∈ℝ3∖{03}.(|f_{\infty}^{x}|+|f_{\infty}^{y}|+|f_{\infty}^{z}|+|f_{\infty}^{t}|)(\bm{x})\leq C\Big(d_{g_{0}}(\bm{x},0^{3})\Big)^{-\mu-\nu},\ \forall\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus\{0^{3}\}.

By the standard removable singularity theorem, the 44-tuple of harmonic functions (f∞x,f∞y,f∞z,f∞t)(f_{\infty}^{x},f_{\infty}^{y},f_{\infty}^{z},f_{\infty}^{t}) extend to the entire Euclidean space ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}. Applying the standard Liouville theorem for harmonic functions, we conclude that ω~∞≡0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 and f∞t≡0f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0. 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 (𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}}. More precisely, we chose a sequence of punctured unbounded domains Ůj\mathring{U}_{j} containing 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} such that

(9.56) (Ůj,g~j,𝒙j)→G​H((𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0,g0,𝒙∞).(\mathring{U}_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}\Big).

Moreover, the curvatures of the above rescaled spaces are uniformly bounded away from the singular points in 𝒫m0\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}}.

Next we study the limiting weight functions. For any fixed reference point 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} in this case, denote dj≡min1≤m≤m0⁡{dm​(pm,𝒙j)}d_{j}\equiv\min\limits_{1\leq m\leq m_{0}}\{d_{m}(p_{m},\bm{x}_{j})\} and we choose the following rescaling factors

(9.57) λj=dj−1τj(k+α)=e−δ⋅2T−⋅(βj)μ2⋅(dj−1)μ+ν+k+ακj=eδ⋅2​T−⋅(βj)−μ2⋅(dj)μ+ν−1.\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=d_{j}^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{j}^{-1})^{\mu+\nu+k+\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta\cdot 2T_{-}}\cdot(\beta_{j})^{-\frac{\mu}{2}}\cdot(d_{j})^{\mu+\nu-1}.\end{split}

So the rescaled weight function in the limit space satisfies

(9.58) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)={(dg0​(pm,𝒙))μ+ν+k+α,𝒙∈Bι0′′g0​(pm)​for some​ 1≤m≤m0,Qν,μ,k,α,𝒙∈⋂m=1m0Amg0​(2​ι0′′,T0′′),eδ​z​(𝒙),𝒙∈(𝕋2×ℝ)∖⋃m=1m0BT0′′g0​(pm),\displaystyle\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=\begin{cases}(d_{g_{0}}(p_{m},\bm{x}))^{\mu+\nu+k+\alpha},&\bm{x}\in B_{\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m})\ \text{for some}\ 1\leq m\leq m_{0},\\ Q_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha},&\bm{x}\in\bigcap\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}A_{m}^{g_{0}}(2\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime},T_{0}^{\prime\prime}),\\ e^{\delta z(\bm{x})},&\bm{x}\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\bigcup\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}B_{T_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m}),\end{cases}

where ι0′′∈[1,ι0′C0]\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}\in[1,\frac{\iota_{0}^{\prime}}{C_{0}}] is some definite constant and Qν,μ,k,αQ_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha} is some uniform constant depending on ν\nu, μ\mu, kk and α\alpha.

Similar to Case (b), in order to apply the Liouville theorem in the collapsed limit, we need to construct a global defined 11-form in the collapsed limit and deduce the corresponding equation.

Fix R>0R>0, denote by TR​(S)T_{R}(S) the RR-tubular neighborhood of a compact set SS, applying Lemma 7.7, then we have the following curvature estimate on the sequence of annuli T3​Rg~j​(𝒫m0)∖T1Rg~j​(𝒫m0)T_{3R}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\setminus T_{\frac{1}{R}}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}}):

(9.59) ‖Rmg~j‖L∞​(T3​Rg~j​(𝒫m0)∖T1Rg~j​(𝒫m0))≤K0⋅R2,\|\Rm_{\tilde{g}_{j}}\|_{L^{\infty}\Big(T_{3R}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\setminus T_{\frac{1}{R}}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\Big)}\leq K_{0}\cdot R^{2},

where K0>0K_{0}>0 is an absolute constant. Applying the same arguments as in Case (b), one can construct a limiting pair

(9.60) OPENOPEN(ω~∞,f∞t)∈Ω1​((𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0))⊕Ω0​((𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0))(\tilde{\omega}_{\infty},f_{\infty}^{t})\in\Omega^{1}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\Big)\oplus\Omega^{0}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})\Big)

such that

(9.61) |ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|+|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅f∞t​(𝒙∞)|≥130‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ1,γ​((𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0)≤C,\displaystyle\begin{split}|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}({\bm{x}}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|&\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ \|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\gamma}((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}})}&\leq C,\end{split}

where 0<γ<α<10<\gamma<\alpha<1. Let θ∞x\theta_{\infty}^{x}, θ∞y\theta_{\infty}^{y} and θ∞z\theta_{\infty}^{z} be the canonical parallel 11-forms with unit length on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}, then

(9.62) ω~∞=f∞x​θ∞x+f∞y​θ∞y+f∞z​θ∞z.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}=f_{\infty}^{x}\theta_{\infty}^{x}+f_{\infty}^{y}\theta_{\infty}^{y}+f_{\infty}^{z}\theta_{\infty}^{z}.

Moreover, it holds in the punctured cylinder (𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}} that

(9.63) Δg0​f∞x=Δg0​f∞y=Δg0​f∞z=Δg0​f∞t≡0.\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{x}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{y}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{z}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0.

Next, the weighted norm bound implies that the limiting 11-form ω~∞∈(𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}} has the following controlled behavior,

(9.64) |f∞x​(𝒙)|+|f∞y​(𝒙)|+|f∞z​(𝒙)|+|f∞t​(𝒙)|≤C(dg0(𝒙,pm))−μ−ν,𝒙∈Bι0′′g0(pm),|f∞x​(𝒙)|+|f∞y​(𝒙)|+|f∞z​(𝒙)|+|f∞t​(𝒙)|≤Ce−δ​z​(𝒙),|z(𝒙)|≥Z0,\displaystyle\begin{split}|f_{\infty}^{x}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{y}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{z}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x})|&\leq C\Big(d_{g_{0}}(\bm{x},p_{m})\Big)^{-\mu-\nu},\ \bm{x}\in B_{\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m}),\\ |f_{\infty}^{x}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{y}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{z}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x})|&\leq Ce^{-\delta z(\bm{x})},\ |z(\bm{x})|\geq Z_{0},\end{split}

for some sufficiently large Z0>0Z_{0}>0. Since we have required that

(9.65) 0<μ+ν<1,0<\mu+\nu<1,

it is standard that the singularities in 𝒫m0\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}} are removable. It follows that the harmonic functions f∞xf_{\infty}^{x}, f∞yf_{\infty}^{y}, f∞zf_{\infty}^{z} and f∞tf_{\infty}^{t} extend to the entire flat cylinder 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R} and they satisfy the above asymptotic behavior. Applying Lemma 9.1 to the coefficient functions with the growth condition (9.64), we conclude that ω~∞≡0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 and f∞t≡0f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0. So the proof of Case (c) is complete.

Region III\III:

The proof for Region III\III is identical to Case (c) of Region II\II.

Regions IV−\IV_{-} and Region IV+\IV_{+}:

We only focus on the case that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Region IV−\IV_{-}. The proof for Region IV+\IV_{+} is verbatim. Region IV−\IV_{-} has two different types of rescaling geometries (see Section 7.3) which are given by the following two cases:

  1. (a)

    There is a uniform constant C0>0C_{0}>0 independent of jj such that

    (9.66) 5​T0′≤dg~j​(pm,𝒙j)≡λj⋅dm​(𝒙j)≤C05T_{0}^{\prime}\leq d_{\tilde{g}_{j}}(p_{m},\bm{x}_{j})\equiv\lambda_{j}\cdot d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}

    for each 1≤m≤m01\leq m\leq m_{0}.

  2. (b)

    The reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} in Region IV−\IV_{-} satisfy

    (9.67) dg~j​(pm,𝒙j)≡λj⋅dm​(𝒙j)→∞.d_{\tilde{g}_{j}}(p_{m},\bm{x}_{j})\equiv\lambda_{j}\cdot d_{m}(\bm{x}_{j})\to\infty.

For fixed reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} satisfying Case (a), we have the following convergence

(9.68) (Ůj,g~j,𝒙j)→G​H((𝕋2×ℝ)∖𝒫m0,g0,𝒙∞),(\mathring{U}_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}\Big((\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\mathcal{P}_{m_{0}},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}\Big),

where g0g_{0} is a flat product metric on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}. We choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.69) λj=(L−​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=e−δ⁡(2​T−)⋅(L−​(𝒙j))−ν−k−ακj=eδ⁡(2​T−)⋅(L−​(𝒙j))ν−1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta(2T_{-})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta(2T_{-})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

and the limiting weight function is

(9.70) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)={(dg0​(pm,𝒙))ν+μ+k+α,𝒙∈Bι0′′g0​(pm)​for some​ 1≤m≤m0,Qν,μ,k,α,𝒙∈⋂m=1m0Amg0​(2​ι0′′,T0′′),eδ​z​(𝒙),𝒙∈(𝕋2×ℝ)∖⋃m=1m0BT0′′g0​(pm),\displaystyle\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}=\begin{cases}(d_{g_{0}}(p_{m},\bm{x}))^{\nu+\mu+k+\alpha},&\bm{x}\in B_{\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m})\ \text{for some}\ 1\leq m\leq m_{0},\\ Q_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha},&\bm{x}\in\bigcap\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}A_{m}^{g_{0}}(2\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime},T_{0}^{\prime\prime}),\\ e^{\delta z(\bm{x})},&\bm{x}\in(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus\bigcup\limits_{m=1}^{m_{0}}B_{T_{0}^{\prime\prime}}^{g_{0}}(p_{m}),\end{cases}

where ι0′′∈[1,ι0C0]\iota_{0}^{\prime\prime}\in[1,\frac{\iota_{0}}{C_{0}}] is some definite constant and Qν,μ,k,αQ_{\nu,\mu,k,\alpha} is some uniform constant depending on ν\nu, μ\mu, kk, α\alpha. So the rest of the proof is identical to the proof of Case (c) in Region II\II.

Now we prove Case (b). We showed in Section 7.3 that in this case we have the convergence

(9.71) (Uj,g~j,𝒙j)→G​H(𝕋2×ℝ,g0,𝒙∞),(U_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}),

where g0g_{0} is a flat product metric on 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}. The rescaling factors are chosen as the following

(9.72) λj=(L−​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=e−δ⁡(2​T−−zj)⋅(L−​(𝒙j))−ν−k−ακj=eδ⁡(2​T−+zj)⋅(L−​(𝒙j))ν−1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta(2T_{-}-z_{j})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta(2T_{-}+z_{j})}\cdot(L_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

where zj≡z⁡(𝒙j)z_{j}\equiv z(\bm{x}_{j}). We also translate the zz-coordinate by z~​(𝒙)=z⁡(𝒙)−zj\tilde{z}(\bm{x})=z(\bm{x})-z_{j}. It gives the limiting weight function

(9.73) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)=eδ​z~​(𝒙),∀𝒙∈𝕋2×ℝ.\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\tilde{z}(\bm{x})},\ \forall\bm{x}\in\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}.

The proof of the next stage is similar to the proof of Case (c) of Region III\III. We follow all the notations there. Applying exactly the same arguments, we obtain the limiting pair (ω~∞,f∞t)∈Ω1​(𝕋2×ℝ)⊕C∞​(𝕋2×ℝ)(\tilde{\omega}_{\infty},f_{\infty}^{t})\in\Omega^{1}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})\oplus C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}) which satisfy

(9.74) Δg0​f∞x=Δg0​f∞y=Δg0​f∞z=Δg0​f∞t≡0|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|+|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅f∞t​(𝒙∞)|≥130∥ω~∞∥Cδ,ν,μ1,α′​(𝕋2×ℝ)≤C, 0<α′<α<1,\displaystyle\begin{split}&\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{x}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{y}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{z}=\Delta_{g_{0}}f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|+|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|\geq\frac{1}{30}\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{1,\alpha^{\prime}}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R})}\leq C,\ 0<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha<1,\\ \end{split}

which implies that

(9.75) |f∞x​(𝒙)|+|f∞y​(𝒙)|+|f∞z​(𝒙)|+|f∞t​(𝒙)|≤C​e−δ​z~​(𝒙),𝒙∈𝕋2×ℝ.\displaystyle|f_{\infty}^{x}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{y}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{z}(\bm{x})|+|f_{\infty}^{t}(\bm{x})|\leq Ce^{-\delta\tilde{z}(\bm{x})},\ \bm{x}\in\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R}.

Applying Lemma 9.1, we conclude that ω~∞≡0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 and f∞t≡0f_{\infty}^{t}\equiv 0. So we complete the proof of Case (b).

Regions V−\V_{-} and V+\V_{+}:

First, we assume that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in V−\V_{-}. As what was discussed in Section 7.3, it is natural to separate Region V−\V_{-} in the following cases

  1. (a)

    Assume z−​(𝒙j)→∞z_{-}(\bm{x}_{j})\to\infty.

  2. (b)

    Assume that there is some constant C0>0C_{0}>0 independent of the index jj such that 10​ζ0−≤z−​(𝒙j)≤C010\zeta_{0}^{-}\leq z_{-}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}.

The rescaled limit in Case (a) is the flat cylinder 𝕋2×ℝ\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R} and we have the convergence (see Section 7.3),

(9.76) (Uj,g~j,𝒙j)→G​H(𝕋2×ℝ,g0,𝒙∞).(U_{j},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{GH}(\mathbb{T}^{2}\times\mathbb{R},g_{0},\bm{x}_{\infty}).

We choose the corresponding rescaling factors

(9.77) λj=(L¯−​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=e−δ​zj⋅(L¯−​(𝒙j))−ν−k−ακj=eδ​zj⋅(L¯−​(𝒙j))ν−1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta z_{j}}\cdot(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta z_{j}}\cdot(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

where zj≡z−​(𝒙j)z_{j}\equiv z_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}). Hence, under the zz-coordinate translation z~−​(𝒙)=z−​(𝒙)−zj\tilde{z}_{-}(\bm{x})=z_{-}(\bm{x})-z_{j}, the limiting weight function is

(9.78) ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)=eδ⋅z~−​(𝒙).\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\cdot\tilde{z}_{-}(\bm{x})}.

The remaining arguments are exactly the same as that in Case (b) of Region IV−\IV_{-}, and the proof of this case is complete.

Next, we prove Case (b) of Region V−\V_{-}. If the reference points satisfy 10​ζ0−≤d⁡(𝒙j,q−)≤C010\zeta_{0}^{-}\leq d(\bm{x}_{j},q_{-})\leq C_{0}, we still choose the same rescaling factors

(9.79) λj=(L¯−​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=(L¯−​(𝒙j))−ν−k−ακj=(L¯−​(𝒙j))ν−1\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1}\end{split}

and we have the convergence

(9.80) (ℳ,g~j,𝒙j)→C∞(ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{C^{\infty}}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty})

where (ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) is a finite rescaling of (Xb−4,gb−,q−)(X_{b_{-}}^{4},g_{b_{-}},q_{-}).

So limiting weight function, up to some definite constant, has the form

(9.81) ρ∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)=eδ⋅z−​(𝒙)⋅(L¯−​(𝒙))ν+k+α(L¯−​(𝒙j))ν+k+α.\rho_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\cdot z_{-}(\bm{x})}\cdot\frac{(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}))^{\nu+k+\alpha}}{(\underline{L}_{-}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu+k+\alpha}}.

Moreover, the limiting 11-form ω~∞∈Ω1​(Xb−4)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(X_{b_{-}}^{4}) such that

(9.82) 𝒟gb−​ω~∞≡0|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|=1‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(Xb−4)=1,\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{g_{b_{-}}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(X_{b_{-}}^{4})}=1,\\ \end{split}

which implies that for some constant C1>0C_{1}>0,

(9.83) |ω~∞​(𝒙)|≤C1⋅e−δ​z−​(𝒙)⋅(z−​(𝒙))−ν2,𝒙∈Xb−4∖B2​D0−​(q−).\displaystyle|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq C_{1}\cdot e^{-\delta z_{-}(\bm{x})}\cdot(z_{-}(\bm{x}))^{-\frac{\nu}{2}},\ \bm{x}\in X_{b_{-}}^{4}\setminus B_{2D_{0}^{-}}(q_{-}).

Since 𝒟gb−​ω~∞≡0\mathscr{D}_{g_{b_{-}}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0, by Lemma 7.12, ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty} is harmonic with respect to the complete Tian-Yau metric gb−g_{b_{-}}. Applying Lemma 4.17 to the harmonic 11-form ω~∞\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}, we conclude that ω~∞≡0\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0 on Xb−4X_{b_{-}}^{4}. So the proof of Case (b) is done.

Now we consider the case that the reference points 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} belong to Region V+\V_{+}. As the above, we still separate this region in two different pieces:

  1. (a)

    Assume z+​(𝒙j)→∞z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j})\to\infty.

  2. (b)

    Assume that there is some constant C0>0C_{0}>0 independent of the index jj such that 10​ζ0+≤z+​(𝒙j)≤C010\zeta_{0}^{+}\leq z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}.

We skip the argument in Case (a) because it coincides with Case (a) in Region V−V_{-}.

So we start to prove Case (b) of Region V+\V_{+}. If the reference points satisfy 10​ζ0+≤z+​(𝒙j)≤C010\zeta_{0}^{+}\leq z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j})\leq C_{0}, we choose the rescaling factors as follows,

(9.84) λj=(L¯+​(𝒙j))−1τj(k+α)=e−δ⁡(2​T−+2​T++zj)⋅(L¯+​(𝒙j))−ν−k−ακj=eδ⁡(2​T−+2​T++zj)⋅(L¯+​(𝒙j))ν−1,\displaystyle\begin{split}\lambda_{j}&=(\underline{L}_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-1}\\ \tau_{j}^{(k+\alpha)}&=e^{-\delta(2T_{-}+2T_{+}+z_{j})}\cdot(\underline{L}_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{-\nu-k-\alpha}\\ \kappa_{j}&=e^{\delta(2T_{-}+2T_{+}+z_{j})}\cdot(\underline{L}_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}))^{\nu-1},\end{split}

where zj≡z+​(𝒙j)z_{j}\equiv z_{+}(\bm{x}_{j}). Then we have the convergence

(9.85) (ℳ,g~j,𝒙j)→C∞(ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M},\tilde{g}_{j},\bm{x}_{j})\xrightarrow{C^{\infty}}(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty})

where (ℳ∞,g~∞,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{M}_{\infty},\tilde{g}_{\infty},\bm{x}_{\infty}) is a finite rescaling of (Xb+4,gb+,q+)(X_{b_{+}}^{4},g_{b_{+}},q_{+}). Hence, under the zz-coordinate translation z~+​(𝒙)=z+​(𝒙)−zj\tilde{z}_{+}(\bm{x})=z_{+}(\bm{x})-z_{j}, the limiting weight function has the form

(9.86) ρ∞,δ,ν,μ(k+α)(𝒙)=e−δ⋅z~+(𝒙),𝒙∈Xb+4∖B2​D0+(q+).\displaystyle\rho_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{-\delta\cdot\tilde{z}_{+}(\bm{x})},\ \bm{x}\in X_{b_{+}}^{4}\setminus B_{2D_{0}^{+}}(q_{+}).

On the other hand, the limiting 11-form ω~∞∈Ω1​(Xb−4)\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\in\Omega^{1}(X_{b_{-}}^{4}) satisfies

(9.87) 𝒟gb+​ω~∞≡0|ρ~∞,δ,ν,μ(0)​(𝒙∞)⋅ω~∞​(𝒙∞)|=1‖ω~∞‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(Xb+4)=1,\displaystyle\begin{split}&\mathscr{D}_{g_{b_{+}}}\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\\ &|\tilde{\rho}_{\infty,\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}(\bm{x}_{\infty})\cdot\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x}_{\infty})|=1\\ &\|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(X_{b_{+}}^{4})}=1,\\ \end{split}

which implies which implies the C0C^{0}-estimate

(9.88) |ω~∞​(𝒙)|≤C2⋅eδ​z~+​(𝒙),𝒙∈Xb+4∖B2​D0+​(q+).\displaystyle|\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}(\bm{x})|\leq C_{2}\cdot e^{\delta\tilde{z}_{+}(\bm{x})},\ \bm{x}\in X_{b_{+}}^{4}\setminus B_{2D_{0}^{+}}(q_{+}).

Now we are in a position to apply the Liouville theorem for half-harmonic 11-forms. If we choose δ∈(0,δh)\delta\in(0,\delta_{h}), then Theorem 5.1 shows that

(9.89) ω~∞≡0​on​Xb+4.\tilde{\omega}_{\infty}\equiv 0\ \text{on}\ X_{b_{+}}^{4}.

Regions VI−\VI_{-} and VI+\VI_{+}:

If 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Region VI−\VI_{-}, the proof is identical to Case (b) of Region V−\V_{-}. If 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} are located in Region VI+\VI_{+}, the proof is the same as Case (b) of Region V+V_{+}.

Combining all of the above regions, the proof of Proposition 9.2 is complete.

∎

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