ScalingStacks

Proof. [0462]

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.

The basic strategy is a Liouville theorem argument: we will construct a function with the same distributional Δa\Delta_{a}-Laplacian as βp​3+βp​4\beta_{p3}+\beta_{p4}, and then argue they must be equal.

We start with the Poincaré-Lelong formula

S=−12​π​∂∂¯​log⁡|1−e2​π​i​η1−e2​π​i​η1|2=−12​π​∂∂¯​log⁡|fS|2,S=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\bar{\partial}\log|1-e^{2\pi i\eta_{1}}-e^{2\pi i\eta_{1}}|^{2}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\bar{\partial}\log|f_{S}|^{2},

from which we obtain the equality of measures

∫Sd𝒜=∫S−12​ap​q¯​d​ηp∧d​η¯q=−12​π​∂∂¯​log⁡|fS|2∧−12​ap​q¯​d​ηp∧d​η¯q=14​π​(Δa​log⁡|fS|2)​d​Vola.\begin{split}\int_{S}d\mathcal{A}=&\int_{S}\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}a_{p\bar{q}}d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\\ =&\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\bar{\partial}\log|f_{S}|^{2}\wedge\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}a_{p\bar{q}}d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\\ =&\frac{1}{4\pi}(\Delta_{a}\log|f_{S}|^{2})d\text{Vol}_{a}.\end{split}

The periodic Newtonian potential on (ℂ∗)2(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{2} with the gag_{a}-metric is

γ5(η1,η2,μ)=−14​π2∑(n1,n2)∈ℤ2{1ap​q¯​(ηp+np)​(η¯q+nq)−1ap​q¯​np​nq}.\gamma_{5}(\eta_{1},\eta_{2},\mu)=-\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\sum_{(n_{1},n_{2})\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}}\{\frac{1}{a_{p\bar{q}}(\eta_{p}+n_{p})(\bar{\eta}_{q}+n_{q})}-\frac{1}{a_{p\bar{q}}n_{p}n_{q}}\}.

Thus for any large cutoff scale Λ\Lambda, the Green’s representation

∫S∩{|y′|a<Λ}γ5(η1−η1′,η2−η2′,μ)d𝒜(η1′,η2′)\int_{S\cap\{|y^{\prime}|_{a}<\Lambda\}}\gamma_{5}(\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}^{\prime},\mu)d\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime})

has the same distributional Δa\Delta_{a}-Laplacian as that of 14​π​log⁡|fS|2\frac{1}{4\pi}\log|f_{S}|^{2} in the large compact region. Taking the ηp\eta_{p} derivative and taking the Λ→∞\Lambda\to\infty limit shows that the Δa\Delta_{a}-Laplacian of −i​e2​π​i​ηp2​fS\frac{-ie^{2\pi i\eta_{p}}}{2f_{S}} agrees with that of the improper integral

∫S∂∂ηp​γ5​(η1−η1′,η2−η2′,μ)​𝑑𝒜​(η1′,η2′),\int_{S}\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta_{p}}\gamma_{5}(\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}^{\prime},\mu)d\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime}),

which by formula (4.26) is the same as the improper integral

−12A1/2∫S(γp​3+γp​4)(η1−η1′,η2−η2′,μ)d𝒜(η1′,η2′)=14​π(βp​3+βp​4).-\frac{1}{2}A^{1/2}\int_{S}(\gamma_{p3}+\gamma_{p4})(\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}^{\prime},\mu)d\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{\prime},\eta_{2}^{\prime})=\frac{1}{4\pi}(\beta_{p3}+\beta_{p4}).

The upshot is that βp​3+βp​4\beta_{p3}+\beta_{p4} differs from −2​π​i​e2​π​i​ηpfS\frac{-2\pi ie^{2\pi i\eta_{p}}}{f_{S}} by a globally smooth Δa\Delta_{a}-harmonic function on (ℂ∗)2(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{2}. It is also easy to show using techniques in this Section that this difference can have at most log growth in y1,y2y_{1},y_{2} variables. Thus it has to be a constant.

The rest of this proof is to pin down precisely this constant, by considering the limit (η1,η2)=(−1​b,−1​b)(\eta_{1},\eta_{2})=(\sqrt{-1}b,\sqrt{-1}b) for b→+∞b\to+\infty. This uses techniques similar to the proof of Lemma 4.24. Without affecting the limit, we can replace SS with ∪𝔇i×S1\cup\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1} and replace (γp​3+γp​4)(\gamma_{p3}+\gamma_{p4}) with

−1​ap​q¯​(b−yq′)​𝔸2​π​A3/2​|y−y′|a2.\frac{\sqrt{-1}a_{p\bar{q}}(b-y_{q}^{\prime})\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{2\pi A^{3/2}|y-y^{\prime}|_{a}^{2}}.

This leads to an asymptotic expression for b≫1b\gg 1,

(βp​3+βp​4)(−1b,−1b)∼∫∪𝔇i×S1−1​ap​q¯​(−b+yq′)​𝔸A​|y−y′|a2d𝒜,(\beta_{p3}+\beta_{p4})(\sqrt{-1}b,\sqrt{-1}b)\sim\int_{\cup\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1}}\frac{\sqrt{-1}a_{p\bar{q}}(-b+y_{q}^{\prime})\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{A|y-y^{\prime}|_{a}^{2}}d\mathcal{A},

where the RHS is understood as an improper integral. To evaluate this integral we fix bb and calculate the Λ→+∞\Lambda\to+\infty asymptotic expression of the integral over the large bounded domain (∪𝔇i×S1)∩{|y′|a<Λ}.(\cup\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1})\cap\{|y^{\prime}|_{a}<\Lambda\}. The contribution from the end 𝔇1×S1\mathfrak{D}_{1}\times S^{1} is

−1​ap​2¯​𝔸2​A​log⁡(Λ2(a1​1¯+a1​2¯+a2​1¯+a2​2¯)​b2)+−1​(ap​2¯​Re​a1​2¯−ap​1¯​a2​2¯)A​(π2+arctan⁡(a2​2¯+Re​(a1​2¯)𝔸))+o⁡(1).\begin{split}&\frac{\sqrt{-1}a_{p\bar{2}}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{2A}\log(\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{(a_{1\bar{1}}+a_{1\bar{2}}+a_{2\bar{1}}+a_{2\bar{2}})b^{2}})\\ +&\frac{\sqrt{-1}(a_{p\bar{2}}\text{Re}a_{1\bar{2}}-a_{p\bar{1}}a_{2\bar{2}})}{A}(\frac{\pi}{2}+\arctan(\frac{a_{2\bar{2}}+\text{Re}(a_{1\bar{2}})}{\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}))+o(1).\end{split}

The contribution from 𝔇2×S1\mathfrak{D}_{2}\times S^{1} is

−1​ap​1¯​𝔸2​A​log⁡(Λ2(a1​1¯+a1​2¯+a2​1¯+a2​2¯)​b2)+−1​(ap​1¯​Re​a1​2¯−ap​2¯​a1​1¯)A​(π2+arctan⁡(a1​1¯+Re​(a1​2¯)𝔸))+o⁡(1).\begin{split}&\frac{\sqrt{-1}a_{p\bar{1}}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{2A}\log(\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{(a_{1\bar{1}}+a_{1\bar{2}}+a_{2\bar{1}}+a_{2\bar{2}})b^{2}})\\ +&\frac{\sqrt{-1}(a_{p\bar{1}}\text{Re}a_{1\bar{2}}-a_{p\bar{2}}a_{1\bar{1}})}{A}(\frac{\pi}{2}+\arctan(\frac{a_{1\bar{1}}+\text{Re}(a_{1\bar{2}})}{\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}))+o(1).\end{split}

The contribution from 𝔇3×S1\mathfrak{D}_{3}\times S^{1} is

−−1​𝔸​(ap​1¯+ap​2¯)2​A​log⁡(Λ2(a1​1¯+a1​2¯+a2​1¯+a2​2¯)​b2)+o⁡(1).-\frac{\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}(a_{p\bar{1}}+a_{p\bar{2}})}{2A}\log(\frac{\Lambda^{2}}{(a_{1\bar{1}}+a_{1\bar{2}}+a_{2\bar{1}}+a_{2\bar{2}})b^{2}})+o(1).

Summing up, the log terms cancel out, so the improper integral

∫∪𝔇i×S1−1​ap​q¯​(−b+yq′)​𝔸A​|y−y′|a2d𝒜,\int_{\cup\mathfrak{D}_{i}\times S^{1}}\frac{\sqrt{-1}a_{p\bar{q}}(-b+y_{q}^{\prime})\sqrt{\mathbb{A}}}{A|y-y^{\prime}|_{a}^{2}}d\mathcal{A},

is equal to the constant Kp​(a)K_{p}(a) defined in the statement of the Lemma. This shows limiting value

limb→+∞(βp​3+βp​4)​(−1​b,−1​b)=Kp​(a).\lim_{b\to+\infty}(\beta_{p3}+\beta_{p4})(\sqrt{-1}b,\sqrt{-1}b)=K_{p}(a).

Comparing this with

limb→+∞−2​π​i​e2​π​i​ηpfS​(−1​b,−1​b)=0\lim_{b\to+\infty}\frac{-2\pi ie^{2\pi i\eta_{p}}}{f_{S}}(\sqrt{-1}b,\sqrt{-1}b)=0

determines the constant. ∎

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