ScalingStacks

4.1. Construction of a family of C 2 , α Kähler structures [051F]

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

4.1. Construction of a family of C2,αC^{2,\alpha} Kähler structures

In this subsection we shall use (2.19) to construct a family of C2,αC^{2,\alpha} Kähler structures on certain S1S^{1} fibrations over increasing domains in QQ. So we need to construct a family of pairs (ω~,h)(\tilde{\omega},h) parametrized by T≫1T\gg 1. Most of the quantities defined in this subsection will depend on the parameter TT, but for simplicity of notation we will not always keep track of this if it is clear from the context.

For T≫1T\gg 1, we define

(4.5) ω~=T​ωD+ψ.\tilde{\omega}=T\omega_{D}+\psi.

It can be viewed as a family of closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms ω~​(z)\tilde{\omega}(z) on DD parametrized by zz. Using the Kähler identity, we obtain

(4.6) ∂z2ω~=ΔD​ω~=−dD​dDc​TrωD​ω~,\partial_{z}^{2}\tilde{\omega}=\Delta_{D}\tilde{\omega}=-d_{D}d_{D}^{c}\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\tilde{\omega},

So if we define

(4.7) h≡TrωD⁡ω~+q⁡(z)h\equiv\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\tilde{\omega}+q(z)

for any smooth function q⁡(z)q(z), then the pair (ω~,h)(\tilde{\omega},h) satisfies the first equation in (2.19):

(4.8) ∂z2ω~+dD​dDc​h=0.\partial_{z}^{2}\tilde{\omega}+d_{D}d_{D}^{c}h=0.

For our purpose we need to make a special choice of the function q⁡(z)q(z). First we define q0​(z)q_{0}(z) by the following co-homological condition

(4.9) q0​(z)​∫DωDn−1+(n−1)​∫Dω~​(z)∧ωDn−2=T2−n​∫Dω~​(z)n−1,∀z∈ℝ,q_{0}(z)\int_{D}\omega_{D}^{n-1}+(n-1)\int_{D}\tilde{\omega}(z)\wedge\omega_{D}^{n-2}=T^{2-n}\int_{D}\tilde{\omega}(z)^{n-1},\ \ \forall z\in\mathbb{R},

By Lemma 3.33, we know that the cohomology class [ψ⁡(z)]∈H2​(D,ℝ)[\psi(z)]\in H^{2}(D;\mathbb{R}) is piecewise linear in z∈ℝz\in\mathbb{R}, so

(4.10) q0​(z)={T2−n​(T+k+​z)n−1−(n−1)​(T+k+​z),z>0,T2−n​(T+k−​z)n−1−(n−1)​(T+k−​z),z<0.\displaystyle q_{0}(z)=\begin{cases}T^{2-n}(T+k_{+}z)^{n-1}-(n-1)(T+k_{+}z),&z>0,\\ T^{2-n}(T+k_{-}z)^{n-1}-(n-1)(T+k_{-}z),&z<0.\end{cases}

It follows that q0​(z)q_{0}(z) is identically zero if n=2n=2, which corresponds to the case of the classical Gibbons-Hawking anstaz used in [HSVZ18]. But if n>2n>2 then q0​(z)q_{0}(z) is only C1,1C^{1,1} at z=0z=0 and we need to smooth it. We shall fix throughout this section a smooth function L0:ℝ→ℝL_{0}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R} satisfying

(4.11) L0​(z)≡{k+​z,z>1,0,z=0,k−​z,z<−1.\displaystyle L_{0}(z)\equiv\begin{cases}k_{+}z,&z>1,\\ 0,&z=0,\\ k_{-}z,&z<-1.\end{cases}

and let

(4.12) LT​(z)≡T+L0​(z).L_{T}(z)\equiv T+L_{0}(z).

Then we define

(4.13) q⁡(z)≡T2−n​LT​(z)n−1−(n−1)​LT​(z).q(z)\equiv T^{2-n}L_{T}(z)^{n-1}-(n-1)L_{T}(z).

It follows that q⁡(z)q(z) is smooth and agrees with q0​(z)q_{0}(z) when |z|≥1|z|\geq 1. It is also easy to see that correspondingly we have

(4.14) ∫Dh​ωDn−1={T2−n​∫Dω~​(z)n−1,|z|≥1,T2−n​∫Dω~​(z)n−1+T−1​B​(z),z∈[−1,1].\displaystyle\int_{D}h\omega_{D}^{n-1}=\begin{cases}T^{2-n}\int_{D}\tilde{\omega}(z)^{n-1},&|z|\geq 1,\\ T^{2-n}\int_{D}\tilde{\omega}(z)^{n-1}+T^{-1}B(z),&z\in[-1,1].\end{cases}

We refer to Remark 4.3.1 for an explanation of this choice of q⁡(z)q(z).

To apply the construction in Section 2, we need to restrict to the region in QQ where ω~​(z)\tilde{\omega}(z) is a positive form and hh is a positive function. For TT large we define T+>0T_{+}>0 and T−<0T_{-}<0 by

(4.15) {T+k+​T+=Tn−2nT+k−​T−=Tn−2n.\begin{cases}T+k_{+}T_{+}=T^{\frac{n-2}{n}}\\ T+k_{-}T_{-}=T^{\frac{n-2}{n}}.\end{cases}

and denote by QT⊂QQ_{T}\subset Q the region where z∈[T−,T+]z\in[T_{-},T_{+}].

Lemma 4.1.

For TT large, over QT∖PQ_{T}\setminus P, both ω~\tilde{\omega} and hh are positive. Moreover, hh has the following approximation formula

(4.16) h\displaystyle h =T2−n​(T+k±​z)n−1+ϵ⁡(z),|z|≥1,\displaystyle=T^{2-n}(T+k_{\pm}z)^{n-1}+\epsilon(z),\quad|z|\geq 1,
(4.17) h\displaystyle h =T+12​r+O′​(r)+T−1​B​(z),|z|≤1,\displaystyle=T+\frac{1}{2r}+O^{\prime}(r)+T^{-1}B(z),\quad|z|\leq 1,

where O′​(r)O^{\prime}(r) is a fixed function independent of TT, and it has the singular behavior near PP given by Definition 3.3.

Proof.

We first consider ω~\tilde{\omega}. As z→±∞z\rightarrow\pm\infty the behavior of ω~\tilde{\omega} is governed by (3.349), so for T≫1T\gg 1 we know ω~\tilde{\omega} is positive over the region where z∈[−k−−1​(T−1),−k+−1​(T−1)]∖[−C,C]z\in[-k_{-}^{-1}(T-1),-k_{+}^{-1}(T-1)]\setminus[-C,C] for some number C>0C>0 independent of TT. By the expansion of ψ\psi in a neighborhood of PP given in Proposition 3.24, for TT sufficiently large, ω~\tilde{\omega} is also positive when z∈[−C,C]z\in[-C,C]. Hence ω~\tilde{\omega} is positive over the region where z∈[−k−−1​(T−1),−k+−1​(T−1)].z\in[-k_{-}^{-1}(T-1),-k_{+}^{-1}(T-1)]. Since this contains QTQ_{T} we see in particular ω~\tilde{\omega} is positive over QT∖PQ_{T}\setminus P.

To deal with hh we need to analyze q⁡(z)q(z). When |z|≥1|z|\geq 1, we have

(4.18) q⁡(z)=q0​(z)=T2−n​(T+k±​z)n−1−(n−1)​(T+k±​z),q(z)=q_{0}(z)=T^{2-n}(T+k_{\pm}z)^{n-1}-(n-1)(T+k_{\pm}z),

where the choice of ++ or −- depends on whether z>0z>0 or z<0z<0. By (3.349) we then get

(4.19) h=T2−n​(T+k±​z)n−1+ϵ⁡(z).h=T^{2-n}(T+k_{\pm}z)^{n-1}+\epsilon(z).

So we can find C>0C>0 such that hh is positive when z∈[T−,T+]∖[−C,C]z\in[T_{-},T_{+}]\setminus[-C,C]. On the other hand, on [−C,C][-C,C] we know by definition

(4.20) q⁡(z)=(2−n)​T+T−1​B​(z).q(z)=(2-n)T+T^{-1}B(z).

Hence by the expansion in Proposition 3.28 we obtain (4.17). This implies that for T≫1T\gg 1, hh is also positive when z∈[−C,C]z\in[-C,C]. ∎

Now we define the 2-form

(4.21) Υ≡∂zω~−d​z∧dDc​h.\Upsilon\equiv\partial_{z}\tilde{\omega}-dz\wedge d_{D}^{c}h.

Then (4.6) implies that Υ\Upsilon is closed on Q∖PQ\setminus P and hence [Υ]∈H2​(Q∖P,ℝ)[\Upsilon]\in H^{2}(Q\setminus P,\mathbb{R}). Moreover, we have

Lemma 4.2.

The cohomology class 12​π​[Υ]∈H2​(Q∖P,ℝ)\frac{1}{2\pi}[\Upsilon]\in H^{2}(Q\setminus P;\mathbb{R}) is integral.

Proof.

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, we identify a tubular neighborhood of PP in QQ with a neighborhood of the zero section in its normal bundle N=N0⊕ℝN=N_{0}\oplus\mathbb{R}. For simplicity we may assume this neighborhood is given by ℬϵ\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon}, the 2-ball bundle over PP consisting of the set of all elements in N0⊕ℝN_{0}\oplus\mathbb{R} with norm smaller than or equal to ϵ\epsilon, and we denote by 𝒮ϵ\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon} the boundary of ℬϵ\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon}.

Fix z0>0z_{0}>0, then the composition of the natural maps

(4.22) D≃D×{z0}↪Q∖P↪Q→DD\simeq D\times\{z_{0}\}\hookrightarrow Q\setminus P\hookrightarrow Q\rightarrow D

is the identity map, which implies that for all kk, the map Hk​(Q∖P,ℤ)→Hk​(Q,ℤ)H_{k}(Q\setminus P;\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H_{k}(Q;\mathbb{Z}) is surjective and we have a natural splitting

(4.23) H2​(Q∖P,ℤ)=H2​(D,ℤ)⊕KH_{2}(Q\setminus P;\mathbb{Z})=H_{2}(D;\mathbb{Z})\oplus K

for some KK. By assumption for z>0z>0,

(4.24) [∂zω~​(z)]=[∂zψ⁡(z)]=k+​[ωD]=2​π​k+​c1​(L),[\partial_{z}\tilde{\omega}(z)]=[\partial_{z}\psi(z)]=k_{+}[\omega_{D}]=2\pi k_{+}c_{1}(L),

so 12​π​[Υ]|D×{z0}=k+​c1​(L)\frac{1}{2\pi}[\Upsilon]|_{D\times\{z_{0}\}}=k_{+}c_{1}(L) is integral. Hence it suffices to show the integral of 12​π​Υ\frac{1}{2\pi}\Upsilon over any element in KK is also an integer.

By the Mayer-Vietoris sequence applied to Q=(Q∖P)∪ℬϵQ=(Q\setminus P)\cup\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon}, we get

(4.25) 0→H2​(𝒮ϵ,ℤ)→H2​(Q∖P,ℤ)⊕H2​(ℬϵ,ℤ)→H2​(Q,ℤ)≃H2​(D,ℤ)→0.0\rightarrow H_{2}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H_{2}(Q\setminus P;\mathbb{Z})\oplus H_{2}(\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H_{2}(Q;\mathbb{Z})\simeq H_{2}(D;\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow 0.

So we obtain the exact sequence

(4.26) 0→K→H2​(𝒮ϵ,ℤ)→H2​(ℬϵ,ℤ)≃H2​(P,ℤ).0\rightarrow K\rightarrow H_{2}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H_{2}(\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\simeq H_{2}(P;\mathbb{Z}).

On the other hand, by the Gysin sequence applied to the 2-sphere bundle p:𝒮ϵ→Pp:\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}\rightarrow P we get

(4.27) 0→H2​(P,ℤ)→p∗H2​(𝒮ϵ,ℤ)→∫H0​(P,ℤ)→∧eH3​(P,ℤ)→⋯0\rightarrow H^{2}(P;\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{p^{*}}H^{2}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{\int}H^{0}(P;\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{\wedge e}H^{3}(P;\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow\cdots

where ∫\int denotes integration over the 2-sphere fibers, and ∧e\wedge e denotes the wedge product with Euler class of 𝒮ϵ\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}. Since the Euler class ee of N0⊕ℝN_{0}\oplus\mathbb{R} vanishes, the above becomes

(4.28) 0→H2​(P,ℤ)→p∗H2​(𝒮ϵ,ℤ)→∫H0​(P,ℤ)≃ℤ→0.0\rightarrow H^{2}(P;\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{p^{*}}H^{2}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{\int}H^{0}(P;\mathbb{Z})\simeq\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow 0.

(4.26) and (4.28) together imply that modulo torsion, KK is generated by the homology class of a 2-sphere fiber of pp. So we just need to show ∫12​π​[Υ]|𝒮ϵ\int\frac{1}{2\pi}[\Upsilon]|_{\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}} is an integer.

By the expansion of ψ\psi and hh in Proposition 3.24 and Proposition 3.28, it is easy to check that by restricting to the fiber of NN over pp, we have

(4.29) Υ|N⁡(p)=−−14​r3​(z​d​y​d​y¯+(y​d​y¯−y¯​d​y)​d​z)+O⁡(1).\Upsilon|_{N(p)}=-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4r^{3}}(zdyd\bar{y}+(yd\bar{y}-\bar{y}dy)dz)+O(1).

Further restricting to the 22-sphere with radius ϵ\epsilon, we get

(4.30) Υ|𝒮ϵ​(p)=−12​ϵ2​dvolSϵ2+O⁡(1),\Upsilon|_{\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}(p)}=-\frac{1}{2\epsilon^{2}}\dvol_{S^{2}_{\epsilon}}+O(1),

where dvolSϵ2\dvol_{S^{2}_{\epsilon}} is the area form of the standard ϵ\epsilon-sphere in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}. Taking the integral and let ϵ→0\epsilon\rightarrow 0 gives that

(4.31) ∫𝒮ϵ​(p)Υ=−2​π.\int_{\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}(p)}\Upsilon=-2\pi.

∎

By Lemma 4.2, standard theory yields a U⁡(1)U(1) connection 11-form −−1​Θ-\sqrt{-1}\Theta on a principal S1S^{1}-bundle

(4.32) π:ℳ∗→QT∖P\pi:\mathcal{M}^{*}\rightarrow Q_{T}\setminus P

with curvature form −−1​Υ-\sqrt{-1}\Upsilon. Moreover, ℳ∗\mathcal{M}^{*} restricts to the standard Hopf bundle on each normal S2S^{2} to PP (it has degree −1-1 if we use the natural orientation). Then we have the second equation in (2.19) satisfied:

(4.33) d​Θ=∂zω~−d​z∧dDc​h.d\Theta=\partial_{z}\tilde{\omega}-dz\wedge d_{D}^{c}h.

On ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} we define a real-valued 2-form

(4.34) ω≡T2−nn​(π∗​ω~+d​z∧Θ)\omega\equiv T^{\frac{2-n}{n}}(\pi^{*}\tilde{\omega}+dz\wedge\Theta)

and a complex-valued nn-form

(4.35) Ω≡−1​(h​d​z+−1​Θ)∧π∗​ΩD.\Omega\equiv\sqrt{-1}(hdz+\sqrt{-1}\Theta)\wedge\pi^{*}\Omega_{D}.

One can directly check that both ω\omega and Ω\Omega are closed. By the discussion in Section 2, we know (ω,Ω)(\omega,\Omega) defines a smooth Kähler metric on ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}}, so that Ω\Omega is the holomorphic volume form and ω\omega is the Kähler form. Also h−1h^{-1} has an intrinsic geometric meaning as the norm squared of the Killing field generating the S1S^{1} action.

By (4.1) and straightforward calculations, we have

(4.36) (−1)n2​2−n​Ω∧Ω¯ωn/n!=T−1​h​ωDn−1(ωD+T−1​ψ)n−1.\frac{(\sqrt{-1})^{n^{2}}2^{-n}\Omega\wedge\bar{\Omega}}{\omega^{n}/n!}=\frac{T^{-1}h\omega_{D}^{n-1}}{(\omega_{D}+T^{-1}\psi)^{n-1}}.
Definition 4.3.

Given the above constructed Kähler metric ω\omega, the error function is defined by

(4.37) ErrC​Y≡T−1​h​ωDn−1(ωD+T−1​ψ)n−1−1.\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\equiv\frac{T^{-1}h\omega_{D}^{n-1}}{(\omega_{D}+T^{-1}\psi)^{n-1}}-1.

In particular, ω\omega is a Calabi-Yau metric if ErrC​Y=0\mathrm{Err}_{CY}=0.

Remark 4.3.1.

Now we are ready to explain the reason for the choice of the function q⁡(z)q(z) and the rescaling factor Tn−2nT^{\frac{n-2}{n}} in the above definition of ω\omega. These are chosen to make the Kähler metric (ω,Ω)(\omega,\Omega) approximately Calabi-Yau in the following sense:

  1. (1)

    Applying (3.349) and (4.16), we have ErrC​Y=T−2​ϵ​(z⁡(𝒙))\mathrm{Err}_{CY}=T^{-2}\epsilon(z(\bm{x})) for 𝒙∈ℳ∗\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}^{*} satisfying |z⁡(𝒙)|≥C|z(\bm{x})|\geq C.

  2. (2)

    Applying (3.316) and (4.17), we have ErrC​Y=O⁡(T−2)\mathrm{Err}_{CY}=O(T^{-2}) for 𝒙∈ℳ∗\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}^{*} satisfying |z⁡(𝒙)|≤C|z(\bm{x})|\leq C and dQ​(𝒙,P)≥d0>0d_{Q}(\bm{x},P)\geq d_{0}>0, where d0>0d_{0}>0 is some definite constant.

We will need a more precise weighted estimate on ErrC​Y\mathrm{Err}_{CY}. See Proposition 4.23.

Remark 4.3.2.

As explained in Section 2, a priori these structures depend on the choice of Θ\Theta. But we claim that in our current setting b1​(D)=0b_{1}(D)=0, the choice of Θ\Theta will not change the isomorphism class of the Kähler structures. Given two choices Θ\Theta and Θ′\Theta^{\prime}, then the difference Θ′−Θ\Theta^{\prime}-\Theta is a closed 1-form on QT∖PQ_{T}\setminus P. Since PP has codimension 33 in QQ, we know H1​(QT∖P,ℝ)≃H1​(Q,ℝ)≃H1​(D,ℝ)H^{1}(Q_{T}\setminus P;\mathbb{R})\simeq H^{1}(Q;\mathbb{R})\simeq H^{1}(D;\mathbb{R}). Hence we can write

(4.38) Θ′−Θ=d​f+β\Theta^{\prime}-\Theta=df+\beta

for a function ff on QT∖PQ_{T}\setminus P and a harmonic 1-form β\beta on DD. So if b1​(D)=0b_{1}(D)=0 then β=0\beta=0, and the isomorphism class of the Kähler structure (ω,Ω)(\omega,\Omega) does not depend on the choice of Θ\Theta. In the general case when b1​(D)>0b_{1}(D)>0, up to gauge equivalence, Θ\Theta and Θ′\Theta^{\prime} differ by the pull-back of a flat connection on DD. In Remark 4.8.2 we shall see the geometric meaning of this.

Next we move on to the study the compactified geometry of ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} near PP. We shall first construct a smooth model for the compactification and then study the regularity of the Kähler metric on this model.

As before we will always identify a neighborhood 𝒰\mathcal{U} of PP in QQ with a tubular neighborhood of the zero section in N0⊕ℝN_{0}\oplus\mathbb{R} over HH. Denote by 𝕃1\mathbb{L}_{1} and 𝕃2\mathbb{L}_{2} the complex line bundles over HH given by the restriction

(4.39) 𝕃1≡L⊗−k+|H;𝕃2≡L⊗k−|H.\mathbb{L}_{1}\equiv L^{\otimes-k_{+}}|_{H};\ \ \mathbb{L}_{2}\equiv L^{\otimes k_{-}}|_{H}.

Then as complex line bundles N0N_{0} is isomorphic to L⊗k|H≃𝕃1⊗𝕃2L^{\otimes k}|_{H}\simeq\mathbb{L}_{1}\otimes\mathbb{L}_{2}, and we fix such an isomorphism now. Notice N0N_{0} is equipped with a natural hermitian metric induced from the Kähler metric ωD\omega_{D} on DD (c.f. Section 3.3). This then determines a hermitian metric on LL hence on 𝕃1\mathbb{L}_{1} and 𝕃2\mathbb{L}_{2}. Define

(4.40) 𝕃≡𝕃1⊕𝕃2,\mathbb{L}\equiv\mathbb{L}_{1}\oplus\mathbb{L}_{2},

and consider the map

(4.41) τ:𝕃→N0⊕ℝ;(s1,s2)↦(s1⊗s2,|s1|2−|s2|22).\tau:\mathbb{L}\rightarrow N_{0}\oplus\mathbb{R};(s_{1},s_{2})\mapsto(s_{1}\otimes s_{2},\frac{|s_{1}|^{2}-|s_{2}|^{2}}{2}).

Away from the zero section in 𝕃\mathbb{L}, τ\tau is a principal S1S^{1} bundle, with the S1S^{1} action given by

(4.42) e−1​𝔱⋅(s1,s2)=(e−−1​t​s1,e−1​t​s2).e^{\sqrt{-1}\mathfrak{t}}\cdot(s_{1},s_{2})=(e^{-\sqrt{-1}t}s_{1},e^{\sqrt{-1}t}s_{2}).

As Section 3.3, locally choosing holomorphic coordinates {w1,⋯,wn−1}\{w_{1},\cdots,w_{n-1}\} on DD centered at p∈Hp\in H. These give rise to local coordinates {y,y¯,w2′,w¯2′,⋯,wn−1′,w¯n−1′}\{y,\bar{y},w_{2}^{\prime},\bar{w}_{2}^{\prime},\cdots,w_{n-1}^{\prime},\bar{w}_{n-1}^{\prime}\} on N0N_{0}, and also a local unitary section of N0N_{0} in the form 𝒆=|σ|−1⋅σ\bm{e}=|\sigma|^{-1}\cdot\sigma. Then we choose a local section 𝒆L\bm{e}_{L} of L|HL|_{H} with 𝒆L⊗k=𝒆\bm{e}_{L}^{\otimes k}=\bm{e}. Correspondingly we get local unitary sections 𝒆1≡𝒆L⊗−k+,𝒆2≡𝒆L⊗k−\bm{e}_{1}\equiv\bm{e}_{L}^{\otimes-k_{+}},\bm{e}_{2}\equiv\bm{e}_{L}^{\otimes k_{-}} of 𝕃1,𝕃2\mathbb{L}_{1},\mathbb{L}_{2} respectively. Then we obtain local fiber coordinates u1,u2,yu_{1},u_{2},y on 𝕃2,𝕃1,N0\mathbb{L}_{2},\mathbb{L}_{1},N_{0} respectively by writing

(4.43) s1=u1​𝒆1,s2=u2​𝒆2,s=y​𝒆.s_{1}=u_{1}\bm{e}_{1},s_{2}=u_{2}\bm{e}_{2},s=y\bm{e}.

Then the map τ\tau can be represented in coordinates as

(4.44) {y=u1​u2z=12​(|u1|2−|u2|2)\begin{cases}y=u_{1}u_{2}\\ z=\frac{1}{2}(|u_{1}|^{2}-|u_{2}|^{2})\end{cases}

Hence τ\tau is the standard Hopf fibration ℂ2→ℝ3\mathbb{C}^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3} over each fiber.

Lemma 4.4.

Over 𝒰∖P\mathcal{U}\setminus P, the principal S1S^{1} bundle ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} is isomorphic to 𝕃\mathbb{L}.

Proof.

Notice a principal S1S^{1} bundle is topologically determined by its first Chern class. It suffices to compare the first Chern classes of ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} and 𝕃\mathbb{L} over the sphere bundle 𝒮ϵ\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon} for a small ϵ\epsilon. As in the proof of Lemma 4.2 th Gysin sequence gives

(4.45) 0→H2​(P,ℤ)→p∗H2​(𝒮ϵ,ℤ)→∫H0​(P,ℤ)≃ℤ→0.0\rightarrow H^{2}(P;\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{p^{*}}H^{2}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon};\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{\int}H^{0}(P;\mathbb{Z})\simeq\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow 0.

From the proof of Lemma 4.2 we know

(4.46) ∫c1​(ℳ∗)=∫𝒮ϵ​(p)12​π​Υ=−1.\int c_{1}({\mathcal{M}^{*}})=\int_{\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}(p)}\frac{1}{2\pi}\Upsilon=-1.

Also by (2.49) we have

(4.47) ∫c1​(𝕃)=∫S2⊂ℝ312​π​Υ0=−1.\int c_{1}(\mathbb{L})=\int_{S^{2}\subset\mathbb{R}^{3}}\frac{1}{2\pi}\Upsilon_{0}=-1.

So

(4.48) ℳ∗=𝕃⊗p∗​L′{\mathcal{M}^{*}}=\mathbb{L}\otimes p^{*}L^{\prime}

for some U⁡(1)U(1) bundle L′L^{\prime} over PP. Now we restrict both ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} and 𝕃\mathbb{L} to the subset H0⊂𝒰H_{0}\subset\mathcal{U} where y=0y=0 and z=z0z=z_{0} for a fixed z0<0z_{0}<0. We can identify H0H_{0} with HH by the projection map. Now we claim both restrictions have first Chern class equal to k−​c1​(𝕃2)k_{-}c_{1}(\mathbb{L}_{2}). For ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} this follows from construction and for 𝕃\mathbb{L} we notice that z=z0<0z=z_{0}<0 implies that s2≠0s_{2}\neq 0 and s1=0s_{1}=0, so the projection map (s1,s2)↦|2​z0|1/2⋅s2(s_{1},s_{2})\mapsto|2z_{0}|^{1/2}\cdot s_{2} gives an isomorphism between the restriction of 𝕃\mathbb{L} and the unit circle bundle in 𝕃2\mathbb{L}_{2}. This also explains the choice of the weight of the S1S^{1} action in (4.42).

Now it follows from the claim that L′L^{\prime} is indeed a trivial principal S1S^{1} bundle, and this finishes the proof. ∎

By Lemma 4.4 we may glue ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}} and 𝕃\mathbb{L} together to obtain a differentiable compactfication ℳ\mathcal{M} of ℳ∗{\mathcal{M}^{*}}. The projection map π\pi naturally extends to a map

(4.49) π:ℳ→QT\pi:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow Q_{T}

which is a singular S1S^{1} fibration, with discriminant locus given by PP. We shall identify

(4.50) 𝒫≡π−1​(P)\mathcal{P}\equiv\pi^{-1}(P)

with the zero section in 𝕃\mathbb{L}, and identify a neighborhood of 𝒫\mathcal{P} with a neighborhood of the zero section in 𝕃\mathbb{L} and the projection map π\pi with the above τ\tau.

To study the regularity of the Kähler metric (ω,Ω)(\omega,\Omega) on the compactification ℳ\mathcal{M}, we shall make a special choice of the connection 1-form −−1​Θ-\sqrt{-1}\Theta on a neighborhood 𝒱\mathcal{V} of 𝒫\mathcal{P} in 𝕃\mathbb{L}, with curvature form Υ\Upsilon, which has explicit regularity behavior across 𝒫\mathcal{P}. To do this, we need a few steps. First, we notice that {u1,u¯1,u2,u¯2,w2′,w¯2′,⋯,wn−1′,w¯n−1′}\{u_{1},\bar{u}_{1},u_{2},\bar{u}_{2},w_{2}^{\prime},\bar{w}_{2}^{\prime},\cdots,w_{n-1}^{\prime},\bar{w}_{n-1}^{\prime}\} provides local coordinates on 𝕃\mathbb{L}, and we can define a local model connection 1-form on 𝕃\mathbb{L} by simply taking the model formula (2.47):

(4.51) Θ0=−−1​u¯1​d​u1−u1​d​u¯1−u¯2​d​u2+u2​d​u¯22​(|u1|2+|u2|2).\Theta_{0}=-\sqrt{-1}\frac{\bar{u}_{1}du_{1}-u_{1}d\bar{u}_{1}-\bar{u}_{2}du_{2}+u_{2}d\bar{u}_{2}}{2(|u_{1}|^{2}+|u_{2}|^{2})}.

Just as in the discussion in Section 2, we see Θ0(∂t)=−1\Theta_{0}(\partial_{t})=-1, where ∂t\partial_{t} is the vector field generating the S1S^{1} action. It is clear that the definition of Θ0\Theta_{0} only depends on the choice of σ\sigma and does not depend on the choice of 𝒆1\bm{e}_{1} and 𝒆2\bm{e}_{2} (which has the freedom of multiplying by a constant root of unity).

To make a globally defined connection 1-form, we need to add a correction term, and define

(4.52) Θ1=Θ0+zr​Γ−k−+k+k−−k+​Γ,\Theta_{1}=\Theta_{0}+\frac{z}{r}\Gamma-\frac{k_{-}+k_{+}}{k_{-}-k_{+}}\Gamma,

where Γ\Gamma is the local 1-form given in Section 3.3, and we have implicitly viewed forms on HH as forms on 𝕃\mathbb{L} using the pull-back π∗\pi^{*}.

Proposition 4.5.

−−1​Θ1-\sqrt{-1}\Theta_{1} is a globally-defined connection 1-form on the S1S^{1} bundle τ:𝕃∖𝒫→N∖H\tau:\mathbb{L}\setminus\mathcal{P}\rightarrow N\setminus H, and we have

(4.53) d​Θ1−Υ=O′​(s),d\Theta_{1}-\Upsilon=O^{\prime}(s),

where

(4.54) s2≡|u1|2+|u2|2=2​r,s^{2}\equiv|u_{1}|^{2}+|u_{2}|^{2}=2r,

and we have adopted the O′O^{\prime} notation in Section 3.1 for the submanifold 𝒫⊂𝕃\mathcal{P}\subset\mathbb{L}.

Proof.

To see Θ1\Theta_{1} is a well-defined, we consider the change of unitary frame 𝒆\bm{e} on N0N_{0} to 𝒆~=e−1​k​ϕ​𝒆\tilde{\bm{e}}=e^{\sqrt{-1}k\phi}\bm{e}, then we have

(4.55) y~=e−(k−−k+)​−1​ϕ​y;u~1=ek+​−1​ϕ​u1,u~2=e−k−​−1​ϕ​u2.\tilde{y}=e^{-(k_{-}-k_{+})\sqrt{-1}\phi}y;\ \ \tilde{u}_{1}=e^{k_{+}\sqrt{-1}\phi}u_{1},\tilde{u}_{2}=e^{-k_{-}\sqrt{-1}\phi}u_{2}.

for some local real-valued function ϕ\phi on HH. Then we get

(4.56) u¯1​d​u1−u1​d​u¯1\displaystyle\bar{u}_{1}du_{1}-u_{1}d\bar{u}_{1} =u~¯1​d​u~1−u~1​d​u~¯1−2​k+​−1​|u1|2​d​ϕ,\displaystyle=\bar{\tilde{u}}_{1}d\tilde{u}_{1}-\tilde{u}_{1}d\bar{\tilde{u}}_{1}-2k_{+}\sqrt{-1}|u_{1}|^{2}d\phi,
(4.57) u¯2​d​u2−u2​d​u¯2\displaystyle\bar{u}_{2}du_{2}-u_{2}d\bar{u}_{2} =u~¯2​d​u~2−u~2​d​u~¯2+2​k−​−1​|u2|2​d​ϕ,\displaystyle=\bar{\tilde{u}}_{2}d\tilde{u}_{2}-\tilde{u}_{2}d\bar{\tilde{u}}_{2}+2k_{-}\sqrt{-1}|u_{2}|^{2}d\phi,
(4.58) Γ\displaystyle\Gamma =Γ~−k−−k+2​d​ϕ.\displaystyle=\widetilde{\Gamma}-\frac{k_{-}-k_{+}}{2}d\phi.

Then it is a straightforward to compute that Θ~1=Θ1\widetilde{\Theta}_{1}=\Theta_{1}, which shows that Θ1\Theta_{1} is globally defined.

Now we consider the local expansion of Υ\Upsilon. First differentiating the expansion of ψ\psi in Proposition 3.24 we get

(4.59) ∂zω~=−−1​z2​r3​d​y∧d​y¯−z2​r3​(y​d​y¯+y¯​d​y)∧Γ+zr​d​Γ+O′​(1)​d​y+O′​(1)​d​y¯+O′​(r).\partial_{z}\tilde{\omega}=-\sqrt{-1}\frac{z}{2r^{3}}dy\wedge d\bar{y}-\frac{z}{2r^{3}}(yd\bar{y}+\bar{y}dy)\wedge\Gamma+\frac{z}{r}d\Gamma+O^{\prime}(1)dy+O^{\prime}(1)d\bar{y}+O^{\prime}(r).

Next, applying Proposition 3.28 and Proposition 3.26, we obtain

(4.60) dDc​h=dDc​(12​r+O′​(r))=−14​r3​dDc​|y|2+O′​(1)=−−1​(y​d​y¯−y¯​d​y)+4​|y|2​Γ4​r3+O′​(1).d_{D}^{c}h=d_{D}^{c}(\frac{1}{2r}+O^{\prime}(r))=-\frac{1}{4r^{3}}d_{D}^{c}|y|^{2}+O^{\prime}(1)=-\frac{\sqrt{-1}(yd\bar{y}-\bar{y}dy)+4|y|^{2}\Gamma}{4r^{3}}+O^{\prime}(1).

Putting together these, and noting that d​Θ0d\Theta_{0} is given as in (2.50), we obtain

(4.61) d​Θ1−Υ=O′​(1)​d​y+O′​(1)​d​y¯+O′​(r)+O′​(1)​d​z.d\Theta_{1}-\Upsilon=O^{\prime}(1)dy+O^{\prime}(1)d\bar{y}+O^{\prime}(r)+O^{\prime}(1)dz.

Now translating into the coordinates u1,u2u_{1},u_{2} on 𝕃\mathbb{L} we obtain the conclusion.

∎

Remark 4.5.1.

It follows that d​Θ1d\Theta_{1} and Υ\Upsilon are cohomologous on a tubular neighborhood of 𝒫\mathcal{P} in 𝕃\mathbb{L}. One can also see this by a direct calculation. For example, by restricting to a slice with z>0z>0 and y=0y=0, it is clear by Lemma 3.33 we know Υ\Upsilon is cohomologous to k+​ωD|Hk_{+}\omega_{D}|_{H}. On the other hand, by definition d​Θ1d\Theta_{1} on this slice is given by (1−k++k−k−−k+)​d​Γ=k+​ωD(1-\frac{k_{+}+k_{-}}{k_{-}-k_{+}})d\Gamma=k_{+}\omega_{D} (using Lemma 3.25)

The next Lemma allows us to correct O′​(s)O^{\prime}(s) term on the right hand side. We fix any S1S^{1} invariant Riemannian metric on 𝕃\mathbb{L}.

Lemma 4.6.

There exists a local 1-form θ\theta on a neighborhood of 𝒫\mathcal{P} in 𝕃\mathbb{L} with the following properties:

  1. (1)

    θ=O′​(s2)\theta=O^{\prime}(s^{2}),

  2. (2)

    θ\theta is smooth away from π−1​(P)\pi^{-1}(P),

  3. (3)

    ℒ∂t​θ=0\mathcal{L}_{\partial_{t}}\theta=0,

  4. (4)

    ∂t⌟​θ=0\partial_{t}\lrcorner\theta=0,

  5. (5)

    d⁡(Θ1+θ)=Υd(\Theta_{1}+\theta)=\Upsilon.

Proof.

From the above Remark we know d​Θ1−Υd\Theta_{1}-\Upsilon is cohomologous to zero. The existence of a solution θ\theta to d⁡(Θ1+θ)=Υd(\Theta_{1}+\theta)=\Upsilon is obtained by adding the gauge fixing condition d∗​θ=0d^{*}\theta=0, and solving the elliptic system with Neumann boundary condition

(4.62) {d​θ=Υ−d​Θ1,d∗​θ=0,θ⁡(ν)=0,on∂𝒱.\begin{cases}d\theta=\Upsilon-d\Theta_{1},\\ d^{*}\theta=0,\\ \theta(\nu)=0,\ \ \text{on}\ \ \partial\mathcal{V}.\end{cases}

on a tubular neighborhood 𝒱\mathcal{V} of 𝒫\mathcal{P} in 𝕃\mathbb{L}. See Proposition 3.7 in [DS14] for example. By Proposition 4.5 we know Υ−d​Θ1=O′​(s)\Upsilon-d\Theta_{1}=O^{\prime}(s), particularly, Υ−d​Θ1∈Cα\Upsilon-d\Theta_{1}\in C^{\alpha} for all α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1). Hence standard elliptic regularity guarantees a solution θ∈C1,α\theta\in C^{1,\alpha} and is smooth away from 𝒫\mathcal{P}. Since both Υ\Upsilon and Θ1\Theta_{1} are S1S^{1}-invariant, by averaging we may assume θ\theta is S1S^{1}-invariant too, hence ℒ∂t​θ=0\mathcal{L}_{\partial_{t}}\theta=0 on the smooth part. Also since Υ\Upsilon and d​Θ1d\Theta_{1} are pulled-back from the base QT∖PQ_{T}\setminus P, we have

(4.63) ∂t⌟​Υ=∂t⌟​d​Θ1=0.\partial_{t}\lrcorner\Upsilon=\partial_{t}\lrcorner d\Theta_{1}=0.

So we get

(4.64) d⁡(∂t⌟​θ)=ℒ∂t​θ−∂t⌟⁡(d​θ)=0.d(\partial_{t}\lrcorner\theta)=\mathcal{L}_{\partial_{t}}\theta-\partial_{t}\lrcorner(d\theta)=0.

This implies ∂t⌟​θ\partial_{t}\lrcorner\theta is a constant. Now as we approach 𝒫\mathcal{P}, the norm of ∂t\partial_{t}, with respect to the fixed metric on 𝕃\mathbb{L}, must go to zero, hence we see

(4.65) ∂t⌟​θ=0.\partial_{t}\lrcorner\theta=0.

The higher regularity of θ\theta follows just as in the proof of Lemma 3.22 in Section 3. ∎

Now we define a fixed connection 1-form on 𝕃\mathbb{L}.

(4.66) Θm≡Θ1+θ,\Theta_{m}\equiv\Theta_{1}+\theta,

Therefore, in a neighborhood of 𝒫⊂𝕃\mathcal{P}\subset\mathbb{L} minus 𝒫\mathcal{P}, the original choice of Θ\Theta can be written as

(4.67) Θ=Θm+θf,\Theta=\Theta_{m}+\theta_{f},

where θf\theta_{f} is a flat connection, which is gauge equivalent to the pull-back of a flat connection on DD. Without loss of generality, we can then assume θf\theta_{f} is smooth.

Proposition 4.7.

With respect to the choice of the connection form Θ\Theta given in (4.67), (ω,Ω)(\omega,\Omega) defined by (4.34) and (4.35) gives a C2,αC^{2,\alpha} (for all α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1)) Kähler structure on 𝕃\mathbb{L} which is invariant under the natural S1S^{1}-action and is smooth outside 𝒫\mathcal{P}.

Proof.

At the first stage, we will analyze the regularity of ω\omega. By definition,

(4.68) Tn−2n​ω=T​π∗​ωD+π∗​ψ+d​z∧Θ.T^{\frac{n-2}{n}}\omega=T\pi^{*}\omega_{D}+\pi^{*}\psi+dz\wedge\Theta.

To start with, let us compute the lifting π∗​ψ\pi^{*}\psi. By (3.264),

(4.69) π∗​ψ=π∗​ω~0+12​r​(y​d​y¯+y¯​d​y)∧Γ+r​d​Γ+π∗​(O′​(r)​d​y+O′​(r)​d​y¯)+π∗​O′​(r2),\pi^{*}\psi=\pi^{*}\tilde{\omega}_{0}+\frac{1}{2r}(yd\bar{y}+\bar{y}dy)\wedge\Gamma+rd\Gamma+\pi^{*}(O^{\prime}(r)dy+O^{\prime}(r)d\bar{y})+\pi^{*}O^{\prime}(r^{2}),

where

(4.70) ω~0=−14​r​d​y∧d​y¯\tilde{\omega}_{0}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4r}dy\wedge d\bar{y}

is the standard form in the model setting (2.45). We also notice that

(4.71) π∗​(O′​(r)​d​y+O′​(r)​d​y¯)\displaystyle\pi^{*}(O^{\prime}(r)dy+O^{\prime}(r)d\bar{y}) =s​O′​(s2),\displaystyle=sO^{\prime}(s^{2}),
(4.72) π∗​O′​(r2)\displaystyle\pi^{*}O^{\prime}(r^{2}) =O′​(s4).\displaystyle=O^{\prime}(s^{4}).

Now by definition

(4.73) Θ=Θ0+zr​Γ+k−+k+k−−k+​Γ+θ+θf=Θ0+zr​Γ+O′​(s2).\Theta=\Theta_{0}+\frac{z}{r}\Gamma+\frac{k_{-}+k_{+}}{k_{-}-k_{+}}\Gamma+\theta+\theta_{f}=\Theta_{0}+\frac{z}{r}\Gamma+O^{\prime}(s^{2}).

Moreover, according to the discussions in Section 2, we have

(4.74) π∗​ω~0+d​z∧Θ0=ωℂ2,\pi^{*}\tilde{\omega}_{0}+dz\wedge\Theta_{0}=\omega_{\mathbb{C}^{2}},

where ωℂ2=−12​(d​u1∧d​u¯1+d​u2∧d​u¯2)\omega_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}(du_{1}\wedge d\bar{u}_{1}+du_{2}\wedge d\bar{u}_{2}) is the standard Kähler form of ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2}. Therefore,

(4.75) π∗​ψ+d​z∧Θ=\displaystyle\pi^{*}\psi+dz\wedge\Theta= ωℂ2+r​d​Γ+12​r​(y​d​y¯+y¯​d​y)∧Γ+d​z∧(zr​Γ)+O′​(s3).\displaystyle\omega_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}+rd\Gamma+\frac{1}{2r}(yd\bar{y}+\bar{y}dy)\wedge\Gamma+dz\wedge(\frac{z}{r}\Gamma)+O^{\prime}(s^{3}).

Using the relation r2=|y|2+z2r^{2}=|y|^{2}+z^{2} and the simple computation

(4.76) d⁡(r​Γ)=r​d​Γ+d​r∧Γ=r​d​Γ+12​r​(y​d​y¯+y¯​d​y)∧Γ+d​z∧(zr​Γ),d(r\Gamma)=rd\Gamma+dr\wedge\Gamma=rd\Gamma+\frac{1}{2r}(yd\bar{y}+\bar{y}dy)\wedge\Gamma+dz\wedge(\frac{z}{r}\Gamma),

we have

π∗​ψ+d​z∧Θ=\displaystyle\pi^{*}\psi+dz\wedge\Theta= ωℂ2+d⁡(r​Γ)+O′​(s3)\displaystyle\omega_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}+d(r\Gamma)+O^{\prime}(s^{3})
(4.77) =\displaystyle= ωℂ2+O′​(s3),\displaystyle\omega_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}+O^{\prime}(s^{3}),

where we use the fact that r=12​s2r=\frac{1}{2}s^{2} and hence r​Γ=s2​Γr\Gamma=s^{2}\Gamma is smooth on 𝕃\mathbb{L}. Then it follows that

(4.78) Tn−2n​ω=T​π∗​ωD+ωℂ2+O′​(s3).T^{\frac{n-2}{n}}\omega=T\pi^{*}\omega_{D}+\omega_{\mathbb{C}^{2}}+O^{\prime}(s^{3}).

Hence we see the (1,1)(1,1)-form ω\omega locally extends to a C2,αC^{2,\alpha}-form across the subset {u1=u2=0}\{u_{1}=u_{2}=0\}.

Now we analyze the regularity of the holomorphic volume form Ω\Omega which is given by

(4.79) Ω=−1​(h​d​z+−1​Θ)∧π∗​ΩD.\Omega=\sqrt{-1}(hdz+\sqrt{-1}\Theta)\wedge\pi^{*}\Omega_{D}.

By Lemma 3.30, locally we have

(4.80) π∗​ΩD=F⁡(u1​d​u2+u2​d​u1+2​−1​u1​u2​Γ)∧π∗​ΩH+O~​(s2)​(u1​d​u2+u2​d​u1)+O~​(s3).\pi^{*}\Omega_{D}=F(u_{1}du_{2}+u_{2}du_{1}+2\sqrt{-1}u_{1}u_{2}\Gamma)\wedge\pi^{*}\Omega_{H}+\widetilde{O}(s^{2})(u_{1}du_{2}+u_{2}du_{1})+\widetilde{O}(s^{3}).

Also

(4.81) h​d​z+−1​Θ=q⁡(z)​d​z+1|u1|2+|u2|2​(−u¯2​d​u2+u¯1​d​u1+−1​(|u1|2−|u2|2)​Γ)+O′​(s2).hdz+\sqrt{-1}\Theta=q(z)dz+\frac{1}{|u_{1}|^{2}+|u_{2}|^{2}}(-\bar{u}_{2}du_{2}+\bar{u}_{1}du_{1}+\sqrt{-1}(|u_{1}|^{2}-|u_{2}|^{2})\Gamma)+O^{\prime}(s^{2}).

Therefore,

(4.82) Ω=F​d​u1∧d​u2∧ΩH+−1​F​(u2​d​u1−u1​d​u2)∧Γ∧ΩH+O~​(s2)+s​O′​(s2).\Omega=Fdu_{1}\wedge du_{2}\wedge\Omega_{H}+\sqrt{-1}F(u_{2}du_{1}-u_{1}du_{2})\wedge\Gamma\wedge\Omega_{H}+\widetilde{O}(s^{2})+sO^{\prime}(s^{2}).

This implies that Ω\Omega also extends to a C2,αC^{2,\alpha} form across {u1=u2=0}\{u_{1}=u_{2}=0\}. This is equivalent to saying that the almost complex structure JJ determined by Ω\Omega extends to a C2,αC^{2,\alpha} almost complex structure on ℳ\mathcal{M}. ∎

Using the Newlander-Nirenberg theorem , we may find locally C3,αC^{3,\alpha} holomorphic coordinates, making the complex structure locally standard while still keeping the Kähler form in the class C2,αC^{2,\alpha}.

By construction the Kähler structure (ω,Ω)(\omega,\Omega) is preserved by the natural S1S^{1} action. The corresponding Killing field is given by

(4.83) ∂t=−−1(u1∂u1−u2∂u2)+−1(u¯1∂u¯1−u¯2∂u¯2).\partial_{t}=-\sqrt{-1}(u_{1}\partial_{u_{1}}-u_{2}\partial_{u_{2}})+\sqrt{-1}(\bar{u}_{1}\partial_{\bar{u}_{1}}-\bar{u}_{2}\partial_{\bar{u}_{2}}).

The zero set 𝒫\mathcal{P} is a complex submanifold of ℳ\mathcal{M} which bi-holomorphic to H⊂DH\subset D. We also dnote the corresponding holomorphic vector field

(4.84) ξ1,0=12(∂t−−1J∂t).\xi^{1,0}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{t}-\sqrt{-1}J\partial_{t}).

We also have a smooth holomorphic projection π:ℳ→D∖H\pi:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow D\setminus H whose fibers are holomorphic cylinders (isomorphic to annuli in ℂ\mathbb{C}). In the next subsection we shall understand the underlying complex manifold and the Kähler potentials on ℳ\mathcal{M}.

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