ScalingStacks

4.4. Fundamental estimates in the weighted Hölder spaces [052V]

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

4.4. Fundamental estimates in the weighted Hölder spaces

Based on the above detailed studies of the regularity scales, we are ready to define the weighted Hölder space on the neck. To start with, let us recall the notation,

(4.271) ℳT\displaystyle\mathcal{M}_{T} ≡{𝒙∈ℳ|T−≤z⁡(𝒙)≤T+},\displaystyle\equiv\Big\{\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}\Big|T_{-}\leq z(\bm{x})\leq T_{+}\Big\},
(4.272) ℳ̊T\displaystyle\mathring{\mathcal{M}}_{T} ≡{𝒙∈ℳ|T−≤z(𝒙)≤T+,dωT(𝒙,∂ℳT)≥1}.\displaystyle\equiv\Big\{\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}\Big|T_{-}\leq z(\bm{x})\leq T_{+},\ d_{\omega_{T}}\Big(\bm{x},\partial\mathcal{M}_{T}\Big)\geq 1\Big\}.

Based on the subdivision in Section 4.3, now we are able to define the weight functions and the weighted Hölder spaces.

Definition 4.19 (Weight function).

Given fixed real parameters n≥2n\geq 2, T>103T>10^{3}, δ>0\delta>0, ν,μ∈ℝ\nu,\mu\in\mathbb{R} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1). For each k∈ℕk\in\mathbb{N}, the weight function ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} is defined as follows,

(4.273) ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)=eδ⋅UT​(𝒙)⋅𝔰​(𝒙)ν+k+α⋅Tμ,\displaystyle\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})=e^{\delta\cdot U_{T}(\bm{x})}\cdot\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x})^{\nu+k+\alpha}\cdot T^{\mu},

where 𝔰⁡(𝐱)\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x}) is the regularity scale at 𝐱\bm{x} given by Proposition 4.18 and

(4.274) UT​(𝒙)\displaystyle U_{T}(\bm{x}) ≡T⁡(1−(LT​(𝒙)T)n2),\displaystyle\equiv T\Big(1-(\frac{L_{T}(\bm{x})}{T})^{\frac{n}{2}}\Big),
(4.275) LT​(𝒙)\displaystyle L_{T}(\bm{x}) ≡LT​(z⁡(𝒙))=T+L0​(z⁡(𝒙)),\displaystyle\equiv L_{T}(z(\bm{x}))=T+L_{0}(z(\bm{x})),

where the functions LTL_{T} and L0L_{0} are defined in (4.12).

To better understand the weight function (4.273), we give several remarks.

Remark 4.19.1.

The function eδ⋅UT​(𝐱)e^{\delta\cdot U_{T}(\bm{x})} is the dominating term at large scales on ℳT\mathcal{M}_{T} which behaves like an exponential function. The term UT​(𝐱)U_{T}(\bm{x}) is defined by (4.275) just for unifying the weighted analysis for different “large scales” on ℳT\mathcal{M}_{T}, which will be seen in the proof of Proposition 6.10 in Section 6. For intuition, there are two cases in which UTU_{T} has simple expressions:

(4.276) {UT​(𝒙)=−L0​(z),n=2,UT(𝒙)≈−n2⋅L0(z),n>2,|z(𝒙)|≪T.\displaystyle\begin{cases}U_{T}(\bm{x})=-L_{0}(z),&n=2,\\ U_{T}(\bm{x})\approx-\frac{n}{2}\cdot L_{0}(z),&n>2,\ |z(\bm{x})|\ll T.\end{cases}
Remark 4.19.2.

In the region r⁡(𝐱)≤1/4r(\bm{x})\leq 1/4, we can relate the distance function d𝒫​(𝐱)≡dωT​(𝐱,𝒫)d_{\mathcal{P}}(\bm{x})\equiv d_{\omega_{T}}(\bm{x},\mathcal{P}) on ℳT\mathcal{M}_{T} with r⁡(𝐱)=dQ​(π⁡(𝐱),P)r(\bm{x})=d_{Q}(\pi(\bm{x}),P) as follows,

(4.277) {C−1⋅T2−n2​n⋅r​(𝒙)1/2≤dP​(𝒙)≤C⋅T2−n2​n⋅r​(𝒙)1/2,r⁡(𝒙)≤T−1,C−1⋅T1n⋅r⁡(𝒙)≤dP​(𝒙)≤C⋅T1n⋅r⁡(𝒙),2​T−1≤r⁡(𝒙)≤14.\displaystyle\begin{cases}C^{-1}\cdot T^{\frac{2-n}{2n}}\cdot r(\bm{x})^{1/2}\leq d_{P}(\bm{x})\leq C\cdot T^{\frac{2-n}{2n}}\cdot r(\bm{x})^{1/2},&r(\bm{x})\leq T^{-1},\\ C^{-1}\cdot T^{\frac{1}{n}}\cdot r(\bm{x})\leq d_{P}(\bm{x})\leq C\cdot T^{\frac{1}{n}}\cdot r(\bm{x}),&2T^{-1}\leq r(\bm{x})\leq\frac{1}{4}.\end{cases}

The weight function we used in [HSVZ18] was defined with respect to the intrinsic distance function dP​(𝐱)d_{P}(\bm{x}). Noticing by (4.277), the weight function defined by (4.273) essentially coincides with the one in [HSVZ18] (see Section 8 in [HSVZ18]).

Remark 4.19.3.

The constant term TμT^{\mu} in the definition of the weight function is needed to deal with the non-linear term in the application of the implicit function theorem (see Proposition 6.4). When n=2n=2 the non-linear term is quadratic and this constant term is unnecessary, but when n>2n>2 we need to choose appropriate μ\mu so that the weight function has a uniform lower bound independent of TT.

Lemma 4.20 (Lower bound estimate for the weight function).

For fixed constants δ>0\delta>0, μ,ν∈ℝ\mu,\nu\in\mathbb{R}, α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) and k∈ℕk\in\mathbb{N}, then for all T≫1T\gg 1 and 𝐱∈ℳT\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{T},

(4.278) ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)≥{T(1n−1)​(ν+k+α)+μ,ν+k+α≥0,Tν+k+αn+μ,ν+k+α<0.\displaystyle\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})\geq\begin{cases}T^{(\frac{1}{n}-1)(\nu+k+\alpha)+\mu},&\nu+k+\alpha\geq 0,\\ T^{\frac{\nu+k+\alpha}{n}+\mu},&\nu+k+\alpha<0.\end{cases}
Proof.

This lower bound estimate can be obtained by analyzing the regularity scale 𝔰⁡(𝒙)\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x}). Denote by w≡LT​(𝒙)Tw\equiv\frac{L_{T}(\bm{x})}{T} and recall that the two end points T−,T+T_{-},T_{+} satisfy

(4.279) {LT​(T−)=Tn−2nLT​(T+)=Tn−2n,\displaystyle\begin{cases}L_{T}(T_{-})=T^{\frac{n-2}{n}}\\ L_{T}(T_{+})=T^{\frac{n-2}{n}},\end{cases}

then we have w∈[T−2n,1]w\in[T^{-\frac{2}{n}},1]. So it follows that

(4.280) ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)=F⁡(w)⋅𝔯​(𝒙)ν+k+α⋅Tν+k+αn+μ,\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}=F(w)\cdot\mathfrak{r}(\bm{x})^{\nu+k+\alpha}\cdot T^{\frac{\nu+k+\alpha}{n}+\mu},

where F⁡(w)≡eδ⋅T⁡(1−wn2)⋅wν+k+α2F(w)\equiv e^{\delta\cdot T(1-w^{\frac{n}{2}})}\cdot w^{\frac{\nu+k+\alpha}{2}}. By the definition of 𝔯⁡(𝒙)\mathfrak{r}(\bm{x}), immediately we have

(4.281) T−1≤𝔯⁡(𝒙)≤1\displaystyle T^{-1}\leq\mathfrak{r}(\bm{x})\leq 1

for all 𝒙∈ℳT\bm{x}\in\mathcal{M}_{T}, so it follows that

(4.282) ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)≥{F⁡(w)⋅T(1n−1)​(ν+k+α)+μ,ν+k+α≥0,F⁡(w)⋅Tν+k+αn+μ,μ+ν+k+α<0,\displaystyle\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}\geq\begin{cases}F(w)\cdot T^{(\frac{1}{n}-1)(\nu+k+\alpha)+\mu},&\nu+k+\alpha\geq 0,\\ F(w)\cdot T^{\frac{\nu+k+\alpha}{n}+\mu},&\mu+\nu+k+\alpha<0,\end{cases}

Now it suffices to compute the lower bound of F⁡(w)F(w). To this end, there are two cases to analyze depending on the sign of ν+k+α\nu+k+\alpha. First, let ν+k+α≤0\nu+k+\alpha\leq 0, then obviously F⁡(w)≥F⁡(1)=1F(w)\geq F(1)=1 and hence

(4.283) ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)≥T(1n−1)​(ν+k+α)+μ.\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})\geq T^{(\frac{1}{n}-1)(\nu+k+\alpha)+\mu}.

Next, we consider the case ν+k+α>0\nu+k+\alpha>0. Simple calculus shows that F⁡(w)F(w) achieves its minimum in [T−2n,1][T^{-\frac{2}{n}},1] either at w=1w=1 or at w=T−2nw=T^{-\frac{2}{n}}. Notice that F⁡(T−2n)≫F⁡(1)F(T^{-\frac{2}{n}})\gg F(1) as T≫1T\gg 1. This tells us that

(4.284) ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)≥Tν+k+αn+μ.\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})\geq T^{\frac{\nu+k+\alpha}{n}+\mu}.

The proof is done.

∎

Using the above weight function, we define weighted Hölder spaces as follows.

Definition 4.21 (Weighted Hölder space).

Let 𝒦⊂ℳT\mathcal{K}\subset\mathcal{M}_{T} be compact, then the weighted Hölder norm of a tensor field χ∈Tr,s​(𝒦)\chi\in T^{r,s}(\mathcal{K}) of type (r,s)(r,s) is defined by,

(4.285) ‖χ‖Cδ,ν,μk,α​(𝒦)\displaystyle\|\chi\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k,\alpha}(\mathcal{K})} ≡∑m=0k‖ρδ,ν,μ(m)⋅∇mχ‖C0​(𝒦)+[χ]Cδ,ν,μk,α​(𝒦),\displaystyle\equiv\sum\limits_{m=0}^{k}\Big\|\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(m)}\cdot\nabla^{m}\chi\Big\|_{C^{0}(\mathcal{K})}+[\chi]_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k,\alpha}(\mathcal{K})},
(4.286) [χ]Cδ,ν,μk,α​(𝒦)\displaystyle[\chi]_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k,\alpha}(\mathcal{K})} ≡supdg​(x,y)≤ι0x,y∈𝒦{min⁡{ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(x),ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(y)}⋅|∇kχ​(x)−∇kχ​(y)|(dg​(x,y))α},\displaystyle\equiv\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}d_{g}(x,y)\leq\iota_{0}\\ x,y\in\mathcal{K}\end{subarray}}\Big\{\min\{\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(x),\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(y)\}\cdot\frac{|\nabla^{k}\chi(x)-\nabla^{k}\chi(y)|}{(d_{g}(x,y))^{\alpha}}\Big\},

where ι0≡14​InjRadg⁡(ℳ)\iota_{0}\equiv\frac{1}{4}\InjRad_{g}(\mathcal{M}). In the above definition, the difference of the two covariant derivatives is defined in terms of the parallel translation along the minimal geodesic.

Remark 4.21.1.

By definition, it is direct to see

(4.287) ‖χ‖Cδ,ν,μk​(𝒦)=∑m=0k‖∇mχ‖Cδ,ν+m,μ0​(𝒦).\|\chi\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k}(\mathcal{K})}=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{k}\|\nabla^{m}\chi\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+m,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{K})}.

With the above definition of the weighted Hölder space, we are ready to give a local uniform weighted Schauder estimate with respect to the Laplacian on the neck (ℳT,ωT)(\mathcal{M}_{T},\omega_{T}).

Proposition 4.22 (Weighted Schauder estimate, the local version).

For every sufficiently large parameter T≫1T\gg 1, let ℳT\mathcal{M}_{T} be the neck region with an S1S^{1}-invariant Kähler metric ωT\omega_{T} constructed in Section 4.1. Then the following estimates hold:

  1. (1)

    (Interior estimate) Given k∈{0,1}k\in\{0,1\} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), there is some uniform constant Ck,α>0C_{k,\alpha}>0 such that for any 𝒙∈ℳ̊​(T−,T+)\bm{x}\in\mathring{\mathcal{M}}(T_{-},T_{+}), r∈(0,1)r\in(0,1), u∈Ck+2,α​(Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))u\in C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x})),

    rk+2+α⋅‖u‖Cδ,ν,μk+2,α​(Br⋅s⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))\displaystyle r^{k+2+\alpha}\cdot\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{r\cdot s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}
    (4.288) ≤\displaystyle\leq Ck,α​(‖Δ​u‖Cδ,ν+2,μk,α​(B2​r⋅s⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))+‖u‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(B2​r⋅s⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))),\displaystyle C_{k,\alpha}\Big(\|\Delta u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{k,\alpha}(B_{2r\cdot s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(B_{2r\cdot s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}\Big),

    where s⁡(𝒙)≡𝔰⁡(𝒙)4s(\bm{x})\equiv\frac{\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x})}{4} and 𝔰⁡(𝒙)\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x}) is the regularity scale at 𝒙\bm{x} given by Proposition 4.18.

  2. (2)

    (Higher order estimate away from 𝒫\mathcal{P}) There exists some large constant C𝒫>0C_{\mathcal{P}}>0 such that if 𝒙∈ℳ̊T\bm{x}\in\mathring{\mathcal{M}}_{T} satisfies

    (4.289) r⁡(𝒙)≥C𝒫⋅T−1,r(\bm{x})\geq C_{\mathcal{P}}\cdot T^{-1},

    then the uniform Schauder estimate (4.288) holds for all k∈ℤ+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1).

  3. (3)

    (Boundary estimate) For any k∈ℤ+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), there exists some uniform constant Ck,α>0C_{k,\alpha}>0 such that for all 𝒙∈∂ℳT\bm{x}\in\partial\mathcal{M}_{T}, r∈(0,1)r\in(0,1) and u∈Ck+2,α​(T2​(∂ℳT))u\in C^{k+2,\alpha}(T_{2}(\partial\mathcal{M}_{T})),

    rk+2+α⋅‖u‖Cδ,ν,μk+2,α​(Br⋅s⁡(𝒙)+​(𝒙))\displaystyle r^{k+2+\alpha}\cdot\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{r\cdot s(\bm{x})}^{+}(\bm{x}))}
    (4.290) ≤\displaystyle\leq Ck,α​(‖Δ​u‖Cδ,ν+2,μk,α​(B2​r⋅s⁡(𝒙)+​(𝒙))+‖∂u∂n‖Cδ,ν,μk+1,α​(B2​r⋅s⁡(𝒙)+​(𝒙))+‖u‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(B2​r⋅s⁡(𝒙)+​(𝒙))),\displaystyle C_{k,\alpha}\Big(\|\Delta u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{k,\alpha}(B_{2r\cdot s(\bm{x})}^{+}(\bm{x}))}+\Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}\Big\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k+1,\alpha}(B_{2r\cdot s(\bm{x})}^{+}(\bm{x}))}+\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(B_{2r\cdot s(\bm{x})}^{+}(\bm{x}))}\Big),

    where Bs+​(𝒙)≡Bs​(𝒙)∩ℳTB_{s}^{+}(\bm{x})\equiv B_{s}(\bm{x})\cap\mathcal{M}_{T}.

Remark 4.22.1.

The estimates (4.288) and (4.290) are not scale invariant. Notice that the scale parameter rr is always uniformly bounded from below in our actual applications. So both (4.288) and (4.290) are sufficient for our purpose.

Proof.

The main part is to prove Item (1). We only prove the estimate by assuming the scale parameter r=1r=1. The estimate in the general case r∈(0,1)r\in(0,1) can be achieved by simple rescaling.

The proof is based on the explicit description of the Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}-regularity scale given by Proposition 4.18. Since we have shown that, under the rescalings

(4.291) g~=λ​(𝒙)2⋅g,\displaystyle\tilde{g}=\lambda(\bm{x})^{2}\cdot g,

the geodesic balls B1/2g~​(𝒙)B_{1/2}^{\tilde{g}}(\bm{x}) have uniformly bounded Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}-geometry (independent of TT) for each α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) and k∈{0,1}k\in\{0,1\}. So there is a uniform constant C>0C>0 (independent of TT) such that the standard Schauder estimate holds for every u∈𝔄u\in\mathfrak{A} and 𝒙∈ℳ̊​(T−,T+)\bm{x}\in\mathring{\mathcal{M}}(T_{-},T_{+}),

(4.292) ‖u‖Ck+2,α​(B1/4g~​(𝒙))≤C⁡(‖Δg~j​u‖Ck,α​(B1/2g~​(𝒙))+‖u‖C0​(B1/2g~​(𝒙))).\|u\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{1/4}^{\tilde{g}}(\bm{x}))}\leq C\Big(\|\Delta_{\tilde{g}_{j}}u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(B_{1/2}^{\tilde{g}}(\bm{x}))}+\|u\|_{C^{0}(B_{1/2}^{\tilde{g}}(\bm{x}))}\Big).

Then the desired weighted Schauder estimate (4.288) will be obtained after appropriately rescaling. The argument is rather standard. In fact, the only crucial point is to verify that for every 𝒙∈ℳ̊​(T−,T+)\bm{x}\in\mathring{\mathcal{M}}(T_{-},T_{+}), the weight function ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)} is roughly a constant in the ball Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙)B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}) in the sense that there is a uniform constant C>0C>0 such that for any 𝒚∈Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙)\bm{y}\in B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}),

(4.293) C−1⋅ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)≤ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒚)≤C⋅ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙).C^{-1}\cdot\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})\leq\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{y})\leq C\cdot\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x}).

The verifications of the above estimate essentially follows from Corollary 4.18.1 which is the Harnack inequality for the regularity scale. As a comparison, the detailed arguments in dimension 44 is given in Section 8 of [HSVZ18]. In the following, we only verify (4.293) in Region 𝐈𝟏\bf{I}_{1} and Region 𝐈𝟐\bf{I}_{2} as sample examples.

Region 𝐈𝟏\bf{I}_{1}:

By Proposition 4.18, the canonical scale in this case is chosen as 𝔰⁡(𝒙)=T1−nn\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x})=T^{\frac{1-n}{n}}, while the rescaling factor is λ⁡(𝒙)=Tn−1n\lambda(\bm{x})=T^{\frac{n-1}{n}} such that (ℳT,g~T,𝒙)(\mathcal{M}_{T},\tilde{g}_{T},\bm{x}) is close to the Riemann product ℂT​N,12×ℂn−2\mathbb{C}_{TN,1}^{2}\times\mathbb{C}^{n-2} in the pointed C2,αC^{2,\alpha}-topology for any α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1), where ℂT​N,12\mathbb{C}_{TN,1}^{2} is the Ricci-flat Taub-NUT space. Then for k∈{0,1}k\in\{0,1\} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1),

(4.294) ‖u‖Ck,α​(B1g~T​(𝒙))≤‖Δ​u‖C0,α​(B2g~T​(𝒙))+‖u‖C0​(B2g~T​(𝒙)).\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(B_{1}^{\tilde{g}_{T}}(\bm{x}))}\leq\|\Delta u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{2}^{\tilde{g}_{T}}(\bm{x}))}+\|u\|_{C^{0}(B_{2}^{\tilde{g}_{T}}(\bm{x}))}.

Since the weight function, by definition, is constant in the geodesic ball Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙)B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}) for s⁡(𝒙)=14​𝔰​(𝒙)s(\bm{x})=\frac{1}{4}\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x}). With respect to the original metric, the standard Schauder estimate (4.292) for uu is equivalent to

(4.295) ∑m=0k+2‖ρδ,ν,μ(m)⋅∇mu‖C0​(Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))+[ρδ,ν,μ(k+2+α)⋅∇k+2u]Cα​(Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))≤C⁡(‖ρδ,ν+2,μ(0)⋅Δ​u‖C0​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))+[Δ​u]Cδ,ν+2,μ0,α​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))+‖ρδ,ν,μ(0)⋅u‖C0​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))).\displaystyle\begin{split}&\sum\limits_{m=0}^{k+2}\|\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(m)}\cdot\nabla^{m}u\|_{C^{0}(B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+[\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+2+\alpha)}\cdot\nabla^{k+2}u]_{C^{\alpha}(B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}\\ \leq&C\Big(\|\rho_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{(0)}\cdot\Delta u\|_{C^{0}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+[\Delta u]_{C_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+\|\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}\cdot u\|_{C^{0}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}\Big).\end{split}

Therefore, by the definition of the weighted Hölder space,

(4.296) ‖u‖Cδ,ν,μk+2,α​(Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))≤C⁡(‖Δ​u‖Cδ,ν+1,μ0,α​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))+‖u‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))).\displaystyle\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}\leq C\Big(\|\Delta u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+1,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}\Big).

The proof in Region 𝐈𝟏\bf{I}_{1} is done.

Region 𝐈𝟐\bf{I}_{2}:

Proposition 4.18 tells us that, in this region, 𝔰⁡(𝒙)=T1n⋅r⁡(𝒙)\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x})=T^{\frac{1}{n}}\cdot r(\bm{x}) and the metric is rescaled by λ⁡(𝒙)=𝔰​(𝒙)−1\lambda(\bm{x})=\mathfrak{s}(\bm{x})^{-1} with

(4.297) g~=λ​(𝒙)2​g.\tilde{g}=\lambda(\bm{x})^{2}g.

We notice that the values ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒚)\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{y}) for all 𝒚∈B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙)\bm{y}\in B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}) are uniformly equivalent. Indeed, by Corollary 4.18.1, we can see that for every 𝒚∈B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙)\bm{y}\in B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}),

(4.298) 12​(v¯0)ν+k+α≤ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒚)ρδ,ν,μ(k+α)​(𝒙)≤32​(v¯0)ν+k+α.\frac{1}{2}(\underline{v}_{0})^{\nu+k+\alpha}\leq\frac{\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{y})}{\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+\alpha)}(\bm{x})}\leq\frac{3}{2}(\overline{v}_{0})^{\nu+k+\alpha}.

So the standard Schauder estimate (4.292) for u~\tilde{u} is equivalent to the following estimate for uu, is equivalent to

∑m=0k+2‖ρδ,ν,μ(m)⋅∇mu‖C0​(Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙))+‖ρδ,ν,μ(k+2+α)⋅∇k+2u‖C0,α​((Bs⁡(𝒙)​(𝒙)))\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=0}^{k+2}\|\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(m)}\cdot\nabla^{m}u\|_{C^{0}(B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+\|\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(k+2+\alpha)}\cdot\nabla^{k+2}u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}((B_{s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x})))}
(4.299) ≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(‖ρδ,ν+2,μ(0)⋅Δ​u‖C0​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))+[Δ​u]Cδ,ν+2,μ0,α​(B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙))+‖ρδ,ν,μ(0)⋅u‖C0​((B2​s​(𝒙)​(𝒙)))).\displaystyle C\Big(\|\rho_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{(0)}\cdot\Delta u\|_{C^{0}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+[\Delta u]_{C_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{0,\alpha}(B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x}))}+\|\rho_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{(0)}\cdot u\|_{C^{0}((B_{2s(\bm{x})}(\bm{x})))}\Big).

Therefore, by the definition of the weighted norm, the required estimate immediately follows.

For the remaining regions, the key point in the proof is in fact the same, which just requires to show that the values of the weight function at the points within the Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}-regularity scale are uniformly equivalent. So we just skip the proof.

Now we switch to prove Item (2), which can be obtained by contradiction. Suppose there is no such a constant C𝒫>0C_{\mathcal{P}}>0. Then there are a sequence of numbers Tj>0T_{j}>0 and reference points 𝒙j∈ℳTj\bm{x}_{j}\in\mathcal{M}_{T_{j}} such that

(4.300) r⁡(𝒙j)⋅Tj→+∞,r(\bm{x}_{j})\cdot T_{j}\to+\infty,

but the uniform local Schauder estimate (4.288) does not hold around 𝒙j∈ℳTj\bm{x}_{j}\in\mathcal{M}_{T_{j}}. Under the contradicting assumption (4.300), Proposition 4.18 shows that, with respect to the rescaled metrics we choose, we will obtain one of the following rescaled Gromov-Hausdorff limits depending upon the location of 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} in the subdivision:

  1. (i)

    The Euclidean product ℝ3×ℂn−2\mathbb{R}^{3}\times\mathbb{C}^{n-2},

  2. (ii)

    The cylinder D×ℝD\times\mathbb{R},

  3. (iii)

    The Calabi space (𝒞−n,g𝒞−n,𝒙−)(\mathcal{C}_{-}^{n},g_{\mathcal{C}_{-}^{n}},\bm{x}_{-}) or (𝒞+n,g𝒞+n,𝒙+)(\mathcal{C}_{+}^{n},g_{\mathcal{C}_{+}^{n}},\bm{x}_{+}).

Moreover, away from the singularity, the convergence is Ck,αC^{k,\alpha} for any k∈ℤ+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) by passing to the local universal cover.

First, if the convergence keeps the Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}-geometry uniformly bounded, then the proof of the higher order estimate is just standard and routine.

Now let 𝒙j\bm{x}_{j} stay in the regions giving the rescaled limits in (i) and (ii). Recall the discussions in Section 4.3 that, in Case (b), (c) in Region 𝐈𝟐\bf{I}_{2} and Case (a) in Region 𝐈𝟑\bf{I}_{3}, singularity behavior appears in the Gromov-Hausdorff procedure. With respect to the rescaled metric g~j=λ​(𝒙j)−2​gj\tilde{g}_{j}=\lambda(\bm{x}_{j})^{-2}g_{j}, the limiting geodesic ball B12g~j​(𝒙j)B_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\bm{x}_{j}) never contains the singularity. So it follows that every point 𝒚∈B12g~j​(𝒙j)\bm{y}\in B_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\tilde{g}_{j}}(\bm{x}_{j}) has a Ck,αC^{k,\alpha}-regularity scale rk,α​(𝒚)≥ρ0>0r_{k,\alpha}(\bm{y})\geq\rho_{0}>0 for all k∈ℤ+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1). So the standard interior Schauder estimate reads as follows,

(4.301) ‖u‖Ck+2,α​(B14​(𝒙j))≤Ck,α⋅(‖Δ​u‖Ck,α​(B12​(𝒙j))+‖u‖Ck​(B12​(𝒙j))),\|u\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{\frac{1}{4}}(\bm{x}_{j}))}\leq C_{k,\alpha}\cdot\Big(\|\Delta u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(B_{\frac{1}{2}}(\bm{x}_{j}))}+\|u\|_{C^{k}(B_{\frac{1}{2}}(\bm{x}_{j}))}\Big),

for all k∈ℤ+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1). Rescaling back to the original metrics gjg_{j}, we obtain the desired weighted Schauder estimate for sufficiently large jj. So the contradiction arises. This completes the proof of Item (2).

The proof of Item (3) follows from the Schauder estimate for Neumann boundary problem. As before, we only consider the case r=1r=1 for simplicity. The tubular neighborhood T2​(∂ℳT)T_{2}(\partial\mathcal{M}_{T}) belongs to Case (c) of Region 𝐈𝟑\bf{I}_{3}. We only consider the left boundary {T=T−}\{T=T_{-}\}. For every 𝒙∈{T=T−}\bm{x}\in\{T=T_{-}\}, we choose the rescaled metric g~=λ​(𝒙)2⋅g\tilde{g}=\lambda(\bm{x})^{2}\cdot g with

(4.302) λ⁡(𝒙)=(LT​(T−))−12⋅Tn−22​n=(c−)12,\lambda(\bm{x})=(L_{T}(T_{-}))^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot T^{\frac{n-2}{2n}}=(c_{-})^{\frac{1}{2}},

where c−>0c_{-}>0 is a fixed constant. The analysis in Section 4.3 tells us that, for T≫1T\gg 1 sufficiently large, (ℳT,g~,𝒙)(\mathcal{M}_{T},\tilde{g},\bm{x}) is Gromov-Hausdorff close to a fixed incomplete Calabi space (𝒞−n,g𝒞−n,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{C}_{-}^{n},g_{\mathcal{C}_{-}^{n}},\bm{x}_{\infty}). Moreover, the tubular neighborhood T2​(∂MT)T_{2}(\partial M_{T}) satisfies the following property: there are constants ρ0>0\rho_{0}>0 depending only the conjugate radius of (𝒞−n,g𝒞−n,𝒙∞)(\mathcal{C}_{-}^{n},g_{\mathcal{C}_{-}^{n}},\bm{x}_{\infty}) such that every point 𝒚∈T2​(∂MT)\bm{y}\in T_{2}(\partial M_{T}) satisfies the regularity scale estimate rk,α​(𝒚)≥ρ0>0r_{k,\alpha}(\bm{y})\geq\rho_{0}>0 for all k∈ℤ+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1).

The above geometric regularity implies the following uniform boundary Schauder estimate in B2+​(𝒙)B_{2}^{+}(\bm{x}) for each 𝒙∈∂ℳT\bm{x}\in\partial\mathcal{M}_{T},

(4.303) ‖u‖Cδ,ν,μk+2,α​(B14+​(𝒙))≤Ck,α​(‖Δ​u‖Cδ,ν+2,μk,α​(B12+​(𝒙))+‖∂u∂n‖Cδ,ν,μk+1,α​(B12+​(𝒙))+‖u‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(B12+​(𝒙))),\displaystyle\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k+2,\alpha}(B_{\frac{1}{4}}^{+}(\bm{x}))}\leq C_{k,\alpha}\Big(\|\Delta u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu+2,\mu}^{k,\alpha}(B_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+}(\bm{x}))}+\Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}\Big\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{k+1,\alpha}(B_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+}(\bm{x}))}+\|u\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(B_{\frac{1}{2}}^{+}(\bm{x}))}\Big),

Here ∂∂n\frac{\partial}{\partial n} is the exterior normal vector field, and the constant Ck,α>0C_{k,\alpha}>0 depends only on kk, α\alpha, ρ0\rho_{0}. This estimate is standard in the literature (see Section 6 of [GT01] for instance). By rescaling, we obtain the desired weighted estimate.

∎

We finish this subsection with the following weighted error estimate for the Calabi-Yau equation.

Proposition 4.23 (Weighted error estimate).

Let ErrC​Y\mathrm{Err}_{CY} be the error function given by Definition 4.3. For fixed parameters δ>0\delta>0, μ,ν∈ℝ\mu,\nu\in\mathbb{R} and α∈(0,1)\alpha\in(0,1) which satisfy

(4.304) 0<δ<δe\displaystyle 0<\delta<\delta_{e} ≡λ1n⁡(|k−|+|k+|),\displaystyle\equiv\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}}{n(|k_{-}|+|k_{+}|)},
(4.305) ν+α\displaystyle\nu+\alpha >0,\displaystyle>0,

where the constants λ1>0\lambda_{1}>0, k−>0k_{-}>0 and k+<0k_{+}<0 are given in Proposition 3.31. Then the weighted C0,αC^{0,\alpha}-estimate holds,

(4.306) ‖ErrC​Y‖Cδ,ν,μ0,α​(ℳT)=O⁡(T−2+ν+αn+μ).\|\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}_{\delta,\nu,\mu}(\mathcal{M}_{T})}=O(T^{-2+\frac{\nu+\alpha}{n}+\mu}).
Proof.

We again divide into different regions and estimate separately.

For |z⁡(𝒙)|≤1|z(\bm{x})|\leq 1, applying Corollary 3.24.1, we have

(4.307) (ωD+T−1​ψ)n−1=ωDn−1​(1+T−1​TrωD​ψ+∑k≥2T−k​Φk)(\omega_{D}+T^{-1}\psi)^{n-1}=\omega_{D}^{n-1}(1+T^{-1}\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\psi+\sum_{k\geq 2}T^{-k}\Phi_{k})

where Φk=O′​(rk−1)\Phi_{k}=O^{\prime}(r^{k-1}) is independent of TT. By (4.20) we have

(4.308) T−1​h=1+T−1​TrωD​ψ+T−2​B¯​(z).T^{-1}h=1+T^{-1}\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\psi+T^{-2}\underline{B}(z).

Using (3.316), it is easy to see that

(4.309) ∥ErrC​Y∥C0({|z(𝒙)|≤1})=O(T−2),\|\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\|_{C^{0}(\{|z(\bm{x})|\leq 1\})}=O(T^{-2}),

Immediately, by the definition of the weighted C0C^{0}-norm, we have

(4.310) ∥ErrC​Y∥Cδ,ν,μ0({|z(𝒙)|≤1})=O(T−2+νn+μ),\|\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\{|z(\bm{x})|\leq 1\})}=O(T^{-2+\frac{\nu}{n}+\mu}),

Now consider the region |z⁡(𝒙)|≥1|z(\bm{x})|\geq 1, then by (3.349) we may write

(4.311) ψ={(k−​z)⋅ωD+ξ,z≤−1,(k+​z)⋅ωD+ξ,z≥1,\displaystyle\psi=\begin{cases}(k_{-}z)\cdot\omega_{D}+\xi,&z\leq-1,\\ (k_{+}z)\cdot\omega_{D}+\xi,&z\geq 1,\end{cases}

where ξ=ϵ⁡(z)\xi=\epsilon(z). So it follows that

(ωD+T−1​ψ)n−1\displaystyle(\omega_{D}+T^{-1}\psi)^{n-1} =((1+T−1​k±​z)​ωD+T−1​ξ)n−1\displaystyle=\Big((1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)\omega_{D}+T^{-1}\xi\Big)^{n-1}
(4.312) =ωDn−1​((1+T−1​k±​z)n−1+(1+T−1​k±​z)n−2​T−1​TrωD​ξ+O⁡(T−2))\displaystyle=\omega_{D}^{n-1}\Big((1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)^{n-1}+(1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)^{n-2}T^{-1}\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\xi+O(T^{-2})\Big)

By (4.16), we have

(4.313) T−1​h=(1+T−1​k±​z)n−1+T−1​TrωD​ξ.T^{-1}h=(1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)^{n-1}+T^{-1}\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\xi.

So we obtain

(4.314) ErrC​Y=((1+T−1​k±​z)−1−(1+T−1​k±​z)−n+1)​T−1​TrωD​ξ+O⁡(T−2)\mathrm{Err}_{CY}=\Big((1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)^{-1}-(1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)^{-n+1}\Big)T^{-1}\Tr_{\omega_{D}}\xi+O(T^{-2})

Since for z∈[T−,T+]z\in[T_{-},T_{+}],

(4.315) UT(z)=T−T−n−22(T+k±z)n2=T(1−(1+T−1k±z)n2)≤−n2⋅k±z.U_{T}(z)=T-T^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}(T+k_{\pm}z)^{\frac{n}{2}}=T(1-(1+T^{-1}k_{\pm}z)^{\frac{n}{2}})\leq-\frac{n}{2}\cdot k_{\pm}z.

Here we use the following elementary inequality: (1−x)p≥1−p​x(1-x)^{p}\geq 1-px for any p≥1p\geq 1 and x∈(0,1)x\in(0,1). By Proposition 3.31, the asymptotics ξ=ϵ⁡(z)\xi=\epsilon(z) has the explicit exponential decaying rate ϵ⁡(z)=O⁡(e−(1−τ)​λ1​z)\epsilon(z)=O(e^{-(1-\tau)\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}z}) for any τ∈(0,1)\tau\in(0,1). Applying (4.315) and the the assumption

(4.316) 0<δ<δe≡λ1n⁡(|k−|+|k+|),0<\delta<\delta_{e}\equiv\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}}{n(|k_{-}|+|k_{+}|)},

we conclude that, as |z⁡(𝒙)|→+∞|z(\bm{x})|\to+\infty, the growth rate of eδ​UT​(z⁡(𝒙))e^{\delta U_{T}(z(\bm{x}))} is slower than the decaying rate of ϵ⁡(z)\epsilon(z).

Therefore,

(4.317) ∥ErrC​Y∥C0({∥z(𝒙)∥≥1})=O(T−2).\|\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\|_{C^{0}(\{\|z(\bm{x})\|\geq 1\})}=O(T^{-2}).

By the definition of the weighted norm, we have

(4.318) ∥ErrC​Y∥Cδ,ν,μ0({∥z(𝒙)∥≥1})=O(T−2+νn+μ).\|\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\{\|z(\bm{x})\|\geq 1\})}=O(T^{-2+\frac{\nu}{n}+\mu}).

The weighted C0,αC^{0,\alpha}-estimate can be obtained in a similar way. It suffices to analyze the Hölder regularity around the singular set 𝒫\mathcal{P}. Notice that a fixed function in O′​(r)O^{\prime}(r) has bounded C0,αC^{0,\alpha} norm, so the weighted C0,αC^{0,\alpha}-estimate is given by

(4.319) ‖ErrC​Y‖Cδ,ν,μ0​(ℳT)=O⁡(T−2+ν+αn+μ).\|\mathrm{Err}_{CY}\|_{C_{\delta,\nu,\mu}^{0}(\mathcal{M}_{T})}=O(T^{-2+\frac{\nu+\alpha}{n}+\mu}).

∎

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