Introduction
Let g 0 g_0 g 0 be the standard quotient metric on R P n \mathbb{RP}^{n} RP n , induced by the round metric on S n ( 1 / 2 ) S^{n}(1/2) S n ( 1/2 ) under the antipodal identification. For a Riemannian metric g g g , let Scal g \operatorname{Scal}_{g} Scal g denote its scalar curvature, and define the conformal Laplacian by
L g : = Δ g − c ( n ) Scal g , c ( n ) : = n − 2 4 ( n − 1 ) . L_g := \Delta_g - c(n)\operatorname{Scal}_g,\qquad c(n) := \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}. L g := Δ g − c ( n ) Scal g , c ( n ) := 4 ( n − 1 ) n − 2 .
We write d g d_g d g for the distance induced by g g g .
The main result of this paper is the following.
Theorem 1.1. For every integer n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 and every point o ∈ R P n o \in\mathbb{RP}^{n} o ∈ RP n , there exist a smooth Riemannian metric g ∞ g_{\infty} g ∞ on R P n \mathbb{RP}^{n} RP n agreeing with the round metric to infinite order at o o o and a positive smooth function u ∞ u_{\infty} u ∞ on R P n ∖ { o } \mathbb{RP}^{n} \setminus\{o\} RP n ∖ { o } satisfying the Yamabe equation
− L g ∞ u ∞ = n ( n − 2 ) u ∞ n + 2 n − 2 in R P n ∖ { o } , (1) -L_{g_{\infty}}u_{\infty}=n(n-2)u_{\infty}^{\frac{n+2}{n-2}}\quad\text{in }\mathbb{RP}^{n}\setminus\{o\}, \tag*{(1)} − L g ∞ u ∞ = n ( n − 2 ) u ∞ n − 2 n + 2 in RP n ∖ { o } , (1) such that
u ∞ ( x ) ≥ c d g ∞ ( x , o ) − n − 2 2 (2) u_{\infty}(x) \ge c d_{g_{\infty}}(x,o)^{-\frac{n-2}{2}} \tag*{(2)} u ∞ ( x ) ≥ c d g ∞ ( x , o ) − 2 n − 2 (2) for some constant c > 0 c>0 c > 0 , and
lim sup x → o d g ∞ ( x , o ) n − 2 u ∞ ( x ) = ∞ . (3) \limsup_{x\to o}d_{g_{\infty}}(x,o)^{n-2}u_{\infty}(x)=\infty. \tag*{(3)} x → o lim sup d g ∞ ( x , o ) n − 2 u ∞ ( x ) = ∞. (3)
We make the following remarks.
In Part I [11 ] , we completed the classification of isolated singularities of positive solutions to the Yamabe equation in punctured balls, for arbitrary smooth Riemannian metrics in dimensions 3 ≤ n ≤ 29 3 \le n \le29 3 ≤ n ≤ 29 : every such singularity is either removable or the solution is asymptotic to a Fowler solution—a radial model singular solution in the flat metric on the Euclidean space with origin as its singular point. See also Marques [15 ] in dimensions 3 ≤ n ≤ 5 3 \le n \le5 3 ≤ n ≤ 5 and Xiong–Zhang [22 ] in dimension 6. By (3) , the above theorem shows that this classification cannot be extended to dimensions 30 and higher.
lim x → 0 ∣ x ∣ − τ ∣ g ∞ ( x ) − g 0 ( x ) ∣ = 0 \lim_{x \to0} |x|^{-\tau} |g_{\infty}(x) - g_{0}(x)| = 0 x → 0 lim ∣ x ∣ − τ ∣ g ∞ ( x ) − g 0 ( x ) ∣ = 0
in local coordinates centered at o o o . This shows that the upper bound assumption in Han–Xiong–Zhang [12 Theorems 1.2 and 1.3] is necessary when n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 .
By (2) and (1) , the conformal metric u ∞ 4 / ( n − 2 ) g ∞ u_{\infty}^{4/(n-2)}g_{\infty} u ∞ 4/ ( n − 2 ) g ∞ is complete and has scalar curvature 4 n ( n − 1 ) 4n(n-1) 4 n ( n − 1 ) . To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of a complete conformal metric of constant positive scalar curvature whose conformal factor, relative to a smooth background metric, grows faster than the Fowler rate along a sequence approaching an isolated singularity. See Schoen [21 ] , Mazzeo–Smale [18 ] , Mazzeo–Pollack–Uhlenbeck [17 ] , Mazzeo–Pacard [16 ] , Byde [5 ] , Santos [20 ] , and others for the singular Yamabe problem. In a forthcoming paper, we prove that if ( M , g ) (M,g) ( M , g ) is a smooth, connected, closed Riemannian manifold of dimension n ≥ 3 n \ge3 n ≥ 3 , has positive Yamabe constant, and is not conformally diffeomorphic to the round sphere, then, for every nonempty finite set { P 1 , … , P m } ⊂ M \{P_1,\ldots,P_m\} \subset M { P 1 , … , P m } ⊂ M , there exists a positive smooth function u u u on M ∖ { P 1 , … , P m } M \setminus\{P_1,\ldots,P_m\} M ∖ { P 1 , … , P m } such that u 4 / ( n − 2 ) g u^{4/(n-2)}g u 4/ ( n − 2 ) g is complete and has constant positive scalar curvature, and u u u has Fowler asymptotics at each P i P_i P i .
For a fixed positive Yamabe conformal class on a closed manifold not conformally diffeomorphic to the round sphere, Khuri–Marques–Schoen [13 ] proved compactness through dimension 24, using the positive mass theorem in the final global argument. In dimensions n ≥ 52 n \ge52 n ≥ 52 , Brendle [3 ] constructed smooth metrics on the sphere with a noncompact sequence of smooth solutions, developing exactly one bubble; Brendle–Marques [4 ] extended the construction to 25 ≤ n ≤ 51 25 \le n \le51 25 ≤ n ≤ 51 . For every n ≥ 25 n \ge25 n ≥ 25 , Gong–Li [9 ] constructed sequences of positive solutions on the sphere for a fixed smooth background metric, with both the number of bubbles and the volumes of the associated conformal metrics tending to infinity. In their construction, the bubble centers approach a single point, and the conformal factors converge to zero locally uniformly away from that point.
Overview of the proofs
Our construction proceeds by an iterative Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction, starting from a Fowler solution on the punctured round projective space. At each stage, we perturb the metric locally and construct a new exact solution with an additional bubble, while retaining Fowler asymptotics sufficiently close to the puncture. The insertion points approach the puncture. The metrics converge smoothly on the whole manifold, and the solutions converge smoothly on compact subsets away from the puncture. The limiting solution retains the peaks created at successive stages and violates the Fowler upper bound. Its behavior therefore differs from the Fowler asymptotics of the isolated ends in the constructions of Schoen [21 ] and Mazzeo–Pacard [16 ] . To accommodate the infinite energy of the Fowler background, we introduce a renormalized relative energy for the finite-dimensional reduction. We adapt the localized metric perturbation constructions of Brendle [3 ] and Brendle–Marques [4 ] to successive backgrounds with Fowler asymptotics, preserving the nondegeneracy needed to continue the iteration. For a related infinite-dimensional gluing construction in the fractional Yamabe setting with the flat metric, we refer to Ao–DeLaTorre–González–Wei [1 ] .
We now sketch our construction.
Let γ 0 = ∣ d x ∣ 2 \gamma_0 = |dx|^2 γ 0 = ∣ d x ∣ 2 on B 1 ( 0 ) ∖ { 0 } B_1(0)\setminus\{0\} B 1 ( 0 ) ∖ { 0 } , with the antipodal boundary matching on ∂ B 1 ( 0 ) \partial B_1(0) ∂ B 1 ( 0 ) , and take a fixed Fowler solution V 0 ( x ) = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 v ∗ ( − log ∣ x ∣ ) V_0(x) = |x|^{-(n-2)/2}v_*(-\log|x|) V 0 ( x ) = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) /2 v ∗ ( − log ∣ x ∣ ) as the initial solution for this flat background, where v ∗ v_* v ∗ is a fixed non-constant periodic even positive Fowler profile chosen in Section 2 with minimum value m ∗ m_* m ∗ (called the neck size) and is normalized so that v ∗ ( 0 ) = m ∗ v_*(0) = m_* v ∗ ( 0 ) = m ∗ . The initial conformal metric is
V 0 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ 0 . V_0^{4/(n-2)}\gamma_0. V 0 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ 0 .
At stage j j j , after fixing a new insertion ball, choose μ j > 0 \mu_j > 0 μ j > 0 sufficiently small. Proposition 2.2 perturbs γ j − 1 \gamma_{j-1} γ j − 1 in that ball to a new metric γ j \gamma_j γ j and adds a bubble to the current solution V j − 1 V_{j-1} V j − 1 ; the Lyapunov–Schmidt correction makes the resulting V j V_j V j an exact positive solution for the perturbed metric γ j \gamma_j γ j . Thus the conformal metric after stage j j j is
V j 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ j , V_j^{4/(n-2)}\gamma_j, V j 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ j ,
and ( γ j , V j ) (\gamma_j,V_j) ( γ j , V j ) is the input for the next stage.
Each V j V_j V j has the same Fowler profile and neck parameter at the puncture as the initial solution; its periodic factor may be translated by a phase. In the Euclidean coordinates x x x , the end condition has the form
V j ( x ) = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( v ∗ ( − log ∣ x ∣ + T j ) + O ( ∣ x ∣ δ ) ) , ∣ x ∣ ↓ 0 , V_j(x) = |x|^{-(n-2)/2}\bigl(v_*(-\log|x|+T_j)+O(|x|^\delta)\bigr), \qquad|x|\downarrow0, V j ( x ) = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) /2 ( v ∗ ( − log ∣ x ∣ + T j ) + O ( ∣ x ∣ δ ) ) , ∣ x ∣ ↓ 0 ,
where the remainder has the weighted derivative bounds specified in (15) . Proposition 2.2 gives small metric and solution changes outside the insertion ball and a high peak inside it.
Proposition 2.2 also proves that the augmented linearization in (16) is an isomorphism. Its unknown consists of a scalar phase increment and a weighted function correction; the scalar changes the Fowler phase near the puncture. This is the inverse estimate needed for the next insertion.
The Fowler end has infinite energy, so we use a finite relative energy to measure the change produced by inserting a bubble. With the insertion scale fixed, the Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction first solves for the phase increment and the function correction, and then determines the bubble parameters by finding a critical point of the reduced energy. The main difficulty is to show that neither the interaction between the bubble and the Fowler background nor the change in energy caused by adjusting the Fowler phase and the function through the projected equation destroys the nondegenerate minimum of the leading energy. The dimension assumption n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 provides the necessary order separation. At the resulting critical point, the remaining finite-dimensional error vanishes, giving an exact solution. Sections 3–5 give the construction and estimates.
We choose each insertion scale after fixing the current background. The metric increments are summable in every smooth norm, and the solution increments are summable outside the new ball. A local comparison transfers the boundary lower bound into that ball. Consequently, the limiting solution satisfies the lower bound (2) , which gives completeness. The peak condition (30) , together with the summability of later solution increments, yields (3) .
Section 2 defines the class of backgrounds, states the insertion proposition, and deduces Theorem 1.1 . Section 3 proves the initial inverse estimate and develops the nonlinear phase correction and the relative energy on punctured balls. Section 4 constructs the metric perturbation and solves the projected equation after adding a bubble. Section 5 chooses the bubble parameters by finding a nondegenerate critical point of the reduced energy. Section 6 proves the insertion proposition, including invertibility of the full linearization at the new solution. Appendix § 7 .§ 1 proves the nondegeneracy of the leading bubble energy. Subsection A.2 establishes a local solution theorem on arbitrary smooth backgrounds, and Subsection A.3 gives its second-order asymptotics; these local results hold in every dimension n ≥ 3 n \ge3 n ≥ 3 . Subsection A.4 proves the regularity and weighted-convergence results.
Constants and uniformity. We fix n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 in Sections 2–6. The constant C > 0 C > 0 C > 0 in the estimates may change from line to line. During one insertion, it may depend on the fixed dimension, Fowler profile, background, weight, insertion point, radius, and cutoffs. It is independent of μ \mu μ and uniform on the stated compact parameter set. The inverse norm at the new solution may depend on the chosen insertion scale.
Bubble insertion and the proof of the main theorem
In this section, we use the insertion result and a local lower bound to prove Theorem 1.1. Lemma 2.1 supplies the initial background, Proposition 2.2 preserves its properties at each insertion, and Lemma 2.4 provides the lower bound needed for completeness.
We first describe the punctured ball and its boundary identification. Put X = B 1 ( 0 ) ∖ { 0 } ⊂ R n X = B_1(0) \setminus\{0\} \subset\mathbb{R}^n X = B 1 ( 0 ) ∖ { 0 } ⊂ R n . We use fixed Euclidean coordinates x x x , with r = ∣ x ∣ r = |x| r = ∣ x ∣ , throughout the construction. In these coordinates, the Euclidean metric γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 has components ( γ 0 ) i j = δ i j (\gamma_0)_{ij} = \delta_{ij} ( γ 0 ) ij = δ ij . The closed ball with antipodal boundary points identified represents R P n \mathbb{RP}^n RP n ; its center represents o o o . The round metric of radius 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 and its Euclidean conformal factor are
g 0 = ω 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ 0 , ω ( x ) = ( 1 + ∣ x ∣ 2 ) − ( n − 2 ) / 2 . (4) g_0 = \omega^{4/(n-2)}\gamma_0,\qquad\omega(x) = (1 + |x|^2)^{-(n-2)/2}. \tag*{(4)} g 0 = ω 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ 0 , ω ( x ) = ( 1 + ∣ x ∣ 2 ) − ( n − 2 ) /2 . (4)
Our analytic unknowns are the Euclidean representatives
γ = ω − 4 / ( n − 2 ) g , V = ω u . (5) \gamma= \omega^{-4/(n-2)}g,\qquad V = \omega u. \tag*{(5)} γ = ω − 4/ ( n − 2 ) g , V = ω u . (5)
Thus g = ω 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ g = \omega^{4/(n-2)}\gamma g = ω 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ and u = ω − 1 V u = \omega^{-1}V u = ω − 1 V . In particular, u 4 / ( n − 2 ) g = V 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ u^{4/(n-2)}g = V^{4/(n-2)}\gamma u 4/ ( n − 2 ) g = V 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ . The conformal covariance formula is
L Ω 4 / ( n − 2 ) g ( Ω − 1 w ) = Ω − ( n + 2 ) / ( n − 2 ) L g w . (6) L_{\Omega^{4/(n-2)}g}(\Omega^{-1}w) = \Omega^{-(n+2)/(n-2)}L_gw. \tag*{(6)} L Ω 4/ ( n − 2 ) g ( Ω − 1 w ) = Ω − ( n + 2 ) / ( n − 2 ) L g w . (6)
Under the change (2.2), the Yamabe equation becomes − L γ V = n ( n − 2 ) V p -L_\gamma V = n(n - 2)V^p − L γ V = n ( n − 2 ) V p on X X X , where p : = n + 2 n − 2 p := \frac{n+2}{n-2} p := n − 2 n + 2 . All metrics γ \gamma γ used at a finite stage are smooth on B ‾ 1 \overline{B}_1 B 1 , equal to γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 near 0 0 0 and on a fixed collar of ∂ B 1 \partial B_1 ∂ B 1 , and satisfy d V γ = d x dV_\gamma= dx d V γ = d x .
The antipodal identification is expressed by the Kelvin extension
V e x t ( r , θ ) = r 2 − n V ( r − 1 , − θ ) , r ≥ 1. V_{\mathrm{ext}}(r,\theta) = r^{2-n}V(r^{-1},-\theta),\qquad r \ge1. V ext ( r , θ ) = r 2 − n V ( r − 1 , − θ ) , r ≥ 1.
At r = 1 r = 1 r = 1 ,
∂ r V e x t ( 1 , θ ) = − ( n − 2 ) V ( 1 , − θ ) − ∂ r V ( 1 , − θ ) . \partial_rV_{\mathrm{ext}}(1,\theta) = -(n-2)V(1,-\theta)-\partial_rV(1,-\theta). ∂ r V ext ( 1 , θ ) = − ( n − 2 ) V ( 1 , − θ ) − ∂ r V ( 1 , − θ ) .
Matching values and radial derivatives therefore gives
V ( 1 , θ ) = V ( 1 , − θ ) , V(1,\theta) = V(1,-\theta), V ( 1 , θ ) = V ( 1 , − θ ) ,
( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) V ( 1 , θ ) = − ( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) V ( 1 , − θ ) . (7) \left(\partial_r+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)V(1,\theta) = -\left(\partial_r+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)V(1,-\theta). \tag*{(7)} ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) V ( 1 , θ ) = − ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) V ( 1 , − θ ) . (7)
Equivalently, spherical harmonics of even degree satisfy the Robin condition V ℓ ′ ( 1 ) + n − 2 2 V ℓ ( 1 ) = 0 V_\ell'(1) + \frac{n-2}{2}V_\ell(1) = 0 V ℓ ′ ( 1 ) + 2 n − 2 V ℓ ( 1 ) = 0 , and harmonics of odd degree satisfy V ℓ ( 1 ) = 0 V_\ell(1) = 0 V ℓ ( 1 ) = 0 . Because γ = γ 0 \gamma= \gamma_0 γ = γ 0 in the collar, the Kelvin extension of a weak solution satisfying (2.4) solves the same equation across r = 1 r = 1 r = 1 . Elliptic regularity then gives smoothness of the extension and of the corresponding solution on R P n ∖ { o } \mathbb{RP}^n \setminus\{o\} RP n ∖ { o } . Smooth functions on the quotient are represented by functions whose Kelvin extensions are smooth across r = 1 r = 1 r = 1 .
We next fix the Fowler profile and define the weighted spaces and phase variation. The Fowler equation is
v ′ ′ − ( n − 2 ) 2 4 v + n ( n − 2 ) v p = 0. (8) v'' - \frac{(n-2)^2}{4}v + n(n-2)v^p = 0. \tag*{(8)} v ′′ − 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 v + n ( n − 2 ) v p = 0. (8)
Let A n = ( ( n − 2 ) / ( 4 n ) ) ( n − 2 ) / 4 A_n = ((n-2)/(4n))^{(n-2)/4} A n = (( n − 2 ) / ( 4 n ) ) ( n − 2 ) /4 , fix m ∗ ∈ ( 0 , A n ) m_* \in(0,A_n) m ∗ ∈ ( 0 , A n ) , and let v ∗ = v m ∗ v_* = v_{m_*} v ∗ = v m ∗ be the solution with v ∗ ( 0 ) = m ∗ v_*(0) = m_* v ∗ ( 0 ) = m ∗ and v ∗ ′ ( 0 ) = 0 v_*'(0) = 0 v ∗ ′ ( 0 ) = 0 . The negative energy orbit lies in v > 0 v > 0 v > 0 and is closed; hence v ∗ v_* v ∗ is positive, even, nonconstant, and periodic. Its energy is
1 2 ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 − ( n − 2 ) 2 8 v ∗ 2 + ( n − 2 ) 2 2 v ∗ p + 1 = − E ∗ < 0 , min v ∗ = m ∗ > 0. (9) \frac{1}{2}(v_*')^2 - \frac{(n-2)^2}{8}v_*^2 + \frac{(n-2)^2}{2}v_*^{p+1} = -E_* < 0,\qquad\min v_* = m_* > 0. \tag*{(9)} 2 1 ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 − 8 ( n − 2 ) 2 v ∗ 2 + 2 ( n − 2 ) 2 v ∗ p + 1 = − E ∗ < 0 , min v ∗ = m ∗ > 0. (9)
We fix the neck parameter m ∗ m_* m ∗ . The phase T T T , taken modulo the period of v ∗ v_* v ∗ , determines the radial profile
V T ( x ) : = Θ ( x ) v ∗ ( − log r + T ) , Θ ( x ) = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 . V_T(x) := \Theta(x)v_*(-\log r + T),\qquad\Theta(x) = |x|^{-(n-2)/2}. V T ( x ) := Θ ( x ) v ∗ ( − log r + T ) , Θ ( x ) = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) /2 .
We also use the radial notation V Θ ( r ) V_{\Theta}(r) V Θ ( r ) and Θ ( r ) \Theta(r) Θ ( r ) . The initial solution for γ 0 \gamma_{0} γ 0 is V 0 ( r ) = Θ ( r ) v ∗ ( − log r ) V_{0}(r)=\Theta(r)v_{*}(-\log r) V 0 ( r ) = Θ ( r ) v ∗ ( − log r ) . It satisfies (2.4), since v ∗ ′ ( 0 ) = 0 v_{*}'(0)=0 v ∗ ′ ( 0 ) = 0 . Near x = 0 x=0 x = 0 , V 0 ( x ) 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ 0 ≥ m ∗ 4 / ( n − 2 ) ∣ x ∣ − 2 γ 0 V_{0}(x)^{4/(n-2)}\gamma_{0}\ge m_{*}^{4/(n-2)}|x|^{-2}\gamma_{0} V 0 ( x ) 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ 0 ≥ m ∗ 4/ ( n − 2 ) ∣ x ∣ − 2 γ 0 ; after the boundary identification its conformal metric is complete.
Fix a scalar weight 0 < δ < 1 0<\delta<1 0 < δ < 1 throughout the construction. For s ∈ { − δ , δ } s\in\{-\delta,\delta\} s ∈ { − δ , δ } , let H s 1 ( X ) H^{1}_{s}(X) H s 1 ( X ) be the completion, in the following norm, of smooth functions on B 1 ‾ \overline{B_{1}} B 1 vanishing near x = 0 x=0 x = 0 whose boundary trace is antipodally even:
∥ w ∥ H s 1 2 : = ∫ B 1 ∣ x ∣ − 2 s ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + ∣ x ∣ − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d x , H δ 1 − 1 : = ( H − δ 1 ) ∗ . (10) \|w\|_{H^{1}_{s}}^{2}:=\int_{B_{1}}|x|^{-2s}\left(|Dw|^{2}+|x|^{-2}|w|^{2}\right)\,dx,\qquad H^{1}_{\delta}{}^{-1}:=(H^{1}_{-\delta})^{*}. \tag*{(10)} ∥ w ∥ H s 1 2 := ∫ B 1 ∣ x ∣ − 2 s ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + ∣ x ∣ − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d x , H δ 1 − 1 := ( H − δ 1 ) ∗ . (10)
At weight zero, the space is
H e v 1 ( B 1 ) : = { w ∈ H 1 ( B 1 ) : Tr w ( θ ) = Tr w ( − θ ) } , H^{1}_{\mathrm{ev}}(B_{1}):=\{w\in H^{1}(B_{1}):\operatorname{Tr}w(\theta)=\operatorname{Tr}w(-\theta)\}, H ev 1 ( B 1 ) := { w ∈ H 1 ( B 1 ) : Tr w ( θ ) = Tr w ( − θ )} ,
∥ w ∥ H e v 1 2 : = ∫ B 1 ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + ∣ x ∣ − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d x . (11) \|w\|_{H^{1}_{\mathrm{ev}}}^{2}:=\int_{B_{1}}\left(|Dw|^{2}+|x|^{-2}|w|^{2}\right)\,dx. \tag*{(11)} ∥ w ∥ H ev 1 2 := ∫ B 1 ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + ∣ x ∣ − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d x . (11)
The subscript ev refers only to the boundary trace. Hardy’s inequality with a boundary term and the trace inequality give
∥ w ∥ H 1 ( B 1 ) 2 ≤ ∥ w ∥ H e v 1 2 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H 1 ( B 1 ) 2 . \|w\|_{H^{1}(B_{1})}^{2}\le\|w\|_{H^{1}_{\mathrm{ev}}}^{2}\le C\|w\|_{H^{1}(B_{1})}^{2}. ∥ w ∥ H 1 ( B 1 ) 2 ≤ ∥ w ∥ H ev 1 2 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H 1 ( B 1 ) 2 .
Thus the completion at weight zero is H e v 1 ( B 1 ) H^{1}_{\mathrm{ev}}(B_{1}) H ev 1 ( B 1 ) , with an equivalent norm to the ordinary Sobolev norm on this subspace. For n ≥ 3 n\ge3 n ≥ 3 , the point 0 has zero H 1 H^{1} H 1 -capacity. Consequently restriction identifies ordinary H 1 ( B 1 ) H^{1}(B_{1}) H 1 ( B 1 ) with ordinary Euclidean H 1 ( X ) H^{1}(X) H 1 ( X ) , with equal ordinary norms. We use H 0 1 ( D ) H^{1}_{0}(D) H 0 1 ( D ) for the space with zero boundary trace on a domain D D D . Duality in (2.7) uses d x dx d x . For 1 ≤ q ≤ ∞ 1\le q\le\infty 1 ≤ q ≤ ∞ and s ∈ { − δ , δ } s\in\{-\delta,\delta\} s ∈ { − δ , δ } , set ∥ f ∥ L s q : = ∥ ∣ x ∣ − s f ∥ L q ( B 1 ) \|f\|_{L^{q}_{s}}:=\||x|^{-s}f\|_{L^{q}(B_{1})} ∥ f ∥ L s q := ∥∣ x ∣ − s f ∥ L q ( B 1 ) .
Set A = B 2 ∖ B ‾ 1 / 2 A=B_{2}\setminus\overline{B}_{1/2} A = B 2 ∖ B 1/2 . The weighted Hölder norm, for s ∈ { − δ , 0 , δ } s\in\{-\delta,0,\delta\} s ∈ { − δ , 0 , δ } , is
∥ w ∥ C Θ ; s k , α : = sup 0 < ρ ≤ 1 / 2 ρ n − 2 2 − s ∥ w ( ρ ⋅ ) ∥ C k , α ( A ‾ ) + ∥ w ∥ C k , α ( B ‾ 1 ∖ B 1 / 4 ) . (12) \|w\|_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;s}}:=\sup_{0<\rho\le1/2}\rho^{\frac{n-2}{2}-s}\|w(\rho\cdot)\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{A})}+\|w\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{B}_{1}\setminus B_{1/4})}. \tag*{(12)} ∥ w ∥ C Θ ; s k , α := 0 < ρ ≤ 1/2 sup ρ 2 n − 2 − s ∥ w ( ρ ⋅ ) ∥ C k , α ( A ) + ∥ w ∥ C k , α ( B 1 ∖ B 1/4 ) . (12)
Restrictions near 0 use only annuli contained in the indicated region. For estimates on arbitrary subsets D ⊂ X D\subset X D ⊂ X , we use
∥ w ∥ C Θ ; s k ( D ) : = ∑ ∣ β ∣ ≤ k sup x ∈ D ∣ x ∣ ∣ β ∣ − s Θ ( x ) − 1 ∣ D β w ( x ) ∣ . \|w\|_{C^{k}_{\Theta;s}(D)}:=\sum_{|\beta|\le k}\sup_{x\in D}|x|^{|\beta|-s}\Theta(x)^{-1}|D^{\beta}w(x)|. ∥ w ∥ C Θ ; s k ( D ) := ∣ β ∣ ≤ k ∑ x ∈ D sup ∣ x ∣ ∣ β ∣ − s Θ ( x ) − 1 ∣ D β w ( x ) ∣.
Omitting the Hölder seminorms in (2.9) gives an equivalent norm to C Θ ; s k ( X ) C^{k}_{\Theta;s}(X) C Θ ; s k ( X ) . In particular, ∥ w ∥ C Θ ; 0 0 = sup X ∣ w ∣ / Θ \|w\|_{C^{0}_{\Theta;0}}=\sup_{X}|w|/\Theta ∥ w ∥ C Θ ; 0 0 = sup X ∣ w ∣/Θ . Every w ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α w\in C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} w ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α satisfies
∣ D β w ( x ) ∣ ≤ C ∥ w ∥ C Θ ; δ k , α ∣ x ∣ − n − 2 2 + δ − ∣ β ∣ , ∣ β ∣ ≤ k . |D^{\beta}w(x)|\le C\|w\|_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta}}|x|^{-\frac{n-2}{2}+\delta-|\beta|},\qquad|\beta|\le k. ∣ D β w ( x ) ∣ ≤ C ∥ w ∥ C Θ ; δ k , α ∣ x ∣ − 2 n − 2 + δ − ∣ β ∣ , ∣ β ∣ ≤ k .
Thus w / Θ = O ( ∣ x ∣ δ ) w/\Theta=O(|x|^{\delta}) w /Θ = O ( ∣ x ∣ δ ) ; the norm controls the function and its derivatives relative to the Fowler scale Θ \Theta Θ .
The weak realization of − L γ -L_{\gamma} − L γ uses the symmetric form
Q γ ( w , φ ) : = ∫ B 1 ( ⟨ D w , D φ ⟩ γ + c ( n ) Scal γ w φ ) d x + n − 2 2 ∫ ∂ B 1 w φ d S . (13) Q_{\gamma}(w,\varphi):=\int_{B_{1}}\left(\langle Dw,D\varphi\rangle_{\gamma}+c(n)\operatorname{Scal}_{\gamma}\,w\varphi\right)\,dx+\frac{n-2}{2}\int_{\partial B_{1}}w\varphi\,dS. \tag*{(13)} Q γ ( w , φ ) := ∫ B 1 ( ⟨ D w , D φ ⟩ γ + c ( n ) Scal γ w φ ) d x + 2 n − 2 ∫ ∂ B 1 w φ d S . (13)
The trace of each test function φ \varphi φ is antipodally even. Hence
∫ ∂ B 1 ( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) w ( θ ) φ ( θ ) d S = 1 2 ∫ ∂ B 1 [ ( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) w ( θ ) + ( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) w ( − θ ) ] φ ( θ ) d S . \int_{\partial B_{1}}\left(\partial_{r}+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)w(\theta)\varphi(\theta)\,dS
=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial B_{1}}\left[\left(\partial_{r}+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)w(\theta)+\left(\partial_{r}+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)w(-\theta)\right]\varphi(\theta)\,dS. ∫ ∂ B 1 ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) w ( θ ) φ ( θ ) d S = 2 1 ∫ ∂ B 1 [ ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) w ( θ ) + ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) w ( − θ ) ] φ ( θ ) d S .
Thus (2.4) is the natural boundary condition of this weak form. The form is continuous, with
∣ Q γ ( w , φ ) ∣ ≤ C γ ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ∥ φ ∥ H − δ 1 . |Q_{\gamma}(w,\varphi)|\le C_{\gamma}\|w\|_{H^{1}_{\delta}}\|\varphi\|_{H^{1}_{-\delta}}. ∣ Q γ ( w , φ ) ∣ ≤ C γ ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ∥ φ ∥ H − δ 1 .
Indeed, uniform ellipticity controls the gradient term by C ∥ ∣ x ∣ − δ D w ∥ 2 ∥ ∣ x ∣ δ D φ ∥ 2 C\lVert|x|^{-\delta}Dw\rVert_2\lVert|x|^\delta D\varphi\rVert_2 C ∥ ∣ x ∣ − δ D w ∥ 2 ∥ ∣ x ∣ δ D φ ∥ 2 . Bounded scalar curvature and ∣ x ∣ ≤ 1 |x|\le1 ∣ x ∣ ≤ 1 control the term of order zero by C ∥ ∣ x ∣ − 1 − δ w ∥ 2 ∥ ∣ x ∣ − 1 + δ φ ∥ 2 C\lVert|x|^{-1-\delta}w\rVert_2\lVert|x|^{-1+\delta}\varphi\rVert_2 C ∥ ∣ x ∣ − 1 − δ w ∥ 2 ∥ ∣ x ∣ − 1 + δ φ ∥ 2 . The trace inequality controls the boundary term on the fixed collar, where the weights and their reciprocals are bounded. Smooth functions satisfying both matching conditions and vanishing near 0 are dense in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 : use the Kelvin identification in a boundary collar, smooth there, and cut off near 0 in the weighted norm.
For a real valued function f f f , write f + : = max { f , 0 } f_+ := \max\{f,0\} f + := max { f , 0 } and f − : = max { − f , 0 } f_- := \max\{-f,0\} f − := max { − f , 0 } . We write the nonlinear residual as
F γ ( Y ) : = − L γ Y − n ( n − 2 ) ( Y + ) p . \mathcal{F}_\gamma(Y):=-L_\gamma Y-n(n-2)(Y_+)^p. F γ ( Y ) := − L γ Y − n ( n − 2 ) ( Y + ) p .
For smooth test functions on B ‾ 1 \overline{B}_1 B 1 that vanish near 0 and have antipodally even boundary traces, the weak formulation uses Q γ Q_\gamma Q γ for the linear term. To vary the Fowler phase near the puncture, choose a smooth radial cutoff 0 ≤ χ ( r ) ≤ 1 0\le\chi(r)\le1 0 ≤ χ ( r ) ≤ 1 equal to one near 0 and zero near r = 1 r=1 r = 1 . For the initial inverse, any such cutoff is allowed. When a ball is chosen for a particular insertion, we will choose the cutoff to vanish on a neighborhood of that ball as well. The cutoff is held fixed throughout each insertion. Define
Φ T , τ ( r ) : = χ ( r ) ( V T + τ ( r ) − V T ( r ) ) , \Phi_{T,\tau}(r):=\chi(r)\bigl(V_{T+\tau}(r)-V_T(r)\bigr), Φ T , τ ( r ) := χ ( r ) ( V T + τ ( r ) − V T ( r ) ) ,
ψ T ( r ) : = ∂ τ Φ T , τ ( r ) ∣ τ = 0 = χ ( r ) Θ ( r ) v ∗ ′ ( − log r + T ) . (14) \psi_T(r):=\left.\partial_\tau\Phi_{T,\tau}(r)\right|_{\tau=0}=\chi(r)\Theta(r)v_*'(-\log r+T). \tag*{(14)} ψ T ( r ) := ∂ τ Φ T , τ ( r ) ∣ τ = 0 = χ ( r ) Θ ( r ) v ∗ ′ ( − log r + T ) . (14)
Here r = ∣ x ∣ r=|x| r = ∣ x ∣ is the radial variable, T T T is the background phase, and τ \tau τ is its increment. The cutoff preserves the boundary matching conditions, and ∂ τ Φ T , τ = ψ T + τ ∈ H − δ 1 ∖ H δ 1 \partial_\tau\Phi_{T,\tau}=\psi_{T+\tau}\in H^1_{-\delta}\setminus H^1_\delta ∂ τ Φ T , τ = ψ T + τ ∈ H − δ 1 ∖ H δ 1 . Set
X δ = R ⊕ H δ 1 , ∥ ( τ , w ) ∥ X δ = ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 . X_\delta=\mathbb{R}\oplus H^1_\delta,\qquad\|(\tau,w)\|_{X_\delta}=|\tau|+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}. X δ = R ⊕ H δ 1 , ∥ ( τ , w ) ∥ X δ = ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 .
The spaces H ± δ 1 H^1_{\pm\delta} H ± δ 1 , and X δ X_\delta X δ , with their displayed norms, are fixed independently of χ \chi χ . Changing χ \chi χ changes the representation of a function as τ ψ T + w \tau\psi_T+w τ ψ T + w . The exact coordinate change and the dependence of the inverse bound are given in (17) –(18) below. Near 0, the identity V T + Φ T , τ = V T + τ V_T+\Phi_{T,\tau}=V_{T+\tau} V T + Φ T , τ = V T + τ preserves the exact Fowler profile. The variable τ \tau τ describes the phase variation, while w ∈ H δ 1 w\in H^1_\delta w ∈ H δ 1 describes the remaining correction.
We now specify the backgrounds used in the induction. Let γ \gamma γ satisfy the metric conditions stated after (6) , and let V > 0 V>0 V > 0 be smooth on B ‾ 1 ∖ { 0 } \overline{B}_1\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } , satisfy (7) , and obey
− L γ V = n ( n − 2 ) V p in X , V = V T + w 0 near 0 , w 0 ∈ H δ 1 ∩ C Θ ; δ k , α (15) -L_\gamma V=n(n-2)V^p\quad\text{in }X,\qquad V=V_T+w_0\quad\text{near }0,\qquad w_0\in H^1_\delta\cap C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} \tag*{(15)} − L γ V = n ( n − 2 ) V p in X , V = V T + w 0 near 0 , w 0 ∈ H δ 1 ∩ C Θ ; δ k , α (15)
for every integer k ≥ 0 k\ge0 k ≥ 0 and every 0 < α < 1 0<\alpha<1 0 < α < 1 . The membership w 0 ∈ H δ 1 ∩ C Θ ; δ k , α w_0\in H^1_\delta\cap C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} w 0 ∈ H δ 1 ∩ C Θ ; δ k , α is understood after extending w 0 w_0 w 0 smoothly to X X X , keeping it unchanged near 0 and making it vanish near ∂ B 1 \partial B_1 ∂ B 1 , for example by using a suitable smooth cutoff.
Set L γ , V : = − L γ − n ( n + 2 ) V p − 1 L_{\gamma,V}:=-L_\gamma-n(n+2)V^{p-1} L γ , V := − L γ − n ( n + 2 ) V p − 1 and define
L ^ γ , V : X δ → H − δ 1 , L ^ γ , V ( τ , w ) : = L γ , V ( τ ψ T + w ) . (16) \widehat{L}_{\gamma,V}:X_\delta\to H^1_{-\delta},\qquad\widehat{L}_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w):=L_{\gamma,V}(\tau\psi_T+w). \tag*{(16)} L γ , V : X δ → H − δ 1 , L γ , V ( τ , w ) := L γ , V ( τ ψ T + w ) . (16)
where ψ T \psi_T ψ T is from (14) . For ( τ , w ) ∈ X δ (\tau,w)\in X_\delta ( τ , w ) ∈ X δ and φ ∈ H − δ 1 \varphi\in H^1_{-\delta} φ ∈ H − δ 1 , the weak formulation is
⟨ L ^ γ , V ( τ , w ) , φ ⟩ = Q γ ( w , φ ) − n ( n + 2 ) ∫ X V p − 1 w φ d x + τ ∫ X ( L γ , V ψ T ) φ d x . \langle\widehat{L}_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w),\varphi\rangle=Q_\gamma(w,\varphi)-n(n+2)\int_X V^{p-1}w\varphi\,dx+\tau\int_X(L_{\gamma,V}\psi_T)\varphi\,dx. ⟨ L γ , V ( τ , w ) , φ ⟩ = Q γ ( w , φ ) − n ( n + 2 ) ∫ X V p − 1 w φ d x + τ ∫ X ( L γ , V ψ T ) φ d x .
Since ψ T = χ ∂ T V T \psi_T=\chi\partial_TV_T ψ T = χ ∂ T V T , χ = 1 \chi=1 χ = 1 and γ \gamma γ is Euclidean near 0, the Fowler equation gives
L γ , V ψ T = n ( n + 2 ) ( V T p − 1 − V p − 1 ) ∂ T V T near 0. L_{\gamma,V}\psi_T=n(n+2)(V_T^{p-1}-V^{p-1})\partial_TV_T\quad\text{near }0. L γ , V ψ T = n ( n + 2 ) ( V T p − 1 − V p − 1 ) ∂ T V T near 0.
Hence ∣ L γ , V ψ T ∣ ≤ C ∣ x ∣ − 2 ∣ w 0 ∣ |L_{\gamma,V}\psi_T|\le C|x|^{-2}|w_0| ∣ L γ , V ψ T ∣ ≤ C ∣ x ∣ − 2 ∣ w 0 ∣ there. Together with w 0 ∈ H δ 1 w_0\in H^1_\delta w 0 ∈ H δ 1 and smoothness away from 0, this implies L γ , V ψ T ∈ H − δ 1 L_{\gamma,V}\psi_T\in H^1_{-\delta} L γ , V ψ T ∈ H − δ 1 .
We call a pair ( γ , V ) (\gamma,V) ( γ , V ) admissible if γ \gamma γ satisfies the metric conditions stated after (6) , V > 0 V>0 V > 0 is smooth on B ‾ 1 ∖ { 0 } \overline{B}_1\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } and satisfies (7) and (15) , and the map L ^ γ , V \widehat{L}_{\gamma,V} L γ , V defined in (16) is an isomorphism. The last requirement is the nondegeneracy condition for the pair.
The following inverse provides the initial background for the construction.
Lemma 2.1. At V 0 ( r ) = Θ ( r ) v ∗ ( − log r ) V_0(r)=\Theta(r)v_*(-\log r) V 0 ( r ) = Θ ( r ) v ∗ ( − log r ) , the map L ^ γ 0 , V 0 : X δ → H δ − 1 \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma_0,V_0}:X_\delta\to H^{-1}_\delta L γ 0 , V 0 : X δ → H δ − 1 is an isomorphism. Its inverse bound depends on n n n , v ∗ v_* v ∗ , δ \delta δ and the cutoff.
The proof is given in Section 3.
By (2.12) and the smoothness and positivity of V V V away from 0, the quotient V / Θ V/\Theta V /Θ has positive upper and lower bounds on X X X , and ∥ V ∥ C Θ ; 0 k < ∞ \|V\|_{C^k_{\Theta;0}}<\infty ∥ V ∥ C Θ ; 0 k < ∞ for every fixed k ≥ 0 k\geq0 k ≥ 0 . By Lemma 2.1, the initial pair ( γ 0 , V 0 ) (\gamma_0,V_0) ( γ 0 , V 0 ) is admissible. Proposition 2.2 preserves admissibility at each insertion.
Change of phase cutoff. Let ( γ , V ) (\gamma,V) ( γ , V ) be admissible, with phase T T T in (2.12). For two smooth radial cutoffs χ \chi χ and χ ~ \widetilde{\chi} χ , each equal to one near 0 and zero near r = 1 r=1 r = 1 , write
ψ T χ = χ ∂ T V T , Φ T , τ χ ( r ) = χ ( r ) ( V T + τ ( r ) − V T ( r ) ) , L ^ γ , V χ ( τ , w ) = L γ , V ( τ ψ T χ + w ) . \psi_T^\chi=\chi\partial_TV_T,\qquad\Phi^\chi_{T,\tau}(r)=\chi(r)(V_{T+\tau}(r)-V_T(r)),\qquad\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^\chi_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w)=\mathcal{L}_{\gamma,V}(\tau\psi_T^\chi+w). ψ T χ = χ ∂ T V T , Φ T , τ χ ( r ) = χ ( r ) ( V T + τ ( r ) − V T ( r )) , L γ , V χ ( τ , w ) = L γ , V ( τ ψ T χ + w ) .
Set h T = ( χ − χ ~ ) ∂ T V T ∈ H δ 1 ( X ) h_T=(\chi-\widetilde{\chi})\partial_TV_T\in H^1_\delta(X) h T = ( χ − χ ) ∂ T V T ∈ H δ 1 ( X ) . Then
S χ , χ ~ : X δ → X δ , S χ , χ ~ ( τ , w ) = ( τ , w + τ h T ) (17) S_{\chi,\widetilde{\chi}}:X_\delta\to X_\delta,\qquad S_{\chi,\widetilde{\chi}}(\tau,w)=(\tau,w+\tau h_T) \tag*{(17)} S χ , χ : X δ → X δ , S χ , χ ( τ , w ) = ( τ , w + τ h T ) (17)
is a bounded linear isomorphism. Since
L ^ γ , V χ ~ S χ , χ ~ = L ^ γ , V χ , ∥ S χ , χ ~ ∥ ≤ 1 + ∥ h T ∥ H δ 1 , \widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{\widetilde{\chi}}_{\gamma,V}S_{\chi,\widetilde{\chi}}=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^\chi_{\gamma,V},\qquad\|S_{\chi,\widetilde{\chi}}\|\leq1+\|h_T\|_{H^1_\delta}, L γ , V χ S χ , χ = L γ , V χ , ∥ S χ , χ ∥ ≤ 1 + ∥ h T ∥ H δ 1 ,
invertibility for one cutoff is equivalent to invertibility for the other, and
∥ ( L ^ γ , V χ ~ ) − 1 ∥ H δ − 1 → X δ ≤ ( 1 + ∥ h T ∥ H δ 1 ) ∥ ( L ^ γ , V χ ) − 1 ∥ H δ − 1 → X δ . (18) \|(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{\widetilde{\chi}}_{\gamma,V})^{-1}\|_{H^{-1}_\delta\to X_\delta}\leq(1+\|h_T\|_{H^1_\delta})\|(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^\chi_{\gamma,V})^{-1}\|_{H^{-1}_\delta\to X_\delta}. \tag*{(18)} ∥ ( L γ , V χ ) − 1 ∥ H δ − 1 → X δ ≤ ( 1 + ∥ h T ∥ H δ 1 ) ∥ ( L γ , V χ ) − 1 ∥ H δ − 1 → X δ . (18)
At the nonlinear level, the change
w ~ = w + ( χ − χ ~ ) ( V T + τ − V T ) , V + Φ T , τ χ + w = V + Φ T , τ χ ~ + w ~ (19) \widetilde{w}=w+(\chi-\widetilde{\chi})(V_{T+\tau}-V_T),\qquad V+\Phi^\chi_{T,\tau}+w=V+\Phi^{\widetilde{\chi}}_{T,\tau}+\widetilde{w} \tag*{(19)} w = w + ( χ − χ ) ( V T + τ − V T ) , V + Φ T , τ χ + w = V + Φ T , τ χ + w (19)
preserves the represented function. The comparison constants depend on the two cutoffs. We suppress the cutoff superscript after this comparison.
Choose real phase representatives near T T T . All thresholds and constants refer to the fixed background and insertion ball.
Proposition 2.2. Let ( γ , V ) (\gamma,V) ( γ , V ) be admissible, with phase T T T in (2.12), and let B 4 ρ ( a ) B_{4\rho}(a) B 4 ρ ( a ) have compact closure in B 1 / 2 ∖ { 0 } B_{1/2}\setminus\{0\} B 1/2 ∖ { 0 } , with γ = γ 0 \gamma=\gamma_0 γ = γ 0 on this ball. For every sufficiently small μ > 0 \mu>0 μ > 0 , there is an admissible pair ( γ μ , Y μ ) (\gamma_\mu,Y_\mu) ( γ μ , Y μ ) with Fowler phase T ^ μ \widehat{T}_\mu T μ and the same neck parameter m ∗ m_* m ∗ . The metric change from γ \gamma γ to γ μ \gamma_\mu γ μ is supported in B ρ ( a ) B_\rho(a) B ρ ( a ) , d V γ μ = d x dV_{\gamma_\mu}=dx d V γ μ = d x , and, for every fixed k ≥ 0 k\geq0 k ≥ 0 ,
∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C k ( B 1 ) → 0 , T ^ μ → T as μ ↓ 0. (20) \|\gamma_\mu-\gamma\|_{C^k(B_1)}\to0,\qquad\widehat{T}_\mu\to T\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0. \tag*{(20)} ∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C k ( B 1 ) → 0 , T μ → T as μ ↓ 0. (20) The full inverse satisfies
∥ L ^ γ μ , Y μ − 1 f ∥ X δ ≤ C μ ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 , C μ < ∞ , (21) \|\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{-1}_{\gamma_\mu,Y_\mu}f\|_{X_\delta}\leq C_\mu\|f\|_{H^{-1}_\delta},\qquad C_\mu<\infty, \tag*{(21)} ∥ L γ μ , Y μ − 1 f ∥ X δ ≤ C μ ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 , C μ < ∞ , (21) for every f ∈ H δ − 1 f\in H^{-1}_\delta f ∈ H δ − 1 . For every fixed k ≥ 0 k\geq0 k ≥ 0 ,
∥ Y μ − V ∥ C Θ ; 0 k ( X ∖ B ρ ( a ) ‾ ) → 0 as μ ↓ 0. (22) \|Y_\mu-V\|_{C^k_{\Theta;0}(X\setminus\overline{B_\rho(a)})}\to0\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0. \tag*{(22)} ∥ Y μ − V ∥ C Θ ; 0 k ( X ∖ B ρ ( a ) ) → 0 as μ ↓ 0. (22) There are c , C > 0 c,C>0 c , C > 0 , independent of small μ \mu μ , and x μ ∈ B C μ ( a ) x_\mu\in B_{C\mu}(a) x μ ∈ B C μ ( a ) such that
Y μ ( x μ ) ≥ c μ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 . (23) Y_\mu(x_\mu)\geq c\mu^{-(n-2)/2}. \tag*{(23)} Y μ ( x μ ) ≥ c μ − ( n − 2 ) /2 . (23)
To prove Proposition 2.2, we first solve a projected equation for the phase and function correction, keeping the bubble’s scale and center fixed. At this intermediate stage, n + 1 n+1 n + 1 residual coefficients may still be nonzero. We then choose the scale and center at a nondegenerate critical point of the reduced energy, which makes these coefficients vanish and yields the exact solution Y μ Y_\mu Y μ . Nondegeneracy of this critical point, together with the projected inverse, also gives invertibility of the augmented linearization at ( γ μ , Y μ ) (\gamma_\mu,Y_\mu) ( γ μ , Y μ ) . Section 6 completes the proof.
Remark 2.3. The metric change is supported in B ρ ( a ) B_{\rho}(a) B ρ ( a ) , and the solution change outside B ρ ( a ) B_{\rho}(a) B ρ ( a ) satisfies (2.19). Lemma 2.4 supplies the lower bound inside B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) used in the induction.
We now transfer boundary lower bounds into the insertion ball and carry out the induction. For balls D D D whose radii are at most one sixteenth of the distance of their centers to 0, the function Θ = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 \Theta= |x|^{-(n-2)/2} Θ = ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) /2 satisfies
sup D Θ ≤ C n inf D Θ (24) \sup_D \Theta\leq C_n \inf_D \Theta \tag*{(24)} D sup Θ ≤ C n D inf Θ (24)
with a constant C n C_n C n depending only on n n n .
Lemma 2.4. There exist a C 2 ( B 1 ‾ ) C^2(\overline{B_1}) C 2 ( B 1 ) neighborhood U 0 U_0 U 0 of γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 and r 0 > 0 r_0 > 0 r 0 > 0 such that, if γ ∈ U 0 \gamma\in U_0 γ ∈ U 0 , D = B R ( a ) D = B_R(a) D = B R ( a ) has compact closure in B 1 B_1 B 1 , R ≤ r 0 R \leq r_0 R ≤ r 0 , and V > 0 V > 0 V > 0 solves − L γ V = n ( n − 2 ) V p -L_\gamma V = n(n-2)V^p − L γ V = n ( n − 2 ) V p near D ‾ \overline{D} D , then
inf D V ≥ 1 2 inf ∂ D V . (25) \inf_D V \geq\frac{1}{2}\inf_{\partial D} V. \tag*{(25)} D inf V ≥ 2 1 ∂ D inf V . (25) If, in addition, R ≤ ∣ a ∣ / 16 R \leq|a|/16 R ≤ ∣ a ∣/16 and V / Θ ≥ m ∗ / 2 V/\Theta\geq m_*/2 V /Θ ≥ m ∗ /2 on ∂ D \partial D ∂ D , then V / Θ ≥ m ∗ / ( 4 C n ) V/\Theta\geq m_*/(4C_n) V /Θ ≥ m ∗ / ( 4 C n ) on D D D .
Proof. In a fixed small neighborhood of γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 , the metrics are uniformly elliptic, their coefficients have uniform C 1 C^1 C 1 bounds, and ∣ Scal γ ∣ ≤ C |\operatorname{Scal}_\gamma| \leq C ∣ Scal γ ∣ ≤ C . After fixing a sufficiently small neighborhood U 0 U_0 U 0 , there exist r 0 , c 0 > 0 r_0,c_0 > 0 r 0 , c 0 > 0 such that Δ γ ∣ x − a ∣ 2 ≥ c 0 \Delta_\gamma|x-a|^2 \geq c_0 Δ γ ∣ x − a ∣ 2 ≥ c 0 throughout every ball B R ( a ) ⋐ B 1 B_R(a) \Subset B_1 B R ( a ) ⋐ B 1 with R ≤ r 0 R \leq r_0 R ≤ r 0 , for every γ ∈ U 0 \gamma\in U_0 γ ∈ U 0 . Choose C 0 C_0 C 0 so that C 0 c 0 ≥ c ( n ) sup ∣ Scal γ ∣ C_0c_0 \geq c(n)\sup|\operatorname{Scal}_\gamma| C 0 c 0 ≥ c ( n ) sup ∣ Scal γ ∣ , and require C 0 r 0 2 ≤ 1 / 2 C_0r_0^2 \leq1/2 C 0 r 0 2 ≤ 1/2 . Then
b ( x ) : = 1 − C 0 ( R 2 − ∣ x − a ∣ 2 ) , 1 2 ≤ b ≤ 1 , − L γ b ≤ 0 , b ∣ ∂ D = 1. b(x) := 1-C_0(R^2-|x-a|^2), \qquad\frac{1}{2}\leq b\leq1,\qquad-L_\gamma b\leq0,\qquad b|_{\partial D}=1. b ( x ) := 1 − C 0 ( R 2 − ∣ x − a ∣ 2 ) , 2 1 ≤ b ≤ 1 , − L γ b ≤ 0 , b ∣ ∂ D = 1.
After decreasing r 0 r_0 r 0 , the Dirichlet form of − L γ -L_\gamma − L γ on D D D
∫ D ( ∣ D φ ∣ γ 2 + c ( n ) Scal γ φ 2 ) d V γ , \int_D \left(|D\varphi|_\gamma^2+c(n)\operatorname{Scal}_\gamma\varphi^2\right)\,dV_\gamma, ∫ D ( ∣ D φ ∣ γ 2 + c ( n ) Scal γ φ 2 ) d V γ ,
is uniformly coercive for every γ ∈ U 0 \gamma\in U_0 γ ∈ U 0 and R ≤ r 0 R\leq r_0 R ≤ r 0 :
c ( n ) ∫ D ( Scal γ ) − φ 2 d V γ ≤ C R 2 ∫ D ∣ D φ ∣ γ 2 d V γ , φ ∈ H 0 1 ( D ) . c(n)\int_D(\operatorname{Scal}_\gamma)_-\varphi^2\,dV_\gamma
\leq CR^2\int_D|D\varphi|_\gamma^2\,dV_\gamma,\qquad\varphi\in H_0^1(D). c ( n ) ∫ D ( Scal γ ) − φ 2 d V γ ≤ C R 2 ∫ D ∣ D φ ∣ γ 2 d V γ , φ ∈ H 0 1 ( D ) .
Uniform ellipticity and Poincaré’s inequality justify this estimate. Choose r 0 r_0 r 0 so that C r 0 2 ≤ 1 / 2 Cr_0^2\leq1/2 C r 0 2 ≤ 1/2 . Then the Dirichlet form is uniformly coercive for every γ ∈ U 0 \gamma\in U_0 γ ∈ U 0 and R ≤ r 0 R\leq r_0 R ≤ r 0 . Set m = inf ∂ D V m=\inf_{\partial D}V m = inf ∂ D V . Since V − m b ≥ 0 V-mb\geq0 V − mb ≥ 0 on ∂ D \partial D ∂ D and − L γ ( V − m b ) ≥ 0 -L_\gamma(V-mb)\geq0 − L γ ( V − mb ) ≥ 0 in D D D , testing with ( V − m b ) − (V-mb)_- ( V − mb ) − and using coercivity gives V ≥ m b ≥ m / 2 V\geq mb\geq m/2 V ≥ mb ≥ m /2 . Dividing by Θ \Theta Θ proves the final assertion. □
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Step 1. The balls and the initial pair. Fix a unit vector e e e and a sufficiently small r 1 > 0 r_1>0 r 1 > 0 . Set
r j = 4 1 − j r 1 , a j = r j e , ρ j = r j / 64 , D j = B 2 ρ j ( a j ) , c ∗ : = m ∗ 16 C n , d j = c ∗ 2 − j − 4 . r_j=4^{1-j}r_1,\qquad a_j=r_je,\qquad\rho_j=r_j/64,\qquad D_j=B_{2\rho_j}(a_j),\qquad c_*:=\frac{m_*}{16C_n},\qquad d_j=c_*2^{-j-4}. r j = 4 1 − j r 1 , a j = r j e , ρ j = r j /64 , D j = B 2 ρ j ( a j ) , c ∗ := 16 C n m ∗ , d j = c ∗ 2 − j − 4 .
The balls B 4 ρ j ( a j ) B_{4\rho_j}(a_j) B 4 ρ j ( a j ) are pairwise disjoint in B 1 / 2 ∖ { 0 } B_{1/2}\setminus\{0\} B 1/2 ∖ { 0 } . Fix a smooth function χ ∗ : [ 0 , ∞ ) → [ 0 , 1 ] \chi_*:[0,\infty)\to[0,1] χ ∗ : [ 0 , ∞ ) → [ 0 , 1 ] equal to one on [ 0 , 1 ] [0,1] [ 0 , 1 ] and zero on [ 2 , ∞ ) [2,\infty) [ 2 , ∞ ) , and set
χ j ( r ) : = χ ∗ ( 4 r / r j ) . (26) \chi_j(r):=\chi_*(4r/r_j). \tag*{(26)} χ j ( r ) := χ ∗ ( 4 r / r j ) . (26)
Thus χ j = 1 \chi_j=1 χ j = 1 for r ≤ r j / 4 r\leq r_j/4 r ≤ r j /4 and χ j = 0 \chi_j=0 χ j = 0 for r ≥ r j / 2 r\geq r_j/2 r ≥ r j /2 . Since ∣ a j ∣ − 4 ρ j = 15 r j / 16 |a_j|-4\rho_j=15r_j/16 ∣ a j ∣ − 4 ρ j = 15 r j /16 , χ j \chi_j χ j vanishes on a neighborhood of B 4 ρ j ( a j ) B_{4\rho_j}(a_j) B 4 ρ j ( a j ) . Start with the admissible pair ( γ 0 , V 0 ) (\gamma_0,V_0) ( γ 0 , V 0 ) from Lemma 2.1, using χ 1 \chi_1 χ 1 .
Step 2. Choosing each scale after its background and cutoff. Suppose ( γ j − 1 , V j − 1 ) (\gamma_{j-1},V_{j-1}) ( γ j − 1 , V j − 1 ) has been constructed. The current metric is still γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 on B 4 ρ j ( a j ) B_{4\rho_j}(a_j) B 4 ρ j ( a j ) . For j ≥ 2 j\geq2 j ≥ 2 , first replace the preceding cutoff χ j − 1 \chi_{j-1} χ j − 1 by χ j \chi_j χ j in the representation of variations at this fixed background. (18) , with T = T j − 1 T=T_{j-1} T = T j − 1 , gives a finite inverse bound for the new cutoff. The change of cutoff is controlled by
∥ ( χ j − 1 − χ j ) ∂ T V T j − 1 ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∫ r j / 4 2 r j r − 1 − 2 δ d r ≤ C r j − 2 δ . \|(\chi_{j-1}-\chi_j)\partial_TV T_{j-1}\|_{H_\delta^1}
\leq C\int_{r_j/4}^{2r_j}r^{-1-2\delta}\,dr
\leq Cr_j^{-2\delta}. ∥ ( χ j − 1 − χ j ) ∂ T V T j − 1 ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∫ r j /4 2 r j r − 1 − 2 δ d r ≤ C r j − 2 δ .
Indeed χ j − 1 ( r ) = χ ∗ ( r / r j ) \chi_{j-1}(r)=\chi_*(r/r_j) χ j − 1 ( r ) = χ ∗ ( r / r j ) , ∣ ∂ T V T ∣ ≤ C r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 |\partial_T V_T|\le Cr^{-(n-2)/2} ∣ ∂ T V T ∣ ≤ C r − ( n − 2 ) /2 , and ∣ D ∂ T V T ∣ ≤ C r − n / 2 |D\partial_T V_T|\le Cr^{-n/2} ∣ D ∂ T V T ∣ ≤ C r − n /2 , uniformly in T T T . On the cutoff transition annuli, ∣ D χ i ∣ ≤ C / r |D\chi_i|\le C/r ∣ D χ i ∣ ≤ C / r . The constant in this display is independent of j j j and the phase. The resulting full inverse bound may grow with j j j .
Fix ( γ j − 1 , V j − 1 ) (\gamma_{j-1},V_{j-1}) ( γ j − 1 , V j − 1 ) , the ball B 4 ρ j ( a j ) B_{4\rho_j}(a_j) B 4 ρ j ( a j ) , the phase cutoff χ j \chi_j χ j , the cutoff used in (4.5) to localize the metric perturbation, and the bubble cutoff used in (4.8), with ( a , ρ ) = ( a j , ρ j ) (a,\rho)=(a_j,\rho_j) ( a , ρ ) = ( a j , ρ j ) . Also fix a finite bound for
( L ^ γ j − 1 , V j − 1 χ j ) − 1 : H δ − 1 ⟶ X δ , \left(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}^{\chi_j}_{\gamma_{j-1},V_{j-1}}\right)^{-1}:H^{-1}_\delta\longrightarrow\mathcal{X}_\delta, ( L γ j − 1 , V j − 1 χ j ) − 1 : H δ − 1 ⟶ X δ ,
provided by (2.15) for j ≥ 2 j\ge2 j ≥ 2 and by Lemma 2.1 for j = 1 j=1 j = 1 . All these choices are made before choosing μ j \mu_j μ j . The constants and smallness thresholds in Lemmas 4.2 and 4.4 and Proposition 4.5 are then fixed before choosing μ j \mu_j μ j . In Proposition 5.4, shrink the parameter neighborhood to absorb the C ∣ b ∣ 2 C|b|^2 C ∣ b ∣ 2 term in the normalized Hessian estimate, retaining the constants obtained on the initial compact parameter set. The radius of this neighborhood may depend on the stage. After these choices, apply Proposition 2.2 to ( γ , V ) = ( γ j − 1 , V j − 1 ) (\gamma,V)=(\gamma_{j-1},V_{j-1}) ( γ , V ) = ( γ j − 1 , V j − 1 ) . Choose μ j \mu_j μ j sufficiently small and denote the final output at μ = μ j \mu=\mu_j μ = μ j by ( γ j , V j ) (\gamma_j,V_j) ( γ j , V j ) , its Fowler phase by T j T_j T j , and its selected point by x j x_j x j , such that
∥ γ j − γ j − 1 ∥ C m ( B 1 ) ≤ 2 − j r j , 0 ≤ m ≤ j + 2 , (27) \|\gamma_j-\gamma_{j-1}\|_{C^m(B_1)}\le2^{-j}r_j,\qquad0\le m\le j+2, \tag*{(27)} ∥ γ j − γ j − 1 ∥ C m ( B 1 ) ≤ 2 − j r j , 0 ≤ m ≤ j + 2 , (27)
∥ V j − V j − 1 ∥ C Θ ; 0 m ( X ∖ D j ) ≤ d j , 0 ≤ m ≤ j , (28) \|V_j-V_{j-1}\|_{C^m_{\Theta;0}(X\setminus D_j)}\le d_j,\qquad0\le m\le j, \tag*{(28)} ∥ V j − V j − 1 ∥ C Θ ; 0 m ( X ∖ D j ) ≤ d j , 0 ≤ m ≤ j , (28)
∣ T j − T j − 1 ∣ ≤ 2 − j , (29) |T_j-T_{j-1}|\le2^{-j}, \tag*{(29)} ∣ T j − T j − 1 ∣ ≤ 2 − j , (29)
∣ x j − a j ∣ ≤ ρ j / 4 , r j n − 2 V j ( x j ) ≥ 2 2 j . (30) |x_j-a_j|\le\rho_j/4,\qquad r_j^{n-2}V_j(x_j)\ge2^{2j}. \tag*{(30)} ∣ x j − a j ∣ ≤ ρ j /4 , r j n − 2 V j ( x j ) ≥ 2 2 j . (30)
These finitely many conditions follow from (2.17), (2.19), and (2.20) by decreasing μ j \mu_j μ j after fixing the current data. The estimates concern actual metric and solution differences in fixed norms. The new pair is admissible, and (2.15) supplies the inverse for the next cutoff. The small phase increments determine consistent real representatives of T j T_j T j . The restrictions imposed on r 1 r_1 r 1 in Step 1, together with (2.24), keep every γ j \gamma_j γ j in U 0 \mathcal{U}_0 U 0 and ensure uniform comparability with γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 .
Step 3. The uniform lower bound.
Every point of ∂ D j \partial D_j ∂ D j lies outside the other insertion balls. By (2.25) with m = 0 m=0 m = 0 , we have
V j Θ ≥ v ∗ ( − log r ) − ∑ i = 1 j d i ≥ m ∗ / 2 on ∂ D j . \frac{V_j}{\Theta}\ge v_*(-\log r)-\sum_{i=1}^{j}d_i\ge m_*/2\quad\text{on }\partial D_j. Θ V j ≥ v ∗ ( − log r ) − i = 1 ∑ j d i ≥ m ∗ /2 on ∂ D j .
Lemma 2.4 therefore yields
V j Θ ≥ m ∗ 4 C n = 4 c ∗ on D j . \frac{V_j}{\Theta}\ge\frac{m_*}{4C_n}=4c_*\quad\text{on }D_j. Θ V j ≥ 4 C n m ∗ = 4 c ∗ on D j .
At each later stage i > j i>j i > j , this quotient changes on D j D_j D j by at most d i d_i d i . Since ∑ i d i = c ∗ / 16 \sum_i d_i=c_*/16 ∑ i d i = c ∗ /16 and m ∗ = 16 C n c ∗ m_*=16C_nc_* m ∗ = 16 C n c ∗ ,
V ℓ Θ ∣ D j ≥ 4 c ∗ − ∑ i = j + 1 ℓ d i > c ∗ ( ℓ ≥ j ) , \left.\frac{V_\ell}{\Theta}\right|_{D_j}\ge4c_*-\sum_{i=j+1}^{\ell}d_i>c_*\quad(\ell\ge j), Θ V ℓ D j ≥ 4 c ∗ − i = j + 1 ∑ ℓ d i > c ∗ ( ℓ ≥ j ) ,
V ℓ Θ ∣ X ∖ ⋃ i = 1 ℓ D i ≥ m ∗ − ∑ i = 1 ℓ d i ≥ c ∗ . \left.\frac{V_\ell}{\Theta}\right|_{X\setminus\bigcup_{i=1}^{\ell}D_i}\ge m_*-\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}d_i\ge c_*. Θ V ℓ X ∖ ⋃ i = 1 ℓ D i ≥ m ∗ − i = 1 ∑ ℓ d i ≥ c ∗ .
This proves the same bound at every finite stage and for the limit:
V ∞ ( x ) ≥ c ∗ Θ ( x ) = c ∗ ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 . (31) V_\infty(x)\ge c_*\Theta(x)=c_*|x|^{-(n-2)/2}. \tag*{(31)} V ∞ ( x ) ≥ c ∗ Θ ( x ) = c ∗ ∣ x ∣ − ( n − 2 ) /2 . (31)
Step 4. The smooth limiting metric. For each fixed m m m , (2.24) is summable in C m C^m C m . Thus γ j → γ ∞ \gamma_j\to\gamma_\infty γ j → γ ∞ smoothly on B ‾ 1 \overline{B}_1 B 1 . The limit is positive definite, has Euclidean volume, and equals γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 on the fixed boundary collar. Every tensor increment γ j − γ j − 1 \gamma_j-\gamma_{j-1} γ j − γ j − 1 vanishes near 0 0 0 , so uniform convergence of each derivative series gives
D β ( γ ∞ − γ 0 ) ( 0 ) = ∑ j ≥ 1 D β ( γ j − γ j − 1 ) ( 0 ) = 0 for every multiindex β . D^\beta(\gamma_\infty-\gamma_0)(0)=\sum_{j\ge1}D^\beta(\gamma_j-\gamma_{j-1})(0)=0\quad\text{for every multiindex }\beta. D β ( γ ∞ − γ 0 ) ( 0 ) = j ≥ 1 ∑ D β ( γ j − γ j − 1 ) ( 0 ) = 0 for every multiindex β .
Consequently g ∞ = ω 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ ∞ g_{\infty}=\omega^{4/(n-2)}\gamma_{\infty} g ∞ = ω 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ ∞ descends to a smooth metric on R P n \mathbb{RP}^{n} RP n and agrees with g 0 g_{0} g 0 to infinite order at o o o .
Step 5. The limiting solution. On any compact subset of B ‾ 1 ∖ { 0 } \overline{B}_{1}\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } , the norms C Θ ; 0 m C^{m}_{\Theta;0} C Θ ; 0 m and ordinary C m C^{m} C m are equivalent, and all sufficiently late balls D j D_{j} D j are disjoint from that set. Summing (28) gives smooth convergence to V ∞ V_{\infty} V ∞ , including on the boundary collar. The equation and both boundary conditions pass to the limit. Therefore
− L γ ∞ V ∞ = n ( n − 2 ) V ∞ p ∞ , u ∞ : = ω − 1 V ∞ > 0 -L_{\gamma_{\infty}}V_{\infty}=n(n-2)V_{\infty}^{p_{\infty}},\qquad u_{\infty}:=\omega^{-1}V_{\infty}>0 − L γ ∞ V ∞ = n ( n − 2 ) V ∞ p ∞ , u ∞ := ω − 1 V ∞ > 0
defines a smooth solution on R P n ∖ { o } \mathbb{RP}^{n}\setminus\{o\} RP n ∖ { o } for g ∞ g_{\infty} g ∞ .
Step 6. Completeness. Near 0 0 0 , ω \omega ω is bounded above and below, and d g ∞ ( x , o ) ≲ r d_{g_{\infty}}(x,o)\lesssim r d g ∞ ( x , o ) ≲ r . Thus (31) gives (1.2). Moreover,
u ∞ 4 / ( n − 2 ) g ∞ = V ∞ 4 / ( n − 2 ) γ ∞ ≥ C ∗ − 4 / ( n − 2 ) r − 2 γ 0 . u_{\infty}^{4/(n-2)}g_{\infty}=V_{\infty}^{4/(n-2)}\gamma_{\infty}\geq C_{*}^{-4/(n-2)}r^{-2}\gamma_{0}. u ∞ 4/ ( n − 2 ) g ∞ = V ∞ 4/ ( n − 2 ) γ ∞ ≥ C ∗ − 4/ ( n − 2 ) r − 2 γ 0 .
Every curve approaching 0 0 0 has infinite length, since its length is bounded below by a positive multiple of ∫ ∣ d r ∣ / r \int|dr|/r ∫ ∣ d r ∣/ r . After the boundary identification, R P n ∖ { o } \mathbb{RP}^{n}\setminus\{o\} RP n ∖ { o } has no boundary, and the complement of a small neighborhood of o o o is compact. Hence the conformal metric is complete.
Step 7. The retained peaks. The point x j x_{j} x j lies outside every later insertion ball, so
∣ V ∞ ( x j ) − V j ( x j ) ∣ ≤ Θ ( x j ) ∑ i > j d i ≤ C r j − ( n − 2 ) / 2 2 − j . |V_{\infty}(x_{j})-V_{j}(x_{j})|\leq\Theta(x_{j})\sum_{i>j}d_{i}\leq Cr_{j}^{-(n-2)/2}2^{-j}. ∣ V ∞ ( x j ) − V j ( x j ) ∣ ≤ Θ ( x j ) i > j ∑ d i ≤ C r j − ( n − 2 ) /2 2 − j .
By (30) , for large j j j , V ∞ ( x j ) ≥ 1 2 V j ( x j ) ≥ 2 2 j − 1 r j 2 − n V_{\infty}(x_{j})\geq\frac{1}{2}V_{j}(x_{j})\geq2^{2j-1}r_{j}^{2-n} V ∞ ( x j ) ≥ 2 1 V j ( x j ) ≥ 2 2 j − 1 r j 2 − n . Since u ∞ = ω − 1 V ∞ u_{\infty}=\omega^{-1}V_{\infty} u ∞ = ω − 1 V ∞ and d g ∞ ( x j , o ) ≲ r j d_{g_{\infty}}(x_{j},o)\lesssim r_{j} d g ∞ ( x j , o ) ≲ r j ,
d g ∞ ( x j , o ) n − 2 u ∞ ( x j ) ≥ c 2 2 j → ∞ , d g ∞ ( x j , o ) ( n − 2 ) / 2 u ∞ ( x j ) ≥ c 2 2 j r j − ( n − 2 ) / 2 → ∞ . d_{g_{\infty}}(x_{j},o)^{n-2}u_{\infty}(x_{j})\geq c2^{2j}\to\infty,\qquad d_{g_{\infty}}(x_{j},o)^{(n-2)/2}u_{\infty}(x_{j})\geq c2^{2j}r_{j}^{-(n-2)/2}\to\infty. d g ∞ ( x j , o ) n − 2 u ∞ ( x j ) ≥ c 2 2 j → ∞ , d g ∞ ( x j , o ) ( n − 2 ) /2 u ∞ ( x j ) ≥ c 2 2 j r j − ( n − 2 ) /2 → ∞.
The first estimate proves (1.3). The second excludes Fowler asymptotics.
Remark 2.5. Every finite stage has a Fowler asymptote and the phases converge. The limit satisfies V ∞ ( x j ) / Θ ( x j ) → ∞ V_{\infty}(x_{j})/\Theta(x_{j})\to\infty V ∞ ( x j ) /Θ ( x j ) → ∞ along the selected peaks, which excludes asymptotics to a fixed Fowler profile.
Linear and nonlinear estimates for Fowler backgrounds
In this section, we prove the initial inverse in Lemma 2.1 and establish the nonlinear estimates and relative energy used in the insertion. Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 provide the differentiability needed for the reduction.
We first prove the inverse by separating spherical harmonics, using t = − log r t=-\log r t = − log r in this proof.
Proof of Lemma 2.1. Let σ \sigma σ be the unit round metric on S n − 1 \mathbb{S}^{n-1} S n − 1 . In this proof, put x = e − t θ x=e^{-t}\theta x = e − t θ , t ≥ 0 t\geq0 t ≥ 0 , and normalize the unknown and a source function by
w ‾ ( t , θ ) = r ( n − 2 ) / 2 w ( r θ ) , f ‾ ( t , θ ) = r ( n + 2 ) / 2 f ( r θ ) , r = e − t . \overline{w}(t,\theta)=r^{(n-2)/2}w(r\theta),\qquad\overline{f}(t,\theta)=r^{(n+2)/2}f(r\theta),\qquad r=e^{-t}. w ( t , θ ) = r ( n − 2 ) /2 w ( r θ ) , f ( t , θ ) = r ( n + 2 ) /2 f ( r θ ) , r = e − t .
For distributions the source transformation is defined by duality. Direct differentiation and polar integration give
r ( n + 2 ) / 2 L γ 0 , V 0 ( r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 w ‾ ) = [ − ∂ t 2 − Δ σ + ( n − 2 ) 2 4 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 ] w ‾ , r^{(n+2)/2}L_{\gamma_{0},V_{0}}\left(r^{-(n-2)/2}\overline{w}\right)=\left[-\partial_{t}^{2}-\Delta_{\sigma}+\frac{(n-2)^{2}}{4}-n(n+2)v_{*}(t)^{p-1}\right]\overline{w}, r ( n + 2 ) /2 L γ 0 , V 0 ( r − ( n − 2 ) /2 w ) = [ − ∂ t 2 − Δ σ + 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 ] w ,
∥ w ∥ H ± δ 1 ( X ) ≍ ∥ e ± δ t w ‾ ∥ H 1 ( [ 0 , ∞ ) × S n − 1 ) , \|w\|_{H^{1}_{\pm\delta}(X)}\asymp\|e^{\pm\delta t}\overline{w}\|_{H^{1}([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}, ∥ w ∥ H ± δ 1 ( X ) ≍ ∥ e ± δ t w ∥ H 1 ([ 0 , ∞ ) × S n − 1 ) ,
⟨ f , w ⟩ = ⟨ f ‾ , w ‾ ⟩ d t d θ . \langle f,w\rangle=\langle\overline{f},\overline{w}\rangle\,dt\,d\theta. ⟨ f , w ⟩ = ⟨ f , w ⟩ d t d θ .
The norm equivalence follows by expanding ∂ t ( r ( n − 2 ) / 2 w ) = − r ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( r ∂ r w + n − 2 2 w ) \partial_t(r^{(n-2)/2}w)=-r^{(n-2)/2}\left(r\partial_rw+\frac{n-2}{2}w\right) ∂ t ( r ( n − 2 ) /2 w ) = − r ( n − 2 ) /2 ( r ∂ r w + 2 n − 2 w ) ; the terms without derivatives control the lower order contributions in both directions. For smooth functions vanishing near the puncture, the radial cross term cancels the Robin term:
Q γ 0 ( w , w ) = ∫ 0 ∞ ∫ S n − 1 ( ∣ ∂ t w ‾ ∣ 2 + ∣ ∇ σ w ‾ ∣ 2 + ( n − 2 ) 2 4 ∣ w ‾ ∣ 2 ) d θ d t . Q_{\gamma_0}(w,w)=\int_0^\infty\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\left(|\partial_t\overline{w}|^2+|\nabla_\sigma\overline{w}|^2+\frac{(n-2)^2}{4}|\overline{w}|^2\right)\,d\theta\,dt. Q γ 0 ( w , w ) = ∫ 0 ∞ ∫ S n − 1 ( ∣ ∂ t w ∣ 2 + ∣ ∇ σ w ∣ 2 + 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d θ d t .
Thus the weak form becomes the usual form on the half cylinder. The transformed endpoint condition is Neumann for harmonics of even degree and Dirichlet for harmonics of odd degree. Reflect coefficients to the full line with their prescribed parity. In the ODE calculations below, w ℓ w_\ell w ℓ and f f f denote spherical-harmonic coefficients of the normalized unknown and source. On the half-line, we use the weighted Sobolev norms
∥ u ∥ H s 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) : = ∥ e s t u ∥ H 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) , s ∈ { − δ , δ } . \|u\|_{H_s^1(0,\infty)}:=\|e^{st}u\|_{H^1(0,\infty)},\qquad s\in\{-\delta,\delta\}. ∥ u ∥ H s 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) := ∥ e s t u ∥ H 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) , s ∈ { − δ , δ } .
The source norms are dual to the corresponding H − δ 1 H_{-\delta}^1 H − δ 1 test spaces. For t ≥ 0 t\geq0 t ≥ 0 , set
χ ~ ( t ) : = χ ( e − t ) , ψ ‾ 0 ( t ) : = e − ( n − 2 ) t / 2 ψ 0 ( e − t ) = χ ~ ( t ) v ∗ ′ ( t ) . \widetilde{\chi}(t):=\chi(e^{-t}),\qquad\overline{\psi}_0(t):=e^{-(n-2)t/2}\psi_0(e^{-t})=\widetilde{\chi}(t)v_*'(t). χ ( t ) := χ ( e − t ) , ψ 0 ( t ) := e − ( n − 2 ) t /2 ψ 0 ( e − t ) = χ ( t ) v ∗ ′ ( t ) .
Thus ψ ‾ 0 \overline{\psi}_0 ψ 0 vanishes near t = 0 t=0 t = 0 and equals v ∗ ′ v_*' v ∗ ′ for all sufficiently large $t.
We treat the radial mode, the harmonics of degree one, and the higher harmonics separately. The radial equation determines the phase variable. A spherical harmonic of degree ℓ \ell ℓ has eigenvalue λ ℓ = ℓ ( ℓ + n − 2 ) \lambda_\ell=\ell(\ell+n-2) λ ℓ = ℓ ( ℓ + n − 2 ) . The reflected coefficients have parity w ℓ ( − t ) = ( − 1 ) ℓ w ℓ ( t ) w_\ell(-t)=(-1)^\ell w_\ell(t) w ℓ ( − t ) = ( − 1 ) ℓ w ℓ ( t ) .
Step 1. The radial mode. Write
L r a d : = − d 2 d t 2 + ( n − 2 ) 2 4 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 . \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}:=-\frac{d^2}{dt^2}+\frac{(n-2)^2}{4}-n(n+2)v_*(t)^{p-1}. L rad := − d t 2 d 2 + 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 .
For scalar functions set W ( f , g ) : = f g ′ − f ′ g \mathcal{W}(f,g):=fg'-f'g W ( f , g ) := f g ′ − f ′ g . Let y = v ∗ ′ y=v_*' y = v ∗ ′ and v 1 = ∂ η v η ∣ η = m ∗ v_1=\left.\partial_\eta v_\eta\right|_{\eta=m_*} v 1 = ∂ η v η ∣ η = m ∗ , with the profiles normalized at their minima. The period is smooth in η \eta η near m ∗ m_* m ∗ : smooth dependence for the ODE and the condition v η ′ ′ > 0 v_\eta''>0 v η ′′ > 0 at each minimum allow the implicit function theorem to be applied to the next return. Both derivatives solve the radial homogeneous equation and satisfy
y ( 0 ) = 0 , v 1 ( 0 ) = 1 , v 1 ′ ( 0 ) = 0 , W ( v 1 , y ) = v ∗ ′ ′ ( 0 ) ≠ 0. y(0)=0,\qquad v_1(0)=1,\qquad v_1'(0)=0,\qquad\mathcal{W}(v_1,y)=v_*''(0)\ne0. y ( 0 ) = 0 , v 1 ( 0 ) = 1 , v 1 ′ ( 0 ) = 0 , W ( v 1 , y ) = v ∗ ′′ ( 0 ) = 0.
Let P ( η ) \mathcal{P}(\eta) P ( η ) denote the period. Differentiating v η ( t + P ( η ) ) = v η ( t ) v_\eta(t+\mathcal{P}(\eta))=v_\eta(t) v η ( t + P ( η )) = v η ( t ) with respect to the neck parameter, we obtain v 1 ( t + P ( m ∗ ) ) = v 1 ( t ) − P ′ ( m ∗ ) y ( t ) v_1(t+\mathcal{P}(m_*))=v_1(t)-\mathcal{P}'(m_*)y(t) v 1 ( t + P ( m ∗ )) = v 1 ( t ) − P ′ ( m ∗ ) y ( t ) . Consequently
v 1 ( t ) = v 1 , p e r ( t ) + κ t y ( t ) v_1(t)=v_{1,\mathrm{per}}(t)+\kappa t y(t) v 1 ( t ) = v 1 , per ( t ) + κ t y ( t )
for a periodic smooth function v 1 , p e r v_{1,\mathrm{per}} v 1 , per and κ ∈ R \kappa\in\mathbb{R} κ ∈ R .
On t ≥ 0 t\geq0 t ≥ 0 , use the solution v 1 v_1 v 1 at the Neumann endpoint t = 0 t=0 t = 0 and the solution y y y at infinity. For smooth rapidly decaying f f f , applying variation of constants, we obtain
h ( t ) = − y ( t ) W 0 ∫ 0 t v 1 ( s ) f ( s ) d s − v 1 ( t ) W 0 ∫ t ∞ y ( s ) f ( s ) d s , W 0 : = W ( v 1 , y ) . h(t)=-\frac{y(t)}{\mathcal{W}_0}\int_0^t v_1(s)f(s)\,ds-\frac{v_1(t)}{\mathcal{W}_0}\int_t^\infty y(s)f(s)\,ds,\qquad\mathcal{W}_0:=\mathcal{W}(v_1,y). h ( t ) = − W 0 y ( t ) ∫ 0 t v 1 ( s ) f ( s ) d s − W 0 v 1 ( t ) ∫ t ∞ y ( s ) f ( s ) d s , W 0 := W ( v 1 , y ) .
The function h h h satisfies
− h ′ ′ ( t ) + { ( n − 2 ) 2 4 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 } h ( t ) = f ( t ) , h ′ ( 0 ) = 0. -h''(t)+\left\{\frac{(n-2)^2}{4}-n(n+2)v_*(t)^{p-1}\right\}h(t)=f(t),\qquad h'(0)=0. − h ′′ ( t ) + { 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 } h ( t ) = f ( t ) , h ′ ( 0 ) = 0.
Its phase coefficient is τ = − W 0 − 1 ∫ 0 ∞ v 1 ( s ) f ( s ) d s \tau=-\mathcal{W}_0^{-1}\int_0^\infty v_1(s)f(s)\,ds τ = − W 0 − 1 ∫ 0 ∞ v 1 ( s ) f ( s ) d s . Use the decomposition
h = τ ψ ‾ 0 + w , w = h − τ χ ~ y = ( h − τ y ) + τ ( 1 − χ ~ ) y , (32) h=\tau\overline{\psi}_0+w,\qquad w=h-\tau\widetilde{\chi}y=(h-\tau y)+\tau(1-\widetilde{\chi})y, \tag*{(32)} h = τ ψ 0 + w , w = h − τ χ y = ( h − τ y ) + τ ( 1 − χ ) y , (32)
where ψ ˉ 0 \bar\psi_0 ψ ˉ 0 is defined before Step 1 of this proof. Since χ ~ = 0 \tilde\chi=0 χ ~ = 0 near 0 0 0 , one has w ′ ( 0 ) = h ′ ( 0 ) = 0 w'(0)=h'(0)=0 w ′ ( 0 ) = h ′ ( 0 ) = 0 ; since χ ~ = 1 \tilde\chi=1 χ ~ = 1 on the tail, w = h − τ y w=h-\tau y w = h − τ y there. Thus w w w has both the required parity and the required decay. The even extension of ψ ˉ 0 \bar\psi_0 ψ ˉ 0 to the full line is χ ~ ( ∣ t ∣ ) y ( ∣ t ∣ ) \tilde\chi(|t|)y(|t|) χ ~ ( ∣ t ∣ ) y ( ∣ t ∣ ) , smooth because it vanishes near t = 0 t=0 t = 0 .
Equivalently, one may first determine τ \tau τ and then solve
L r a d w = f − τ L r a d ψ ˉ 0 , w ′ ( 0 ) = 0. \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}w=f-\tau\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}\bar\psi_0,\qquad w'(0)=0. L rad w = f − τ L rad ψ ˉ 0 , w ′ ( 0 ) = 0.
Indeed, L r a d ψ ˉ 0 = − χ ~ ′ ′ y − 2 χ ~ ′ y ′ \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}\bar\psi_0=-\tilde\chi''y-2\tilde\chi'y' L rad ψ ˉ 0 = − χ ~ ′′ y − 2 χ ~ ′ y ′ is supported in the transition of χ ~ \tilde\chi χ ~ , and integration by parts gives
∫ 0 ∞ v 1 L r a d ψ ˉ 0 d t = − W 0 , ∫ 0 ∞ v 1 ( f − τ L r a d ψ ˉ 0 ) d t = 0. \int_0^\infty v_1\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}\bar\psi_0\,\mathrm{d}t=-\mathcal{W}_0,\qquad\int_0^\infty v_1(f-\tau\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}\bar\psi_0)\,\mathrm{d}t=0. ∫ 0 ∞ v 1 L rad ψ ˉ 0 d t = − W 0 , ∫ 0 ∞ v 1 ( f − τ L rad ψ ˉ 0 ) d t = 0.
The second identity is the compatibility condition for a decaying radial solution with the Neumann condition at 0 0 0 . For weak sources, it is interpreted in the weighted duality below.
After subtracting τ y ( t ) \tau y(t) τ y ( t ) , the integral representing the decaying part involves only s ≥ t s\ge t s ≥ t . On this region, set
K ( t , s ) = W 0 − 1 { y ( t ) v 1 ( s ) − v 1 ( t ) y ( s ) } . K(t,s)=\mathcal{W}_0^{-1}\{y(t)v_1(s)-v_1(t)y(s)\}. K ( t , s ) = W 0 − 1 { y ( t ) v 1 ( s ) − v 1 ( t ) y ( s )} .
Substituting the decomposition of v 1 v_1 v 1 , we obtain
W 0 K ( t , s ) = y ( t ) v 1 , p e r ( s ) − v 1 , p e r ( t ) y ( s ) + κ ( s − t ) y ( t ) y ( s ) . \mathcal{W}_0K(t,s)=y(t)v_{1,\mathrm{per}}(s)-v_{1,\mathrm{per}}(t)y(s)+\kappa(s-t)y(t)y(s). W 0 K ( t , s ) = y ( t ) v 1 , per ( s ) − v 1 , per ( t ) y ( s ) + κ ( s − t ) y ( t ) y ( s ) .
Consequently K K K , ∂ t K \partial_tK ∂ t K , ∂ s K \partial_sK ∂ s K , and ∂ t ∂ s K \partial_t\partial_sK ∂ t ∂ s K are bounded by C ( 1 + s − t ) C(1+s-t) C ( 1 + s − t ) . The diagonal identities are K ( t , t ) = 0 K(t,t)=0 K ( t , t ) = 0 and ∂ s K ( t , t ) = − 1 \partial_sK(t,t)=-1 ∂ s K ( t , t ) = − 1 .
For weak data, the radial test space on [ 0 , ∞ ) [0,\infty) [ 0 , ∞ ) is H − δ 1 H^1_{-\delta} H − δ 1 with no zero trace condition at 0 0 0 . Its dual elements admit representations
⟨ f , ϕ ⟩ = ∫ 0 ∞ ( f 0 ϕ − f 1 ϕ ′ ) d t , e δ t f 0 , e δ t f 1 ∈ L 2 ( 0 , ∞ ) . (33) \langle f,\phi\rangle=\int_0^\infty(f_0\phi-f_1\phi')\,\mathrm{d}t,\qquad e^{\delta t}f_0,e^{\delta t}f_1\in L^2(0,\infty). \tag*{(33)} ⟨ f , ϕ ⟩ = ∫ 0 ∞ ( f 0 ϕ − f 1 ϕ ′ ) d t , e δ t f 0 , e δ t f 1 ∈ L 2 ( 0 , ∞ ) . (33)
The infimum of ∥ e δ t f 0 ∥ 2 + ∥ e δ t f 1 ∥ 2 \|e^{\delta t}f_0\|_2+\|e^{\delta t}f_1\|_2 ∥ e δ t f 0 ∥ 2 + ∥ e δ t f 1 ∥ 2 over such representations is equivalent to ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 \|f\|_{H^{-1}_{\delta}} ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 . Indeed, the weighted norm on the test space is equivalent to the norm of ( e − δ t ϕ , e − δ t ϕ ′ ) (e^{-\delta t}\phi,e^{-\delta t}\phi') ( e − δ t ϕ , e − δ t ϕ ′ ) in L 2 ⊕ L 2 L^2\oplus L^2 L 2 ⊕ L 2 . Applying Hahn–Banach and the Riesz representation theorem proves (3.1). The notation f = f 0 + ∂ t f 1 f=f_0+\partial_tf_1 f = f 0 + ∂ t f 1 below always means this duality, including at the endpoint.
For these data define
τ = − W 0 − 1 ∫ 0 ∞ ( v 1 f 0 − v 1 ′ f 1 ) d t , \tau=-\mathcal{W}_0^{-1}\int_0^\infty(v_1f_0-v_1'f_1)\,\mathrm{d}t, τ = − W 0 − 1 ∫ 0 ∞ ( v 1 f 0 − v 1 ′ f 1 ) d t ,
h ( t ) − τ y ( t ) = ∫ t ∞ { K ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) − ∂ s K ( t , s ) f 1 ( s ) } d s . h(t)-\tau y(t)=\int_t^\infty\{K(t,s)f_0(s)-\partial_sK(t,s)f_1(s)\}\,\mathrm{d}s. h ( t ) − τ y ( t ) = ∫ t ∞ { K ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) − ∂ s K ( t , s ) f 1 ( s )} d s .
The formula agrees with the smooth Green formula above, interpreted by (3.1). In the weak sense,
( h − τ y ) ′ ( t ) = ∫ t ∞ { ∂ t K ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) − ∂ t ∂ s K ( t , s ) f 1 ( s ) } d s − f 1 ( t ) . (h-\tau y)'(t)=\int_t^\infty\{\partial_tK(t,s)f_0(s)-\partial_t\partial_sK(t,s)f_1(s)\}\,\mathrm{d}s-f_1(t). ( h − τ y ) ′ ( t ) = ∫ t ∞ { ∂ t K ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) − ∂ t ∂ s K ( t , s ) f 1 ( s )} d s − f 1 ( t ) .
The last term is the diagonal contribution from ∂ s K ( t , t ) = − 1 \partial_sK(t,t)=-1 ∂ s K ( t , t ) = − 1 . Since ( 1 + s ) e − δ s ∈ L 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) (1+s)e^{-\delta s}\in L^1(0,\infty) ( 1 + s ) e − δ s ∈ L 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) , we can apply the weighted convolution estimate on [ 0 , ∞ ) [0,\infty) [ 0 , ∞ ) to obtain
∣ τ ∣ + ∥ h − τ ψ ˉ 0 ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) ≤ C ( ∥ e δ t f 0 ∥ 2 + ∥ e δ t f 1 ∥ 2 ) . (34) |\tau|+\|h-\tau\bar\psi_0\|_{H^1_\delta(0,\infty)}\le C(\|e^{\delta t}f_0\|_2+\|e^{\delta t}f_1\|_2). \tag*{(34)} ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ h − τ ψ ˉ 0 ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 , ∞ ) ≤ C ( ∥ e δ t f 0 ∥ 2 + ∥ e δ t f 1 ∥ 2 ) . (34)
Here v 1 , v 1 ′ = O ( 1 + t ) v_1,v_1'=O(1+t) v 1 , v 1 ′ = O ( 1 + t ) control τ \tau τ , and replacing y y y by the cutoff ψ ˉ 0 \bar\psi_0 ψ ˉ 0 only adds a compactly supported H 1 H^1 H 1 term. Taking the infimum over the representations proves the desired bound in the dual norm.
For every ϕ ∈ C c ∞ ( [ 0 , ∞ ) ) \phi\in C^\infty_c([0,\infty)) ϕ ∈ C c ∞ ([ 0 , ∞ )) , the function h h h satisfies
∫ 0 ∞ [ h ′ ϕ ′ + { ( n − 2 ) 2 4 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ p − 1 } h ϕ ] d t = ∫ 0 ∞ ( f 0 ϕ − f 1 ϕ ′ ) d t . \int_0^\infty\left[h'\phi'+\left\{\frac{(n-2)^2}{4}-n(n+2)v_*^{p-1}\right\}h\phi\right]\,\mathrm{d}t=\int_0^\infty(f_0\phi-f_1\phi')\,\mathrm{d}t. ∫ 0 ∞ [ h ′ ϕ ′ + { 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ p − 1 } h ϕ ] d t = ∫ 0 ∞ ( f 0 ϕ − f 1 ϕ ′ ) d t .
This identity follows first for smooth representations and then by approximation in the two weighted L 2 L^2 L 2 norms. It includes the endpoint condition in the weak formulation. For a smooth source without an endpoint distribution, integration by parts gives h ′ ( 0 ) = 0 h'(0)=0 h ′ ( 0 ) = 0 . Even reflection gives the radial weak equation with the required endpoint condition.
For uniqueness, a homogeneous solution with h ′ ( 0 ) = 0 h'(0)=0 h ′ ( 0 ) = 0 has the form h = c v 1 h=cv_1 h = c v 1 . If h − τ ψ ˉ 0 ∈ H δ 1 h-\tau\bar{\psi}_0\in H^1_\delta h − τ ψ ˉ 0 ∈ H δ 1 , then along a sequence t j → ∞ t_j\to\infty t j → ∞ ,
c W ( v 1 , y ) = W ( h − τ y , y ) ( t j ) → 0. c\mathcal{W}(v_1,y)=\mathcal{W}(h-\tau y,y)(t_j)\to0. c W ( v 1 , y ) = W ( h − τ y , y ) ( t j ) → 0.
Here y , y ′ y,y' y , y ′ are bounded and ψ ˉ 0 = y \bar{\psi}_0=y ψ ˉ 0 = y on the tail. Since W ( v 1 , y ) ≠ 0 \mathcal{W}(v_1,y)\ne0 W ( v 1 , y ) = 0 , we obtain c = 0 c=0 c = 0 and h = 0 h=0 h = 0 .
Step 2. Degree one. For the full-line estimates in Steps 2 and 3, choose a smooth even function ϑ \vartheta ϑ satisfying ∣ ϑ ′ ∣ ≤ 1 |\vartheta'|\le1 ∣ ϑ ′ ∣ ≤ 1 and ϑ ( t ) = ∣ t ∣ \vartheta(t)=|t| ϑ ( t ) = ∣ t ∣ for ∣ t ∣ ≥ 2 |t|\ge2 ∣ t ∣ ≥ 2 . Define
∥ u ∥ H s 1 ( R ) : = ∥ e s ϑ ( t ) u ∥ H 1 ( R ) , s ∈ { − δ , δ } . \|u\|_{H^1_s(\mathbb{R})}:=\|e^{s\vartheta(t)}u\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R})},\qquad s\in\{-\delta,\delta\}. ∥ u ∥ H s 1 ( R ) := ∥ e s ϑ ( t ) u ∥ H 1 ( R ) , s ∈ { − δ , δ } .
These norms are equivalent to ∥ e s ∣ t ∣ u ∥ H 1 ( R ) \|e^{s|t|}u\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R})} ∥ e s ∣ t ∣ u ∥ H 1 ( R ) . We use the same weight with the product Sobolev norm on R × S n − 1 \mathbb{R}\times S^{n-1} R × S n − 1 .
By the negative energy identity (9) , ∣ v ∗ ′ ∣ < n − 2 2 v ∗ |v_*'|<\frac{n-2}{2}v_* ∣ v ∗ ′ ∣ < 2 n − 2 v ∗ . The positive solutions
y + ( t ) = e t ( n − 2 2 v ∗ + v ∗ ′ ) , y − ( t ) = e − t ( n − 2 2 v ∗ − v ∗ ′ ) y_+(t)=e^t\left(\frac{n-2}{2}v_*+v_*'\right),\qquad y_-(t)=e^{-t}\left(\frac{n-2}{2}v_*-v_*'\right) y + ( t ) = e t ( 2 n − 2 v ∗ + v ∗ ′ ) , y − ( t ) = e − t ( 2 n − 2 v ∗ − v ∗ ′ )
of the equation for degree one satisfy
W ( y + , y − ) = − 2 n E ∗ ≠ 0. \mathcal{W}(y_+,y_-)=-2nE_*\ne0. W ( y + , y − ) = − 2 n E ∗ = 0.
Their periodic factors are bounded above and below by positive constants. The Green kernel on the full line is
G 1 ( t , s ) : = y + ( min { t , s } ) y − ( max { t , s } ) − W ( y + , y − ) . G_1(t,s):=\frac{y_+(\min\{t,s\})y_-(\max\{t,s\})}{-\mathcal{W}(y_+,y_-)}. G 1 ( t , s ) := − W ( y + , y − ) y + ( min { t , s }) y − ( max { t , s }) .
It is continuous, its first derivatives have jumps on the diagonal, and G 1 G_1 G 1 , ∂ t G 1 \partial_tG_1 ∂ t G 1 , and ∂ s G 1 \partial_sG_1 ∂ s G 1 are bounded off the diagonal by C e − ∣ t − s ∣ Ce^{-|t-s|} C e − ∣ t − s ∣ . In the sense of distributions,
∂ t ∂ s G 1 ( t , s ) = K 1 ( t , s ) + δ t = s , ∣ K 1 ( t , s ) ∣ ≤ C e − ∣ t − s ∣ , \partial_t\partial_sG_1(t,s)=K_1(t,s)+\delta_{t=s},\qquad|K_1(t,s)|\le Ce^{-|t-s|}, ∂ t ∂ s G 1 ( t , s ) = K 1 ( t , s ) + δ t = s , ∣ K 1 ( t , s ) ∣ ≤ C e − ∣ t − s ∣ ,
where K 1 K_1 K 1 is the ordinary mixed derivative for t ≠ s t\ne s t = s and δ t = s \delta_{t=s} δ t = s is normalized by ∫ R δ t = s f ( s ) d s = f ( t ) \int_{\mathbb{R}}\delta_{t=s}f(s)\,ds=f(t) ∫ R δ t = s f ( s ) d s = f ( t ) . The positive sign follows from the jump ∂ s G 1 ( s + , s ) − ∂ s G 1 ( s − , s ) = 1 \partial_sG_1(s+,s)-\partial_sG_1(s-,s)=1 ∂ s G 1 ( s + , s ) − ∂ s G 1 ( s − , s ) = 1 across t = s t=s t = s . For weak data f = f 0 + ∂ s f 1 f=f_0+\partial_sf_1 f = f 0 + ∂ s f 1 , interpreted by duality as in (33) but on R \mathbb{R} R , define
h ( t ) = ∫ R G 1 ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) d s − ∫ R ∂ s G 1 ( t , s ) f 1 ( s ) d s , h(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}G_1(t,s)f_0(s)\,ds-\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_sG_1(t,s)f_1(s)\,ds, h ( t ) = ∫ R G 1 ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) d s − ∫ R ∂ s G 1 ( t , s ) f 1 ( s ) d s ,
h ′ ( t ) = ∫ R ∂ t G 1 ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) d s − ∫ R K 1 ( t , s ) f 1 ( s ) d s − f 1 ( t ) . h'(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_tG_1(t,s)f_0(s)\,ds-\int_{\mathbb{R}}K_1(t,s)f_1(s)\,ds-f_1(t). h ′ ( t ) = ∫ R ∂ t G 1 ( t , s ) f 0 ( s ) d s − ∫ R K 1 ( t , s ) f 1 ( s ) d s − f 1 ( t ) .
Since ∣ ϑ ( t ) − ϑ ( s ) ∣ ≤ ∣ t − s ∣ |\vartheta(t)-\vartheta(s)|\le|t-s| ∣ ϑ ( t ) − ϑ ( s ) ∣ ≤ ∣ t − s ∣ and 0 < δ < 1 0<\delta<1 0 < δ < 1 , weighted convolution with e − ( 1 − δ ) ∣ t − s ∣ e^{-(1-\delta)|t-s|} e − ( 1 − δ ) ∣ t − s ∣ proves
∥ h ∥ H δ 1 ( R ) ≤ C ( ∥ e δ ϑ f 0 ∥ 2 + ∥ e δ ϑ f 1 ∥ 2 ) . \|h\|_{H^1_\delta(\mathbb{R})}\le C\left(\|e^{\delta\vartheta}f_0\|_2+\|e^{\delta\vartheta}f_1\|_2\right). ∥ h ∥ H δ 1 ( R ) ≤ C ( ∥ e δ ϑ f 0 ∥ 2 + ∥ e δ ϑ f 1 ∥ 2 ) .
Taking the infimum over the dual representations proves the estimate in H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 . Approximation establishes the weak equation. The two homogeneous solutions grow at opposite ends, and no nonzero combination belongs to H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 . This proves uniqueness. By reflection symmetry, the inverse restricts to odd functions, as required by the Dirichlet condition for degree one.
Step 3. Higher harmonics. Since v ∗ ( t ) < 2 − ( n − 2 ) / 2 v_*(t)<2^{-(n-2)/2} v ∗ ( t ) < 2 − ( n − 2 ) /2 , we have n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 ≤ n ( n + 2 ) 4 n(n+2)v_*(t)^{p-1}\le\frac{n(n+2)}{4} n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ ( t ) p − 1 ≤ 4 n ( n + 2 ) . For ℓ ≥ 2 \ell\ge2 ℓ ≥ 2 ,
c ℓ : = ( n − 2 ) 2 4 + λ ℓ − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ p − 1 ≥ n + 2 2 + ( λ ℓ − 2 n ) . (35) c_\ell:=\frac{(n-2)^2}{4}+\lambda_\ell-n(n+2)v_*^{p-1}\ge\frac{n+2}{2}+(\lambda_\ell-2n). \tag*{(35)} c ℓ := 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 + λ ℓ − n ( n + 2 ) v ∗ p − 1 ≥ 2 n + 2 + ( λ ℓ − 2 n ) . (35)
For weak data, conjugate by the weight and put Z ( t ) = e δ ϑ ( t ) w ℓ ( t ) Z(t)=e^{\delta\vartheta(t)}w_\ell(t) Z ( t ) = e δ ϑ ( t ) w ℓ ( t ) . The resulting bilinear form on H 1 ( R ) H^1(\mathbb{R}) H 1 ( R ) is
B ℓ ( Z , φ ) = ∫ R { ( Z ′ − δ ϑ ′ Z ) ( φ ′ + δ ϑ ′ φ ) + c ℓ Z φ } d t . B_\ell(Z,\varphi)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\{(Z'-\delta\vartheta'Z)(\varphi'+\delta\vartheta'\varphi)+c_\ell Z\varphi\}\,dt. B ℓ ( Z , φ ) = ∫ R {( Z ′ − δ ϑ ′ Z ) ( φ ′ + δ ϑ ′ φ ) + c ℓ Z φ } d t .
On the diagonal this form satisfies
B ℓ ( Z , Z ) = ∫ R { ∣ Z ′ ∣ 2 + ( c ℓ − δ 2 ( ϑ ′ ) 2 ) Z 2 } d t ≥ c ∫ R { ∣ Z ′ ∣ 2 + ( 1 + λ ℓ ) Z 2 } d t . B_\ell(Z,Z)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\{|Z'|^2+(c_\ell-\delta^2(\vartheta')^2)Z^2\}\,dt\geq c\int_{\mathbb{R}}\{|Z'|^2+(1+\lambda_\ell)Z^2\}\,dt. B ℓ ( Z , Z ) = ∫ R { ∣ Z ′ ∣ 2 + ( c ℓ − δ 2 ( ϑ ′ ) 2 ) Z 2 } d t ≥ c ∫ R { ∣ Z ′ ∣ 2 + ( 1 + λ ℓ ) Z 2 } d t .
with c = c ( n , δ ) > 0 c=c(n,\delta)>0 c = c ( n , δ ) > 0 , since ∣ ϑ ′ ∣ ≤ 1 |\vartheta'|\leq1 ∣ ϑ ′ ∣ ≤ 1 and δ < 1 \delta<1 δ < 1 . Sum the forms over an orthonormal spherical harmonic basis of degrees at least two. On this closed subspace, Parseval’s identity and the uniform bounds above imply
∑ ℓ ≥ 2 ∑ m B ℓ ( Z ℓ m , Z ℓ m ) ≥ c ∥ Z ∥ H 1 ( R × S n − 1 ) 2 , \sum_{\ell\geq2}\sum_m B_\ell(Z_{\ell m},Z_{\ell m})\geq c\|Z\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}\times S^{n-1})}^2, ℓ ≥ 2 ∑ m ∑ B ℓ ( Z ℓ m , Z ℓ m ) ≥ c ∥ Z ∥ H 1 ( R × S n − 1 ) 2 ,
∣ ⟨ e δ ϑ f , Z ⟩ ∣ ≤ C ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 ∥ Z ∥ H 1 ( R × S n − 1 ) . |\langle e^{\delta\vartheta}f,Z\rangle|\leq C\|f\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\|Z\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}\times S^{n-1})}. ∣ ⟨ e δ ϑ f , Z ⟩ ∣ ≤ C ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 ∥ Z ∥ H 1 ( R × S n − 1 ) .
Here Z ℓ m Z_{\ell m} Z ℓ m are the spherical harmonic coefficients of Z = e δ ϑ w Z=e^{\delta\vartheta}w Z = e δ ϑ w , and m m m indexes the basis in each eigenspace. Multiplication of the source by the weight is understood by duality. By the Lax–Milgram theorem,
∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 . \|w\|_{H^1_\delta}\leq C\|f\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}. ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 .
The required parity is preserved because the weight and coefficients are even. Combining this bound with (34) and the estimate for degree one, and undoing the normalization, proves the lemma.
Lemma 3.1. Suppose γ \gamma γ satisfies the metric conditions stated after (6) . Let V > 0 V>0 V > 0 be smooth on B 1 ‾ ∖ { 0 } \overline{B_1}\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } and satisfy (15) and (7) . Then Q γ Q_\gamma Q γ is coercive on H e v 1 ( B 1 ) H^1_{\mathrm{ev}}(B_1) H ev 1 ( B 1 ) with the norm (11) .
Proof. The assumptions give c Θ ≤ V ≤ C Θ c\Theta\leq V\leq C\Theta c Θ ≤ V ≤ C Θ and ∣ D log V ∣ ≤ C / r |D\log V|\leq C/r ∣ D log V ∣ ≤ C / r . For a smooth φ \varphi φ vanishing near 0 and having even boundary trace, write φ = V ζ \varphi=V\zeta φ = V ζ and integrate the equation for V V V against V ζ 2 V\zeta^2 V ζ 2 . The boundary contribution is
∫ ∂ B 1 ( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) V V φ 2 d S = 0 , \int_{\partial B_1}\frac{\left(\partial_r+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)V}{V}\varphi^2\,dS=0, ∫ ∂ B 1 V ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) V φ 2 d S = 0 ,
since the numerator is antipodally odd and the other factors are even. We obtain
Q γ ( φ , φ ) = ∫ B 1 V 2 ∣ D ( φ / V ) ∣ γ 2 d x + n ( n − 2 ) ∫ B 1 V p − 1 φ 2 d x . (36) Q_\gamma(\varphi,\varphi)=\int_{B_1}V^2|D(\varphi/V)|_\gamma^2\,dx+n(n-2)\int_{B_1}V^{p-1}\varphi^2\,dx. \tag*{(36)} Q γ ( φ , φ ) = ∫ B 1 V 2 ∣ D ( φ / V ) ∣ γ 2 d x + n ( n − 2 ) ∫ B 1 V p − 1 φ 2 d x . (36)
The second term controls ∫ r − 2 φ 2 \int r^{-2}\varphi^2 ∫ r − 2 φ 2 , because V p − 1 ≥ c r − 2 V^{p-1}\geq cr^{-2} V p − 1 ≥ c r − 2 . Also
∫ ∣ D φ ∣ 2 ≤ C ∫ V 2 ∣ D ( φ / V ) ∣ γ 2 + C ∫ r − 2 φ 2 . \int|D\varphi|^2\leq C\int V^2|D(\varphi/V)|_\gamma^2+C\int r^{-2}\varphi^2. ∫ ∣ D φ ∣ 2 ≤ C ∫ V 2 ∣ D ( φ / V ) ∣ γ 2 + C ∫ r − 2 φ 2 .
Density proves coercivity in the norm (11) .
We next vary the background phase and estimate the nonlinear residual. Fix a metric γ \gamma γ satisfying the conditions stated after (6) and a positive solution V V V satisfying (15) and (7) , with phase T T T . Keep χ \chi χ fixed and set
A T ( x ) : = V ( x ) + Φ T , τ ( ∣ x ∣ ) . A_{T}(x):=V(x)+\Phi_{T,\tau}(|x|). A T ( x ) := V ( x ) + Φ T , τ ( ∣ x ∣ ) .
Near 0, where χ = 1 \chi=1 χ = 1 , this changes the asymptotic phase:
A τ ( x ) = V T + τ ( x ) + w 0 ( x ) , A τ ( x ) Θ ( x ) = v ∗ ( − log ∣ x ∣ + T + τ ) + O ( ∣ x ∣ δ ) . A_\tau(x)=V_{T+\tau}(x)+w_0(x),\qquad\frac{A_\tau(x)}{\Theta(x)}=v_*(-\log|x|+T+\tau)+O(|x|^\delta). A τ ( x ) = V T + τ ( x ) + w 0 ( x ) , Θ ( x ) A τ ( x ) = v ∗ ( − log ∣ x ∣ + T + τ ) + O ( ∣ x ∣ δ ) .
On { χ = 0 } \{\chi= 0\} { χ = 0 } , we have A τ = V A_\tau= V A τ = V . Throughout X X X , ∂ τ A τ = ψ T + τ \partial_\tau A_\tau= \psi_{T+\tau} ∂ τ A τ = ψ T + τ . For sufficiently small ∣ τ ∣ |\tau| ∣ τ ∣ , A τ / Θ A_\tau/\Theta A τ /Θ has fixed positive upper and lower bounds. For w ∈ H δ 1 w \in H^1_\delta w ∈ H δ 1 and φ ∈ H − δ 1 \varphi\in H^1_{-\delta} φ ∈ H − δ 1 , define the residual weakly by
⟨ F γ ( A τ + w ) , φ ⟩ = ⟨ F γ ( A τ ) , φ ⟩ + Q γ ( w , φ ) − n ( n − 2 ) ∫ X ( ( A τ + w ) + p − A τ p ) φ d x . \langle\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau+w),\varphi\rangle=\langle\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau),\varphi\rangle+Q_\gamma(w,\varphi)-n(n-2)\int_X\left((A_\tau+w)_+^p-A_\tau^p\right)\varphi\,dx. ⟨ F γ ( A τ + w ) , φ ⟩ = ⟨ F γ ( A τ ) , φ ⟩ + Q γ ( w , φ ) − n ( n − 2 ) ∫ X ( ( A τ + w ) + p − A τ p ) φ d x .
The membership of F γ ( A τ + w ) \mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau+w) F γ ( A τ + w ) and F γ ( A τ ) \mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau) F γ ( A τ ) in H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 , and their differentiability with respect to τ \tau τ , are established in Step 2 of the proof of Lemma 3.2 below. Formal differentiation gives the following candidate differential: for ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ∈ X δ (\dot{\tau},\dot{w})\in X_\delta ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ∈ X δ ,
D ( τ , w ) [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) = { − L γ − n ( n + 2 ) ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 } ( τ ˙ ψ T + τ + w ˙ ) . D_{(\tau,w)}[\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau+w)](\dot{\tau},\dot{w})=\left\{-L_\gamma-n(n+2)(A_\tau+w)_+^{p-1}\right\}(\dot{\tau}\psi_{T+\tau}+\dot{w}). D ( τ , w ) [ F γ ( A τ + w )] ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) = { − L γ − n ( n + 2 ) ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 } ( τ ˙ ψ T + τ + w ˙ ) .
In the following, we verify that the phase contribution belongs to H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 , despite ψ T + τ ∉ H δ 1 \psi_{T+\tau}\notin H^1_\delta ψ T + τ ∈ / H δ 1 , and establish that this formula is the Fréchet differential.
Define the nonlinear remainder at ( 0 , 0 ) (0,0) ( 0 , 0 ) by
N ( τ , w ) : = L ^ γ , V ( τ , w ) − F γ ( A τ + w ) . \mathcal{N}(\tau,w):=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w)-\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau+w). N ( τ , w ) := L γ , V ( τ , w ) − F γ ( A τ + w ) .
Since F γ ( V ) = 0 \mathcal{F}_\gamma(V)=0 F γ ( V ) = 0 , we have N ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 \mathcal{N}(0,0)=0 N ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 . For the metric estimate, fix an open set D D D with compact closure in X X X such that χ = 0 \chi=0 χ = 0 on a neighborhood of D D D .
Lemma 3.2. After fixing ( γ , V ) (\gamma,V) ( γ , V ) , δ \delta δ , χ \chi χ , and D D D , there exist ϵ 0 , η 0 , C > 0 \epsilon_0,\eta_0,C>0 ϵ 0 , η 0 , C > 0 such that ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ ( A τ + w ) (\tau,w)\mapsto\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau+w) ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ ( A τ + w ) is C 1 C^1 C 1 from ( − ϵ 0 , ϵ 0 ) × H δ 1 (-\epsilon_0,\epsilon_0)\times H^1_\delta ( − ϵ 0 , ϵ 0 ) × H δ 1 to H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 . Its derivative at ( 0 , 0 ) (0,0) ( 0 , 0 ) is L ^ γ , V \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V} L γ , V . For ∣ τ ∣ < ϵ 0 |\tau|<\epsilon_0 ∣ τ ∣ < ϵ 0 and w ∈ H δ 1 w\in H^1_\delta w ∈ H δ 1 ,
∥ D ( τ , w ) [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] − L ^ γ , V ∥ X δ → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 ) . (37) \left\|D_{(\tau,w)}[\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau+w)]-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V}\right\|_{X_\delta\to H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\left(|\tau|+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p-1}\right). \tag*{(37)} D ( τ , w ) [ F γ ( A τ + w )] − L γ , V X δ → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 ) . (37) For 0 < ϵ < ϵ 0 0<\epsilon<\epsilon_0 0 < ϵ < ϵ 0 and ∥ ( τ , w ) ∥ X δ , ∥ ( τ ~ , w ~ ) ∥ X δ ≤ ϵ \|(\tau,w)\|_{X_\delta},\|(\widetilde{\tau},\widetilde{w})\|_{X_\delta}\leq\epsilon ∥ ( τ , w ) ∥ X δ , ∥ ( τ , w ) ∥ X δ ≤ ϵ ,
∥ N ( τ , w ) − N ( τ ~ , w ~ ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ϵ + ϵ p − 1 ) ∥ ( τ − τ ~ , w − w ~ ) ∥ X δ . (38) \|\mathcal{N}(\tau,w)-\mathcal{N}(\widetilde{\tau},\widetilde{w})\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C(\epsilon+\epsilon^{p-1})\|(\tau-\widetilde{\tau},w-\widetilde{w})\|_{X_\delta}. \tag*{(38)} ∥ N ( τ , w ) − N ( τ , w ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ϵ + ϵ p − 1 ) ∥ ( τ − τ , w − w ) ∥ X δ . (38) For every smooth metric γ 1 \gamma_1 γ 1 on B 1 B_1 B 1 satisfying
d V γ 1 = d x , γ 1 = γ on B 1 ∖ D , ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ‾ ) ≤ η 0 , dV_{\gamma_1}=dx,\qquad\gamma_1=\gamma\ \text{on }B_1\setminus D,\qquad\|\gamma_1-\gamma\|_{C^2(\overline{D})}\leq\eta_0, d V γ 1 = d x , γ 1 = γ on B 1 ∖ D , ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ) ≤ η 0 , we have
∥ F γ 1 ( V ) ∥ H δ − 1 + ∥ L γ 1 − L γ ∥ H δ 1 → H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ‾ ) . (39) \|\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_1}(V)\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}+\|L_{\gamma_1}-L_\gamma\|_{H^1_\delta\to H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|\gamma_1-\gamma\|_{C^2(\overline{D})}. \tag*{(39)} ∥ F γ 1 ( V ) ∥ H δ − 1 + ∥ L γ 1 − L γ ∥ H δ 1 → H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ) . (39) The derivative of ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ 1 ( A τ + w ) (\tau,w)\mapsto\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_1}(A_\tau+w) ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ 1 ( A τ + w ) differs from L ^ γ , V \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V} L γ , V by at most the right side of (37) plus C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ‾ ) C\|\gamma_1-\gamma\|_{C^2(\overline{D})} C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ) in the operator norm from X δ X_\delta X δ to H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 .
Proof. Step 1. Weighted Sobolev and multiplication estimates. Apply the ordinary Sobolev inequality to r − δ w r^{-\delta}w r − δ w ; its gradient is controlled by (10) . By duality,
∥ w ∥ L δ p + 1 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 , ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ f ∥ L δ 2 n n + 2 . \|w\|_{L^{p+1}_\delta}\leq C\|w\|_{H^1_\delta},\qquad\|f\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|f\|_{L^{\frac{2n}{n+2}}_\delta}. ∥ w ∥ L δ p + 1 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 , ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ f ∥ L δ n + 2 2 n .
Placing reciprocal weights in the paired factors gives
∥ β w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ β ∥ L n / 2 ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 and ∥ β w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ r 2 β ∥ L ∞ ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 . (40) \|\beta w\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|\beta\|_{L^{n/2}}\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\|\beta w\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|r^2\beta\|_{L^\infty}\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}. \tag*{(40)} ∥ β w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ β ∥ L n /2 ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 and ∥ β w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ r 2 β ∥ L ∞ ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 . (40)
The second estimate follows from the r − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 r^{-2}|w|^2 r − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 term in the norm. We also use ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ r 1 − δ f ∥ 2 \|f\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|r^{1-\delta}f\|_2 ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ r 1 − δ f ∥ 2 .
Since 0 < p − 1 < 1 0<p-1<1 0 < p − 1 < 1 , for A > 0 A>0 A > 0 we have
∣ s + p − 1 − t + p − 1 ∣ ≤ ∣ s − t ∣ p − 1 , ∣ ( A + w ) + p − 1 − A p − 1 ∣ ≤ C A p − 2 ∣ w ∣ . (41) |s_+^{p-1}-t_+^{p-1}|\leq|s-t|^{p-1},\qquad|(A+w)_+^{p-1}-A^{p-1}|\leq CA^{p-2}|w|. \tag*{(41)} ∣ s + p − 1 − t + p − 1 ∣ ≤ ∣ s − t ∣ p − 1 , ∣ ( A + w ) + p − 1 − A p − 1 ∣ ≤ C A p − 2 ∣ w ∣. (41)
The second inequality follows by separating ∣ w ∣ ≤ A / 2 |w|\leq A/2 ∣ w ∣ ≤ A /2 and its complement. The first inequality and (40) control the derivative in w w w and give the remainder bound
∥ ( A + w ) + p − A p − p A p − 1 w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p . \|(A+w)_+^p-A^p-pA^{p-1}w\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}^p. ∥ ( A + w ) + p − A p − p A p − 1 w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p .
The weights satisfy r − δ ∣ w ∣ p = r δ ( p − 1 ) ∣ r − δ w ∣ p r^{-\delta}|w|^p = r^{\delta(p-1)}|r^{-\delta}w|^p r − δ ∣ w ∣ p = r δ ( p − 1 ) ∣ r − δ w ∣ p and r ≤ 1 r \le1 r ≤ 1 .
Step 2. The phase derivative. Near 0 0 0 , where γ = γ 0 \gamma=\gamma_0 γ = γ 0 , χ = 1 \chi=1 χ = 1 ,
− L γ = − Δ , − Δ V T = n ( n − 2 ) V T p , − Δ V T + τ = n ( n − 2 ) V T + τ p . -L_\gamma=-\Delta,\qquad-\Delta V_T=n(n-2)V_T^p,\qquad-\Delta V_{T+\tau}=n(n-2)V_{T+\tau}^p. − L γ = − Δ , − Δ V T = n ( n − 2 ) V T p , − Δ V T + τ = n ( n − 2 ) V T + τ p .
Subtracting the equation for V T V_T V T from the assumed equation (2.12) for V = V T + w 0 V=V_T+w_0 V = V T + w 0 gives
− Δ w 0 = n ( n − 2 ) ( ( V T + w 0 ) p − V T p ) . -\Delta w_0=n(n-2)\left((V_T+w_0)^p-V_T^p\right). − Δ w 0 = n ( n − 2 ) ( ( V T + w 0 ) p − V T p ) .
in that neighborhood. Since A τ = V T + τ + w 0 A_\tau=V_{T+\tau}+w_0 A τ = V T + τ + w 0 there, we obtain
F γ ( A τ ) = n ( n − 2 ) [ ( V T + w 0 ) p − V T p + V T + τ p − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p ] . F_\gamma(A_\tau)=n(n-2)\left[(V_T+w_0)^p-V_T^p+V_{T+\tau}^p-(V_{T+\tau}+w_0)^p\right]. F γ ( A τ ) = n ( n − 2 ) [ ( V T + w 0 ) p − V T p + V T + τ p − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p ] .
The profiles V T V_T V T , V T + τ V_{T+\tau} V T + τ , V T + w 0 V_T+w_0 V T + w 0 and A τ A_\tau A τ are uniformly comparable to Θ \Theta Θ in this neighborhood. The interval ∣ τ ∣ < ϵ 0 |\tau|<\epsilon_0 ∣ τ ∣ < ϵ 0 has already been chosen so that A τ A_\tau A τ is positive throughout X X X . These give
∣ F γ ( A τ ) ∣ ≤ C r − 2 ∣ w 0 ∣ . |F_\gamma(A_\tau)|\le Cr^{-2}|w_0|. ∣ F γ ( A τ ) ∣ ≤ C r − 2 ∣ w 0 ∣.
Furthermore, in this neighborhood,
∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ ) ] = n ( n + 2 ) { V T + τ p − 1 − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p − 1 } ∂ T V T + τ . (42) \partial_\tau[F_\gamma(A_\tau)]=n(n+2)\{V_{T+\tau}^{p-1}-(V_{T+\tau}+w_0)^{p-1}\}\partial_TV_{T+\tau}. \tag*{(42)} ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ )] = n ( n + 2 ) { V T + τ p − 1 − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p − 1 } ∂ T V T + τ . (42)
Differentiating once more gives
∂ τ 2 F γ ( A τ ) = n ( n + 2 ) { ( p − 1 ) [ V T + τ p − 2 − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p − 2 ] ( ∂ T V T + τ ) 2 + [ V T + τ p − 1 − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p − 1 ] ∂ T 2 V T + τ } . \partial_\tau^2F_\gamma(A_\tau)=n(n+2)\left\{(p-1)\left[V_{T+\tau}^{p-2}-(V_{T+\tau}+w_0)^{p-2}\right](\partial_TV_{T+\tau})^2+\left[V_{T+\tau}^{p-1}-(V_{T+\tau}+w_0)^{p-1}\right]\partial_T^2V_{T+\tau}\right\}. ∂ τ 2 F γ ( A τ ) = n ( n + 2 ) { ( p − 1 ) [ V T + τ p − 2 − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p − 2 ] ( ∂ T V T + τ ) 2 + [ V T + τ p − 1 − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) p − 1 ] ∂ T 2 V T + τ } .
The mean value theorem gives, for q = p − 1 q=p-1 q = p − 1 and q = p − 2 q=p-2 q = p − 2 ,
∣ V T + τ q − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) q ∣ ≤ C Θ q − 1 ∣ w 0 ∣ . \left|V_{T+\tau}^q-(V_{T+\tau}+w_0)^q\right|\le C\Theta^{q-1}|w_0|. V T + τ q − ( V T + τ + w 0 ) q ≤ C Θ q − 1 ∣ w 0 ∣.
These, together with ∣ ∂ T V T + τ ∣ + ∣ ∂ T 2 V T + τ ∣ ≤ C Θ |\partial_TV_{T+\tau}|+|\partial_T^2V_{T+\tau}|\le C\Theta ∣ ∂ T V T + τ ∣ + ∣ ∂ T 2 V T + τ ∣ ≤ C Θ , then yield
∣ ∂ τ F γ ( A τ ) ∣ + ∣ ∂ τ 2 F γ ( A τ ) ∣ ≤ C r − 2 ∣ w 0 ∣ near 0. |\partial_\tau F_\gamma(A_\tau)|+|\partial_\tau^2F_\gamma(A_\tau)|\le Cr^{-2}|w_0|\quad\text{near }0. ∣ ∂ τ F γ ( A τ ) ∣ + ∣ ∂ τ 2 F γ ( A τ ) ∣ ≤ C r − 2 ∣ w 0 ∣ near 0.
Away from this neighborhood, F γ ( A τ ) F_\gamma(A_\tau) F γ ( A τ ) is smooth and depends smoothly on τ \tau τ . Since A τ A_\tau A τ satisfies the outer matching conditions, its weak residual has no outer boundary contribution. Combining the bounds on this compact region with the estimate near 0 0 0 , and using the weighted source estimate from Step 1, shows that τ ↦ F γ ( A τ ) \tau\mapsto F_\gamma(A_\tau) τ ↦ F γ ( A τ ) is C 2 C^2 C 2 with values in H δ − 1 H_\delta^{-1} H δ − 1 , with uniformly bounded second derivative for ∣ τ ∣ < ϵ 0 |\tau|<\epsilon_0 ∣ τ ∣ < ϵ 0 . Since
∂ s [ F γ ( A s ) ] ∣ s = 0 = L ^ γ , V ( 1 , 0 ) , \left.\partial_s[F_\gamma(A_s)]\right|_{s=0}=\widehat{L}_{\gamma,V}(1,0), ∂ s [ F γ ( A s )] ∣ s = 0 = L γ , V ( 1 , 0 ) ,
integration of the second derivative gives
∥ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ ) ] − L ^ γ , V ( 1 , 0 ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∣ τ ∣ . \left\|\partial_\tau[F_\gamma(A_\tau)]-\widehat{L}_{\gamma,V}(1,0)\right\|_{H_\delta^{-1}}\le C|\tau|. ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ )] − L γ , V ( 1 , 0 ) H δ − 1 ≤ C ∣ τ ∣.
For fixed w ∈ H δ 1 w\in H_\delta^1 w ∈ H δ 1 , the mean value formula and (3.8) bound the phase difference quotients of ( A τ + w ) + p − A τ p (A_\tau+w)_+^p-A_\tau^p ( A τ + w ) + p − A τ p by C r − 2 ∣ w ∣ Cr^{-2}|w| C r − 2 ∣ w ∣ . Since r − 1 − δ w ∈ L 2 ( X ) r^{-1-\delta}w\in L^2(X) r − 1 − δ w ∈ L 2 ( X ) , dominated convergence after multiplication by r 1 − δ r^{1-\delta} r 1 − δ justifies differentiation in H δ − 1 H_\delta^{-1} H δ − 1 and gives
∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] − ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ ) ] = − n ( n + 2 ) { ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 } ψ T + τ . \partial_\tau[F_\gamma(A_\tau+w)]-\partial_\tau[F_\gamma(A_\tau)]=-n(n+2)\{(A_\tau+w)_+^{p-1}-A_\tau^{p-1}\}\psi_{T+\tau}. ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w )] − ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ )] = − n ( n + 2 ) {( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 } ψ T + τ .
By (3.8), the absolute value of the right-hand side is at most C r − 2 ∣ w ∣ Cr^{-2}|w| C r − 2 ∣ w ∣ . Hence
∥ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] − ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ ) ] ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 . \left\|\partial_\tau[F_\gamma(A_\tau+w)]-\partial_\tau[F_\gamma(A_\tau)]\right\|_{H_\delta^{-1}}\le C\|w\|_{H_\delta^1}. ∥ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w )] − ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ )] ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 .
We next prove that the phase derivative
( τ , w ) ⟼ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] (\tau,w)\longmapsto\partial_{\tau}[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_{\tau}+w)] ( τ , w ) ⟼ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w )]
is continuous from ( − ε 0 , ε 0 ) × H δ 1 (-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times H^1_\delta ( − ε 0 , ε 0 ) × H δ 1 to H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 . Let ( τ j , w j ) → ( τ , w ) (\tau_j,w_j)\to(\tau,w) ( τ j , w j ) → ( τ , w ) in X δ \mathcal{X}_\delta X δ . From every subsequence, extract a further subsequence for which r − 1 − δ w j r^{-1-\delta}w_j r − 1 − δ w j converges pointwise and is bounded in absolute value by one L 2 L^2 L 2 function. Apply dominated convergence to the displayed product − n ( n + 2 ) { ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 } ψ T + τ -n(n+2)\{(A_{\tau}+w)^{p-1}_{+}-A_{\tau}^{p-1}\}\psi_{T+\tau} − n ( n + 2 ) {( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 } ψ T + τ , evaluated at ( τ j , w j ) (\tau_j,w_j) ( τ j , w j ) and multiplied by r 1 − δ r^{1-\delta} r 1 − δ . This gives convergence in L 2 L^2 L 2 . Together with smooth dependence of ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ ) ] \partial_\tau[\mathcal{F}_\gamma(A_\tau)] ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ )] on τ \tau τ , this gives
∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w j ) ] ∣ τ = τ j ⟶ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] in H δ − 1 . \left.\partial_{\tau}[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_{\tau}+w_j)]\right|_{\tau=\tau_j}\longrightarrow\partial_{\tau}[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_{\tau}+w)]\quad\text{in }H^{-1}_\delta. ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w j )] ∣ τ = τ j ⟶ ∂ τ [ F γ ( A τ + w )] in H δ − 1 .
for the original sequence.
For ∣ τ ∣ < ε 0 |\tau|<\varepsilon_0 ∣ τ ∣ < ε 0 and w ∈ H δ 1 w\in H^1_\delta w ∈ H δ 1 , consider the partial derivative with respect to w w w . Split the coefficient difference into ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 (A_\tau+w)^{p-1}_{+}-A_\tau^{p-1} ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 and A τ p − 1 − V p − 1 A_\tau^{p-1}-V^{p-1} A τ p − 1 − V p − 1 . The scalar Hölder estimate and the Sobolev embedding give
∥ ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 ∥ L n / 2 ( X ) ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 . \left\|(A_\tau+w)^{p-1}_{+}-A_\tau^{p-1}\right\|_{L^{n/2}(X)}\leq C\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p-1}. ( A τ + w ) + p − 1 − A τ p − 1 L n /2 ( X ) ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 .
The uniform comparability of A τ A_\tau A τ and V V V to Θ \Theta Θ throughout X X X , together with ∣ A τ − V ∣ ≤ C ∣ τ ∣ Θ |A_\tau-V|\leq C|\tau|\Theta ∣ A τ − V ∣ ≤ C ∣ τ ∣Θ , gives
∥ r 2 ( A τ p − 1 − V p − 1 ) ∥ L ∞ ( X ) ≤ C ∣ τ ∣ . \left\|r^2(A_\tau^{p-1}-V^{p-1})\right\|_{L^\infty(X)}\leq C|\tau|. r 2 ( A τ p − 1 − V p − 1 ) L ∞ ( X ) ≤ C ∣ τ ∣.
Applying the two estimates in (40) to these respective coefficient differences gives, for every w ˙ ∈ H δ 1 \dot{w}\in H^1_\delta w ˙ ∈ H δ 1 ,
∥ D w [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] [ w ˙ ] − L ^ γ , V ( 0 , w ˙ ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 ) ∥ w ˙ ∥ H δ 1 . \left\|D_w[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_\tau+w)][\dot{w}]-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V}(0,\dot{w})\right\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\left(|\tau|+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p-1}\right)\|\dot{w}\|_{H^1_\delta}. D w [ F γ ( A τ + w )] [ w ˙ ] − L γ , V ( 0 , w ˙ ) H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 ) ∥ w ˙ ∥ H δ 1 .
To compare these derivatives at two points, first change w w w and then τ \tau τ . The scalar Hölder estimate controls the first coefficient difference in L n / 2 L^{n/2} L n /2 by C ∥ w − w ~ ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 C\|w-\widetilde{w}\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p-1} C ∥ w − w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 . Since
∣ A τ − A τ ~ ∣ ≤ C ∣ τ − τ ~ ∣ Θ , |A_\tau-A_{\widetilde{\tau}}|\leq C|\tau-\widetilde{\tau}|\Theta, ∣ A τ − A τ ∣ ≤ C ∣ τ − τ ∣Θ ,
the scalar Hölder estimate therefore controls the second coefficient difference after multiplication by r 2 r^2 r 2 in L ∞ L^\infty L ∞ by C ∣ τ − τ ~ ∣ p − 1 C|\tau-\widetilde{\tau}|^{p-1} C ∣ τ − τ ∣ p − 1 . Applying (40) gives
∥ D w [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] − D w [ F γ ( A τ ~ + w ~ ) ] ∥ H δ 1 → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∥ w − w ~ ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 + ∣ τ − τ ~ ∣ p − 1 ) . \left\|D_w[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_\tau+w)]-D_w[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_{\widetilde{\tau}}+\widetilde{w})]\right\|_{H^1_\delta\to H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\left(\|w-\widetilde{w}\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p-1}+|\tau-\widetilde{\tau}|^{p-1}\right). ∥ D w [ F γ ( A τ + w )] − D w [ F γ ( A τ + w )] ∥ H δ 1 → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∥ w − w ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 + ∣ τ − τ ∣ p − 1 ) .
Both partial derivatives are jointly continuous, so the map is C 1 C^1 C 1 . Combining the preceding two estimates for the partial derivative with respect to τ \tau τ with the estimate for the partial derivative with respect to w w w proves (37) for every w ∈ H δ 1 w\in H^1_\delta w ∈ H δ 1 and ∣ τ ∣ < ε 0 |\tau|<\varepsilon_0 ∣ τ ∣ < ε 0 . Since
D N ( τ , w ) = L ^ γ , V − D ( τ , w ) [ F γ ( A τ + w ) ] , DN(\tau,w)=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V}-D_{(\tau,w)}[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_\tau+w)], D N ( τ , w ) = L γ , V − D ( τ , w ) [ F γ ( A τ + w )] ,
integrating along the segment between ( τ , w ) (\tau,w) ( τ , w ) and ( τ ~ , w ~ ) (\widetilde{\tau},\widetilde{w}) ( τ , w ) proves (38) . In particular, D N ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 DN(0,0)=0 D N ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 .
Step 3. Compactly supported metric changes. Since D ‾ \overline{D} D is compact and disjoint from 0 0 0 , the weighted H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 and H − δ 1 H^1_{-\delta} H − δ 1 norms restricted to D D D are equivalent to the ordinary H 1 ( D ) H^1(D) H 1 ( D ) norm, with constants depending on D D D and δ \delta δ . Integration by parts gives
∥ ( L γ 1 − L γ ) w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ‾ ) ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 . \|(L_{\gamma_1}-L_\gamma)w\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|\gamma_1-\gamma\|_{C^2(\overline{D})}\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}. ∥ ( L γ 1 − L γ ) w ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ) ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 .
Also, F γ 1 ( V ) = − ( L γ 1 − L γ ) V \mathcal{F}_{\gamma_1}(V)=-(L_{\gamma_1}-L_\gamma)V F γ 1 ( V ) = − ( L γ 1 − L γ ) V is supported in D ‾ \overline{D} D . The smooth bounds for V V V on D ‾ \overline{D} D imply
∥ F γ 1 ( V ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ‾ ) , \|\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_1}(V)\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\|\gamma_1-\gamma\|_{C^2(\overline{D})}, ∥ F γ 1 ( V ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ 1 − γ ∥ C 2 ( D ) ,
proving (39) . Since χ = 0 \chi=0 χ = 0 on a neighborhood of D ‾ \overline{D} D , ( L γ 1 − L γ ) ψ T + τ = 0 (L_{\gamma_1}-L_\gamma)\psi_{T+\tau}=0 ( L γ 1 − L γ ) ψ T + τ = 0 . Thus the difference between the derivatives of ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ 1 ( A τ + w ) (\tau,w)\mapsto\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_1}(A_\tau+w) ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ 1 ( A τ + w ) and ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ ( A τ + w ) (\tau,w)\mapsto\mathcal{F}_{\gamma}(A_\tau+w) ( τ , w ) ↦ F γ ( A τ + w ) is ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ↦ − ( L γ 1 − L γ ) w ˙ (\dot{\tau},\dot{w})\mapsto-(L_{\gamma_1}-L_\gamma)\dot{w} ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ↦ − ( L γ 1 − L γ ) w ˙ . The outer boundary form agrees for both metrics, which are Euclidean on the fixed boundary collar. ∖
We now define a finite relative energy and compute its first variation. The outer Robin term enforces (7) . For small ε > 0 \varepsilon>0 ε > 0 , define
E γ , ε ( Y ) : = 1 2 ∫ B 1 ∖ B ε ( ∣ D Y ∣ γ 2 + c ( n ) Scal γ Y 2 ) d x − ( n − 2 ) 2 2 ∫ B 1 ∖ B ε ( Y + ) p + 1 d x + n − 2 4 ∫ ∂ B 1 Y 2 d S . E_{\gamma,\varepsilon}(Y):=\frac{1}{2}\int_{B_1\setminus B_\varepsilon}\left(|DY|_\gamma^2+c(n)\operatorname{Scal}_\gamma Y^2\right)\,dx-\frac{(n-2)^2}{2}\int_{B_1\setminus B_\varepsilon}(Y_+)^{p+1}\,dx+\frac{n-2}{4}\int_{\partial B_1}Y^2\,dS. E γ , ε ( Y ) := 2 1 ∫ B 1 ∖ B ε ( ∣ D Y ∣ γ 2 + c ( n ) Scal γ Y 2 ) d x − 2 ( n − 2 ) 2 ∫ B 1 ∖ B ε ( Y + ) p + 1 d x + 4 n − 2 ∫ ∂ B 1 Y 2 d S .
For the background in (15) , put
J γ , V ( τ , w ) : = lim ε ↓ 0 { E γ , ε ( V + Φ T , τ + w ) − E γ , ε ( V ) − ∣ S n − 1 ∣ ∫ 0 T [ ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 + n − 2 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ ] ( − log ε + T + ξ ) d ξ } (43) \mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w):=\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow0}\left\{E_{\gamma,\varepsilon}(V+\Phi_{T,\tau}+w)-E_{\gamma,\varepsilon}(V)-|S^{n-1}|\int_0^T\left[(v_*')^2+\frac{n-2}{2}v_*v_*'\right](-\log\varepsilon+T+\xi)\,d\xi\right\} \tag*{(43)} J γ , V ( τ , w ) := ε ↓ 0 lim { E γ , ε ( V + Φ T , τ + w ) − E γ , ε ( V ) − ∣ S n − 1 ∣ ∫ 0 T [ ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 + 2 n − 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ ] ( − log ε + T + ξ ) d ξ } (43)
Integrating the radial cross term gives n − 2 4 ∣ S n − 1 ∣ v ∗ 2 ( − log ε + T ) \frac{n-2}{4}|S^{n-1}|v_*^2(-\log\varepsilon+T) 4 n − 2 ∣ S n − 1 ∣ v ∗ 2 ( − log ε + T ) at the inner boundary. Its phase derivative accounts for the n − 2 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ \frac{n-2}{2}v_*v_*' 2 n − 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ term in (43) .
Lemma 3.3. Let
U δ : = ( − ε 0 , ε 0 ) × H δ 1 ⊂ X δ . \mathcal{U}_\delta:=(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times H^1_\delta\subset\mathcal{X}_\delta. U δ := ( − ε 0 , ε 0 ) × H δ 1 ⊂ X δ . The limit in (43) exists for every ( τ , w ) ∈ U δ (\tau,w)\in\mathcal{U}_\delta ( τ , w ) ∈ U δ and defines a finite real-valued functional
J γ , V ∈ C 2 ( U δ ; R ) . \mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}\in C^2(\mathcal{U}_\delta;\mathbb{R}). J γ , V ∈ C 2 ( U δ ; R ) . For every ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ∈ X δ (\dot{\tau},\dot{w})\in\mathcal{X}_\delta ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ∈ X δ ,
D J γ , V ( τ , w ) [ τ ˙ , w ˙ ] = τ ˙ ⟨ F γ ( A τ + w ) , ψ T + τ ⟩ + ⟨ F γ ( A τ + w ) , w ˙ ⟩ . (44) D\mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w)[\dot{\tau},\dot{w}]=\dot{\tau}\langle F_\gamma(A_\tau+w),\psi_{T+\tau}\rangle+\langle F_\gamma(A_\tau+w),\dot{w}\rangle. \tag*{(44)} D J γ , V ( τ , w ) [ τ ˙ , w ˙ ] = τ ˙ ⟨ F γ ( A τ + w ) , ψ T + τ ⟩ + ⟨ F γ ( A τ + w ) , w ˙ ⟩ . (44) Here both brackets denote the duality between H δ − 1 = ( H − δ 1 ) ∗ H^{-1}_\delta=(H^1_{-\delta})^* H δ − 1 = ( H − δ 1 ) ∗ and H − δ 1 H^1_{-\delta} H − δ 1 , using the continuous inclusion H δ 1 ↪ H − δ 1 H^1_\delta\hookrightarrow H^1_{-\delta} H δ 1 ↪ H − δ 1 for w ˙ \dot{w} w ˙ .
Proof. Step 1. The pure profile and the remainder. For V T = r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 v ∗ ( − log r + T ) V_T=r^{-(n-2)/2}v_*(-\log r+T) V T = r − ( n − 2 ) /2 v ∗ ( − log r + T ) , polar integration with t = − log r t=-\log r t = − log r gives the radial energy density
1 2 ( v ∗ ′ + n − 2 2 v ∗ ) 2 − ( n − 2 ) 2 2 v ∗ p + 1 = ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 + E ∗ + n − 2 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ . \frac{1}{2}\left(v_*'+\frac{n-2}{2}v_*\right)^2-\frac{(n-2)^2}{2}v_*^{p+1}=(v_*')^2+E_*+\frac{n-2}{2}v_*v_*'. 2 1 ( v ∗ ′ + 2 n − 2 v ∗ ) 2 − 2 ( n − 2 ) 2 v ∗ p + 1 = ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 + E ∗ + 2 n − 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ .
On an interval ending at t = − log ε t=-\log\varepsilon t = − log ε , the change in the integral of this energy density under a phase shift equals the phase integral subtracted in (43) , minus the same phase integral evaluated at the fixed lower endpoint in t t t . The constant E ∗ E_* E ∗ cancels.
On the complement of a fixed neighborhood of 0 0 0 , the energy terms, including those involving derivatives of χ \chi χ , are finite and continuous in ( τ , w ) (\tau,w) ( τ , w ) by the Sobolev embedding. Near 0 0 0 , every term left after subtracting the pure Fowler contribution contains w w w or w 0 w_0 w 0 . Weighted Cauchy–Schwarz gives
∫ B 1 ( r − n / 2 ∣ D w ∣ + r − ( n + 2 ) / 2 ∣ w ∣ ) d x ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 , \int_{B_1}\left(r^{-n/2}|Dw|+r^{-(n+2)/2}|w|\right)\,dx\leq C\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}, ∫ B 1 ( r − n /2 ∣ D w ∣ + r − ( n + 2 ) /2 ∣ w ∣ ) d x ≤ C ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ,
because the complementary radial integral is ∫ 0 1 r − 1 + 2 δ d r < ∞ \int_0^1r^{-1+2\delta}\,dr<\infty ∫ 0 1 r − 1 + 2 δ d r < ∞ . The quadratic and nonlinear remainder terms are bounded by
C ∫ B 1 ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + r − 2 w 2 + ∣ w ∣ p + 1 ) d x ≤ C ( ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 2 + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p + 1 ) . C\int_{B_1}\left(|Dw|^2+r^{-2}w^2+|w|^{p+1}\right)\,dx\leq C\left(\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}^2+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p+1}\right). C ∫ B 1 ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + r − 2 w 2 + ∣ w ∣ p + 1 ) d x ≤ C ( ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 2 + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 p + 1 ) .
The outer boundary term is continuous by the trace inequality. Apply these bounds to w 0 w_0 w 0 after multiplying it by a smooth cutoff supported near 0 0 0 ; the complementary terms lie in a fixed compact subset of X X X . The resulting estimates prove existence of the limit. Applying the inequalities to differences proves continuity in ( τ , w ) (\tau,w) ( τ , w ) .
Step 2. First variation for smooth corrections. First take w , w ˙ w,\dot{w} w , w ˙ smooth, vanishing near 0 0 0 , and satisfying both matching conditions. Put Y = V + Φ T , τ + w Y=V+\Phi_{T,\tau}+w Y = V + Φ T , τ + w and Y ˙ = τ ˙ ψ T + τ + w ˙ \dot{Y}=\dot{\tau}\psi_{T+\tau}+\dot{w} Y ˙ = τ ˙ ψ T + τ + w ˙ . At r = 1 r=1 r = 1 the boundary term from integration by parts is
∫ ∂ B 1 ( ∂ r + n − 2 2 ) Y Y ˙ d S = 0 \int_{\partial B_1}\left(\partial_r+\frac{n-2}{2}\right)Y\dot{Y}\,dS=0 ∫ ∂ B 1 ( ∂ r + 2 n − 2 ) Y Y ˙ d S = 0
by antipodal parity. At the inner sphere the outward normal of the annulus is − ∂ r -\partial_r − ∂ r . Since
− ∂ r V T + τ = r − n / 2 ( n − 2 2 v ∗ + v ∗ ′ ) ( − log r + T + τ ) , -\partial_r V_{T+\tau}=r^{-n/2}\left(\frac{n-2}{2}v_*+v_*'\right)(-\log r+T+\tau), − ∂ r V T + τ = r − n /2 ( 2 n − 2 v ∗ + v ∗ ′ ) ( − log r + T + τ ) ,
its pairing with τ ˙ ∂ T V T + τ \dot{\tau}\partial_TV_{T+\tau} τ ˙ ∂ T V T + τ is
∣ S n − 1 ∣ [ ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 + n − 2 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ ] ( − log ε + T + τ ) τ ˙ + O ( ε δ ) ∣ τ ˙ ∣ . \lvert S^{n-1}\rvert\left[(v_*')^2+\frac{n-2}{2}v_*v_*'\right](-\log\varepsilon+T+\tau)\dot{\tau}+O(\varepsilon^\delta)\lvert\dot{\tau}\rvert. ∣ S n − 1 ∣ [ ( v ∗ ′ ) 2 + 2 n − 2 v ∗ v ∗ ′ ] ( − log ε + T + τ ) τ ˙ + O ( ε δ ) ∣ τ ˙ ∣ .
The remainder estimate follows from w 0 ∈ C 0 , δ 1 , α w_0\in C^{1,\alpha}_{0,\delta} w 0 ∈ C 0 , δ 1 , α . Differentiating the subtracted term in (3.10) cancels this boundary contribution. Letting ε ↓ 0 \varepsilon\downarrow0 ε ↓ 0 proves (3.11) for these variations.
Step 3. Weak variations. Choose smooth matching functions w j , w ˙ j w_j,\dot{w}_j w j , w ˙ j converging to w , w ˙ w,\dot{w} w , w ˙ in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 and put Y j ( s ) = V + Φ T , τ + s τ ˙ + w j + s w ˙ j Y_j(s)=V+\Phi_{T,\tau+s\dot{\tau}}+w_j+s\dot{w}_j Y j ( s ) = V + Φ T , τ + s τ ˙ + w j + s w ˙ j . Let Y ( s ) Y(s) Y ( s ) denote the same expression with w , w ˙ w,\dot{w} w , w ˙ . For ∣ h ∣ \lvert h\rvert ∣ h ∣ small, the estimates in Lemma 3.2 give uniform convergence of the residuals in H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 and of the variations in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 along the segment from 0 0 0 to h h h . Thus
J γ , V ( τ + h τ ˙ , w + h w ˙ ) − J γ , V ( τ , w ) = lim j → ∞ ∫ 0 h ⟨ F γ ( Y j ( s ) ) , Y j ′ ( s ) ⟩ d s = ∫ 0 h ⟨ F γ ( Y ( s ) ) , Y ′ ( s ) ⟩ d s . \mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}(\tau+h\dot{\tau},w+h\dot{w})-\mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}(\tau,w)=\lim_{j\to\infty}\int_0^h\langle\mathcal{F}_\gamma(Y_j(s)),Y_j'(s)\rangle\,ds=\int_0^h\langle\mathcal{F}_\gamma(Y(s)),Y'(s)\rangle\,ds. J γ , V ( τ + h τ ˙ , w + h w ˙ ) − J γ , V ( τ , w ) = j → ∞ lim ∫ 0 h ⟨ F γ ( Y j ( s )) , Y j ′ ( s )⟩ d s = ∫ 0 h ⟨ F γ ( Y ( s )) , Y ′ ( s )⟩ d s .
Dividing by h h h and letting h → 0 h\to0 h → 0 proves (3.11). The residual is C 1 C^1 C 1 , and ψ T + τ \psi_{T+\tau} ψ T + τ depends smoothly on τ \tau τ in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 . Hence J γ , V \mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V} J γ , V is C 2 C^2 C 2 .
The relative energy is also consistent with a change of cutoff. Displaying the cutoff temporarily as a superscript and using w ~ \widetilde{w} w from (2.16), we have
J γ , V χ ~ ( τ , w ~ ) = J γ , V χ ( τ , w ) . \mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}^{\widetilde{\chi}}(\tau,\widetilde{w})=\mathcal{J}_{\gamma,V}^{\chi}(\tau,w). J γ , V χ ( τ , w ) = J γ , V χ ( τ , w ) .
Indeed the represented function, reference background, and asymptotic phase are identical, so both the truncated energies and the subtracted term in (3.10) agree.
Metric perturbation and the projected equation
In this section, we continue the background under a local metric perturbation and solve the projected equation after adding a bubble. Lemmas 4.2 and 4.4 provide the required inverses, and Proposition 4.5 constructs the correction and its parameter derivatives. Fix an admissible background ( γ , V ) (\gamma,V) ( γ , V ) with phase T T T in (2.12), and a ball B 4 ρ ( a ) B_{4\rho}(a) B 4 ρ ( a ) as in Proposition 2.2.
We define the tensor used in the localized metric perturbation and the Euclidean bubble to be inserted in a conformally flat ball. We use the tensor identities and metric variations of Brendle–Marques [4 ] .
Choose a nonzero algebraic Weyl tensor W W W on R n \mathbb{R}^n R n and put
H i k ( x ) : = ∑ r , s = 1 n W i r k s x r x s , f ( s ) : = 80 − 50 s + 7 s 2 , H ‾ i k ( x ) : = f ( ∣ x ∣ 2 ) H i k ( x ) . H_{ik}(x):=\sum_{r,s=1}^{n}W_{irks}x_rx_s,\qquad f(s):=80-50s+7s^2,\qquad\overline{H}_{ik}(x):=f(|x|^2)H_{ik}(x). H ik ( x ) := r , s = 1 ∑ n W i r k s x r x s , f ( s ) := 80 − 50 s + 7 s 2 , H ik ( x ) := f ( ∣ x ∣ 2 ) H ik ( x ) .
The Weyl tensor at a point of a nonconformally flat product of two space forms is one such choice of W W W . The Weyl symmetries imply
∑ i = 1 n H i i = 0 , ∑ i = 1 n x i H i k = 0 , ∑ i = 1 n ∂ i H i k = 0 , 1 ≤ k ≤ n . \sum_{i=1}^{n}H_{ii}=0,\qquad\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_iH_{ik}=0,\qquad\sum_{i=1}^{n}\partial_iH_{ik}=0,\qquad1\leq k\leq n. i = 1 ∑ n H ii = 0 , i = 1 ∑ n x i H ik = 0 , i = 1 ∑ n ∂ i H ik = 0 , 1 ≤ k ≤ n .
If ψ = ψ ( ∣ x ∣ 2 ) \psi=\psi(|x|^2) ψ = ψ ( ∣ x ∣ 2 ) is any smooth radial scalar, then
tr ( ψ H ) = 0 , ∑ i = 1 n x i ( ψ H ) i k = 0 , 1 ≤ k ≤ n , \operatorname{tr}(\psi H)=0,\qquad\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i(\psi H)_{ik}=0,\quad1\le k\le n, tr ( ψ H ) = 0 , i = 1 ∑ n x i ( ψ H ) ik = 0 , 1 ≤ k ≤ n ,
∑ i = 1 n ∂ i ( ψ H ) i k = 0 , 1 ≤ k ≤ n , ∑ i , k = 1 n ∂ i ∂ k ( ψ H ) i k = 0. (45) \sum_{i=1}^{n}\partial_i(\psi H)_{ik}=0,\quad1\le k\le n,\qquad\sum_{i,k=1}^{n}\partial_i\partial_k(\psi H)_{ik}=0. \tag*{(45)} i = 1 ∑ n ∂ i ( ψ H ) ik = 0 , 1 ≤ k ≤ n , i , k = 1 ∑ n ∂ i ∂ k ( ψ H ) ik = 0. (45)
The same formulas hold after multiplication by a radial cutoff.
For ( λ , b ) ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n (\lambda,b)\in(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n ( λ , b ) ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n , define
U λ , b ( y ) : = ( λ λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) ( n − 2 ) / 2 . U_{\lambda,b}(y):=\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda^2+|y-b|^2}\right)^{(n-2)/2}. U λ , b ( y ) := ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 λ ) ( n − 2 ) /2 .
Then − Δ U λ , b = n ( n − 2 ) U λ , b p -\Delta U_{\lambda,b}=n(n-2)U_{\lambda,b}^{p} − Δ U λ , b = n ( n − 2 ) U λ , b p . The Jacobi fields and their span are
( J λ , b ) 0 : = λ ∂ λ U λ , b , ( J λ , b ) i : = ∂ b i U λ , b 1 ≤ i ≤ n , (J_{\lambda,b})_0:=\lambda\partial_\lambda U_{\lambda,b},\qquad(J_{\lambda,b})_i:=\partial_{b_i}U_{\lambda,b}\quad1\le i\le n, ( J λ , b ) 0 := λ ∂ λ U λ , b , ( J λ , b ) i := ∂ b i U λ , b 1 ≤ i ≤ n ,
and K λ , b : = span { ( J λ , b ) 0 , … , ( J λ , b ) n } K_{\lambda,b}:=\operatorname{span}\{(J_{\lambda,b})_0,\ldots,(J_{\lambda,b})_n\} K λ , b := span {( J λ , b ) 0 , … , ( J λ , b ) n } . By the Euclidean kernel theorem of Bianchi–Egnell [2 Lemma A1] , K λ , b K_{\lambda,b} K λ , b is the kernel of − Δ − n ( n + 2 ) U λ , b p − 1 -\Delta-n(n+2)U_{\lambda,b}^{p-1} − Δ − n ( n + 2 ) U λ , b p − 1 in H ˙ 1 ( R n ) \dot H^1(\mathbb{R}^n) H ˙ 1 ( R n ) , the closure of C c ∞ ( R n ) C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n) C c ∞ ( R n ) under the Dirichlet norm ∥ D ⋅ ∥ L 2 \|D\cdot\|_{L^2} ∥ D ⋅ ∥ L 2 . Orthogonality in H ˙ 1 \dot H^1 H ˙ 1 always refers to the Dirichlet scalar product ( ϕ , ψ ) H ˙ 1 = ∫ R n D ϕ ⋅ D ψ d y (\phi,\psi)_{\dot H^1}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}D\phi\cdot D\psi\,dy ( ϕ , ψ ) H ˙ 1 = ∫ R n D ϕ ⋅ D ψ d y . The Sobolev inequality and its dual give
H ˙ 1 ( R n ) ↪ L p + 1 ( R n ) , L 2 n / ( n + 2 ) ( R n ) ↪ H ˙ − 1 ( R n ) . \dot H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\hookrightarrow L^{p+1}(\mathbb{R}^n),\qquad L^{2n/(n+2)}(\mathbb{R}^n)\hookrightarrow\dot H^{-1}(\mathbb{R}^n). H ˙ 1 ( R n ) ↪ L p + 1 ( R n ) , L 2 n / ( n + 2 ) ( R n ) ↪ H ˙ − 1 ( R n ) .
Fix a smooth radial cutoff η : [ 0 , ∞ ) → [ 0 , 1 ] \eta:[0,\infty)\to[0,1] η : [ 0 , ∞ ) → [ 0 , 1 ] with η = 1 \eta=1 η = 1 on [ 0 , 1 / 2 ] [0,1/2] [ 0 , 1/2 ] and η = 0 \eta=0 η = 0 on [ 3 / 4 , ∞ ) [3/4,\infty) [ 3/4 , ∞ ) . To describe the part of the bubble residual that is linear in the metric perturbation, set
S λ , b : = ∑ i , k = 1 n H i k ∂ i k U λ , b . S_{\lambda,b}:=\sum_{i,k=1}^{n}H_{ik}\partial_{ik}U_{\lambda,b}. S λ , b := i , k = 1 ∑ n H ik ∂ ik U λ , b .
The following identities control the energy of the explicit bubble and the size of its projected correction.
Lemma 4.1. For every ψ ∈ C c ∞ ( [ 0 , ∞ ) ) \psi\in C^\infty_c([0,\infty)) ψ ∈ C c ∞ ([ 0 , ∞ )) and every ( λ , b ) ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n (\lambda,b)\in(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n ( λ , b ) ∈ ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n ,
∑ i , k = 1 n ∫ R n ψ ( ∣ y ∣ 2 ) H i k ∂ i U λ , b ∂ k U λ , b d y = 0. (46) \sum_{i,k=1}^{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\psi(|y|^2)H_{ik}\partial_iU_{\lambda,b}\partial_kU_{\lambda,b}\,dy=0. \tag*{(46)} i , k = 1 ∑ n ∫ R n ψ ( ∣ y ∣ 2 ) H ik ∂ i U λ , b ∂ k U λ , b d y = 0. (46) The first variation of scalar curvature in ψ H \psi H ψ H is zero. Moreover,
S λ , b ( y ) = n ( n − 2 ) λ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) ( n + 2 ) / 2 ∑ i , k = 1 n H i k ( y ) b i b k . (47) S_{\lambda,b}(y)=\frac{n(n-2)\lambda^{(n-2)/2}}{(\lambda^2+|y-b|^2)^{(n+2)/2}}\sum_{i,k=1}^{n}H_{ik}(y)b_i b_k. \tag*{(47)} S λ , b ( y ) = ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) ( n + 2 ) /2 n ( n − 2 ) λ ( n − 2 ) /2 i , k = 1 ∑ n H ik ( y ) b i b k . (47) On each compact subset of ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n (0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n , uniformly in the parameters ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) ,
∣ S λ , b ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ∣ b ∣ 2 ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n , |S_{\lambda,b}(y)|\le C|b|^2(1+|y|)^{4-n}, ∣ S λ , b ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ∣ b ∣ 2 ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n , ∣ D λ , b S λ , b ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ∣ b ∣ ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n , |D_{\lambda,b}S_{\lambda,b}(y)|\le C|b|(1+|y|)^{4-n}, ∣ D λ , b S λ , b ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ∣ b ∣ ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n , ∣ D λ , b 2 S λ , b ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n . (48) |D_{\lambda,b}^2S_{\lambda,b}(y)|\le C(1+|y|)^{4-n}. \tag*{(48)} ∣ D λ , b 2 S λ , b ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n . (48) The same estimates hold after multiplication by η ( ∣ y ∣ / R ) \eta(|y|/R) η ( ∣ y ∣/ R ) , uniformly for R ≥ 1 R\ge1 R ≥ 1 .
Proof. Step 1. The linear energy term. Differentiating the bubble directly, we obtain, for 1 ≤ i , k ≤ n 1\le i,k\le n 1 ≤ i , k ≤ n ,
∂ i U λ , b ∂ k U λ , b − c ( n ) ∂ i k ( U λ , b 2 ) = δ i k n ( ∣ D U λ , b ∣ 2 − c ( n ) Δ ( U λ , b 2 ) ) . \partial_iU_{\lambda,b}\partial_kU_{\lambda,b}-c(n)\partial_{ik}(U_{\lambda,b}^2)=\frac{\delta_{ik}}{n}\left(|DU_{\lambda,b}|^2-c(n)\Delta(U_{\lambda,b}^2)\right). ∂ i U λ , b ∂ k U λ , b − c ( n ) ∂ ik ( U λ , b 2 ) = n δ ik ( ∣ D U λ , b ∣ 2 − c ( n ) Δ ( U λ , b 2 ) ) .
Contracting with ψ H \psi H ψ H , using its zero trace, and integrating by parts twice, we obtain
∑ i , k = 1 n ∫ R n ( ψ H ) i k ∂ y i U λ , b ∂ y k U λ , b d y = c ( n ) ∑ i , k = 1 n ∫ R n ∂ y i ∂ y k ( ψ H ) i k U λ , b 2 d y = 0. \sum_{i,k=1}^{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(\psi H)_{ik}\partial_{y_i}U_{\lambda,b}\partial_{y_k}U_{\lambda,b}\,dy=c(n)\sum_{i,k=1}^{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\partial_{y_i}\partial_{y_k}(\psi H)_{ik}U_{\lambda,b}^{2}\,dy=0. i , k = 1 ∑ n ∫ R n ( ψ H ) ik ∂ y i U λ , b ∂ y k U λ , b d y = c ( n ) i , k = 1 ∑ n ∫ R n ∂ y i ∂ y k ( ψ H ) ik U λ , b 2 d y = 0.
The last equality follows from (45) . The trace and divergence identities in (45) also imply that the first variation of scalar curvature in the direction ψ H \psi H ψ H vanishes.
Step 2. The residual and parameter derivatives. The Hessian of the bubble is
∂ i k U λ , b = − ( n − 2 ) λ ( n − 2 ) / 2 δ i k ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) n / 2 + n ( n − 2 ) λ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( y i − b i ) ( y k − b k ) ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) ( n + 2 ) / 2 . \partial_{ik}U_{\lambda,b}=-(n-2)\lambda^{(n-2)/2}\frac{\delta_{ik}}{(\lambda^{2}+|y-b|^{2})^{n/2}}+n(n-2)\lambda^{(n-2)/2}\frac{(y_i-b_i)(y_k-b_k)}{(\lambda^{2}+|y-b|^{2})^{(n+2)/2}}. ∂ ik U λ , b = − ( n − 2 ) λ ( n − 2 ) /2 ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) n /2 δ ik + n ( n − 2 ) λ ( n − 2 ) /2 ( λ 2 + ∣ y − b ∣ 2 ) ( n + 2 ) /2 ( y i − b i ) ( y k − b k ) .
The trace and radial identities in (45) remove the first term and every factor y i y_i y i or y k y_k y k in the second term. We thus obtain (47) . Differentiating this formula at most twice and using ∣ H ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 6 |H(y)|\le C(1+|y|)^6 ∣ H ( y ) ∣ ≤ C ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 6 , we deduce (48) . The cutoff is independent of the parameters ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) .
We now perturb the metric in the insertion ball and continue the background solution. The fixed background satisfies γ = γ 0 \gamma=\gamma_0 γ = γ 0 on B 4 ρ ( a ) B_{4\rho}(a) B 4 ρ ( a ) . The coordinates x x x remain centered at the puncture; the bubble rescaling is x = a + μ y x=a+\mu y x = a + μ y . Choose the phase cutoff to vanish on a neighborhood of B 4 ρ ( a ) B_{4\rho}(a) B 4 ρ ( a ) . For example, take χ ( r ) = χ ∗ ( r / ε ) \chi(r)=\chi_*(r/\varepsilon) χ ( r ) = χ ∗ ( r / ε ) with 2 ε < ∣ a ∣ − 4 ρ 2\varepsilon<|a|-4\rho 2 ε < ∣ a ∣ − 4 ρ , using the fixed smooth function in (26) . Equation (18) preserves the isomorphism supplied by admissibility. Fix this cutoff and its resulting inverse bound before varying μ \mu μ ; all estimates in this insertion use this same cutoff, independent of ( μ , λ , b ) (\mu,\lambda,b) ( μ , λ , b ) . With the tensor profile just defined, set
( h μ ) i k ( x ) = μ 19 / 4 η ( ∣ x − a ∣ / ρ ) f ( μ − 2 ∣ x − a ∣ 2 ) H i k ( x − a ) , h μ ( a + μ y ) = μ 27 / 4 η ( ∣ y ∣ / R ) H ( y ) , R = ρ / μ . (49) \begin{aligned}
(h_\mu)_{ik}(x)&=\mu^{19/4}\eta(|x-a|/\rho)f(\mu^{-2}|x-a|^2)H_{ik}(x-a),\\
h_\mu(a+\mu y)&=\mu^{27/4}\eta(|y|/R)H(y),\qquad R=\rho/\mu. \tag*{(49)}
\end{aligned} ( h μ ) ik ( x ) h μ ( a + μ y ) = μ 19/4 η ( ∣ x − a ∣/ ρ ) f ( μ − 2 ∣ x − a ∣ 2 ) H ik ( x − a ) , = μ 27/4 η ( ∣ y ∣/ R ) H ( y ) , R = ρ / μ . (49)
Define γ μ = e h μ \gamma_\mu=e^{h_\mu} γ μ = e h μ in B ρ ( a ) B_\rho(a) B ρ ( a ) and γ μ = γ \gamma_\mu=\gamma γ μ = γ elsewhere. The zero trace condition gives d V γ μ = d x dV_{\gamma_\mu}=dx d V γ μ = d x . The metric remains Euclidean near 0 0 0 and on the unchanged boundary collar. For every fixed k ≥ 0 k\ge0 k ≥ 0 ,
∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C k ( B 1 ) ≤ C k , a , ρ μ 3 / 4 → 0. (50) \|\gamma_\mu-\gamma\|_{C^k(B_1)}\le C_{k,a,\rho}\mu^{3/4}\to0. \tag*{(50)} ∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C k ( B 1 ) ≤ C k , a , ρ μ 3/4 → 0. (50)
In the fixed coordinates x x x , the terms of degrees two, four, and six in h μ h_\mu h μ have coefficients proportional to μ 19 / 4 \mu^{19/4} μ 19/4 , μ 11 / 4 \mu^{11/4} μ 11/4 , and μ 3 / 4 \mu^{3/4} μ 3/4 , respectively. This gives (50) . After the rescaling x = a + μ y x=a+\mu y x = a + μ y , the prefactor in (49) is μ 27 / 4 \mu^{27/4} μ 27/4 . Lemma 4.1 eliminates the linear metric contribution, so the leading quadratic contribution to the bubble energy has order μ 27 / 2 \mu^{27/2} μ 27/2 . By Lemma 5.3, the interaction with the background is O ( μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ) = o ( μ 27 / 2 ) O(\mu^{(n-2)/2})=o(\mu^{27/2}) O ( μ ( n − 2 ) /2 ) = o ( μ 27/2 ) for n ≥ 30 n\ge30 n ≥ 30 . Proposition 5.1 supplies a nondegenerate minimum of the leading coefficient in this dimension range.
Lemma 4.2. For the admissible background ( γ , V ) (\gamma,V) ( γ , V ) fixed in this section and the metric γ μ \gamma_\mu γ μ constructed above, there are, for all sufficiently small μ > 0 \mu>0 μ > 0 , a positive solution V μ V_\mu V μ and a phase T μ T_\mu T μ such that
V μ = V + Φ T μ , − T + w μ , ∣ T μ − T ∣ + ∥ w μ ∥ H δ 1 → 0 as μ ↓ 0. V_\mu=V+\Phi_{T_\mu,-T}+w_\mu,\qquad|T_\mu-T|+\|w_\mu\|_{H^1_\delta}\to0\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0. V μ = V + Φ T μ , − T + w μ , ∣ T μ − T ∣ + ∥ w μ ∥ H δ 1 → 0 as μ ↓ 0. The pair ( γ μ , V μ ) (\gamma_\mu,V_\mu) ( γ μ , V μ ) satisfies (15) with phase T μ T_\mu T μ , and V μ V_\mu V μ satisfies (7) . For every fixed integer k ≥ 0 k\ge0 k ≥ 0 ,
V μ → V in C Θ ; 0 k ( X ) as μ ↓ 0. (51) V_\mu\to V\quad\text{in }C^k_{\Theta;0}(X)\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0. \tag*{(51)} V μ → V in C Θ ; 0 k ( X ) as μ ↓ 0. (51) The linearization L ^ γ μ , V μ \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma_\mu,V_\mu} L γ μ , V μ is an isomorphism whose inverse norm is bounded independently of small μ \mu μ .
Proof. Step 1. Continuation and regularity. The residual F γ μ ( V ) \mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(V) F γ μ ( V ) is supported in B ρ ( a ) B_\rho(a) B ρ ( a ) , and
∥ F γ μ ( V ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C 2 ( B ρ ( a ) ) → 0 as μ ↓ 0. \|\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(V)\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\le C\|\gamma_\mu-\gamma\|_{C^2(B_\rho(a))}\to0\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0. ∥ F γ μ ( V ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C 2 ( B ρ ( a )) → 0 as μ ↓ 0.
Apply (39) with D = B ρ ( a ) D=B_{\rho}(a) D = B ρ ( a ) . By Lemma 3.2 and the implicit function theorem, we obtain T μ T_{\mu} T μ and w μ w_{\mu} w μ with the stated convergence. By Lemma 3.1 and the small metric perturbation, − L γ μ -L_{\gamma_{\mu}} − L γ μ remains coercive. Also,
inf X V + Φ T , T μ − T Θ ≥ inf X V Θ − C ∣ T μ − T ∣ ≥ 1 2 inf X V Θ > 0. \inf_X \frac{V+\Phi_{T,T_{\mu}-T}}{\Theta}\geq\inf_X \frac{V}{\Theta}-C|T_{\mu}-T|\geq\frac{1}{2}\inf_X\frac{V}{\Theta}>0. X inf Θ V + Φ T , T μ − T ≥ X inf Θ V − C ∣ T μ − T ∣ ≥ 2 1 X inf Θ V > 0.
for small μ \mu μ . Lemma A.4 therefore proves positivity, smoothness, and a decaying remainder with phase T μ T_{\mu} T μ . Its convergence assertion, applied to the small correction and phase shift above, proves (51) for every fixed k k k .
Step 2. Preservation of invertibility. Keep the spaces and the cutoff fixed as μ ↓ 0 \mu\downarrow0 μ ↓ 0 . The derivative of the nonlinear map in Lemma 3.2 at the continued solution is
( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ⟼ L γ μ , V μ ( τ ˙ ψ T μ + w ˙ ) . (\dot{\tau},\dot{w})\longmapsto\mathcal{L}_{\gamma_{\mu},V_{\mu}}(\dot{\tau}\psi_{T_{\mu}}+\dot{w}). ( τ ˙ , w ˙ ) ⟼ L γ μ , V μ ( τ ˙ ψ T μ + w ˙ ) .
By Lemma 3.2,
∥ L ^ γ μ , V μ − L ^ γ , V ∥ X δ → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C 2 ( B ρ ( a ) ) + ∣ T μ − T ∣ + ∥ w μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ w μ ∥ H δ p − 1 ) = o ( 1 ) . \left\lVert\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma_{\mu},V_{\mu}}-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma,V}\right\rVert_{X_{\delta}\to H_{\delta}^{-1}}\leq C\left(\lVert\gamma_{\mu}-\gamma\rVert_{C^{2}(B_{\rho}(a))}+|T_{\mu}-T|+\lVert w_{\mu}\rVert_{H_{\delta}^{1}}+\lVert w_{\mu}\rVert_{H_{\delta}^{p-1}}\right)=o(1). L γ μ , V μ − L γ , V X δ → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∥ γ μ − γ ∥ C 2 ( B ρ ( a )) + ∣ T μ − T ∣ + ∥ w μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ w μ ∥ H δ p − 1 ) = o ( 1 ) .
The derivatives with respect to the phase are compared by (42) . A Neumann series proves the asserted isomorphism and uniform inverse bound.
We now estimate the residual and its first two bubble parameter derivatives after adding a cutoff bubble to the continued background. Let s n s_n s n be the number supplied by Proposition 5.1. Fix a compact neighborhood K K K of ( s n , 0 ) (\sqrt{s_n},0) ( s n , 0 ) in ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n (0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^n ( 0 , ∞ ) × R n . We take parameter derivatives on an open neighborhood of K K K whose closure is compact in this parameter space. The notation D λ , b D_{\lambda,b} D λ , b denotes ordinary derivatives with respect to ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) , with the spatial variable, insertion scale, background, and cutoffs held fixed. We also write ∂ ( λ , b ) β \partial^{\beta}_{(\lambda,b)} ∂ ( λ , b ) β for parameter derivatives of multiindex β \beta β . For a C 2 C^2 C 2 function on this neighborhood, its C 2 ( K ) C^2(K) C 2 ( K ) norm includes the suprema on K K K of the function and its derivatives through order two. The insertion point, radius, and background remain fixed. Choose a smooth cutoff 0 ≤ ζ ≤ 1 0\leq\zeta\leq1 0 ≤ ζ ≤ 1 equal to one on B ρ ( a ) B_{\rho}(a) B ρ ( a ) and zero outside B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . Define the bubble on X X X by
U ^ μ , λ , b ( x ) : = ζ ( x ) ( μ λ ( μ λ ) 2 + ∣ x − a − μ b ∣ 2 ) ( n − 2 ) / 2 . (52) \widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b}(x):=\zeta(x)\left(\frac{\mu\lambda}{(\mu\lambda)^2+|x-a-\mu b|^2}\right)^{(n-2)/2}. \tag*{(52)} U μ , λ , b ( x ) := ζ ( x ) ( ( μ λ ) 2 + ∣ x − a − μ b ∣ 2 μ λ ) ( n − 2 ) /2 . (52)
extended by zero. It has Euclidean scale μ λ \mu\lambda μ λ and center a + μ b a+\mu b a + μ b ; λ , b \lambda,b λ , b are the rescaled parameters. Put
R μ , λ , b : = F γ μ ( V μ + U ^ μ , λ , b ) , R_{\mu,\lambda,b}:=\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_{\mu}}(V_{\mu}+\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b}), R μ , λ , b := F γ μ ( V μ + U μ , λ , b ) ,
L μ , λ , b : = − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) ( V μ + U ^ μ , λ , b ) p − 1 . L_{\mu,\lambda,b}:=-L_{\gamma_{\mu}}-n(n+2)(V_{\mu}+\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b})^{p-1}. L μ , λ , b := − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) ( V μ + U μ , λ , b ) p − 1 .
The residual is supported in B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . Write
e μ : = μ 27 / 2 + μ ( n + 2 ) / 4 . (53) e_{\mu}:=\mu^{27/2}+\mu^{(n+2)/4}. \tag*{(53)} e μ := μ 27/2 + μ ( n + 2 ) /4 . (53)
Lemma 4.3. There are C , μ 0 > 0 C,\mu_0>0 C , μ 0 > 0 such that the following estimates hold for 0 < μ < μ 0 0<\mu<\mu_0 0 < μ < μ 0 and ( λ , b ) ∈ K (\lambda,b)\in K ( λ , b ) ∈ K :
∥ R μ , λ , b ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ 2 + e μ ) , \left\lVert R_{\mu,\lambda,b}\right\rVert_{H_{\delta}^{-1}}\leq C\left(\mu^{27/4}|b|^2+e_{\mu}\right), ∥ R μ , λ , b ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ 2 + e μ ) , ∥ D λ , b R μ , λ , b ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ + e μ ) , \left\lVert D_{\lambda,b}R_{\mu,\lambda,b}\right\rVert_{H_{\delta}^{-1}}\leq C\left(\mu^{27/4}|b|+e_{\mu}\right), ∥ D λ , b R μ , λ , b ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ + e μ ) , ∥ D λ , b 2 R μ , λ , b ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 + e μ ) . (54) \left\lVert D_{\lambda,b}^{2}R_{\mu,\lambda,b}\right\rVert_{H_{\delta}^{-1}}\leq C\left(\mu^{27/4}+e_{\mu}\right). \tag*{(54)} D λ , b 2 R μ , λ , b H δ − 1 ≤ C ( μ 27/4 + e μ ) . (54) In particular, e μ = o ( μ 27 / 4 ) e_{\mu}=o(\mu^{27/4}) e μ = o ( μ 27/4 ) for n ≥ 30 n\geq30 n ≥ 30 .
Proof. Step 1. Metric and cutoff errors. The residual and its bubble parameter derivatives are supported in B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . On this fixed set, the weights and their reciprocals have bounds independent of μ \mu μ . The weighted dual norm is therefore controlled by the local L 2 n n + 2 L^{\frac{2n}{n+2}} L n + 2 2 n norm, with constants depending on the ball and background. This exponent gives the critical source scaling under x = a + μ y x=a+\mu y x = a + μ y .
For the linear metric source μ 27 / 4 η ( ∣ y ∣ / R ) S λ , b \mu^{27/4}\eta(|y|/R)S_{\lambda,b} μ 27/4 η ( ∣ y ∣/ R ) S λ , b , use the factors ∣ b ∣ 2 |b|^2 ∣ b ∣ 2 , ∣ b ∣ |b| ∣ b ∣ , 1 1 1 in (4.4). The membership ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n ∈ L 2 n n + 2 (1+|y|)^{4-n}\in L^{\frac{2n}{n+2}} ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 4 − n ∈ L n + 2 2 n for n > 10 n>10 n > 10 proves the first term in each estimate. We rescale the metric contribution ( − L γ μ + Δ ) U ^ μ , λ , b (-L_{\gamma_\mu}+\Delta)\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b} ( − L γ μ + Δ ) U μ , λ , b by setting x = a + μ y x=a+\mu y x = a + μ y and multiplying by μ ( n + 2 ) / 2 \mu^{(n+2)/2} μ ( n + 2 ) /2 . Its linear part is μ 27 / 4 η ( ∣ y ∣ / R ) S λ , b \mu^{27/4}\eta(|y|/R)S_{\lambda,b} μ 27/4 η ( ∣ y ∣/ R ) S λ , b . After subtracting this linear part, the remainder and its first two parameter derivatives are bounded by
C μ 27 / 2 ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 12 − n 1 ∣ y ∣ ≤ R . C\mu^{27/2}(1+|y|)^{12-n}1_{|y|\leq R}. C μ 27/2 ( 1 + ∣ y ∣ ) 12 − n 1 ∣ y ∣ ≤ R .
This majorant has bounded L 2 n n + 2 L^{\frac{2n}{n+2}} L n + 2 2 n norm for n > 26 n>26 n > 26 . The bubble cutoff error is O ( μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ) O(\mu^{(n-2)/2}) O ( μ ( n − 2 ) /2 ) in the dual norm, also after two parameter derivatives.
Step 2. The nonlinear interaction. For the interaction, in the local Euclidean variables let
A ( x ) : = V μ ( x ) , B ( x ) : = U ^ μ , λ , b ( x ) = ζ ( x ) ( μ λ ( μ λ ) 2 + ∣ x − a − μ b ∣ 2 ) ( n − 2 ) / 2 . A(x):=V_\mu(x),\qquad B(x):=\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b}(x)=\zeta(x)\left(\frac{\mu\lambda}{(\mu\lambda)^2+|x-a-\mu b|^2}\right)^{(n-2)/2}. A ( x ) := V μ ( x ) , B ( x ) := U μ , λ , b ( x ) = ζ ( x ) ( ( μ λ ) 2 + ∣ x − a − μ b ∣ 2 μ λ ) ( n − 2 ) /2 .
The positive function A A A is independent of ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) and has uniform positive upper and lower bounds on B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . The cutoff makes B ≥ 0 B\geq0 B ≥ 0 . Since n ≥ 30 n\geq30 n ≥ 30 , the exponent ( n + 2 ) / ( n − 2 ) (n+2)/(n-2) ( n + 2 ) / ( n − 2 ) lies in ( 1 , 2 ) (1,2) ( 1 , 2 ) . Thus
0 ≤ ( A + B ) p − A p − B p ≤ C min { A B p − 1 , A p − 1 B } . 0\leq(A+B)^p-A^p-B^p\leq C\min\{AB^{p-1},A^{p-1}B\}. 0 ≤ ( A + B ) p − A p − B p ≤ C min { A B p − 1 , A p − 1 B } .
Differentiating the explicit bubble, for every multiindex β \beta β with ∣ β ∣ ≤ 2 |\beta|\leq2 ∣ β ∣ ≤ 2 we have ∣ ∂ ( λ , b ) β B ∣ ≤ C B |\partial^\beta_{(\lambda,b)}B|\leq CB ∣ ∂ ( λ , b ) β B ∣ ≤ C B , uniformly on K K K . Applying the chain rule, we obtain
∣ ∂ ( λ , b ) β { ( A + B ) p − A p − B p } ∣ ≤ C min { A B p − 1 , A p − 1 B } . \left|\partial_{(\lambda,b)}^\beta\{(A+B)^p-A^p-B^p\}\right|\leq C\min\{AB^{p-1},A^{p-1}B\}. ∂ ( λ , b ) β {( A + B ) p − A p − B p } ≤ C min { A B p − 1 , A p − 1 B } .
When 0 < B ≤ A 0<B\leq A 0 < B ≤ A , divide the mixed expression by A p A^p A p and use the variable B / A ≤ 1 B/A\leq1 B / A ≤ 1 ; its first two differentiated terms, multiplied by B B B and B 2 B^2 B 2 from the chain rule, are bounded by C A p − 1 B CA^{p-1}B C A p − 1 B . When B ≥ A B\geq A B ≥ A , divide by B p B^p B p and use A / B ≤ 1 A/B\leq1 A / B ≤ 1 ; the same products are bounded by C A B p − 1 CAB^{p-1} C A B p − 1 . At a zero of ζ \zeta ζ , B B B and all its parameter derivatives vanish, hence the inequality extends there.
Step 3. Integration of the interaction estimates. For the radial integration about the bubble center, write s = ∣ x − a − μ b ∣ s=|x-a-\mu b| s = ∣ x − a − μ b ∣ . On s ≤ μ s\leq\sqrt{\mu} s ≤ μ use B p − 1 ≤ C μ 2 ( μ + s ) − 4 B^{p-1}\leq C\mu^2(\mu+s)^{-4} B p − 1 ≤ C μ 2 ( μ + s ) − 4 , and on s ≥ μ s\geq\sqrt{\mu} s ≥ μ use B ≤ C μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 s 2 − n B\leq C\mu^{(n-2)/2}s^{2-n} B ≤ C μ ( n − 2 ) /2 s 2 − n . Since n > 6 n>6 n > 6 ,
∫ 0 μ [ μ 2 ( μ + s ) − 4 ] 2 n n + 2 s n − 1 d s ≤ C μ n / 2 , \int_0^{\sqrt{\mu}}[\mu^2(\mu+s)^{-4}]^{\frac{2n}{n+2}}s^{n-1}\,ds\leq C\mu^{n/2}, ∫ 0 μ [ μ 2 ( μ + s ) − 4 ] n + 2 2 n s n − 1 d s ≤ C μ n /2 ,
∫ μ 3 ρ ( μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 s 2 − n ) 2 n n + 2 s n − 1 d s ≤ C μ n / 2 . \int_{\sqrt{\mu}}^{3\rho}(\mu^{(n-2)/2}s^{2-n})^{\frac{2n}{n+2}}s^{n-1}\,ds\leq C\mu^{n/2}. ∫ μ 3 ρ ( μ ( n − 2 ) /2 s 2 − n ) n + 2 2 n s n − 1 d s ≤ C μ n /2 .
For the first estimate, split at s = μ s=\mu s = μ and use n − 8 n / ( n + 2 ) > 0 n-8n/(n+2)>0 n − 8 n / ( n + 2 ) > 0 ; for the second, use n − ( n − 2 ) 2 n / ( n + 2 ) < 0 n-(n-2)2n/(n+2)<0 n − ( n − 2 ) 2 n / ( n + 2 ) < 0 . Taking the ( n + 2 ) / ( 2 n ) (n+2)/(2n) ( n + 2 ) / ( 2 n ) power, we obtain the bound C μ ( n + 2 ) / 4 C\mu^{(n+2)/4} C μ ( n + 2 ) /4 for the interaction and its first two parameter derivatives. The cutoff error is absorbed because μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ≤ μ ( n + 2 ) / 4 \mu^{(n-2)/2}\leq\mu^{(n+2)/4} μ ( n − 2 ) /2 ≤ μ ( n + 2 ) /4 for 0 < μ ≤ 1 0<\mu\leq1 0 < μ ≤ 1 and n ≥ 30 n\geq30 n ≥ 30 . Together with the metric errors, this proves (4.10). By (4.9), μ − 27 / 4 ϵ μ = μ 27 / 4 + μ ( n − 25 ) / 4 → 0 \mu^{-27/4}\epsilon_\mu=\mu^{27/4}+\mu^{(n-25)/4}\to0 μ − 27/4 ϵ μ = μ 27/4 + μ ( n − 25 ) /4 → 0 as μ → 0 \mu\to0 μ → 0 .
We next impose orthogonality to the bubble Jacobi fields and define the associated projections. Let
( J μ , λ , b ) 0 : = λ ∂ λ U ^ μ , λ , b , ( J μ , λ , b ) i : = ∂ b i U ^ μ , λ , b 1 ≤ i ≤ n , (55) (J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_0:=\lambda\partial_\lambda\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b},\qquad(J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_i:=\partial_{b_i}\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b}\quad1\leq i\leq n, \tag*{(55)} ( J μ , λ , b ) 0 := λ ∂ λ U μ , λ , b , ( J μ , λ , b ) i := ∂ b i U μ , λ , b 1 ≤ i ≤ n , (55)
and let K μ , λ , b \mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b} K μ , λ , b be their span. We use ∂ i \partial_i ∂ i for Euclidean spatial derivatives and ∂ λ \partial_\lambda ∂ λ , ∂ b i \partial_{b_i} ∂ b i , and ∂ ( λ , b ) β \partial_{(\lambda,b)}^\beta ∂ ( λ , b ) β for parameter derivatives. Gradients and Hessians in the bubble parameters use ordinary derivatives in ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) . Use the flat Robin scalar product
( ϕ , ψ ) ∗ : = Q γ 0 ( ϕ , ψ ) = ∫ B 1 D ϕ ⋅ D ψ d x + n − 2 2 ∫ ∂ B 1 ϕ ψ d S . (56) (\phi,\psi)_* := Q_{\gamma_0}(\phi,\psi) = \int_{B_1} D\phi\cdot D\psi\, dx + \frac{n-2}{2}\int_{\partial B_1}\phi\psi\, dS. \tag*{(56)} ( ϕ , ψ ) ∗ := Q γ 0 ( ϕ , ψ ) = ∫ B 1 D ϕ ⋅ D ψ d x + 2 n − 2 ∫ ∂ B 1 ϕ ψ d S . (56)
When one factor is a bubble Jacobi field, its boundary trace is zero, and this is the usual Euclidean Dirichlet pairing. In particular the associated source is ( − Δ ) J α (-\Delta)J_\alpha ( − Δ ) J α . Pairing with a compactly supported Jacobi field extends continuously to H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 . Define the Gram matrix by
( G μ , λ , b ) α β : = ( ( J μ , λ , b ) α , ( J μ , λ , b ) β ) ∗ , 0 ≤ α , β ≤ n . (G_{\mu,\lambda,b})_{\alpha\beta} := ((J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_\alpha,(J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_\beta)_*, \qquad0 \le\alpha,\beta\le n. ( G μ , λ , b ) α β := (( J μ , λ , b ) α , ( J μ , λ , b ) β ) ∗ , 0 ≤ α , β ≤ n .
Changing variables by x = a + μ y x=a+\mu y x = a + μ y , we obtain
( G μ , λ , b ) α β ⟶ ∫ R n D ( J λ , b ) α ⋅ D ( J λ , b ) β d y , (57) (G_{\mu,\lambda,b})_{\alpha\beta} \longrightarrow\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} D(J_{\lambda,b})_\alpha\cdot D(J_{\lambda,b})_\beta\, dy, \tag*{(57)} ( G μ , λ , b ) α β ⟶ ∫ R n D ( J λ , b ) α ⋅ D ( J λ , b ) β d y , (57)
uniformly on K K K as μ ↓ 0 \mu\downarrow0 μ ↓ 0 . This limiting Gram matrix is positive definite.
Write
K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ : = { w ∈ H δ 1 : ( w , ( J μ , λ , b ) α ) ∗ = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n } . \mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b}^{\perp,*}:=\{w\in H^1_\delta:(w,(J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_\alpha)_*=0,\ 0\le\alpha\le n\}. K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ := { w ∈ H δ 1 : ( w , ( J μ , λ , b ) α ) ∗ = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n } .
Let Π ⊥ : H δ 1 → K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ \Pi^\perp:H^1_\delta\to\mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b}^{\perp,*} Π ⊥ : H δ 1 → K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ be the projection along K μ , λ , b \mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b} K μ , λ , b . Write G = G μ , λ , b G=G_{\mu,\lambda,b} G = G μ , λ , b and J α = ( J μ , λ , b ) α J_\alpha=(J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_\alpha J α = ( J μ , λ , b ) α for 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0\le\alpha\le n 0 ≤ α ≤ n . The projection
Π ⊥ , ∗ : H δ − 1 → { f ∈ H δ − 1 : ⟨ f , J β ⟩ = 0 , 0 ≤ β ≤ n } \Pi^{\perp,*}:H^{-1}_\delta\to\{f\in H^{-1}_\delta:\langle f,J_\beta\rangle=0,\ 0\le\beta\le n\} Π ⊥ , ∗ : H δ − 1 → { f ∈ H δ − 1 : ⟨ f , J β ⟩ = 0 , 0 ≤ β ≤ n }
is given by
Π ⊥ , ∗ f = f − ∑ α , β = 0 n ( G − 1 ) α β ⟨ f , J β ⟩ ( − Δ ) J α . (58) \Pi^{\perp,*}f=f-\sum_{\alpha,\beta=0}^{n}(G^{-1})_{\alpha\beta}\langle f,J_\beta\rangle(-\Delta)J_\alpha. \tag*{(58)} Π ⊥ , ∗ f = f − α , β = 0 ∑ n ( G − 1 ) α β ⟨ f , J β ⟩ ( − Δ ) J α . (58)
Its kernel is span { ( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n } \operatorname{span}\{(-\Delta)J_0,\ldots,(-\Delta)J_n\} span {( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n } . The fields J α J_\alpha J α and sources ( − Δ ) J α (-\Delta)J_\alpha ( − Δ ) J α are supported in B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . Since χ = 0 \chi=0 χ = 0 on a neighborhood of this closed ball, both Φ T μ , τ \Phi_{T_\mu,\tau} Φ T μ , τ and ψ T μ + τ \psi_{T_\mu+\tau} ψ T μ + τ vanish there. The locality of L μ , λ , b \mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b} L μ , λ , b gives
( ψ T μ , J α ) ∗ = 0 , ⟨ L μ , λ , b ψ T μ , J α ⟩ = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n . (\psi_{T_\mu},J_\alpha)_*=0,\qquad\langle\mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b}\psi_{T_\mu},J_\alpha\rangle=0,\qquad0\le\alpha\le n. ( ψ T μ , J α ) ∗ = 0 , ⟨ L μ , λ , b ψ T μ , J α ⟩ = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n .
Thus L μ , λ , b ψ T μ \mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b}\psi_{T_\mu} L μ , λ , b ψ T μ belongs to Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 \Pi^{\perp,*}H^{-1}_\delta Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 .
We next prove a uniform inverse estimate for corrections w ⊥ ∗ K μ , λ , b w\perp_*\mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b} w ⊥ ∗ K μ , λ , b . The constants may depend on the fixed background, weight, insertion ball, local tensor, cutoffs, and parameter set K K K .
Lemma 4.4. There are C , μ 0 > 0 C,\mu_0>0 C , μ 0 > 0 such that, for 0 < μ < μ 0 0<\mu<\mu_0 0 < μ < μ 0 , ( λ , b ) ∈ K (\lambda,b)\in K ( λ , b ) ∈ K , and ( τ , w ) ∈ R ⊕ K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ (\tau,w)\in\mathbb{R}\oplus\mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b}^{\perp,*} ( τ , w ) ∈ R ⊕ K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ ,
∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∥ Π ⊥ , ∗ L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + w ) ∥ H δ − 1 . (59) |\tau|+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta}\le C\left\|\Pi^{\perp,*}\mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau\psi_{T_\mu}+w)\right\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}. \tag*{(59)} ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C Π ⊥ , ∗ L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + w ) H δ − 1 . (59) The projected operator from R ⊕ K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ \mathbb{R}\oplus\mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda,b}^{\perp,*} R ⊕ K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ to Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 \Pi^{\perp,*}H^{-1}_\delta Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 is an isomorphism.
Proof. Step 1. The Fredholm index. By Lemma 4.2, L ^ γ μ , V μ : X δ → H δ − 1 \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma_\mu,V_\mu}:X_\delta\to H^{-1}_\delta L γ μ , V μ : X δ → H δ − 1 is an isomorphism. For each fixed μ \mu μ , the additional potential
V μ = n ( n + 2 ) { ( V μ + U ^ μ , λ , b ) p − 1 − V μ p − 1 } \mathcal{V}_\mu=n(n+2)\left\{(V_\mu+\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b})^{p-1}-V_\mu^{p-1}\right\} V μ = n ( n + 2 ) { ( V μ + U μ , λ , b ) p − 1 − V μ p − 1 }
is smooth, bounded, and compactly supported. Multiplication by V μ \mathcal{V}_\mu V μ is compact from H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 to H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 . Since V μ ψ T μ = 0 \mathcal{V}_\mu\psi_{T_\mu}=0 V μ ψ T μ = 0 , we have
L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + w ) = L ^ γ μ , V μ ( τ , w ) − V μ w . \mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau\psi_{T_\mu}+w)=\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma_\mu,V_\mu}(\tau,w)-\mathcal{V}_\mu w. L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + w ) = L γ μ , V μ ( τ , w ) − V μ w .
Thus ( τ , w ) ↦ L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + w ) (\tau,w)\mapsto\mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau\psi_{T_\mu}+w) ( τ , w ) ↦ L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + w ) is a compact perturbation of an isomorphism from X δ X_\delta X δ to H δ − 1 H_\delta^{-1} H δ − 1 and has Fredholm index zero. The conditions ( w , J α ) ∗ = 0 (w,J_\alpha)_*=0 ( w , J α ) ∗ = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0\leq\alpha\leq n 0 ≤ α ≤ n , define a subspace of codimension n + 1 n+1 n + 1 in the domain. The projection Π ⊥ , ∗ \Pi^{\perp,*} Π ⊥ , ∗ onto its range has kernel span { ( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n } \operatorname{span}\{(-\Delta)J_0,\ldots,(-\Delta)J_n\} span {( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n } of dimension n + 1 n+1 n + 1 . Restricting the domain by these orthogonality conditions and projecting the image therefore gives Fredholm index 0 − ( n + 1 ) + ( n + 1 ) = 0 0-(n+1)+(n+1)=0 0 − ( n + 1 ) + ( n + 1 ) = 0 .
Step 2. Control of the Jacobi components. Suppose the estimate fails. Choose μ j ↓ 0 \mu_j\downarrow0 μ j ↓ 0 , ( λ j , b j ) → ( λ ∞ , b ∞ ) (\lambda_j,b_j)\to(\lambda_\infty,b_\infty) ( λ j , b j ) → ( λ ∞ , b ∞ ) and pairs ( τ j , w j ) (\tau_j,w_j) ( τ j , w j ) with ∣ τ j ∣ + ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 = 1 |\tau_j|+\|w_j\|_{H^1_\delta}=1 ∣ τ j ∣ + ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 = 1 and w j ⊥ ∗ K μ j , λ j , b j w_j\perp_* \mathcal{K}_{\mu_j,\lambda_j,b_j} w j ⊥ ∗ K μ j , λ j , b j , whose projected images tend to zero. Write L j = L μ j , λ j , b j \mathcal{L}_j=\mathcal{L}_{\mu_j,\lambda_j,b_j} L j = L μ j , λ j , b j , and J j = J μ j , λ j , b j J_j=J_{\mu_j,\lambda_j,b_j} J j = J μ j , λ j , b j . With Y j = τ j ψ T μ j + w j Y_j=\tau_j\psi_{T_{\mu_j}}+w_j Y j = τ j ψ T μ j + w j , there exists q j ∈ R n + 1 q_j\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1} q j ∈ R n + 1 such that
L j Y j = f j + ∑ α = 0 n ( q j ) α ( − Δ ) ( J j ) α , ∥ f j ∥ H δ − 1 → 0. \mathcal{L}_jY_j=f_j+\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}(q_j)_\alpha(-\Delta)(J_j)_\alpha,\qquad\|f_j\|_{H_\delta^{-1}}\to0. L j Y j = f j + α = 0 ∑ n ( q j ) α ( − Δ ) ( J j ) α , ∥ f j ∥ H δ − 1 → 0.
By the identities
L j ( J j ) 0 = λ ∂ λ R μ j , λ , b ∣ ( λ , b ) = ( λ j , b j ) , L j ( J j ) i = ∂ b i R μ j , λ , b ∣ ( λ , b ) = ( λ j , b j ) , 1 ≤ i ≤ n , \mathcal{L}_j(J_j)_0=\left.\lambda\partial_\lambda R_{\mu_j,\lambda,b}\right|_{(\lambda,b)=(\lambda_j,b_j)},\qquad\mathcal{L}_j(J_j)_i=\left.\partial_{b_i}R_{\mu_j,\lambda,b}\right|_{(\lambda,b)=(\lambda_j,b_j)},\qquad1\leq i\leq n, L j ( J j ) 0 = λ ∂ λ R μ j , λ , b ( λ , b ) = ( λ j , b j ) , L j ( J j ) i = ∂ b i R μ j , λ , b ( λ , b ) = ( λ j , b j ) , 1 ≤ i ≤ n ,
and Lemma 4.3, we obtain ∥ L j ( J j ) β ∥ H δ − 1 = o ( 1 ) \|\mathcal{L}_j(J_j)_\beta\|_{H_\delta^{-1}}=o(1) ∥ L j ( J j ) β ∥ H δ − 1 = o ( 1 ) for 0 ≤ β ≤ n 0\leq\beta\leq n 0 ≤ β ≤ n . Testing against the compactly supported ( J j ) β (J_j)_\beta ( J j ) β and using symmetry, we obtain
⟨ L j Y j , ( J j ) β ⟩ = ⟨ Y j , L j ( J j ) β ⟩ = o ( 1 ) . \langle\mathcal{L}_jY_j,(J_j)_\beta\rangle=\langle Y_j,\mathcal{L}_j(J_j)_\beta\rangle=o(1). ⟨ L j Y j , ( J j ) β ⟩ = ⟨ Y j , L j ( J j ) β ⟩ = o ( 1 ) .
The variations Y j Y_j Y j are bounded in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 . By (57) , q j = o ( 1 ) q_j=o(1) q j = o ( 1 ) , and hence
∥ L j Y j ∥ H δ − 1 → 0. (60) \|\mathcal{L}_jY_j\|_{H_\delta^{-1}}\to0. \tag*{(60)} ∥ L j Y j ∥ H δ − 1 → 0. (60)
Step 3. Vanishing of the rescaled limit. We show that every weak limit at the bubble scale is zero. We then apply the inverse for the background linearization to control ( τ j , w j ) (\tau_j,w_j) ( τ j , w j ) on all of X X X .
Choose a fixed cutoff in the original insertion coordinates ζ 0 ∈ C c ∞ ( B 3 ρ ( a ) ) \zeta_0\in C^\infty_c(B_{3\rho}(a)) ζ 0 ∈ C c ∞ ( B 3 ρ ( a )) , equal to one on a neighborhood of B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . The phase cutoff vanishes on this larger ball. In the fixed coordinates define
w ~ j ( y ) = μ j ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( ζ 0 w j ) ( a + μ j y ) , \widetilde{w}_j(y)=\mu_j^{(n-2)/2}(\zeta_0w_j)(a+\mu_jy), w j ( y ) = μ j ( n − 2 ) /2 ( ζ 0 w j ) ( a + μ j y ) ,
and extend it by zero to R n \mathbb{R}^n R n . Critical scaling and the fixed smooth cutoff ensure the global bounds
∥ D w ~ j ∥ L 2 ( R n ) = ∥ D ( ζ 0 w j ) ∥ L 2 ( R n ) ≤ C ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C , \|D\widetilde{w}_j\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}=\|D(\zeta_0w_j)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq C\|w_j\|_{H^1_\delta}\leq C, ∥ D w j ∥ L 2 ( R n ) = ∥ D ( ζ 0 w j ) ∥ L 2 ( R n ) ≤ C ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ,
∥ w ~ j ∥ L p + 1 ( R n ) ≤ C . (61) \|\widetilde{w}_j\|_{L^{p+1}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\leq C. \tag*{(61)} ∥ w j ∥ L p + 1 ( R n ) ≤ C . (61)
After passing to a subsequence,
w ~ j ⇀ w ~ in H ˙ 1 ( R n ) as j → ∞ . \widetilde{w}_j\rightharpoonup\widetilde{w}\quad\text{in }\dot{H}^1(\mathbb{R}^n)\quad\text{as }j\to\infty. w j ⇀ w in H ˙ 1 ( R n ) as j → ∞.
On every fixed rescaled ball, ζ 0 ( a + μ j y ) = 1 \zeta_0(a+\mu_jy)=1 ζ 0 ( a + μ j y ) = 1 for large j j j . By critical rescaling and (60) , testing on that ball and passing to the limit yields
− Δ w ~ − n ( n + 2 ) U λ ∞ , b ∞ p − 1 w ~ = 0 in R n . -\Delta\widetilde{w}-n(n+2)U_{\lambda_\infty,b_\infty}^{p-1}\widetilde{w}=0\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n. − Δ w − n ( n + 2 ) U λ ∞ , b ∞ p − 1 w = 0 in R n .
We next rescale the Euclidean moment conditions. Let
( Z j ) α ( y ) : = μ j ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( ( J j ) α ) ( a + μ j y ) = ζ ( a + μ j y ) ( J λ j , b j ) α ( y ) . (Z_j)_\alpha(y):=\mu_j^{(n-2)/2}((J_j)_\alpha)(a+\mu_jy)=\zeta(a+\mu_jy)(J_{\lambda_j,b_j})_\alpha(y). ( Z j ) α ( y ) := μ j ( n − 2 ) /2 (( J j ) α ) ( a + μ j y ) = ζ ( a + μ j y ) ( J λ j , b j ) α ( y ) .
Since ζ 0 = 1 \zeta_0=1 ζ 0 = 1 on a neighborhood of the support of each ( J j ) α (J_j)_\alpha ( J j ) α , scaling the Dirichlet product (4.11) yields
0 = ( w j , ( J j ) α ) ∗ = ∫ R n D w ~ j ⋅ D ( Z j ) α d y . (62) 0=(w_j,(J_j)_\alpha)_*=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}D\widetilde{w}_j\cdot D(Z_j)_\alpha\,dy. \tag*{(62)} 0 = ( w j , ( J j ) α ) ∗ = ∫ R n D w j ⋅ D ( Z j ) α d y . (62)
For L L L sufficiently large and j j j sufficiently large depending on L L L ,
∥ D ( Z j ) α ∥ L 2 ( R n ∖ B L ) ≤ C L − ( n − 2 ) / 2 . \lVert D(Z_j)_\alpha\rVert_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_L)} \le C L^{-(n-2)/2}. ∥ D ( Z j ) α ∥ L 2 ( R n ∖ B L ) ≤ C L − ( n − 2 ) /2 .
Indeed, D y ( J λ j , b j ) α = O ( ∣ y ∣ 1 − n ) D_y(J_{\lambda_j,b_j})_\alpha=O(|y|^{1-n}) D y ( J λ j , b j ) α = O ( ∣ y ∣ 1 − n ) . The term obtained by differentiating the cutoff satisfies
∥ μ j ( D x χ ) ( a + μ j ⋅ ) ( J λ j , b j ) α ∥ L 2 ( R n ) ≤ C μ j ( n − 2 ) / 2 . \left\lVert\mu_j(D_x\chi)(a+\mu_j\cdot)(J_{\lambda_j,b_j})_\alpha\right\rVert_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le C\mu_j^{(n-2)/2}. μ j ( D x χ ) ( a + μ j ⋅ ) ( J λ j , b j ) α L 2 ( R n ) ≤ C μ j ( n − 2 ) /2 .
Combining this bound with (61) , we obtain
lim sup j → ∞ ∣ ∫ R n ∖ B L D w ~ j ⋅ D ( Z j ) α d y ∣ ≤ C L − ( n − 2 ) / 2 . \limsup_{j\to\infty}\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_L}D\widetilde w_j\cdot D(Z_j)_\alpha\,dy\right|\le C L^{-(n-2)/2}. j → ∞ lim sup ∫ R n ∖ B L D w j ⋅ D ( Z j ) α d y ≤ C L − ( n − 2 ) /2 .
On B L B_L B L , the Jacobi factors converge smoothly to ( J λ ∞ , b ∞ ) α (J_{\lambda_\infty,b_\infty})_\alpha ( J λ ∞ , b ∞ ) α . First pass to the limit in j j j in (62) and then let L → ∞ L\to\infty L → ∞ to obtain
∫ R n D w ~ ⋅ D ( J λ ∞ , b ∞ ) α d y = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n . \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}D\widetilde w\cdot D(J_{\lambda_\infty,b_\infty})_\alpha\,dy=0,\qquad0\le\alpha\le n. ∫ R n D w ⋅ D ( J λ ∞ , b ∞ ) α d y = 0 , 0 ≤ α ≤ n .
By the Euclidean kernel theorem, w ~ \widetilde w w belongs to K λ ∞ , b ∞ \mathcal{K}_{\lambda_\infty,b_\infty} K λ ∞ , b ∞ . The Jacobi orthogonality conditions imply w ~ = 0 \widetilde w=0 w = 0 . By Rellich compactness, w ~ j → 0 \widetilde w_j\to0 w j → 0 in L 2 n / ( n + 2 ) L^{2n/(n+2)} L 2 n / ( n + 2 ) on every fixed rescaled ball.
Step 4. The contradiction in the full weighted norm. By the concavity of the power 4 / ( n − 2 ) ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) 4/(n-2)\in(0,1) 4/ ( n − 2 ) ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) , we have 0 ≤ V j ≤ C B j p − 1 0\le V_j\le C B_j^{p-1} 0 ≤ V j ≤ C B j p − 1 . Here B j = U ^ μ j , λ j , b j B_j=\widehat U_{\mu_j,\lambda_j,b_j} B j = U μ j , λ j , b j and V j V_j V j is the corresponding additional potential. On a fixed rescaled ball B L B_L B L , the rescaled coefficient μ j 2 B j ( a + μ j y ) p − 1 \mu_j^2B_j(a+\mu_j y)^{p-1} μ j 2 B j ( a + μ j y ) p − 1 is bounded by C L C_L C L . The critical scaling of the source norm and the tail estimate
∥ B j p − 1 ∥ L n / 2 ( X ∖ B L μ j ( a ) ) ≤ C L − 2 \left\lVert B_j^{p-1}\right\rVert_{L^{n/2}(X\setminus B_{L\mu_j}(a))}\le C L^{-2} B j p − 1 L n /2 ( X ∖ B L μ j ( a )) ≤ C L − 2
therefore imply
∥ V j w j ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C L ∥ w ~ j ∥ L 2 n / ( n + 2 ) ( B L ) + C L − 2 ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 . \lVert V_jw_j\rVert_{H_\delta^{-1}}\le C_L\lVert\widetilde w_j\rVert_{L^{2n/(n+2)}(B_L)}+C L^{-2}\lVert w_j\rVert_{H_\delta^1}. ∥ V j w j ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C L ∥ w j ∥ L 2 n / ( n + 2 ) ( B L ) + C L − 2 ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 .
For the second term, use Hölder’s inequality with L n / 2 L^{n/2} L n /2 and L p + 1 L^{p+1} L p + 1 . The weights and their reciprocals have bounds independent of j j j on the fixed bubble support. First fix L L L and let j → ∞ j\to\infty j → ∞ ; the first term tends to zero by the rescaled strong convergence. Then let L → ∞ L\to\infty L → ∞ . We conclude that ∥ V j w j ∥ H δ − 1 → 0 \lVert V_jw_j\rVert_{H_\delta^{-1}}\to0 ∥ V j w j ∥ H δ − 1 → 0 . Since V j ψ T μ j = 0 V_j\psi_{T\mu_j}=0 V j ψ T μ j = 0 , the identity
L ^ γ μ j , V μ j ( τ j , w j ) = L j Y j + V j w j \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\gamma_{\mu_j},V_{\mu_j}}(\tau_j,w_j)=L_jY_j+V_jw_j L γ μ j , V μ j ( τ j , w j ) = L j Y j + V j w j
and (60) show that the left side tends to zero. Its uniformly bounded inverse contradicts ∣ τ j ∣ + ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 = 1 |\tau_j|+\lVert w_j\rVert_{H_\delta^1}=1 ∣ τ j ∣ + ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 = 1 . This proves (59) on all of X X X . Since the projected operator has Fredholm index zero, it is also surjective.
We next solve the nonlinear projected equation and estimate its parameter derivatives. We use the nonlinear phase family (14) . Throughout this construction the insertion point, radius, background, and phase cutoff are fixed. The parameter set K K K may be reduced so that ∣ b ∣ ≤ 1 |b|\le1 ∣ b ∣ ≤ 1 .
For ( τ , ϕ ) ∈ X δ (\tau,\phi)\in X_\delta ( τ , ϕ ) ∈ X δ with ∣ τ ∣ |\tau| ∣ τ ∣ sufficiently small, set
Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) : = V μ + U ^ μ , λ , b + Φ T μ , τ + ϕ . Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau,\phi):=V_\mu+\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b}+\Phi_{T\mu,\tau}+\phi. Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) := V μ + U μ , λ , b + Φ T μ , τ + ϕ .
In the parameter calculations below, write B = U ^ μ , λ , b B=\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b} B = U μ , λ , b , J α = ( J μ , λ , b ) α J_\alpha=(J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_\alpha J α = ( J μ , λ , b ) α for 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0\le\alpha\le n 0 ≤ α ≤ n , G μ = G μ , λ , b G_\mu=G_{\mu,\lambda,b} G μ = G μ , λ , b , and R μ = R μ , λ , b R_\mu=R_{\mu,\lambda,b} R μ = R μ , λ , b .
With μ , λ , b \mu,\lambda,b μ , λ , b fixed, define the linearization at V μ + B V_\mu+B V μ + B and its nonlinear remainder by
L ^ μ ( τ , ϕ ) : = L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + ϕ ) , \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_\mu(\tau,\phi):=\mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau\psi_{T\mu}+\phi), L μ ( τ , ϕ ) := L μ , λ , b ( τ ψ T μ + ϕ ) ,
N μ ( τ , ϕ ) : = R μ + L ^ μ ( τ , ϕ ) − F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) ) . \mathcal{N}_\mu(\tau,\phi):=R_\mu+\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_\mu(\tau,\phi)-F_{\gamma_\mu}\bigl(Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau,\phi)\bigr). N μ ( τ , ϕ ) := R μ + L μ ( τ , ϕ ) − F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) ) .
The reference Y μ , λ , b ( 0 , 0 ) = V μ + B Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(0,0)=V_\mu+B Y μ , λ , b ( 0 , 0 ) = V μ + B has residual R μ \mathcal{R}_\mu R μ , and N μ ( 0 , 0 ) = D N μ ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 \mathcal{N}_\mu(0,0)=D\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,0)=0 N μ ( 0 , 0 ) = D N μ ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 . There is 0 < ε 0 ≤ 1 0<\varepsilon_0\leq1 0 < ε 0 ≤ 1 , independent of small μ \mu μ and of ( λ , b ) ∈ K (\lambda,b)\in K ( λ , b ) ∈ K , such that the map ( τ , ϕ ) ↦ F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) ) (\tau,\phi)\mapsto\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau,\phi)) ( τ , ϕ ) ↦ F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ )) is C 1 C^1 C 1 from ( − ε 0 , ε 0 ) × H δ 1 (-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times H^1_\delta ( − ε 0 , ε 0 ) × H δ 1 to H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 , and
∥ D ( τ , ϕ ) [ F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) ) ] − L ^ μ ∥ X δ → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 ) . (63) \left\|D_{(\tau,\phi)}[\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau,\phi))]-\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_\mu\right\|_{\mathcal{X}_\delta\to H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C\left(|\tau|+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}^{p-1}\right). \tag*{(63)} D ( τ , ϕ ) [ F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ))] − L μ X δ → H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 p − 1 ) . (63)
For 0 < ε < ε 0 0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0 0 < ε < ε 0 and ∥ ( τ , ϕ ) ∥ X δ , ∥ ( τ ~ , ϕ ~ ) ∥ X δ ≤ ε \|(\tau,\phi)\|_{\mathcal{X}_\delta},\|(\widetilde{\tau},\widetilde{\phi})\|_{\mathcal{X}_\delta}\leq\varepsilon ∥ ( τ , ϕ ) ∥ X δ , ∥ ( τ , ϕ ) ∥ X δ ≤ ε ,
∥ N μ ( τ , ϕ ) − N μ ( τ ~ , ϕ ~ ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ε + ε p − 1 ) ∥ ( τ − τ ~ , ϕ − ϕ ~ ) ∥ X δ . (64) \|\mathcal{N}_\mu(\tau,\phi)-\mathcal{N}_\mu(\widetilde{\tau},\widetilde{\phi})\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}\leq C(\varepsilon+\varepsilon^{p-1})\|(\tau-\widetilde{\tau},\phi-\widetilde{\phi})\|_{\mathcal{X}_\delta}. \tag*{(64)} ∥ N μ ( τ , ϕ ) − N μ ( τ , ϕ ) ∥ H δ − 1 ≤ C ( ε + ε p − 1 ) ∥ ( τ − τ , ϕ − ϕ ) ∥ X δ . (64)
The constants are independent of small μ \mu μ and uniform on K K K , with the background, insertion ball, and cutoffs fixed. By Lemma 4.2, the continued backgrounds have uniform weighted bounds. Critical scaling gives
∥ B ∥ L p + 1 ( B 2 ρ ( a ) ) ≤ C , ∥ ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ∥ L n / 2 ( B 2 ρ ( a ) ) ≤ C . \|B\|_{L^{p+1}(B_{2\rho}(a))}\leq C,\qquad\|(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}\|_{L^{n/2}(B_{2\rho}(a))}\leq C. ∥ B ∥ L p + 1 ( B 2 ρ ( a )) ≤ C , ∥ ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ∥ L n /2 ( B 2 ρ ( a )) ≤ C .
The phase family vanishes on a neighborhood of B 2 ρ ( a ) ‾ \overline{B_{2\rho}(a)} B 2 ρ ( a ) . On this ball, the first scalar estimate in (3.8) and the multiplication estimate (3.7) control the derivative in ϕ \phi ϕ uniformly in μ , λ , b \mu,\lambda,b μ , λ , b . Outside the bubble support, the proof of Lemma 3.2 applies to V μ V_\mu V μ and T μ T_\mu T μ . These bounds prove (4.18). Integrating D N μ D\mathcal{N}_\mu D N μ along a segment proves (4.19).
The projected equation is
Π ⊥ , ∗ F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ ) ) = 0 , ϕ ⊥ ∗ K μ , λ , b . (65) \Pi^{\perp,*}\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau,\phi))=0,\qquad\phi\perp_*K_{\mu,\lambda,b}. \tag*{(65)} Π ⊥ , ∗ F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ , ϕ )) = 0 , ϕ ⊥ ∗ K μ , λ , b . (65)
For a solution family ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) (\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu) ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) constructed in Proposition 4.5, define the multipliers c μ ( λ , b ) ∈ R n + 1 c_\mu(\lambda,b)\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1} c μ ( λ , b ) ∈ R n + 1 by
F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) ) = ∑ α = 0 n ( c μ ) α ( λ , b ) ( − Δ ) ( J μ , λ , b ) α . (66) \mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu))=\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}(c_\mu)_\alpha(\lambda,b)(-\Delta)(J_{\mu,\lambda,b})_\alpha. \tag*{(66)} F γ μ ( Y μ , λ , b ( τ μ , ϕ μ )) = α = 0 ∑ n ( c μ ) α ( λ , b ) ( − Δ ) ( J μ , λ , b ) α . (66)
Define the reduced relative energy by
J ~ μ ( λ , b ) : = J γ μ , V μ ( τ μ , U ^ μ , λ , b + ϕ μ ) . (67) \widetilde{\mathcal{J}}_\mu(\lambda,b):=\mathcal{J}_{\gamma_\mu,V_\mu}(\tau_\mu,\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b}+\phi_\mu). \tag*{(67)} J μ ( λ , b ) := J γ μ , V μ ( τ μ , U μ , λ , b + ϕ μ ) . (67)
Proposition 4.5. For some C ∗ > 0 C_*>0 C ∗ > 0 , all sufficiently small μ \mu μ , and all ( λ , b ) ∈ K (\lambda,b)\in K ( λ , b ) ∈ K , (4.20) has a unique solution ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) (\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu) ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) in the ball ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∗ μ 27 / 4 |\tau|+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\leq C_*\mu^{27/4} ∣ τ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ≤ C ∗ μ 27/4 . For each fixed μ \mu μ , the maps ( λ , b ) ↦ ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) ∈ X δ (\lambda,b)\mapsto(\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu)\in\mathcal{X}_\delta ( λ , b ) ↦ ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) ∈ X δ and ( λ , b ) ↦ c μ (\lambda,b)\mapsto c_\mu ( λ , b ) ↦ c μ are C 1 C^1 C 1 and satisfy
∣ τ μ ∣ + ∥ ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c μ ∣ ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ 2 + ε μ ) , (68) |\tau_\mu|+\|\phi_\mu\|_{H^1_\delta}+|c_\mu|\leq C(\mu^{27/4}|b|^2+\varepsilon_\mu), \tag*{(68)} ∣ τ μ ∣ + ∥ ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c μ ∣ ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ 2 + ε μ ) , (68) ∣ D λ , b τ μ ∣ + ∥ D λ , b ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ D λ , b c μ ∣ ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ + ε μ ) . (69) |D_{\lambda,b}\tau_\mu|+\|D_{\lambda,b}\phi_\mu\|_{H^1_\delta}+|D_{\lambda,b}c_\mu|\leq C(\mu^{27/4}|b|+\varepsilon_\mu). \tag*{(69)} ∣ D λ , b τ μ ∣ + ∥ D λ , b ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ D λ , b c μ ∣ ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ + ε μ ) . (69) The reduced energy J ~ μ \widetilde{\mathcal{J}}_\mu J μ is C 2 C^2 C 2 .
Proof. Step 1. Contraction. Use the maps L ^ μ \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_\mu L μ and N μ \mathcal{N}_\mu N μ defined before the proposition and the uniform estimate (4.19). The inverse in Lemma 4.4 defines the map
T μ ( τ , ϕ ) : = ( Π ⊥ , ∗ L ^ μ ) − 1 Π ⊥ , ∗ ( − R μ + N μ ( τ , ϕ ) ) \mathcal{T}_\mu(\tau,\phi):=(\Pi^{\perp,*}\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_\mu)^{-1}\Pi^{\perp,*}(-\mathcal{R}_\mu+\mathcal{N}_\mu(\tau,\phi)) T μ ( τ , ϕ ) := ( Π ⊥ , ∗ L μ ) − 1 Π ⊥ , ∗ ( − R μ + N μ ( τ , ϕ ))
on R ⊕ K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ \mathbb{R}\oplus K_{\mu,\lambda,b}^{\perp,*} R ⊕ K μ , λ , b ⊥ , ∗ . On the closed ball centered at ( 0 , 0 ) (0,0) ( 0 , 0 ) of X δ \mathcal{X}_\delta X δ radius 0 < ε < ε 0 0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0 0 < ε < ε 0 , (4.10) and (4.19) imply
∥ T μ ( 0 , 0 ) ∥ X δ ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ 2 + ε μ ) and Lip ( T μ ) ≤ C ( ε + ε p − 1 ) . \|\mathcal{T}_\mu(0,0)\|_{\mathcal{X}_\delta}\leq C(\mu^{27/4}|b|^2+\varepsilon_\mu)\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{Lip}(\mathcal{T}_\mu)\leq C(\varepsilon+\varepsilon^{p-1}). ∥ T μ ( 0 , 0 ) ∥ X δ ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ 2 + ε μ ) and Lip ( T μ ) ≤ C ( ε + ε p − 1 ) .
Choose C ∗ ≥ 4 C ( 1 + sup K ∣ b ∣ 2 ) C_*\geq4C(1+\sup_K|b|^2) C ∗ ≥ 4 C ( 1 + sup K ∣ b ∣ 2 ) and set ε = C ∗ μ 27 / 4 \varepsilon=C_*\mu^{27/4} ε = C ∗ μ 27/4 . Then decrease μ \mu μ so that ε μ ≤ μ 27 / 4 \varepsilon_\mu\leq\mu^{27/4} ε μ ≤ μ 27/4 , ε < ε 0 \varepsilon<\varepsilon_0 ε < ε 0 , and C ( ε + ε p − 1 ) < 1 / 2 C(\varepsilon+\varepsilon^{p-1})<1/2 C ( ε + ε p − 1 ) < 1/2 . Thus ∥ T μ ( 0 , 0 ) ∥ X δ ≤ ε / 2 \|\mathcal{T}_\mu(0,0)\|_{\mathcal{X}_\delta}\leq\varepsilon/2 ∥ T μ ( 0 , 0 ) ∥ X δ ≤ ε /2 , and T μ \mathcal{T}_\mu T μ is a contraction of the closed ball of radius ε \varepsilon ε into itself. Its unique fixed point solves (4.20). Absorbing the nonlinear term proves the sharper bound in (68) . The residual lies in the span of the ( − Δ ) J α (-\Delta)J_\alpha ( − Δ ) J α , and the uniformly invertible Gram matrix controls the multipliers in (66) .
Step 2. The full differential. To differentiate the solution, include the moment constraints and multipliers as components of the nonlinear system. Write Y = Y μ , λ , b ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) Y=Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu) Y = Y μ , λ , b ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) and c α = ( c μ ) α c_\alpha=(c_\mu)_\alpha c α = ( c μ ) α for 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0\leq\alpha\leq n 0 ≤ α ≤ n . The derivative in ( τ , ϕ , c ) (\tau,\phi,c) ( τ , ϕ , c ) sends ( τ ˙ , ϕ ˙ , c ˙ ) (\dot{\tau},\dot{\phi},\dot{c}) ( τ ˙ , ϕ ˙ , c ˙ ) to
( [ − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) ( Y + ) p − 1 ] ( τ ˙ ψ T μ + τ μ + ϕ ˙ ) − ∑ α = 0 n ( c ˙ ) α ( − Δ ) J α , ( ( ϕ ˙ , J β ) ∗ ) β = 0 n ) . \left(\left[-L_{\gamma_\mu}-n(n+2)(Y_+)^{p-1}\right](\dot{\tau}\psi_{T_\mu+\tau_\mu}+\dot{\phi})-\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}(\dot{c})_\alpha(-\Delta)J_\alpha,\left((\dot{\phi},J_\beta)_*\right)_{\beta=0}^{n}\right). ( [ − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) ( Y + ) p − 1 ] ( τ ˙ ψ T μ + τ μ + ϕ ˙ ) − α = 0 ∑ n ( c ˙ ) α ( − Δ ) J α , ( ( ϕ ˙ , J β ) ∗ ) β = 0 n ) .
For a source f f f and prescribed moments m ∈ R n + 1 m\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1} m ∈ R n + 1 , the inverse at zero correction is determined by
ϕ ˙ ∥ = ∑ α , β = 0 n ( G μ − 1 ) α β m β J α , \dot{\phi}^{\parallel}=\sum_{\alpha,\beta=0}^{n}(G_\mu^{-1})_{\alpha\beta}m_\beta J_\alpha, ϕ ˙ ∥ = α , β = 0 ∑ n ( G μ − 1 ) α β m β J α ,
( τ ˙ , ϕ ˙ ⊥ ) = ( Π ⊥ , ∗ L μ ^ − 1 Π ⊥ , ∗ ( f − L ^ μ ( 0 , ϕ ˙ ∥ ) ) ) , (\dot{\tau},\dot{\phi}^{\perp})=(\Pi^{\perp,*}L_\mu^{\widehat{\ }}{}^{-1}\Pi^{\perp,*}(f-\widehat{L}_\mu(0,\dot{\phi}^{\parallel}))), ( τ ˙ , ϕ ˙ ⊥ ) = ( Π ⊥ , ∗ L μ − 1 Π ⊥ , ∗ ( f − L μ ( 0 , ϕ ˙ ∥ ))) ,
c ˙ = G μ − 1 ( ( L ^ μ ( τ ˙ , ϕ ˙ ) − f , J β ) ∗ ) β = 0 n , ϕ ˙ = ϕ ˙ ∥ + ϕ ˙ ⊥ . \dot{c}=G_\mu^{-1}\left(\left(\widehat{L}_\mu(\dot{\tau},\dot{\phi})-f,J_\beta\right)_*\right)_{\beta=0}^{n},\qquad\dot{\phi}=\dot{\phi}^{\parallel}+\dot{\phi}^{\perp}. c ˙ = G μ − 1 ( ( L μ ( τ ˙ , ϕ ˙ ) − f , J β ) ∗ ) β = 0 n , ϕ ˙ = ϕ ˙ ∥ + ϕ ˙ ⊥ .
By (3.7), the Gram bound, and Lemma 4.4, we obtain
∣ τ ˙ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ˙ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c ˙ ∣ ≤ C ( ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 + ∣ m ∣ ) . |\dot{\tau}|+\|\dot{\phi}\|_{H^1_\delta}+|\dot{c}|\leq C(\|f\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}+|m|). ∣ τ ˙ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ˙ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c ˙ ∣ ≤ C ( ∥ f ∥ H δ − 1 + ∣ m ∣ ) .
By (63) , the derivative of the full system in ( τ , ϕ , c ) (\tau,\phi,c) ( τ , ϕ , c ) at the constructed solution differs from its derivative at zero correction by an operator of norm O ( ϵ + ϵ p − 1 ) O(\epsilon+\epsilon^{p-1}) O ( ϵ + ϵ p − 1 ) , with ϵ = C ∗ μ 27 / 4 \epsilon=C_*\mu^{27/4} ϵ = C ∗ μ 27/4 . A Neumann series preserves the inverse. At the constructed solution of the projected equation, write L Y : = − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) ( Y + ) p − 1 \mathcal{L}_Y:=-L_{\gamma_\mu}-n(n+2)(Y_+)^{p-1} L Y := − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) ( Y + ) p − 1 . The resulting bound is
∣ τ ˙ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ˙ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c ˙ ∣ ≤ C ∥ L Y ( τ ˙ ψ T μ + τ μ + ϕ ˙ ) − ∑ α = 0 n ( c ˙ ) α ( − Δ ) J α ∥ H δ − 1 + C ∣ ( ( ϕ ˙ , J β ) ∗ ) β = 0 n ∣ . (70) |\dot{\tau}|+\|\dot{\phi}\|_{H^1_\delta}+|\dot{c}|\leq C\left\|\mathcal{L}_Y(\dot{\tau}\psi_{T_\mu+\tau_\mu}+\dot{\phi})-\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}(\dot{c})_\alpha(-\Delta)J_\alpha\right\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}+C\left|\left((\dot{\phi},J_\beta)_*\right)_{\beta=0}^{n}\right|. \tag*{(70)} ∣ τ ˙ ∣ + ∥ ϕ ˙ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c ˙ ∣ ≤ C L Y ( τ ˙ ψ T μ + τ μ + ϕ ˙ ) − α = 0 ∑ n ( c ˙ ) α ( − Δ ) J α H δ − 1 + C ( ( ϕ ˙ , J β ) ∗ ) β = 0 n . (70)
The implicit function theorem now gives C 1 C^1 C 1 dependence of ( τ μ , ϕ μ , c μ ) (\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu,c_\mu) ( τ μ , ϕ μ , c μ ) on ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) .
We next estimate the parameter derivatives of the solution and multipliers. Differentiating the full system with respect to ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) gives
L Y ( ( D λ , b τ μ ) ψ T μ + τ μ + D λ , b ϕ μ ) − ∑ α = 0 n ( D λ , b c α ) ( − Δ ) J α = − L Y D λ , b B + ∑ α = 0 n c α ( − Δ ) D λ , b J α , \mathcal{L}_Y\left((D_{\lambda,b}\tau_\mu)\psi_{T_\mu+\tau_\mu}+D_{\lambda,b}\phi_\mu\right)-\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}(D_{\lambda,b}c_\alpha)(-\Delta)J_\alpha=-\mathcal{L}_Y D_{\lambda,b}B+\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}c_\alpha(-\Delta)D_{\lambda,b}J_\alpha, L Y ( ( D λ , b τ μ ) ψ T μ + τ μ + D λ , b ϕ μ ) − α = 0 ∑ n ( D λ , b c α ) ( − Δ ) J α = − L Y D λ , b B + α = 0 ∑ n c α ( − Δ ) D λ , b J α ,
( D λ , b ϕ μ , J j ) ∗ = − ( ϕ μ , D λ , b J j ) ∗ , 0 ≤ j ≤ n . (D_{\lambda,b}\phi_\mu,J_j)_*=-(\phi_\mu,D_{\lambda,b}J_j)_*,\qquad0\leq j\leq n. ( D λ , b ϕ μ , J j ) ∗ = − ( ϕ μ , D λ , b J j ) ∗ , 0 ≤ j ≤ n .
These identities are read componentwise in the order λ , b 1 , … , b n \lambda,b_1,\ldots,b_n λ , b 1 , … , b n . Since Φ T μ , τ μ = 0 \Phi_{T_\mu,\tau_\mu}=0 Φ T μ , τ μ = 0 on a neighborhood of B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) , which contains the support of B B B and its parameter derivatives, we have
L Y D λ , b B = D λ , b R μ − n ( n + 2 ) { ( V μ + B + ϕ μ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) p − 1 } D λ , b B . \mathcal{L}_Y D_{\lambda,b}B=D_{\lambda,b}R_\mu-n(n+2)\left\{(V_\mu+B+\phi_\mu)_+^{p-1}-(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}\right\}D_{\lambda,b}B. L Y D λ , b B = D λ , b R μ − n ( n + 2 ) { ( V μ + B + ϕ μ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) p − 1 } D λ , b B .
The scalar bound ∣ ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − 1 ∣ ≤ C ∣ t ∣ |(1+t)_+^{p-1}-1|\leq C|t| ∣ ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − 1∣ ≤ C ∣ t ∣ and ∣ D λ , b B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) |D_{\lambda,b}B|\leq C(V_\mu+B) ∣ D λ , b B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) imply
∣ { ( V μ + B + ϕ μ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) p − 1 } D λ , b B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ∣ ϕ μ ∣ . \left|\left\{(V_\mu+B+\phi_\mu)_+^{p-1}-(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}\right\}D_{\lambda,b}B\right|\leq C(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}|\phi_\mu|. { ( V μ + B + ϕ μ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) p − 1 } D λ , b B ≤ C ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ∣ ϕ μ ∣.
The L n / 2 L^{n/2} L n /2 norm of ( V μ + B ) p − 1 (V_\mu+B)^{p-1} ( V μ + B ) p − 1 on this support is uniformly bounded. By Hölder’s inequality and the Sobolev embedding, the H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 norm of { ( V μ + B + ϕ μ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) p − 1 } D λ , b B \left\{(V_\mu+B+\phi_\mu)_+^{p-1}-(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}\right\}D_{\lambda,b}B { ( V μ + B + ϕ μ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) p − 1 } D λ , b B is at most C ∥ ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 C\|\phi_\mu\|_{H^1_\delta} C ∥ ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 . The Jacobi fields and their first two parameter derivatives are uniformly bounded in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 . Applying (70) and using (54) and (68) , we obtain
∣ D λ , b τ μ ∣ + ∥ D λ , b ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ D λ , b c μ ∣ ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ + e μ + ∥ ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c μ ∣ ) ≤ C ( μ 27 / 4 ∣ b ∣ + e μ ) . \begin{aligned}
|D_{\lambda,b}\tau_\mu|+\|D_{\lambda,b}\phi_\mu\|_{H^1_\delta}+|D_{\lambda,b}c_\mu|\leq C\left(\mu^{27/4}|b|+e_\mu+\|\phi_\mu\|_{H^1_\delta}+|c_\mu|\right) \\
&\leq C(\mu^{27/4}|b|+e_\mu).
\end{aligned} ∣ D λ , b τ μ ∣ + ∥ D λ , b ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ D λ , b c μ ∣ ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ + e μ + ∥ ϕ μ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c μ ∣ ) ≤ C ( μ 27/4 ∣ b ∣ + e μ ) .
Here ∣ b ∣ 2 ≤ ∣ b ∣ |b|^2 \le|b| ∣ b ∣ 2 ≤ ∣ b ∣ on the chosen parameter set. This proves (4.24).
Step 3. The reduced gradient. Since χ = 0 \chi= 0 χ = 0 on a neighborhood of B 2 ρ ( a ) ‾ \overline{B_{2\rho}(a)} B 2 ρ ( a ) , Φ T μ , τ \Phi_{T_\mu,\tau} Φ T μ , τ and its phase derivatives vanish on the support of every ( − Δ ) J α (-\Delta)J_\alpha ( − Δ ) J α , 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0 \le\alpha\le n 0 ≤ α ≤ n . For 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0 \le\alpha\le n 0 ≤ α ≤ n and 1 ≤ i ≤ n 1 \le i \le n 1 ≤ i ≤ n , define
( M μ ) α 0 = ( J α , J 0 ) ∗ − λ ( ∂ λ J α , ϕ μ ) ∗ , ( M μ ) α i = ( J α , J i ) ∗ − ( ∂ b i J α , ϕ μ ) ∗ . (M_\mu)_{\alpha0} = (J_\alpha,J_0)_*-\lambda(\partial_\lambda J_\alpha,\phi_\mu)_*, \qquad(M_\mu)_{\alpha i} = (J_\alpha,J_i)_*-(\partial_{b_i}J_\alpha,\phi_\mu)_*. ( M μ ) α 0 = ( J α , J 0 ) ∗ − λ ( ∂ λ J α , ϕ μ ) ∗ , ( M μ ) α i = ( J α , J i ) ∗ − ( ∂ b i J α , ϕ μ ) ∗ .
By (3.11) and (4.21), using ∂ λ B = J 0 / λ \partial_\lambda B=J_0/\lambda ∂ λ B = J 0 / λ , ∂ b i B = J i \partial_{b_i}B=J_i ∂ b i B = J i , and the derivatives of ( ϕ μ , J α ) ∗ = 0 (\phi_\mu,J_\alpha)_*=0 ( ϕ μ , J α ) ∗ = 0 , we obtain
∇ ( λ , b ) J ~ μ = diag ( λ − 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) M μ T c μ . (71) \nabla_{(\lambda,b)}\widetilde{J}_\mu=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda^{-1},1,\ldots,1)M_\mu^T c_\mu. \tag*{(71)} ∇ ( λ , b ) J μ = diag ( λ − 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) M μ T c μ . (71)
The matrix M μ = G μ + O ( μ 27 / 4 ) M_\mu=G_\mu+O(\mu^{27/4}) M μ = G μ + O ( μ 27/4 ) is invertible. Its entries and the multipliers are C 1 C^1 C 1 . Hence the ordinary gradient is C 1 C^1 C 1 , and the reduced energy is C 2 C^2 C 2 .
Since M μ M_\mu M μ is invertible, (4.26) shows that c μ = 0 c_\mu=0 c μ = 0 exactly at the critical points of J ~ μ \widetilde{J}_\mu J μ . We next find a nondegenerate critical point, which also yields an invertible linearization at the new solution.
Reduced energy and bubble parameters
In this section, we choose the bubble parameters at a nondegenerate minimum of the reduced energy. Proposition 5.1 identifies the minimum of the leading coefficient, and Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3 yield the Hessian comparison used in Proposition 5.4.
The leading quadratic metric energy is determined by
F ( λ , b ) : = ∑ i , k , l = 1 n ∫ R n [ 1 2 H i l H k l ∂ y i U λ , b ∂ y k U λ , b − n − 2 16 ( n − 1 ) ( ∂ y l H i k ) 2 U λ , b 2 ] d y . (72) F(\lambda,b):=\sum_{i,k,l=1}^{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left[\frac{1}{2}H_{il}H_{kl}\partial_{y_i}U_{\lambda,b}\partial_{y_k}U_{\lambda,b}-\frac{n-2}{16(n-1)}(\partial_{y_l}H_{ik})^2U_{\lambda,b}^2\right]\,dy. \tag*{(72)} F ( λ , b ) := i , k , l = 1 ∑ n ∫ R n [ 2 1 H i l H k l ∂ y i U λ , b ∂ y k U λ , b − 16 ( n − 1 ) n − 2 ( ∂ y l H ik ) 2 U λ , b 2 ] d y . (72)
With the factor 1 / 2 1/2 1/2 in front of the Dirichlet integral in the energy, the quadratic metric coefficient is F / 2 F/2 F /2 . Lemma 5.2 uses the quadratic vanishing in (4.4) to show that the projected correction contributes o ( μ 27 / 2 ) o(\mu^{27/2}) o ( μ 27/2 ) to the parameter Hessian at b = 0 b=0 b = 0 .
Proposition 5.1. For every n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 , there exists s n ∈ ( 9 / 10 , 11 / 10 ) s_n \in(9/10,11/10) s n ∈ ( 9/10 , 11/10 ) such that ( s n , 0 ) (\sqrt{s_n},0) ( s n , 0 ) is a nondegenerate strict local minimum of the function F F F defined in (5.1).
The proof is given in Subsection A.1.
We now estimate the change in reduced energy caused by the correction:
D μ ( λ , b ) : = J ~ μ ( λ , b ) − J γ μ , V μ ( 0 , U ^ μ , λ , b ) . D_\mu(\lambda,b):=\widetilde{J}_\mu(\lambda,b)-J_{\gamma_\mu,V_\mu}(0,\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b}). D μ ( λ , b ) := J μ ( λ , b ) − J γ μ , V μ ( 0 , U μ , λ , b ) .
Lemma 5.2. For all sufficiently small μ \mu μ , the following estimates
∥ D λ , b 2 D μ ( λ , b ) ∥ ≤ C ( μ 27 / 2 ∣ b ∣ 2 + μ 27 / 4 e μ + e μ 2 ) and ∣ ∇ D μ ( λ , 0 ) ∣ ≤ C e μ 2 , (73) \left\|D^2_{\lambda,b}D_\mu(\lambda,b)\right\|\le C\left(\mu^{27/2}|b|^2+\mu^{27/4}e_\mu+e_\mu^2\right)
\quad\text{and}\quad
|\nabla D_\mu(\lambda,0)|\le Ce_\mu^2, \tag*{(73)} D λ , b 2 D μ ( λ , b ) ≤ C ( μ 27/2 ∣ b ∣ 2 + μ 27/4 e μ + e μ 2 ) and ∣∇ D μ ( λ , 0 ) ∣ ≤ C e μ 2 , (73) hold uniformly for ( λ , b ) ∈ K (\lambda,b)\in K ( λ , b ) ∈ K (( λ , 0 ) ∈ K ( \lambda,0)\in K ( λ , 0 ) ∈ K for the second estimate).
Proof. Step 1. The gradient identity. Write ϕ = ϕ μ \phi=\phi_\mu ϕ = ϕ μ and retain the abbreviations B B B , J α J_\alpha J α , and R μ \mathcal{R}_\mu R μ fixed before Proposition 4.5. On the support of B B B and its parameter derivatives, we have
N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) = n ( n − 2 ) { ( V μ + B + ϕ ) + p − ( V μ + B ) p − p ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ϕ } . \mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi)=n(n-2)\left\{(V_\mu+B+\phi)^p_+-(V_\mu+B)^p-p(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}\phi\right\}. N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) = n ( n − 2 ) { ( V μ + B + ϕ ) + p − ( V μ + B ) p − p ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ϕ } .
Both Φ T μ , τ μ \Phi_{T_\mu,\tau_\mu} Φ T μ , τ μ and ψ T μ + τ μ \psi_{T_\mu+\tau_\mu} ψ T μ + τ μ vanish on a neighborhood of B 2 ρ ( a ) ‾ \overline{B_{2\rho}(a)} B 2 ρ ( a ) . Let Y = Y μ , λ , b ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) Y=Y_{\mu,\lambda,b}(\tau_\mu,\phi_\mu) Y = Y μ , λ , b ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) and c α = ( c μ ) α c_\alpha=(c_\mu)_\alpha c α = ( c μ ) α . Applying (3.11), with parameter derivatives and pairings taken componentwise, gives
D λ , b D μ = ⟨ F γ μ ( Y ) − F γ μ ( V μ + B ) , D λ , b B ⟩ + ∑ α = 0 n c α ( J α , D λ , b ϕ ) ∗ . D_{\lambda,b}D_\mu=\left\langle\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y)-\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(V_\mu+B),D_{\lambda,b}B\right\rangle
+\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}c_\alpha(J_\alpha,D_{\lambda,b}\phi)_*. D λ , b D μ = ⟨ F γ μ ( Y ) − F γ μ ( V μ + B ) , D λ , b B ⟩ + α = 0 ∑ n c α ( J α , D λ , b ϕ ) ∗ .
Differentiating ( ϕ , J α ) ∗ = 0 (\phi,J_\alpha)_*=0 ( ϕ , J α ) ∗ = 0 and using the equation on B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) , we obtain
( J α , D λ , b ϕ ) ∗ = − ( D λ , b J α , ϕ ) ∗ , F γ μ ( Y ) − F γ μ ( V μ + B ) = L ϕ − N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , (J_\alpha,D_{\lambda,b}\phi)_*=-(D_{\lambda,b}J_\alpha,\phi)_*,\qquad\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y)-\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(V_\mu+B)=\mathcal{L}\phi-\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi), ( J α , D λ , b ϕ ) ∗ = − ( D λ , b J α , ϕ ) ∗ , F γ μ ( Y ) − F γ μ ( V μ + B ) = L ϕ − N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) ,
where L = L μ , λ , b \mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\mu,\lambda,b} L = L μ , λ , b . Integration by parts against each component of D λ , b B D_{\lambda,b}B D λ , b B , using L D λ , b B = D λ , b R μ \mathcal{L}D_{\lambda,b}B=D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{R}_\mu L D λ , b B = D λ , b R μ , yields
D λ , b D μ = ⟨ ϕ , D λ , b R μ ⟩ − ⟨ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , D λ , b B ⟩ − ∑ α = 0 n c α ( D λ , b J α , ϕ ) ∗ . (74) D_{\lambda,b}D_\mu=\langle\phi,D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{R}_\mu\rangle-\langle\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi),D_{\lambda,b}B\rangle-\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}c_\alpha(D_{\lambda,b}J_\alpha,\phi)_*. \tag*{(74)} D λ , b D μ = ⟨ ϕ , D λ , b R μ ⟩ − ⟨ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , D λ , b B ⟩ − α = 0 ∑ n c α ( D λ , b J α , ϕ ) ∗ . (74)
Step 2. Bounds for the derivatives. For every t ∈ R t\in\mathbb{R} t ∈ R , the following scalar estimates hold:
∣ ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − p t ∣ ≤ C t 2 , ∣ ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − 1 ∣ ≤ C ∣ t ∣ , ∣ ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − 1 − ( p − 1 ) t ∣ ≤ C t 2 . \left|(1+t)_+^p-1-pt\right|\le Ct^2,\qquad\left|(1+t)_+^{p-1}-1\right|\le C|t|,\qquad\left|(1+t)_+^{p-1}-1-(p-1)t\right|\le Ct^2. ∣ ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − pt ∣ ≤ C t 2 , ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − 1 ≤ C ∣ t ∣ , ( 1 + t ) + p − 1 − 1 − ( p − 1 ) t ≤ C t 2 .
The derivative D λ , b N μ ( 0 , ϕ μ ) D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi_\mu) D λ , b N μ ( 0 , ϕ μ ) acts on both B B B and ϕ μ \phi_\mu ϕ μ , while V μ V_\mu V μ is independent of ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) . Thus
D λ , b N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) n ( n + 2 ) = [ ( V μ + B + ϕ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) + p − 1 ] D λ , b ϕ + [ ( V μ + B + ϕ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) + p − 1 − ( p − 1 ) ( V μ + B ) p − 2 ϕ ] D λ , b B . \begin{aligned}
\frac{D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi)}{n(n+2)}
=\left[(V_\mu+B+\phi)_+^{p-1}-(V_\mu+B)_+^{p-1}\right]D_{\lambda,b}\phi\\
&+\left[(V_\mu+B+\phi)_+^{p-1}-(V_\mu+B)_+^{p-1}-(p-1)(V_\mu+B)^{p-2}\phi\right]D_{\lambda,b}B.
\end{aligned} n ( n + 2 ) D λ , b N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) = [ ( V μ + B + ϕ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) + p − 1 ] D λ , b ϕ + [ ( V μ + B + ϕ ) + p − 1 − ( V μ + B ) + p − 1 − ( p − 1 ) ( V μ + B ) p − 2 ϕ ] D λ , b B .
The explicit bubble satisfies ∣ D λ , b B ∣ + ∣ D λ , b 2 B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) |D_{\lambda,b}B|+|D_{\lambda,b}^2B|\le C(V_\mu+B) ∣ D λ , b B ∣ + ∣ D λ , b 2 B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) . Consequently, on its fixed support,
∣ D λ , b N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) ∣ ∣ D λ , b B ∣ + ∣ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) ∣ ∣ D λ , b 2 B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ( ∣ ϕ ∣ ∣ D λ , b ϕ ∣ + ∣ ϕ ∣ 2 ) . |D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi)||D_{\lambda,b}B|+|\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi)||D_{\lambda,b}^2B|
\le C(V_\mu+B)^{p-1}\left(|\phi||D_{\lambda,b}\phi|+|\phi|^2\right). ∣ D λ , b N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) ∣∣ D λ , b B ∣ + ∣ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) ∣∣ D λ , b 2 B ∣ ≤ C ( V μ + B ) p − 1 ( ∣ ϕ ∣∣ D λ , b ϕ ∣ + ∣ ϕ ∣ 2 ) .
The L n / 2 L^{n/2} L n /2 norm of ( V μ + B ) p − 1 (V_\mu+B)^{p-1} ( V μ + B ) p − 1 on this support is uniformly bounded. By Hölder’s inequality and the critical Sobolev embedding, we obtain
∣ ⟨ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , D λ , b B ⟩ ∣ ≤ C ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 , |\langle\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi),D_{\lambda,b}B\rangle|\le C\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}^2, ∣ ⟨ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , D λ , b B ⟩ ∣ ≤ C ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 ,
∥ D λ , b ⟨ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , D λ , b B ⟩ ∥ ≤ C ( ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ) . \|D_{\lambda,b}\langle\mathcal{N}_\mu(0,\phi),D_{\lambda,b}B\rangle\|
\le C\left(\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}^2+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\|D_{\lambda,b}\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\right). ∥ D λ , b ⟨ N μ ( 0 , ϕ ) , D λ , b B ⟩ ∥ ≤ C ( ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ) .
Differentiating (5.3) involves only the first parameter derivatives of ϕ μ \phi_\mu ϕ μ and c μ c_\mu c μ . Using the preceding estimates and the bounds for the first two parameter derivatives of B B B , R μ \mathcal{R}_\mu R μ , and J α J_\alpha J α , we obtain
∥ D λ , b 2 D μ ∥ ≤ C { ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b R μ ∥ H δ − 1 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b 2 R μ ∥ H δ − 1 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 \|D_{\lambda,b}^2D_\mu\|
\le C\left\{\|D_{\lambda,b}\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\|D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{R}_\mu\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}
+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\|D_{\lambda,b}^2\mathcal{R}_\mu\|_{H^{-1}_\delta}
+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}^2
\right. ∥ D λ , b 2 D μ ∥ ≤ C { ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b R μ ∥ H δ − 1 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b 2 R μ ∥ H δ − 1 + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2
+ ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ D λ , b c μ ∣ ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c μ ∣ ( ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 + ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ) } . \left.
+\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\|D_{\lambda,b}\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}
+|D_{\lambda,b}c_\mu|\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}
+|c_\mu|\left(\|\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}^2+\|D_{\lambda,b}\phi\|_{H^1_\delta}\right)\right\}. + ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ D λ , b c μ ∣∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 + ∣ c μ ∣ ( ∥ ϕ ∥ H δ 1 2 + ∥ D λ , b ϕ ∥ H δ 1 ) } .
Norms of parameter derivative collections are maximum norms over their components. Substituting (4.10)–(4.24) proves the first estimate in (5.2). At b = 0 b=0 b = 0 , the quantities ϕ \phi ϕ , D λ , b R μ D_{\lambda,b}\mathcal{R}_\mu D λ , b R μ , and c μ c_\mu c μ are O ( e μ ) O(e_\mu) O ( e μ ) . Every term in (5.3) is therefore O ( e μ 2 ) O(e_\mu^2) O ( e μ 2 ) , which proves the second estimate in (5.2).
It remains to expand the relative energy before adding the projected correction. Let
J 0 ( U ) = 1 2 ∫ R n ∣ D U ∣ 2 d y − ( n − 2 ) 2 2 ∫ R n ( U + ) p + 1 d y . \mathcal{J}_0(U)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|DU|^2\,dy-\frac{(n-2)^2}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(U_+)^{p+1}\,dy. J 0 ( U ) = 2 1 ∫ R n ∣ D U ∣ 2 d y − 2 ( n − 2 ) 2 ∫ R n ( U + ) p + 1 d y .
The energy of every U λ , b U_{\lambda,b} U λ , b is J 0 ( U 1 , 0 ) \mathcal{J}_0(U_{1,0}) J 0 ( U 1 , 0 ) .
Lemma 5.3. As μ ↓ 0 \mu\downarrow0 μ ↓ 0 , with the insertion radius ρ \rho ρ fixed and R = ρ / μ R=\rho/\mu R = ρ / μ ,
∥ J γ μ , V μ ( 0 , U ^ μ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) − J 0 ( U 1 , 0 ) − μ 27 / 2 2 F ∥ C 2 ( K ) ≤ C ( μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 + μ n − 2 + μ 27 / 2 R 14 − n + μ 81 / 4 ) = o ( μ 27 / 2 ) . (75) \left\|\mathcal{J}_{\gamma_\mu,V_\mu}(0,\widehat{U}_{\mu,\,\cdot,\,\cdot})-\mathcal{J}_0(U_{1,0})-\frac{\mu^{27/2}}{2}F\right\|_{C^2(K)}
\le C\left(\mu^{(n-2)/2}+\mu^{n-2}+\mu^{27/2}R^{14-n}+\mu^{81/4}\right)
=o(\mu^{27/2}). \tag*{(75)} J γ μ , V μ ( 0 , U μ , ⋅ , ⋅ ) − J 0 ( U 1 , 0 ) − 2 μ 27/2 F C 2 ( K ) ≤ C ( μ ( n − 2 ) /2 + μ n − 2 + μ 27/2 R 14 − n + μ 81/4 ) = o ( μ 27/2 ) . (75)
Proof. The bubble is compactly supported and the phase is unchanged. Hence the relative energy in (75) is a finite energy increment. The bubble vanishes near both boundary spheres. The outer Robin term and phase subtraction cancel in the difference, leaving the bulk energy for γ μ \gamma_\mu γ μ on B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) , with volume element d x \mathrm{d}x d x .
Step 1. The background interaction. In the same local Euclidean representation as in Lemma 4.3, write A = V μ > 0 A=V_\mu>0 A = V μ > 0 and B = U ^ μ , λ , b = ζ U μ , λ , a + μ b ≥ 0 B=\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda,b}=\zeta U_{\mu,\lambda,a+\mu b}\geq0 B = U μ , λ , b = ζ U μ , λ , a + μ b ≥ 0 . The background A A A is independent of ( λ , b ) (\lambda,b) ( λ , b ) and has uniform positive upper and lower bounds on B 2 ρ ( a ) B_{2\rho}(a) B 2 ρ ( a ) . Testing − L γ μ A = n ( n − 2 ) A p -L_{\gamma_\mu}A=n(n-2)A^p − L γ μ A = n ( n − 2 ) A p with B B B gives
∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) ( ⟨ D A , D B ⟩ γ μ + c ( n ) Scal γ μ A B ) d x = n ( n − 2 ) ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) A p B d x . \int_{B_{2\rho}(a)}\left(\langle DA,DB\rangle_{\gamma_\mu}+c(n)\operatorname{Scal}_{\gamma_\mu}AB\right)\,\mathrm{d}x=n(n-2)\int_{B_{2\rho}(a)}A^pB\,\mathrm{d}x. ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) ( ⟨ D A , D B ⟩ γ μ + c ( n ) Scal γ μ A B ) d x = n ( n − 2 ) ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) A p B d x .
Thus the difference between the full increment and the pure bubble energy is
n ( n − 2 ) ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) A p B d x − ( n − 2 ) 2 2 ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) ( ( A + B ) p + 1 − A p + 1 − B p + 1 ) d x . n(n-2)\int_{B_{2\rho}(a)}A^pB\,\mathrm{d}x-\frac{(n-2)^2}{2}\int_{B_{2\rho}(a)}\left((A+B)^{p+1}-A^{p+1}-B^{p+1}\right)\,\mathrm{d}x. n ( n − 2 ) ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) A p B d x − 2 ( n − 2 ) 2 ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) ( ( A + B ) p + 1 − A p + 1 − B p + 1 ) d x .
The volume form in these variables is Euclidean because tr h μ = 0 \operatorname{tr}h_\mu=0 tr h μ = 0 . Using
0 ≤ ( A + B ) p + 1 − A p + 1 − B p + 1 ≤ C ( A p B + A B p ) 0\leq(A+B)^{p+1}-A^{p+1}-B^{p+1}\leq C(A^pB+AB^p) 0 ≤ ( A + B ) p + 1 − A p + 1 − B p + 1 ≤ C ( A p B + A B p )
and ∣ ∂ ( λ , b ) β B ∣ ≤ C B \left|\partial^\beta_{(\lambda,b)}B\right|\leq CB ∂ ( λ , b ) β B ≤ C B for ∣ β ∣ ≤ 2 |\beta|\leq2 ∣ β ∣ ≤ 2 , we bound this expression and its first two parameter derivatives by
C ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) ( B + B p ) d x = O ( μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ) . C\int_{B_{2\rho}(a)}(B+B^p)\,\mathrm{d}x=O\left(\mu^{(n-2)/2}\right). C ∫ B 2 ρ ( a ) ( B + B p ) d x = O ( μ ( n − 2 ) /2 ) .
To estimate the parameter derivatives, use the ratios B / A B/A B / A on { B ≤ A } \{B\leq A\} { B ≤ A } and A / B A/B A / B on { B ≥ A } \{B\geq A\} { B ≥ A } , as in the proof of Lemma 4.3. At a zero of the cutoff, B B B and its parameter derivatives vanish.
Step 2. The metric contribution. We compute the metric contribution in the coordinates x = a + μ y x=a+\mu y x = a + μ y . On the bubble scale let h ˉ ( y ) : = h μ ( a + μ y ) = μ 27 / 4 H R ( y ) \bar h(y):=h_\mu(a+\mu y)=\mu^{27/4}H_R(y) h ˉ ( y ) := h μ ( a + μ y ) = μ 27/4 H R ( y ) , where H R = η ( ∣ y ∣ / R ) H H_R=\eta(|y|/R)H H R = η ( ∣ y ∣/ R ) H and R = ρ / μ R=\rho/\mu R = ρ / μ . Since the trace and divergence of H R H_R H R vanish, the inverse metric and scalar curvature expansions in Brendle–Marques [4, Proposition 4] reduce to
( e − h ˉ ) i k = δ i k − ( h ˉ ) i k + 1 2 ∑ l = 1 n ( h ˉ ) i l ( h ˉ ) l k + O ( ∣ h ˉ ∣ 3 ) , 1 ≤ i , k ≤ n , (\mathrm{e}^{-\bar h})_{ik}=\delta_{ik}-(\bar h)_{ik}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^{n}(\bar h)_{il}(\bar h)_{lk}+O(|\bar h|^3),\qquad1\leq i,k\leq n, ( e − h ˉ ) ik = δ ik − ( h ˉ ) ik + 2 1 l = 1 ∑ n ( h ˉ ) i l ( h ˉ ) l k + O ( ∣ h ˉ ∣ 3 ) , 1 ≤ i , k ≤ n ,
Scal e h ˉ = − 1 4 ∣ D h ˉ ∣ 2 + O ( ∣ h ˉ ∣ 2 ∣ D 2 h ˉ ∣ + ∣ h ˉ ∣ ∣ D h ˉ ∣ 2 ) . \operatorname{Scal}_{\mathrm{e}^{\bar h}}=-\frac{1}{4}|D\bar h|^2+O\left(|\bar h|^2|D^2\bar h|+|\bar h||D\bar h|^2\right). Scal e h ˉ = − 4 1 ∣ D h ˉ ∣ 2 + O ( ∣ h ˉ ∣ 2 ∣ D 2 h ˉ ∣ + ∣ h ˉ ∣∣ D h ˉ ∣ 2 ) .
In the general curvature formula, the quadratic divergence terms vanish because ∑ i = 1 n ∂ y i ( h ˉ ) i k = 0 \sum_{i=1}^{n}\partial_{y_i}(\bar h)_{ik}=0 ∑ i = 1 n ∂ y i ( h ˉ ) ik = 0 for 1 ≤ k ≤ n 1\leq k\leq n 1 ≤ k ≤ n . On the support of h ˉ \bar h h ˉ , we have μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 U ^ μ , λ , b ( a + μ y ) = U λ , b ( y ) \mu^{(n-2)/2}\widehat U_{\mu,\lambda,b}(a+\mu y)=U_{\lambda,b}(y) μ ( n − 2 ) /2 U μ , λ , b ( a + μ y ) = U λ , b ( y ) . Equation (46) eliminates the linear metric energy. The quadratic part is
μ 27 / 2 { 1 4 ∑ i , k , l = 1 n ∫ R n ( H R ) i l ( H R ) k l ∂ y i U λ , b ∂ y k U λ , b d y − c ( n ) 8 ∫ R n ∣ D H R ∣ 2 U λ , b 2 d y } . \mu^{27/2}\left\{\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i,k,l=1}^{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(H_R)_{il}(H_R)_{kl}\partial_{y_i}U_{\lambda,b}\partial_{y_k}U_{\lambda,b}\,\mathrm{d}y-\frac{c(n)}{8}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|DH_R|^2U_{\lambda,b}^2\,\mathrm{d}y\right\}. μ 27/2 ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ 4 1 i , k , l = 1 ∑ n ∫ R n ( H R ) i l ( H R ) k l ∂ y i U λ , b ∂ y k U λ , b d y − 8 c ( n ) ∫ R n ∣ D H R ∣ 2 U λ , b 2 d y ⎭ ⎬ ⎫ .
The corresponding expression with H H H in place of H R H_R H R is μ 27 / 2 F ( λ , b ) / 2 \mu^{27/2}F(\lambda,b)/2 μ 27/2 F ( λ , b ) /2 .
Step 3. The remainder terms. In the y y y coordinates, put s = ∣ y ∣ s=|y| s = ∣ y ∣ . For s ≥ 1 s\geq1 s ≥ 1 , the quadratic energy integrands in Step 2 have radial majorant C s 13 − n Cs^{13-n} C s 13 − n , also after two parameter derivatives. Derivatives of the radial cutoff have the same order on its transition annulus. The error from removing this cutoff is bounded by C μ 27 / 2 R 14 − n C\mu^{27/2}R^{14-n} C μ 27/2 R 14 − n in C 2 ( K ) C^2(K) C 2 ( K ) .
The cubic error and its first two parameter derivatives are bounded by
C μ 81 / 4 ( 1 + ∫ 1 R s 19 − n d s ) ≤ C μ 81 / 4 , C\mu^{81/4}\left(1+\int_{1}^{R}s^{19-n}\,\mathrm{d}s\right)\leq C\mu^{81/4}, C μ 81/4 ( 1 + ∫ 1 R s 19 − n d s ) ≤ C μ 81/4 ,
since n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 . Here the two majorants before radial integration are ∣ H R ∣ 3 ∣ D U λ , b ∣ 2 |\mathcal{H}_{R}|^{3}|DU_{\lambda,b}|^{2} ∣ H R ∣ 3 ∣ D U λ , b ∣ 2 and ( ∣ H R ∣ 2 ∣ D 2 H R ∣ + ∣ H R ∣ ∣ D H R ∣ 2 ) U λ , b 2 (|\mathcal{H}_{R}|^{2}|D^{2}\mathcal{H}_{R}|+|\mathcal{H}_{R}||D\mathcal{H}_{R}|^{2})U_{\lambda,b}^{2} ( ∣ H R ∣ 2 ∣ D 2 H R ∣ + ∣ H R ∣∣ D H R ∣ 2 ) U λ , b 2 . Since det ( e h ~ ) = 1 \det(e^{\widetilde h})=1 det ( e h ) = 1 , the nonlinear energy integral is unchanged.
Finally, replacing U λ , b U_{\lambda,b} U λ , b by ζ ( a + μ y ) U λ , b \zeta(a+\mu y)U_{\lambda,b} ζ ( a + μ y ) U λ , b in its flat energy produces an error of C R 2 − n = O ( μ n − 2 ) CR^{2-n}=O(\mu^{n-2}) C R 2 − n = O ( μ n − 2 ) , also after two parameter derivatives: use U = O ( s 2 − n ) U=O(s^{2-n}) U = O ( s 2 − n ) , D U = O ( s 1 − n ) DU=O(s^{1-n}) D U = O ( s 1 − n ) and the cutoff derivative bound C / R C/R C / R . Adding the background, quadratic cutoff, cubic, and flat cutoff errors proves (5.4). Every error divided by μ 27 / 2 \mu^{27/2} μ 27/2 tends to zero as μ ↓ 0 \mu\downarrow0 μ ↓ 0 , since ( n − 2 ) / 2 − 27 / 2 = ( n − 29 ) / 2 > 0 (n-2)/2-27/2=(n-29)/2>0 ( n − 2 ) /2 − 27/2 = ( n − 29 ) /2 > 0 .
Proposition 5.4. There are r , c , μ 0 > 0 r,c,\mu_{0}>0 r , c , μ 0 > 0 , with B r ( s n , 0 ) ‾ ⊂ int K \overline{B_{r}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)}\subset\operatorname{int}K B r ( s n , 0 ) ⊂ int K , such that, for 0 < μ < μ 0 0<\mu<\mu_{0} 0 < μ < μ 0 , J ~ μ \widetilde{J}_{\mu} J μ has a unique critical point ( λ μ , b μ ) (\lambda_{\mu},b_{\mu}) ( λ μ , b μ ) in the ball B r ( s n , 0 ) B_{r}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0) B r ( s n , 0 ) . It is a nondegenerate strict local minimum, and
( λ μ , b μ ) → ( s n , 0 ) as μ ↓ 0 , D 2 J ~ μ ≥ c μ 27 / 2 I on B r ( s n , 0 ) . (76) (\lambda_{\mu},b_{\mu})\to(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0,\qquad D^{2}\widetilde{J}_{\mu}\ge c\mu^{27/2}I\quad\text{on }B_{r}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0). \tag*{(76)} ( λ μ , b μ ) → ( s n , 0 ) as μ ↓ 0 , D 2 J μ ≥ c μ 27/2 I on B r ( s n , 0 ) . (76)
Proof. Step 1. The Hessian bound. Combining Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3, we obtain
∥ μ − 27 / 2 D 2 J ~ μ − 1 2 D 2 F ∥ ≤ C ∣ b ∣ 2 + o ( 1 ) . \left\|\mu^{-27/2}D^{2}\widetilde{J}_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}D^{2}F\right\|\le C|b|^{2}+o(1). μ − 27/2 D 2 J μ − 2 1 D 2 F ≤ C ∣ b ∣ 2 + o ( 1 ) .
At the center, the gradient bound in (5.2) and (5.4) imply μ − 27 / 2 ∇ J ~ μ ( s n , 0 ) → 0 \mu^{-27/2}\nabla\widetilde{J}_{\mu}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)\to0 μ − 27/2 ∇ J μ ( s n , 0 ) → 0 . Here e μ = o ( μ 27 / 4 ) e_{\mu}=o(\mu^{27/4}) e μ = o ( μ 27/4 ) by Lemma 4.3. By Proposition 5.1 and continuity of D 2 F D^{2}F D 2 F , choose c > 0 c>0 c > 0 and then r > 0 r>0 r > 0 so that
B r ( s n , 0 ) ‾ ⊂ int K , 1 2 D 2 F ≥ 3 c I on B r ( s n , 0 ) ‾ , C r 2 ≤ c . \overline{B_{r}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)}\subset\operatorname{int}K,\qquad\frac{1}{2}D^{2}F\ge3cI\quad\text{on }\overline{B_{r}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)},\qquad Cr^{2}\le c. B r ( s n , 0 ) ⊂ int K , 2 1 D 2 F ≥ 3 c I on B r ( s n , 0 ) , C r 2 ≤ c .
Fix this parameter radius for the current background and cutoff. The bound C r 2 ≤ c Cr^{2}\le c C r 2 ≤ c controls C ∣ b ∣ 2 C|b|^{2} C ∣ b ∣ 2 ; we then decrease μ \mu μ to control the remaining o ( 1 ) o(1) o ( 1 ) term. Keep r r r fixed and take μ 0 \mu_{0} μ 0 sufficiently small. Then, for 0 < μ < μ 0 0<\mu<\mu_{0} 0 < μ < μ 0 ,
D 2 J ~ μ ≥ c μ 27 / 2 I on B r ( s n , 0 ) , ∣ ∇ J ~ μ ( s n , 0 ) ∣ ≤ 1 2 c r μ 27 / 2 . D^{2}\widetilde{J}_{\mu}\ge c\mu^{27/2}I\quad\text{on }B_{r}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0),\qquad|\nabla\widetilde{J}_{\mu}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)|\le\frac{1}{2}cr\mu^{27/2}. D 2 J μ ≥ c μ 27/2 I on B r ( s n , 0 ) , ∣∇ J μ ( s n , 0 ) ∣ ≤ 2 1 cr μ 27/2 .
Step 2. The critical point. For ∣ ( λ , b ) − ( s n , 0 ) ∣ = r |(\lambda,b)-(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)|=r ∣ ( λ , b ) − ( s n , 0 ) ∣ = r , integrating the Hessian bound along the line segment, we obtain
∇ J ~ μ ( λ , b ) ⋅ ( λ − s n , b ) ≥ c μ 27 / 2 r 2 − r ∣ ∇ J ~ μ ( s n , 0 ) ∣ ≥ c 2 μ 27 / 2 r 2 > 0. \nabla\widetilde{J}_{\mu}(\lambda,b)\cdot(\lambda-\sqrt{s_{n}},b)\ge c\mu^{27/2}r^{2}-r|\nabla\widetilde{J}_{\mu}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)|\ge\frac{c}{2}\mu^{27/2}r^{2}>0. ∇ J μ ( λ , b ) ⋅ ( λ − s n , b ) ≥ c μ 27/2 r 2 − r ∣∇ J μ ( s n , 0 ) ∣ ≥ 2 c μ 27/2 r 2 > 0.
A minimum on the closed ball is therefore attained in its interior. Strict convexity proves uniqueness, and the positive lower bound for D 2 J ~ μ D^{2}\widetilde{J}_{\mu} D 2 J μ proves nondegeneracy. At the critical point, the Hessian bound gives
∣ ( λ μ , b μ ) − ( s n , 0 ) ∣ ≤ c − 1 μ − 27 / 2 ∣ ∇ J ~ μ ( s n , 0 ) ∣ → 0 as μ ↓ 0. |(\lambda_{\mu},b_{\mu})-(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)|\le c^{-1}\mu^{-27/2}|\nabla\widetilde{J}_{\mu}(\sqrt{s_{n}},0)|\to0\quad\text{as }\mu\downarrow0. ∣ ( λ μ , b μ ) − ( s n , 0 ) ∣ ≤ c − 1 μ − 27/2 ∣∇ J μ ( s n , 0 ) ∣ → 0 as μ ↓ 0.
Proof of the insertion proposition
In this section, we obtain a positive solution from the reduced critical point and prove that its augmented linearization is invertible. These properties complete Proposition 2.2 and allow the induction to continue.
Fix the admissible pair and ball from Proposition 2.2. Evaluate ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) (\tau_{\mu},\phi_{\mu}) ( τ μ , ϕ μ ) at the critical point ( λ μ , b μ ) (\lambda_{\mu},b_{\mu}) ( λ μ , b μ ) from Proposition 5.4, and set
Y μ : = V μ + U ^ μ , λ μ , b μ + Φ T μ , τ μ + ϕ μ , T ^ μ : = T μ + τ μ . (77) Y_{\mu}:=V_{\mu}+\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda_{\mu},b_{\mu}}+\Phi_{T_{\mu},\tau_{\mu}}+\phi_{\mu},\qquad\widehat{T}_{\mu}:=T_{\mu}+\tau_{\mu}. \tag*{(77)} Y μ := V μ + U μ , λ μ , b μ + Φ T μ , τ μ + ϕ μ , T μ := T μ + τ μ . (77)
Proof of Proposition 2.2. Step 1. The metric, phase, and exact equation. The construction (4.5) and estimate (4.6) give the metric support, volume, and convergence. Lemma 4.2 gives T μ → T T_{\mu}\to T T μ → T , while (4.23) gives τ μ → 0 \tau_{\mu}\to0 τ μ → 0 . Hence T ^ μ → T \widehat{T}_{\mu}\to T T μ → T as μ ↓ 0 \mu\downarrow0 μ ↓ 0 . At the critical point, (4.26) and invertibility of M μ M_\mu M μ give c μ = 0 c_\mu=0 c μ = 0 . Hence F γ μ ( Y μ ) = 0 \mathcal{F}_{\gamma_\mu}(Y_\mu)=0 F γ μ ( Y μ ) = 0 in H δ − 1 H^{-1}_\delta H δ − 1 . The equation also holds against smooth test functions vanishing near 0 and having antipodally even boundary traces.
Step 2. Positivity, regularity, and exterior convergence. Lemma 3.1, applied to the continued positive solution V μ V_\mu V μ , makes Q γ μ Q_{\gamma_\mu} Q γ μ coercive. For each fixed small μ \mu μ , A μ = V μ + U ^ μ , λ μ , b μ + Φ T μ , τ μ A_\mu=V_\mu+\widehat{U}_{\mu,\lambda_\mu,b_\mu}+\Phi_{T_\mu,\tau_\mu} A μ = V μ + U μ , λ μ , b μ + Φ T μ , τ μ satisfies c Θ ≤ A μ ≤ C Θ c\Theta\le A_\mu\le C\Theta c Θ ≤ A μ ≤ C Θ and ∣ D A μ ∣ ≤ C Θ / r |D A_\mu|\le C\Theta/r ∣ D A μ ∣ ≤ C Θ/ r , with constants allowed to depend on μ \mu μ . The bubble is nonnegative. The phase perturbation satisfies ∣ Φ T μ , τ μ ∣ ≤ C ∣ τ μ ∣ Θ |\Phi_{T_\mu,\tau_\mu}|\le C|\tau_\mu|\Theta ∣ Φ T μ , τ μ ∣ ≤ C ∣ τ μ ∣Θ and vanishes on B 2 ρ ( a ) ‾ \overline{B_{2\rho}(a)} B 2 ρ ( a ) . All terms in A μ A_\mu A μ satisfy boundary matching. Since Y μ = A μ + ϕ μ Y_\mu=A_\mu+\phi_\mu Y μ = A μ + ϕ μ with ϕ μ ∈ H δ 1 \phi_\mu\in H^1_\delta ϕ μ ∈ H δ 1 , Lemma A.4 gives positivity and smoothness. To identify the final phase, let w μ w_\mu w μ be the correction in Lemma 4.2 and w 0 w_0 w 0 the local difference in (2.12). Near 0, the bubble vanishes and χ = 1 \chi=1 χ = 1 , so the two construction steps give
V μ = V T μ + ( w 0 + w μ ) , V_\mu=V_{T_\mu}+(w_0+w_\mu), V μ = V T μ + ( w 0 + w μ ) ,
Y μ = V T ^ μ + ( w 0 + w μ + ϕ μ ) . Y_\mu=V_{\widehat{T}_\mu}+(w_0+w_\mu+\phi_\mu). Y μ = V T μ + ( w 0 + w μ + ϕ μ ) .
Thus Y μ − V T ^ μ ∈ H δ 1 Y_\mu-V_{\widehat{T}_\mu}\in H^1_\delta Y μ − V T μ ∈ H δ 1 near 0. By Lemma A.4, Y μ − V T ^ μ ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α Y_\mu-V_{\widehat{T}_\mu}\in C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} Y μ − V T μ ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α there for every fixed k ≥ 0 k\ge0 k ≥ 0 and 0 < α < 1 0<\alpha<1 0 < α < 1 . Hence Y μ Y_\mu Y μ has Fowler phase T ^ μ \widehat{T}_\mu T μ .
On each compact subset of B 1 ‾ ∖ { 0 , a } \overline{B_1}\setminus\{0,a\} B 1 ∖ { 0 , a } , the bubble tends smoothly to zero and Y μ → V Y_\mu\to V Y μ → V in L p + 1 L^{p+1} L p + 1 . The local convergence argument in Step 4 of the proof of Lemma A.4 gives smooth convergence on these compact subsets, including across the boundary identification. On a common punctured ball around 0, the final phase satisfies T ^ μ → T \widehat{T}_\mu\to T T μ → T , and the correction w μ + ϕ μ w_\mu+\phi_\mu w μ + ϕ μ tends to zero in H δ 1 H^1_\delta H δ 1 . Applying Step 6 of the proof of Lemma A.4 on this common punctured ball gives convergence in C Θ ; 0 k C^k_{\Theta;0} C Θ ; 0 k there. Combining it with the compact convergence away from 0 and a a a proves (2.19).
Step 3. The peak. Set Y ~ μ ( y ) = μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 Y μ ( a + μ y ) \widetilde{Y}_\mu(y)=\mu^{(n-2)/2}Y_\mu(a+\mu y) Y μ ( y ) = μ ( n − 2 ) /2 Y μ ( a + μ y ) . On B 1 B_1 B 1 in the y y y coordinates, χ ( ∣ a + μ y ∣ ) = 0 \chi(|a+\mu y|)=0 χ ( ∣ a + μ y ∣ ) = 0 for small μ \mu μ , and μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 V μ ( a + μ ⋅ ) → 0 \mu^{(n-2)/2}V_\mu(a+\mu\cdot)\to0 μ ( n − 2 ) /2 V μ ( a + μ ⋅ ) → 0 uniformly. By scaling and (4.23), ∥ μ ( n − 2 ) / 2 ϕ μ ( a + μ ⋅ ) ∥ L p + 1 ( B 1 ) → 0 \|\mu^{(n-2)/2}\phi_\mu(a+\mu\cdot)\|_{L^{p+1}(B_1)}\to0 ∥ μ ( n − 2 ) /2 ϕ μ ( a + μ ⋅ ) ∥ L p + 1 ( B 1 ) → 0 . Thus
Y ~ μ → U s n , 0 in L p + 1 ( B 1 ) . \widetilde{Y}_\mu\to U_{\sqrt{s_n},0}\quad\text{in }L^{p+1}(B_1). Y μ → U s n , 0 in L p + 1 ( B 1 ) .
The limiting norm is positive; hence max B μ ( a ) Y μ ≥ c μ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 \max_{B_\mu(a)}Y_\mu\ge c\mu^{-(n-2)/2} max B μ ( a ) Y μ ≥ c μ − ( n − 2 ) /2 . Choose a maximum point there to obtain (2.20).
Step 4. Preservation of nondegeneracy. All parameter dependent quantities below are evaluated at ( λ μ , b μ ) (\lambda_\mu,b_\mu) ( λ μ , b μ ) , with parameter derivatives taken before evaluation. Write K μ = K μ , λ μ , b μ \mathcal{K}_\mu=\mathcal{K}_{\mu,\lambda_\mu,b_\mu} K μ = K μ , λ μ , b μ and L n e w : = − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) Y μ p − 1 \mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{new}}:=-L_{\gamma_\mu}-n(n+2)Y_\mu^{p-1} L new := − L γ μ − n ( n + 2 ) Y μ p − 1 . Set
D = { τ ˙ ψ T ^ μ + w : ( τ ˙ , w ) ∈ R ⊕ H δ 1 } , D 0 = { τ ˙ ψ T ^ μ + w ∈ D : w ⊥ ∗ K μ } . \mathcal{D}=\{\dot{\tau}\psi_{\widehat{T}_\mu}+w:(\dot{\tau},w)\in\mathbb{R}\oplus H^1_\delta\},\qquad
\mathcal{D}_0=\{\dot{\tau}\psi_{\widehat{T}_\mu}+w\in\mathcal{D}:w\perp_*\mathcal{K}_\mu\}. D = { τ ˙ ψ T μ + w : ( τ ˙ , w ) ∈ R ⊕ H δ 1 } , D 0 = { τ ˙ ψ T μ + w ∈ D : w ⊥ ∗ K μ } .
Give D \mathcal{D} D the norm ∣ τ ˙ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 |\dot{\tau}|+\|w\|_{H^1_\delta} ∣ τ ˙ ∣ + ∥ w ∥ H δ 1 . The inverse constructed in the proof of Proposition 4.5, with the moment data set to zero, gives
Π ⊥ , ∗ L n e w : D 0 → Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 is an isomorphism. (78) \Pi^{\perp,*}\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{new}}:\mathcal{D}_0\to\Pi^{\perp,*}H^{-1}_\delta
\quad\text{is an isomorphism.} \tag*{(78)} Π ⊥ , ∗ L new : D 0 → Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 is an isomorphism. (78)
This projected operator uses ψ T ^ μ \psi_{\widehat{T}_\mu} ψ T μ at the constructed solution.
Define the tangents to the solved family by
Y 0 = J 0 + λ μ ( ∂ λ τ μ ) ψ T ^ μ + λ μ ∂ λ ϕ μ , Y_0=J_0+\lambda_\mu(\partial_\lambda\tau_\mu)\psi_{\widehat{T}_\mu}+\lambda_\mu\partial_\lambda\phi_\mu, Y 0 = J 0 + λ μ ( ∂ λ τ μ ) ψ T μ + λ μ ∂ λ ϕ μ ,
Y i = J i + ( ∂ b i τ μ ) ψ T ^ μ + ∂ b i ϕ μ , 1 ≤ i ≤ n . Y_i=J_i+(\partial_{b_i}\tau_\mu)\psi_{\widehat{T}_\mu}+\partial_{b_i}\phi_\mu,\qquad1\le i\le n. Y i = J i + ( ∂ b i τ μ ) ψ T μ + ∂ b i ϕ μ , 1 ≤ i ≤ n .
All these functions belong to D \mathcal{D} D . Differentiate (4.21) with respect to λ \lambda λ and b i b_i b i , and then evaluate at ( λ μ , b μ ) (\lambda_\mu,b_\mu) ( λ μ , b μ ) . Since c μ ( λ μ , b μ ) = 0 c_\mu(\lambda_\mu,b_\mu)=0 c μ ( λ μ , b μ ) = 0 , we obtain
L n e w Y 0 = ∑ α = 0 n λ μ ( ∂ λ c μ ) α ( − Δ ) J α , L n e w Y i = ∑ α = 0 n ( ∂ b i c μ ) α ( − Δ ) J α , 1 ≤ i ≤ n . (79) \begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{new}}Y_0&=\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}\lambda_\mu(\partial_\lambda c_\mu)_\alpha(-\Delta)J_\alpha,\\
\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{new}}Y_i&=\sum_{\alpha=0}^{n}(\partial_{b_i}c_\mu)_\alpha(-\Delta)J_\alpha,\qquad1\le i\le n. \tag*{(79)}
\end{aligned} L new Y 0 L new Y i = α = 0 ∑ n λ μ ( ∂ λ c μ ) α ( − Δ ) J α , = α = 0 ∑ n ( ∂ b i c μ ) α ( − Δ ) J α , 1 ≤ i ≤ n . (79)
For 0 ≤ α ≤ n 0 \le\alpha\le n 0 ≤ α ≤ n and 1 ≤ i ≤ n 1 \le i \le n 1 ≤ i ≤ n , differentiating the moment conditions gives
⟨ ( − Δ ) J α , Y 0 ⟩ = ( J α , J 0 ) ∗ − λ μ ( ∂ λ J α , φ μ ) ∗ = ( M μ ) α 0 , ⟨ ( − Δ ) J α , Y i ⟩ = ( J α , J i ) ∗ − ( ∂ b i J α , φ μ ) ∗ = ( M μ ) α i . (80) \begin{aligned}
\langle(-\Delta)J_{\alpha},Y_{0}\rangle&= (J_{\alpha},J_{0})_{*}-\lambda_{\mu}(\partial_{\lambda}J_{\alpha},\varphi_{\mu})_{*}=(M_{\mu})_{\alpha0},\\
\langle(-\Delta)J_{\alpha},Y_{i}\rangle&= (J_{\alpha},J_{i})_{*}-(\partial_{b_{i}}J_{\alpha},\varphi_{\mu})_{*}=(M_{\mu})_{\alpha i}. \tag*{(80)}
\end{aligned} ⟨( − Δ ) J α , Y 0 ⟩ ⟨( − Δ ) J α , Y i ⟩ = ( J α , J 0 ) ∗ − λ μ ( ∂ λ J α , φ μ ) ∗ = ( M μ ) α 0 , = ( J α , J i ) ∗ − ( ∂ b i J α , φ μ ) ∗ = ( M μ ) α i . (80)
Here ψ μ T \psi_{\mu}^{T} ψ μ T vanishes on a neighborhood of the support of each J α J_{\alpha} J α . Since M μ M_{\mu} M μ is invertible, (80) establishes the direct sum
D = D 0 ⊕ span { Y 0 , … , Y n } . \mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_{0}\oplus\operatorname{span}\{Y_{0},\ldots,Y_{n}\}. D = D 0 ⊕ span { Y 0 , … , Y n } .
The space H δ − 1 H_{\delta}^{-1} H δ − 1 is the direct sum of Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 \Pi^{\perp,*}H_{\delta}^{-1} Π ⊥ , ∗ H δ − 1 and span { ( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n } \operatorname{span}\{(-\Delta)J_{0},\ldots,(-\Delta)J_{n}\} span {( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n } . At the critical point, differentiating (71) and using c μ = 0 c_{\mu}=0 c μ = 0 yields
D λ , b 2 J ~ μ = diag ( λ μ − 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) M μ T D λ , b c μ . (81) D_{\lambda,b}^{2}\widetilde{J}_{\mu}=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{\mu}^{-1},1,\ldots,1)M_{\mu}^{T}D_{\lambda,b}c_{\mu}. \tag*{(81)} D λ , b 2 J μ = diag ( λ μ − 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) M μ T D λ , b c μ . (81)
Here D λ , b c μ D_{\lambda,b}c_{\mu} D λ , b c μ is the Jacobian with columns ∂ λ c μ , ∂ b 1 c μ , … , ∂ b n c μ \partial_{\lambda}c_{\mu},\partial_{b_{1}}c_{\mu},\ldots,\partial_{b_{n}}c_{\mu} ∂ λ c μ , ∂ b 1 c μ , … , ∂ b n c μ . By Proposition 5.4, the ordinary Hessian is positive definite. Since M μ M_{\mu} M μ and the diagonal matrix are invertible, D λ , b c μ D_{\lambda,b}c_{\mu} D λ , b c μ is invertible. Choose the ordered bases Y 0 , … , Y n Y_{0},\ldots,Y_{n} Y 0 , … , Y n in the finite dimensional domain and ( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n (-\Delta)J_{0},\ldots,(-\Delta)J_{n} ( − Δ ) J 0 , … , ( − Δ ) J n in the finite dimensional source space. With respect to these bases and the preceding direct sums, (79) gives the block matrix
( Π ⊥ , ∗ L n e w ∣ D 0 0 ∗ D λ , b c μ diag ( λ μ , 1 , … , 1 ) ) . \begin{pmatrix}
\left.\Pi^{\perp,*}\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{new}}\right|_{\mathcal{D}_{0}} & 0\\
* & D_{\lambda,b}c_{\mu}\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{\mu},1,\ldots,1)
\end{pmatrix}. ( Π ⊥ , ∗ L new D 0 ∗ 0 D λ , b c μ diag ( λ μ , 1 , … , 1 ) ) .
By (78) and (81) , both diagonal blocks are invertible. The bounded lower triangular operator L n e w : D → H δ − 1 \mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{new}}:\mathcal{D}\to H_{\delta}^{-1} L new : D → H δ − 1 is therefore an isomorphism, with a finite inverse norm for each sufficiently small fixed μ \mu μ . This proves (21) .
Auxiliary estimates and local singular solutions
Nondegeneracy of the bubble energy minimum
Proof of Proposition 5.1. We compute the scale and center derivatives of F F F in (72) . Its defining integrals and their first two parameter derivatives converge locally uniformly for n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 . Indeed, writing r = ∣ y ∣ r=|y| r = ∣ y ∣ , on each compact parameter set we have
∣ H ∣ = O ( r 6 ) , ∣ D H ∣ = O ( r 5 ) , U λ , b = O ( r 2 − n ) , D U λ , b = O ( r 1 − n ) , |\mathcal{H}|=O(r^{6}),\qquad|D\mathcal{H}|=O(r^{5}),\qquad U_{\lambda,b}=O(r^{2-n}),\qquad DU_{\lambda,b}=O(r^{1-n}), ∣ H ∣ = O ( r 6 ) , ∣ D H ∣ = O ( r 5 ) , U λ , b = O ( r 2 − n ) , D U λ , b = O ( r 1 − n ) ,
also after two parameter derivatives of the bubble. Each integrand is therefore O ( r 14 − 2 n ) O(r^{14-2n}) O ( r 14 − 2 n ) , and its radial majorant is C r 13 − n Cr^{13-n} C r 13 − n . The center calculation uses the angular identities of [4 Propositions 19–20] .
Step 1. The scale derivative. To compute the scale dependence, define the coefficients A k ( n ) A_{k}(n) A k ( n ) by
∑ k = 0 4 A k ( n ) s k : = ( n + 2 ) f ( s ) 2 + 4 s f ( s ) f ′ ( s ) + 2 s 2 f ′ ( s ) 2 . \sum_{k=0}^{4} A_{k}(n)s^{k}:=(n+2)f(s)^{2}+4sf(s)f'(s)+2s^{2}f'(s)^{2}. k = 0 ∑ 4 A k ( n ) s k := ( n + 2 ) f ( s ) 2 + 4 s f ( s ) f ′ ( s ) + 2 s 2 f ′ ( s ) 2 .
Set r 0 ( n ) = 1 r_{0}(n)=1 r 0 ( n ) = 1 and, for 1 ≤ k ≤ 4 1\le k\le4 1 ≤ k ≤ 4 ,
r k ( n ) : = ∏ ℓ = 0 k − 1 n + 2 + 2 ℓ n − 8 − 2 ℓ . (82) r_{k}(n):=\prod_{\ell=0}^{k-1}\frac{n+2+2\ell}{n-8-2\ell}. \tag*{(82)} r k ( n ) := ℓ = 0 ∏ k − 1 n − 8 − 2 ℓ n + 2 + 2 ℓ . (82)
Define I n ( s ) : = ∑ k = 0 4 A k ( n ) r k ( n ) s k + 2 I_{n}(s):=\sum_{k=0}^{4}A_{k}(n)r_{k}(n)s^{k+2} I n ( s ) := ∑ k = 0 4 A k ( n ) r k ( n ) s k + 2 . Applying the radial integral formula of Brendle–Marques [4 ] to f ( s ) = 80 − 50 s + 7 s 2 f(s)=80-50s+7s^{2} f ( s ) = 80 − 50 s + 7 s 2 , we obtain
F ( λ , 0 ) = − C n , W I n ( λ 2 ) . (83) F(\lambda,0)=-C_{n,W}I_{n}(\lambda^{2}). \tag*{(83)} F ( λ , 0 ) = − C n , W I n ( λ 2 ) . (83)
Here C n , W > 0 C_{n,W} > 0 C n , W > 0 depends only on n n n and the fixed Weyl tensor W W W .
Since U λ , 0 U_{\lambda,0} U λ , 0 is radial, the first term in (72) vanishes by (45) . Each H i k H_{ik} H ik is homogeneous and harmonic of degree two. Differentiating H ( y ) = f ( ∣ y ∣ 2 ) H ( y ) \mathcal{H}(y)=f(|y|^2)H(y) H ( y ) = f ( ∣ y ∣ 2 ) H ( y ) and integrating over the unit sphere, we obtain
∫ S n − 1 ∣ D H ( r θ ) ∣ 2 d θ = 2 r 2 ( ∫ S n − 1 ∣ H ( θ ) ∣ 2 d θ ) ∑ k = 0 4 A k ( n ) r 2 k . \int_{S^{n-1}} |D\mathcal{H}(r\theta)|^2\,d\theta
=2r^2\left(\int_{S^{n-1}} |H(\theta)|^2\,d\theta\right)\sum_{k=0}^{4} A_k(n)r^{2k}. ∫ S n − 1 ∣ D H ( r θ ) ∣ 2 d θ = 2 r 2 ( ∫ S n − 1 ∣ H ( θ ) ∣ 2 d θ ) k = 0 ∑ 4 A k ( n ) r 2 k .
For 0 ≤ k ≤ 4 0\leq k\leq4 0 ≤ k ≤ 4 , the substitution r = λ t r=\lambda t r = λ t and the beta integral formula yield
λ n − 2 ∫ 0 ∞ r n + 1 + 2 k ( λ 2 + r 2 ) n − 2 d r = λ 2 k + 4 2 B ( n + 2 2 + k , n − 6 2 − k ) . \lambda^{n-2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{r^{n+1+2k}}{(\lambda^2+r^2)^{n-2}}\,dr
=\frac{\lambda^{2k+4}}{2}B\left(\frac{n+2}{2}+k,\frac{n-6}{2}-k\right). λ n − 2 ∫ 0 ∞ ( λ 2 + r 2 ) n − 2 r n + 1 + 2 k d r = 2 λ 2 k + 4 B ( 2 n + 2 + k , 2 n − 6 − k ) .
For k ≥ 1 k\geq1 k ≥ 1 , α > 0 \alpha>0 α > 0 , and β > k \beta>k β > k , the recurrence is
B ( α + k , β − k ) B ( α , β ) = ∏ ℓ = 0 k − 1 α + ℓ β − 1 − ℓ . (84) \frac{B(\alpha+k,\beta-k)}{B(\alpha,\beta)}
=\prod_{\ell=0}^{k-1}\frac{\alpha+\ell}{\beta-1-\ell}. \tag*{(84)} B ( α , β ) B ( α + k , β − k ) = ℓ = 0 ∏ k − 1 β − 1 − ℓ α + ℓ . (84)
With α = ( n + 2 ) / 2 \alpha=(n+2)/2 α = ( n + 2 ) /2 and β = ( n − 6 ) / 2 \beta=(n-6)/2 β = ( n − 6 ) /2 , the beta ratio equals r k ( n ) r_k(n) r k ( n ) in (A.1). We obtain (A.2) with
C n , W = n − 2 16 ( n − 1 ) ( ∫ S n − 1 ∣ H ( θ ) ∣ 2 d θ ) B ( n + 2 2 , n − 6 2 ) > 0. C_{n,W}=\frac{n-2}{16(n-1)}
\left(\int_{S^{n-1}}|H(\theta)|^2\,d\theta\right)
B\left(\frac{n+2}{2},\frac{n-6}{2}\right)>0. C n , W = 16 ( n − 1 ) n − 2 ( ∫ S n − 1 ∣ H ( θ ) ∣ 2 d θ ) B ( 2 n + 2 , 2 n − 6 ) > 0.
Every denominator in (A.1) is positive for n ≥ 30 n\geq30 n ≥ 30 .
We seek a nondegenerate minimum of λ ↦ F ( λ , 0 ) \lambda\mapsto F(\lambda,0) λ ↦ F ( λ , 0 ) . By (A.2), it suffices to prove I n ′ ( 9 / 10 ) > 0 I_n'(9/10)>0 I n ′ ( 9/10 ) > 0 , I n ′ ( 11 / 10 ) < 0 I_n'(11/10)<0 I n ′ ( 11/10 ) < 0 , and I n ′ ′ < 0 I_n''<0 I n ′′ < 0 on [ 9 / 10 , 11 / 10 ] [9/10,11/10] [ 9/10 , 11/10 ] : these conditions locate a unique nondegenerate maximum of I n ′ I_n' I n ′ in this interval. To prove the sign of I n ′ ′ I_n'' I n ′′ throughout the interval, we expand − I n ′ ′ -I_n'' − I n ′′ in the Bernstein basis, whose functions are nonnegative and sum to one; hence positive Bernstein coefficients imply I n ′ ′ < 0 I_n''<0 I n ′′ < 0 . We clear the positive denominators and expand both the endpoint expressions and the Bernstein coefficients in powers of n − 30 n-30 n − 30 to verify the required signs for every n ≥ 30 n\geq30 n ≥ 30 .
Set D n : = ( n − 8 ) ( n − 10 ) ( n − 12 ) ( n − 14 ) > 0 D_n:=(n-8)(n-10)(n-12)(n-14)>0 D n := ( n − 8 ) ( n − 10 ) ( n − 12 ) ( n − 14 ) > 0 . Reduction to the common denominator D n D_n D n yields
50000 D n I n ′ ( 9 / 10 ) = 24500345757696 + 4693179601152 ( n − 30 ) + 602130393360 ( n − 30 ) 2 + 31533264180 ( n − 30 ) 3 + 1338334164 ( n − 30 ) 4 + 25658703 ( n − 30 ) 5 > 0. (85) \begin{aligned}
50000D_nI_n'(9/10)={}&24500345757696+4693179601152(n-30)\\
&+602130393360(n-30)^2+31533264180(n-30)^3\\
&+1338334164(n-30)^4+25658703(n-30)^5>0. \tag*{(85)}
\end{aligned} 50000 D n I n ′ ( 9/10 ) = 24500345757696 + 4693179601152 ( n − 30 ) + 602130393360 ( n − 30 ) 2 + 31533264180 ( n − 30 ) 3 + 1338334164 ( n − 30 ) 4 + 25658703 ( n − 30 ) 5 > 0. (85)
At the other endpoint,
− 50000 D n I n ′ ( 11 / 10 ) = 9936905527296 + 12448646276352 ( n − 30 ) + 1144904769360 ( n − 30 ) 2 + 82313202180 ( n − 30 ) 3 + 2365410564 ( n − 30 ) 4 + 16899003 ( n − 30 ) 5 > 0. (86) \begin{aligned}
-50000D_nI_n'(11/10)={}&9936905527296+12448646276352(n-30)\\
&+1144904769360(n-30)^2+82313202180(n-30)^3\\
&+2365410564(n-30)^4+16899003(n-30)^5>0. \tag*{(86)}
\end{aligned} − 50000 D n I n ′ ( 11/10 ) = 9936905527296 + 12448646276352 ( n − 30 ) + 1144904769360 ( n − 30 ) 2 + 82313202180 ( n − 30 ) 3 + 2365410564 ( n − 30 ) 4 + 16899003 ( n − 30 ) 5 > 0. (86)
To prove I n ′ ′ < 0 I_n''<0 I n ′′ < 0 throughout [ 9 / 10 , 11 / 10 ] [9/10,11/10] [ 9/10 , 11/10 ] , write s = 9 / 10 + t / 5 s=9/10+t/5 s = 9/10 + t /5 with 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 0\leq t\leq1 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 and use the Bernstein polynomials B r , d ( t ) : = ( d r ) t r ( 1 − t ) d − r B_{r,d}(t):=\binom{d}{r}t^r(1-t)^{d-r} B r , d ( t ) := ( r d ) t r ( 1 − t ) d − r for a nonnegative integer d d d and r = 0 , … , d r=0,\ldots,d r = 0 , … , d . We convert powers of t t t to this basis by the identity
t j = ∑ r = j d ( r j ) ( d j ) B r , d ( t ) , 0 ≤ j ≤ d . t^j=\sum_{r=j}^{d}\frac{\binom{r}{j}}{\binom{d}{j}}B_{r,d}(t),\qquad0\leq j\leq d. t j = r = j ∑ d ( j d ) ( j r ) B r , d ( t ) , 0 ≤ j ≤ d .
Applying this identity with d = 4 d=4 d = 4 to the polynomial − 1000 D n I n ′ ′ ( 9 / 10 + t / 5 ) -1000D_nI_n''(9/10+t/5) − 1000 D n I n ′′ ( 9/10 + t /5 ) , we obtain
− 1000 D n I n ′ ′ ( s ) = ∑ r = 0 4 P r ( n − 30 ) B r , 4 ( t ) , -1000D_nI_n''(s)=\sum_{r=0}^{4}P_r(n-30)B_{r,4}(t), − 1000 D n I n ′′ ( s ) = r = 0 ∑ 4 P r ( n − 30 ) B r , 4 ( t ) ,
e n d s m i d = 1 {ends_mid=1} e n d s m i d = 1
where P r ( n − 30 ) = ∑ k = 0 5 a r k ( n − 30 ) k P_r(n-30)=\sum_{k=0}^{5}a_{rk}(n-30)^k P r ( n − 30 ) = ∑ k = 0 5 a r k ( n − 30 ) k has positive coefficients as follows:
Thus P r ( n − 30 ) > 0 P_r(n-30)>0 P r ( n − 30 ) > 0 for every n ≥ 30 n\ge30 n ≥ 30 . Since D n > 0 D_n>0 D n > 0 , B r , 4 ( t ) ≥ 0 B_{r,4}(t)\ge0 B r , 4 ( t ) ≥ 0 , and ∑ r = 0 4 B r , 4 ( t ) = 1 \sum_{r=0}^{4}B_{r,4}(t)=1 ∑ r = 0 4 B r , 4 ( t ) = 1 on [ 0 , 1 ] [0,1] [ 0 , 1 ] , we conclude that
I n ′ ′ ( s ) < 0 , 9 10 ≤ s ≤ 11 10 . I_n^{\prime\prime}(s)<0,\qquad\frac{9}{10}\le s\le\frac{11}{10}. I n ′′ ( s ) < 0 , 10 9 ≤ s ≤ 10 11 .
By the endpoint signs in (A.4) and (A.5), the strictly decreasing function I n ′ I_n^\prime I n ′ has a unique zero:
s n ∈ ( 9 10 , 11 10 ) , I n ′ ( s n ) = 0 , and I n ′ ′ ( s n ) < 0. (87) s_n\in\left(\frac{9}{10},\frac{11}{10}\right),\qquad I_n^\prime(s_n)=0,\qquad\text{and}\qquad I_n^{\prime\prime}(s_n)<0. \tag*{(87)} s n ∈ ( 10 9 , 10 11 ) , I n ′ ( s n ) = 0 , and I n ′′ ( s n ) < 0. (87)
Step 2. The center derivatives. We prove D b 2 F ( s n , 0 ) > 0 D_b^2F(\sqrt{s_n},0)>0 D b 2 F ( s n , 0 ) > 0 . The polynomial f f f satisfies
2 f ( s ) f ′ ( s ) + s f ′ ( s ) 2 = − 8000 + 9740 s − 3500 s 2 + 392 s 3 . 2f(s)f^\prime(s)+sf^\prime(s)^2=-8000+9740s-3500s^2+392s^3. 2 f ( s ) f ′ ( s ) + s f ′ ( s ) 2 = − 8000 + 9740 s − 3500 s 2 + 392 s 3 .
Define
t 0 ( n ) : = 1 , t k ( n ) : = ∏ ℓ = 0 k − 1 n + 6 + 2 ℓ n − 8 − 2 ℓ , 1 ≤ k ≤ 3 , t_0(n):=1,\qquad t_k(n):=\prod_{\ell=0}^{k-1}\frac{n+6+2\ell}{n-8-2\ell},\qquad1\le k\le3, t 0 ( n ) := 1 , t k ( n ) := ℓ = 0 ∏ k − 1 n − 8 − 2 ℓ n + 6 + 2 ℓ , 1 ≤ k ≤ 3 ,
and
K n ( s ) : = − 8000 + 9740 t 1 ( n ) s − 3500 t 2 ( n ) s 2 + 392 t 3 ( n ) s 3 . (88) K_n(s):=-8000+9740t_1(n)s-3500t_2(n)s^2+392t_3(n)s^3. \tag*{(88)} K n ( s ) := − 8000 + 9740 t 1 ( n ) s − 3500 t 2 ( n ) s 2 + 392 t 3 ( n ) s 3 . (88)
Applying the beta recurrence (A.3) with α = ( n + 6 ) / 2 \alpha=(n+6)/2 α = ( n + 6 ) /2 and β = ( n − 6 ) / 2 \beta=(n-6)/2 β = ( n − 6 ) /2 produces the factors t k ( n ) t_k(n) t k ( n ) in (A.7). Let E n : = ( n − 8 ) ( n − 10 ) ( n − 12 ) > 0 E_n:=(n-8)(n-10)(n-12)>0 E n := ( n − 8 ) ( n − 10 ) ( n − 12 ) > 0 . For s = 9 / 10 + t / 5 s=9/10+t/5 s = 9/10 + t /5 , conversion to the Bernstein basis yields
375 E n K n ( s ) = − ∑ r = 0 3 Q r ( n − 30 ) B r , 3 ( t ) , 375E_nK_n(s)=-\sum_{r=0}^{3}Q_r(n-30)B_{r,3}(t), 375 E n K n ( s ) = − r = 0 ∑ 3 Q r ( n − 30 ) B r , 3 ( t ) ,
where Q r ( n − 30 ) = ∑ k = 0 3 b r k ( n − 30 ) k Q_r(n-30)=\sum_{k=0}^{3}b_{rk}(n-30)^k Q r ( n − 30 ) = ∑ k = 0 3 b r k ( n − 30 ) k has positive coefficients as follows:
Therefore, for 9 / 10 ≤ s ≤ 11 / 10 9/10\le s\le11/10 9/10 ≤ s ≤ 11/10 and n ≥ 30 n\ge30 n ≥ 30 ,
K n ( s ) < 0. (89) K_n(s)<0. \tag*{(89)} K n ( s ) < 0. (89)
Define
I 1 ( λ ) : = ∫ 0 ∞ λ n − 2 ( λ 2 + r 2 ) − n r n + 5 { 2 f ( r 2 ) f ′ ( r 2 ) + r 2 f ′ ( r 2 ) 2 } d r , I_1(\lambda):=\int_0^\infty\lambda^{n-2}(\lambda^2+r^2)^{-n}r^{n+5}\{2f(r^2)f^\prime(r^2)+r^2f^\prime(r^2)^2\}\,dr, I 1 ( λ ) := ∫ 0 ∞ λ n − 2 ( λ 2 + r 2 ) − n r n + 5 { 2 f ( r 2 ) f ′ ( r 2 ) + r 2 f ′ ( r 2 ) 2 } d r ,
I 2 ( λ ) : = ∫ 0 ∞ λ n − 2 ( λ 2 + r 2 ) 1 − n r n + 5 f ′ ( r 2 ) 2 d r > 0. I_2(\lambda):=\int_0^\infty\lambda^{n-2}(\lambda^2+r^2)^{1-n}r^{n+5}f^\prime(r^2)^2\,dr>0. I 2 ( λ ) := ∫ 0 ∞ λ n − 2 ( λ 2 + r 2 ) 1 − n r n + 5 f ′ ( r 2 ) 2 d r > 0.
By the substitution r = λ t r=\lambda t r = λ t and the beta recurrence (A.3),
I 1 ( λ ) = λ 4 K n ( λ 2 ) ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + r 2 ) − n r n + 5 d r . I_1(\lambda)=\lambda^4K_n(\lambda^2)\int_0^\infty(1+r^2)^{-n}r^{n+5}\,\mathrm{d}r. I 1 ( λ ) = λ 4 K n ( λ 2 ) ∫ 0 ∞ ( 1 + r 2 ) − n r n + 5 d r .
For 1 ≤ α , β ≤ n 1\le\alpha,\beta\le n 1 ≤ α , β ≤ n , differentiating (72) with respect to the center parameters b α b_\alpha b α and b β b_\beta b β , we obtain
∂ b α ∂ b β F ( λ , 0 ) = ( n − 2 ) 2 λ n − 2 ∫ R n ( λ 2 + ∣ y ∣ 2 ) − n ∑ l = 1 n H α l H β l d y − ( n − 2 ) 2 λ n − 2 4 ∫ R n ( λ 2 + ∣ y ∣ 2 ) − n ∑ i , k , l = 1 n ( ∂ y l H i k ) 2 y α y β d y + ( n − 2 ) 2 λ n − 2 δ α β 8 ( n − 1 ) ∫ R n ( λ 2 + ∣ y ∣ 2 ) 1 − n ∑ i , k , l = 1 n ( ∂ y l H i k ) 2 d y . \begin{aligned}
\partial_{b_\alpha}\partial_{b_\beta}F(\lambda,0)
={}&(n-2)^2\lambda^{n-2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(\lambda^2+|y|^2)^{-n}\sum_{l=1}^n\mathcal{H}_{\alpha l}\mathcal{H}_{\beta l}\,\mathrm{d}y\\
&-\frac{(n-2)^2\lambda^{n-2}}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(\lambda^2+|y|^2)^{-n}\sum_{i,k,l=1}^n(\partial_{y_l}\mathcal{H}_{ik})^2y_\alpha y_\beta\,\mathrm{d}y\\
&+\frac{(n-2)^2\lambda^{n-2}\delta_{\alpha\beta}}{8(n-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}(\lambda^2+|y|^2)^{1-n}\sum_{i,k,l=1}^n(\partial_{y_l}\mathcal{H}_{ik})^2\,\mathrm{d}y.
\end{aligned} ∂ b α ∂ b β F ( λ , 0 ) = ( n − 2 ) 2 λ n − 2 ∫ R n ( λ 2 + ∣ y ∣ 2 ) − n l = 1 ∑ n H α l H β l d y − 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 λ n − 2 ∫ R n ( λ 2 + ∣ y ∣ 2 ) − n i , k , l = 1 ∑ n ( ∂ y l H ik ) 2 y α y β d y + 8 ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) 2 λ n − 2 δ α β ∫ R n ( λ 2 + ∣ y ∣ 2 ) 1 − n i , k , l = 1 ∑ n ( ∂ y l H ik ) 2 d y .
The integral expression for D b 2 F ( λ , 0 ) D_b^2F(\lambda,0) D b 2 F ( λ , 0 ) agrees with the formula in Brendle–Marques [4 Proposition 19] . Evaluating these angular integrals as in Brendle–Marques [4 Proposition 20] , we obtain
∂ b α ∂ b β F ( λ , 0 ) = ( n − 2 ) 2 ∣ S n − 1 ∣ 4 n ( n + 2 ) [ I 2 ( λ ) n − 1 S W δ α β − 2 I 1 ( λ ) n + 4 ( 4 M α β + S W δ α β ) ] . \partial_{b_\alpha}\partial_{b_\beta}F(\lambda,0)=\frac{(n-2)^2|\mathcal{S}^{n-1}|}{4n(n+2)}\left[\frac{I_2(\lambda)}{n-1}S_W\delta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{2I_1(\lambda)}{n+4}\left(4M_{\alpha\beta}+S_W\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\right]. ∂ b α ∂ b β F ( λ , 0 ) = 4 n ( n + 2 ) ( n − 2 ) 2 ∣ S n − 1 ∣ [ n − 1 I 2 ( λ ) S W δ α β − n + 4 2 I 1 ( λ ) ( 4 M α β + S W δ α β ) ] .
where
M α β : = ∑ i , k , l = 1 n ( W i α k l + W i l k α ) ( W i β k l + W i l k β ) . M_{\alpha\beta}:=\sum_{i,k,l=1}^n(W_{i\alpha kl}+W_{ilk\alpha})(W_{i\beta kl}+W_{ilk\beta}). M α β := i , k , l = 1 ∑ n ( W i α k l + W i l k α ) ( W i β k l + W i l k β ) .
The matrix ( M α β ) 1 ≤ α , β ≤ n (M_{\alpha\beta})_{1\le\alpha,\beta\le n} ( M α β ) 1 ≤ α , β ≤ n is positive semidefinite because it is a Gram matrix, and by the first Bianchi identity,
S W : = ∑ i , j , k , l = 1 n ( W i j k l + W i l k j ) 2 = 3 ∣ W ∣ 2 > 0. S_W:=\sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^n(W_{ijkl}+W_{ilkj})^2=3|W|^2>0. S W := i , j , k , l = 1 ∑ n ( W ij k l + W i l k j ) 2 = 3∣ W ∣ 2 > 0.
By (A.8), I 1 ( s n ) < 0 I_1(\sqrt{s_n})<0 I 1 ( s n ) < 0 , whereas I 2 ( s n ) > 0 I_2(\sqrt{s_n})>0 I 2 ( s n ) > 0 and S W > 0 S_W>0 S W > 0 . In the formula for ∂ b α ∂ b β F ( λ , 0 ) \partial_{b_\alpha}\partial_{b_\beta}F(\lambda,0) ∂ b α ∂ b β F ( λ , 0 ) , the multiple of S W I S_WI S W I is strictly positive and the remaining contribution of the Gram matrix is nonnegative. Hence
D b 2 F ( s n , 0 ) > 0. D_b^2F(\sqrt{s_n},0)>0. D b 2 F ( s n , 0 ) > 0.
Step 3. The full Hessian. The bubble satisfies U λ , − b ( − y ) = U λ , b ( y ) U_{\lambda,-b}(-y)=U_{\lambda,b}(y) U λ , − b ( − y ) = U λ , b ( y ) . Since H ( − y ) = H ( y ) \mathcal{H}(-y)=\mathcal{H}(y) H ( − y ) = H ( y ) , a change of variables in (72) proves F ( λ , − b ) = F ( λ , b ) F(\lambda,-b)=F(\lambda,b) F ( λ , − b ) = F ( λ , b ) , and
∂ b α F ( λ , 0 ) = 0 and ∂ λ ∂ b α F ( λ , 0 ) = 0. (90) \partial_{b_\alpha}F(\lambda,0)=0\qquad\text{and}\qquad\partial_\lambda\partial_{b_\alpha}F(\lambda,0)=0. \tag*{(90)} ∂ b α F ( λ , 0 ) = 0 and ∂ λ ∂ b α F ( λ , 0 ) = 0. (90)
Finally, from (A.2) and (A.6),
∂ λ λ F ( s n , 0 ) = − 4 C n , W s n I n ′ ′ ( s n ) > 0. \partial_{\lambda\lambda}F(\sqrt{s_n},0)=-4C_{n,W}s_nI_n''(s_n)>0. ∂ λλ F ( s n , 0 ) = − 4 C n , W s n I n ′′ ( s n ) > 0.
By (A.2), (A.6), and (A.9),
∇ F ( s n , 0 ) = 0 , D 2 F ( s n , 0 ) = ( ∂ λ λ F ( s n , 0 ) 0 0 D b 2 F ( s n , 0 ) ) > 0. \nabla F(\sqrt{s_n},0)=0,\qquad D^2F(\sqrt{s_n},0)=\begin{pmatrix}\partial_{\lambda\lambda}F(\sqrt{s_n},0)&0\\0&D_b^2F(\sqrt{s_n},0)\end{pmatrix}>0. ∇ F ( s n , 0 ) = 0 , D 2 F ( s n , 0 ) = ( ∂ λλ F ( s n , 0 ) 0 0 D b 2 F ( s n , 0 ) ) > 0.
This proves Proposition 5.1.
Local solutions with cylindrical asymptotics
We construct local singular solutions on arbitrary smooth manifolds in every dimension n ≥ 3 n \ge3 n ≥ 3 , using logarithmic radius near the singularity. The constant A n A_n A n fixed in Section 2 satisfies n ( n − 2 ) A n p − 1 = ( n − 2 ) 2 / 4 n(n-2)A_n^{p-1} = (n-2)^2/4 n ( n − 2 ) A n p − 1 = ( n − 2 ) 2 /4 . For the flat equation, prescribed Fowler asymptotics were considered by Han–Li [10 ] . The proof below treats the constant profile on an arbitrary smooth background.
Theorem A.1. Let ( M n , g ) (M^n,g) ( M n , g ) be a smooth Riemannian manifold, n ≥ 3 n \ge3 n ≥ 3 , and let x 0 x_0 x 0 be an interior point. There are constants ρ 0 , C > 0 \rho_0,C>0 ρ 0 , C > 0 , depending only on n n n and g g g in a fixed normal neighborhood of x 0 x_0 x 0 . For every 0 < ρ ≤ ρ 0 0<\rho\le\rho_0 0 < ρ ≤ ρ 0 , there is a positive solution u ρ ∈ C ∞ ( B ρ g ( x 0 ) ∖ { x 0 } ) u_\rho\in C^\infty(B_\rho^g(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}) u ρ ∈ C ∞ ( B ρ g ( x 0 ) ∖ { x 0 }) of
− L g u ρ = n ( n − 2 ) u ρ p in B ρ g ( x 0 ) ∖ { x 0 } , -L_g u_\rho=n(n-2)u_\rho^p \quad\text{in } B_\rho^g(x_0)\setminus\{x_0\}, − L g u ρ = n ( n − 2 ) u ρ p in B ρ g ( x 0 ) ∖ { x 0 } , satisfying
∑ j = 0 2 r j ∣ ∇ g j ( r ( n − 2 ) / 2 u ρ − A n ) ∣ g ≤ C r 2 , r = d g ( x , x 0 ) , 0 < r ≤ ρ . (91) \sum_{j=0}^{2}r^j\left|\nabla_g^j\left(r^{(n-2)/2}u_\rho-A_n\right)\right|_g\le Cr^2,\qquad r=d_g(x,x_0),\quad0<r\le\rho. \tag*{(91)} j = 0 ∑ 2 r j ∇ g j ( r ( n − 2 ) /2 u ρ − A n ) g ≤ C r 2 , r = d g ( x , x 0 ) , 0 < r ≤ ρ . (91) In particular,
u ρ ( x ) = A n r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( 1 + O ( r 2 ) ) u_\rho(x)=A_n r^{-(n-2)/2}\left(1+O(r^2)\right) u ρ ( x ) = A n r − ( n − 2 ) /2 ( 1 + O ( r 2 ) ) uniformly in ρ \rho ρ , and u ρ 4 / ( n − 2 ) g u_\rho^{4/(n-2)}g u ρ 4/ ( n − 2 ) g is complete toward x 0 x_0 x 0 .
We first construct an inverse on C = [ 0 , ∞ ) × S n − 1 \mathcal{C}=[0,\infty)\times S^{n-1} C = [ 0 , ∞ ) × S n − 1 with product metric d t 2 + σ dt^2+\sigma d t 2 + σ . Here σ \sigma σ is the unit round metric. Fix 0 < α < 1 0<\alpha<1 0 < α < 1 and define
∥ w ∥ C ν k , α ( C ) : = sup s ≥ 0 e ν s ∥ w ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) , Q s = [ s , s + 1 ] × S n − 1 , \|w\|_{C_\nu^{k,\alpha}(\mathcal{C})}:=\sup_{s\ge0}e^{\nu s}\|w\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s)},\qquad Q_s=[s,s+1]\times S^{n-1}, ∥ w ∥ C ν k , α ( C ) := s ≥ 0 sup e ν s ∥ w ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) , Q s = [ s , s + 1 ] × S n − 1 ,
where the strip norms use the product metric. Interior and boundary estimates use the enlarged strips Q s ∗ = [ max { 0 , s − 1 } , s + 2 ] × S n − 1 Q_s^*=[\max\{0,s-1\},s+2]\times S^{n-1} Q s ∗ = [ max { 0 , s − 1 } , s + 2 ] × S n − 1 .
Let Π ℓ \Pi_\ell Π ℓ be the round L 2 L^2 L 2 projection onto spherical harmonics of degree ℓ \ell ℓ , and let Π ≥ 2 = I − Π 0 − Π 1 \Pi_{\ge2}=I-\Pi_0-\Pi_1 Π ≥ 2 = I − Π 0 − Π 1 . Set P : = ∂ t 2 + Δ σ + n − 2 P:=\partial_t^2+\Delta_\sigma+n-2 P := ∂ t 2 + Δ σ + n − 2 .
Lemma A.2. For 1 < ν < n + 2 1<\nu<\sqrt{n+2} 1 < ν < n + 2 , P P P is an isomorphism from { w ∈ C ν 2 , α ( C ) : Π ≥ 2 w ( 0 ) = 0 } \{w\in C_\nu^{2,\alpha}(\mathcal{C}):\Pi_{\ge2}w(0)=0\} { w ∈ C ν 2 , α ( C ) : Π ≥ 2 w ( 0 ) = 0 } to C ν 0 , α ( C ) C_\nu^{0,\alpha}(\mathcal{C}) C ν 0 , α ( C ) . Its inverse G ν G_\nu G ν satisfies, with C = C ( n , α , ν ) > 0 C=C(n,\alpha,\nu)>0 C = C ( n , α , ν ) > 0 ,
P G ν f = f , Π ≥ 2 ( G ν f ) ( 0 ) = 0 , ∥ G ν f ∥ C ν 2 , α ≤ C ∥ f ∥ C ν 0 , α . (92) PG_\nu f=f,\qquad\Pi_{\ge2}(G_\nu f)(0)=0,\qquad\|G_\nu f\|_{C_\nu^{2,\alpha}}\le C\|f\|_{C_\nu^{0,\alpha}}. \tag*{(92)} P G ν f = f , Π ≥ 2 ( G ν f ) ( 0 ) = 0 , ∥ G ν f ∥ C ν 2 , α ≤ C ∥ f ∥ C ν 0 , α . (92)
Proof. Step 1. Degrees zero and one. On degree ℓ \ell ℓ , P P P acts as ∂ t 2 + n − 2 − ℓ ( ℓ + n − 2 ) \partial_t^2+n-2-\ell(\ell+n-2) ∂ t 2 + n − 2 − ℓ ( ℓ + n − 2 ) . In degrees zero and one, respectively, its homogeneous solutions are trigonometric functions of frequency n − 2 \sqrt{n-2} n − 2 and the functions e ± t e^{\pm t} e ± t . The unique solutions with the required decay are
w 0 ( t ) = 1 n − 2 ∫ t ∞ sin ( n − 2 ( s − t ) ) Π 0 f ( s ) d s , w_0(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n-2}}\int_t^\infty\sin\left(\sqrt{n-2}(s-t)\right)\Pi_0f(s)\,ds, w 0 ( t ) = n − 2 1 ∫ t ∞ sin ( n − 2 ( s − t ) ) Π 0 f ( s ) d s ,
w 1 ( t ) = ∫ t ∞ sinh ( s − t ) Π 1 f ( s ) d s . w_1(t)=\int_t^\infty\sinh(s-t)\Pi_1f(s)\,ds. w 1 ( t ) = ∫ t ∞ sinh ( s − t ) Π 1 f ( s ) d s .
Differentiating under the integral twice proves their equations. The integrals converge because ν > 1 \nu>1 ν > 1 ; in degree one the estimates use
∫ 0 ∞ e − ν s sinh s d s = 1 ν 2 − 1 \int_0^\infty e^{-\nu s}\sinh s\,ds=\frac{1}{\nu^2-1} ∫ 0 ∞ e − ν s sinh s d s = ν 2 − 1 1
and
∫ 0 ∞ e − ν s cosh s d s = ν ν 2 − 1 . \int_0^\infty e^{-\nu s}\cosh s\,ds=\frac{\nu}{\nu^2-1}. ∫ 0 ∞ e − ν s cosh s d s = ν 2 − 1 ν .
The two integral bounds control w 0 , w 1 w_0,w_1 w 0 , w 1 and their first derivatives. The equations control their second derivatives and Hölder seminorms. Thus ∥ w 0 ∥ C ν 2 , α + ∥ w 1 ∥ C ν 2 , α ≤ C ∥ f ∥ C ν 0 , α \|w_0\|_{C_\nu^{2,\alpha}}+\|w_1\|_{C_\nu^{2,\alpha}}\le C\|f\|_{C_\nu^{0,\alpha}} ∥ w 0 ∥ C ν 2 , α + ∥ w 1 ∥ C ν 2 , α ≤ C ∥ f ∥ C ν 0 , α .
Step 2. Higher harmonics on finite cylinders. For the high harmonics, first solve P w L = Π ≥ 2 f Pw_L=\Pi_{\ge2}f P w L = Π ≥ 2 f on [ 0 , L ] × S n − 1 [0,L]\times S^{n-1} [ 0 , L ] × S n − 1 with zero boundary values at both ends. On the subspace of harmonics of degrees at least two in H 0 1 ( ( 0 , L ) × S n − 1 ) H^1_0((0,L) \times S^{n-1}) H 0 1 (( 0 , L ) × S n − 1 ) , with the usual zero traces at both ends, the bilinear form of − P -P − P is
B L ( w , w ) = ∫ 0 L ∫ S n − 1 ( ∣ w t ∣ 2 + ∣ ∇ σ w ∣ σ 2 − ( n − 2 ) w 2 ) d θ d t . B_L(w,w)=\int_0^L\int_{S^{n-1}}\left(|w_t|^2+|\nabla_\sigma w|_\sigma^2-(n-2)w^2\right)\,d\theta\,dt. B L ( w , w ) = ∫ 0 L ∫ S n − 1 ( ∣ w t ∣ 2 + ∣ ∇ σ w ∣ σ 2 − ( n − 2 ) w 2 ) d θ d t .
On this harmonic subspace, ∥ ∇ σ w ∥ 2 2 ≥ 2 n ∥ w ∥ 2 \|\nabla_\sigma w\|_2^2 \ge2n\|w\|^2 ∥ ∇ σ w ∥ 2 2 ≥ 2 n ∥ w ∥ 2 , and hence
B L ( w , w ) ≥ ∥ w t ∥ 2 2 + n + 2 2 n ∥ ∇ σ w ∥ 2 2 . B_L(w,w)\ge\|w_t\|_2^2+\frac{n+2}{2n}\|\nabla_\sigma w\|_2^2. B L ( w , w ) ≥ ∥ w t ∥ 2 2 + 2 n n + 2 ∥ ∇ σ w ∥ 2 2 .
These norms are taken on [ 0 , L ] × S n − 1 [0,L]\times S^{n-1} [ 0 , L ] × S n − 1 with product volume; the same Poincaré inequality also controls the L 2 L^2 L 2 norm. The Lax–Milgram theorem gives a unique weak solution in this subspace. Since the harmonic projections commute with P P P , the equation holds against arbitrary test functions. Interior and Dirichlet regularity in Gilbarg–Trudinger [8 Chapters 6, 8, and 9] imply w L ∈ C 2 , α w_L\in C^{2,\alpha} w L ∈ C 2 , α .
Step 3. Uniform weighted estimates. To obtain bounds independent of L L L , set N ε ( t ) = ( ∥ w L ( t ) ∥ 2 2 + ε 2 ) 1 / 2 N_\varepsilon(t)=(\|w_L(t)\|_2^2+\varepsilon^2)^{1/2} N ε ( t ) = ( ∥ w L ( t ) ∥ 2 2 + ε 2 ) 1/2 . Differentiating and using the equation and Cauchy–Schwarz, we obtain
N ε ′ ′ = ∥ ( w L ) t ∥ 2 2 + ⟨ w L , ( w L ) t t ⟩ N ε − ⟨ w L , ( w L ) t ⟩ 2 N ε 3 ≥ ( n + 2 ) N ε − ( n + 2 ) ε − ∥ Π ≥ 2 f ( t ) ∥ 2 . N_\varepsilon''=\frac{\|(w_L)_t\|_2^2+\langle w_L,(w_L)_{tt}\rangle}{N_\varepsilon}-\frac{\langle w_L,(w_L)_t\rangle^2}{N_\varepsilon^3}
\ge(n+2)N_\varepsilon-(n+2)\varepsilon-\|\Pi_{\ge2}f(t)\|_2. N ε ′′ = N ε ∥ ( w L ) t ∥ 2 2 + ⟨ w L , ( w L ) tt ⟩ − N ε 3 ⟨ w L , ( w L ) t ⟩ 2 ≥ ( n + 2 ) N ε − ( n + 2 ) ε − ∥ Π ≥ 2 f ( t ) ∥ 2 .
If M f = sup t ≥ 0 e ν t ∥ Π ≥ 2 f ( t ) ∥ 2 M_f=\sup_{t\ge0}e^{\nu t}\|\Pi_{\ge2}f(t)\|_2 M f = sup t ≥ 0 e ν t ∥ Π ≥ 2 f ( t ) ∥ 2 , comparison with
M f n + 2 − ν 2 e − ν t + ε \frac{M_f}{n+2-\nu^2}e^{-\nu t}+\varepsilon n + 2 − ν 2 M f e − ν t + ε
for − ∂ t 2 + n + 2 -\partial_t^2+n+2 − ∂ t 2 + n + 2 , followed by ε ↓ 0 \varepsilon\downarrow0 ε ↓ 0 , yields
∥ w L ( t ) ∥ 2 ≤ M f n + 2 − ν 2 e − ν t . \|w_L(t)\|_2\le\frac{M_f}{n+2-\nu^2}e^{-\nu t}. ∥ w L ( t ) ∥ 2 ≤ n + 2 − ν 2 M f e − ν t .
The comparison holds at t = 0 , L t=0,L t = 0 , L because w L w_L w L vanishes there. Applying local elliptic estimates on nested strips, we obtain
∥ w L ∥ C 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C ( ∥ w L ∥ L 2 ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ Π ≥ 2 f ∥ C 0 , α ( Q s ∗ ) ) ≤ C e − ν s ∥ f ∥ C 0 , α \|w_L\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(Q_s)}\le C\left(\|w_L\|_{L^2(Q_s^*)}+\|\Pi_{\ge2}f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(Q_s^*)}\right)\le Ce^{-\nu s}\|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}} ∥ w L ∥ C 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C ( ∥ w L ∥ L 2 ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ Π ≥ 2 f ∥ C 0 , α ( Q s ∗ ) ) ≤ C e − ν s ∥ f ∥ C 0 , α
when L > s + 3 L>s+3 L > s + 3 . For the first inequality, use interior or Dirichlet W 2 , m W^{2,m} W 2 , m estimates, with zero boundary data in the latter case. Starting from m = 2 m=2 m = 2 , apply these estimates and Sobolev embeddings on nested strips. If m = n / 2 m=n/2 m = n /2 , use W 2 , n / 2 ↪ L n W^{2,n/2}\hookrightarrow L^n W 2 , n /2 ↪ L n on a smaller strip and then apply the W 2 , n W^{2,n} W 2 , n estimate. Thus the iteration reaches an exponent m > n / 2 m>n/2 m > n /2 and gives a supremum bound. Schauder estimates then prove the C 2 , α ( Q s ) C^{2,\alpha}(Q_s) C 2 , α ( Q s ) estimate. The coefficients and strip widths are fixed; hence the constants are independent of s , L s,L s , L .
Step 4. The limit and uniqueness. By the uniform estimates, a sequence with L → ∞ L\to\infty L → ∞ converges on each finite cylinder to a solution in the harmonics of degree at least two. This solution satisfies (A.11). The C 2 , α C^{2,\alpha} C 2 , α bounds pass to the limit, including the Hölder seminorms. Add w 0 + w 1 w_0+w_1 w 0 + w 1 to obtain G ν f G_\nu f G ν f . For a homogeneous solution in C ν 2 , α C^{2,\alpha}_\nu C ν 2 , α , the condition ν > 1 \nu>1 ν > 1 gives w 0 = w 1 = 0 w_0=w_1=0 w 0 = w 1 = 0 . For ℓ ≥ 2 \ell\ge2 ℓ ≥ 2 , decay and the boundary condition imply
w ℓ ( t ) = e − ℓ ( ℓ + n − 2 ) − ( n − 2 ) t w ℓ ( 0 ) = 0. w_\ell(t)=e^{-\sqrt{\ell(\ell+n-2)-(n-2)}t}w_\ell(0)=0. w ℓ ( t ) = e − ℓ ( ℓ + n − 2 ) − ( n − 2 ) t w ℓ ( 0 ) = 0.
This proves uniqueness.
Proof of Theorem A.1. Step 1. Reduction to the half cylinder. Work in a fixed relatively compact normal neighborhood of x 0 x_0 x 0 . In polar coordinates x = exp x 0 ( r θ ) x=\exp_{x_0}(r\theta) x = exp x 0 ( r θ ) ,
g = d r 2 + r 2 h ( r , θ ) , h ( 0 , θ ) = σ . g=dr^2+r^2h(r,\theta),\qquad h(0,\theta)=\sigma. g = d r 2 + r 2 h ( r , θ ) , h ( 0 , θ ) = σ .
In normal Cartesian coordinates, Taylor’s formula reads
g i j ( r θ ) = δ i j + r 2 ∑ k , l = 1 n θ k θ l ∫ 0 1 ( 1 − τ ) ∂ k ∂ l g i j ( τ r θ ) d τ . g_{ij}(r\theta)=\delta_{ij}+r^2\sum_{k,l=1}^{n}\theta_k\theta_l\int_0^1(1-\tau)\partial_k\partial_l g_{ij}(\tau r\theta)\,d\tau. g ij ( r θ ) = δ ij + r 2 k , l = 1 ∑ n θ k θ l ∫ 0 1 ( 1 − τ ) ∂ k ∂ l g ij ( τ r θ ) d τ .
By Gauss’ lemma its tangential restriction is h h h . In particular, r − 2 ( h − σ ) r^{-2}(h-\sigma) r − 2 ( h − σ ) extends smoothly to r = 0 r=0 r = 0 and
∥ ( r ∂ r ) j ( h ( r ) − σ ) ∥ C k ( S n − 1 ) ≤ C j , k r 2 . (93) \left\| (r\partial_r)^j(h(r)-\sigma)\right\|_{C^k(S^{n-1})}\leq C_{j,k}r^2. \tag*{(93)} ( r ∂ r ) j ( h ( r ) − σ ) C k ( S n − 1 ) ≤ C j , k r 2 . (93)
Write
∂ r log det h ( r , θ ) / det σ ( θ ) = O ( r ) . \partial_r\log\sqrt{\det h(r,\theta)/\det\sigma(\theta)}=O(r). ∂ r log det h ( r , θ ) / det σ ( θ ) = O ( r ) .
This estimate also holds after every fixed number of cylindrical derivatives. Thus
Δ g = ∂ r 2 + ( n − 1 r + ∂ r log det h / det σ ) ∂ r + r − 2 Δ h ( r ) . \Delta_g=\partial_r^2+\left(\frac{n-1}{r}+\partial_r\log\sqrt{\det h/\det\sigma}\right)\partial_r+r^{-2}\Delta_{h(r)}. Δ g = ∂ r 2 + ( r n − 1 + ∂ r log det h / det σ ) ∂ r + r − 2 Δ h ( r ) .
For this local construction, put V ( t , θ ) = r ( n − 2 ) / 2 u ( exp x 0 ( r θ ) ) V(t,\theta)=r^{(n-2)/2}u(\exp_{x_0}(r\theta)) V ( t , θ ) = r ( n − 2 ) /2 u ( exp x 0 ( r θ )) , where r = ρ e − t r=\rho e^{-t} r = ρ e − t . Direct differentiation yields
u r = r − n / 2 ( − n − 2 2 V − V t ) , u r r = r − ( n + 2 ) / 2 ( n ( n − 2 ) 4 V + ( n − 1 ) V t + V t t ) . u_r=r^{-n/2}\left(-\frac{n-2}{2}V-V_t\right),\qquad u_{rr}=r^{-(n+2)/2}\left(\frac{n(n-2)}{4}V+(n-1)V_t+V_{tt}\right). u r = r − n /2 ( − 2 n − 2 V − V t ) , u r r = r − ( n + 2 ) /2 ( 4 n ( n − 2 ) V + ( n − 1 ) V t + V tt ) .
Thus the Yamabe equation is
V t t + Δ σ V − ( n − 2 ) 2 4 V + n ( n − 2 ) V p + E ρ V = 0 , (94) V_{tt}+\Delta_\sigma V-\frac{(n-2)^2}{4}V+n(n-2)V^p+\mathcal{E}_\rho V=0, \tag*{(94)} V tt + Δ σ V − 4 ( n − 2 ) 2 V + n ( n − 2 ) V p + E ρ V = 0 , (94)
where
E ρ V = ( Δ h ( r ) − Δ σ ) V − r ∂ r log det h / det σ ( V t + n − 2 2 V ) − c ( n ) r 2 Scal g V . (95) \mathcal{E}_\rho V=(\Delta_{h(r)}-\Delta_\sigma)V-r\partial_r\log\sqrt{\det h/\det\sigma}\left(V_t+\frac{n-2}{2}V\right)-c(n)r^2\operatorname{Scal}_g V. \tag*{(95)} E ρ V = ( Δ h ( r ) − Δ σ ) V − r ∂ r log det h / det σ ( V t + 2 n − 2 V ) − c ( n ) r 2 Scal g V . (95)
By (A.12) and the smoothness of Scal g \operatorname{Scal}_g Scal g , every coefficient of E ρ \mathcal{E}_\rho E ρ has C k , α ( Q s ) C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s) C k , α ( Q s ) norm at most C k ρ 2 e − 2 s C_k\rho^2e^{-2s} C k ρ 2 e − 2 s . The logarithmic volume derivative in (A.14) has the same bound after multiplication by r r r . One further derivative controls each Hölder seminorm.
Step 2. A contraction at the constant profile. The constant A n A_n A n solves the flat equation in (A.13), and its linearization is P P P . For V = A n + w V=A_n+w V = A n + w the equation becomes
P w + E ρ A n + E ρ w + Q ( w ) = 0 , Pw+\mathcal{E}_\rho A_n+\mathcal{E}_\rho w+Q(w)=0, P w + E ρ A n + E ρ w + Q ( w ) = 0 ,
Q ( w ) : = n ( n − 2 ) { ( A n + w ) p − A n p − p A n p − 1 w } . (96) Q(w):=n(n-2)\{(A_n+w)^p-A_n^p-pA_n^{p-1}w\}. \tag*{(96)} Q ( w ) := n ( n − 2 ) {( A n + w ) p − A n p − p A n p − 1 w } . (96)
By the coefficient estimates,
∥ E ρ A n ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ρ 2 and ∥ E ρ w ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ρ 2 ∥ w ∥ C 2 2 , α . (97) \|\mathcal{E}_\rho A_n\|_{C_2^{0,\alpha}}\leq C\rho^2
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\|\mathcal{E}_\rho w\|_{C_2^{0,\alpha}}\leq C\rho^2\|w\|_{C_2^{2,\alpha}}. \tag*{(97)} ∥ E ρ A n ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ρ 2 and ∥ E ρ w ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ρ 2 ∥ w ∥ C 2 2 , α . (97)
For ∣ w ∣ ≤ A n / 2 |w|\leq A_n/2 ∣ w ∣ ≤ A n /2 , Taylor’s formula is
Q ( w ) = 4 n ( n + 2 ) n − 2 w 2 ∫ 0 1 ( 1 − τ ) ( A n + τ w ) p − 2 d τ . Q(w)=\frac{4n(n+2)}{n-2}w^2\int_0^1(1-\tau)(A_n+\tau w)^{p-2}\,d\tau. Q ( w ) = n − 2 4 n ( n + 2 ) w 2 ∫ 0 1 ( 1 − τ ) ( A n + τ w ) p − 2 d τ .
The integrand and all its w w w derivatives are bounded on this interval. Applying Hölder product estimates, we obtain
∥ Q ( w ) ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ∥ w ∥ C 2 2 , α 2 , \|Q(w)\|_{C_2^{0,\alpha}}\leq C\|w\|_{C_2^{2,\alpha}}^2, ∥ Q ( w ) ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ∥ w ∥ C 2 2 , α 2 ,
∥ Q ( w 1 ) − Q ( w 2 ) ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ( ∥ w 1 ∥ C 2 2 , α + ∥ w 2 ∥ C 2 2 , α ) ∥ w 1 − w 2 ∥ C 2 2 , α . \|Q(w_1)-Q(w_2)\|_{C_2^{0,\alpha}}\leq C(\|w_1\|_{C_2^{2,\alpha}}+\|w_2\|_{C_2^{2,\alpha}})\|w_1-w_2\|_{C_2^{2,\alpha}}. ∥ Q ( w 1 ) − Q ( w 2 ) ∥ C 2 0 , α ≤ C ( ∥ w 1 ∥ C 2 2 , α + ∥ w 2 ∥ C 2 2 , α ) ∥ w 1 − w 2 ∥ C 2 2 , α .
These estimates hold in all dimensions n ≥ 3 n \ge3 n ≥ 3 , since the arguments of the power stay uniformly positive.
Since 1 < 2 < n + 2 1 < 2 < \sqrt{n+2} 1 < 2 < n + 2 , Lemma A.2 applies with ν = 2 \nu= 2 ν = 2 . Combining its inverse with (A.16), the map
T ρ ( w ) = − G 2 ( E ρ A n + E ρ w + Q ( w ) ) \mathcal{T}_{\rho}(w)=-G_{2}(\mathcal{E}_{\rho}A_{n}+\mathcal{E}_{\rho}w+Q(w)) T ρ ( w ) = − G 2 ( E ρ A n + E ρ w + Q ( w ))
satisfies, with constants independent of ρ \rho ρ ,
∥ T ρ ( w ) ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ≤ C 0 ρ 2 + C 1 ρ 2 ∥ w ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α + C 2 ∥ w ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α 2 , \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}(w)\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}} \leq C_{0}\rho^{2}+C_{1}\rho^{2}\left\|w\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}}+C_{2}\left\|w\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}}^{2}, ∥ T ρ ( w ) ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ≤ C 0 ρ 2 + C 1 ρ 2 ∥ w ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α + C 2 ∥ w ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α 2 ,
∥ T ρ ( w 1 ) − T ρ ( w 2 ) ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ≤ ( C 1 ρ 2 + C 2 ∥ w 1 ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α + C 2 ∥ w 2 ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ) ∥ w 1 − w 2 ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α . \left\|\mathcal{T}_{\rho}(w_{1})-\mathcal{T}_{\rho}(w_{2})\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}} \leq\left(C_{1}\rho^{2}+C_{2}\left\|w_{1}\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}}+C_{2}\left\|w_{2}\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}}\right)\left\|w_{1}-w_{2}\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}}. ∥ T ρ ( w 1 ) − T ρ ( w 2 ) ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ≤ ( C 1 ρ 2 + C 2 ∥ w 1 ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α + C 2 ∥ w 2 ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ) ∥ w 1 − w 2 ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α .
Choose C ∗ ≥ max { 1 , 2 C 0 } C_{*} \geq\max\{1,2C_{0}\} C ∗ ≥ max { 1 , 2 C 0 } and then ρ 0 > 0 \rho_{0}>0 ρ 0 > 0 so small that
C ∗ ρ 0 2 ≤ min { 1 , A n / 2 } , ( C 1 + 2 C 2 C ∗ ) ρ 0 2 ≤ 1 2 . C_{*}\rho_{0}^{2}\leq\min\{1,A_{n}/2\}, \qquad(C_{1}+2C_{2}C_{*})\rho_{0}^{2}\leq\frac{1}{2}. C ∗ ρ 0 2 ≤ min { 1 , A n /2 } , ( C 1 + 2 C 2 C ∗ ) ρ 0 2 ≤ 2 1 .
The map is a contraction of the closed ball
{ w : Π ≥ 2 w ( 0 ) = 0 , ∥ w ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ≤ C ∗ ρ 2 } \left\{w:\Pi_{\geq2}w(0)=0,\ \left\|w\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}}\leq C_{*}\rho^{2}\right\} { w : Π ≥ 2 w ( 0 ) = 0 , ∥ w ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ≤ C ∗ ρ 2 }
into itself. It has a unique fixed point w ρ w_{\rho} w ρ in that ball, and A n + w ρ ≥ A n / 2 A_{n}+w_{\rho}\geq A_{n}/2 A n + w ρ ≥ A n /2 . Consequently
u ρ ( exp x 0 ( r θ ) ) = r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( A n + w ρ ( log ( ρ / r ) , θ ) ) u_{\rho}(\exp_{x_{0}}(r\theta))=r^{-(n-2)/2}\left(A_{n}+w_{\rho}(\log(\rho/r),\theta)\right) u ρ ( exp x 0 ( r θ )) = r − ( n − 2 ) /2 ( A n + w ρ ( log ( ρ / r ) , θ ) )
is a positive solution, with
∥ w ρ ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C ∗ ρ 2 e − 2 s . (98) \left\|w_{\rho}\right\|_{C_{2,\alpha}^{2,\alpha}(Q_{s})}\leq C_{*}\rho^{2}e^{-2s}. \tag*{(98)} ∥ w ρ ∥ C 2 , α 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C ∗ ρ 2 e − 2 s . (98)
Fixing α = 1 / 2 \alpha=1/2 α = 1/2 in the contraction shows that ρ 0 \rho_{0} ρ 0 depends only on n n n and the fixed smooth geometry.
Step 3. All derivatives and the geometric estimate. The equation
( P + E ρ ) w ρ = − E ρ A n − Q ( w ρ ) (P+\mathcal{E}_{\rho})w_{\rho}=-\mathcal{E}_{\rho}A_{n}-Q(w_{\rho}) ( P + E ρ ) w ρ = − E ρ A n − Q ( w ρ )
is uniformly elliptic. Since Π ≥ 2 w ρ ( 0 ) = 0 \Pi_{\geq2}w_{\rho}(0)=0 Π ≥ 2 w ρ ( 0 ) = 0 , the boundary trace lies in span { 1 , θ 1 , … , θ n } \operatorname{span}\{1,\theta_{1},\ldots,\theta_{n}\} span { 1 , θ 1 , … , θ n } . The estimate (A.17) therefore bounds every tangential derivative of the trace by C k ρ 2 C_{k}\rho^{2} C k ρ 2 . Interior and Dirichlet estimates first establish smoothness up to t = 0 t=0 t = 0 . If the derivatives through order k k k obey C k ρ 2 e − 2 s C_{k}\rho^{2}e^{-2s} C k ρ 2 e − 2 s , the source terms obey
∥ E ρ A n ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 2 e − 2 s , ∥ Q ( w ρ ) ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 4 e − 4 s . \left\|\mathcal{E}_{\rho}A_{n}\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_{s})}\leq C_{k}\rho^{2}e^{-2s}, \qquad\left\|Q(w_{\rho})\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_{s})}\leq C_{k}\rho^{4}e^{-4s}. ∥ E ρ A n ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 2 e − 2 s , ∥ Q ( w ρ ) ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 4 e − 4 s .
Applying Schauder estimates on enlarged strips, we obtain
∥ w ρ ∥ C k + 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ( ∥ w ρ ∥ C 0 ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ E ρ A n ∥ C k , α ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ Q ( w ρ ) ∥ C k , α ( Q s ∗ ) ) + C k ρ 2 1 { s ≤ 1 } . \left\|w_{\rho}\right\|_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(Q_{s})}\leq C_{k}\left(\left\|w_{\rho}\right\|_{C^{0}(Q_{s}^{*})}+\left\|\mathcal{E}_{\rho}A_{n}\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_{s}^{*})}+\left\|Q(w_{\rho})\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_{s}^{*})}\right)+C_{k}\rho^{2}\mathbf{1}_{\{s\leq1\}}. ∥ w ρ ∥ C k + 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ( ∥ w ρ ∥ C 0 ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ E ρ A n ∥ C k , α ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ Q ( w ρ ) ∥ C k , α ( Q s ∗ ) ) + C k ρ 2 1 { s ≤ 1 } .
For s ≤ 1 s\leq1 s ≤ 1 the last term is bounded by C k e 2 ρ 2 e − 2 s C_{k}e^{2}\rho^{2}e^{-2s} C k e 2 ρ 2 e − 2 s . Starting from (A.17), induction therefore proves
∥ w ρ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 2 e − 2 s , k ≥ 0. (99) \left\|w_{\rho}\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_{s})}\leq C_{k}\rho^{2}e^{-2s}, \qquad k\geq0. \tag*{(99)} ∥ w ρ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 2 e − 2 s , k ≥ 0. (99)
The same ρ 0 \rho_{0} ρ 0 applies to every fixed derivative order. Bounds for any fixed Hölder exponent follow from one further derivative.
The metric r − 2 g = d t 2 + h ( r ) r^{-2}g=dt^{2}+h(r) r − 2 g = d t 2 + h ( r ) is uniformly comparable to the product metric, with uniformly bounded connection difference. Using the conformal connection formula with d log r = − d t \mathrm{d}\log r=-\mathrm{d}t d log r = − d t , we obtain
r ∣ ∇ g w ρ ∣ g + r 2 ∣ ∇ g 2 w ρ ∣ g ≤ C ( ∣ ∇ d t 2 + σ w ρ ∣ + ∣ ∇ d t 2 + σ 2 w ρ ∣ ) ≤ C r 2 . r\lvert\nabla^{g}w_{\rho}\rvert_{g}+r^{2}\lvert\nabla_{g}^{2}w_{\rho}\rvert_{g}\leq C\left(\lvert\nabla_{dt^{2}+\sigma}w_{\rho}\rvert+\lvert\nabla_{dt^{2}+\sigma}^{2}w_{\rho}\rvert\right)\leq Cr^{2}. r ∣ ∇ g w ρ ∣ g + r 2 ∣ ∇ g 2 w ρ ∣ g ≤ C ( ∣ ∇ d t 2 + σ w ρ ∣ + ∣ ∇ d t 2 + σ 2 w ρ ∣ ) ≤ C r 2 .
Together with ∣ w ρ ∣ ≤ C r 2 \lvert w_{\rho}\rvert\leq Cr^{2} ∣ w ρ ∣ ≤ C r 2 , this is (A.10).
Step 4. Completeness. We have u ρ ≥ ( A n / 2 ) r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 u_{\rho}\geq(A_{n}/2)r^{-(n-2)/2} u ρ ≥ ( A n /2 ) r − ( n − 2 ) /2 , and
u ρ 4 / ( n − 2 ) g = ( A n + w ρ ) 4 / ( n − 2 ) ( d t 2 + h ( r ) ) u_{\rho}^{4/(n-2)}g=(A_{n}+w_{\rho})^{4/(n-2)}(dt^{2}+h(r)) u ρ 4/ ( n − 2 ) g = ( A n + w ρ ) 4/ ( n − 2 ) ( d t 2 + h ( r ))
is bounded below by a positive multiple of the product metric. Equivalently, every curve approaching x 0 x_{0} x 0 has length at least c ∫ ∣ d r ∣ / r = ∞ c\int\lvert\mathrm{d}r\rvert/r=\infty c ∫ ∣ d r ∣ / r = ∞ . This proves completeness toward the puncture and nonremovability.
The boundary condition Π ≥ 2 w ρ ( 0 ) = 0 \Pi_{\geq2}w_{\rho}(0)=0 Π ≥ 2 w ρ ( 0 ) = 0 gives
u ρ ( exp x 0 ( ρ θ ) ) = ρ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 ( A n + b 0 ( ρ ) + ∑ j = 1 n b j ( ρ ) θ j ) , (100) u_{\rho}(\exp_{x_{0}}(\rho\theta))=\rho^{-(n-2)/2}\left(A_{n}+b_{0}(\rho)+\sum_{j=1}^{n}b_{j}(\rho)\theta_{j}\right), \tag*{(100)} u ρ ( exp x 0 ( ρθ )) = ρ − ( n − 2 ) /2 ( A n + b 0 ( ρ ) + j = 1 ∑ n b j ( ρ ) θ j ) , (100)
∣ b 0 ( ρ ) ∣ + ∑ j = 1 n ∣ b j ( ρ ) ∣ ≤ C ρ 2 . \lvert b_{0}(\rho)\rvert+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\lvert b_{j}(\rho)\rvert\leq C\rho^{2}. ∣ b 0 ( ρ )∣ + j = 1 ∑ n ∣ b j ( ρ )∣ ≤ C ρ 2 .
The coefficients b 0 ( ρ ) , … , b n ( ρ ) b_{0}(\rho),\ldots,b_{n}(\rho) b 0 ( ρ ) , … , b n ( ρ ) are determined by the inverse G 2 G_{2} G 2 . For fixed ρ \rho ρ , the outer sphere is at finite distance in the conformal metric.
Applying Theorem A.1 to g ∞ g_{\infty} g ∞ at o o o gives a local solution u ρ u_{\rho} u ρ that is complete toward o o o and satisfies
d g ∞ ( x , o ) ( n − 2 ) / 2 u ρ ( x ) ⟶ A n as x → o , lim sup x → o u ∞ ( x ) u ρ ( x ) = ∞ . d_{g_{\infty}}(x,o)^{(n-2)/2}u_{\rho}(x)\longrightarrow A_{n}\quad\text{as }x\to o,\qquad\limsup_{x\to o}\frac{u_{\infty}(x)}{u_{\rho}(x)}=\infty. d g ∞ ( x , o ) ( n − 2 ) /2 u ρ ( x ) ⟶ A n as x → o , x → o lim sup u ρ ( x ) u ∞ ( x ) = ∞.
The local solution has the boundary trace in (A.19).
Second order asymptotics of the local solutions
We compute the curvature term in the local solution and retain the homogeneous correction imposed by its boundary condition. We use the curvature convention in which the unit sphere has positive sectional curvature. Write Ric g ∘ = Ric g − Scal g g / n \operatorname{Ric}_{g}^{\circ}=\operatorname{Ric}_{g}-\operatorname{Scal}_{g}g/n Ric g ∘ = Ric g − Scal g g / n and define
B ( θ ) : = A n ( 1 6 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) − Scal g ( x 0 ) 12 ( n − 1 ) ) , B 2 ( θ ) : = A n 6 Ric g ∘ ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) . B(\theta):=A_{n}\left(\frac{1}{6}\operatorname{Ric}_{g}(x_{0})(\theta,\theta)-\frac{\operatorname{Scal}_{g}(x_{0})}{12(n-1)}\right),\qquad B_{2}(\theta):=\frac{A_{n}}{6}\operatorname{Ric}_{g}^{\circ}(x_{0})(\theta,\theta). B ( θ ) := A n ( 6 1 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) − 12 ( n − 1 ) Scal g ( x 0 ) ) , B 2 ( θ ) := 6 A n Ric g ∘ ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) .
Proposition A.3. For the correction w ρ w_{\rho} w ρ constructed in the proof of Theorem A.1 ,
w ρ ( t , θ ) = ρ 2 e − 2 t B ( θ ) − ρ 2 e − n + 2 t B 2 ( θ ) + R ρ ( t , θ ) . (101) w_{\rho}(t,\theta)=\rho^{2}e^{-2t}B(\theta)-\rho^{2}e^{-\sqrt{n+2}\,t}B_{2}(\theta)+\mathcal{R}_{\rho}(t,\theta). \tag*{(101)} w ρ ( t , θ ) = ρ 2 e − 2 t B ( θ ) − ρ 2 e − n + 2 t B 2 ( θ ) + R ρ ( t , θ ) . (101) For every 2 < ν < min { 3 , n + 2 } 2<\nu<\min\{3,\sqrt{n+2}\} 2 < ν < min { 3 , n + 2 } and every fixed integer k ≥ 0 k\geq0 k ≥ 0 ,
∥ R ρ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k , ν ρ 3 e − ν s , Π ≥ 2 R ρ ( 0 ) = 0. (102) \lVert\mathcal{R}_{\rho}\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_{s})}\leq C_{k,\nu}\rho^{3}e^{-\nu s},\qquad\Pi_{\geq2}\mathcal{R}_{\rho}(0)=0. \tag*{(102)} ∥ R ρ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k , ν ρ 3 e − ν s , Π ≥ 2 R ρ ( 0 ) = 0. (102) The constants are independent of s ≥ 0 s\geq0 s ≥ 0 and 0 < ρ ≤ ρ 0 0<\rho\leq\rho_{0} 0 < ρ ≤ ρ 0 . The coefficients in (A.19) satisfy
b 0 ( ρ ) = A n ( n − 2 ) Scal g ( x 0 ) 12 n ( n − 1 ) ρ 2 + O ( ρ 3 ) , ∑ j = 1 n ∣ b j ( ρ ) ∣ = O ( ρ 3 ) . (103) b_{0}(\rho)=\frac{A_{n}(n-2)\operatorname{Scal}_{g}(x_{0})}{12n(n-1)}\rho^{2}+O(\rho^{3}),\qquad\sum_{j=1}^{n}\lvert b_{j}(\rho)\rvert=O(\rho^{3}). \tag*{(103)} b 0 ( ρ ) = 12 n ( n − 1 ) A n ( n − 2 ) Scal g ( x 0 ) ρ 2 + O ( ρ 3 ) , j = 1 ∑ n ∣ b j ( ρ )∣ = O ( ρ 3 ) . (103)
Proof. Step 1. The curvature coefficient. The polar volume expansion is
det h ( r , θ ) det σ = 1 − 1 6 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) r 2 + O ( r 3 ) . \sqrt{\frac{\det h(r,\theta)}{\det\sigma}}=1-\frac{1}{6}\operatorname{Ric}_{g}(x_{0})(\theta,\theta)r^{2}+O(r^{3}). det σ det h ( r , θ ) = 1 − 6 1 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) r 2 + O ( r 3 ) .
Indeed, for an orthonormal basis e j e_{j} e j of θ ⊥ \theta^{\perp} θ ⊥ , the normal Jacobi fields in a parallel frame satisfy J e j ( r ) = r e j − r 3 Rm ( e j , θ ) θ / 6 + O ( r 4 ) J_{e_{j}}(r)=re_{j}-r^{3}\operatorname{Rm}(e_{j},\theta)\theta/6+O(r^{4}) J e j ( r ) = r e j − r 3 Rm ( e j , θ ) θ /6 + O ( r 4 ) ; taking the square root of the determinant of their normalized Gram matrix proves the volume formula. Smoothness preserves the indicated orders under cylindrical derivatives. It follows that
r ∂ r log det h det σ = − 1 3 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) r 2 + O ( r 3 ) and r 2 Scal g = r 2 Scal g ( x 0 ) + O ( r 3 ) . r\partial_{r}\log\sqrt{\frac{\det h}{\det\sigma}}=-\frac{1}{3}\operatorname{Ric}_{g}(x_{0})(\theta,\theta)r^{2}+O(r^{3})\qquad\text{and}\qquad r^{2}\operatorname{Scal}_{g}=r^{2}\operatorname{Scal}_{g}(x_{0})+O(r^{3}). r ∂ r log det σ det h = − 3 1 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) r 2 + O ( r 3 ) and r 2 Scal g = r 2 Scal g ( x 0 ) + O ( r 3 ) .
Substitution in (A.14) yields
E ρ A n = r 2 F 2 ( θ ) + O ( r 3 ) , F 2 = A n ( n − 2 6 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) − c ( n ) Scal g ( x 0 ) ) . \mathcal{E}_{\rho}A_{n}=r^{2}F_{2}(\theta)+O(r^{3}),\qquad F_{2}=A_{n}\left(\frac{n-2}{6}\operatorname{Ric}_{g}(x_{0})(\theta,\theta)-c(n)\operatorname{Scal}_{g}(x_{0})\right). E ρ A n = r 2 F 2 ( θ ) + O ( r 3 ) , F 2 = A n ( 6 n − 2 Ric g ( x 0 ) ( θ , θ ) − c ( n ) Scal g ( x 0 ) ) .
Write B = B 0 + B 2 B = B_0 + B_2 B = B 0 + B 2 , where B 0 = A n ( n − 2 ) Scal g ( x 0 ) / ( 12 n ( n − 1 ) ) B_0 = A_n(n-2)\operatorname{Scal}_g(x_0)/(12n(n-1)) B 0 = A n ( n − 2 ) Scal g ( x 0 ) / ( 12 n ( n − 1 )) . The trace free Ricci term has spherical degree two, and B 2 = Π 2 B B_2 = \Pi_2 B B 2 = Π 2 B . Directly,
Π 0 F 2 = − ( n + 2 ) B 0 and Π 2 F 2 = ( n − 2 ) B 2 . \Pi_0 F_2 = -(n+2)B_0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad\Pi_2 F_2 = (n-2)B_2. Π 0 F 2 = − ( n + 2 ) B 0 and Π 2 F 2 = ( n − 2 ) B 2 .
Thus
( Δ σ + n + 2 ) B = − F 2 , P ( r 2 B ) = − r 2 F 2 . (\Delta_\sigma+n+2)B=-F_2,\qquad P(r^2B)=-r^2F_2. ( Δ σ + n + 2 ) B = − F 2 , P ( r 2 B ) = − r 2 F 2 .
Step 2. The remainder estimate. Set ψ = w ρ − r 2 B \psi=w_\rho-r^2B ψ = w ρ − r 2 B . By (A.15),
P ψ = f ∗ : = − ( E ρ A n − r 2 F 2 ) − E ρ w ρ − Q ( w ρ ) . P\psi=f_*:=-(\mathcal{E}_\rho A_n-r^2F_2)-\mathcal{E}_\rho w_\rho-\mathcal{Q}(w_\rho). P ψ = f ∗ := − ( E ρ A n − r 2 F 2 ) − E ρ w ρ − Q ( w ρ ) .
By the smooth polar expansion, the first source term is bounded by C k ρ 3 e − 3 s C_k\rho^3e^{-3s} C k ρ 3 e − 3 s in C k , α ( Q s ) C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s) C k , α ( Q s ) . By (A.18) and the coefficient bounds for E ρ \mathcal{E}_\rho E ρ ,
∥ E ρ w ρ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) + ∥ Q ( w ρ ) ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 4 e − 4 s . \lVert\mathcal{E}_\rho w_\rho\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s)}+\lVert\mathcal{Q}(w_\rho)\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s)}\leq C_k\rho^4e^{-4s}. ∥ E ρ w ρ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) + ∥ Q ( w ρ ) ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 4 e − 4 s .
Taking ρ 0 ≤ 1 \rho_0\leq1 ρ 0 ≤ 1 therefore yields
∥ f ∗ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 3 e − 3 s , k ≥ 0 , s ≥ 0. \lVert f_*\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s)}\leq C_k\rho^3e^{-3s},\qquad k\geq0,\quad s\geq0. ∥ f ∗ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ρ 3 e − 3 s , k ≥ 0 , s ≥ 0.
The homogeneous correction h ρ = − ρ 2 e − n + 2 t B 2 h_\rho=-\rho^2e^{-\sqrt{n+2}t}B_2 h ρ = − ρ 2 e − n + 2 t B 2 satisfies
P h ρ = 0 , Π ≥ 2 h ρ ( 0 ) = − ρ 2 B 2 = Π ≥ 2 ψ ( 0 ) . Ph_\rho=0,\qquad\Pi_{\geq2}h_\rho(0)=-\rho^2B_2=\Pi_{\geq2}\psi(0). P h ρ = 0 , Π ≥ 2 h ρ ( 0 ) = − ρ 2 B 2 = Π ≥ 2 ψ ( 0 ) .
For the stated ν \nu ν , Lemma A.2 implies ∥ G ν f ∗ ∥ C ν 2 ≤ C ν ρ 3 \lVert G_\nu f_*\rVert_{C^2_\nu}\leq C_\nu\rho^3 ∥ G ν f ∗ ∥ C ν 2 ≤ C ν ρ 3 . The function ψ − h ρ − G ν f ∗ \psi-h_\rho-G_\nu f_* ψ − h ρ − G ν f ∗ lies in the domain with weight 2 2 2 and has zero image under P P P . Uniqueness at weight two therefore implies
ψ = h ρ + G ν f ∗ , R ρ = G ν f ∗ . \psi=h_\rho+G_\nu f_*,\qquad R_\rho=G_\nu f_*. ψ = h ρ + G ν f ∗ , R ρ = G ν f ∗ .
The inverse bound proves (A.21) through order two. The boundary trace of R ρ R_\rho R ρ has only degrees zero and one; therefore all derivatives of that trace are bounded by C k , ν ρ 3 C_{k,\nu}\rho^3 C k , ν ρ 3 . Applying the strip Schauder estimate to P R ρ = f ∗ PR_\rho=f_* P R ρ = f ∗ , we obtain
∥ R ρ ∥ C k + 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ( ∥ R ρ ∥ C 0 ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ f ∗ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ∗ ) ) + C k , ν ρ 3 1 { s ≤ 1 } ≤ C k , ν ρ 3 e − ν s . \lVert R_\rho\rVert_{C^{k+2,\alpha}(Q_s)}
\leq C_k\left(\lVert R_\rho\rVert_{C^0(Q_s^*)}+\lVert f_*\rVert_{C^{k,\alpha}(Q_s^*)}\right)+C_{k,\nu}\rho^3\mathbf{1}_{\{s\leq1\}}
\leq C_{k,\nu}\rho^3e^{-\nu s}. ∥ R ρ ∥ C k + 2 , α ( Q s ) ≤ C k ( ∥ R ρ ∥ C 0 ( Q s ∗ ) + ∥ f ∗ ∥ C k , α ( Q s ∗ ) ) + C k , ν ρ 3 1 { s ≤ 1 } ≤ C k , ν ρ 3 e − ν s .
Here ν < 3 \nu<3 ν < 3 controls the source decay and the boundary term is confined to the first two strips. This proves the estimate in every order, with the same ρ 0 \rho_0 ρ 0 .
Step 3. The asymptotic expansion and boundary values. Returning to r = ρ e − t r=\rho e^{-t} r = ρ e − t yields
w ρ = r 2 B − ρ 2 − n + 2 r n + 2 B 2 + O ( ρ 3 − ν r ν ) . w_\rho=r^2B-\rho^{2-\sqrt{n+2}}r^{\sqrt{n+2}}B_2+O(\rho^{3-\nu}r^\nu). w ρ = r 2 B − ρ 2 − n + 2 r n + 2 B 2 + O ( ρ 3 − ν r ν ) .
Since ν < n + 2 \nu<\sqrt{n+2} ν < n + 2 , the homogeneous correction is O ρ ( r ν ) O_\rho(r^\nu) O ρ ( r ν ) for fixed ρ \rho ρ . Thus
r ( n − 2 ) / 2 u ρ ( exp x 0 ( r θ ) ) = A n + r 2 B ( θ ) + O ρ ( r ν ) as r ↓ 0 , r^{(n-2)/2}u_\rho(\exp_{x_0}(r\theta))=A_n+r^2B(\theta)+O_\rho(r^\nu)\quad\text{as }r\downarrow0, r ( n − 2 ) /2 u ρ ( exp x 0 ( r θ )) = A n + r 2 B ( θ ) + O ρ ( r ν ) as r ↓ 0 ,
with the same order after every fixed number of cylindrical derivatives. At t = 0 t=0 t = 0 , the homogeneous term cancels the degree two component of ρ 2 B \rho^2B ρ 2 B ; the remaining trace is ρ 2 B 0 + R ρ ( 0 ) \rho^2B_0+R_\rho(0) ρ 2 B 0 + R ρ ( 0 ) . This proves (A.22).
At t = 0 t=0 t = 0 , the homogeneous correction in (A.20) has order ρ 2 \rho^2 ρ 2 , while R ρ ( 0 ) = O ( ρ 3 ) R_\rho(0)=O(\rho^3) R ρ ( 0 ) = O ( ρ 3 ) . For constant sectional curvature K K K , B 2 = 0 B_2=0 B 2 = 0 and B / A n = ( n − 2 ) K / 12 B/A_n=(n-2)K/12 B / A n = ( n − 2 ) K /12 . In that case, substituting s K ( r ) = r − K r 3 / 6 + O ( r 5 ) s_K(r)=r-Kr^3/6+O(r^5) s K ( r ) = r − K r 3 /6 + O ( r 5 ) in the explicit solution u = A n s K ( r ) − ( n − 2 ) / 2 u=A_ns_K(r)^{-(n-2)/2} u = A n s K ( r ) − ( n − 2 ) /2 for g = d r 2 + s K ( r ) 2 σ g=dr^2+s_K(r)^2\sigma g = d r 2 + s K ( r ) 2 σ , we obtain
r ( n − 2 ) / 2 u = A n ( 1 + n − 2 12 K r 2 + O ( r 4 ) ) . r^{(n-2)/2}u=A_n\left(1+\frac{n-2}{12}Kr^2+O(r^4)\right). r ( n − 2 ) /2 u = A n ( 1 + 12 n − 2 K r 2 + O ( r 4 ) ) .
Its conformal metric is the product cylinder after d t = d r / s K ( r ) dt=dr/s_K(r) d t = d r / s K ( r ) , in agreement with (A.20).
Regularity and weighted convergence
All spaces in this subsection are the Euclidean weighted spaces (2.7)–(2.9). Let γ \gamma γ be smooth on B ‾ 1 \overline{B}_1 B 1 , Euclidean near 0 0 0 and on the fixed boundary collar, with d V γ = d x \mathrm{d}V_\gamma= \mathrm{d}x d V γ = d x . Assume that Q γ Q_\gamma Q γ is coercive on H e v 1 ( B 1 ) H^1_{\mathrm{ev}}(B_1) H ev 1 ( B 1 ) . Weak solutions are understood using the form Q γ Q_\gamma Q γ in (2.10), with smooth test functions that vanish near 0 0 0 and have antipodally even boundary traces. For the first assertion below, let A A A be smooth on B ‾ 1 ∖ { 0 } \overline{B}_1 \setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } , satisfy (2.4), and obey c Θ ≤ A ≤ C Θ c\Theta\le A \le C\Theta c Θ ≤ A ≤ C Θ and ∣ D A ∣ ≤ C Θ / r |DA| \le C\Theta/r ∣ D A ∣ ≤ C Θ/ r .
Lemma A.4. Under the preceding assumptions, the following statements hold.
(i) Every weak solution Y = A + w Y=A+w Y = A + w , w ∈ H δ 1 w\in H^1_\delta w ∈ H δ 1 , of F γ ( Y ) = 0 F_\gamma(Y)=0 F γ ( Y ) = 0 is smooth and strictly positive on B ‾ 1 ∖ { 0 } \overline{B}_1\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } and satisfies (2.4).
(ii) Let Y > 0 Y>0 Y > 0 be a smooth solution of F γ ( Y ) = 0 F_\gamma(Y)=0 F γ ( Y ) = 0 on a punctured neighborhood of 0 0 0 . If Y − V T ∈ H δ 1 Y-V_T\in H^1_\delta Y − V T ∈ H δ 1 on that neighborhood, then Y − V T ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α Y-V_T\in C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} Y − V T ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α near 0 0 0 for every fixed integer k ≥ 0 k\ge0 k ≥ 0 and 0 < α < 1 0<\alpha<1 0 < α < 1 .
(iii) Smooth convergence away from the puncture. Let γ j \gamma_j γ j be smooth metrics on B ‾ 1 \overline{B}_1 B 1 , with d V γ j = d x \mathrm{d}V_{\gamma_j}=\mathrm{d}x d V γ j = d x , all equal to γ 0 \gamma_0 γ 0 on the fixed boundary collar. Let Y j > 0 Y_j>0 Y j > 0 solve F γ j ( Y j ) = 0 F_{\gamma_j}(Y_j)=0 F γ j ( Y j ) = 0 on B 1 ∖ { 0 } B_1\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } and satisfy (2.4). Suppose that γ j → γ \gamma_j\to\gamma γ j → γ smoothly and Y j → Y Y_j\to Y Y j → Y in L p + 1 L^{p+1} L p + 1 on compact subsets of B ‾ 1 ∖ { 0 } \overline{B}_1\setminus\{0\} B 1 ∖ { 0 } , where Y > 0 Y>0 Y > 0 is smooth. Then Y j → Y Y_j\to Y Y j → Y smoothly on the same compact subsets.
(iv) Under the assumptions of (iii), suppose that γ \gamma γ and every γ j \gamma_j γ j are Euclidean on a fixed punctured ball 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 0<|x|<r_0 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 and that Y − V T ∈ H δ 1 ( 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 ) Y-V_T\in H^1_\delta(0<|x|<r_0) Y − V T ∈ H δ 1 ( 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 ) . If, on this punctured ball,
Y j = Y + V T j − V T + w j , ∣ T j − T ∣ + ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 ) → 0 , (104) Y_j=Y+V_{T_j}-V_T+w_j,\qquad|T_j-T|+\|w_j\|_{H^1_\delta(0<|x|<r_0)}\to0, \tag*{(104)} Y j = Y + V T j − V T + w j , ∣ T j − T ∣ + ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 ) → 0 , (104)
then Y j → Y Y_j\to Y Y j → Y in C Θ ; 0 k ( 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 ) C^k_{\Theta;0}(0<|x|<r_0) C Θ ; 0 k ( 0 < ∣ x ∣ < r 0 ) for every fixed integer $k\ge 0.
Proof. Step 1. Positivity and the boundary identification. On E = { Y < 0 } E=\{Y<0\} E = { Y < 0 } , one has ∣ w ∣ ≥ A ≥ c Θ |w|\ge A\ge c\Theta ∣ w ∣ ≥ A ≥ c Θ . Thus Y − ≤ ∣ w ∣ Y_-\le|w| Y − ≤ ∣ w ∣ and
∣ D Y − ∣ ≤ 1 E ( ∣ D A ∣ + ∣ D w ∣ ) ≤ C r − 1 ∣ w ∣ + ∣ D w ∣ . |DY_-|\le1_E(|DA|+|Dw|)\le Cr^{-1}|w|+|Dw|. ∣ D Y − ∣ ≤ 1 E ( ∣ D A ∣ + ∣ D w ∣ ) ≤ C r − 1 ∣ w ∣ + ∣ D w ∣.
These bounds give Y − ∈ H δ 1 Y_-\in H^1_\delta Y − ∈ H δ 1 with even boundary trace. Testing with radial cutoffs of Y − Y_- Y − at radii ε \varepsilon ε and 2 ε 2\varepsilon 2 ε , the cutoff errors are bounded by
C ∫ B 2 ε ∖ B ε ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + r − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d x → 0. C\int_{B_{2\varepsilon}\setminus B_\varepsilon}\left(|Dw|^2+r^{-2}|w|^2\right)\,\mathrm{d}x\to0. C ∫ B 2 ε ∖ B ε ( ∣ D w ∣ 2 + r − 2 ∣ w ∣ 2 ) d x → 0.
Hence Q γ ( Y − , Y − ) = 0 Q_\gamma(Y_-,Y_-)=0 Q γ ( Y − , Y − ) = 0 , and coercivity gives Y − = 0 Y_-=0 Y − = 0 . Also Y ≢ 0 Y\not\equiv0 Y ≡ 0 : otherwise w = − A w=-A w = − A would violate ∫ r − 2 w 2 < ∞ \int r^{-2}w^2<\infty ∫ r − 2 w 2 < ∞ , since A ≥ c r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 A\ge cr^{-(n-2)/2} A ≥ c r − ( n − 2 ) /2 . In the boundary collar, the weak form (2.10) is precisely the weak matching condition for the Kelvin extension. The Kelvin extension therefore satisfies the equation weakly across the sphere. Applying the following interior estimates in the extended collar charts yields smoothness and strict positivity there.
Step 2. Local smoothness. On a compact coordinate ball, n ( n − 2 ) Y p − 1 ∈ L n / 2 n(n-2)Y^{p-1}\in L^{n/2} n ( n − 2 ) Y p − 1 ∈ L n /2 . For M > 0 M>0 M > 0 , put Y M = min { Y , M } Y_M=\min\{Y,M\} Y M = min { Y , M } and test with η 2 Y Y M 2 m − 2 \eta^2Y Y_M^{2m-2} η 2 Y Y M 2 m − 2 , where m ≥ 1 m\ge1 m ≥ 1 and η \eta η is a smooth cutoff supported in that ball. Applying the local Sobolev inequality and Young’s inequality, we obtain
∥ η Y Y M m − 1 ∥ L p + 1 ( X , γ ) 2 ≤ C m 2 ∫ X [ ∣ ∇ η ∣ γ 2 + ( 1 + n ( n − 2 ) Y p − 1 ) η 2 ] Y 2 Y M 2 m − 2 d V γ . \|\eta Y Y_M^{m-1}\|_{L^{p+1}(X,\gamma)}^2\le Cm^2\int_X\left[|\nabla\eta|_\gamma^2+\left(1+n(n-2)Y^{p-1}\right)\eta^2\right]Y^2Y_M^{2m-2}\,\mathrm{d}V_\gamma. ∥ η Y Y M m − 1 ∥ L p + 1 ( X , γ ) 2 ≤ C m 2 ∫ X [ ∣∇ η ∣ γ 2 + ( 1 + n ( n − 2 ) Y p − 1 ) η 2 ] Y 2 Y M 2 m − 2 d V γ .
Split the potential into a bounded part and an L n / 2 L^{n/2} L n /2 tail with norm less than ( 2 C m 2 ) − 1 (2Cm^2)^{-1} ( 2 C m 2 ) − 1 . Hölder’s inequality absorbs the tail. Letting M → ∞ M\to\infty M → ∞ shows that local L 2 m L^{2m} L 2 m integrability implies local L 2 m n / ( n − 2 ) L^{2mn/(n-2)} L 2 mn / ( n − 2 ) integrability on a smaller ball. Starting with Y ∈ L l o c p + 1 Y\in L^{p+1}_{\mathrm{loc}} Y ∈ L loc p + 1 , iteration proves local integrability to every finite exponent. Interior W 2 , m W^{2,m} W 2 , m estimates imply C 1 , α C^{1,\alpha} C 1 , α regularity. The equation then implies C 2 , α C^{2,\alpha} C 2 , α regularity, and the strong maximum principle establishes Y > 0 Y>0 Y > 0 . The power nonlinearity is now smooth on each compact set, and repeated Schauder estimates prove smoothness.
Step 3. Local bounds from small L p + 1 L^{p+1} L p + 1 integrals. For a family of charts with uniform ellipticity and C 2 C^2 C 2 bounds there are r ∗ , ε 0 , C > 0 r_*,\varepsilon_0,C>0 r ∗ , ε 0 , C > 0 such that positive solutions satisfy
∫ B 2 r ( x ) Y p + 1 d V γ < ε 0 ⟹ sup B r ( x ) Y ≤ C r − ( n − 2 ) / 2 , r ≤ r ∗ . (105) \int_{B_{2r}(x)}Y^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}V_\gamma<\varepsilon_0
\quad\Longrightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_r(x)}Y\le Cr^{-(n-2)/2},\qquad r\le r_*. \tag*{(105)} ∫ B 2 r ( x ) Y p + 1 d V γ < ε 0 ⟹ B r ( x ) sup Y ≤ C r − ( n − 2 ) /2 , r ≤ r ∗ . (105)
After scaling to B 2 B_2 B 2 , suppose a sequence Y j Y_j Y j with metrics γ j \gamma_j γ j violates a uniform bound on B 1 B_1 B 1 . Choose x j x_j x j maximizing ( 3 / 2 − ∣ x ∣ ) ( n − 2 ) / 2 Y j ( x ) (3/2-|x|)^{(n-2)/2}Y_j(x) ( 3/2 − ∣ x ∣ ) ( n − 2 ) /2 Y j ( x ) on B 3 / 2 B_{3/2} B 3/2 , and let σ j = 3 / 2 − ∣ x j ∣ \sigma_j=3/2-|x_j| σ j = 3/2 − ∣ x j ∣ , μ j = Y j ( x j ) − 2 / ( n − 2 ) \mu_j=Y_j(x_j)^{-2/(n-2)} μ j = Y j ( x j ) − 2/ ( n − 2 ) . Then σ j / μ j → ∞ \sigma_j/\mu_j\to\infty σ j / μ j → ∞ and
Y ~ j ( y ) = μ j ( n − 2 ) / 2 Y j ( x j + μ j y ) \widetilde{Y}_j(y)=\mu_j^{(n-2)/2}Y_j(x_j+\mu_j y) Y j ( y ) = μ j ( n − 2 ) /2 Y j ( x j + μ j y )
satisfies
Y ~ j ( 0 ) = 1 , 0 < Y ~ j ≤ 2 ( n − 2 ) / 2 on B σ j / ( 2 μ j ) . \widetilde{Y}_j(0)=1,\qquad0<\widetilde{Y}_j\le2^{(n-2)/2}\quad\text{on }B_{\sigma_j/(2\mu_j)}. Y j ( 0 ) = 1 , 0 < Y j ≤ 2 ( n − 2 ) /2 on B σ j / ( 2 μ j ) .
The rescaled coefficients are uniformly elliptic, the right sides are bounded, and the rescaled scalar curvature coefficient is c ( n ) μ j 2 Scal γ j ( x j + μ j y ) c(n)\mu_j^2\operatorname{Scal}_{\gamma_j}(x_j+\mu_j y) c ( n ) μ j 2 Scal γ j ( x j + μ j y ) . By interior estimates, there is a fixed ρ > 0 \rho>0 ρ > 0 such that Y ~ j ≥ 1 / 2 \widetilde{Y}_j\ge1/2 Y j ≥ 1/2 on B ρ B_\rho B ρ . Critical scaling yields
∫ B 2 Y j p + 1 d V γ j ≥ ∫ B ρ μ j ( x j ) Y j p + 1 d V γ j ≥ c ∫ B ρ Y ~ j p + 1 d y ≥ c ′ > 0. \int_{B_2}Y_j^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}V_{\gamma_j}\ge\int_{B_{\rho\mu_j}(x_j)}Y_j^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}V_{\gamma_j}\ge c\int_{B_\rho}\widetilde{Y}_j^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}y\ge c'>0. ∫ B 2 Y j p + 1 d V γ j ≥ ∫ B ρ μ j ( x j ) Y j p + 1 d V γ j ≥ c ∫ B ρ Y j p + 1 d y ≥ c ′ > 0.
Choosing ε 0 < c ′ \varepsilon_0<c' ε 0 < c ′ proves (A.24).
Step 4. Local convergence. Let Y j → Y > 0 Y_j\to Y>0 Y j → Y > 0 in L l o c p + 1 L^{p+1}_{\mathrm{loc}} L loc p + 1 and fix a compact set K 0 ⊂ B 1 ‾ ∖ { 0 } K_0\subset\overline{B_1}\setminus\{0\} K 0 ⊂ B 1 ∖ { 0 } . Choose finitely many coordinate balls B 2 r ( x ) B_{2r}(x) B 2 r ( x ) whose concentric balls B r ( x ) B_r(x) B r ( x ) cover K 0 K_0 K 0 and satisfy ∫ B 2 r ( x ) Y p + 1 d V γ < ε 0 / 2 \int_{B_{2r}(x)}Y^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}V_\gamma<\varepsilon_0/2 ∫ B 2 r ( x ) Y p + 1 d V γ < ε 0 /2 . For large j j j , we have ∫ B 2 r ( x ) Y j p + 1 d V γ j < ε 0 \int_{B_{2r}(x)}Y_j^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}V_{\gamma_j}<\varepsilon_0 ∫ B 2 r ( x ) Y j p + 1 d V γ j < ε 0 on each chosen ball. By (A.24) and elliptic compactness,
∥ Y j − Y ∥ C 0 ( K 0 ) → 0 and inf K 0 Y j ≥ 1 2 inf K 0 Y > 0. \|Y_j-Y\|_{C^0(K_0)}\to0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\inf_{K_0}Y_j\ge\frac12\inf_{K_0}Y>0. ∥ Y j − Y ∥ C 0 ( K 0 ) → 0 and K 0 inf Y j ≥ 2 1 K 0 inf Y > 0.
Passing to the limit in the weak equations gives − L γ Y = n ( n − 2 ) Y p -L_\gamma Y=n(n-2)Y^p − L γ Y = n ( n − 2 ) Y p . The coefficients converge smoothly. Applying interior estimates to
− L γ j ( Y j − Y ) = n ( n − 2 ) ( Y j p − Y p ) + ( L γ j − L γ ) Y , -L_{\gamma_j}(Y_j-Y)=n(n-2)(Y_j^p-Y^p)+(L_{\gamma_j}-L_\gamma)Y, − L γ j ( Y j − Y ) = n ( n − 2 ) ( Y j p − Y p ) + ( L γ j − L γ ) Y ,
and using the positive lower bound, we obtain ∥ Y j − Y ∥ C k ( K 0 ) → 0 \|Y_j-Y\|_{C^k(K_0)}\to0 ∥ Y j − Y ∥ C k ( K 0 ) → 0 for every fixed k k k .
Step 5. Weighted estimates near the puncture. To prove the local regularity assertion, let Y > 0 Y>0 Y > 0 be a smooth solution of F γ ( Y ) = 0 F_\gamma(Y)=0 F γ ( Y ) = 0 on a punctured neighborhood of 0 0 0 , with w 0 : = Y − V T ∈ H δ 1 w_0:=Y-V_T\in H^1_\delta w 0 := Y − V T ∈ H δ 1 there. Choose r 0 > 0 r_0>0 r 0 > 0 so that γ = γ 0 \gamma=\gamma_0 γ = γ 0 and this membership holds on 0 < r < r 0 0<r<r_0 0 < r < r 0 . For 0 < ρ < r 0 / 4 0<\rho<r_0/4 0 < ρ < r 0 /4 , on A ∗ = B 4 ∖ B 1 / 4 \mathcal{A}^*=B_4\setminus B_{1/4} A ∗ = B 4 ∖ B 1/4 set
Y ρ ( y ) = ρ ( n − 2 ) / 2 Y ( ρ y ) , W ρ ( y ) = ρ ( n − 2 ) / 2 w 0 ( ρ y ) , P ρ ( y ) = ∣ y ∣ − ( n − 2 ) / 2 v ∗ ( − log ρ − log ∣ y ∣ + T ) . Y_\rho(y)=\rho^{(n-2)/2}Y(\rho y),\qquad
W_\rho(y)=\rho^{(n-2)/2}w_0(\rho y),\qquad
P_\rho(y)=|y|^{-(n-2)/2}v_*(-\log\rho-\log|y|+T). Y ρ ( y ) = ρ ( n − 2 ) /2 Y ( ρ y ) , W ρ ( y ) = ρ ( n − 2 ) /2 w 0 ( ρ y ) , P ρ ( y ) = ∣ y ∣ − ( n − 2 ) /2 v ∗ ( − log ρ − log ∣ y ∣ + T ) .
The profiles P ρ P_\rho P ρ have positive lower bounds and uniform bounds for all derivatives on A ∗ \mathcal{A}^* A ∗ . Scaling the weighted norm gives
∥ W ρ ∥ H 1 ( A ∗ ) + ∥ W ρ ∥ L p + 1 ( A ∗ ) ≤ C ρ δ ∥ w 0 ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 < r < r 0 ) . \|W_\rho\|_{H^1(\mathcal{A}^*)}+\|W_\rho\|_{L^{p+1}(\mathcal{A}^*)}
\le C\rho^\delta\|w_0\|_{H^1_\delta(0<r<r_0)}. ∥ W ρ ∥ H 1 ( A ∗ ) + ∥ W ρ ∥ L p + 1 ( A ∗ ) ≤ C ρ δ ∥ w 0 ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 < r < r 0 ) .
Cover a slightly smaller annulus by finitely many balls whose doubled balls lie in A ∗ \mathcal{A}^* A ∗ . Choose their radii so that the integral of P ρ p + 1 P_\rho^{p+1} P ρ p + 1 on each doubled ball is less than ε 0 / 2 p + 2 \varepsilon_0/2^{p+2} ε 0 / 2 p + 2 , uniformly in ρ \rho ρ . The displayed norm estimate gives ∫ A ∗ ∣ W ρ ∣ p + 1 d y < ε 0 / 2 p + 2 \int_{\mathcal{A}^*}|W_\rho|^{p+1}\,\mathrm{d}y<\varepsilon_0/2^{p+2} ∫ A ∗ ∣ W ρ ∣ p + 1 d y < ε 0 / 2 p + 2 for small ρ \rho ρ . Since Y ρ = P ρ + W ρ Y_\rho=P_\rho+W_\rho Y ρ = P ρ + W ρ and Y ρ p + 1 ≤ 2 p ( P ρ p + 1 + ∣ W ρ ∣ p + 1 ) Y_\rho^{p+1} \leq2^p(P_\rho^{p+1} + |W_\rho|^{p+1}) Y ρ p + 1 ≤ 2 p ( P ρ p + 1 + ∣ W ρ ∣ p + 1 ) , (A.24) bounds Y ρ Y_\rho Y ρ uniformly on the original balls. Since both Y ρ Y_\rho Y ρ and P ρ P_\rho P ρ solve the flat equation,
[ − Δ y − n ( n + 2 ) ∫ 0 1 ( P ρ + ξ W ρ ) p − 1 d ξ ] W ρ = 0. (106) \left[-\Delta_y-n(n+2)\int_0^1(P_\rho+\xi W_\rho)^{p-1}\,d\xi\right]W_\rho=0. \tag*{(106)} [ − Δ y − n ( n + 2 ) ∫ 0 1 ( P ρ + ξ W ρ ) p − 1 d ξ ] W ρ = 0. (106)
The coefficient is bounded on a larger annulus than A = B 2 ∖ B ‾ 1 / 2 \mathcal{A}=B_2\setminus\overline{B}_{1/2} A = B 2 ∖ B 1/2 . The local boundedness estimate for this linear equation gives
∥ W ρ ∥ C 0 ( A ) ≤ C ∥ W ρ ∥ L 2 ( A ∗ ) ≤ C ρ δ ∥ w 0 ∥ H δ 1 . \|W_\rho\|_{C^0(\mathcal{A})}\leq C\|W_\rho\|_{L^2(\mathcal{A}^*)}\leq C\rho^\delta\|w_0\|_{H^1_\delta}. ∥ W ρ ∥ C 0 ( A ) ≤ C ∥ W ρ ∥ L 2 ( A ∗ ) ≤ C ρ δ ∥ w 0 ∥ H δ 1 .
Consequently Y ρ Y_\rho Y ρ is uniformly positive for small ρ \rho ρ . On nested annuli, the equation for Y ρ Y_\rho Y ρ gives uniform smooth bounds, and (A.25) then gives ∥ W ρ ∥ C k , α ( A ) ≤ C k ρ δ \|W_\rho\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\mathcal{A})}\leq C_k\rho^\delta ∥ W ρ ∥ C k , α ( A ) ≤ C k ρ δ . By the definition of the weighted norm, w 0 ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α w_0\in C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} w 0 ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α .
Step 6. Uniform weighted convergence. For the limit Y Y Y in (A.23), set w 0 : = Y − V T w_0:=Y-V_T w 0 := Y − V T near 0. By Step 5, w 0 ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α w_0\in C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta} w 0 ∈ C Θ ; δ k , α near 0 for every fixed k ≥ 0 k\geq0 k ≥ 0 and 0 < α < 1 0<\alpha<1 0 < α < 1 . Put A j : = Y + V T j − V T = V T j + w 0 A_j:=Y+V_{T_j}-V_T=V_{T_j}+w_0 A j := Y + V T j − V T = V T j + w 0 . On a sufficiently small fixed punctured ball, A j / Θ A_j/\Theta A j /Θ has uniform positive upper and lower bounds, and all its scaled derivatives are uniformly bounded for large j j j . Scaling the weighted norm gives
∥ ρ ( n − 2 ) / 2 w j ( ρ ⋅ ) ∥ L p + 1 ( A ∗ ) ≤ C ρ δ ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 < r < r 0 ) . \|\rho^{(n-2)/2}w_j(\rho\cdot)\|_{L^{p+1}(\mathcal{A}^*)}\leq C\rho^\delta\|w_j\|_{H^1_\delta(0<r<r_0)}. ∥ ρ ( n − 2 ) /2 w j ( ρ ⋅ ) ∥ L p + 1 ( A ∗ ) ≤ C ρ δ ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 ( 0 < r < r 0 ) .
The normalized functions ρ ( n − 2 ) / 2 A j ( ρ ⋅ ) \rho^{(n-2)/2}A_j(\rho\cdot) ρ ( n − 2 ) /2 A j ( ρ ⋅ ) are uniformly bounded on A ∗ \mathcal{A}^* A ∗ . Applying the argument in Step 5 to Y j = A j + w j Y_j=A_j+w_j Y j = A j + w j , we cover a neighborhood of A ‾ \overline{\mathcal{A}} A by finitely many balls whose doubled balls lie in A ∗ \mathcal{A}^* A ∗ . The integral of ∣ ρ ( n − 2 ) / 2 Y j ( ρ y ) ∣ p + 1 |\rho^{(n-2)/2}Y_j(\rho y)|^{p+1} ∣ ρ ( n − 2 ) /2 Y j ( ρ y ) ∣ p + 1 over each doubled ball is less than ε 0 \varepsilon_0 ε 0 for large j j j and small ρ \rho ρ . Equation (A.24) therefore bounds ρ ( n − 2 ) / 2 Y j ( ρ ⋅ ) \rho^{(n-2)/2}Y_j(\rho\cdot) ρ ( n − 2 ) /2 Y j ( ρ ⋅ ) uniformly for large j j j . The difference w j = Y j − A j w_j=Y_j-A_j w j = Y j − A j satisfies
[ − Δ − n ( n + 2 ) ∫ 0 1 ( A j + ξ w j ) p − 1 d ξ ] w j = − F γ 0 ( A j ) . \left[-\Delta-n(n+2)\int_0^1(A_j+\xi w_j)^{p-1}\,d\xi\right]w_j=-\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_0}(A_j). [ − Δ − n ( n + 2 ) ∫ 0 1 ( A j + ξ w j ) p − 1 d ξ ] w j = − F γ 0 ( A j ) .
Since Y , V T j , V T Y,V_{T_j},V_T Y , V T j , V T solve their equations,
F γ 0 ( A j ) = − n ( n − 2 ) [ ( V T j + w 0 ) p − V T j p − ( V T + w 0 ) p + V T p ] . \mathcal{F}_{\gamma_0}(A_j)=-n(n-2)\left[(V_{T_j}+w_0)^p-V_{T_j}^p-(V_T+w_0)^p+V_T^p\right]. F γ 0 ( A j ) = − n ( n − 2 ) [ ( V T j + w 0 ) p − V T j p − ( V T + w 0 ) p + V T p ] .
After dividing the four powers by Θ p \Theta^p Θ p , apply the mean value theorem first to the increment w 0 / Θ w_0/\Theta w 0 /Θ and then to the Fowler phase between T T T and T j T_j T j . This gives the factor ∣ T j − T ∣ |T_j-T| ∣ T j − T ∣ , while every spatial derivative still contains w 0 w_0 w 0 or one of its derivatives. Since Θ p − 1 = r − 2 \Theta^{p-1}=r^{-2} Θ p − 1 = r − 2 ,
∥ r 2 F γ 0 ( A j ) ∥ C Θ ; δ k , α ≤ C k ∣ T j − T ∣ ⟶ 0. \|r^2\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_0}(A_j)\|_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\Theta;\delta}}\leq C_k|T_j-T|\longrightarrow0. ∥ r 2 F γ 0 ( A j ) ∥ C Θ ; δ k , α ≤ C k ∣ T j − T ∣ ⟶ 0.
The factor r 2 r^2 r 2 accounts for the order of the differential operator. The inhomogeneous interior estimate on each rescaled annulus yields
∥ w j ∥ C Θ ; δ 0 ≤ C ( ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ r 2 F γ 0 ( A j ) ∥ C Θ ; δ 0 ) ⟶ 0 \|w_j\|_{C^0_{\Theta;\delta}}\leq C\left(\|w_j\|_{H^1_\delta}+\|r^2\mathcal{F}_{\gamma_0}(A_j)\|_{C^0_{\Theta;\delta}}\right)\longrightarrow0 ∥ w j ∥ C Θ ; δ 0 ≤ C ( ∥ w j ∥ H δ 1 + ∥ r 2 F γ 0 ( A j ) ∥ C Θ ; δ 0 ) ⟶ 0
on a smaller fixed punctured ball. Uniform positivity and repeated interior estimates give ∥ w j ∥ C Θ ; δ k → 0 \|w_j\|_{C^k_{\Theta;\delta}}\to0 ∥ w j ∥ C Θ ; δ k → 0 for each fixed k k k . Since ∥ V T j − V T ∥ C Θ ; 0 k ≤ C k ∣ T j − T ∣ \|V_{T_j}-V_T\|_{C^k_{\Theta;0}}\leq C_k|T_j-T| ∥ V T j − V T ∥ C Θ ; 0 k ≤ C k ∣ T j − T ∣ , ∥ Y j − Y ∥ C Θ ; 0 k → 0 \|Y_j-Y\|_{C^k_{\Theta;0}}\to0 ∥ Y j − Y ∥ C Θ ; 0 k → 0 there. The compact convergence in Step 4 covers the remaining annulus and proves the assertion for 0 < r < r 0 0<r<r_0 0 < r < r 0 . □
AI assistance and interactions
This paper grew out of a project that began in mid July 2026 with an investigation of whether the main conclusion of [12 ] could fail without the assumption that the metric has flatness order at least ( n − 2 ) / 2 (n-2)/2 ( n − 2 ) /2 . We made progress gradually, first in dimension seven, then in dimensions up to 10, then in dimensions up to 24; and found by early August that the threshold dimension is 30: the upper bound holds in dimensions 7 ≤ n ≤ 29 7 \le n \le29 7 ≤ n ≤ 29 and there are counter-examples to the upper bound in dimensions n ≥ 30 n \ge30 n ≥ 30 . By August 9, we had prepared initial drafts of the proofs of the classification and upper bound theorems in dimensions 7 ≤ n ≤ 29 7 \le n \le29 7 ≤ n ≤ 29 , whose final statements and proofs appear in [11 ] , and an exploratory draft of a possible counterexample in dimension 30. We then began an extensive verification, correction, addition, and revision process. In particular, the initial draft counterexample defined an incomplete conformal metric. During this process, we found new counterexamples in all dimensions ≥ 30 \ge30 ≥ 30 with a complete conformal metric, as presented in this paper.
In this process, the coauthors used ChatGPT and Codex as interactive research-assistance tools for literature reading, exploratory proof searches, calculations, checking arguments, and manuscript preparation. The systems responded to specific questions and directions from the coauthors. The coauthors determined the research questions and proof strategies, supplied and verified the citations and attributions, and selected, checked, and substantially revised every adopted argument. This process involved repeated exchanges among the coauthors and the systems, dozens of manuscript versions, and extensive human verification and rewriting. The coauthors are responsible for all mathematical claims, citations, and final content.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Zheng-Chao Han
Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Hill Center–Busch Campus, 110 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
Email address: zchan@math.rutgers.edu
Qinfeng Jiang
School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Email address: 202531130031@mail.bnu.edu.cn
Hua-Yang Wang
School of Mathematical Sciences, Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems, MOE, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Email address: wanghuayang@amss.ac.cn
Jingang Xiong
School of Mathematical Sciences, Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems, MOE, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; Center for Basic Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Email address: jx@bnu.edu.cn
Lei Zhang
Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, 358 Little Hall, P.O. Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611-8105, USA
Email address: leizhang@ufl.edu