alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Triviality of KK-homology classes of Euler characteristic operators of stratified pseudomanifolds

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

We show that the KK-homology classes of the Euler characteristic operators associated with the minimal and maximal ideal boundary conditions of the de Rham differential on the regular part of a connected compact Thom-Mather stratified pseudomanifold, equipped with an adapted metric, are trivial beyond their indices. These indices are the Euler characteristics of the corresponding L2L^2-cohomologies. This generalizes a result of J. Rosenberg for manifolds. The proof uses Witten deformation of the de Rham operator associated with a stratified Morse function, following the work of Álvarez López and Calaza.

Introduction

Let MM be a closed oriented real manifold. The de Rham operator D=d+d∗D=d+d^* acting on differential forms of MM is a formally self-adjoint operator and is essentially self-adjoint on the Hilbert space of L2L^2 sections of differential forms on MM. There are two natural gradings on the bundle of differential forms: with the grading by parity of degree, denoted by ϵ\epsilon, DD becomes the Euler characteristic operator, and with the nontrivial signature grading, denoted by τ\tau, defined by the Hodge ⋆\star operator, DD is the signature operator when MM is even-dimensional.

The indices of these two operators are two essential topological invariants of MM, respectively the Euler characteristic χ(M)\chi(M), which can be defined as the alternating sum of Betti numbers of MM, and the signature of MM, defined as the signature of the pairing induced by Poincaré duality on singular cohomology (assuming dim⁡M\dim M is divisible by 4, the pairing in middle-dimensional cohomology is symmetric; in other dimensions the signature is zero). The signature is richer than the Euler characteristic as it remembers some data of the Poincaré pairing. The signature can be lifted to characteristic classes called L-classes, which historically are used in surgery theory and classification of higher-dimensional manifolds by Browder and Novikov, and the famous Novikov conjecture concerns those.

By Kasparov theory, the Euler characteristic and signature operator give rise to KK-homology classes,

[DMdR]∈K0an(M)=KK0(C0(M),C),[DMsign]∈Knan(M)=KKn(C0(M),C)[D_M^{dR}] \in K_0^{\mathrm{an}}(M)=KK_0(C_0(M),\mathbb{C}), \qquad[D_M^{\mathrm{sign}}] \in K_n^{\mathrm{an}}(M)=KK_n(C_0(M),\mathbb{C})

where n=dim⁡M mod 2n=\dim M \bmod2. There is a homological Chern character (which is defined for any finite CW complex MM)

Ch⁡:K∗an(M)→H∗(M,Q)\operatorname{Ch}:K_*^{\mathrm{an}}(M)\to H_*(M,\mathbb{Q})

When MM is compact and connected, its degree-zero component Ch⁡0([A])∈H0(M,Q)≅Q\operatorname{Ch}_0([A])\in H_0(M,\mathbb{Q})\cong\mathbb{Q}, for a class represented by a graded Dirac operator AA, is identified with its graded index. By K-theoretic Atiyah-Singer theory [3 A3], the Chern character of [DMsign][D_M^{\mathrm{sign}}] is the Poincare dual of cohomological Atiyah-Singer L-classes, which differs from the usual Hirzebruch homological L-classes by powers of 2. Interestingly, the KK-homology class of the Euler characteristic operator [DMdR][D_M^{dR}] is trivial beyond its index.

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. 19K33, 19K35, 55N33, 58A12, 58A35.

Key words and phrases. de Rham operator, Euler characteristic, analytic KK-homology, stratified Morse function.

Theorem 1.1. (Rosenberg [18]) Let MM be a connected manifold (either compact or non-compact). The analytic KK-homology class of DMdRD^{dR}_M, defined by any complete Riemannian metric, is trivial beyond its index, in the sense that it is in the image of Z≅K0an(pt)→K0an(M)\mathbb{Z} \cong K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(pt) \to K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(M) (induced by the inclusion of a basepoint into MM).

Rosenberg’s theorem is formulated in real KOKO-homology. Here we work with complex KK-homology.

The goal of this paper is to prove the analogue of the above result for compact Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifolds.

The analytic study of pseudomanifolds started with the foundational work of Cheeger [9] by equipping the regular part with a piecewise flat conical metric. In this paper we use an adapted metric as in the terminology of [8, 2] (Definition 2.1), which can be put on any stratum of a Thom–Mather stratified space. Such metrics are quasi-isometric to metrics of piecewise-flat conic type on the regular part considered by Cheeger [9].

On a pseudomanifold there are different (Hilbert-complex) closed extensions of de Rham differential dd, called ideal boundary conditions, initially defined as an unbounded operator on the Hilbert space of L2L^2 differential forms on the regular part H:=L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\mathcal{H} := L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})). There are minimal and maximal extensions of dd, denoted by dmin⁡,dmax⁡d_{\min}, d_{\max}. Then we may form de Rham operators

Drel:=dmin⁡+(dmin⁡)∗,Dabs:=dmax⁡+(dmax⁡)∗D_{\mathrm{rel}} := d_{\min} + (d_{\min})^*, \qquad D_{\mathrm{abs}} := d_{\max} + (d_{\max})^*

Equipping H\mathcal{H} with the parity-of-degree grading, Drel,DabsD_{\mathrm{rel}}, D_{\mathrm{abs}} are odd operators, which are also called Euler characteristic operators. They give rise to KK-homology classes in K0an(X)K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X) denoted by [DX,reldR][D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}}] and [DX,absdR][D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}].

Theorem 1.2. Let XX be a compact Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold. The Euler characteristic operators Drel/absD_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} of XX endowed with an adapted metric, acting on L2(Ω∗(Xreg))L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})) equipped with the usual parity grading, define classes [DX,rel],[DX,absdR]∈K0an(X)dR[D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}], [D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}] \in K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X)}. These classes do not depend on the choice of the adapted metric.

We note that if XX satisfies the Witt condition, then dmin⁡=dmax⁡d_{\min}=d_{\max}, and hence Drel=DabsD_{\mathrm{rel}=D_{\mathrm{abs}}}. In this case if, in addition, XX is oriented and even-dimensional and H\mathcal{H} is equipped with the signature grading τ\tau, the common operator Drel=DabsD_{\mathrm{rel}}=D_{\mathrm{abs}} defines the signature operator and gives rise to a KK-homology class [DXsign]∈K0an(X)[D^{\mathrm{sign}}_X] \in K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X) whose Chern character differs from the Goresky–MacPherson LL-class by certain powers of 2; see [1, 17].

Theorem 1.3. Let XX be a connected compact Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold. Then

[DX,reldR],[DX,absdR]∈K0an(X)[D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}}], [D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}] \in K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X)

are in the image of K0an(pt)→K0an(X)K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(pt) \to K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X) induced by the inclusion of a point of XX.

The graded indices of DX,rel/absdRD^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} are the Euler characteristics of Hilbert complexes

Lmin⁡/max⁡∗X:=(L2(Ω∗(Xreg)),dmin⁡/max⁡)\mathcal{L}^*_{\min/\max}X := (L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})),d_{\min/\max})

respectively. When XX is oriented, we have

H∗(Lmin⁡X)≅IHm‾∗(X)H^*(\mathcal{L}_{\min}X) \cong IH^*_{\overline{m}}(X)
H∗(Lmax⁡X)≅IHm‾∗(X)H^*(\mathcal{L}_{\max}X) \cong IH^*_{\underline{m}}(X)

where m‾,m‾\underline{m},\overline{m} are lower-middle and upper-middle perversities, and intersection cohomology is defined by dualizing the intersection-chain complex as in [6]. This is a result of Cheeger [9] in the case of conic metrics. For a general compact stratified pseudomanifold and a more general family of metrics (a weighted version of adapted metrics), see a result of F. Bei [6 Thm. 4].

Corollary 1.4. Let XX be a connected compact oriented Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold. Then

Ch([DX,reldR])=Ch0([DX,reldR])=index⁡([DX,reldR])=χ(IHm‾∗(X))∈H0(X,Q)Ch([D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}}]) = Ch_{0}([D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}}]) = \operatorname{index}([D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}}]) = \chi(IH^{*}_{\underline{m}}(X)) \in H_{0}(X,\mathbb{Q})
Ch([DX,absdR])=Ch0([DX,absdR])=index⁡([DX,absdR])=χ(IHm‾∗(X))∈H0(X,Q)Ch([D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}]) = Ch_{0}([D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}]) = \operatorname{index}([D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}]) = \chi(IH^{*}_{\overline{m}}(X)) \in H_{0}(X,\mathbb{Q})

where m‾,m‾\underline{m},\overline{m} are lower-middle and upper-middle perversities, χ\chi denotes Euler characteristic and is understood as χ[pt]∈H0(X)\chi[\mathrm{pt}] \in H_{0}(X).

Corollary 1.5. Let XX be a connected compact oriented Thom–Mather stratified Witt pseudomanifold, then dmin⁡=dmax⁡d_{\min}=d_{\max} hence Drel=DabsD_{\mathrm{rel}}=D_{\mathrm{abs}} and we denote [DXdR]=[DX,absdR]=[DX,reldR][D^{dR}_{X}]=[D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{abs}}]=[D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}}], then

Ch([DXdR])=index⁡([DXdR])=Iχ(X)Ch([D^{dR}_{X}])=\operatorname{index}([D^{dR}_{X}])=I\chi(X)

where Iχ(X)I\chi(X) is the Euler characteristic of intersection cohomology of XX.

For the proof of Theorem 1.3 we follow Rosenberg [18] in the stratified setting. In loc. cit., Rosenberg considers a deformation of the de Rham operator Dt:=D+tAD_t:=D+tA where AA is a zero-order operator defined by Clifford multiplication by a vector field. This idea goes back to Witten [W] and is known as Witten deformation. When the vector field is the gradient of a real-valued function ff the deformation takes the form,

dt:=e−tfdetf=d+t df∧d_t:=e^{-tf}de^{tf}=d+t\,df\wedge
Dt:=dt+dt∗=(d+d∗)+t(df∧+ı∇f)=D+tc^(df)D_t:=d_t+d_t^{*}=(d+d^{*})+t(df\wedge+\imath_{\nabla f})=D+t\widehat{c}(df)

where t>0t>0 is a parameter.

The point of this deformation is that when ff satisfies some boundedness assumptions the de Rham complex of (minimal and maximal extensions of) dtd_t is isomorphic to that of dd, and the K-homology class of DtD_t is the same as that of DD, but as t→∞t\to\infty, DtD_t develops a growing spectral gap away from the critical points. We choose ff to be a stratified Morse function (Definition 3.2) in the sense of [2], which satisfies the required boundedness assumptions.

The relation between the Euler characteristic of a manifold and a Morse function is old and goes back to Morse [16]; Morse established the inequalities relating the numbers of critical points of each index to the Betti numbers.

Morse theory in the stratified setting was originally considered by Goresky–MacPherson [11] and later studied by others including [2]. Different conditions can be imposed on a stratified Morse function. In this paper we follow the work of Álvarez López–Calaza [2], where they use the term rel-Morse functions; these are different from those considered in [11]. Such a stratified Morse function restricts to a smooth function on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}}, with bounded derivatives and Hessians, and has isolated critical points. Witten deformation of the de Rham operator by a stratified Morse function was studied by Ursula Ludwig and Álvarez López–Calaza; see [14, 2].

The steps of the proof of Theorem 1.3 are as follows. Using the spectral gap of Dt,rel/absD_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} away from the critical points, we show that the restriction of [DX,rel/absdR][D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}] to the complement of a union of sufficiently small compact stratified neighborhoods of critical points vanishes. Then by the long exact sequence of K-homology, the class [DX,rel/absdR][D^{dR}_{X,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}] comes from the neighborhoods, which can be chosen to be contractible.

For completeness we mention that the local contribution of (rel-)critical points to Euler characteristic is given explicitly in [2 Theorem 1.2] as

χ(Lmin⁡/max⁡∙X)=∑r∈Z(−1)r(∑x∈critical⁡(f)νx,min⁡/max⁡r)\chi(\mathcal{L}^{\bullet}_{\min/\max}X)=\sum_{r\in\mathbb{Z}}(-1)^r\left(\sum_{x\in\operatorname{critical}(f)}\nu^{r}_{x,\min/\max}\right)

where νx,min⁡/max⁡r\nu^{r}_{x,\min/\max} is a number which can be expressed in terms of the L2L^{2}-Betti numbers of the links appearing in the local model of ff around the rel-critical point xx (see [2 Def. 4.8]). Here XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} is the metric completion of XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} and rel-critical points of ff, in the sense of loc. cit., are points in this space, but there is a finite surjective continuous map X^reg→X\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{reg}} \to X, and by the critical points of ff on XX we mean the images of the rel-critical points under this map.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Pierre Albin for patiently answering my various questions over the course of the past year.

de Rham operators

Let XX be a compact Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold (e.g., see [1] for definitions of these notions in detail). Let XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} denote the dense regular part, the union of the top-dimensional strata. Note that we don’t require the Witt condition. In this paper we equip the regular part XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} of XX with an adapted metric gg.

Definition 2.1. [2, 8] Let XX be a Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold. An adapted metric gg on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} is defined inductively on the depth of the stratification of XX. If depth X=0X=0, then XX is a manifold, and any Riemannian metric on XX is called adapted. A neighborhood of a point x∈X∖Xregx \in X \setminus X_{\mathrm{reg}} is of the form V=B×C<ϵ(L)V = B \times C_{<\epsilon}(L) centered at xx where B≅RnB \cong\mathbb{R}^{n} is an open ball (nn is the dimension of the stratum that contains xx), and LL is a stratified space of lower dimension (link), then Xreg∩VX_{\mathrm{reg}} \cap V is of the form B×Lreg×(0,ϵ)B \times L_{\mathrm{reg}} \times(0,\epsilon) where LregL_{\mathrm{reg}} is the regular part of LL. On this neighborhood gg is quasi isometric to the model metric

gRn+r2gL+dr2g_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} + r^{2}g_{L} + dr^{2}

where gRng_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} is the Euclidean metric on BB, gLg_{L} is an adapted metric on LregL_{\mathrm{reg}}, and rr is the radial coordinate on the cone. For the existence of adapted metrics on Thom-Mather stratified spaces see [8].

Remark 2.2. A metric quasi-isometric to a piecewise flat conic metric, in the sense of [9], and an iterated edge (wedge) metric in the sense of [1] is an adapted metric.

Lemma 2.3. [2, 8] If XX is compact, any two adapted metrics on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} are (globally) quasi-isometric.

Remark 2.4. Any two adapted metrics are homotopic, in fact the space of such metrics is convex; if g0,g1g_{0},g_{1} are such metrics then for 0≤t≤10 \leq t \leq1, tg0+(1−t)g1tg_{0}+(1-t)g_{1} is also an adapted metric.

We give precise definitions of de Rham operators. Let Ω∗(Xreg)\Omega^{*}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}) be the (complex-valued) smooth differential forms on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} with arbitrary support. Let

H:=L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\mathcal{H} := L^{2}(\Omega^{*}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}))

be the Hilbert space of L2L^{2} differential forms on the possibly incomplete Riemannian manifold (Xreg,g)(X_{\mathrm{reg}},g). The de Rham differential dd is an unbounded operator initially defined on Ωc∗(Xreg)⊂H\Omega^{*}_{c}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}) \subset\mathcal{H}, the smooth differential forms with compact support on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}}. Similarly we have codifferential δ\delta which is the formal adjoint of dd. Then the minimal domain is defined as

Dom⁡(dmin⁡)=Ωc∗(Xreg)={w∈H∣∃wj∈Ωc∗(Xreg),η∈H, s.t. wj→w,dwj→η, in H}\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\min}) = \Omega^{*}_{c}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}) = \{w \in\mathcal{H} \mid\exists w_{j} \in\Omega^{*}_{c}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}), \eta\in\mathcal{H}, \text{ s.t. } w_{j} \to w, dw_{j} \to\eta, \text{ in } \mathcal{H}\}

where Ωc∗(Xreg)‾\overline{\Omega^{*}_{c}(X_{\mathrm{reg}})} denotes the graph closure, and in this case dmin⁡w:=ηd_{\min}w := \eta. The maximal domain is defined as

Dom⁡(dmax⁡)={w∈H∣dw∈H distributionally}={w∈H∣∃η∈H, ⟨η,γ⟩=⟨w,δγ⟩ ∀γ∈Ωc∗(Xreg)}\begin{aligned} \operatorname{Dom}(d_{\max}) = \{w \in\mathcal{H} \mid dw \in\mathcal{H}\ \text{distributionally}\} \\ &= \{w \in\mathcal{H} \mid\exists\eta\in\mathcal{H},\ \langle\eta,\gamma\rangle= \langle w,\delta\gamma\rangle\ \forall\gamma\in\Omega^{*}_{c}(X_{\mathrm{reg}})\} \end{aligned}

in this case dmax⁡w:=ηd_{\max}w := \eta. We have Dom⁡(dmin⁡)⊂Dom⁡(dmax⁡)\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\min}) \subset\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\max}), and in general these domains are not equal. One can also define δmin⁡,δmax⁡\delta_{\min},\delta_{\max} similarly.

The following properties, which are invariant under quasi-isometries, hold for any adapted metric. These are essentially proved by Cheeger but also see [2, 6, 1]. See [2 Thm. 1.1] for (5) in the case of adapted metric.

Theorem 2.5. [9, 10, 2] Let XX be compact Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold endowed with an adapted metric. Then

(1)

(dmax⁡)∗=δmin⁡(dmin⁡)∗=δmax⁡\begin{aligned} (d_{\max})^* &= \delta_{\min}\\ (d_{\min})^* &= \delta_{\max} \end{aligned}

(2) If XX satisfies the Witt condition then dmin⁡=dmax⁡d_{\min}=d_{\max}, i.e., Dom⁡(dmin⁡)=Dom⁡(dmax⁡)\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\min})=\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\max}).

(3) The operators

Drel:=dmin⁡+(dmin⁡)∗=dmin⁡+δmax⁡Dom⁡(Drel)=Dom⁡(dmin⁡)∩Dom⁡(δmax⁡)Dabs:=dmax⁡+(dmax⁡)∗=dmax⁡+δmin⁡Dom⁡(Dabs)=Dom⁡(dmax⁡)∩Dom⁡(δmin⁡)\begin{aligned} D_{\mathrm{rel}} &:= d_{\min}+(d_{\min})^*=d_{\min}+\delta_{\max}\\ \operatorname{Dom}(D_{\mathrm{rel}})&=\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\min})\cap\operatorname{Dom}(\delta_{\max})\\ D_{\mathrm{abs}}&:=d_{\max}+(d_{\max})^*=d_{\max}+\delta_{\min}\\ \operatorname{Dom}(D_{\mathrm{abs}})&=\operatorname{Dom}(d_{\max})\cap\operatorname{Dom}(\delta_{\min}) \end{aligned}

are self-adjoint.

(4) As operators on their domain endowed with the graph norm, Drel,DabsD_{\mathrm{rel}},D_{\mathrm{abs}} are Fredholm.

(5) DrelD_{\mathrm{rel}} and DabsD_{\mathrm{abs}} have discrete spectra with finite multiplicities.

Remark 2.6. In [2], the notation Dmin⁡/max⁡D_{\min/\max} is used instead of Drel/absD_{\mathrm{rel/abs}}, we avoid this notation because it may be confusing; DrelD_{\mathrm{rel}} need not coincide with the minimal extension of D=d+δD=d+\delta originally defined on Ωc∗(Xreg)\Omega^*_{\mathrm{c}}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}), and DabsD_{\mathrm{abs}} need not coincide with the maximal extension of DD.

Remark 2.7. For an arbitrary adapted metric, DD need not be essentially self-adjoint, i.e., minimal and maximal extensions of DD may not coincide, even in the Witt case, as essential self-adjointness is not quasi-isometric invariant. There exists an adapted metric, such as an adapted rigid iterated edge metric in the sense of [1 Prop. 5.4] in the Witt case which is obtained by rescaling of the link metric of a wedge metric that satisfies a link spectral gap condition, such that DD becomes essential self-adjoint [1 Thm. 1.1], hence the self-adjoint extension is unique.

Kasparov cycles and K-homology

The unbounded formalism for the Kasparov KK-group [5] is as follows. Let XX be a second-countable locally compact Hausdorff space.

Definition 2.8. An even unbounded KK-cycle representing a class in K0ev(X)=KK0(C0(X),C)K_0^{\mathrm{ev}}(X)=KK_0(C_0(X),\mathbb{C}) consists of a tuple (H,Γ,ρX,D)(\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_X,D) where H\mathcal{H} is a separable Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 graded Hilbert space graded by Γ\Gamma such that Γ2=1\Gamma^2=1, Γ∗=Γ\Gamma^*=\Gamma, and ρX:C0(X)→B(H)\rho_X:C_0(X)\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) is an even ∗^* representation and D:Dom⁡(D)⊂H→HD:\operatorname{Dom}(D)\subset\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H} is an odd self-adjoint unbounded operator with respect to Γ\Gamma such that

(1) There exists a dense ∗^*-subalgebra A⊂C0(X)A\subset C_0(X) such that Dom⁡(D)\operatorname{Dom}(D) is invariant under multiplication by elements of AA and [D,ρX(f)][D,\rho_X(f)] extends to a bounded operator for every f∈Af\in A.

(2) For every f∈C0(X)f\in C_0(X),

ρX(f)(1+D2)−1\rho_X(f)(1+D^2)^{-1}

is compact.

When XX is compact and ρX\rho_X is unital, choosing f=1∈C0(X)f=1\in C_0(X), the second condition implies and is equivalent to that DD has compact resolvent, which is equivalent to DD having purely discrete spectrum with finite multiplicities.

The bounded description for the Kasparov K-homology is as follows:

Definition 2.9. An even bounded KK-cycle representing a class in K0an(X)=KK0(C0(X),C)K_{0}^{an}(X)=KK_{0}(C_{0}(X),\mathbb{C}) consists of a tuple (H,Γ,ρX,F)(\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_{X},F) where H\mathcal{H} is a separable Z2\mathbb{Z}_{2}-graded Hilbert space graded by Γ\Gamma such that Γ2=1\Gamma^{2}=1, Γ∗=Γ\Gamma^{*}=\Gamma, ρX:C0(X)→B(H)\rho_{X}:C_{0}(X)\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) is an even ∗*-representation, and F∈B(H)F\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) is an odd bounded operator with respect to Γ\Gamma such that there is a dense ∗*-subalgebra A⊂C0(X)A\subset C_{0}(X) such that for every f∈Af\in A,

(1) [F,ρX(f)][F,\rho_{X}(f)] is compact.

(2) (F−F∗)ρX(f)(F-F^{*})\rho_{X}(f) is compact.

(3) (F2−1)ρX(f)(F^{2}-1)\rho_{X}(f) is compact.

If FF is self-adjoint, the second condition is automatic.

Given an unbounded cycle (H,Γ,ρX,D)(\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_{X},D) one obtains a bounded representative of the same KK-homology class by taking the bounded transform

FD:=D(1+D2)−1/2.F_{D}:=D(1+D^{2})^{-1/2}.

Thus

(H,Γ,ρX,FD)(\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_{X},F_{D})

is a bounded KK-cycle and

[D]=[H,Γ,ρX,D(1+D2)−1/2]∈K0an(X).[D]=\left[\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_{X},D(1+D^{2})^{-1/2}\right]\in K_{0}^{an}(X).

Proof of Theorem 1.2

Proof. We use the unbounded description of KK-homology and follow the method of [17] and [1 Thm. 6.2]. Let D=DrelD=D_{rel} or DabsD_{abs}. Here H=L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\mathcal{H}=L^{2}(\Omega^{*}(X_{\mathrm{reg}})). Γ=ϵ\Gamma=\epsilon, ϵ∣Ωi=(−1)i\epsilon|_{\Omega^{i}}=(-1)^{i} so DD is an odd operator, and ρX\rho_{X} is the natural representation by multiplication of C(X)C(X). For a dense subalgebra A⊂C(X)A\subset C(X), one can take the subalgebra of Lipschitz functions with respect to the given metric structure on XX. Multiplication by such functions preserves Dom⁡(D)\operatorname{Dom}(D) (see the proof of Lemma 4.1), and for any Lipschitz function ff, the commutator [D,f][D,f] is Clifford multiplication by dfdf, which exists almost everywhere and is bounded on XX. Compactness of the resolvent of DD follows from Theorem 2.5 (5). Invariance under the choice of adapted metric follows from the abstract operatorial homotopy argument of [12 Secs. 6.2–6.3]. For two adapted metrics g0,g1g_{0},g_{1} let gs=(1−s)g0+sg1g_{s}=(1-s)g_{0}+sg_{1}, s∈[0,1]s\in[0,1]. Since any two adapted metrics are globally quasi-isometric, the Hilbert spaces Hs=L2(Ω∗(Xreg),gs)\mathcal{H}_{s}=L^{2}(\Omega^{*}(X_{\mathrm{reg}}),g_{s}) can be identified as vector spaces with uniformly equivalent norms. Moreover, their inner products vary continuously in operator norm in the sense of [12 Sec. 6.2]. The domains of dmin⁡d_{\min} and dmax⁡d_{\max} are independent of ss, by the definitions of these extensions and equivalence of the corresponding graph norms. Fix d=dmin⁡d=d_{\min} or d=dmax⁡d=d_{\max}. Then dd is a fixed densely defined closed operator satisfying d2=0d^{2}=0. Let ds∗d_{s}^{*} denote its adjoint with respect to the inner product induced by gsg_{s}, and set Ds=d+ds∗D_{s}=d+d_{s}^{*}. By [12 Prop. 6.1], the family s↦(Ds+i)−1s\mapsto(D_{s}+i)^{-1} is norm-continuous. Furthermore, the resolvents are compact by Theorem 2.5, and the commutators [Ds,f][D_{s},f] form a bounded continuous family for Lipschitz functions ff on XX. Therefore, the construction of [12 Prop. 6.4], with the fixed parity grading, gives an unbounded operatorial homotopy between the corresponding Kasparov cycles. Consequently, [D0]=[D1][D_{0}]=[D_{1}] in K0an(X)K_{0}^{an}(X).

For simplicity of notation, we alternate between [DX,absdR][D_{X,abs}^{dR}], [DX,reldR][D_{X,rel}^{dR}] and [D][D] when it is clear from the context which operator we are talking about. We also sometimes write C(X)C(X) instead of ρX\rho_{X} as all the representations of KK-cycles in this paper are pointwise multiplication by continuous functions C(X)C(X).

Witten deformation of de Rham operator

Let ff be a real valued smooth function on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} with bounded derivative ∣df∣g≤C|df|_g \le C. On Ωc∗(Xreg)⊂L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\Omega_c^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}}) \subset L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})) consider unbounded operators

dt:=e−tfdetf=d+tdf∧d_t := e^{-tf} d e^{tf} = d + tdf \wedge
δt:=etfδe−tf=δ+tι∇f\delta_t := e^{tf} \delta e^{-tf} = \delta+ t\iota_{\nabla f}

where t>0t > 0 is a parameter. Note that df∧df \wedge, ι∇f\iota_{\nabla f} are zero-order operators which are bounded by the boundedness assumption on dfdf; therefore their closures are themselves with maximal domain simply L2(Ω∗(Xreg))L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})). Thus minimal and maximal extensions are

(dt)min⁡/max⁡=dmin⁡/max⁡+tdf∧(d_t)_{\min/\max} = d_{\min/\max} + tdf \wedge
(δt)max⁡/min⁡=((dt)min⁡/max⁡)∗=(dmin⁡/max⁡)∗+tι∇f(\delta_t)_{\max/\min} = ((d_t)_{\min/\max})^* = (d_{\min/\max})^* + t\iota_{\nabla f}

Define

A:=df∧+ι∇fA := df \wedge+ \iota_{\nabla f}
Dt,rel/abs:=(dt)min⁡/max⁡+((dt)min⁡/max⁡)∗=(dmin⁡/max⁡+(dmin⁡/max⁡)∗)+tA=Drel/abs+tAD_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} := (d_t)_{\min/\max} + ((d_t)_{\min/\max})^* = (d_{\min/\max} + (d_{\min/\max})^*) + tA = D_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} + tA

therefore

Dom⁡(Dt,rel/abs)=Dom⁡(Drel/abs)\operatorname{Dom}(D_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}) = \operatorname{Dom}(D_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}})

Note that [A,g]=0[A,g] = 0 for functions g∈C(X)g \in C(X) and A∗=AA^* = A. AA is odd with respect to the parity grading, so Dt,rel/absD_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} is still an odd operator. It’s clear that Dt,rel/absD_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} defines a class in KK-homology [Dt,rel/abs][D_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}] just like Drel/absD_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}, since AA is bounded and of zero order; it doesn’t affect the defining analytic conditions of a KK-cycle.

Theorem 3.1. For every t>0t > 0

[Dt,rel/abs]=[Drel/abs][D_{t,\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}] = [D_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}]

i.e., Witten deformation of the de Rham operator by a smooth function with bounded derivative does not change the KK-homology class.

Proof. Let D=DrelD = D_{\mathrm{rel}} or DabsD_{\mathrm{abs}}. Consider the homotopy

Ds=D+stA,0≤s≤1D_s = D + stA,\qquad0 \le s \le1

Then Dom⁡(Ds)=Dom⁡(D)\operatorname{Dom}(D_s) = \operatorname{Dom}(D). Since AA is a bounded zero-order operator, DsD_s defines a homotopy of KK-cycles between DD and DtD_t. □

Stratified Morse function

From now on we assume ff is a stratified Morse function.

Definition 3.2. [2] Let XX be a compact Thom–Mather stratified pseudomanifold and fix an adapted metric on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}}. A continuous function f∈C(X)f \in C(X) is called a stratified Morse function if

  1. the restriction of ff to XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} is a rel-Morse function in the sense of [2]; it’s a smooth function such that ff, ∣df∣|df|, Hess⁡(f)\operatorname{Hess}(f) are all bounded (with respect to the chosen adapted metric), and there exists a specific local quadratic normal form near every rel-critical point.

  2. the rel-critical points of ff are isolated.

We don’t use the local quadratic normal form in this paper, so we refer to [2] for the precise definition. In the sense of [2], a rel-critical point of ff is a point xx in the metric completion X^reg\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{reg}} of XregX_{\mathrm{reg}}, defined by

lim inf⁡y→x,y∈Xreg∣df(y)∣=0\liminf_{\substack{y \to x, y \in X_{\mathrm{reg}}}} |df(y)| = 0

By [2 Remark 9], there is a finite continuous surjective map X^reg→X\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{reg}} \to X, so we consider the images of rel-critical points of ff on XX; they are isolated points on XX, and we simply call them the critical points of ff on XX.

By [2 Proposition 4.9], the subset of functions in C∞(Xreg)C^\infty(X_{\mathrm{reg}}) with continuous extensions to XX whose restrictions to all strata of XX are rel-Morse functions (with respect to some adapted metric) is dense in the sense of weak C∞C^\infty topology. Therefore, stratified Morse functions exist with respect to some adapted metric. Since the KK-homology class of the Euler characteristic operator is independent of the choice of adapted metric, we may choose and fix an adapted metric for which a stratified Morse function exists.

Boundedness of Hess⁡(f)\operatorname{Hess}(f) implies ∣df∣|df| is Lipschitz on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} and therefore it has a unique continuous extension to its metric completion X^reg\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{reg}}, then the set of rel-critical points is the zero set of this extension, hence closed, thus the number of rel-critical points is finite since X^reg\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{reg}} is compact. Critical points do not necessarily lie in XregX_{\mathrm{reg}}, and they can be on lower-dimensional strata. Let {pi}i=1k\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{k} be the set of critical points. Choose compact, contractible, sufficiently small distinguished neighborhoods Nϵ(pi)N_{\epsilon}(p_i) such that pip_i are in the interiors and they are pairwise disjoint. This is possible by the local picture of a Thom–Mather stratified space; for a point x∈Xx \in X there is a distinguished open neighborhood

B×c<ϵ(L)B \times c_{<\epsilon}(L)

centered at xx, where BB is an open ball and c<ϵ(L)c_{<\epsilon}(L) is a truncated open cone within ϵ\epsilon distance of the cone vertex over the link LL. Now one can take a smaller closed neighborhood Nϵ′(x)N_{\epsilon'}(x) such as

B′‾×c≤ϵ′(L)\overline{B'} \times c_{\leq\epsilon'}(L)

for a smaller ball B′‾⊂B\overline{B'} \subset B and ϵ′<ϵ\epsilon' < \epsilon. Let

U=X∖⋃Nϵ(pi)U = X \setminus\bigcup N_{\epsilon}(p_i)

then UU is an open stratified subset of XX where its regular part is

Ureg=Xreg∖⋃Nϵ(pi)U_{\mathrm{reg}} = X_{\mathrm{reg}} \setminus\bigcup N_{\epsilon}(p_i)

Spectral gap away from critical points

We discuss the main point of Witten deformation, namely the spectral gap away from the critical points. Consider the Laplacians

Δt,rel/abs=Dt,rel/abs2\Delta_{t,\mathrm{rel/abs}} = D_{t,\mathrm{rel/abs}}^{2}

For all t>0t > 0, we have [2 §18]

(1)

Dom⁡(Δt,rel/abs)=Dom⁡(Δrel/abs)(1)\operatorname{Dom}(\Delta_{t,\mathrm{rel/abs}}) = \operatorname{Dom}(\Delta_{\mathrm{rel/abs}}) \tag*{(1)}

(2)

Δt,rel/abs=Δrel/abs+tHess⁡(f)+t2∣df∣2(2)\Delta_{t,\mathrm{rel/abs}} = \Delta_{\mathrm{rel/abs}} + t\operatorname{Hess}(f) + t^{2}|df|^{2} \tag*{(2)}

where Hess⁡(f)\operatorname{Hess}(f) denotes the endomorphism of differential forms induced by the Riemannian Hessian. Recall that ess supp⁡(s)⊂Ureg\operatorname{ess\,supp}(s) \subset U_{\mathrm{reg}} for a section s∈L2(Ω∗(Xreg))s \in L^{2}(\Omega^{*}(X_{\mathrm{reg}})) means s=0s = 0 almost everywhere on Xreg∖UregX_{\mathrm{reg}} \setminus U_{\mathrm{reg}}. Note that in general

Dom⁡(Δrel/abs)=Dom⁡(Drel/abs2)≠Dom⁡(Drel/abs)\operatorname{Dom}(\Delta_{\mathrm{rel/abs}}) = \operatorname{Dom}(D_{\mathrm{rel/abs}}^{2}) \ne\operatorname{Dom}(D_{\mathrm{rel/abs}})

Remark 3.3. Notation: For simplicity, throughout this paper we use ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\| for Hilbert-space and operator norms, and ∣⋅∣|\cdot| for pointwise tensor norms. For example, for s∈Hs \in\mathcal{H}, ∥s∥\|s\| denotes its L2L^{2} norm, while for a bounded operator FF, ∥F∥\|F\| denotes its operator norm.

Theorem 3.4. ([2 §18.2]) There exists C>0C > 0, t0>0t_0 > 0 such that for any section s∈Dom⁡(D)s \in\operatorname{Dom}(D) with ess supp⁡(s)⊂Ureg\operatorname{ess\,supp}(s) \subset U_{\mathrm{reg}} and t>t0t > t_0

∥Dt,rel/abss∥2≥Ct∥s∥2\|D_{t,\mathrm{rel/abs}}s\|^{2} \geq Ct\|s\|^{2}

Proof. For simplicity we drop rel/abs from the notation of Drel/absD_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}}. For any s∈Dom⁡(Δ)s \in\operatorname{Dom}(\Delta), the identity (2) implies

∥Dts∥2=⟨Dts,Dts⟩=⟨Δts,s⟩=∥Ds∥2+t⟨Hess⁡(f)s,s⟩+t2⟨∣df∣2s,s⟩(3)\lVert D_t s\rVert^2 = \langle D_t s,D_t s\rangle= \langle\Delta_t s,s\rangle= \lVert Ds\rVert^2 + t\langle\operatorname{Hess}(f)s,s\rangle+ t^2\langle\lvert df\rvert^2s,s\rangle \tag*{(3)}

Since UregU_{\mathrm{reg}} is away from the set of critical points (note that UregU_{\mathrm{reg}} is away from critical points from an ϵ\epsilon-distance), there is a lower bound m>0m>0 for ∣df∣\lvert df\rvert on UregU_{\mathrm{reg}}. Since Hess⁡(f)\operatorname{Hess}(f) is bounded there is H0H_0 such that ∥Hess⁡(f)∥<H0\lVert\operatorname{Hess}(f)\rVert< H_0, therefore for s∈Dom⁡(Δ)s \in\operatorname{Dom}(\Delta) with ess supp⁡(s)⊂Ureg\operatorname{ess\,supp}(s) \subset U_{\mathrm{reg}} we have

∥Dts∥2≥∥Ds∥2−tH0∥s∥2+t2m2∥s∥2=∥Ds∥2+t∥s∥2(−H0+tm2)\lVert D_t s\rVert^2 \ge\lVert Ds\rVert^2-tH_0\lVert s\rVert^2+t^2m^2\lVert s\rVert^2=\lVert Ds\rVert^2+t\lVert s\rVert^2(-H_0+tm^2)

for large tt, −H0+tm2>C>0-H_0+tm^2>C>0.

Since DD is self-adjoint, D2=ΔD^2=\Delta, Dom⁡(Δ)\operatorname{Dom}(\Delta) is dense in Dom⁡(D)\operatorname{Dom}(D) in the graph norm. Combined with boundedness of Dt−DD_t-D, ∣df∣\lvert df\rvert, Hess⁡(f)\operatorname{Hess}(f), this implies that the identity (3) extends continuously to Dom⁡(D)\operatorname{Dom}(D), and the above inequality holds as well. □

See [13 Proposition 6.24] for this result in the case of a wedge metric.

Analytic estimates

In this section we prove the estimates needed to prove the vanishing of the restricted KK-homology class from Theorem 3.4. We drop rel/abs from Drel/absD_{\mathrm{rel}/\mathrm{abs}} and DD represents any of them.

Lemma 4.1. For g∈C(X)g \in C(X) with supp⁡(g)⊂U\operatorname{supp}(g) \subset U we have as t→∞t \to\infty

∥g(1+Dt2)−12∥→0(4)\left\lVert g(1+D_t^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right\rVert\to0 \tag*{(4)}

Proof. For simplicity of notation, let Bt=(1+Dt2)−12B_t=(1+D_t^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}. We have

∥Bt∥≤1,∥DtBt∥≤1\lVert B_t\rVert\le1,\qquad\lVert D_tB_t\rVert\le1

Note that Dom⁡(Bt)=L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\operatorname{Dom}(B_t)=L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})). Therefore it suffices to show (4) for Lipschitz functions supported in UU, because such functions are uniformly dense in the class of continuous functions supported in UU. So assume g∈Lip⁡(X)g \in\operatorname{Lip}(X) with supp⁡(g)⊂U\operatorname{supp}(g) \subset U.

Let u∈L2(Ω∗(Xreg))u \in L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})), let vt:=Btuv_t:=B_tu. DtBtD_tB_t is a bounded operator on L2(Ω∗(Xreg))L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})) and vt∈Dom⁡(Dt)v_t \in\operatorname{Dom}(D_t). Then

∥vt∥≤∥u∥,∥Dtvt∥=∥DtBtu∥≤∥u∥(5)\lVert v_t\rVert\le\lVert u\rVert,\qquad\lVert D_tv_t\rVert=\lVert D_tB_tu\rVert\le\lVert u\rVert \tag*{(5)}

Recall Dt=D+tAD_t=D+tA and [A,g]=0[A,g]=0, [Dt,g]=[D,g][D_t,g]=[D,g]. Moreover [D,g][D,g] is bounded as a multiplication operator. Indeed, for a section s∈Ωc∗(Xreg)s \in\Omega_c^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})

d(gs)=g ds+dg∧sd(gs)=g\,ds+dg\wedge s
δ(gs)=gδs−ι∇gs\delta(gs)=g\delta s-\iota_{\nabla g}s
[D,g]s=dg∧s−ι∇gs[D,g]s=dg\wedge s-\iota_{\nabla g}s

since gg is Lipschitz dgdg is bounded (note that dgdg, ∇g\nabla g make sense since a Lipschitz function is differentiable almost everywhere on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}}). By taking graph-norm approximating sequence and distribution definition, this implies [D,g][D,g] is bounded and gg preserves domains of dmin⁡,dmax⁡,δmin⁡,δmax⁡d_{\min},d_{\max},\delta_{\min},\delta_{\max}, hence of Dom⁡(Dt)=Dom⁡(D)\operatorname{Dom}(D_t)=\operatorname{Dom}(D) (note that D=DrelD=D_{\mathrm{rel}} or DabsD_{\mathrm{abs}}). Consider gvt=gBtugv_t=gB_tu, then since vt∈Dom⁡(D)v_t\in\operatorname{Dom}(D), gvt∈Dom⁡(Dt)gv_t\in\operatorname{Dom}(D_t). Then ess supp⁡(gvt)⊂supp⁡(g)∩Xreg⊂Ureg\operatorname{ess\,supp}(gv_t)\subset\operatorname{supp}(g)\cap X_{\mathrm{reg}}\subset U_{\mathrm{reg}}; therefore by Theorem 3.4 we have

∥gvt∥≤∥Dt(gvt)∥Ct\lVert gv_t\rVert\le\frac{\lVert D_t(gv_t)\rVert}{\sqrt{Ct}}

We have

Dt(gvt)=gDtvt+[Dt,g]vt=gDtvt+[D,g]vtD_t(gv_t)=gD_tv_t+[D_t,g]v_t=gD_tv_t+[D,g]v_t

By (5)

∥Dt(gvt)∥≤(∥g∥∞+∥[D,g]∥)∥u∥\lVert D_t(gv_t)\rVert\le(\lVert g\rVert_\infty+\lVert[D,g]\rVert)\lVert u\rVert

Thus

∥g(1+Dt2)−12u∥=∥gBtu∥=∥gvt∥≤(∥g∥∞+∥[D,g]∥)∥u∥Ct(6)\lVert g(1+D_t^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}u\rVert=\lVert gB_tu\rVert=\lVert gv_t\rVert\leq\frac{(\lVert g\rVert_\infty+\lVert[D,g]\rVert)\lVert u\rVert}{\sqrt{Ct}} \tag*{(6)}

So ∥g(1+Dt2)−12∥≤cCt\lVert g(1+D_t^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\rVert\leq\frac{c}{\sqrt{Ct}} for some positive constants C,cC,c independent of tt. The rest is clear. □\square

Now consider the bounded transform

h(x)=x1+x2h(x)=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}
Ft:=h(Dt)=DtBt=Dt(1+Dt2)−12F_t:=h(D_t)=D_tB_t=D_t(1+D_t^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
1−Ft2=Bt21-F_t^2=B_t^2

This is the bounded operator corresponding to DtD_t in the bounded description of KK-homology. Let ∣A∣=(A2)1/2=∣df∣|A|=(A^2)^{1/2}=|df| and A~=A∣A∣=df∧+ι∇f∣df∣\widetilde{A}=\frac{A}{|A|}=\frac{df\wedge+\iota_{\nabla f}}{|df|}. This is a well-defined self-adjoint operator of operator norm at most 1 on H=L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\mathcal{H}=L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})), since the points where df=0df=0 have measure zero. It is first defined on the dense subset Ωc∗(Xreg)\Omega_c^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}}) and then extended uniquely to a bounded operator on H\mathcal{H}.

Lemma 4.2. As t→∞t\to\infty

Ft→A~F_t\to\widetilde{A}

in the strong operator topology on L2(Ω∗(Xreg))L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}}))

Proof. The argument of [18] does not apply directly as we don’t have a spectral gap on all of the domain of DtD_t, just away from critical points. Consider smooth differential forms with compact support on XregX_{\mathrm{reg}} away from the finitely many critical points of ff on XX, i.e.,

R:=Ωc∗(Xreg∖{df=0})⊂Dom⁡(D)⊂L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\mathcal{R}:=\Omega_c^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}}\setminus\{df=0\})\subset\operatorname{Dom}(D)\subset L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}}))

R⊂L2(Ω∗(Xreg))\mathcal{R}\subset L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})) is dense, since

∥Ft∥≤1,∥A~∥≤1\lVert F_t\rVert\leq1,\quad\lVert\widetilde{A}\rVert\leq1

it suffices to show the strong convergence for a section w∈Rw\in\mathcal{R};

∥(Ft−A~)w∥→0;t→∞(7)\lVert(F_t-\widetilde{A})w\rVert\to0;\quad t\to\infty \tag*{(7)}

Let

K=supp⁡(w)⋐(Xreg∖{df=0})K=\operatorname{supp}(w)\Subset(X_{\mathrm{reg}}\setminus\{df=0\})

There exists 0<l0<l such that

∣df∣K≥l>0(8)|df|_K\geq l>0 \tag*{(8)}

It’s easier if we make use of resolvents of the operators Dt,AD_t,A. Denote, for r∈R∖{0}r\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}

R(r,Dt):=(Dt+ir)−1R(r,D_t):=(D_t+ir)^{-1}
R(r,tA)=(tA+ir)−1R(r,tA)=(tA+ir)^{-1}

Define

At:=h(tA)=tA(1+(tA)2)−1/2\mathcal{A}_t:=h(tA)=tA(1+(tA)^2)^{-1/2}

We have the identity

h(x)=x1+x2=1π∫0∞(1x+i1+λ2+1x−i1+λ2)dλ(9)h(x)=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty\left(\frac{1}{x+i\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}+\frac{1}{x-i\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\right)d\lambda \tag*{(9)}

The spectral theorem and functional calculus for self-adjoint operators [19 §5] imply (see also [7 p. 164])

Ftw=h(Dt)w=1π∫0∞(R(1+λ2,Dt)+R(−1+λ2,Dt))w dλAtw=h(tA)w=1π∫0∞(R(1+λ2,tA)+R(−1+λ2,tA))w dλ(10)\begin{aligned} F_t w &= h(D_t)w = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty\left(R\left(\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t\right)+R\left(-\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t\right)\right)w\,d\lambda\\ \mathcal{A}_t w &= h(tA)w = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty\left(R\left(\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},tA\right)+R\left(-\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},tA\right)\right)w\,d\lambda \tag*{(10)} \end{aligned}

(more precisely, for a bounded Borel measurable function bb and a self-adjoint operator DD, b(D)=∫Rb(λ) dE(λ)b(D)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} b(\lambda)\,dE(\lambda), where EE is the spectral measure. Then Fubini implies that if hu(x)=∫0uk(x,λ) dλh_u(x)=\int_0^u k(x,\lambda)\,d\lambda and kk is uniformly bounded, then hu(D)=∫0uk(D,λ) dλh_u(D)=\int_0^u k(D,\lambda)\,d\lambda. Now write the improper integral (9) as h(x)=lim⁡u→∞hu(x)h(x)=\lim_{u\to\infty}h_u(x); then hu→hh_u\to h pointwise and ∣hu∣≤1|h_u|\le1, therefore dominated convergence implies h(Dt)=lim⁡u→∞hu(Dt)h(D_t)=\lim_{u\to\infty}h_u(D_t) in the strong operator topology.)

Note that because of the support assumption on w∈Rw\in\mathcal{R} we have (see (14) below and the discussion that follows.) R(r,tA)w∈Dom⁡(D)R(r,tA)w\in\operatorname{Dom}(D)

We have the resolvent identity [19 §2.2], which can be obtained by basic algebra: (as Dt−tA=DD_t-tA=D)

R(r,Dt)w−R(r,tA)w=−R(r,Dt)DR(r,tA)w(11)R(r,D_t)w-R(r,tA)w=-R(r,D_t)DR(r,tA)w \tag*{(11)}

We will prove that for r∈R∖{0}r\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}, t>0t>0

∥R(r,Dt)DR(r,tA)w∥≤Cw∣r∣max⁡(t,∣r∣)(12)\left\|R(r,D_t)DR(r,tA)w\right\|\le\frac{C_w}{|r|\max(t,|r|)} \tag*{(12)}

for some constant 0<Cw0<C_w depending on ww. Assume (12); then

∥R(r,Dt)w−R(r,tA)w∥≤Cw∣r∣max⁡(t,∣r∣)\left\|R(r,D_t)w-R(r,tA)w\right\|\le\frac{C_w}{|r|\max(t,|r|)}

Then we have

∥(Ft−At)w∥≤21π∫0∞Cw1+λ2max⁡(t,1+λ2) dλ=2π∫0tCw1+λ2max⁡(t,1+λ2) dλ+2π∫t∞Cw1+λ2max⁡(t,1+λ2) dλ≤2Cwπt∫0t11+λ2 dλ+2Cwπ∫t∞11+λ2 dλ≤2Cwlog⁡(3t)πt+2Cwπt\begin{aligned} \left\|(F_t-\mathcal{A}_t)w\right\| &\le2\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty\frac{C_w}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\max(t,\sqrt{1+\lambda^2})}\,d\lambda\\ &=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^t \frac{C_w}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\max(t,\sqrt{1+\lambda^2})}\,d\lambda +\frac{2}{\pi}\int_t^\infty\frac{C_w}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\max(t,\sqrt{1+\lambda^2})}\,d\lambda\\ &\le\frac{2C_w}{\pi t}\int_0^t\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,d\lambda +\frac{2C_w}{\pi}\int_t^\infty\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2}\,d\lambda\\ &\le\frac{2C_w\log(3t)}{\pi t}+\frac{2C_w}{\pi t} \end{aligned}

where we used for t≥1t\ge1

∫0t11+λ2 dλ=log⁡(t+1+t2)≤log⁡(3t)\int_0^t\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,d\lambda=\log\left(t+\sqrt{1+t^2}\right)\le\log(3t)
∫t∞11+λ2 dλ≤∫t∞1λ2 dλ=1t\int_t^\infty\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2}\,d\lambda\le\int_t^\infty\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\,d\lambda=\frac{1}{t}

Therefore as t→∞t\to\infty

∥(Ft−At)w∥→0\left\|(F_t-\mathcal{A}_t)w\right\|\to0

To prove (7) we have

∥(Ft−A~)w∥≤∥(Ft−At)w∥+∥(At−A~)w∥\left\|(F_t-\widetilde{\mathcal{A}})w\right\|\le\left\|(F_t-\mathcal{A}_t)w\right\|+\left\|(\mathcal{A}_t-\widetilde{\mathcal{A}})w\right\|

so we need to show ∥(At−A~)w∥→0\lVert(\mathcal{A}_t-\widetilde{A})w\rVert\to0. Indeed, as A2=∣df∣2A^2=|df|^2

At−A~=tA1+t2A2−A∣A∣=A∣A∣[t1∣A∣2+t2A2∣A∣2−1]=A∣A∣[t1∣df∣2+t2−1]\mathcal{A}_t-\widetilde{A}=\frac{tA}{\sqrt{1+t^2A^2}}-\frac{A}{|A|}=\frac{A}{|A|}\left[\frac{t}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{|A|^2}+t^2\frac{A^2}{|A|^2}}}-1\right]=\frac{A}{|A|}\left[\frac{t}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{|df|^2}+t^2}}-1\right]

we have

∣t1∣df∣2+t2−1∣≤12t2∣df∣2\left|\frac{t}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{|df|^2}+t^2}}-1\right|\leq\frac{1}{2t^2|df|^2}

therefore

∥(At−A~)w∥≤∥12t2∣df∣2w∥≤∥w∥2t2l2⟶t→∞0\lVert(\mathcal{A}_t-\widetilde{A})w\rVert\leq\left\lVert\frac{1}{2t^2|df|^2}w\right\rVert\leq\frac{\lVert w\rVert}{2t^2l^2}\underset{t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0

where we used ∥w∣df∣2∥≤∥w∥l2\left\lVert\frac{w}{|df|^2}\right\rVert\leq\frac{\lVert w\rVert}{l^2} which follows from the support assumption of ww and (8).

Now it remains to prove the estimate (12). Without loss of generality, assume r>0r>0; the case r<0r<0 is the same. First, we have

∥R(r,Dt)∥≤1r(13)\lVert R(r,D_t)\rVert\leq\frac{1}{r} \tag*{(13)}

Indeed, by self-adjointness of DtD_t we have for u∈Dom(Dt)u\in Dom(D_t)

∥(Dt+ir)u∥2=∥Dtu∥2+r2∥u∥2≥r2∥u∥2\lVert(D_t+ir)u\rVert^2=\lVert D_tu\rVert^2+r^2\lVert u\rVert^2\geq r^2\lVert u\rVert^2

thus

∥u∥≤1∣r∣∥(Dt+ir)u∥\lVert u\rVert\leq\frac{1}{|r|}\lVert(D_t+ir)u\rVert

R(r,Dt)=(Dt+ir)−1R(r,D_t)=(D_t+ir)^{-1} maps L2(Ω∗(Xreg))L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})) to Dom(Dt)Dom(D_t), hence for v∈L2(Ω∗(Xreg))v\in L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}}))

∥R(r,Dt)v∥≤1∣r∣∥(Dt+ir)(Dt+ir)−1v∥=1∣r∣∥v∥\lVert R(r,D_t)v\rVert\leq\frac{1}{|r|}\lVert(D_t+ir)(D_t+ir)^{-1}v\rVert=\frac{1}{|r|}\lVert v\rVert

proving (13). We can write

R(r,tA)=(tA+ir)−1=tA−irt2A2+r2=tA−irt2∣df∣2+r2R(r,tA)=(tA+ir)^{-1}=\frac{tA-ir}{t^2A^2+r^2}=\frac{tA-ir}{t^2|df|^2+r^2}

There are two cases. If t≤rt\leq r then 0<t/r≤10<t/r\leq1 and

R(r,tA)w=1r((t/r)A−i(t/r)2∣df∣2+1)w(14)R(r,tA)w=\frac{1}{r}\left(\frac{(t/r)A-i}{(t/r)^2|df|^2+1}\right)w \tag*{(14)}

Consider

Qt,r:=((t/r)A−i(t/r)2∣df∣2+1)=((t/r)(df∧+ι∇f)−i(t/r)2∣df∣2+1)Q_{t,r}:=\left(\frac{(t/r)A-i}{(t/r)^2|df|^2+1}\right)=\left(\frac{(t/r)(df\wedge+\iota_{\nabla f})-i}{(t/r)^2|df|^2+1}\right)

On K⋐XregK\Subset X_{\mathrm{reg}} this is a smooth bounded endomorphism of differential forms, and since ∣df∣>l>0|df|>l>0 and dfdf, ∇f\nabla f, ∇2f\nabla^2f are all bounded, this implies that

sup⁡x∈K∥Qt,r(x)∥≤C,sup⁡x∈K∥∇Qt,r(x)∥≤C\sup_{x\in K}\lVert Q_{t,r}(x)\rVert\leq C,\qquad\sup_{x\in K}\lVert\nabla Q_{t,r}(x)\rVert\leq C

for some constant CC. We have supp(Dw)⊂supp(w)=Ksupp(Dw)\subset supp(w)=K. This implies

∥D(Qt,rw)∥≤C(∥w∥+∥∇w∥)=:Cw(15)\lVert D(Q_{t,r}w)\rVert\leq C(\lVert w\rVert+\lVert\nabla w\rVert)=:C_w \tag*{(15)}

for a constant CwC_w depending on ww and independent of t,rt,r such that 0<t/r≤10<t/r\leq1. Therefore

∥DR(r,tA)w∥=∥1rDQt,rw∥≤Cwr=Cwmax⁡(t,r)\lVert DR(r,tA)w\rVert=\left\lVert\frac{1}{r}DQ_{t,r}w\right\rVert\leq\frac{C_w}{r}=\frac{C_w}{\max(t,r)}

Similarly, if t≥rt \ge r then 0<r/t≤10 < r/t \le1 and

R(r,tA)=1t(A−i(r/t)∣df∣2+(r/t)2)=:1tQt,r′.R(r,tA)=\frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{A-i(r/t)}{|df|^2+(r/t)^2}\right)=:\frac{1}{t}Q'_{t,r}.

By the same argument there is a constant CwC_w independent of t,rt,r satisfying 0<r/t≤10 < r/t \le1 such that

∥DR(r,tA)w∥=∥1tDQt,r′w∥≤Cwt=Cwmax⁡(t,r).(16)\lVert DR(r,tA)w\rVert=\left\lVert\frac{1}{t}DQ'_{t,r}w\right\rVert\le\frac{C_w}{t}=\frac{C_w}{\max(t,r)}. \tag*{(16)}

Therefore (13), (15), and (16) imply

∥R(r,Dt)DR(r,tA)w∥≤1rCwmax⁡(t,r)\lVert R(r,D_t)DR(r,tA)w\rVert\le\frac{1}{r}\frac{C_w}{\max(t,r)}

proving (12).

Lemma 4.3. For g∈C(X)g\in C(X) with supp⁡(g)⊂U\operatorname{supp}(g)\subset U we have as t→∞t\to\infty

∥[Ft,g]∥→0(17)\lVert[F_t,g]\rVert\to0 \tag*{(17)}

Proof. Again by boundedness of FtF_t, it suffices to show this for gg a Lipschitz function on XX. We mentioned in the proof of Lemma 4.1 that the commutator

Cg:=[Dt,g]=[D,g]C_g:=[D_t,g]=[D,g]

is bounded as a multiplication operator; moreover, it is supported in supp⁡(g)⊂U\operatorname{supp}(g)\subset U. Consider a Lipschitz cutoff function ψ\psi such that

ψ∣supp⁡(g)=1,supp⁡(ψ)⊂U\psi|_{\operatorname{supp}(g)}=1,\qquad\operatorname{supp}(\psi)\subset U

Note that Cgψ=ψCg=CgC_g\psi=\psi C_g=C_g. Recall

Bt=(1+Dt2)−12B_t=(1+D_t^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}

We can apply Lemma 4.1 to get

∥ψBt∥→t→∞0(18)\lVert\psi B_t\rVert\xrightarrow[t\to\infty]{}0 \tag*{(18)}

We have

R(r,Dt)=(Dt+ir)−1=BtKr(Dt)R(r,D_t)=(D_t+ir)^{-1}=B_tK_r(D_t)
Kr(x):=1+x2x+irK_r(x):=\frac{\sqrt{1+x^2}}{x+ir}

for ∣r∣>1|r|>1 we have ∣Kr(x)∣≤1|K_r(x)|\le1. By the boundedness of CgC_g, Kr(Dt)K_r(D_t) and (18) we get

∥CgR(r,Dt)∥=∥CgψBtKr(Dt)∥→t→∞0(19)\lVert C_gR(r,D_t)\rVert=\lVert C_g\psi B_tK_r(D_t)\rVert\xrightarrow[t\to\infty]{}0 \tag*{(19)}

Consider the following formal identity for an operator TT

[T−1,g]=−T−1[T,g]T−1[T^{-1},g]=-T^{-1}[T,g]T^{-1}

Applying this to T=Dt+irT=D_t+ir, T−1=R(r,Dt)T^{-1}=R(r,D_t) (which is valid since gg preserves Dom⁡(Dt)\operatorname{Dom}(D_t) and Cg=[Dt,g]C_g=[D_t,g] is bounded) we get

[R(r,Dt),g]=−R(r,Dt)[Dt,g]R(r,Dt)=−R(r,Dt)CgR(r,Dt)(20)[R(r,D_t),g]=-R(r,D_t)[D_t,g]R(r,D_t)=-R(r,D_t)C_gR(r,D_t) \tag*{(20)}

Using (10) we get (understood as a strong operator integral)

[Ft,g]=1π∫0∞([R(1+λ2,Dt),g]+[R(−1+λ2,Dt),g]) dλ[F_t,g]=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty\left([R(\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t),g]+[R(-\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t),g]\right)\,d\lambda

So

∥[Ft,g]∥≤1π∫0∞(∥[R(1+λ2,Dt),g]∥+∥[R(−1+λ2,Dt),g]∥) dλ(21)\lVert[F_t,g]\rVert\le\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty\left(\lVert[R(\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t),g]\rVert+\lVert[R(-\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t),g]\rVert\right)\,d\lambda \tag*{(21)}

We will use dominated convergence theorem to show that the integral in (21) goes to zero as t→∞t \to\infty. Recall from (13)

∥R(r,Dt)∥≤1∣r∣(22)\lVert R(r,D_t)\rVert\leq\frac{1}{\lvert r\rvert} \tag*{(22)}

By (19), (20), and (22), for a fixed rr with ∣r∣>1\lvert r\rvert> 1 we have

∥[R(r,Dt),g]∥≤∥R(r,Dt)∥⋅∥CgR(r,Dt)∥≤1∣r∣∥CgR(r,Dt)∥→t→∞0(23)\lVert[R(r,D_t),g]\rVert\leq\lVert R(r,D_t)\rVert\cdot\lVert C_gR(r,D_t)\rVert\leq\frac{1}{\lvert r\rvert}\lVert C_gR(r,D_t)\rVert\xrightarrow{t\to\infty} 0 \tag*{(23)}

thus the integrand in (21) goes to zero pointwise as t→∞t \to\infty. We need to show it’s uniformly bounded by an integrable function. Applying (22) twice to (20) we get

∥[R(r,Dt),g]∥≤∥Cg∥r2\lVert[R(r,D_t),g]\rVert\leq\frac{\lVert C_g\rVert}{r^2}

for r=±1+λ2r=\pm\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}

∥[R(±1+λ2,Dt),g]∥≤∥Cg∥1+λ2\lVert[R(\pm\sqrt{1+\lambda^2},D_t),g]\rVert\leq\frac{\lVert C_g\rVert}{1+\lambda^2}

Since

∫0∞∥Cg∥1+λ2 dλ≤∥Cg∥∫0∞11+λ2 dλ<∞\int_0^\infty\frac{\lVert C_g\rVert}{1+\lambda^2}\,d\lambda\leq\lVert C_g\rVert\int_0^\infty\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2}\,d\lambda< \infty

∥Cg∥1+λ2\frac{\lVert C_g\rVert}{1+\lambda^2} is integrable. □

Restriction of K-homology to U

We continue to drop rel/absrel/abs from Drel/absD_{rel/abs} for simplicity of notation, and DD represents any of them.

Let j:U⊂Xj:U\subset X be the inclusion. Then the extension by zero defines a homomorphism

j♯:C0(U)→C(X)j^\sharp:C_0(U)\to C(X)

and thus induces a homomorphism [7 § 17.8]

j∗:K0an(X)→K0an(U)j^*:K_0^{an}(X)\to K_0^{an}(U)

This can be expressed in terms of the Kasparov product as follows. jj defines an element

[j]∈KK0(C0(U),C(X))[j]\in KK_0(C_0(U),C(X))

and for [x]∈K0an(X)=KK0(C(X),C)[x]\in K_0^{an}(X)=KK_0(C(X),\mathbb{C})

j∗([x])=[j]⊗[x]j^*([x])=[j]\otimes[x]

j∗j^* can be represented in terms of bounded KK-cycles simply by

(H,Γ,ρX,F)↦(H,Γ,ρU,F)(\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_X,F)\mapsto(\mathcal{H},\Gamma,\rho_U,F)

i.e., we restrict the representation of C(X)C(X) to C0(U)C_0(U).

Therefore

j∗[D]=j∗[Dt]=[(L2(Ω∗(Xreg)),ϵ,C0(U),Ft)]∈K0an(U)j^*[D]=j^*[D_t]=[(L^2(\Omega^*(X_{reg})),\epsilon,C_0(U),F_t)]\in K_0^{an}(U)

Recall A~=A∣A∣\widetilde{A}=\frac{A}{\lvert A\rvert}

A~2=1,A~∗=A~,[A~,g]=0, ∀g∈C0(U)\widetilde{A}^2=1,\quad\widetilde{A}^*=\widetilde{A},\quad[\widetilde{A},g]=0,\ \forall g\in C_0(U)

Therefore the KK-cycle represented by A~\widetilde{A} is degenerate; thus its class in K0an(U)K_0^{an}(U) vanishes.

Theorem 5.1. As t→∞t\to\infty

(L2(Ω∗(Xreg)),ϵ,C0(U),Ft)→(L2(Ω∗(Xreg)),ϵ,C0(U),A~)(L^2(\Omega^*(X_{reg})),\epsilon,C_0(U),F_t)\to(L^2(\Omega^*(X_{reg})),\epsilon,C_0(U),\widetilde{A})

is a homotopy of Kasparov modules which implies j∗[D]=0j^*[D]=0.

Proof. This follows from the above lemmas similar to the proof given in [18, 15]. More precisely, to construct a standard homotopy in the sense of [7 §17], consider the Hilbert C([t0,∞])C([t_0,\infty])-module

E=C([t0,∞],L2(Ω∗(Xreg)))\mathcal{E}=C([t_0,\infty],L^2(\Omega^*(X_{\mathrm{reg}})))

with Ft=F~tF_t=\widetilde{F}_t for t<∞t<\infty and F∞=A~F_\infty=\widetilde{A}. For E\mathcal{E} to define a Kasparov C0(U)−C([t0,∞])C_0(U)-C([t_0,\infty]) module, we need to show (continuity and compactness at a finite tt are clear)

  1. t↦Ftt\mapsto F_t is strong-operator continuous as t→∞t\to\infty.

  2. for a g∈C0(U)g\in C_0(U), t↦(Ft2−1)gt\mapsto(F_t^2-1)g is norm continuous as t→∞t\to\infty, which in this case means it should go to zero.

  3. for a g∈C0(U)g\in C_0(U), t↦[Ft,g]t\mapsto[F_t,g] is norm continuous as t→∞t\to\infty, which in this case also means it should go to zero.

The first one is Lemma 4.2, the second condition follows from the stronger result of Lemma 4.1, and the last one is Lemma 4.3. Lemmas 4.1, 4.3 are stated for a g∈C(X)g\in C(X) with supp⁡(g)⊂U\operatorname{supp}(g)\subset U, so they work for any g∈Cc(U)g\in C_c(U) by considering its extension by zero. Density of Cc(U)⊂C0(U)C_c(U)\subset C_0(U) and uniform boundedness of ∥Ft∥≤1\lVert F_t\rVert\le1, ∥(1+Dt2)−1/2∥≤1\lVert(1+D_t^2)^{-1/2}\rVert\le1 imply the lemmas hold for g∈C0(U)g\in C_0(U).

Proof of Theorem 1.3

Proof. We have proved j∗[D]=0j^*[D]=0. If there are no rel-critical points, then U=XU=X, so [D]=0[D]=0. We may therefore assume that the critical set is nonempty. Let i:⋃rNϵ(pr)↪Xi:\bigcup_r N_\epsilon(p_r)\hookrightarrow X be the inclusion. There is an exact sequence

K0an(⋃rNϵ(pr))→i∗K0an(X)→j∗K0an(U)K^{\mathrm{an}}_0\left(\bigcup_r N_\epsilon(p_r)\right)\xrightarrow{i_*}K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X)\xrightarrow{j^*}K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(U)

j∗[D]=0j^*[D]=0 implies

[D]∈im⁡(K0an(⋃rNϵ(pr))→i∗K0an(X))[D]\in\operatorname{im}\left(K^{\mathrm{an}}_0\left(\bigcup_r N_\epsilon(p_r)\right)\xrightarrow{i_*}K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X)\right)

Since each Nϵ(pr)N_\epsilon(p_r) is contractible to the critical point {pr}\{p_r\} and they are pairwise disjoint, the homotopy invariance of the K-homology group implies

K0an(⋃rNϵ(pr))≅⨁rK0an({pr})≅⨁rZK^{\mathrm{an}}_0\left(\bigcup_r N_\epsilon(p_r)\right)\cong\bigoplus_r K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(\{p_r\})\cong\bigoplus_r\mathbb{Z}

Therefore we can write, for some nr∈Zn_r\in\mathbb{Z}

[D]=∑rnri∗[pr][D]=\sum_r n_r i_*[p_r]

Since XX is assumed to be connected (hence path connected as a Thom–Mather pseudomanifold is locally path connected), any two inclusions {pr}↪X\{p_r\}\hookrightarrow X and {ps}↪X\{p_s\}\hookrightarrow X are homotopic, so i∗[pr]=i∗[ps]i_*[p_r]=i_*[p_s], therefore

[D]=(∑rnr)i∗[p1]∈im⁡(K0an({p1})⟶K0an(X))[D]=\left(\sum_r n_r\right)i_*[p_1]\in\operatorname{im}\left(K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(\{p_1\})\longrightarrow K^{\mathrm{an}}_0(X)\right)

M. ALIGHOLI: DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON, 480 LINCOLN DRIVE, MADISON WI 53706-1388, USA

Email address: [email protected]

References

  1. [1][ALMP] P. Albin, E. Leichtnam, R. Mazzeo, and P. Piazza, The signature package on Witt spaces, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 45 (2012), no. 2, 241–310.arxiv.org/abs/1112.0989
  2. [2][AC] J. A. Álvarez López and M. Calaza, Witten’s perturbation on strata, Asian J. Math. 21 (2017), no. 1, 47–126.arxiv.org/abs/1205.0348
  3. [3][A] M. F. Atiyah, “Global theory of elliptic operators,” in Functional Analysis and Related Topics, S. T. Kuroda, ed., University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1970, pp. 21–30.
  4. [5][BJ] S. Baaj and P. Julg, Théorie bivariante de Kasparov et opérateurs non bornés dans les C*-modules hilbertiens, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 296 (1983), no. 21, 875–878.
  5. [6]F. Bei, General perversities and L^2 de Rham and Hodge theorems for stratified pseudomanifolds, Bull. Sci. Math. 138 (2014), no. 1, 2–40.
  6. [7]B. Blackadar, K-Theory for Operator Algebras, 2nd ed., Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, vol. 5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
  7. [8]J.-P. Brasselet, G. Hector, and M. Saralegi, L^2-cohomologie des espaces stratifiés, Manuscripta Math. 76 (1992), 21–32.
  8. [9]J. Cheeger, Spectral geometry of singular Riemannian spaces, J. Differential Geom. 18 (1983), no. 4, 575–657.DOI
  9. [10]J. Cheeger, On the Hodge theory of Riemannian pseudomanifolds, in Geometry of the Laplace Operator, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 36, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1980, pp. 91–146.DOI
  10. [11]M. Goresky and R. MacPherson, Stratified Morse Theory, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, 3. Folge, vol. 14, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
  11. [12]M. Hilsum, Signature operator on Lipschitz manifolds and unbounded Kasparov bimodules, in Operator Algebras and Their Connections with Topology and Ergodic Theory (Buşteni, 1983), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1132, Springer, Berlin, 1985, pp. 254–288.DOI
  12. [13]G. Jayasinghe, An analytic approach to Lefschetz and Morse theory on stratified pseudomanifolds, preprint, arXiv:2309.15845 [math.DG].arxiv.org/abs/2309.15845
  13. [14]U. Ludwig, Comparison between two complexes on a singular space, J. Reine Angew. Math. 724 (2017), 1–52.
  14. [15]W. Lück and J. Rosenberg, Equivariant Euler characteristics and K-homology Euler classes for proper cocompact G-manifolds, Geom. Topol. 7 (2003), 569–613.
  15. [16]M. Morse, Relations between the critical points of a real function of n independent variables, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), no. 3, 345–396.
  16. [17]H. Moscovici and F. Wu, Straight Chern character for Witt spaces, in Cyclic Cohomology and Noncommutative Geometry (Waterloo, ON, 1995), Fields Inst. Commun., vol. 17, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 103–113.DOI
  17. [18]J. Rosenberg, The K-homology class of the Euler characteristic operator is trivial, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1999), no. 12, 3467–3474.arxiv.org/abs/math/9806073
  18. [19]K. Schmüdgen, Unbounded Self-adjoint Operators on Hilbert Space, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 265, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012.DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_ec3m6bjh
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents