Optimal regularity for minimizers of the prescribed mean curvature functional over isotopies

By §?, it suffices to consider a minimizing sequence \{\Sigma_k\} so that \Sigma_k is strongly (\gamma, U)-irreducible. By Remark 13.4, we can suppose there are no closed components of \Sigma_k in U contained in an open 3-ball whose boundary does not intersect \Sigma_k.

Let x_0 \in \text{spt}\|V\|. Let \rho_0(x_0) \coloneqq d(x_0, \partial U). By the monotonicity of (?), there is a constant c_2 so that

for any \sigma < \rho \leq \rho_0(x_0).

By the coarea formula,

for almost every \rho \in (0, \rho_0(x_0)), \sigma \in (0,\rho). Taking \sigma = \rho/2, (?) implies

for all sufficiently large k, where C depends on \mu, \rho_0(x_0), and \|V\|(U). Then there is a sequence \rho_k \in (3\rho/4, \rho) so that \Sigma_k has transverse intersection with \partial B_{\rho_k}(x_0) and

for all sufficiently large k, provided \rho \leq \eta_1\rho_0(x_0) for some \eta_1 \in (0,1) to be determined. For \eta_1 sufficiently small and k sufficiently large, we can apply Theorem 13.3 to \Sigma_k with U' = B_{\rho_k}(x_0). Hence, there are disks D_k^{(1)}, \hdots, D_k^{(q_k)} \subset \Sigma_k and isotopies \phi^{(k)} \in \mathcal{I}(U) so that for k sufficiently large, we have

• \partial D_k^{(l)} \subset \partial B_{\rho_k}(x_0),

• \Sigma_k \cap B_{\rho_k}(x_0) = (\bigcup_{l=1}^{q_k} D_k^{(l)}) \cap B_{\rho_k}(x_0),

• \phi^{(k)}(1, D_k^{(l)}) \setminus \partial D_k^{(l)} \subset B_{\rho_k}(x_0),

• \sum_{l=1}^{q_k} \mathcal{H}^2(D_k^{(l)}) \leq \tilde{C}\eta_1^2\rho_0(x_0)^2 (see (13.5)).

For \eta_1 sufficiently small and k sufficiently large, we can apply Lemma 8.2 to produce disks \tilde{D}_k^{(l)} with \partial \tilde{D}_k^{(l)} = \partial D_k^{(l)}, \tilde{D}_k^{(l)} \setminus \partial D_k^{(l)} \subset B_{\rho_k}(x_0), and

By taking a subsequence, we can assume that \rho_k \to \rho_{\infty}. Take an arbitrary \alpha > 0 small. We can construct oriented smooth disks \tilde{\Sigma}_k \in \mathcal{D}^*(B_{\rho_{\infty} - \alpha}(x_0)) so that (for all k sufficiently large)

• \tilde{\Sigma}_k \cap B_{\rho_{\infty} - \alpha}(x_0) = \bigcup_l \tilde{D}_k^{(l)} \cap B_{\rho_{\infty} - \alpha}(x_0),

• \partial \tilde{\Sigma}_k \cap \overline{B}_{\rho_{\infty}-\alpha}(x_0) = \varnothing,

• \tilde{\Sigma}_k \setminus B_{\rho_{\infty} - \alpha}(x_0) is connected.

Indeed, we can inductively add bridges outside B_{\rho_{\infty}-\alpha}(x_0) joining the disks \tilde{D}_k^{(l)}. Then \tilde{\Sigma}_k satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 10.2 with the set B_{\rho_{\infty}-\alpha}(x_0). Hence, the interior regularity of Theorem 1.1 follows.

We use the calibration technique, see [CM, Lemma 1.1.1].

Let \Sigma^* denote the surface of the upward curved spherical cap of radius 2/c with boundary \partial U \cap \{x_3 = -\varepsilon\}. Let \Omega_1^* \subset U be the set below \Sigma^* in U. It is clear that \Omega_1^* = \phi^*(1, \Omega_1) for some \phi^* \in \mathcal{I}(U).

Note that \Sigma^* is the graph of a function u over B_1^{\mathbb{R}^2}(0). Moreover, u satisfies the mean curvature equation

Let \omega be the 2-form given by

where

By the computation from [CM, Lemma 1.1.1], we have

and

Note that |\omega(X,Y)| \leq 1 for any pair of orthogonal unit vectors, with equality if and only if X, Y \in T\Sigma^*.

Now let \Omega_1' = \phi(1, \Omega_1) be any competitor with \phi \in \mathcal{I}(U). Let \Sigma' = \partial \Omega_1' \cap U. Suppose \Sigma' \neq \Sigma^*. Then by Stokes’ theorem, we have

The conclusion follows.

We first show that minimizers must be graphical. Let m denote the infimum for the above problem (3.2). Let \Omega^* \subset U and V^* be the Caccioppoli limit and varifold limit respectively of a minimizing sequence. Let \Omega^*_1 and \Omega^*_2 respectively be the limits of \Omega_1 and \Omega_2 under the isotopies of the minimizing sequence. Then \Omega^* = \Omega_1^* \cup \Omega_2^*, and

Suppose for contradiction that at least one of \partial \Omega_1^*\cap U or \partial \Omega_2^* \cap U is not graphical over B_1^{\mathbb{R}^2}(0). For \mathbf{x} \in B_1^{\mathbb{R}^2}(0), let l_{\mathbf{x}} denote the vertical line \{(\mathbf{x}, z) \mid z \in \mathbb{R}\}. Consider new sets

By Steiner symmetrization (see [maggi, Theorem 14.4]), we have

where equality holds for the perimeters if and only if \Omega_i^* \cap l_{\mathbf{x}} is connected for all \mathbf{x}. Hence, we have

Since \partial \Omega_i' \cap U is graphical over B_1^{\mathbb{R}^2}(0) and \partial \Omega_i' \setminus U = \partial \Omega_i^* \setminus U by construction, \Omega' := \Omega_1' \cup \Omega_2' is in the closure of the isotopy class of \Omega (e.g. use a smooth kernel to approximate the boundary of \Omega_i' by smooth disks with the same boundary), which yields a contradiction.

The proofs of symmetry under reflection and rotation follow similarly by the natural symmetrization procedures. Indeed, these steps are easier, as one can exploit the fact that minimizers are graphical and use the convexity of the function \sqrt{1 + |x|^2}.

Let F_0 \subset \partial U satisfy \partial F_0 = \partial \Lambda, which exists because \partial U is diffeomorphic to a 2-sphere. Then by (4.3) and (4.3), we have

By Lemma 4.2, there is a compact set W \subset M with

Let K_{\Lambda} = W \setminus U, in which case F is either F_0 (if W \cap U = \varnothing) or \partial U \setminus F_0 (if U \subset W). Since K_{\Lambda} must satisfy \mathcal{H}^3(K_{\Lambda}) \leq \mathcal{H}^3(M)/4 by the definition of \delta_1, K_{\Lambda} is unique.

Define F_t = K_{\Lambda} \cap \partial U(t), E_t = \Lambda \cap U(t), and K_t = K_{\Lambda} \cap U(t). We compute

Equality in (?) requires E_{t_1} = E_{t_2}, because the identity \nu(y) = \nabla d_U(y) for almost every y \in \overline{E}_{t_2}\setminus E_{t_1} implies \overline{E}_{t_2} \setminus E_{t_1} \subset \partial U(s) for some s.

By setting t_1 = 0 and t_2 = t > 0 in (?), we get

If K_{\theta} = K_{\Lambda}, then we obtain (?) by setting t = \theta. Henceforth, we assume K_{\theta} \neq K_{\Lambda}.

By the coarea formula, we have

Hence,

for a set of t \in [0, \theta] of measure at least \frac{3}{4}\theta. Since \delta_1 < (128c_1)^{-1}\theta, we have

on a set of measure at least \frac{3}{4}\theta. Then there is a t^* \in [\frac{3}{4}\theta, \theta] so that (?) holds at t^*. Then (?) and (4.3) imply

for all t \leq \frac{3}{4}\theta.

Since B_{\theta/2}(x_0) \subset U(\theta/2) and U(\theta) \subset B_1(x_0), (?) and the isoperimetric inequality in \mathbb{R}^3 (since the \mathbb{R}^3 isoperimetric constant is \sim 4.8 \geq 4) imply

for t \in [\theta/2, \theta]. Since \delta_1\leq \theta, (?) implies

for all t \in [\theta/2, 3\theta/4]. Then by (4.3) and the coarea formula, we have for almost every t \in [\theta/2, 3\theta/4]

Hence, (?) implies

for almost every t \in [\theta/2, 3\theta/4]. By integration, we have

provided \mathcal{H}^2(F) - \mathcal{H}^2(E_{3\theta/4}) + c\mathcal{H}^3(K_{\Lambda}) > 0. By (4.3), (?), and (4.3), we have

so we reach a contradiction. Hence, we have

as desired.

Let K \coloneqq \overline{U} \cup \bigcup_{\Lambda} K_{\Lambda}. Note that there is a 3-current S with \mathrm{spt}(S) \subset K obtained by adding \pm[K_{\Lambda}] for each \Lambda \subset \Sigma_i for some i with the appropriate sign so that

Since \overline{U} is diffeomorphic to \overline{\mathbb{B}} and H_2(\overline{\mathbb{B}}, \mathbb{Z}) = 0, there is a current T with support in \overline{\mathbb{B}} so that

We take T(\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2) := S + T. The uniqueness follows by the fact there are no nonzero closed 3-currents in M with support in K.

We compute

By the uniqueness of T(\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2), (5.3) follows.

We compute

By the uniqueness of T(\Sigma_1, \Sigma_3), (5.3) follows.

The subsequential convergence follows by the standard compactness theorems (see [maggi, Theorem 12.26] and [simon_old, Chapter 1, Theorem 4.4]).

Let \phi be a diffeomorphism of U equal to the identity outside a compact subset. The assumption of transverse intersection implies

1. \lim_k \mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma_k \cap U) = \|V\|(U),

2. \lim_k \int_{\Omega_k} h\ d\mathcal{H}^3 = \int_{\Omega} h\ d\mathcal{H}^3,

3. \lim_k \mathcal{H}^2(\phi(\Sigma_k) \cap U) = \|\phi_{\#}V\|(U),

4. \lim_k \int_{\phi(\Omega_k)} h\ d\mathcal{H}^3 = \int_{\phi(\Omega)}h\ d\mathcal{H}^3.

Let \delta > 0. Then there exists k sufficiently large so that

Since \delta is arbitrary, (?) follows.

For a C^1 vector field X with \mathrm{spt}(X) \subset \subset U, (?) and [maggi, Proposition 17.8] imply

where \phi_t is the flow of X. Hence, (?) holds.

(?) follows from (?) and [maggi, Proposition 4.30].

Finally, the monotonicity of (?) follows from (?) by [simon_old, Chapter 8, Section 40](We note that [simon_old] only finds a monotonicity formula for varifolds in \mathbb{R}^N. We can isometrically embed (M, g) in some \mathbb{R}^N and use this monotonicity formula, in which case the function f will depend on the norm of the second fundamental form of the embedding.).

We use notation as in Definition 7.1.

For each intersection curve \Gamma_k, exactly one of (3a) and (3b) in Definition 7.1 holds. Let

If \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{S})=\varnothing, then \mathcal{S}\in\mathcal{Y}_0 and we are done. Hence, it suffices by induction to furnish a procedure which replaces the collection \mathcal{S} of disks with another collection \tilde{\mathcal{S}}\in\mathcal{Y} such that:

• \bigcup_i D_i = \bigcup_{i} \tilde{D}_i,

• \partial \tilde{D}_i = \partial D_i,

• |\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\mathcal{S}})|<|\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{S})|.

Let q \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{S}). There are (without loss of generality) two cases to consider.

Case 1: \text{int}\gamma_q^1\cap \text{int} \gamma_q^2 = \varnothing. Fix a C^2 diffeomorphism

so that (\chi \circ \psi_q)\vert_{\gamma_q^1} = \chi\vert_{\gamma_q^2}. Then we define a bijection \Psi_q : \bigsqcup_i F_i \to \bigsqcup_i F_i by

Case 2: \gamma_q^2 \subset \text{int}(\gamma_q^1). Fix a C^2 diffeomorphism

so that (\chi \circ \psi_q)\vert_{\gamma_q^l} = \chi\vert_{\gamma_q^{l+1}} (where the superscripts are taken mod 2 for convenience). Then we define a bijection \Psi_q : \bigsqcup_i F_i \to \bigsqcup_i F_i by

We define \tilde{\chi} \coloneqq \chi \circ \Psi_q : \bigsqcup_i F_i \to M. By the boundary assumption, in either case, \tilde{\chi} is a Lipschitz map. Since \Psi_q is a bijection, \tilde{\chi} has the same image as \chi. Moreover, \tilde{\chi} agrees with \chi in a neighborhood of the boundaries of the F_i. Note that the restriction

is a C^2 diffeomorphism. We check each component of Definition 7.1:

1. Since \Psi_q is a bijection, we have \tilde{\chi}^{-1}(\Gamma_k) = \tilde{\gamma}_k^1 \cup \tilde{\gamma}_k^2, where \tilde{\gamma}_k^l \coloneqq \Psi_q^{-1}(\gamma_k^l) are disjoint sets. Since \Psi_q is a C^2 diffeomorphism away from \gamma_q^1 \cup \gamma_q^2, \tilde{\gamma}_k^l is a C^2 Jordan curve for all k \neq q and \tilde{\chi}\vert_{\tilde{\gamma}_k^l} is a C^2 parametrization. Finally, it follows from the construction that \tilde{\gamma}_q^l = \gamma_q^{l+1} and \tilde{\chi}\vert_{\tilde{\gamma}_q^l} is a C^2 parametrization.

2. Since \Psi_q is a C^2 diffeomorphism away from \tilde{\gamma}_q^1 \cup \tilde{\gamma}_q^2, the restriction of \tilde{\chi} to any component of (\bigsqcup_i F_i)\setminus (\bigsqcup_k \tilde{\gamma}_k^1 \cup \tilde{\gamma}_k^2) is a C^2 embedding.

3. For k \neq q, the desired tubular neighborhoods are \tilde{W}_k^l = \Psi_q^{-1}(W_k^l). Since \tilde{\chi}(\tilde{W}_k^l) = \chi(W_k^l), (3a) (resp. (3b)) holds at k \neq q for \tilde{\chi} if and only if (3a) (resp. (3b)) holds at k for \chi. We now define \tilde{W}_q^l, which differ in the above cases.

   • In Case 1, we have

     \tilde{W}_q^l = \Psi_q^{-1}(W_q^{l,-} \cup \gamma_q^{l+1} \cup W_q^{l+1,+}).

     Then

     \tilde{\chi}(\tilde{W}_q^l) = \chi(W_q^{l,-}) \cup \Gamma_q \cup \chi(W_q^{l+1,+})

   • In Case 2, we have

     \begin{aligned} \tilde{W}_q^1 & = \Psi_q^{-1}(W_q^{1,-} \cup \gamma_q^2 \cup W_q^{2,-})\\ \tilde{W}_q^2 & = \Psi_q^{-1}(W_q^{2,+} \cup \gamma_q^1 \cup W_q^{1,+}). \end{aligned}

     Then

     \begin{aligned} \tilde{\chi}(\tilde{W}_q^1) & = \chi(W_q^{1,-}) \cup \Gamma_q \cup \chi(W_q^{2,-})\\ \tilde{\chi}(\tilde{W}_q^2) & = \chi(W_q^{2,+}) \cup \Gamma_q \cup \chi(W_q^{1,+}). \end{aligned}

   Since (3b) holds at q for \chi, we see that (3a) holds at q for \tilde{\chi}.

Hence, \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}. Moreover, it follows from (3) above that |\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\mathcal{S}})| < |\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{S})|.

The existence of \tilde{\Omega} follows from the existence of \Omega and the fact that the boundary orientations of the disks agree.

The remaining conclusions follow from making small perturbations along the intersection curves of the disks \{\tilde{D}_i\}.

To apply Lemma 7.3, we must first perturb the disks F_D. Let \eta > 0 so that \mathcal{H}^3(B_{\eta}(\partial U)) < \varepsilon/2. We define disks F_D' for D \in \mathcal{S}_0 so that the following hold:

• F_{D_1}' \cap F_{D_2}' = \varnothing for D_1 \neq D_2 \in \mathcal{S}_0,

• F_{D_1} has transverse (or empty) intersection with D_2 for any D_1 \in \mathcal{S}_0 and D_2 \in \mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{S}_0,

• F_D' \subset U and \partial F_D' = \partial D,

• |\mathcal{H}^2(F_D) - \mathcal{H}^2(F_D')| < \varepsilon/(2|\mathcal{S}_0|),

• F_D' \subset B_{\eta}(\partial U) \cap \Lambda_D.

We can then apply Lemma 7.3 to the disks

producing a collection \tilde{\mathcal{S}}.

By Lemma 7.5 and the choice of \eta, it then suffices show (up to a set of \mathcal{H}^3 measure zero)

Let x \in (\Omega \triangle \tilde{\Omega}) \setminus B_{\eta}(\partial U). Take a point

We also assume x is not in any D \in \mathcal{S} or \tilde{D} \in \tilde{\mathcal{S}}, which is a set of \mathcal{H}^3 measure zero. Let \gamma : (0, 1] \to U be a smooth path having transverse intersection with any D \in \mathcal{S} or \tilde{D} \in \tilde{\mathcal{S}}, satisfying \lim_{t \to 0} \gamma(t) = x_0 and \gamma(1) = x. Since x_0 and x are in the complement of B_{\eta}(\partial U) \cap (\bigcup_{D \in \mathcal{S}_0} \overline{\Lambda}_D), which contains the disks F_D', we conclude that \gamma intersects each F_D' for D \in \mathcal{S}_0 an even number of times. Since x \in \Omega \triangle \tilde{\Omega} and x_0 \notin \overline{\Omega \triangle \tilde{\Omega}}, we conclude that \gamma intersects some D \in \mathcal{S}_0 an odd number of times. Since x_0 \notin \overline{\Lambda}_D, we have x \in \Lambda_D for some D \in \mathcal{S}_0.

Step 1: We apply Lemma 7.3 to the disks \mathcal{S}' \coloneqq \{D_j'\} \cup \{D_i\}_{i\neq j}, producing new disks \tilde{\mathcal{S}} = \{\tilde{D}_i\}_{i=1}^n.

We claim

which implies (7.7) by Lemma 7.5 and taking

We first observe

Let

To show (Proof), it suffices to show for \mathcal{H}^3-a.e. x \in U that

Let R be the component of U \setminus \bigcup_i D_i containing x. Let x_0 \in C \cap \overline{R}. Let \gamma : (0, 1] \to U be a path in R so that

• \gamma avoids the intersection curves \{\Gamma_k\},

• \gamma has transverse intersection with D_j',

• \lim_{t \to 0} \gamma(t) = x_0 and \gamma(1) = x.

We have N'(x_0) = \tilde{N}(x_0). Along subsequent intersections of \gamma with D_j', each of N' and \tilde{N} will increase and decrease by 1 in alternating order.

If \gamma has an even number of intersections with D_j', then we see N'(x) = \tilde{N}(x). Hence, we only need to consider the case of an odd number of intersections, which is equivalent to x \in \Omega_j \triangle \Omega_j'. In this case, N' increases at the first intersection if and only if x \in \Omega_j'. Note that \tilde{N} decreases at the first intersection if and only if R \subset \Omega. Hence, (?) follows.

Step 2: We further modify the disks \tilde{D}_i to \tilde{D}_i' so that (up to a current with arbitrarily small mass)

where G is a nonnegative integral current, which implies (?) by (Proof) and Lemma 7.5.

Let R be a component of (\Omega_j' \setminus \Omega_j) \cap \Omega. We collect the following facts.

1. R \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing: a direct consequence of (Proof).

2. \partial R \cap \partial U = \varnothing: follows from \partial \Omega_j \cap \partial U = \partial \Omega_j' \cap \partial U.

3. R is a component of U \setminus \bigcup_i \tilde{D}_i: Let x,\ y \in R. By definition, there is a path \alpha from x to y contained in both \Omega and in \Omega_j', so \alpha does not intersect any of the disks \{D_i\} nor D_j'. Moreover, since D_j \cap \overline{\Omega \setminus \Omega_j} = \varnothing, we have \partial R \subset \bigcup_i \tilde{D}_i.

Let \tilde{\chi}: \bigcup_{i=1}^n F_i \to M be the Lipschitz map corresponding to the resolved disks \tilde{\mathcal{S}}. Let \{\sigma_l\}_l \subset \{\Gamma_k\}_k be the components of \partial (\tilde{\chi}^{-1}(\partial R)). Choose some \sigma \in \{\sigma_l\} so that \sigma \not\subset \text{int}(\sigma_l) for any l. By Definition 7.1, there is a unique distinct curve \sigma' \in \{\Gamma_k\}_k so that \tilde{\chi}(\sigma) = \tilde{\chi}(\sigma'). There are two cases.

Case 1: \text{int}\sigma \cap \text{int}\sigma' = \varnothing. Since d_1\coloneqq \tilde{\chi}(\overline{\text{int}\sigma}) and d_2\coloneqq \tilde{\chi}(\overline{\text{int}\sigma'}) are Lipschitz disks with a common boundary and that do not cross through each other, there is a unique open set R' \subset U with \partial R' = d_1 \cup d_2.

We claim that the disks \{\tilde{D}_i\} do not intersect R'. Suppose otherwise for contradiction. Then for some i there is an x \in F_i \setminus (\overline{\text{int}\sigma \cup \text{int}\sigma'}) satisfying \tilde{\chi}(x) \in R'. Let \alpha be a path in F_i \setminus (\overline{\text{int}\sigma \cup \text{int}\sigma'}) from x to \partial F_i. Then we have \tilde{\chi}(\alpha(0)) \in R' and \tilde{\chi}(\alpha(1)) \notin R'. Since \partial R' = d_1 \cup d_2, we conclude that \tilde{D}_i crosses through one of d_1 or d_2, which contradicts \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}_0.

We claim that R \subset R'. We consider the local picture along \tilde{\chi}(\sigma), where the 4 pieces \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)), \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma)), \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma')), and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma')) intersect with an X cross-section. We have

• \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma)) are adjacent: follows from \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}_0.

• \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma')) are adjacent: follows from the definition of R' and the fact that \{\tilde{D}_i\} do not intersect R'.

R' contains the component of U \setminus \bigcup_i \tilde{D}_i contained between \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma')) along this intersection. Since R touches \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and does not touch \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma)), fact (3) above implies that R is the component of U \setminus \bigcup_i \tilde{D}_i contained between \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma')) along this intersection. Hence, R \subset R'.

We claim that R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing. Since \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}_0, each component of R' touches the same side of each of d_1 and d_2. By the definition of \tilde{\Omega}, we have either R' \subset \tilde{\Omega} or R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing. By fact (1) above, we have R \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing, so R' \cap \tilde{\Omega}^c \neq \varnothing. Hence, R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing.

Collapse procedure: Relabel \sigma and \sigma' as \sigma_1 and \sigma_2 so that

Fix a C^2 diffeomorphism

so that (\tilde{\chi} \circ \psi)\vert_{\sigma_1} = \tilde{\chi}\vert_{\sigma_2}. Then we define the map

We make an arbitrarily small perturbation of the map \tilde{\chi}' on \text{int}\sigma_1 so that \tilde{\chi}' \in \mathcal{Y}_0.

Case 2: \sigma' \subset \text{int}\sigma. Since A\coloneqq \tilde{\chi}(\overline{\text{int}\sigma \setminus \text{int}\sigma'}) is a Lipschitz annulus with a common boundary and that does not cross through itself, there is a unique open set R' \subset U with \partial R' = A.

We claim that the disks \{\tilde{D}_i\} do not intersection R'. Suppose otherwise for contradiction. By the argument from Case 1, we need only suppose that \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}\sigma') \cap R' \neq \varnothing. Since \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}_0, we must have \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}\sigma') \subset R' in this case. Yet we observe that \tilde{\chi}(\sigma') is a nontrivial element in H_1(\overline{R'}), a contradiction.

We claim that R \subset R'. We consider the local picture along \tilde{\chi}(\sigma), where the 4 pieces \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)), \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma)), \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma')), and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma')) intersect with an X cross-section. We have

• \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma)) are adjacent: follows from \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}_0.

• \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma')) are adjacent: follows from the definition of R' and the fact that \{\tilde{D}_i\} do not intersect R'.

R' contains the component of U \setminus \bigcup_i \tilde{D}_i contained between \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma')) along this intersection. Since R touches \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and does not touch \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma)), fact (3) above implies that R is the component of U \setminus \bigcup_i \tilde{D}_i contained between \tilde{\chi}(\text{int}(\sigma)) and \tilde{\chi}(\text{ext}(\sigma')) along this intersection. Hence, R \subset R'.

We claim that R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing. Since \tilde{\chi} \in \mathcal{Y}_0, each component of R' touches the same side of A. By the definition of \tilde{\Omega}, we have either R' \subset \tilde{\Omega} or R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing. By fact (1) above, we have R \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing, so R' \cap \tilde{\Omega}^c \neq \varnothing. Hence, R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing.

Collapse procedure: Fix a C^2 diffeomorphism

so that (\tilde{\chi} \circ \psi)\vert_{\sigma} = \tilde{\chi}\vert_{\sigma'}. Then we define the map

We make an arbitrarily small perturbation of the map \tilde{\chi}' in a neighborhood of \sigma so that \tilde{\chi}' \in \mathcal{Y}_0.

Conclusion. In either case, we have

and

Let \tilde{R} be a different component of (\Omega_j'\setminus \Omega_j) \cap \Omega. Then we claim \partial\tilde{R} \cap \overline{R}' = \varnothing. Indeed, if not \tilde{R} would be on the opposite side of a disk in \tilde{\mathcal{S}} from R'. Since R' \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing and (by fact (1) above) \tilde{R} \cap \tilde{\Omega} = \varnothing, we reach a contradiction. Hence, we can iterate the above procedure and conclude by induction.

We apply Lemma 7.3 to \{D_1'\} \cup \{D_i\}_{i=2}^n. The resulting disks satisfy (Proof) as in the first step of the proof of Lemma 7.7. However, we have [(\Omega_1' \setminus \Omega_1) \cap \Omega] = 0 because D_1 is oriented up. Hence, the result follows from Lemma 7.5.

We apply Lemma 7.3 to the disks \{D_j', D_{j+1}'\} \cup \{D_i\}_{i\neq j, j+1}, producing new disks \{\tilde{D}_i\}_{i=1}^n.

We compute

Let

To show (7.9), it suffices to show for x \in U \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^n \tilde{D}_i that

Let R be the component of U \setminus \bigcup_i D_i containing x. Let x_0 \in C \cap \overline{R}. Let \gamma : (0, 1] \to U be a path in R so that

• \gamma avoids \Gamma_k,

• \gamma has transverse intersection with D_j' and D_{j+1}',

• \lim_{t \to 0} \gamma(t) = x_0 and \gamma(1) = x.

We have N'(x_0) = \tilde{N}(x_0). Along subsequent intersections of \gamma with D_j' \cup D_{j+1}', each of N' and \tilde{N} will increase and decrease by 1 in alternating order.

If \gamma has an even number of intersections with D_j' \cup D_{j+1}', then we see N'(x) = \tilde{N}(x). Hence, we only need to consider the case of an odd number of intersections, which is equivalent to x \in (\Omega_j \cup \Omega_{j+1}) \triangle (\Omega_j' \cup \Omega_{j+1}'). In this case, N' increases at the first intersection if and only if x \in \Omega_j' \cup \Omega_{j+1}'. Note that \tilde{N} decreases at the first intersection if and only if R \subset \Omega. We also note that if x \notin \Omega_j \cup \Omega_{j+1}, then x \notin \Omega (by the specification of the orientations of D_j and D_{j+1}). Hence, (?) follows.

The result now follows from Lemma 7.5.

If \mathcal{H}^2(\partial \Omega) \geq \delta^2, then (8.1) holds trivially by the definition of \eta. On the other hand, if \mathcal{H}^2(\partial \Omega) < \delta^2, Lemma 4.2 directly implies (8.1). Then (8.1) follows, as we have

The bound \mathcal{A}^h(\Omega) \geq \mathcal{A}^c(\Omega) holds because h \leq c.

We use the same replacement procedure as in the proof of [AS, Theorem 1]. However, we have to keep track of relative volumes, so we include the details of the procedure before the smoothing, perturbation, and induction steps.

Let \Lambda be any component of \Sigma \setminus U such that \Lambda \cap \partial \Sigma = \varnothing. By Lemma 4.3, there is a unique compact set K_\Lambda \subset M \setminus U satisfying (?) and (?. Given any component \Lambda' of \Sigma \setminus U with \Lambda' \subset K_{\Lambda}, we have \Lambda' \cap \partial \Sigma = \varnothing and K_{\Lambda'} \subset K_{\Lambda} (by the assumption on U and \Sigma). Hence, we can select a component \Lambda of \Sigma \setminus U such that \Lambda \cap \partial \Sigma = \varnothing and \mathrm{int}(K_{\Lambda}) \cap \Sigma = \varnothing.

Let \chi be a diffeomorphism of \mathbb{D} onto \Sigma, and consider the set H\coloneqq \chi^{-1}(\Lambda). H is a compact connected subset of \mathbb{D} bounded by a finite collection of pairwise disjoint smooth Jordan curves \gamma_1, \hdots, \gamma_n. Suppose without loss of generality that \gamma_1 is the outermost of the curves. By the connectedness of H, we can write

Recall that F = \partial K_\Lambda \cap \partial U. Define F_1 \subset F to be the component of F which contains the Jordan curve \chi(\gamma_1), and F_2 \coloneqq F \setminus F_1. Define I \coloneqq \cup \mathrm{int} \gamma_j, where the union is over those j such that \chi(\gamma_j) \subset F_2. Let \Lambda_2 \coloneqq \chi(I). Then \Lambda_1 \coloneqq \Lambda \cup \Lambda_2 is diffeomorphic to the connected subset H \cup I of \mathbb{D}, and \partial \Lambda_1 = \partial F_1. By [AS, Lemma 1], we can construct a diffeomorphism \alpha of \Lambda_1 onto F_1 such that \alpha coincides with the identity on \partial \Lambda_1 = \partial F_1. We define a Lipschitz map \hat{\chi} : \mathbb{D} \to M by

We consider the following two cases:

Case 1: \partial \Sigma \cap (F_1 \setminus \partial F_1) = \varnothing. Since \mathrm{int}(K_{\Lambda}) \cap \Sigma = \varnothing, \hat{\chi} is injective, and we define

Let V_{\Lambda} \subset U \cup \bigcup_{\Lambda'} K_{\Lambda'} be the unique open set bounded by \Lambda_1 \cup F_1. Note that \mathrm{int}(K_{\Lambda}) \subset V_{\Lambda}, so V_{\Lambda} is on the outside of F_1. Let B \coloneqq V_{\Lambda} \cap U, V_{\Lambda}^o \coloneqq V_{\Lambda} \setminus \overline{U}, \Lambda_1^i \coloneqq \Lambda_1 \cap U, \Lambda_1^o = \Lambda_1 \setminus \overline{U}, and G \coloneqq V_\Lambda \cap \partial U. Since V_\Lambda is on the outside of F_1, we have \partial B = \Lambda_1^i \cup G. Our goal is to show

We have \partial V_{\Lambda}^o = \Lambda_1^o \cup F_1 \cup G, so (?) implies

By the definition of \tilde{\Sigma}, we have

Hence, we have

Case 2: \partial \Sigma \cap (F_1 \setminus \partial F_1) \neq \varnothing. Since \mathrm{int}(K_{\Lambda}) \cap \Sigma = \varnothing, we have \partial \Sigma \subset F_1 \setminus \partial F_1 in this case. Hence, \hat{\chi}^{-1}(\partial \Sigma) = \partial \mathbb{D} \cup \gamma, where \gamma is a smooth Jordan curve in \mathbb{D} \setminus \partial \mathbb{D}. We define

Let V_\Lambda \subset U \cup \bigcup_{\Lambda'} K_{\Lambda'} be the unique open set bounded by \Sigma and \tilde{\Sigma}. Note that \mathrm{int}(K_\Lambda) \subset V_\Lambda, so V_\Lambda is on the outside of \tilde{\Sigma}. Let B \coloneqq V_\Lambda \cap U, V_\Lambda^o \coloneqq V_\Lambda \setminus \overline{U}, \Sigma^i \coloneqq \Sigma \cap U, \Sigma^o \coloneqq \Sigma \setminus \overline{U}, and G \coloneqq V_\Lambda \cap \partial U. Since V_\Lambda is on the outside of \tilde{\Sigma}, we have \partial B = \Sigma^i \cup G. Our goal is to show

We have \partial V_\Lambda^o = \Sigma^o \cup \tilde{\Sigma} \cup G, so (?) implies

Hence, we have

The smoothing, slight perturbation, and induction steps now follow exactly as in the proof of [AS, Theorem 1] (with the additional observation that small perturbations make small changes to relative volumes). Taking B to be the union of the perturbations of the sets B from each iteration applied to the perturbed \tilde{\Sigma} from the previous step, we obtain (8.2) and (8.2) immediately. Moreover, by (?) and (?), we have

Since

the second inequality in (8.2) holds. The first inequality in (8.2) follows from (8.1) and the fact that B \subset U.

(?) follows from (8.2), (?), Proposition 5.3, and the fact that \mathcal{D}(U)[\tilde{\Sigma}] \subset \mathcal{D}(U)[\Sigma].

To prove (?), we note that

By (8.2) and (?) with \Sigma' = \tilde{\Sigma}, we have

By (8.1), we have

which implies (?).

(?) follows from the construction of \tilde{\Sigma}; namely, for each component of \Sigma \cap U, either (1) it is thrown away in \partial B, or (2) each component of its intersection with \partial U is either (a) kept unchanged, or (b) pushed away from \partial U in the perturbation step.

(?) follows from the construction of \tilde{\Sigma} and (?); namely, each component of \Sigma \cap U is either (1) thrown away in \partial B, whose area is at most 2\varepsilon by (?), or (2) kept and given potentially larger area (by adding pieces of \partial U).

For almost every \sigma \in [0, \theta], we have \Sigma \in \mathcal{D}^*(U(\sigma)). Choose any such \sigma = t\theta for t \in [0, 1]. We apply Lemma 8.2 to \Sigma in U(\sigma) with some small constant \xi, yielding \tilde{\Sigma}.

Let \mathcal{S} be the set of disks composing \tilde{\Sigma} in U(\sigma). Let \mathcal{S}_P \subset \mathcal{S} be the set of disks D \in \mathcal{S} so that D \cap U(\sigma)_{\xi} \subset P. Let \tilde{P} \coloneqq \bigcup_{D \in \mathcal{S}_P} D. Take a disk D \in \mathcal{S}_P. Let F_D denote the isoperimetric region in \partial U(\sigma) for \partial D. Let \Lambda_D denote the region in U(\sigma) bounded by D \cup F_D.

Consider the competitor \Sigma' for \tilde{\Sigma} given by replacing each disk D \in \mathcal{S}_P with F_D, and then resolving the overlaps and perturbing using Lemma 7.6. Then

By (8.1), we have

Hence, we have

By Lemma 8.2(?), we have

so

By the isoperimetric inequality on \partial U(\sigma), we have

By Lemma 8.2(?), we have

By Lemma 8.2(?), we have

Hence, we have

Let f(t) \coloneqq \mathcal{H}^2(P \cap U(t\theta)) - 6\varepsilon. Then by the coarea formula we have

Suppose without loss of generality that f(1) > 0. Let

Integrating (?) gives

Then our area assumption gives

Hence, \mathcal{H}^2(P \cap U) \leq \mathcal{H}^2(P \cap U(\theta/2)) \leq 6\varepsilon.

Rectifiability follows from the positive density lower bound by [allard, Theorem 5.5].

Let x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\|. Choose r_0 \leq 1/2 small enough so that \mathcal{H}^3(B_{r_0}(x)) \leq \eta and \mathcal{H}^2(\partial B_r(x)) \leq \delta_2^2/64 for all r \leq r_0. Let r_i \to 0 with r_i \leq r_0, B_{r_i}(x) \subset U, and \Sigma_k \in \mathcal{D}^*(B_{r_i}(x)) for all k and i, which is guaranteed by Sard’s theorem. By Lemma 9.1 with \theta = r_i/2, if

then

which contradicts x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\|. Hence, by the assumption of transversality, we have

By the monotonicity of (?) for V, we have

as desired.

By Lemma 10.1, V is rectifiable and has a uniform positive density lower bound in its support. By Theorem 6.1(?), V has c-bounded first variation.

Integer Density. We show that the density of V is an integer at every x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\|. Since this result concerns the infinitesimal behavior of V near x, we push objects to T_xM using the exponential map \phi_x. In T_xM, we use the standard Euclidean metric in the geodesic normal coordinates, which is the C^{\infty} limit of the pullback metric under a blow up rescaling.

First, let x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\| be such that there is a tangent cone C \in \mathrm{VarTan}(V,x) with \mathrm{spt}\|C\| \subset P_C, where P_C is a 2-plane in T_xM (by rectifiability, this holds \|V\|-almost everywhere).

Fix any \xi > 0.

Without loss of generality, assume P_C \supset \mathrm{spt}\|C\| is the x_1x_2-plane in T_xM.

Let \mu_t denote the transformation of T_xM given by \mu_t(y) = ty. By the definition of C, there is a sequence \{r_j\} \to \infty so that

as j \to \infty. We always assume r_j \geq 1.

By the lower density bound from Lemma 10.1 and the monotonicity of (?), there is a sequence \{\sigma_j\} \to 0 so that

We establish some notation. To distinguish objects in T_xM from objects in M, we use lower case letters here. Let

• v^j \coloneqq (\mu_{r_j} \circ \phi_x^{-1})_{\#}V,

• s_{k,j} \coloneqq (\mu_{r_j} \circ \phi_x^{-1})(\Sigma_k),

• b_{\rho} \coloneqq B_{\rho}^{T_xM}(0),

• c_{\rho, \sigma} \coloneqq \partial b_{\rho} \cap \{x_3 \in [-\sigma, \sigma]\},

• d_{\rho, \sigma}^+ \coloneqq \partial b_{\rho} \cap \{x_3 > \sigma\},

• d_{\rho, \sigma}^- \coloneqq \partial b_{\rho} \cap \{x_3 < -\sigma\}.

By (?), we have

By (?) and the coarea formula, for almost every \rho < 1 we have

for every j. Fix some \rho_1 \in (3/4, 1) satisfying (?) so that s_{k,j} has transverse intersection with \partial b_{\rho_1} for every k and j, which is guaranteed by Sard’s theorem.

Fix some \zeta > 0. For k\geq k_1(j, \zeta, \rho_1), we have

For \zeta \leq \zeta_1(M), the coarea formula gives

for a sequence \sigma_{k,j} \in (\sigma_j/2, \sigma_j).

We apply Lemma 8.2 to s_{k,j} \in \mathcal{D}^*(b_{\rho_1}) with constant \xi. We obtain the replacement \tilde{s}_{k,j} \in \mathcal{D}(b_{\rho_1})[s_{k,j}] and a collection of disks \mathfrak{S}_{k,j} composing \tilde{s}_{k,j} in b_{\rho_1}.

Let \xi' \in [\xi, 2\xi] so that

for all j.

By Lemma 8.2(8.2) and (?) (also using (?)), we have

Step 1: We show that we can throw away disks d \in \mathfrak{S}_{k,j} with boundary in the caps d_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}^{\pm}. Let \mathfrak{C}_{k,j} be the set of all such disks in \mathfrak{S}_{k,j}. For every d \in \mathfrak{C}_{k,j}, let f_d be the isoperimetric region for \partial d in d_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}^+ \cup d_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}^-. By (?) and Lemma 8.2(?), we have

for k \geq k_1(j, \zeta, \rho_1). By the isoperimetric inequality in the round sphere, we have

for all d \in \mathfrak{C}_{k,j}. Hence, we have

for k \geq k_1(j, \zeta, \rho_1). Consider the competitor given by replacing each d \in \mathfrak{C}_{k,j} by f_d (and then resolving the overlaps without increasing area by more than \varepsilon_k by [AS, Corollary 1]). By (10.2), Lemma 8.2(?), and the fact that |d\phi_x|\raisebox{-.2em}{_B_/r_j^M(x)} \leq 1 + o_j(1), we have

Rewriting, we have

for k \geq k_1(j, \zeta, \rho_1). Taking j \geq j_2(M, \xi) and \zeta \leq \zeta_2(M, \xi), and then taking k \geq k_2(j, \zeta, \rho_1, \xi), we can apply Lemma 9.1 to conclude that

for all j\geq j_2(M, \xi).

Step 2: We show that we can throw away the disks with nullhomotopic boundary in c_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}. Let \mathfrak{N}_{k,j} be the set of all such disks in \mathfrak{S}_{k,j}. By the monotonicity of (?), there is a uniform upper bound for the mass of v^j in b_{1} for all j depending on V and c.

Let \mathfrak{N}_{k,j}^{-} \subset \mathfrak{N}_{k,j} be the set of disks d \in \mathfrak{N}_{k,j} with \mathcal{H}^2(d) \leq \frac{\xi^2}{48\beta_1}. By the uniform mass upper bound, there is an m = m(V, c, \xi) \in \mathbb{N} such that

for all j. By a standard counting argument, we can partition \mathfrak{N}_{k,j}^{-} into 2m disjoint sets \{\mathfrak{N}^{-}_{k,j,i}\}_{i=1}^{2m} (some potentially empty) such that

By Lemma 9.1, we have

Let \mathfrak{N}^{+}_{k,j} denote the set of disk d \in \mathfrak{N}_{k,j} with \mathcal{H}^2(d) > \frac{\xi^2}{48\beta_1}. By the uniform mass upper bound, we have \#\mathfrak{N}_{k,j}^{+} \leq m. Let f_d denote the isoperimetric region in c_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}} for \partial d. Consider the competitor given by replacing d with f_d for all d \in \mathfrak{N}_{k,j}^{+} (and then resolving overlaps without increasing area by more than \varepsilon_k by [AS, Corollary 1]). As in step 1, (10.2) and Lemma 8.2(?) imply

Rewriting, we have

Assuming j \geq j_3(c,\rho_1, M, V, \xi) and then taking k \geq k_3(j, \rho_1, M, \xi), we have \# \mathfrak{N}_{k,j}^{+} = 0.

Step 3: We obtain lower and upper bounds for the area of the disks whose boundary is homotopically nontrivial in c_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}. Let \mathfrak{L}_{k,j} denote the set of such disks in \mathfrak{S}_{k,j}.

Let d \in \mathfrak{L}_{k,j}. Since \partial d is homotopically nontrivial in c_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}, (?) implies

for \rho \in [\rho_1-2\xi, \rho_1], j \geq j_4(\rho_1, M, V, \xi), and k \geq k_4(j, \rho_1, M, \xi).

By the uniform mass bound on the limit, there is an m = m(c,V) so that \#\mathfrak{L}_{k,j} \leq m for all j \geq j_4(c,\rho_1,M, V,\xi) and k \geq k_4'(j, c,\rho_1, M, V,\xi).

For each d \in \mathfrak{L}_{k,j}, let m_d be the disk with \partial m_d = \partial d so that m_d \setminus b_{\rho_1} \subset c_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}} and m_d \cap b_{\rho_1} is the flat disk d_{k,j}^* \subset b_{\rho_1} with boundary \partial d_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}}^+. Note that

Consider the competitor given by replacing each d \in \mathfrak{L}_{k,j} with m_d (and then resolving overlaps using [AS, Corollary 1]). As in steps 1 and 2, (10.2) implies

Rewriting, we have

Assuming j \geq j_5(c, \rho_1, M, V, \xi) and then taking k \geq k_5(j, c, \rho_1, M, V, \xi), we have for every d \in \mathfrak{L}_{k,j} (by (?))

Step 4: We compute the density of V at x. By (?) and the above work, we have

By (?) and (?), we have

Assuming \xi is sufficiently small (depending on universal quantities), we have \lim_k \#\mathfrak{L}_{k,j} exists, so we have \#\mathfrak{L}_{k,j} = n_j \in \mathbb{N} for all j \geq j_5(c, \rho_1, M, V, \xi) and k \geq k_6(j, c, \rho_1,M,V,\xi). By the monotonicity of (?), n_j is decreasing for j \geq j_6(c, \rho_1, M, V, \xi). By Lemma 10.1, we have n_j \geq 1. Hence, we have n_j \equiv n \geq 1 for all j \geq j_6'(c, \rho_1, M, V, \xi). Therefore, we have

Since \xi is arbitrary, we conclude that \Theta^2(\|V\|,x) = n \in \mathbb{N}, i.e. V has integer density at all points x in its support such that some tangent cone C\in\mathrm{VarTan}(V,x) is supported in a 2-plane P_C\subset T_xM.

Flatness of Tangent Cones. We now show that for all x\in\mathrm{spt}\|V\|, every tangent cone C\in \mathrm{VarTan}(V,x) is supported in some 2-plane P_C\subset T_xM.

Lemma ?, together with the previous step of the proof, shows that V has positive integer density at every point of its support.

Decomposition of V. To study the local regularity of V, we return to work in M. We adapt the set up from the proof of integer density. Let x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\|, \xi > 0, r_j \to \infty, \sigma_j \to 0, \zeta > 0, \sigma_{k,j} \in (\sigma_j/2, \sigma_j) as above. We define

• B_{\rho, j} := B_{\rho/r_j}^M(x),

• C_{\rho, \sigma, j} := (\mu_{r_j} \circ \phi_x^{-1})^{-1}(c_{\rho, \sigma}) \subset B_{\rho, j},

• D_{\rho, \sigma, j}^{\pm} := (\mu_{r_j} \circ \phi_x^{-1})^{-1}(d_{\rho, \sigma}^{\pm}) \subset B_{\rho, j}.

We apply Lemma 8.2 to \Sigma_k \in \mathcal{D}^*(B_{\rho_1, j}) with constant \xi, producing new disks S_{k,j}. By (8.2), we have

for all S_{k,j}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho_1, j})[S_{k,j}]. Let \mathcal{S}_{k,j} be the set of disks composing S_{k,j} in B_{\rho_1,j}. Let \mathcal{L}_{k,j} \subset \mathcal{S}_{k,j} be the disks with homotopically nontrivial boundary in C_{\rho_1, \sigma_{k,j}, j}. We translate the estimates from the proof of integer density to M.

Henceforth we assume j \geq j_6'(c, \rho_1, M,V, \xi) and k \geq k_6(j, c, \rho_1, M, V, \xi) as above. Namely, we have \#\mathcal{L}_{k,j} = n for all such j and k.

Label the disks D \in \mathcal{L}_{k,j} as \{D_{k,j,1}, \hdots, D_{k,j,n}\}. There is a subsequence (not relabeled, after shuffling the 1 through n labels) so that \mathbf{v}(D_{k,j,i}) converges in the varifold sense to a limit V_{j,i} for i = 1, \hdots, n as k \to \infty, satisfying

and

Reduction to Stacked Disk Minimization. We now reduce the problem to a stacked disk minimization problem.

Let \mathcal{E}_{k,j} \coloneqq \mathcal{S}_{k,j} \setminus \mathcal{L}_{k,j}. For D \in \mathcal{E}_{k,j} let F_D \subset \partial B_{\rho_1,j} be the isoperimetric region for \partial D. Let \Lambda_D \subset B_{\rho_1,j} be the open set bounded by D \cup F_D.

Steps 1 and 2 from the proof of integer density above imply

In particular, (?) and (?) imply

with A(\xi, \zeta, j, k) \to 0 as (\xi, \zeta) \to 0 and j, k \to \infty. By (8.1), we have

Taking \xi and \zeta small and j and k large, the coarea formula implies

for \rho in a set of positive measure in (1/4,1/2). By the coarea formula and (?), we have

for almost every \rho \in (1/4, 1/2). Take \rho \in (1/4, 1/2) satisfying (?) and (?). By the coarea formula and (?), we have

for \sigma in a set of positive measure in (\sigma_0/4, \sigma_0/2).

For D \in \mathcal{E}_{k,j}, let B_D be the unique component of D \setminus B_{\rho,j} containing \partial D. Note that B_D is a punctured disk with boundary \partial D \cup \bigcup_l \alpha_l, where \alpha_l are smooth Jordan curves in \partial B_{\rho, j}. Let N_D be a smooth disk in \overline{B}_{\rho_1, j} \setminus \overline{B}_{\rho, j} obtained by gluing F_{\alpha_l} (the isoperimetric region in \partial B_{\rho, j} for \alpha_l) to B_D and then smoothing. This procedure is well-defined as long as F_{\alpha_l} is glued and perturbed before F_{\alpha_{l'}} if F_{\alpha_l} \subset F_{\alpha_{l'}}. Moreover, the resulting surface is a disk by construction.

We construct a competitor \mathbf{S}_{k,j} \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho_1,j})[S_{k,j}] by replacing each D \in \mathcal{E}_{k,j} by N_D. Since the surfaces B_D are disjoint, we can choose the smoothing so that the surfaces N_D are also disjoint, so \mathbf{S}_{k,j} is well-defined.

We claim that we can replace S_{k,j} by \mathbf{S}_{k,j} in (?) after replacing \varepsilon_k by some \varepsilon_{k,j} satisfying \lim_k \varepsilon_{k,j} = 0. Note that N_D is obtained from D by (a) applying Lemma 4.3 to each component of D \setminus B_{\rho,j} except B_D, (b) deleting everything in \overline{B}_{\rho, j}, and (c) turning B_D into N_D as described above. By Lemma 4.3 and (?), the \mathcal{A}^h functional does not increase after (a). Since we only delete portions of the surface in (b), the area does not increase from (b). By (8.1), (?), and (?), we have (for k large)

Hence, we have

and the right hand side goes to zero by (?) and (?). Therefore the volume change from (b) vanishes as k \to \infty. Finally, by (?) and (?), we have \lim_k \sum_{\mathcal{E}_{k,j}} \mathcal{H}^2(N_D \triangle B_D) = 0, so the area added in (c) vanishes as k \to \infty. Hence, we have

for all S_{k,j}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho_1, j})[\mathbf{S}_{k,j}], where \lim_k \varepsilon_{k,j} = 0.

Let D_{k,j,i}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho,j})[D_{k,j,i}] be mutually disjoint for i = 1,\hdots, n. Let \Omega_{k,j,i} be the open set in B_{\rho_1,j} so that

Let \Omega_{k,j,i}' be the analogous open set for D_{k,j,i}'. We claim that

for some \lim_k \varepsilon_{k,j}'' \to 0.

Consider the competitor S_{k,j}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho_1,j})[\mathbf{S}_{k,j}] given by replacing each D_{k,j,i} by D_{k,j,i}'. This competitor is well-defined (i.e. there are no self-intersections) because (\mathbf{S}_{k,j} \setminus \bigcup_i D_{k,j,i}) \cap B_{\rho, j} = \varnothing by definition, and D_{k,j,i}' \setminus \overline{B}_{\rho, j} is a subset of D_{k,j,i}. Hence, (?) follows directly from (?).

We conclude with some notation. Let B_{k,j,i} be the open set in B_{\rho_1,j} so that

If B_{k,j,i} \subset B_{k,j,i'} for some i \neq i', then we say D_{k,j,i} < D_{k,j,i'}. If B_{k,j,i} = \Omega_{k,j,i} (as defined above), then we say D_{k,j,i} is oriented up; otherwise, it is oriented down. By selecting a subsequence and relabeling, we can assume that

and that D_{k,j,i} is oriented up if and only if D_{k',j,i} is oriented up for all k'\neq k. By the assumption that there is an open set \Lambda_k with \partial \Lambda_k \cap U = \Sigma_k \cap U, we conclude that D_{k,j,i} is oriented up if and only if D_{k,j,i-1} and D_{k,j,i+1} are oriented down (i.e. the orientation alternates with respect to the order of the disks).

Parity for Stacked Disks. Let \Omega_k and \Omega be defined as in Theorem 6.1 with respect to the set U. Let x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\|. We claim that

and

Let W be any neighborhood of x. Taking j large enough, we have B_{\rho_1, j} \subset W. Let \Omega_{k,j,i} be defined as above for the stacked disks D_{k,j,i}. Let \Omega_{k,j} be the open subset of B_{\rho_1,j} satisfying

Let \Omega^{j,i} and \Omega^j be the limits of \Omega_{k,j,i} and \Omega_{k,j} in k respectively, in the sense of Theorem 6.1.

We first show that \mathcal{H}^3((\Omega^j \triangle \Omega)) \cap B_{\rho, j}) = 0. Indeed, we have

by Lemma 8.2(?) and (?) (where \beta_k are the bubbles called “B” in Lemma 8.2). Hence, we have

so it suffices to work with \Omega^j.

Let \omega^j := (\mu_{r_j} \circ \phi_x^{-1})(\Omega^j). Let v_{j,i} := (\mu_{r_j} \circ \phi_x^{-1})_{\#}V_{j,i}. By (?), we have

Let

Since \overline{\partial^*\omega^j} \cap b_{\rho} \subset \mathrm{spt}\|\sum_iv_{j,i}\| \cap b_{\rho}, we have either b_{\rho,j}^+ \subset \omega^j or b_{\rho,j}^+ \cap \omega^j = \varnothing (and analogously for b_{\rho,j}^-). We see that D_{k,j,1} is oriented down if and only if b_{\rho,j}^+ \subset \omega^j. Similarly, D_{k,j,n} is oriented up if and only if b_{\rho,j}^- \subset \omega^j. Note that b_{\rho, j}^{\pm} contain a definite portion of b_{2}^{\pm} (the upper and lower half balls of radius 2 in T_xM).

If n \equiv 1 \mod 2, then \omega^j converges in L^1 as j \to \infty (without loss of generality) to the upper half space H^+ \subset T_xM. Hence, every sufficiently small neighborhood W of x satisfies

so we have x \in \overline{\partial^*\Omega}.

If n \equiv 0 \mod 2, then \omega^j converges in L^1 as j \to \infty to T_xM or \varnothing, so x \notin \partial^*\Omega (i.e. we showed x is not in the essential boundary of \Omega, which contains the reduced boundary (see [maggi, Theorem 16.2]).

C^{1,\alpha} Regularity. By Lemma 7.7(7.7) and (?), we have

for any D_{k,j,i}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho, j})[D_{k,j,i}].

We observe that everything we have proved thus far only requires that the function h is measurable and satisfies |h| \leq c. We note that (?) implies that D_{k,j,i} is a minimizing sequence for the problem with prescribing function -c + 2c\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_{j,i}}. Hence, all of the above work applies to V_{j,i}. In particular, V_{j,i} has c-bounded first variation and positive integer density in its support. By (?), there is a neighborhood W of x so that \Theta^2(V_{j,i}, y) = 1 for all y \in W\cap \mathrm{spt}\|V_{j,i}\|.

By [allard, §8], we have V_{j,i} \llcorner G(W,2) = \mathbf{v}(N_{j,i}, 1) for a C^{1.\alpha} surface N_{j,i} \subset W. By (?), we have N_{j,i} \cap W = \partial^*\Omega^{j,i} \cap W. Hence, N_{j,i} is on one side of N_{j,i'} for any i,\ i', and each of these surfaces intersects tangentially at x. We conclude by (?).

Decomposition into 1-Stacks and 2-Stacks. Take x so that h(x) \neq 0. Suppose without loss of generality (by swapping orientations and taking j sufficiently large) that h\vert_{B_{\rho_1, j}} > 0. We now decompose the stacked disk minimization problem (?) into smaller units, which we call 1-stacks and 2-stacks.

We first separate the 1-stacks. If D_{k,j,1} is oriented up, then we show that

for all D_{k,j,1}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho,j})[D_{k,j,1}], where \Omega_{k,j,1}' is defined as above. The analogous statement holds if D_{k,j,n} is oriented down by vertical reflection. The result follows immediately from Lemma 7.8.

Now we separate the 2-stacks. If D_{k,j,i'} is oriented down for some 1 \leq i' < n, then we show that

for all mutually disjoint D_{k,j,i}' \in \mathcal{D}(B_{\rho, j})[D_{k,j,i}] for i = i',\ i'+1, where \Omega_{k,j,i}' is defined as above. The result follows immediately from Lemma 7.9.

Regularity of 1-Stacks. Suppose (?) holds(We note that (?) holds at any point in V of density 1, as well as in the case D_{k,j,1} is oriented up.). Recall that we showed \Theta^2(V_{j,1}, y) = 1 for all y \in W \cap \mathrm{spt}\|V_{j,1}\| and

Hence, we have

Inserting this equality into Theorem 6.1(?), we conclude that

which is a C^{1,\alpha} vector field. Applying the regularity theorem of Allard [allard, §8] iteratively, we conclude that N_{j,1} is a smooth surface with prescribed mean curvature h in W with respect to the set \Omega^{j,1}. Stability follows from smooth embeddedness and (?).

Regularity of 2-Stacks. Suppose D_{k,j,i'} is oriented down for 1 \leq i' < n, so (?) holds. For ease of notation, let i' = 1.

We show the mean convexity of V_{j,1}. Let X be a smooth vector field with compact support in B_{\rho, j}, and let \Phi_t be the flow of X. Without loss of generality, we suppose that

(i.e. either the derivative is zero, or we can swap X \mapsto -X). By Lemma 7.7(?) and (?), we have (using h \geq 0)

Following the proof of Theorem 6.1, we have

Hence, we have

By [maggi, Proposition 17.8], we have

Hence, we observe that the first variation cannot be negative if X \cdot \nu_{\partial^*\Omega^{j,1}} \geq 0, which proves the desired weak mean convexity. By vertical reflection, the same holds for V_{j,2}.

Suppose \mathrm{spt}\|V_{j,1}\| \cap W' = \mathrm{spt}\|V_{j,2}\| \cap W' for some open set W' \subset W. As shown above, \Theta^2(V_{j,1} + V_{j,2}, x) = 2 for all x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V_{j,1} + V_{j,2}\| \cap W'. By (?), we have \partial^*(\Omega^{j,1} \cup \Omega^{j,2}) \cap W' = \varnothing, so in fact \overline{\partial^*(\Omega^{j,1} \cup \Omega^{j,2})} \cap W' = \varnothing. Since we already showed \mathrm{spt}\|V_{j,i}\| \cap W' = \partial^*\Omega^{j,i} \cap W', we conclude that \mathcal{H}^3((\Omega^{j,1} \cup \Omega^{j,2}) \cap W') = \mathcal{H}^3(W'). By Theorem 6.1(?), V_{j,1} + V_{j,2} is stationary in W'. Then by Allard’s regularity theorem [allard, §8],

where N \subset W' is a smooth minimal surface. Hence, N_{j,1} \cap W' = N_{j,2} \cap W' = N. Stability follows from smooth embeddedness and Theorem 6.1(?).

Maximum Principle. First, suppose \Theta^2(\|V\|, x) = 2n + 1. Then (without loss of generality) D_{k,j,1} is oriented up. By the regularity of 1-stacks, V_{j,1} is the varifold associated to a smooth surface N_{j,1} with mean curvature h > 0 pointing up. Suppose for contradiction that n \geq 1. Then V_{j,2} is the varifold associated to a C^{1,\alpha} surface N_{j,2} with generalized mean curvature pointing down. Moreover, N_{j,2} is below N_{j,1} and intersects N_{j,1} tangentially at x, which contradicts the strong maximum principle (see Lemma A.2). Hence, if D_{k,j,1} is oriented up, then n = 1 and V is the varifold of a smooth surface of prescribed mean curvature h pointing up in a neighborhood of x.

Second, suppose \Theta^2(\|V\|, x) = 2n with n \geq 2. By the above paragraph, V consists of n 2-stacks intersecting tangentially and on one side at x. Then N_{j, 2} and N_{j, 2n - 1} are C^{1,\alpha} surfaces on one side of each other, intersecting tangentially at x, and with generalized mean curvature pointing away from each other. By the strong maximum principle (see Lemma A.2) and the regularity of 2-stacks, there is a neighborhood W'' of x and a minimal surface N \subset W'' satisfying N_{j, i} \cap W'' = N for all i. Hence, \Theta^2(\|V\|, y) = 2n for all y \in W'' \cap \mathrm{spt}\|V\|.

We shall follow the setup in [WZ_multiple, § 1.2].

By Theorem 10.2, V \llcorner G(W_x,2) = \sum_{l=1}^{n_x}\mathbf{v}(N_l,1), where N_i are distinct C^{1,\alpha} hypersurfaces with \|h\|_{L^\infty(W_x)}-bounded generalized mean curvature, such that each N_l is on one side of N_{l'} intersecting tangentially at x. Let then n\coloneqq n_x, and let P\subset T_xM be the common tangent plane of N_1, N_2, \dots, N_n at x.

By shrinking W_x if necessary, we can assume the surfaces N_i can be represented as weakly ordered graphs over the ball B^P_r(0)\subset P for some small enough r>0. By Allard’s regularity theorem (see the proof of Theorem 10.2), these graphs satisfy a uniform C^{1,\alpha} bound.

By [WZ_multiple, Remark 1.5], after shrinking W_x again if necessary, there is an embedded minimal surface \Gamma\subset W_x through x with boundary in \partial W_x, so that we can rewrite N_1, N_2, \dots, N_n as weakly ordered normal graphs over \mathcal{B}_{r'}(x)\subset\Gamma with uniformly bounded C^{1,\alpha} norm, where \mathcal{B}_{r'}(x) denotes the geodesic ball in \Gamma with center x and radius r'. In particular, after choosing a unit normal field on \Gamma, which trivializes the normal bundle N\Gamma, there are C^{1,\alpha} functions u_i:\mathcal{B}_{r'}(x)\to \mathbb{R} such that

and

for i=1, \dots, n.

Notice that, when restricted to W_x, the varifold V is induced by the union of graphs of the functions u_i, and the Caccioppoli set \Omega has boundary given by \sum_{i=1}^n(-1)^{i-1}[\mathrm{graph}\, u_i] in the sense of currents. By the proof of Theorem 10.2, the pair (V, \Omega) is \mathcal{A}^h-stationary in W_x in the sense of [WZ_multiple].

Therefore, the first conclusion in [WZ_multiple, Theorem 1.4] applies, and this ends the proof of the proposition.

This follows directly from the results in Section 4 of [SilvestreTM]. Indeed, the difference \tilde{u}_1-\tilde{u}_2 is a solution to an obstacle problem to which the results of Caffarelli ([Caf77], [Caf80] and [Caf98]) apply.

The proof follows exactly as in [MSY, Theorem 2], with the additional step of keeping track of volumes.

We induct on q, where the case q = 0 is trivial.

Assume \Omega satisfies

• \Sigma_0 = \varnothing,

• \sum_{j=1}^q \mathcal{H}^2(F_j) \leq \gamma/8,

• E(\Omega) \leq 3\gamma/8 - \frac{3}{2}\sum_{j=1}^q \mathcal{H}^2(F_j),

• \Sigma is strongly \tilde{\gamma} irreducible for \tilde{\gamma} = \gamma/4 + 4\sum_{j=1}^q \mathcal{H}^2(F_j) + \frac{4}{3}E(\Omega).

Assume as an inductive hypothesis that the conclusions of the theorem are true for \hat{\Omega} = \phi(1,\Omega) for some \phi \in \mathcal{I}(U) if it satisfies the above assumptions with q-1 in space of q and \hat{\Omega} in place of \Omega.

Without loss of generality (by relabeling), we have F_q \cap \Gamma_j = \varnothing for all j \neq q. Since \Sigma is strongly \tilde{\gamma}-irreducible and \mathcal{H}^2(F_q) < \tilde{\gamma}, there is a disk D \subset \Sigma so that \partial D = \Gamma_q and \mathcal{H}^2(D) < \delta^2/2. Then D \cup F_q is homeomorphic to S^2 and \mathcal{H}^2(D \cup F_q) < \delta^2/2 + \delta^2/2 = \delta^2, so Lemma 4.2 implies that D \cup F_q = \partial K for K \subset U an open 3-ball. Let \Lambda be the component of \Sigma containing D. Since \Sigma_0 = \varnothing by assumption, we have \Lambda \setminus D \not\subset K. Hence, we have (\Sigma \setminus D) \cap K = \varnothing (because \Sigma \setminus D does not intersect F_q).

Let \Sigma_* = (\Sigma \setminus D) \cup F_q and \Omega_* the corresponding region. As in [MSY, Theorem 2], for every \varepsilon > 0, there is a continuous isotopy \alpha taking \Sigma_* to a smooth surface \hat{\Sigma}_* and \Omega_* to \hat{\Omega}_* satisfying

• \hat{\Omega}_* = \phi(1, \Omega) for some \phi \in \mathcal{I}(U),

• \hat{\Sigma}_* \cap \partial U' = \bigcup_{j=1}^{q-1} \Gamma_j,

• \mathcal{H}^2(\hat{\Sigma}_* \triangle \Sigma) < \mathcal{H}^2(D) + \mathcal{H}^2(F_q) + \varepsilon,

• \mathcal{H}^3(\hat{\Omega}_* \triangle \Omega) < \mathcal{H}^3(K) + \varepsilon/(2c),

• \mathcal{H}^2(\hat{\Sigma}_*) < \mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma) + \mathcal{H}^2(F_q) - \mathcal{H}^2(D) + \varepsilon/2,

• \mathcal{H}^2(\hat{\Sigma}_*) \geq \mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma_*).

Using \mathcal{H}^3(U) \leq \eta/8, Proposition 8.1 implies c\mathcal{H}^3(K) \leq \frac{1}{4}(\mathcal{H}^2(F_q) + \mathcal{H}^2(D)). We assume \varepsilon \leq \mathcal{H}^2(F_q)/4. Observe that since \Omega and \hat{\Omega}_* are in the same isotopy class, we have

By [MSY, Remark 3.11], we have that \hat{\Sigma}_* is strongly \gamma^*-irreducible, where

Furthermore, we have

Hence, \hat{\Omega}_* satisfies the inductive hypothesis. Then there are pairwise disjoint disks \tilde{\Delta}_1, \hdots, \tilde{\Delta}_p satisfying

• \tilde{\Delta}_j \subset \hat{\Sigma}_*,

• \partial \tilde{\Delta}_j \subset \partial U',

• \left(\bigcup_{j=1}^p \tilde{\Delta}_j\right) \cap U' = \hat{\Sigma}_* \cap U',

• there is an isotopy \tilde{\psi}\in \mathcal{I}(U) such that \tilde{\psi}(t, x) = x for all (t, x) \in [0,1] \times \tilde{W}, where \tilde{W} is a neighborhood of \hat{\Sigma}_* \setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^p(\tilde{\Delta}_j \setminus \partial \tilde{\Delta}_j), so that

  \bigcup_{j=1}^p (\tilde{\psi}(1, \tilde{\Delta}_j) \setminus \partial \tilde{\Delta}_j) \subset U',
• \sum_{j=1}^p (\mathcal{H}^2(\tilde{\Delta}_j) - c\mathcal{H}^3(\tilde{\Omega}^j)) \leq \sum_{j=1}^{q-1} \mathcal{H}^2(F_j) + E(\hat{\Omega}_*).

Letting \Delta_j \coloneqq (\alpha^{-1})(1, \tilde{\Delta}_j) (i.e. the time-reversal of the smoothing isotopy \alpha for \Sigma_*), and taking \psi \coloneqq \tilde{\psi} * \alpha (i.e. the concatenation of isotopies), we have that

• \Delta_j \subset \Sigma_*,

• \partial \Delta_j \subset \partial U',

• \left(\bigcup_{j=1}^p \Delta_j\right) \cap U' = \Sigma_* \cap U',

• there is an isotopy \psi\in \mathcal{I}(U) such that \psi(t, x) = x for all (t, x) \in [0,1] \times W', where W' is a neighborhood of \Sigma_* \setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^p(\Delta_j \setminus \partial \Delta_j), so that

  \bigcup_{j=1}^p (\psi(1, \Delta_j) \setminus \partial \Delta_j) \subset U',
• \sum_{j=1}^p (\mathcal{H}^2(\Delta_j) - c\mathcal{H}^3(\tilde{\Omega}^j)) \leq \sum_{j=1}^{q-1} \mathcal{H}^2(F_j) + E(\hat{\Omega}_*).

Let \beta be a continuous isotopy so that \beta(t, K) \subset K, \beta\vert_{\{t\} \times \Sigma \setminus D} = \mathbf{1}_{\Sigma \setminus D}, and \beta(1, D) = F_q. Consider the following two cases:

Case 1: F_q \subset \bigcup_{j=1}^p \Delta_j. Select the disks D_1, \hdots, D_p by taking D_{j_0} = (\Delta_{j_0} \setminus F_q) \cup D for the unique j_0 so that F_q \subset \Delta_{j_0}, and D_j = \Delta_j for j \neq j_0. Define an isotopy by \tilde{\phi} = \psi * \beta. By smoothing \tilde{\phi}, we obtain the desired isotopy \phi. We compute

Since \varepsilon > 0 is arbitrary, the desired inequality holds.

Case 2: F_q \not\subset \bigcup_{j=1}^p \Delta_j. Define the disks D_1, \hdots, D_{p+1} by D_j = \Delta_j for j < p+1 and D_{p+1} = D. Define an isotopy \tilde{\phi} = \hat{\beta} * \psi * \beta, where \hat{\beta} \in \mathcal{I}(U) satisfies \hat{\beta}(t, x) = x for all (x, t) \in (\Sigma \setminus D) \times [0,1] and \hat{\beta}(1, F_q) is a disk \tilde{D} \subset U' with \partial \tilde{D} = \partial D, \tilde{D} \cap \partial U' = \partial \tilde{D}, and \tilde{D} \cap \psi(t, \Sigma_*) = \Gamma_q for all t \in [0, 1]. We claim that in this case there is a neighborhood W of \partial D = \Gamma_q so that W \cap D \subset U'. Otherwise we would have W with W \supset \partial D and W \cap (\Sigma \setminus D) \subset U', which would imply F_q \subset \bigcup_{j=1}^p \Delta_j, a contradiction. By smoothing \tilde{\phi}, we obtain the required isotopy. We compute

Since \varepsilon > 0 is arbitrary, the desired inequality holds.

Consider the rescaled exponential coordinates induced by the chart f_{x,\rho} : \overline{B}_{\rho}(x) \to \overline{B}_1(0) given by f_{x,\rho}(z) = (\exp_x^{-1}(z))/\rho. We apply Proposition 15.3 and let B be the convex hull of \beta = f(\partial \Sigma).

Fix \xi \in \beta and let \pi_1 and \pi_2 be the halfplanes delimiting the wedge of B. We assume without loss of generality that \pi_1 = \{x_3 \leq a\} for some a \in (0, 1).

Let C_t = (0, 0, -t), and let S_t = B_2(C_t). Assuming \rho is sufficiently small, (?) implies \|\delta (f_{\#}V)\| \leq \|f_{\#}V\|. By [WhiteMax, Theorem 7], \text{spt}\|V\| is contained is \overline{S}_{t_0}, where t_0 is such that \partial S_{t_0} \cap \partial B_1(0) \subset \pi_1. The same argument applies to \pi_2 and \xi is arbitrary, so the conclusion follows.

Let V^r = V \llcorner G_2(\overline{U} \setminus \partial \Sigma) and V^s = V - V^r.

Let X be a compactly supported vector field on \overline{U} that vanishes on \partial \Sigma. Let \phi_{\delta} \in C^{\infty}_c(\overline{U}\setminus \partial \Sigma) satisfy

• \phi_{\delta} = 1 outside B_{2\delta}(\partial \Sigma),

• |\nabla \phi_{\delta}| \leq C \delta^{-1}.

Since X vanishes on \partial \Sigma, we have |X| \leq C\delta in B_{2\delta}(\partial \Sigma). Hence, |\nabla (\phi_{\delta}X)| \leq C. Then by dominated convergence and the fact that V has bounded first variation in \overline{U} \setminus \partial \Sigma, we have

Hence, \delta V^s = 0.

Let W be a small tubular neighborhood of \partial \Sigma. For each p \in W \setminus \partial \Sigma, let q be the unique nearest point in \partial \Sigma. Let X(p) be the tangent vector at p to the minimizing geodesic joining p to q parametrized on [0,1]. Set X(p) = 0 for p \in \partial \Sigma. If e_1, e_2, e_3 is a smooth orthonormal frame over \partial \Sigma with e_1 tangent to \partial \Sigma, we have \nabla_{e_1}X = 0, \nabla_{e_2}X = -e_2, and \nabla_{e_3}X = -e_3 along \partial \Sigma. For any 2-plane \pi, we have

for \{f_i\} an orthonormal basis for \pi. Hence, \mathrm{div}_\pi X(p) \leq -1. Then

so \|V\|(\partial \Sigma) = 0.

Since K\subset\subset U, then \delta_K\coloneqq\mathrm{dist}_M(K,\partial U)>0. Hence \operatorname{dist}_{f(\Sigma)}(f(\Sigma)\cap K, f(\partial\Sigma))\geq \delta_K>0. Let r\leq\min\{\rho_0/2, \delta_K/2\}>0 and let p\in\Sigma be such that x=f(p)\in f(\Sigma)\cap K. Then \mathcal{B}^\Sigma_r(p)\subset B^M_r(x)\subset\subset U stays a fixed positive distance away from \partial U.

Now, let y=f(q)\in \mathcal{B}_r^{\Sigma}(p) and let \tilde{\gamma}:[0,1]\to\Sigma be a curve from p to q in \Sigma such that \gamma = f\circ\tilde{\gamma} is a minimizing constant speed geodesic from x to y in f(\Sigma).

By compactness, we can pick 0=t_0<t_1<\dots<t_N<t_{N+1}=1 so that the segment \overline{x_jx_{j+1}}=\gamma([t_j,t_{j+1}])\subset \mathcal{B}^\Sigma_r(p) (which is a minimizing geodesic from x_j=f(p_j) to x_{j+1}=f(p_{j+1})) lies in f(\Sigma_{p_j}) for j=0,\dots, N. Hence, by (?) and Remark 16.1,

and, using the uniform pointwise Lipschitz bound,

In particular, this proves that for any y=f(q)\in \mathcal{B}^\Sigma_r(p), we have |d\phi_x^{-1}\nu(p)-d\phi_x^{-1}\nu(q)|\leq 8C_0r. By taking r\leq 2r_K\coloneqq\min\{\rho_0/2, \delta_K/2, \frac{1}{16C_0}\}, we have that

for all y=f(q)\in \mathcal{B}^\Sigma_r(p), which implies that the whole of \mathcal{B}^\Sigma_r(p) can be written as the graph of a C^{1,1} function u over an open subset of df_p(T_p\Sigma)\subset T_xM.

Then it is immediate to see (as in [CM, Lemma 2.4]) that u satisfies |\nabla u|\leq 1 and \operatorname{Lip}\nabla u\leq 2\sqrt{2} C_0.

The second statement follows from the first as in [CM, Lemma 2.4].

Let K\subset\subset U. We can cover the compact set \overline{K} with finitely many balls \{B_k=B^M_{r_K/2}(z_k)\}_{k=1}^N. Suppose p_i \in \Sigma_i satisfies f_i(p_i) = x_i \in B_k. By Lemma 16.2, the component of f_i^{-1}(B^M_{r_K/2}(x_i)) is contained in B_{r_K}^{\Sigma_i}(p_i) and its image under f_i is the graph of a C^{1,1} function satisfying explicit C^{1,1}-bounds depending only on C_0 (not on i). This image is the graph of a function u_i such that |\nabla u_i|\leq 1—in particular, it has area bounded from below by some uniform constant \kappa r_K^2. By the uniform upper bounds on the area of f_i(\Sigma_i) in compact sets, we conclude that f_i^{-1}(B_k) is contained in at most N_0 balls of radius r_K in \Sigma_i, where N_0 is a constant depending only on K, the area bounds, and C_0 (not on i or k).

For any k\in\{1, \dots, N\}, we can select a set of at most N_0 points \{p_l^{i,k}\}_l \subset \Sigma_i so that f_i^{-1}(B_k) is covered by \{B^{\Sigma_i}_{r_K}(p_l^{i,k})\}_l. Up to a subsequence we may assume as i\to \infty that f(p_l^{i,k}) \to x_l^k and df_{p_l^{i,k}}(T_{p_l^{i,k}}\Sigma_i) \to P_l^k, a 2-dimensional subspace of T_{x_l}M. Note that the corresponding graphical functions satisfy uniform C^{1,1} bounds, so by Arzelà-Ascoli, up to a subsequence, they converge (in C^{1,\alpha} for any 0<\alpha<1) to some C^{1,1} function u_l^k defined on B^{T_{x_l^k}M}_{r_K}(0)\cap P_l^k with the same C^{1,1} bound.

We then repeat this argument for all k=1, \dots, N and take a diagonal subsequence. It is clear that the graphs we obtained match up on the overlaps between balls (because the surfaces f_i(\Sigma_i) do), so we have produced our immersed limit surface restricted to K\subset\subset U.

Lastly, we take an exhaustion of U by compact sets, repeat this procedure inductively and check that the limit surfaces coincide on the overlaps.

This formula follows from the standard computation of the second variation of area and potential energy (see [BdCE, Proposition 2.5]), combined with the observation that all the integrands are well defined measurable and integrable functions since the immersion is C^{1,1}.

We argue by contradiction, using a standard point-picking argument (cf. [WhiteNotes, Lecture 3]).

Suppose there is a sequence of such immersions f_i:\Sigma_i\to M so that

Let us denote the local Lipschitz constant \operatorname{Lip}_p\nu_i by l_i(p).

Now pick p_i\in\Sigma_i so that

We shall rescale the metric on U by l_i(p_i)\to \infty and obtain a new metric \tilde{g}_i=l_i(p_i)g, so that, with respect to the new metric, \tilde{l}_i(p_i)=1. By (?), the rescalings (U,\tilde{g}_i) converge locally smoothly to (\mathbb{R}^3, g_{\mathrm{Euc}}), and, under the rescaling,

Assume, without loss of generality that f_i(p_i)\to 0\in\mathbb{R}^3. For p,p_i\in\Sigma_i, if (under the rescaling) d_{\tilde{\Sigma}_i}(p, p_i)\leq \frac{1}{4}R_i, then, since the quantity d_{\Sigma_i}(\cdot, f_i^{-1}(\partial U))\ l_i(\cdot) is scale invariant, \tilde{l}_i(p)\leq \frac{R_i}{R_i/2-R_i/4}= 4. Thus,

In any compact set, the mass bound m_0 and the mononicity formula give a uniform mass bound for the rescaled immersions. Recalling that R_i\to\infty, we conclude that, by Lemma 16.3, (up to a subsequence) the rescaled immersions converge in C^{1, \alpha}_\text{loc} to a complete, 2-sided C^{1,1} immersion f:\Sigma\to \mathbb{R}^3 with Lipschitz unit normal vector field \nu such that \sup_\Sigma\,\operatorname{Lip}_p\nu\leq 4.

Claim 1: f is a C^{1,1} immersion with locally ordered sheets. Indeed, the C^{1,\alpha}_{\text{loc}} graphical convergence preserves the local ordering of sheets of the immersions f_i.

Claim 2: The image of f is a smooth embedded minimal surface. Since each sheet of the rescaled immersion in a small ball has c/R_i bounded first variation, the lower semicontinuity of the first variation (see [simon_old, Theorem 42.7]) implies that each sheet of f in a small ball is stationary. By Allard’s regularity theorem [allard], f is a smooth minimal immersion. Since the sheets are ordered locally, the strong maximum principle for minimal surfaces implies that each component of the image of f is a smoothly embedded minimal surface.

Claim 3: f is a stable minimal immersion. By claim 2, f is a covering of a smooth minimal embedding, so we can assume without loss of generality that f is an embedding. We consider the limit of (17.2), where we fix a function \psi on \Sigma with compact support and transplant it to \Sigma_i using the graphical identification. Since the rescalings satisfy |H^{\Sigma_i}| \leq c/R_i and |\nabla h_i| \leq c/R_i, the right hand side of (17.2) vanishes in the limit. Since the convergence is C^{1,\alpha}_{\text{loc}}, every term on the right hand side converges to the corresponding term for \Sigma except the |A^{\Sigma_i}|^2 term. Since the ambient space converges locally smoothly to Euclidean \mathbb{R}^3, [Langer, Theorem 4.3] implies that the term \int_{\Sigma_i} |A^{\Sigma_i}|^2u^2 \ d\mathcal{H}^2 is lower semicontinuous (we have local weak convergence in W^{2,2} by the uniform C^{1,1} bounds). Hence, \Sigma satisfies the stability inequality in \mathbb{R}^3.

By the stable Bernstein theorem in \mathbb{R}^3 due to [FCS], [dCP], and [Pog], \Sigma is flat. By Corollary 11.2, \Sigma_i converges in C^{1,1}_{\text{loc}} to the flat limit. However, we chose points so that \text{Lip}_{p_i}\nu_i \geq 1 where p_i \to 0, which yields a contradiction.

Let h_+ := \min\{0, h\} and h_- := \min\{0, -h\}. We compute

where the inequality \omega_1(g, 0) \leq 4\pi follows from the assumptions \operatorname{Ric}(g) > 0 and R_g \geq 6 by [MNrigidity, Theorem 1.1]. Since |h| \leq c and \mathcal{H}^3(S^3,g) \leq v, the conclusion follows.

We note that the proof given in the first part of the proof of Lemma 1 from [Topping1998] applies to varifolds (where our convention for mean curvature differs from Topping’s by a factor of 2). The only point where the C^1 assumption is used is in showing that the rightmost term in [Topping1998, (21)] vanishes as \sigma \to 0. Instead, we use the more trivial bound:

as \sigma \to 0 by the monotonicity formula and assumption of bounded support and finite mass.

Using the isometric embedding of (S^3,g) into \mathbb{R}^N, we view V as a 2-varifold in \mathbb{R}^N. By the bound on the second fundamental form of S^3 \subset \mathbb{R}^N, we have

By Lemma 19.2 and the assumption of a point of density at least 2, we have

which yields the desired inequality.

Suppose otherwise for contradiction. Then by Proposition 19.3 and Proposition 19.1, we must have

This inequality contradicts (?).

We observe that the same proof as [Colding_DeLellis, Lemma 6.4] works in our setting.

Density lower bound. The monotonicity formula implies there is a constant c_2 so that

for any varifold V with c-bounded first variation, x \in S^3, and \sigma < \rho \ll 1. Let r < r(x) sufficiently small. Let (V', \Omega') be a replacement for (V, \Omega) in A(x, r, 2r). By the maximum principle of [WhiteMax], V' is not identically 0 on A(x, r, 2r). Since V' \llcorner G(A(x, r, 2r), 2) is the varifold of a C^{1,1} immersion, there is a y \in A(x, r, 2r) with \Theta^2(V', y) \geq 1. Then we have

Hence, we have a uniform positive lower bound for the density by taking r sufficiently small. By [allard, Theorem 5.5], V is rectifiable.

Tangent cones. Let x \in \mathrm{spt}\|V\|. Let C be a tangent cone to V at x, and let \rho_n \to 0 satisfy

Let (V_n', \Omega_n') be a replacement for (V, \Omega) in A(x, \rho_n/4, 3\rho_n/4). Let W_n' = (f_{x,\rho_n})_{\#}V_n'. Up to a subsequence (not relabeled), we have W_n' \rightharpoonup C', where C' is a stationary varifold. By the definition of the replacement, we have

Since C is a cone, (?) implies

for all \rho \in (0,1/4) \cup (3/4, 1). By stationarity and monotonoicity, we conclude that C' is a cone. Since C and C' agree on B_{1/4}(0), we have C' = C. By Theorem 17.3, the convergence in A(0, 1/4, 3/4) is C^{1,\alpha}_{\text{loc}} graphical. By the same argument as in the proof of Claims 1 and 2 in Theorem 17.3 (i.e. the mean curvature of each sheet vanishes in the limit, and the ordering of sheets is preserved so we can apply the strong maximum principle), C' is the varifold of a smooth embedded minimal surface with integer multiplicity on the annulus A(0, 1/4, 3/4). Then C' is (an integer multiple of) a smooth embedded minimal cone in \mathbb{R}^3, and hence a plane with integer multiplicity.

Since unique continuation and curvature estimates hold, the proof is the same as the proof of [Colding_DeLellis, Proposition 6.3]. The only exception is the argument showing \Sigma \subset \mathrm{spt}\|V\| on B_\rho(x) \setminus \{x\}, which in [Colding_DeLellis] uses that \|V\|(S^3) = \|V'\|(S^3). Instead, we follow the argument from [ZZCMC, Theorem 6.1 Claim 5] and [ZZPMC, Theorem 7.1 Claim 5], which applies to our setting.

Since the unit normals point in opposite directions, being smooth and minimal follows if we show N_1 = N_2.

Suppose for contradiction N_1 \neq N_2. Without loss of generality, there is a sequence x_j \to x with x_j \in N_1 \setminus N_2. Let P \subset T_xM be the common tangent plane of N_1 and N_2 at x, and let \nu=\nu_1(x) be a unit normal to P, so that \nu_2(x)=-\nu. Let r_0 \in (0, 1) be sufficiently small so that \phi_x^{-1}(N_1 \cap B_r^M(x)) and \phi_x^{-1}(N_2 \cap B_{r_0}^M(x)) are C^{1,\alpha} graphs over B \subset P, given by C^{1,\alpha} functions u_1 \geq u_2 and let \rho \in (0, r_0/2). Let B_r denote B^{\mathbb{R}^2}_{r}(0).

We shall use the same setup as in the proof of Proposition ?, ?. We let

• \tilde{g} be the rescaled pullback metric (\phi_x \circ \mu_{\rho})^*g, so that

  \|\tilde{g} - g_{\text{Euc}}\|_{C^{\infty}(B_2 \times [-1, 1])} \leq \delta(\rho),

  where \delta(\rho) \to 0 as \rho \to 0;

• \tilde{u}_i:B_2\to \mathbb{R} be defined by \tilde{u}_i(x)=\rho^{-1}u_i(\rho x) so that

  \|\tilde{u}_i\|_{C^{1}(B_2)} \leq \delta(\rho);

• A(x,z,p) be such that with the rescaled metric \tilde{g} on \mathbb{R}^3, we have \mathcal{H}^2(\text{graph }u\vert_{B_r})=\int_{B_r}A(x,u,Du)\ dx for all C^1 functions u:B_2\to \mathbb{R} and r\in(0,2);

• Q be the mean curvature operator for graphs over B_2 with respect to \tilde{g}.

Then Q(u) \leq 0 (resp. \geq 0) in the weak sense in B_1 is equivalent to (in our choice of sign convention)

for all \phi \in W^{1,2}_0(B_1) with \phi \geq 0.

By assumption, we have Q(\tilde{u}_1)\geq 0 and Q(\tilde{u}_2)\leq 0 in the weak sense. If we let v=\tilde{u}_1-\tilde{u}_2\geq 0, then v\in C^{1,\alpha} is a non-negative weak supersolution of a linear elliptic equation with continuous coefficients (depending on \tilde{u}_1 and \tilde{u}_2) as in [GT, Theorem 10.7], i.e.

for all non-negative \phi\in W_0^{1,2}(B_1), where \tilde{u}_t=t\tilde{u}_1+(1-t)\tilde{u}_2 and

Since N_1 and N_2 intersect tangentially at x, v(0)=0, and \inf_{B_{1/4}}v=0. Hence, the weak Harnack inequality for supersolutions [GT, Theorem 8.18] implies \|v\|_{L^1(B_{1/2})}=0. As v is C^{1,\alpha}, this means v\vert_{B_{1/2}}\equiv 0, contradicting the choice of the sequence x_j\to x.