A gluing construction of singular solutions for a fully non-linear equation in conformal geometry

Although we will not give the full proof of this result, which is contained in [Gonzalez-Mazzieri], the key idea is to use the framework in cylindrical coordinates we have just presented and to find a solution V_1 to (?) that only depends on the radial variable t.

From the formulas in (?) one is able to write \sigma_2(B_{g_v}) in a reasonably simple form. Standard phase-plane analysis for the ODE (?) completes the proof. Now we recover U_1 by setting, in the notation (?),

On the one hand, in the neighborhood \mathcal T_\varrho we have defined \bar v_\epsilon=V_\epsilon, the model solution from Corollary 2.2. Observe that, in the model case \mathcal N(V_\epsilon, g_{cyl})\equiv 0 from Proposition 2.1. In order to calculate the error \mathcal N(V_\epsilon,g_{M,cyl}) in this region we compare the background metric g_{M} in Fermi coordinates given in (?) to the model g_{E} from (?) when r\to 0 as we did in the proof of Proposition 3.1 (one can also refer to the arguments in the proof of Proposition 2.19 of [Mazzeo-Smale]).

On the other hand, away from the singular set (say, r>\varrho), \bar v_\epsilon is essentially a factor of \epsilon^{\alpha_0} times a smooth function, thus we can calculate the error by keeping track of this rescaling in our definition of the nonlinear operator.

With this we can conclude, with respect to the background metric g_M,

Here we have denoted by v_* the function u_* with the normalization (?). Thus

which yields the conclusion (recall the relation (?)).

We follow the calculations in [Mazzieri-Segatti] for the \mathbb R^N\setminus\{0\} case. First recall from (?), for B_0(:=B_{g_{V_\epsilon}}), that

and the rest of the entries of the matrix vanish. Moreover, for the diagonal matrix B_0,

Note that, since g_{V_\epsilon} belongs to the positive \Gamma_k^+ cone, then its (k-1)-Newton tensor T^{k-1} is positive definite, so the quantities S_1,S_2,S_3 are strictly positive. We recall from (?) that

from where it is easy to calculate its variation:

Substituting (Proof) above one arrives at

Now, we can use the formula

to write

Thus, using that V_\epsilon is an exact solution to (?) and formula (?) for the linearization, we obtain that

for

This completes the proof of the Lemma.

The graph of the second order polynomial f_j(\gamma) is given by a downward-open parabola, with vertex located at \gamma=\frac{b_1}{2b_2}=\frac{p}{2}.

Let us look first at the case j=0. First remark that f_0(0)<0. Second, we may or may not have real roots for f_0(\gamma)=0, however, in any case, either (4.2) or (4.2) holds under the hypothesis 0<p<\mathfrak p_2 (and this is sharp).

To show (4.2), just notice that the polynomial f_1(\gamma) has roots exactly at \gamma=-1 and \gamma=p+1,

Finally, to prove (4.2) one sees that f_j(\gamma) is non-decreasing in j, that is, the parabolas shift vertically as j grows. Thus if the roots are real for j=1, they will be also for j\geq 2, and have the required monotonicity in j.

The indicial roots at the origin were calculated in Subsection ?, taking into account that the relation (?) introduces a shift of \frac{n-4}{4} in the indicial roots between L_\epsilon and \mathcal L_\epsilon.

We started studying the behavior at infinity in Subsection ?. Full details of the proof will be postponed until Section ?. However, let us give here the main ideas:

We start with the j=0 mode, that corresponds to radially symmetric solutions. The fundamental observation is that knowing an exact solution for the non-linear ODE (2.1), one can produce radially symmetric solutions of its linearized equation using dilation invariance, as explained in Remark 8.4. Thus we know precisely the behavior at infinity of a particular solution \varphi_\sharp, which agrees with the power r^{-\alpha_0^\pm}. The precise value of \alpha_0^\pm was calculated in the paper [Gonzalez-Mazzieri] and it is given by

(we denote \alpha_0=\alpha_0^-). From here we conclude that -\alpha_0^{\pm} are the two indicial roots for j=0.

Note also that the expression inside the square root in formula (Proof) is always positive in our range of p. This implies that, for all j, all the indicial roots are real numbers. Summarizing this discussion, we have shown (5.3).

We can also give explicit formulas for j=1. Using rotational invariance from Remark 8.6 one can find an explicit solution in the kernel for j=1, and this yields (5.3). Finally, to show (5.3), one just needs to check that

which follows from simple algebra for n\geq 5.

As in [Mazzeo-Pacard, Section 4.2], in the neighborhood \mathcal T_\rho(\Lambda), the difference between \mathbb L'_\epsilon and \mathcal L'_\epsilon comes from the extra terms of the metric in \mathbb R^n\setminus \Lambda from (?) with respect to the model metric in \mathbb R^n\setminus\mathbb R^p from (?) as we did in the proof of Proposition 3.1. Controlling the error terms in the metric, which are of order o(1) as r\to 0, yields the desired result.

Introduce a cutoff \chi identically one on \mathcal T_{\rho/2}(\Lambda), vanishing outside \mathcal T_{\rho}(\Lambda). Then

Thus if inequality (7.1) is true for \widetilde w\chi, it is also true for \widetilde w by adding a compactly supported term.

First recall Proposition 5.4 (and Remark 5.5) to reduce the problem to study the model operator {L}'_\epsilon (or its conjugate \widetilde {L}'_\epsilon). Next, because of the ODE study from Proposition 2.1, we have for some \varsigma>0, in a small enough neighborhood \{r<m\epsilon\} for some m>0,

Thus it is clear that

for some \varsigma'>0.

Now, for points a bit further away from \Lambda, say, for r>m\epsilon, the operator \widetilde L'_\epsilon does not depend on \epsilon, and it is a regular uniformly elliptic operator so standard Sobolev estimates hold.

First we show that the estimate is true if -\delta_j<\delta<\delta_j. Multiply equation (?) by e^{2\delta \tau}\omega:

Integration by parts, noting that the boundary terms vanish, yields

For the last term in (Proof),

Substitute the two expressions above into (Proof) to obtain

On the other hand, Holder estimates in (Proof) above will give

and thus,

Substituting (Proof) into (Proof) implies

To finish, just note that \delta_j^2-\delta^2>0 because of our hypothesis, so that

as desired.

Now we prove estimate (7.4) if \delta>\delta_j (the remaining case \delta<-\delta_j is very similar). First remark that problem (?) is an ODE, which has a unique solution. Using the variation of constants formula, it is written as

where B^+(\tau)=e^{\delta_j\tau} and B^-(\tau)=e^{-\delta_j\tau} and W the Wronskian. We proceed as follows: first, for the term \omega_2:=B^- \int B^+ \psi, use integration by parts

To finish, just use Holder inequality:

For the first term of \omega_1 the inequality is proved similarly.

The proof goes similarly to that of Lemma 7.4. First, in the case 0<\delta<\delta_j, one can repeat the proof line by line, noting that the additional term -\int \omega^2e^{2\tau}e^{2\delta \tau} has the right sign and can be dropped while keeping the inequality.

The case \delta>\delta_j is more delicate, since involves Bessel functions. We can still write the solution to problem (?) as

where

where I_{\delta_j},K_{\delta_j} are the modified Bessel functions of the second kind. Their asymptotic behavior is well known and, indeed, when \tau\to +\infty, B^+(\tau)\sim e^{{\delta_j} \tau} and B^-(\tau)\sim e^{-{\delta_j} \tau}. The Wronskian W is well known and has constant value (see [Watson], Chapter III, formula (80)).

We will give the proof for the term \omega_1:=B_+ \int_\tau^\infty B_- \psi. An analogous argument yields the estimate for \omega_2. First use integration by parts

where

just nothing that B_+(\tau)B_-(\tau) is a uniformly bounded positive function. Finally, Hölder’s inequality yields

On the other hand,

Calculate, for s=e^{-\tau},

using Property 3.71 in [Watson] which implies \partial_s(s^{\delta_j} K_{\delta_j}(s))\leq 0. By the crucial hypothesis \delta>0, the term J_2 has a sign and can be dropped. From the estimate for J_1 we have that

for functions supported in (\tau_0,+\infty) but now this constant C is independent of \tau_0, as desired.

First remark that it is enough to study injectivity of the projected operators

Recalling the discussion in Section ?, this can be reduced to proving injectivity for each equation

under the assumption that \omega has the behavior

Here we have defined

Let us look then at equation (Proof). For any j, this is a Bessel ODE which has two linearly independent solutions, given by the modified Bessel functions of second kind K_{\delta_j}(r) and I_{\delta_j} (r) in the variable r=e^{-t}. Since the asymptotic behavior of the Bessel functions is well known, any solution with such behavior as r\to 0 cannot be bounded as r\to\infty, which is not possible because the choice of function space.

It is the same proof as in Proposition 8.2, using the asymptotics of the Bessel functions, but with the new indicial roots. First, for each j, there are two solutions. However, the one that is not exponentially growing as r\to \infty is not in the kernel thanks to condition (5.3).

Let \widetilde w_1,\widetilde w_2 be two solutions of (8.5) that decay to zero as t\pm\infty, that is, of the form \widetilde w_i=\alpha_i (1+o_i(1))e^{\varsigma_i t}, i=1,2, as t\to +\infty, \alpha_i\neq 0. Define its Wronskian W(t) by

Since the Wronskian is constant, then we must have \varsigma_1=\varsigma_2. Let us assume, by rescaling, that \alpha_1=\alpha_2=1. Now look at the next order. For this, we write \widetilde w_i=e^{\varsigma_i t}+\alpha_i^1(1+o_i(1))e^{\varsigma_i^{(1)} t}, i=1,2, as t\to +\infty, \alpha_i^{(1)}\neq 0. The same argument will yield that \varsigma_1^{(1)}=\varsigma_2^{(1)}. Inductively, we will be able to conclude that w_1\equiv w_2, since we have analytic continuation for the solutions of this ODE.

We use elliptic estimates and Ascoli’s theorem in compact sets. Note that, if we have convergence of a subsequence in a compact set, the estimate (7.1) will imply convergence in weighted L^2-spaces defined on the full domain M\setminus\Lambda. Weighted elliptic estimates again will yield the desired conclusion.

We use first Proposition 9.1 to obtain injectivity in Hölder spaces. Then, classical regularity estimates allow to pass from Lebesgue spaces to Hölder spaces. This implies, in particular, that injectivity holds in weighted L^2_\delta spaces if we choose a parameter as in (?).

For the second assertion, simply recall the relation (?).

This a contradiction argument very similar to the proof of Proposition 9.1 and thus, we omit it.

Rescaled Schauder estimates immediately imply that the solution \varphi\in \mathcal C^{2,\alpha}_{\nu'}(M\setminus\Lambda). However, the main statement in this Proposition is an improvement of weight from \nu' to \nu. This fact follows from the work of Mazzeo [Mazzeo:edge, Theorem 7.14], where they show that a change in the asymptotics of \varphi is created only by the crossing of an indicial root, and this cannot happen if \nu and \nu' are close enough.

The proof is very similar to [Mazzeo-Pacard, Theorem 6] and [Fakhi, Proposition 4.4]. As in the proof of Proposition 9.1, we argue by contradiction. Assume that there exist sequences \{\epsilon_l\}, \{h_l\}, \{\varphi_l\} satisfying \varphi_l=\mathbb G'_{\epsilon_l} h_l and

as \epsilon_l\to 0.

We denote \mathbb L'_l:=\mathbb L'_{\epsilon_l},\mathbb G'_l:=\mathbb G'_{\epsilon_l} and recall that, by the duality relation (?), \varphi_l= (d_\Lambda)^{2\nu}({\mathbb L}'_\epsilon)^*\psi_l for \psi_l\in \mathcal C^{2,\alpha}_{\mu'} with \mu' very close to \mu. Now rescale

Choose a point y_l\in M\setminus\Lambda where

By compactness, we can show that, up to a subsequence, y_l\to y_0 for some y_0\in M. There are two cases depending on the location of y_0:

Case 1: Suppose that y_0\in M\setminus\Lambda. Arguing as in Case 1 in the proof of Proposition 9.1 we reach a contradiction using non-degeneracy.

Case 2: Now assume that y_0\in \Lambda, and let r_l:=\operatorname{dist}(y_l,\Lambda) to be the radial Fermi coordinate, and rescale

and similarly with the other functions. Since \|\check\varphi_l\|_{\mathcal C^{2,\alpha}_\nu}\leq C, we can find a convergent subsequence to a function \check \varphi_0 satisfying

for some operator L' that we will study below. One may also check that \check \psi_l converges to a function \check \psi_0, thanks to the bounds in Lemma 9.4. Moreover, this limit satisfies

Take Fourier transform of equations (Proof) and (Proof) in the variable z, denoting the Fourier variable by \zeta, and the transformed operator by K_\zeta. Then the both equations reduce to

Hence 0=K_\zeta (\omega_0)=K_\zeta K_\zeta^* (\varpi_0). Multiply this equation by \varpi_0 and integrate by parts to obtain, for each fixed \zeta,

This implies that \varpi_0\equiv 0, which yields a contradiction.

The linear operator L' (and its Fourier version K) will depend on the behavior of the quotient \epsilon_l/r_l, as we have three different regimes in Corollary 2.2. First, if \epsilon_l/r_l\to \infty, we have that L'= \mathcal L^{(0)} because of (2.2). Second, assume that \epsilon_l/r_l\to 1; then L'=\mathcal L_1 defined in \mathbb R^n\backslash \mathbb R^p. Finally, if \epsilon_l/r_l\to 0, it holds that L'=\mathcal L^{(\infty)}. But in all these cases the above argument works, as it is very similar to the proof in Proposition 9.1.

This is just Lemma 5.2 in [Fakhi] or Lemma 9 in [Mazzeo-Pacard], taking into account the ‘prime’ normalization.