This paper constructs and analyzes examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows in Calabi-Yau manifolds using moment maps, including solitons and singularity studies, advancing understanding of geometric flows in complex manifolds.
Contribution
It introduces a method to generate Lagrangian mean curvature flow examples via moment maps, applicable to both flat and non-flat Calabi-Yau spaces, and investigates their singularities.
Findings
01
Constructed Lagrangian self-shrinkers and solitons in Euclidean space.
02
Extended the method to non-flat Calabi-Yau manifolds, including Ricci-flat ALE spaces.
03
Analyzed singularities of the constructed flows.
Abstract
In this paper, we construct various examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows in Calabi-Yau manifolds, using moment maps for actions of abelian Lie groups on them. The examples include Lagrangian self-shrinkers and translating solitons in the Euclidean spaces. Moreover, our method can be applied to construct examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows in non-flat Calabi-Yau manifolds. In particular, we describe Lagrangian mean curvature flows in 4-dimensional Ricci-flat ALE spaces in detail and investigate their singularities.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Geometry and complex manifolds · Advanced Differential Geometry Research
Full text
Lagrangian Mean Curvature Flows and Moment maps
Hiroshi Konno111Supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number (C) 23540072 and JP17K05231
Department of Mathematics, School of Science and Technology, Meiji University,
1-1-1 Higashi-Mita, Tama-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 214-8571 Japan
In this paper, we construct various examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows in Calabi-Yau manifolds, using moment maps for actions of abelian Lie groups on them.
The examples include Lagrangian self-shrinkers and translating solitons in the Euclidean spaces.
Moreover, our method can be applied to construct examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows in non-flat Calabi-Yau manifolds.
In particular, we describe Lagrangian mean curvature flows in 4-dimensional Ricci-flat ALE spaces in detail and investigate their singularities.
1 Introduction
Special Lagrangian submanifolds in Calabi-Yau manifolds were introduced as special classes of minimal submanifolds in [7].
Since their importance was pointed out in the context of mirror symmetry in [15], they have been intensively studied.
As a fundamental tool for constructing special Lagrangian submanifolds, Lagrangian mean curvature flows have been expected.
In [16] Thomas-Yau proposed a conjecture, which is reformulated by Joyce [9] recently, that the long-time existence of Lagrangian mean curvature flows are closely related to the stability of Lagrangian submanifolds.
This conjecture is a central problem in this area.
Main difficulties in studying mean curvature flows come from singularities of the flow.
In [6] Huisken showed that, if we rescale the mean curvature flow at a type I singularity, the blow-up limit is a self-shrinker.
It is also known that a translating soliton appears as a certain blow-up limit at another type of singularities.
Therefore, it is important to study self-shrinkers or translating solitons, which can be considered as local models of singularities of mean curvature flows.
In the case of Lagrangian mean curvature flows, there are some examples of self-shrinkers or translating solitons as follows.
Anciaux [1], Lee-Wang [13, 14] constructed examples of Lagrangian self-shrinkers and self-expanders.
Later, Joyce-Lee-Tsui [8] constructed another type of Lagrangian self-shrinkers and self-expanders as well as Lagrangian translating solitons.
Moreover, Castro-Lerma [5] also constructed another type of Lagrangian translating solitons in C2.
Recently, in [17], Yamamoto pointed out that some of these constructions can be interpreted in terms of moment maps for Hamiltonian torus actions on toric Calabi-Yau manifolds and he also constructed examples of generalized Lagrangian mean curvature flows in the sense of [3] in almost Calabi-Yau manifolds.
In this paper, we construct of various examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows, using moment maps for actions of abelian Lie groups on Calabi-Yau manifolds.
Since some parts of Yamamoto’s construction rely on toric geometry, we get rid of it so that our construction can be applied to more general cases.
Roughly speaking, we prove the following.
See Theorem 2.3 for the precise statement.
Theorem 1.1
Let M be a Calabi-Yau manifold and L a special Lagrangian submanifold.
Suppose there is an isometric and Hamiltonian action of an abelian Lie group H with a moment map μH:M→h∗.
Suppose also that the H-orbit through p∈L intersects with L orthogonally for each p∈L.
Fix c0∈h∗ and set Vc=μH−1(c)∩L for c∈h∗.
*Then there exist aH∈h∗ and a vector field χ, which is written in terms of aH explicitly, on L such that the following holds:
(1) Let γp:[0,T)→L be the integral curve of the vector field χ with γp(0)=p.
If p∈Vc0, then γp(t)∈Vct holds, where ct=c0−taH∈h∗.
(2) Define a family of maps {Ft:Vc0×H→M}t∈[0,T) by Ft(p,h)=γp(t)h.
If it exists, then it is a Lagrangian mean curvature flow.*
Using the above theorem, we construct various examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows.
Our basic examples are Lagrangian self-shrinkers, which were already found in [14] as well as Lagrangian translating solitons in the Euclidean spaces, which are higher dimensional generalizations of ones given in [5].
Moreover, our construction can be applied to construct Lagrangian mean curvature flows in non-flat Calabi-Yau manifolds.
4-dimensional Ricci-flat ALE spaces of An-type are hyperKähler manifolds, on which S1 acts, preserving their hyperKähler structures.
These S1-actions are extended to T2-actions, which preserve only their Kähler structures.
We use these actions not only for constructing Lagrangian mean curvature flows in these spaces, but also for investigating singularities of the flows.
As a result, we see that the singularities are type I and determine the blow-up limits at the singularities.
The condition in Theorem 1.1, that the H-orbit through p∈L intersects with L orthogonally for each p∈L, has already appeared in Chapter 9 in [10], where Joyce constructed examples of special Lagrangian submanifolds of Cm by using momant maps.
His construction is the case aH=0 in Theorem 1.1.
Thus our theorem can be considered as a generalization of Joyce’s construction of special Lagrangian submanifolds to Lagrangian mean curvature flows.
The author would like to thank Dominic Joyce for informing him of it.
Contents of this paper is as follows.
In Section 2, we state our general construction and prove it.
In Section 3, we apply the construction to the Euclidean spaces to get Lagrangian self-shrinkers, self-expanders, and translating solitons.
In Section 4, we apply our construction to hyperKähler manifolds which admit isometric, I1-antiholomorphic and I2-holomorphic involutions.
As examples of this construction, we describe Lagrangian mean curvature flows in 4-dimensional Ricci-flat ALE spaces of An-type in Section 5.
2 Constructions of Lagrangian mean curvature flows
Let (M,I) be a complex manifold.
Here, I is an integrable almost complex structure, which is an automorphism of the tangent bundle TM satisfying I2=−1 and the integrability condition.
A Kähler form ω on (M,I) is an I-invariant symplectic form which induces a Riemannian metric g(u,v)=ω(u,Ipv) for p∈M and u,v∈TpM.
Definition 2.1
A* Calabi-Yau n-fold is a quadruple (M,I,ω,Ω) such that (M,I) is an n-dimensional complex manifold equipped with a Kähler form ω and a holomorphic volume form Ω which satisfy the following relation:*
[TABLE]
It is well known that Calabi-Yau manifolds are Ricci-flat.
Moreover, if L is an oriented Lagrangian submanifold of a Calabi-Yau manifold (M,I,ω,Ω) with the Kähler metric g, then there exists a function θ:L→R/2πZ, which is called the Lagrangian angle, satisfying
[TABLE]
where ι:L→M is the embedding, and volι∗g is the volume form of L with respect to the induced metric ι∗g.
Moreover, the mean curvature vector Hp at p∈L is given by
[TABLE]
where gradι∗gθ is the gradient of the function θ with respect to the induced metric ι∗g.
Then, special Lagrangian submanifolds are defined as follows.
Definition 2.2
Let (M,I,ω,Ω) be a Calabi-Yau manifold.
An oriented Lagrangian submanifold L of M is a* special Lagrangian submanifold with the phase θ0∈R/2πZif its Lagrangian angle θ:L→R/2πZ is the constant function θ=θ0.*
Next, we fix our notation on Hamiltonian group actions.
In this paper, a Lie group G acts on a manifold M from the right.
We denote the right translation of g∈G by Rg:M→M.
The exponential map is denoted by ExpG:g→G.
The Lie group G acts on g∗ by the coadjoint action.
Suppose that a Lie group G with the Lie algebra g acts on a symplectic manifold (M,ω).
Then G-equivariant map μG:M→g∗ is a moment map if
[TABLE]
holds for each ξ∈g, where ξ# is the vector field on M generated by ξ.
Then we have the following theorem.
Theorem 2.3
*Let (M,I,ω,Ω) be a connected Calabi-Yau n-fold and g
the Kähler metric.
Let L be a special Lagrangian submanifold with the phase θ0∈R/2πZ.
Suppose that an abelian Lie group H acts on (M,I,ω), preserving I and ω, with a moment map μH:M→h∗.
Suppose also that ξp#=0∈TpM and that ξp#⊥TpL for each p∈L, ξ∈h∖{0}.
Then the following holds.
(1) There exists aH∈h∗ such that (RExpHξ)∗Ω=e−1⟨aH,ξ⟩Ω on M for each ξ∈h.
(2) Set Vc=μH−1(c)∩L for c∈h∗.
Then Vc is an orientable submanifold of M of dimension n−dimH if Vc is not empty.
Moreover, TpVc⊥Ipξp# holds for each p∈Vc and ξ∈h.
(3)
The map ϕc:Vc×H→M, which is defined by ϕc(p,h)=ph, is a Lagrangian immersion.
Moreover, Vc×H is has the canonical orientation so that (ϕc∗Ω)(p,ExpHξ)=e−1θcvolϕc∗g holds, where θc(p,ExpHξ)=⟨aH,ξ⟩+θ0−2πdimH.
(4) Define a map ξ~:L→h by
gp((ξ~(p))p#,ηp#)=⟨aH,η⟩ for p∈L and η∈h.
Define the vector field χ on L by χp=Ipξ~(p)p#∈TpL for p∈L.
Then the mean curvature vector Hc∈Γ(ϕc∗TM) of the map ϕc:Vc×H→M is given by H(p,h)c=Rh∗pχp∈Tϕc(p,h)M.
(5) Fix c0∈h∗.
Suppose that there exists T>0 such that, for each p∈μH−1(c0)∩L, there exists the integral curve γp:[0,T)→L of the vector field χ with γp(0)=p.
Then γp(t)∈Vct holds for any p∈L and t∈[0,T), where ct=c0−taH∈h∗.
Moreover, the family of maps {Ft:Vc0×H→M}t∈[0,T), which is defined by Ft(p,h)=γp(t)h, is a Lagrangian mean curvature flow.
Namely, ∂t∂Ft(p,h)=H(γp(t),h)ct holds for t∈[0,T).*
Proof.(1) Fix any h∈H.
Since Rh∗Ω is a holomorphic (n,0)-form, there exists a holomorphic function fh:M→C such that Rh∗Ω=fhΩ.
By the relation (2.1), we have ∣fh(p)∣=1 for each p∈M.
Since M is connected, we see that fh is constant, that is, fh(p)=ch for each p∈M.
Moreover, since Rh1h2∗Ω=Rh2∗(Rh1∗Ω), we have ch1h2=ch1ch2. So, there exists aH∈h∗ such that cExpHξ=e−1⟨aH,ξ⟩ for each ξ∈h.
(2) It is easy to see that gradg⟨μH(⋅),ξ⟩=−Iξ# on M.
Since L is a Lagrangian submanifold of a Kähler manifold (M,I,ω), the complex structure Ip:TpM→TpM induces an isomorphism from TpL to the orthogonal complement (TpL)⊥ for each p∈L.
Moreover, since ξp#=0 and ξp#⊥TpL for p∈L by the assumption, we have
(gradg⟨μH(⋅),ξ⟩)p∈TpL∖{0}
for p∈L and ξ∈h∖{0}.
Therefore, if we set ν=μH∣L:L→h∗,
we have (d⟨ν,ξ⟩)p=0∈Tp∗L for p∈L and ξ∈h∖{0}.
Since ⟨(dν)p,ξ⟩=(d⟨ν,ξ⟩)p=0 for each ξ∈h∖{0}, we see that (dν)p:TpL→h∗ is surjective for each p∈L.
That is, every point in L is regular for ν.
This implies that, for any c∈h∗, the level set ν−1(c)=μH−1(c)∩L is a submanifold of dimension n−dimH if ν−1(c) is not empty.
For each v∈Tp(μH−1(c)∩L) and ξ∈h, we have
[TABLE]
Thus we see Tp(μH−1(c)∩L)⊥Ipξp# for p∈μH−1(c)∩L and ξ∈h.
Since L is oriented, TpL is an oriented vector space for each p∈L.
Define an isomorphism
[TABLE]
by ψp(v,ξ)=v+Ipξp#.
If we fix an orientation on h, then we can define an orientation on Tp(μH−1(c)∩L) so that ψp is orientation preserving.
Thus we see that μH−1(c)∩L is orientable.
(3) Define an orientation of T(p,h)(Vc×H)≅TpVc⊕h for each (p,h)∈Vc×H so that the map ψp in (2.2) is orientation preserving.
Thus Vc×H has the canonical orientation.
Moreover, we note that, for each (p,h)∈Vc×H and (v,ξ)∈TpVc⊕h≅T(p,h)(Vc×H), the following holds:
[TABLE]
Firstly, we show that ϕc is an immersion.
Suppose that (ϕc)∗(p,h)(v,ξ)=0.
Then we have (Rh)∗p(v+ξp#)=0∈TphM.
Since (Rh)∗p:TpM→TphM is an isomorphism, we have v+ξp#=0∈TpM.
Since v⊥ξp#, we see that v=ξp#=0∈TpM.
Thus we see that (v,ξ)=0∈TpVc×h, which implies that ϕc:Vc×H→M is an immersion.
Secondly, we show ϕc∗ω=0.
Since Rh∗ω=ω, we have
[TABLE]
The first term is zero, because vi∈TpL for i=1,2 and L is a Lagrangian submanifold.
The second term is zero, because H is abelian.
For the third term, we have
[TABLE]
because v1∈TpVc and μH is constant on Vc.
Similarly, the fourth term is zero.
Thus we have ϕc∗ω=0.
Thirdly, we compute ϕc∗Ω.
Fix an arbitrary (p,h)∈Vc×H and take ξh∈h such that h=ExpHξh.
Since (ϕc)∗(p,h)(v,0)=(Rh)∗pv∈TphM is perpendicular to (ϕc)∗(p,h)(0,ξ)=(Rh)∗pξp#∈TphM for each v∈TpVc and ξ∈h, there exists v1,…,vn−m∈TpVc and ξ1,…,ξm∈h, where m=dimH, such that the collection
[TABLE]
is an oriented orthonormal basis of T(p,h)(Vc×H) with respect to (ϕc∗g)(p,h).
Then, the collection
[TABLE]
is an oriented orthonormal basis of TpL.
Recall that Rh∗Ω=e−1⟨aH,ξh⟩Ω and ιL∗Ω=e−1θ0volιL∗g, where ιL:L→M is the embedding.
Moreover, since ξ#+−1Iξ# is a (0,1)-vector field and Ω is an (n,0)-form on (M,I), we have
[TABLE]
So we have
[TABLE]
Since the collection v1,…,vn−m,Ip(ξ1)p#,…,Ip(ξm)p# is an oriented orthonormal basis of TpL, we have
[TABLE]
Since the collection (v1,0),…,(vn−m,0),(0,ξ1),…,(0,ξm) is an oriented orthonormal basis of T(p,h)(Vc×h), then we have
[TABLE]
(4) Let gradϕc∗gθc be the gradient of θc with respect to the metric ϕc∗g.
Firstly, we show that (gradϕc∗gθc)(p,h)=(0,ξ~(p))∈TpVc×h≅T(p,h)(Vc×H).
For each (v,η)∈TpVc×h≅T(p,h)(Vc×H) we have
[TABLE]
Thus we see (gradϕc∗gθc)(p,h)=(0,ξ~(p)).
Therefore the mean curvature vector Hc is computed as follows.
[TABLE]
(5) Firstly, we show γp(t)∈Vct=μH−1(ct)∩L.
Since γp(t)∈L is obvious, it is enough to show γp(t)∈μH−1(ct).
Let η1,…,ηm be a basis of h and η1,…,ηm∈h∗ the dual basis.
Since dtdγp(t)=χγp(t)=Iγp(t)(ξ~(γp(t))γp(t)#), we have
[TABLE]
Therefore we have μH(γp(t))=μH(γp(0))−taH=ct.
Thus we see that the image of the map Ft:Vc0×H→M is contained in the image of the map ϕct:Vct×H→M.
Since the both maps are immersions, the mean curvature vector of the immersion Ft at (p,h)∈Vc0×H is H(γp(t),h)ct∈Tγp(t)hM.
In this section we apply Theorem 2.3 and give basic examples of Lagrangian mean curvature flows in the Euclidean spaces.
3.1 Self-shrinkers and self-expanders
Let M=Cd equipped with the standard complex structure I, the standard Kähler form ω and the standard holomorphic volume form Ω.
The Kähler metric is denoted by g.
Let H be S1={ζ∈C∣∣ζ∣=1} and h its Lie algebra.
Take ξ0∈h such that ExpHtξ0=e−1t∈H.
Take ξ0∈h∗ such that ⟨ξ0,ξ0⟩=1.
The action of H on M is defined by
[TABLE]
where z=(z1,…,zd)∈M and λi∈Z∖{0} for i=1,…,d.
The moment map μH:M→h∗ is given by μH(z)=21(∑i=1dλi∣zi∣2)ξ0.
We also have
[TABLE]
Note that (ξ0)x#=(−1λ1x1,…,−1λdxd)∈Cd≅TxM for each x=(x1,…,xd)∈Rd.
So, if we set L=Rd∖{(0,…,0)}, then L is a special Lagrangian submanifold of (M,I,ω,Ω), and (ξ0)x#=0∈TxM and (ξ0)x#⊥TxL hold for each x∈L.
Lemma 3.1
Under the above setting, the vector field χ on L in Theorem 2.3(4) is given by
[TABLE]
where x=(x1,…,xd)∈L.
In particular, lim∣x∣→∞∣χx∣=0 holds.
Proof. Note that (ξ0)x#=(−1λ1x1,…,−1λdxd) for each x∈L and that ξ~(x)∈h is defined by
gx((ξ~(x))x#,(ξ0)x#)=⟨aH,ξ0⟩.
If we set ξ~(x)=αxξ0, where αx∈R, then we have
gx(αx(ξ0)x#,(ξ0)x#)=⟨aH,ξ0⟩.
So we have
[TABLE]
Since χx=Ix(ξ~(x))x#=−1αx(ξ0)x#, we finish the proof. □
Then we have the following.
Proposition 3.2
Fix c0∈h∗∖{0} and set ct=c0−taH.
Suppose ct=0 for t∈[0,T).
Then the family of maps {Ft:(μH−1(c0)∩L)×H→M}t∈[0,T), which is defined by Ft(p,h)=γp(t)h, is a Lagrangian mean curvature flow.
Proof. First we show that, for each p∈μH−1(c0)∩L, the integral curve {γp(t)} of the vector field χ with γp(0)=p exists for t∈[0,T).
Assume that, for some p0∈μH−1(c0)∩L, γp0(t) exists only for t∈[0,t0), where 0<t0<T.
By Lemma 3.1, we see that ∣dtdγp0(t)∣ is uniformly bounded for t∈[0,t0).
Since ct0=0, μH−1(ct0)∩L is closed in Rn.
So it is easy to see that limt→t0γp0(t) exists in μH−1(ct0)∩L and that γp0(t) extends to t∈[0,t0+ϵ) for some ϵ>0.
This contradicts to the assumption.
Thus we see that, for each p∈μH−1(c0)∩L, the integral curve {γp(t)} of the vector field χ with γp(0)=p exists for t∈[0,T).
The above examples are already known.
In [14] Lee and Wang found them as examples of Lagrangian self-shrinkers or self-expanders.
Here we reprove their results in our context.
Proposition 3.3
[14]*
Fix c∈h∗∖{0} and suppose μH−1(c)∩L=∅.
Define a map ϕc:(μH−1(c)∩L)×H→M by ϕc(x,h)=xh.
Let ϕc(x,h)⊥ be the normal component of the position vector ϕc(x,h) in Tϕc(x,h)M.
Then the mean curvature vector Hc∈Γ(ϕc∗TM) is given by*
[TABLE]
That is, ϕc is a self-shrinker if αc<0, and a self-expander if αc>0.
Proof.
Recall ⟨μH(x),ξ0⟩=21∑i=1dλixi2 for x=(x1,…,xd)∈L.
Since the gradient of ⟨μH(⋅),ξ0⟩∣L is a normal vector field of μH−1(c)∩L in L, the unit normal vector filed ν of μH−1(c)∩L in L is given by
[TABLE]
For x∈μH−1(c)∩L, fix an orthonormal basis v1,…,vd of (TxImϕc)⊥ satisfying v1=νx.
Then we have vi⊥TxL, in particular gx(x,vi)=0, for i=2,…,d.
Moreover, (Rh)∗xv1,…,(Rh)∗xvd is an orthonormal basis of (Tϕc(x,h)Imϕc)⊥.
So we have, for (x,h)∈(μH−1(c)∩L)×H,
[TABLE]
Together with Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 2.3(4), we have
[TABLE]
□
Set Lt={xh∣x∈μH−1(ct)∩Rd,h∈H} for t∈R, where ct=c0−taH∈h∗ as above.
Note that Lt=Imϕct if ct=0.
Lee and Wang also proved that {Lt}t∈R forms an eternal solution for Brakke flow in [13, 14].
3.2 Translating solitons
Let M=Cd+1 equipped with the standard complex structure I, the standard Kähler form ω and the standard holomorphic volume form Ω.
The Kähler metric is denoted by g.
Let H=R and h its Lie algebra.
Take ξ0∈h such that ExpHtξ0=t∈H.
Take ξ0∈h∗ such that ⟨ξ0,ξ0⟩=1.
The action of H on M is defined by
[TABLE]
where z=(z1,…,zd+1)∈M and λi∈R for i=1,…,d.
The moment map μH:M→h∗ is given by μH(z)=(21∑i=1dλi∣zi∣2+Rezd+1)ξ0, where Rezd+1 is the real part of zd+1∈C.
We also have
[TABLE]
Set L=Rd+1.
Then L is a special Lagrangian submanifold of (M,I,ω,Ω).
Since (ξ0)x#=(−1λ1x1,…,−1λdxd,−1)∈Cd+1≅TxM for each x∈L, we have (ξ0)x#=0∈TxM and (ξ0)x#⊥TxL.
Lemma 3.4
Under the above setting, the vector field χ on L in Theorem 2.3(4) is given by
[TABLE]
where x=(x1,…,xd+1)∈L.
In particular, ∣χx∣ is uniformly bounded on L.
Proof. Note that (ξ0)x#=(−1λ1x1,…,−1λdxd,−1) for each x∈L and that ξ~(x)∈h is defined by
gx((ξ~(x))x#,(ξ0)x#)=⟨aH,ξ0⟩.
If we set ξ~(x)=αxξ0, where αx∈R, then we have
gx(αx(ξ0)x#,(ξ0)x#)=⟨aH,ξ0⟩.
So we have
[TABLE]
Since χx=Ix(ξ~(x))x#=−1αx(ξ0)x#, we finish the proof. □
In contrast to the case of Proposition 1, μH−1(ct)∩L is closed in Rn for any t∈R in this case.
So, due to the above lemma, by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 3.2, we see that, for any p∈L, the integral curve {γp(t)} of the vector field χ with γp(0)=p exists for t∈R .
Theorem 2.3 implies the following.
Proposition 3.5
Fix c0∈h∗ and set ct=c0−taH for t∈R.
Then the family of maps {Ft:(μH−1(c0)∩L)×H→M}t∈R, which is defined by Ft(p,h)=γp(t)h, is a Lagrangian mean curvature flow.
The next proposition shows that the above examples are Lagrangian translating solitons.
These are higher dimensional generalization of the examples given in [5].
Proposition 3.6
Fix c∈h∗.
Define a map ϕc:(μH−1(c)∩L)×H→M by ϕc(x,h)=xh.
Set u=(0,…,0,−∑i=1dλi)∈Rd+1.
Let u(x,h)⊥ be the normal component of the vector u in Tϕc(x,h)M.
Then the mean curvature vector is given by H(x,h)c=u(x,h)⊥∈Tϕc(x,h)M.
That is, ϕc is a translating soliton.
Proof.
Recall ⟨μH(x),ξ0⟩=21∑i=1dλixi2+xd+1 for x=(x1,…,xd+1)∈L.
Since the gradient of ⟨μH(⋅),ξ0⟩∣L is a normal vector field of μH−1(c)∩L in L, the unit normal vector filed ν of μH−1(c)∩L in L is given by
[TABLE]
For x∈μH−1(c)∩L, fix an orthonormal basis v1,…,vd+1 of (TxImϕc)⊥ satisfying v1=νx.
Then we have vi⊥TxL, in particular gx(u,vi)=0, for i=2,…,d+1.
Moreover, (Rh)∗xv1,…,(Rh)∗xvd+1 is an orthonormal basis of (Tϕc(x,h)Imϕc)⊥.
If we note (Rh)∗xu=u, we have, for (x,h)∈(μH−1(c)∩L)×H,
[TABLE]
where the last two equalities follow from Lemma 3.4 and Theorem 2.3(4), respectively.
□
4 Lagrangian mean curvature flows in hyperKähler manifolds
In this section we give examples of special Lagrangian submanifolds, which satisfies the conditions in Theorem 2.3, in non-flat Calabi-Yau manifolds.
Lemma 4.1
*Let (M,I,ω) be a Kähler manifold.
Let σ:M→M be an isometric, anti-holomorphic involution, whose fixed point set is denoted by Mσ.
Then the following holds.
(1)σ∗ω=−ω.
(2)Mσ is a Lagrangian submanifold.
(3) For p∈Mσ, the set of eigenvalues of σ∗p:TpM→TpM is {1,−1}.
The eigenspaces V(λ), corresponding to the eigenvalues λ=±1, are given by Vp(1)=Tp(Mσ) and
Vp(−1)=Tp(Mσ)⊥, respectively.*
Proof.(1) Let g be the Kähler metric on (M,I,ω).
For p∈M and v,w∈TpM, we have
[TABLE]
(3) By the slice theorem, we see that Mσ is a submanifold.
Since σ∗p:TpM→TpM is an isometric involution for p∈Mσ, we have an orthogonal decomposition TpM=Vp(1)⊕Vp(−1) and Tp(Mσ)=Vp(1) for p∈Mσ.
Then (3) follows.
(2) If p∈Mσ and v,w∈Vp(λ), where λ=±1, then we have
[TABLE]
So we have ωp(v,w)=0 for v,w∈Vp(λ).
Therefore we have dimVp(λ)≤n, where n is the complex dimension of (M,I).
Since TpM=Vp(1)⊕Vp(−1), we have dimVp(1)=dimVp(−1)=n.
Thus we see that Mσ is a Lagrangian submanifold. □
Let us recall the notion of hyperKähler manifolds.
Definition 4.2
A* hyperKähler manifold *is a collection (M,g,I1,I2,I3) such that (M,g) is a 4n-dimensional Riemannian manifold with three complex structures I1,I2,I3 which satisfies the following properties:
(i)I1,I2,I3 satisfy the quaternion relation, that is, I1I2=−I2I1=I3.
(ii)g is a Kähler metric with respect to each complex structure I1,I2,I3.**
Let ωj be the Kähler form of (M,g,Ij) for j=1,2,3.
Then ωC=ω2+−1ω3 is a holomorphic symplectic form and Ω=n!ωCn is a holomorphic volume form of (M,I1).
Moreover, (M,I1,ω1,Ω) is a Calabi-Yau 2n-fold in the sense of Definition 2.1.
Proposition 4.3
*Let (M,g,I1,I2,I3) be a 4n-dimensional hyperKähler manifold, admitting an isometric involution σ:M→M, which is anti-holomorphic with respect to I1, and holomorphic with respect to I2, respectively.
Denote the set of fixed points of σ by Mσ, and the embedding by ι:Mσ→M.
Let ωj be the Kähler form for j=1,2,3.
Set ωC=ω2+−1ω3 and Ω=n!ωCn.
Then the following holds.
(1)σ∗ω1=−ω1, σ∗ω2=ω2 and σ∗ω3=−ω3.
In particular, Mσ is a Lagrangian submanifold of (M,ωj) for j=1,3.
(2)Mσ is a complex submanifold of (M,I2).
In particular, Mσ is oriented.
(3)ι∗Ω=volι∗g holds. Mσ is a special Lagrangian submanifold of (M,I1,ω1,Ω).
(4) In addition, suppose that an abelian Lie group H acts on M, preserving I1 and ω1, with a moment map μH:M→h∗, and that σ(ph)=σ(p)h−1 holds for each p∈M and h∈H.
Set L=\{p\in M^{\sigma}~{}|~{}\xi^{\#}_{p}\neq 0~{}\text{for each \xi\in\mathfrak{h}\setminus{0}}\}.
Then ξp#⊥TpL for each p∈L, ξ∈h∖{0} holds.
That is, L satisfies the conditions in Theorem 2.3.*
Proof.(1) Note that σ:M→M is an anti-holomorphic involution with respect to I3=I1I2.
The claim follows from Lemma 4.1.
(2) Since (I2)p:TpM→TpM commutes with σ∗p:TpM→TpM for p∈Mσ, (I2)p preserves the eigenspaces Vp(λ) of σ∗p for λ=±1.
Since Tp(Mσ)=Vp(1) by Lemma 4.1, the claim follows.
(3) Since ι∗ω2 is the Kähler form of (Mσ,I2) by (2), we see that n!(ι∗ω2)n is the volume form volι∗g of Mσ.
On the other hand, since ι∗ωC=ι∗ω2 by (1) , we have
[TABLE]
(4) Since σ(ph)=σ(p)h−1 holds for each p∈M and h∈H, we have σ∗pξp#=−ξp# for each p∈Mσ and ξ∈h.
By Lemma 4.1, we have ξp#⊥Tp(Mσ) for each p∈Mσ and ξ∈h. □
5 Lagrangian mean curvature flows in Ricci-flat ALE spaces of type An
In this section, as an application of Proposition 4.3, we construct Lagrangian mean curvature flows in 4-dimensional Ricci-flat ALE spaces of An-type and study their properties.
5.1 Ricci-flat ALE spaces of type An
In this subsection we construct 4-dimensional Ricci-flat ALE spaces of An-type.
Our construction seems to be slightly different from the original one due to [12], but essentially the same.
In the following, we identify the quaternionic vector space Hn+1 with the product Cn+1×Cn+1.
The standard hyperKähler structure (g,I1,I2,I3) on Hn+1 is defined by
[TABLE]
where z,z′,w,w′∈Cn+1 are column vectors.
The Kähler forms ωi corresponding to the complex structure Ii for i=1,2,3 are given by
[TABLE]
The right action of the torus Tn+1={ζ=(ζ0,⋯,ζn)∈Cn+1∣∣ζi∣=1fori=0,…,n}
on Hn+1=Cn+1×Cn+1 is defined by
[TABLE]
Define a group homomorphism ρ:Tn+1→T1 by ρ(ζ)=ζ0…ζn.
Denote the kernel of ρ by K, and let ι:K→Tn+1 be the embedding.
Then we have the following exact sequence of abelian Lie groups:
[TABLE]
We also have the corresponding exact sequences of the Lie algebras and their dual spaces:
[TABLE]
Let e0,…,en be the standard basis of tn+1 and e0,…,en∈(tn+1)∗ the dual basis.
We also denote the standard basis of t1 by p1 and the dual basis by p1∈(t1)∗.
Then we have
[TABLE]
If we set fi=ei−ei−1 for i=1,…,n, then f1,…,fn is a basis of k.
The dual basis f1,…,fn∈k∗ satisfies the following;
[TABLE]
The induced K-action on Hn+1 admits a hyperKähler moment map
[TABLE]
which is given by
[TABLE]
Define the codimension one subspaces Wi,j of k∗ for 0≤i<j≤n by
[TABLE]
where the second equality follows from k=i+1∑jfk=ej−ei.
Proposition 5.1
*The set of regular values of the hyperKähler moment map
μK:Hn+1→k∗⊗ImH is*
[TABLE]
Proof.
In general, let us define a map ν:C2→R×C by ν(u,v)=(∣u∣2−∣v∣2,uv).
Then it is easy to observe that ν is surjective, and that the set of regular points of ν is C2∖{(0,0)}.
By this observation, the image of the differential of μK at (z,w)∈Hn+1 is
[TABLE]
Therefore, the differential of μK at (z,w) is surjective if and only if {ι∗ej∣j∈J(z,w)} spans k∗.
Since {ι∗e0,…,ι∗ek,…,ι∗en} forms a basis of k∗ for k=0,…,n, the lemma follows. □
If (α,β)∈k∗⊕(k∗⊗C)=k∗⊗ImH is a regular value of μK, then we have a smooth hyperKähler quotient
[TABLE]
on which T1=Tn+1/K acts, preserving the hyperKähler structure.
If (α,β) is a critical value, then the hyperKähler quotient M(α,β)=μK(α,β)/K has singularities.
A point in M(α,β), which is represented by (z,w)∈μK−1(α,β), is denoted by [z,w]K.
The hyperKähler structure (g,I1,I2,I3) on μK−1(α,β)/K, where (α,β) is a regular value of μK, is defined as follows.
Consider the natural projection
[TABLE]
as a principal K-bundle.
For (z,w)∈μK−1(α,β), the vertical subspace V(z,w) is defined to be the kernel of the differential
[TABLE]
Its orthogonal complement H(z,w) in T(z,w)μK−1(α,β) is called the horizontal subspace.
So we have the orthogonal decomposition
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that V(z,w) is the tangent space of the K-orbit through (z,w) and that H(z,w) is a quaternionic subspace of T(z,w)Hn+1.
The hyperKähler structure on M(α,β) is defined so that the map π∗(z,w) induces an hyperKähler isometry from H(z,w) to T[z,w]KM(α,β).
Define the action of Zn+1={γ∈C∣γn+1=1} on C2 by
[TABLE]
Since this action preserves the hyperKähler structure of C2,
the quotient space C2/Zn+1 is an orbifold which has the standard flat metric.
A point in C2/Zn+1, which is represented by (u,v)∈C2, is denoted by [u,v]Zn+1.
Proposition 5.2
The map ϕ:C2/Zn+1→M(0,0), which is defined by
[TABLE]
is an isometry.
Proof.
Define the map ϕ:C2→Hn+1 by
[TABLE]
Note that (z,w)∈μK−1(0,0) if and only if
[TABLE]
Therefore, we see that ϕ(u,v)∈μK−1(0,0) for each (u,v)∈C2.
Moreover, it is easy to see that [ϕ(u,v)]K=[ϕ(u′,v′)]K if and only if there exists γ∈Zn+1 such that (u′,v′)=(u,v)γ.
This implies that the map ϕ is well-defined and injective.
To see that ϕ is surjective, fix an arbitrary (z,w)∈μK−1(0,0).
By (5.5), there exists ζk∈C such that
[TABLE]
If we set ξ=(ζ1⋯ζn)n+1−1, then we have ζ=(ξ,ζ1ξ,…,ζnξ)∈K and
[TABLE]
Thus we see that ϕ is surjective.
The differential ϕ∗(u,v):T(u,v)C2→Tϕ(u,v)Hn+1 is an isometric embedding for (u,v)∈C2.
It is easy to see that the image of ϕ∗(u,v) is perpendicular to the tangent space of the K-orbit through ϕ(u,v) for (u,v)∈C2∖{(0,0)}.
This implies that ϕ∗(u,v) induces an isometry from T(u,v)C2 to the horizontal subspace Hϕ(u,v) in (5.4) for (u,v)∈C2∖{(0,0)}.
So we see that ϕ is an isometry.
Thus we finish the proof. □
Thus we see that (M(0,0),I1) is isomorphic to C2/Zn+1
Moreover, it is well-known that (M(α,β),I1) is a minimal resolution of (M(0,0),I1).
5.2 Torus actions on Ricci-flat ALE spaces of type An
From now on, we fix
[TABLE]
and h∈(tn+1)∗ such that α=ι∗h, that is,
[TABLE]
If we set h−1=−∞ and hn+1=∞, then, by (5.6) and (5.7), we have
[TABLE]
By Proposition 5.1, (α,0)∈k∗⊕(k∗⊗C)=k∗⊗ImH is a regular value of μK.
Therefore M(α,0)=(μK−1(α,0)/K,g,I1,I2,I3) is a smooth manifold, on which T1=Tn+1/K acts, preserving the hyperKähler structure.
The Kähler form corresponding to Ij is denoted by ωj for j=1,2,3.
Then ωC=ω2+−1ω3 is a holomorphic symplectic form on (M(α,0),I1).
Note that (z,w)∈μK−1(α,0) if and only if
[TABLE]
Define the action of a torus G={(γ0,γ1)∈C2∣∣γ0∣=∣γ1∣=1} on M(α,0) by
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that the G-action is well-defined.
Note that the action of (1,γ1)∈G is the same as the action of ρ(γ1,1,…,1)∈T1, where ρ:Tn+1→T1 is the group homomorphism in (5.2).
Denote the standard basis of g by p0,p1 and the dual basis by p0,p1∈g∗.
Then we have the following.
Since the proof is straightforward, we omit the proof.
Proposition 5.3
(1)* The G-action on M(α,0) preserves the complex structure I1 and the corresponding Kähler form ω1.
Moreover, this action admits a moment map μG:M(α,0)→g∗, which is given by*
[TABLE]
(2)* RExpGξ∗ωC=e−1⟨p0,ξ⟩ωC holds for ξ∈g, where ExpG:g→G is the exponential map for G.*
We remark that, in (5.11), the term 21(∣zk∣2−∣wk∣2)−hk is independent of k=0,1,…,n due to (5.2).
We note that, due to (5.8), for each y∈R, there exists unique k0∈{0,…,n+1} such that −hk0−1>y≥−hk0 holds.
Proposition 5.4
(1)* The image ImμG of the moment map μG:M(α,0)→g∗ is given by*
[TABLE]
(2)* For each xp0+yp1∈ImμG, μG−1(xp0+yp1) consists of a single G-orbit in M(α,0).*
Proof.(1) Denote the right hand side of (5.12) by Δ.
First we show ImμG⊂Δ.
Fix any xp0+yp1=μG([z,w]K)∈ImμG.
Then there exists unique k0∈{0,…,n+1} such that −hk0−1>y≥−hk0 holds.
Due to (5.2), there exists d0∈C such that
[TABLE]
Since {21(∣zi∣2+∣wi∣2)}2={21(∣zi∣2−∣wi∣2)}2+∣ziwi∣2=(y+hi)2+∣d0∣2, we have
[TABLE]
So we have
[TABLE]
Thus we see ImμG⊂Δ.
Next we show ImμG⊃Δ.
Fix any xp0+yp1∈Δ.
Then there exists unique k0∈{0,…,n+1} such that −hk0−1>y≥−hk0 holds.
We want to show that there exists [z,w]K∈M(α,0) such that μG([z,w]K)=xp0+yp1.
By (5.15), it is equivalent to show that there exist (z,w)∈Cn+1×Cn+1 and d0∈C such that (5.13) holds and fy(d0)=x, where fy:C→R is a function defined by
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since xp0+yp1∈Δ, we have
[TABLE]
So there exists d0∈C such that fy(d0)=x.
Moreover, by (5.14), there exists (z,w)∈Cn+1×Cn+1 such that (5.13) holds.
So we see that there exists [z,w]K∈M(α,0) such that μG([z,w]K)=xp0+yp1.
Thus we see that ImμG⊃Δ.
(2) Fix any xp0+yp1∈ImμG.
In the proof of (1), we constructed [z,w]K∈μG−1(xp0+yp1).
In the construction, there are some ambiguities for the choice of d0∈C and (z,w)∈Cn+1×Cn+1.
It is easy to see that the ambiguity for [z,w]K corresponds to the G-action.
□
Set
[TABLE]
for k=0,…,n+1, and set vk=lk∩lk+1 for k=0,…,n.
Then the image of the moment map μG is decomposed in the following way (Fig.1):
[TABLE]
where int(ImμG) and int(lk) are the interior of ImμG and lk, respectively.
Note that ⋃k=1nμG−1(lk) is the exceptional divisor for the minimal resolution of C2/Zn+1.
Next we determine the isotropy subgroup G[z,w]K of G at [z,w]K∈M(α,0) as follows.
Proposition 5.5
(1)* If μG([z,w]K)∈int(ImμG), then G[z,w]K is the trivial subgroup and zi=0, wi=0 for i=0,…,n.
(2) If μG([z,w]K)∈int(lk0), then G[z,w]K is the subtorus H1,−(n+1−k0), whose Lie algebra is generated by p0−(n+1−k0)p1.
Moreover, the following holds.*
[TABLE]
(3)* If μG([z,w]K)=vk0, then G[z,w]K=G and*
[TABLE]
In particular, μG−1(vk) is a single point in M(α,0) for k=0,…,n.
Proof.
By the proof of Proposition 5.4, the condition xp0+yp1∈ImμG holds if and only if there exist (z,w)∈Cn+1×Cn+1 and d0∈C such that (5.13) holds and fy(d0)=x, where the function fy is defined by (5.17).
(1)μG([z,w]K)∈int(ImμG) if and only if there exists k0∈{0,…,n+1} such that −hk0−1>y≥−hk0 and x>∑i=k0n(y+hi), where xp0+yp1=μG([z,w]K).
Since x>∑i=k0n(y+hi), (5.18) implies d0=0.
Then (5.13) implies the claim.
(2)μG([z,w]K)∈int(lk0) if and only if −hk0−1>y>−hk0 and x=∑i=k0n(y+hi), where xp0+yp1=μG([z,w]K).
Since x=∑i=k0n(y+hi), (5.18) implies d0=0.
Then (5.13) implies (5.5).
Moreover, the isotropy subgroup can be easily determined by the following.
[TABLE]
(3)μG([z,w]K)=vk0 if and only if y=−hk0 and x=∑i=k0n(y+hi), where xp0+yp1=μG([z,w]K).
By the same argument as in the proof of (2), we see the claim. □
Next we define a good local coordinate around a fixed point.
Let vk0∈ImμG as in (5.20) for k0=0,1,…,n.
Since μG−1(vk0) is a single point, we set Pk0=μG−1(vk0).
Define an open set Uk0 in M(α,0) by
[TABLE]
Define a map φk0:Uk0→C2 by
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that φk0:Uk0→C2 is well-defined and that Pk0∈Uk0 and φk0(Pk0)=(0,0).
Moreover, we have the following.
Proposition 5.6
(1)* φk0:Uk0→C2 is a holomorphic local coordinate of M(α,0) with respect to I1.
(2) If we write φk0(q)=(u1(q),u2(q)) for q∈Uk0 and ui=xi+−1yi, where xi,yi∈R, for i=1,2, then (∂x1∂)Pk0,(∂y1∂)Pk0,(∂x2∂)Pk0,(∂y2∂)Pk0 is an orthonormal basis of TPk0(M(α,0)).*
Proof.(1) To prove the claim, we need to describe (M(α,0),I1) as a quotient in geometric invariant theory.
Note that M(α,0) is an example of toric hyperKähler varieties, which were introduced in [2].
We refer the readers to [11] for basic properties of toric hyperKähler varieties.
Define the action of T^{n+1}_{\mathbb{C}}=\{\zeta=(\zeta_{0},\cdots,\zeta_{n})~{}|~{}\zeta_{i}\in\mathbb{C}^{\times}\quad\text{for i=0,\dots,n}\}, where C×=C∖{0}, on Hn+1=Cn+1×Cn+1 by (5.1).
Define a group homomorphism ρC:TCn+1→C× by ρC(ζ)=ζ0…ζn.
Let KC be the kernel of ρC, which is the complexification of the torus K.
If we set
[TABLE]
then we have
[TABLE]
So μK,C−1(0) is an algebraic variety, on which KC acts.
Then we have a notion of stability for the action of KC on μK,C−1(0) in geometric invariant theory according to α∈k, which we have fixed in (5.6).
Since the torus K acts on μK−1(α,0) freely in our case,
α-semistability is equivalent to α-stability.
So, if we denote the set of α-stable points by μK,C−1(0)α−st, then we have
[TABLE]
where the right hand side is a geometric quotient.
A point in μK,C−1(0)α−st/KC, which is represented by (z,w)∈μK,C−1(0)α−st, is denoted by [z,w]KC.
Claim 5.7
Set
[TABLE]
Then U~k0⊂μK,C−1(0)α−st holds.
Proof.
Due to Lemma 3.6 in [11], a point (z,w)∈μK,C−1(0) is α-stable if and only if
So we have U~k0/KC=Uk0.
Moreover, φk0([z,w]KC) is also given by the right hand side of (5.2) for (z,w)∈U~k0.
So φk0:Uk0→C2 is holomorphic with respect to I1.
If we write φk0([z,w]KC)=(u1(z,w),u2(z,w)) for (z,w)∈U~k0, then we have
[TABLE]
where u1(z,w),u2(z,w) in the right hand side are the k0-th component.
Since z0w0=⋯=znwn=u1(z,w)u2(z,w), the right hand side in (5.26) depends only on u1(z,w),u2(z,w).
So it can be seen that φk0:Uk0→C2 is bijective, moreover, a homeomorphism.
Thus we see that φk0:Uk0→C2 is a holomorphic local coordinate.
(2) Define smooth curves γ~i:(−ϵ,ϵ)→μK−1(α,0) for i=1,2 by
[TABLE]
for small ϵ>0.
Then γ~i induces smooth curves γi:(−ϵ,ϵ)→M(α,0) for i=1,2.
Then we have γ1(0)=γ2(0)=Pk0 and dtd(φk0∘γi)(0)=(∂xi∂)Pk0.
Moreover, dtdγ~1(0) is perpendicular to dtdγ~2(0), and dtdγ~i(0) are also perpendicular to the K-orbit through γ~1(0)=γ~2(0).
Then the claim follows. □
5.3 Involutions on Ricci-flat ALE spaces of type An
Define a map σ:M(α,0)→M(α,0) by
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that this map is well-defined.
Then the following holds.
Proposition 5.8
(1)* σ:M(α,0)→M(α,0) is an isometric involution, which is anti-holomorphic with respect to I1 and holomorphic with respect to I2.
(2)σ([z,w]K(γ0,γ1))=σ([z,w]K)(γ0,γ1)−1 holds for any [z,w]K∈M(α,0) and (γ0,γ1)∈G.*
Proof.(1) Define a map σ:Hn+1→Hn+1 by σ(z,w)=(z,w) for (z,w)∈Cn+1×Cn+1=Hn+1.
It is easy to see that σ is an isometric involution, which is anti-holomorphic with respect to I1 and holomorphic with respect to I2.
Moreover, it is easy to see that the differential σ∗(z,w):T(z,w)Hn+1→Tσ(z,w)Hn+1 induces an isometry from the horizontal subspace H(z,w) to Hσ(z,w) in (5.4) for (z,w)∈μK−1(α,0).
Therefore the induced map σ is also an isometric involution, which is anti-holomorphic with respect to I1 and holomorphic with respect to I2.
(2) is obvious. □
To describe the set of fixed points of the involution σ:M(α,0)→M(α,0), we set GR=G∩R2, which consists of four elements (1,1), (−1,1), (1,−1), (−1,−1).
Proposition 5.9
*Let Mσ be the set of fixed points of σ.
Then the following holds.
(1)Mσ={μK−1(α,0)∩(Rn+1×Rn+1)}/(K∩Rn+1).
(2) For any xp0+yp1∈ImμG, μG−1(xp0+yp1)∩Mσ is a single GR-orbit.
(3) Take a subset M++σ of Mσ so that μG:M→g∗ induces a homeomorphism from M++σ to ImμG.
Set*
[TABLE]
Then Mσ=M++σ∪M−+σ∪M+−σ∪M−−σ holds.
Moreover, for k=0,…,n+1,
[TABLE]
Therefore, Mσ is homeomorphic to
[TABLE]
Proof.(1) Set MR={μK−1(α,0)∩(Rn+1×Rn+1)}/(K∩Rn+1).
Since Mσ⊃MR is obvious, we show that Mσ⊂MR.
Fix [z,w]K∈Mσ.
Then there exists ζ∈K such that (z,w)=(zζ,wζ−1).
So we have (zζ−21,wζ21)=(zζ21,wζ−21).
This implies that (zζ21,wζ−21)∈μK−1(α,0)∩(Rn+1×Rn+1).
Thus we see that [z,w]K=[zζ21,wζ−21]K∈MR.
(2) Fix xp0+yp1∈ImμG.
Since μG−1(xp0+yp1) is a single G-orbit by Proposition 5.4(2), it is enough to show that μG−1(xp0+yp1)∩Mσ=∅.
As in the proof of Proposition 5.4(1), it is equivalent to show that there exist (z,w)∈Rn+1×Rn+1 and d0∈R such that (5.13) holds and fy(d0)=x, where fy:C→R is a function defined by (5.17).
In fact, such (z,w) and d0 exist by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 5.4(1).
(3) By Proposition 5.5, for k=0,…,n+1, we have G[z,w]K=H1,−(n+1−k) if μG([z,w]K)∈int(lk), where int(lk) is the interior of lk.
On the other hand, for k=0,…,n+1, we have
[TABLE]
So the claim follows. □
5.4 Lagrangian mean curvature flows in Ricci-flat ALE spaces of type An
Suppose that a,b∈Z are coprime.
Let Ha,b be the subtorus of G, whose Lie algebra ha,b is generated by ap0+bp1∈g.
Set wa,b=ap0+bp1∈ha,b.
Then there exists wa,b∈ha,b∗ such that ⟨wa,b,wa,b⟩=1.
Let ιa,b:Ha,b→G be the embedding, and ιa,b∗:ha,b→g, ιa,b∗:g∗→ha,b∗ the induced maps.
By Propositions 5.3 and 5.8, we have the following.
Lemma 5.10
(1)* ιa,b∗p0=awa,b, ιa,b∗p1=bwa,b.
(2) The moment map μHa,b=ιa,b∗∘μG:M(α,0)→ha,b∗ for the action of Ha,b on (M(α,0),ω1) is given by*
[TABLE]
(3)* RExpHa,bξ∗ωC=e−1a⟨wa,b,ξ⟩ωC holds for ξ∈ha,b, where ExpHa,b:ha,b→Ha,b is the exponential map for Ha,b.
(4)σ([z,w]Kh)=σ([z,w]K)h−1 holds for any [z,w]K∈M(α,0) and h∈Ha,b.*
Denote the sets of fixed points of the action of Ha,b, G on M(α,0) by M(α,0)Ha,b, M(α,0)G, respectively.
Then we have the following.
Lemma 5.11
*Suppose that a,b∈Z are coprime and that b=−la for l=0,−1,…,−(n+1).
Then the following holds.
(1)M(α,0)Ha,b=M(α,0)G holds.
In particular, (wa,b)p#=0 holds for each p∈L=Mσ∖M(α,0)G.
(2) Let χ be the vector field on L=Mσ∖M(α,0)G, which is defined in Theorem 2.3(4).
Then there exist constants C1>0 and C2>0 such that, if p=[z,w]K∈L satisfies ∣p∣≥C1, then ∣χp∣≤∣p∣C2 holds, where ∣p∣=∣z∣2+∣w∣2.*
(2) The vector field χ is defined by χp=Ipξ~(p)p#, where ξ~(p)∈ha,b satisfies gp(ξ~(p)p#,ηp#)=⟨awa,b,η⟩ for any η∈ha,b.
If we set ξ~(p)=αpwa,b, where αp∈R, then we have gp(αp(wa,b)p#,(wa,b)p#)=a.
So we have αp=gp((wa,b)p#,(wa,b)p#)a.
Thus we have ∣χp∣=∣Ipξ~(p)p#∣=∣αp(wa,b)p#∣=∣(wa,b)p#∣∣a∣.
Therefore it is enough to show the following claim.
Claim 5.12
There exist constants C1>0 and C3>0 such that, if p∈M(α,0) satisfies ∣p∣≥C1, then ∣(wa,b)p#∣≥C3∣p∣ holds.
Proof.
Set S={(z,w)∈Cn+1×Cn+1∣∣z∣2+∣w∣2=1}.
Since the action of K on Cn+1×Cn+1 preserves S, we can define S(M(α′,0))=(μK−1(α′,0)∩S)/K, which is a compact subset of M(α′,0) for each α′∈k∗.
Since b=0,−(n+1)a, it is easy to see that (wa,b)p#=0 for each p∈S(M(0,0)).
So there exist a constant C3>0 and an open neighborhood UO of the origin O∈k∗ such that ∣(wa,b)p#∣≥C3 holds for each α′∈UO and p∈S(M(α′,0)).
On the other hand, recall we have fixed α∈k.
Note that, if p=[z,w]K∈M(α,0), then ∣p∣p=[∣p∣z,∣p∣w]K∈S(M(∣p∣2α,0)) and ∣(wa,b)∣p∣p#∣=∣p∣1∣(wa,b)p#∣.
There exists a constant C1>0 such that, if p∈M(α,0) satisfies ∣p∣≥C1, then ∣p∣2α∈UO.
Then we have ∣p∣1∣(wa,b)p#∣=∣(wa,b)∣p∣p#∣≥C3.
So Claim 5.12 follows. □
*Suppose that a,b∈Z are coprime and that b=−la for l=0,−1,…,−(n+1).
Fix c0∈ha,b∗ and set ct=c0−tawa,b∈ha,b∗.
Suppose that μHa,b−1(ct)∩M(α,0)G=∅ for each t∈[0,T).
Then the following holds.
(1) Set Vct=μHa,b−1(ct)∩L, where L=Mσ∖M(α,0)G.
Let χ be the vector field on L, which is defined in Theorem 2.3(4).
Then, for each p∈Vc0, the integral curve {γp(t)} of the vector field χ with γp(0)=p exists for t∈[0,T).
Moreover, γp(t)∈Vct holds.
(2){Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,T), defined by Ft(p,h)=γp(t)h, is a Lagrangian mean curvature flow.*
Proof.(1) By the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition 3.2, the first claim follows from Lemma 5.11.
The second claim follows from Theorem 2.3(5).
(2) Theorem 2.3(5), together with Lemma 5.10 and Propositions 4.3, implies the claim.
□
Let us describe the set Vc0=μHa,b−1(c0)∩L.
If we set rc0=(ιa,b∗)−1(c0)∩ImμG, then rc0 is a segment or a ray in g∗.
Vc0 is compact if and only if rc0 is bounded.
Since μHa,b−1(c0)=μG−1(rc0), we have
[TABLE]
Thus Vc0 is decomposed into four pieces
[TABLE]
Note that each piece is homeomorphic to the set rc0.
By Proposition 5.9(3), we see how these pieces are connected to each other.
Thus we see whether Vc0 is connected or not.
Note that the four pieces in (5.4) are transformed into themselves or other pieces by the action of
[TABLE]
Since we have assumed that a,b∈Z are coprime, it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
So, in any case, if we set Vc00=Vc0∩μG−1(int(ImμG)), we see that the restriction F0∣Vc00×Ha,b:Vc00×Ha,b→M(α,0) is a two-to-one map onto its image.
Thus we see that the map Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0) is generically a two-to-one map onto its image for any t∈[0,T).
Let us describe the above Lagrangian mean curvature flow {Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,T) in more detail.
If a=0, the flow is static, that is, Ft=F0:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0) for any t∈[0,T).
So we may assume a>0.
We describe the flow in the following three cases:
(1) the case a>0,ab>0,
(2) the case a>0,0>ab>−(n+1),ab∈Z,
(3) the case a>0,−(n+1)>ab.
Since the third case is similar to the first one, we will discuss the first and second cases.
5.5 The case a>0,ab>0
Recall the decomposition of ImμG in (5.20).
Define ti∈R by ιa,b∗(vi)=c0−tiawa,b(=cti) for i=0,…,n. In the case a>0,ab>0, we have
[TABLE]
Since μHa,b−1(c0)∩M(α,0)G=∅, there exists unique k0∈{0,1,…,n+1} such that tk0−1<0<tk0.
Then (ιa,b∗)−1(c0) intersects with int(lk0).
Moreover, the set rc0=(ιa,b∗)−1(c0)∩ImμG is a ray in g∗.
Each piece μG−1(rc0)∩M++σ, μG−1(rc0)∩M−+σ, μG−1(rc0)∩M+−σ and μG−1(rc0)∩M−−σ in (5.4) is homeomorphic to the ray rc0.
By Proposition 5.9, we see that Vc0=μHa,b−1(c0)∩L consists of two connected components Vc0(1), Vc0(2) as follows:
Note that μHa,b−1(ct)∩M(α,0)G=∅ for each t∈[0,tk0).
By Theorem 5.13, we have a Lagrangian mean curvature flow {Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,tk0).
By Proposition 5.9, for t∈(tk0,tk0+1), the four pieces μG−1(rct)∩M++σ, μG−1(rct)∩M−+σ, μG−1(rct)∩M+−σ and μG−1(rct)∩M−−σ are connected to each other in a different way from the case t∈[0,tk0).
Therefore, it is impossible to extend the flow {Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,tk0) continuously to t∈[0,tk0+ϵ) for any ϵ>0.
This implies that the Lagrangian mean curvature flow {Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,tk0) develops a singularity at Pk0=μG−1(vk0) when t goes to tk0.
Let us describe the singularity of the flow {Ft}t∈[0,tk0).
In Proposition 5.6 we have constructed the holomorphic local coordinate φk0:Uk0→C2 around Pk0.
We write φk0(q)=(u1(q),u2(q)) for q∈Uk0 and ui=xi+−1yi, where xi,yi∈R, for i=1,2.
By (5.2), we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since we have assumed that a>0 and ab>0, we have λ1(k0)>0 and λ2(k0)<0 for k0=0,…,n.
Thus we have
[TABLE]
If we set μ=⟨μHa,b(⋅),wa,b⟩:M(α,0)→R, then we have i((wa,b)#)ω1=−dμ, where ω1 is the Kähler form of (M(α,0),I1).
Define ω10,ω11∈Ω2(Uk0) and μ0,μ1:Uk0→R by
[TABLE]
By definition of μ1, we have μ1(0,0)=0.
Since i((wa,b)#)ω10=−dμ0 holds, we have i((wa,b)#)ω11=−dμ1.
Since (wa,b)(0,0)#=0, we have (dμ1)(0,0)=0.
Moreover, by Proposition 5.6(2), we have (ω11)(0,0)=0.
So we have
[TABLE]
Therefore we have
[TABLE]
Since ct=c0−tawa,b=ck0+(tk0−t)awa,b holds, we have ⟨ct,wa,b⟩=μ(Pk0)+a(tk0−t).
Then we have
By (5.30), as t goes to tk0, νt:C2→R converges [math] in C∞-topology on any compact subset on C2.
Therefore, as t goes to tk0, we have the following convergence
[TABLE]
Note that Uk0∩Mσ={(u1,u2)∈C2∣u1,u2∈R} and that the rescaling procedure (5.32) is Ha,b-equivariant.
So there exists ϵ>0,R>0,C>0 such that the following (i), (ii) hold:
(i) If 0<tk0−t<ϵ, then B(Pk0;tk0−tR)∩ImFt=∅, where B(P;r) is the geodesic ball of the radius r>0 centered at P in M(α,0),
(ii)sup{∣At(P)∣∣0<tk0−t<ϵ,P∈B(Pk0;tk0−tR)∩ImFt}≤tk0−tC, where At is the second fundamental form of Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0).
Thus we have the following.
Proposition 5.14
The Lagrangian mean curvature flow
[TABLE]
develops a type I singularity at Pk0 when t goes to tk0. The blow-up limit at the singularity is the self-shrinker in Subsection 3.1 with d=2, λ1=a(n−k0+1)+b and λ2=−a(n−k0)−b.
As we already mentiond, in [13, 14], Lee and Wang proved that {Lt}t∈R in the last paragraph of Subsection 3.1 forms an eternal solution for Brakke flow.
Set Lt(a,b)={ph∈M(α,0)∣p∈μHa,b−1(ct)∩Mσ,h∈Ha,b} for t∈R.
By Proposition 5.14, we see that our example {Lt(a,b)}t∈R becomes closer to {Lt}t∈R, where d=2, λ1=a(n−k0+1)+b and λ2=−a(n−k0)−b, around Pk0 as t goes to tk0.
So, by modifying the argument of Lee and Wang, it is not difficult to see that {Lt(a,b)}t∈R forms an eternal solution for Brakke flow.
5.6 The case a>0,0>ab>−(n+1),ab∈Z
Define tk∈R by ιa,b∗(vk)=c0−tkawa,b(=ctk) for k=0,1,…,n as in Subsection 5.5.
Then, in the case a>0,0>ab>−(n+1),ab∈Z, there exists m0∈{0,…,n} such that
[TABLE]
If 0>tm0, then μHa,b−1(c0)∩L=∅ and we have nothing to discuss.
So we may assume tm0≥0.
Since we have assumed μHa,b−1(c0)∩M(α,0)G=∅, there exists i0∈{0,…,m0} and j0∈{m0+1,…,n+1} such that ti0−1<0<ti0 and tj0−1>0>tj0 and that (ιa,b∗)−1(c0) intersects int(li0) and int(lj0).
Therefore, in this case, the set rc0=(ιa,b∗)−1(c0)∩ImμG is a segment in g∗.
If we set T=min{ti0,tj0−1}, then we see that μHa,b−1(ct)∩M(α,0)G=∅ for each t∈[0,T).
By Theorem 5.13 we have a Lagrangian mean curvature flow {Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,T).
It is impossible to extend the flow continuously to t∈[0,T+ϵ) for any ϵ>0 as in Subsection 5.5.
So the Lagrangian mean curvature flow {Ft:Vc0×Ha,b→M(α,0)}t∈[0,T) develops a singularity when t goes to T at Pi0 if T=ti0 or at Pj0−1 if T=tj0−1.
The structure of the singularity at Pk0 is investigated in the same way as in Subsection 5.5 and described in Proposition 5.14.
Here we should note the sign of λ1(k0) and λ2(k0) in (5.29) as follows.
Proposition 5.15
*Suppose that a,b∈Z are coprime, a>0, 0>ab>−(n+1) and ab∈Z.
Then the following holds.
(1)λ1(m0)>0 and λ2(m0)>0, where m0 is the same as in (5.33).
(2) If k0=m0, then λ1(k0)λ2(k0)<0.*
Proof.
For k0=0,…,n, we have
[TABLE]
Since ab∈Z, we have λ1(k0)=0 and λ2(k0)=0.
So it is enough to show that
[TABLE]
In fact, since kerιa,b∗=span{−bp0+ap1}, we see that the slope of the segment rc0=(ιa,b∗)−1(c0)∩ImμG is −ba.
On the other hand, by (5.19), the slopes of lm0, lm0+1 are n+1−m01, n−m01, respectively.
Then, by (5.33), we have
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to (5.34).
Thus we finish the proof.
□
Set Lt(a,b)={ph∈M(α,0)∣p∈μHa,b−1(ct)∩Mσ,h∈Ha,b} for t∈R.
By Proposition 5.14, it is not difficult to see that {Lt(a,b)}t∈R forms an eternal solution for Brakke flow as we explained at the end of Subsection 5.5.
Proposition 5.15 implies that Lt(a,b) shrinks to the point Pm0 as t goes to tm0 and that Lt(a,b)=∅ for t>tm0.
Bibliography17
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Anciaux, H.: Construction of Lagrangian self-similar solutions to the mean curvature flow in ℂ n superscript ℂ 𝑛 \mathbb{C}^{n} . Geom. Dedicata 120, 37-48 (2006)
2[2] Bielawski, R., Dancer, A.: The Geometry and Topology of Toric Hyperkähler manifolds. Commun. Anal. Geom. 8, 726-760 (2000)
3[3] Behrndt, T.: Generalized Lagrangian mean curvature flow in Kähler manifolds that are almost Einstein. Complex and Differential Geometry, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics 8, 65-79 (2011)
4[4] Brakke, K.A.: The motion of a surface by its mean curvature. Mathematical Notes, Princeton University Press (1978)
5[5] Castro, I., Lerma, A.M.: Translating solitons for Lagrangian mean curvature flows in the complex Euclidean plane. International. J. Math. 23, 1250101(16 pages) (2012)
6[6] Huisken, G.: Asymptotic behavior for singularities of the mean curvature flow. J. Differential Geom. 31, 285-299 (1990)
8[8] Joyce, D., Lee, Y-I., Tsui, M-P.: Self-similar solutions and translating solitons for Lagrangian mean curvature flow. J. Differential Geom. 84, 127-161 (2010)