text:
# Volume minimization for Lagrangian submanifolds in complex manifolds with negative first Chern class

## 1. Local theory

In this section we’ll present local volume-minimizing properties for minimal Lagrangian submanifolds in Kähler manifolds with negative Ricci curvature. Strictly speaking the rest of the paper does not logically depend on this section and this section serves as a motivation for the global problem.
Let $`(M^{2n},\omega )`$ be a Kähler $`n`$-fold and let $`K(M)`$ be the canonical bundle of $`M`$, i.e. $`K(M)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n,0)}T^{}M`$\- the bundle of $`(n,0)`$-forms on $`M`$. So $`c_1(K(M))=c_1(M)`$. The Hermitian metric on $`K(M)`$ endowed from $`M`$ gives rise to a Hermitian connection on $`K(M)`$. The curvature form of $`K(M)`$ is called the Ricci form of $`M`$ and denoted by $`Ric`$. It is related to the Ricci tensor of $`M`$ (which is a symmetric 2-tensor on $`M`$) by the following identity:

(1)
$$iRic(X,Y)=Ricci(JX,Y)$$

for any tangent vectors $`X`$ and $`Y`$ (here $`J`$ is the complex structure on $`M`$).
Let $`L`$ be an oriented Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$. For any point $`lL`$ there is a unique element $`\kappa _l`$ of $`K(M)`$ over $`l`$ which restricts to the volume form on $`L`$ (in the induced metric from $`M`$). Various $`k_l`$ give rise to a section

(2)
$$\kappa _L:LK(M)$$

The section $`\kappa _L`$ has constant length $`\sqrt{2}^n`$ over $`L`$ and it defines a connection 1-form $`\xi `$ on $`L`$ for the connection on $`K(M)`$ over $`L`$ by the condition $`\xi \kappa _L=\kappa _L`$.
Let $`H`$ be the mean curvature vector field of $`L`$. So $`H`$ is a section of the normal bundle of $`L`$ in $`M`$ and we have a corresponding 1-form $`\sigma =i_H\omega `$ on $`L`$. The following fact was first observed by Y.G. Oh in \[Oh1\], see also \[CG\]:

###### Lemma 1.

$`i\sigma =\xi `$

Thus if $`L`$ is minimal (i.e. $`H=0`$) iff $`\kappa _L`$ is parallel over $`L`$. From now on we work with $`L`$ which is minimal, embedded and compact. We”ll also assume that $`L`$ is a real-analytic submanifold of $`M`$ \- this is always true if the Kähler metric is real-analytic. Since $`L`$ is a totally-real real-analytic submanifold of $`M`$ we easily see that we can extend $`\kappa _L`$ to be a holomorphic section of $`K(M)`$ in some neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`L`$ in $`M`$. Consider the function $`f=ln|\kappa _L|^2`$ on $`U`$. $`L`$ is a critical submanifold of $`f`$ on $`U`$. Moreover $`K(M)`$ is a positive line bundle. It follows that at a point $`lL`$ the Hessian $`Hess(f)`$ of $`f`$ on $`M`$ has at least $`n`$ negative eigenvalues - see \[GH\], p. 158. Thus the Hessian of $`f`$ is negative-definite on the normal bundle to $`M`$ on $`L`$. Hence $`f`$ and $`|\kappa _L|`$ attains a strict local maximum along $`L`$. Moreover $`\kappa _L`$ restricts to the volume form on $`L`$. Thus $`\kappa _L`$ calibrates $`L`$ (see \[HL\]).

###### Lemma 2.

$`L`$ is calibrated by $`Re\kappa _L`$ in some neighbourhood $`U^{}`$ of $`L`$ in $`M`$ and moreover $`L`$ is strictly homologically volume-minimizing in $`U^{}`$.

We would like to globalize this statement from a neighbourhood of $`L`$. If $`M`$ is a compact Riemann surface then the following result is classical:

###### Lemma 3.

On a compact Riemann surface with a metric of negative curvature every free homotopy class of loops contains a unique geodesic and this geodesic strictly minimizes length in this class.

The only progress attained so far in higher dimensions is the result of Y.I. Lee \[Lee\] in case $`M`$ is a product of two Riemann surfaces with constant negative curvature. For instance Y.I. Lee has shown that a product of two geodesics is homotopically area minimizing. We’ll now describe a program of studying this issue in higher dimensions.

## 2. Algebraic minimal Lagrangian submanifolds

We continue to consider a Kähler $`n`$-fold $`M`$ with negative Ricci curvature. As a first step we’ll study some “nice” minimal Lagrangian submanifolds, which we’ll call algebraic:

###### Definition 1.

Let $`L`$ be a minimal Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$. We say that $`L`$ is algebraic if there is a holomorphic section $`\phi `$ of $`K(M)`$ over $`M`$ s.t. $`|\phi |`$ has a strict global maximum along $`L`$.

###### Lemma 4.

Algebraic minimal Lagrangian submanifolds strictly minimize volume in their homology class.

Proof: Note that since $`|\phi |`$ has a local maximum along $`L`$, $`\phi `$ is parallel along $`L`$. Since $`L`$ is minimal it follows from Lemma 1 that we can multiply $`\phi `$ by a unit complex number $`e^{i\theta }`$ so that $`e^{i\theta }\phi `$ will restrict to the volume form on $`L`$. Thus $`L`$ is calibrated by $`e^{i\theta }\phi `$. Q.E.D.
Next we’ll demonstrate some examples of algebraic minimal Lagrangian submanifolds. Let $`M`$ be a complete intersection in $`P^n`$ given by polynomials $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_m`$ with real coefficients. We want $`\mathrm{\Sigma }deg(f_i)(n+1)=2k>0`$ for an integer $`k`$. Then $`K(M)(\gamma ^{})^{2k}`$ where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is the hyperplane bundle of $`P^n`$. Let $`L=NP^n`$. $`L`$ is a minimal Lagrangian submanifold.
Consider the standard Hermitian metic on $`(\gamma ^{})^{2k}`$. We have a section

$$\phi =(\mathrm{\Sigma }z_i^2)^k$$

of $`(\gamma ^{})^{2k}`$ and $`|\phi |`$ attains strict maximum along $`P^n`$. By Yau’s resolution of the Calabi conjecture \[Yau\] we can put a Kähler metric $`\omega _Y`$ on $`M`$ s.t. the induced metric on $`K(M)`$ will be proportional by a constant to the standard metric on $`(\gamma ^{})^{2k}`$. Thus we’ll get:

###### Proposition 1.

$`L`$ is an algebraic minimal Lagrangian submanifold of $`(M,\omega _Y)`$.

## 3. A global strategy

We”ll now present our strategy for exploring global volume-minimizing properties for Lagrangian submanifolds in complex manifolds with positive canonical bundle. We’ll explain this approach in the simplest possible case - a fixed point set of an antiholomorphic involution. This approach can be modified to a more general setting - see the remark in the end of Section 3.1.
So let $`M`$ be a complex $`n`$-fold with an antiholomorphic involution $`\sigma `$. Let $`g`$ be a Hermitian metric on $`M`$ which is $`\sigma `$-invariant. Note we don’t assume that $`g`$ is Kähler, just Hermitian.

###### Assumption 1.

The metric $`g`$ induces a Hermitian metric $`h`$ on the canonical bundle $`K(M)`$ of the holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-forms of $`M`$. Let $`\omega `$ be the curvature form of this metric. We assume that $`\omega `$ defines a Kähler form on $`M`$.

If $`g`$ were a Kähler metric this would be equivalent to $`g`$ having negative Ricci curvature. Let $`L`$ be the fixed pont set of $`\sigma `$. We’d like to understand when $`L`$ minimizes its $`g`$-volume in its free homotopy class. First we’ll describe the convergence of Bergmann metrics following \[Tian\] and \[Ruan\].

### 3.1. Bergman metrics

Let $`H^0(K(M)^m,M)`$ be the space of holomorphic sections of the $`m^{th}`$ power $`K(M)^m`$. Clearly $`\sigma `$ acts upon $`H^0(K(M)^m,M)`$ by an antiholomorphic involution (the $`\sigma `$-action is by pulling back a section and conjugating it). Let $`H_m^L`$ be the fixed point set of $`\sigma `$ on $`H^0(K(M)^m,M)`$. Then $`H_m^L`$ is a Lagrangian subspace of $`H^0(K(M)^m,M)`$. Pick an orthonormal basis $`\kappa _i`$ for $`H_m^L`$ \- here the volume form on $`M`$ is given by $`\frac{\omega ^n}{n!}`$ and this gives a natural inner product on $`H^0(K(M)^m,M)`$. Clearly $`\kappa _i`$ it will give a unitary basis for $`H^0(K(M)^m,M)`$. It gives rise to a Kodaira embedding:

$$\varphi _m:MP^{N_m}$$

Moreover $`\varphi _m`$ will be intertwining between $`\sigma `$ and the conjugation on $`P^{N_m}`$. Thus

$$L=\varphi _m^1(P^{N_m})$$

Let $`\omega _{FS}`$ be the Fubini-Study metric on $`P^{N_m}`$ and let

$$\omega _m=(\varphi _m)^{}\omega _{FS}/m$$

be the corresponding Bergmann metric on $`M`$. Then by \[Tian\] and \[Ruan\], $`\omega _m\omega `$ on $`M`$. Here the convergence is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$.
The Kodaira embedding $`\varphi _m`$ also gives an isomorphism between $`K(M)^m`$ and the hyperplane bundle $`\gamma ^{}`$ of $`P^{N_m}`$. How $`\gamma ^{}`$ has a natural Hermitian metric and so it induces a Hermitian metric on $`K(M)^m`$ and hence on $`K(M)`$. Let $`h_m`$ be that metric on $`K(M)`$. Then the curvature form of $`h_m`$ is $`\omega _m`$. We’d like to conformally scale $`g`$ so that the induced metric on $`K(M)`$ will equal to $`h_m`$ up to a constant multiple. If the scaling is $`g_m=e^{f_m}g`$ then $`f_m`$ solves:

$$ni\overline{}f_m=\omega _m\omega $$

Here $`n`$ is the dimension of $`M`$. If we choose $`f_m`$ to intergate to $`0`$ over $`M`$ then we get that $`f_m0`$ in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-topology. Hence

(3)
$$g_m\stackrel{C^{\mathrm{}}}{}g$$

Consider now a holomorphic section $`\mathrm{\Sigma }z_i^2`$ of $`(\gamma ^{})^2`$ over $`P^{N_m}`$. We pull it back to a holomorphic section $`\phi _m`$ of $`K(M)^{2m}`$ over $`M`$. In fact

$$\phi _m=\mathrm{\Sigma }\kappa _i^2$$

Here $`\kappa _i`$ form an orthonormal basis of $`H_m^L`$. The upshot of our construction is:

###### Proposition 2.

The section $`\phi _m`$ of $`K(M)^{2m}`$ is $`\sigma `$-invariant and its length with respect to $`g_m`$ attains a maximum along $`L`$.

Remark: We have a canonical construction of the sections $`\phi _m`$ for $`L`$ being the fixed point set of an antiholomorphic involution. There is a more general (non-canonical) construction with similar (somewhat weaker) properties using Donaldson’s asymptotically holomorphic sections, see \[AGM\].

### 3.2. Homotopy volume minimization outside of a divisor

We now would like to use the idea of calibration to study the $`g_m`$-volume minimizing properties of $`L`$. We have the following result:

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose we have a 1-parameter family $`L_t`$ of homotopies of $`L`$ with $`L_0=L`$ and moreover all $`L_t`$ avoid the zero set $`D_m=\phi _m^1(0)`$. Then $`vol(L_t)vol(L)`$. Here the volume is with respect to $`g_m`$.

Proof: First will prove this for $`L`$ orientable. For non-orientable $`L`$ we look on its orientable double cover and copy the proof bellow.
Since $`\phi _m`$ is $`\sigma `$-invariant we have choose its $`2m^{th}`$ root $`\xi _m`$ along $`L`$ such that $`\xi _m`$ restricts to a positive real $`n`$-form on $`L`$. We extend $`\xi _m`$ to be a $`2m^{th}`$ root of $`\phi _m`$ over $`L_t`$ along the homotopy. Then $`\xi _m`$ has constant length $`C`$ (with respect to $`g_m`$) along $`L`$ and the length of $`\xi _m`$ is $`C`$ on $`L_t`$. We obviously have

$$_L\xi _m=_{L_t}\xi _m$$

and hence $`vol(L_t)vol(L)`$. Q.E.D.
The last statement about the conservation of the integral of $`\xi _m`$ can be better understood using the ramified $`2m`$-cover of $`M`$ that $`\phi _m`$ defines. The setup is as follows:
Let $`K(M)`$ be the total space of the canonical bundle of $`M^{2n}`$ and $`\pi :K(M)M`$ be the projection. There is a canonical $`(n,0)`$-form $`\rho `$ on $`K(M)`$ defined by $`\rho (a)(v_1,\mathrm{},v_n)=a(\pi _{}(v_1),\mathrm{},\pi _{}(v_n))`$. Here $`aK(M)`$ and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ are tangent vectors to $`K(M)`$ at $`a`$. The form $`\eta =d\rho `$ is a holomorphic volume form on $`K(M)`$. If $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ are local coordinates on $`M`$ then $`dz_1\mathrm{}dz_n`$ is a local section of $`K(M)`$ over $`M`$ which defines a coordinate function $`y`$ on $`K(M)`$. The collections of holomorphic functions $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,y)`$ are coordinates on $`K(M)`$ and

(4)
$$\rho =ydz_1\mathrm{}dz_n,\eta =dydz_1\mathrm{}dz_n$$

Now we have a section $`\phi _m`$ of $`K(M)^{2m}`$ and it defines a $`2m`$-fold ramified cover $`M_m`$ of $`M`$ as follows:

$$M_m=(\alpha K(M)|\alpha ^{2m}=\phi _m(\pi (\alpha )))$$

We can in fact slightly perturb $`\phi _m`$ to keep it holomorphic, $`\sigma `$-invariant and make it transversal to $`0`$. Than way $`M_m`$ is a complex $`n`$-fold and the projection $`\pi :M_mM`$ is a ramified cover. Moreover the $`(n,0)`$-form $`\rho `$ on $`K(M)`$ restricts to a holomorphic form on $`M_m`$.
Now the $`2m^{th}`$ root $`\xi _m`$ of $`\phi _m`$ along $`L`$ can be viewed to a lift $`L^K`$ of $`L`$ to $`M_m`$. If we have a homotopy $`L_t`$ of $`L`$ in $`M`$ avoiding the zero set $`N_m=\phi _m^1(0)`$ then $`L_t`$ can be lifted to a homotopy $`L_t^K`$ on $`M_m`$. Obviously we have

$$_{L_t^K}\rho =_{L^K}\rho $$

Hence the volume comparison property. We have a stronger result:

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`L^{}`$ be a submanifold of $`M_m`$ representing the same homology class as $`L^K`$ in $`M_m`$. Then $`vol(\pi (L^{}))vol(L)`$. Here again the volume is $`g_m`$-volume.

We’d like eventually to understand when $`L`$ minimizes $`g`$-volume in its free homotopy class. Note that if $`L`$ minimizes $`g`$-volume then it strictly minimizes $`g`$-volume. Indeed suppose that some other $`L^{}`$ homotopic to $`L`$ has the same $`g`$-volume. Pick a point $`a`$ in $`L`$ and not in $`L^{}`$. Consider a positive $`\sigma `$-invariant function $`f`$ supported in a neighbourhood of $`a`$ and consider a Hermitian metric $`g_f=e^fg`$. Then the $`g_f`$ volume of $`L`$ is greater then the $`g_f`$-volume of $`L^{}`$. We can also choose $`f`$ small enough so that the Hermitian metric that $`g_f`$ induces on $`K(M)`$ still has positive curvature and this will lead us to a contradiction. In particular we’ll deduce that if $`\alpha `$ is an automorphism of $`M`$ then $`L`$ and $`\alpha (L)`$ are not homotopic if they don’t coincide.

## 4. A null-homotopic immersed minimal Lagrangian sphere

In this section we’ll give an example of a compact Kähler-Einstein surface $`M`$ with negative Ricci curvature and an immersed minimal Lagrangian sphere $`i:S^2M`$ which is null-homotopic.
The example is: $`M=(\mathrm{\Sigma }z_i^5=0P^3)`$ endowed with a Kähler-Einstein metric. Let $`L`$ be a fixed point set of the conjugation on $`M`$. Then $`L`$ is clearly diffeomorphic to $`P^2`$. Let $`S^2`$ be its orientable double cover. Thus we have an immersion $`i:S^2M`$. Clearly $`i(S^2)`$ is a $`2`$-torion in $`H_2(M,)`$ and since $`M`$ is a simply connected 4-manifold, $`H_2(M,)`$ has no torsion. Hence $`i(S^2)`$ is trivial in $`H_2(M,)`$ and by the Hurewicz theorem $`i(S^2)`$ is null-homotopic.
From the results of J. Lees \[Lees\] we in fact can also deduce that this Lagrangian immersion of $`S^2`$ can be homotoped through Lagrangian immersions to a Whitney sphere contained in a Darboux chart of some point in $`M`$. We omit the details.
On the other hand $`L`$ itself is non-trivial in the second homology of $`M`$ with $`/2`$-coefficients. Moreover the results of \[Gol\] show the following: view $`M`$ with the metric induced from the Fubini-Study metric on $`P^3`$. Let $`L^{}`$ be a Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$ in the same second $`/2`$-homology class as $`L`$. Then

$$5Area(L^{})Area(L)$$

We hope that global volume-minimizing properties are true for embedded minimal Lagrangian submanifolds.

Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton NJ
egold@ias.edu


format: text

text:
# Quasi-hyperbolic planes in hyperbolic groups

(Date: January 19, 2003)

## Abstract.

The hyperbolic plane $`^2`$ admits a quasi-isometric embedding into every hyperbolic group which is not virtually free.

M.B. was supported by NSF grant DMS-0200566. B.K. was supported by NSF grants DMS-9972047 and DMS-0204506.

The purpose of this note is to prove the following theorem which answers a question posed by P. Papasoglu:

###### Theorem 1.

The hyperbolic plane $`^2`$ admits a quasi-isometric embedding into a hyperbolic group if and only if the group is not virtually free.

A map $`f:XY`$ between two metric spaces $`(X,d_X)`$ and $`(Y,d_Y)`$ is called a quasi-isometric embedding if there exist constants $`\lambda 1`$ and $`K0`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }d_X(x,y)Kd_Y(f(x),f(y))\lambda d_X(x,y)+K$$

for all $`x,yX`$. A group is virtually free if it contains a free subgroup of finite index. We refer to  for the definition of hyperbolic groups and related concepts from the theory of Gromov hyperbolic spaces. Every Gromov hyperbolic space $`X`$ has a boundary $`_{\mathrm{}}X`$ which carries a class of canonical visual metrics. These metrics are bi-Lipschitz equivalent to distance functions of the form

$$d_{w,ϵ}(a,b)=\mathrm{exp}(ϵ(a,b)_w),a,b_{\mathrm{}}X,$$

where $`wX`$ is a base point, $`ϵ>0`$ is sufficiently small, and $`(a,b)_w`$ denotes the Gromov product of the points $`a`$ and $`b`$ with respect to $`w`$ (cf. \[9, Ch. 7\]).

###### Corollary 2.

The boundary of a hyperbolic group (equipped with any visual metric) contains a quasi-circle if and only if the group is not virtually free.

By definition a quasi-circle is a metric circle which admits a quasisymmetric parametrization by the unit circle $`𝕊^1^2`$ (see  for the definition and basic facts about quasisymmetric maps). Since the boundary of a virtually free group is totally disconnected, the “only if” part of the corollary is obvious.

One of the main ingredients in the proof of the theorem is a result by Tukia  which insures the existence of quasi-arcs with given end-points inside certain subsets of $`^n`$ (a quasi-arc is a quasisymmetric image of the interval $`[0,1]`$). The authors would like to thank Juha Heinonen for drawing their attention to Tukia’s paper, which allowed them to substantially shorten the proof of the next proposition.

To state this proposition, we need one more definition. A metric space $`Z`$ is linearly connected if there exists a constant $`L`$ such that for all $`x,yZ`$ there is a connected subset $`SZ`$ of diameter at most $`Ld(x,y)`$ containing $`\{x,y\}`$.

###### Proposition 3.

If $`X`$ is a complete, doubling, and linearly connected metric space, then any two distinct points in $`X`$ are the endpoints of a quasi-arc.

###### Proof.

Let $`d`$ denote metric on $`X`$, and pick $`\alpha (0,1)`$. Since $`X`$ is doubling, there exists $`n`$ such that the “$`\alpha `$-snowflaked” metric space $`(X,d^\alpha )`$ can be embedded into $`^n`$ (equipped with the usual metric) by a bi-Lipschitz mapping (this follows from Assouad’s Embedding Theorem \[1, 2.6. Prop.\]; see \[10, Thm. 12.2\] for the version of this theorem used here). Let $`Z`$ denote the image of such an embedding. Then $`Z`$ is complete and linearly connected, since $`X`$ has these properties. Hence any two distinct points in $`Z`$ are the endpoints of a quasi-arc in $`Z`$ (up to terminology this is \[14, Thm 1A\]; see the introduction of  for a discussion). Since quasi-arcs in $`Z`$ pull back to quasi-arcs in $`X`$, the result follows. ∎

###### Proposition 4.

If $`G`$ is $`1`$-ended hyperbolic group, then $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ equipped with any visual metric $`d`$ is compact, doubling, connected, and linearly connected.

###### Proof.

It is easy to show that $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ is compact \[9, p. 123, 9. Prop.\] and doubling \[4, Sect. 9\]. Since the group $`G`$ is $`1`$-ended, its boundary $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ is connected.

It remains to prove linear connectedness (note that this a stronger quantitative version of local connectedness which was established in this context in \[2, Prop. 3.3\]). Given two points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in a metric space $`(Z,d)`$, and $`\lambda >0`$, a $`\lambda `$-chain from $`x`$ to $`y`$ is a sequence of points $`x=z_1,\mathrm{},z_k=y`$ such that $`d(z_i,z_{i+1})\lambda `$ for all $`1i<k`$. The length of a $`\lambda `$-chain is the number of points in the chain.

###### Lemma 5.

There is a number $`N`$ such that for all $`x,y_{\mathrm{}}G`$ there is a $`\frac{1}{2}d(x,y)`$-chain of length at most $`N`$ from $`x`$ to $`y`$.

###### Proof.

If not, there are sequences $`\{x_k\},\{y_k\}_{\mathrm{}}G`$ such that the shortest $`\frac{1}{2}d(x_j,y_j)`$-chain from $`x_j`$ to $`y_j`$ has length $`j`$. The boundary $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ is compact and connected, so clearly $`r_j:=d(x_j,y_j)0`$ as $`j\mathrm{}`$. In view of the doubling property, the sequence $`(_{\mathrm{}}G,\frac{1}{r_j}d,x_j)`$ of pointed metric spaces subconverges to a limit $`(W,d_W,x_{\mathrm{}})`$ with respect to pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence \[7, Thm. 8.1.10\]. We can then find a point $`y_{\mathrm{}}W`$ such that $`d_W(x_{\mathrm{}},y_{\mathrm{}})=1`$ and there is no $`\lambda `$-chain from $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`y_{\mathrm{}}`$ for any $`\lambda <\frac{1}{2}`$. This implies that $`W`$ is not connected. By \[3, Lemma 5.2\], the limit space $`W`$ is homeomorphic to $`_{\mathrm{}}G\{z\}`$ for some $`z_{\mathrm{}}G`$, and so $`z`$ is a “global cut point” of $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$.

On the other hand, it is a well-known (and deep) fact if $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ is connected, then $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ has no global cut points (see , \[5, Thm. 9.3\], \[6, Cor. 0.3\]). This is a contradiction. ∎

Now suppose $`x`$ and $`y`$ are arbitrary points in $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$. By the lemma we can find a $`\frac{1}{2}d(x,y)`$-chain $`S_1=\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_k\}`$ which joins $`x`$ to $`y`$ and has length $`kN`$. Now define $`S_2`$ by adding, for each $`1i<k`$, the points in a $`\frac{1}{2}d(z_i,z_{i+1})`$-chain joining $`z_i`$ to $`z_{i+1}`$. Repeating this process inductively, we obtain a nested sequence of sets $`S_1\mathrm{}S_j\mathrm{}`$. The closure $`S`$ of the union $`_jS_j`$ will be a connected set containing $`x`$ and $`y`$ whose diameter does not exceed $`Ld(x,y)`$, where $`L`$ is a constant independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$. This shows that $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ is linearly connected. ∎

The proofs of Theorem 1 and Corollary 2. We first assume that $`G`$ a hyperbolic group which is not virtually free, and prove that there is a quasi-isometric embeddding $`^2G`$ and a quasi-circle in $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$. Every hyperbolic group is finitely presentable \[9, p. 76, 17. Prop.\]. Hence there is a finite graph of groups decomposition of $`G`$ where all edge groups are finite, and all vertex groups have at most one end \[8, Theorem 6.2.14\]. Since $`G`$ is not virtually free, one of the vertex groups $`G_0`$ is $`1`$-ended \[8, Theorem 6.2.12\]. The group $`G_0`$ is quasi-isometrically embedded in $`G`$, since this is true for every vertex group in a graph of groups decomposition with finite edge groups \[11, Rem. 3.6\]. This implies that $`G_0`$ is also a hyperbolic group. So without loss of generality we may assume that $`G`$ itself is $`1`$-ended.

Let $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ denote the boundary of $`G`$ equipped with a visual metric. By Proposition 4, the hypotheses of Proposition 3 are satisfied for $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$. Hence there is a quasisymmetric map $`[0,1]_{\mathrm{}}G`$. Since $`[0,1]`$ is quasisymmetrically homeomorphic to the boundary of a hyperbolic half-plane $`_+^2^2`$, we conclude that there is a quasi-isometric embedding $`_+^2G`$ (see the proof of Prop. 4.2 in , for example). In particular, one can quasi-isometrically embed arbitrarily large balls $`B^2`$ into $`G`$ with uniform constants for the quasi-isometric embeddings. By pre-composing with isometries in $`^2`$, post-composing with left translations in the group $`G`$, and applying a compactness argument based on the Arzelà-Ascoli Theorem, we can obtain a quasi-isometric embedding $`^2G`$ as a limit. A quasi-isometric embedding of a Gromov hyperbolic space $`X`$ into a Gromov hyperbolic space $`Y`$ induces a quasisymmetric embedding of $`_{\mathrm{}}X`$ into $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ (see \[4, Thm. 6.5\], where this is essentially proved); since $`_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ is quasisymmetrically equivalent to $`𝕊^1`$, we deduce that the boundary $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ contains a quasi-circle.

Now suppose $`G`$ is virtually free. It follows that $`_{\mathrm{}}G`$ is totally disconnected, and therefore cannot contain a quasi-circle. This then implies that there is no quasi-isometric embedding $`^2G`$.

This completes the proofs of the theorem and corollary. ∎

Remarks. There are various open questions that are related to our theorem. For example, Papasoglu has asked if every one-ended finitely presented group $`G`$ contains a quasi-plane—the image of a uniform embedding $`PG`$ where $`P`$ is a complete Riemannian plane of bounded geometry. A problem due to Gromov is whether every $`1`$-ended hyperbolic group $`G`$ is the target of a homomorphism $`\varphi :SG`$ where $`S`$ is a surface group and $`\varphi `$ does not factor through a free group.


text:
# On the Fractal Dimension of the Visible Universe

## Abstract

Estimates of the fractal dimension $`D`$ of the set of galaxies in the universe, based on ever improving data sets, tend to settle on $`D2`$. This result raised a raging debate due to its glaring contradiction with astrophysical models that expect a homogeneous universe. A recent mathematical result indicates that there is no contradiction, since measurements of the dimension of the visible subset of galaxies is bounded from above by $`D=2`$ even if the true dimension is anything between $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$. We demonstrate this result in the context of a simple fractal model, and explain how to proceed in order to find a better estimate of the true dimension of the set of galaxies.

The value of the (fractal) dimension $`D`$ of the galaxy distribution in the universe is an important open question in cosmology. Steadily improving observations are available, giving scientists hope that enough data will allow finally to decide the highly debated issue of whether $`D`$ is 3 or substantially lower (usually stated to be about 2). For example, in the recent book 02BT  on the “Discovery of Cosmic Fractals” it is emphatically declared that “The megafractals – the cosmic continents, archipelagos and islands – were the news brought home by the modern explorers of the cosmos, exotic, but truths nevertheless about the worlds overseas. Even if the fractal dimension and the maximum scale are still debated, megafractals cry for explanation. Their origin is the number one challenge for cosmological physics.” What these authors refer to are mainly results of fractal analysis of the data sets of galaxies which indicate the fractal dimension $`D`$ of the set of galaxies is about 2 92CP ; 98SMP ; 02PBMS . In this Letter we build on a recent theorem of fractal mathematics 02JJMO  which indicates that these results may not be “truths nevertheless”, but rather a reflection of an inherent impossibility to measure a dimension larger than 2. The true dimension may be anything between 2 and 3, and the upper number is not excluded, in agreement with standard astrophysical theories of a homogeneous universe Pee . In this way, “the number one challenge” may have been resolved in an unexpected and somewhat disappointing way, namely: when $`D>2`$ one cannot measure $`D`$ by observing the visible galaxies. In addition to explaining this result, we present a partial remedy by exploring certain aspects of the data analysis that may indicate the existence of a dimension larger than 2.

In essence the fractal analysis of any given atlas of galaxies is a simple matter, once one takes carefully into account the side issues described in 98SMP  which deal with questions like limited angles, faint luminosities, and other observational issues. After worrying about all these details one ends up with a set of points, or coordinates, each of which stands for a galaxy, with redshift data used to determine its distance from us (the observers). Given such a set of points $`\{𝑿_i\}_{i=1}^N`$ in $`^3`$, we define the correlation integral $`C(r)`$ as the number of pairs of points of this set whose distance is smaller or equal to $`r`$,

$$C(r)=\frac{2}{N(N1)}\underset{i<j}{}\theta (r|𝑿_i𝑿_j|),$$
(1)
where $`\theta (y)`$ is the step function, unity for $`y>0`$ and zero otherwise. For a fractal set of dimension $`D`$ plotting $`\mathrm{log}(C(r))`$ versus $`\mathrm{log}r`$ results in a curve whose slope is the correlation dimension $`D_2`$ of the Grassberger-Procaccia algorithm 83GP  (see also 83HP ; ER ). In general $`D_2D`$; for sets whose clustering is not singular one can expect that $`D_2=D`$ 83HP . For reasons related to angular restrictions and the like, in 92CP ; 98SMP ; 02PBMS  the authors consider a quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(r)`$, which for a general fractal coincides with $`C(r)/r^3`$. Thus their plots should have slopes $`D_23`$. They find consistently $`D_22`$.

The question is then whether this is really an indication that the set of all galaxies is of dimension $`D2`$. We argue first that this may not be the case. In a recent paper 02JJMO  the following theorem was established: let $`F`$ be a fractal set in $`R^3`$ with dimension $`D>2`$. The visible part of the set $`F`$ from a point $`P`$ is the subset $`F_V`$ of those points lit by a spotlight at $`P`$. Then the part $`F_V`$ that is visible to an observer can in general not have a dimension more than 2 details .

We stress that this result is not about the projection of the set onto the celestial sphere, but about those observations in which the distance of each point (galaxy) is given along with its celestial coordinates (such data sets are called 3-dimensional catalogs). The meaning of the theorem is that it is in fact impossible to determine the dimension of the set of galaxies from measurements of the visible subset if the dimension of the full set is larger than 2. The basic reason for this impossibility is that galaxies “hide” behind each other when the dimension is above 2. This issue will not go away with improving the catalogs. Rather, it will become more and more important as better and better catalogs become available.

We now illustrate some aspects of this problem, and in particular show that there might be some lower bound on the true dimension when taking into account finite size effects (which are absent in mathematical treatments of fractals, but are an evident necessity of any real-life experiment).

We first note that the catalogs provide measurement of the positions of galaxies away from us. In other words, we should consider a relatively small sphere around $`P`$ and look with radial rays issuing from the sphere. In 02JJMO  it is shown that looking from a plane defines an equivalent problem, and we prefer that formulation. To further simplify the discussion in our examples we will consider a fractal embedded in 2 rather than 3 dimensions, illuminated by rays perpendicular to a randomly given baseline.

In Fig. 1 we present a simple model of a fractal universe which is constructed hierarchically. At the $`n`$th level of the construction we see $`4^n`$ balls of size $`\lambda ^n`$ which are supposed to contain galaxies. At the $`(n+1)`$th level each ball is further subdivided to 4 balls of size $`\lambda ^{n+1}`$. To avoid non-generic effects we rotate the new group of balls with a random angle at each step of construction. Fig. 1 shows the set of balls at the 4th level with $`\lambda =0.4`$. The fractal dimension of this example is $`D=\mathrm{log}(4)/\mathrm{log}(\lambda )=1.5129`$. The figure represents the visible set $`F_V`$ (from a random line) as the lighted balls, whereas the invisible set (the complement of $`F_V`$) is shown as black balls. One can understand the theorem of 02JJMO  in the following intuitive sense. The projection (the footprint of the gray zone of Fig. 1) of the fractal on the line has dimension 1 when $`D>1`$ 75Mat ; 85Fal . On the other hand, for the hierarchical construction up to level $`k`$, the balls have size $`\lambda ^k`$, and thus the projection of the visible part has dimension 1 as soon as there are at least $`1/\lambda ^k`$ visible balls (assuming they hide all others). The boundary between the gray zone and the white zone in Fig.1 forms a graph of a function connecting the visible balls. In the $`k`$th level we call this function $`f_k(x)`$. Since the fractal set is constructed hierarchically, we expect a scaling relation $`f_{k+1}(x)=\lambda ^1f_k(\lambda ^1x)`$. This scaling relation guarantees that the graph cannot become too rough and will remain of dimension 1. To see this clearly think about the Weierstrass function $`g(x)=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}a^k\mathrm{sin}(b^kx)`$. It is well known that the graph of this function is rough when $`ab>1`$ and $`a<1`$. Indeed, (cf. 98H ) the Weierstrass function almost scales in the sense that

$$g(x)=a^1g(bx)a^1\mathrm{sin}x.$$
(2)
The last term is smooth and its contribution to the dimension is negligible. Covering the graph with balls leads to the well known result $`D=2|\mathrm{log}a|/\mathrm{log}b`$. But, in our analogous case, $`a=\lambda `$, $`b=1/\lambda `$, leading to a 1-dimensional graph. Loosely speaking the stretching is not very strong in the $`y`$-direction, and the dimension of the graph (and hence of the visible set) remains 1. In fact, the same argument explains why in dimension $`D<1`$ the visible part of a fractal has the same dimension as the fractal itself.

To illustrate these issues we consider first a fractal of dimension smaller than 2 (cf. Fig. 2). Here the visible and full sets will have the same dimension, as is demonstrated in Fig. 3, where we plot $`\mathrm{log}C(r)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{log}r`$ for both $`F`$ and $`F_V`$ (upper panel). Evidently the slope is the same for these sets. To demonstrate this fact further we present in the lower panel of Fig. 3 a plot of $`\mathrm{log}C(r)`$ for $`F`$ vs. $`\mathrm{log}C(r)`$ for $`F_V`$. The slope of this line is unity, stressing the fact that the bulk of $`F`$ is revealed in the visible subset $`F_V`$.

The results change qualitatively when the dimension of the set is higher than 2. In the upper panel of Fig. 4 we present the double logarithmic plot of the correlation integral vs distance for $`F`$ and $`F_V`$ of the set of dimension 1.5 of Fig. 1. Clearly they do not scale in the same way, with the visible set settling on dimension 1 when larger and larger $`r`$ are taken into account. This is underlined again by the results shown in the lower panel where the pointwise slopes of the curves in the upper panel are shown. Obviously the correlation integral for $`F`$ settles nicely on dimension $`D1.5`$, whereas the local slope of the correlation integral for $`F_V`$ tends to $`D1`$ as $`r`$ increases. We stress that subdividing the set further in the hierarchic construction will not cure the problem. Quite on the the contrary, it will make the visible set $`F_V`$ a relatively smaller subset of the full set $`F`$. Unfortunately going deeper in the hierarchic construction is analogous to studying larger and deeper catalogs, so we cannot expect that newer and better data on the galaxy distributions may automatically cure the problem. We thus conclude that the results of the fractal analysis presented so far do not exclude a homogeneous universe with the fractal dimension of the full set of galaxies being as high as 3.

Lastly, we should investigate whether all is lost, or whether there is a way to probe the true dimension of the full set $`F`$ from the knowledge of the visible set $`F_V`$. A modest way out is offered by the observation that the slopes of the curves in the upper panel of Fig. 4 are very close at small distances. This observation is underlined by the pointwise slopes of the curve in Fig. 4 at small distances. This is clearly a finite size effect which can be understood by looking again at Fig. 1. Due to the finite size of the smallest balls at this level of construction, many of the visible balls appear in groups of 4. This is due to the balls that were visible for the previous level of construction (4th in this case), mainly near the edge, but not only, which remain visible also after one step of refinement. With less degree of conviction one can also observe groups of 16 balls, or almost 16 balls, that are visible mainly near the visible edge. This finite size phenomenon will go away at the present small length scales when we subdivide many steps further, but will remain observable at the smallest available scales forever. This observation rationalizes why we get the “correct” dimension of the full set $`F`$ from the smaller scales of the correlation integral.

These observations indicate that despite the mathematical impossibility of measuring the true dimension, its value may be gleaned from the behavior of the correlation integral at small scales. We stress that this possibility is not only due to close points (or galaxies) near the visible edge—also points that are far away from the observation line (or point $`P`$) contribute. Balls that are lighted at level $`n`$ have high probability to give rise to a full set of lighted balls also in the next level, but not so for many subdivisions. Thus lighted balls will count the “right” dimension only with regard to small pairwise distances close to where they are. Once we try to count larger pairwise distances we unavoidable run to the problems explained above. Indeed, interestingly enough, it appears that the data analysis presented in 92CP ; 98SMP ; 02PBMS  indicates a slight increase in the apparent dimension for smaller scales. We suggest that this increase may very well point to the true answer, namely, that the dimension of the set of galaxies is considerably larger than 2, and maybe even 3-dimensional in agreement with the expectations expressed in Pee .

This work was supported in part by the Fonds National Suisse, the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany, the European Commission under a TMR grant ”Control, Synchronization and Characterization of spatially Extended Nonlinear System” and the Academy of Finland (projects 46208 and 48557).


text:
# A remark on the c–splitting conjecture

## 1. Introduction and statement of the result

Let $`M`$ be a closed symplectic manifold and consider the group of diffeomorphisms preserving the symplectic structure. As a normal subgroup we find the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. It consists of all diffeomorphisms which are integrals of time dependent Hamiltonian vector fields. Particularly it is connected.

The group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms has many intriguing properties. For instance every Hamiltonian diffeomorphism is known to have lots of fixed points, i.e. more than the Lefschetz fixed point theorem guaranties for mappings homotopic to the identity. More precisely, if all the fixed points are non-degenerate there have to be at least $`b_i`$ many, where $`b_i`$ denotes the $`i`$-th Betti number of $`M`$. In contrast the Lefschetz theorem just gives an estimate by $`(1)^ib_i`$. This is a deep theorem with major contributions from Floer, Hofer, Zehnder, Salamon, Fukaya, Ono, Liu and Tian – just to name a few.

This note is about another property the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms seems to have. Recall that a Hamiltonian fibration is a fiber bundle $`MPB`$ with typical fiber a closed symplectic manifold whose structure group is reduced to the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. For a Hamiltonian fibration one can show, that the cohomology class of the symplectic structure lies in the image of $`H^{}(P)H^{}(M)`$. Conversely, if the structure group of a fiber bundle $`MPB`$ can be reduced to the connected component of the group of symplectic diffeomorphisms this condition in turn implies that the structure group can actually be reduced to the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. All this can be found in \[LM02\].

One says a Hamiltonian fibration c–splits (short for cohomologically splits) if the cohomology of the total space satisfies

$$H^{}(P;)=H^{}(M;)H^{}(B;)$$
(1)
as $`H^{}(B)`$–modules.111Usually one just asks (1) to hold as vector spaces. In view of the Leray–Hirsch theorem this is equivalent to our definition as long as $`H^{}(B)`$ is finite dimensional. However, for infinite dimensional $`H^{}(B)`$ our condition seems to be more adequate. In other words, cohomologically – disregarding the ring structure – the fibration looks like a product. It makes no difference if we take cohomology with reel coefficients. From now on all cohomology groups are understood to be with coefficients in $``$, and we will omit them in our notation.

In \[LM02\], Lalonde and McDuff raised the following

###### Question (Lalonde and McDuff).

Does every Hamiltonian fibration c–split?

The affirmative answer to their question is known as the c–splitting conjecture. It has been proved to be true in many circumstances, yet the general case is still a mystery. In their paper \[LM02\] Lalonde and McDuff proved, that the c–splitting conjecture indeed holds whenever the base is a sphere or a $`3`$–dimensional CW–complex. The difficult part is the case $`B=S^2`$, which requires hard analytic tools, see \[LMP99\] and \[M00\].

Using Lalonde and McDuff’s theorem Kȩdra derived, that the c–splitting conjecture holds for $`4`$–dimensional fibers, simply connected $`6`$–dimensional fibers and simply connected spherically generated fibers, see \[Ka\] and \[Kb\]. Employing parameterized Gromov–Witten invariants he also showed, that the c–splitting conjecture is true whenever the fiber is $`P^5`$ blown up along Thurston’s $`4`$–dimensional nil-manifold, see \[Ka\].

Another situation when the c–splitting conjecture is known to hold, is when the structure group reduces to a compact subgroup of the Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms, see \[LM02\] and \[AB84\].

Finally the c–splitting conjecture holds for fibers which satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem. This was already observed by Blanchard, see \[B56\].

The purpose of this note is to establish the c–splitting conjecture for a class of fibers, which satisfy a weakening of the Lefschetz condition.

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose $`(M,\omega )`$ is a closed symplectic manifold of dimension $`2n`$, such that the Lefschetz type mappings

$$[\omega ]^k:H^{n+1k}(M)H^{n+1+k}(M)$$

are onto for all $`k0`$. Then every Hamiltonian fibration $`MPB`$ c–splits.

Let us remark, that the main ingredient in our proof is Lalonde and McDuff’s theorem which tells, that every Hamiltonian fibration over a $`3`$–dimensional CW–complex c–splits. We then apply methods which are in essence the same Blanchard used to proof the c–splitting for Lefschetz fibers. However, we hope our approach is easier to use and more conceptual.

It is easy to see, that a fiber bundle $`MPB`$ c–splits iff $`H^{}(P)H^{}(M)`$ is onto or equivalently iff $`H_{}(M)H_{}(P)`$ is injective. Also the bundle will c–split iff the Leray–Serre spectral sequence collapses at the $`E^2`$–term, i.e. its differentials $`_k:E^kE^k`$ vanish for all $`k2`$.

Essentially it suffices to consider bases $`B`$ which are finite CW–complexes. Indeed, fix a closed symplectic fiber $`M`$ and suppose every Hamiltonian fibration with fiber $`M`$ and a finite CW–complex as a base c–splits. From the homological interpretation above it is clear, that this implies the c–splitting conjecture for arbitrary bases $`B`$ and fiber $`M`$.

Particularly we can look at the universal Hamiltonian fibration. Fix a closed symplectic manifold $`M`$ and let $`G`$ denote the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. Let $`GEGBG`$ denote the universal $`G`$ bundle and consider the associated universal Hamiltonian fibration

$$MEG\times _GMBG.$$
(2)
Whenever $`MPB`$ is another Hamiltonian fibration with the same fiber there is a map $`f:BBG`$, such that $`P=f^{}(EG\times _GM)`$. One easily derives, that if the c–splitting conjecture holds for (2) it will hold for all Hamiltonian fibrations with fiber $`M`$.

The cohomology of the total space $`EG\times _GM`$ is known as the equivariant cohomology of $`M`$ with respect to the action of $`G`$. So the bundle (2) will c–split if and only if the equivariant cohomology is a free module over $`H^{}(B)`$. So the conjecture of Lalonde and McDuff can be reformulated as follows: For every closed symplectic manifold the equivariant cohomology of $`M`$ with respect to the action of the Hamiltonian group is a free $`H^{}(B)`$–module.

Finally let us remark, that the c–splitting property is a geometric rather than a topological phenomenon. In \[LM02\] Lalonde and McDuff constructed a smooth fiber bundle $`MPS^2`$ with $`6`$–dimensional closed fiber. Its total space admits a class $`\alpha H^2(P)`$ which satisfies $`0\alpha ^3H^6(M)`$. In some sense this is the cohomological analogue of a Hamiltonian fibration. However this bundle does not c–split.

## 2. Canonic filtration of $`𝔟`$-modules

Let $`𝔤:=𝔰𝔩(2;)`$ with base $`\{e,f,h\}`$ and relations $`[h,e]=2e`$, $`[h,f]=2f`$, $`[e,f]=h`$. Let $`𝔥`$ denote the subalgebra spanned by $`h`$, and $`𝔟`$ the subalgebra spanned by $`\{e,h\}`$. Let $`𝒱_𝔥`$ denote the category of $`𝔥`$–modules $`V`$, which admit a decomposition $`V=_kV^k`$ into eigenspaces of $`h`$, $`V^k`$ being the eigenspace to the weight $`k`$, and only finitely many $`V^k`$ non-trivial. Moreover let $`𝒱_𝔟`$ resp. $`𝒱_𝔤`$ denote the category of $`𝔟`$ resp. $`𝔤`$–modules for which the underlying $`𝔥`$–module is in $`𝒱_𝔥`$. Then $`e:V^kV^{k+2}`$ and $`f:V^kV^{k2}`$.

In this section we will collect a few basic properties of $`𝔟`$–modules which we are going to use in the proof of Theorem 1. Most importantly the existence of a canonic filtration for every $`V𝒱_𝔟`$. This filtration was used by Mathieu \[M95\] when he proved that a symplectic manifold satisfies the Hard Lefschetz Theorem iff every cohomology class has a harmonic representative in the sense of Brylinksi, see \[B88\]. The proofs for all the statements below are elementary and can be found in \[H\], see also \[M95\].

###### Lemma 1.

Suppose $`V,W𝒱_𝔤`$ and $`\phi :VW`$ a $`𝔟`$–module homomorphism. Then $`\phi `$ is a $`𝔤`$–module homomorphism.

For $`V𝒱_𝔟`$ we write $`V𝒱_𝔤`$ if the $`𝔟`$–module structure extends to a $`𝔤`$–module structure. The previous lemma tells, that such a $`𝔤`$–module structure is unique if it exists.

For $`V𝒱_𝔟`$ and $`k`$ we will denote by $`V[k]`$ the $`𝔟`$–module which has $`V`$ as underlying vector space, the action of $`e𝔟`$ is the same as on $`V`$ but the $`𝔥`$–action is shifted by $`k`$, i.e. $`hv=hv+kv`$. Here $`hv`$ is supposed to denote the new $`𝔥`$–action on $`V[k]`$, whereas $`hv`$ denotes the old $`𝔥`$–action on $`V`$.

###### Proposition 1.

Suppose $`V𝒱_𝔟`$. Then there exists a unique filtration $`\mathrm{}V_{m1}V_m\mathrm{}`$ of $`V`$ with the following properties:

1. $`V_m=0`$ for $`m`$ sufficiently small.
2. $`V_m=V`$ for $`m`$ sufficiently large.
3. $`V_mV`$ is a $`𝔟`$–submodule, for all $`m`$.
4. $`(V_m/V_{m1})[m]𝒱_𝔤`$, for all $`m`$.

One readily verifies the following

###### Lemma 2.

Suppose $`V,W𝒱_𝔟`$. Then:

1. $`(V^{})_m=\{\alpha V^{}:\alpha |_{V_{m1}}=0\}`$.
2. $`(VW)_m=V_mW_m`$.
3. $`(VW)_m=_{m_1+m_2=m}V_{m_1}W_{m_2}`$.
4. $`(V[k])_{m+k}=V_m`$.

###### Proposition 2.

Suppose $`V,W𝒱_𝔟`$ with corresponding filtrations $`V_m`$ and $`W_m`$. Then every $`𝔟`$–module homomorphism $`\phi :VW`$ is filtration preserving, that is $`\phi (V_m)W_m`$, for all $`m`$.

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`V,W𝒱_𝔟`$ with corresponding filtrations $`V_m`$ and $`W_m`$. Suppose $`\phi :VW`$ is a linear map satisfying $`\phi (ev)=e\phi (v)`$ and $`\phi (hv+kv)=h\phi (v)`$, for all $`vV`$ and some fixed $`k`$. Then $`\phi (V_m)W_{m+k}`$.

###### Proof.

The assumption on the map $`\phi :VW`$ is equivalent to $`\phi :V[k]W`$ being a $`𝔟`$–module homomorphism. Using Lemma 2(iv) and Proposition 2 we conclude $`\phi (V_m)=\phi ((V[k])_{m+k})W_{m+k}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`V𝒱_𝔟`$, $`m`$ and let $`V=_kV^k`$ denote the decomposition of $`V`$ into eigenspaces of $`h`$. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`V=V_m`$.
2. $`e^l:V^{ml}V^{m+l}`$ is onto for all $`l0`$.

Finally let us remark, that for a finite dimensional $`V𝒱_𝔟`$ one can give explicit formulas for the dimensions of $`V_m^k`$ in terms of the ranks of all the mappings $`e^i:V^jV^{j+2i}`$. This can be found in \[H\] but we won’t make use of it in the sequel.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1 and examples

Let $`M`$ be a topological space and $`\alpha H^2(M)`$. Consider the cohomology $`H^{}(M)`$ as a $`𝔟`$–module via $`e\beta :=\alpha \beta `$ for $`\beta H^{}(M)`$ and $`h\beta :=k\beta `$ for $`\beta H^k(M)`$. Let $`H^{}(M)_m`$ denote the corresponding filtration from Proposition 1. The next proposition can be expressed most conveniently using the associated graded space $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(M)_m:=H^{}(M)_m/H^{}(M)_{m1}`$.

###### Proposition 4 (Poincaré duality).

Suppose $`M`$ is an closed oriented manifold of dimension $`n`$, $`\alpha H^2(M)`$ and $`m`$. Then the Poincaré pairing factors to a non-degenerate bilinear pairing

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(M)_m\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(M)_{nm},\beta \gamma (\beta \gamma )[M].$$
(3)
###### Proof.

Consider the Poincaré duality

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:H^{}(M)\left(H^{}(M)[n]\right)^{},\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )(\gamma )=(\beta \gamma )[M]$$

and the mapping

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:H^{}(M)H^{}(M),\mathrm{\Psi }(\beta )=(1)^{k(k+1)/2}\beta \text{for }\beta H^k(M)\text{.}$$

One easily checks, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a $`𝔟`$-module homomorphism. From Proposition 2 we thus get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(H^{}(M)_m)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Psi }(H^{}(M)_m))((H^{}(M)[n])^{})_m.$$

Using Lemma 2 we conclude that (3) is well defined for every $`m`$. It follows from ordinary Poincaré duality, that it has to be non-degenerate. ∎

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`M`$ be an oriented closed manifold of dimension $`n`$, $`\alpha H^2(M)`$ and $`m`$. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`\alpha ^k:H^{mk}(M)H^{m+k}(M)`$ is onto, for all $`k0`$.
2. $`H^{}(M)_m=H^{}(M)`$.
3. $`H^{}(M)_{nm1}=0`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of the first two assertions is an application of Proposition 3. The last two statements are equivalent, for we have Proposition 4. ∎

We are now in a position to apply the algebraic machinery and prove Theorem 1. As warm up exercise we give a proof of the c–splitting conjecture for fibers which satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem. As was already mentioned in the introduction, this is an old theorem due to Blanchard, see \[B56\]. Recall, that a symplectic manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`2n`$ is said to satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem if the Lefschetz maps

$$[\omega ]^k:H^{nk}(M)H^{n+k}(M)$$

are onto, for all $`k0`$. Corollary 2 tells us, that for a closed oriented $`M`$ this condition is equivalent to $`H^{}(M)_n=H^{}(M)`$ and $`H^{}(M)_{n1}=0`$, where we consider $`H^{}(M)`$ with the $`𝔟`$–module structure induced from $`[\omega ]H^2(M)`$ as described above.

###### Theorem 2 (Blanchard).

Suppose $`(M,\omega )`$ is a closed symplectic manifold of dimension $`2n`$ which satisfies the Hard Lefschetz Theorem. Then every Hamiltonian fibration $`MPB`$ c–splits.

###### Proof.

Consider the Leray–Serre spectral sequence of $`P`$. We consider its $`E^2`$–term $`E^2=H^{}(M)H^{}(B)`$ as $`𝔟`$–module as follows. Equip $`H^{}(M)`$ with the $`𝔟`$–module structure induced from $`[\omega ]H^2(M)`$, $`H^{}(B)`$ with the trivial $`𝔟`$–module structure and put the tensor product structure on $`E^2`$.

Since $`(M,\omega )`$ is supposed to satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem Corollary 2 yields $`H^{}(M)_n=H^{}(M)`$ and $`H^{}(M)_{n1}=0`$. Applying Lemma 2(iii) we thus have:

$$E_m^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}E^2\hfill & mn\hfill \\ 0\hfill & m<n\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Since the fibration is Hamiltonian $`[\omega ]H^2(M)`$ is the restriction of a class in $`H^2(P)`$. So $`_2(\omega )=0`$, where $`_2:E^2E^2`$ denotes the differential of the $`E^2`$–term. Since $`_2`$ is a derivation we obtain $`_2(\omega \alpha )=\omega _2(\alpha )`$ for all $`\alpha E^2`$. In other words $`_2(e\alpha )=e_2(\alpha )`$. Moreover

$$_2:H^k(M)H^{}(B)H^{k1}(M)H^{}(B),$$

which is the same as saying $`_2((h1)\alpha )=h_2(\alpha )`$. From Corollary 1 we thus conclude $`_2(E_m^2)E_{m1}^2`$. In view of (4) this implies $`_2=0`$.

So we have $`E^3=E^2=H^{}(M)H^{}(B)`$. We equip $`E^3`$ with the $`𝔟`$–module structure we used on $`E^2`$. The same arguments as above imply, that the differential $`_3:E^3E^3`$ satisfies $`_3(E_m^3)E_{m2}^3`$ and thus $`_3=0`$. Similarly one goes on and shows $`_k=0`$ for all $`k2`$. ∎

The proof of Theorem 1 is similar, but will make use of the following deep theorem due to Lalonde and McDuff, see \[LM02\].

###### Theorem 3 (Lalonde and McDuff).

Every Hamiltonian fibration with base $`S^n`$ c–splits. Moreover every Hamiltonian fibration over a $`3`$–dimensional CW–complex c–splits.

The difficult part here, is to show that this is true for $`S^2`$. They manage to do this using Gromov–Witten invariants and Seidel’s representation of the fundamental group of the Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms on the quantum cohomology ring of $`M`$, see \[LMP99\] and \[M00\]. The other cases are deduced using topological methods.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

Again we consider the Leray–Serre spectral sequence of the fibration. Theorem 3 immediately implies, that

$$E^2=E^3=E^4=H^{}(M)H^{}(B).$$

We endow $`E^4`$ with the $`𝔟`$–module structure we used in the proof of Theorem 2. Via Corollary 2 we see, that the condition on $`M`$ is equivalent to $`H^{}(M)_{n2}=0`$ and $`H^{}(M)_{n+1}=H^{}(M)`$. As before we conclude:

$$E_m^4=\{\begin{array}{cc}E^4\hfill & mn+1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & m<n1\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Again, since the fibration is Hamiltonian we have $`_4(\omega )=0`$, hence $`_4`$ commutes with the action of $`e𝔟`$. Using the fact, that

$$_4:H^k(M)H^{}(B)H^{k3}(M)H^{}(B)$$

we get $`_4(E_m^4)E_{m3}^4`$ from Corollary 1. In view of (5) we thus must have $`_4=0`$. Similarly one shows $`_k=0`$, for all $`k4`$. ∎

###### Remark.

Let $`\phi :VW`$ be a $`𝔟`$–module homomorphism. If we know $`V_m0`$ implies $`W_m=0`$ for all $`m`$ we can conclude that $`\phi `$ vanishes. In essence, that is what we used in the proofs above. However, even if $`V_m0`$ and $`W_m0`$ our method still gives some information about $`\phi `$. Since $`\phi `$ is filtration preserving it induces $`𝔤`$–module homomorphisms

$$\phi _m:(V_m/V_{m1})[m](W_m/W_{m1})[m].$$

Now Schur’s lemma gives strong restrictions on such mappings. For instance, if every highest weight which occurs in the left hand side $`𝔤`$-representation does not occur on right hand side we can conclude $`\phi _m=0`$.

Let us close this note with some examples of symplectic manifolds satisfying the condition of Theorem 1.

For a $`4`$–dimensional closed symplectic manifold this condition is trivially satisfied. So every Hamiltonian fibration with $`4`$–dimensional fiber c–splits. This was already observed by Kȩdra as a consequence of Theorem 3, see \[LM02\].

A $`6`$–dimensional closed symplectic manifold satisfies the assumption of Theorem 1 iff the mapping $`[\omega ]:H^3(M)H^5(M)`$ is onto. Via Poincaré duality this is equivalent to $`[\omega ]:H^1(M)H^3(M)`$ being injective. Particularly this applies for simply connected $`M`$, a fact also observed by Kȩdra.

Salamon gave a classification of all $`6`$–dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras, see \[S01\]. Since there is exactly one nil-manifold to every nilpotent Lie algebra this is a classification of all $`6`$–dimensional nil-manifolds. Many of them admit symplectic structures, see \[IRTU01\]. Note, that these manifolds are far from being spherically generated, for their universal coverings are contractible. However, some of them satisfy the condition of Theorem 1.

Suppose $`MP^N`$ is a symplectic submanifold and let $`X`$ denote the blowup of $`P^N`$ along $`M`$. In \[H\] the $`𝔟`$–module structure of $`H^{}(X)`$ is explicitly computed in terms of the $`𝔟`$–module structure of $`H^{}(M)`$. More precisely, as $`𝔟`$–modules we have

$$H^{}(X)=H^{}(P^N)(H^{}(M)W),$$

where $`W`$ is the $`𝔟`$–module $`H^{}(P^{k2})[2]`$ and $`2k`$ the codimension of $`M`$ in $`P^N`$. For the filtration we therefore get:

$$H^{}(X)_m=\{\begin{array}{cc}H^{}(P^N)(H^{}(M)_{Nk}W)\hfill & m=N\hfill \\ H^{}(M)_{mk}W\hfill & mN\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows from this computation that $`X`$ satisfies the Hard Lefschetz Theorem iff $`M`$ does, cf. \[M84\]. As another consequence of this computation we obtain, that the blow up $`X`$ satisfies the assumption of Theorem 1 iff $`M`$ does.

For instance we can take $`M`$ to be Thurston’s $`4`$–dimensional nil-manifold embedded in $`P^5`$. This was the first example of a symplectic manifold which does not satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem and thus can’t be Kähler, see \[T76\]. The blowup $`X`$ of $`P^5`$ along $`M`$ then does not satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem for $`M`$ doesn’t. This was the first example of a closed simply connected symplectic manifold, which does not satisfy the Hard Lefschetz Theorem, see \[M84\]. However it satisfies the condition of Theorem 1, for $`M`$ does. So every Hamiltonian fibration with fiber $`X`$ c–splits. We thus recover Kȩdra’s theorem, see \[Ka\], without using additional analytic tools.