Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- monotonicity [2023/06/07 12:35] – spencer
+++ monotonicity [2023/06/07 13:12] (current) – [Bellettini-Tian almost-monotonicity] spencer
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 $$\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(R^{1-n} \int_{S_R} \frac{|h|^2}{2} \mathrm{vol}_{S_R} \right) \approx R^{1-n} \int_{B_R} (|\nabla h|^2 + \langle \mathcal{R}h, h\rangle) \mathrm{vol}_{B_R},$$
 which establishes monotonicity for the energy $R^{1-n} \int_{S_R} \frac{|h|^2}{2} \mathrm{vol}_{S_R}$ if we know that the approximation is good enough and the curvature is positive enough to make the integrand of the right hand side positive.
+==== Price monotonicity ====
+This monotonicity generally works for 'harmonic-type objects'.
+The essence of proofs of such things is to write a sort of Lie derivative in two ways: once as an anticommutator $\{d, e^*(dr)\}$ and once in terms of the radial covariant derivative and second fundamental form, $L_{\partial_r} = \nabla_{\partial_r} + Q$ where $Q$ is the second fundamental form of a geodesic sphere in a geodesic ball.
+By harmonicity, the anticommutator $\{d, e^*(dr)\}$ applied to an object $\alpha$ in question is simply $de^*(dr)\alpha$; integrating by parts in $(de^*(dr)\alpha, \alpha)$, coclosedness of $\alpha$ means only a boundary term survives and so $\int_{B_R} \langle de^*(dr)\alpha, \alpha) \rangle = \int_{S_R} |e^*(dr) \alpha|^2$; one compares this to the geometric term obtained by the other point of view.
+See Di Cerbo-Stern for details.
+The punchline is that in this situation it is actually //negative// curvature that makes monotonicity possible, while in the Bochner case it was positive curvature that helped.
+Price monotonicity is what gives monotonicity for harmonic maps using the exterior derivative and Yang-Mills connections using the exterior covariant derivative, with respect to which the curvature is a harmonic (endomorphism-valued) 2-form.
+==== Bellettini-Tian almost-monotonicity ====
+This almost-monotonicity formula is for triholomorphic maps on hyperkahler manifolds; that is, maps $u \colon (M^m, I_1, I_2, I_3) \to (N^n, J_1, J_2, J_3)$ of hyperkahler manifolds that satisfy the triholomorphic map equation
+$$du = \sum_{i=1}^3 J_i du I_i.$$
+Triholomorphic maps enjoy monotonicity of the form $r^{2-m} \int_{B_r} |\nabla u|^2 = f(r) + O(r f(r))$ where $f$ is a non-decreasing function of $r$.
+==== Walpuski almost-monotonicity ====
+==== Almgren monotonicity ====
+Almgren monotonicity is supposedly the result of comparing Price monotonicity to Bochner monoticity; I don't know why this is the case. In the Almgren setting we consider the following 'frequency function':
+$$N_w(r) = \frac{r\int_{B_r} |\nabla w|^2}{\int_{S_r} |w|^2}.$$
+Almgren monotonicity states that if $w$ is harmonic, then $N_w(r)$ is non-decreasing as a function of $r$.
+Moreover, if $w$ is homogeneous of degree $k$, then integrating by parts and using harmonicity we have
+$$r \left( \int_{S_r} \langle w, \nabla w\rangle - \int_{B_r} \langle w, \Delta w\rangle\right) = r\int_{S_r} \langle w, \nabla w\rangle = k \int_{S_r} |w|^2$$
+by Euler's theorem so that $N_w(r) = k$.
+This is where the 'frequency' part comes from.