<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Geometry and the imagination]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://lamington.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Danny Calegari]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://lamington.wordpress.com/author/dannycaltech/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Kähler manifolds and groups, part&nbsp;2]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>In this post I hope to start talking in a bit more depth about the global geometry of compact Kähler manifolds and their covers. Basic references for much of this post are the book <em><a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1379330">Fundamental groups of compact Kähler manifolds</a></em> by Amoros-Burger-Corlette-Kotschick-Toledo, and the paper <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1085144"><em>Kähler hyperbolicity and L2 Hodge theory</em></a> by Gromov. It turns out that there is a basic distinction in the world of compact Kähler manifolds between those that admit a holomorphic surjection with connected fibers to a compact Riemann surface of genus at least 2, and those that don&#8217;t. The existence or non-existence of such a fibration turns out to depend only on the fundamental group of the manifold, and in fact only on the algebraic structure of the cup product on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1" title="H^1" class="latex" />; thus one talks about <em>fibered</em> or <em>nonfibered</em> Kähler groups.</p>
<p>If X is a connected CW complex, by successively attaching cells of dimension 3 and higher to X we may obtain a CW complex Y for which the inclusion of X into Y induces an isomorphism on fundamental groups, while the universal cover of Y is contractible (i.e. Y is a <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K%28%5Cpi%2C1%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K(&#92;pi,1)" title="K(&#92;pi,1)" class="latex" /> with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi" title="&#92;pi" class="latex" /> the fundamental group of X). The (co)-homology of Y is (by definition) the group (co)-homology of the fundamental group of X. Since Y is obtained from X by attaching cells of dimension at least 3, the map induced by inclusion <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E%2A%28Y%29+%5Cto+H%5E%2A%28X%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^*(Y) &#92;to H^*(X)" title="H^*(Y) &#92;to H^*(X)" class="latex" /> is an isomorphism in dimension 0 and 1, and an injection in dimension 2 (dually, the map <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H_2%28X%29+%5Cto+H_2%28Y%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H_2(X) &#92;to H_2(Y)" title="H_2(X) &#92;to H_2(Y)" class="latex" /> is a surjection, whose kernel is the image of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_2%28X%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_2(X)" title="&#92;pi_2(X)" class="latex" /> under the Hurewicz map; so the cokernel of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E2%28Y%29+%5Cto+H%5E2%28X%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^2(Y) &#92;to H^2(X)" title="H^2(Y) &#92;to H^2(X)" class="latex" /> measures the pairing of the 2-dimensional cohomology of X with essential 2-spheres).</p>
<p>A surjective map f from a space X to a space S with connected fibers is surjective on fundamental groups. This basically follows from the long exact sequence in homotopy groups for a fibration; more prosaically, first note that 1-manifolds in S can be lifted locally to 1-manifolds in X, then distinct lifts of endpoints of small segments can be connected in their fibers in X. A surjection <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f_%2A&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f_*" title="f_*" class="latex" /> on fundamental groups induces an injection on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1" title="H^1" class="latex" /> in the other direction, and by naturality of cup product, if <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=V&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="V" title="V" class="latex" /> is a subspace of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28S%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(S)" title="H^1(S)" class="latex" /> on which the cup product vanishes identically &#8212; i.e. if it is <em>isotropic</em> &#8212; then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%5E%2AV&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f^*V" title="f^*V" class="latex" /> is also isotropic. If S is a closed oriented surface of genus g then cup product makes <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28S%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(S)" title="H^1(S)" class="latex" /> into a symplectic vector space of (real) dimension 2g, and any Lagrangian subspace V is isotropic of dimension g. Thus: a surjective map with connected fibers from a space X to a closed Riemann surface S of genus at least 2 gives rise to an isotropic subspace of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28X%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(X)" title="H^1(X)" class="latex" /> of dimension at least 2.</p>
<p>So in a nutshell: the purpose of this blog post is to explain how the existence of isotropic subspaces in 1-dimensional cohomology of Kähler manifolds imposes very strong geometric constraints. This is true for &#8220;ordinary&#8221; cohomology on compact manifolds, and also for more exotic (i.e. <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />) cohomology on noncompact covers.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>1. Fibered Kähler groups</strong></p>
<p>For a compact Kähler manifold Hodge theory gives</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28M%29+%3D+H%5E%7B1%2C0%7D%5Coplus+H%5E%7B0%2C1%7D+%3D+%5COmega%5E1_h+%5Coplus+%5Coverline%7B%5COmega%7D%5E1_h&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(M) = H^{1,0}&#92;oplus H^{0,1} = &#92;Omega^1_h &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;Omega}^1_h" title="H^1(M) = H^{1,0}&#92;oplus H^{0,1} = &#92;Omega^1_h &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;Omega}^1_h" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">(recall that the notation <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega%5Ep_h&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Omega^p_h" title="&#92;Omega^p_h" class="latex" /> means the holomorphic p-forms). In other words, every (complex) 1-dimensional cohomology class has a unique representative 1-form which is a linear combination of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic 1-forms. Since the wedge product of holomorphic 1-forms is holomorphic (the first miracle mentioned in the previous post!), for holomorphic 1-forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha%2C%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha,&#92;beta" title="&#92;alpha,&#92;beta" class="latex" /> we have</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5B%5Calpha%5D%5Ccup%5B%5Cbeta%5D+%3D+0+%5Cin+H%5E2%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="[&#92;alpha]&#92;cup[&#92;beta] = 0 &#92;in H^2(M)" title="[&#92;alpha]&#92;cup[&#92;beta] = 0 &#92;in H^2(M)" class="latex" /> if and only if <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta+%3D+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;beta = 0" title="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;beta = 0" class="latex" /> as <em>forms. </em></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">This has the following classical application:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Theorem (Castelnuovo-de Franchis):</strong> Let M be a compact Kähler manifold, and let V be a subspace of the space of holomorphic 1-forms on M which is isotropic with respect to the pairing (on cohomology; but equivalently, on forms). Suppose that the dimension of V is at least 2. Then there exists a surjective holomorphic map f with connected fibers from M to a compact Riemann surface C of genus g such that V is pulled back by f from C.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Proof: Let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_1%2C%5Ccdots%2C+%5Calpha_g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_1,&#92;cdots, &#92;alpha_g" title="&#92;alpha_1,&#92;cdots, &#92;alpha_g" class="latex" /> where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g+%5Cge+2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g &#92;ge 2" title="g &#92;ge 2" class="latex" /> be a basis of V. Where two forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i%2C+%5Calpha_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i, &#92;alpha_j" title="&#92;alpha_i, &#92;alpha_j" class="latex" /> don&#8217;t vanish, the condition that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i+%5Cwedge+%5Calpha_j+%3D+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i &#92;wedge &#92;alpha_j = 0" title="&#92;alpha_i &#92;wedge &#92;alpha_j = 0" class="latex" /> says that they are proportional, and therefore the ratio <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i%2F%5Calpha_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i/&#92;alpha_j" title="&#92;alpha_i/&#92;alpha_j" class="latex" /> is a holomorphic <em>function</em>. If we let U denote the open (and dense) subset of M where none of the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i" title="&#92;alpha_i" class="latex" /> vanish, then the ratios <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i%2F%5Calpha_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i/&#92;alpha_1" title="&#92;alpha_i/&#92;alpha_1" class="latex" /> define the coordinates of a holomorphic map to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E%7Bg-1%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{P}^{g-1}" title="&#92;mathbb{P}^{g-1}" class="latex" />. Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_1" title="&#92;alpha_1" class="latex" /> is closed, its kernel is tangent to a (complex) codimension 1 foliation <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BF%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{F}" title="&#92;mathcal{F}" class="latex" /> on U. Since the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i" title="&#92;alpha_i" class="latex" /> are closed, the ratio <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i%2F%5Calpha_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i/&#92;alpha_1" title="&#92;alpha_i/&#92;alpha_1" class="latex" /> is constant on the leaves of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BF%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{F}" title="&#92;mathcal{F}" class="latex" />, so the image of U in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E%7Bg-1%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{P}^{g-1}" title="&#92;mathbb{P}^{g-1}" class="latex" /> is 1-dimensional, and the map factors through a map to a compact Riemann surface D.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">A priori a holomorphic map to a Riemann surface defined on an open set U does not extend to M; the simplest example to think of is the holomorphic function</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=x%2Fy%3A+%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D%5E2+%5Cto+%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="x/y: &#92;mathbb{C}^2 &#92;to &#92;mathbb{P}^1" title="x/y: &#92;mathbb{C}^2 &#92;to &#92;mathbb{P}^1" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">where x and y are the two coordinate functions. This map is well defined away from the origin, where it is indeterminate. On the other hand, as we approach the origin radially along a (complex) line, the ratio <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=x%2Fy&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="x/y" title="x/y" class="latex" /> is constant; so the map, defined on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D%5E2+-+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}^2 - 0" title="&#92;mathbb{C}^2 - 0" class="latex" />, extends over a copy of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" title="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" class="latex" /> obtained by blowing up the origin. In general therefore a map <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%3A+U+%5Cto+D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f: U &#92;to D" title="f: U &#92;to D" class="latex" /> extends to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%3AM%27+%5Cto+D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f:M&#039; &#92;to D" title="f:M&#039; &#92;to D" class="latex" /> where M&#8217; is obtained from M by blowing up along the indeterminacy of the map f, and the fibers of the blow-up map from M&#8217; to M are all copies of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" title="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Now, the map <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%3AM%27+%5Cto+D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f:M&#039; &#92;to D" title="f:M&#039; &#92;to D" class="latex" /> does not necessarily have connected fibers, but it is proper. So there is a (so-called) <em>Stein factorization</em> <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M%27+%5Cto+C+%5Cto+D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M&#039; &#92;to C &#92;to D" title="M&#039; &#92;to C &#92;to D" class="latex" /> for some intermediate compact Riemann surface C, where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M%27+%5Cto+C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M&#039; &#92;to C" title="M&#039; &#92;to C" class="latex" /> has connected fibers, and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C+%5Cto+D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="C &#92;to D" title="C &#92;to D" class="latex" /> is finite-to-one. As a set, the points of C are just the connected components of the point preimages of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M%27+%5Cto+D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M&#039; &#92;to D" title="M&#039; &#92;to D" class="latex" />. As a complex manifold, the charts on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="C" title="C" class="latex" /> are modeled on the transverse holomorphic structure on the foliation <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BF%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{F}" title="&#92;mathcal{F}" class="latex" />. Notice that since (as remarked above) the 1-forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_j" title="&#92;alpha_j" class="latex" /> are all locally constant on the leaves of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BF%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{F}" title="&#92;mathcal{F}" class="latex" />, they descend to well-defined 1-forms on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="C" title="C" class="latex" /> (which pull back to the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_j" title="&#92;alpha_j" class="latex" /> under the map). In particular, we deduce that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="C" title="C" class="latex" /> has genus at least <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g%5Cge+2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g&#92;ge 2" title="g&#92;ge 2" class="latex" />. But now we see that there was no indeterminacy at all, since the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" title="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" class="latex" /> fibers of the blow up <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M%27+%5Cto+M&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M&#039; &#92;to M" title="M&#039; &#92;to M" class="latex" /> admit no non-constant holomorphic map to a surface of positive genus, and therefore the map <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M%27+%5Cto+C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M&#039; &#92;to C" title="M&#039; &#92;to C" class="latex" /> factors through <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M+%5Cto+C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M &#92;to C" title="M &#92;to C" class="latex" /> after all. qed</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Now suppose M is a compact Kähler manifold, and let V be a subspace of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(M)" title="H^1(M)" class="latex" /> which is isotropic with respect to cup product, and of dimension at least 2. We can choose real harmonic 1-forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta_i" title="&#92;beta_i" class="latex" /> which are a basis for V, and take their holomorphic (1,0)-part <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i" title="&#92;alpha_i" class="latex" />.  Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i+%5Cwedge+%5Calpha_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i &#92;wedge &#92;alpha_j" title="&#92;alpha_i &#92;wedge &#92;alpha_j" class="latex" /> is holomorphic, and is equal to the (2,0)-part of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta_i+%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta_i &#92;wedge &#92;beta_j" title="&#92;beta_i &#92;wedge &#92;beta_j" class="latex" />. Since the holomorphic 2-forms inject into cohomology, it follows that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i+%5Cwedge+%5Calpha_j+%3D+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i &#92;wedge &#92;alpha_j = 0" title="&#92;alpha_i &#92;wedge &#92;alpha_j = 0" class="latex" /> as <em>forms</em>. It is straightforward to check that the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_i" title="&#92;alpha_i" class="latex" /> are linearly independent if the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta_i" title="&#92;beta_i" class="latex" /> are, so we obtain an isotropic subspace of holomorphic 1-forms of the same dimension as V. Applying Castelnuovo-de Franchis, we see that M fibers over D as above (this observation is due to Catanese).</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">From this we easily deduce the following theorem of Siu-Beauville, proved originally by hard analytic methods (i.e. the theory of harmonic maps):</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Corollary (Siu, Beauville):</strong> Let M be a compact Kähler manifold, and let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g+%5Cge+2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g &#92;ge 2" title="g &#92;ge 2" class="latex" />. Then there is a holomorphic map with connected fibers from M to a compact Riemann surface C of genus at least g if and only if there is a surjective homomorphism <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M%29+%5Cto+%5Cpi_1%28C+%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M) &#92;to &#92;pi_1(C )" title="&#92;pi_1(M) &#92;to &#92;pi_1(C )" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Proof: A surjective map with connected fibers is surjective on fundamental groups. Conversely, a surjective map on fundamental groups pulls back <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28C+%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(C )" title="H^1(C )" class="latex" /> injectively, and pulls back a maximal isotropic subspace of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28C+%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(C )" title="H^1(C )" class="latex" /> (which has dimension <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g+%5Cge+2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g &#92;ge 2" title="g &#92;ge 2" class="latex" />) to an isotropic subspace of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(M)" title="H^1(M)" class="latex" />. qed</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Definition:</strong> A Kähler group is <em>fibered</em> if it surjects onto the fundamental group of a compact Riemann surface of genus at least 2; equivalently, if some (equivalently: every) compact Kähler manifold with that fundamental group holomorphically fibers over a compact Riemann surface of genus at least 2 with connected fibers.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Note that the condition of being fibered implies <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=b%5E1%5Cge+4&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="b^1&#92;ge 4" title="b^1&#92;ge 4" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>2. L2 cohomology</strong></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Perhaps the fundamental method in geometric group theory is to study a group via its cocompact isometric action on some (typically noncompact) space. If G is the fundamental group of a manifold M, then G acts as a deck group on the universal cover of M. The aim of geometric group theory is to perceive algebraic properties of the group G in the &#8220;global&#8221; geometry of this universal cover.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The most important tool for the study of differential forms on compact Riemannian manifolds is Hodge theory. To use this tool on noncompact manifolds one must impose additional (global) restrictions on the forms that one studies. Thus Hodge theory on noncompact manifolds is related directly not to ordinary cohomology, but to more refined, quantitative versions, of which one of the most important is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-cohomology.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">If M is a smooth Riemannian manifold (not assumed to be compact), the pointwise inner product on forms gives rise to a global inner product which is well-defined on compactly supported forms. We say that a smooth form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> is in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> if</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5C%7C%5Calpha%5C%7C%5E2%3A%3D%5Cint_M+%5Calpha+%5Cwedge+%2A%5Calpha+%3C+%5Cinfty&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;|&#92;alpha&#92;|^2:=&#92;int_M &#92;alpha &#92;wedge *&#92;alpha &lt; &#92;infty" title="&#92;|&#92;alpha&#92;|^2:=&#92;int_M &#92;alpha &#92;wedge *&#92;alpha &lt; &#92;infty" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Now, the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-forms do not usually form a chain complex, but we can pass to a subcomplex <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2%5COmega%5E%2A&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2&#92;Omega^*" title="L_2&#92;Omega^*" class="latex" /> consisting of forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> for which both <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=d%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="d&#92;alpha" title="d&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> are <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-forms. Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=d%5E2%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="d^2=0" title="d^2=0" class="latex" /> this is a complex, and we can define <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> cohomology:</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2H%5Ek%28M%29%3A%3D+%28%5Ctext%7Bker%7Dd%3AL_2%5COmega%5Ek+%5Cto+L_2%5COmega%5E%7Bk%2B1%7D%29%2FdL_2%5COmega%5E%7Bk-1%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2H^k(M):= (&#92;text{ker}d:L_2&#92;Omega^k &#92;to L_2&#92;Omega^{k+1})/dL_2&#92;Omega^{k-1}" title="L_2H^k(M):= (&#92;text{ker}d:L_2&#92;Omega^k &#92;to L_2&#92;Omega^{k+1})/dL_2&#92;Omega^{k-1}" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;"> In general, the image of d is not a closed subspace (in the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> topology), so we define the <em>reduced</em> <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> cohomology to be:</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5Ek%28M%29%3A%3D%28%5Ctext%7Bker%7Dd%3AL_2%5COmega%5Ek+%5Cto+L_2%5COmega%5E%7Bk%2B1%7D%29%2F%5Coverline%7BdL_2%5COmega%5E%7Bk-1%7D%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^k(M):=(&#92;text{ker}d:L_2&#92;Omega^k &#92;to L_2&#92;Omega^{k+1})/&#92;overline{dL_2&#92;Omega^{k-1}}" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^k(M):=(&#92;text{ker}d:L_2&#92;Omega^k &#92;to L_2&#92;Omega^{k+1})/&#92;overline{dL_2&#92;Omega^{k-1}}" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The advantage of working with reduced cohomology is that there is an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-analogue of the Hodge theorem. The operators <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=d&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="d" title="d" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdelta+%3D+%5Cpm+%2Ad%2A&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;delta = &#92;pm *d*" title="&#92;delta = &#92;pm *d*" class="latex" /> still make sense on a noncompact Riemannian manifold, and so does <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta%3A%3Dd%5Cdelta%2B%5Cdelta+d&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta:=d&#92;delta+&#92;delta d" title="&#92;Delta:=d&#92;delta+&#92;delta d" class="latex" />. We can define the harmonic forms to be those for which <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta%5Calpha%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta&#92;alpha=0" title="&#92;Delta&#92;alpha=0" class="latex" />, and we denote by <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5Ep_%7B%282%29%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^p_{(2)}" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^p_{(2)}" class="latex" /> the space of harmonic p-forms which are <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Let&#8217;s impose some reasonable global conditions on our manifold M. We say that a (complete) Riemannian manifold has <em>bounded geometry</em> if it satisfies the following two conditions:</p>
<ol>
<li>The curvature and its derivatives satisfy uniform 2-sided bounds: <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7C%5Cnabla%5Ek+K%7C+%5Cle+C_k+%3C+%5Cinfty&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|&#92;nabla^k K| &#92;le C_k &lt; &#92;infty" title="|&#92;nabla^k K| &#92;le C_k &lt; &#92;infty" class="latex" /> for each k; and</li>
<li>The injectivity radius satisfies a uniform lower bound: <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctext%7Binj%7D+%5Cge+%5Cepsilon+%3E+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;text{inj} &#92;ge &#92;epsilon &gt; 0" title="&#92;text{inj} &#92;ge &#92;epsilon &gt; 0" class="latex" /> everywhere.</li>
</ol>
<p>Bounded geometry is the natural condition to impose to ensure that the manifold is &#8220;precompact&#8221; in Gromov-Hausdorff space; i.e. that for any sequence of points <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=p_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="p_i" title="p_i" class="latex" /> in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M" title="M" class="latex" /> the sequence of pointed metric spaces <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%28M%2Cp_i%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="(M,p_i)" title="(M,p_i)" class="latex" /> contain a subsequence which converge on compact subsets to a pointed Riemannian manifold <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M%27%2Cp%27&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M&#039;,p&#039;" title="M&#039;,p&#039;" class="latex" />. An equivalent way to think about it is that this is the condition which ensures that the Riemannian manifold <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M" title="M" class="latex" /> can appear as a leaf in a compact <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamination_(topology)">lamination</a>. The condition of bounded geometry is automatically satisfied for any cover (infinite or not) of a compact Riemannian manifold. Since this is essentially the only class of noncompact Riemannian manifolds we will consider, we hereafter assume that all our noncompact Riemannian manifolds have bounded geometry.</p>
<p><strong>Theorem (L2 Hodge theorem):</strong> Let M be a complete Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry. Then every cohomology class in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5Ek&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^k" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^k" class="latex" /> has a unique representative <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%5Cin+L_2%5COmega%5Ek&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha &#92;in L_2&#92;Omega^k" title="&#92;alpha &#92;in L_2&#92;Omega^k" class="latex" /> minimizing <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5C%7C%5Calpha%5C%7C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;|&#92;alpha&#92;|" title="&#92;|&#92;alpha&#92;|" class="latex" />. Such a form is harmonic; i.e. it is in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5Ek_%7B%282%29%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^k_{(2)}" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^k_{(2)}" class="latex" />. Moreover, there is an orthogonal decomposition</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2%5COmega%5Ek+%3D+%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5Ek_%7B%282%29%7D+%5Coplus+%5Coverline%7BdL_2%5COmega%5E%7Bk-1%7D%7D+%5Coplus+%5Coverline%7B%5Cdelta+L_2%5COmega%5E%7Bk%2B1%7D%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2&#92;Omega^k = &#92;mathcal{H}^k_{(2)} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{dL_2&#92;Omega^{k-1}} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;delta L_2&#92;Omega^{k+1}}" title="L_2&#92;Omega^k = &#92;mathcal{H}^k_{(2)} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{dL_2&#92;Omega^{k-1}} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;delta L_2&#92;Omega^{k+1}}" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">One subtlety is that it is no longer true that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdelta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;delta" title="&#92;delta" class="latex" /> is a formal adjoint to d, since integration by parts gives rise to a potentially nontrivial boundary term &#8220;at infinity&#8221;. But for an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" />, this boundary term vanishes, and one has</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clangle+%5CDelta%5Calpha%2C%5Calpha%5Crangle+%3D+%5Clangle+d%5Calpha%2Cd%5Calpha%5Crangle+%2B+%5Clangle+%5Cdelta%5Calpha%2C%5Cdelta%5Calpha%5Crangle&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;langle &#92;Delta&#92;alpha,&#92;alpha&#92;rangle = &#92;langle d&#92;alpha,d&#92;alpha&#92;rangle + &#92;langle &#92;delta&#92;alpha,&#92;delta&#92;alpha&#92;rangle" title="&#92;langle &#92;Delta&#92;alpha,&#92;alpha&#92;rangle = &#92;langle d&#92;alpha,d&#92;alpha&#92;rangle + &#92;langle &#92;delta&#92;alpha,&#92;delta&#92;alpha&#92;rangle" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">(since <em>a priori</em> the forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=d%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="d&#92;alpha" title="d&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdelta+%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;delta &#92;alpha" title="&#92;delta &#92;alpha" class="latex" /> are not <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />, one first interprets this by using cutoff functions, and passing to a limit). In other words, a harmonic form <em>which is also <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /></em> is closed and coclosed; conversely, any form which is closed and coclosed is harmonic (with no analytic conditions).</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">On a Kähler manifold the identity <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta+%3D+2%5CDelta_%7B%5Coverline%7B%5Cpartial%7D%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta = 2&#92;Delta_{&#92;overline{&#92;partial}}" title="&#92;Delta = 2&#92;Delta_{&#92;overline{&#92;partial}}" class="latex" /> still holds pointwise (since this is a consequence purely of the local properties of the metric), and so there is a further decomposition of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5Ek_%7B%282%29%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^k_{(2)}" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^k_{(2)}" class="latex" /> into components <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coplus_%7Bp%2Bq%3Dk%7D+%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E%7Bp%2Cq%7D_%7B%282%29%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;oplus_{p+q=k} &#92;mathcal{H}^{p,q}_{(2)}" title="&#92;oplus_{p+q=k} &#92;mathcal{H}^{p,q}_{(2)}" class="latex" /> which are individually harmonic. There is furthermore a Hodge decomposition</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2%5COmega%5E%7Bp%2Cq%7D+%3D+%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E%7Bp%2Cq%7D_%7B%282%29%7D+%5Coplus+%5Coverline%7B%5Coverline%7B%5Cpartial%7DL_2%5COmega%5E%7Bp%2Cq-1%7D%7D+%5Coplus+%5Coverline%7B%5Coverline%7B%5Cpartial%7D%5E%2AL_2%5COmega%5E%7Bp%2Cq%2B1%7D%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2&#92;Omega^{p,q} = &#92;mathcal{H}^{p,q}_{(2)} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;overline{&#92;partial}L_2&#92;Omega^{p,q-1}} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;overline{&#92;partial}^*L_2&#92;Omega^{p,q+1}}" title="L_2&#92;Omega^{p,q} = &#92;mathcal{H}^{p,q}_{(2)} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;overline{&#92;partial}L_2&#92;Omega^{p,q-1}} &#92;oplus &#92;overline{&#92;overline{&#92;partial}^*L_2&#92;Omega^{p,q+1}}" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">and an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> satisfies <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta+%5Calpha+%3D+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta &#92;alpha = 0" title="&#92;Delta &#92;alpha = 0" class="latex" /> if and only if <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7B%5Cpartial%7D%5Calpha+%3D+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{&#92;partial}&#92;alpha = 0" title="&#92;overline{&#92;partial}&#92;alpha = 0" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7B%5Cpartial%7D%5E%2A%5Calpha%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{&#92;partial}^*&#92;alpha=0" title="&#92;overline{&#92;partial}^*&#92;alpha=0" class="latex" />. Thus <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E%7Bp%2C0%7D_%7B%282%29%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^{p,0}_{(2)}" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^{p,0}_{(2)}" class="latex" /> consists precisely of <em>holomorphic </em><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /><em> p-forms</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Example:</strong> A harmonic form which is not <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> does <em>not</em> have to be in the kernel of d. For instance, a function is closed if and only if it is (locally) constant, but any nonconstant holomorphic function on a domain in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}" title="&#92;mathbb{C}" class="latex" /> has harmonic real and imaginary parts. On the other hand, suppose that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%5Cin+%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E1_%7B%282%29%2C%5Ctext%7Bex%7D%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha &#92;in &#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}" title="&#92;alpha &#92;in &#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}" class="latex" /> is harmonic and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />, and exact as a form, so that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%3D+df&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha = df" title="&#92;alpha = df" class="latex" /> for some smooth function f. Then we claim that f is actually harmonic (but not closed unless <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%3D+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha = 0" title="&#92;alpha = 0" class="latex" />). For, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta" title="&#92;Delta" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=d&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="d" title="d" class="latex" /> commute, so <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta+f&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta f" title="&#92;Delta f" class="latex" /> is a constant c, and by the Gaffney cutoff trick, it can be shown that c=0.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>3. Kähler hyperbolicity</strong></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Gromov showed that under certain geometric conditions, the reduced <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> cohomology of a Kähler manifold vanishes outside the middle dimension. To define this condition, one first introduces the notion of a <em>bounded</em> form; this is a form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> for which <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5C%7C%5Calpha%5C%7C_%5Cinfty%3A+%3D+%5Csup_p+%7C%5Calpha_p%7C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;|&#92;alpha&#92;|_&#92;infty: = &#92;sup_p |&#92;alpha_p|" title="&#92;|&#92;alpha&#92;|_&#92;infty: = &#92;sup_p |&#92;alpha_p|" class="latex" /> is finite, where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7C%5Calpha_p%7C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|&#92;alpha_p|" title="|&#92;alpha_p|" class="latex" /> denotes the (operator) norm of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> at the point p.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Definition:</strong> A compact Kähler manifold M is <em>Kähler hyperbolic</em> if the pullback <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7B%5Comega%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega}" title="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega}" class="latex" /> of the symplectic form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Comega&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;omega" title="&#92;omega" class="latex" /> to the universal cover <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> satisfies <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7B%5Comega%7D+%3D+d%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega} = d&#92;alpha" title="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega} = d&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> for some bounded 1-form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Suppose M is Kähler hyperbolic, and let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta" title="&#92;beta" class="latex" /> be any harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" />. Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta" title="&#92;beta" class="latex" /> is closed, and</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7B%5Comega%7D+%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta+%3D+d%28%5Calpha%5Cwedge%5Cbeta%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega} &#92;wedge &#92;beta = d(&#92;alpha&#92;wedge&#92;beta)" title="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega} &#92;wedge &#92;beta = d(&#92;alpha&#92;wedge&#92;beta)" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> is bounded, the form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;beta" title="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;beta" class="latex" /> is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />. On the other hand, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7B%5Comega%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega}" title="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega}" class="latex" /> is bounded (because it is pulled back from a form on a compact manifold), so <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7B%5Comega%7D+%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega} &#92;wedge &#92;beta" title="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega} &#92;wedge &#92;beta" class="latex" /> is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />. Now, (recalling the notation L for the operation of wedging with the Kähler form), the Kähler identity <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5BL%2C%5CDelta%5D%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="[L,&#92;Delta]=0" title="[L,&#92;Delta]=0" class="latex" /> is a purely local calculation, and therefore on any Kähler manifold (compact or not), wedge product with the Kähler form takes harmonic forms to harmonic forms. It follows that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7B%5Comega%7D%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega}&#92;wedge &#92;beta" title="&#92;tilde{&#92;omega}&#92;wedge &#92;beta" class="latex" /> is harmonic, <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />, and equal to the image of an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form under d; thus it vanishes identically.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">But if V is a real vector space of dimension 2n, and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Comega&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;omega" title="&#92;omega" class="latex" /> is a nondegenerate 2-form on V, then wedging with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Comega&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;omega" title="&#92;omega" class="latex" /> is injective on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CLambda%5E%2A+V&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Lambda^* V" title="&#92;Lambda^* V" class="latex" /> below the middle dimension (this is the linear algebra fact which underpins the Hard Lefschetz Theorem for compact Kähler manifolds). Thus the operator L is injective on harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-forms below the middle dimension. Dualizing, the operator <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CLambda&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Lambda" title="&#92;Lambda" class="latex" /> is injective above the middle dimension, and we deduce the following:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Theorem (Gromov): </strong>If M is compact and Kähler hyperbolic, the reduced <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> cohomology of the universal cover <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> vanishes outside the middle dimension.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Example:</strong> If M is any compact manifold with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K%3C0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K&lt;0" title="K&lt;0" class="latex" /> then for any closed form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta" title="&#92;beta" class="latex" /> on M the pullback of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cbeta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;beta" title="&#92;beta" class="latex" /> to the universal cover is d of a bounded form. This is proved by the Poincaré Lemma, since for a complete simply-connected manifold with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K+%5Cle+-C+%3C+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K &#92;le -C &lt; 0" title="K &#92;le -C &lt; 0" class="latex" />, coning a submanifold along geodesics to a point gives a cone whose volume is bounded by the volume of the submanifold times a constant. So every Kähler manifold with a metric of strict negative curvature is Kähler hyperbolic. More generally, if M is merely nonpositively curved, and the flat planes are isotropic for the Kähler form, then the manifold is still Kähler hyperbolic. This applies (for example) to Kähler manifolds which are compact and locally symmetric of noncompact type. Generalizing in another direction, if M is Kähler with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_2%28M%29%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_2(M)=0" title="&#92;pi_2(M)=0" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M)" title="&#92;pi_1(M)" class="latex" /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_group">word-hyperbolic</a>, then M is Kähler hyperbolic.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>4. Calibrations</strong></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The previous section shows that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5E1%28%5Ctilde%7BM%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" class="latex" /> vanishes whenever M is Kähler hyperbolic of complex dimension at least 2, where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> denotes the universal cover of M. In fact, it turns out that one can completely understand the fundamental groups of Kähler manifolds for which <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5E1%28%5Ctilde%7BM%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" class="latex" /> is nonzero: it turns out that such groups are always virtually equal to the fundamental group of a closed Riemann surface of genus at least 2.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">So let&#8217;s suppose M is a compact Kähler manifold, that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> is its universal cover, and let&#8217;s suppose that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5E1%28%5Ctilde%7BM%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" class="latex" /> is nonzero. Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> is simply-connected, every <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> harmonic form (which is necessarily closed) is actually <em>exact</em>. Let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> be a nonzero harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form, and let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi" title="&#92;varphi" class="latex" /> denote its (1,0)-part, which is an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> holomorphic 1-form. Since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi" title="&#92;varphi" class="latex" /> is also exact, we can write <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi+%3D+dg&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi = dg" title="&#92;varphi = dg" class="latex" /> for some holomorphic function <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g" title="g" class="latex" /> on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" />. By the coarea formula we compute</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cint_%7B%5Cmathbb+C%7D+%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28g%5E%7B-1%7D%28z%29%29dg%28z%29+%3D+%5C%7Cdg%5C%7C_2%5E2+%3C+%5Cinfty&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;int_{&#92;mathbb C} &#92;text{vol}(g^{-1}(z))dg(z) = &#92;|dg&#92;|_2^2 &lt; &#92;infty" title="&#92;int_{&#92;mathbb C} &#92;text{vol}(g^{-1}(z))dg(z) = &#92;|dg&#92;|_2^2 &lt; &#92;infty" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">or in other words, most of the level sets <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g%5E%7B-1%7D%28z%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g^{-1}(z)" title="g^{-1}(z)" class="latex" /> have finite volume. On the other hand, these level sets are complete holomorphic submanifolds, and holomorphic submanifolds of Kähler manifolds turn out to enjoy a very strong geometric property, which we now explain.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">On a Kähler manifold, the symplectic form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Comega&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;omega" title="&#92;omega" class="latex" /> is a <em>calibrating</em> form. This means that it satisfies the following two properties:</p>
<ol>
<li>it is closed; and</li>
<li>it satisfies a pointwise estimate <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Comega%5Ek%28A%29+%5Cle+%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28A%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;omega^k(A) &#92;le &#92;text{vol}(A)" title="&#92;omega^k(A) &#92;le &#92;text{vol}(A)" class="latex" /> for all real 2k-planes A, with equality if and only if A is a complex subspace.</li>
</ol>
<p>It follows that if S is a holomorphic submanifold of complex dimension k, and S&#8217; is a real 2k dimensional submanifold obtained from S by a compactly supported variation so that S and S&#8217; are in the same (relative) homology class, there is an inequality</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%29+%3D+%5Cint_S+%5Comega%5Ek+%3D+%5Cint_%7BS%27%7D+%5Comega%5Ek+%5Cle+%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%27%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;text{vol}(S) = &#92;int_S &#92;omega^k = &#92;int_{S&#039;} &#92;omega^k &#92;le &#92;text{vol}(S&#039;)" title="&#92;text{vol}(S) = &#92;int_S &#92;omega^k = &#92;int_{S&#039;} &#92;omega^k &#92;le &#92;text{vol}(S&#039;)" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">In other words, holomorphic submanifolds of Kähler manifolds are absolute volume minimizers in their homology classes (amongst compactly supported variations). From this one deduces the following:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Lemma:</strong> Let M be a Kähler manifold with bounded geometry. Then for each k there is a constant C so that if S is a complete holomorphic submanifold of complex dimension k, there is an estimate</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctext%7Bdiam%7D%28S%29+%5Cle+C%5Ccdot+%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;text{diam}(S) &#92;le C&#92;cdot &#92;text{vol}(S)" title="&#92;text{diam}(S) &#92;le C&#92;cdot &#92;text{vol}(S)" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Proof: It suffices to show that for some fixed <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cepsilon&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;epsilon" title="&#92;epsilon" class="latex" /> (taken to be the injectivity radius, say), there is a constant <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="C" title="C" class="latex" /> so that the volume of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5Ccap+B_%5Cepsilon%28p+%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S&#92;cap B_&#92;epsilon(p )" title="S&#92;cap B_&#92;epsilon(p )" class="latex" /> is at least <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="C" title="C" class="latex" /> for any point p in S. A Kähler manifold with bounded geometry is uniformly holomorphically bilipschitz to flat <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D%5En&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}^n" title="&#92;mathbb{C}^n" class="latex" /> in balls of size smaller than the injectivity radius, so we need only prove this estimate for holomorphic submanifolds of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D%5En&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}^n" title="&#92;mathbb{C}^n" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">But actually, the estimate follows just from the fact that S is a minimal surface. If S is a complete minimal surface of real dimension N in a Euclidean space, passing through the origin (say), then the <em>Monotonicity Formula</em> says that for any <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=R%3Er%3E0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="R&gt;r&gt;0" title="R&gt;r&gt;0" class="latex" /> there is an inequality</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=R%5E%7B-N%7D%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%5Ccap+B_R%280%29%29+%5Cge+r%5E%7B-N%7D%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%5Ccap+B_r%280%29%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="R^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_R(0)) &#92;ge r^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_r(0))" title="R^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_R(0)) &#92;ge r^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_r(0))" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">This can be proved directly by using the vanishing of the mean curvature, but there is a softer proof that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=R%5E%7B-N%7D%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%5Ccap+B_R%280%29%29%5Cge+C+%3E+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="R^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_R(0))&#92;ge C &gt; 0" title="R^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_R(0))&#92;ge C &gt; 0" class="latex" /> where C is the volume of the unit ball in Euclidean N dimensional space, which is enough for our purposes. To see this, observe that C is the limit of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%28R+%29%3A%3DR%5E%7B-N%7D%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28S%5Ccap+B_R%280%29%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f(R ):=R^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_R(0))" title="f(R ):=R^{-N}&#92;text{vol}(S&#92;cap B_R(0))" class="latex" /> as R goes to zero. Suppose on some interval <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5B0%2CT%5D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="[0,T]" title="[0,T]" class="latex" /> that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%28R+%29+%3C+C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f(R ) &lt; C" title="f(R ) &lt; C" class="latex" /> somewhere, WLOG achieving its minimum at <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=T&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="T" title="T" class="latex" />. The value of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f%28+R%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f( R)" title="f( R)" class="latex" /> on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5B0%2CT%5D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="[0,T]" title="[0,T]" class="latex" /> gives a lower bound for the volume of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S%5Ccap+B_T%280%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S&#92;cap B_T(0)" title="S&#92;cap B_T(0)" class="latex" />, by the coarea formula. But the cone on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S+%5Ccap+%5Cpartial+B_T%280%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S &#92;cap &#92;partial B_T(0)" title="S &#92;cap &#92;partial B_T(0)" class="latex" /> evidently has less volume than this, in violation of the fact that S is calibrated. The estimate, and the proof follow. qed</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">It follows from this estimate that some of the fibers of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g%3A%5Ctilde%7BM%7D+%5Cto+%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g:&#92;tilde{M} &#92;to &#92;mathbb{C}" title="g:&#92;tilde{M} &#92;to &#92;mathbb{C}" class="latex" /> are compact. The components of these fibers are the leaves of a foliation, and since the foliation is defined locally by a closed 1-form, the set of compact leaves is open; but these leaves are all locally homologous and thus have locally constant volume and therefore uniformly bounded diameter, so the set of compact leaves is closed, and therefore every leaf is compact. The space of leaves is 1 (complex) dimensional, and we thereby obtain a proper holomorphic map with connected fibers <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=h%3A%5Ctilde%7BM%7D+%5Cto+S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="h:&#92;tilde{M} &#92;to S" title="h:&#92;tilde{M} &#92;to S" class="latex" /> to a Riemann surface S. Note that the group of holomorphic automorphisms of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> (which includes the deck group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M)" title="&#92;pi_1(M)" class="latex" />) must permute leaves of the foliation; for, since the leaves are compact, if their image were not contained in a leaf, the map to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="S" title="S" class="latex" /> would be nonconstant, in contradiction of the fact that a holomorphic map from a compact holomorphic manifold to a noncompact one must be constant.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">In summary, the deck group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M)" title="&#92;pi_1(M)" class="latex" /> acts on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> permuting the fibers of the map h, and thus descends to an action on S. Because the fibers have uniformly bounded diameter, and the action of the deck group on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> is cocompact and proper, the action on S is also cocompact and proper. Since the map h is surjective with connected fibers, S is simply-connected; since the reduced <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-cohomology class <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi" title="&#92;varphi" class="latex" /> is pulled back from S, it follows that S is the unit disk, and therefore <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M)" title="&#92;pi_1(M)" class="latex" /> contains a finite index subgroup which acts freely, and is isomorphic to the fundamental group of a closed Riemann surface of genus at least 2.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Now, it turns out that for a compact manifold M, the 1-dimensional <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-cohomology of the universal cover depends only on the fundamental group G of M, and is equal to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7B%5Cell_2+H%7D%5E1%28G%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2 H}^1(G)" title="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2 H}^1(G)" class="latex" />, where the (reduced) <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cell_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;ell_2" title="&#92;ell_2" class="latex" /> cohomology groups may be defined directly from the bar complex. We have therefore proved the following theorem of Gromov:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Theorem (Gromov):</strong> Let G be a Kähler group with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7B%5Cell_2+H%7D%5E1%28G%29%5Cne+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2 H}^1(G)&#92;ne 0" title="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2 H}^1(G)&#92;ne 0" class="latex" />. Then G is commensurable with the fundamental group of a closed Riemann surface of genus at least 2.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>5. Ends</strong></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">To apply Gromov&#8217;s theorem (and its generalizations) it is important to have some interesting examples of groups with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7B%5Cell_2+H%7D%5E1%28G%29%5Cne+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2 H}^1(G)&#92;ne 0" title="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2 H}^1(G)&#92;ne 0" class="latex" />. Let X be a locally compact topological space. Then for every compact set K we have the set <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_0%28X-K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_0(X-K)" title="&#92;pi_0(X-K)" class="latex" /> of components of X-K, and an inclusion <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K+%5Cto+L&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K &#92;to L" title="K &#92;to L" class="latex" /> induces <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_0%28X-L%29+%5Cto+%5Cpi_0%28X-K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_0(X-L) &#92;to &#92;pi_0(X-K)" title="&#92;pi_0(X-L) &#92;to &#92;pi_0(X-K)" class="latex" />. The <em>space of ends</em> of X (introduced by Freudenthal) is the inverse limit:</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28X%29%3A%3D%5Clim_%7B%5Cleftarrow%7D+%5Cpi_0%28X-K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{E}(X):=&#92;lim_{&#92;leftarrow} &#92;pi_0(X-K)" title="&#92;mathcal{E}(X):=&#92;lim_{&#92;leftarrow} &#92;pi_0(X-K)" class="latex" /></p>
<p>taken with respect to the directed system of complements of compact subsets. If each <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_0%28X-K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_0(X-K)" title="&#92;pi_0(X-K)" class="latex" /> is finite, the space of ends is compact.</p>
<p>Now, let G be a finitely generated group. For each finite generating set we can build a Cayley graph C, which has one vertex for each element of G, and one edge for each pair of elements which differ by (right) multiplication by a generator. The graph C is locally finite and connected, and we define the <em>space of ends of</em> G, denoted <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28G%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{E}(G)" title="&#92;mathcal{E}(G)" class="latex" />, to be just <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28C+%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{E}(C )" title="&#92;mathcal{E}(C )" class="latex" />. It turns out that this does not depend on the choice of a finite generating set, but is really an invariant of the group.</p>
<p>The theory of ends of groups is completely understood, thanks to the work of <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=228573">Stallings</a>:</p>
<p><strong>Theorem (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stallings_theorem_about_ends_of_groups">Stallings, ends of groups</a>):</strong> Let G be a finitely generated group. Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28G%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{E}(G)" title="&#92;mathcal{E}(G)" class="latex" /> has cardinality 0,1,2 or <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cinfty&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;infty" title="&#92;infty" class="latex" />. Moreover,</p>
<ol>
<li><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7C%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28G%29%7C%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|&#92;mathcal{E}(G)|=0" title="|&#92;mathcal{E}(G)|=0" class="latex" /> if and only if G is finite;</li>
<li><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7C%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28G%29%7C%3D2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|&#92;mathcal{E}(G)|=2" title="|&#92;mathcal{E}(G)|=2" class="latex" /> if and only if G is virtually equal to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" />; and</li>
<li><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7C%5Cmathcal%7BE%7D%28G%29%7C%3D%5Cinfty&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|&#92;mathcal{E}(G)|=&#92;infty" title="|&#92;mathcal{E}(G)|=&#92;infty" class="latex" /> if and only if G splits as a nontrivial amalgam or HNN extension <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=G+%3D+A%2A_B+C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="G = A*_B C" title="G = A*_B C" class="latex" /> or <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=G%3DA%2A_B&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="G=A*_B" title="G=A*_B" class="latex" /> where B is finite, and G is not virtually cyclic.</li>
</ol>
<p>Actually, the only hard part of this theorem is the third bullet; the rest is elementary, and was known to Freudenthal. The third case is equivalent to the existence of a nontrivial action of G on a tree T (which is not a line) with finite edge stabilizers. It follows that groups with infinitely many ends are non-amenable.</p>
<p>Now, let M be a compact Riemannian manifold, and suppose that the fundamental group G has infinitely many ends. This implies that the universal cover <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> also has infinitely many ends, and we may find a compact subset <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="K" title="K" class="latex" /> of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> whose complement has at least two unbounded regions. Define a function f on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> which is equal to 0 on some (but not all) of the unbounded regions of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D+-+K&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M} - K" title="&#92;tilde{M} - K" class="latex" /> and 1 on the rest. Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=df&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="df" title="df" class="latex" /> has compact support (contained in K) and is therefore <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />. On the other hand, if <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g" title="g" class="latex" /> is any function with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=dg%3Ddf&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="dg=df" title="dg=df" class="latex" /> then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g-f&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g-f" title="g-f" class="latex" /> is a constant, so <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=g&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="g" title="g" class="latex" /> is constant and nonzero on some end of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" />, and is therefore not <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />. It follows that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Bdf%5D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="[df]" title="[df]" class="latex" /> is nonzero in <em>unreduced</em> <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2H%5E1%28%5Ctilde%7BM%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2H^1(&#92;tilde{M})" title="L_2H^1(&#92;tilde{M})" class="latex" />.</p>
<p>Now, on <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> functions f we have an equality <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clangle+%5CDelta+f%2Cf%5Crangle+%3D+%5C%7Cdf%5C%7C_2%5E2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;langle &#92;Delta f,f&#92;rangle = &#92;|df&#92;|_2^2" title="&#92;langle &#92;Delta f,f&#92;rangle = &#92;|df&#92;|_2^2" class="latex" />. The Laplacian is self-adjoint, with non-negative real spectrum. So to prove that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2H%5E1%28%5Ctilde%7BM%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2H^1(&#92;tilde{M})" title="L_2H^1(&#92;tilde{M})" class="latex" /> is equal to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5E1%28%5Ctilde%7BM%7D%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(&#92;tilde{M})" class="latex" /> it suffices to establish a <em>spectral gap</em> for <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CDelta&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;Delta" title="&#92;Delta" class="latex" />; i.e. to prove an estimate of the form</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cinf_f+%28%5Cint+f+%5CDelta+f+d%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%29%2F%28%5Cint+f%5E2+d%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%29+%3D%3A+%5Clambda_0+%3E+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;inf_f (&#92;int f &#92;Delta f d&#92;text{vol})/(&#92;int f^2 d&#92;text{vol}) =: &#92;lambda_0 &gt; 0" title="&#92;inf_f (&#92;int f &#92;Delta f d&#92;text{vol})/(&#92;int f^2 d&#92;text{vol}) =: &#92;lambda_0 &gt; 0" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">for all functions f of compact support (which are dense in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />).  In exactly this context one has the following famous theorem of <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=656213">Brooks</a>:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Theorem (Brooks):</strong> with notation as above, one has <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clambda_0%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;lambda_0=0" title="&#92;lambda_0=0" class="latex" /> if and only if <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpi_1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;pi_1(M)" title="&#92;pi_1(M)" class="latex" /> is an amenable group.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">One can think of the size of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clambda_0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;lambda_0" title="&#92;lambda_0" class="latex" /> as governing the rate of dissipation of the <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> norm of a function f as it evolves by the heat equation <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpartial_t+f+%3D+-%5CDelta+f&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;partial_t f = -&#92;Delta f" title="&#92;partial_t f = -&#92;Delta f" class="latex" />. Geometrically it is plausible that heat dissipates at a definite rate when it is concentrated in a region whose boundary is big compared to its volume (since then a definite amount of heat can escape out the boundary). So heat should dissipate at a definite rate <em>unless</em> there are a sequence of compact regions <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=U_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="U_i" title="U_i" class="latex" /> in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" />, exhausting <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" />, for which <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28%5Cpartial+U_i%29%2F%5Ctext%7Bvol%7D%28U_i%29+%5Cto+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;text{vol}(&#92;partial U_i)/&#92;text{vol}(U_i) &#92;to 0" title="&#92;text{vol}(&#92;partial U_i)/&#92;text{vol}(U_i) &#92;to 0" class="latex" />. To each such region <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=U_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="U_i" title="U_i" class="latex" /> one can assign a finite subset <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=G_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="G_i" title="G_i" class="latex" /> of G, by looking at which translates of a basepoint are contained in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=U_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="U_i" title="U_i" class="latex" />; this sequence of subsets is known as a Følner sequence, and the existence of a Følner sequence for a countable group G is one of the definitions of amenability (the equivalence to the other standard definitions is due to <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=79220">Følner</a>). The hard details of Brooks&#8217; argument are to show that one can take subsets <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=U_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="U_i" title="U_i" class="latex" /> whose boundary is regular enough that the comparison between volumes of subsets and their boundaries in the continuous and the discrete world is uniform.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">So in conclusion, if G is a group with infinitely many ends, then reduced and ordinary <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> cohomology agree in dimension 1, and we can construct a nontrivial class <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Bdf%5D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="[df]" title="[df]" class="latex" /> as above. Putting this together we deduce the following:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Corollary (Gromov):</strong> A Kähler group is either finite, or has 1 end.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Proof: A group with two ends is virtually equal to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BZ%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{Z}" title="&#92;mathbb{Z}" class="latex" />, which is not Kähler because it has <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=b%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="b^1" title="b^1" class="latex" /> odd. A group with infinitely many ends has nontrivial reduced <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />-cohomology in dimension one. But for a Kähler group, this implies the group is commensurable with the fundamental group of a closed surface of genus at least 2; such groups have only 1 end after all. qed</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>6. Ends and extensions</strong></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The arguments of Gromov can be generalized considerably. It should be remarked from the outset that at very few points in the proof of Gromov&#8217;s theorem did we use the fact that the manifold <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde%7BM%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;tilde{M}" title="&#92;tilde{M}" class="latex" /> was the universal cover of M.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">The following is proved by Arapura-Bressler-Ramachandran:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Theorem (Arapura-Bressler-Ramachandran): </strong> Let M be a complete Kähler manifold with bounded geometry, and suppose that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E1_%7B%282%29%2C%5Ctext%7Bex%7D%7D%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(M)" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(M)" class="latex" /> has dimension at least 2. Then there is a hyperbolic Riemann surface S and a proper holomorphic map <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=M+%5Cto+S&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="M &#92;to S" title="M &#92;to S" class="latex" /> with connected fibers. Moreover, the fibers of the map are permuted by the holomorphic automorphisms of M, and the map induces an isomorphism from <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E1_%7B%282%29%2C%5Ctext%7Bex%7D%7D%28S%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(S)" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(S)" class="latex" /> to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E1_%7B%282%29%2C%5Ctext%7Bex%7D%7D%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(M)" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(M)" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Here the subscript &#8220;ex&#8221; means the harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> 1-forms which are exact (as ordinary forms). Given an exact harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> we can take the holomorphic (1,0) part <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi" title="&#92;varphi" class="latex" /> which is <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> and closed. But we <em>cannot</em> assume it is exact if <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(M)" title="H^1(M)" class="latex" /> is nontrivial. If we only have one <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" />, then we are more or less stuck. But if we have at least <em>two</em> such forms, then the following remarkable Lemma (due originally to Gromov) applies:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Lemma (cup product):</strong> Let M be a complete Kähler manifold with bounded geometry, and let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha_1%2C%5Calpha_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha_1,&#92;alpha_2" title="&#92;alpha_1,&#92;alpha_2" class="latex" /> be real, harmonic exact <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> 1-forms. Let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_i" title="&#92;varphi_i" class="latex" /> be their (1,0)-components. Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%5Cwedge%5Cvarphi_2%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge&#92;varphi_2=0" title="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge&#92;varphi_2=0" class="latex" /> pointwise.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Proof: The first remark to make is that on a complete Kähler manifold with bounded geometry, any harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form is actually bounded. Equivalently, since harmonic forms are smooth, there is no sequence of points <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=p_i&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="p_i" title="p_i" class="latex" /> going off to infinity such that the operator norms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7C%5Calpha%7C_%7Bp_i%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|&#92;alpha|_{p_i}" title="|&#92;alpha|_{p_i}" class="latex" /> diverge. Since the manifold has bounded geometry, we can integrate the square of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> on disjoint balls of definite radius centered at such points, and the claim will therefore follow if we show the integral of the square of a harmonic form on a ball of definite radius is controlled by below by its value at the center. Assume we are in flat space; then this claim is obviously true for a linear form. But a harmonic form satisfies an elliptic 2nd order equation, which shows that the higher derivatives can be controlled in terms of the first derivative; the claim follows.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Now let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> be an exact <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> harmonic form, and write <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%3D+df&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha = df" title="&#92;alpha = df" class="latex" />. Suppose <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpsi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;psi" title="&#92;psi" class="latex" /> is a closed <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form. Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%5Cwedge+%5Cpsi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;psi" title="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;psi" class="latex" /> is in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> because <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha" title="&#92;alpha" class="latex" /> is bounded (as above). If we define <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f_t&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f_t" title="f_t" class="latex" /> to be equal to f where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7Cf%7C%3Ct&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|f|&lt;t" title="|f|&lt;t" class="latex" /> and locally constant elsewhere, then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=df_t&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="df_t" title="df_t" class="latex" /> is equal to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=df&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="df" title="df" class="latex" /> where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%7Cf%7C%3Ct&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="|f|&lt;t" title="|f|&lt;t" class="latex" /> and vanishes elsewhere. But now <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f_t&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f_t" title="f_t" class="latex" /> is bounded, so <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f_t%5Cpsi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f_t&#92;psi" title="f_t&#92;psi" class="latex" /> is in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />, whereas <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=d%28f_t%5Cpsi%29+%3D+df_t%5Cwedge+%5Cpsi+%5Cto+%5Calpha+%5Cwedge+%5Cpsi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="d(f_t&#92;psi) = df_t&#92;wedge &#92;psi &#92;to &#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;psi" title="d(f_t&#92;psi) = df_t&#92;wedge &#92;psi &#92;to &#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;psi" class="latex" /> in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />. We deduce that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Calpha+%5Cwedge+%5Cpsi&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;psi" title="&#92;alpha &#92;wedge &#92;psi" class="latex" /> is zero in reduced cohomology.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Finally, if we let <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_j+%3D+df_j+%2B+i%5Cbeta_j&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_j = df_j + i&#92;beta_j" title="&#92;varphi_j = df_j + i&#92;beta_j" class="latex" /> be the decomposition of the (1,0) forms into real and imaginary parts, then we compute</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%5Cwedge+%5Cvarphi_2+%3D+%28df_1%5Cwedge+df_2+-+%5Cbeta_1%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta_2%29+%2B+i%28df_1%5Cwedge+%5Cbeta_2+%2B+%5Cbeta_1%5Cwedge+df_2%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge &#92;varphi_2 = (df_1&#92;wedge df_2 - &#92;beta_1&#92;wedge &#92;beta_2) + i(df_1&#92;wedge &#92;beta_2 + &#92;beta_1&#92;wedge df_2)" title="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge &#92;varphi_2 = (df_1&#92;wedge df_2 - &#92;beta_1&#92;wedge &#92;beta_2) + i(df_1&#92;wedge &#92;beta_2 + &#92;beta_1&#92;wedge df_2)" class="latex" /></p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Now, the imaginary part of this is harmonic and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" />; on the other hand, we have just shown it is trivial in reduced <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> cohomology. Thus it must vanish identically. But then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%5Cwedge+%5Cvarphi_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge &#92;varphi_2" title="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge &#92;varphi_2" class="latex" /> must vanish identically too, proving the lemma. qed</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">It follows that the space <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E1_%7B%282%29%2C%5Ctext%7Bex%7D%7D%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(M)" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^1_{(2),&#92;text{ex}}(M)" class="latex" /> determines (by taking holomorphic parts) an <em>isotropic</em> subspace of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BH%7D%5E%7B1%2C0%7D_%7B%282%29%7D%28M%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{H}^{1,0}_{(2)}(M)" title="&#92;mathcal{H}^{1,0}_{(2)}(M)" class="latex" />, which by hypothesis has dimension at least 2. Each form in this space determines a complex codimension 1 foliation whose leaves are tangent to the kernel, and because the forms are closed and the space is isotropic, this foliation <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BF%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{F}" title="&#92;mathcal{F}" class="latex" /> is independent of the choice of form. Furthermore, on any open subset where two such holomorphic 1-forms <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%2C%5Cvarphi_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1,&#92;varphi_2" title="&#92;varphi_1,&#92;varphi_2" class="latex" /> do not both vanish, the ratio <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%2F%5Cvarphi_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1/&#92;varphi_2" title="&#92;varphi_1/&#92;varphi_2" class="latex" /> defines a holomorphic map to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}" title="&#92;mathbb{C}" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">At this point the following fact is extremely handy:</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Proposition:</strong> Let M be a connected complex manifold (not assumed to be compact!) and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1" title="&#92;varphi_1" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_2" title="&#92;varphi_2" class="latex" /> linearly independent closed holomorphic 1-forms with <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%5Cwedge+%5Cvarphi_2%3D0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge &#92;varphi_2=0" title="&#92;varphi_1&#92;wedge &#92;varphi_2=0" class="latex" />. Then <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1%2F%5Cvarphi_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1/&#92;varphi_2" title="&#92;varphi_1/&#92;varphi_2" class="latex" /> has no indeterminacy; i.e. it defines a holomorphic map from M to <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" title="&#92;mathbb{P}^1" class="latex" />.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">This Proposition is Lemma 2.2 in a <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1600387">paper</a> of Napier-Ramachandran, where they seem to suggest that the fact is standard, but give an elementary proof. Since the argument is local, one can write <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_1+%3D+df_1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_1 = df_1" title="&#92;varphi_1 = df_1" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cvarphi_2+%3D+df_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;varphi_2 = df_2" title="&#92;varphi_2 = df_2" class="latex" /> and then one observes that the functions <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=f_1%2Cf_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="f_1,f_2" title="f_1,f_2" class="latex" /> are locally constant on the fiber over each point <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Czeta+%5Cin+%5Cmathbb%7BP%7D%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;zeta &#92;in &#92;mathbb{P}^1" title="&#92;zeta &#92;in &#92;mathbb{P}^1" class="latex" />; the argument then follows essentially from a (co)dimension count.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;">Anyway, once this proposition is proved, it follows that the components of the level sets of this function agree with the leaves of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathcal%7BF%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathcal{F}" title="&#92;mathcal{F}" class="latex" />, which can be taken to be the points of a Riemann surface S. An argument similar to the one above (using a pair of real harmonic functions instead of a single holomorphic function in the coarea formula) shows that some, and therefore every, leaf is compact of bounded volume. Pulling back an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> form on S gives something <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> by uniform boundedness of the volume of the fibers; conversely, exact harmonic <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> forms on M descend to S because they are constant on the leaves of the foliation. This proves the theorem.</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"><strong>Corollary:</strong> Let G be a Kähler group, and suppose there is an exact sequence</p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=0+%5Cto+K+%5Cto+G+%5Cto+H+%5Cto+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="0 &#92;to K &#92;to G &#92;to H &#92;to 0" title="0 &#92;to K &#92;to G &#92;to H &#92;to 0" class="latex" /></p>
<p>where <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7B%5Cell_2H%7D%5E1%28H%29%5Cne+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2H}^1(H)&#92;ne 0" title="&#92;overline{&#92;ell_2H}^1(H)&#92;ne 0" class="latex" /> and <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=b%5E1%28K%29%3C%5Cinfty&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="b^1(K)&lt;&#92;infty" title="b^1(K)&lt;&#92;infty" class="latex" />. Then H is commensurable to the fundamental group of a compact Riemann surface of genus at least 2.</p>
<p>Proof: Let M be a compact Kähler manifold with fundamental group G, and let N be the cover with fundamental group K. Then H acts on N cocompactly, and it follows that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5E1%28N%29%5Cne+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(N)&#92;ne 0" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(N)&#92;ne 0" class="latex" />. An unbounded sequence of deck transformations must push most of the mass of an <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=L_2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="L_2" title="L_2" class="latex" /> harmonic form off to infinity, so necessarily the space  <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Coverline%7BL_2H%7D%5E1%28N%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(N)" title="&#92;overline{L_2H}^1(N)" class="latex" /> is infinite dimensional; since <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28N%29+%3D+H%5E1%28K%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(N) = H^1(K)" title="H^1(N) = H^1(K)" class="latex" /> is finite dimensional, there is an infinite dimensional space of exact forms. Thus N fibers over S as above. Since the map from N to S is surjective on fundamental groups, it follows that S is of finite type (because <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=H%5E1%28N%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="H^1(N)" title="H^1(N)" class="latex" /> is finite dimensional). But the deck group H acts on S discretely and cocompactly by holomorphic automorphisms (which are isometries in the hyperbolic metric), so actually S is the disk. qed</p>
<p><strong>Example (<a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1397055">Arapura</a>):</strong> The pure braid group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=P_n&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="P_n" title="P_n" class="latex" /> surjects onto a (virtually) free group, with finitely generated kernel, and therefore it is never Kähler. Note that <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=b%5E1%28P_n%29+%3D+n%28n-1%29%2F2&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="b^1(P_n) = n(n-1)/2" title="b^1(P_n) = n(n-1)/2" class="latex" /> so these groups can&#8217;t always be ruled out as Kähler groups on the oddness of <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=b%5E1&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="b^1" title="b^1" class="latex" /> alone. On the other hand, pure braid groups are fundamental groups of hyperplane complements: the group <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=P_n&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="P_n" title="P_n" class="latex" /> is the fundamental group of the space of ordered distinct n-tuples of points in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}" title="&#92;mathbb{C}" class="latex" />, which is the complement of a hyperplane arrangement in <img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BC%7D%5En&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0" alt="&#92;mathbb{C}^n" title="&#92;mathbb{C}^n" class="latex" />. So it follows that this quasiprojective variety can&#8217;t be compactified in such a way as that the compactifying locus has big codimension (or one could apply the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem).</p>
<p style="text-align:left;"> (Updated November 26: added references)</p>
]]></html></oembed>