Excess decay for minimizing hypercurrents \(\bmod \, 2Q\) (Q6604004)

From MaRDI portal





scientific article; zbMATH DE number 7912343
Language Label Description Also known as
default for all languages
No label defined
    English
    Excess decay for minimizing hypercurrents \(\bmod \, 2Q\)
    scientific article; zbMATH DE number 7912343

      Statements

      Excess decay for minimizing hypercurrents \(\bmod \, 2Q\) (English)
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      12 September 2024
      0 references
      The paper under review naturally follows two previous papers, by four of the authors, namely, [\textit{C. De Lellis} et al., Geom. Funct. Anal. 30, No. 5, 1224--1336 (2020; Zbl 1456.49032)], and [\textit{C. De Lellis} et al., Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 75, No. 1, 83--127 (2022; Zbl 1500.49026)]. In its contents there are considered area minimizing currents mod an integer \(p\geq2\) which have codimension \(1\) in a given \(C^2\) Riemannian ambient manifold. \NThe authors make use of some methods of above mentioned papers, altogether with another previous paper: [\textit{C. De Lellis} and \textit{E. Spadaro}, Geom. Funct. Anal. 24, No. 6, 1831--1884 (2014; Zbl 1307.49043)]. \N\NThey prove through their main results, stated as Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, an excess-decay estimate towards the unique tangent cone at every point where at least one such tangent cone is \(Q\) copies of a single plane, here \(p = 2Q\). \NOne should mention at this point that in a recent paper by \textit{P. Minter} and \textit{N. Wickramasekera} [J. Am. Math. Soc. 37, No. 3, 861--927 (2024; Zbl 1542.53016)], a result similar to the crucial Theorem 1.2 has also been handled by different means. This result has also partially been considered in an another paper by \textit{C. De Lellis} et al. [``Fine structure of the singular set of area minimizing hypersurfaces modulo $p$'', Preprint, \url{arXiv:2201.10204}], \Nwhile here the striking result, Theorem 1.3, has its proof (Section 3) based in two central decay propositions, the first of them Proposition 3.2, which has its proof in Section 5 and is based on Lemma 5.1 and Proposition 4.3, and second of them is the fundamental Proposition 3.3, see also [Minter and Wickramasekera, loc.cit.], where a similar decay statement has been proved as a consequence of a theory for stable varifolds. The long and delicate proof of Proposition 3.3 is divided into many sections, from section 6 to section 13, whereby several tools introduced by the authors in previous articles, for instance from the second article [Zbl 1500.49026] quoted above under more stringent conditions are suitably adapted, and extended in the paper, in order to conform with the new technical difficulties presented in distinct ways.
      0 references
      minimal surfaces
      0 references
      Plateau's problem
      0 references
      theory of currents
      0 references
      currents modulo p
      0 references
      regularity theory for elliptic PDE
      0 references
      branched singularities
      0 references
      excess decay
      0 references
      uniqueness of tangent cones
      0 references

      Identifiers