1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}
2: \include{epsf}
3: \usepackage{latexsym, amssymb, amsmath, theorem}
4: \usepackage{calc, epsfig}
5: \pagestyle{myheadings}
6: \markboth{A.~Glutsyuk}{Simple proofs of uniformization theorems}
7:
8: \setlength{\textwidth}{15.5cm}
9: \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
10: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{1cm}
11: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{1cm}
12: \setlength{\headheight}{12pt}
13: \setlength{\headsep}{20pt}
14: \setlength{\topmargin}{0cm}
15:
16: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
17: \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
18:
19: \theoremstyle{change}
20: \theorembodyfont{\itshape}
21: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
22: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
23: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
24: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
25:
26: \theorembodyfont{\rmfamily}
27: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
28: \newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
29: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
30: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
31: \newenvironment{proof}{{\noindent \textbf{Proof}\,\,}}{\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$\medskip}
32: \def\rd{\mathbb R^2}
33: \def\cc{\mathbb C}
34: \def\bc{\overline{\cc}}
35: \def\ci{C^{\infty}}
36:
37: \title{\textbf
38: {Simple proofs of uniformization theorems}}
39: \author{A.A.Glutsyuk\\[5pt]
40: \textit{CNRS, Unit\'e de Math\'ematiques Pures et Appliqu\'ees, M.R.,} \\
41: \textit{\'Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure de Lyon} \\
42: \textit{46 all\'ee d'Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07 France}}
43: %\\
44: %\textit{Email: aglutsyu$\@$umpa.ens-lyon.fr}}
45: \begin{document}
46: \maketitle
47: \def\td{\mathbb T^2}
48: \begin{abstract}
49: The measurable Riemann mapping theorem proved
50: by Morrey and in some particular cases by Ahlfors, Lavrentiev
51: and Vekua, says that any measurable almost complex
52: structure on $\rd$ ($S^2$) with bounded dilatation is integrable: there is a
53: quasiconformal homeomorphism of $\rd$ ($S^2$) onto $\cc$
54: ($\bc$) transforming the given almost complex structure to the standard one.
55: We give an elementary proof of this theorem that is done as follows.
56: Firstly we prove its double-periodic version: each $\ci$ almost complex
57: structures on the two-torus can be transformed by a diffeomorphism
58: to the standard complex structure on appropriate complex torus. The proof is
59: based on the homotopy method for the Beltrami equation on $\td$
60: with parameter. (As a by-product,
61: we present a simple proof of the Poincar\'e-K\"obe theorem saying that each
62: simply-connected Riemann surface is conformally equivalent to either
63: $\overline{\cc}$, or $\cc$, or the unit disc.) Afterwards the
64: general case is treated by $\ci$ double-periodic approximation and simple
65: normality arguments (involving Gr\"otzsch inequality) following
66: the classical scheme.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \tableofcontents
70: \vspace{.5cm}
71: \hrule
72:
73: \section{Introduction, the plan of the paper and history}
74: \subsection{Uniformization theorems. The plan of the paper}
75: A linear complex structure on $\rd$ is a structure of a linear space
76: over $\mathbb C$ (we fix an orientation and consider it to be
77: compatible with the complex structure).
78: The {\it (almost) complex structure} on a real two-dimensional surface is
79: a family of linear complex structures on the tangent planes at its points.
80: A linear complex structure on $\rd$ defines an ellipse
81: in $\rd$ centered at 0, which is an orbit under the $S^1$- action
82: by multiplication by complex numbers with unit module. (The ellipse
83: corresponding to the standard complex structure on $\cc$ is a circle.)
84: The {\it dilatation} of a nonstandard linear complex structure on $\cc$
85: (with respect to the standard complex structure) is the excentricity
86: of the corresponding ellipse (i.e., the ratio of the largest radius over
87: the smallest one). An almost complex
88: structure defines an ellipse field in tangent planes, and vice versa:
89: the ellipse field determines the almost complex structure in a unique way.
90:
91: If our surface is a Riemann surface (with a fixed complex structure),
92: then any (nonstandard) almost complex
93: structure has a well-defined dilatation at each point of the surface.
94: In this case an almost complex structure is said to be {\it bounded},
95: if its dilatation is bounded.
96: The {\it (total) dilatation} of a bounded almost complex structure is
97: the supremum of its dilatations (more precisely, the minimal supremum
98: of dilatations after possible correction of the almost complex
99: structure over a measure zero set).
100:
101: Each real linear isomorphism $\cc\to\cc$ acts on the space of the ellipses centered
102: at 0, and hence, on the space of linear complex structures. Its {\it
103: dilatation} is defined to be the dilatation of the image of the
104: standard complex structure (which is equal to the excentricity of the
105: image of a circle centered at 0).
106: The action of a differentiable homeomorphism of domains in $\mathbb C$
107: on the almost complex structures
108: and its dilatation (at a point) are defined to be those of its derivative.
109: Its {\it (total)} dilatation is the supremum of the dilatations through all
110: the points.
111:
112: It appears that {\it any $\ci$ (and even measurable) bounded almost
113: complex structure is integrable}, that is, can be transformed to a true
114: complex structure by a $\ci$ (respectively, quasiconformal) homeomorphism, see
115: the following Definition and Theorem.
116:
117: \begin{definition} (see, e.g., [Ah2]). Let $K>0$.
118: A homeomorphism of domains in $\cc$ is said to be $K$-
119: {\it quasiconformal} (or $K$- homeomorphism),
120: if it has local $L_2$ derivatives and its dilatation
121: (at the differentiability points with nonzero derivative) is
122: no greater than $K$.
123: A homeomorphism is said to be quasiconformal if it is
124: $K$- quasiconformal for some $K>0$.
125: \end{definition}
126:
127: \begin{remark} \label{grr} The dilatations of a
128: differentiable homeomorphism and its inverse are equal. In particular, the inverse to a $K$- diffeomorphism is also a
129: $K$- diffeomorphism. The composition of two $K$- diffeomorphisms is a
130: $K^2$- diffeomorphism. This follows from definition.
131: \end{remark}
132:
133: \begin{proposition} \label{group} (see [Ah2])
134: The quasiconformal homeomorphisms of a Riemann surface form a group.
135: \end{proposition}
136:
137: \begin{proposition} \label{measure0} The image of a zero measure
138: set under a quasiconformal homeomorphism has also zero measure.
139: \end{proposition}
140:
141: \begin{corollary} \label{cormeasure} For any quasiconformal homeomorphism
142: the set of its differentiability points with zero derivative has measure
143: zero.
144: \end{corollary}
145:
146: \begin{proof} The image of the set from the Corollary has zero measure
147: by definition. Therefore, the set itself has zero measure (Proposition
148: \ref{measure0} applied to the inverse mapping, which is quasiconformal
149: by Proposition \ref{group}).
150: \end{proof}
151:
152: Both Propositions are proved in Subsection 3.4 and neither them, nor the
153: Corollary will be used in the paper.
154:
155: \begin{definition}
156: A homeomorphism $\cc\to\cc$ is said to be {\it normalized}, if it fixes 0 and 1.
157: \end{definition}
158:
159: \begin{theorem} \label{c} ([AhB], [M]). For any measurable
160: bounded almost complex structure $\sigma$ on $\mathbb C$ there exists a unique
161: normalized quasiconformal homeomorphism
162: $\mathbb C\to\mathbb C$ that transforms $\sigma$
163: to the standard complex structure
164: (at the differentiability points with nonzero derivative).
165: If $\sigma$ is $\ci$ in some domain, then
166: the homeomorphism is a $\ci$ diffeomorphism while restricted to this domain.
167: \end{theorem}
168:
169: {\bf Addendum [AhB].} If a bounded almost
170: complex structure on $\cc$ varies analytically in a complex parameter, then
171: so does the corresponding homeomorphism from Theorem \ref{c}.
172: \medskip
173:
174: \begin{remark} A quasiconformal homeomorphism of a once punctured domain
175: extends quasiconformally to the puncture
176: (in particular, the homeomorphism from Theorem \ref{c} is quasiconformal
177: at infinity). This follows easily
178: from the local uniqueness of the quasiconformal homeomorphism up to
179: composition with conformal mapping (Proposition \ref{uniq}, see
180: Subsection 3.4) and the theorem on erasing isolated singularities
181: of bounded holomorphic functions.
182: \end{remark}
183:
184: In the present paper we give proofs of Theorem \ref{c} (Sections 2, 3)
185: and the Addendum (Subsection 3.5)
186: that seem to be simpler than the known proofs and easier to explain.
187: A historical overview will be given in Subsection 1.4.
188:
189: \begin{remark} The proof of the local integrability of an analytic almost
190: complex structure is elementary: it is done immediately
191: by analyzing the complexification of the corresponding $\cc$- linear 1- form
192: (this proof is due to Gauss). But it is already nontrivial in the $\ci$ case.
193: \end{remark}
194:
195: The measurable versions of the Theorem and the Addendum have many
196: very important
197: applications in various domains of mathematics, especially in holomorphic
198: dynamics and the
199: Kleinian group theory (quasiconformal surgery, where one deals with
200: invariant almost complex structures that are discontinuous...), see, e.g.,
201: [CG].
202:
203: For the proof of Theorem \ref{c} we firstly prove (in Section 2) its
204: version for $\ci$ almost
205: complex structures on the two-torus: the proof uses only elementary
206: Fourier analysis.
207:
208: \begin{theorem} \label{td} ([Ab]) For any $\ci$
209: bounded almost complex structure $\sigma$ on $\td$ there exists a
210: $\ci$ diffeomorphism of $\td$ onto appropriate
211: complex torus (the latter torus depends on $\sigma$)
212: that transforms $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure.
213: \end{theorem}
214:
215:
216: Then in Section 3 we deduce Theorem \ref{c} from
217: Theorem \ref{td} by using double-periodic approximations of a given
218: almost complex structure on $\cc$ and simple normality arguments involving a
219: Gr\"otzsch inequality for annuli diffeomorphisms. This deduction
220: follows the classical scheme [Ah2].
221:
222: The proof of Theorem \ref{td} presented below is implicitly contained in the
223: previous paper [Gl] by the author, where the same method was used to
224: prove a foliated version of Theorem \ref{c}. We prove the existence of a global
225: nowhere vanishing $\sigma$- holomorphic differential. To do this,
226: we use the homotopy method for the Beltrami equation with parameter, which
227: reduces the proof to solving a linear
228: ordinary differential equation in $L_2(\td)$. We prove
229: regularity of its solution by
230: showing that the equation is bounded in any Sobolev space $H^s(\td)$.
231:
232: In Subsection 1.3 we give a proof of
233: the classical Poincar\'e-K\"obe uniformization theorem using
234: Theorem \ref{td}:
235: \begin{theorem} \label{pk} [Ko1], [Ko2], [P]. Each simply-connected Riemann surface is
236: conformally equivalent to either unit disc, or $\cc$, or the Riemann sphere.
237: \end{theorem}
238:
239: In the proofs of the previously mentioned Theorems we use the
240: well-known notations (recalled in the next Subsection) concerning
241: almost complex structures.
242: \def\omu{\omega_{\mu}}
243:
244: \subsection{Complex structures and uniformizing differentials. Basic notations}
245:
246: To a (nonstandard) almost complex structure (denoted $\sigma$)
247: on a subset $D\subset \mathbb C$
248: we put into correspondence a $\cc$- valued 1- form that is
249: $\cc$- linear with respect
250: to $\sigma$. The latter form can be normalized to have the type
251: \begin{equation}
252: \omu=dz+\mu(z) d\bar z, \ |\mu|<1.\label{1.1}
253: \end{equation}
254: The function $\mu$ is uniquely defined by $\sigma$. Vice versa, for arbitrary
255: complex-valued function $\mu$, $|\mu|<1$, the 1- form (\ref{1.1}) defines the
256: unique complex structure for which it is $\cc$- linear. We denote by
257: $\sigma_{\mu}$ the almost complex structure thus defined (whenever the contrary
258: is not specified). Then $\sigma_{\mu}$ is bounded, if and only if $\sup|\mu|<1$.
259:
260: \begin{remark} The ellipse associated to $\sigma_{\mu}$
261: on the tangent plane at a point $z$ is given
262: by the equation $|dz+\mu(z)d\bar z|=1$; the dilatation (excentricity) is
263: equal to $\frac{1+|\mu(z)|}{1-|\mu(z)|}$.
264: \end{remark}
265: We will be looking for a
266: differentiable homeomorphism $\Phi(z)$ that is holomorphic, i.e.,
267: that transforms $\sigma_{\mu}$ to the standard complex structure. This is equivalent
268: to say that the differential of $\Phi$ (which is a closed form)
269: is a $\cc$- linear form, i.e., has the type $f(z)(dz+\mu d\bar z)$:
270: $$\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial\bar z}=\mu\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial z}.$$
271:
272: \begin{remark} Conversely, let $\mu$ be $\ci$, $|\mu|<1$.
273: Then any $\ci$ closed
274: 1- form $f(z)(dz+\mu d\bar z)$ is $\sigma_{\mu}$- holomorphic,
275: i.e., is a differential of a complex-valued $\ci$ function $\Phi$ transforming
276: $\sigma_{\mu}$ to the standard complex structure.
277: A form $f(z)(dz+\mu d\bar z)$ is closed if and only if
278: \begin{equation}\partial_{\bar z}f=\partial_z(\mu f).\label{dz}\end{equation}
279: \end{remark}
280: \begin{definition} A Riemann surface is said to be {\it parabolic},
281: if its universal covering is conformally equivalent to $\mathbb C$
282: (i.e, the surface is either $\mathbb C$, or $\mathbb C^*$, or a complex torus).
283: \end{definition}
284:
285: \begin{definition} \label{unifdif} The {\it uniformizing differential} on
286: $\mathbb C$ (or on a complex torus)
287: with the affine coordinate $z$ is the 1- form $dz$ or its nonzero constant
288: multiple. More generally, a holomorphic 1- form on a parabolic Riemann surface
289: is said to be {\it a uniformizing differential}, if the primitive of
290: its lifting to the universal cover is a conformal isomorphism onto $\mathbb C$.
291: \end{definition}
292:
293: \def\smu{\sigma_{\mu}}
294:
295: \begin{remark} \label{umetric} The uniformizing differential is well-defined up
296: to multiplication by constant. It coincides with the unique (up to constant)
297: nowhere vanishing holomorphic differential whose squared module is
298: a complete metric.
299: \end{remark}
300: \begin{proposition} \label{uniftd} Let $\mu:\td\to\cc$ be a $\ci$ function,
301: $|\mu|<1$. Suppose there is a $\ci$
302: nowhere vanishing function $f:\td\to\cc\setminus0$ satisfying (\ref{dz}).
303: Then the corresponding almost complex structure $\sigma_{\mu}$ is
304: integrable and the form $f\omu$
305: is a uniformizing differential of $(\td,\smu)$.
306: \end{proposition}
307:
308: The Proposition follows from compactness and the two previous Remarks.
309:
310: \subsection{Proof of the uniformization Theorem \ref{pk} modulo
311: Theorem \ref{td}}
312:
313: Let $S$ be a simply-connected Riemann surface. Then it is either contractible,
314: then homeomorphic $\rd$, or is homeomorphic to the two-sphere.
315: We prove the statement of Theorem \ref{pk} only in
316: the case, when $S$ is contractible: we show that
317: $S$ is conformally equivalent to
318: either $\cc$ or disc. Then if $S$ is sphere, it follows that
319: $S$ is conformally-equivalent to $\overline{\cc}$ (by the previous
320: statement applied to once punctured $S$ and the theorem on
321: erasing isolated singularities of bounded holomorphic functions).
322: In the proof of Theorem \ref{pk} we use the following Corollary
323: of Theorem \ref{td} and
324: the Riemann mapping theorem (saying that any simply-connected domain in $\cc$
325: distinct from $\cc$ is conformally equivalent to unit disc: the proof
326: is elementary and is contained in standard courses of complex analysis.)
327:
328: \begin{corollary} For any bounded $\ci$ almost complex structure $\sigma$
329: on the closed unit disc $\overline D$ there exists a $\ci$ diffeomorphism of the open
330: disc $D$ onto itself transforming $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure.
331: \end{corollary}
332:
333: \begin{proof} Let us extend $\sigma$
334: to $\rd$ up to a double-periodic bounded $\ci$ almost complex structure
335: (say, with periods $4$ and $4i$) and consider the quotient torus equipped
336: with the induced almost complex structure.
337: Then the corresponding tori diffeomorphism from
338: Theorem \ref{td} transforms the latter structure to the standard one. Its
339: lifting to the universal covers
340: transforms $D$ to a simply-connected domain in $\cc$ and
341: sends $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure. Now applying
342: the Riemann mapping theorem to the image of $D$ proves the Corollary.
343: \end{proof}
344:
345: We assume that the Riemann surface $S$ is contractible, hence,
346: admits a $\ci$ 1-to-1 parametrization by $\rd$.
347: Its complex structure induces a $\ci$ almost complex structure
348: (denote it $\sigma$) on $\rd$
349: (not necessarily bounded). Take a growing sequence of discs
350: $S_1\Subset S_2\Subset\dots S$ exhausting $S$ centered at 0.
351: On each $S_n$ the almost complex structure $\sigma$ is bounded. By the
352: Corollary, for any $n$
353: there is a diffeomorphism $\phi_n:S_n\to D$ conformal with respect
354: to the complex structure of $S$, $\phi_n(0)=0$.
355: Let $w$ be a local holomorphic chart on $S$ near 0, $w(0)=0$.
356: Let us change $\phi_n$ to its constant multiple
357: $\Phi_n=\lambda_n\phi_n$ having unit derivative in $w$ at 0. The family
358: $\Phi_n$ is normal: each subsequence contains a subsequence converging
359: uniformly on compact sets in $S$. Indeed, fix a $k\in\mathbb N$
360: and consider the $\ci$ injections
361: $\Phi_n\circ\phi_k^{-1}:D\to\Phi_n(S_n)$, $n\geq k$. By construction, the
362: latters are holomorphic and univalent, they
363: send 0 to 0 and have one and the same derivative at 0. Therefore, they form a
364: normal family, see [CG], hence, so do the $\Phi_n$'s. By construction, the
365: limit of a converging subsequence of the $\Phi_n$' s is a conformal
366: diffeomorphism of $S$ onto either a disc, or $\cc$. Theorem \ref{pk} is proved.
367:
368: \def\onu{\omega_{\nu}}
369:
370: \subsection{Historical overview} The local integrability of a
371: $\ci$ (and even H\"older) almost complex structure was proved by
372: Korn [Korn] and Lichtenstein [Licht]; a simpler proof was obtained
373: by Chern [Chern] and Bers [Be]. The local integrability together with the
374: Poincar\'e-K\"obe uniformization Theorem \ref{pk} imply the
375: global integrability statement of Theorem \ref{c}. Lavrentiev [La]
376: gave a direct proof of Theorem \ref{c} for continuous almost complex
377: structures. Later Ahlfors [Ah1] and Vekua [Vek] gave another direct proofs
378: under the previous (stronger) H\"older condition.
379:
380: In the general measurable case Theorem \ref{c} was proved by Morrey [M].
381: Later new proofs were obtained by Ahlfors and Bers [AhB], Bers and
382: Nirenberg [BeN] and Boyarskii [Bo].
383: (In fact, Lavrentiev and Morrey stated
384: their theorems for almost complex structures on a disc, but their versions
385: on $\rd$ follow immediately, e.g., by the arguments from the previous
386: Subsection.) A new simpler proof of Theorem \ref{c}
387: using $L_2$ analysis and Fourier transformation on $\rd$
388: was recently obtained by A.Douady and X.Buff [DB].
389:
390: \section{Smooth complex structures on $\td$. Proof of Theorem \ref{td}}
391:
392: \subsection{Homotopy method. The sketch of the proof of Theorem \ref{td}}
393:
394: Let $\mu:\td\to\cc$ be a $\ci$ complex-valued function, $|\mu|<1$,
395: $\smu$ be the corresponding almost complex structure, see (\ref{1.1}).
396: Theorem \ref{td} says that there exists
397: a diffeomorphism transforming $(\td,\smu)$ into a complex torus equipped
398: with the standard complex structure. To prove this statement,
399: it suffices to construct
400: a uniformizing differential, more precisely, a $\ci$ nowhere vanishing
401: function $f:\td\to\cc\setminus0$ such that the form $f\omu$ is closed
402: (see Proposition \ref{uniftd}), i.e., to solve partial differential
403: equation (\ref{dz}) in a $\ci$ nowhere vanishing function $f$.
404:
405:
406: To solve (\ref{dz}), we use the homotopy method.
407: Namely, we include $\smu$ into the one-parametric
408: family of complex structures (denoted by $\sigma_{\nu}$) defined by their
409: $\mathbb C$- linear 1- forms
410: $$\onu=dz+\nu(z,t)d\bar z,\ \nu(z,t)=t\mu(z),\ t\in[0,1].$$
411: The complex structure corresponding to the parameter value $t=0$ is the
412: standard one, the given structure $\sigma_{\mu}$ corresponds to
413: $t=1$.
414: We will find a $C^{\infty}$ family $f(z,t):\td\times[0,1]\to\cc\setminus0$ of
415: complex-valued nowhere vanishing $C^{\infty}$ functions on $\td$ depending on
416: the same parameter $t$, $f(z,0)\equiv1$, such that the differential forms
417: $f(z,t)\onu$ are closed, i.e.,
418: \begin{equation} \partial_{\bar z}f=\partial_z(f\nu).\label{dzt}\end{equation}
419: Then the function $f=f(z,1)$ is the one we are looking for.
420:
421: To construct the previous family of functions, we will find firstly
422: a family $f(z,t)$ of
423: {\it nonidentically-vanishing} (not necessarily nowhere vanishing)
424: functions satisfying (\ref{dzt}):
425:
426: \begin{lemma} \label{homot} Let $\nu(z,t):\td\times[0,1]\to\cc$ be a $\ci$ family of
427: $C^{\infty}$ functions on $\td$, $|\nu|<1$, $\nu(z,0)\equiv0$, $z$ be
428: the complex coordinate on $\td$. There exists a $\ci$ family
429: $f(z,t):\td\times[0,1]\to\cc$ of $\ci$ functions on $\td$ that are solutions of
430: (\ref{dzt}) with the initial condition
431: $f(z,0)\equiv1$ such that for any fixed $t\in[0,1]$ $f(z,t)\not\equiv0$ in $z$.
432: \end{lemma}
433:
434: The Lemma will be proved in the next Subsection.
435:
436: Below we show that in fact, the functions $f(z,t)$ from the Lemma vanish
437: nowhere. To do this (and only in this place) we use the
438: local integrability of a $\ci$ complex structure:
439:
440: \begin{proposition} \label{loc} ([Korn], [Licht], [La], [Chern], [Be]).
441: Let $D\subset\cc$ be a disc centered at 0,
442: $\mu:D\to\cc$, $\mu\in\ci$, $|\mu|<1$, $\smu$ be the corresponding
443: almost complex structure, see (\ref{1.1}). There exists a
444: local $\sigma_{\mu}$- holomorphic univalent coordinate near 0.
445: \end{proposition}
446:
447: The Proposition will be proved in Subsection 2.3.
448:
449: \begin{proof} {\bf of Theorem \ref{td} modulo Lemma \ref{homot}
450: and Proposition \ref{loc}.} Let $f(z,t)$ be a family of functions
451: from the previous Lemma. By the previous discussion, it suffices
452: to show that $f(z,t)\neq0$. This inequality holds for $t=0$, where $f=1$.
453:
454: Let us prove that $f(z,t)\neq0$ by contradiction. Suppose the contrary.
455: Then the set of the parameter values $t$ corresponding to the functions $f(z,t)$
456: having zeroes is nonempty (denote this set by $M$). Its complement
457: $[0,1]\setminus M$ is open by definition. Let us show that the set $M$ is open
458: as well. This will imply that the parameter segment is a union of two disjoint
459: open sets, which will bring us to contradiction. It suffices to show that
460: the (local) presense of a zero of a function $f$ persists under perturbation.
461:
462: Suppose $f(z_0,t)=0$ for some $z_0$, $t$ (let us fix them). It suffices to
463: show that for $t'$ close to $t$ the function $f(z,t')$ has a zero
464: near $z_0$. Let $w$
465: be the local holomorphic coordinate on $\td$ near $z_0$ from the previous
466: Proposition corresponding to $\mu=\nu(z,t)$, $w(z_0)=0$.
467: Suppose that
468: the function $f(z,t)$ does not vanish identically on $\td$
469: locally near $z_0$: one can achieve this by changing
470: $z_0$, since $f$ does not vanish identically. Recall that $f\onu$ is
471: a closed $\cc$- linear 1-form with respect to the variable complex structure
472: $\sigma_{\nu}$, hence, it is holomorphic in the
473: coordinate $w$. Therefore, $f\onu=(w^k+\text{higher terms})dw$, $k\geq1$.
474: Now by the index argument, the local presense of zero of $f$ on
475: $\td$ persists under
476: perturbation. This together with the previous discussion proves the inequality
477: $f(z,t)\neq0$ and Theorem \ref{td}.
478: \end{proof}
479:
480: \subsection{Variable holomorphic differential: proof of Lemma \ref{homot}}
481:
482: Differentiating (\ref{dzt}) in $t$ yields (we denote
483: $\dot f$ the partial derivative in $t$ of a function $f$)
484: \begin{equation}
485: \partial_{\bar z}\dot f-(\partial_z\circ\nu)\dot f=(\partial_z\circ\dot\nu)f.\label{2.2}
486: \end{equation}
487: where $\partial_z\circ\nu$ ($\partial_z\circ\dot\nu$) is the composition of the operator
488: of the multiplication by the function $\nu$ (respectively, $\dot\nu$) and the
489: operator $\partial_z$.
490: Any solution $f$ of equation (\ref{2.2}) with the initial condition
491: $f(z,0)\equiv1$
492: that vanishes identically on the torus for no value of $t$ is a one we
493: are looking for. Let us show that (\ref{2.2}) is implied by a bounded
494: linear differential equation in $L_2(\td)$. To do this,
495: we use the following properties of the operators $\partial_z$ and $\partial_{\bar z}$.
496:
497: \begin{remark} Denote $z=x_1+ix_2$, $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\rd$.
498: The operators $\partial_z$, $\partial_{\bar z}$ on $\td$ have common eigenfunctions
499: $e_n(x)=e^{i(n,x)}$, $n=(n_1,n_2)\in\mathbb Z^2$. The corresponding eigenvalues
500: (denote them $\lambda_n$ and $\lambda_n'$ respectively) have equal modules,
501: more precisely,
502: \begin{equation}\lambda_n'=-\overline{\lambda_n}.\label{2.3}\end{equation}
503: This is implied by the fact that the operator $\partial_{\bar z}$ is conjugated to
504: $-\partial_z$ in the $L_2$ scalar product, which follows from definition. In fact,
505: $$\lambda_n=\frac i2(n_1-in_2),\ \lambda_n'=\frac i2(n_1+in_2).$$
506: \end{remark}
507:
508: \begin{corollary} There exists a unique unitary operator $U:L_2(\td)\to
509: L_2(\td)$ preserving averages such that "$U=\partial_{\bar z}^{-1}\circ\partial_z$"
510: (more precisely, $U\circ\partial_{\bar z}=\partial_{\bar z}\circ U=\partial_z$). The operator
511: $U$ commutes with partial differentiations and extends up to a unitary operator
512: to any Hilbert Sobolev space of functions on $\td$. In particular, it preserves
513: the space of $\ci$ functions.
514: \end{corollary}
515: \begin{proof}
516: The operator $U$ from the Corollary is defined to have the previous
517: eigenfunctions $e_n$ with the eigenvalues $\frac{\lambda_n}{\lambda_n'}=
518: \frac{n_1-in_2}{n_1+in_2}$. Its uniqueness follows immediately from the
519: previous operator equation on $U$ applied to the functions $e_n$.
520: The rest of the statements of the Corollary follow immediately
521: from definition and Sobolev embedding theorem (see [Ch], p.411).
522: \end{proof}
523:
524: Let us write down equation (\ref{2.2}) in terms of the new operator $U$. Applying
525: the "operator" $\partial_{\bar z}^{-1}$ to (\ref{2.2}) and substituting
526: $U=\partial_{\bar z}^{-1}\circ \partial_z$ yields
527: $$(Id-U\circ\nu)\dot f=(U\circ\dot\nu)f.$$
528: This equation implies (\ref{2.2}). For any $t\in[0,1]$ the operator
529: $Id-U\circ\nu$ in the left-hand side is invertible in $L_2(\td)$ and
530: the norm of the
531: inverse operator is bounded uniformly in $t$, since $U$ is unitary and the
532: module
533: $|\nu|$ is less than 1 and bounded away from 1 by compactness.
534: Thus, the last equation can be rewritten as
535: \begin{equation}
536: \dot f=(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}(U\circ\dot\nu)f,\label{2.6}
537: \end{equation}
538: which is an ordinary differential equation in $f\in L_2(\td)$ with a
539: uniformly $L_2$- bounded operator in the right-hand side.
540: As it is shown below
541: (in Proposition \ref{2.70}), the inverse $(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}$ is also uniformly
542: bounded in each Hilbert Sobolev space $H^j(\td)$.
543: Therefore, equation (\ref{2.6}) written in arbitrary Hilbert Sobolev space has a
544: unique solution
545: with a given initial condition, in particular, with $f(z,0)\equiv1$ (the
546: theorem on existence and uniqueness of solution of ordinary
547: differential equation in Banach space with the right-hand side having
548: uniformly bounded derivative [Ch]). For any $t\in[0,1]$ this solution does
549: not vanish identically on $\td$ (uniqueness of solution) and belongs to
550: all the spaces $H^j(\td)$; hence, it is $C^{\infty}(\td)$ by Sobolev embedding
551: theorem (see [Ch], p.411). Thus, Lemma \ref{homot} is implied by the following
552:
553: \begin{proposition} \label{2.70} Let $x=(x_1,x_2)$ be affine coordinates on
554: $\mathbb R^2$,
555: $\td=\mathbb R^2\slash2\pi\mathbb Z^2$.
556: Let $s\geq0$, $s\in\mathbb Z$, $U$ be a linear operator
557: in the space of $C^{\infty}$ functions on $\td$ that commutes with the operators
558: $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$, $i=1,2$, and extends to any Sobolev space
559: $H^j=H^j(\td)$, $0\leq j\leq s$, up to a unitary operator. Let $0<\delta<1$,
560: $\nu\in C^s(\td)$ be a complex-valued function,
561: $|\nu|\leq\delta$. The operator $Id-U\circ\nu$ is invertible and the
562: inverse operator
563: is bounded in all the spaces $H^j$, $0\leq j\leq s$.
564: For any $0<\delta<1$, $j\leq s$, there
565: exists a constant $C>0$ (depending only on $\delta$ and $s$) such that for any
566: complex-valued function $\nu\in C^s(\td)$ with $|\nu|\leq\delta$
567: $$||(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}||_{H^j}\leq C(1+\sum_{k\leq j}\max
568: |\frac{\partial^k\nu}{\partial x_{i_1}, \dots,\partial x_{i_k}}|^j).$$
569: \end{proposition}
570:
571: \begin{proof} Let us prove the Proposition for $s=1$. For higher $s$ its proof is
572: analogous.
573: \begin{equation}\text{By definition,}\ \
574: ||U\circ\nu||_{L_2}\leq\delta<1.\label{2.7}
575: \end{equation}
576: %2.7
577: Hence, the operator
578: $Id-U\circ\nu$ is invertible in $L_2=H^0$ and
579: \begin{equation}
580: (Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}=Id+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(U\circ\nu)^k:\label{2.8}
581: \end{equation}
582: the sum of the $L_2$ operator norms of the sum entries in
583: (\ref{2.8}) is finite by (\ref{2.7}).
584: Let us show that the operator in the right-hand side of (\ref{2.8}) is well-defined
585: and bounded in $H^1$.
586: To do this, it suffices to show that the sum of the operator $H^1$- norms of
587: the same entries is finite.
588:
589: Let $f\in H^1(\td)$. Let us estimate
590: $||(U\circ\nu)^kf||_{H^1}$. We show that for any $k\in\mathbb N$
591: \begin{equation}
592: ||\frac{\partial}{\partial x_r}((U\circ\nu)^kf)||_{L_2}<ck\delta^{k-1}
593: ||f||_{H^1}, \ \ c=\delta+\max|\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial x_r}|,\ \
594: r=1,2.\label{2.9}
595: \end{equation}
596:
597: This will imply the finiteness of the operator $H^1$- norm of the sum in the
598: right-hand
599: side of (\ref{2.8}) and Proposition \ref{2.70}
600: (with $C=4\sum_{k\in\mathbb N}k\delta^{k-1}=
601: \frac4{(1-\delta)^2}$).
602:
603: Let us prove (\ref{2.9}), e.g., for $r=1$. The derivative in the
604: left-hand side of (\ref{2.9}) equals
605: $$(U\circ\nu)^k\frac{\partial f}{\partial
606: x_1}+\sum_{i=1}^k(U\circ\nu)^{k-i}
607: \circ(U\circ\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial x_1})\circ(U\circ\nu)^{i-1}f$$
608: (since $U$ commutes with the partial differentiation by the condition of
609: Proposition \ref{2.70}). The $L_2$- norm of the first term in the previous formula
610: is no greater than
611: $\delta^k||f||_{H^1}$ by (\ref{2.7}). Each term in its sum has $L_2$- norm
612: no greater
613: than $\delta^{k-1}\max|\frac{\partial\nu}{\partial x_1}|||f||_{L_2}$ by (\ref{2.7}).
614: This proves (\ref{2.9}). The Proposition is proved. Lemma \ref{homot}
615: is proved.
616: \end{proof}
617: \begin{remark} The solution of equation (\ref{2.6}) with the initial condition
618: $f|_{t=0}\equiv1$ admits the following formula:
619: \begin{equation}
620: f(x,t)=(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}(1)=
621: 1+U(\nu)+(U\circ\nu\circ U)(\dot\nu)+\dots\label{2.10}
622: \end{equation}
623: Indeed, its right-hand side is a well defined $\ci$
624: family of $C^{\infty}$ functions on $\td$, which follows from the
625: uniform boundedness of the operators $(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}$ in any given
626: Hilbert Sobolev space. By definition, it satisfies the unit initial
627: condition. Differentiating (\ref{2.10}) in $t$ yields
628: $$(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}\circ (U\circ\dot\nu)\circ(Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}(1)=
629: (Id-U\circ\nu)^{-1}\circ(U\circ\dot\nu)f(x,t).$$
630: Hence, the function (\ref{2.10}) satisfies (\ref{2.6}).
631: \end{remark}
632:
633: \def\wt#1{\widetilde#1}
634: \def\tdv{\mathbb T^2}
635:
636: \subsection{Zero of holomorphic differential. Proof of Proposition \ref{loc}}
637: Let us prove the existence of local holomorphic coordinate. Without loss of
638: generality we assume that $\mu(0)=0$ (applying a linear change of variables).
639: One can achieve also that $\mu$ is arbitrarily
640: small with derivatives of orders up to 3 applying a homothety and taking
641: the restriction to a smaller disc centered at 0.
642: We consider that the disc where $\mu$ is defined
643: is embedded into $\td$ and extend the
644: function $\mu$ smoothly to $\td$. We assume that the extended function
645: satisfies the inequality $||\mu||_{C^3(\td)}<\delta$; one can make $\delta$
646: arbitrarily small.
647:
648: Let $\nu(x,t)=t\mu$, $f(x,t)$ be the corresponding function
649: family from Lemma \ref{homot} constructed as the solution of
650: differential equation (\ref{2.6}) with unit initial condition, $f(x)=f(x,1)$.
651: We show in the next paragraph
652: that $f(0)\neq0$, if the previous constant $\delta$ is small enough.
653: Then the local coordinate we are looking for is the function
654: $$w(z)=\int_0^zf(dz+\mu d\bar z).$$
655: Indeed, it is well-defined and holomorphic by definition. Its local univalence
656: follows from the nondegeneracy of its differential
657: $f(0)(dz+\mu d\bar z)$ at 0 (the inequalities $|\mu|<1$, $f(0)\neq0$).
658:
659: Recall that by (\ref{2.10}),
660: $$f(x,t)=(Id-tU\circ\mu)^{-1}(1), \ \text{where}\
661: U=(\partial_{\bar z})^{-1}
662: \partial_z.$$ The functions $f(x,t)$ are equal to 1, if
663: $\mu=0$. Let us show that they are $C^0$- close to 1 (and hence,
664: $f(0,1)\neq0$), whenever $\mu$ is small enough with
665: derivatives up to order 3. Consider the operator functional
666: $\mathcal A(\mu)=(Id-tU\circ\mu)^{-1}$: its value being an operator
667: acting in $H^3(\td)$ (it is well-defined, see Proposition \ref{2.70}).
668: As it will be shown in the next paragraph, it
669: depends continuously on small functional parameter $\mu\in C^3(\td)$,
670: $max|\mu|<1$, in the
671: $H^3(\td)$ operator norm, and moreover, it has a bounded derivative in $\mu$.
672: Therefore, if $||\mu||_{C^3}$ is small enough, then each function $f(x,t)$
673: is close to 1 in $H^3$ (thus, in $C^0$, by Sobolev embedding theorem).
674:
675: Now for the proof of Proposition \ref{loc} it suffices to prove
676: the boundedness of the previous derivative $\mathcal A'(\mu)$.
677: For any $0<\delta'<1$ the $\mathcal A(\mu)$ is uniformly bounded in all
678: $\mu$ with $||\mu||_{C^3}<\delta'$
679: (Proposition \ref{2.70}), so, we can apply the usual formula for
680: the derivative of the inverse operator: the derivative of $\mathcal A(\mu)$
681: along a vector $h\in C^3(\td)$ is equal to
682: $$\nabla_h\mathcal A(\mu)=\mathcal A(\mu)\circ U\circ h\circ\mathcal A(\mu).$$
683: To prove the boundedness of the derivative, we have to show that
684: the $H^3$- norm of the operator in the right-hand side of the previous formula
685: is no greater than some constant (depending on $\mu$) times $||h||_{C^3}$.
686: Indeed, the previous $H^3$ operator norm is no greater
687: than $||\mathcal A(\mu)||_{H^3}^2$ times the $H^3$- norm of the operator
688: of multiplication by the function $h$, the latter is no greater than
689: $||h||_{C^3}$ times some universal constant. This proves
690: the boundedness of the derivative.
691: Proposition \ref{loc} is proved. The proof of Theorem \ref{td} is completed.
692:
693:
694: \section{Quasiconformal mappings. Proof of Theorem \ref{c}}
695:
696: \subsection{The plan of the proof of Theorem \ref{c}}
697:
698: We have already proved the statement of Theorem \ref{c} for a
699: $\ci$ double-periodic almost complex structure on $\cc$
700: (i.e., a lifting to the universal cover $\cc$
701: of a $\ci$ complex structure on $\td$). In this case the diffeomorphism
702: $\cc\to\cc$ from the Theorem is the lifting to the universal covers
703: of the diffeomorphism of the tori given by Theorem \ref{td}.
704: To prove Theorem \ref{c} in the general case (let $\sigma$ be a given
705: (may be measurable) bounded complex structure on $\cc$) we
706: consider a sequence $\sigma_n$ of $\ci$ double-periodic complex
707: structures on $\cc$ with growing periods and
708: uniformly bounded dilatations (say less than a fixed $K>0$)
709: that converge to $\sigma$ almost everywhere.
710: For each $\sigma_n$ there is a normalized quasiconformal
711: diffeomorphism $\Phi_n:\cc\to\cc$
712: transforming $\sigma_n$ to the standard complex structure.
713: We show that the diffeomorphisms $\Phi_n$ converge
714: (uniformly on $\overline{\cc}$) to a homeomorphism (denoted $\Phi$).
715: We will prove that $\Phi$ is a quasiconformal homeomorphism sending
716: $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure
717: (see the end of the Subsection). The uniqueness of a latter homeomorphism
718: and its diffeomorphic property
719: on a smoothness domain of $\sigma$ will be proved in 3.4.
720: Its analytic dependence on
721: parameter (the Addendum to Theorem \ref{c}) will be proved in 3.5.
722:
723: We prove the convergence of $\Phi_n$ by equicontinuity
724: of the normalized $K$- homeomorphisms:
725:
726: \begin{lemma} \label{norm} [Ah2]. For any $K>0$ the normalized
727: $K$- homeomorphisms $\cc\to\cc$ (see Definition 1.1)
728: are equicontinuous with their inverses as mappings of the Riemann sphere.
729: \end{lemma}
730: Lemma \ref{norm} (proved in 3.2) together with Arzela-Ascoli
731: theorem imply the following
732: \begin{corollary} \label{normc} For any $K>0$ each sequence of
733: normalized $K$- homeomorphisms $\cc\to\cc$
734: contains a subsequence converging to a homeomorphism
735: $\overline{\cc}\to\overline{\cc}$ uniformly on $\overline{\cc}$.
736: \end{corollary}
737:
738: \begin{lemma} \label{limqc} [Ah2]. Let $K>0$, $U\subset\cc$ be a domain
739: (that may be the whole $\cc$) $\Phi_n:U\to\Phi_n(U)\subset\cc$ be a sequence
740: of $K$- homeomorphisms converging uniformly on compact subsets to a
741: homeomorphism (denote $\Phi$ the limit).
742: Let $\sigma_n$ be the almost complex structures sent to the standard one by
743: $\Phi_n$. Let $\sigma_n$ converge almost everywhere (denote $\sigma$
744: their limit). Then $\Phi$ is a $K$- homeomorphism
745: sending $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure.
746: \end{lemma}
747:
748: Lemma \ref{limqc} will be proved in Subsection 3.3 (using Lemma \ref{norm} and
749: Corollary \ref{normc}).
750:
751:
752: \begin{proof} {\bf of existence in Theorem \ref{c} modulo Lemmas
753: \ref{norm} and \ref{limqc}.} Let $\sigma_n$, $\sigma$, $K$, $\Phi_n$ be as at
754: the beginning of the Section. Then $\Phi_n$ are $K$-
755: diffeomorphisms. Passing to a subsequence, one can achieve that $\Phi_n$
756: converge to a homeomorphism (Corollary \ref{normc},
757: denote $\Phi$ the limit homeomorphism). By Lemma \ref{limqc}, $\Phi$ is a $K$-
758: homeomorphism
759: transforming $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure. Theorem \ref{c} is proved.
760: \end{proof}
761:
762: \begin{remark} In the proof of the existence in Theorem \ref{c}
763: we had used only the statements of the previous
764: Lemmas for $\ci$ diffeomorphisms. Their statements
765: for general quasiconformal homeomorphisms will be used in the proof of
766: the uniqueness in Theorem \ref{c} (Subsection 3.4).
767: \end{remark}
768:
769:
770: \subsection{Normality. Proof of Lemma \ref{norm}}
771: The proof of Lemma \ref{norm} is based on the Gr\"otzsch inequality (the
772: next Lemma) comparing moduli of $K$- homeomorphic complex annuli. To state it,
773: let us firstly recall the following
774:
775: \begin{definition} see [Ah2]. The {\it modulus} of an annulus
776: $A=\{ r<|z|<1\}$ is $m(A)=-\frac1{2\pi}\ln r$.
777: \end{definition}
778: \begin{remark} Consider the cylinder $\mathbb R\times S^1$ with the
779: coordinates $(x,\phi)$, $S^1=\mathbb R\slash2\pi\mathbb Z$, and the standard
780: complex structure, which is induced by the Euclidean metric
781: $dx^2+d\phi^2$.
782: \begin{equation}\text{For any}\ R>0 \ \text{put}\ A(R)=\{ 0<x<R\};\ \text{then}\
783: m(A(R))=\frac R{2\pi}.\label{ann}\end{equation}
784: The modulus of an annulus is invariant under conformal mappings [Ah2].
785: \end{remark}
786: \begin{lemma} \label{grl} (Gr\"otzsch, see [Ah2]). Let $K>0$,
787: $f:A_1\to A_2$ be a $K$- homeomorphism of complex annuli. Then
788: \begin{equation} m(A_2)\geq K^{-1}m(A_1).\label{gri}\end{equation}
789: \end{lemma}
790: \begin{proof} For completeness of presentation, we give the classical proof
791: of the Lemma. Firstly we prove the Lemma for a $K$- diffeomorphism; the general
792: case is treated analogously (see the end of the
793: proof). Let us consider that the annuli are drawn on the previous cylinder,
794: say, $A_1=A(R_1)$, $A_2=A(R_2)$, then $m(A_i)=\frac{R_i}{2\pi}$, $i=1,2$,
795: see (\ref{ann}). Thus, it suffices to show that $R_2\geq K^{-1}R_1$. To do this,
796: consider
797: the pullback (denoted $g$) to $A_1$ under $f$ of the Euclidean metric of $A_2$
798: (denote $|\ |_g$ ($Area_g$) the corresponding norm of vector
799: fields on $A_1$ (respectively, the area), $Area$ being the Euclidean area).
800: One has $Area(A_i)=2\pi R_i$, $Area(A_2)=Area_g(A_1)$. We show that
801: \begin{equation} Area_g(A_1)\geq K^{-1} Area(A_1).
802: \label{area}\end{equation}
803: This together with the previous formulas for the areas will prove the Lemma.
804: For the proof of (\ref{area}) we consider the family
805: $A(r)=\{ 0<x<r\}\subset A_1$ of subannuli in $A_1$, $r\leq R_1$, and prove
806: a lower bound of the derivative $(Area_g(A(r))'_r$. To do this, consider
807: the vector field $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ as the sum of its
808: component tangent to the circles $x=const$ and the $g$- orthogonal component
809:
810: \begin{tabular}{ll}
811: \begin{minipage}{10em}
812: \begin{center}
813: \hskip-0.5cm
814: \epsfbox{figuq1.eps}
815: \end{center}
816: \end{minipage}
817: \begin{minipage}{27em}
818: (denote the latter component normal to the circles by $n$, see Fig.1).
819: The vector field $n$ has the
820: same projection to the $x$- axis, as $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ and
821: its flow leaves invariant the fibration by circles $x=const$: its time $t$
822: flow map transforms $A(r)$ to $A(r+t)$. Therefore,
823: \end{minipage}
824: \end{tabular}
825: \def\dpf{\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}}
826: \def\dpx{\frac{\partial}{\partial x}}
827: \begin{equation}(Area_g(A(r)))'_r=\int_{x=r,\phi\in[0,2\pi]}
828: |\dpf|_g|n|_gd\phi.\label{arder}\end{equation}
829: One has $|n|_g\geq K^{-1}|\dpf|_g$. Indeed, the $g$- norm $|\ |_g$ of a
830: vector tangent to $A_1$
831: is equal to the standard Euclidean norm $|\ |$ of its image under $f$:
832: $|n|_g=|f_*n|$, $|\dpf|_g=|f_*\dpf|$. By definition,
833: $|\dpf|=1$, $|n|\geq|\frac{\partial}{\partial x}|=1=|\dpf|$. Therefore,
834: by the $K$- quasiconformality of $f$ (see, Definition 1.1),
835: $|n|_g=|f_*n|\geq K^{-1}|f_*\dpf|=K^{-1}|\dpf|_g$. Hence,
836: the previous derivative is no less than
837: $$K^{-1}\int_{x=r,\phi\in[0,2\pi]}|\dpf|_g^2d\phi\geq K^{-1}(2\pi)^{-1}
838: (\int_{\phi\in[0,2\pi]}|\dpf|_gd\phi)^2$$
839: (Cauchy-Bouniakovskii-Schwarz inequality). The latter integral is no less than
840: $2\pi$. Indeed, it is equal to
841: the length in the metric $g$ of the circle $x=r$, or in other terms,
842: the Euclidean length of its image under $f$, which
843: is a closed curve in $A_2$ isotopic to a circle $x=const$. Therefore,
844: $(Area_g(A(r)))'_r\geq2\pi K^{-1}$, thus,
845: $Area_g(A_1)\geq 2\pi K^{-1}R_1=K^{-1}Area(A_1)$.
846: This proves (\ref{area}) and the Lemma for a $K$- diffeomorphism $f$.
847: In the case, when $f$ is a $K$- homeomorphism, thus just having
848: local $L_2$ derivatives, the previous discussion remains valid: the
849: previous integrals are well-defined for almost all $r$, since the subintegral
850: expression $|\dpf|_g|n|_g$ in (\ref{arder}) is bounded from above by
851: $||df(r,\phi)||^2$ times a constant depending on $K$. This follows
852: from definition and the uniform boundedness of the Euclidean norm $|n|$:
853: by definition, $n$ is projected to the vector field
854: $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ with unit norm; the
855: angle between $n$ and a circle $x=const$ is bounded from below by a
856: constant depending on $K$ (quasiconformality). Lemma \ref{grl} is proved.
857: \end{proof}
858:
859: \def\var{\varepsilon}
860:
861: To prove Lemma \ref{norm}, we need to show that close points
862: cannot be mapped to distant points under a normalized K- homeomorphism or its
863: inverse. This is proved by comparing moduli of appropriate annuli with
864: those of their images (using Lemma \ref{grl}).
865:
866: For the proof of Lemma \ref{norm} we recall the notion of the Poincar\'e metric
867: [CG]. The Poincar\'e metric of the unit disc $|z|<1$ is
868: $\frac{4|dz|^2}{(1-|z|^2)^2}$ (it is invariant under its conformal
869: automorphisms). A Riemann surface is {\it hyperbolic},
870: if its universal covering is conformally equivalent to the unit disc
871: (see Theorem \ref{pk}), e.g., any domain in $\cc$ whose complement contains
872: more than one point.
873: The Poincar\'e metric of a hyperbolic Riemann surface is the pushforward
874: of the Poincar\'e metric of the unit disc under the universal covering.
875:
876: \begin{remark} \label{poim} (see [CG]). The Poincar\'e metric is well-defined, complete
877: and decreasing: the Poincar\'e metric of
878: a subdomain of a hyperbolic Riemann surface is greater than that of the ambient
879: surface. The Poincar\'e metric of $\cc\setminus\{0,1\}$ is greater than
880: its standard spherical metric times a constant.
881: \end{remark}
882:
883: In the proof of Lemma \ref{norm} we use the following relation of modulus
884: of an annulus and its Poincar\'e metric, whose proof is a straightforward
885: calculation.
886:
887: \begin{proposition} \label{geod} see, e.g., [DH]. The modulus of an annulus is equal to
888: $\pi$ times the inverse of the length of its closed geodesic.
889: \end{proposition}
890:
891: Let us prove the equicontinuity of normalized $K$- homeomorphisms
892: by contradiction. Suppose the contrary, i.e.,
893: there exist an $\var>0$, a sequence of normalized
894: $K$- homeomorphisms $\Phi_n:\cc\to\cc$ and a sequence of pairs
895: $x_n,y_n\in\cc$, $|x_n-y_n|\to0$, $|\Phi_n(x_n)-\Phi_n(y_n)|>\var$
896: (in the spherical metric of $\overline{\cc}$). Without loss of
897: generality we assume that the sequence $x_n$ (and hence, $y_n$) converges
898: (one can achieve this by passing to a subsequence, denote $x$ the limit).
899: Then there is a sequence $A_n$ of annuli in
900: $\overline{\mathbb C}\setminus\{0,1,\infty\}$ bounded by circles
901: centered at $x$ and surrounding the pairs $x_n$, $y_n$: one of the circles
902: is fixed, the other one contracts to $x$, as $n\to\infty$ see Fig.2a.
903: By definition, the annuli $A_n$
904: tend to once punctured disc, hence,
905: $m(A_n)\to\infty$. The point $x$ may coincide with some of the
906: three points 0, 1, $\infty$. Let us take two of the latters that
907: are distinct from $x$ (say, let them be 0, 1). Then each annulus $A_n$
908: separates the pairs $(x_n,y_n)$ and $(0,1)$.
909: By Lemma \ref{grl}, $m(\Phi_n(A_n))\to\infty$ as well. Hence, by Proposition
910: \ref{geod}, the
911: lengths of the geodesics (denoted by $\gamma_n$) of the annuli $\Phi_n(A_n)$
912: in their Poincar\'e metrics tend to zero.
913: But the latter lengths are greater than the lengths of $\gamma_n$
914: taken in the Poincar\'e metric of $\cc\setminus\{0,1\}$, and hence,
915: also greater than their lengths in the spherical metric times a constant independent
916: from $n$ (by the previous Remark). Thus, each $\gamma_n$ separates the pairs
917: $(\Phi_n(x_n), \Phi_n(y_n))$ and $(0,1)$ and is a closed curve with spherical
918: length tending to 0. Hence, the spherical distance between
919: $\Phi_n(x_n)$ and $\Phi_n(y_n)$ tends to 0 - a contradiction.
920: \medskip
921:
922: \begin{tabular}{ll}
923: \begin{minipage}{15em}
924: \begin{center}
925: \epsfbox{figuq2.eps}
926: \end{center}
927: \end{minipage}
928: %\begin{minipage}{20em}
929: %\end{minipage}
930: \end{tabular}
931: \medskip
932:
933: Now let us prove that the inverses to the normalized $K$- homeomorphisms
934: are also equicontinuous by contradiction, analogously to the previous
935: discussion. Suppose the contrary:
936: there exist an $\var>0$, a sequence of normalized
937: $K$- homeomorphisms $\Phi_n:\cc\to\cc$ and a sequence of pairs
938: $x_n,y_n\in\cc$, $|x_n-y_n|\to0$, $|\Phi_n^{-1}(x_n)-\Phi_n^{-1}(y_n)|>\var$
939: (in the spherical metric of $\overline{\cc}$). Without loss
940: of generality we assume that all the
941: sequences $x_n$, $y_n$, $\Phi_n^{-1}(x_n)$, $\Phi_n^{-1}(y_n)$ converge
942: (one can achieve this by passing to a subsequence); denote their
943: limits by $x$, $y$, $\tilde x$, $\tilde y$ respectively.
944: By definition, $x=y$, $\tilde x\neq\tilde y$.
945: Firstly consider the case, when $x\neq0,1,\infty$. Then $\tilde x,\tilde y
946: \neq0,1,\infty$
947: as well: otherwise $\Phi_n^{-1}(x_n)$, $\Phi_n^{-1}(y_n)$ would accumulate
948: to $\{0,1,\infty\}$, while their $\Phi_n$- images $x_n$, $y_n$ would not -
949: a contradiction to the equicontinuity of the $\Phi_n$'s (already proved).
950: Fix an annulus $A$ separating the pair $0,\tilde x$ and the triple
951: $1,\tilde y,\infty$ (we assume that its closure is disjoint from
952: $\Phi_n^{-1}(x_n)$, $\Phi_n^{-1}(y_n)$ for any $n$).
953: Its images $\Phi_n(A)$ are disjoint from $0,1,x_n,y_n$ and
954: have moduli bounded away from zero (Lemma \ref{grl}),
955: and hence, closed geodesics (denoted $\gamma_n$, see Fig.2b) of
956: uniformly bounded lengths.
957: Thus, the lengths of $\gamma_n$ in the Poincar\'e metric of
958: $\cc\setminus\{0,1,x_n,y_n\}$ are also uniformly bounded. On the other hand,
959: $\gamma_n$ separates the pair $(0, x_n)$ and the triple $(1,y_n,\infty)$
960: for any $n$, see Fig.2b. The points 0, $x_n$ in the first pair are distant
961: ($x=\lim x_n\neq0$), thus,
962: the spherical length of $\gamma_n$ is bounded from below.
963: The points $x_n$, $y_n$, which are separated by $\gamma_n$,
964: collide towards $x$, so, $\gamma_n$ comes arbitrarily close to $x_n$, as
965: $n\to\infty$. This implies that $\gamma_n$ has length tending to infinity
966: in the Poincar\'e metric of $\cc\setminus\{0,x_n\}$, and hence, in
967: the Poincar\'e metric of $\cc\setminus\{0,1,x_n,y_n\}$. If
968: $x_n$ does not move while $n$ changes, this follows from the
969: completeness of the Poincar\'e metric (Remark \ref{poim}). The case, when
970: $x_n\not\equiv const$, is reduced to the previous one by
971: applying the variable change $w=\frac z{x_n}$. This contradicts to the
972: previous statement saying that the latter Poincar\'e length of $\gamma_n$
973: is uniformly bounded.
974:
975: Now let $x\in\{0,1,\infty\}$, say, $x=1$.
976: Then $\tilde x,\tilde y\neq0,\infty$, as before, and at least one of
977: $\tilde x\neq\tilde y$ (say, $\tilde x$) is distinct from 1. In these
978: notations we repeat the previous argument. Lemma \ref{norm} is proved.
979:
980: \subsection{Quasiconformality and weak convergence. Proof of Lemma \ref{limqc}}
981: Let $\Phi_n$, $\sigma_n$, $\Phi$, $\sigma$ be as in Lemma \ref{limqc}.
982: Recall that
983: the dilatations of the $\sigma_n$' s are no greater than $K$, as are
984: those of the $\Phi_n$' s, hence, the same is true for $\sigma$. Let us show
985: that $\Phi$ is quasiconformal, more precisely: 1) has local $L_2$ derivatives
986: that are weak $L_2$ limits of those of $\Phi_n$; 2) transforms $\sigma$ to the
987: standard complex structure (and hence, is $K$- quasiconformal).
988: This will prove Lemma \ref{limqc}.
989:
990: For the proof of statement 1) we use the fact that the norms of
991: the differentials $d\Phi_n$ (in the spherical metric of $\overline{\cc}$)
992: are uniformly bounded in each space $L_2(D)$, $D\Subset\cc$.
993: Indeed, on each disc $D\Subset\cc$
994: $||d\Phi_n||^2_{L_2(D)}\leq K (Area(\Phi_n(D))$, which
995: follows from definition and $K$- quasiconformality (the areas are taken
996: in the spherical metric). The latter areas
997: converge to $Area(\Phi(D))$, hence, they are uniformly bounded, and so are
998: the previous $L_2$- norms.
999:
1000: Thus, the derivatives are locally $L_2$- bounded, hence, passing to a
1001: subsequence one can achieve that they converge $L_2$- weakly. On the other
1002: hand, they converge to the
1003: derivative of $\Phi$ in sense of distributions. Therefore, the latter is
1004: also $L_2$ locally and the convergence is $L_2$- weak. Statement 1) is proved.
1005:
1006: Let $\mu_n$, $\mu$ be the functions
1007: from (\ref{1.1}) defining the complex structures $\sigma_n$ and $\sigma$
1008: respectively, thus, $d\Phi_n=f_n(dz+\mu_nd\bar z)$. By assumption,
1009: $|\mu_n|<1$, $\mu_n\to\mu$ almost everywhere. We have to show that
1010: $\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial\bar z}=\mu\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial z}$.
1011: Indeed, $f_n\to f=\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial z}$,
1012: $f_n\mu_n\to\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial\bar z}$ (both $L_2$ weakly),
1013: as $n\to\infty$. Since, $f_n$ are uniformly bounded in a local space $L_2$
1014: and weakly converge, $\mu_n$ are uniformly bounded and converge
1015: almost everywhere, the weak limit of their product is the product
1016: $f\mu$ of their limits. This proves the previous partial differential
1017: equation on $\Phi$ together with statement 2) and Lemma \ref{limqc}.
1018: \subsection{Uniqueness, smoothness and group property}
1019:
1020: Here we prove the uniqueness of the normalized
1021: quasiconformal homeomorphism from Theorem \ref{c} and the group
1022: and measure
1023: properties of quasiconformal mappings (Propositions \ref{group}
1024: and \ref{measure0}).
1025: The uniqueness follows from the local uniqueness up to composition with
1026: a conformal mapping and from normalizedness. The local uniqueness
1027: (together with the diffeomorphic property on a smoothness domain of
1028: the complex structure) are implied by the following
1029:
1030: \begin{proposition} \label{uniq} Let $D\subset\cc$ be a simply-connected
1031: domain, $\sigma$ be a bounded measurable almost complex structure on $D$,
1032: $\Phi:D\to\Phi(D)\subset\cc$ be a quasiconformal homeomorphism transforming
1033: $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure. Then $\Phi$ is unique up to
1034: left composition with a conformal mapping. It is a $\ci$ diffeomorphism,
1035: if $\sigma$ is $\ci$.
1036: \end{proposition}
1037:
1038: \begin{proof}
1039: Let $\mu:D\to\cc$ be the function defining the almost
1040: complex structure $\sigma$.
1041:
1042: {\bf Case $\mu\equiv0$.} Then $\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial\bar z}=0$ and
1043: $\Phi$ has local $L_2$ derivatives. Let us show that $\Phi$ is conformal.
1044: Fix a $z_0\in D$ and put
1045: $U(z)=\int_{z_0}^z\Phi(\zeta)d\zeta$. We show that the function $U(z)$
1046: is well-defined (independent on the choice of path connecting $z_0$
1047: to $z$). Then it is holomorphic by definition, hence, so is $\Phi(z)=
1048: \frac{\partial U}{\partial z}$. It suffices to show that the integral
1049: of the form $\Phi dz$ along any Jordan curve is zero. Since the derivatives
1050: of $\Phi$ are locally $L_2$, we can apply the Stokes formula:
1051: the previous integral is equal to the integral of
1052: the differential $d(\Phi dz)$ over the domain bounded
1053: by the curve. But $d(\Phi dz)=\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial\bar z}d\bar z dz=0$,
1054: so, it is zero.
1055:
1056: {\bf Case $\mu\in\ci$.} There exists at least one $\ci$ quasiconformal
1057: diffeomorphism $\Psi$ transforming $\sigma$ to the standard complex
1058: structure (Theorem \ref{td}, see also the discussion in
1059: Section 1.2). The composition $\Phi\circ\Psi^{-1}$ preserves
1060: the standard complex structure by definition and is quasiconformal:
1061: it has local $L_2$ derivatives, since so does $\Phi$ and $\Psi^{-1}$ is $\ci$.
1062: Therefore, it is conformal, as is proved above, hence, $\Phi$ is a $\ci$
1063: diffeomorphism.
1064:
1065: {\bf Case $\mu$ is measurable.}
1066: Let $0<\delta<1$, $|\mu|<\delta$, $\mu_n$ be a sequence of $\ci$ functions,
1067: $|\mu_n|<\delta$, $\mu_n\to\mu$ almost everywhere (we extend
1068: $\mu_n$, $\mu$ to $\cc$ with the latter
1069: inequality and convergence). Consider the corresponding
1070: almost complex structures $\sigma_{\mu_n}$, see (\ref{1.1}), and
1071: the quasiconformal diffeomorphisms (denoted $\Phi_n$) from
1072: Theorem \ref{c} (the latters exist as is proved above).
1073: Passing to subsequence, one can assume that they converge uniformly
1074: on $\overline{\cc}$ (by Lemma \ref{norm}). Denote $\Psi$ their limit,
1075: which is a quasiconformal homeomorphism transforming the extended
1076: complex structure $\sigma$ to the standard one (Lemma \ref{limqc}).
1077: It suffices to show that
1078: $\Phi\circ\Psi^{-1}:\Psi(D)\to\Phi(D)$ is a conformal homeomorphism.
1079: It is a homeomorphism, since so are $\Phi$ and $\Psi$, and preserves
1080: the standard complex structure, thus, if we show that it is
1081: quasiconformal, this will imply conformality
1082: (as is proved in the previous case $\mu\equiv0$).
1083: To do this,
1084: consider the homeomorphisms $h_n=\Phi\circ\Phi_n^{-1}:\Phi_n(D)\to\Phi(D)$.
1085: They are quasiconformal homeomorphisms
1086: with uniformly bounded dilatations, as in the previous paragraph. They converge
1087: to $\Phi\circ\Psi^{-1}$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\Psi(D)$. The
1088: corresponding pullbacks of the standard complex structure converge
1089: to the latter almost everywhere, which follows from definition and
1090: convergence $\mu_n\to\mu$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{limqc}, the limit is
1091: quasiconformal. Proposition \ref{uniq} is proved. Theorem \ref{c} is proved.
1092: \end{proof}
1093:
1094: \begin{proof} {\bf of Proposition \ref{group}.} The statement of the
1095: Proposition is local: it suffices to show that compositions
1096: (inverses) of local $K$- homeomorphisms are $K^2$- (respectively,
1097: $K$-) quasiconformal. We prove this statement for composition
1098: (for inverse the proof is analogous): given domains $U,V,W\subset\cc$
1099: and $K$- homeomorphisms $\Psi:U\to V$, $\Phi:V\to W$, let us show that
1100: $\Phi\circ\Psi$ is a $K^2$- homeomorphism.
1101: By Remark \ref{grr} the previous statement holds
1102: for diffeomorphisms, and in the general case the dilatation of the
1103: composition is no greater than $K^2$, thus, to prove the quasiconformality
1104: means to show that the composition has local $L_2$ derivatives. To do this,
1105: consider the pullback $\sigma(\Phi)$ of the standard complex
1106: structure under $\Phi$. Let us extend it to $\cc$ without increasing the
1107: dilatation and construct a sequence $\sigma(\Phi_n)$ of $\ci$ almost complex
1108: structures on $\cc$ converging to $\sigma(\Phi)$
1109: almost everywhere with dilatations
1110: no greater than $K$. Let $\Phi_n:\cc\to\cc$ be the corresponding
1111: normalized quasiconformal homeomorphisms (which are $K$- homeomorphisms) from
1112: Theorem \ref{c}. They are $\ci$ diffeomorphisms as is proved above.
1113: By Lemma \ref{limqc}, they converge uniformly on $overline{\cc}$ to a
1114: $K$- homeomorphism $\wt{\Phi}:\cc\to\cc$ transforming
1115: $\sigma(\Phi)$ to the standard complex structure.
1116: By the previous Proposition,
1117: $\wt{\Phi}=\Phi$ up to left composition with a conformal mapping.
1118: Now the compositions $\Phi_n\circ\Psi$ are $K^2$- homeomorphisms
1119: (since $\Phi_n$ is $\ci$) converging to $\wt{\Phi}\circ\Psi$, and the
1120: corresponding pullbacks of the standard complex structure converge also. Hence,
1121: by Lemma \ref{limqc}, the limit is quasiconformal. Since the limit coincides with
1122: $\Phi\circ\Psi$ up to composition with a conformal mapping, the latter is
1123: quasiconformal too. Proposition \ref{group} is proved.
1124: \end{proof}
1125:
1126: \begin{proof} {\bf of Proposition \ref{measure0}.} The statement
1127: of Proposition \ref{measure0} is local and is reduced to the
1128: case of quasiconformal homeomorphisms $\overline{\cc}\to\overline{\cc}$, as
1129: Proposition \ref{group} proved above. We prove it
1130: by contradiction. Suppose the contrary: some quasiconformal
1131: homeomorphism $h$ of the Riemann sphere sends a zero measure set $S$
1132: to a posivite measure set $h(S)$ (without loss of generality we assume
1133: that $h$ fixes 0, 1 and $\infty$).
1134: Let $\sigma$ be the pull-back under $h$
1135: of the standard complex structure (it is
1136: well-defined almost everywhere). Then $h$ is the unique normalized
1137: quasiconformal homeomorphism transforming $\sigma$ to the standard
1138: complex structure. Let us change the standard structure in the image as
1139: follows: on $h(S)$ we change it
1140: to some constant nonstandard almost complex structure; on the rest we
1141: keep it standard. Denote $\sigma'$ the almost
1142: complex structure thus obtained on the Riemann sphere in the image.
1143: By Theorem \ref{c}, there exists a unique normalized
1144: quasiconformal homeomorphism
1145: $H$ transforming $\sigma'$ to the standard complex structure.
1146: One has $H\not\equiv Id$, since the set $h(S)$ has a positive measure.
1147: By definition and Proposition \ref{group}, the composition
1148: $H\circ h$, which is different from $h$,
1149: is a normalized quasiconformal homeomorphism transforming
1150: $\sigma$ to the standard complex structure. This contradicts the
1151: uniqueness of $h$. Proposition \ref{measure0} is proved.
1152: \end{proof}
1153:
1154:
1155: \subsection{Analytic dependence on parameter. Proof of the Addendum}
1156:
1157: {\bf Double-periodic case.} Consider a family of double-periodic $\ci$
1158: almost complex
1159: structures $\sigma(t)$ on $\cc$ depending holomorphically
1160: on a complex parameter $t$
1161: (this means that the corresponding function $\mu=\mu(z,t)$ from (\ref{1.1}) is
1162: holomorphic in $t$). We assume that the periods are fixed, thus, $\sigma(t)$
1163: are the lifting to the universal cover $\cc$ of an analytic family of
1164: almost complex structures on the two-torus.
1165: Then the corresponding quasiconformal diffeomorphisms (denoted
1166: $\Phi_t$) from Theorem \ref{c} are holomorphic in $t$ as well. Indeed,
1167: their differentials are uniformizing differentials. Hence, for any $t$,
1168: $d\Phi_t=f_t(dz+\mu(z,t)d\bar z)$ up to multiplication by complex constant
1169: depending on $t$, where $f_t$ is given by formula (\ref{2.10}). The right-hand
1170: side of (\ref{2.10}) is analytic in the functional parameter $\mu$, hence,
1171: $f_t$ is holomorphic in $t$ and $z\mapsto\int_0^zf_t(dz+\mu(z,t)d\bar z)$
1172: is a holomorphic family of diffeomorphisms of $\cc$. The family $\Phi_t$ is
1173: obtained from the latter by multiplication by a function in $t$ that
1174: makes the previous diffeomorphisms normalized (fixing 1), hence, the
1175: multiplier function (and thus, $\Phi_t$ as well) are also holomorphic in $t$.
1176: The Addendum is proved in the double-periodic case.
1177:
1178: {\bf General case.}
1179: Now consider arbitrary analytic family $\sigma(t)$ of bounded
1180: almost complex structures
1181: on $\cc$ depending on a complex parameter $t$ (we suppose that $t$ runs through
1182: the unit disc $D$). Let $\mu(z,t)$ be the corresponding functions,
1183: see (\ref{1.1}), which are holomorphic in $t$. Then there exists a
1184: $0<\delta<1$ such that $|\mu(z,0)|<\delta$ for any $z$. The
1185: corresponding mapping $M_z:t\mapsto\mu(z,t)$ is a holomorphic mapping
1186: $D\to D$ depending on $z$ in a measurable way such that $|M_z(0)|<\delta$.
1187: (Recall that for a given $\delta<1$ the space of holomorphic mappings
1188: $M:D\to D$ with $|M(0)|<\delta$ is compact, see [CG].)
1189: Vice versa, for any $0<\delta<1$ each measurable collection of holomorphic
1190: mappings $M_z:D\to D$ with $|M_z(0)|<\delta$
1191: defines an analytic family of bounded almost complex structures; they
1192: are uniformly bounded when restricted to a smaller
1193: parameter disc $D_r=\{|t|<r\}$, $r<1$. Indeed, in the case, when $M_z(0)\equiv0$,
1194: $|M_z|_{D_r}<r$ (Schwarz Lemma); the general case is easily reduced to the
1195: previous one.
1196:
1197: Denote $\Phi_t$ the corresponding
1198: normalized quasiconformal homeomorphisms from Theorem \ref{c}.
1199: To prove the analyticity of $\Phi_t$ in $t$, we approximate $\sigma(t)$
1200: (in the sense of convergence almost everywhere)
1201: by analytic families $\sigma_n(t)$ of $\ci$ double-periodic almost
1202: complex structures depending holomorphically on the same parameter $t$
1203: with growing periods $2n$, $2in$,
1204: $\sigma_n\to\sigma$. (For example, consider the restriction of $\sigma$
1205: to the period square centered at 0 and take $\sigma_n$ to be its
1206: double-periodic extension. Then approximate the new double-periodic
1207: family $M_z$ by a $\ci$ family of holomorphic mappings $D\to D$.) One can
1208: do this in such a way that $\sigma_n(t)|_{t\in D_r}$ be uniformly bounded.
1209: Denote $\Phi_{n,t}$ the normalized
1210: quasiconformal homeomorphisms transforming $\sigma_n(t)$ to the standard
1211: complex structure. They depend analytically on $t$, as is proved above.
1212: By Lemma \ref{limqc}, for any $t$, $z$,
1213: $\Phi_{n,t}(z)\to\Phi_t(z)$, as $n\to\infty$.
1214: Thus, $\Phi_t(z)$ is a function in $t$ that
1215: is a limit of pointwise converging sequence of holomorphic functions.
1216: Let us prove that for any fixed $z$ the functions $\Phi_{n,t}(z)$ in $t\in D_r$
1217: are bounded uniformly in $n$: then their limit $\Phi_t(z)$ is holomorphic.
1218: Indeed, the almost complex structures $\sigma_n(t)|_{t\in D_r}$
1219: are uniformly bounded. Therefore, the family $\Phi_{n,t}$ (depending
1220: on the two parameters $n$ and $t\in D_r$) together with their inverses
1221: is equicontinuous (Lemma \ref{norm}). Hence, the previous functions are
1222: uniformly bounded, so, their limit is holomorphic. The Addendum is proved.
1223:
1224: \section{Acknowledgements}
1225: In late 1990-ths \'E.Ghys stated a question concerning a foliated version of
1226: Theorem \ref{c} for linear foliations of tori.
1227: The proof of Theorem \ref{td} presented in the paper was obtained
1228: as a by-product of the author's solution to his question, and I wish to
1229: thank him.
1230: I wish also to thank him and J.-P.Otal, \'E.Giroux for helpful discussions.
1231: The research was supported by part
1232: by CRDF grant RM1-2358-MO-02 and by
1233: Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFFI) grant 02-02-00482.
1234:
1235: \section{References}
1236:
1237: [Ab] Abikoff, W. Real analytic theory of Teichm\"uller space, - Lect. Notes in
1238: Math., 820, Springer-Verlag (1980).
1239:
1240: [Ah1] Ahlfors, L. Conformality with respect to Riemannian metrics. -
1241: Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 1955 (1955), no. 206, 22 pp.
1242:
1243: %2.
1244: [Ah2] Ahlfors, L. Lectures on quasiconformal mappings, - Wadsworth (1987).
1245:
1246: %3.
1247: [AhB] Ahlfors, L.; Bers, L. Riemann's mapping theorem for variable metrics, -
1248: Ann. of Math. (2) 72 (1960), 385-404.
1249:
1250: [Be] Bers, L. Riemann surfaces (mimeographed lecture notes), New York
1251: University (1957-58).
1252:
1253: [BeN] Bers, L.; Nirenberg, L.
1254: On a representation theorem for linear elliptic systems with discontinuous
1255: coefficients and its applications.
1256: Convegno Internazionale sulle Equazioni Lineari alle Derivate Parziali, Trieste, 1954, pp. 111--140.
1257: Edizioni Cremonese, Roma, 1955.
1258:
1259: [Bo] Boyarski\u\i, B. V.
1260: Generalized solutions of a system of differential equations of first order and of elliptic type with
1261: discontinuous coefficients. (Russian)
1262: Mat. Sb. N.S. 43(85) 1957 451--503.
1263:
1264: [CG] Carleson, L., Gamelin, Th.W. Complex Dynamics, - Springer-Verlag 1993.
1265:
1266: [Ch] Choquet-Bruhat, Y., \ de Witt-Morette, C., \ Dillard-Bleick, M. Analysis,
1267: Manifolds and Physics, - North-Holland, 1977.
1268:
1269: [Chern] Chern, S.-S.,
1270: An elementary proof of the existence of isothermal parameters on a surface.
1271: Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1955), 771--782.
1272:
1273: [DB] Douady, A.; Buff, X. Le th\'eor\`eme d'int\'egrabilit\'e
1274: des structures pr\`esque complexes. (French) [Integrability theorem
1275: for almost complex structures] The Mandelbrot set, theme and variations, 307--324, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 274,
1276: Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000.
1277:
1278: [DH] Douady, A.; Hubbard, J.
1279: A proof of Thurston's topological characterization of rational functions.
1280: Acta Math. 171 (1993), no. 2, 263--297.
1281:
1282: [Gl] Glutsyuk, A.; Simultaneous metric uniformization of foliations by
1283: Riemann surfaces. - To appear in Commentarii Mahtematici Helvetici.
1284:
1285: [Ko1] K\"obe, P. \"Uber die Uniformisierung beliebiger analytischer Kurven I.
1286: - Nachr. Acad. Wiss. G\"ottingen (1907), 177-190.
1287:
1288: [Ko2] K\"obe, P. \"Uber die Uniformisierung beliebiger analytischer Kurven II.
1289: - Ibid. (1907), 633-669.
1290:
1291: [Korn] Korn, A., Zwei Anwendungen der Methode der sukzessiven Ann\"aherungen, -
1292: Schwarz Festschrift, Berlin (1919), pp. 215-229.
1293:
1294: [La] Lavrentiev, M.A., Sur une classe des repr\'esentations continues. - Mat. Sb.,
1295: 42 (1935), 407-434.
1296:
1297: [Licht] Lichtenstein, L., Zur Theorie der konformen Abbildungen; Konforme
1298: Abbildungen nicht-analytischer singularit\"atenfreier Fl\"achenst\"ucke auf
1299: ebene Gebiete, - Bull. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, (1916), 192-217.
1300:
1301: [M] Morrey, C. B., Jr.
1302: On the solutions of quasi-linear elliptic partial differential equations. -
1303: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 43 (1938), no. 1, 126--166.
1304:
1305: [P] Poincar\'e, H. Sur l'uniformisation des fonctions analytiques, -
1306: Acta Math., 31 (1907), 1-64.
1307:
1308: [Vek] Vekua, I. N. The problem of reduction to canonical form of differential forms of elliptic type and the generalized
1309: Cauchy-Riemann system. - (Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 100,
1310: (1955), 197--200.
1311:
1312: \end{document}
1313:
1314: \begin{figure}[ht]
1315: \begin{center}
1316: \epsfig{file=uqc4.eps}
1317: \caption{}
1318: \label{fig:4}
1319: \end{center}
1320: \end{figure}
1321:
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325: