Let $|\cdot|$ denote the usual Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{C}^3$ and fix some arbitrary metric $\rho$ on $\mathbb{CP}^2$. For $\delta > 0$ and any set $\hat{P} \subset \mathbb{CP}^2$, define the $\delta$-neighborhood of $\hat{P}$ by

$$N_{\delta}(\hat{P})= \{\hat{x} \in \mathbb{CP}^2: \rho(\hat{s},\hat{x})<\delta \text{ for some } \hat{s} \in \hat{P}\}.$$

Here, the hat notation refers to the obvious projection that sends nonzero vectors in $\mathbb{C}^3$ to their equivalence class in complex projective space via $v = \lambda w$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}-\{0\}$.

Now let's fix some nonzero $y\in \mathbb{C}^3$ with unit modulus and fix a complex 2-plane $\Sigma \subset \mathbb{C}^3$ going through the origin. We can write $y = v +w$ with $v\in \Sigma$ and $w\in \Sigma^{\perp}$. I'm reading a paper that uses the following fact without proof:

If $\hat{y} \notin N_{\delta}(\hat{\Sigma})$, then there is a constant $K>0$, depending only on the metric $\rho$, so that $|w| \geq K \delta$.

Essentially the fact is saying that if a vector lies far away from a plane at the projectivized level, then the component orthogonal to the plane can't be too small (up to a multiplicative constant that depends on the details of how you measure a vector being 'far away' from a plane).

I'd love to see some sketch of a proof for this.

I can sort of buy it for particular choices of metric like Fubini-Study, but the statement is made for arbitrary metric, so I imagine there is a slick proof using only general facts about how/whether metrics on $\mathbb{CP}^2$ "distort" if lifted to $\mathbb{C}^3-\{0\}$. I suppose there may be an equivalent formulation of this statement for $\hat{y} \in N_{\delta}(\hat{\Sigma})$ (with the inequality switched and strict), but let me leave it as written in the paper.


1 Answer 1


Hmm, I think I've worked my way to exactly such a 'slick' proof:

Suppose that there is no such uniform constant. Then for each $L > 0$, we may find some $\hat{y} \notin N_{\delta}(\hat{P})$ with $|w| < L \delta$, where $w$ denotes the perpendicular component of a representative $y\in \hat{y}$ having unit modulus. Indeed, for each positive integer $n$ there exists $\hat{y}_n \notin N_{\delta}(\hat{P})$ with $|w_n| < \delta/n$. This gives us a sequence $\{y_n\}$ on the unit sphere. Choose a convergent subsequence, again denoted $\{y_n\}$ with $y_n \to y_*$. Clearly the perpendicular component of $y_*$ must be zero. Hence $y_* \in P$, and thus $\hat{y}_* \in N_{\delta}(P)$.

On the other hand, $\hat{y}_n \to \hat{y}_* \notin N_{\delta}(P)$ since the quotient map is continuous and the complement of $N_{\delta}(P)$ is closed, hence containing all of its limit points. We have obtained our contradiction.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.