text:
# A monopole homology for integral homology 3-spheres

## 1. Introduction

Since Donaldson  initiated the study of smooth 4-manifolds via the Yang-Mills theory, the gauge theory (Donaldson invariants, relative Donaldson-Floer invariants and Taubes’ Casson-invariant interpretation, etc) has proved remarkably fruitful and rich to unfold some of the mysteries in studying smooth 4-manifolds. The topological quantum field theory proposed by Witten  stimulates the most exciting developments in low-dimensional topology. In 1994, Seiberg and Witten introduces a new (simpler) kind of differential-geometric equation (see ). In a very short time after the equation was introduced, some long-standing problems were solved, new and unexpected results were discovered. For instance, Kronheimer and Mrowka  proved the Thom conjecture affirmatively, several authors proved variants (generalizations) of the Thom conjecture independently in , as well as the three-dimensional version of the Thom conjecture . Taubes showed that there are more constraints on symplectic structures in  and the beautiful equality $`SW=Gr`$ in . See  for a survey in the Seiberg-Witten theory.

Using the dimension-reduction principle, one expects the Floer-type homology of 3-manifolds via the Seiberg-Witten equation. Indeed Kronheimer and Mrowka  analyzed the Seiberg-Witten-Floer theory for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times S^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a closed oriented surface. Later on Marcolli studied the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology for 3-manifolds with first Betti number positive in . For a connected compact oriented 3-manifold with positive first Betti number and zero Euler characteristic, Meng and Taubes  showed that a (average) version of Seiberg-Witten invariant is the same as the Milnor torsion. The interesting class of 3-manifolds as integral (rational) homology 3-spheres is lack of well-posed theory. Although various authors attempted to resolve the problem on defining a “Seiberg-Witten-Floer” theory, the new phenomenon of harmonic-spinor jumps and the dependence of Riemannian metrics is not addressed clearly. The metric-dependence (also related to the harmonic-spinors) issue is quickly realized by many experts in this field (see ). In , the irreducible Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology of Seifert space is shown to be dependent on the metric and the choice of connection on the tangent bundle (as our reference $`\eta _0`$ in this paper).

In this paper, we construct a monopole homology from the Seiberg-Witten equation in the same way as an instanton Floer homology from the Self-Duality equation in Donaldson-Floer theory . Our key point is that by using the unique $`U(1)`$-reducible solution $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of the Seiberg-Witten equation on an integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$ we make use of the spectral flow of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to capture the dependence in certain perturbation classes of Riemannian metrics and 1-forms. The same idea was used before by the present author to establish a symplectic Floer homology of knots in , and the original one was in the study of the instanton Floer homology of rational homology 3-spheres by Lee and the present author in . Many technique issues such as transversality, transitivity and gluing property are treated in many authors books and papers, those techniques follow the same line in  or simpler. So we omit the details on these, but only emphasize the Riemann-metric dependence and understand the role of such a fixing spectral flow of $`(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$.

Our approach is similar to approaches in  to understand the perturbation data (including Riemannian metrics). The unique $`U(1)`$-reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ gives a spectral flow $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ as a Maslov index in  Part III. The spectral flow $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })\mu _{\eta _0}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ with respect to a reference $`\eta _0`$ fixes a class of admissible perturbations consisting of Riemannian metrics and 1-forms. As long as Riemannian metrics and 1-forms give the same spectral flow $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$, we prove that the constructed monopole homology is invariant inside the fixed class of Riemann-metrics and 1-forms $`(\eta =(g_Y,\alpha ))`$ with same $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$. The spectral flow $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ is not a topological invariant, and is dependent upon the Riemannian metrics. Without fixing a class of Riemannian metrics with same $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$, one cannot obtain well-defined notions such as spectral flow of irreducible Seiberg-Witten solutions on $`Y`$, and the gluing formula as well as the relative Seiberg-Witten invariant. Hence our results follow from fixing $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$.

Theorem A. (1) For an integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$ and any admissible perturbation $`\eta `$, there is a well-defined $``$-graded monopole homology $`MH_{}(Y,I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$ constructed by the Seiberg-Witten equation over $`Y\times `$.

(2) For any two admissible perturbations $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$, there is a group homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ between two monopole homologies $`MH_{}(Y,I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$ and $`MH_{}(Y,I_{\eta _2}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$.

(3) If $`I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=I_{\eta _2}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$, then the homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ is an isomorphism.

Our fixed-class $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ of Riemannian metrics gains control of the birth and death of irreducible solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation on the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$. Changing the reference $`\eta _0`$ into $`\eta _0^{^{}}`$ corresponds to the overall degree-shifting by $`\mu _{\eta _0^{^{}}}(\mathrm{\Theta })\mu _{\eta _0}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ for monopole homologies. The control in the instanton homology of rational homology 3-spheres is gained by fixing the spectral flows of all $`U(1)`$-reducibles from the Wilson-loop perturbations (not metrics). The control in the monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres is gained by fixing the spectral flow of the unique $`U(1)`$-reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ from the Riemannian metrics (not only 1-forms). Fixing $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ enters crucially in proving Theorem A and Theorem B.

Theorem B. For a smooth 4-manifold $`X=X_0\mathrm{\#}_YX_1`$ with $`b_2^+(X_i)>0(i=0,1)`$ and $`Y`$ an integral homology 3-sphere, the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X`$ is given by the Kronecker pairing of $`MH_{}(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$ with $`MH_1(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$ for the relative Seiberg-Witten invariants $`q_{X_0,Y,\eta }`$ and $`q_{X_1,Y,\eta }`$ (see Definition 8.1);

$$,:MH_{}(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))\times MH_1(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))𝐙;q_{SW}(X)=q_{X_0,Y,\eta },q_{X_1,Y,\eta }.$$

The paper is organized as follows. §2 provides an introduction of the Seiberg-Witten equation on 3-manifolds. §3 studies the configuration space over $`Y`$ through Seiberg-Witten equation and a natural monopole complex. We show that there are admissible perturbations from Riemannian metrics and 1-forms in §4 via the method similar to . The spectral-flow properties and dependence on Riemannian metrics are discussed in §5. The proof of Theorem A (Proposition 6.4 for (1), Proposition 7.1 for (2) and Proposition 7.2 for (3)) is occupied in §6 and §7. In §8, we study the relative Seiberg-Witten invariant and complete the proof of Theorem B as Theorem 8.4.

## 2. Seiberg-Witten equation on 3-manifolds

It is well-known that every closed oriented 3-manifold is spin. The group $`Spin(3)SU(2)Sp_1`$ is the universal covering of $`SO(3)=Spin(3)/\{\pm I\}`$. Pick a Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`Y`$. The metric $`g`$ defines the principal $`SO(3)`$-bundle $`P_{SO}(Y)`$ of oriented orthonormal frames on $`Y`$. A spin structure is a lift of $`P_{SO}(Y)`$ to a principal $`Spin(3)`$-bundle $`P_{Spin}(Y)`$ over $`Y`$. The set of equivalence classes of such lifts has, in a natural way, the structure of a principal $`H^1(Y,Z_2)`$-bundle over a point. So there is a unique spin-structure on the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$.

There is a natural adjoint representation

$$Ad:Spin(3)\times Sp_1Sp_1;(q,\alpha )q\alpha q^1,$$

and associated rank-2 complex vector bundle (spinor bundle)

$$W=P_{Spin(3)}(Y)\times _{Ad}C^2.$$

Let $`L=detW`$ be the determinant line bundle. For the ordinary Spin-structure, one has a Clifford multiplication

$$c:T^{}YWW$$

$$c([p,\alpha ])[p,v][p,\overline{\alpha }v].$$

So $`c`$ induces a map $`T^{}YHom(W,W)`$. The spinor pairing $`\tau :W\overline{W}T^{}Y`$ is given by

$$[p,v_1v_2]\tau (\frac{1}{4}Im(v_1iv_2)),$$

where $`\tau `$ is an orientation preserving isomorphism $`P_{Spin(3)}(Y)\times Sp_1T^{}Y`$. A connection $`a`$ on $`L`$ together with the Levi-Civita connection on the tangent bundle of $`Y`$ form a covariant derivative on $`W`$. This maps sections of $`W`$ into sections of $`WT^{}Y`$. Followed by the Clifford multiplication, one has a Dirac operator

$$_a^g:\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\stackrel{_a^g}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(WT^{}Y)\stackrel{c}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(W).$$

The determinant line bundle $`L`$ is trivial for the spin structure, so we may choose $`\theta `$ to be the trivial connection and $`_\theta ^g:\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$ is the usual Dirac operator. Note that all bundles over the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$ are trivial.

There is a unique spin-structure on $`Y\times `$ associated to the unique spin-structure on $`Y`$ with the product metric on $`Y\times `$. The two spinor bundles $`W^\pm `$ on $`Y\times `$ can be identified by using a Clifford multiplication by $`dt`$, where $`t`$ is denoted for the variable on $``$. Both $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ are obtained by the pull-back of the $`U(2)`$-bundle $`WY`$ from the projection map $`Y\times Y`$. Thus we have the identification of the map $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}(Y\times )Hom(W^+,W^{})`$ and the map $`\tau ^1:T^{}YHom(W,W)`$ through the above identifications. $`\sigma (\eta )=\tau ^1(_g\eta )`$. In other words from the identification $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}(Y\times )=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^1T^{}Y`$ and using the Hermitian pairing on $`W^\pm `$, there is an induced pairing

$$\tau :\overline{W}\times W\mathrm{\Lambda }^1T^{}Y.$$

In fact for every $`\gamma :T^{}YHom(W,W)`$ (a spin structure), that is a way to determine a spin structure on $`Y\times `$ by

$$\sigma :T^{}(Y\times )Hom(WW,WW);\sigma (v,r)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma (v)+r1\\ \gamma (v)r1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The determinant line bundle $`L_{(4)}=detW^\pm |_{Y\times }`$ (a trivial line bundle) carries $`U(1)`$-connections $`A=a+\varphi dt`$. So the Dirac operator $`D_A^g`$ for the product metric $`g+dt^2`$ over $`Y\times `$ is given by

$$D_A^g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& _t+_a^g\\ _t+_a^g& 0\end{array}\right),$$

where $`_a^g`$ is a twisted self-adjoint Dirac operator on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$, and $`_t=\frac{}{t}+\varphi `$ is a twisted skew adjoint Dirac operator over $``$.

The curvature 2-form of $`A=a+\varphi dt`$ can be calculated as $`F_A=F_a+(\frac{a}{t}d_a\varphi )dt`$. Using the identification of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(Y\times )\mathrm{\Omega }^2(Y)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)`$, we can write $`F_A^+`$ as $`_gF_a+(\frac{a}{t}d_a\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)`$ as the self-dual component of the curvature $`F_A`$. Now the Seiberg-Witten monopole equation on 4-manifolds reduces to a Seiberg-Witten monopole equation on 3-manifolds as

(2.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}(_t+_a^g)\psi \hfill & =0\hfill \\ {}_{g}{}^{}F_{a}^{}+(\frac{a}{t}d_a\varphi )\hfill & =i\tau (\psi ,\psi )\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$. It is equivalent to the flow equation of $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$:

(2.2)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\psi }{t}\hfill & =_a^g\psi \varphi .\psi \hfill \\ \frac{a}{t}\hfill & =_gF_a+d_a\varphi +i\tau (\psi ,\psi ).\hfill \end{array}$$

The equation (2.1) is invariant under the gauge transformation $`uMap(Y,U(1))`$, where the gauge group action on $`(a+\varphi dt,\psi )`$ is given by

(2.3)
$$u(a+\varphi dt,\psi )=(u^{}a+(\varphi u^1\frac{du}{dt})dt,\psi u^1).$$

There is a temporal gauge to obtain a simpler equation. The temporal gauge $`u`$ is the element which $`u(a+\varphi dt)=u^{}a`$, i.e., $`\varphi u^1\frac{du}{dt}=0`$. Then the equation (2.2) can be reduced to the following form.

(2.4)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\psi }{t}\hfill & =_a^g\psi \hfill \\ \frac{a}{t}\hfill & =_gF_a+i\tau (\psi ,\psi ).\hfill \end{array}$$

## 3. Configuration spaces on $`Y`$

Fix a trivialization $`L=Y\times U(1)`$, one can identify the space of $`U(1)`$-connections of Sobolev $`L_k^p`$-norm with the space $`𝒜_k^p=L_k^p(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i))`$ of 1-forms on $`Y`$ such that the zero element in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)`$ corresponds to the trivial connection $`\theta `$ on $`L`$. The gauge group of $`L`$ can be identified with $`𝒢_k^p(Y)=L_{k+1}^p(Map(Y,U(1)))`$ acting on $`𝒜_k^p\times L_k^p(\mathrm{\Gamma }(W))`$ by (2.3). We need to assume that $`k+1>3/p`$ so that $`𝒢_Y=𝒢_k^p(Y)`$ is a Lie group. We may take $`k=1,p=2`$.

Let $`𝒞_Y`$ be the configuration space

$$𝒞_Y=L_k^2(\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)).$$

The quotient space is $`_Y=𝒞_Y/𝒢_Y.`$ Denote $`𝒞_Y^{}=\{(a,\varphi ,\psi )𝒞_Y|\psi 0\}`$. For $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )𝒞_Y^{}`$, the isotropy group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(a,\varphi ,\psi )}=\{id\}`$. For $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )𝒞_Y𝒞_Y^{}`$, the isotropy group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(a,\varphi ,0)}=U(1)`$, these elements are called reducibles. For example, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta ,0,0)`$ is reducible by all constant maps from $`Y`$ to $`U(1)`$. Note that $`𝒢_Y`$ acts freely on $`𝒞_Y^{}`$, so $`_Y^{}=𝒞_Y^{}/𝒢_Y`$ forms an open and dense set in $`𝒞_Y/𝒢_Y`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

$`_Y^{}`$ is a Hilbert manifold. For $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)𝒞_Y^{}`$, the tangent space of $`_Y^{}`$ can be identified with

$$T_{[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)]}_Y^{}=\{(a,\varphi ,\psi )L_k^2(\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W))|$$

$$(a,\varphi ,\psi )_{L_{k1}^2}<\epsilon ,d_{a_0}^{}\psi +Im(\psi _0,\psi )=0\}.$$

Proof: This follows from the construction of slice in . It will be clear from context to identify $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)`$ with its gauge equivalence class in our notation. The gauge orbit of $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)𝒞_Y^{}`$ is given by $`𝒢_Y𝒞_Y^{}`$:

$$g=e^{iu}(a_0g^1dg,\varphi _0,\psi _0g^1).$$

The linearization of this map at $`Id=e^0`$ is

$$\delta _0:T_{id}𝒢_Y=\mathrm{\Omega }^0(Y,i)\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)$$

$$u(du,0,\psi _0u).$$

So the adjoint operator $`\delta _0^{}`$ of $`\delta _0`$ is given by

$$\delta _0^{}\psi =d_{a_0}^{}\psi +Im(\psi _0.\psi ).$$

A neighborhood of $`[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)]_Y^{}`$ can be described as a quotient of $`T_{[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)],\epsilon }_Y^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)}`$ for sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$. Every nearby orbit meets the slice $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)+T_{[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)],\epsilon }_Y^{}`$. This is amount to solving the gauge fixing condition relative to $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)`$, i.e., there exists a unique $`u\mathrm{\Omega }^0(Y,i)`$ such that $`e^{iu}(a_0+a,\varphi _0+\varphi ,\psi _0+\psi )T_{[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)],\epsilon }_Y^{}`$ for $`\psi _00`$. Hence it follows from applying the implicit function theorem. ∎

There is an associated bundle $`𝒞_Y^{}\times _{𝒢_Y}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W))`$ over $`𝒞_Y^{}`$ because of the free action of $`𝒢_Y`$ on $`𝒞_Y^{}`$. We define a section $`f:𝒞_Y^{}𝒞_Y^{}\times _{𝒢_Y}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W))`$ by

$$f(a,\varphi ,\psi )=[(a,\varphi ,\psi ),_gF_ad_a\varphi i\tau (\psi ,\psi ),_a^g\psi +\varphi .\psi ].$$

Note that $`f`$ is $`𝒢_Y`$-equivariant, $`f(g(a,\varphi ,\psi ))=gf(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$. Hence it descends to $`_Y^{}`$,

$$f:_Y^{}𝒞_Y^{}\times _{𝒢_Y}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)).$$

Now $`f(a,\varphi ,\psi )T_{[(a,\varphi ,\psi )],\epsilon }L_{k1}^2_Y^{}=_{[(a,\varphi ,\psi )]}`$. So $`f`$ can be thought of as a vector field on the Hilbert manifold $`_Y^{}`$. Over $`_Y^{}`$, $`f`$ is a section of the bundle $``$ with fiber $`_{[(a,\varphi ,\psi )]}`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

The zero set of $`f`$ in $`_Y^{}`$ is the moduli space of solutions of the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation

$$f^1(0)=_{SW}^{}(Y,g)=\{[(a,\varphi ,\psi )]𝒞_Y^{}\text{satisfies (}\text{3.1}\text{)}\}/𝒢_Y.$$

(3.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}_a^g\psi +\varphi .\psi =0\hfill \\ {}_{g}{}^{}F_{a}^{}d_a\varphi i\tau (\psi ,\psi )=0\hfill \end{array}.$$

We will show that $`_{SW}^{}(Y,g)`$ is a zero-dimensional smooth manifold and its algebraic number is the Euler characteristic of a monopole homology defined in §6 (see also  for instance).

The linearization of $`f`$ can be computed as the following.

$`f(a_0+sa,\varphi _0+s\varphi ,\psi _0+s\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`(_gF_{a_0+sa}d_{a_0+sa}(\varphi _0+s\varphi )i\tau (\psi _0+s\psi ,`$
$`\psi _0+s\psi ),^g_{a_0+sa}(\psi _0+s\psi )+(\varphi _0+s\varphi ).(\psi _0+s\psi )`$
$`=`$ $`f(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)+s\delta _1(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)((a,\varphi ,\psi ))+o(s^2).`$
So the linearized operator $`Df(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)=\delta _1(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0):T_{[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)]}_Y^{}_{[(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)]}`$ is given by

$$\delta _1(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0):\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W),$$

$$((a,\varphi ,\psi )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_gd_{a_0}& d_{a_0}& iIm(\psi _0,,)\\ c(\psi _0)& c\psi _0& _{a_0}^g+\varphi _0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ \varphi \\ \psi \end{array}\right).$$

It forms a natural 3-dimensional monopole complex, since $`\mathrm{ker}\delta _0^{}`$ is the gauge fixing slice. So

(3.2)
$$MC_{}:0\mathrm{\Omega }^0(Y,i)\stackrel{\delta _0}{}\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\stackrel{\delta _1}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)0,$$

is a short exact sequence. The operator

$$\delta _0^{}\delta _1(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0):\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0\}(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)$$

(3.3)
$$(a,\varphi ,\psi )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_gd_{a_0}& d_{a_0}& iIm(\psi _0,)\\ d_{a_0}^{}& 0& Im(\psi _0,)\\ c(\psi _0)& c\psi _0& _{a_0}^g+\varphi _0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ \varphi \\ \psi \end{array}\right),$$

is a first-order operator with symbol $`\sigma (\delta _0^{}\delta _1)=\sigma (\delta )`$, where

$$\delta =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}_gd_{a_0}& d_{a_0}& 0\\ d_{a_0}^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& _{a_0}^g\end{array}\right)$$

is a first-order self-adjoint Dirac operator. Hence

(3.5) $`Ind(\delta _0^{}\delta _1)`$ $`=`$ $`Ind(\delta )`$
$`=`$ $`Ind\left(\begin{array}{cc}_gd_{a_0}& d_{a_0}\\ d_{a_0}^{}& 0\end{array}\right)+Ind_{a_0}^g`$
(3.6) $`=`$ $`0.`$
Since the operator $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}_gd_{a_0}& d_{a_0}\\ d_{a_0}^{}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ is self-adjoint and every Dirac operator has index zero over odd (3-)dimensional manifolds, thus we have the zero index for the operator $`\delta _0^{}\delta _1`$. Generically, the moduli space $`_{SW}(Y,g)`$ is zero-dimensional.

Define $`H^0(MC_{})=\mathrm{ker}\delta _0`$, $`H^1(MC_{})=\mathrm{ker}\delta _1/im\delta _0`$, $`H^2(MC_{})=coker\delta _1`$. The first cohomology $`H^1(MC_{})`$ is isomorphic for every $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)_Y^{}`$, so that $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)_Y^{}`$ is a nondegenerate zero of $`f`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{ker}(\delta _0^{}\delta _1)=H^1(MC_{})=0`$. For $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta ,0,0)`$ and a generic metric $`g`$ without harmonic spinors of $`_\theta ^g`$, we have that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is always isolated and nondegenerate (in the Bott sense) zero of $`f`$ on the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$.

## 4. Admissible Perturbation and Transversality

In this section, we prove that there are enough perturbations to make the zero set of $`f`$ transverse. There is a 1-form perturbation reduced from 4-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation as in . In our 3-dimensional case, the harmonic spinor may vary or jump as metrics on $`Y`$ vary. In order to obtain any topological information, one needs to extend the perturbation-data and understand the harmonic spinors accordingly. The method we used here is essentially the one used in .

Let $`𝒫_Y=\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y\times \mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)`$ be the space of perturbation data, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y`$ is the space of Riemannian metrics on $`Y`$. Consider the union $`_{(g,,\alpha )𝒫_Y}_{SW}^{}(Y;g,\alpha )`$ of the moduli spaces of 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten solutions over all metrics and 1-forms. If the union is a (Banach) Hilbert manifold, then its projection to the space $`𝒫_Y`$ is a Fredholm map. So there exists a Baire first category in $`𝒫_Y`$ such that $`_{SW}^{}(Y;g,\alpha )`$ is a manifold by the Sard-Smale theorem.

Let $`f_\eta `$ be the parametrized smooth section of the bundle $`_Y^{}\times 𝒫_Y`$ with $`\eta =(g,\alpha )𝒫_Y`$. The map $`f_\eta `$ is given by

$$f_\eta :_Y^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)$$

$$(a,\varphi ,\psi )(_gF_ad_a\varphi i\tau (\psi ,\psi )+\alpha ,_a^{_0+\alpha }\psi +\varphi .\psi ),$$

where $`_0`$ is the Levi-Civita connection for the metric $`g`$. Let $`f_{1\eta }(a,\varphi ,\psi )=_a^{_0+\alpha }\psi +\varphi .\psi `$ be the second component of the map $`f_\eta `$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$, and $`f_{0\eta }(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ be the first component of $`f_\eta `$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`f_{1\eta }`$ is a submersion ($`Df_{1\eta }`$ is surjective).

Proof: The differential $`Df_{1\eta }`$ is given by the formula

$$Df_{1\eta }(a,\varphi ,\psi ;o,\alpha )(\epsilon a,\epsilon \varphi ,\epsilon \psi ,0,\epsilon \alpha )=_a^{_0+\alpha }(\epsilon \psi )+(\epsilon \alpha +\epsilon a+\epsilon \varphi ).\psi +\varphi .\epsilon \psi ,$$

where we vary along the subspace $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^0(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\}\times \{\{0\}\times \mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\}`$ of $`T_{[a,\varphi ,\psi ]}^{}_Y^{}\times 𝒫_Y`$. We want to show that $`Df_{1\eta }`$ is surjective. Suppose the contrary. Then there exists a spinor $`\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$ such that it is perpendicular to $`ImDf_{1\eta }`$.

(4.1)
$$_a^{_0+\alpha }(\epsilon \psi ),\chi =0,$$

for all $`\epsilon \psi `$. I.e., $`\chi \mathrm{ker}(_a^{_0+\alpha })^{}`$. By the elliptic regularity of (4.1), a solution $`\chi `$ is smooth. Choose a point $`yY`$ such that $`\chi (y)0`$. By the uniqueness of continuation of the solution of the elliptic equation , $`_a^{_0+\alpha }(_a^{_0+\alpha })^{}\chi =0`$, there is a neighborhood $`U_y`$ of $`y`$ such that $`\chi (y)0`$ for $`yU_y`$. Thus we can find a 1-form $`\epsilon \alpha +\epsilon a\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)`$ such that $`(\epsilon \alpha +\epsilon a).\psi =\lambda \chi `$ with $`\lambda 0`$ in $`U_y`$, and $`\epsilon \alpha +\epsilon a`$ has compact support. So we obtain

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_{a+\epsilon a}^{_0+\alpha +\epsilon \alpha }(\epsilon \psi ),\chi `$
$`=`$ $`_a^{_0+\alpha }(\epsilon \psi ),\chi +(\epsilon \alpha +\epsilon a).\epsilon \psi ,\chi `$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \chi ,\chi =\lambda \chi ,\chi .`$
Therefore $`\chi =0`$ in $`U_y`$, so $`\chi 0`$ by a result in . ∎

By the Hodge decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)=ImdImd^{}`$ for $`Y`$, we have that $`\delta _1`$ is surjective. Thus $`f_{0\eta }(\alpha ,\varphi ,\psi )=_gF_ad_a\varphi i\tau (\psi ,\psi )+\alpha `$ is also a submersion onto $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)`$.

###### Corollary 4.2.

The spaces $`f_{0\eta }^1(0)`$ and $`f_{1\eta }^1(0)`$ are Banach manifolds.

Now at point $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0;g_0,\alpha )𝒞_Y\times 𝒫_Y`$, the parametrized smooth section

$$f(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0;g_0,\alpha )=f_{(g_0,\alpha )}(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)=f_\eta (a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0)$$

is submersion.

###### Proposition 4.3.

The differential $`Df`$ is onto at all points of the moduli space $`f^1(0)𝒞_Y^{}\times 𝒫_Y`$.

Proof:  The differential $`Df`$ at $`(a_0,\varphi _0,\psi _0;g_0,\alpha )𝒞_Y\times 𝒫_Y`$ is of the form $`(Df_0,Df_1)`$

$`Df_0`$ $`=`$ $`_{g_0}d_{a_0}a+(g)_{}F_{a_0}d_{a_0}\varphi iIm(\psi _0,\psi )a.\varphi _0+\alpha `$
$`Df_1`$ $`=`$ $`_{a_0}^{_0+\alpha _0}\psi +(\alpha +a).\psi _0+(\varphi .\psi _0+\varphi _0.\psi )+r(g))`$
where $`(g)_{}`$ is the variation of the Hodge star operator $`(g)_{}=\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0}_{g_0+sg}`$, $`r(g)`$ is a zero order operator applied to the variation $`g_0+sg+o(s^2)`$ of metric, $`a.\varphi _0`$ is the Clifford multiplication of 1-form $`a`$ on the section $`\varphi _0\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$. The surjective of $`Df_0`$ follows from Theorem 3.1 of , and the surjective of $`Df_1`$ follows from Proposition I.3.5 of  (see also ). ∎

We consider the map $`f_{}:𝒞_Y^{}\times 𝒫_Y\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$.

###### Corollary 4.4.

The space $`f_{}^1(0)`$ is a Banach manifold.

Proof: Take $`f_{}`$ as a section of $`_Y^{}\times 𝒫_Y`$ to $`(𝒞_Y^{}\times _{𝒢_Y}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W))\times 𝒫_Y`$. So $`f_{}^1(0)|__Y^{}=f_{}^1(0)/𝒢_Y`$ is a Banach manifold.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒞_Y^{}\times 𝒫_Y& \stackrel{f}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y,i)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)\\ \pi _2& & \\ 𝒫_Y& & \end{array}$$

The projection map $`\pi _2`$ is a smooth Fredholm map of index zero. It follows exactly from the same argument in . ∎

###### Corollary 4.5.

The inverse image $`\pi _2^1((g,\alpha ))`$ of a generic parameter $`(g,\alpha )𝒫_Y`$, the moduli space $`_{SW}(Y,(g,\alpha ))`$ of the 3-dimensional monopole solutions is a zero dimensional manifold.

A perturbation $`\eta =(g,\alpha )`$ satisfying Corollary 4.5 is called admissible. In general, the class of reducible elements in $`𝒞_Y𝒞_Y^{}`$ forms a singular strata in the quotient space $`_Y`$. If it is a solution of 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation, it is also singular to the space of $`_{SW}(Y,g)`$. The reducible solutions of the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation satisfy

$`_a^{_0+\alpha }\psi +\varphi _0.\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
(4.2) $`F_a+d_a\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
for $`\psi =0`$. Applying the temporal gauge $`g(a,\varphi )=(g^{}a,0)`$, we get that $`g^{}a`$ is a flat connection on $`Y\times U(1)`$ over $`Y`$. For integral homology 3-sphere, there is a unique $`U(1)`$ reducible connection, namely the trivial one. So the reducible solution is $`(\theta ,0)`$. There is a unique $`U(1)`$-reducible solution of (4), denoted by $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta ,0)`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{ker}\delta _1=\mathrm{ker}_a^g`$ for an integral homology 3-sphere. For a generic metric $`g`$, $`\mathrm{ker}_a^g=0`$. But $`\mathrm{ker}_a^{g_t}`$ may have a nontrivial kernel as the Riemannian metrics vary in an one-parameter family (see ). The harmonic spinor, even the dimension of the harmonic spinor, depends on the metric used in defining the Dirac operator. Hence the harmonic-spinor jump creates and/or destroys irreducible solutions of the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation. This is the main problem to understand the new phenomenon that the “Seiberg-Witten-Floer theory” is not entirely metric-independent (see ). In the next section, we study such a dependence of Riemannian metrics.

###### Proposition 4.6.

$`_{SW}^{}(Y,(g,\alpha ))=_{SW}(Y,(g,\alpha ))\{\mathrm{\Theta }\}`$ is a zero-dimensional smooth manifold for a first category near $`(g,\alpha )`$ in $`𝒫_Y`$.

Proof: The results follows from the construction above, Proposition 2c.1 of  and the Sard-Smale theorem. ∎

Define the weighted Sobolev space $`L_{k,\delta }^p`$ on sections $`\xi `$ of a bundle over $`Y\times `$ to be the space of $`\xi `$ for which $`e_\delta \xi `$ is in $`L_k^p`$, where $`e_\delta (y,t)=e^{\delta |t|}`$ for $`|t|1`$. For any $`\delta 0`$ and any Seiberg-Witten monopole solution $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ on $`Y\times `$, the linearized operator

$$D_{A,\mathrm{\Phi }}:L_{k+1,\delta }^p(\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_{(4)}^+)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y\times ))L_{k,\delta }^p(\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_{(4)}^{})(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2)(Y\times ))$$

is Fredholm (see ). We call $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ regular if $`\text{Coker}D_{A,\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$ and we call $`_{Y\times }`$ (the moduli space of perturbed Seiberg-Witten solutions with finite energy) regular if it contains orbits of regular $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$’s.

###### Proposition 4.7.

The finite energy condition forces elements of $`_{Y\times }`$ to converge to zeros of $`f_\eta ^1(0)`$ on the ends of $`Y\times `$. The set of all perturbations $`\eta 𝒫_Y`$ of which $`_{Y\times }`$ is regular is of Baire’s first category.

Proof: The proof follows exactly from the same method in  Proposition 2c.2 with Chern-Simons Seiberg-Witten functional as defined in  §4 and . ∎

## 5. Spectral flow and Dependence on Riemannian metrics

In this section, we use the unique $`U(1)`$-reducible solution $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to capture the metric-dependent relation via the spectral flow. In  joined with Lee, the author used the Walker correction-term around $`U(1)`$-reducibles to obtain homotopy classes of admissible perturbations (realized by a family of Lagrangians), and to show the invariance among the same homotopy class of the Lagrangian perturbations. Those Walker correction-term can be interpreted as the spectral flow in .

###### Proposition 5.1.

For an admissible perturbation $`\eta =(g,\alpha )𝒫_Y`$ and a nondegenerate zero $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )_{SW}(Y,\eta )=f_\eta ^1(0)`$, we can associate an integer $`\mu _\eta (a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ such that for $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })_{Y\times }((a,\varphi ,\psi ),(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}}))`$

$`\mu _\eta (e^{iu}(a,\varphi ,\psi ))`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\eta (a,\varphi ,\psi ),`$
$`\text{Index}D_{A,\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _\eta (a,\varphi ,\psi )\mu _\eta (a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})\text{dim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})}`$ is the isotropy subgroup of $`(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})`$.

Proof: Let $`\pi _1:Y\times [0,1]Y`$ be the projection on the first factor. Let $`L_{(4)}\times W_{(4)}`$ be the pullback $`\pi _1^{}(detW^\pm )\times \pi _1^{}W^\pm `$ such that $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })𝒜_{L_{(4)}}\times W_{(4)}`$ satisfies $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })|_{t0}=(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ and $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })|_{t1}=(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})`$. We have $`D_{A,\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{}{t}+\delta _t`$ with $`\delta _t=\delta _{A(t),\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}`$ in (3.3). Then the Fredholm index of $`D_{A,\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is given by the spectral flow of $`\delta _t`$ (see ). The second equality follows from the same proof of Proposition 2b. 2 in . The first equality follows from

$`SF(e^{iu}(a,\varphi ,\psi ),(a,\varphi ,\psi ))`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Ind}D_{A,\mathrm{\Phi }}((a,\varphi ,\psi ),(a,\varphi ,\psi ))_{Y\times S^1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(c_1(L_{(4)})^2(2\chi +3\sigma ))(Y\times S^1)=0,`$
where $`\chi `$ and $`\sigma `$ are the Euler number and signature of $`Y\times S^1`$, and $`c_1(L_{(4)})^2(Y\times S^1)=0`$ for the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$. ∎

Note that the relative index is gauge-invariant, but depending on the perturbation $`\eta 𝒫_Y`$ by Proposition 5.1. The absolute index may not be well-defined since $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })`$ depends upon $`\eta 𝒫_Y`$. In the instanton case, we fix the trivialization of a principal bundle and a fixed tangent vector to the trivial connection to determine $`\mu (\theta )=0`$ for the trivial connection $`\theta `$. It turns out that such a fixation is independent of metrics and other perturbation data in the instanton Floer theory. But this is no longer true for the monopole case.

###### Proposition 5.2.

(Definition) Two admissible perturbations $`\eta _0`$ and $`\eta _1`$ in $`𝒫_Y`$ are (called) homotopic to each other through a 1-parameter family $`\eta _t(0t1)`$ in $`𝒫_Y`$ if and only if $`\mu _{\eta _0}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\mu _{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$.

Proof: For two admissible perturbations $`\eta _0`$ and $`\eta _1`$ in §4, we can connect them into a 1-parameter family $`\eta _t`$ such that there are at most finitely many $`t(0,1)`$ with $`\eta _t`$ corresponding harmonic-spinor jumps. Denote those $`0<t_0<t_1\mathrm{}<t_n<1`$ and $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n,\lambda _{n+1}=0`$ so that $`\lambda _i`$ is not the eigenvalues of $`\delta _t=\delta _t(\theta ,0)`$ for $`t_{i1}tt_i`$, where $`t_1=0`$ and $`t_{n+1}=1`$. Define $`n_i=\text{dim}(\delta _{t_i}\lambda Id)`$ with $`\lambda [\lambda _{i+1},\lambda _i]`$ and $`n_i=\text{dim}(\delta _{t_i}\lambda Id)`$ with $`\lambda [\lambda _i,\lambda _{i+1}]`$. From the operator $`D_{\eta _t}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{}{t}+\delta _t(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ and the well-known facts in , we have

$$\text{Ind}D_{\eta _t}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}n_i.$$

This shows that $`\text{Ind}D_{\eta _t}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is independent of the construction $`\eta _t`$ and that is continuous in $`\eta _t`$. On the other hand,

$$\text{Ind}D_{\eta _t}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\mu _{\eta _0}(\mathrm{\Theta })\mu _{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta }).$$

Thus the obstruction to connect two generic perturbations is the spectral flow along the metric path in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y`$. The Riemannian-metric space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y`$ is path-connected. So $`\text{Ind}D_{\eta _t}(\mathrm{\Theta })=0`$ provides that $`\eta _0`$ and $`\eta _1`$ are in the same (homotopy) class of with respect to the spectral flow. ∎

Thus the dependence of metrics also enters into the definition of relative indices for $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$. Now we follow the instanton case to fix the relative index

$$\mu _\eta (a,\varphi ,\psi )=\text{Ind}D_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta },(a,\varphi ,\psi )),$$

which depends on the value $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })`$. Any changes of $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })`$ shift $`\mu _\eta (a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ by an integer, and $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is understood with respect to some reference perturbation $`\eta _0𝒫_Y`$.

###### Lemma 5.3.

For an admissible perturbation $`\eta 𝒫_Y`$, the Seiberg-Witten moduli space $`_{SW}(Y,\eta )=f_\eta ^1(0)`$ is a compact 0-dimensional oriented manifold.

Proof: The compactness can be proved by the 3-dimensional Weitzenböck formula and Mosers’ weak maximal principle as in the 4-dimensional case . By the construction in the proof of Proposition 5.1, we can show that $`_{SW}(Y,\eta )=f_\eta ^1(0)`$ is a closed subset of the compact moduli space $`_{Y\times S^1}(g+d\theta ,\pi _1^{}\eta )`$, where $`Y\times S^1`$ carries the product metric $`g+d\theta `$. That $`_{SW}(Y,\eta )`$ is compact follows by Lemma 2 of . By Proposition 4.6, $`_{SW}(Y,\eta )`$ is a 0-dimensional manifold. The orientation at each point of $`_{SW}(Y,\eta )`$ is defined by its spectral flow which depends on the perturbation homotopy class of $`\eta `$. (This is different phenomenon from the (instanton) Casson invariant of integral homology 3-spheres.) ∎

Note that the monopole number $`\mathrm{\#}_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$ (counted with sign) is not a topological invariant. The number $`\mathrm{\#}_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$ depends on the metric with harmonic-spinor jumps.

## 6. Monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres

For an admissible perturbation $`\eta 𝒫_Y`$, we obtain a new gradient vector field $`f_\eta `$ for which the irreducibles are all nondegenerate in §4. Since zeros of $`f_\eta `$ are now isolated finite-many points, we use them to generate the monopole chain groups.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ and $`(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})`$ be zeros of $`f_\eta `$. A chain solution $`((A_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1),\mathrm{},(A_n,\mathrm{\Phi }_n))`$ from $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ to $`(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})`$ is a finite set of Seiberg-Witten solutions over $`Y\times `$ which converge to $`c_{i1},c_if_\eta ^1(0)`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ such that $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )=c_0`$, $`c_n=(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})`$, and $`(A_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i)_{Y\times }(c_{i1},c_i)`$ for $`0in`$.

We say that the sequence $`\{(A_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha )\}_{Y\times }((a,\varphi ,\psi ),(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}}))`$ is (weakly) convergent to the chain solution $`((A_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1),\mathrm{},(A_n,\mathrm{\Phi }_n))`$ if there is a sequence of n-tuples of real numbers $`\{t_{\alpha ,1}\mathrm{}t_{\alpha ,n}\}_\alpha `$, such that $`t_{\alpha ,i}t_{\alpha ,i1}\mathrm{}`$ as $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, and if, for each $`i`$, the translates $`t_{\alpha ,i}^{}(A_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha )=(A_\alpha (t_{\alpha ,i}),\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (t_{\alpha ,i}))`$ converge weakly to $`(A_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$.

###### Theorem 6.2.

Let $`\{(A_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha )\}_{Y\times }((a,\varphi ,\psi ),(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}}))`$ be a sequence of Seiberg-Witten solutions with uniformly bounded action over $`Y\times `$. Then there exists a subsequence converging to a chain solution $`((A_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1),\mathrm{},(A_n,\mathrm{\Phi }_n))`$ such that

$$\text{Ind}D_{A_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\text{Ind}D_{A_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\mu _\eta (c_i)\mu _\eta (c_{i1})).$$

Proof: It follows from the same proof as in  §3 and , and the compactness of Seiberg-Witten moduli space on 4-dimensional manifolds. ∎

###### Proposition 6.3.

The compactification of $`_{Y\times }(c_0,c_{n+1})`$ with only chain solutions can be described as

$$\overline{_{Y\times }(c_0,c_{n+1})}=(\times _{i=1}^{n+1}_{Y\times }(c_{i1},c_i)),$$

the union over all sequence $`c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n+1}_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$ such that $`_{Y\times }(c_{i1},c_i)`$ is nonempty for all $`1in+1`$.

For any sequence $`c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n+1}_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$, there is a gluing map

$$G:\times _{i=1}^{n+1}\widehat{}_{Y\times }(c_{i1},c_i)\times \mathrm{\Delta }^{n+1}\overline{_{Y\times }(c_0,c_{n+1})},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n+1}=\{(\lambda _0,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]^{n+1}:1+\lambda _{i1}<\lambda _i,1in\}`$.

1. The image of $`G`$ is a neighborhood of $`\times _{i=1}^{n+1}\widehat{}_{Y\times }(c_{i1},c_i)`$ in the compactification with chain solutions.
2. The restriction of $`G`$ to $`\times _{i=1}^{n+1}\widehat{}_{Y\times }(c_{i1},c_i)\times \text{Int}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{n+1})`$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism onto its image.

Proof: Since there is no bubbling in the Seiberg-Witten moduli space, the map $`G`$ is the well-known transitivity in finite-dimensional Morse-Smale theory. ∎

Let $`_{SW}^n(Y,\eta )`$ be the set of irreducible zeros $`(a,\varphi ,\psi )`$ of $`f_\eta `$ whose relative index $`\mu _\eta (a,\varphi ,\psi )\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })=n`$. The monopole chain group $`MC_n(Y,\eta )`$ is defined to be the free Abelian group generated by $`_{SW}^n(Y,\eta )`$, where the admissible perturbation $`\eta `$ specifies the spectral flow $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })`$. We write $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ to be the integer $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })\mu _{\eta _0}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ with respect to a reference $`\eta _0𝒫_Y`$. Hence $`\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is fixed with the fixation of $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$. Define the boundary operator $`:MC_n(Y,\eta )MC_{n1}(Y,\eta )`$:

$$(a,\varphi ,\psi )=\underset{(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}})MC_{n1}(Y,\eta )}{}\mathrm{\#}\widehat{}_{SW,Y\times }^1((a,\varphi ,\psi ),(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}}))(a^{^{}},\varphi ^{^{}},\psi ^{^{}}).$$

###### Proposition 6.4.

Let $`:MC_n(Y,\eta )MC_{n1}(Y,\eta )`$ be defined as above. Then $`=0`$.

Proof: The proof follows the same argument as in (, Theorem 2) except that we have to rule out the possibility of reducible connections entering into the picture. Note that

$$^2(c_0)=\underset{c_1_{SW}^{n1}(Y,\eta )}{}\underset{c_2_{SW}^{n2}(Y,\eta )}{}\mathrm{\#}\widehat{}_{Y\times }^1(c_0,c_1)\mathrm{\#}\widehat{}_{Y\times }^1(c_1,c_2)c_2,$$

where $`c_i=(a_i,\varphi _i,\psi _i)_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )(i=0,1,2)`$. Consider in this sum all the terms associated to a fixed $`c_2_{SW}^{n2}(Y,\eta )`$. For the pair $`(c_0,c_2)`$, there is the 2-dimensional moduli space $`_{Y\times }^2(c_0,c_2)`$. By Proposition 6.3, the ends of $`\widehat{}_{Y\times }^2(c_0,c_2)`$ consists of all the components $`\widehat{}_{Y\times }^1(c_0,c_1)\times \widehat{}_{Y\times }^1(c_1,c_2)`$ with $`c_1_{SW}^{n1}(Y,\eta )`$. It is impossible for $`c_1`$ to be the $`U(1)`$-reducible zero of $`f_\eta `$ because the isotropy subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c_1}`$ would add to the gluing parameter and as a result would contradict the dimension count by Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2. Thus

$$\underset{c_1_{SW}^{n1}(Y,\eta )}{}\mathrm{\#}\widehat{}_{Y\times }^1(c_0,c_1)\mathrm{\#}\widehat{}_{Y\times }^1(c_1,c_2)=\widehat{}_{Y\times }^2(c_0,c_2)=0.$$

As a consequence of Proposition 6.4, for a given integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$ and an admissible data $`\eta 𝒫_Y`$, we have a well-defined definition of a Monopole Homology

$$MH_{}(Y;\eta )=\mathrm{ker}_{}/\text{Im}_{+1},.$$

Now the monopole homology $`MH_{}(Y;\eta )`$ is sensitive to the number $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$, and $`MH_{}(Y;\eta )`$ is not a topological invariant since its Euler characteristic $`\mathrm{\#}_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$ is metric-dependent.

## 7. Homomorphisms induced by cobordisms

From the troublesome path of metrics in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Y`$ of creating/destroying harmonic spinors (see ), the invariance of the monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres is in question. The cobordism argument used in  does not apply here. We have to construct a different cobordism between metrics and admissible perturbations with the fixed spectral flow $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=\mu _\eta (\mathrm{\Theta })\mu _{\eta _0}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$. In this section, we show that our monopole homology is independent of metrics and of admissible perturbations within the class $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$.

Let $`X`$ be an oriented 4-manifold with two cylindrical ends $`Y_1\times 𝐑_+`$ and $`Y_2\times 𝐑_{}`$, where $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are integral homology 3-spheres. Let $`\tau :X[0,\mathrm{})`$ be a smooth cutoff function such that $`\tau (x)=0`$ for $`x`$ lying outside of $`Y_1\times 𝐑_+Y_2\times 𝐑_{}`$ and $`\tau (y,t)=|t|`$ for $`(y,t)Y_1\times 𝐑_+Y_2\times 𝐑_{}`$ and $`|t|>t_0>0`$ and $`e_\delta =e^{\delta \tau (x)}`$. Then using the cutoff function $`\tau `$ and a background connection we can extend $`\frac{d}{dt}+\alpha ,\frac{d}{dt}+\beta `$ to a connection $`_0`$ on $`X`$ such that

$$_0|_{Y_1\times [t_0,\mathrm{})}=\frac{d}{dt}+\alpha ,_0|_{Y_2\times (\mathrm{},t_0]}=\frac{d}{dt}+\beta .$$

Similarly, we can extend sections on $`W_X^\pm `$. The Fréchet space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{comp}}^1(X,AdP)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{comp}}(W_X^\pm )`$ of compact supported $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-sections on $`(T^{}XAdP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_X^\pm )`$ can be completed to a Banach space

$$𝒜_{k,\delta }^p(X)=(_0,0)+L_{k,\delta }^p(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X,AdP)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_X^\pm )),$$

where $`c_{L_{k,\delta }^p}=e_\delta c_{L_k^p}`$ for $`c\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{comp}}^1(X,AdP)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{comp}}(W_X^\pm )`$. The gauge group $`𝒢_{k+1,\delta }^p`$ is given by $`L_{k+1,\delta }^p`$-norm of $`\text{Aut}(detW_X^\pm )`$. So the quotient space is $`_{k,\delta }^p(X)=𝒜_{k,\delta }^p(X)/𝒢_{k+1,\delta }^p`$. The perturbation data $`\eta _1=(g_{Y_1},\alpha _1)`$ and $`\eta _2=(g_{Y_2},\alpha _2)`$ at the ends provide the gradient vector fields $`f_{\eta _1}`$ and $`f_{\eta _2}`$ so that the zeros of $`f_{\eta _1}`$ on $`Y_1`$ and of $`f_{\eta _2}`$ on $`Y_2`$ are generic. Clearly these perturbation data $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ can be pulled back to the cylindrical ends $`Y_1\times 𝐑_+`$ and $`Y_2\times 𝐑_{}`$, and produce perturbations on the time-invariant monopole equation on $`_{k,\delta }^p(Y_1\times 𝐑_+)`$ and $`_{k,\delta }^p(Y_2\times 𝐑_{})`$ (same $`\delta `$ as before). According to ( (1c.2) and ), there exists a Baire’s first category subset in the space $`et(X)\times \mathrm{\Pi }_X`$ of Riemannian metrics $`g_X`$ and perturbation data $`\alpha _X`$ such that $`_{\eta _X}(c,c^{^{}})`$ ($`\eta _X=(g_X,\alpha _X)`$) is a smooth manifold with

(7.1)
$$\text{dim}_{\eta _X}(c,c^{^{}})=\mu _{\eta _1}(c)\mu _{\eta _2}(c^{^{}})+\frac{1}{2}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X).$$

In addition, $`_{\eta _X}(c,c^{^{}})`$ is oriented with an orientation specified by the orientations on $`H^1(X,𝐑)`$ and $`H^0(X,𝐑)H_+^2(X,𝐑)`$ (see ).

Define a homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(X;\eta _X):MC_{}(Y_1;\eta _1)MC_{}(Y_2;\eta _2)`$ of the monopole chain complexes by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(c)=\underset{c^{^{}}_{SW}^{}(Y_2,\eta _2)}{}\mathrm{\#}_{\eta _X}^0(c,c^{^{}})c^{^{}},c_{SW}^{}(Y_1,\eta _1),$$

where $`_{\eta _X}^0(c,c^{^{}})`$ is the $`0`$-dimensional oriented moduli space connecting $`c`$ to $`c^{^{}}`$ on $`X`$ and $`\mu _{\eta _1}(c)\mu _{\eta _2}(c^{^{}})=\frac{1}{2}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X)`$.

###### Proposition 7.1.

Given a cobordism $`X`$ and perturbation data $`\eta _Xet(X)\times \mathrm{\Pi }_X`$ as before, the homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ is a chain map shifting the degree by $`\frac{1}{2}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X)`$. Furthermore the induced homomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(X;\eta _X):MH_{}(Y_1;\eta _1)MH_{}(Y_2;\eta _2)$$

on the monopole homologies depends only on the cobordism $`X`$.

Proof: It follows the same argument as in  Theorem 3 and  §5. ∎

We show below that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(X;\eta _X)`$ is functorial with respect to the composite cobordism. Given two cobordisms $`(U;\eta _U)`$ connecting $`Y_1`$ to $`Y_2`$ and $`(V;\eta _V)`$ connecting $`Y_2`$ to $`Y_3`$ so that $`\eta _U`$ and $`\eta _V`$ agree on $`Y_2`$, we can form the composite cobordism $`(W;\eta _W)`$ connecting $`Y_1`$ to $`Y_3`$. Then

(7.2)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(W;\eta _W)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(V;\eta _V)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(U;\eta _U).$$

A different strategy from Floer’s has to be taken to prove that $`MH_{}(Y,\eta )`$ is independent of admissible perturbations $`\eta =(g_Y,\alpha )`$ within the class of $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$. We consider the time-dependent perturbations of the Seiberg-Witten equation and its associated moduli space. Given two admissible perturbation data of generic metrics $`g_Y^1`$ and $`g_Y^1`$ and 1-forms $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ with $`I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ (here $`\eta _t=(g_Y^t,\alpha _t)`$), there is an one-parameter family of admissible perturbations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\eta _t=(g_Y^t,\alpha _t)|\mathrm{}t\mathrm{}\}`$ joining them. Assume that the pair $`\eta _t=(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)`$ for $`t1`$ and $`\eta _t=(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)`$ for $`t1`$. On the cylinder $`Y\times 𝐑`$, we consider the perturbed Seiberg-Witten equation

(7.3)
$$\frac{\psi }{t}+_{a_t}^{_{g_Y^t}+\alpha _t}\psi =0,\frac{a_t}{t}+_{g_Y^t}F(a_t)+\alpha _t=i\tau _{g_Y^t}(\psi ,\psi ).$$

Given $`c_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta _1)`$ and $`c^{^{}}_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta _1)`$, we denote by $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c^{^{}})`$ the subspace in $`_{k,\delta }^p(c,c^{^{}})`$ consisting of solutions of (7.3). Then there exists a homomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }:MC_n(Y;\eta _1)MC_n(Y;\eta _1)$$

of the monopole chain complexes defined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c)=\underset{c^{^{}}_{SW}^n(Y,\eta _1)}{}\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^0(c,c^{^{}})c^{^{}},c_{SW}^n(Y,\eta _1).$$

###### Proposition 7.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\eta _t=(g_Y^t,\alpha _t)|t𝐑\}`$ be an family of admissible perturbations as defined above such that $`IndD_{\eta _t}(\mathrm{\Theta })=0`$. Then

1. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a constant family of admissible perturbations ($`g_Y^t=g_Y,\alpha _t=\alpha `$), then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=id`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a chain map: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
3. Given two families $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}`$ of admissible perturbations joining $`(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)`$ to $`(g_Y^0,\alpha _0)`$ and from $`(g_Y^0,\alpha _0)`$ to $`(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}.`$
4. If a family $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ of admissible perturbations connecting $`(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)`$ and $`(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)`$ can be deformed into another $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ by admissible families $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\lambda (0\lambda 1)`$, then the two monopole chain maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ are chain homotopic to each other.

Proof: (1) If the perturbation is time independent $`\eta _t=(g_Y,\alpha )`$, then $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }^0(c,c^{^{}})`$ is just the space $`_{Y\times 𝐑}^0(c,c^{^{}})`$. For the 0-dimensional component $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }^0(c,c^{^{}})`$, this means time-invariant solutions $`c_t`$ on $`Y\times 𝐑`$, and we have $`[c_t]=c=c^{^{}}`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^0(c,c^{^{}})=\delta _{cc^{^{}}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=id`$.

(2) We consider the compactification of $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c^{^{}})`$ as developed in . By Proposition 6.3 and , $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta )`$ can be compactified such that the codimension-one boundary consists of

(7.4)
$$_{c_1}\widehat{}_{Y\times 𝐑}(c,c_1)\times _{c_1}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c_1,c^{^{}})_{c_1}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c_1)\times _{c_1}\widehat{}_{Y\times 𝐑}(c_1,c^{^{}}).$$

Here $`c_{\pm 1}_{SW}(Y,\eta _{\pm 1})`$ and $`_{Y\times 𝐑}(c,c_1)`$ is the moduli space of monopoles on $`Y\times (\mathrm{},1)`$ with respect to the perturbation $`\eta _1`$ and $`\widehat{}_{Y\times 𝐑}(c,c_1)=_{Y\times 𝐑}(c,c_1)/𝐑`$. Similarly $`\widehat{}_{Y\times 𝐑}(c_1,c^{^{}})`$ is obtained from the perturbation data $`\eta _1`$. Consider the 1-dimensional components $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(c,c^{^{}})`$ of $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c^{^{}})`$, whose boundary by (7.4) gives two types of oriented points counted as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We can rule out the possibilities of the reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for $`c_{\pm 1}`$. If they occurred, then they would have an additional $`U(1)`$-symmetry on these moduli spaces. This is impossible by the dimension reasoning from Proposition 5.1, Proposition 5.2 and our hypothesis $`I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ (see below also).

(3) For a composite cobordism and its induced homomorphism, we study the moduli space $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}(T;\alpha ,\beta )`$ of solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation on $`Y\times 𝐑`$ with respect to the following time-dependent admissible perturbation data $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_T\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\eta _1=(g_Y^1,\alpha _1)\hfill & \mathrm{}<tT1\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }=(g_Y^{t+T},\alpha _{t+T})\hfill & T1tT\\ \eta _0\hfill & TtT\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}=(g_Y^{tT},\alpha _{tT})\hfill & TtT+1\\ \eta _1\hfill & T+1t<+\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$

Let $`T`$ be sufficiently large. Thus $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}(T;c,c^{^{}})(TT_0)`$ is approximated by the union

(7.5)
$$_{c_0}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c_0)\times _{c_0}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(c_0,c^{^{}}).$$

where $`\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c_0)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c_0)/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{c_0})`$. Note that the 0-dimensional components in $`\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c_0)\times _{c_0}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(c_0,c^{^{}})`$ correspond to the $`c^{^{}}`$-coefficients in

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c)=\underset{c_0}{}\mathrm{\#}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^0(c,c_0)\mathrm{\#}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}^0(c_0,c^{^{}})c^{^{}}.$$

On the other hand, as $`T0`$, the 0-dimensional component of the moduli space $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}(T;c,c^{^{}})`$ gives the $`c^{^{}}`$-coefficients in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}(c)=_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}^0(c,c^{^{}})c^{^{}}`$. Because $`_{0TT_0}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}^0(T;c,c^{^{}})`$ is the cobordism between $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}^0(0;c,c^{^{}})`$ and $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}^0(T_0;c,c^{^{}})`$, so the assertion (3) follows by ruling out the reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Note that

$$\text{dim}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(c,c_0)=\mu _{\eta _1}(c)\underset{\eta _t\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta _t\eta _0}{lim}\mu _{\eta _t}(c_0)\text{dim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{c_0};$$

(7.6)
$$\text{dim}\overline{}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}(c_0,c^{^{}})=\underset{\eta _t\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},\eta _t\eta _0}{lim}\mu _{\eta _t}(c_0)\mu _{\eta _1}(c^{^{}}).$$

By Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2, we obtain

$$\underset{\eta _t\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta _t\eta _0}{lim}\mu _{\eta _t}(c_0)=\underset{\eta _t\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},\eta _t\eta _0}{lim}\mu _{\eta _t}(c_0)=\mu (c_0).$$

So it satisfies the equations $`\mu _{\eta _1}(c)\mu (c_0)=1`$ ($`c_0=\mathrm{\Theta }`$) and $`\mu (c_0)\mu _{\eta _1}(c^{^{}})=0`$. This is impossible because of $`\mu _{\eta _1}(c)=\mu _{\eta _1}(c^{^{}})`$. If these spectral flows $`I_{\eta _{\pm 1}}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ are not fixed to be same, then the above argument becomes invalid.

(4) Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(i=0,1)`$ be a family of time-independent admissible perturbations which connect up $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _1`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ can be smoothly deformed from one to another by a 1-parameter family $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\{\eta _t^s=(g_Y^{s,t},\alpha _t^s),0s1,1t1\}`$ of the same type of admissible perturbations. Set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ for $`0s\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ for $`\frac{3}{4}s1`$. Associated to this situation, there is a 1-parameter family of moduli spaces denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{}(c,c^{^{}})=_{0s1}\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}(c,c^{^{}})`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}(c,c^{^{}})=\{(\mathrm{\Phi },s)|\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}(c,c^{^{}}),0s1\}_{k,\delta }^p(c,c^{^{}})\times [0,1],$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the set of regular solutions of Seiberg-Witten equation with respect to $`\eta _t^s`$, and is a smooth manifold with dimension $`\mu _{\eta _1}(c)\mu _{\eta _1}(c^{^{}})+1`$. The codimension-one boundary consists of

$$_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}(c,c^{^{}})\times \{0\}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(c,c^{^{}})\times \{1\},$$

$$_{(s,c_0)}\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}(c,c_0)\times _{\eta _1}(c_0,c^{^{}})_{(s,\gamma )}_{\eta _1}(c,c_0)\times \stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}(c_0,c^{^{}}).$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}(c,c_0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}(c_0,c^{^{}})`$ are solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation with virtual dimension $`1`$, they can only occur for $`0<s<1`$. The homomorphism $`H:MC_{}(Y;\eta _1)MC_{}(Y;\eta _1)`$ of degree $`+1`$ is defined by

$$H(c)=\underset{c_0}{}\underset{s}{}\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}^0(c,c_0)c_0,\text{for}c_{SW}^n(Y,\eta _1),c_0_{SW}^{n+1}(Y,\eta _1).$$

That $`c_0`$ is reducible is eliminated by the extra $`U(1)`$-symmetries in $`_{\eta _1}(c_0,c^{^{}})`$ and $`_{\eta _1}(c,c_0)`$ and $`I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$. Summing up $`c^{^{}}_{SW}^n(Y,\eta _1)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(c)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}(c)=H_{\eta _1}(c)+_{\eta _1}H(c).$$

Therefore $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}`$ are monopole chain homotopic to each other. ∎

Thus the monopole homology groups $`MH_{}(Y;\eta ^{\pm 1})`$ associated to two admissible perturbation data are canonically isomorphic to each other whenever $`I_{\eta ^1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=I_{\eta ^1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ for the unique $`U(1)`$-reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`Y`$. Thus it is more appropriate to denote $`MH_{}(Y;\eta )`$ by $`MH_{}(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$. For an integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$, the monopole homology can be extended to a function

$$MH_{SWF}:\{I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0):\eta 𝒫_Y\}\{MH_{}(Y,I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)):\eta 𝒫_Y\}.$$

(Changing a reference $`\eta _0`$ corresponds to the same homology groups with grading $`I_{\eta _0^{^{}}}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$-shift) This function $`MH_{SWF}`$ is a topological invariant of the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$, up to the degree-shifting of monopole homologies. Hence such a function $`MH_{SWF}`$ may be called a Seiberg-Witten-Floer theory, which is completely different from the instanton Floer homology, but more related to the treatment in .

## 8. Relative Seiberg-Witten invariants

The Seiberg-Witten invariant (see ) has proved so useful and at least powerful as the Donaldson invariant in many cases, and is much easier to compute. In this section we are going to extend the Seiberg-Witten invariant to the relative one on smooth 4-manifolds with boundary integral homology 3-spheres. The “relative Seiberg-Witten invariants” is no longer a topological invariant since it lies in a monopole homology depending upon Riemannian metrics of integral homology 3-spheres. But the natural pairing between “relative Seiberg-Witten invariants” does recover the Seiberg-Witten invariant of closed smooth 4-manifolds.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth 4-manifold with $`b_1(X)>0`$ and boundary $`Y`$ (an integral homology 3-sphere). The collar of $`X`$ can be identified with $`Y\times [1,1]`$, and the admissible perturbation data on $`Y`$ can be extended inside $`X`$ as we did in §7. Fixing $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ should be understood though this section.

###### Definition 8.1.

For a smooth 4-manifold $`X`$ with boundary $`Y`$ (an integral homology 3-sphere), the 0-degree relative Seiberg-Witten invariant is defined by

$$q_{X,Y,\eta }=\underset{c_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )}{}\mathrm{\#}_X^0(c)c,$$

where $`_{SW}^{}(Y,\eta )`$ is the set of all nondegenerate zeros of $`f_\eta `$ with prescribed $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$.

By the index calculation and our convention $`\mu _\eta (c)=SF(c,\mathrm{\Theta })`$, we have

$$\text{dim}_X^0(c)+\mu _\eta (c)=\text{dim}_X(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{1}{4}(c_1(\pi ^{}(L))^2(2\chi +3\sigma ))(X)=\frac{1}{4}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X),$$

since $`c_1(L)=0`$ for the integral homology 3-sphere $`Y`$. Thus $`q_{X,Y,\eta }`$ is in the monopole chain group with grading $`\frac{1}{4}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X)`$.

###### Proposition 8.2.

For $`q_{X,Y,\eta }MC_{\mu _X}(Y,\eta )`$ with $`\mu _X=\frac{1}{4}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X)`$ and a fixed class $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$, we have $`_Yq_{X,Y,\eta }=0`$.

Proof:

$$_Yq_{X,Y,\eta }(c)=\underset{c_{SW}^\mu (Y,\eta )}{}\underset{c^{^{}}_{SW}^{\mu 1}(Y,\eta )}{}\mathrm{\#}_X^0(c)\mathrm{\#}\widehat{}_{Y\times 𝐑}^1(c,c^{^{}})c^{^{}}.$$

For both $`c`$ and $`c^{^{}}`$ irreducible (nondegenerate) zeros of $`f_\eta `$, we take one-dimensional moduli space $`_X^1(c^{^{}})`$ for fixed $`c^{^{}}`$. Then we count the ends of the moduli space to conclude the result. Again it is a technical point to avoid the reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ entering the boundary $`_X(\mathrm{\Theta })\times _{Y\times 𝐑}(\mathrm{\Theta },c^{^{}})`$. For the reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, we have the dimension counting

$$\text{dim}\{_X(\mathrm{\Theta })\times _{Y\times 𝐑}(\mathrm{\Theta },c^{^{}})\}=\text{dim}_X(\mathrm{\Theta })+\text{dim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }+\text{dim}_{Y\times 𝐑}(\mathrm{\Theta },c^{^{}})0+1+1=2.$$

So $`c`$ cannot be the reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`_Yq_{X,Y,\eta }=0`$. Hence $`q_{X,Y,\eta }`$ is indeed a monopole cycle. ∎

Let $`q_{X,Y,\eta }(g_X)`$ be the relative Seiberg-Witten invariant with respect to the metric $`g_X`$. Now we show that the monopole homology class $`[q_{X,Y,\eta }(g_X)]`$ defined by Proposition 8.2 is independent of metrics $`g_X`$ with $`g_X|_Y`$ in the fixed class of $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$.

###### Proposition 8.3.

Let $`g_X^i(i=1,2)`$ be two generic metrics on $`X`$ with induced metric $`g_Y^i`$ generic such that $`I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=I_{\eta _2}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ and $`\eta _i=(g_Y^i,\alpha _i)`$. Then there exist $`c^{^{}}MC_{\mu _X+1}`$ with $`\mu _X=\frac{1}{4}(2\chi +3\sigma )(X)`$ such that we have

$$q_{X,Y,\eta _2}(g_X^2)q_{X,Y,\eta _1}(g_X^1)=(c^{^{}}).$$

In particular, $`[q_{X,Y,\eta _2}(g_X^2)]=[q_{X,Y,\eta _1}(g_X^1)]`$ as the monopole homology class in $`MH_{\mu _X}(Y,I_{\eta _i}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$.

Proof: Let $`\{g_X^{t+1}\}_{0t1}`$ be a family of metrics on $`X`$ such that $`I_{\eta _{t+1}}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ is independent of $`t`$ with $`\eta _{t+1}=(g_X^{t+1}|_Y,\alpha _{t+1})`$ and $`_X^0(g_X^{t+1})(c)`$ has virtual dimension 0 with respect to $`c`$ irreducible. Therefore $`\{_X^0(g_X^{t+1})(c)\}_{0t1}`$ is an one-dimensional moduli space of Seiberg-Witten solutions on $`X`$. The corresponding codimension-one boundary in $`[0,1]\times _X(g_X^{t+1})(c)`$ is given by

$$(\{_X^0(g_X^{t+1})(c)\}_{0t1})=$$

$$\{0\}\times _X^0(g_X^1)(c)\{1\}\times _X^0(g_X^2)(c)(\underset{\mu _{\eta _{t+1}}(c)\mu _{\eta _{t+1}}(c^{^{}})=1}{}\mathrm{\#}([0,1]\times _X^1(g_X^{t+1})(c^{^{}}))).$$

The number $`_Yc^{^{}},c`$ is the algebraic number of $`([0,1]\times _X^1(g_X^{t+1})(c^{^{}}))`$. The $`c^{^{}}`$ cannot be the reducible $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ by the fixed $`I_{\eta _1}(\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ with the same argument as before. So

$$q_{X,Y,\eta _2}(g_X^2)(c)q_{X,Y,\eta _1}(g_X^1)(c)=_Yc^{^{}},c.$$

Hence $`q_{X,Y,\eta _i}(g_X^i)(i=1,2)`$ (as a monopole cycle) gives the same monopole homology class. ∎

Note that orientation reversing from $`Y`$ to $`Y`$ changes the grading from $`\mu _\eta (c)`$ to $`1\mu _\eta (c)`$ (certainly does not change the solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation on the 3-manifold), so there is a nature identification between $`MC_{\mu _\eta }(Y,\eta )`$ and $`CF_{1\mu _\eta }(Y,\eta )`$.

###### Theorem 8.4.

For a smooth 4-manifold $`X=X_0\mathrm{\#}_YX_1`$ with $`b_2^+(X_i)>0(i=0,1)`$ and $`Y`$ an integral homology 3-sphere, the Seiberg-Witten invariant of the 4-manifold $`X`$ is given by the Kronecker pairing of $`MH_{}(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$ with $`MH_1(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))`$ for $`q_{X_0,Y,\eta }`$ and $`q_{X_1,Y,\eta }`$;

$$,:MH_{}(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))\times MH_1(Y;I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0))𝐙;q_{SW}(X)=q_{X_0,Y,\eta },q_{X_1,Y,\eta }.$$

More precisely, $`q_{SW}(X_0\mathrm{\#}_YX_1)=_c\mathrm{\#}_{X_0,Y,\eta }^0(c)\mathrm{\#}_{X_1,Y}^0(c)`$, where $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$ is fixed. The invariant $`q_{SW}(X)`$ is independent of the choice of $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$.

Proof: If $`Y`$ admits a metric of positive scalar curvature, then the proof is given in  with $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)=0`$ the special case. The assumption implies that $`b_2^+(X)>1`$. So we can rule out the existence of reducible solutions on $`X`$ by the standard method (see ). Note that

$$\text{dim}_{X_0}(c)+\text{dim}_{X_1}(c)+\text{dim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }=\text{dim}_X.$$

By the dimension equation, we can eliminate the term $`\mathrm{\#}_{X_0,Y,\eta }^0(c)\mathrm{\#}_{X_1,Y,\eta }^0(c)`$ with $`c=\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Then the 0-dimensional moduli space on $`X`$ is obtained by gluing the solutions on $`(X_0,Y)`$ with ones on $`(X_1,Y)`$. Using the standard technique on stretching the neck , one gets the equality $`q_{SW}(X)=q_{X_0,Y,\eta },q_{X_1,Y,\eta }`$. Since $`q_{SW}(X)`$ is a topological invariant, so the pairing is independent of the choice of $`I_\eta (\mathrm{\Theta };\eta _0)`$. ∎

For higher degree relative Seiberg-Witten invariants, one can obtain the similar results as in .

Computing the monopole homology is extremely complicated due to the Riemannian metric, harmonic spinor, spectral flow and solution of the first-order Dirac-type nonlinear differential equation. Even for the 3-sphere, a complete calculation of the function $`MH_{SWF}`$ is very difficult at this moment. Understand the harmonic spinors on $`S^3`$ with a subfamily of Riemannian metrics (metrics are $`SU(2)`$-left invariant and $`U(1)`$-right invariant) is already quite involved by the work of Hitchin . On the other hand, Theorem 8.4 gives us a flexibility to understand the Seiberg-Witten invariant of closed smooth 4-manifolds through the relative ones with some preferred Riemannian metric(s) on the integral homology 3-sphere.

Remark: The method we developed in this paper also can be extended to rational homology 3-spheres with fixed spectral flows along all $`U(1)`$-reducible solutions of Seiberg-Witten equation on the rational homology 3-sphere (see  for more detail).

Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank R. Lee for many discussions in our joint paper  which is a root for this paper. Realizing the correction term by the spectral flow is initiated from . It is a pleasure to thank Cappell, Lee and Miller whose work in  inspired the circle of ideas in this paper.


format: text

text:
# The Harnack estimate for the Yamabe flow on CR manifolds of dimension 3

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ denote a closed (i.e., compact without boundary) $`CR`$ manifold. The Yamabe problem is to find a contact form on $`M`$ with constant Tanaka-Webster curvature. In serial papers, Jerison and Lee initiated the study of this problem. (\[JL1\],\[JL2\],\[JL3\]) In this paper, we study an evolution equation of contact form so that the solution is expected to converge to a solution of the Yamabe problem.

Let $`\theta _{(t)}`$ denote a family of contact forms on $`M`$. We can associate to it the so called Tanaka-Webster curvature (\[Ta\],\[We\];see also section 2), denoted $`W_{(t)}`$. Our evolution equation, the so called (unnormalized) Yamabe flow, reads as follows:

$$_t\theta _{(t)}=2W_{(t)}\theta _{(t)}.$$
(1.1)
Write $`\theta _{(t)}=e^{2\lambda _{(t)}}\widehat{\theta }`$ with respect to a fixed contact form $`\widehat{\theta }`$. Then we can express the equation (1.1) in $`\lambda _{(t)}`$:

$$_t\lambda _{(t)}=W_{(t)}.$$
(1.2)
Since the linearization of $`W`$ with respect to $`\lambda `$ is a second-order subelliptic operator, the short time solution and the uniqueness of (1.2) follows from a standard argument. (we will discuss this and the long time solution elsewhere) In this paper we will do the Harnack estimate for $`W`$. The first step is to obtain a geometric quantity, usually called the Harnack quantity. The Harnack quantity is a candidate quantity for us to do the estimate. Let $`_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$, $`<,>_{J,\theta }`$ denote the subgradient, sublaplacian, and the Levi form, respectively. (see section 2 for the definitions) Following the idea of Hamilton in \[H1\], we can ”derive” the following Harnack quantity:

$$Z(\theta ,\eta )2\mathrm{\Delta }_bW+W^2+\frac{W}{t}+<_bW,\eta >_{J,\theta }+\frac{1}{8}W|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2$$
(1.3)
in which $`\eta `$ is a Legendrian vector field. (see section 3 for the definition and more details) In section 4, we prove the following theorem:

$`\mathrm{𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐦}𝐀`$: Let $`(M,\xi ,J)`$ be a closed spherical $`CR`$ 3-manifold. Suppose there is a contact form $`\widehat{\theta }`$ (together with $`J`$ defining a positive pseudohermitian structure) with vanishing torsion and positive Tanaka-Webster curvature. Then under the Yamabe flow (1.1),

$$Z(\theta ,\eta )0$$
(1.4)
for any Legendrian vector field $`\eta `$.

Integrating (1.4) from time $`t_1`$ to time $`t_2`$, we obtain the following Harnack inequality. (see section 4 for more details)

$`\mathrm{𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐦}𝐁`$: Suppose we have the same assumptions as in Theorem A. Then, under the Yamabe flow (1.1), we have, for all points $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ in $`M`$ and times $`t_1<t_2`$,

$$\frac{W(x_2,t_2)}{W(x_1,t_1)}(\frac{t_2}{t_1})^2exp(\frac{1}{16}L)$$
(1.5)
where

$$L=\underset{\gamma }{inf}_{t_1}^{t_2}|\dot{\gamma }|_{J,\theta _{(t)}}^2𝑑t$$

and the infimum is taken over all Legendrian paths $`\gamma `$ with $`\gamma (t_1)=x_1`$ and $`\gamma (t_2)=x_2`$.

In section 5, we show by examples that there are contact forms on the standard $`CR`$ 3-sphere with vanishing torsion and nonconstant positive Tanaka-Webster curvature. We remark that the study here was motivated by the beautiful work of Richard Hamilton \[H2\] on the Ricci flow for surfaces and the work of Ben Chow about the Yamabe flow on locally conformally flat manifolds.(\[Ch\]) In \[H2\], Hamilton proved, among other results, that on the 2-sphere, if the initial metric has positive curvature, then the solution metric of the normalized Ricci flow converges to the limiting metric of constant curvature. One of the important ingredients in Hamilton’s proof is the Harnack inequality for the evolved curvatures.

## 2 Basics derived from the flow

Let us first review some basic material in $`CR`$ geometry. (e.g.,\[We\],\[L1\]) Let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold with an oriented contact structure $`\xi `$. There always exists a global contact form $`\theta `$, obtained by patching together local ones with a partition of unity. The characteristic vector field of $`\theta `$ is the unique vector field $`T`$ such that $`\theta (T)=1`$ and $`_T\theta =0`$ or $`d\theta (T,)=0`$. A $`CR`$-structure compatible with $`\xi `$ is a smooth endomorphism $`J:\xi \xi `$ such that $`J^2=identity`$. A pseudohermitian structure compatible with $`\xi `$ is a $`CR`$-structure $`J`$ compatible with $`\xi `$ together with a global contact form $`\theta `$.

Given a pseudohermitian structure $`(J,\theta )`$, we can choose a complex vector field $`Z_1`$, an eigenvector of $`J`$ with eigenvalue $`i`$, and a complex 1-form $`\theta ^1`$ such that $`\{\theta ,\theta ^1,\theta ^{\overline{1}}\}`$ is dual to $`\{T,Z_1,Z_{\overline{1}}\}`$. ($`\theta ^{\overline{1}}=\overline{(\theta ^1)}`$,$`Z_{\overline{1}}=\overline{(Z_1)}`$) It follows that $`d\theta =ih_{1\overline{1}}\theta ^1\theta ^{\overline{1}}`$ for some nonzero real function $`h_{1\overline{1}}`$. If $`h_{1\overline{1}}`$ is positive, we call such a pseudohermitian structure $`(J,\theta )`$ positive, and we can choose a $`Z_1`$ (hence $`\theta ^1`$) such that $`h_{1\overline{1}}=1`$. That is to say

$$d\theta =i\theta ^1\theta ^{\overline{1}}.$$
(2.1)
We’ll always assume our pseudohermitian structure $`(J,\theta )`$ is positive and $`h_{1\overline{1}}=1`$ throughout the paper. The pseudohermitian connection of $`(J,\theta )`$ is the connection $`^{\psi .h.}`$ on $`TMC`$ (and extended to tensors) given by

$`^{\psi .h.}Z_1=\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Z_1,^{\psi .h.}Z_{\overline{1}}=\omega _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}Z_{\overline{1}},^{\psi .h.}T=0`$
in which the 1-form $`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is uniquely determined by the following equation with a normalization condition:

$`d\theta ^1=\theta ^1\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+A_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}\theta \theta ^{\overline{1}}`$ (2.2)
$`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\omega _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}=0.`$
The coefficient $`A_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}`$ in (2.2) is called the (pseudohermitian) torsion. Since $`h_{1\overline{1}}=1`$, $`A_{\overline{1}\overline{1}}=h_{1\overline{1}}A_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}=A_{}^{1}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}`$. And $`A_{11}`$ is just the complex conjugate of $`A_{\overline{1}\overline{1}}`$. Differentiating $`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ gives

$$d\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=W\theta ^1\theta ^{\overline{1}}+2iIm(A_{11,\overline{1}}\theta ^1\theta )$$
(2.3)
where $`W`$ is the Tanaka-Webster curvature. (\[We\],\[Ta\])

We can define the covariant differentiations with respect to the pseudohermitian connection. For instance, $`f_{,1}=Z_1f`$, $`f_{1\overline{1}}=Z_{\overline{1}}Z_1f\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(Z_{\overline{1}})Z_1f`$ for a (smooth) function $`f`$. (see,e.g.,section 4 in \[L1\]) We define the subgradient operator $`_b`$ and the sublaplacian operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ by

$`_bf=f_{,\overline{1}}Z_1+f_{,1}Z_{\overline{1}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_bf=f_{,1\overline{1}}+f_{,\overline{1}1},`$
respectively. (notice the sign difference for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ in \[L1\]) We also define the Levi form $`<,>_{J,\theta }`$ by

$$<V,U>_{J,\theta }=2d\theta (V,JU)=v_1u_{\overline{1}}+v_{\overline{1}}u_1$$

for $`V=v_1Z_{\overline{1}}+v_{\overline{1}}Z_1`$,$`U=u_1Z_{\overline{1}}+u_{\overline{1}}Z_1`$ in $`\xi `$. (note that the second equality follows from (2.1) and our definition is different from the one in \[L1\] by a factor 2) The associated norm is defined as usual: $`|V|_{J,\theta }^2=<V,V>_{J,\theta }`$. Let $`\widehat{\theta },\widehat{\theta }^1,\widehat{\theta }^{\overline{1}}`$ satisfy (2.1). Now consider the change of contact form: $`\theta =e^{2\lambda }\widehat{\theta }`$. Choose $`\theta ^1=e^\lambda (\widehat{\theta }^1+2i\lambda _{,\overline{1}}\widehat{\theta })`$ such that $`h_{1\overline{1}}=\widehat{h}_{1\overline{1}}`$(=1 by assumption). One checks easily that $`\theta ,\theta ^1,\theta ^{\overline{1}}`$ satisfies (2.1). Then the associated connection form $`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, torsion $`A_{11}`$, and Tanaka-Webster curvature $`W`$ transform as follows: (cf. section 5 in \[L1\])

$`\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\widehat{(\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}+3(\lambda _{,1}\widehat{\theta }^1\lambda _{,\overline{1}}\widehat{\theta }^{\overline{1}})+i(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b\lambda +4|\widehat{}_b\lambda |_{J,\widehat{\theta }}^2)\widehat{\theta }`$ (2.4)
$`A_{11}=e^{2\lambda }(\widehat{A}_{11}+2i\lambda _{,11}4i(\lambda _{,1})^2)`$ (2.5)
$`W=e^{2\lambda }(4\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b\lambda 4|\widehat{}_b\lambda |_{J,\widehat{\theta }}^2+\widehat{W}).`$ (2.6)
Here the operators or quantities with ”hat” are with respect to the coframe $`(\widehat{\theta },\widehat{\theta }^1,\widehat{\theta }^{\overline{1}})`$, and so are the covariant derivatives of $`\lambda `$. Now consider a family of contact forms $`\theta _{(t)}=e^{2\lambda _{(t)}}\widehat{\theta }`$, a solution to the Yamabe flow (1.1) or (1.2).

$`\mathrm{𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}2.1}.`$ Under the Yamabe flow (1.1)($`W=W_{(t)}`$ for short), we have

$`\dot{W}=4\mathrm{\Delta }_bW+2W^2`$ (2.7)
$`\dot{(A_{11})}=2WA_{11}2iW_{,11}`$ (2.8)
in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$, the torsion, and covariant derivatives are with respect to $`\theta _{(t)}`$ and induced coframes as shown previously.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: We will omit the t-dependence for simplicity of notation if no confusion occurs. First note that $`Z_1=e^\lambda \widehat{Z}_1`$ and $`_bf=e^{2\lambda }\widehat{}_bf`$. It follows that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_bf=e^{2\lambda }(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_bf+2<\widehat{}_b\lambda ,\widehat{}_bf>_{J,\widehat{\theta }}).`$ (2.9)
Differentiating (2.6) with respect to $`t`$, we obtain (2.7) by making use of (1.2) and (2.9). From (2.4), it is easy to see that

$`\widehat{(\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}(\widehat{Z}_1)=e^\lambda (\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(Z_1)3\lambda _{,1}).`$ (2.10)
Substituting (2.10) in the expression of $`W_{,\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}`$, we obtain

$`W_{,\widehat{1}\widehat{1}}=e^{2\lambda }(W_{,11}+4\lambda _{,1}W_{,1}).`$ (2.11)
Now differentiating (2.5) with respect to $`t`$ and making use of (1.2),(2.11), we finally reach (2.8).

Q.E.D.

Now applying the maximum principle to (2.7), we obtain

$`\mathrm{𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}2.2}`$. Suppose $`(M,J,\theta _{(0)})`$ is closed with $`Wc>0`$. Then the inequality $`Wc>0`$ is preserved under the Yamabe flow (1.1).

The following formula will be used to compute the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_bW`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}2.3}`$. Under the Yamabe flow (1.1), we have

$`_t(\mathrm{\Delta }_bf)=\mathrm{\Delta }_b(\dot{f})+2W\mathrm{\Delta }_bf2<_bW,_bf>_{J,\theta }`$ (2.12)
for a (smooth) real-valued function $`f=f(x,t)`$ defined on $`M\times R`$. (note that we have suppressed the t-dependence in the above expression)

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: Differentiating $`Z_1=e^\lambda \widehat{Z}_1`$ and (2.4) with respect to $`t`$ gives

$`\dot{Z}_1=WZ_1`$ (2.13)
$`\dot{(\omega _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}=3W_{,1}\theta ^1+3W_{,\overline{1}}\theta ^{\overline{1}}(mod\theta )`$ (2.14)
by (1.2). Now our formula (2.12) follows from (2.13), (2.14) by a straightforward computation.

Q.E.D.

## 3 The Harnack quantity

In this section, we apply Hamilton’s general method for obtaining a potential quantity for the Harnack estimate. First we need to know what the soliton equation is supposed to be for our flow (1.1). Let $`\varphi _t`$ be a family of $`CR`$ automorphisms. Suppose $`\varphi _t^{}\theta _{(t)}`$ converges to a fixed contact form $`\theta `$ and differentiating $`\varphi _t^{}\theta _{(t)}`$ with respect to $`t`$ converges to $`0`$. Then $`\theta `$ satisfies the following equation:

$`_{X_f}\theta 2W\theta =0`$ (3.1)
in which $`X_f`$ is a $`CR`$ vector field parametrized by a real-valued function $`f`$. We can write (e.g.,\[CL\])

$`X_f=fT+if_{,1}Z_{\overline{1}}if_{,\overline{1}}Z_1.`$ (3.2)
We call (3.1) the soliton equation of the flow (1.1). (A solution $`\theta `$ is called a soliton) Substituting (2.1), (3.2) in the formula for the Lie derivative, we can reduce (3.1) to $`f_{,0}=2W`$. (recall that $`f_{,0}=Tf`$ where $`T`$ is the characteristic vector field of $`\theta `$) Consider the equation for an expanding soliton:

$`f_{,0}=W{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}.`$ (3.3)
Substituting the commutation relation $`if_{,0}=f_{,1\overline{1}}f_{,\overline{1}1}`$ in (3.3) and differentiating it in $`Z_{\overline{1}}`$ and $`Z_1`$ directions, we get

$`f_{,1\overline{1}1\overline{1}}f_{,\overline{1}11\overline{1}}=iW_{,1\overline{1}}.`$ (3.4)
On the other hand, $`X_f`$ being a $`CR`$ vector field means $`_{X_f}J=0`$, which is equivalent to (e.g.,\[CL\])

$`f_{,11}+iA_{11}f=0.`$ (3.5)
Differentiating (3.5) in the $`Z_{\overline{1}}`$ direction and exchanging $`1`$ and $`\overline{1}`$ using the commutation relation (\[L2\]), we obtain

$`f_{,1\overline{1}1}+if_{,10}+f_{,1}W+iA_{11,\overline{1}}f+iA_{11}f_{,\overline{1}}=0.`$ (3.6)
Differentiating (3.3) in the $`Z_1`$ direction and switching $`1`$ and $`0`$ give $`f_{,10}+A_{11}f_{,\overline{1}}=W_{,1}`$. Substituting this in (3.6), we obtain

$`f_{,1\overline{1}1}iW_{,1}+f_{,1}W+iA_{11,\overline{1}}f=0.`$ (3.7)
Also differentiating (3.3) twice in the $`Z_{\overline{1}}`$ and $`Z_1`$ directions and exchanging $`\overline{1}1`$ and $`0`$ using the commutation relations, we obtain

$`f_{,\overline{1}10}=W_{,\overline{1}1}A_{11}f_{,\overline{1}\overline{1}}A_{11,\overline{1}}f_{,\overline{1}}A_{\overline{1}\overline{1}}f_{,11}A_{\overline{1}\overline{1},1}f_{,1}.`$ (3.8)
Differentiating the complex conjugate of (3.7) in the $`Z_1`$ direction and substituting the result and (3.8) in the commutation relation: $`f_{,\overline{1}11\overline{1}}=f_{,\overline{1}1\overline{1}1}+if_{,\overline{1}10}`$, we obtain an expression for $`f_{,\overline{1}11\overline{1}}`$. Substituting this for the second term and the result of differentiating (3.7) in the $`Z_{\overline{1}}`$ direction for the first term in (3.4), we can reduce (3.4) to

$`2i(W_{,1\overline{1}}+W_{,\overline{1}1})(f_{,1\overline{1}}f_{,\overline{1}1})W+f_{,\overline{1}}W_{,1}f_{,1}W_{,\overline{1}}`$
$`+iA_{11}f_{,\overline{1}\overline{1}}+iA_{\overline{1}\overline{1}}f_{,11}i(A_{11,\overline{1}\overline{1}}+A_{\overline{1}\overline{1},11})f=0.`$ (3.9)
Substituting $`f_{,1\overline{1}}f_{,\overline{1}1}=if_{,0}=iWit^1`$ (by (3.3)) in (3.9), using (3.5) to replace $`f_{,11}`$ ($`f_{,\overline{1}\overline{1}}`$, resp.) by $`iA_{11}f`$ ($`iA_{\overline{1}\overline{1}}f`$, resp.), and noticing the Bianchi identity: $`A_{11,\overline{1}\overline{1}}+A_{\overline{1}\overline{1},11}=W_{,0}`$ and the definition of the sublaplacian operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$, we finally obtain

$`2\mathrm{\Delta }_bW+<W,X_f>+W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{t}}=0`$ (3.10)
in which $`W=_bW+W_{,0}T`$ and $`<W,X_f>=W_{,0}f<_bW,J(_bf)>_{J,\theta }`$.

In the Riemannian case (\[Ch\]), we can add a certain quadratic term in the involved vector field to get the Harnack quantity. However, in our case, adding a quadratic term like $`(constant)W|X_f|^2`$ does not seem to work without extra estimates on the torsion. So, as a first try, we assume the torsion vanishes at the initial time. It turns out that the torsion vanishes for all time if our $`CR`$ structure $`J`$ is spherical.

$`\mathrm{𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}3.1}`$. Suppose $`J`$ is spherical and $`A_{11}=0`$ for an initial $`\theta _{(0)}`$. Then, under the Yamabe flow (1.1), $`A_{11}`$ vanishes for all $`\theta _{(t)}`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: First, recall that the Cartan curvature tensor $`Q_{11}`$ is related to the Tanaka-Webster curvature $`W`$ and torsion $`A_{11}`$ in the following formula: (Lemma 2.2 in \[CL\])

$`Q_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}W_{,11}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}WA_{11}A_{11,0}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}A_{11,\overline{1}1}.`$ (3.11)
The fundamental theorem of 3-dimensional $`CR`$ geometry due to Elie Cartan (\[Ca\]) asserts that $`J`$ being spherical is equivalent to $`Q_{11}=0`$. Now look at the evolution equation (2.8) of $`A_{11}`$. Each term in the right side of (2.8) contains the torsion or one of its derivatives in view of (3.11). So obviously $`A_{11}=0`$ for all $`t`$ is a solution to (2.8). Therefore it suffices to show the uniqueness of solutions to (2.8). However, using the commutation relation, we can write the right side of (2.8) as

$`4(A_{11,1\overline{1}}+A_{11,\overline{1}1}4iA_{11,0})12WA_{11}.`$
The highest ”weight” term is just $`4`$ times the generalized Folland-Stein operator $`_\alpha `$ (defined in \[CL\]) acting on $`A_{11}`$ with $`\alpha =4`$. Since $`\alpha =4`$ is not an odd integer, $`_4`$ is subelliptic. So the uniqueness follows from the standard theory for subparabolic equations.

Q.E.D.

When the torsion $`A_{11}`$ vanishes identically, so does $`W_{,0}`$ due to the Bianchi identity: (\[L2\])

$`A_{11,\overline{1}\overline{1}}+A_{\overline{1}\overline{1},11}=W_{,0}.`$ (3.12)
Thus we can reduce $`<W,X_f>`$ in (3.10) to $`<_bW,J(_bf)>_{J,\theta }`$. Note that the vector field $`\eta =J(_bf)`$ belongs to $`\xi `$, the contact bundle, at each point. We call such a vector field a Legendrian vector field. Releasing the $`f`$-dependence, we therefore consider (1.3) for arbitrary Legendrian vector field $`\eta `$ as our ”Harnack” quantity. (the coefficient $`\frac{1}{8}`$ of the last term in (1.3) is the minimal value for (1.4) to hold as we’ll see in the proof of Theorem A)

## 4 The Harnack inequality: Proof of Theorems

To apply the maximum principle to $`Z(\theta ,\eta )`$, we compute the evolution equation for $`Z(\theta ,\eta )`$. For convenience, we define $`\mathrm{}=_t4\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{}\eta =(\mathrm{}\eta _1)Z_{\overline{1}}+(\mathrm{}\eta _{\overline{1}})Z_1`$ for a Legendrian vector field $`\eta =\eta _1Z_{\overline{1}}+\eta _{\overline{1}}Z_1`$, in which $`\mathrm{}\eta _1=_t\eta _14(\eta _{1,1\overline{1}}+\eta _{1,\overline{1}1}`$. Also we define the modulus of ”Legendrian 2-tensor” $`_b\eta `$ as follows: $`|_b\eta |_{J,\theta }^2=2(\eta _{1,\overline{1}}\eta _{\overline{1},1}+\eta _{1,1}\eta _{\overline{1},\overline{1}})`$. (recall that $`h_{1\overline{1}}=1`$ and we express all tensors using subindices)

$`\mathrm{𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}4.1}`$. Under the Yamabe flow (1.1), we have the following evolution equations:

$`\mathrm{}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_bW+W^2)=12W\mathrm{\Delta }_bW4|_bW|_{J,\theta }^2+4W^3`$ (4.1)
$`\mathrm{}(W/t)=2W^2/tW/t^2`$ (4.2)
$`\mathrm{}(W|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2)=2W^2|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2+2W<\eta ,\mathrm{}\eta >_{J,\theta }8W|_b\eta |_{J,\theta }^28<_bW,_b(|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2)>_{J,\theta }`$ (4.3)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: (4.2) follows from (2.7). (4.1) follows from (2.12) with $`f=W`$, (2.7), and the product formula: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(fg)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_bf)g+f\mathrm{\Delta }_bg+2<_bf,_bg>_{J,\theta }`$. Similarly, (4.3) follows from a direct computation using (2.7) and the above product formula. (noting that $`|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2=2\eta _1\eta _{\overline{1}}`$)

Q.E.D.

Let $`\eta ^1`$, $`\eta ^2`$ be two 2-tensors with components $`\eta _{cd}^1,\eta _{cd}^2`$,respectively, in which $`c,d=1`$ or $`\overline{1}`$. We define the Levi form for $`\eta ^1`$, $`\eta ^2`$ : $`<\eta ^1,\eta ^2>_{J,\theta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta _{cd}^1\eta _{\overline{c}\overline{d}}^2`$, in which the sum is taken for all possible $`(c,d)`$ and $`\overline{(\overline{1})}=1`$ by convention. We define $`_b\eta `$ to be a 2-tensor with components $`\eta _{c,d}`$ for $`\eta _c`$ being components of a Legendrian vector field $`\eta `$. Then the modulus of $`_b\eta `$ defined previously is just the square root of the above Levi form for $`\eta ^1=\eta ^2=_b\eta `$.

$`\mathrm{𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚}\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}4.2}`$. Suppose the torsion $`A_{11}`$ vanishes identically under the Yamabe flow (1.1). Then we have the following evolution equation:

$`\mathrm{}(<_bW,\eta >_{J,\theta })=W<_bW,\eta >_{J,\theta }+<_bW,\mathrm{}\eta >_{J,\theta }8<_b(_bW),_b\eta >_{J,\theta }`$ (4.4)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: First observe that

$`\mathrm{}(W_{,1})`$ $`=`$ $`_t(Z_1W)4(W_{,11\overline{1}}+W_{,1\overline{1}1})`$
$`=`$ $`5WW_{,1}+4(W_{,\overline{1}11}W_{,11\overline{1}})(by(2.7)and\dot{Z}_1=WZ_1)`$
$`=`$ $`WW_{,1}8iW_{,01}mod(A_{11},A_{11,\overline{1}})(bycommutationrelations)`$
$`=`$ $`WW_{,1}.(A_{11}=0andW_{,0}=0by(3.12))`$
Now (4.4) follows from a direct computation using the product formula and (4.5).

Q.E.D.

By combining Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, we find that if the torsion vanishes identically, the evolution equation for $`Z(\theta ,\eta )`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{}Z(\theta ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`12W\mathrm{\Delta }_bW4|_bW|_{J,\theta }^2+4W^3+2W^2/tW/t^2`$
$`+W<_bW,\eta >_{J,\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W^2|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2+<_bW+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W\eta ,\mathrm{}\eta >_{J,\theta }`$
$`8<_b(_bW),_b\eta >_{J,\theta }W|_b\eta |_{J,\theta }^2<_bW,_b(|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2)>_{J,\theta }.`$
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐦}𝐀`$: First observe that by Corollary 2.2, $`W`$ is always positive, and for all $`\eta `$, $`Z(\theta ,\eta )Y(\theta )`$ where

$`Y(\theta )=2\mathrm{\Delta }_bW+W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{t}}2W^1|_bW|_{J,\theta }^2.`$ (4.7)
Also there exists a positive constant $`\delta `$ such that $`Y(\theta )>0`$ for $`t<\delta `$, hence $`Z(\theta ,\eta )>0`$ for $`t<\delta `$.

Suppose $`Z(\theta ,\eta )0`$ at some space-time point for some $`\eta `$. Then there exists a first time $`\tau >0`$, a point $`\zeta M`$ and a Legendrian tangent vector $`\eta `$ at $`\zeta `$ such that at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$,

$`Z(\theta ,\eta )=0.`$ (4.8)
We extend $`\eta `$ so that at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$,

$`\eta _{1,\overline{1}}=W^1(4iW_{,1\overline{1}}W_{,\overline{1}}\eta _1)`$ (4.9)
$`\eta _{1,1}=W^1W_{,1}\eta _1`$ (4.10)
where $`\eta =i\eta _1Z_{\overline{1}}i\eta _{\overline{1}}Z_1`$. Substituting (4.9), (4.10) in the last three terms of (4.6), involving first derivatives of $`\eta `$, we obtain that at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$,

$`8<_b(_bW),_b\eta >_{J,\theta }W|_b\eta |_{J,\theta }^2<_bW,_b(|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2)>_{J,\theta }`$
$`=W^1(2|4iW_{,1\overline{1}}W_{,\overline{1}}\eta _1|^2+2|W_{,\overline{1}}\eta _{\overline{1}}|^2).`$ (4.11)
In deriving (4.11), we have used $`W_{,11}=0`$ for all time due to Lemma 3.1 and $`Q_{11}=0`$ in (3.11). (note that the choice of $`_b\eta `$ in (4.9),(4.10) is to maximize the left side of (4.11))

Now if $`_bW+\frac{1}{4}W\eta 0`$ at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$, we extend $`\eta `$ by choosing the value of $`\mathrm{}\eta `$ at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$ to kill all terms on the right side of (4.6) except, say, the term $`2W^2/t`$. Then it follows that at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$, $`0_tZ=4\mathrm{\Delta }_bZ+2W^2/\tau 2W^2/\tau `$, a contradiction. So we assume

$`_bW+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W\eta =0`$ (4.12)
at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$. By (4.8) and (4.12), we can express $`\mathrm{\Delta }_bW`$ in terms of $`W`$ and $`\eta `$ at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$:

$`2\mathrm{\Delta }_bW={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}W|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2W^2{\displaystyle \frac{W}{t}}.`$ (4.13)
From Lemma 3.1 and (3.12), $`W_{,0}`$ vanishes identically for all time. It follows that $`W_{,1\overline{1}}=W_{,\overline{1}1}`$ by the commutation relation. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }_bW=2W_{,1\overline{1}}`$, so by (4.13) we can express $`W_{,1\overline{1}}`$ at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$ as follows:

$`W_{,1\overline{1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}W|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2W^2{\displaystyle \frac{W}{t}}).`$ (4.14)
Now substituting (4.14),(4.12) in (4.11) and making use of (4.13),(4.12), we can reduce (4.6) to an expression in $`W`$,$`\eta `$ only:

$`\mathrm{}Z={\displaystyle \frac{W}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W^2|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}W|\eta |_{J,\theta }^4`$
at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$. Hence the maximum principle implies that at $`(\zeta ,\tau )`$,

$`0_tZ=4\mathrm{\Delta }_bZ+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W^2|\eta |_{J,\theta }^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}W|\eta |_{J,\theta }^4W\tau ^2,`$
which is a contradiction (to Corollary 2.2). So $`Z(\theta ,\eta )>0`$ completing the proof of Theorem A.

Q.E.D.

Note that we actually obtain the strict inequality from the proof of Theorem A. Taking $`\eta =4W^1_bW`$ in Theorem A implies that

$`Z(\theta ,\eta )=Y(\theta )0,`$ (4.15)
where $`Y(\theta )`$ is defined in (4.7).

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐦}𝐁`$: By (2.7) we rewrite (4.15) as

$`_tW+{\displaystyle \frac{2W}{t}}4W^1|_bW|_{J,\theta }^20.`$ (4.16)
Integrating (4.16) over Legendrian paths connecting $`x_1`$,$`x_2`$ from $`t_1`$ to $`t_2`$ and using $`az+\overline{a}\overline{z}+b|z|^2b^1|a|^2`$ for $`b>0`$, we obtain (1.5).

Q.E.D.

## 5 Nontriviality of initial conditions

In this section, we will construct contact forms on the standard $`CR`$ 3-sphere $`(S^3,\widehat{\xi },\widehat{J})`$ with nonconstant positive Tanaka-Webster curvature and vanishing torsion.

Suppose our $`S^3`$ is defined by $`|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1`$ for $`(z_1,z_2)C^2`$. The standard contact form $`\widehat{\theta }=i(\sigma \overline{\sigma })`$ where $`\sigma =z_1d\overline{z}_1+z_2d\overline{z}_2`$. Take $`\widehat{\theta }^1=\sqrt{2}(z_1dz_2z_2dz_1)`$ such that (2.1) is satisfied for the ”hatted” quantities. It is easy to deduce $`\widehat{Z}_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\overline{z}_1_2\overline{z}_2_1)`$ where $`_j=\frac{}{z_j}`$ for $`j=1,2`$. Also $`\widehat{\omega }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=2(\overline{z}_1dz_1+\overline{z}_2dz_2)`$ and $`\widehat{A}_{11}=0`$ by (2.2).

Now let $`\theta =e^{2\lambda }\widehat{\theta }`$. It follows from (2.5) that $`A_{11}=0`$ (with respect to $`\theta `$) if and only if

$`\lambda _{,11}=2(\lambda _{,1})^2`$ (5.1)
in which $`\lambda _{,1}=\widehat{Z}_1\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _{,11}=(\widehat{Z}_1)^2\lambda `$ since $`\widehat{\omega }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\widehat{Z}_1)=0`$. It is a direct verification that $`\lambda =ln|az_1+bz_2+c|`$ (well defined on $`S^3`$ for $`|c||a|,|b|`$) satisfies (5.1). Next we compute $`W`$ from the formula (2.6) for $`\widehat{W}=1`$ and $`\lambda `$ given above. The final result is

$`W=(3|z_1|^2+2|z_2|^2)|a|^2(3|z_2|^2+2|z_1|^2)|b|^2(a\overline{b}z_1\overline{z}_2+\overline{a}b\overline{z}_1z_2)`$ (5.2)
$`c(\overline{a}\overline{z}_1+\overline{b}\overline{z}_2)\overline{c}(az_1+bz_2)+|c|^2.`$
Now it is easy to see from (5.2) that $`W`$ is positive on $`S^3`$ for $`|c||a|,|b|`$, and nonconstant in general.

| Chang: Department of Mathematics | Cheng: Institute of Mathematics |
| --- | --- |
| National Tsing-Hua University | Academia Sinica, Nankang |
| Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. | Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. |
| E-mail: scchang@math.nthu.edu.tw | E-mail: cheng@math.sinica.edu.tw |