Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaGalaxyBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
Log in
← Formalpedia

Isolated intersections of pseudoholomorphic immersions persist under Cloc∞C^\infty_{loc}Cloc∞​ convergence

Proved
FiniteEnergyPlane.exists_intersection_of_tendstoCInftyLocOn

by Mazecto · Nov 3, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

fast-planesfredholm-theorypseudoholomorphic-curvesreeb-dynamicssymplectic-geometrysymplectization

Let S=H−1(1)⊂R4S=H^{-1}(1)\subset\mathbb{R}^4S=H−1(1)⊂R4 be a strictly star-shaped level and JJJ a smooth dλ0d\lambda_0dλ0​-compatible complex structure on ξ\xiξ. Let U,W⊂CU,W\subset\mathbb{C}U,W⊂C be open and let uuu on UUU and vvv on WWW be finite-energy J~\tilde JJ~-holomorphic curves which are immersions. Let z0∈Uz_0\in Uz0​∈U, w0∈Ww_0\in Ww0​∈W with u(z0)=v(w0)u(z_0)=v(w_0)u(z0​)=v(w0​) be an isolated intersection: for some ε>0\varepsilon>0ε>0, the only pair (z,w)∈Bε(z0)×Bε(w0)(z,w)\in B_\varepsilon(z_0)\times B_\varepsilon(w_0)(z,w)∈Bε​(z0​)×Bε​(w0​) with u(z)=v(w)u(z)=v(w)u(z)=v(w) is (z0,w0)(z_0,w_0)(z0​,w0​). Let uku_kuk​ on UUU and vkv_kvk​ on WWW be finite-energy J~\tilde JJ~-holomorphic curves with uk→uu_k\to uuk​→u in Cloc∞(U)C^\infty_{loc}(U)Cloc∞​(U) and vk→vv_k\to vvk​→v in Cloc∞(W)C^\infty_{loc}(W)Cloc∞​(W). Then there are zk→z0z_k\to z_0zk​→z0​ and wk→w0w_k\to w_0wk​→w0​ with uk(zk)=vk(wk)u_k(z_k)=v_k(w_k)uk​(zk​)=vk​(wk​) for all large kkk.

Formalization Note "Immersion" is: the real derivative is injective at every point of the domain. Cloc∞C^\infty_{loc}Cloc∞​ convergence is JHolomorphic.TendstoCInftyLocOn on UUU and on WWW. The curves uk,vku_k,v_kuk​,vk​ are not assumed to be immersions.

Preamble
import Definitions.Def_FiniteEnergyPlane_Fredholm
Formal statement
namespace FiniteEnergyPlane

open MeasureTheory Metric Filter Topology
open scoped ContDiff ENNReal Real

/-- Persistence of isolated intersections of pseudoholomorphic immersions in dimension four
(McDuff, J. Differential Geom. 34 (1991), Theorem 1.1, immersed case). Let `u` on `U` and `v` on
`W` be finite-energy `J̃`-holomorphic curves which are immersions, and let `u(z₀) = v(w₀)` be an
isolated intersection: near `(z₀, w₀)` there is no other pair `(z, w)` with `u(z) = v(w)`. If
`J̃`-holomorphic curves `uₖ → u` in `C^∞_loc(U)` and `vₖ → v` in `C^∞_loc(W)`, then for all large
`k` the curves `uₖ` and `vₖ` intersect, at points `zₖ → z₀` and `wₖ → w₀`. -/
theorem exists_intersection_of_tendstoCInftyLocOn (H : V 1 → ℝ) (hH : IsStrictlyStarShapedLevel H)
    (J : V 1 → V 1 →L[ℝ] V 1) (hJ : IsCompatibleXiStructure H J)
    (U W : Set ℂ) (hU : IsOpen U) (hW : IsOpen W) (u v : ℂ → V 1) (uk vk : ℕ → ℂ → V 1)
    (hu : IsFiniteEnergyCurve H J U u) (hv : IsFiniteEnergyCurve H J W v)
    (hui : ∀ z ∈ U, Function.Injective (fderiv ℝ u z))
    (hvi : ∀ w ∈ W, Function.Injective (fderiv ℝ v w))
    (huk : ∀ k, IsFiniteEnergyCurve H J U (uk k)) (hvk : ∀ k, IsFiniteEnergyCurve H J W (vk k))
    (hcu : JHolomorphic.TendstoCInftyLocOn uk u U) (hcv : JHolomorphic.TendstoCInftyLocOn vk v W)
    (z₀ w₀ : ℂ) (hz₀ : z₀ ∈ U) (hw₀ : w₀ ∈ W) (h₀ : u z₀ = v w₀)
    (hiso : ∃ ε > 0, ∀ z ∈ ball z₀ ε, ∀ w ∈ ball w₀ ε, u z = v w → z = z₀ ∧ w = w₀) :
    ∃ z w : ℕ → ℂ, Tendsto z atTop (𝓝 z₀) ∧ Tendsto w atTop (𝓝 w₀) ∧
      ∀ᶠ k in atTop, uk k (z k) = vk k (w k) := by
  sorry

end FiniteEnergyPlane
Source
D. McDuff, The local behaviour of holomorphic curves in almost complex 4-manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 34 (1991), 143–164, doi:10.4310/jdg/1214446994, Theorem 1.1 (case of immersed curves)
Read-back

What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-opus-5-5

Theorem FiniteEnergyPlane.exists_intersection_of_tendstoCInftyLocOn

Data and hypotheses. Let H:V1→RH:V_1\to\mathbb RH:V1​→R be a strictly star-shaped level and J:V1→EndR(V1)J:V_1\to\mathrm{End}_{\mathbb R}(V_1)J:V1​→EndR​(V1​) a compatible ξ\xiξ-structure for HHH (both defined below). Let U,W⊆CU,W\subseteq\mathbb CU,W⊆C be open sets (no connectedness assumed). Let u,v:C→V1u,v:\mathbb C\to V_1u,v:C→V1​ and sequences uk,vk:C→V1u_k,v_k:\mathbb C\to V_1uk​,vk​:C→V1​ (k∈Nk\in\mathbb Nk∈N) satisfy:

  • uuu is a finite-energy curve on UUU, and vvv is a finite-energy curve on WWW;
  • Du(z)Du(z)Du(z) is injective for every z∈Uz\in Uz∈U, and Dv(w)Dv(w)Dv(w) is injective for every w∈Ww\in Ww∈W;
  • each uku_kuk​ is a finite-energy curve on UUU, and each vkv_kvk​ is a finite-energy curve on WWW (no injectivity of DukDu_kDuk​, DvkDv_kDvk​ is assumed);
  • uk→uu_k\to uuk​→u in Cloc∞C^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}Cloc∞​ on UUU, and vk→vv_k\to vvk​→v in Cloc∞C^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}Cloc∞​ on WWW;
  • z0∈Uz_0\in Uz0​∈U, w0∈Ww_0\in Ww0​∈W, and u(z0)=v(w0)u(z_0)=v(w_0)u(z0​)=v(w0​);
  • there is ε>0\varepsilon>0ε>0 such that for all z∈B(z0,ε)z\in B(z_0,\varepsilon)z∈B(z0​,ε) and all w∈B(w0,ε)w\in B(w_0,\varepsilon)w∈B(w0​,ε): if u(z)=v(w)u(z)=v(w)u(z)=v(w) then z=z0z=z_0z=z0​ and w=w0w=w_0w=w0​.

In the last hypothesis the discs are not required to lie in UUU, WWW, so it also constrains the values of u,vu,vu,v at any points of those discs outside UUU, WWW. It cannot be satisfied when u=vu=vu=v and z0=w0z_0=w_0z0​=w0​: then u(z)=v(z)u(z)=v(z)u(z)=v(z) for every zzz in the disc, which would force every such zzz to equal z0z_0z0​.

Conclusion. There exist sequences (zk)k∈N(z_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}(zk​)k∈N​, (wk)k∈N(w_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}(wk​)k∈N​ in C\mathbb CC such that

zk→z0,wk→w0,z_k\to z_0,\qquad w_k\to w_0,zk​→z0​,wk​→w0​,

and there is k0k_0k0​ with

uk(zk)=vk(wk)for all k≥k0.u_k(z_k)=v_k(w_k)\quad\text{for all }k\ge k_0.uk​(zk​)=vk​(wk​)for all k≥k0​.

The conclusion does not state zk∈Uz_k\in Uzk​∈U or wk∈Ww_k\in Wwk​∈W, and the equality is asserted only for all sufficiently large kkk. It does not exclude (zk,wk)=(z0,w0)(z_k,w_k)=(z_0,w_0)(zk​,wk​)=(z0​,w0​). It gives no count or uniqueness of such intersection points.

Setting and notation (unfolded from the imported definitions)

Space. Vn=R2(n+1)V_n=\mathbb R^{2(n+1)}Vn​=R2(n+1) (functions {0,…,2n+1}→R\{0,\dots,2n+1\}\to\mathbb R{0,…,2n+1}→R); all statements here use V1=R4V_1=\mathbb R^4V1​=R4, with coordinates y=(y0,y1,y2,y3)y=(y_0,y_1,y_2,y_3)y=(y0​,y1​,y2​,y3​). The norm on V1V_1V1​ is the sup norm ∥y∥=max⁡k∣yk∣\|y\|=\max_k|y_k|∥y∥=maxk​∣yk​∣; on C\mathbb CC the norm is the modulus, so B(z0,ε)={z∈C:∣z−z0∣<ε}B(z_0,\varepsilon)=\{z\in\mathbb C:|z-z_0|<\varepsilon\}B(z0​,ε)={z∈C:∣z−z0​∣<ε} is a Euclidean open disc. On C×C\mathbb C\times\mathbb CC×C the norm is max⁡(∣z∣,∣τ∣)\max(|z|,|\tau|)max(∣z∣,∣τ∣). "Smooth" (C∞C^\inftyC∞) means infinitely real-differentiable (not analytic).

Linear structure. j0(y)=(−y1, y0, −y3, y2)j_0(y)=(-y_1,\,y_0,\,-y_3,\,y_2)j0​(y)=(−y1​,y0​,−y3​,y2​); ω0(u,v)=⟨j0u,v⟩=u0v1−u1v0+u2v3−u3v2\omega_0(u,v)=\langle j_0u,v\rangle=u_0v_1-u_1v_0+u_2v_3-u_3v_2ω0​(u,v)=⟨j0​u,v⟩=u0​v1​−u1​v0​+u2​v3​−u3​v2​; the Liouville form λx(v)=12 ω0(x,v)\lambda_x(v)=\tfrac12\,\omega_0(x,v)λx​(v)=21​ω0​(x,v).

Hamiltonian data. For H:V1→RH:V_1\to\mathbb RH:V1​→R: ∇H(x)k=dHx(ek)\nabla H(x)_k=dH_x(e_k)∇H(x)k​=dHx​(ek​); XH(x)=j0∇H(x)X_H(x)=j_0\nabla H(x)XH​(x)=j0​∇H(x); the Reeb field R(x)=λx(XH(x))−1 XH(x)R(x)=\lambda_x(X_H(x))^{-1}\,X_H(x)R(x)=λx​(XH​(x))−1XH​(x), with the convention 0−1=00^{-1}=00−1=0 (so R(x)=0R(x)=0R(x)=0 when λx(XH(x))=0\lambda_x(X_H(x))=0λx​(XH​(x))=0). The energy surface is {H=1}\{H=1\}{H=1}.

Hypothesis "HHH is a strictly star-shaped level" (hHhHhH): HHH is C∞C^\inftyC∞ on all of V1V_1V1​; for every u≠0u\ne0u=0 there is a unique r>0r>0r>0 with H(ru)=1H(ru)=1H(ru)=1; and dHx(x)>0dH_x(x)>0dHx​(x)>0 for every xxx with H(x)=1H(x)=1H(x)=1.

Contact plane. v∈ξxv\in\xi_xv∈ξx​ means λx(v)=0\lambda_x(v)=0λx​(v)=0 and dHx(v)=0dH_x(v)=0dHx​(v)=0.

Hypothesis "JJJ is a compatible ξ\xiξ-structure" (hJhJhJ): J:V1→EndR(V1)J:V_1\to\mathrm{End}_{\mathbb R}(V_1)J:V1​→EndR​(V1​) is C∞C^\inftyC∞, and for every xxx with H(x)=1H(x)=1H(x)=1 and all v,w∈ξxv,w\in\xi_xv,w∈ξx​: J(x)v∈ξxJ(x)v\in\xi_xJ(x)v∈ξx​, J(x)J(x)v=−vJ(x)J(x)v=-vJ(x)J(x)v=−v, v≠0⇒ω0(v,J(x)v)>0v\ne0\Rightarrow\omega_0(v,J(x)v)>0v=0⇒ω0​(v,J(x)v)>0, and ω0(J(x)v,J(x)w)=ω0(v,w)\omega_0(J(x)v,J(x)w)=\omega_0(v,w)ω0​(J(x)v,J(x)w)=ω0​(v,w). Nothing is required of J(x)J(x)J(x) off ξx\xi_xξx​, nor for x∉{H=1}x\notin\{H=1\}x∈/{H=1}, beyond smoothness.

Radial coordinates. σ(y)\sigma(y)σ(y) ("scaleToS") is a chosen r>0r>0r>0 with H(ry)=1H(ry)=1H(ry)=1 if such an rrr exists, and the junk value 111 otherwise (e.g. at y=0y=0y=0 when H(0)≠1H(0)\ne1H(0)=1). Then proj(y)=σ(y) y\mathrm{proj}(y)=\sigma(y)\,yproj(y)=σ(y)y and a(y)=−12log⁡σ(y)a(y)=-\tfrac12\log\sigma(y)a(y)=−21​logσ(y).

Almost complex structure J~\tilde JJ~ on V1V_1V1​. For y∈V1y\in V_1y∈V1​ put x=proj(y)x=\mathrm{proj}(y)x=proj(y), r=σ(y)r=\sigma(y)r=σ(y), and the real-linear functionals and map

α(h)=r2 dHx(x) dHx(h),β(h)=r λx(h),w(h)=h−α(h) 2y−β(h) r−1R(x).\alpha(h)=\frac{r}{2\,dH_x(x)}\,dH_x(h),\qquad \beta(h)=r\,\lambda_x(h),\qquad w(h)=h-\alpha(h)\,2y-\beta(h)\,r^{-1}R(x).α(h)=2dHx​(x)r​dHx​(h),β(h)=rλx​(h),w(h)=h−α(h)2y−β(h)r−1R(x).

Then

J~(y)h=α(h) r−1R(x)−β(h) 2y+J(x)(w(h)).\tilde J(y)h=\alpha(h)\,r^{-1}R(x)-\beta(h)\,2y+J(x)\big(w(h)\big).J~(y)h=α(h)r−1R(x)−β(h)2y+J(x)(w(h)).

(Division by 000 again yields 000.)

Partial derivatives. For f:C→Ff:\mathbb C\to Ff:C→F (real vector space), ∂sf(z)=Df(z)(1)\partial_sf(z)=Df(z)(1)∂s​f(z)=Df(z)(1), ∂tf(z)=Df(z)(i)\partial_tf(z)=Df(z)(i)∂t​f(z)=Df(z)(i), where Df(z)Df(z)Df(z) is the real Fréchet derivative (equal to 000 by convention where fff is not differentiable).

J~\tilde JJ~-holomorphic on UUU: for each z∈Uz\in Uz∈U, uuu is real-differentiable at zzz and ∂su(z)+J~(u(z)) ∂tu(z)=0\partial_su(z)+\tilde J(u(z))\,\partial_tu(z)=0∂s​u(z)+J~(u(z))∂t​u(z)=0.

Energy. An admissible φ:R→R\varphi:\mathbb R\to\mathbb Rφ:R→R is C∞C^\inftyC∞, monotone non-decreasing, with 0≤φ≤10\le\varphi\le10≤φ≤1. With au=a∘ua_u=a\circ uau​=a∘u and wu=proj∘uw_u=\mathrm{proj}\circ uwu​=proj∘u, the energy density is

eφ(z)=φ′(au)(∂sau λwu(∂twu)−∂tau λwu(∂swu))+φ(au) ω0(∂swu,∂twu)e_\varphi(z)=\varphi'(a_u)\big(\partial_sa_u\,\lambda_{w_u}(\partial_tw_u)-\partial_ta_u\,\lambda_{w_u}(\partial_sw_u)\big)+\varphi(a_u)\,\omega_0(\partial_sw_u,\partial_tw_u)eφ​(z)=φ′(au​)(∂s​au​λwu​​(∂t​wu​)−∂t​au​λwu​​(∂s​wu​))+φ(au​)ω0​(∂s​wu​,∂t​wu​)

(evaluated at zzz), and

E(U,u)=sup⁡φ admissible∫Umax⁡(eφ(z),0) dz∈[0,∞],E(U,u)=\sup_{\varphi\text{ admissible}}\int_U \max\big(e_\varphi(z),0\big)\,dz\in[0,\infty],E(U,u)=φ admissiblesup​∫U​max(eφ​(z),0)dz∈[0,∞],

i.e. only the positive part of the density is integrated (Lebesgue measure on C\mathbb CC). The dλd\lambdadλ-density is ω0(∂swu,∂twu)\omega_0(\partial_sw_u,\partial_tw_u)ω0​(∂s​wu​,∂t​wu​) and the dλd\lambdadλ-energy is Edλ(U,u)=∫Umax⁡(ω0(∂swu,∂twu),0) dz∈[0,∞]E_{d\lambda}(U,u)=\int_U\max\big(\omega_0(\partial_sw_u,\partial_tw_u),0\big)\,dz\in[0,\infty]Edλ​(U,u)=∫U​max(ω0​(∂s​wu​,∂t​wu​),0)dz∈[0,∞].

Finite-energy curve on UUU (U⊆CU\subseteq\mathbb CU⊆C): u:C→V1u:\mathbb C\to V_1u:C→V1​ is C∞C^\inftyC∞ on UUU, u(z)≠0u(z)\ne0u(z)=0 for all z∈Uz\in Uz∈U, uuu is J~\tilde JJ~-holomorphic on UUU, and E(U,u)<∞E(U,u)<\inftyE(U,u)<∞. (Nothing is required of uuu outside UUU.)

Cloc∞C^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}Cloc∞​ convergence on OOO. fk→gf_k\to gfk​→g in Cloc∞C^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}Cloc∞​ on OOO means: for every compact K⊆OK\subseteq OK⊆O and every m≥0m\ge0m≥0, the mmm-th iterated real Fréchet derivatives DmfkD^mf_kDmfk​ converge to DmgD^mgDmg uniformly on KKK. These are derivatives of the functions on the whole plane (equal to 000 by convention where they do not exist), evaluated at points of KKK.

Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Nov 4, 2026

    Confirmed by the moderator at approval.

  • Endorsed by Mazecto · Nov 4, 2026

    Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paperProve2Me Team
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me