arXiv:1707.08012v2 [math.DG] 11 Aug 2017

arXiv:1707.08012v2 [math.DG] 11 Aug 2017

MIN-MAX THEORY FOR CONSTANT MEAN CURVATURE HYPERSURFACES

XIN ZHOU AND JONATHAN J. ZHU

ABSTRACT. In this paper, we develop a min-max theory for the construction of constant mean curvature (CMC) hypersurfaces of prescribed mean curvature in an arbitrary closed manifold. As a corollary, we prove the existence of a nontrivial, smooth, closed, almost embedded, CMC hypersurface of any given mean curvaturec. Moreover, ifcis nonzero then our min-max solution always has multiplicity one.

0. INTRODUCTION

A hypersurfaceΣⁿin a Riemannian manifoldMⁿ⁺¹ has constant mean curvature if it is a critical point of the area functional amongst variations preserving the enclosed volume. Equivalently, hyper- surfaces of constant mean curvaturecare critical points of the Lagrange-multiplier functional

(0.1) A^c = Area−cVol.

Constant mean curvature (CMC) hypersurfaces constitute a classical and extensively-studied topic in differential geometry, and play an essential role in many areas, from isoperimetric problems [45] to the modeling of interface phenomena [30, 31] and to general relativity [23, 44, 10]. Despite the classical nature of the problem, relatively few examples of closed CMC hypersurfaces were known, even for n= 2, until the breakthrough work of Wente [56]. Many attempts have been made to construct more CMC hypersurfaces, especially withprescribedconstant mean curvature, c.f. [20, 21, 54, 24, 59, 15, 42, 32, 47]. However, these works left wide open the question of which values may be prescribed - that is, for which constantscdoes there exist a closed hypersurface of constant mean curvaturec?

In this article we construct, via a min-max approach, nontrivial closed CMC hypersurfaces ofany prescribed mean curvature, in any smooth closed Riemannian manifoldMⁿ⁺¹ of dimension at most seven. (The dimensional restriction arises from, and matches with, the well-known regularity theory for minimal hypersurfaces [50, 49]; see also [58].)

Theorem 0.1. LetMⁿ⁺¹ be a smooth, closed Riemannian manifold of dimension 3 ≤ n+ 1 ≤ 7.

Given any c ∈ R, there exists a nontrivial, smooth, closed, almost embedded hypersurface Σⁿ of constant mean curvaturec.

Here we say that an immersed hypersurface Σis almost embedded if Σlocally decomposes into smoothly embedded components that (pairwise) lie to one side of each other. That is, the sheets may touch but not cross; the example of touching spheres shows that this regularity is optimal. In particular, almost embedded hypersurfaces are automatically Alexandrov embedded.

We want to compare our result with a classical problem by Arnold [5, page 395] and Novikov [41, Section 5] on the periodic orbits of a charged particle in a magnetic field on a topological two sphere. It is conjectured that there exist closed embedded curves of any prescribed constant geodesic curvature.

This conjecture remains open, and we refer to [16, 46, 48] for more backgrounds and some partial results of this conjecture. Our result can be viewed as a complete resolution of the higher dimensional analog of Arnold-Novikov conjecture.

1

Remark 0.2. For c 6= 0, we can prove that our min-max procedure converges to the constructed hypersurfaceΣwith multiplicity 1. This is a stark and surprising contrast to the minimal (c= 0) case, for which the min-max multiplicity 1 conjecture is a fundamental open problem [34].

The existence problem for CMC hypersurfaces has been studied from a number of perspectives.

The boundary value problems were substantially developed by Heinz [20], Hildebrandt [21], Struwe [54, 55], etc. using the mapping method, and by Duzaar-Steffen [15] using geometric measure theory, while both methods can only produce CMC hypersurfaces whose mean curvatures satisfy certain upper bound. For the case of closed CMC hypersurfaces, the more classical approach is to minimize the area functional amongst volume-preserving variations, that is, to solve the isoperimetric problem for a given volume. Indeed, for each fixed volume there exists a smooth minimizer (up to a singular set of codimension 7; see for instance [2, 39, 45]). However, this approach does not yield any control on the value of the mean curvature.

Another class of approaches relies on perturbative methods. Given a closed minimal hypersurface, one may deform it to a CMC hypersurface, but only for very small values of the mean curvature.

On the other end, one attempts to construct foliations by closed CMC hypersurfaces near minimal submanifolds of strictly lower dimension. This program was carefully implemented in various cases by Ye [59], Mahmoudi-Mazzeo-Pacard [32], and others (see the survey article [42]). The hypersur- faces produced by this approach necessarily have large mean curvatures, which in fact diverge as the hypersurfaces condense onto the minimal submanifold.

We also mention the delicate gluing procedures pioneered by Kapouleas [24] as well as the degree theory developed by Rosenberg-Smith [47]. These provide important examples of CMC hypersurfaces, but the former is typically restricted by the availability of known solutions, whilst the latter can only produce CMC hypersurfaces of fairly large mean curvature greater than some threshold depending on ambient manifolds. Finally, we remark that Meeks-Mira-Perez-Ros [36, 37] were able to determine, in the special case of homogeneous ambient 3-manifolds, precisely the values for which there exists a CMC 2-sphere with the specified mean curvature.

In order to prove Theorem 0.1, we instead study CMC hypersurfaces from the perspective of the A^c-functional. It is easy to see that the simplest method, minimization, does not succeed in detecting a nontrivial critical point for theA^c-functional. In fact, the minimizer ofA^c among domainsΩinM with smooth boundary is always the total manifoldM, asA^c(M) =−cVol(M)≤ A^c(Ω). Therefore, the min-max method becomes the natural way to find nontrivial critical points of A^c. (Note that minimization method does succeed for the Plateau problem with fixed boundary [15].)

For finding critical points of the area functional - that is, minimal hypersurfaces - the min-max method has been greatly successful. In [3], Almgren initiated a celebrated program to develop a varia- tional theory for minimal submanifolds in Riemannian manifolds of any dimension and co-dimension using geometric measure theory, namely the min-max theory for minimal submanifolds. He was able to prove the existence of a nontrivial weak solution as stationary integral varifolds [4]. Higher regu- larity was established in the co-dimension-one case by the seminal work of Pitts [43] (for2≤n≤5) and later extended by Schoen-Simon [37] (forn ≥6). Colding-De Lellis [11] established the corre- sponding theory using smooth sweepouts based on ideas of Simon-Smith [52]. Indeed, the preceeding body of work completely resolved thec= 0case of Theorem 0.1.

Very recently, in a series of works, Marques-Neves [33, 1, 35] found surprising applications of the Almgren-Pitts min-max theory to solve a number of longstanding open problems in geometry, including their celebrated proof of the Willmore conjecture. Due to these tremendous successes, there have been a vast number of developments of this program in various contexts, including [14, 38, 18,

26, 34, 29, 9, 13, 28, 25, 53]. In this regard, our work represents a natural extension of the min-max method to the CMC setting.

0.1. Min-max procedure. We now give a heuristic overview of our min-max method. In the main proofs, for technical reasons we will work with discrete families as in Almgren-Pitts, but here we will describe the key ideas using continuous families to elucidate those ideas.

LetM,cbe as in Theorem 0.1. We only need to considerc >0. TheA^c functional (0.1) is defined on open setsΩwith smooth boundary byA^c(Ω) = Area(∂Ω)−cVol(Ω). DenoteI = [0,1]. Consider a continuous1-parameter family of sets with smooth boundary

{Ωx:x∈I}, withΩ₀=∅andΩ₁ =M . Fix such a family{Ω⁰_x}, and consider its homotopy class[{Ω⁰_x}] =

{Ωx} ∼ {Ω⁰_x} . Thec-min- max valueis defined as

L^c = inf

{Ωx}∼{Ω⁰x}max{A^c(Ω_x) :x∈I}.

A sequence{{Ωⁱ_x}:i∈N}withmax_x∈IA^c(Ωⁱ_x)→L^c is typically called aminimizing sequence, and any sequence{Ωⁱ_xi :xi∈(0,1), i∈N}withA^c(Ωⁱ_xi)→L^cis called amin-max sequence.

Our main result (for the precise statement see Theorem 3.8) then says that there is a nice minimizing sequence{{Ωⁱ_x}:i∈N}, and some min-max sequence{Ωⁱ_xi :xi∈(0,1), i∈N}, such that:

Theorem 0.3. The sequence∂Ωⁱ_xi converges as varifolds with multiplicity one to a nontrivial, smooth, closed, almost embedded hypersurfaceΣof constant mean curvaturec.

Our proof broadly follows the Almgren-Pitts scheme, but with several important difficulties. This scheme proceeds generally as follows:

• Construct a sweepout with positive width, and extract a minimizing sequence;

• Apply a ‘tightening’ map to construct a new sequence whose varifold limit satisfies a varia- tional property and an ‘almost-minimizing’ property;

• Use these properties to construct ‘replacements’ on annuli which must be regular;

• Apply successive concentric annular replacements to the min-max limit and show that they coincide with each other, and hence extend to the center;

• Show that the min-max limit coincides with the replacement near the center.

We in fact show thatL^cis positive on any sweepout, as a consequence of the isoperimetric inequality for small volumes (see Theorems 2.15 and 3.9).

For the tightening, in the minimal (c = 0) case one shows that for the tightened sequence, any min-max (varifold) limit must be stationary, that is, a weak solution in the sense of first variations. In the CMC setting it is an important, yet subtle, issue to determine the correct variational property to replace stationarity. For instance, theA^c functional is not well-defined on varifolds, so it is difficult to formulate a notion of weak solution for its critical points. To overcome this issue, we utilize the property ofc-bounded first variation. This notion is a generalisation of bounded mean curvature, and is loose enough to be satisfied by our min-max limitV (after tightening) whilst providing enough control to develop the regularity theory. In particular, varifolds withc-bounded first variation satisfy a uniform monotonicity formula, and any blowups are stationary. Furthermore, we formulate the property of being c-almost minimizing, which is inspired by the almost-minimizing property of Almgren-Pitts, with the area functional replaced by theA^cfunctional (see Definition 5.1).

To construct our so-calledc-replacements, we solve a series of constrained minimization problems for theA^c-functional in a subsetU ⊂M. EachA^c-minimizer is an open setΩ^∗_i with stable, regular CMC boundary inU, and thec-replacement V^∗ is obtained as the varifold limit lim|∂Ω^∗_i|. At this

point,V^∗ gains regularity by classical curvature estimates, but in contrast to the minimal case, V^∗ is merely almost embedded since we only have aone-sided maximum principle for CMC hypersurfaces (see Lemma 2.7). Nevertheless, the one-sided maximum principle implies thatV^∗has multiplicity one inU, and this is the key ingredient to obtain the multiplicity-one-property forV.

Another new difficulty in the CMC setting is that the total mass of the replacementV^∗ may differ from the total mass of the original varifoldV. A key observation is that the mass defect is controlled bycVol(U), which is of higher order than the mass and hence converges to zero under any blowup process. Using this insight, we are able to prove that any blowup of the min-max limit V has the good replacement property of Colding-De Lellis, and is therefore regular (see Lemma 5.10). The same observation allows us to show that the tangent cones ofV are always planes.

For the regularity ofV, the proof structure is inspired by Pitts. Namely, we first apply successive replacementsV^∗ andV^∗∗on two overlapping concentric annuliA₁ andA₂, with the goal of showing that they match smoothly on the overlapping region and may thus be extended all the way to the center by taking further replacements. However, in the CMC case two main issues arise: the presence of a nontrivial touching set, and the need to show that the orientations match to give the same sign for the mean curvatures. These difficulties are overcome by keeping track of the approximate replacements {Ω^∗_i}and careful analysis of their convergence behaviors (see Section 2.1). In particular, a key step is to show that the second replacementV^∗∗ may be represented by a boundary inA₁ ∪A₂, so that the orientations ofV^∗, V^∗∗match as desired. Near the touching set, we use the graphical decomposition into embedded sheets together with the gluing along regular part to properly match the sheets together.

Finally, to prove that the min-max limitV coincides with the extended replacement V^∗ near the center, we face one more obstacle since in the minimal case one typically appeals to the Constancy Theorem, which does not have an analog in the CMC setting. Instead, we first directly prove the removability of the center singularity forV^∗, and then use a moving sphere argument to show that the densities ofV andV^∗are the same in the annular region.

0.2. Outline of the paper. We describe our notation and basic background material in Section 1.

Then in Section 2 we gather some requisite results including compactness theorems and maximum principles, in particular for almost embedded CMC hypersurfaces.

In Section 3 we formulate the technical setup for our min-max procedure, and prove the existence of nontrivial (positive width) sweepouts (Theorem 3.9). Then for any minimizing sequence we can extract a min-max sequence{∂Ωⁱ_xi}that converges in the measure-theoretic sense to a nontrivial varifoldV.

We then present the tightening process in Section 4. In particular, we show that there exists a nice minimizing sequence{Ωⁱ_x}, such that every min-max sequence converges to a varifold withc-bounded first variation (Proposition 4.4). To do this, using the set of varifolds withc-bounded first variation as the central set, we construct a discrete gradient flow forA^c, namely thetightening map(see section 4.3). Applying this map to any given minimizing sequence will result in a nice minimizing sequence by a standard contradiction argument. To deal with the issue thatA^c is not defined for varifolds, we derive a quantitative tightening inequality (4.5) inspired by Colding-De Lellis.

In Section 5, we first show that V may further be taken to bec-almost minimizing in the sense of Definition 5.1 (see Theorem 5.6); that is,V is the limit of boundaries of so-called(ǫ, δ)-c-almost minimizing setsΩ. The remainder of Section 5 records important properties ofc-almost minimizing varifolds, including the existence and regularity ofc-replacements (see Proposition 5.8 and Lemma 5.9). Namely, for each(ǫ, δ)-c-a.m.Ω, one can construct aA^c-minimizerΩ^∗among certain admissible deformations, whose boundary is a stable embedded CMC hypersurface inU by classical regularity theory. We then construct thec-replacementV^∗ofV as the varifold limitlim|∂Ω^∗|.

Finally, in Section 6 we prove the regularity of the min-max varifoldV (Theorem 6.1). Namely, given twoc-replacementsV^∗andV^∗∗ofV in two overlapping concentric annuli, we prove that they match inC¹along the boundary sphere of the smaller annulus, in order to apply the unique continua- tion. Using the key observation that blowups are regular and the classical maximum principle, we first show that the blowups ofV^∗, V^∗∗are identical along this sphere. TheC¹gluing follows readily on the regular part, after which we require a much more careful analysis to extend the gluing across the touch- ing set. We then continue thec-replacementV^∗ smoothly as an almost embedded CMC hypersurface all the way to the center of the annuli and complete the proof after removing the center singularity.

Acknowledgements: Both authors are grateful to Prof. Shing-Tung Yau for suggesting this problem and for his generous support. X. Zhou would also like to thank Prof. Richard Schoen and Prof. Neshan Wickramasekera for valuable comments. J. Zhu would also like to thank Prof. William Minicozzi for his invaluable guidance and encouragement. X. Zhou is partially supported by NSF grant DMS- 1704393. J. Zhu is partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1607871.

1. NOTATION

In this section, we collect some notions. We refer to [51] and [43, §2.1] for further materials in geometric measure theory.

Let(Mⁿ⁺¹, g)denote a closed, oriented, smooth Riemannian manifold of dimension3≤(n+1)≤ 7. Assume that (M, g) is embedded in some R^L, L ∈ N. B_r(p),Be_r(p) denote respectively the Euclidean ball ofR^Lor the geodesic ball of(M, g). We denote byH^k thek-dimensional Hausdorff measure;I_k(M) the space ofk-dimensional integral currents inR^Lwith support in M; Zk(M) the space of integral currentsT ∈ I_k(M) with ∂T = 0;V_k(M) the closure, in the weak topology, of the space ofk-dimensional rectifiable varifolds inR^Lwith support inM;G_k(M)the Grassmannian bundle of un-oriented k-planes over M; F and M respectively the flat norm [51, §31] and mass norm [51, 26.4] on I_k(M); F the varifold F-metric on Vk(M) and currents F-metric on I_k(M), [43, 2.1(19)(20)]; C(M) or C(U) the space of sets Ω ⊂ M or Ω ⊂ U ⊂ M with finite perimeter (Caccioppoli sets), [51,§14][17,§1.6]; andX(M)orX(U)the space of smooth vector fields inM or supported inU.

We also utilize the following definitions:

a) GivenT ∈I_k(M),|T|andkTkdenote respectively the integral varifold and Radon measure in M associated withT;

b) Givenc >0, a varifoldV ∈ Vk(M)is said to havec-bounded first variation in an open subset U ⊂M, if

|δV(X)| ≤c Z

M

|X|dµV, for anyX∈X(U);

here the first variation ofV alongXisδV(X) =R

Gk(M)div_SX(x)dV(x, S), [51,§39];

c) U_r(V)denotes the ball inV_k(M)underF-metric with centerV ∈ V_k(M)and radiusr >0;

d) Givenp∈sptkVk,VarTan(V, p)denotes the space of tangent varifolds ofV atp, [51, 42.3];

e) Given a smooth, immersed, closed, orientable hypersurface ΣinM, or a setΩ ∈ C(M)with finite perimeter,[[Σ]],[[Ω]]denote the corresponding integral currents with the natural orienta- tion, and[Σ],[Ω]denote the corresponding integer-multiplicity varifolds;

f) ∂Ωdenotes the (reduced)-boundary of[[Ω]]as an integral current, andν_∂Ωdenotes the outward pointing unit normal of∂Ω, [51, 14.2].

In this paper, we are interested in the following weighted area functional defined onC(M). Given c >0, define theA^c-functionalonC(M)as

(1.1) A^c(Ω) =Hⁿ(∂Ω)−cHⁿ⁺¹(Ω).

Thefirst variation formulaforA^calongX∈X(M)is (see [51, 16.2])

(1.2) δA^c|Ω(X) =

Z

∂Ω

div_∂ΩXdµ_∂Ω−c Z

∂Ω

X·ν dµ_∂Ω, whereν=ν_∂Ωis the outward unit normal on∂Ω.

When the boundary∂Ω = Σis a smooth immersed hypersurface, we have divΣX=H X ·ν,

whereHis the mean curvature ofΣwith respect toν; ifΩis a critical point ofA^c, then (1.2) directly implies thatΣ =∂Ωhas constant mean curvaturecwith respect to the outward unit normalν. In this case, we can calculate the second variation formulafor A^c along normal vector fieldsX ∈ X(M) such thatX =ϕνalong∂Ω = Σwhereϕ∈C^∞(Σ), [6, Proposition 2.5],

(1.3) δ²A^c|Ω(X, X) =IIΣ(ϕ, ϕ) = Z

Σ

|∇ϕ|²− Ric^M(ν, ν) +|A^Σ|² ϕ²

dµΣ.

In the above formula, ∇ϕis the gradient ofϕon Σ;Ric^M is the Ricci curvature of M; A^Σ is the second fundamental form ofΣ.

2. PRELIMINARIES

In this section, we collect some preliminary results. First, we study the compactness properties of stable CMC hypersurfaces. In particular, we describe the structure of the touching sets which appear naturally when one takes the limit of embedded stable CMC hypersurfaces. We also present a maximum principle for varifolds with bounded first variation, a regularity result for boundaries that minimize theA^c-functional, and a result on isoperimetric profile for small volumes.

2.1. Compactness of stable CMC hypersurfaces.

Definition 2.1. LetΣbe a smooth, immersed, two-sided hypersurface with unit normal vectorν, and U ⊂Man open subset. We say thatΣis astablec-hypersurfaceinU if

• the mean curvatureHofΣ∩U with respect toνequals toc; and

• IIΣ(ϕ, ϕ)≥0 for allϕ∈C^∞(Σ)withsptϕ⊂Σ∩U, whereIIΣis as in (1.3).

Definition 2.2. LetΣ_i,i = 1,2, be connected embedded hypersurfaces in a connected open subset U ⊂M, with∂Σ_i∩U =∅and unit normalsν_i. We say thatΣ₂lies on one side ofΣ₁ ifΣ₁ divides U into two connected componentsU1∪U2 =U\Σ1, whereν1points intoU1, and either:

• Σ₂ ⊂Clos(U₁), which we write asΣ₁≤Σ₂or thatΣ₂lies on the positive side ofΣ₁; or

• Σ2 ⊂Clos(U2), which we write asΣ1≥Σ2or thatΣ2lies on the negative side ofΣ1. Definition 2.3 (Almost embedding). LetU ⊂ Mⁿ⁺¹ be an open subset, and Σⁿ be a smooth n- dimensional manifold. A smooth immersionφ: Σ → U is said to be analmost embeddingif at any pointp∈φ(Σ)whereΣfails to be embedded, there is a small neighborhoodW ⊂U ofp, such that

• Σ∩φ⁻¹(W)is a disjoint union of connected components∪^l_i=1Σ_i;

• φ(Σ_i)is an embedding for eachi= 1,· · · , l;

• for eachi, any other componentφ(Σ_j),j 6=i, lies on one side ofφ(Σ_i)inW.

We will simply denoteφ(Σ)byΣand denoteφ(Σi)byΣi. The subset of points inΣwhereΣfails to be embedded will be called thetouching set, and denoted byS(Σ). We will callΣ\S(Σ)the regular set, and denote it byR(Σ).

Remark2.4. From the definition, the collection of components{Σi}meet tangentially alongS(Σ).

Definition 2.5(Almost embeddedc-boundary). (1) An almost embedded hypersurfaceΣ⊂U is said to bea boundaryif there is an open subsetΩ∈ C(U), such thatΣis equal to the boundary

∂Ω(inU) in the sense of currents;

(2) Theouter unit normalν_ΣofΣis the choice of the unit normal ofΣwhich points outside ofΩ along the regular partR(Σ);

(3) Σis calleda stablec-boundaryifΣis a boundary as well as a stable immersedc-hypersurface.

We have the following variant of the famous Schoen-Simon-Yau (for2≤n≤5) [50] and Schoen- Simon (n= 6) [49] curvature estimates.

Theorem 2.6(Curvature estimates for stablec-hypersurfaces). Let2 ≤ n ≤ 6, andU ⊂ M be an open subset. IfΣ ⊂ U is a smooth, immersed (almost embedded when n = 6), two-sided, stable c-hypersurface inU with∂Σ∩U = ∅, andArea(Σ) ≤ C, then there existsC₁ depending only on n, M, c, C, such that

|A^Σ|²(x)≤ C₁

dist²_M(x, ∂U) for allx∈Σ.

Moreover ifΣ_k ⊂U is a sequence of smooth, immersed (almost embedded whenn= 6), two-sided, stablec-hypersurfaces inU with∂Σ_k∩U =∅and sup_kArea(Σ_k)<∞, then up to a subsequence, Σ_kconverges locally smoothly (possibly with multiplicity) to some stablec-hypersurfaceΣ∞inU. Proof. The compactness statement follows in the standard way from the curvature estimates. The curvature estimates follow from standard blowup arguments together with the Bernstein Theorem [50, Theorem 2] and [49, Theorem 3], the key being that the blowup will be a stable minimal hypersurface, and whenn= 6, the blowup of a sequence of almost embeddedc-hypersurfaces will be embedded by the classical maximum principle for embedded minimal hypersurfaces (c.f. [12]).

We need the following maximum principle.

Lemma 2.7(Maximum principle for embeddedc-hypersurfaces). Given a connected open subsetU ⊂ M, letΣ_i ⊂ U be two connected embedded hypersurfaces with ∂Σ_i∩U = ∅fori = 1,2. Suppose that the mean curvature of eachΣ_iis a given constantc >0with respect to the respective unit normal νi. Assume thatΣ2 lies on one side ofΣ1. Then we have the following:

(i) If there existsp∈Σ₁∩Σ₂such thatν₁(p) =ν₂(p), thenΣ₁= Σ₂;

(ii) SupposeΣ₂lies on the negative side ofΣ₁. Then ifΣ₁∩Σ₂6=∅, we must haveν₁(p) =ν₂(p) for anyp∈Σ₁∩Σ₂, and henceΣ₁ = Σ₂. In particular, eitherΣ₁∩Σ₂ =∅orΣ₁= Σ₂. Proof. This follows directly from the classical maximum principle as follows.

Considerp∈Σ₁∩Σ2. SinceΣ₂lies on one side ofΣ₁, the tangent planes must coincide at any point of their intersection. So without loss of generality we may assume thatU is a small ball aroundpfor whichΣ₁,Σ₂may be written as graphsu₁, u₂in theν₁-direction over the tangent planeT_pΣ₁ =T_pΣ₂. Letu=u1−u2, then a standard computation shows thatusatisfies a linear elliptic equation of the form:Lu= 0, ifν₂(p) =ν₁(p); orLu= 2cifν₂(p) =−ν1(p). HereLis a positive elliptic operator with smooth coefficients. Moreover, ifΣ₂ ⊂ Clos(U₁)thenu ≤ 0; ifΣ₂ ⊂ Clos(U₂)then u ≥ 0.

Both items then follow from the maximum principle for nonpositive (or nonnegative) functions.

Lemma 2.8. LetΩbe a domain inR^m and suppose that u is a classical solution on Ωof a linear inhomogenous elliptic PDE with smooth coefficients:

(2.1) Lu=a^ijD_iju+b^jD_ju+qu=f,

wherefhas no zeroes onΩ. Then the zero set{u= 0}is contained in a countable union of connected, embedded(m−1)-dimensional submanifolds.

Proof. LetK be a compact subset ofΩ.

First, the implicit function theorem implies that the zero set is smooth away from the critical set. In particular, for anyǫ >0the compact set{u= 0,|Du| ≥ ǫ} ∩K is contained in the union of finitely many connected, smoothly embedded(m−1)-dimensional submanifolds.

Now considerx ∈ {u= 0, Du= 0}. Then we havea^ij(x)D_iju(x) = f(x) 6= 0, so by ellipticity, the Hessian D²u must have rank at least 1. Thus for somej, the gradient D(D_ju) 6= 0, so again by the implicit function theorem there is anr > 0 such that Br(x) ∩ {Dju = 0} is an embedded (m−1)-dimensional submanifold, which clearly containsB_r(x)∩ {u = 0} ∩ {Du = 0}. It follows that the compact set{u= 0, Du= 0} ∩K is also contained in a finite union of connected, embedded (m−1)-dimensional submanifolds.

Takingǫ= 1/j →0andK=K_j, whereK_j is an exhaustion ofΩ, then completes the proof.

Proposition 2.9(Touching sets for almost embeddedc-hypersurface). If the metric onUⁿ⁺¹is smooth, then for any almost embedded hypersurfaceΣⁿ ⊂ U of constant mean curvaturec, the touching set S(Σ)is contained in a countable union of connected, embedded(n−1)-dimensional submanifolds.

In particular, the regular setR(Σ)is open and dense inΣ.

Proof. Letp∈ S(Σ). As in the proof of Lemma 2.7, there is a small neighborhoodW ofpso that the imageΣ∩W decomposes as graphs{ui}^k_i=1, ordered by height, over the common tangent planeT_pΣ.

In fact by the conclusions of that lemma, after possibly shrinkingW there will be exactly two distinct graphsu₁ ≤u₂, for which the differenceu=u₁−u₂satisfiesLu= 2c. The zero set ofucorresponds to the touching setS(Σ)∩W. The proposition then follows from the previous lemma.

Remark2.10. In the case that the metric onM is real analytic, we have the stronger statement that the touching set is a finite union of real analytic subvarietiesS_n−1

k=0S^kof respective dimensionk. This follows from [27, Theorem 5.2.3], since in this setting the operatorLwill have analytic coefficients, and hence the solutionuis also real analytic.

Theorem 2.11(Compactness theorem for almost embedded stablec-hypersurfaces). Let2 ≤n≤6.

SupposeΣ_k⊂Uis a sequence of smooth, almost embedded, two-sided, stablec_k-hypersurfaces inU, withsup_kArea(Σ_k)<∞andsup_kc_k <∞. Then the following hold:

(i) ifinfc_k>0, then up to a subsequence,{Σk}converges locally smoothly (with multiplicity) to some almost embedded stablec-hypersurfaceΣ_∞inU;

(ii) if additionally{Σk}are all boundaries, thenΣ_∞is also a boundary, and the density ofΣ_∞is 1alongR(Σ∞)and2alongS(Σ∞);

(iii) ifc_k → 0, then up to a subsequence, {Σk} converges locally smoothly (with multiplicity) to some smooth embedded stable minimal hypersurfaceΣ_∞inU.

Remark2.12. We learned that Bellettini-Wickramasekera [7] also have similar compactness results for stable CMC varifolds.

Proof of Theorem 2.11. Case (i) follows straightforwardly from Theorem 2.6, the almost embedded assumption, together with the maximum principle Lemma 2.7.

Now we prove Case (ii). DenoteΣ_k =∂Ω_kfor someΩ_k ∈ C(U). By standard compactness [51, Theorem 6.3], a subsequence of∂Ω_kconverges weakly as currents to some∂Ω_∞withΩ_∞ ∈ C(U).

We claim that ∂Ω_∞ = Σ_∞ as varifold. To show this, we only need to check that the density of Σ_∞ alongR(Σ_∞)is one, and then by Lemma 2.7 and Proposition 2.9, the density ofΣ_∞along the touching setS(Σ∞)is automatically two.

To show that the density alongR(Σ∞)is1, take an arbitrary pointp∈ R(Σ∞). If the density atp is larger than1, then by the locally smooth convergence ofΣ_ktoΣ_∞, there is a neighborhoodBe_p⊂U ofp, such that fork large enoughΣ_k∩Bep has a graphical decomposition as ∪^l_i=1^k Σⁱ_k withl_k ≥ 2.

Moreover, by Lemma 2.7 we haveΣ¹_k < Σ²_k < · · · < Σ^l_k^k, and the outward unit normalsν_kⁱ ofΣⁱ_k all point to the same direction. With out loss of generality, we may assumel_k = 2and omit the sub- indexk. ThenBep\(Σ¹∪Σ²)has three connected componentsU0, U1, U2 with, counting orientation, (∂U₀)

x

Be_p = Σ¹,(∂U₁)

x

Be_p = Σ²−Σ¹, and(∂U₂)

x

Be_p=−Σ².

On the other hand, for each i the Constancy Theorem [51, Theorem 26.27] applied to Ω_k

x

_Ui

implies thatΩ_k

x

_Ui is identical to either ∅orU_i. That is, Ω_k

x

_{Bep =} ^P2

i=0a_iU_i, where eacha_i = 0,1. It is then easy to see that any choice of theai will contradict the fact that, counting orientation,

∂(Ω_k

x

Bep)

x

Bep = Σ_k∩Bep = Σ¹+ Σ².

Case (iii) follows directly from Theorem 2.6, the almost embedded assumption, and the classical maximum principle for embedded minimal hypersurfaces (c.f. [12]).

2.2. Maximum principle for varifolds withc-bounded first variation. We will need the following maximum principle which is essentially due to White [57, Theorem 5].

Proposition 2.13 (Maximum principle for varifolds with c-bounded first variation). Suppose V ∈ Vn(M)hasc-bounded first variation in a open subsetU ⊂ M. Let K ⊂ U be an open subset with compact closure inU, such thatspt(kVk)⊂K, and

(i) ∂K is smoothly embedded inM,

(ii) the mean curvature of∂K with respect to the outward pointing normal is greater thanc.

Thenspt(kVk)∩∂K =∅.

2.3. Regularity for boundaries which minimize theA^cfunctional. The following result about reg- ularity of boundaries which minimize theA^c functional can be found in [39].

Theorem 2.14. GivenΩ ∈ C(M), p ∈ sptk∂Ωk, and some smallr > 0, suppose that Ω

x

Ber(p) minimizes theA^c-functional: that is, for any otherΛ ∈ C(M)withsptkΛ−Ωk ⊂Be_r(p), we have A^c(Λ)≥ A^c(Ω). Then except for a set of Hausdorff dimension at mostn−7,∂Ω

x

Ber(p)is a smooth and embedded hypersurface, and is real analytic if the ambient metric onMis real analytic.

Proof. SinceΩ

x

_Ber(p)minimizes theA^c-functional, for allΛ∈ C(M)as in the supposition, we have Hⁿ(∂Λ)− Hⁿ(∂Ω)≥ −c|Hⁿ⁺¹(Λ)− Hⁿ⁺¹(Ω)|.

This is precisely condition [39, 3.1(1)]. The regularity then follows from [39, Corollary 3.7, 3.8].

2.4. Isoperimetric profiles for small volume. We have the following lower bound for the isoperi- metric profiles for small volumes, which is a consequence of the fact that the isoperimetric profile is asymptotically Euclidean for small volumes [8] (see also [40, Theorem 3]). Note that although it was only stated for domains with smooth boundary, the result indeed holds for anyΩ∈ C(M)by using the regularity theory for isoperimetric domains (c.f. Theorem 2.14).

Theorem 2.15. There exists constantsC0>0andV0 >0depending only onM such that Area(∂Ω)≥C₀Vol(Ω)ⁿ⁺¹ⁿ , wheneverΩ∈ C(M)andVol(Ω)≤V₀.

3. THEc-MIN-MAX CONSTRUCTION

In this section, we present the setups of the min-max construction mainly followed Pitts [43]. We also prove the existence of a non-trivial sweepout with positiveA^c-min-max value.

3.1. Homotopy sequences. We will introduce the min-max construction using the scheme developed by Almgren and Pitts [3, 4, 43].

Definition 3.1. (cell complex.)

(1) DenoteI = [0,1],I0 =∂I =I\(0,1);

(2) Forj ∈N, I(1, j) is the cell complex ofI, whose1-cells are all intervals of form[₃ⁱj,ⁱ⁺¹₃j ], and0-cells are all points[₃ⁱj];

(3) Forp= 0,1,α∈I(1, j)is ap-cell ifdim(α) =p.0-cell is also called a vertex;

(4) I(1, j)_p denotes the set of allp-cells inI(1, j), andI₀(1, j)₀ denotes the set{[0],[1]};

(5) Given a 1-cell α ∈ I(1, j)₁, and k ∈ N, α(k) denotes the 1-dimensional sub-complex of I(1, j+k)formed by all cells contained inα. Forq= 0,1,α(k)_qandα₀(k)_q denote respec- tively the set of allq-cells ofI(1, j+k)contained inα, or in the boundary ofα;

(6) The boundary homeomorphism∂ :I(1, j) →I(1, j)is given by∂[a, b] = [b]−[a]if[a, b]∈ I(1, j)₁, and∂[a] = 0if[a]∈I(1, j)₀;

(7) The distance functiond:I(1, j)0×I(1, j)0 →Nis defined asd(x, y) = 3^j|x−y|;

(8) The mapn(i, j) :I(1, i)₀ →I(1, j)₀is defined as:n(i, j)(x)∈I(1, j)₀is the unique element ofI(1, j)0, such thatd x,n(i, j)(x)

= inf

d(x, y) :y ∈I(1, j)0 .

Consider a map to the space of Caccioppoli sets:φ:I(1, j)₀ → C(M). Thefinenessofφis defined as:

(3.1) f(φ) = supnM ∂φ(x)−∂φ(y)

d(x, y) : x, y∈I(1, j)0, x6=yo .

Similarly we can define the fineness of φ with respect to the F-norm and F-metric. We use φ : I(1, j)₀ → C(M),{0}

to denote a map such that φ I(1, j)₀

⊂ C(M) and ∂φ|_I0(1,j)0 = 0, i.e.

φ([0]), φ([1]) =∅orM.

Definition 3.2. Givenδ >0andφ_i:I(1, k_i)₀→ C(M),{0}

,i= 0,1, we sayφ₁is1-homotopic to φ₂ in C(M),{0}

with finenessδ, if∃k₃ ∈N,k₃ ≥max{k1, k₂}, and ψ:I(1, k3)0×I(1, k3)0 → C(M), such that

• f(ψ)≤δ;

• ψ([i], x) =φ_i n(k₃, k_i)(x)

,i= 0,1;

• ∂ψ I(1, k₃)₀×I₀(1, k₃)₀

= 0.

Definition 3.3. A(1,M)-homotopy sequence of mappings into C(M),{0}

is a sequence of map- pings{φi}i∈N,

φ_i :I(1, k_i)₀ → C(M),{0}

, such thatφiis1-homotopic toφi+1in C(M),{0}

with finenessδi, and

• lim_i→∞δ_i = 0;

• sup_i

M(∂φi(x)) : x∈I(1, ki)0 <+∞.

Remark3.4. Note that the second condition implies thatsup_i

A^c(φ_i(x)) : x∈I(1, k_i)₀ <+∞.

Definition 3.5. Given two(1,M)-homotopy sequences of mappingsS₁={φ¹_i}i∈NandS₂ ={φ²_i}i∈N

into C(M),{0}

,S₁is homotopic toS₂ if∃ {δi}i∈N, such that

• φ¹_i is1-homotopic toφ²_i in C(M),{0}

with finenessδ_i;

• lim_i→∞δ_i = 0.

It is easy to see that the relation “is homotopic to” is an equivalence relation on the space of(1,M)- homotopy sequences of mappings into C(M),{0}

. An equivalence class is a(1,M)-homotopy class of mappings into C(M),{0}

. Denote the set of all equivalence classes byπ₁^# C(M,M),{0}

. 3.2. Min-max construction.

Definition 3.6. (Min-max definition) Given Π ∈ π₁^# C(M,M),{0}

, define: L^c : Π → R⁺ as a function given by:

L^c(S) =L^c({φi}i∈N) = lim sup

i→∞

max

A^c φ_i(x)

: xlies in the domain ofφ_i . TheA^c-min-max value ofΠis defined as

(3.2) L^c(Π) = inf{L^c(S) : S ∈Π}.

A sequenceS={φi} ∈Πis called acritical sequenceifL^c(S) =L^c(Π).

Given a critical sequenceS, thenK(S) ={V = lim_j→∞|∂φ_ij(x_j)|: x_j lies in the domain ofφ_ij} is a compact subsets ofV_n(Mⁿ⁺¹). Thecritical setofSis the subsetC(S)⊂K(S)defined by

C(S) ={V = lim

j→∞|∂φ_ij(x_j)|: with lim

j→∞A^c(φ_ij(x_j)) =L^c(S)}.

Note that by [43, 4.1(4)], we immediately have:

Lemma 3.7. Given anyΠ∈π^#₁ C(M,M),{0}

, there exists a critical sequenceS∈Π.

The main theorem of this paper is as follows:

Theorem 3.8. Let2 ≤n≤6. Given a smooth closed Riemannian manifoldMⁿ⁺¹andc > 0, there existsΠ∈π₁^# C(M,M),{0}

and a critical sequenceS∈Πsuch that:

• L^c(Π) =L^c(S)>0;

• There exists an element of C(S) induced by a nontrivial, smooth, almost embedded, closed hypersurface Σⁿ⊂M of constant mean curvaturecwith multiplicity one.

Proof of Theorem 3.8. This follows from combining Theorem 3.9, Theorem 5.6 and Theorem 6.1.

3.3. Existence of nontrivial sweepouts.

Theorem 3.9. There existsΠ∈π^♯₁ C(M,M),{0}

, such that for anyc >0, we haveL^c(Π)>0.

Remark3.10. Let us first describe a heuristic argument using smooth sweepouts which will help to reveal the key idea. LetC0 >0andV0>0to be the constants in Theorem 2.15, and fix0< V ≤V0

such thatVⁿ⁺¹⁻¹ >2c/C₀. Note thatV only depends onc, C₀, V₀. Then for anyΩwithVol(Ω) =V, we have

(3.3) A^c(Ω)≥C₀Vⁿ⁺¹ⁿ −cV > cV >0.

Now consider any smooth 1-parameter family{Ωx :x ∈ [0,1]} satisfyingΩ0 =∅and Ω1 = M.

Since {Ωx} sweeps out M, there must exist some x₀ ∈ (0,1) such that Vol(Ω_x0) = V, whence max_x∈[0,1]A^c(Ω_x)≥cV >0. Since this holds for any sweepout we then haveL^c(Π)≥cV >0.

Proof of Theorem 3.9. Take a Morse functionφ : M → [0,1], and consider the sub-level sets Φ : [0,1] → C(M), given byΦ(t) = {x ∈ M : φ(x) < t}. By the interpolation theorem of the first author [60, Theorem 5.1], Φcan be discretized to a (1,M)-homotopy sequence S = {φ_i} where φ_i : I(1, k_i)₀ → (C(M),{0}). Moreover, under Almgren’s isomorphism F_A [3,§3.2] (see also [60,

§4.2]),φ_i is mapped to the fundamental class inH_n+1(M)forilarge, i.e.F_A(φ_i) = [[M]]. Consider Π = [S], then by [3, Theorem 7.1] for anyS ={φi} ∈ Π, we haveF_A(φ_i) = [[M]]forilarge. In particular, this means thatP

j∈I(1,ki)0Q_j = M as currents; here for givenj andα_j = [^j−1

3^ki , ^j

3^ki] = [x_j−1, x_j],Q_j ∈I_n+1(M)is the isoperimetric choice (c.f. [3, 1.14]) of∂φ_i(x_j)−∂φ_i(x_j−1), i.e.

M(Q_j) =F(∂φi(x_j)−∂φ_i(x_j−1)), and∂Q_α=∂φ_i(x_j)−∂φ_i(x_j−1).

DenoteΩ_l=Pl

j=1Qj. Then we have

∂Ω_l=∂φ_i(x_l)−∂φ_i(0) =∂φ_i(x_l),

and this implies, by the Constancy Theorem [51, 26.27], thatΩ_lis a Caccioppoli set (possibly with a negative orientation) whenM(Ω_l) <Vol(M). Note thatM(Qj) <f(φi) =δi, hence by continuity there exists somel_c ∈ N,l_c < 3^ki, such thatM(Ω_lc) ∈ [V −δ_i, V +δ_i], where V is as in Remark 3.10, andφi(x_lc) = Ω_lc. Then the same argument as in the remark above gives a uniform positive lower bound forA^c(φ_i(x_lc)), and this finishes the proof.

4. TIGHTENING

In this section, we construct the tightening map adapted to theA^c functional and prove that after applying the tightening map to a critical sequence, every element in the critical set has uniformly bounded first variation. Our approach is adapted from those in [11,§4] and [43,§4.3].

4.1. Annular decomposition. GivenL >0, consider the set of varifolds inVn(M)with2L-bounded mass:A^L={V ∈ Vn(M) : kVk(M)≤2L}. Denote

A^c_∞=

V ∈A^L:|δV(X)| ≤c Z

|X|dµV, for anyX∈X(M) . Consider the concentric annuli aroundA_∞under theF-metric, i.e.

Aj =

V ∈A^L: 1

2^j ≤F(V, A^c_∞)≤ 1

2^j−1 , j∈N. Sincec-bounded first variation is a closed condition, we have

Lemma 4.1. A^c_∞is a compact subset ofA^Lunder theF-metric.

It is easy to show (by contradiction, for instance) that for any varifold inA_j, we can find a vector field satisfying the following condition.

Lemma 4.2. For anyV ∈A_j, there existsX_V ∈X(M), such that (4.1) kXVk_C¹_(M)≤1, δV(X_V)−c

Z

M

|XV|dµV ≤ −cj <0, wherec_j depends only onj.

4.2. A map fromA^Lto the space of vector fields. In this part, we will construct a mapX :A^L→ X(M), which is continuous with respect to theC¹topology onX(M).

GivenV ∈ A_j, letX_V be given in Lemma 4.2. Since div_SX_V is Lipschitz on G_n(M) for fixed X_V, the map

W →δW(X_V)−c Z

M

|XV|dµW = Z

Gn(M)

div_S(X_V)dW(x, S)−c Z

M

|XV|dµW

is continuous with respect to theF-metric. Therefore for anyV ∈ A_j, there exists0 < r_V < _2j+1¹ , such that for anyW ∈U_rV(V), i.e.F(W, V)< r_V,

(4.2) δW(X_V)−c Z

|XV|dµW ≤ 1 2

δV(X_V)−c Z

|XV|dµV

≤ −1

2c_j <0.

Now

U_rV/2(V) :V ∈Aj is an open covering ofAj. By the compactness ofAj, we can find finitely many balls

U_rj,i(V_j,i) :V_j,i∈A_j,1≤i≤q_j , wherer_j,i =r_Vj,i, such that (i) The ballsU_rj,i/2(V_j,i)with half radii coverA_j;

(ii) The ballsUrj,i(Vj,i)are disjoint fromA_kif|j−k| ≥2.

In the following, we denoteU_rj,i(V_j,i),U_rj,i/2(V_j,i)andX_Vj,i byU_j,i,U˜_j,iandX_j,irespectively.

Now we can construct a partition of unity{ϕj,i:j ∈N,1≤i≤q_j}sub-coordinate to the covering U˜_j,i,1≤i≤q_j, j∈N by

ϕ_j,i(V) = ψj,i(V)

P{ψp,q(V), p∈N,1≤q≤q_p},

whereψ_j,i(V) =F(V, A^L\U˜_j,i).

The mapX :A^L→X(M)is defined by

(4.3) X(V) =F(V, A^c_∞) X

j∈N,1≤i≤qj

ϕ_j,i(V)X_j,i.

The following lemma is a straightforward consequence of the construction.

Lemma 4.3. The mapX :V →X(V)is continuous with respect to theC¹topology onX(M).

4.3. A map from A^L to the space of isotopies. In this part, we will associate each V ∈ A with an isotopy ofM in a continuous manner. The isotopy will be generated by the vector fieldX(V).

In particular, givenV ∈ A^L, we use Φ_V : R⁺ ×M → M to denote the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms generated byX(V).

GivenΩ∈ C(M)with∂Ω∈A^L, we will deformΩbyΦ_|∂Ω|(t)to get a 1-parameter family of sets of finite perimeterΩt = Φ_|∂Ω|(t)(Ω), and we will show that theA^c functional ofΩtfor somet > 0 can be deformed down by a fixed amount depending only onF(|∂Ω|, A^c_∞).

In fact, givenV ∈ A_j, let ρ(V)be the smallest radii of the balls U˜_k,iwhich contain V. As there are only finitely many ballsU˜_k,iwhich intersectA_j nontrivially, we know thatρ(V)≥r_j >0, where r_j depends only onj; moreover, by construction the sub-indexkof theseU˜_k,ican only bej−1, j, or j+ 1. Then by (4.2) and (4.3), we have for anyW ∈U_ρ(V)(V)that

δW(X(V))−c Z

|X(V)|dµW ≤ − 1

2^j+1 min{cj−1, c_j, c_j+1}.

Therefore we can find two continuous functionsg :R⁺→R⁺andρ:R⁺ →R⁺, such thatρ(0) = 0 and

δW(X(V))−c Z

|X(V)|dµW ≤ −g F(V, A^c_∞)

, ifF(W, V)≤ρ F(V, A^c_∞) . In particular, by (1.2),

(4.4) δA^c|Ω(X(V))≤ −g F(V, A^c_∞)

, ifΩ∈ C(M),F(|∂Ω|, V)≤ρ F(V, A^c_∞) . Next, we will construct a continuous time functionT : [0,∞)→[0,∞), such that

(i) lim_t→0T(t) = 0, andT(t)>0ift6= 0;

(ii) For anyV ∈A^L, denoteγ =F(V, A^c_∞); thenV_t= Φ_V(t)

#V ∈U_ρ(γ)(V)for all0≤t≤ T(γ).

In fact, givenV ∈A_j, andρ =ρ F(V, A^c_∞)

>0, there existsT_V >0, such thatV_t∈U_ρ(V)for all 0≤t≤T_V. Moreover, by the compactness ofA_jand the continuity ofΦ_V(t)_#V inV andt, we may chooseT_V such thatT_V ≥T_j >0for allV ∈A_j, whereT_jdepends only onj. Interpolating between theTj yields the desired continuous functionT depending only onF(V, A^c_∞).

In summary, givenV ∈A^L\A^c_∞, denoteγ =F(V, A^c_∞)>0, Ψ_V(t,·) = ΦV T(γ)t,·

, fort∈[0,1],

andL:R⁺→R⁺, withL(γ) =T(γ)g(γ); thenL(0) = 0andL(γ)>0ifγ >0. We can deformV through a continuous family

n

Vt= ΨV(t)

#V :t∈[0,1]o

⊂U_ρ(γ)(V), such that (i) The map(t, V)→V_tis continuous under theF-metric;

(ii) Using (4.4), whenV =∂Ω,Ω∈ C(M),γ =F(|∂Ω|, A^c_∞)>0, we have A^c(Ω1)− A^c(Ω)≤

Z _T(γ)

0

[δA^c|Ωt](X(|∂Ω)|)dt≤ −T(γ)g(γ)

=−L(γ)<0.

(4.5)

Finally note that the flowΨ_V(t,·)is generated by the vector field

(4.6) X(V˜ ) =T(γ)X(V).

4.4. Deforming sweepouts by the tightening map. Applying our tightening map constructed above in place of [43, §4.3] to a critical sequence provided by Lemma 3.7, we can deduce the following result.

Proposition 4.4(Tightening). LetΠ∈π₁^♯ C(M,M),{0}

, and assumeL^c(Π)>0. For any critical sequenceS^∗forΠ, there exists another critical sequenceS forΠsuch thatC(S)⊂C(S^∗)and each V ∈C(S)hasc-bounded first variation.

Proof. Take S^∗ = {φ^∗_i}, where φ^∗_i : I(1, k_i)₀ → C(M),{0}

, and φ^∗_i is1-homotopic toφ^∗_i+1 in C(M),{0}

with finenessδ_iց0. LetΞ_i:I(1, k_i)₀×[0,1]→ C(M)be defined as Ξi(x, t) = Ψ_|∂φ^∗

i(x)|(t) φ^∗_i(x) .

Denoteφ^t_i(·) = Ξi(·, t). Heuristically, one would like to setφ_i =φ¹_i as the desired sequence, but since the isotopiesΨ_|∂φ∗

i(x)| depend onx, the fineness of{φ¹_i}could be large even iff(φ^∗_i)is small.

Thus we need to interpolateφ¹_i to get the desiredφi, but we need to make sure the values ofφi after interpolation areF-close to those ofφ¹_i. Similar difficulties appeared in the same way in [33,§15]. The

authors in [33] used a discrete-to-continuous interpolation argument. Unfortunately we cannot adapt their argument, since their constructions involve currents which may not be boundaries of Caccioppoli sets. Instead, we develop another interpolation method in Claim 2. Before that, we pause to prove:

Claim 1: iflimi→∞A^c(φ¹_i(xi)) =L^c(Π), then (up to relabeling) there is a subsequence{φ¹_i(xi)}

converging (as varifolds) to a varifold inC(S^∗)ofc-bounded first variation.

Proof of Claim 1:By (4.5),

(4.7) A^c(φ¹_i(x_i))− A^c(φ^∗_i(x_i)) =−L(γi), whereγ_i =F(|∂φ^∗_i(x_i)|, A^c_∞). Therefore,

L^c(Π) = limA^c(φ¹_i(xi)) = limA^c(φ^∗_i(xi))−L(limγi)≤L^c(Π)−L(limγi),

so actually we must have limγ_i = 0and this implies that lim|∂φ^∗_i(x_i)| ∈ A^c_∞. Moreover, by our construction of the tightening map, each|∂φ¹_i(x_i)|had to be ρ(γ_i)-close to |∂φ^∗_i(x_i)|under theF- metric, therefore

lim|∂φ¹_i(x_i)|= lim|∂φ^∗_i(x_i)| ∈A^c_∞∩C(S^∗), and this finishes the proof of the claim.

Claim 2: there exist integersl_i > k_i and mapsφ_i :I(1, l_i)₀ → (C(M),{0})for eachi, such that S={φi}is homotopic toS^∗, and

(a) φ¹_i =φ_i◦n(l_i, k_i)onI(1, k_i)₀; (b) f(φ_i)→0, asi→ ∞;

(c) A^c(φ_i(x))−max{A^c(φ¹_i(y)) : α ∈ I(1, k_i)₁, x, y ∈ α} → 0, uniformly inx ∈ I(1, l_i)₀ as i→ ∞.

(d) max{F(∂φi(x), ∂φ¹_i(y)) :α∈I(1, ki)1, x, y∈α} →0, asi→ ∞.

Proof of Claim 2:The idea is to extendφ¹_i to apiecewisecontinuous (with respect to theF-metric) map onIand then apply the discretization result in [60, Theorem 5.1]. However, since this procedure

is somewhat technical, the proof is deferred to Appendix B.

In particular, S is a valid sequence in Π, and we now check that it satisfies the requirements of the proposition. First, property (c) and the fact that S^∗ is a critical sequence directly imply that S is also a critical sequence. It remains to show that every element inC(S) must lie in C(S^∗) and have c-bounded first variation. GivenV ∈ C(S), one can find a subsequence (without relabeling) {φi(x_i) :x_i∈I(1, l_i)₀} ⊂ C(M), such thatV = lim|∂φi(x_i)|as varifolds, and

limA^c(φ_i(x_i)) =L^c(Π).

We will need to first considerφi(xi) =φ¹_i(xi), wherexiis the nearest point toxiinI(1, ki)0. By (c) and (d), we havelimA^c(φ¹_i(x_i)) =L^c(Π)and alsolim|∂φi(x_i)|= lim|∂φ¹_i(x_i)|as varifolds. Then by Claim 1, we conclude thatV ∈A^c_∞∩C(S^∗). This completes the proof.

5. c-ALMOST MINIMIZING

In this section, we introduce the notion ofc-almost minimizing varifolds, and prove the existence of such a varifold from min-max construction. We prove the existence of ac-replacement for anyc- almost minimizing varifold. Using this property, we show that every blowup of such varifold is regular.

As an easy consequence, the tangent cones of such varifolds are always integer multiples of planes.