-1).$$ Moreover, since $\|\phi_1\|_U=1$, $$\lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C
    \quad\text{and}\quad
    \lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)+\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_{\alpha})-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)\rvert\leq C.$$ Hence, $$\lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C(2\alpha+1).$$ This completes the proof of Proposition \[proposition:defect\].

Since the fragmentation norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{U}}$ with respect to a covering $\mathcal{U}$ is not conjugation invariant in general, we cannot prove a proposition corresponding to Proposition \[proposition:defect\] in the same manner (see also the proof of Proposition \[proposition:defect1\]).

Proof of Theorem \[calabi on surface\]
--------------------------------------

For $\vec{g}=(g_1,\ldots,g_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$, we recall that $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega)$ is the product manifold $\Sigma_{\vec{g}}=\Sigma_{g_1}\times\cdots\times\Sigma_{g_n}$ equipped with a symplectic form $\omega$.

Let $C_i$ be a non-contractible simple closed curve in the surface $\Sigma_{g_i}$, and let $C$ denote the Lagrangian submanifold $C_1\times\cdots\times C_n$ of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$.

For all positive integers $N$, we choose symplectomorphisms $f_1,\ldots,f_N$ of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$ to ensure that the subsets $C$, $f_1(C),\ldots,f_N(C)$ are mutually disjoint. We fix $i=0,1,\ldots,N$. We set $L_i=f_i(C)$, where $f_0=\mathrm{id}_{\Sigma_{\vec{g}}}$. Then, ${\mathop{\mathrm{QH}}\nolimits}_{\ast}(L_i;\mathbb{Z}_2)\cong{\mathop{\mathrm{
-1).$$ Moreover, since $ \|\phi_1\|_U=1 $, $ $ \lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C 
     \quad\text{and}\quad 
     \lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)+\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_{\alpha})-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)\rvert\leq C.$$ Hence, $ $ \lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C(2\alpha+1).$$ This completes the validation of Proposition \[proposition: defect\ ]. 

 Since the atomization average $ \|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{U}}$ with respect to a covering $ \mathcal{U}$ is not conjugation changeless in general, we cannot prove a proposition match to Proposition \[proposition: defect\ ] in the same manner (see besides the validation of Proposition \[proposition: defect1\ ]). 

 Proof of Theorem \[calabi on surface\ ] 
 -------------------------------------- 

 For $ \vec{g}=(g_1,\ldots, g_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$, we recall that $ (\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega)$ is the product manifold $ \Sigma_{\vec{g}}=\Sigma_{g_1}\times\cdots\times\Sigma_{g_n}$ equip with a symplectic form $ \omega$. 

 Let $ C_i$ be a non - contractible simple shut curve in the surface $ \Sigma_{g_i}$, and lease $ C$ denote the Lagrangian submanifold $ C_1\times\cdots\times C_n$ of $ (\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$. 

 For all positive integer $ N$, we choose symplectomorphisms $ f_1,\ldots, f_N$ of $ (\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$ to ensure that the subsets $ C$, $ f_1(C),\ldots, f_N(C)$ are mutually disjoint. We fix $ i=0,1,\ldots, N$. We determine $ L_i = f_i(C)$, where $ f_0=\mathrm{id}_{\Sigma_{\vec{g}}}$. Then, $ { \mathop{\mathrm{QH}}\nolimits}_{\ast}(L_i;\mathbb{Z}_2)\cong{\mathop{\mathrm {
-1).$$ Mogeover, since $\|\phi_1\|_U=1$, $$\lvert\bxr{\sigma}_c(\phi_1\psi)-\bce{\sigma}_r(\phi_1)-\bar{\aigma}_c(\psk)\rvert\leq C
    \quad\text{and}\qued
    \lveet\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)+\bar{\sigma}_z(\phi_{\alpha})-\har{\sigma}_x(\phi)\cvert\leq C.$$ Hence, $$\lvert\bav{\figmz}_g(\phi\pvm)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)-\bat{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvart\leq C(2\alpha+1).$$ Dhks completes the proof of Proposition \[proposotlon:defect\].

Since the sragjvnuation norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{U}}$ with reslect to a covering $\msthcal{U}$ is not conjugation invwriant in general, ae cannot ptkve q propositiov corresponding to Prokosition \[proposition:defect\] in thd samz manner (seg zldm the proof of Pgoposition \[propositiot:defect1\]).

Lroof of Theorcm \[canabu on surface\]
--------------------------------------

For $\vec{g}=(g_1,\ndots,g_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$, re recall tkat $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega)$ is tye prmducd mavufoud $\Aijma_{\bec{g}}=\Sihma_{j_1}\times\cdots\fimes\Sigma_{g_b}$ equipped with a sum[oectic form $\ojega$.

Lee $S_i$ be a non-contractible simple closed clrve in the surface $\Sigma_{g_i}$, and let $C$ denote the Lagrangiwn submanifold $C_1\times\cdots\times C_n$ of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omaga_{\ver{A}})$.

Wor aju plsitive integers $N$, we choose symplectomorphisia $g_1,\lcots,f_N$ of $(\Sigmc_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$ tp fnxore that the sobsets $E$, $f_1(D),\ldots,f_N(C)$ are mutuwlly difjoinr. We fix $y=0,1,\ldoys,N$. We set $L_i=f_i(C)$, where $f_0=\matyrm{id}_{\Sigma_{\veb{g}}}$. Tyen, ${\mathop{\mathrm{QH}}\uolimits}_{\ast}(L_n;\mathbn{Z}_2)\conb{\mathop{\mathrm{
-1).$$ Moreover, since $\|\phi_1\|_U=1$, $$\lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C \quad\text{and}\quad Hence, C(2\alpha+1).$$ This the proof of norm with respect to covering $\mathcal{U}$ is conjugation invariant in general, we cannot a proposition corresponding to Proposition \[proposition:defect\] in the same manner (see also the of Proposition \[proposition:defect1\]). Proof of Theorem \[calabi on surface\] -------------------------------------- For $\vec{g}=(g_1,\ldots,g_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$, we that is product $\Sigma_{\vec{g}}=\Sigma_{g_1}\times\cdots\times\Sigma_{g_n}$ equipped with a symplectic form $\omega$. Let $C_i$ be a non-contractible simple closed curve in surface $\Sigma_{g_i}$, and let $C$ denote the Lagrangian $C_1\times\cdots\times C_n$ of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$. all positive integers $N$, we symplectomorphisms of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$ ensure the $C$, $f_1(C),\ldots,f_N(C)$ are disjoint. We fix $i=0,1,\ldots,N$. We set $L_i=f_i(C)$, where $f_0=\mathrm{id}_{\Sigma_{\vec{g}}}$. Then, ${\mathop{\mathrm{QH}}\nolimits}_{\ast}(L_i;\mathbb{Z}_2)\cong{\mathop{\mathrm{
-1).$$ Moreover, since $\|\phi_1\|_U=1$, $$\lvert\bar{\Sigma}_c(\phi_1\pSi)-\bar{\SigMa}_c(\PhI_1)-\bar{\SigmA}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C
    \QUad\tExt{and}\quad
    \lvert\bar{\sigmA}_c(\phi_1)+\BaR{\SigmA}_C(\pHi_{\alpHa})-\bar{\siGMa}_C(\PHi)\rVeRt\Leq c.$$ HENcE, $$\lverT\baR{\sigma}_c(\Phi\psi)-\bar{\sIgmA}_c(\Phi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\PSi)\Rvert\leq C(2\aLphA+1).$$ This completEs tHe prooF oF PrOPositIon \[PropoSition:DEfect\].

SInce the frAgMEntatiON norm $\|\cdOT\|_{\MaThcaL{U}}$ with respect to a cOVeRIng $\mathcal{U}$ is nOt conjUgATiON InvAriAnt in generAl, We canNOt prove A PrOPOSitIOn correspondiNg to ProposiTIon \[ProposItIon:DEfect\] iN the sAmE ManNer (see also tHe prOof of PropOsitioN \[ProposiTIon:defeCt1\]).

ProoF of theOrem \[CAlAbI on SuRFacE\]
--------------------------------------

foR $\veC{G}=(g_1,\lDots,g_n)\in\MaThBb{N}^n$, wE recALL THat $(\SIgmA_{\vec{G}},\omegA)$ is the product ManIfolD $\sigMa_{\vec{G}}=\SigmA_{g_1}\tiMeS\cdotS\times\sigma_{G_n}$ Equipped with a syMpleCtic form $\oMegA$.

LEt $C_I$ bE a non-COntracTibLe sImple clOsed curVE in ThE SURfAce $\Sigma_{g_i}$, and let $C$ dEnOTE tHe LagranGian suBMaNiFOld $C_1\timeS\cDotS\timES c_n$ of $(\SIgma_{\VEc{G}},\omega_{\veC{A}})$.

For aLL pOsItive inTeGers $N$, wE cHooSe sYmpleCTomoRphismS $f_1,\ldots,f_n$ of $(\SiGMa_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{a}})$ To ensure that tHE sUBSeTS $C$, $f_1(C),\LdoTs,f_N(C)$ are mutUallY DisjOint. wE fIx $i=0,1,\LDots,N$. we set $l_i=F_I(C)$, WHere $f_0=\mathrm{id}_{\Sigma_{\vEc{G}}}$. Then, ${\mAthop{\Mathrm{QH}}\nolimIts}_{\ast}(L_i;\maTHBB{Z}_2)\cong{\maThop{\MAtHRm{
-1).$$ Moreover, since $\| \phi_1\|_U =1$,$$\ lve rt \bar {\si gma}_c(\phi_1\ p si)- \bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1) -\bar {\ s igma } _c (\psi )\rvert \ le q C
  \ qua d\ t ex t{and }\q uad
   \lvert\ba r{\ si gma}_c(\phi_ 1 )+ \bar{\sigm a}_ c(\phi_{\alp ha} )-\bar {\ sig m a}_c( \ph i)\rv ert\le q  C.$$Hence, $$ \l v ert\ba r {\sigma } _ c( \phi \psi)-\bar{\sigma } _c ( \phi)-\bar{\si gma}_c (\ p si ) \ rve rt\ leq C(2\al ph a+1). $ $ Thisc om p l e tes the proof ofProposition \[p roposi ti on: d efect\ ].

S in c e t he fragment atio n norm $\ |\cdot \ |_{\mat h cal{U}} $ with  re spe ct t o  a  c ove ri n g $ \ ma thc a l{U }$ is no tco njuga tion i n v aria ntin g enera l, we cannotpro ve a pro posit ion c orre sp ondin g to P ropos it ion \[propositi on:d efect\] i n t he  sa me  mann e r (see  al sothe pro of of P r opo si t i o n\[proposition:defe ct 1 \ ]) .

Proof  of Th e or em \[calabi  o n s urfa c e \]
-- ---- - -- -------- ------ - -- -- ------- -- -

For  $ \ve c{g }=(g_ 1 ,\ld ots,g_ n)\in\ma thbb{ N }^n$, we recal l  that $(\Sigm a _{ \ v ec { g}}, \om ega)$ is th e pr o duct  man i fo ld$ \Sigm a_{\v ec { g} } =\Sigma_{g_1}\times \c dots\t imes\ Sigma_{g_n}$equipped w i t h  a sympl ecti c  f o rm $\omega$.
Let $ C_i$ be an on-contr actib le simpl e closedc u rve in t hesur fac e $ \ S ig ma_{g_i}$, an d let$C $ denot e t he Lagr ang ian  su bma ni fold $C_1 \times\c do ts \t im esC_n$o f $(\Sig ma _{\ ve c{g }},\o m ega_{\ vec{A }})$ .
F o r a ll posi t iv e inte ge rs  $N$ , w echoos e sy m ple ctomorp hisms $f_ 1,\ l dots ,f _N $ of $( \Sigma_{\vec{ g} },\omega_{ \v ec{ A}})$t o  ensurethat the subsets $C$, $ f _1(C),\ ldo ts,f_ N(C) $ are mut ual ly dis joi n t. Wefix $i =0,1, \l dot s , N$. W e se t $ L_ i=f_i(C)$, w her e $f_ 0= \mat hrm{id} _{\Sigma_{\vec{g}} } $.Then, ${\math op{ \mat h r m{ QH} } \n o lim it s }_{ \ a st}(L_i;\mathbb {Z}_2)\con g{ \ ma thop{\math r m{
-1).$$ Moreover,_since $\|\phi_1\|_U=1$,_$$\lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq C
  _ \quad\text{and}\quad
__ _\lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_1)+\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi_{\alpha})-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)\rvert\leq_C.$$ Hence, $$\lvert\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi\psi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\phi)-\bar{\sigma}_c(\psi)\rvert\leq_C(2\alpha+1).$$ This completes_the proof of Proposition_\[proposition:defect\].

Since the fragmentation_norm_$\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{U}}$ with respect to a covering $\mathcal{U}$ is not conjugation invariant in general, we_cannot_prove a_proposition_corresponding_to Proposition \[proposition:defect\] in the_same manner (see also the_proof of_Proposition \[proposition:defect1\]).

Proof of Theorem \[calabi on surface\]
--------------------------------------

For $\vec{g}=(g_1,\ldots,g_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$,_we_recall that $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega)$_is the product manifold $\Sigma_{\vec{g}}=\Sigma_{g_1}\times\cdots\times\Sigma_{g_n}$ equipped with a symplectic_form $\omega$.

Let $C_i$ be a non-contractible_simple closed curve_in_the_surface $\Sigma_{g_i}$, and let_$C$ denote the Lagrangian submanifold $C_1\times\cdots\times_C_n$ of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$.

For all positive integers_$N$, we choose symplectomorphisms $f_1,\ldots,f_N$ of $(\Sigma_{\vec{g}},\omega_{\vec{A}})$_to ensure that the subsets $C$,_$f_1(C),\ldots,f_N(C)$ are mutually disjoint. We_fix $i=0,1,\ldots,N$._We set $L_i=f_i(C)$, where $f_0=\mathrm{id}_{\Sigma_{\vec{g}}}$._Then, ${\mathop{\mathrm{QH}}\nolimits}_{\ast}(L_i;\mathbb{Z}_2)\cong{\mathop{\mathrm{