ScalingStacks

Heights and measures on analytic spaces. A survey of recent results, and some remarks

Chambert-Loir, Antoine

Original paper

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

\swapnumbers

Heights and measures on analytic spaces

A survey of recent results, and some remarks
Antoine Chambert-Loir Address: IRMAR, Université de Rennes 1
Campus de Beaulieu
35042 Rennes Cedex
Email: antoine.chambert-loir@univ-rennes1.fr
Résumé.

This paper has two goals. The first is to present the construction, due to the author, of measures on non-archimedean analytic varieties associated to metrized line bundles and some of its applications. We take this opportunity to add remarks, examples and mention related results.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification
14G40,14G22

The first goal of this paper was to survey my definition in [18] of measures on non-archimedean analytic spaces in the sense of Berkovich and to explain its applications in Arakelov geometry. These measures are analogous the measures on complex analytic spaces given by products of first Chern forms of hermitian line bundles. In both contexts, archimedean and non-archimedean, they are related with Arakelov geometry and the local height pairings of cycles. However, while the archimedean measures lie at the ground of the definition of the archimedean local heights in Arakelov geometry, the situation is reversed in the ultrametric case : we begin with the definition of local heights given by arithmetic intersection theory and define measures in such a way that the archimedean formulae make sense and are valid. The construction is outlined in Section 1, with references concerning metrized line bundles and the archimedean setting. More applications to Arakelov geometry and equidistribution theorems are discussed in Section 3.

The relevance of Berkovich spaces in Diophantine geometry has now made been clear by many papers ; besides [18] and [19] and the general equidistribution theorem of Yuan [55], I would like to mention the works [36, 37, 38, 28] who discuss the function field case of the equidistribution theorem, as well as the potential theory on non-archimedean curves developed simultaneously by Favre, Jonsson & Rivera-Letelier [30, 31] and Baker & Rumely for the projective line [6], and in general by A. Thuillier’s PhD thesis [51]. The reader will find many important results in the latter work, which unfortunately is still unpublished at the time of this writing.

Anyway, I found useful to add examples and complements to the existing (and non-) litterature. This is done in Section 2. Especially, I discuss in Section 2.2 the relation between the reduction graph and the skeleton of a Berkovich curve, showing that the two constructions of measures coincide. Section 2.3 shows that the measures defined are of a local nature ; more generally, we show that the measures vanish on any open subset where one of the metrized line bundles involved is trivial. This suggests a general definition of strongly pluriharmonic functions on Berkovich spaces, as uniform limits of logarithms of absolute values of invertible holomorphic functions. (Strongly pluriharmonic fonctions should only exhaust pluriharmonic functions when the residue field is algebraic over a finite field, but not in general.) In Section 2.4, we discuss polarized dynamical systems and explain the construction of canonical metrics and measures in that case. We also show that the canonical measure vanishes on the Berkovich equicontinuity locus. In fact, what we show is that the canonical metric is “strongly pluriharmonic” on that locus. This is the direct generalization of a theorem of [48] for the projective line (see also [6] for an exposition) ; this generalizes also a theorem of [42] that Green functions are locally constant on the classical equicontinuity locus. As already were their proofs, mine is a direct adaptation of the proof of the complex case [41]. In Section 2.5, following Gubler [39], we finally describe the canonical measures in the case of abelian varieties.

In Section 3, we discuss applications of the measures in Diophantine geometry over global fields. Once definitions are recalled out in Section 3.1, we briefly discuss in Section 3.2 the relation between Mahler measures (i.e., integration of Green functions against measures) and heights. In Section 3.3, we survey the equidistribution theorems for Galois orbits of points of “small height”, following the variational method of Szpiro–Ullmo–Zhang [50] and [55]. In fact, we describe the more general statement from [19]. Finally, Section 3.4 discusses positive lower bounds for heights on curves. This is inspired by recent papers [4, 45] but the method goes back to Mimar’s unpublished thesis [44]. A recent preprint [54] of Yuan and Zhang establishes a similar result in any dimension.

[01IB]

Acknowledgments

This paper grew out of the invitation of J. Nicaise and J. Sebag to add a contribution to the proceedings of the conference “Motivic integration and its interactions with model theory and non-archimedean geometry” (ICMS, Edinburgh 2008) ; I thank them heartily for that.

I wrote this paper during a stay at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton whose winterish but warm atmosphere was extremly motivating. I acknowledge support of the Institut universitaire de France, as well of the National Science Foundation under agreement No. DMS-0635607.

During the writing of this paper, transatlantic e-contacts with A. Ducros have been immensely profitable. Besides him, I also wish to thank M. Baker and A. Thuillier for their interest and comments.

[01IC]

1. Metrized line bundles and measures

[01ID]

1.1. Continuous metrics

[01IE]

Definition

Let XX be a topological space together with a sheaf of local rings 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} (“analytic functions”) ; let also 𝒞X\mathscr{C}_{X} be the sheaf of continuous functions on XX. In analytic geometry, local functions have an absolute value which is a real valued continuous function, satisfying the triangle inequality. Let us thus assume that we have a morphism of sheaves 𝒪X→𝒞X\mathscr{O}_{X}\rightarrow\mathscr{C}_{X}, written f↦|f|f\mapsto\left|{f}\right|, such that |f​g|=|f|​|g|\left|{fg}\right|=\left|{f}\right|\left|{g}\right|, |1|=1\left|{1}\right|=1, and |f+g|≤|f|+|g|\left|{f+g}\right|\leq\left|{f}\right|+\left|{g}\right|.

A line bundle on (X,𝒪X)(X,\mathscr{O}_{X}) is a sheaf LL of 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules which is locally isomorphic to 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}. In other words, XX is covered by open sets UU such that 𝒪U≃L|U\mathscr{O}_{U}\simeq L|U ; such an isomorphism is equivalent to a non-vanishing section εU∈Γ⁡(U,L)\varepsilon_{U}\in\Gamma(U,L), also called a local frame of LL.

If ss is a section of a line bundle LL on an open set UU, the value of ss at a point x∈Ux\in U is only well-defined as an element of the stalk L⁡(x)L(x), which is a κ⁡(x)\kappa(x)-vector space of dimension 11. (Here, κ⁡(x)\kappa(x) is the residue field of 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} at xx.) Prescribing a metric on LL amounts to assign, in a coherent way, the norms of these values. Formally, a metric on LL is the datum, for any open set U⊂XU\subset X and any section s∈Γ⁡(U,L)s\in\Gamma(U,L), of a continuous function ‖s‖U:U→𝐑+\left\|{s}\right\|_{U}\colon U\rightarrow{\mathbf{R}}_{+}, satisfying the following properties :

  1. (1)

    for any open set V⊂UV\subset U, ‖s‖V\left\|{s}\right\|_{V} is the restriction to VV of the function ‖s‖U\left\|{s}\right\|_{U} ;

  2. (2)

    for any function f∈𝒪X​(U)f\in\mathscr{O}_{X}(U), ‖f​s‖=|f|​‖s‖\left\|{fs}\right\|=\left|{f}\right|\left\|{s}\right\| ;

  3. (3)

    if ss is a local frame on UU, then ‖s‖\left\|{s}\right\| doesn’t vanish on UU.

One usually writes L¯\overline{L} for the pair (L,‖⋅‖)(L,\left\|{\cdot}\right\|) of a line bundle LL and a metric on it.

Observe that the trivial line bundle 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} has a natural “trivial” metric, for which ‖1‖=1\left\|{1}\right\|=1. In fact, a metric on the trivial line bundle 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} is equivalent to the datum of a continuous function hh on XX, such that ‖1‖=e−h\left\|{1}\right\|=e^{-h}.

[01IF]

The Abelian group of metrized line bundles

Isomorphism of metrized line bundles are isomorphisms of line bundles which respect the metrics ; they are called isometries. Constructions from tensor algebra extend naturally to the framework of metrized line bundles, compatibly with isometries. The tensor product of two metrized line bundles L¯\overline{L} and M¯\overline{M} has a natural metrization such that ‖s⊗t‖=‖s‖​‖t‖\left\|{s\otimes t}\right\|=\left\|{s}\right\|\left\|{t}\right\|, if ss and tt are local sections of LL and MM respectively. Similarly, the dual of a metrized line bundle has a metrization, and the obvious isomorphism L⊗L∨≃𝒪XL\otimes L^{\vee}\simeq\mathscr{O}_{X} is an isometry. Consequently, isomorphism classes of metrized line bundles on XX form an Abelian group Pic¯​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(X). This group fits in an exact sequence

0→𝒞⁡(X)→Pic¯​(X)→Pic⁡(X)→0,0\rightarrow\mathscr{C}(X)\rightarrow\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(X)\rightarrow\operatorname{Pic}(X)\rightarrow 0,

where the first map associates to a real continuous function hh on XX the trivial line bundle endowed with the metric such that ‖1‖=e−h\left\|{1}\right\|=e^{-h}, and the second associates to a metrized line bundle the underlying line bundle. It is surjective when any line bundle has a metric (this certainly holds if XX has partitions of unity).

Similarly, we can consider pull-backs of metrized line bundle. Let φ:Y→X\varphi\colon Y\rightarrow X be a morphism of locally ringed spaces such that |φ∗​f|=|f|∘φ\left|{\varphi^{*}f}\right|=\left|{f}\right|\circ\varphi for any f∈𝒪Xf\in\mathscr{O}_{X}. Let L¯\overline{L} be a metrized line bundle on XX. Then, there is a canonical metric on φ∗​L\varphi^{*}L such that ‖φ∗​s‖=‖s‖∘φ\left\|{\varphi^{*}s}\right\|=\left\|{s}\right\|\circ\varphi for any section s∈Γ⁡(U,L)s\in\Gamma(U,L). This induces a morphism of Abelian groups φ∗:Pic¯​(X)→Pic¯​(Y)\varphi^{*}\colon\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(X)\rightarrow\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(Y).

[01IG]

1.2. The case of complex analytic spaces

[01IH]

Smooth metrics

In complex analytic geometry, metrics are a very well established tool. Let us first consider the case of the projective space X=𝐏n​(𝐂)\mathrm{X}={\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}) ; a point x∈Xx\in X is a (n+1)(n+1)-tuple of homogeneous coordinates [x0:…:xn][x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}], not all zero, and up to a scalar. Let π:𝐂∗n+1→X\pi\colon{\mathbf{C}}^{n+1}_{*}\rightarrow X be the canonical projection map, where the index ∗* means that we remove the origin (0,…​,0)(0,\dots,0). The fibers of π\pi have a natural action of 𝐂∗{\mathbf{C}}^{*}. The tautological line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) has for sections ss over an open set U⊂𝐏n​(𝐂)\mathrm{U}\subset{\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}) the analytic functions FsF_{s} on the open set π−1​(U)⊂𝐂∗n+1\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{U})\subset{\mathbf{C}}^{n+1}_{*} which are homogeneous of degree 11. The Fubini-Study metric of 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) assigns to the section ss the norm ‖s‖FS\left\|{s}\right\|_{\mathrm{FS}} defined by

‖s‖FS([x0:…:xn])=|Fs​(x0,…,xn)|(|x0|2+⋯+|xn|2)1/2.\left\|{s}\right\|_{{\mathrm{FS}}}([x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}])=\frac{\left|{F_{s}(x_{0},\dots,x_{n})}\right|}{\left(\left|{x_{0}}\right|^{2}+\dots+\left|{x_{n}}\right|^{2}\right)^{1/2}}.

It is more than continuous ; indeed, if ss is a local frame on an open set U\mathrm{U}, then ‖s‖\left\|{s}\right\| is a 𝒞∞\mathscr{C}^{\infty}-function on U\mathrm{U} ; such metrics are called smooth.

[01II]

Curvature

Line bundles with smooth metrics on smooth complex analytic spaces allow to perform differential calculus. Namely, the curvature of a smooth metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L} is a differential form c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) of type (1,1)(1,1) on X\mathrm{X}. Its definition involves the differential operator

ddc=iπ∂∂¯.\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}=\frac{i}{\pi}\partial\overline{\partial}.

When an open set U⊂X\mathrm{U}\subset\mathrm{X} admits local coordinates (z1,…,zn)(z_{1},\dots,z_{n}), and s∈Γ⁡(U,L)s\in\Gamma(\mathrm{U},L) is a local frame, then

c1​(L¯)|U=ddc⁡log⁡‖s‖−1=iπ​∑1≤j,k≤n∂2∂zj​∂z¯k​log⁡‖s‖−1​d​zj∧d​z¯k.c_{1}(\overline{L})|_{\mathrm{U}}=\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}=\frac{i}{\pi}\sum_{1\leq j,k\leq n}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z_{j}\partial\overline{z}_{k}}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}\mathrm{d}z_{j}\wedge\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{k}.

Cauchy-Riemann equations (∂f/∂z¯=0\partial f/\partial\overline{z}=0 for any holomorphic function ff of the variable zz) imply that this formula does not depend on the choice of a local frame ss. Consequently, these differential forms defined locally glue to a well-defined global differential form on X\mathrm{X}.

Taking the curvature form of a metrized line bundle is a linear operation : c1​(L¯⊗M¯)=c1​(L¯)+c1​(M¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M})=c_{1}(\overline{L})+c_{1}(\overline{M}). It also commutes to pull-back : if f:Y→Xf\colon Y\rightarrow X is a morphism, then f∗​c1​(L¯)=c1​(f∗​L¯)f^{*}c_{1}(\overline{L})=c_{1}(f^{*}\overline{L}).

In the case of the Fubini-Study metric over the projective space 𝐏n​(𝐂){\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}), the curvature is computed as follows. The open subset U0\mathrm{U}_{0} where the homogeneous coordinate x0x_{0} is non-zero has local coordinates z1=x1/x0z_{1}=x_{1}/x_{0}, …, zn=xn/x0z_{n}=x_{n}/x_{0} ; the homogeneous polynomial X0X_{0} defines a non-vanishing section s0s_{0} of 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) on U0\mathrm{U}_{0} and

log⁡‖s0‖FS−1=12​log⁡(1+∑j=1n|zj|2).\log\left\|{s_{0}}\right\|^{-1}_{\mathrm{FS}}=\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left|{z_{j}}\right|^{2}\right).

Consequently, over U0\mathrm{U}_{0},

c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯FS)\displaystyle c_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{FS}}) =iπ​∂∂¯​log⁡‖s0‖FS−1\displaystyle=\frac{i}{\pi}\partial\overline{\partial}\log\left\|{s_{0}}\right\|^{-1}_{\mathrm{FS}}
=i2​π​∂(∑k=1nzk1+‖z‖2​d​z¯k)\displaystyle=\frac{i}{2\pi}\partial\left(\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{z_{k}}{1+\left\|{z}\right\|^{2}}\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{k}\right)
=i2​π​∑j=1n11+‖z‖2​d​zj∧d​z¯j−i2​π​∑j,k=1nzk​z¯j(1+‖z‖2)2​d​zj∧d​z¯k.\displaystyle=\frac{i}{2\pi}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{1}{1+\left\|{z}\right\|^{2}}\mathrm{d}z_{j}\wedge\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{j}-\frac{i}{2\pi}\sum_{j,k=1}^{n}\frac{z_{k}\overline{z}_{j}}{(1+\left\|{z}\right\|^{2})^{2}}\mathrm{d}z_{j}\wedge\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{k}.

In this calculation, we have abbreviated ‖z‖2=∑j=1n|zj|2\left\|{z}\right\|^{2}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left|{z_{j}}\right|^{2}.

[01IJ]

Products, measures

Taking the product of nn factors equal to this differential form, we get a differential form of type (n,n)(n,n) on the nn-dimensional complex space X\mathrm{X}. Such a form can be integrated on X\mathrm{X} and the Wirtinger formula asserts that

∫Xc1​(L¯)n=deg⁡(L)\int_{\mathrm{X}}c_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}=\deg(L)

is the degree of LL as computed by intersection theory. As an example, if X=𝐏1​(𝐂)\mathrm{X}={\mathbf{P}}^{1}({\mathbf{C}}), we have seen that

c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯FS)=i2​π​(1+|z|2)2​d​z∧d​z¯,c_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{FS}})=\frac{i}{2\pi(1+\left|{z}\right|^{2})^{2}}\mathrm{d}z\wedge d\overline{z},

where z=x1/x0z=x_{1}/x_{0} is the affine coordinate of X∖{∞}X\setminus\{\infty\}. Passing in polar coordinates z=r​ei​θz=re^{i\theta}, we get

c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯FS)=12​π​(1+r2)2​d​r∧d​θc_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{FS}})=\frac{1}{2\pi(1+r^{2})^{2}}\mathrm{d}r\wedge\mathrm{d}\theta

whose integral over 𝐂{\mathbf{C}} equals

∫𝐏1​(𝐂)c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯FS)=∫0∞12​π​(1+r2)2​2​r​𝑑r​∫02​π𝑑θ=∫0∞1(1+u)2​𝑑u=1.\int_{{\mathbf{P}}^{1}({\mathbf{C}})}c_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{FS}})=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2\pi(1+r^{2})^{2}}2r\mathrm{d}r\int_{0}^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\theta=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(1+u)^{2}}\mathrm{d}u=1.
[01IK]

The Poincaré–Lelong equation

An important formula is the Poincaré–Lelong equation. For any line bundle LL with a smooth metric, and any section s∈Γ⁡(X,L)s\in\Gamma(\mathrm{X},L) which does not vanish identically on any connected component of X\mathrm{X}, it asserts the following equality of currents11 1 The space of currents is the dual to the space of differential forms, with the associated grading; in the orientable case, currents can also be seen as differential forms with distribution coefficients. :

ddc⁡log⁡‖s‖−1+δdiv⁡(s)=c1​(L¯),\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}+\delta_{\operatorname{div}(s)}=c_{1}(\overline{L}),

where ddc⁡log⁡‖s‖−1\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1} is the image of log⁡‖s‖−1\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1} under the differential operator ddc\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}, taken in the sense of distributions, and δdiv⁡(s)\delta_{\operatorname{div}(s)} is the current of integration on the cycle div⁡(s)\operatorname{div}(s) of codimension 11, div⁡(s)\operatorname{div}(s).

[01IL]

Archimedean height pairing

Metrized line bundles and their associated curvature forms are a basic tool in Arakelov geometry, invented by Arakelov in [2] and developped by Faltings [29], Deligne [23] for curves, and by Gillet-Soulé [32] in any dimension. For our concerns, they allow for a definition of height functions for algebraic cycles on algebraic varieties defined over number fields. As explained by Gubler [33, 34], they also permit to develop a theory of archimedean local heights.

For simplicity, let us assume that X\mathrm{X} is proper, smooth, and that all of its connected components have dimension nn.

Let L¯0,…,L¯n\overline{L}_{0},\dots,\overline{L}_{n} be metrized line bundles with smooth metrics. For j∈{0,…,n}j\in\{0,\dots,n\}, let sjs_{j} be a regular meromorphic section of LjL_{j} and let div⁡(sj)\operatorname{div}(s_{j}) be its divisor. The given metric of LjL_{j} furnishes moreover a function log⁡‖sj‖−1\log\left\|{s_{j}}\right\|^{-1} on XX and a (1,1)(1,1)-form c1​(L¯j)c_{1}(\overline{L}_{j}), related by the Poincaré–Lelong equation ddc⁡log⁡‖sj‖−1+δdiv⁡(sj)=c1​(L¯j)\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\log\left\|{s_{j}}\right\|^{-1}+\delta_{\operatorname{div}(s_{j})}=c_{1}(\overline{L}_{j}). In the terminology of Arakelov geometry, log⁡‖sj‖−1\log\left\|{s_{j}}\right\|^{-1} is a Green current (here, function) for the cycle div⁡(sj)\operatorname{div}(s_{j}) ; we shall write div^⁡(sj)\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{j}) for the pair (div⁡(sj),log⁡‖sj‖−1)(\operatorname{div}(s_{j}),\log\left\|{s_{j}}\right\|^{-1}).

Let Z⊂X\mathrm{Z}\subset\mathrm{X} be a kk-dimensional subvariety such that the divisors div⁡(sj)\operatorname{div}(s_{j}), for 0≤j≤k0\leq j\leq k, have no common point on Z\mathrm{Z}. Then, one defines inductively the local height pairing by the formula :

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)=(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk−1)|div⁡(sk|Z))+∫Xlog‖sk‖−1c1(L¯0)…c1(L¯k−1)δZ.(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z})=(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k-1})|\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathrm{Z}}))\\ +\int_{\mathrm{X}}\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}. (1.2.1)

The second hand of this formula requires two comments. 1) The divisor div⁡(sk|Z)\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathrm{Z}}) is a formal linear combination of (k−1)(k-1)-dimensional subvarieties of X\mathrm{X}, and its local height pairing is computed by linearity from the local height pairings of its components. 2) The integral of the right hand side involves a function with singularities (log⁡‖sk‖−1\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}) to be integrated against a distribution : in this case, this means restricting the differential form c1​(L¯0)​…​c1​(L¯k−1)c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1}) to the smooth part of Z\mathrm{Z}, multiplying by log⁡‖sk‖−1\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}, and integrating the result. The basic theory of closed positive currents proves that the resulting integral converges absolutely ; as in [32], one can also resort to Hironaka’s resolution of singularities.

It is then a non-trivial result that the local height pairing is symmetric in the involved div^\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}isors ; it is also multilinear. See [35] for more details, as well as [32] for the global case.

[01IM]

Positivity

Consideration of the curvature allows to define positivity notions for metrized line bundles. Namely, one says that a smooth metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L} is positive (resp. semi-positive) if its curvature form is a positive (resp. a non-negative) (1,1)(1,1)-form. This means that for any point x∈Xx\in\mathrm{X}, the hermitian form c1​(L¯)xc_{1}(\overline{L})_{x} on the complex tangent space Tx​X\mathrm{T}_{x}\mathrm{X} is positive definite (resp. non-negative). As a crucial example, the line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) with its Fubini-Study metric is positive. The pull-back of a positive metrized line bundle by an immersion is positive. In particular, ample line bundles can be endowed with a positive smooth metric ; Kodaira’s embedding theorem asserts the converse : if a line bundle possesses a positive smooth metric, then it is ample.

The pull-back of a semi-positive metrized line bundle by any morphism is still semi-positive. If L¯\overline{L} is semi-positive, then the measure c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} is a positive measure.

[01IN]

Semi-positive continuous metrics

More generally, both the curvature and the Poincaré–Lelong equation make sense for metrized line bundles with arbitrary (continuous) metrics, except that c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) has to be considered as a current. The notion a semi-positivity can even be extended to this more general case, because it can be tested by duality : a current is positive if its evaluation on any nonnegative differential form is nonnegative. Alternatively, semi-positive (continuous) metrized line bundles are characterized by the fact that for any local frame ss of L¯\overline{L} over an open set U\mathrm{U}, the continuous function log⁡‖s‖−1\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1} is plurisubharmonic on U\mathrm{U}. In turn, this means that for any morphism φ:D¯→U\varphi\colon\overline{D}\rightarrow\mathrm{U}, where D¯=D¯​(0,1)\overline{D}=\overline{D}(0,1) is the closed unit disk in 𝐂{\mathbf{C}},

log⁡‖s‖−1​(φ⁡(0))≤12​π​∫02​πlog⁡‖s‖−1​(φ⁡(ei​θ))​𝑑θ.\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}(\varphi(0))\leq\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}(\varphi(e^{i\theta}))\mathrm{d}\theta.

Assume that L¯\overline{L} is semi-positive. Although products of currents are not defined in general (not more than products of distributions), the theory of Bedford–Taylor [8, 7] and Demailly [24, 25] defines a current c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} which then is a positive measure on X\mathrm{X}. There are two ways to define this current. The first one works locally and proceeds by induction : if u=log⁡‖s‖−1u=\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}, for a local non-vanishing section ss of LL, one defines a sequence (Tk)(T_{k}) of closed positive currents by the formulae T0=1T_{0}=1, T1=ddc⁡uT_{1}=\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}u,…, Tk+1=ddc⁡(u​Tk)T_{k+1}=\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}(uT_{k}) and c1​(L¯)n=ddc⁡(u)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}=\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}(u)^{n} is defined to be TnT_{n}. What makes this construction work is the fact that at each step, u​TkuT_{k} is a well defined current (product of a continuous function and of a positive current), and one has to prove that Tk+1T_{k+1} is again a closed positive current. The other way, which shall be the one akin to a generalization in the ultrametric framework, consists in observing that if LL is a line bundle with a continuous semi-positive metric ‖⋅‖\left\|{\cdot}\right\|, then there exists a sequence of smooth semi-positive metrics ‖⋅‖k\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{k} on the line bundle LL which converges uniformly to the initial metric : for any local section ss, ‖s‖k\left\|{s}\right\|_{k} converges uniformly to ‖s‖\left\|{s}\right\| on compact sets. The curvature current c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) is then the limit of the positive currents c1​(L¯k)c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k}), and the measure c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} is the limit of the measures c1​(L¯k)nc_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})^{n}. (We refer to [43] for the global statement ; to construct the currents, one can in fact work locally in which case a simple convolution argument establishes the claim.)

An important example of semi-positive metric which is continuous, but not smoth, is furnished by the Weil metric on the line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) on 𝐏n​(𝐂){\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}). This metric is defined as follows : if U⊂𝐏n​(𝐂)\mathrm{U}\subset{\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}) is an open set, and ss is a section of 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) on UU corresponding to an analytic function FsF_{s} on π−1​(U)⊂𝐂∗n+1\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{U})\subset{\mathbf{C}}^{n+1}_{*} which is homogeneous of degree 11, then for any (x0,…,xn)∈π−1​(U)(x_{0},\dots,x_{n})\in\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{U}), one has

‖s‖W=|Fs​(x0,…,xn)|max⁡(|x0|,…,|xn|CLOSE.\left\|{s}\right\|_{\mathrm{W}}=\frac{\left|{F_{s}(x_{0},\dots,x_{n})}\right|}{\max(\left|{x_{0}}\right|,\dots,\left|{x_{n}}\right|}.

The associated measure c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯W)nc_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{W}})^{n} on 𝐏n​(𝐂){\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}) is as follows, cf. [58, 43] : the subset of all points [x0:…:xn]∈𝐏n(𝐂)[x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}]\in{\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}) such that |xj|=|xk|\left|{x_{j}}\right|=\left|{x_{k}}\right| for all j,kj,k is naturally identified with the polycircle 𝐒1n\mathbf{S}_{1}^{n} (map [x0:…:xn][x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}] to (x1/x0,…,xn/x0)(x_{1}/x_{0},\dots,x_{n}/x_{0})) ; take the normalized Haar measure of this compact group and push it onto 𝐏n​(𝐂){\mathbf{P}}^{n}({\mathbf{C}}).

[01IP]

Admissible metrics

Let us say that a continuous metrized line bundle is admissible if it can be written as L¯⊗M¯∨\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M}^{\vee}, where L¯\overline{L} and M¯\overline{M} are metrized line bundles whose metrics are continuous and semi-positive. Admissible metrized line bundles form a subgroup Pic¯ad​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{ad}}(\mathrm{X}) of Pic¯​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(\mathrm{X}) which maps surjectively onto Pic⁡(X)\operatorname{Pic}(\mathrm{X}) if X\mathrm{X} is projective.

The curvature current c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) of an admissible metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L} is a differential form of type (1,1)(1,1) whose coefficients are signed measures. Its nnth product c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} is well-defined as a signed measure on X\mathrm{X}.

[01IQ]

Local height pairing (admissible case)

The good analytic properties of semi-positive metrics allow to extend the definition of the local height pairing to the case of admissible line bundles. Indeed, when one approximates uniformly a semi-positive line bundle by a sequence of smooth semi-positive line bundles, one can prove that the corresponding sequence of local height pairings converges, the limit being independent on the chosen approximation.

The proof is inspired by Zhang’s proof of the global case in [59] and goes by induction. Let us consider, for each jj, two smooth semi-positive metrics on the line bundle LjL_{j} and assume that they differ by a factor e−hje^{-h_{j}}. Then, the corresponding local height pairings differ from an expression of the form

∑j=0k∫Zhj​c1​(L¯0)​…​c1​(L¯j)^​…​c1​(L¯k),\sum_{j=0}^{k}\int_{\mathrm{Z}}h_{j}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots\widehat{c_{1}(\overline{L}_{j})}\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k}),

where the written curvature forms are associated to the first metric for indices <j<j, and to the second for indices >j>j. This differential forms are positive by assumption, so that the integral is bounded in absolute value by

∑j=0k‖hj‖∞​∫Zc1​(L¯0)​…​c1​(L¯j)^​…​c1​(L¯k)=∑j=0K‖hj‖∞​(c1​(L0)​…​OPENc1​(Lj))^​…​c1​(Lk)|Z),\sum_{j=0}^{k}\left\|{h_{j}}\right\|_{\infty}\int_{\mathrm{Z}}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots\widehat{c_{1}(\overline{L}_{j})}\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})=\sum_{j=0}^{K}\left\|{h_{j}}\right\|_{\infty}(c_{1}(L_{0})\dots\widehat{c_{1}(L_{j}))}\dots c_{1}(L_{k})|{\mathrm{Z}}),

where the last expression is essentially a degree. (In these formulae, the factor with a hat is removed.) This inequality means that on the restriction to the space of smooth semi-positive metrics, with the topology of uniform convergence, the local height pairing is uniformly continuous. Therefore, it first extends by continuity. on the space of continuous semi-positive metrics, and then by multilinearity to the space of admissible metrics.

[01IR]

1.3. The case of non-archimedean analytic spaces

Let KK be a complete ultrametric field. We are principally interested in finite extensions of 𝐐p{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}, but the case of local fields of positive characteristic (finite extensions of k⁡((T))k((T)), for a finite field kk) have proved being equally useful, as are non-local fields like the field 𝐂⁡((T)){\mathbf{C}}((T)) of Laurent power series with complex coefficients. For simplicity, we will assume that KK is the field of fractions of a complete discrete valuation ring K∘K^{\circ}, let π\pi be a generator of the maximal ideal of K∘K^{\circ} and let K~=K∘/(π)\tilde{K}=K^{\circ}/(\pi) be the residue field.

[01IS]

Continuous metrics

Let X\mathrm{X} be a KK-analytic space in the sense of Berkovich [11]. For simplicity, we will assume that X\mathrm{X} is the analytic space associated to a proper scheme over KK. In that context, the general definition of continuous metrized line bundles given above makes sense.

Let us detail the example of the line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) on the projective space PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K}. A point x∈PKnx\in\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} possesses a complete residue field ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x) which is a complete extension of KK and homogeneous coordinates [x0:…:xn][x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}] in the field ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x). As in complex geometry, the projective space PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} is obtained by glueing n+1n+1 copies U0,…,Un\mathrm{U}_{0},\dots,\mathrm{U}_{n} of the affine space AKn\mathrm{A}^{n}_{K}, where Ui\mathrm{U}_{i} corresponds to those points xx such that xi≠0x_{i}\neq 0. Recall also that AKn\mathrm{A}^{n}_{K} is the space of multiplicative semi-norms on the KK-algebra K⁡[T1,…,Tn]K[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}] which induce the given absolute value on KK, together with the coarsest topology such that for any semi-norm x∈AKnx\in\mathrm{A}^{n}_{K}, the map K⁡[T1,…,Tn]→𝐑K[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}]\rightarrow{\mathbf{R}} defined by f↦x⁡(f)f\mapsto x(f) is continuous. The kernel of a semi-norm xx is a prime ideal 𝔭x\mathfrak{p}_{x} of K⁡[T1,…,Tn]K[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}] and xx induces a norm on the quotient ring K⁡[T1,…,Tn]/𝔭xK[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}]/\mathfrak{p}_{x}, hence on its field of fractions K⁡(x)K(x). The completion of K⁡(x)K(x) with respect to this norm is denoted ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x) and is called the complete residue field of xx. The images in ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x) of the intederminates TiT_{i} are denoted Ti​(x)T_{i}(x), more generally, the image in ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x) of any polynomial f∈K⁡[T1,…,Tn]f\in K[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}] is denoted f⁡(x)f(x) ; one has x⁡(f)=|f⁡(x)|x(f)=\left|{f(x)}\right|.

Let ff be a rational function on PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K}, that is an element of ∈K⁡(T1,…,Tn)\in K(T_{1},\dots,T_{n}). It defines an actual function on the open set U\mathrm{U} of 𝐏Kn{\mathbf{P}}^{n}_{K} where its denominator does not vanish ; its value at a point x∈Ux\in U is an element of ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x). More generally, Berkovich defines an analytic function on an open set U\mathrm{U} of PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} as a function ff on UU such that f⁡(x)∈ℋ⁡(x)f(x)\in\mathscr{H}(x) for any x∈Ux\in\mathrm{U}, and such that any point x∈Ux\in\mathrm{U} possesses a neighbourhood V⊂U\mathrm{V}\subset\mathrm{U} such that f|Vf|_{\mathrm{V}} is a uniform limit of rational functions without poles on V\mathrm{V}.

The line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) can also be defined in a similar way to the classical case ; by a similar GAGA theorem, its global sections are exactly the same as in algebraic geometry and are described by homogeneous polynomials of degree 11 with coefficients in KK. If PP is such a polynomial and sPs_{P} the corresponding section, then

‖sP‖​(x)=|P⁡(x0,…,xn)|max⁡(|x0|,…,|xn|)\left\|{s_{P}}\right\|(x)=\frac{\left|{P(x_{0},\dots,x_{n})}\right|}{\max(\left|{x_{0}}\right|,\dots,\left|{x_{n}}\right|)}

where [x0:…:xn][x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}] is a system of homogeneous coordinates in ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x) for the point xx. The function ‖sP‖\left\|{s_{P}}\right\| is continuous on PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K}, by the very definition of the topology on PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K}. Using the fact that 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) is generated by its global sections, one deduces the existence of a continuous metric on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) satisfying the previous formula.

[01IT]

Smooth metrics

Following [59], we now want to explain the analogues of smooth, and, later, of semi-positive metrics.

Smooth metrics come from algebraic geometry over K∘K^{\circ}, and, more generally, over the ring of integers of finite extensions of KK. Let namely 𝔛\mathfrak{X} be a formal proper K0K^{0}-scheme whose generic fibre in the sense of analytic geometry is X\mathrm{X}.22 2 The reader might want to assume that X\mathrm{X} is the analytic space associated to a projective KK-scheme XX and that 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is a projective K0K^{0}-scheme whose generic fibre equals XX. This doesn’t make too much a difference for our concerns. Let also 𝔏\mathfrak{L} be a line bundle on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} which is model of some power LeL^{e}, where e≥1e\geq 1. From this datum (𝔛,𝔏,e)(\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{L},e), we can define a metric on LL as follows. Let 𝔘\mathfrak{U} be a formal open subset of 𝔛\mathfrak{X} over which 𝔏\mathfrak{L} admits a local frame ε𝔘\varepsilon_{\mathfrak{U}} ; over its generic fibre U=𝔘K\mathrm{U}=\mathfrak{U}_{K}, for any section ss of LL, one can write canonically se=f​ε𝔘s^{e}=f\varepsilon_{\mathfrak{U}}, where f∈𝒪X​(U)f\in\mathscr{O}_{\mathrm{X}}(\mathrm{U}). We decrete that ‖s‖=|f|1/e\left\|{s}\right\|=\left|{f}\right|^{1/e}. In other words, the norm of a local frame on the formal model is assigned to be identically one. This makes sense because if η𝔘\eta_{\mathfrak{U}} is another local frame of 𝔏\mathfrak{L} on 𝔘\mathfrak{U}, there exists an invertible formal function f∈𝒪𝔛​(𝔘)∗f\in\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(\mathfrak{U})^{*} such that η𝔘=f​ε𝔘\eta_{\mathfrak{U}}=f\varepsilon_{\mathfrak{U}} and the absolute value |f|\left|{f}\right| of the associated analytic function on U\mathrm{U} is identically equal to 11. Considering a finite cover of 𝔛\mathfrak{X} by formal open subsets, their generic fibers form a finite cover of X\mathrm{X} by closed subsets and this is enough to glue the local definitions to a continuous metric on LL.

Metrics on LL given by this construction, for some model (𝔛,𝔏,e)(\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{L},e) of some power LeL^{e} of LL will be said to be smooth.

[01IU]

Green functions ; smooth functions

Let L¯\overline{L} be a metrized line bundle and let ss be a regular meromorphic section of LL. Its divisor div⁡(s)\operatorname{div}(s) is a Cartier divisor in X\mathrm{X}. The function log⁡‖s‖−1\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1} is defined on the open set X∖|div⁡(s)|\mathrm{X}\setminus\left|{\operatorname{div}(s)}\right| ; by analogy to the complex case, we call it a Green function for the divisor div⁡(s)\operatorname{div}(s). When the metric on L¯\overline{L} is smooth, the Green function is said smooth. The same remark applies for the other qualificatives semi-positive, or admissible, that wil be introduced later.

Let us take for LL the trivial line bundle, with its canonical trivialization s=1s=1, and let us endow it with a smooth metric. By definition, we call log⁡‖s‖−1\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1} a smooth function. More generally, we define the space 𝒞∞​(X)\mathscr{C}^{\infty}(\mathrm{X}) of (real valued) smooth functions to be the real vector space spanned by these elementary smooth functions. Observe that this definition reverses what happens in complex geometry where smooth metrics on the trivial line bundle are defined from the knowledge of smooth functions.

[01IV]

Example : projective space

Let us consider the smooth metric on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) associated to the model (𝔛,𝒪⁡(1)​,1)(\mathfrak{X},\mathscr{O}(1),1) of (PKn,𝒪⁡(1))(\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K},\mathscr{O}(1)). Let 𝔘i\mathfrak{U}_{i} be the formal open subset of PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} defined by the non-vanishing of the homogeneous coordinate xix_{i}. Over, 𝔘i\mathfrak{U}_{i}, 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) has a global non-vanishing section, namely the one associated to the homogeneous polynomial XiX_{i}. The generic fiber UiU_{i} of 𝔘i\mathfrak{U}_{i} in the sense of algebraic geometry is an affine space, with coordinates zj=xj/xiz_{j}=x_{j}/x_{i}, for 0≤j≤n0\leq j\leq n, and j≠ij\neq i. However, its generic fiber Ui\mathrm{U}_{i} in the sense of rigid geometry is the nn-dimensional polydisk in this affine space defined by the inequalities |zj|≤1\left|{z_{j}}\right|\leq 1. We thus observe that for any x∈(𝔘i)Kx\in(\mathfrak{U}_{i})_{K},

‖Xi‖​(x)=1=1max⁡(|z0|,…,|zi−1|​,1,|zi+1|,…,|zn|)=|xi|max⁡(|x0|,…,|xi|)=‖Xi‖W​(x).\left\|{X_{i}}\right\|(x)=1=\frac{1}{\max(\left|{z_{0}}\right|,\dots,\left|{z_{i-1}}\right|,1,\left|{z_{i+1}}\right|,\dots,\left|{z_{n}}\right|)}=\frac{\left|{x_{i}}\right|}{\max(\left|{x_{0}}\right|,\dots,\left|{x_{i}}\right|)}=\left\|{X_{i}}\right\|_{\mathrm{W}}(x).

In other words, the Weil metric on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) is a smooth metric.

[01IW]

The Abelian group of smooth line bundles

Let us show that any line bundle has a smooth metric. There is a general theory, due to Raynaud, that shows how to define formal models from rigid analytic objects. In the present case, XX being projective, we may assume that LL is ample and consider a closed embedding of X\mathrm{X} in a projective space PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} given by some power LeL^{e}. Let 𝔛\mathfrak{X} be the Zariski closure of X\mathrm{X} in PK∘n\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K^{\circ}} ; in concrete terms, if I⊂K⁡[X0,…,Xn]I\subset K[X_{0},\dots,X_{n}] is the homogeneous ideal of i⁡(X)i(X), I∩K∘​[X0,…,Xn]I\cap K^{\circ}[X_{0},\dots,X_{n}] is the homogeneous ideal of 𝔛\mathfrak{X}. Let then 𝔏\mathfrak{L} be the restriction to 𝔛\mathfrak{X} of the line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1). The triple (𝔛,𝔏,e)(\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{L},e) is a model of LL and induces a smooth metric on LL.

Different models can give rise to the same metric. If φ:𝔛′→𝔛\varphi\colon\mathfrak{X}^{\prime}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X} is a morphism of models, and 𝔏′=φ∗​𝔏\mathfrak{L}^{\prime}=\varphi^{*}\mathfrak{L}, then (𝔛′,𝔏′,e)(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime},\mathfrak{L}^{\prime},e) defines the same smooth metric on LL. Moreover, if two models (𝔛i,𝔏i,ei)(\mathfrak{X}_{i},\mathfrak{L}_{i},e_{i}), for i∈{1,2}i\in\{1,2\}, define the same metric, there exists a third model (𝔛,𝔏)(\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{L}), with two morphisms φi:𝔛→𝔛i\varphi_{i}\colon\mathfrak{X}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}_{i} such that the pull-backs φi∗​𝔏ie1​e2/ei\varphi_{i}^{*}\mathfrak{L}_{i}^{e_{1}e_{2}/e_{i}} coincide with 𝔏\mathfrak{L}. More precisely, if two models 𝔏\mathfrak{L} and 𝔏′\mathfrak{L}^{\prime} of some power LeL^{e} on a normal model 𝔛\mathfrak{X} define the same metric, then they are isomorphic. (See, e.g., Lemma 2.2 of [19] ; this may be false for non-normal models ; it suffices that 𝔛\mathfrak{X} be integrally closed in its generic fiber.)

As a consequence, the set Pic¯sm​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{sm}}(\mathrm{X}) of smooth metrized line bundles is a subgroup of the group Pic¯​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(\mathrm{X}). The group Pic¯sm​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{sm}}(\mathrm{X}) fits within an exact sequence

0→𝒞∞​(X)→Pic¯sm​(X)→Pic⁡(X)→0,0\rightarrow\mathscr{C}^{\infty}(\mathrm{X})\rightarrow\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{sm}}(\mathrm{X})\rightarrow\operatorname{Pic}(\mathrm{X})\rightarrow 0,

the last map is surjective because every line bundle admits a model. If f:Y→Xf\colon\mathrm{Y}\rightarrow\mathrm{X} is a morphism, then f∗​(Pic¯sm​(X))⊂Pic¯sm​(Y)f^{*}(\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{sm}}(\mathrm{X}))\subset\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{sm}}(\mathrm{Y}).

[01IX]

Semi-positive metrics

A smooth metric is said to be ample if it is defined by a model (𝔛,𝔏,e)(\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{L},e) such that the restriction 𝔏K~\mathfrak{L}_{\tilde{K}} of 𝔏\mathfrak{L} to the closed fiber 𝔛K~\mathfrak{X}_{\tilde{K}} is ample. The Weil metric on the line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) on the projective space is ample. The proof given above of the existence of smooth metrics shows, more precisely, that ample line bundles admit ample metrics, and that the pull-back of a smooth ample metric by an immersion is a smooth ample metric.

A smooth metric is said to be semi-positive if it can be defined on a model (𝔛,𝔏,e)(\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{L},e) such that the restriction 𝔏K~\mathfrak{L}_{\tilde{K}} of 𝔏\mathfrak{L} to the closed fiber 𝔛K~\mathfrak{X}_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective : for any projective curve C⊂𝔛K~C\subset\mathfrak{X}_{\tilde{K}}, the degree of 𝔏K~\mathfrak{L}_{\tilde{K}} is non-negative. Ample metrics are semi-positive.

The pull-back of a smooth semi-positive metric by any morphism is semi-positive.

[01IY]

Continuous semi-positive metrics

Let us say that a continuous metric on a line bundle LL is semi-positive if it is the uniform limit of a sequence of smooth semi-positive metrics on the same line bundle LL. As in the complex case, we then say that a metrized line bundle is admissible if it can be written as L¯⊗M¯∨\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M}^{\vee}, for two line bundles LL and MM with continuous semi-positive metrics.

Let LL be a metrized line bundle, and let ‖⋅‖1\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1} and ‖⋅‖2\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2} be two continuous metrics on LL. It follows from the definition that the metrics ‖⋅‖min=min⁡(‖⋅‖1,‖⋅‖2)\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min}=\min(\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1},\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2}) and ‖⋅‖max=max⁡(‖⋅‖1,‖⋅‖2)\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\max}=\max(\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1},\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2}) are continuous metrics.

Moreover, these metrics ‖⋅‖min\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min} and ‖⋅‖max\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\max} are smooth if the initial metrics are smooth. Indeed, there exists a model 𝔛\mathfrak{X}, as well as two line bundles 𝔏1\mathfrak{L}_{1} and 𝔏2\mathfrak{L}_{2} extending the same power LeL^{e} of LL and defining the metrics ‖⋅‖1\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1} and ‖⋅‖2\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2} respectively. We may assume that 𝔏1\mathfrak{L}_{1} and 𝔏2\mathfrak{L}_{2} have regular global sections s1s_{1} and s2s_{2} on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} which coincide on XX, with divisors 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} and 𝔇2\mathfrak{D}_{2} respectively. (The general case follows, by twisting 𝔏1\mathfrak{L}_{1} and 𝔏2\mathfrak{L}_{2} by a sufficiently ample line bundle on 𝔛\mathfrak{X}.) The blow-up π:𝔛′→𝔛\pi\colon\mathfrak{X}^{\prime}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X} of the ideal ℑ𝔇1+ℑ𝔇2\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}}+\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{2}} ; it carries an invertible ideal sheaf ℑ𝔈=π∗​(ℑ𝔇1+ℑ𝔇2)\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{E}}=\pi^{*}(\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}}+\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{2}}), with corresponding Cartier divisor 𝔈\mathfrak{E}. Since 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} and 𝔇2\mathfrak{D}_{2} coincide on the generic fiber, ℑ𝔇1+ℑ𝔇2\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}}+\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{2}} is already invertible there and π\pi is an isomorphism on the generic fiber.

The divisors π∗​𝔇1\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{1} and π∗​𝔇2\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2} decompose canonically as sums

π∗​𝔇1=𝔇1′+𝔈,π∗​𝔇2=𝔇2′+𝔈.\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{1}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}+\mathfrak{E},\quad\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}+\mathfrak{E}.

Let us pose

𝔇′=𝔇1′+𝔇2′+𝔈=𝔇1′+π∗​𝔇2=π∗​𝔇1+𝔇2′.\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}+\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}+\mathfrak{E}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}+\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2}=\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{1}+\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}.

An explicit computation on the blow-up shows that (𝔛′,𝔇′,e)(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime},\mathfrak{D}^{\prime},e) and (𝔛′,𝔈,e)(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime},\mathfrak{E},e) are models of ‖⋅‖min\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min} and ‖⋅‖max\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\max} respectively. In particular, these metrics are smooth.

Assume that the initial metrics are semi-positive, and that some positive power of LL is effective. Then, the metric ‖⋅‖min\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min} is semi-positive too. By approximation, it suffices to treat the case where the initial metrics are smooth and semi-positive. Then, the previous construction applies. Keeping the introduced notation, let us show that the restriction to the special fiber of the divisor (D′)K~\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective. Let C⊂𝔛K~′C\subset\mathfrak{X}^{\prime}_{\tilde{K}} be an integral curve and let us prove that C⋅(D′)K~C\cdot\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}} is nonnegative. If CC is not contained in 𝔇1′\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}, then C⋅(𝔇1′)K~≥0C\cdot(\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1})_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0, and C⋅(π∗​𝔇2)K~=π∗​C⋅𝔇2≥0C\cdot(\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2})_{\tilde{K}}=\pi_{*}C\cdot\mathfrak{D}_{2}\geq 0 since (𝔇2)K~(\mathfrak{D}_{2})_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective ; consequently, C⋅(D′)K~≥0C\cdot\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0. Similarly, C⋅(D′)K~≥0C\cdot\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0 when CC is not contained in 𝔇2′\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}. Since 𝔇1′∩𝔇2′=∅\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}\cap\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}=\emptyset, this shows that C⋅𝔇K~′≥0C\cdot\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0 in any case, hence (𝔇′)K~(\mathfrak{D}^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective.

This last result is the analogue in the ultrametric case to the fact that the maximum of two continuous plurisubharmonic functions is continuous plurisubharmonic. However, observe that in the complex case, the maximum or the minimum of smooth functions are not smooth in general.

[01IZ]

Measures (smooth metrics)

In the non-archimedean case, there isn’t yet a purely analytic incarnation of the curvature form (or current) c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) of a metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L}, although the non-archimedean Arakelov geometry of [13] should certainly be pushed forward in that direction. However, as I discovered in [18], one can define an analogue of the measure c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} when the space X\mathrm{X} has dimension nn.

The idea consists in observing the local height pairing (defined by arithmetic intersection theory) and defining the measures so that a formula analogous to the complex one holds.

Let us therefore consider smooth metrized line bundles L¯j\overline{L}_{j} (for 0≤j≤n0\leq j\leq n) as well as regular meromorphic sections sjs_{j} which have no common zero on XX. There exists a proper model 𝔛\mathfrak{X} of X\mathrm{X} over K∘K^{\circ} and, for each jj, a line bundle 𝔏j\mathfrak{L}_{j} on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} which extends some power LjejL_{j}^{e_{j}} of LjL_{j} and which defines its metric.

Let Z⊂X\mathrm{Z}\subset\mathrm{X} be an algebraic kk-dimensional subvariety and let ℨ\mathfrak{Z} be its Zariski closure in 𝔛\mathfrak{X} ; this is a (k+1)(k+1)-dimensional subscheme of 𝔛\mathfrak{X}. Let’s replace it by its normalization or, more precisely, by its integral closure in its generic fiber. The local height pairing is then given by intersection theory, as

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)=(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk|ℨ))|ℨ)​log⁡|π|−1,(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z})=(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|\mathfrak{Z})\,\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1},

where div⁡(sj|ℨ)\operatorname{div}(s_{j}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}) means the divisor of sjs_{j}, viewed as a regular meromorphic section of 𝔏j\mathfrak{L}_{j} over ℨ\mathfrak{Z}. The right hand side means taking the intersection of the indicated Cartier divisors on ℨ\mathfrak{Z}, which is a well-defined class of a 00-cycle supported by the special fiber of ℨ\mathfrak{Z} ; then take its degree and multiply it by log⁡|π|−1\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}. (Recall that π\pi is a fixed uniformizing element of KK ; is absolute value does not depend on the actual choice.)

When one views sk|Zs_{k}|_{\mathrm{Z}} as a regular meromorphic section of 𝔏k\mathfrak{L}_{k} on ℨ\mathfrak{Z} its divisor has two parts : the first one, say HH, is “horizontal” and is the Zariski closure of the divisor div⁡(sk|Z)\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{Z}) ; the second one, say VV, is vertical, i.e., lies in the special fiber of ℨ\mathfrak{Z} over the residue field of K∘K^{\circ}. This decomposes the local height pairing as a sum

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)\displaystyle(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z}) =(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk|ℨ))|ℨ)​log⁡|π|−1\displaystyle=(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|\mathfrak{Z})\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}
=(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|div⁡(sk|ℨ))​log​|π|−1\displaystyle=(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}
=(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|H)​log⁡|π|−1\displaystyle=(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|H)\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}
+(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|V)​log⁡|π|−1.\displaystyle\qquad{}+(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|V)\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}.

The first term is the local height pairing of div⁡(sk|Z)\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathrm{Z}}). Let us investigate the second one.

Let (Vi)(V_{i}) be the family of irreducible components of this special fiber ; for each ii, let mim_{i} be its multiplicity in the fiber. Then, the vertical component VV of div⁡(sk|ℨ)\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}) decomposes as

V=∑ici​mi​Vi,V=\sum_{i}c_{i}m_{i}V_{i},

where cic_{i} is nothing but the order of vanishing of sks_{k} along the special fiber at the generic point of ViV_{i}. Then,

(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|V)=∑ici​mi​(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|Vi).(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|V)=\sum_{i}c_{i}m_{i}(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|V_{i}).

Since ViV_{i} lies within the special fiber of 𝔛\mathfrak{X},

(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|Vi)=(c1​(𝔏0)​…​c1​(𝔏k−1)|Vi),(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|V_{i})=(c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{k-1})|V_{i}),

the multidegree of the vertical component ViV_{i} with respect to the restriction on the special fiber of the line bundles 𝔏0,…,𝔏k−1\mathfrak{L}_{0},\dots,\mathfrak{L}_{k-1}.

One remarkable aspect of Berkovich’s theory is the existence, for each ii, of a unique point viv_{i} in Z\mathrm{Z} which specializes to the generic point of ViV_{i}. (Here, we use that ℨ\mathfrak{Z} is integrally closed in its generic fibre.) Then,

log⁡‖sk‖−1​(zi)=ci​log⁡|π|−1.\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}(z_{i})=c_{i}\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}.

Finally,

(c1​(div⁡(s0|ℨ))​…​c1​(div⁡(sk−1|ℨ))|V)​log⁡|π|−1=∑ilog⁡‖sk‖−1​(zi)​(c1​(𝔏0)​…​c1​(𝔏k−1)|Vi).(c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))\dots c_{1}(\operatorname{div}(s_{k-1}|_{\mathfrak{Z}}))|V)\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}\\ =\sum_{i}\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}(z_{i})(c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{k-1})|V_{i}).

Let us sum up this calculation : we have introduced points vi∈Zv_{i}\in\mathrm{Z} and decomposed the local height pairing as a sum :

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)=(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk−1)|div⁡(sk|Z))+∑ilog‖sk‖−1(vi)mi(c1(𝔏0)…c1(𝔏k−1)|Vi).(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z})=(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k-1})|\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathrm{Z}}))\\ +\sum_{i}\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}(v_{i})m_{i}(c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{k-1})|V_{i}).

It now remains to define

c1​(L¯0)​…​c1​(L¯k−1)​δZ=∑imi​(c1​(𝔏0)​…​c1​(𝔏k−1)|Vi)​δvi,c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}=\sum_{i}m_{i}(c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{k-1})|V_{i})\delta_{v_{i}},

where δvi\delta_{v_{i}} is the Dirac measure at the point vi∈Zv_{i}\in{\mathrm{Z}}. This is a measure on X\mathrm{X}, whose support is contained in Z\mathrm{Z}, and whose total mass equals

∑i(c1​(𝔏0)​…​c1​(𝔏k−1)|Vi)=(c1​(𝔏0)​…​c1​(𝔏k−1)|V)=(c1​(L0)​…​c1​(Lk−1)|Z).\sum_{i}(c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{k-1})|V_{i})=(c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}_{k-1})|V)=(c_{1}(L_{0})\dots c_{1}(L_{k-1})|\mathrm{Z}).

One can also check that it does not depend on the choice of the section sks_{k}.

With this definition, the local height pairing obeys an induction formula totally analogous to the one satisfied in the complex case :

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)=(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk−1)|div⁡(sk|Z))+∫Xlog⁡‖sk‖−1​c1​(L¯0)​…​c1​(L¯k−1)​δZ.(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|{\mathrm{Z}})\\ =(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k-1})|\operatorname{div}(s_{k}|_{\mathrm{Z}}))+\int_{\mathrm{X}}\log\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|^{-1}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}. (1.3.1)
[01J0]

Local height pairing (admissible metrics)

With the notation of the previous paragraph, observe that the measures we have defined are positive when the smooth metrized line bundles are semi-positive. Indeed, this means that the line bundles 𝔏j\mathfrak{L}_{j} are numerically effective hence, as a consequence of the criterion Nakai–Moishezon, any subvariety of the special fiber has a nonnegative multidegree.

With basically the same argment that the one we sketched in the complex case, we conclude that the local height pairing extends by continuity when semi-positive metrized line bundles are approximated by smooth semi-positive metrized line bundles. By linearity, this extends the local height pairing to admissible metrized line bundles.

[01J1]

Measures (admissible metrics)

Let us now return to semi-positive metrized line bundles L¯0,…,L¯k−1\overline{L}_{0},\dots,\overline{L}_{k-1}, approximated by smooth semi-positive metrized line bundles L¯j(m)\overline{L}_{j}^{(m)}. I claim that for any kk-dimensional variety Z⊂X\mathrm{Z}\subset\mathrm{X}, the sequence of measures c1​(L¯0(m))​…​c1​(L¯k−1(m))​δZc_{1}(\overline{L}_{0}^{(m)})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1}^{(m)})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}} converges to a measure on X\mathrm{X}.

To prove the claim, we may assume that L¯0,…,L¯k−1\overline{L}_{0},\dots,\overline{L}_{k-1} have sections s0,…,sk−1s_{0},\dots,s_{k-1} without common zeroes on Z\mathrm{Z}. Let also consider a smooth function φ\varphi on X\mathrm{X} ; let L¯k\overline{L}_{k} be the trivial line bundle with the section sk=1s_{k}=1, metrized in such a way that ‖sk‖=e−φ\left\|{s_{k}}\right\|=e^{-\varphi}. Then, one has

∫Xφ​c1​(L¯0(m))​…​c1​(L¯k−1(m))​δZ=(div^⁡(s0)(m)​…​div^⁡(sk−1)(m)​div^⁡(sk)|Z);\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}^{(m)}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}^{(m)}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}=(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})^{(m)}\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k-1})^{(m)}\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z});

writing L¯k\overline{L}_{k} has the quotient of two ample metrized line bundles, we deduce from the existence of the local height pairing for admissible metrics that these integrals converge when m→∞m\rightarrow\infty. Consequently, the sequence of measures (c1​(L¯0(m))​…​c1​(L¯k−1(m))​δZ)m(c_{1}(\overline{L}^{(m)}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}^{(m)}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}})_{m} converges to a positive linear form on the space of smooth functions. By a theorem of Gubler ([34], Theorem 7.12), which builds on the Stone-Weierstraß theorem and the compactness of the Berkovich space X\mathrm{X}, the space of smooth functions is dense in the space of continuous complex functions on X\mathrm{X}. A positivity argument, analogous to the proof that positive distributions are measures, then implies that our linear form is actually a positive measure which deserves the notation

c1​(L¯0)​…​c1​(L¯k−1)​δZ.c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}.

We then extend this definition by linearity to the case of arbitrary admissible line bundles. The total mass of this measure is again the multidegree of Z{\mathrm{Z}} with respect to the line bundles LjL_{j} (for 0≤j≤k−10\leq j\leq k-1).

[01J2]

Integrating Green functions

The definition of the convergence of a sequence of measures is convergence of all integrals against a given continuous compactly supported function. In applications, however, it can be desirable to integrate against more general functions. The inductive formula (1.2.1) for the local height pairing in the complex case, is such an example, as is the interpretation of Mahler measures of polynomials as (the archimedean component of) heights. However, its analogue (Equation 1.3.1) a priori holds only when log⁡‖s0‖−1\log\left\|{s_{0}}\right\|^{-1} is continuous, that is when the section s0s_{0} has no zeroes nor poles.

The fact that it still holds in the archimedean case is a theorem of Maillot [43] building on the theory of Bedford–Taylor. We proved in [19, Th. 4.1] that this relation holds in the ultrametric case too. The proof (valid both in the ultrametric and archimedean cases) works by induction, and ultimately relies on an approximation lemma according to which any semi-positive Green function gg for a divisor DD is an increasing limit of smooth functions (gn)(g_{n}) such that, for any nn, g−gng-g_{n} is a semi-positive Green function for DD. In fact, it suffices to pose gn=min⁡(g,n​log⁡|π|−1)g_{n}=\min(g,n\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}) ; then, g−gn=max⁡(0,g−n​log⁡|π|−1)g-g_{n}=\max(0,g-n\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}) is the maximum of two semi-positive Green functions, hence is semi-positive. (In the archimedean case, one needs to further regularize gng_{n} ; see [19] for details.)

The symmetry of the local height pairing then implies the following analogue of the Poincaré–Lelong formula. When L¯\overline{L} is the trivial line bundle, with the metric defined by an admissible function φ\varphi, the factor c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) will be written ddc⁡φ\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\varphi, by analogy to the complex case.

[01J3]
Proposition 1.3.2.

Let φ\varphi be a smooth function on X\mathrm{X} and let L¯1,…,L¯k\overline{L}_{1},\dots,\overline{L}_{k} be admissible metrized line bundles ; let Z\mathrm{Z} be a kk-dimensional subvariety of X\mathrm{X} and let ss be an invertible meromorphic sections of L¯1\overline{L}_{1}. Then,

∫Xφ​c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ=∫Xφ​c1​(L¯2)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δdiv⁡(s|Z)+∫Xlog⁡‖s‖−1​ddc⁡φ​c1​(L¯2)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ.\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}\\ =\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\operatorname{div}(s|\mathrm{Z})}+\int_{X}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}.
[01J4]
Démonstration.

Let L¯0\overline{L}_{0} be the trivial line bundle with global section s0=1s_{0}=1 and metric defined by φ=log⁡‖s0‖−1\varphi=\log\left\|{s_{0}}\right\|^{-1}. Let s1=ss_{1}=s and, for 2≤j≤k2\leq j\leq k, let sjs_{j} be an invertible meromorphic section of LjL_{j}. Since div⁡(s0|Z)=0\operatorname{div}(s_{0}|_{\mathrm{Z}})=0,

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)=∫Xφ​c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z})=\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}

and

(div^⁡(s0)​div^⁡(s2)​…​div^⁡(sk)|div⁡(s|Z))=∫Xφ​c1​(L¯2)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δdiv⁡(s|Z)(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{2})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\operatorname{div}(s|_{\mathrm{Z}}))=\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\operatorname{div}(s|\mathrm{Z})}

One the other hand, the symmetry of the local height pairing implies that

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)\displaystyle(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z}) =(div^⁡(s1)​div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)\displaystyle=(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{1})\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\mathrm{Z})
=(div^⁡(s0)​div^⁡(s2)​…​div^⁡(sk)|div⁡(s|Z))\displaystyle=(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{2})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|\operatorname{div}(s|_{\mathrm{Z}}))
+∫Xlog‖s‖−1c1(L¯0)c1(L¯2)…c1(L¯k)δZ.\displaystyle\hskip 85.35826pt{}+\int_{\mathrm{X}}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}.

Combining these equations, we obtain the claim. ∎

[01J5]

2. Examples

In this section, we give some examples of metrics and measures. Without mention of the contrary, we stick to the non-archimedean case ; basic notation concerning KK, K∘K^{\circ}, etc., is as in Section 1.3.

[01J6]

2.1. The projective space

Let X\mathrm{X} be the projective space PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} and let 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) be the tautological line bundle on X\mathrm{X}, together with its Weil metric. Let us describe the associated measure, taking the opportunity to add details concerning Berkovich spaces.

As we remarked above, the Weil metric is induced by the tautological line bundle on the projective scheme 𝔛=𝐏K∘n\mathfrak{X}=\mathbf{P}^{n}_{K^{\circ}} and is smooth. The special fiber of 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is the projective space 𝐏K~n\mathbf{P}^{n}_{\tilde{K}} over the residue field of K∘K^{\circ} ; it is in particular irreducible. Moreover, the degree of the tautological line bundle is equal to 11. The measure c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯)nc_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)})^{n} is therefore equal to the Dirac mass at the unique point of X\mathrm{X} which reduces to the generic point of the special fiber. It remains to describe this point more precisely.

The scheme 𝐏K∘n\mathbf{P}^{n}_{K^{\circ}} is the union of (n+1)(n+1) affine open subsets 𝔘0,…,𝔘n\mathfrak{U}_{0},\dots,\mathfrak{U}_{n} defined by the non-vanishing of the homogeneous coordinates x0,…,xnx_{0},\dots,x_{n}. Their generic fibers in the sense of analytic geometry are n+1n+1 affinoid subsets U0,…,Un\mathrm{U}_{0},\dots,\mathrm{U}_{n}, which cover PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K}. In fact, Ui\mathrm{U}_{i} corresponds to the set of points [x0:…:xn][x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}] of PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} such that |xi|=max⁡(|x0|,…,|xn|)\left|{x_{i}}\right|=\max(\left|{x_{0}}\right|,\dots,\left|{x_{n}}\right|).

To fix ideas, let us consider i=0i=0. Then, 𝔘0=Spec⁡(K∘​[T1,…,Tn])\mathfrak{U}_{0}=\operatorname{Spec}(K^{\circ}[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}]) is the affine space ove K∘K^{\circ} with coordinates Tj=xj/x0T_{j}=x_{j}/x_{0}. The natural KK-adic topology on the algebra K∘​[T1,…,Tn]K^{\circ}[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}], and on its tensor product with KK, K⁡[T1,…,Tn]K[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}], is given by the Gauß norm

‖f‖=max𝐚∈𝐍n⁡|f𝐚|,f=∑f𝐚​T1a1​…​Tnan.\left\|{f}\right\|=\max_{\mathbf{a}\in{\mathbf{N}}^{n}}\left|{f_{\mathbf{a}}}\right|,\qquad f=\sum f_{\mathbf{a}}T_{1}^{a_{1}}\dots T_{n}^{a_{n}}.

The completion of K⁡[T1,…,Tn]K[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}] for this norm is the Tate algebra K⁡⟨T1,…,Tn⟩K\langle T_{1},\dots,T_{n}\rangle consisting of all power series f=∑f𝐚​T1a1​…​Tnanf=\sum f_{\mathbf{a}}T_{1}^{a_{1}}\dots T_{n}^{a_{n}} with coefficients in KK such that |f𝐚|→0\left|{f_{\mathbf{a}}}\right|\rightarrow 0 when |𝐚|=a1+⋯+an→∞\left|{\mathbf{a}}\right|=a_{1}+\dots+a_{n}\rightarrow\infty ; it is endowed with the natural extension of the Gauß norm, and is complete. By definition, the generic fiber U0\mathrm{U}_{0} of 𝔘0\mathfrak{U}_{0} in the sense of analytic geometry is the Berkovich spectrum of the Tate algebra, that is the set of all multiplicative semi-norms on it which are continuous with respect to the topology defined by the Gauß norm. Since the theorem of Gauß asserts that this norm is multiplicative, it defines a point γ∈U0\gamma\in\mathrm{U}_{0}, which we like to call the Gauß point.

The reduction map U0→𝔘0⊗K~\mathrm{U}_{0}\rightarrow\mathfrak{U}_{0}\otimes{\tilde{K}} is defined as follows. Let x∈U0x\in\mathrm{U}_{0}, let 𝔭x⊂K⁡⟨T1,…,Td⟩\mathfrak{p}_{x}\subset K\langle T_{1},\dots,T_{d}\rangle be the kernel of the semi-norm xx, which is also the kernel of the canonical morphism θx:K⁡⟨T1,…,Td⟩→ℋ⁡(x)\theta_{x}\colon K\langle T_{1},\dots,T_{d}\rangle\rightarrow\mathscr{H}(x). The images Tj​(x)T_{j}(x) of the indeterminates TjT_{j} are elements of absolute value ≤1\leq 1 of the complete ultrametric field ℋ⁡(x)\mathscr{H}(x) ; they belong to its valuation ring ℋ​(x)∘\mathscr{H}(x)^{\circ}. Letting ℋ⁡(x)~\widetilde{\mathscr{H}(x)} to be the residue field, there exists a unique morphism θx¯:K~​[T1,…,Td]→ℋ⁡(x)~\theta_{\overline{x}}\colon{\tilde{K}}[T_{1},\dots,T_{d}]\rightarrow\widetilde{\mathscr{H}(x)} such that θx¯​(Ti)\theta_{\overline{x}}(T_{i}) is the image in ℋ⁡(x)~\widetilde{\mathscr{H}(x)} of Ti​(x)T_{i}(x). The kernel of this morphism is a prime ideal of the ring K~​[T1,…,Td]{\tilde{K}}[T_{1},\dots,T_{d}] and defines a point x¯\overline{x} in the scheme 𝔘0⊗K~\mathfrak{U}_{0}\otimes{\tilde{K}}.

Let us now compute the reduction of the Gauß point γ\gamma. By definition, the field ℋ⁡(γ)\mathscr{H}(\gamma) is the completion of the Tate algebra K⁡⟨T1,…,Td⟩K\langle T_{1},\dots,T_{d}\rangle for the Gauß norm. I claim that morphism θγ¯\theta_{\overline{\gamma}} is injective, in other words, that the images of T1​(γ),…,Td​(γ)T_{1}(\gamma),\dots,T_{d}(\gamma) in the residue field ℋ⁡(γ)~\widetilde{\mathscr{H}(\gamma)} are algebraically independent. Let P∈K∘​[T1,…,Td]P\in K^{\circ}[T_{1},\dots,T_{d}] be any polynomial whose reduction P¯\overline{P} belongs to the kernel of θγ¯\theta_{\overline{\gamma}} ; this means |P|γ<1\left|{P}\right|_{\gamma}<1 ; in other words, the Gauß norm of PP is <1<1 and each coefficient of PP has absolute value <1<1. Consequently, P¯=0\overline{P}=0 and θγ¯\theta_{\overline{\gamma}} is injective, as claimed. This shows that γ¯\overline{\gamma} is the generic point of the scheme 𝔘0⊗K~\mathfrak{U}_{0}\otimes{\tilde{K}}.

We thus have proved the following proposition.

[01J7]
Proposition 2.1.1.

The measure c1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯W)nc_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{W}})^{n} on PKn\mathrm{P}^{n}_{K} is the Dirac measure at the Gauß point γ\gamma.

[01J8]

2.2. Semi-stable curves and reduction graphs

In this section, we assume that X\mathrm{X} is the analytic space associated to a projective curve over a field KK which is complete for a discrete valuation. The semi-stable reduction theorem of Deligne–Mumford asserts that, up to replacing the base field KK by a finite extension, the curve X\mathrm{X} has a projective model 𝔛\mathfrak{X} over K∘K^{\circ} which is regular (as a 2-dimensional scheme) and whose special fiber is reduced, with at most double points for singularities. We may also assume that the irreducible components are geometrically irreducible. We do not require, however, that 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is the minimal semi-stable model.

[01J9]

The reduction graph of the special fiber

In that situation, the reduction graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) is a metrized graph defined as follows. It has for vertices the irreducible components of the special fiber, with as many edges of length log⁡|π|−1\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1} between two vertices as the number of intersection points of the corresponding components. In an neighbourghood of a double point, 𝔛\mathfrak{X} looks like (i.e., has an étale map to) the scheme with equation x​y=πxy=\pi in the affine plane 𝐀K∘2\mathbf{A}^{2}_{K^{\circ}}.

If one replaces the field KK by a finite extension K′K^{\prime}, the base change 𝔛⊗K∘(K′)∘\mathfrak{X}\otimes_{K^{\circ}}(K^{\prime})^{\circ} may no more be regular. Indeed, 𝔛⊗K∘(K′)∘\mathfrak{X}\otimes_{K^{\circ}}(K^{\prime})^{\circ} is étale locally isomorphic to x​y=(π′)exy=(\pi^{\prime})^{e}, where π′\pi^{\prime} is a uniformizing element of K′K^{\prime}, and ee is the ramification index. When e>1e>1, the origin is a singular point of that scheme and one needs to blow it up repeatedly in order to obtain a regular scheme, which is a semi-stable model of XK′\mathrm{X}_{K^{\prime}} over (K′)∘(K^{\prime})^{\circ}. The two initial components are replaced by a chain of e+1e+1 components, the e−1e-1 intermediate ones being projective lines. In other words, e−1e-1 vertices have been added, regularly spaced along each edge. One concludes that the reduction graph has not changed, as a topological space. Its metric has not changed neither, since the ee edges that partition an original edge (of length log⁡|π|−1\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}) have length log⁡|π′|−1=1e​log⁡|π|−1\log\left|{\pi^{\prime}}\right|^{-1}=\frac{1}{e}\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}.

We say that a function on R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) is piecewise linear if, up to passing to a finite extension (which replaces each edge by ee edges of length equal to 1/e1/eth of the initial one), it is linear on each edge.

[01JA]

Drawing the reduction graph on the Berkovich space

Let us analyse the situation from the Berkovich viewpoint. As we have seen, the generic points of the special fiber are the reductions of canonical points of X\mathrm{X} : the vertices of the graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) naturally live in X\mathrm{X}. The same holds for the edges, but is a bit more subtle. As we have seen, blowing-up intersection points of components in the special fiber gives rise to new components, hence to new points of X\mathrm{X}. Would we enlarge the ground field and blow-up indefinitely, the constellation of points in X\mathrm{X} that we draw converges to a graph which is isomorphic to R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}).

According to Berkovich [12], a far more precise result holds. Let us consider a neighborhood 𝔘\mathfrak{U} of a singular point of the special fiber, pretending it is isomorphic to the locus defined by the equation x​y−πxy-\pi in 𝐀2\mathbf{A}^{2} ; so 𝔘=Spec⁡(K∘​[x,y]/(x​y−π))\mathfrak{U}=\operatorname{Spec}(K^{\circ}[x,y]/(xy-\pi)). Its generic fibre is the affinoid space U\mathrm{U} defined by the inequality |x​y|=|π|\left|{xy}\right|=\left|{\pi}\right| in the unit polydisk B2=ℳ⁡(K⁡⟨x,y⟩CLOSE\mathrm{B}^{2}=\mathscr{M}(K\langle x,y\rangle. The affinoid algebra of U\mathrm{U} is the quotient

K​⟨x,y⟩/(x​y−π)K\langle x,y\rangle/(xy-\pi)

whose elements ff are (non-uniquely) represented by a series

∑m,n=0∞am,n​xm​yn,\sum_{m,n=0}^{\infty}a_{m,n}x^{m}y^{n},

with am,n→0a_{m,n}\rightarrow 0 when m+n→∞m+n\rightarrow\infty. However, observing that xx is invertible in this algebra, with inverse π−1​y\pi^{-1}y, so that y=π​x−1y=\pi x^{-1}, we can replace each product xm​ynx^{m}y^{n} by πn​xm−n\pi^{n}x^{m-n}, leading to an expression of the form

f=∑n∈𝐙an​xn,f=\sum_{n\in{\mathbf{Z}}}a_{n}x^{n},

where |an|→0\left|{a_{n}}\right|\rightarrow 0 when n→+∞n\rightarrow+\infty and |an|​π−n→0\left|{a_{n}}\right|\pi^{-n}\rightarrow 0 when n→−∞n\rightarrow-\infty. Such an expression is now unique, and is called the Laurent expansion of ff.

It leads to a natural family (γr)r∈[0,log⁡|π|−1](\gamma_{r})_{r\in[0,\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}]} of multiplicative seminorms on the algebra 𝒪⁡(U)\mathscr{O}(\mathrm{U}), parametrized by the unit interval in 𝐑{\mathbf{R}}. Namely, for each real number r∈[0,log⁡|π|−1]r\in[0,\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}], we can set

γr​(f)=maxn∈𝐙⁡|an|​e−r​n,f=∑n∈𝐙an​xn∈𝒪⁡(U).\gamma_{r}(f)=\max_{n\in{\mathbf{Z}}}\left|{a_{n}}\right|e^{-rn},\qquad f=\sum_{n\in{\mathbf{Z}}}a_{n}x^{n}\in\mathscr{O}(\mathrm{U}).

Obviously, γr\gamma_{r} is a norm on 𝒪⁡(U)\mathscr{O}(\mathrm{U}) which extends the absolute value of KK ; its multiplicativity is proved analogously that of the Gauß norm. It is easy to check that the map [0,log⁡|π|−1]→U[0,\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}]\rightarrow\mathrm{U} defined by r↦γrr\mapsto\gamma_{r} is continuous (this amounts to the fact that the maps r↦γr​(f)r\mapsto\gamma_{r}(f) are continuous), hence defines an parametrized path in the topological space U\mathrm{U}.

Let S⁡(𝔘)S(\mathfrak{U}) be its image (with the induced distance) ; Berkovich calls it the skeleton of the formal scheme obtained by completing 𝔘\mathfrak{U} along its special fibre. A point uu in U\mathrm{U} has two coordinates (x⁡(u),y⁡(u))(x(u),y(u)) in the completed residue field ℋ⁡(u)\mathscr{H}(u) which are elements of absolute value ≤1\leq 1 satisfying x⁡(u)​y​(u)=πx(u)y(u)=\pi. In particular,

r⁡(u)=log⁡|x⁡(u)|−1∈[0,log⁡|π|−1].r(u)=\log\left|{x(u)}\right|^{-1}\in[0,\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}].

The map ρ:u↦γr⁡(u)\rho\colon u\mapsto\gamma_{r(u)} is a continuous from U\mathrm{U} to S⁡(𝔘)S(\mathfrak{U}).

Let us compute the image of γr\gamma_{r} by this map. By definition of γr\gamma_{r}, one has

|x⁡(γr)|=γr​(x)=e−r,\left|{x(\gamma_{r})}\right|=\gamma_{r}(x)=e^{-r},

hence r⁡(γr)=rr(\gamma_{r})=r and ρ⁡(γr)=γr\rho(\gamma_{r})=\gamma_{r}. In other words, the map ρ\rho is a retraction of U\mathrm{U} onto the skeleton S⁡(𝔘)S(\mathfrak{U}).

The special fiber of 𝔘\mathfrak{U} is defined by the equation x​y=0xy=0 in 𝐀K~2\mathbf{A}^{2}_{\tilde{K}}, hence has two components. One can check that the point γ0\gamma_{0} reduces to the generic point of the component with equation y=0y=0, while γlog⁡|π|−1\gamma_{\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}} reduces to the generic point of the component with equation x=0x=0.

These constructions have to be done around each singular point of the special fiber of 𝔛\mathfrak{X}, locally for the étale topology of 𝔛\mathfrak{X}. Berkovich proves that they can be glued, so that the graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) is again canonically interpreted as an actual metrized graph drawn on the analytic space X\mathrm{X} ; we write ι:R⁡(𝔛)↪X\iota\colon R(\mathfrak{X})\hookrightarrow\mathrm{X} for the canonical embedding. The map ι\iota admits a continuous retraction ρ:X→R⁡(𝔛)\rho\colon\mathrm{X}\rightarrow R(\mathfrak{X}).

Although we will not use this fact, we must mention that the retraction ρ\rho is a deformation retraction. (For any t∈[0,1]t\in[0,1] and any x∈Xx\in\mathrm{X}, ρt​(x)\rho_{t}(x) is the semi-norm x1−t​ρ​(x)tx^{1-t}\rho(x)^{t}.)

[01JB]

Metrized line bundles and the reduction graph

A construction of S. Zhang [57], building on prior results of Chinburg–Rumely [20], furnishes continuous metrics on divisors from continuous functions on the reduction graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}). It works as follows. First of all, if P∈X⁡(K)P\in\mathrm{X}(K) is a rational point, there is a unique morphism εP:Spec⁡K∘→𝔛\varepsilon_{P}\colon\operatorname{Spec}K^{\circ}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X} which extends the point PP viewed as a morphism from Spec⁡K\operatorname{Spec}K to XX. The image of this section is a divisor DPD_{P} on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} and the line bundle 𝒪⁡(DP)\mathscr{O}(D_{P}) on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} defines a smooth metric on 𝒪⁡(P)\mathscr{O}(P) ; we write 𝒪⁡(P)¯𝔛\overline{\mathscr{O}(P)}_{\mathfrak{X}} for the corresponding metrized line bundle. We also define μP\mu_{P} as the Dirac measure at the vertex of the graph corresponding to the (unique) irreducible component of the special fiber by which DPD_{P} passes through. The construction and the notation is extended by additivity for divisors which are sums of rational points. More generally, if PP is only a closed point of XX, we do this construction after the finite extension K⁡(P)/KK(P)/K, so that PP becomes a sum of rational points, using for model the minimal resolution of 𝔛⊗K​(P)∘\mathfrak{X}\otimes K(P)^{\circ} described earlier.

If ff is any continuous function on R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) and DD a divisor on X\mathrm{X}, the metrized line bundle 𝒪​(D+f)𝔛\mathscr{O}(D+f)_{\mathfrak{X}} is deduced from 𝒪⁡(D)¯𝔛\overline{\mathscr{O}(D)}_{\mathfrak{X}} by multiplying the metric by e−fe^{-f}. When ff is piecewise linear, this metrized line bundle is smooth. To prove that, we may extend the scalars and assume that DD is a sum of rational points ∑nj​Pj\sum n_{j}P_{j} and that ff is linear on each edge corresponding to an intersection point of components of the special fiber. Letting (Vi)(V_{i}) being the family of these components, and writing viv_{i} for the vertex of R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) corresponding to ViV_{i}, the divisor

∑jnj​DPj+∑if⁡(vi)​Vi\sum_{j}n_{j}D_{P_{j}}+\sum_{i}f(v_{i})V_{i} (2.2.1)

defines the metrized line bundle 𝒪​(D+f)𝔛\mathscr{O}(D+f)_{\mathfrak{X}}.

In this context, Zhang has defined a curvature operator, which associates to a metrized line bundle a distribution on the graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}), defined in such a way that

  • —

    for any divisor DD on X\mathrm{X}, curv⁡(𝒪⁡(D)¯𝔛)=μD{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D)}_{\mathfrak{X}})=\mu_{D} ;

  • —

    for any continuous function ff, curv⁡(O¯​(f)𝔛)=−Δ​f{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{O}(f)_{\mathfrak{X}})=-\Delta f, where Δ\Delta is the Laplacian operator of the graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}),

and depending linearly on the metrized line bundle. The following lemma compares this construction with the general one on Berkovich spaces.

[01JC]
Lemma 2.2.2.

Let L¯=𝒪⁡(D+f)¯𝔛\overline{L}=\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f)}_{\mathfrak{X}} be a metrized line bundle on X\mathrm{X} associated to a divisor DD on X\mathrm{X} and a continuous function ff on the graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}). If it is semi-positive, resp. admissible in the sense of [57] then it is semi-positive, resp. admissible in the sense of this article, and one has

c1​(L¯)=ι∗​curv⁡(𝒪⁡(D+f)¯)​log​|π|−1.c_{1}(\overline{L})=\iota_{*}{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f)})\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1}.

In other words, the measure c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}) is supported by the graph R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}) where it coincides essentially with Zhang’s curvature.

[01JD]
Démonstration.

We first assume that ff is linear on each edge of R⁡(𝒳)R(\mathscr{X}) and that DD is a sum of rational points of XX. Then, L¯\overline{L} corresponds to the line bundle 𝔏\mathfrak{L} on the model 𝔛\mathfrak{X} given by Equation 2.2.1. By definition, the measure c1​(𝔏)c_{1}(\mathfrak{L}) is computed as follows. It is a sum, for all components ViV_{i} of the special fiber, of deg⁡(𝔏|Vi)​log⁡|π|−1\deg(\mathfrak{L}|V_{i})\log\left|{\pi}\right|^{-1} times the Dirac measure at the corresponding point viv_{i} of R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}). In particular, it is supported by R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X}). Then,

deg⁡(𝔏|Vi)=∑jnj​{1if DPj passes through Vi ;0otherwise}+∑jf⁡(Vj)​(Vi,Vj),\deg(\mathfrak{L}|V_{i})=\sum_{j}n_{j}\left\{\begin{array}[]{cc}1&\text{if $D_{P_{j}}$ passes through $V_{i}$ ;}\\ 0&\text{otherwise}\end{array}\right\}+\sum_{j}f(V_{j})(V_{i},V_{j}),

where (Vi,Vj)(V_{i},V_{j}) is the intersection number of the divisors ViV_{i} and VjV_{j}. That DPjD_{P_{j}} passes through ViV_{i} means exactly that ρ⁡(Pj)=vi\rho(P_{j})=v_{i}. Moreover, if j≠ij\neq i, then (Vi,Vj)=mi,j(V_{i},V_{j})=m_{i,j} is just the number of intersection points of ViV_{i} and VjV_{j}, while

(Vi,Vi)=(Vi,∑jVj)−∑j≠i(Vi,Vj)=−∑j≠i(Vi,Vj),(V_{i},V_{i})=(V_{i},\sum_{j}V_{j})-\sum_{j\neq i}(V_{i},V_{j})=-\sum_{j\neq i}(V_{i},V_{j}),

since the whole special fiber is numerically equivalent to zero. Consequently,

∑jf⁡(vj)​(Vi,Vj)=∑j≠imi,j​(f⁡(Vj)−f⁡(Vi)).\sum_{j}f(v_{j})(V_{i},V_{j})=\sum_{j\neq i}m_{i,j}\big(f(V_{j})-f(V_{i})\big).

Observe that this is the sum, over all edges from ViV_{i}, of the derivative of ff along this edge. Comparing with the definitions given by Zhang in [57], one finds, for any function gg on R⁡(𝔛)R(\mathfrak{X})

∑ideg⁡(𝔏|Vi)​g​(vi)\displaystyle\sum_{i}\deg(\mathfrak{L}|V_{i})g(v_{i}) =∑jnj​g​(ρ⁡(Pj))+∑i⟨δ​f​(vi),g⟩\displaystyle=\sum_{j}n_{j}g(\rho(P_{j}))+\sum_{i}\langle\delta f(v_{i}),g\rangle
=∫R⁡(𝔛)g⁡(μD+δ​f)\displaystyle=\int_{R(\mathfrak{X})}g\,(\mu_{D}+\delta f)
=∫R⁡(𝔛)g​curv⁡(𝒪⁡(D+f)¯).\displaystyle=\int_{R(\mathfrak{X})}g\,{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f)}).

This proves the claimed formula when ff is linear on each edge of 𝔛\mathfrak{X} and DD is a sum of rational points.

By working over an appropriate finite extension of KK, it extends to the case where ff is only piecewise linear, DD being any divisor on XX.

Zhang defines 𝒪⁡(D+f)¯𝔛\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f)}_{\mathfrak{X}} to be semi-positive if ff is uniform limit of piecewise linear functions fnf_{n} such that curv⁡(𝒪⁡(D+fn)¯𝔛)≥0{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f_{n})}_{\mathfrak{X}})\geq 0. The metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L} is then the limit of the metrized line bundles L¯n\overline{L}_{n} corresponding models 𝔏n\mathfrak{L}_{n} (on appropriate models 𝔛n\mathfrak{X}_{n} of X\mathrm{X} after some extension of scalars) of 𝒪⁡(D)\mathscr{O}(D). By the previous computation, these metrics are smooth and c1​(L¯n)≥0c_{1}(\overline{L}_{n})\geq 0. Reversing the computation, this means that 𝔏n\mathfrak{L}_{n} is numerically effective on 𝔛n\mathfrak{X}_{n}, hence L¯\overline{L} is semi-positive. By definition of the measure c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}), one has

c1​(L¯)\displaystyle c_{1}(\overline{L}) =limnc1​(L¯n)=limnι∗​curv⁡(𝒪⁡(D+fn)¯)\displaystyle=\lim_{n}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{n})=\lim_{n}\iota_{*}{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f_{n})})
=ι∗​limncurv⁡(𝒪⁡(D+fn)¯)=ι∗​curv⁡(𝒪⁡(D+f)¯).\displaystyle=\iota_{*}\lim_{n}{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f_{n})})=\iota_{*}{\operatorname{curv}}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(D+f)}).

The case of an admissible metrized line bundle follows by linearity. ∎

[01JE]

2.3. Local character of the measures

The definition of the measures associated to metrized line bundles is global in nature. Still, the main result of this section implies that they are local.

[01JF]
Definition 2.3.1.

Let X\mathrm{X} be an analytic space. A function on X\mathrm{X} is said to be strongly pluriharmonic if it is locally a uniform limit of functions of the form a​log⁡|u|a\log\left|{u}\right|, where a∈𝐑a\in{\mathbf{R}} and uu is holomorphic and nonvanishing.

There is a general theory of harmonic functions on curves due to Thuillier [51] (see also [31, 6] on the projective line ; note that the definition of a strongly harmonic function of the latter reference is different from the one adopted here). Strongly pluriharmonic functions are harmonic in their sense. Indeed, logarithms of absolute values of invertible holomorphic functions are harmonic, and harmonic functions are preserved by uniform limits (Prop. 2.3.20 and 3.1.2 of [51]). In fact, when the residue field of KK is algebraic over a finite field, any harmonic function is locally the logarithm of the absolute value of an invertible function (loc.cit., Theorem 2.3.21).

This is not necessarily the case for more general fields KK : there are harmonic functions over analytic curves which are not locally equal to the logarithm of the absolute value of an invertible function ; examples require to consider curves of genus ≥1\geq 1. In a conversation with A. Ducros, we devised the following example of a one-dimensional affinoid space. Let 𝔈\mathfrak{E} be an elliptic scheme over K∘K^{\circ}, let oo be the origin in 𝔈K~\mathfrak{E}_{\tilde{K}} and let pp be a non-torsion rational point in 𝔈K~\mathfrak{E}_{\tilde{K}} ; let 𝔛\mathfrak{X} be the blow-up of 𝔈\mathfrak{E} at the point pp. Let then 𝔘\mathfrak{U} be its open subset obtained by removing the point oo as well as a smooth point in the exceptional divisor of the blow-up ; its generic fiber U\mathrm{U} is the desired affinoid space — it is the complementary subset in the elliptic curve EK\mathrm{E}_{K} to two small disjoint disks. One can prove that the space of harmonic functions on U\mathrm{U} is 2-dimensional, and that all holomorphic invertible functions on U\mathrm{U} have constant absolute value.

I do not know whether any harmonic function on a curve is locally a uniform limit of logarithms.

[01JG]
Definition 2.3.2.

Let L¯\overline{L} be a metrized line bundle on an analytic space X\mathrm{X} and let U\mathrm{U} be an open subset of X\mathrm{X}. One says that L¯\overline{L} is strongly pluriharmonic on U\mathrm{U} if for any local frame ss of LL defined on an open subset V⊂U\mathrm{V}\subset\mathrm{U}, log⁡‖s‖−1\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1} is strongly pluriharmonic on V\mathrm{V}.

Equivalently, a metrized line bundle is pluriharmonic on U\mathrm{U} if it admits, in a neighbourhood of any point of U\mathrm{U} a local frame whose norm is identically equal to 11.

[01JH]
Proposition 2.3.3.

Let X¯\overline{X} a the analytic space associated to a proper KK-scheme. Let L¯1,L¯2,…,L¯k\overline{L}_{1},\overline{L}_{2},\dots,\overline{L}_{k} be admissible metrized line bundles on X\mathrm{X}. Let Z\mathrm{Z} be a kk-dimensional Zariski closed subset of X\mathrm{X}. Assume that L¯1\overline{L}_{1} is strongly pluriharmonic on U\mathrm{U}. Then, the support of the measure c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZc_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}} is disjoint from U\mathrm{U}.

[01JI]
Démonstration.

One has to show that for any continuous function φ\varphi with compact support contained in U\mathrm{U}

∫Xφ​c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ=0.\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi\,c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}=0.

By Gubler’s theorem, the space of smooth functions is dense in the space of smooth functions on X\mathrm{X}. Using the fact that the maximum and the minimum of smooth functions are still smooth, one proves that the space of smooth functions with compact support contained in U\mathrm{U} is dense in the space of continuous functions with compact support contained in U\mathrm{U}, for the topology of uniform convergence. We thus may assume that φ\varphi is smooth, with compact support contained in U\mathrm{U}. Finally, we may also assume that the metric on the line bundles L¯2,…,L¯k\overline{L}_{2},\dots,\overline{L}_{k} are smooth.

We may argue locally and assume that L1L_{1} has a meromorphic section ss whose divisor div⁡(s)\operatorname{div}(s) is disjoint from U\mathrm{U}. Up to shrinking U\mathrm{U} again, we may assume that there exists a sequence (un)(u_{n}) of rational functions without zeroes nor poles on U\mathrm{U} such that log⁡‖s‖=limlog⁡|un|1/n\log\left\|{s}\right\|=\lim\log\left|{u_{n}}\right|^{1/n}.

According to Prop. 1.3.2, one has

∫Xφ​c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ=∫Xφ​c1​(L¯2)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δdiv⁡(s|Z)+∫Xlog⁡‖s‖−1​ddc⁡φ​c1​(L¯2)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ,\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi\,c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}\\ =\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\operatorname{div}(s|_{\mathrm{Z}})}+\int_{\mathrm{X}}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}},

The first term vanishes because div⁡(s|Z)\operatorname{div}(s|_{\mathrm{Z}}) and the support of φ\varphi are disjoint. The second is the limit of

∫Xlog|un|−1/nddcφc1(L¯)k−1δZ.\int_{\mathrm{X}}\log\left|{u_{n}}\right|^{-1/n}\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}\varphi c_{1}(\overline{L})^{k-1}\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}.

Using the fact that div⁡(un)∩U\operatorname{div}(u_{n})\cap\mathrm{U} is empty and applying the same computation, the term of index nn equals

1n​∫Xφ​c1​(M¯n)​c1​(L¯2)​…​c1​(L¯k)​δZ.\frac{1}{n}\int_{\mathrm{X}}\varphi\,c_{1}(\overline{M}_{n})c_{1}(\overline{L}_{2})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}}.

where M¯n\overline{M}_{n} is the trivial metrized line bundle 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}, and its meromorphic section unu_{n} replacing ss. But this integral is zero, by definition of the measures associated to smooth metrized line bundles. ∎

[01JJ]

2.4. Polarized dynamical systems

We now explain another example of metrized line bundles : the canonical metrics associated to dynamical system.

[01JK]
Lemma 2.4.1.

Let X\mathrm{X} be the analytic space associated to a proper KK-scheme and let f:X→Xf\colon\mathrm{X}\rightarrow\mathrm{X} be a finite morphism. Let LL be a line bundle on X\mathrm{X}, dd an integer such that d≥2d\geq 2 and an isomorphism ε:f∗​L≃Ld\varepsilon\colon f^{*}L\simeq L^{d}. The line bundle LL possesses a unique continuous metric such that the isomorphism ε\varepsilon is an isometry. If LL is ample, then this metric is semi-positive.

In essence, this result, or at least its proof, goes back to Tate’s construction of the “Néron–Tate” canonical height for abelian varieties. In the slightly different language of local heights and Néron functions, it has been proved by Call–Silverman [16]. In the asserted form, it is due to Zhang [59].

[01JL]
Démonstration.

Let us first prove uniqueness. If L¯\overline{L} and L¯′\overline{L}^{\prime} are two metrics on LL, let φ\varphi be the continuous function such that ‖⋅‖′=e−φ​‖⋅‖\left\|{\cdot}\right\|^{\prime}=e^{-\varphi}\left\|{\cdot}\right\|. Assuming that ε\varepsilon is an isometry for these two metrics, one obtains the following equation

φ⁡(f⁡(x))=d​φ​(x),\varphi(f(x))=d\varphi(x),

for any x∈Xx\in\mathrm{X}. Since X\mathrm{X} is compact, φ\varphi is bounded and this equation implies that ‖φ‖∞≤1d​‖φ‖∞\left\|{\varphi}\right\|_{\infty}\leq\frac{1}{d}\left\|{\varphi}\right\|_{\infty}. Since d≥2d\geq 2, one concludes that φ≡0\varphi\equiv 0.

For the existence, one begins with any continuous metric L¯0\overline{L}_{0} on LL. Let us then consider the sequence of metrics (L¯n)(\overline{L}_{n}) on LL induced by the pull-backs on Ld=ε​f∗​LL^{d}=\varepsilon f^{*}L, Ld2=(ε​f∗)2​LL^{d^{2}}=(\varepsilon f^{*})^{2}L, etc., hence on LL. Since d≥2d\geq 2, a similar contraction argument as the one used for uniqueness shows that this is a Cauchy sequence of metrics on LL ; consequently, it converges to a continuous metric on LL. If L¯0\overline{L}_{0} is chosen to be semi-positive, which we may if LL is ample, then all al of the metrized line bundles L¯n\overline{L}_{n} are semi-positive, hence the canonical metric is semi-positive.

Concretely, in the non-archimedean case, one begins with a model (𝔛0,𝔏0,e)(\mathfrak{X}_{0},\mathfrak{L}_{0},e) such that 𝔏0\mathfrak{L}_{0} is numerically effective. Then one considers the map f:X→𝔛0f\colon X\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}_{0} and the normalization 𝔛1\mathfrak{X}_{1} of 𝔛0\mathfrak{X}_{0} in XX ; this is a projective model 𝔛1\mathfrak{X}_{1}, equiped with a finite morphism f1:𝔛1→𝔛0f_{1}\colon\mathfrak{X}_{1}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}_{0} extending ff. Moreover, 𝔏1=f1∗​𝔏0\mathfrak{L}_{1}=f_{1}^{*}\mathfrak{L}_{0} is a model of f∗​Lef^{*}L^{e} which is identified with Le​dL^{ed} via the fixed isomorphism ε\varepsilon. Iterating this construction defines a sequence (𝔛n,𝔏n,e​dn)(\mathfrak{X}_{n},\mathfrak{L}_{n},ed^{n}) of models of (X,L)(X,L), with finite morphisms fn:𝔛n→𝔛n−1f_{n}\colon\mathfrak{X}_{n}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}_{n-1} such that fn∗​𝔏n−1=𝔏nf_{n}^{*}\mathfrak{L}_{n-1}=\mathfrak{L}_{n}. The metric on LL defined by any of these models is semi-positive, hence so is their uniform limit. ∎

[01JM]

The canonical measure

The measure c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} on X\mathrm{X} defined by the metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L} is a very important invariant of the dynamical system. It satisfies the functional equations

f∗​c1​(L¯)n=dn​c1​(L¯)nandf∗​c1​(L¯)n=c1​(L¯)n.f^{*}c_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}=d^{n}c_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}\quad\text{and}\quad f_{*}c_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}=c_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}.

The first follows by a general functorial property proved in [18] ; it implies the second. The support of the canonical measure is therefore totally invariant under ff.

[01JN]

The Fatou set

Generalizing results of Kawaguchi–Silverman in [42] and Baker–Rumely [6], we want to show here that the canonical measure vanishes on any open set U\mathrm{U} of X\mathrm{X} where the sequence (fn|U)(f^{n}|_{\mathrm{U}}) of iterates of ff is equicontinuous.

Let U\mathrm{U} be an open set in X\mathrm{X} and ℱ\mathscr{F} be a family of continuous maps from U\mathrm{U} to X\mathrm{X}. One says that this family is equicontinuous if for any x∈Ux\in\mathrm{U} and any finite covering (Vj)(\mathrm{V}_{j}) of X\mathrm{X} by affinoid spaces, there exists a neighbourhood Ux\mathrm{U}_{x} of xx in U\mathrm{U} such that for any φ∈ℱ\varphi\in\mathscr{F}, there exists an index jj such that φ⁡(Ux)⊂Vj\varphi(\mathrm{U}_{x})\subset\mathrm{V}_{j}. (This definition is adapted from Definition 10.63 in [6] ; it is the definition of equicontinuity associated to the canonical uniform structure of the compact space X\mathrm{X}.)

We define the equicontinuous locus of ff as the largest open subset Ef\mathrm{E}_{f} of X\mathrm{X} over which the sequence of iterates of ff is equicontinuous.

[01JP]
Proposition 2.4.2.

If LL is ample, then the metric L¯\overline{L} is strongly pluriharmonic on Ef\mathrm{E}_{f}.33 3 The ampleness assumption should not be necessary for the result to hold.

[01JQ]
Démonstration.

The proof is inspired from the above-mentioned sources, which in turns is an adaptation of the complex case [41] (see also [52]).

We may replace LL by a positive power of itself and assume that it is very ample, induced by a closed embedding of X\mathrm{X} in Pn\mathrm{P}^{n}, and that the natural map Γ⁡(𝐏n,𝒪⁡(d))→Γ⁡(X,𝒪⁡(d))\Gamma(\mathrm{{\mathbf{P}}}^{n},\mathscr{O}(d))\rightarrow\Gamma(\mathrm{X},\mathscr{O}(d)) is surjective. Then, there are homogeneous polynomials (F0,…,Fn)(F_{0},\dots,F_{n}), of degree dd, with coefficients in KK, and without common zeroes on X\mathrm{X}, such that f([x0:…:xn])=[F0(x):…:Fn(x)]f([x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}])=[F_{0}(x):\dots:F_{n}(x)] for any x=[x0:…:xn]∈Pnx=[x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}]\in\mathrm{P}^{n}. One considers the polynomial map F:An+1→An+1F\colon\mathrm{A}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathrm{A}^{n+1} ; it lifts a rational map on Pn\mathrm{P}^{n} which extends the morphism ff.

For (x0,…,xn)∈An+1(x_{0},\dots,x_{n})\in\mathrm{A}^{n+1}, define ‖x‖=max⁡(|x0|,…,|xn|)\left\|{x}\right\|=\max(\left|{x_{0}}\right|,\dots,\left|{x_{n}}\right|). The Weil metric on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1) is given by

log⁡‖sP​(x)‖−1=log⁡|P⁡(x)|−1+deg⁡(P)​log​‖x‖,\log\left\|{s_{P}(x)}\right\|^{-1}=\log\left|{P(x)}\right|^{-1}+\deg(P)\log\left\|{x}\right\|,

where PP is an homogeneous polynomial, sPs_{P} the corresponding global section of 𝒪⁡(deg⁡(P))\mathscr{O}(\deg(P)), and xx is a point of An+1\mathrm{A}^{n+1} such that P⁡(x)≠0P(x)\neq 0. The restriction to X\mathrm{X} of this metric is a semi-positive metric ‖⋅‖0\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{0} on LL. The construction of the canonical metric on LL introduces a sequence of semi-positive metrics ‖⋅‖n\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{n} on LL ; these metrics are given by the following explicit formula

log⁡‖sP​(x)‖k−1=log⁡|P⁡(x)|−1+deg⁡(P)​d−k​log​‖F(k)​(x)‖,\log\left\|{s_{P}(x)}\right\|_{k}^{-1}=\log\left|{P(x)}\right|^{-1}+\deg(P)d^{-k}\log\left\|{F^{(k)}(x)}\right\|,

where F(k):An+1→An+1F^{(k)}:\mathrm{A}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathrm{A}^{n+1} is the kkth iterate of FF.

The convergence of this sequence is therefore equivalent to the convergence of the sequence (d−k​log⁡‖F(k)‖)k(d^{-k}\log\left\|{F^{(k)}}\right\|)_{k} towards a continuous fonction on the preimage of X\mathrm{X} under the projection map An+1∖{0}→Pn\mathrm{A}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}\rightarrow\mathrm{P}^{n}. The limit is usually called the homogeneous Green function.

For 0≤i≤n0\leq i\leq n, let Vi\mathrm{V}_{i} be the open set of points x=[x0:…:xn]∈Pnx=[x_{0}:\dots:x_{n}]\in\mathrm{P}^{n} such that |xi|>12​‖x‖\left|{x_{i}}\right|>\frac{1}{2}\left\|{x}\right\|. They form an open covering of Pn\mathrm{P}^{n} ; their intersections with X\mathrm{X} form an open covering of X\mathrm{X}.

Fix x∈Efx\in\mathrm{E}_{f} and let U\mathrm{U} be an open neighbourhood of xx such that for any positive integer kk, there exists i∈{0,…,n}i\in\{0,\dots,n\} such that fk​(U)⊂Vif^{k}(\mathrm{U})\subset\mathrm{V}_{i}. For any ii, let NiN_{i} be the set of integers kk such that fk​(U)⊂Vif^{k}(\mathrm{U})\subset\mathrm{V}_{i}. Let us consider any index ii such that NiN_{i} is infinite ; to fix ideas, let us assume that i=0i=0. The canonical norm of a section sPs_{P} at a point y∈Uy\in\mathrm{U} is given by

log⁡‖sP​(y)‖−1\displaystyle\log\left\|{s_{P}(y)}\right\|^{-1} =log⁡|P⁡(y)|−1+deg⁡(P)​limk→∞k∈N0d−k​log​‖F(k)​(y)‖\displaystyle=\log\left|{P(y)}\right|^{-1}+\deg(P)\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}k\rightarrow\infty\\ k\in N_{0}\end{subarray}}d^{-k}\log\left\|{F^{(k)}(y)}\right\|
=log⁡|P⁡(y)|−1\displaystyle=\log\left|{P(y)}\right|^{-1}
+deg(P)limk→∞k∈N0d−k(log|F0(k)(y)|+logmax0≤i≤m|Fi(k)(y)/F0(k)(y)|).\displaystyle\quad+\deg(P)\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}k\rightarrow\infty\\ k\in N_{0}\end{subarray}}d^{-k}\left(\log\left|{F_{0}^{(k)}(y)}\right|+\log\max_{0\leq i\leq m}\left|{F_{i}^{(k)}(y)/F_{0}^{(k)}(y)}\right|\right).

Observe that [F0(k)(y):…:Fm(k)(y)][F_{0}^{(k)}(y):\dots:F^{(k)}_{m}(y)] are the homogeneous coordinates of the point fk​(y)f^{k}(y). Since y∈Uy\in\mathrm{U} and fk​(U)⊂V0f^{k}(\mathrm{U})\subset\mathrm{V}_{0}, one has |Fi(k)​(y)|≤2​|F0(k)​(y)|\left|{F^{(k)}_{i}(y)}\right|\leq 2\left|{F^{(k)}_{0}(y)}\right|, so that the last term is bounded by d−k​log⁡2d^{-k}\log 2 and uniformly converges to 00 on U\mathrm{U}. Finally, uniformly on U\mathrm{U},

log⁡‖sP​(y)‖−1=log⁡|P⁡(y)|−1+deg⁡(P)​limk→∞k∈N0d−k​log​|F0(k)​(y)|.\log\left\|{s_{P}(y)}\right\|^{-1}=\log\left|{P(y)}\right|^{-1}+\deg(P)\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}k\rightarrow\infty\\ k\in N_{0}\end{subarray}}d^{-k}\log\left|{F_{0}^{(k)}(y)}\right|.

This shows that log⁡‖sP‖−1\log\left\|{s_{P}}\right\|^{-1} is strongly harmonic on U\mathrm{U}, as claimed. ∎

[01JR]
Corollary 2.4.3.

The canonical measure c1​(L¯)nc_{1}(\overline{L})^{n} vanishes on Ef\mathrm{E}_{f}.

[01JS]
Démonstration.

It suffices to apply Prop. 2.3.3. ∎

[01JT]

Remarks

1) The particular case X=Pn\mathrm{X}=\mathrm{P}^{n} generalizes Theorem 6 in [42] according to which canonical metrics are locally constant on the classical Fatou set (meaning that the norm of a non-vanishing local section is locally constant). Indeed, the restriction to the set of smooth rigid points of a strongly harmonic function is locally constant. This follows from the fact that any such point has an affinoid neighbourhood U\mathrm{U} which is a polydisk, so that the absolute value of any invertible function on U\mathrm{U}, hence any harmonic function on U\mathrm{U} is constant.

2) In the case X=P1\mathrm{X}=\mathrm{P}^{1}, Fatou and Julia sets in the Berkovich framework have been studied by Rivera-Letelier [48] and Benedetto [9] ; see also [6] for a detailed exposition of the theory and further references. An example of Rivera-Letelier on the projective line (Example 10.70 of [6]) shows that the equicontinuity locus Ef\mathrm{E}_{f} may be smaller than the complement of the support of the measure c1​(L¯)c_{1}(\overline{L}).

Anyway, this proposition suggests the interest of a general study of Fatou sets and of pluripotential theory on Berkovich spaces. For example, is there an interesting theory of pseudoconvexity for Berkovich spaces ? Is it related to Stein spaces ? By analogy to the complex case (see [52]), are Berkovich Fatou components pseudoconvex ? Stein ?

[01JU]

2.5. Abelian varieties

Let us assume throughout this section that X\mathrm{X} is an Abelian variety. For any integer mm, let [m][m] be the multiplication-by-mm endomorphism of X\mathrm{X}.

[01JV]

Canonical metrics

Let LL be a line bundle on X\mathrm{X}. Let 00 be the neutral element of X\mathrm{X} and let us fix a trivialization L0L_{0} of LL at 00.

The line bundle L⊗2L^{\otimes 2} is canonically decomposed as the tensor product of an even and an odd line bundle :

L⊗2=(L⊗[−1]∗​L)⊗(L⊗[−1]∗​L−1).L^{\otimes 2}=(L\otimes[-1]^{*}L)\otimes(L\otimes[-1]^{*}L^{-1}).

By the theorem of the cube, an even line bundle LL satisfies [m]∗​L≃L⊗m2[m]^{*}L\simeq L^{\otimes m^{2}}, while for an odd line bundle LL, one has [m]∗​L≃L⊗m[m]^{*}L\simeq L^{\otimes m} ; moreover, there are in each case a unique isomorphism compatible with the trivialization at the origin. By Lemma 2.4.1, an even (resp. an odd) line bundle possesses a canonical continuous metric making this isomorphism an isometry. This furnishes a canonical metric on L⊗2L^{\otimes 2}, hence on LL. According to this lemma, this metric is semi-positive if LL is ample and even. Using a Lemma of Künnemann, ([17], Lemme 2.3), one proves that this also holds if LL is algebraically equivalent to 00. In any case, the canonical metrics are admissible.

[01JW]

The case of good reduction

When the variety X\mathrm{X} has good reduction, the canonical metrics and the associated measures are fairly easy to describe. Indeed, let 𝔛\mathfrak{X} be the Néron model of X\mathrm{X} over K∘K^{\circ}, an Abelian scheme. For any line bundle LL on X\mathrm{X} there is a unique line bundle 𝔏\mathfrak{L} on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} which extends LL and which admits a trivialization at the 00 section extending the given one over KK. By the theorem of the cube for the Abelian scheme 𝔛\mathfrak{X}, the isomorphism [m]∗​L≃L⊗ma[m]^{*}L\simeq L^{\otimes m^{a}} (with a=1a=1 or 22, according to whether LL is odd or even) extends uniquely to an isomorphism [m]∗​𝔏≃𝔏⊗ma[m]^{*}\mathfrak{L}\simeq\mathfrak{L}^{\otimes m^{a}}. This implies that the canonical metrics are algebraic, induced by these models.

The description of the canonical measures on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} follows at once. Let ξ\xi be the point of X\mathrm{X} whose reduction is the generic point of the special fiber of 𝔛\mathfrak{X}. Then, for any family (L1,…,Ln)(L_{1},\dots,L_{n}) of line bundles on X\mathrm{X}, one has

c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯n)=deg⁡(c1​(L1)​…​c1​(Ln))​δξ.c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{n})=\deg(c_{1}(L_{1})\dots c_{1}(L_{n}))\delta_{\xi}.

We see in particular that they only depend on the classes of the line bundles LjL_{j} modulo numerical equivalence.

[01JX]

Gubler’s description

In the case of bad reduction, the description of the canonical measures has been established by W. Gubler [39].

Up to replacing KK by a finite extension, we assume that X\mathrm{X} has split semi-stable reduction. Raynaud’s uniformization involves an analytic group E\mathrm{E} which is an extension of an abelian variety with good reduction Y\mathrm{Y} by a split torus T≃𝐆mt\mathrm{T}\simeq{\mathbf{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^{t}, where t∈{1,…,n}t\in\{1,\dots,n\} — the so-called Raynaud extension of X\mathrm{X}. One has t≥1t\geq 1 since we assume bad reduction ; moreover, dim⁡Y=dim⁡E−t=n−t\operatorname{dim}\mathrm{Y}=\operatorname{dim}\mathrm{E}-t=n-t. There is a morphism p:E→Xp\colon\mathrm{E}\rightarrow\mathrm{X}, whose kernel is a discrete subgroup MM of E⁡(K)\mathrm{E}(K), so that the induced map E/Λ→X\mathrm{E}/\Lambda\rightarrow\mathrm{X} is an isomorphism. When t=nt=n, one says that X\mathrm{X} has totally degenerate reduction, and the morphism pp is the rigid analytic uniformization of the abelian variety X\mathrm{X}.

Moreover, E\mathrm{E} is constructed as a contracted product (E1×T)/T1(\mathrm{E}_{1}\times\mathrm{T})/\mathrm{T}_{1} from an extension E1\mathrm{E}_{1} of Y\mathrm{Y} by the “unit subtorus” T1\mathrm{T}_{1} of T\mathrm{T} (defined by the equalities |Tj​(x)|=1\left|{T_{j}(x)}\right|=1 for j∈{1,…,t}j\in\{1,\dots,t\} and x∈Tx\in\mathrm{T}). The natural map λT:T→𝐑t\lambda_{\mathrm{T}}\colon\mathrm{T}\rightarrow{\mathbf{R}}^{t} defined by

x↦(−log⁡|T1​(x)|,…,−log⁡|Tt​(x)|)x\mapsto(-\log\left|{T_{1}(x)}\right|,\dots,-\log\left|{T_{t}(x)}\right|)

is continuous and surjective ; it admits a canonical section ιT\iota_{\mathrm{T}} which maps a point (u1,…,ut)∈𝐑t(u_{1},\dots,u_{t})\in{\mathbf{R}}^{t} to the semi-norm

f↦sup𝐦∈𝐙ta𝐦​e−m1​u1−⋯−mt​ut,for f=∑𝐦a𝐦​T1m1​…​Ttmt∈𝒪⁡(T).f\mapsto\sup_{\mathbf{m}\in{\mathbf{Z}}^{t}}a_{\mathbf{m}}e^{-m_{1}u_{1}-\dots-m_{t}u_{t}},\qquad\text{for $f=\sum_{\mathbf{m}}a_{\mathbf{m}}T_{1}^{m_{1}}\dots T_{t}^{m_{t}}\in\mathscr{O}(\mathrm{T}).$}

The map λT\lambda_{\mathrm{T}} extends uniquely to a morphism λ:E→𝐑t\lambda\colon\mathrm{E}\rightarrow{\mathbf{R}}^{t} whose kernel contains E1\mathrm{E}_{1}. The image Λ=λ⁡(M)\Lambda=\lambda(M) is a lattice of 𝐑t{\mathbf{R}}^{t}, and the morphism pp induces a continuous proper morphism ρ:X→𝐑t/Λ\rho\colon\mathrm{X}\rightarrow{\mathbf{R}}^{t}/\Lambda. Composing the section ιT\iota_{\mathrm{T}} with the projection pp furnishes a section ι:𝐑t/Λ→X\iota\colon{\mathbf{R}}^{t}/\Lambda\rightarrow\mathrm{X} of ρ\rho. Its image is the skeleton of X\mathrm{X}. Gubler’s theorem ([39], Cor. 7.3) is the following :

[01JY]
Theorem 2.5.1.

Let L1,…,LnL_{1},\dots,L_{n} be line bundles on X\mathrm{X}. The canonical measure c1​(L¯1)​…​c1​(L¯n)c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{n}) is the direct image by ι\iota of the unique Haar measure on 𝐑t/Λ{\mathbf{R}}^{t}/\Lambda whose total mass is deg⁡(L1​…​Ln)\deg(L_{1}\dots L_{n}).

[01JZ]

3. Applications to Arakelov geometry

We now describe some applications of the previous considerations to arithmetic geometry over global fields.

[01K0]

3.1. Adelic metrics and heights

[01K1]

Adelic metrics

Let FF be either a number field (arithmetic case), or a finite extension of the field of rational functions over a constant field (geometric case). Let XX be a projective variety over FF, Let M⁡(F)M(F) be the set of normalized absolute values on FF. Any v∈M⁡(F)v\in M(F) gives rise to a complete valued field FvF_{v}, and to an analytic space XvX_{v} over FvF_{v} : if vv is archimedean, Xv=X⁡(Fv¯)X_{v}=X(\overline{F_{v}}), while XvX_{v} is the Berkovich analytic space attached to XFvX_{F_{v}} if vv is ultrametric.

If LL is a line bundle on XX, an adelic metric on LL is a family (‖⋅‖v)v∈M⁡(F)(\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{v})_{v\in M(F)} of continuous metrics on the induced line bundles over the analytic spaces XvX_{v}. We require the following supplementary compatibility assumption : there exists a model (𝔛,ℒ,e)(\mathfrak{X},\mathscr{L},e) over the ring of integers of FF inducing the given metrics at almost all places vv. An adelic metric is said to be semi-positive, resp. admissible if it is so at all places of FF.

Line bundles on XX endowed with an adelic metric form a group Pic¯​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(X) ; admissible line bundles form a subgroup Pic¯ad​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{ad}}(X). If f:Y→Xf\colon Y\rightarrow X is any morphism, there is a natural morphism of groups f∗:Pic¯​(X)→Pic¯​(Y)f^{*}\colon\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(X)\rightarrow\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(Y) ; it maps Pic¯ad​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{ad}}(X) into Pic¯ad​(Y)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{ad}}(Y).

[01K2]

Heights

Consider line bundles L¯0,…,L¯n\overline{L}_{0},\dots,\overline{L}_{n} with admissible adelic metrics. Let ZZ be a subvariety of XX of dimension kk and s0,…,sks_{0},\dots,s_{k} invertible meromorphic sections of L0,…,LkL_{0},\dots,L_{k} whose divisors hace no common intersection point on ZZ. For any v∈M⁡(F)v\in M(F), we have recalled in Sections 1.2, 1.2 and 1.3 the definitions of the local height pairing

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)v(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|Z)_{v}

where the index vv indicates the corresponding place of FF. The global height is the sum, over all v∈M⁡(F)v\in M(F), of these local heights :

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)=∑v∈M⁡(F)(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)v.(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|Z)=\sum_{v\in M(F)}(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|Z)_{v}.

It inherits from the local heights their multilinear symmetric character.

Let us replace sks_{k} by another invertible meromorphic section f​skfs_{k}. Then,

(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(f​sk)|Z)\displaystyle(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(fs_{k})|Z) =∑v∈M⁡(F)(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(f​sk)|Z)v\displaystyle=\sum_{v\in M(F)}(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(fs_{k})|Z)_{v}
=∑v∈M⁡(F)(div^⁡(s0)​…​div^⁡(sk)|Z)v\displaystyle=\sum_{v\in M(F)}(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})\dots\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{k})|Z)_{v}
+∑v∈M⁡(F)∫Xvlog|f|−1c1(L¯0)…c1(L¯k−1)δZv.\displaystyle\qquad+\sum_{v\in M(F)}\int_{X_{v}}\log\left|{f}\right|^{-1}c_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots c_{1}(\overline{L}_{k-1})\delta_{\mathrm{Z}_{v}}.

In particular, if ZZ is a point z∈X⁡(F)z\in X(F), then δZv=δz\delta_{\mathrm{Z}_{v}}=\delta_{z} is the Dirac mass at zz and

(div^⁡(s0)|Z)=∑v∈M⁡(F)log⁡‖s0‖v−1​(z).(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(s_{0})|Z)=\sum_{v\in M(F)}\log\left\|{s_{0}}\right\|^{-1}_{v}(z).

Let us observe that it is independent on the choice of the chosen meromorphic section s0s_{0}, provided it is regular at zz. Any other section has the form f​s0fs_{0}, for some invertible meromorphic function ff on XX. Then,

(div^⁡(f​s0)|Z)\displaystyle(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(fs_{0})|Z) =∑v∈M⁡(F)log⁡‖f​s0‖v−1​(z)\displaystyle=\sum_{v\in M(F)}\log\left\|{fs_{0}}\right\|^{-1}_{v}(z)
=∑v∈M⁡(F)log⁡‖s0‖v−1​(z)+∑v∈M⁡(F)log⁡|f|v−1​(z)\displaystyle=\sum_{v\in M(F)}\log\left\|{s_{0}}\right\|^{-1}_{v}(z)+\sum_{v\in M(F)}\log\left|{f}\right|_{v}^{-1}(z)
=(div^⁡(f​s0)|Z)\displaystyle=(\mathop{\widehat{\operatorname{div}}}(fs_{0})|Z)

since, by the product formula, the second term vanishes.

By induction on the dimension of ZZ, and using the commutativity of the local height pairings, it follows that the global height only depends on the metrized line bundles, and not on the actual chosen sections s0,…,sks_{0},\dots,s_{k}. We denote it by

(c^1​(L¯0)​…​c^1​(L¯k)|Z).({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots{\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})|Z).

Again, it is multilinear symmetric in the metrized line bundles L¯0,…,L¯k\overline{L}_{0},\dots,\overline{L}_{k}. By the same argument, it only depends on their isomorphism classes in Pic¯ad​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}_{\text{ad}}(X).

It satisfies a projection formula : for any morphism f:Y→Xf\colon Y\rightarrow X and any kk-dimensional subvariety ZZ of YY,

(c^1​(f∗​L¯0)​…​c^1​(f∗​L¯k)|Z)=(c^1​(L¯0)​…​c^1​(L¯k)|f∗​(Z)CLOSE,({\widehat{c}}_{1}(f^{*}\overline{L}_{0})\dots{\widehat{c}}_{1}(f^{*}\overline{L}_{k})|Z)=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})\dots{\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}_{k})|f_{*}(Z),

where the cycle f∗​(Z)f_{*}(Z) is defined as deg⁡(Z/f⁡(Z))​f​(Z)\deg(Z/f(Z))f(Z) if ZZ and f⁡(Z)f(Z) have the same dimension, so that f:Z→f⁡(Z)f\colon Z\rightarrow f(Z) is generically finite, of some degree deg⁡(Z/f⁡(Z))\deg(Z/f(Z)). If ZZ and f⁡(Z)f(Z) don’t have the same dimension, one sets f∗​(Z)=0f_{*}(Z)=0.

[01K3]

Heights of points

The height of an algebraic point is an important tool in Diophantine geometry. If L¯\overline{L} is a line bundle with an adelic metric on XX, then for any point P∈X⁡(F)P\in X(F), viewed as a closed subscheme of XX, one has

hL¯​(P)=(c^1​(L¯)|P)=∑vlog⁡‖s‖v−1​(P),h_{\overline{L}}(P)=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})|P)=\sum_{v}\log\left\|{s}\right\|^{-1}_{v}(P),

where ss is any meromorphic section on LL which has neither a zero nor a pole at PP. More generally, let P∈X⁡(F¯)P\in X(\overline{F}) be an algebraic point and let [P][P] be the corresponding closed point of XX. Then,

hL¯(P)=1[F(P):F](c^1(L¯)|[P])h_{\overline{L}}(P)=\frac{1}{[F(P):F]}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})|[P])

is the height of PP with respect to the metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L}. In fact, restricted to points, these definitions apply to any, not necessary admissible,

Observe also the following functorial property of the height : If f:Y→Xf\colon Y\rightarrow X is a morphism and P∈Y⁡(F¯)P\in Y(\overline{F}), then hf∗​L¯​(P)=hL¯​(f⁡(P))h_{f^{*}\overline{L}}(P)=h_{\overline{L}}(f(P)). Finally, recall that if FF is a global field, then the height with respect to a metrized ample line bundle L¯\overline{L} satisfies Northcott’s finiteness property : for any integers dd and BB, there are only finitely many points P∈X⁡(F¯)P\in X(\overline{F}) such that [F(P):F]≤d[F(P):F]\leq d and hL¯​(P)≤Bh_{\overline{L}}(P)\leq B.

[01K4]

Zhang’s inequality

The essential minimum of the height hL¯h_{\overline{L}} is defined as

e⁡(L¯)=sup∅≠U⊂XinfP∈U⁡(F¯)hL¯​(P),e(\overline{L})=\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}\emptyset\neq U\subset X\end{subarray}}\inf_{P\in U(\overline{F})}h_{\overline{L}}(P),

where the supremum runs over non-empty open subsets of XX. If LL is big, then e⁡(L¯)e(\overline{L}) is a real number. Another way to state its definition is the following : for any real number BB, then the set

{P∈X⁡(F¯);hL¯​(P)≤B}\{P\in X(\overline{F})\,;\,h_{\overline{L}}(P)\leq B\}

is Zariski dense if B>e⁡(L¯)B>e(\overline{L}), and is not Zariski dense if B<e⁡(L¯)B<e(\overline{L}).

Assume that L¯\overline{L} is an ample line bundle on XX, equipped with a semi-positive adelic metric. The (geometric/arithmetic) Hilbert-Samuel theorem implies the following inequality

e⁡(L¯)≥(c^1​(L¯)n+1|X)(n+1)​(c1​(L)n|X).e(\overline{L})\geq\frac{({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{n+1}|X)}{(n+1)(c_{1}(L)^{n}|X)}.

(See Zhang [59], as well as [38, 28] for more details in the geometric case). When XX is a curve and FF is a number field, Autissier [3] proved that the inequality holds for any ample line bundle with an admissible adelic metric (see [18]) ; this extends to the geometric case.

[01K5]

3.2. Mahler measures and heights of divisors

In this section, we assume that XX is a projective geometricall integral smooth curve of positive genus gg over FF. For any place v∈M⁡(F)v\in M(F), let XvX_{v} be the corresponding analytic curve.

[01K6]

Let ff be an invertible meromorphic function on XX. Let us view it as an invertible meromorphic section of the trivial metrized line bundle 𝒪X¯\overline{\mathscr{O}_{X}}. Let L¯\overline{L} be any line bundle on XX with an admissible adelic metric. Then,

(c^1​(L¯)​c^1​(𝒪X¯)|X)=0.({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}){\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}_{X}})|X)=0.

Moreover, according to Theorem 1.3 of [19] (see Section 1.3),

(c^1​(L¯)​c^1​(𝒪X¯)|X)=(c^1​(L¯)|div⁡(f))+∑v∈M⁡(F)∫Xvlog⁡|f|v−1​c1​(L¯)v.({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}){\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}_{X}})|X)=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})|\operatorname{div}(f))+\sum_{v\in M(F)}\int_{X_{v}}\log\left|{f}\right|_{v}^{-1}c_{1}(\overline{L})_{v}.

In other words, this furnishes an integral formula for the height (relative to L¯\overline{L}) of any divisor which is rationally equivalent to 00 :

(c^1​(L¯)|div⁡(f))=∑v∈M⁡(F)∫Xvlog⁡|f|v​c1​(L¯)v.({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})|\operatorname{div}(f))=\sum_{v\in M(F)}\int_{X_{v}}\log\left|{f}\right|_{v}c_{1}(\overline{L})_{v}.
[01K7]

Néron–Tate heights

We want to apply this formula to a specific metrized line bundle on XX. The Jacobian JJ of XX is an Abelian variety of dimension gg. We also choose a divisor DD of degree 11 on XX and correspondingly fix an embedding ι\iota of XX into JJ. (For this, we may need to enlarge the ground field FF.) Finally, we let Θ\Theta be the theta divisor of JJ, defined as the image of Xg−1X^{g-1} by the map (x1,…,xg−1)↦∑j=1g−1ι⁡(xj)(x_{1},\dots,x_{g-1})\mapsto\sum_{j=1}^{g-1}\iota(x_{j}).

As described above, the line bundle 𝒪J​(Θ)\mathscr{O}_{J}(\Theta) admits a canonical metrization ; this induces a metrization on its inverse image L=ι∗​𝒪J​(Θ)L=\iota^{*}\mathscr{O}_{J}(\Theta) on XX. The metrized line bundle 𝒪J​(Θ)¯\overline{\mathscr{O}_{J}(\Theta)} gives rise to the (theta) Néron–Tate height on JJ. Consequently, decomposing div⁡(f)=∑nP​P\operatorname{div}(f)=\sum n_{P}P, we obtain

(c^1(L¯)|div(f))=∑nP[F(P):F]h^Θ(ι(P))=∑nP[F(P):F]h^Θ([P−D]),({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})|\operatorname{div}(f))=\sum n_{P}[F(P):F]\widehat{h}_{\Theta}(\iota(P))=\sum n_{P}[F(P):F]\widehat{h}_{\Theta}([P-D]),

where DD is the fixed divisor of degree 11 on XX.

[01K8]

Canonical measures

Since LL has degree gg, the measure c1​(L¯)vc_{1}(\overline{L})_{v} on XvX_{v} has total mass gg ; let us define a measure of total mass 11 on XvX_{v} by

μv=1g​c1​(L¯)v.\mu_{v}=\frac{1}{g}c_{1}(\overline{L})_{v}.

When vv is archimedean, the measure μv\mu_{v} is the Arakelov measure on the Riemann surface Xv​(𝐂)X_{v}({\mathbf{C}}). Let us recall its definition. Consider an orthonormal basis (ω1,…,ωg)(\omega_{1},\dots,\omega_{g}) of H0​(X,ΩX1)H^{0}(X,\Omega^{1}_{X}), i.e., a basis satisfying the relations

∫Xv​(𝐂)ωj∧ωk¯=δj,k={1if j=k ;0otherwise.\int_{X_{v}({\mathbf{C}})}\omega_{j}\wedge\overline{\omega_{k}}=\delta_{j,k}=\begin{cases}1&\text{if $j=k$ ;}\\ 0&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}

Then,

μv=1g​∑j=1gωj∧ωj¯.\mu_{v}=\frac{1}{g}\sum_{j=1}^{g}\omega_{j}\wedge\overline{\omega_{j}}.

Let us now assume that vv is ultrametric. By a theorem of Heinz [40], the metric on the line bundle L¯\overline{L} coincides with the canonical metric defined by Zhang [57] using the reduction graph of the minimal regular model of XX. This allows in particular to compute the measure μv\mu_{v} : the reader will find in [20, 57, 5]) a quite explicit formula for μv\mu_{v}, involving the physical interpretation of the graph as an electric network.

[01K9]

Superelliptic curves

The formulas of this section combine to the following : if div⁡(f)=∑nP​P\operatorname{div}(f)=\sum n_{P}P is a divisor of an invertible meromorphic function on XX,

∑nP​h^Θ​([P−D])=∑v∈M⁡(F)∫Xvlog⁡|f⁡(x)|v​d​μv​(x).\sum n_{P}\widehat{h}_{\Theta}([P-D])=\sum_{v\in M(F)}\int_{X_{v}}\log\left|{f(x)}\right|_{v}\,\mathrm{d}\mu_{v}(x).

As pointed out by R. De Jong [22], the case of superelliptic curves is particularly interesting. Indeed, such curves are presented as a ramified μN\mu_{N}-covering x:X→𝐏1x\colon X\rightarrow{\mathbf{P}}^{1} of the projective line, which is totally ramified over the point at infinity, given by an equation yN=a⁡(x)y^{N}=a(x), where aa is a polynomial of degree m>Nm>N, prime to NN. One has g=12​(N−1)​(m−1)g=\frac{1}{2}(N-1)(m-1).

Let us take for the divisor DD the single point OO over the point at infinity. For each point PP in X⁡(F)X(F), x−x⁡(P)x-x(P) is a rational function on XX which has a single pole of order NN at infinity, and which vanishes along the fiber x−1​(x​(P))x^{-1}(x(P)) of xx. The group of automorphisms of XX acts transitively on this fiber, and respects the metrics, so that all of these points have the same Néron-Tate height. This implies the following formula

h^Θ​(P−O)=1N​∑v∈M⁡(F)∫Xvlog⁡|x−x⁡(P)|v​μv\widehat{h}_{\Theta}(P-O)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{v\in M(F)}\int_{X_{v}}\log\left|{x-x(P)}\right|_{v}\mu_{v}

of [22]. The elliptic Mahler measure, defined by [27, 26] as a Shnirelman integral is therefore a natural integral when viewed on Berkovich spaces.

[01KA]

3.3. An equidistribution theorem

[01KB]

Bogomolov’s conjecture

Let XX be a projective smooth curve of genus g≥2g\geq 2 and let L¯\overline{L} be an ample line bundle on XX with a canonical metric inducing the Néron–Tate height. When FF is a number field, Bogomolov conjectured in [14] that e⁡(L¯)>0e(\overline{L})>0 ; this conjecture has been shown by Ullmo [53]. Its generalization to a subvariety XX of an Abelian variety AA, LL being an ample line bundle on AA with a canonical metric, asserts that e⁡(X,L¯)>0e(X,\overline{L})>0 when XX is not the translate of an abelian subvariety by a torsion point ; it has been shown by Zhang [60].

Since hL¯​(P)=0h_{\overline{L}}(P)=0 for any algebraic point P∈A⁡(F¯)P\in A(\overline{F}) which is a torsion point, these theorems imply in turn a theorem of Raynaud [46, 47] (formerly, a conjecture of Manin and Mumford) that the torsion points lying in a subvariety XX of an abelian variety are not Zariski dense in XX, unless XX is itself the translate of an abelian subvariety by a torsion point.

The analogues of Bogomolov’s and Zhang’s conjecture in the geometric case is still open in general ; see [37, 21] and the references therein for partial results.

[01KC]

The proofs by Ullmo and Zhang of Bogomolov’s conjecture make a fundamental use of an equidistribution principle which had been discovered together with Szpiro [50]. Let us first introduce a terminology : say a sequence (or a net) of algebraic points in a variety XX over a number field is generic if any strict subvariety of XX contains at most finitely terms of the sequence.

Let L¯\overline{L} be a line bundle on XX with a semi-positive adelic metric. The idea of the equidistribution principle is to consider a generic sequence (xj)(x_{j}) such that hL¯​(xj)→e⁡(L¯)h_{\overline{L}}(x_{j})\rightarrow e(\overline{L}), i.e., realizing the equality in Zhang’s inequality, and to use this inequality further, as a variational principle. Let vv be a place of FF ; for any nn, let δ​(xj)v\delta(x_{j})_{v} be the probability measure on XvX_{v} which gives any conjugate of xjx_{j} the same mass, 1/[F(xj):F]1/[F(x_{j}):F]. The equidistribution theorem states that for a generic sequence (xj)(x_{j}), the sequence of measures (δ​(xj)v)(\delta(x_{j})_{v}) on XvX_{v} converges vaguely towards the measure c1​(L¯)vn/(c1​(L)n|X)c_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}_{v}/(c_{1}(L)^{n}|X).

In these papers, the equidistribution property was only investigated at an archimedean place, but the introduction of the measures on Berkovich spaces was motivated by potential equidistribution theorems on those. In [18], I was able to prove general results on curves only. Indeed, unless XX is a curve, I needed an ampleness assumption on the metrized line bundle L¯\overline{L} in order to apply Zhang’s inequality to slight variations of it. This requirement has been removed by a paper of Yuan [55] who could understand arithmetic volumes beyond the ample case. Yuan’s proof is an arithmetic analogue of an inequality of Siu [49] which Faber [28] and Gubler [38] used to prove the geometric case of the equidistribution theorem.

In [19], we considered more general variations of the metrized line bundles. The discussion in that article was restricted to the arithmetic case but the arguments extend to the geometric case.

[01KD]
Theorem 3.3.1.

Let XX be a projective variety of dimension nn over FF. Let L¯\overline{L} be an ample line bundle on XX with a semi-positive adelic metric such that e⁡(L¯)=(c^1​(L¯)n+1|X)=0e(\overline{L})=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{n+1}|X)=0. Let (xj)(x_{j}) be a generic sequence of algebraic point in XX such that hL¯​(xj)→0h_{\overline{L}}(x_{j})\rightarrow 0. Then, for any line bundle M¯\overline{M} on XX with an admissible adelic metric,

limj→∞hM¯​(xj)=(c^1​(L¯)n​c^1​(M¯)|X)(c1​(L)n|X).\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}h_{\overline{M}}(x_{j})=\frac{({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{n}{\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{M})|X)}{(c_{1}(L)^{n}|X)}.

The particular case stated above is equivalent to loc.cit., Lemma 6.1, as one can see by by multiplying the metric on L¯\overline{L} by an adequate constant at some place of FF. Taking for MM the trivial line bundle 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}, with an admissible metric, one recovers the equidistribution theorems of Yuan, Faber and Gubler.

[01KE]

3.4. Lower bounds for heights and the Hodge index theorem

In the final section, we use the Hodge index theorem in Arakelov geometry to establish positive lower bounds for heights on curves. The results are inspired by recent papers [4, 45], and the proofs are borrowed from [44]. After they were conceived, I received the preprint [54] which proves a similar result in any dimension.

[01KF]

The arithmetic Hodge index theorem

Let XX be a projective smooth curve over FF, let L¯\overline{L} be a line bundle of degree 00 on XX, with an admissible metric. Let L¯0\overline{L}_{0} be the same line bundle with the canonical metric : if XX has genus ≥1\geq 1, this is the metric induced by an embedding of XX into its Jacobian, if XX is of genus 00, then L¯0\overline{L}_{0} is the trivial metrized line bundle. The metrized line bundle L¯⊗L¯0−1\overline{L}\otimes\overline{L}_{0}^{-1} is the trivial line bundle, together with an admissible metric which is given by a function fvf_{v} at the place vv of FF.

A formula of Faltings–Hriljac expresses (c^1​(L¯0)2|X)({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}_{0})^{2}|X) as twice minus the Néron–Tate height of the point of JJ corresponding to LL. More generally,

(c^1​(L¯)2|X)=−2​h^NT​([L])+∑v∈M⁡(F)𝒟⁡(fv),({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{2}|X)=-2\widehat{h}_{\mathrm{NT}}([L])+\sum_{v\in M(F)}\mathscr{D}(f_{v}),

where for each v∈M⁡(F)v\in M(F),

𝒟⁡(fv)=∫Xvfv​ddc⁡(fv)\mathscr{D}(f_{v})=\int_{X_{v}}f_{v}\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}(f_{v})

is the Dirichlet energy of fvf_{v}. This is a non positive quadratic form which vanishes if and only if fvf_{v} is constant. For more details, I refer to [15] at archimedean places and [51] at ultrametric places. (When XX has genus 00, L≃𝒪XL\simeq\mathscr{O}_{X} and the term h^NT​([L])\widehat{h}_{\mathrm{NT}}([L]) has to be interpreted as 00.)

As a consequence, (c^1​(L¯)2|X)≤0({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{2}|X)\leq 0. Let us analyse the case of equality. Since they are nonpositive, all terms in the formula above have to vanish. Consequently, [L][L] is a torsion point in the Jacobian, and all functions fvf_{v} are constant. We will say that some power of L¯\overline{L} is constant

[01KG]
Proposition 3.4.1.

Let FF be a number field, let XX be a projective smooth curve over FF. Let L¯\overline{L} and M¯\overline{M} be two admissible metrized line bundles over XX. Assume that deg⁡(L)=ℓ\deg(L)=\ell, deg⁡(M)=m\deg(M)=m are positive. and (c^1​(L¯)2|X)=(c^1​(M¯)2|X)=0({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{2}|X)=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{M})^{2}|X)=0. Then, the essential minimum of L¯⊗M¯\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M} satisfies the following inequality :

e⁡(L¯⊗M¯)≥−12​(ℓ+m)​ℓ​m​(c^1​(m​L¯−ℓ​M¯)2|X).e(\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M})\geq-\frac{1}{2(\ell+m)\ell m}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(m\overline{L}-\ell\overline{M})^{2}|X).

Moreover, the right hand side of this inequality is always nonnegative and vanishes if and only if some power of L¯m⊗M¯−ℓ\overline{L}^{m}\otimes\overline{M}^{-\ell} is constant.

[01KH]
Démonstration.

By Zhang’s inequality (see [18]), one has

e⁡(L¯+M¯)≥12​(ℓ+m)​(c^1​(L¯+M¯)2|X).e(\overline{L}+\overline{M})\geq\frac{1}{2(\ell+m)}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}+\overline{M})^{2}|X).

Since (c^1​(L¯)2|X)=(c^1​(M¯)2|X)=0({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L})^{2}|X)=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{M})^{2}|X)=0 by assumption, we observe that

(c^1​(L¯+M¯)2|X)=2​(c^1​(L¯)​c^1​(M¯)|X)=−1ℓ​m​(c^1​(m​L¯−ℓ​M¯)2|X).({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}+\overline{M})^{2}|X)=2({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}){\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{M})|X)=-\frac{1}{\ell m}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(m\overline{L}-\ell\overline{M})^{2}|X).

This shows the first claim.

Since m​LmL and ℓ​M\ell M have the same degree, viz. ℓ​m\ell m, the rest of the proposition follows from the negativity properties of the height recalled above. ∎

[01KI]

Assume that (xn)(x_{n}) is a generic sequence of points such that hL¯​(xn)h_{\overline{L}}(x_{n}) tends to 00. By Theorem 3.3.1, hM¯​(xn)h_{\overline{M}}(x_{n}) converges to

1ℓ​(c^1​(L¯)​c^1​(M¯)|X).\frac{1}{\ell}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}){\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{M})|X). (3.4.2)

Except when both lower bounds are zero, this is strictly bigger than the lower bound of the proposition, which is equal to

1ℓ+m​(c^1​(L¯)​c^1​(M¯)|X).\frac{1}{\ell+m}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{L}){\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{M})|X).

In other words, the greedy obvious method to find points of small height for L¯+M¯\overline{L}+\overline{M} that first minimizes the height hL¯h_{\overline{L}}, only works up to the factor (ℓ+m)/ℓ>1(\ell+m)/\ell>1.

[01KJ]

An example

Let us give some explicit formulae for the lower-bound above, in some particular cases. We consider X=𝐏1X=\mathbf{P}^{1} over 𝐐{\mathbf{Q}} and the metrized line bundle 𝒪⁡(1)¯W\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{W}}. Let φ\varphi and ψ\psi be polynomials with integral coefficients, of degrees ℓ\ell and mm respectively ; let us pose L¯=φ∗​𝒪⁡(1)¯W\overline{L}=\varphi^{*}\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{W}}, M¯=ψ∗​𝒪⁡(1)¯W\overline{M}=\psi^{*}\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\mathrm{W}}. The line bundle L¯m⊗L¯−ℓ\overline{L}^{m}\otimes\overline{L}^{-\ell} is trivial and its metric is given by a family of functions (fv)(f_{v}). Since φ\varphi and ψ\psi have integral coefficients, fv=0f_{v}=0 at all finite places. Moreover, since gL¯​(x)=log⁡max⁡(|φ⁡(x)|​,1)g_{\overline{L}}(x)=\log\max(\left|{\varphi(x)}\right|,1) and gM¯​(x)=log⁡max⁡(|ψ⁡(x)|​,1)g_{\overline{M}}(x)=\log\max(\left|{\psi(x)}\right|,1) are the Green functions for the divisors ℓ⁡[∞]\ell[\infty] and m⁡[∞]m[\infty] respectively, one has

f∞​(x)=log⁡max⁡(|φ⁡(x)|m​,1)max⁡(|ψ⁡(x)|ℓ​,1).f_{\infty}(x)=\log\frac{\max(\left|{\varphi(x)}\right|^{m},1)}{\max(\left|{\psi(x)}\right|^{\ell},1)}.

Then,

ddc⁡f∞=m2​π​d​Arg⁡φ⁡(x)∧δ|φ⁡(x)|=1−ℓ2​π​d​Arg⁡ψ⁡(x)∧δ|ψ⁡(x)|=1\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}f_{\infty}=\frac{m}{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\operatorname{Arg}\varphi(x)\wedge\delta_{\left|{\varphi(x)}\right|=1}-\frac{\ell}{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\operatorname{Arg}\psi(x)\wedge\delta_{\left|{\psi(x)}\right|=1}

From this, we deduce that

𝒟⁡(f∞)\displaystyle\mathscr{D}(f_{\infty}) =ℓ​m2​π​(∫|ψ⁡(x)|=1log⁡max⁡(|φ⁡(x)|​,1)​d​Arg⁡ψ⁡(x)CLOSE\displaystyle=\frac{\ell m}{2\pi}\left(\int_{\left|{\psi(x)}\right|=1}\log\max(\left|{\varphi(x)}\right|,1)\mathrm{d}\operatorname{Arg}\psi(x)\right.
+∫|φ⁡(x)|=1logmax(|ψ(x)|,1)dArgφ(x)),\displaystyle\qquad{}\left.+\int_{\left|{\varphi(x)}\right|=1}\log\max(\left|{\psi(x)}\right|,1)\mathrm{d}\operatorname{Arg}\varphi(x)\right),

the two others terms vanishing. In fact, Stokes’s formula implies that the two terms within the parentheses in the previous formula are equal and we have

𝒟⁡(f∞)=ℓ​mπ​∫|φ⁡(x)|=1log⁡max⁡(|ψ⁡(x)​,1|)​d​Arg⁡φ⁡(x).\mathscr{D}(f_{\infty})=\frac{\ell m}{\pi}\int_{\left|{\varphi(x)}\right|=1}\log\max(\left|{\psi(x),1}\right|)\mathrm{d}\operatorname{Arg}\varphi(x).

The simplest case to study is for φ⁡(x)=xℓ\varphi(x)=x^{\ell}. Then,

𝒟⁡(f∞)=ℓ​mπ​∫02​πlog⁡max⁡(|ψ⁡(ei​θ)|​,1)​𝑑θ\mathscr{D}(f_{\infty})=\frac{\ell m}{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\log\max(\left|{\psi(e^{i\theta})}\right|,1)\,\mathrm{d}\theta

is 2​ℓ​m2\ell m times the logarithm of the variant M+​(ψ)\mathrm{M}^{+}(\psi) of the Mahler measure of ψ\psi :

M+​(ψ)=exp⁡(12​π​∫02​πlog⁡max⁡(|ψ⁡(ei​θ)|​,1)​𝑑θ).\mathrm{M}^{+}(\psi)=\exp\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\log\max(\left|{\psi(e^{i\theta})}\right|,1)\,\mathrm{d}\theta\right).

In fact, Jensen’s formula implies that

M+​(ψ)=exp⁡(1(2​π)2​∫02​πlog⁡|ψ⁡(ei​θ1)−ei​θ2|​d​θ1​d​θ2)\mathrm{M}^{+}(\psi)=\exp\left(\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\log\left|{\psi(e^{i\theta_{1}})-e^{i\theta_{2}}}\right|\,\mathrm{d}\theta_{1}\mathrm{d}\theta_{2}\right)

is the Mahler measure M⁡(ψ⁡(x)−y)\mathrm{M}(\psi(x)-y) of the 2-variables polynomial ψ⁡(x)−y\psi(x)-y.

Consequently, except for finitely many exceptions, any algebraic point x∈𝐏1​(𝐐¯)x\in{\mathbf{P}}^{1}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}) satisfies

ℓ​h​(x)+h⁡(ψ⁡(x))≥1ℓ+m​log⁡M⁡(ψ⁡(x)−y).\ell h(x)+h(\psi(x))\geq\frac{1}{\ell+m}\log\mathrm{M}(\psi(x)-y).

For ℓ=1\ell=1 and ψ⁡(x)=1−x\psi(x)=1-x, we obtain that up to finitely many exceptions,

h⁡(x)+h⁡(1−x)≥12​log⁡M⁡(1−x−y)≈0.161538,h(x)+h(1-x)\geq\frac{1}{2}\log\mathrm{M}(1-x-y)\approx 0.161538,

In that particular case, Zagier [56] has proved a much more precise result : except for 5 explicit points in 𝐏1{\mathbf{P}}^{1},

h⁡(x)+h⁡(1−x)≥12​log⁡(1+52)≈0.240606.h(x)+h(1-x)\geq\frac{1}{2}\log(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2})\approx 0.240606.

Observe also that if (xj)(x_{j}) is a sequence of points such that h⁡(xj)→0h(x_{j})\rightarrow 0, Theorem 3.3.1 implies that h⁡(1−x)→log⁡M⁡(1−x−y)≈0.323076h(1-x)\rightarrow\log\mathrm{M}(1-x-y)\approx 0.323076.

[01KK]

Application to dynamical systems

Let us assume that L¯\overline{L} and M¯\overline{M} are the metrized line bundles 𝒪⁡(1)¯φ\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi} and 𝒪⁡(1)¯ψ\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\psi} attached to rational functions φ\varphi and ψ\psi of degres dd and ee respectively, with d≥2d\geq 2 and e≥2e\geq 2. Let us write hφh_{\varphi} and hψh_{\psi} for the height relative to these metrized line bundles ; we call them the canonical heights. The isometry φ∗​𝒪⁡(1)¯φ≃𝒪⁡(1)¯φd\varphi^{*}\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi}\simeq\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi}^{d} and the functorial properties of the height imply that for any x∈𝐏1​(F¯)x\in{\mathbf{P}}^{1}(\overline{F}), hφ​(φ⁡(x))=d​hφ​(x)h_{\varphi}(\varphi(x))=dh_{\varphi}(x) and hψ​(ψ⁡(x))=e​hψ​(x)h_{\psi}(\psi(x))=eh_{\psi}(x). In particular, preperiodic points for φ\varphi (i.e., points with finite forward orbit) satisfy hφ​(x)=0h_{\varphi}(x)=0. Moreover,

d2​(c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯φ)2|𝐏1)=(c^1​(φ∗​𝒪⁡(1)¯φ)2|𝐏1)=(c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯φ)2|φ∗​𝐏1)=d⁡(c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯φ)2|𝐏1),d^{2}({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi})^{2}|{\mathbf{P}}^{1})=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\varphi^{*}\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi})^{2}|{\mathbf{P}}^{1})=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi})^{2}|\varphi_{*}{\mathbf{P}}^{1})=d({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi})^{2}|{\mathbf{P}}^{1}),

hence (c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯φ)2|𝐏1)=0({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi})^{2}|{\mathbf{P}}^{1})=0 since d≠0,1d\neq 0,1. Similarly, preperiodic points of ψ\psi satisfy hψ​(x)=0h_{\psi}(x)=0, and (c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯ψ)2|𝐏1)=0({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\psi})^{2}|{\mathbf{P}}^{1})=0.

In the arithmetic case, or over function fields over a finit field, Northcott’s finiteness theorem implies easily that points xx such that hφ​(x)=0h_{\varphi}(x)=0 are preperiodic for φ\varphi, and similarly for ψ\psi. This is not true in general : for example, if φ\varphi is constant, all constant points have height 00 but only countably many of them are preperiodic ; more generally isotrivial rational functions, i.e. rational functions which are constant after conjugacy by an automorphism of 𝐏1{\mathbf{P}}^{1} will furnish counterexamples. The best known result is restricted to (non-isotrivial) polynomials : by Benedetto [10], a point of height zero is then preperiodic ; the proof relies on a detailed analysis of the Julia set.

Let us show how Prop. 3.4.1 implies results of Baker and DeMarco [4], and of Petsche, Szpiro and Tucker [45].

[01KL]
Proposition 3.4.3.

In the geometric case, let us assume that ψ\psi is non-isotrivial ; if FF is a function field over an infinite field, let us moreover assume that it is a polynomial. The following are then equivalent :

  1. (1)

    the heights hφh_{\varphi} and hψh_{\psi} coincide ;

  2. (2)

    φ\varphi and ψ\psi have infinitely many common preperiodic points ;

  3. (3)

    the essential lowest bound of hφ+hψh_{\varphi}+h_{\psi} is zero ;

  4. (4)

    the equilibrium measures μφ\mu_{\varphi} and μψ\mu_{\psi} are equal at all places ;

  5. (5)

    the metrized line bundles 𝒪​(1)φ\mathscr{O}(1)_{\varphi} and 𝒪​(1)ψ\mathscr{O}(1)_{\psi} are isomorphic, up to a family of constants (cv)(c_{v}) such that ∏cv=1\prod c_{v}=1.

[01KM]
Démonstration.

The arguments are more or less formal from Prop. 3.4.1 ; let us detail them anyway for the sake of the reader.

1)⇒\Rightarrow2). Like any rational map, φ\varphi has infinitely many preperiodic points in 𝐏1​(F¯){\mathbf{P}}^{1}(\overline{F}), and they satisfy hφ​(x)=0h_{\varphi}(x)=0. If hφ=hψh_{\varphi}=h_{\psi}, then they also satisfy hψ​(x)=0h_{\psi}(x)=0. Under the assumptions of the proposition, they are preperiodic for ψ\psi.

2)⇒\Rightarrow3) is obvious, for common preperiodic points of φ\varphi and ψ\psi satisfy hφ​(x)+hψ​(x)=0h_{\varphi}(x)+h_{\psi}(x)=0/.

3)⇒\Rightarrow4). By Prop. 3.4.1, the line bundle 𝒪​(1)φ−𝒪​(1)ψ\mathscr{O}(1)_{\varphi}-\mathscr{O}(1)_{\psi} has the constant metric at all places. In particular, the local measures μφ\mu_{\varphi} and μψ\mu_{\psi} coincide at all places.

4)⇒\Rightarrow5). Let ss be a non zero global section of 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1). For any place vv, fv=log⁡(‖s‖v,φ/‖s‖v,ψ)f_{v}=\log(\left\|{s}\right\|_{v,\varphi}/\left\|{s}\right\|_{v,\psi}) ; one has μv,ψ−μv,φ=ddc⁡fv\mu_{v,\psi}-\mu_{v,\varphi}=\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}f_{v}, hence ddc⁡fv=0\mathop{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^{c}}f_{v}=0. By the maximum principle of [51], fvf_{v} is constant. Moreover,

0=(c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯ψ)2|X)=(c^1​(𝒪⁡(1)¯φ)2|X)+∑vlog⁡cv=∑vlog⁡cv.0=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\psi})^{2}|X)=({\widehat{c}}_{1}(\overline{\mathscr{O}(1)}_{\varphi})^{2}|X)+\sum_{v}\log c_{v}=\sum_{v}\log c_{v}.

5)⇒\Rightarrow1). This is obvious. ∎

[01KN]

Remarks

1) The restrictive hypotheses on ψ\psi have only been used to establish the implication 1)⇒\Rightarrow2).

2) Of course, many other results can be established by the same reasoning, in particular the number field case of Theorem 1.1 of [4]. Let us also recall that the support of the equilibrium measure μφ\mu_{\varphi} is the Julia set J⁡(φ)J(\varphi). If J⁡(φ)≠J⁡(ψ)J(\varphi)\neq J(\psi) at some place, then none of the assertions of Prop. 3.4.3 can possibly hold.

3) The main result of [54] is that a variant of the implication (4)⇒\Rightarrow(5) also holds in a more general setting : two semi-positive metrics on a line bundle which define the same measure at a place vv differ by multiplication by a constant. The given proof works for curves.

4) We also recall that an implication similar to (1)⇒\Rightarrow(5) holds for general metrized line bundles on arithmetic varieties, as proven by [1] : if L¯\overline{L} and M¯\overline{M} are line bundles with adelic metrics such that hL¯=hM¯h_{\overline{L}}=h_{\overline{M}}, then L¯⊗M¯−1\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M}^{-1} is torsion in the Arakelov Picard group Pic¯​(X)\overline{\operatorname{Pic}}(X) : the heights determine the metrics.

Références

  • [1] A. Agboola & G. Pappas – « Line bundles, rational points and ideal classes », Math. Res. Letters 7 (2000), p. 709–717.
  • [2] S. Ju. Arakelov – « Intersection theory of divisors on an arithmetic surface », Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 38 (1974), no. 6, p. 1167–1180.
  • [3] P. Autissier – « Points entiers sur les surfaces arithmétiques », J. reine angew. Math. 531 (2001), p. 201–235.
  • [4] M. Baker & L. DeMarco – « Preperiodic points and unlikely intersections », arXiv :0911.0918, 2009.
  • [5] M. Baker & R. Rumely – « Harmonic analysis on metrized graphs », Canad. J. Math. 59 (2007), no. 2, p. 225–275.
  • [6] by same author, Potential theory and dynamics on the Berkovich projective line, Surveys and Mathematical Monographs, vol. 159, Amer. Math. Soc., 2010.
  • [7] E. Bedford – « Survey of pluri-potential theory », in Several complex variables (Stockholm, 1987/1988), Math. Notes, no. 38, Princeton Univ. Press, 1993.
  • [8] E. Bedford & B. Taylor – « A new capacity for plurisubharmonic functions », Acta Math. 149 (1982), p. 1–40.
  • [9] R. L. Benedetto – « Fatou components in pp-adic dynamics », PhD Thesis. (1998), p. 1–98.
  • [10] by same author, « Heights and preperiodic points of polynomials over function fields », Int. Math. Res. Not. (2005), no. 62, p. 3855–3866.
  • [11] V. G. Berkovich – Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 33, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990.
  • [12] by same author, « Smooth pp-adic analytic spaces are locally contractible », Invent. Math. 137 (1999), no. 1, p. 1–84.
  • [13] S. Bloch, H. Gillet & C. Soulé – « Non-archimedean Arakelov theory », J. Algebraic Geometry 4 (1995), p. 427–485.
  • [14] F. A. Bogomolov – « Points of finte order on abelian varieties », Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Ser. Mat. 44 (1980), no. 4, p. 782–804, 973.
  • [15] J.-B. Bost – « Potential theory and Lefschetz theorems for arithmetic surfaces », Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 32 (1999), no. 2, p. 241–312.
  • [16] G. Call & J. Silverman – « Canonical heights on varieties with morphisms », Compositio Math. 89 (1993), p. 163–205.
  • [17] A. Chambert-Loir – « Points de petite hauteur sur les variétés semi-abéliennes », Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 33 (2000), no. 6, p. 789–821.
  • [18] by same author, « Mesures et équidistribution sur des espaces de Berkovich », J. reine angew. Math. 595 (2006), p. 215–235, math.NT/0304023.
  • [19] A. Chambert-Loir & A. Thuillier – « Mesures de Mahler et équidistribution logarithmique », Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 59 (2009), no. 3, p. 977–1014.
  • [20] T. Chinburg & R. Rumely – « The capacity pairing », J. reine angew. Math. 434 (1993), p. 1–44.
  • [21] Z. Cinkir – « Zhang’s conjecture and the effective bogomolov conjecture over function fields », arXiv :0901.3945, 2009.
  • [22] R. De Jong – « Canonical height and logarithmic equidistribution on superelliptic curves », arXiv :0911.1271, 2009.
  • [23] P. Deligne – « Le déterminant de la cohomologie », in Current trends in arithmetical algebraic geometry (Arcata, Calif., 1985), Contemp. Math., vol. 67, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1987, p. 93–177.
  • [24] J.-P. Demailly – « Mesures de Monge-Ampère et caractérisation géométrique des variétés algébriques affines », Mém. Soc. Math. France (1985), no. 19, p. 124.
  • [25] by same author, « Monge-Ampère operators, Lelong numbers and intersection theory », in Complex analysis and geometry, Univ. Ser. Math., Plenum, New York, 1993, p. 115–193.
  • [26] G. R. Everest – « On the elliptic analogue of Jensen’s formula », J. London Math. Soc. (2) 59 (1999), no. 1, p. 21–36.
  • [27] G. R. Everest & B. N. Fhlathúin – « The elliptic Mahler measure », Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 120 (1996), no. 1, p. 13–25.
  • [28] X. W. C. Faber – « Equidistribution of dynamically small subvarieties over the function field of a curve », Acta Arith. 137 (2009), no. 4, p. 345–389.
  • [29] G. Faltings – « Calculus on arithmetic surfaces », Ann. of Math. (2) 119 (1984), no. 2, p. 387–424.
  • [30] C. Favre & M. Jonsson – The valuative tree, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1853, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
  • [31] C. Favre & J. Rivera-Letelier – « Théorie ergodique des fractions rationnelles sur un corps ultramétrique », 2007, arXiv:0709.0092.
  • [32] H. Gillet & C. Soulé – « Arithmetic intersection theory », Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 72 (1990), p. 94–174.
  • [33] W. Gubler – « Heights of subvarieties over MM-fields », in Arithmetic geometry (F. Catanese, éd.), Symp. Math., vol. 37, 1997, p. 190–227.
  • [34] by same author, « Local heights of subvarieties over non-archimedean fields », J. reine angew. Math. 498 (1998), p. 61–113.
  • [35] by same author, « Local and canonical heights of subvarieties », Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa 2 (2003), no. 4, p. 711–760.
  • [36] by same author, « The Bogomolov conjecture for totally degenerate abelian varieties », Invent. Math. 169 (2007), no. 2, p. 377–400.
  • [37] by same author, « Tropical varieties for non-Archimedean analytic spaces », Invent. Math. 169 (2007), no. 2, p. 321–376.
  • [38] by same author, « Equidistribution over function fields », Manuscripta Math. 127 (2008), no. 4, p. 485–510.
  • [39] by same author, « Non-archimedean canonical measures on abelian varieties », Compositio Math. (to appear), arXiv :0801.4503.
  • [40] N. Heinz – « Admissible metrics for line bundles on curves and abelian varieties over non-Archimedean local fields », Arch. Math. (Basel) 82 (2004), no. 2, p. 128–139.
  • [41] J. H. Hubbard & P. Papadopol – « Superattractive fixed points in 𝐂n{\bf C}^{n} », Indiana Univ. Math. J. 43 (1994), no. 1, p. 321–365.
  • [42] S. Kawaguchi & J. H. Silverman – « Nonarchimedean Green functions and dynamics on projective space », Math. Z. 262 (2009), no. 1, p. 173–197.
  • [43] V. Maillot – « Géométrie d’Arakelov des variétés toriques et fibrés en droites intégrables », Mém. Soc. Math. France (2000), no. 80, p. 129.
  • [44] A. Mimar – « On the preperiodic points of an endomorphism of 𝐏1×𝐏1\mathbf{P}^{1}\times\mathbf{P}^{1} », Phd thesis, Columbia University, 1997.
  • [45] C. Petsche, L. Szpiro & T. J. Tucker – « A dynamical pairing between two rational maps », arXiv :0911.1875, 2009.
  • [46] M. Raynaud – « Courbes sur une variété abélienne et points de torsion », Invent. Math. 71 (1983), no. 1, p. 207–233.
  • [47] by same author, « Sous-variétés d’une variété abélienne et points de torsion », in Arithmetic and Geometry. Papers dedicated to I.R. Shafarevich (M. Artin & J. Tate, éds.), Progr. Math., no. 35, Birkhäuser, 1983, p. 327–352.
  • [48] J. Rivera-Letelier – « Dynamique des fonctions rationnelles sur des corps locaux », Astérisque (2003), no. 287, p. xv, 147–230, Geometric methods in dynamics. II.
  • [49] Y. T. Siu – « An effective Matsusaka big theorem », Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 43 (1993), no. 5, p. 1387–1405.
  • [50] L. Szpiro, E. Ullmo & S.-W. Zhang – « Équidistribution des petits points », Invent. Math. 127 (1997), p. 337–348.
  • [51] A. Thuillier – « Théorie du potentiel sur les courbes en géométrie non archimédienne. applications à la théorie d’arakelov », Thèse, Université de Rennes 1, 2005.
  • [52] T. Ueda – « Fatou sets in complex dynamics on projective spaces », J. Math. Soc. Japan 46 (1994), no. 3, p. 545–555.
  • [53] E. Ullmo – « Positivité et discrétion des points algébriques des courbes », Ann. of Math. 147 (1998), no. 1, p. 167–179.
  • [54] X. Yuan & S.-W. Zhang – « Calabi theorem and algebraic dynamics », http://www.math.columbia.edu/~szhang/papers/calabi%20and%20semigroup.pd%f, 2009.
  • [55] X. Yuan – « Big line bundles on arithmetic varieties », Invent. Math. 173 (2008), p. 603–649, arXiv:math.NT/0612424.
  • [56] D. Zagier – « Algebraic numbers close to both 00 and 11 », Math. Comp. 61 (1993), no. 203, p. 485–491.
  • [57] S.-W. Zhang – « Admissible pairing on a curve », Invent. Math. 112 (1993), no. 1, p. 171–193.
  • [58] by same author, « Positive line bundles on arithmetic varieties », J. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1995), p. 187–221.
  • [59] by same author, « Small points and adelic metrics », J. Algebraic Geometry 4 (1995), p. 281–300.
  • [60] by same author, « Equidistribution of small points on abelian varieties », Ann. of Math. 147 (1998), no. 1, p. 159–165.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.