ScalingStacks

Non-Archimedean metric extension for semipositive line bundles

Fang, Yanbo

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.

Non-Archimedean metric extension for semipositive line bundles

Yanbo FANG Address: IMJ-PRG, Université Paris Diderot
75205 PARIS Cedex 13
France
Email address: yanbo.fang@imj-prg.fr
Abstract.

For a projective variety XX defined over a non-Archimedean complete non-trivially valued field kk, and a semipositive metrized line bundle (L,ϕ)(L,\phi) over it, we establish a metric extension result for sections of L⊗nL^{\otimes n} from a sub-variety YY to XX. We form normed section algebras from (L,ϕ)(L,\phi) and study their Berkovich spectra. To compare the supremum algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕY\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{Y}} and the quotient algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} on the restricted section algebra V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}), two different methods are used: one exploits the holomorphic convexity of the spectrum, following an argument of Grauert; another relies on finiteness properties of affinoid algebra norms.

[00MF]

1. Introduction

Let kk be a field, XX be a projective scheme over Spec⁡k\spec k and LL be an ample invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module. Let YY be a closed subscheme of XX and ℐY\mathscr{I}_{Y} be the corresponding ideal sheaf. Recall that Serre’s vanishing theorem (see for example [EGA, Théorème III.2.2.1]) asserts that there exists an integer nYn_{Y} such that

H1​(X,ℐY⊗L⊗n)={0}H^{1}(X,\mathscr{I}_{Y}\otimes L^{\otimes n})=\{0\}

for any integer n⩾nYn\geqslant n_{Y}. Therefore the exact sequence of coherent 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules

𝟎\textstyle{\boldsymbol{0}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ℐY⊗L⊗n\textstyle{\mathscr{I}_{Y}\otimes L^{\otimes n}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}L⊗n\textstyle{L^{\otimes n}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}(𝒪X/ℐY)⊗L⊗n\textstyle{(\mathscr{O}_{X}/\mathscr{I}_{Y})\otimes L^{\otimes n}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝟎\textstyle{\boldsymbol{0}}

induces a surjective kk-linear map from H0​(X,L⊗n)H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}) to H0​(X,(𝒪X/ℐY)⊗L⊗n)H^{0}(X,(\mathscr{O}_{X}/\mathscr{I}_{Y})\otimes L^{\otimes n}), which coincides with the restriction map H0​(X,L⊗n)→H0​(Y,L|Y⊗n)H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n})\rightarrow H^{0}(Y,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n}) if we identify H0​(Y,L|Y⊗n)H^{0}(Y,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n}) with H0​(X,(𝒪X/ℐY)⊗L⊗n)H^{0}(X,(\mathscr{O}_{X}/\mathscr{I}_{Y})\otimes L^{\otimes n}). In other words, for any integer n⩾nYn\geqslant n_{Y}, any global section of L|Y⊗nL|_{Y}^{\otimes n} extends to a global section of L⊗nL^{\otimes n}. We denote by H0​(Y,LX|Y⊗n)H^{0}(Y,L_{X|Y}^{\otimes n}) the image vector space of restriction map

H0​(Y,LX|Y⊗n):=Image⁡(H0​(X,L⊗n)⟶H0​(Y,L|Y⊗n)).H^{0}(Y,L_{X|Y}^{\otimes n}):=\mathrm{Image}(H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n})\longrightarrow H^{0}(Y,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n})).

Assume that kk is equipped with a complete absolute value |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert and that LL is equipped with a continuous metric ϕ=(|⋅|ϕ​(x))x∈Xan\phi=(\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\phi}(x))_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}, which induces by tensor power a continuous metric n​ϕn\phi on each L⊗nL^{\otimes n}, n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}. Suppose in addition that the schemes XX and YY are integral. Then the space of global sections H0​(X,L⊗n)H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}) is naturally equipped with a supremum norm ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi} associated with n​ϕn\phi, defined as follows

∀s∈H0​(X,L⊗n),∥s∥n​ϕ:=supx∈Xan|s⁡(x)|n​ϕ​(x).\forall\,s\in H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}),\quad\lVert s\rVert_{n\phi}:=\sup_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}|s(x)|_{n\phi}(x).

We denote by ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y} the restriction of the metric ϕ\phi on L|YL|_{Y}. A supremum norm ∥⋅∥n​ϕ|Y\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}} on H0​(Y,L|Y⊗n)H^{0}(Y,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n}) is defined in a similar way. The metric extension problem compares the norm ∥⋅∥n​ϕ|Y\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}} to the quotient norm (denoted by ∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y}) of ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi} induced by the restriction map H0​(X,L⊗n)→H0​(X,L|Y⊗n)H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n})\rightarrow H^{0}(X,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n}) with n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, n⩾nYn\geqslant n_{Y}. Note that by definition we always have ∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y⩾∥⋅∥n​ϕ|Y\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y}\geqslant\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}} on H0​(Y,LX|Y⊗n)H^{0}(Y,L_{X|Y}^{\otimes n}). Therefore the metric extension problem can be interpreted as finding a uniform upper bound for

(1) infs∈H0​(X,L⊗n)s|Y=t∥s∥n​ϕ∥t∥n​ϕ|Y,t∈H0​(Y,L|Y⊗n)∖{0}.\inf_{\begin{subarray}{c}s\in H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n})\\ s|_{Y}=t\end{subarray}}\frac{\lVert s\rVert_{n\phi}}{\lVert t\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}},\quad t\in H^{0}(Y,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n})\setminus\{0\}.

In the complex analytic setting, namely when (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) is ℂ\mathbb{C} equipped with the usual absolute value, the metric extension problem has been studied by different authors using various approaches. Assume that the metric ϕ\phi is strictly positive (namely, for any local section ss of LL over an open subscheme UU of XX, the function (x∈Uan)↦log⁡|s⁡(x)|ϕ(x\in U^{\mathrm{an}})\mapsto\log|s(x)|_{\phi} is strongly plurisubharmonic). In the case where XX is smooth, by Gromov’s theorem we can compare the sup norm ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi} to the L2L^{2} norm ∥⋅∥n​ϕ,L2\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,L^{2}} defined as

∀s∈H0​(X,L⊗n),∥s∥n​ϕ,L2:=(∫Xan|s⁡(x)|n​ϕ​(x)​𝑑V)12,\forall\,s\in H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}),\quad\lVert s\rVert_{n\phi,L^{2}}:=\bigg(\int_{X^{\mathrm{an}}}|s(x)|_{n\phi}(x)\,\mathrm{d}V\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}},

where d​V\mathrm{d}V is a probability measure on XanX^{\mathrm{an}} which is locally equivalent with Lebesgue measure with a smooth Radon-Nikodym density. Therefore, in the case where XX and YY are both smooth, we can apply the Andreotti-Vesentini-Hömander’s L2L^{2} technique or L2L^{2}-extension theorems of Ohsawa-Takegoshi type [OT87] and get an inequality (see for example [Tia90] and [Man93])

(2) ∥⋅∥n​ϕ|Y⩾C′​(ϕ,Y,X)​n−d​∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y,n⩾nY,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}\geqslant C^{\prime}(\phi,Y,X)n^{-d}\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y},\qquad n\geqslant n_{Y},

where C′​(ϕ,Y,X)C^{\prime}(\phi,Y,X) is a positive constant. Alternatively, one can apply Grauert’s argument of pseudo-convexity of the (open) dual unit disc bundle of (L,ϕ)(L,\phi) to produce, for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, a slightly weaker inequality of the form

(3) ∥⋅∥n​ϕ|Y⩾Cϵ​(ϕ,Y,X)​e−ϵ​n​∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y,n⩾nY,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}\geqslant C_{\epsilon}(\phi,Y,X)\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon n}\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y},\qquad n\geqslant n_{Y},

where Cϵ​(ϕ,Y,X)C_{\epsilon}(\phi,Y,X) are is a positive constant depending on ϵ\epsilon. We refer to [Bos01] and [Ran06] for more details.

Note that, to obtain an estimate of the form (3) for any closed point YY, the semipositivity of the metric ϕ\phi is actually necessary. In fact, for sufficiently positive integer nn, the ample invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module determines a closed embedding ιn:X→ℙ⁡(H0​(X,L⊗n))\iota_{n}:X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}(H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n})). The norm ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi} on H0​(X,L⊗n)H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}) defines a Fubini-Study metric on the universal invertible sheaf of the projective space H0​(X,L⊗n)H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}). Denote by ϕn\phi_{n} the continuous metric on LL the nn-th tensor power of which identifies with the restriction of the Fubini-Study metric. Then the estimate (3) in the case where YY is a single closed point {x}\{x\} implies that the sequence of norms |⋅|ϕn​(x)\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\phi_{n}}(x) converges to |⋅|ϕ​(x)\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\phi}(x). Moreover, it can be shown the subsequence (|⋅|ϕ2m​(x))m∈ℕ(|\mathord{\cdot}|_{\phi_{2^{m}}}(x))_{m\in\mathbb{N}} is decreasing. Therefore, the semipositivity of Fubini-Study metrics implies that of the metric ϕ\phi.

The problem of metric extension has various applications, not only in complex analytic geometry, but also in Arakelov geometry. It is a key ingredient in the proof of the arithmetic Hilbert-Samuel theorem, see [AB95]. It has also been applied in the proof of Nakai-Moishezon criterion of arithmetic ampleness, cf. [Zha95], see also [Mor11].

From the adelic point of view of Arakelov geometry, one can replace the integral models of arithmetic objects by a family of Berkovich analytic objects (possibly equipped with metrics) parametrised by the set of finite places of a number field. The advantage of the adelic approach consists in treating all places of a number field in a uniform way. This motivates the research of the non-Archimedean analogue of notions and results in complex analytic geometry. It turns out that many usual analytic tools (such as L2L^{2} estimates) do not work well in the non-Archimedean setting, and often new ideas are needed to develop the non-Archimedean analogue of complex analytic geometry and to unify the arguments in both settings.

In this article we undertake a study of the metric extension problem in (1) in the non-Archimedean analytic setting. Various notions of semipositivity of a metric have been proposed (see §3.1 12.), we adopt the one as being a uniform limit of Fubini-Study metrics. We establish the following result (see Theorem 4.5, Theorem 5.11), which improves considerably the metric extension theorem of [CMor18].

[00H4]
Theorem 1.1.

Let ϕ\phi be an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL. Then for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists nY∈ℕn_{Y}\in\mathbb{N} such that, for any n≥nYn\geq n_{Y} and any tn∈H0​(Y,L|Y⊗n)t_{n}\in H^{0}(Y,L|_{Y}^{\otimes n}), there exits sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) such that sn|Y=tns_{n}|_{Y}=t_{n} and

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}

We mimic Grauert’s argument as in [Bos01] and in [Ran06], though some parts of the argument require adaptations. On the restricted section algebra, namely

V∙​(LX|Y):=⨁n∈ℕH0​(Y,LX|Y⊗n)=Image⁡(V∙​(L)⟶V∙​(L|Y)),V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}):=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}H^{0}(Y,L_{X|Y}^{\otimes n})=\mathrm{Image}(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)\longrightarrow V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y})),

we gather all norms on graded pieces together, to have two algebra norms defined as follows

∀t¯=(tn)n∈ℕ∈V∙(LX|Y),⦀t¯⦀ϕ|Y:=supn∈ℕ∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y,⦀t¯⦀ϕ,X|Y:=supn∈ℕ∥tn∥n​ϕ,X|Y,\forall\underline{t}=(t_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\ \vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}:=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}},\ \vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}:=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y},

respectively. After completion with respect to these algebra norms, we get two commutative Banach algebras V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}) and V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}). The geometry of Berkovich spectra of these Banach algebras are studied in §3. They are intimately related to the dual unit disc bundle of LL with respect to the Fubini-Study envelop metric 𝒫⁡(ϕ)\mathcal{P}(\phi). It turns out that when ϕ\phi is semipositive (more precisely, when ϕ\phi is asymptotic Fubini-Study), the spectral seminorm of ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} is ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}, and the two spectra coincide. This already permits us to reprove a statement of metric extension of Chen-Moriwaki in the non-trivial valuation case ([CMor18, Theorem 0.1], see Theorem 3.28). Note that since we equip V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}) with Banach algebra norms instead of Fréchet algebra seminorms as used in [Bos01][Ran06], the spectrum gives rise to closed dual unit disc bundle 𝔻¯∨​(L|Y,𝒫⁡(ϕ)|Y)\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L|_{Y},\mathcal{P}(\phi)|_{Y}) rather than the open dual disc bundle.

There are two independent methods to compare these two algebra norms. The geometric method in §4 exploits the holomorphic convexity of the aforementioned spectrum, and uses holomorphic functional calculus in non-Archimedean commutative Banach algebras, to construct a (continuous) Banach algebra homomorphism from V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) to some perturbed version of V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}). This construction is analogous to the use of Grauert’s vanishing theorem along with pseuodo-convexity to get continuous map between Fréchet seminormed coherent analytic sheaves in the ℂ\mathbb{C}-analytic setting. In §5 we present an algebraic method with an extra assumption that (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) is discretely valued. The analytic convexity enters only in the semi-positivity of the continuous metric, equivalently the uniform approximation by Fubini-Study metrics. For ϕ\phi being a Fubini-Study metric, we show directly by a delicate calculation that the two Banach algebra norms are affinoid algebra norms, which possesses strong finiteness property to give a uniform upper bound. The exact calculation depends heavily on the existence of a non-Archimedean orthogonal basis. We are unaware of any analogue of this affinoid algebra technique in the ℂ\mathbb{C}-analytic setting, but it seems plausible to compare this with the use of Ohsawa-Takegoshi L2L^{2} extension theorem (see Remark 5.10).

Note that our proof gives a sub-exponential upper bound as in (3). Whether the polynomial bound of (2) is obtainable in the non-Archimedean setting remains unexplored. It seems to us that the commutative Banach algebra techniques that we used here are insufficient to ameliorate the bound. We would like also to metion the recent work [MP17] which gives the hope of carrying out directly Grauert’s argument as in [Bos01] for the metric extension problem in the non-Archimedean setting.

[00MG]

2. Reminders on ultrametric functional analysis

In this section, one recalls some facts about functional analysis concerning normed vector spaces and normed algebras over a complete non-Archimedean valued field, following [Ber], [BGR], [FvdP] and [Tem15]. Besides the well-known ones, results in §2.1.2, §2.2.4, §2.3.3 and §2.4 are most relevant to our construction.

Throughout the section, one fixes a field kk equipped with a non-Archimedean and non-trivial absolute value |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert and we assume that kk equipped with the topology defined by the absolute value is complete. Denote by k∘k^{\circ} the valuation ring of (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert), by k∘⁣∘k^{\circ\circ} the maximal ideal of k∘k^{\circ}, and by k~\widetilde{k} the residual field k∘/k∘⁣∘k^{\circ}/k^{\circ\circ}. Denote by H⁡(k,|⋅|)H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) the ℚ\mathbb{Q}-vector subspace of ℝ\mathbb{R} generated by the set of numbers log⁡|k×|\log\lvert k^{\times}\rvert, and by α\alpha the quotient map of ℚ\mathbb{Q}-vector spaces ℝ→ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert). One says that nn real numbers {p1,…,pn}\{p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independent in ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) if the vectors {α⁡(p1),…,α⁡(pn)}\{\alpha(p_{1}),\dots,\alpha(p_{n})\} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-linearly independent in ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert). Unless specified, all kk-algebras are supposed to be commutative unitary (with 0≠10\neq 1) and by convention all homomorphism of kk-algebras are supposed to preserve the units.

[00MH]

2.1. Seminormed vector spaces

[00MI]

2.1.1. Basic constructions

Let VV be a vector space over kk. By seminorm on VV, we refer to a map ∥⋅∥:V→ℝ≥0\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert:V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} such that ∥a​x∥=|a|⋅∥x∥\lVert ax\rVert=\lvert a\rvert\cdot\lVert x\rVert for any (a,x)∈k×V(a,x)\in k\times V and that ∥x+y∥⩽∥x∥+∥y∥\lVert x+y\rVert\leqslant\lVert x\rVert+\lVert y\rVert for any (x,y)∈V×V(x,y)\in V\times V. The couple (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) is called a seminormed vector space over kk. If in addition ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert takes positive values on V∖0V\setminus 0, we say that ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is a norm on VV and that (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) is a normed vector space. Denote by 𝔫⁡(∥⋅∥)\mathfrak{n}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) the inverse image of {0}\{0\} by ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert. It can be shown that 𝔫⁡(∥⋅∥)\mathfrak{n}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) is a closed vector subspace of VV, called the null space of ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert. Note that there exists a unique norm on V/𝔫⁡(∥⋅∥)V/\mathfrak{n}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert), the composition of which with the projection map V→V/𝔫⁡(∥⋅∥)V\rightarrow V/\mathfrak{n}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) identifies with the seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert. Call this norm the induced norm of ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert.

Let (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) be a seminormed vector space over kk. If the strong triangle inequality holds for the seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert, namely ∥x+y∥⩽max⁡(∥x∥,∥y∥)\lVert x+y\rVert\leqslant\max(\lVert x\rVert,\lVert y\rVert) for any (x,y)∈V×V(x,y)\in V\times V, we say that the seminorm is ultrametric. Note that if a seminorm is ultra-metric, then the inequality becomes an equality whenever ∥x∥≠∥y∥\lVert x\rVert\neq\lVert y\rVert.

We say that a seminormed (resp. normed) vector space (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) is complete, or ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is a complete seminorm (resp. complete norm) on VV, if any Cauchy sequence in VV with respect to the seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert admits a limit. A complete normed vector space over kk is called a Banach space over kk. Any finite-dimensional normed space (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) is complete. ([Bou, 1.2.3 Theorem 2])

Let (V,∥⋅∥V)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}) be a seminormed vector space over kk. Let V~c\widetilde{V}_{c} be the vector space of all Cauchy sequences in VV with respect to ∥⋅∥V\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}. We define a seminorm ∥⋅∥c\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{c} on V~c\widetilde{V}_{c} which sends any Cauchy sequence {vi}i∈ℕ\{v_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}} to limi→+∞∥vi∥V\lim_{i\rightarrow+\infty}\lVert v_{i}\rVert_{V}. Denote by VcV_{c} the quotient vector space Vc/𝔫⁡(∥⋅∥c)V_{c}/\mathfrak{n}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{c}). Then the vector space VcV_{c} equipped with the norm induced by ∥⋅∥c\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{c} forms a Banach space over kk, called the separated completion of (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert). Tautologically it can be shown that this Banach space is canonically isomorphic to the completion of V/𝔫⁡(∥⋅∥)V/\mathfrak{n}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) equipped with the quotient norm induced by the seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert.

[00H5]
Definition 2.1.

Let ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} and ∥⋅∥2\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2} be seminorms on VV. We say that ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} and ∥⋅∥2\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2} are equivalent if there exist two constants C1>0C_{1}>0 and C2>0C_{2}>0 such that C1​∥⋅∥1≤∥⋅∥2≤C2​∥⋅∥1C_{1}\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}\leq\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2}\leq C_{2}\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}. Note that this condition holds if and only if the seminorms ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} and ∥⋅∥2\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2} induce the same topology on the vector space VV ([Bou, Corollaire I.3.3.1])(note that the absolute value |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert is supposed to be non-trivial).

[00H6]
Definition 2.2.

Let (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) be a seminormed vector space over kk. If WW is a vector subspace of VV, then map (x∈W)↦∥x∥(x\in W)\mapsto\lVert x\rVert defines a seminorm on WW, called the restriction of ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert on WW. If QQ is a quotient vector space of VV and π:V→Q\pi:V\rightarrow Q is the quotient map, then the map (q∈Q)↦infx∈π−1​({q})∥x∥(q\in Q)\mapsto\inf_{x\in\pi^{-1}(\{q\})}\lVert x\rVert defines a seminorm on QQ, called the quotient of ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert on QQ.

[00H7]
Definition 2.3.

Let (V,∥⋅∥V)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}) and (W,∥⋅∥W)(W,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W}) be seminormed vector spaces over kk, and f:V→Wf:V\rightarrow W be a kk-linear map. We say that ff is bounded if there exists a constant C>0C>0 such that ∥f⁡(x)∥W≤C​∥x∥V\lVert f(x)\rVert_{W}\leq C\lVert x\rVert_{V} for any x∈Vx\in V. Note that this condition holds if and only if ff is continuous with respect to the topologies on VV and WW induced by the seminorms ∥⋅∥V\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V} and ∥⋅∥W\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W} respectively. We say that ff is admissible if it is bounded and if on the image of ff, the quotient seminorm of ∥⋅∥V\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V} and the restriction of ∥⋅∥W\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W} are equivalent.

We recall below several fundamental results in functional analysis and refer to [Bou, Theorem 1.3.3.1, Corollary 1.3.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.3.3.5] for more details.

[00H8]
Theorem 2.4.

Let (V,∥⋅∥V)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}) and (W,∥⋅∥W)(W,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W}) be Banach spaces over kk, and f:V→Wf:V\rightarrow W be a kk-linear map.

  1. (1)

    The kk-linear map ff is bounded if and only if its graph in V×WV\times W is closed under the product topology.

  2. (2)

    Assume that ff is bounded and surjective, then ff is an open map. In particular, the quotient norm of ∥⋅∥V\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V} on WW is equivalent to ∥⋅∥W\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W}.

  3. (3)

    Assume that ff is bounded and injective, then f⁡(V)f(V) is closed in WW.

[00H9]
Theorem 2.5.

Let VV be a vector space over kk and ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} and ∥⋅∥2\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2} be complete norms on VV. If there exists C>0C>0 such that ∥⋅∥2≤C​∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2}\leq C\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}, then the norms ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} and ∥⋅∥2\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2} are equivalent.

Using this norm equivalence theorem for Banach spaces over kk, we have immediately the following

[00HA]
Corollary 2.6.

Let (V,∥⋅∥V)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}) and (W,∥⋅∥W)(W,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W}) be Banach spaces over kk, and f:V→Wf:V\rightarrow W be a bounded kk-linear map with closed image. Then ff is admissible.

[00HB]
Definition 2.7.

Let (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) be a finite-dimensional normed vector space. The dual norm of ∥⋅∥∨\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\vee} on the dual vector space V∨V^{\vee} is defined by

∀ℓ∈V∨,∥ℓ∥∨:=supv∈V∖{0}|ℓ⁡(v)|∥v∥.\forall\ell\in V^{\vee},\ \lVert\ell\rVert^{\vee}:=\sup_{v\in V\setminus\{0\}}\frac{\lvert\ell(v)\rvert}{\lVert v\rVert}.
[00HC]
Remark 2.8.

The norm ∥⋅∥∨\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\vee} is ultrametric, and ∥⋅∥∨⁣∨=∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\vee\vee}=\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert if and only if ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is ultrametric. ([CMor18, Section 2.2.3])

[00HD]
Definition 2.9.

Let (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) be a normed vector space. Let (k′,|⋅|′)(k^{\prime},\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert^{\prime}) be a complete valued field extension of (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert). Set Vk′V_{k^{\prime}} to be V⊗kk′V\otimes_{k}k^{\prime}, which can be identified with Homk​(Homk​(V,k),k′)\mathrm{Hom}_{k}(\mathrm{Hom}_{k}(V,k),k^{\prime}). The norm

∀v′∈Vk′,∥v′∥k′:=sup{|(ℓ⊗1)​(v′)|′∥ℓ∥∨,ℓ∈V∨}\forall v^{\prime}\in V_{k^{\prime}},\ \lVert v^{\prime}\rVert_{k^{\prime}}:=\sup\Big\{\frac{\lvert(\ell\otimes 1)(v^{\prime})\rvert^{\prime}}{\lVert\ell\rVert^{\vee}},\ \ell\in V^{\vee}\Big\}

defined via this identification is called the scalar extension of ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert.

[00HE]
Remark 2.10.

If ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is ultrametric, then ∥⋅∥k′\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{k^{\prime}} is the largest ultrametric norm on Vk′V_{k^{\prime}} extending ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert. ([CMor18, Definition 2.4])

[00HF]
Lemma 2.11.

Let f:V→Wf:V\rightarrow W be a surjective kk-linear map of finite-dimensional vector spaces, with dimk​W=1\mathrm{dim}_{k}W=1. Let ∥⋅∥V\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V} be a norm on VV and let ∥⋅∥W\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W} be its quotient norm for ff. Then the norm ∥⋅∥W,k′\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{W,k^{\prime}} identifies with the quotient norm of ∥⋅∥V,k′\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V,k^{\prime}} induced by the surjective k′k^{\prime}-linear map f⊗idk′:Vk′→Wk′f\otimes\mathrm{id}_{k^{\prime}}:V_{k^{\prime}}\rightarrow W_{k^{\prime}}. ([CMor18, Lemma 2.5])

[00MJ]

2.1.2. Orthogonal basis

[00HG]
Definition 2.12.

Let (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) be a finite-dimensional normed vector space over kk. A basis {ei}i∈{1,…,n}\{e_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} of VV is called orthogonal (with respect to ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) if

∀(c1,…,cr)∈kn,‖∑i∈{1,…,n}ci​ei‖=maxi∈{1,…,n}⁡∥ci​ei∥\forall(c_{1},\dots,c_{r})\in k^{n},\quad\Big\|\sum_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}c_{i}e_{i}\Big\|=\max_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}\lVert c_{i}e_{i}\rVert

Moreover, it is said to be orthonormal if in addition ∥ei∥=1\lVert e_{i}\rVert=1 for all i∈{1,…,n}i\in\{1,\dots,n\}.

[00HH]
Lemma 2.13.

Let (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) be a finite-dimensional ultrametrically normed vector space over kk. If {vi}i∈{1,…,n}\{v_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} is a finite set of elements of VV such that {∥vi∥}i∈{1,…,n}\{\lVert v_{i}\rVert\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} are disctinct in ℝ+\mathbb{R}_{+}. Then ∥∑i∈{1,…,n}vi∥=maxi∈{1,…,n}⁡∥vi∥\lVert\sum_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}v_{i}\rVert=\max_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}\lVert v_{i}\rVert.

[00HI]
Proof.

If n=2n=2, this is clear from the ultra-metric inequality. For general nn an induction argument shows the equality. ∎

[00HJ]
Corollary 2.14.

Let (V,∥⋅∥V)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}) be a finite-dimensional ultrametrically normed vector space over kk. Suppose that (k,|⋅|)(k,|\cdot|) is discretely valued. If {ei}i∈{1,…,n}\{e_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} is a basis of VV such that {log⁡∥ei∥}i∈{1,…,n}\{\log\lVert e_{i}\rVert\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independent in ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert), then {ei}i∈{1,…,n}\{e_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} is an orthogonal basis.

[00HK]
Proof.

For any f=(f1,…,fn)∈(k×)nf=(f_{1},\dots,f_{n})\in(k^{\times})^{n}, the numbers {|fi|​∥ei∥}i∈{1,…,r}\{\lvert f_{i}\rvert\lVert e_{i}\rVert\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,r\}} are distinct, otherwise there exist i,j∈{1,…,n},i≠ji,j\in\{1,\dots,n\},i\neq j such that

log⁡∥ei∥−log⁡∥ej∥=log|fifj|∈log⁡|k×|\log\lVert e_{i}\rVert-\log\lVert e_{j}\rVert=\log\Big|\frac{f_{i}}{f_{j}}\Big|\in\log\lvert k^{\times}\rvert

which contradicts the assumption of ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independence. Hence

‖∑i∈{1,…,n}fi​ei‖=max0≤i≤n⁡∥fi​ei∥\Big\|\sum_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}f_{i}e_{i}\Big\|=\max_{0\leq i\leq n}\lVert f_{i}e_{i}\rVert

by Lemma 2.13. ∎

[00HL]
Proposition 2.15.

Let (V,∥⋅∥V)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{V}) be a finite-dimensional ultrametrically normed vector space over kk. Suppose that (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) is discretely valued. Then there exists an orthogonal basis for (V,∥⋅∥)(V,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert). ([BMPS, Proposition 2.5])

[00MK]

2.2. Banach algebra

[00ML]

2.2.1. Basic constructions

[00HM]
Definition 2.16.

Let AA be a kk-algebra (the unit of which is denoted by 𝟏\mathbf{1}) and ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert be a seminorm on AA (viewed as a vector space over kk).

  1. (1)

    The seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is said to be sub-multiplicative if for any (a,b)∈A×A(a,b)\in A\times A one has ∥a​b∥≤∥a∥⋅∥b∥\lVert ab\rVert\leq\lVert a\rVert\cdot\lVert b\rVert.

  2. (2)

    The seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is called power-multiplicative if ∥an∥=∥a∥n\lVert a^{n}\rVert=\lVert a\rVert^{n} for any a∈Aa\in A and any n∈ℕ∖{0}n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}.

  3. (3)

    The seminorm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert is called multiplicative if ∥a​b∥=∥a∥⋅∥b∥\lVert ab\rVert=\lVert a\rVert\cdot\lVert b\rVert for any (a,b)∈A2(a,b)\in A^{2}.

A kk-algebra seminorm (resp. kk-algebra norm) on AA is defined to be a sub-multiplicative seminorm (resp. sub-multiplicative norm) ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert on AA such that ∥𝟏∥=1\lVert\mathbf{1}\rVert=1. We denote by ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert an algebra seminorm. Any kk-algebra equipped with a complete kk-algebra norm is called a Banach kk-algebra.

We use calligraphic letters to denote Banach algebras and Banach modules (defined below) and use the corresponding capital letters to denote the underlying kk-algebra or the underlying module of a kk-algebra. For example, a Banach kk-algebra (A,⦀⋅⦀)(A,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert) is denoted by 𝒜\mathcal{A}. If A′A^{\prime} is a sub-kk-algebra of AA, then the restriction of ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert on A′A^{\prime} is a kk-algebra norm. If this norm is complete, we say that 𝒜′\mathcal{A}^{\prime} (A′A^{\prime} equipped with the restricted norm) is a Banach kk-sub-algebra of 𝒜\mathcal{A}. Similarly, if QQ is a quotient kk-algebra of AA, then the quotient of the norm ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert on QQ is a sub-multiplicative seminorm. If it is a complete norm, we say that 𝒬\mathcal{Q} (QQ equipped with the quotient norm) is a Banach quotient kk-algebra of 𝒜\mathcal{A}.

[00HN]
Example 2.17.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra. The Tate kk-Banach algebra over 𝒜\mathcal{A} of multiradius 𝒓=(r1,…,rn)∈(ℝ+)N\boldsymbol{r}=(r_{1},\dots,r_{n})\in(\mathbb{R}_{+})^{N} is the algebra over kk

{∑J∈ℕnaJ𝑻J, aJ∈A and lim|J|→∞⦀aJ⦀⋅𝒓J=0}\Big\{\sum_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{n}}a_{J}\boldsymbol{T}^{J},\text{ }a_{J}\in A\text{ and }\lim_{|J|\to\infty}\vvvert a_{J}\vvvert\cdot\boldsymbol{r}^{J}=0\Big\}

(for J=(j1,…,jn)∈ℕnJ=(j_{1},\dots,j_{n})\in\mathbb{N}^{n}, we denote ∏i∈{1,…,n}Tiji\prod_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}T_{i}^{j_{i}} by 𝑻J\boldsymbol{T}^{J} and ∏i∈{1,…,n}riji\prod_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}} by 𝒓J\boldsymbol{r}^{J}) with a complete kk-algebra norm defined by

⦀∑J∈ℕnaJ𝑻J⦀𝒯𝒜​(𝒓):=supJ⦀aJ⦀⋅𝒓J\Big\vvvert\sum_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{n}}a_{J}\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{A}}(\boldsymbol{r})}:=\sup_{J}\vvvert a_{J}\vvvert\cdot\boldsymbol{r}^{J}

This Banach algebra is denoted by 𝒜⁡{r1−1​T1,…,rn−1​Tn}\mathcal{A}\{r_{1}^{-1}T_{1},\dots,r_{n}^{-1}T_{n}\}, and is called an 𝒜\mathcal{A}-Tate algebra of multiradius 𝒓\boldsymbol{r}.

[00HP]
Definition 2.18.

Let 𝒜1,𝒜2\mathcal{A}_{1},\mathcal{A}_{2} be two Banach kk-algebras, and ϕ:A1→A2\phi:A_{1}\to A_{2} be a homomorphism of kk-algebras. We say that ϕ\phi is a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras if it is bounded as a kk-linear map. A homomorphism of Banach kk-algebra ϕ\phi is often denoted by ϕ:𝒜1→𝒜2\phi:\mathcal{A}_{1}\to\mathcal{A}_{2}. A homomorphism of Banach kk-algebra ϕ\phi is called an isomorphism of Banach kk-algebras if there exists a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras ψ:𝒜2→𝒜1\psi:\mathcal{A}_{2}\to\mathcal{A}_{1} such that ϕ∘ψ=Id𝒜2\phi\circ\psi=\mathrm{Id}_{\mathcal{A}_{2}} and ψ∘ϕ=Id𝒜1\psi\circ\phi=\mathrm{Id}_{\mathcal{A}_{1}}.

[00MM]

2.2.2. Spectrum

Let 𝒜=(A,⦀⋅⦀)\mathcal{A}=(A,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert) be a Banach kk-algebra. Let ⦀⋅⦀′\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{\prime} be a kk-algebra seminorm on AA. One says that ⦀⋅⦀′\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{\prime} is bounded (with respect to 𝒜\mathcal{A}) if there exists C>0C>0 such that ⦀⋅⦀′≤C⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{\prime}\leq C\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. Its null-space is a closed ideal II of AA; the quotient kk-algebra norm of ⦀⋅⦀′\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{\prime} on the quotient kk-algebra A/IA/I is bounded with respect to the quotient kk-algebra norm of ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. ([Ber, Remark 1.2.2.i])

[00HQ]
Definition 2.19.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a kk-Banach algebra. The Berkovich spectrum 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is the following topological space: the points, denoted by zz, are bounded multiplicative kk-algebra seminorms ⦀⋅⦀z\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{z} on 𝒜\mathcal{A}, and the topology is the weakest topology on this set of points, for which all ℝ≥0\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}-valued functions of the form z↦⦀f⦀zz\mapsto\vvvert f\vvvert_{z} are continuous for any f∈Af\in A. This topology is called the canonical topology. For any subset VV of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}), we denote by Inttop​(V)\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}(V) the topological interior of VV. This topological interior is to be compared with the notion of interior of an affinoid subdomain in an affinoid domain (see [Ber, Definition 2.5.7]), which we do not use in this article.

[00HR]
Remark 2.20.

A basis for the canonical topology constituting of open sets is given by basic open sets, which are sets of the form

U⁡(f,p,q):={z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜):p<|f|z<q}U(f;p,q):=\{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}):p<\lvert f\rvert_{z}<q\}

indexed by (p,q)∈ℝ2(p,q)\in\mathbb{R}^{2} and f∈𝒜f\in\mathcal{A}. A general open set is a union of finite intersections of basic open sets.

[00HS]
Proposition 2.21.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a kk-Banach algebra. Then 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is a non-empty compact Hausdorff topological space. ([Ber, Theorem 1.2.1])

For any point z∈𝔐⁡(A)z\in\mathfrak{M}(A), let 𝔭z\mathfrak{p}_{z} be the closed ideal 𝔫(⦀⋅⦀z)\mathfrak{n}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{z}) of AA which is a prime ideal, and f⁡(z)f(z) be the image of ff in the quotient kk-algebra A/𝔭zA/\mathfrak{p}_{z}. The residual field at zz is defined to be the fraction field of A/𝔭zA/\mathfrak{p}_{z}, denoted by κ⁡(z)\kappa(z), it is equipped with a quotient norm |⋅|z\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z} of ⦀⋅⦀z\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{z}, which becomes an absolute value on κ⁡(x)\kappa(x) extending |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert on kk. The completed residual field at zz is defined to be the completion of |⋅|z\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z} with respect to this quotient norm |⋅|z\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z}, denoted as κ^​(z)\widehat{\kappa}(z). The canonical homomorphism of kk-algebra from AA to (κ^​(z),|⋅|z)(\widehat{\kappa}(z),\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z}) is denoted by χz\chi_{z}. It is a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras.

[00HT]
Definition 2.22.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra. A character χ\chi of 𝒜\mathcal{A} is a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebra from 𝒜\mathcal{A} to some complete valued field extension (K,|⋅|K)(K,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K}) of (k,|⋅|k)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{k}). Two characters χ1:𝒜→(K1,|⋅|K1)\chi_{1}:\mathcal{A}\to(K_{1},\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K_{1}}) and χ2:𝒜→(K2,|⋅|K2)\chi_{2}:\mathcal{A}\to(K_{2},\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K_{2}}) are said to be equivalent if there exist a character χ:𝒜→(K,|⋅|K)\chi:\mathcal{A}\to(K,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K}) and valued field extensions ι1:K→K1\iota_{1}:K\to K_{1} and ι2:K→K2\iota_{2}:K\to K_{2} which preserve norms such that χ=i1∘χ1=i2∘χ2\chi=i_{1}\circ\chi_{1}=i_{2}\circ\chi_{2}. Let [χ][\chi] be the equivalence class of χ\chi.

[00HU]
Lemma 2.23.

The set of points of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is in canonical bijection with the set of equivalence classes of characters on 𝒜\mathcal{A}. This bijection sends z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜)z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) to [χz][\chi_{z}]. ([Ber, Remark 1.2.2.ii])

[00HV]
Definition 2.24.

The Gelfand transform of 𝒜\mathcal{A} is the homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras

^:A→∏z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜)κ^​(z),f↦f^=(f⁡(z))z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜)\widehat{}:A\to\prod_{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})}\hat{\kappa}(z),\quad f\mapsto\widehat{f}=(f(z))_{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})}
[00HW]
Proposition 2.25.

An element f∈𝒜f\in\mathcal{A} is invertible if and only if f⁡(z)≠0f(z)\neq 0 for any z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜)z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}). ([Ber, Corollary 1.2.4])

[00MN]

2.2.3. Continuous map

[00HX]
Proposition 2.26.

Let ϕ:𝒜1→𝒜2\phi:\mathcal{A}_{1}\to\mathcal{A}_{2} be a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras. It induces a continuous map ϕ⋆:𝔐⁡(𝒜2)→𝔐⁡(𝒜1)\phi^{\star}:\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{2})\to\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{1}) by sending an equivalent class of characters [χ][\chi] of 𝒜2\mathcal{A}_{2} to the class of characters [χ∘ψ][\chi\circ\psi] of 𝒜1\mathcal{A}_{1}. ([Ber, Remark 1.2.2 (iii)])

[00HY]
Lemma 2.27.

If ϕ:𝒜1→𝒜2\phi:\mathcal{A}_{1}\to\mathcal{A}_{2} is a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras with dense image, then ϕ⋆\phi^{\star} is an injective map whose image is closed.

[00HZ]
Proof.

The map ϕ⋆\phi^{\star} is injective since for any two characters χ1,χ2:𝒜2→K\chi_{1},\chi_{2}:\mathcal{A}_{2}\to K, if χ1∘ϕ=χ2∘ϕ\chi_{1}\circ\phi=\chi_{2}\circ\phi, then the restriction of χ1\chi_{1} and χ2\chi_{2} on the image of ϕ\phi are equal, hence the two characters are equal by the density of image.

Let (z,|⋅|z)∈𝔐⁡(𝒜1)(z,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z})\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{1}) which is not in the image of ϕ⋆\phi^{\star}, then ker⁡(ϕ)⊈𝔭z\ker(\phi)\nsubseteq\mathfrak{p}_{z}: otherwise the character 𝒜1/ker⁡(ϕ)→κ^​(z)\mathcal{A}_{1}/\ker(\phi)\to\hat{\kappa}(z) extends to a character 𝒜2→κ^​(z)\mathcal{A}_{2}\to\hat{\kappa}(z) by the density of image of ϕ\phi. Now there exists f∈ker⁡(ϕ)∖𝔭zf\in\ker(\phi)\setminus\mathfrak{p}_{z}, so |f|z≠0|f|_{z}\neq 0. For small enough ϵ>0\epsilon>0, the basic open set U⁡(f,|f|z−ϵ,|f|z+ϵ)⊂𝔐⁡(𝒜1)U(f;|f|_{z}-\epsilon,|f|_{z}+\epsilon)\subset\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{1}) is a neighbourhood of (z,|⋅|z)(z,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z}) which is not contained in the image of ϕ⋆\phi^{\star}. So the image of ϕ⋆\phi^{\star} is a closed subset in 𝔐⁡(𝒜1)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{1}). ∎

[00MP]

2.2.4. Spectral seminorm

[00I0]
Definition 2.28.

The spectral algebra seminorm ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} of an algebra seminorm ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert on a kk-algebra AA is the one defined by

∀f∈𝒜,⦀f⦀sp:=limn→∞⦀fn⦀1n.\forall f\in\mathcal{A},\quad\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}}:=\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\to\infty\end{subarray}}\vvvert f^{n}\vvvert^{\frac{1}{n}}.

Note that the triangle inequality for ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} follows from sub-multiplicativity of ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. In general, ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} is only a seminorm even if ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert is a norm.

[00I1]
Remark 2.29.

The existence of limit is guaranteed by the (multiplicative) Fekete lemma for the sub-multiplicative sequence {⦀fn⦀}n∈ℕ\{\vvvert f^{n}\vvvert\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}. The spectral seminorm is sub-multiplicative, and is bounded by the original seminorm ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. Moreover, it is power-multiplicative by construction.

[00I2]
Proposition 2.30.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a kk-Banach algebra. For any f∈Af\in A, one has ([Ber, Theorem 1.3.1])

⦀f⦀sp=maxz∈𝔐⁡(A)|f|z\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}}=\max_{z\in\mathfrak{M}(A)}|f|_{z}
[00I3]
Definition 2.31.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra. The radical of 𝒜\mathcal{A} is the null-space of its spectral seminorm 𝔫(⦀⋅⦀sp)\mathfrak{n}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}}). A Banach kk-algebra with radical equal to {0}\{0\} is called semi-simple. Elements in the radical are said to be quasi-nilpotent (or topological nilpotent).

[00I4]
Remark 2.32.

The radical of 𝒜\mathcal{A} contains the nil-radical of AA; in other words, nilpotent elemtents are quasi-nilpotent. If 𝒜\mathcal{A} is semi-simple, then AA is reduced. The converse may not be true.

Let 𝒜=(A,⦀⋅⦀)\mathcal{A}=(A,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert) be a kk-Banach algebra. The spectral seminorm ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} defines a quotient norm on the quotient kk-algebra 𝒜/rad​(𝒜)\mathcal{A}/\text{rad}(\mathcal{A}), still denoted by ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}}. The quotient norm ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} is bounded by the quotient norm of ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. The uniformization 𝒜u\mathcal{A}^{u} of 𝒜\mathcal{A} is defined to be the Banach kk-algebra of separated completion of (𝒜/rad(𝒜),⦀⋅⦀sp)(\mathcal{A}/\text{rad}(\mathcal{A}),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}}). Conversely, if ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert is a power-multiplicative Banach algebra norm on AA with radical {0}\{0\}, then it is said to be uniform.

Obviously, ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} is bounded by ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. It is important to note that the converse may not be true in general. In other words, ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\cdot\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} may not be complete on 𝒜/rad​(𝒜)\mathcal{A}/\text{rad}(\mathcal{A}). Yet one still has the following statement

[00I5]
Proposition 2.33.

𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is canonically homeomorphic to 𝔐⁡(𝒜u)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}^{u}). ([Ber, Corollary 1.3.3, 1.3.4])

[00MQ]

2.2.5. Banach module

One can also consider seminorms on modules over Banach algebra. Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra. A (semi)normed 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module is defined to be an AA-module MM with a (semi)norm ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert such that (M,∥⋅∥)(M,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) is a (semi)normed vector space over kk (denoted by ℳ\mathcal{M}), and that the multiplication is bounded, in the sense that there exists C>0C>0 such that

∀a∈𝒜,∀m∈M,∥a⋅m∥≤C⦀a⦀⋅∥m∥\forall a\in\mathcal{A},\ \forall m\in M,\quad\lVert a\cdot m\rVert\leq C\vvvert a\vvvert\cdot\lVert m\rVert

One calls a Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module a normed 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module (M,∥⋅∥)(M,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert) whose norm is complete.

Let ℳ1=(M1,∥⋅∥1)\mathcal{M}_{1}=(M_{1},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}), ℳ2=(M2,∥⋅∥2)\mathcal{M}_{2}=(M_{2},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{2}) be Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-modules and ϕ:M1→M2\phi:M_{1}\to M_{2} be a homomorphism of AA-modules. It is called bounded if there exists C>0C>0 such that ∥ϕ⁡(m1)∥2≤C​∥m1∥1\lVert\phi(m_{1})\rVert_{2}\leq C\lVert m_{1}\rVert_{1} for any m1∈M1m_{1}\in M_{1}. In this case ϕ\phi is said to be a homomorphism of Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-modules, and is denoted by ϕ:ℳ1→ℳ2\phi:\mathcal{M}_{1}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}_{2}. In addition, the homomorphism ϕ\phi of Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-modules is called admissible if it is admissible as linear map between normed-vector spaces over kk.

[00I6]
Definition 2.34.

Let ℳ\mathcal{M} be a Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module. It is called a Banach finite 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module if there exists l∈ℕ+l\in\mathbb{N}_{+} and a surjective homomorphism of Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-modules 𝒜⊕l→ℳ\mathcal{A}^{\oplus l}\to\mathcal{M} where 𝒜⊕l\mathcal{A}^{\oplus l} is the Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module corresponding to the AA-module A⊕lA^{\oplus l} equipped with the norm (a1,…,al)↦max⦀ai⦀(a_{1},\dots,a_{l})\mapsto\max\vvvert a_{i}\vvvert. (Note that such a homomorphism is necessarily admissible.)

[00I7]
Proposition 2.35.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra and ℳ\mathcal{M} be a Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module. If AA is Noetherian as a kk-algebra and MM is finitely generated as AA-module, then any 𝒜\mathcal{A}-sub-module of ℳ\mathcal{M} is closed, and ℳ\mathcal{M} is a Banach finite 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module. ([FvdP, Lemma 1.2.3]

[00I8]
Definition 2.36.

Let ϕ:𝒜1→𝒜2\phi:\mathcal{A}_{1}\to\mathcal{A}_{2} be a homomorphism between Banach kk-algebras. It is called Banach finite if 𝒜2\mathcal{A}_{2} is a Banach finite 𝒜1\mathcal{A}_{1}-module. In this case 𝒜2\mathcal{A}_{2} is called a Banach finite 𝒜1\mathcal{A}_{1}-algebra.

[00I9]
Remark 2.37.

If a kk-Banach algebra homomorphism ϕ\phi is finite as homomorphism of kk-algebra, and 𝒜1\mathcal{A}_{1} is Noetherian, then ϕ\phi is automatically Banach finite: there is a surjective 𝒜1\mathcal{A}_{1}-module homomorphism p:𝒜1⊕n→𝒜2p:\mathcal{A}_{1}^{\oplus n}\to\mathcal{A}_{2}, by Proposition 2.35 ker⁡(p)\ker(p) is closed. Then pp is continuous hence is admissible by Corollary 2.5. So 𝒜2\mathcal{A}_{2} is a Banach finite 𝒜1\mathcal{A}_{1}-module.

[00MR]

2.3. Affinoid algebras

Affinoid algebras is a special kind of kk-Banach algebras possessing good finiteness properties. These features allows one to endow a locally ringed space structure on their Berkovich spectra, namely the affinoid spaces. As a consequence, the Banach algebra norm of an affinoid algebra is equivalent to its spectral seminorm whenever the later is actually a norm.

[00MS]

2.3.1. Basic constructions

Affinoid algebras are kk-Banach algebras that are quotient algebras of Tate algebras. Among them are strict affinoid algebras which have good finiteness properties such as Noetherianity. Some good properties pass to general affinoid algebra by a technique enlarging the base valued field which makes the affinoid algebra strict.

[00IA]
Definition 2.38.

For a multi-radius 𝒓=(r1,…,rn)∈ℝn\boldsymbol{r}=(r_{1},\dots,r_{n})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, the algebra

k{r1−1T1,…,rn−1Tn}={f=∑J∈ℕn∞aJ𝑻J:aJ∈k,|aJ|𝒓J→0 as |J|→∞}k\{r_{1}^{-1}T_{1},\dots,r_{n}^{-1}T_{n}\}=\{f=\sum_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{n}}^{\infty}a_{J}\boldsymbol{T}^{J}:a_{J}\in k,\lvert a_{J}\rvert\boldsymbol{r}^{J}\to 0\text{ as }|J|\to\infty\}

is called the Tate algebra over kk with multi-radius 𝒓\boldsymbol{r}. Denote it by 𝒯n​(𝒓)\mathcal{T}_{n}(\boldsymbol{r}). It is a kk-Banach algebra with respect to the Gauss norm of multi-radius 𝐫\boldsymbol{r} defined by

⦀f⦀𝒯n​(𝒓)=maxJ|aJ|𝒓J\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}(\boldsymbol{r})}=\max_{J}\lvert a_{J}\rvert\boldsymbol{r}^{J}

One can define Tate algebra over other complete ultra-metric valued fields.

[00IB]
Remark 2.39.

This Gauss norm is obviously sub-multiplicative. It is in fact multiplicative by an argument as in the proof of Gauss Lemma.

[00IC]
Definition 2.40.

A kk-Banach algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A} is called an affinoid algebra if there exists an admissible surjective homomorphism from some Tate algebra k​{𝒓−1​𝑻}k\{\boldsymbol{r}^{-1}\boldsymbol{T}\} to 𝒜\mathcal{A}. The Banach algebra norm on an affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A} is called an affinoid algebra norm. If one can take 𝒓\boldsymbol{r} with ri=1r_{i}=1 for all i∈{1,…,n}i\in\{1,\dots,n\}, then 𝒜\mathcal{A} is called a strict affinoid algebra. One may define affinoid algebra similarly over other complete ultrametric valued field.

[00ID]
Remark 2.41.

An affinoid algebra norm and the quotient algebra norm of Gauss algebra norm by the defining admissible surjective homomorphism are just equivalent but not necessarily equal.

One can construct new affinoid algebras out of old ones by various algebraic operations.

[00IE]
Example 2.42.

The quotient Banach algebra of an affinoid algebra is an affinoid algebra.

[00IF]
Proposition 2.43.

Let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be a kk-Banach algebra which is finite over an affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A}, then 𝒞\mathcal{C} itself is an affinoid algebra. If 𝒜\mathcal{A} is strict, then 𝒞\mathcal{C} is strict.

[00IG]
Proof.

Let {ci}i∈{1,…,m}⊂𝒞\{c_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,m\}}\subset\mathcal{C} be a finite set of generators of 𝒞\mathcal{C} over 𝒜\mathcal{A}, then consider an 𝒜\mathcal{A}-Tate algebra 𝒜​{𝒓−1​𝑻}\mathcal{A}\{\boldsymbol{r}^{-1}\boldsymbol{T}\} where ri≥⦀ci⦀𝒞r_{i}\geq\vvvert c_{i}\vvvert_{\mathcal{C}}. There is a surjective kk-algebra homomorphism defined by

γ:𝒜{𝒓−1𝑻}→𝒞, Ti↦ci\gamma:\mathcal{A}\{\boldsymbol{r}^{-1}\boldsymbol{T}\}\to\mathcal{C},\text{ }T_{i}\mapsto c_{i}

which is bounded as there exists C>0C>0 such that

⦀γ(∑JaJ𝑻J)⦀𝒞≤maxJ∈ℕm⦀aJ𝒄J⦀𝒞≤CmaxJ∈ℕm⦀aJ⦀𝒜⋅𝒓J\vvvert\gamma(\sum_{J}a_{J}\boldsymbol{T}^{J})\vvvert_{\mathcal{C}}\leq\max_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{m}}\vvvert a_{J}\boldsymbol{c}^{J}\vvvert_{\mathcal{C}}\leq C\max_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{m}}\vvvert a_{J}\vvvert_{\mathcal{A}}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}^{J}

By Corollary 2.5, γ\gamma is admissible, the norm ⦀⋅⦀𝒞\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{C}} is equivalent to the quotient norm of the 𝒜\mathcal{A}-Tate norm. Hence 𝒞\mathcal{C} is an affinoid algebra. The strictness is obtained by choosing ri∈|k×|r_{i}\in\lvert k^{\times}\rvert (see Lemma 2.47). ∎

[00IH]
Proposition 2.44.

Let ℬ\mathcal{B} be a Banach kk-algebra. Suppose that there exists a finitely generated kk-algebra AA which is dense in ℬ\mathcal{B}, then there exists an affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A} in which AA is a dense kk-sub-algebra and a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras 𝒜→ℬ\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{B} which extends the identiy homomorphism on AA.

[00II]
Proof.

Let {ai}i∈{1,…,m}\{a_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,m\}} be a set of generators of AA. For each i∈{1,…,m}i\in\{1,\dots,m\}, let rir_{i} denote ⦀ai⦀ℬ\vvvert a_{i}\vvvert_{\mathcal{B}} and let 𝒓\boldsymbol{r} denote the multi-radius consisting of {ri}i∈{1,…,m}\{r_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,m\}}. Consider the Tate algebra 𝒯𝒓\mathcal{T}_{\boldsymbol{r}} and the homomorphism of kk-algebras

k⁡[T1,…,Tm]→ℬ,Ti↦aik[T_{1},\dots,T_{m}]\rightarrow\mathcal{B},\quad T_{i}\mapsto a_{i}

By the ultra-metricity of ⦀⋅⦀ℬ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{B}} and the definition of 𝒓\boldsymbol{r}, one has

∀n∈ℕ,∀J∈ℕm,∀fJ∈k,⦀∑J∈ℕmfJ⋅𝒂J⦀ℬ≤⦀∑J∈ℕmfJ⋅𝒂J⦀𝒯𝒓\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\forall J\in\mathbb{N}^{m},\forall f_{J}\in k,\vvvert\sum_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{m}}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{a}^{J}\vvvert_{\mathcal{B}}\leq\vvvert\sum_{J\in\mathbb{N}^{m}}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{a}^{J}\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{\boldsymbol{r}}}

so by a density argument one can extend it to a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras

𝒯𝒓→ℬ,Ti↦fi\mathcal{T}_{\boldsymbol{r}}\rightarrow\mathcal{B},\quad T_{i}\mapsto f_{i}

Let ℐ\mathscr{I} be the kernel ideal of this homomorphism. To conclude it suffices to take 𝒜\mathcal{A} as 𝒯𝒓/ℐ\mathcal{T}_{\boldsymbol{r}}/\mathscr{I}. ∎

[00IJ]
Proposition 2.45.

Let (B,⦀⋅⦀)(B,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert) be a normed algebra and let ℬ\mathcal{B} be its separated completion. Let AA be a sub-kk-algebra of BB, equipped with the restriction algebra norm of ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert, and let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be the separated completion of (A,⦀⋅⦀)(A,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert). Assume that 𝒜\mathcal{A} is an affinoid algebra. If BB is integral and is finite over AA, then ℬ\mathcal{B} is Banach finite over 𝒜\mathcal{A}. Therefore ℬ\mathcal{B} is an affinoid algebra.

[00IK]
Proof.

By assumption, there exists j∈ℕj\in\mathbb{N} and a homomorphism of kk-algebras and elements {ei}i∈{1,…,j}⊆B\{e_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}\subseteq B such that

F:⨁i∈{1,…,j}A→B,1i↦eiF:\bigoplus_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}A\rightarrow B,1_{i}\mapsto e_{i}

Moreover, FF is bounded

⦀∑i∈{1,…,j}ai⋅ei⦀≤maxi∈{1,…,j}⦀ai⋅ei⦀≤maxi∈{1,…,j}⦀ei⦀⋅maxi∈{1,…,j}⦀ai⦀\vvvert\sum_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}a_{i}\cdot e_{i}\vvvert\leq\max_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}\vvvert a_{i}\cdot e_{i}\vvvert\leq\max_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}\vvvert e_{i}\vvvert\cdot\max_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}\vvvert a_{i}\vvvert

So FF extends to a homomorphism of Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-modules

ℱ:⨁i∈{1,…,j}𝒜→ℬ,1i↦ei\mathcal{F}:\bigoplus_{i\in\{1,\dots,j\}}\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{B},1_{i}\mapsto e_{i}

Let ℬ−\mathcal{B}^{-} be the image of ℱ\mathcal{F}, it is a Banach finite 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module with the quotient norm ∥⋅∥ℱ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\mathcal{F}} induced by ℱ\mathcal{F}. As ℬ−\mathcal{B}^{-} is Banach finite over 𝒜\mathcal{A}, it is an affinoid algebra with an affinoid algebra spectral norm ⦀⋅⦀−\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{-}, which is equivalent to ∥⋅∥ℱ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\mathcal{F}}. Now on ℬ−\mathcal{B}^{-}, ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert is bounded with respect to ⦀⋅⦀−\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{-} by the continuity of ℱ\mathcal{F}. To show the reverse, note that ℬ−\mathcal{B}^{-} is dense in ℬ\mathcal{B}, so by Theorem 2.30 one has for any b∈ℬ−b\in\mathcal{B}^{-}

⦀b⦀−=maxz∈𝔐⁡(ℬ−)|b(z)|=maxz∈𝔐⁡(ℬ)|b(z)|=⦀b⦀sp≤⦀b⦀\vvvert b\vvvert^{-}=\max_{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{B}^{-})}\lvert b(z)\rvert=\max_{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{B})}\lvert b(z)\rvert=\vvvert b\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}}\leq\vvvert b\vvvert

Therefore ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert and ⦀⋅⦀−\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert^{-} are equivalent norms on ℬ−\mathcal{B}^{-}, so ℬ−\mathcal{B}^{-} is closed in ℬ\mathcal{B}, hence coincides with it. ∎

To make an affinoid algebra strict, one can enlarge the base field.

[00IL]
Lemma 2.46.

Let 𝒓=(r1,…,rn)\boldsymbol{r}=(r_{1},\dots,r_{n}) be a multi-radius such {α⁡(log⁡ri)}i∈{1,…,n}\{\alpha(\log r_{i})\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-linearly independent. Then the kk-affinoid algebra

K𝒓:=k⁡{𝒓−1​𝑻,𝒓​𝑻−1}=k⁡{𝒓−1​𝑻,𝒓​𝑺}/(T1​S1−1,…,Tn​Sn−1)K_{\boldsymbol{r}}:=k\{\boldsymbol{r}^{-1}\boldsymbol{T},\boldsymbol{r}\boldsymbol{T}^{-1}\}=k\{\boldsymbol{r}^{-1}\boldsymbol{T},\boldsymbol{r}\boldsymbol{S}\}/(T_{1}S_{1}-1,\dots,T_{n}S_{n}-1)

is a field. ([Ber, Definition 2.1.1])

[00IM]
Lemma 2.47.

Let 𝒯n​(𝒓)\mathcal{T}_{n}(\boldsymbol{r}) be a kk-Tate alegbra. It is strict if and only if ri∈|k×|r_{i}\in\sqrt{\lvert k^{\times}\rvert} for all ii. ([Ber, Corollary 2.1.6])

[00IN]
Corollary 2.48.

Let 𝒯n​(r¯)\mathcal{T}_{n}(\underline{r}) be a kk-Tate alegbra. Let I⊆{1,…,n}I\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\} be a subset of indices such that {α⁡(log⁡ri)}i∈I\{\alpha(\log r_{i})\}_{i\in I} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-linearly independent and |I||I| is maximal for this independence property. Let 𝒓I=(ri1,…,ri1)\boldsymbol{r}_{I}=(r_{i_{1}},\dots,r_{i_{1}}), then K𝒓I​⊗^k​𝒯n​(𝒓)K_{\boldsymbol{r}_{I}}\widehat{\otimes}_{k}\mathcal{T}_{n}(\boldsymbol{r}) is a strict K𝒓IK_{\boldsymbol{r}_{I}}-Tate algebra.

[00IP]
Corollary 2.49.

For any kk-affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A}, there exists a multi-radius 𝒓I=(ri)i∈I\boldsymbol{r}_{I}=(r_{i})_{i\in I} such that {α⁡(log⁡ri)}i∈I\{\alpha(\log r_{i})\}_{i\in I} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-linearly independent and K𝒓I​⊗^k​𝒜K_{\boldsymbol{r}_{I}}\widehat{\otimes}_{k}\mathcal{A} is a K𝒓IK_{\boldsymbol{r}_{I}}-strict affinoid algebra. ([Ber, Proposition 2.1.2])

[00MT]

2.3.2. Algebraic structures: Noetherianity

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra, one denotes by 𝒜∘\mathcal{A}^{\circ} the k∘k^{\circ}-algebra {f∈𝒜 | ⦀f⦀𝒜,sp≤1}\{f\in\mathcal{A}\text{ }|\text{ }\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathcal{A},\text{sp}}\leq 1\}, and by 𝒜∘⁣∘\mathcal{A}^{\circ\circ} the ideal of 𝒜∘\mathcal{A}^{\circ} constituting of elements ⦀f⦀𝒜,sp<1\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathcal{A},\text{sp}}<1. The k~\widetilde{k}-algebra 𝒜∘/𝒜∘⁣∘\mathcal{A}^{\circ}/\mathcal{A}^{\circ\circ} is called the reduction of 𝒜\mathcal{A}. It can be shown that 𝒯n~\widetilde{\mathcal{T}_{n}} is isomorphic to k~​[T1,…,Tn]\widetilde{k}[T_{1},\dots,T_{n}]. ([BGR, Proposition 5.1.2.2])

[00IQ]
Definition 2.50.

An element f∈𝒯nf\in\mathcal{T}_{n} with ⦀f⦀𝒯n=1\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}}=1 is said to be regular in znz_{n} of degree dd if its reduction f¯=λ​(zn)d+∑0≤i≤d−1ci​(zn)d−i\bar{f}=\lambda(z_{n})^{d}+\sum_{0\leq i\leq d-1}c_{i}(z_{n})^{d-i} in 𝒯n¯\bar{\mathcal{T}_{n}} where λ∈k×\lambda\in k^{\times} and ci∈k¯​[z1,…,zn−1]c_{i}\in\bar{k}[z_{1},\dots,z_{n-1}].

[00IR]
Proposition 2.51.

[Weierstrass division] Let 𝒯n\mathcal{T}_{n} be the kk-Tate algebra of multiradius r¯=1¯\underline{r}=\underline{1}, then

  1. (1)

    Let f∈𝒯nf\in\mathcal{T}_{n} be an distinguished element in znz_{n} of degree dd, and g∈𝒯ng\in\mathcal{T}_{n} be any element. Then there exist unique r∈𝒯n−1​[zn]r\in\mathcal{T}_{n-1}[z_{n}] of degree less than dd in znz_{n} and q∈𝒯nq\in\mathcal{T}_{n} such that g=q⋅f+rg=q\cdot f+r. Moreover ⦀g⦀𝒯n=max{⦀q⦀𝒯n,⦀r⦀𝒯n}\vvvert g\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}}=\max\{\vvvert q\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}},\vvvert r\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}}\}

  2. (2)

    Let f∈𝒯nf\in\mathcal{T}_{n} with ⦀f⦀𝒯n=1\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}}=1. Then there exists a kk-algebra automorphism τ\tau of 𝒯n\mathcal{T}_{n} such that τ⁡(f)\tau(f) is regular in znz_{n}.

([BGR, Theorem 5.2.1.2], [FvdP, Theorem 3.1.1])

[00IS]
Proposition 2.52.

The Tate algebra 𝒯n\mathcal{T}_{n} is Noetherian. All of its ideals are closed. ([BGR, Theorem 5.2.6.1, Corollary 5.2.7.2], [FvdP, Theorem 3.2.1])

[00IT]
Corollary 2.53.

Any strict affinoid algebra is Noetherian. All of its ideals are closed ([BGR, Proposition 6.1.1.3], [FvdP, Theorem 3.2.1]). Any affinoid algebra is Noetherian. All of its ideals are closed ([Ber, Propositon 2.1.3]).

[00IU]
Proposition 2.54.

[Noether normalization] For strict affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A}, there exists an injective finite and admissible Banach algebra homomorphism 𝒯d→𝒜\mathcal{T}_{d}\to\mathcal{A} for some d>0d>0. Moreover, dd equals the Krull dimension of 𝒜\mathcal{A}. ([BGR, Theorem 6.1.2.1], [FvdP, Theorem 3.2.1])

[00IV]
Corollary 2.55.

Let 𝔪\mathfrak{m} be a maximal ideal of strict affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A}, then 𝒜/𝔪\mathcal{A}/\mathfrak{m} is a finite extension of kk.

[00MU]

2.3.3. Topological structures: the spectral norm

The Gauss norm on Tate algebra is equal to its spectral norm. For a general strict redueced affinoid algebra, the Banach algebra norm is equivalent to its spectral seminorm, thanks to the compatibility of Banach algebra norms with algebraic structures.

One studies the spectral norm of the Tate algebra case by direct calculation.

[00IW]
Proposition 2.56.

For any f∈𝒯nf\in\mathcal{T}_{n}, there exists z∈Max⁡(𝒯n)z\in\mathrm{Max}(\mathcal{T}_{n}) such that |f(z)|z=⦀f⦀𝒯n\lvert f(z)\rvert_{z}=\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}} ([BGR, Proposition 5.1.4.3]). On 𝒯n\mathcal{T}_{n}, the three norms are equal: ⦀⋅⦀𝒯n=⦀⋅⦀𝒯n,sp=⦀⋅⦀𝒯n,spM\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n}}=\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n},\text{sp}}=\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{T}_{n},\mathrm{spM}}.

One then uses Noether normalization to investigate the spectral seminorm of general affinoid algebra.

[00IX]
Proposition 2.57.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a reduced strict affinoid algebra. Then its spectral norm ⦀⋅⦀𝒜,sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{A},\text{sp}} is a complete norm on 𝒜\mathcal{A}. It is equivalent to the Banach algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀𝒜\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathcal{A}}. ([FvdP, Theorem 3.4.9], [BGR, Theorem 6.2.4.1])

[00IY]
Corollary 2.58.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a reduced general affinoid algebra. Then there exists C>0C>0 such that ⦀f⦀≤C⦀f⦀sp\vvvert f\vvvert\leq C\vvvert f\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} for all f∈𝒜f\in\mathcal{A}. In particular, ⦀⋅⦀sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\mathrm{sp}} is complete on 𝒜\mathcal{A} , and is equivalent to ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. ([Ber, Proposition 2.1.4.ii])

[00IZ]
Remark 2.59.

The constant CC here does not depend on f∈𝒜f\in\mathcal{A}, it is uniform.

[00MV]

2.3.4. Affinoid space as locally ringed space

The Berkovich spectrum of affinoid algebras are called affinoid spaces. It is possible to put locally ringed space structures on them. The construction of structural sheaf goes first with a Grothendieck topology generated by closed compact subsets of affinoid domains, then passes to the canonical topology by a limit process approximating an open set by these compact sets.

[02GE]
Affinoid domains and structural algebra
[00J0]
Definition 2.60.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be an affinoid algebra. An affinoid domain is a closed subset VV of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}), which is homeomorphic to (ιV)⋆​(𝔐⁡(𝒜V))(\iota_{V})^{\star}(\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{V})) for some affinoid algebra 𝒜V\mathcal{A}_{V} and Banach algebra homomorphism ιV:𝒜→𝒜V\iota_{V}:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A}_{V}, and satisfies the universal mapping property: for any Banach algebra homomorphism ϕ:𝒜→𝒞\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{C} between affinoid algebras with ϕ⋆​(𝔐⁡(𝒞))⊆V\phi^{\star}(\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{C}))\subseteq V, there exists a unique Banach algebra homomorphism ψ:𝒜V→𝒞\psi:\mathcal{A}_{V}\to\mathcal{C} with ϕ=ψ∘ιV\phi=\psi\circ\iota_{V}

[00J1]
Lemma 2.61.

Let VV be an affinoid domain in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}). Then VV is homeomorphic to 𝔐⁡(𝒜V)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{V}). Moreover 𝒜V\mathcal{A}_{V} is a flat 𝒜\mathcal{A}-algebra. ([Ber, Proposition 2.2.4])

[00J2]
Example 2.62.

Given f=(f1,…,fm)f=(f_{1},\dots,f_{m}) and g=(g1,…,gn)g=(g_{1},\dots,g_{n}) tuples of elements of 𝒜\mathcal{A}, p=(p1,…,pm)∈(ℝ+∗)mp=(p_{1},\dots,p_{m})\in(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*})^{m} and q=(q1,…,qn)∈(ℝ+∗)nq=(q_{1},\dots,q_{n})\in(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*})^{n}, the closed subset

V=𝔐(𝒜)(p−1f,qg−1):={z∈𝔐(𝒜),|fi(z)|z≤pi, |gj(z)|z≥qj}V=\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})(p^{-1}f,qg^{-1}):=\{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}),|f_{i}(z)|_{z}\leq p_{i},\text{ }|g_{j}(z)|_{z}\geq q_{j}\}

is an affinoid domain. The corresponding homomorphism of affinoid algebras is

𝒜→𝒜V=𝒜⁡{p1−1​T1,…,pm−1​Tm,q1​S1,…,qn​Sn}/(Ti−fi,gj​Sj−1)\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A}_{V}=\mathcal{A}\{p_{1}^{-1}T_{1},\dots,p_{m}^{-1}T_{m},q_{1}S_{1},\dots,q_{n}S_{n}\}/(T_{i}-f_{i},g_{j}S_{j}-1)

Such domains are called Laurent domains. If n=0n=0, they are called Weierstrass domains.

[00J3]
Lemma 2.63.

A finite intersection of affinoid domains is an affinoid domain. ([Ber, Remark 2.2.2.iv])

[00J4]
Corollary 2.64.

Any point z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜)z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) has a fundamental system of (closed) neighbourhoods consisting of affinoid domains. ([Ber, Proposition 2.2.3])

[02GF]
Special domains and acyclicity of structural presheaf
[00J5]
Definition 2.65.

A special domain VV in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is a finite union of affinoid domains ViV_{i} in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}).

[00J6]
Definition 2.66.

The Grothendieck topology on 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is the one with special domains as admissible open sets and finite covering as admissible coverings. One notes 𝔐​(𝒜)G\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})_{G} for the space with this G-topology.

[00J7]
Definition 2.67.

Let 𝔙\mathfrak{V} be an admissible covering of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) by affinoid domains {Vi}i∈I\{V_{i}\}_{i\in I}, where II is a finite set. Then for a Banach finite 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module ℳ\mathcal{M}, the Cech complex of ℳ\mathcal{M} with respect to ViV_{i} is defined to be the complex of Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-modules

C∙(ℳ,𝔙): 0→ℳ→∏i∈Iℳi→∏i,j∈Iℳi,j→…C^{\centerdot}(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{V}):\text{ }0\to\mathcal{M}\to\prod_{i\in I}\mathcal{M}_{i}\to\prod_{i,j\in I}\mathcal{M}_{i,j}\to\dots

One would like to have acyclicity of the complex C∙​(ℳ,𝔙)C^{\centerdot}(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{V}) in order to follow standard construction of a structural sheaf on 𝔐​(𝒜)G\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})_{G}.

[00J8]
Theorem 2.68.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a strict affinoid algebra and 𝔙\mathfrak{V} an admissible covering by strict affinoid domains for 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}). Then C∙​(𝒜,𝔙)C^{\centerdot}(\mathcal{A},\mathfrak{V}) is acyclic. ([BGR, Proposition 8.2.2.5])

[00J9]
Corollary 2.69.

For general affinoid domain 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) with general affinoid domains covering 𝔙\mathfrak{V}, the complex C∙​(𝒜,𝔙)C^{\centerdot}(\mathcal{A},\mathfrak{V}) is acyclic. So is C∙​(M,𝔙)C^{\centerdot}(M,\mathfrak{V}) for finite Banach 𝒜\mathcal{A}-module MM. ([Ber, Proposition 2.2.5])

[00JA]
Definition 2.70.

Let VV be any special domain in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}). Fix a way of writing VV as ⋃i∈IVi\bigcup_{i\in I}V_{i} where II is a finite set and Vi=𝔐⁡(𝒜Vi)V_{i}=\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{V_{i}}) are affinoid algebras, let

𝒜V:=ker⁡(∏i∈I𝒜Vi→∏i,j∈I𝒜Vi∩Vj)\mathcal{A}_{V}:=\ker(\prod_{i\in I}\mathcal{A}_{V_{i}}\to\prod_{i,j\in I}\mathcal{A}_{V_{i}\cap V_{j}})

be the kk-Banach algebra with sub-norm. The structural pre-sheaf of affinoid algebras 𝒪𝔐​(𝒜)G\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})_{G}} on 𝔐​(𝒜)G\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})_{G} (with respect to the G-topology) is the one assigning VV the kk-Banach algebra 𝒜V\mathcal{A}_{V}. It is a sheaf thanks to Corollary 2.69.

[00JB]
Remark 2.71.

The kk-Banach algebra 𝒪𝔐​(𝒜)G​(V)\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})_{G}}(V) does not depend on the way of being a union of affinoid domains.

[00JC]
Definition 2.72.

For any open subset UU of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}), let 𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})} be the pre-sheaf of kk-algebras (with respect to the canonical topology) which assigns UU the limit

𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜)​(U):=lim←V⊂U,V special domain⁡𝒜V\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})}(U):=\varprojlim_{V\subset U,\text{V special domain}}\mathcal{A}_{V}

It is also a sheaf thanks to the compactness of special domains under canonical topology. This is called the structural sheaf of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}).

[00JD]
Proposition 2.73.

𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})} is a sheaf of local rings. The topological space 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) has a structure of locally ringed space given by the sheaf 𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})}. ([Ber, Section 2.3])

[00MW]

2.4. Spectral calculus

Gelfand-Shilov theory allows one to do multi-variable spectral calculus for (commutative) Banach algebras over ℂ\mathbb{C}. In particular, one can localize a homomorphism between Banach algebras onto a neighbourhood of its spectrum. Similar theory, as develloped in [Ber, Chapter 7], exists in the non-Archimedean base field setting.

[00MX]

2.4.1. Holomorphic envelop

The holomorphic convexity of spectrum of a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebra depends on the dense-ness of its image. In case where the spectrum of a homomorphism is not holomorphic convex, one can add variables to the source algebra so that spectrum of extended homomorphism is holomorphically convex.

[00JE]
Definition 2.74.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} and ℬ\mathcal{B} be Banach kk-algebras, and ϕ:𝒜→ℬ\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B} be a homomorphism of Banach algebras. The spectrum of homomorphism ϕ\phi is the image of 𝔐⁡(ℬ)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{B}) in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) under ϕ⋆\phi^{\star}. Denote it by Σϕ\Sigma_{\phi}

[00JF]
Definition 2.75.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a Banach kk-algebra. Let Ω\Omega be a compact subset of 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}). The holomorphic convex envelop of Ω\Omega in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is the subset

Ωh:={z∈𝔐(𝒜)|∀f∈𝒜,|f|z≤supz′∈Ω|f|z′}\Omega^{\mathrm{h}}:=\{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})\ |\ \forall f\in\mathcal{A},\lvert f\rvert_{z}\leq\sup_{z^{\prime}\in\Omega}\lvert f\rvert_{z^{\prime}}\}

The subset Ω\Omega is said to be holomorphically convex if Ωh=Ω\Omega^{\mathrm{h}}=\Omega.

[00JG]
Lemma 2.76.

The intersection of all Weierstrass neighbourhoods of Ω\Omega in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) coincide with Ωh\Omega^{\mathrm{h}}. ([Ber, Proposition 2.6.1])

[00JH]
Proposition 2.77.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a kk-affinoid algebra, ℬ\mathcal{B} be a Banach kk-algebra. Let ϕ:𝒜→ℬ\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B} be a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras. Let ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime} be the closed sub-algebra generated by the image of ϕ\phi of 𝒜\mathcal{A} in ℬ\mathcal{B} and let ϕ′:𝒜→ℬ′\phi^{\prime}:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}^{\prime} be the restricted homomorphism. Then (Σϕ)h=Σϕ′(\Sigma_{\phi})^{\mathrm{h}}=\Sigma_{\phi^{\prime}}. ([Ber, Proposition 7.3.1])

[00JI]
Corollary 2.78.

Let ϕ:𝒜→ℬ\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B} be a homomorphism of Banach algebras from an affinoid algebra to a Banach algebra with dense image. Then Σϕ\Sigma_{\phi} is holomorphically convex.

One has the following analogue of Arens-Calderon theorem, which holomorphically convexifies the spectrum of a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras by adding variables on the source algebra.

[00JJ]
Proposition 2.79.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a kk-affinoid algebra, ℬ\mathcal{B} be a Banach kk-algebra. Let ϕ:𝒜→ℬ\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B} be a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras. Then for any open neighbourhood UU in 𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) of the spectrum Σϕ\Sigma_{\phi}, there exists a homomorphism of Banach algebras extending ϕ\phi

ϕ~:𝒜~:=𝒜⁡{r1−1​T1,…,rn−1​Tn}→ℬ\widetilde{\phi}:\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}:=\mathcal{A}\{r_{1}^{-1}T_{1},\dots,r_{n}^{-1}T_{n}\}\to\mathcal{B}

such that pr⁡((Σϕ)h)⊆U\mathrm{pr}((\Sigma_{\phi})^{\mathrm{h}})\subseteq U, where pr:𝔐⁡(𝒜~)→𝔐⁡(𝒜)\mathrm{pr}:\mathfrak{M}(\widetilde{\mathcal{A}})\to\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) is the canonical map of projection. ([Ber, Proposition 7.3.3])

[00MY]

2.4.2. Holomorphic functional calculus

It is easy to localize the homomorphism to holomorphic convex neighbourhood of its spectrum. For a spectrum of homomorphism which is not holomorphically convex, one uses Proposition 2.79 to localize the homomorphism to any neighbourhood of it.

[00JK]
Lemma 2.80.

Let ϕ:𝒜→ℬ\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B} be a Banach algebra homomorphism from an affinoid algebra 𝒜\mathcal{A} to a Banach algebra ℬ\mathcal{B}. Then for any Laurent domain neighbourhood VV of Σϕ\Sigma_{\phi}, ϕ\phi extends to a unique Banach algebra homomorphism ϕV:𝒜V→ℬ\phi_{V}:\mathcal{A}_{V}\to\mathcal{B}. ([Ber, Corollary 2.5.16])

[00JL]
Theorem 2.81.

Let ϕ:𝒜→ℬ\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B} be a homomorphism of Banach algebras from an affinoid algebra to a Banach algebra. Let V⊆𝔐⁡(𝒜)V\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) be any special domain containing Σϕ\Sigma_{\phi}. Then there exists a Banach algebra homomorphism

θϕ:Γ⁡(V,𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜))→ℬ\theta_{\phi}:\Gamma(V,\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})})\to\mathcal{B}

satisfying ϕ=θϕ∘ιV\phi=\theta_{\phi}\circ\iota_{V}, where ιV:𝒜→𝒜V=Γ⁡(V,𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜))\iota_{V}:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A}_{V}=\Gamma(V,\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A})}) is the Banach algebra homomorphism corresponding to the inclusion V⊆𝔐⁡(𝒜)V\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}). ([Ber, Theorem 7.3.4])

[00JM]
Remark 2.82.

One can verify that the resulting Banach algebra homomorphism does not depend on the choice of ϕ~\widetilde{\phi}.

[00MZ]

2.5. Analytification of scheme of finite type

There is a construction of Berkovich spectrum for a kk-algebra similar to the one for kk-Banach algebra, giving rise to analytification of kk-schemes of locally finite type, as developped in [Ber, Section 3.4].

[00N0]

2.5.1. Local situation

For affine varieties, the topological space of its analytification is defined in the same way as the spectrum of Banach algebra, except that boundedness requirement of seminorms are dropped. They enjoy similar basic properties as the spectrum of Banach algebra. Proofs are of same spirit hence are omitted.

[00JN]
Definition 2.83.

Let Z=Spec⁡(AZ)Z=\spec(A_{Z}) be an affine kk-scheme of finite type, where AZA_{Z} is a kk-algebra of finite type. Its Berkovich analytification Za​nZ^{an} is the topological space constituting of all multiplicative seminorms ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert on AZA_{Z} as points and with the canonical topology (the weakest topology making every function ⦀⋅⦀→⦀f⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert\to\vvvert f\vvvert continuous for each f∈AZf\in A_{Z}). ([Ber, Remark 3.4.2])

[00JP]
Definition 2.84.

A character on AZA_{Z} is a homomorphism of kk-algebra from AZA_{Z} to some valued field extension (K,|⋅|K)(K,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K}) over (k,|⋅|k)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{k}). Two characters χ1:AZ→K1\chi_{1}:A_{Z}\to K_{1} and χ1:AZ→K1\chi_{1}:A_{Z}\to K_{1} are called equivalent if there exists a kk-algebra homomorphism χ3:AZ→K3\chi_{3}:A_{Z}\to K_{3} and norm preserving kk-algebra homomorphisms i1:K1→K3i_{1}:K_{1}\to K_{3} and i2:K2→K3i_{2}:K_{2}\to K_{3} satisfying χ3=i1∘χ1=i2∘χ2\chi_{3}=i_{1}\circ\chi_{1}=i_{2}\circ\chi_{2}.

[00JQ]
Lemma 2.85.

There is a bijective map from the set of points of Za​nZ^{an} to the set of equivalent classes of characters on AZA_{Z}.

[00JR]
Proposition 2.86.

Let ϕ:AZ→AW\phi:A_{Z}\to A_{W} be a homomorphism of kk-algebras of finite type where Z=Spec⁡(AZ)Z=\spec(A_{Z}) and W=Spec⁡(AW)W=\spec(A_{W}). Then there is an induced continuous map ϕ⋆:Wa​n→Za​n\phi^{\star}:W^{an}\to Z^{an}, which sends a multiplicative seminorm |⋅|w|\cdot|_{w} to |ϕ⁡(⋅)|w|\phi(\cdot)|_{w}.

[00JS]
Proposition 2.87.

If ϕ\phi is surjective, then ϕ⋆\phi^{\star} is injective and is a closed map; if ϕ\phi is finite, then ϕ⋆\phi^{\star} is surjective. ( [Ber, Proposition 3.46 (6)(7)])

[00JT]
Proposition 2.88.

Let Z=Spec⁡(AZ)Z=\spec(A_{Z}) be an affine kk-variety, ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert an algebra norm on AZA_{Z} and 𝒜Z\mathcal{A}_{Z} be the kk-Banach algebra obtained by completing AZA_{Z} with respect to ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. Then the canonical homomorphism of kk-algebras from AZA_{Z} to 𝒜Z\mathcal{A}_{Z} induces a continuous map which embeds the Berkovich spectrum 𝔐⁡(𝒜Z)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z}) into Za​nZ^{an} as a compact subspace (and is closed since ZanZ^{\mathrm{an}} is Hausdorff), and the Berkovich topology coincides with the induced topology from Za​nZ^{an}.

[00JU]
Proof.

For any z∈𝔐⁡(𝒜Z)z\in\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z}), the multiplicative algebra seminorm (or the corresponding character) χz\chi_{z} on 𝒜Z\mathcal{A}_{Z} corresponds to a unique multiplicative algebra seminorm on AZA_{Z} by restriction. Since AZA_{Z} is dense in 𝒜Z\mathcal{A}_{Z}, the family of open sets {U(f;p,q), f∈AZ, p,q∈ℝ}\{U(f;p,q),\text{ }f\in A_{Z},\text{ }p,q\in\mathbb{R}\} form a basis for topology on 𝔐⁡(𝒜Z)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z}), hence the inherited topology coincides with the originial topology. So the embedding is continuous, and the image of 𝔐⁡(𝒜Z)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z}) is compact in Za​nZ^{an}. Since the topology on Za​nZ^{an} is Hausdorff, the image of 𝔐⁡(𝒜Z)\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z}) is closed. ∎

[00JV]
Definition 2.89.

An analytic function on open set U⊆(Spec⁡AZ)a​nU\subseteq(\spec A_{Z})^{an} is a map h:U→∐z∈Uκ^​(z)h:U\to\coprod_{z\in U}\hat{\kappa}(z) which is a local uniform limit of rational functions: every z∈Uz\in U has an open neighbourhood U′⊆UU^{\prime}\subseteq U such that for every ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists fU′,gU′∈AZf_{U^{\prime}},g_{U^{\prime}}\in A_{Z} with |h⁡(z)−fU′​(z)gU′​(z)|<ϵ|h(z)-\frac{f_{U^{\prime}}(z)}{g_{U^{\prime}}(z)}|<\epsilon and g⁡(z)≠0g(z)\neq 0 for all z∈U′z\in U^{\prime}. Denote by ℛan​(U)\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{an}}(U) the kk-algebra of all analytic functions on UU.

[00JW]
Definition 2.90.

The structural sheaf 𝒪Zan\mathscr{O}_{Z^{\mathrm{an}}} on ZanZ^{\mathrm{an}} is the one assigning ℛan​(U)\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{an}}(U) to an open set UU.

[00JX]
Proposition 2.91.

𝒪Zan\mathscr{O}_{Z^{\mathrm{an}}} is a sheaf of local rings. The pair (Zan,𝒪Zan)(Z^{\mathrm{an}},\mathscr{O}_{Z^{\mathrm{an}}}) gives rise to a locally ringed space.

[00JY]
Proposition 2.92.

If 𝒜Z\mathcal{A}_{Z} is an affinoid algebra 𝒜Z\mathcal{A}_{Z}, then there is a morphism of locally ringed space

(𝔐⁡(𝒜Z,𝒪𝔐⁡(𝒜Z))→(Za​n,𝒪Za​n)CLOSE(\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z},\mathscr{O}_{\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z})})\to(Z^{an},\mathscr{O}_{Z^{an}})
[00JZ]
Proof.

The map of topological spaces is given in Proposition 2.88. For the ring homomorphism, it suffices to construct a kk-algebra homomorphism 𝒪Za​n​(U)→𝒜V\mathscr{O}_{Z^{an}}(U)\to\mathcal{A}_{V} for any open set U⊆𝔐⁡(𝒜)U\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}) and any affinoid domain V⊆UV\subseteq U. Moreover, it suffices to consider UU and VV of basic form

U=U⁡(p¯−1​f¯,q¯​g¯−1),V=𝔐⁡(𝒜Z​((p¯−ϵ¯)−1​f¯,(q¯+ϵ¯)​g¯−1))​ , ​ϵ>0U=U(\underline{p}^{-1}\underline{f},\underline{q}\underline{g}^{-1}),\quad V=\mathfrak{M}(\mathcal{A}_{Z}((\underline{p}-\underline{\epsilon})^{-1}\underline{f},(\underline{q}+\underline{\epsilon})\underline{g}^{-1}))\text{ , }\epsilon>0

There is a homomorphism of kk-algebras ℛan​(U)→𝒜Z​((p¯−ϵ¯)−1​f¯,(q¯+ϵ¯)​g¯−1)\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{an}}(U)\to\mathcal{A}_{Z}((\underline{p}-\underline{\epsilon})^{-1}\underline{f},(\underline{q}+\underline{\epsilon})\underline{g}^{-1}) sending f~g~\frac{\tilde{f}}{\tilde{g}} for f~,g~∈AZ\tilde{f},\tilde{g}\in A_{Z} to itself, the later being an element of 𝒜V\mathcal{A}_{V} since 1g~∈𝒜V\frac{1}{\tilde{g}}\in\mathcal{A}_{V} by Lemma 2.25. As uniform limits of sequence in ℛan​(U)\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{an}}(U) remains to be uniform limits, this homomorphism extends to a kk-algebra homomorphism 𝒪Za​n​(U)→𝒜V\mathscr{O}_{Z^{an}}(U)\to\mathcal{A}_{V}. ∎

[00N1]

2.5.2. Global situation

One can analytify a scheme of finite type defined over kk by glueing local constructions.

[00K0]
Definition 2.93.

Let XX be a finite type scheme over Spec⁡k\spec k, and write XX as ⋃Xi\bigcup X_{i} where Xi=Spec⁡AXiX_{i}=\spec A_{X_{i}} are affine charts. The Berkovich analytification of (X,𝒪X)(X,\mathscr{O}_{X}) is the locally ringed space obtained by gluing the Berkovich analytification ((Xi)a​n,𝒪(Xi)a​n)((X_{i})^{an},\mathscr{O}_{(X_{i})^{an}}) of each (Xi,𝒪Xi)(X_{i},\mathscr{O}_{X_{i}}).

[00K1]
Proposition 2.94.

Let ϕ:X→Y\phi:X\rightarrow Y be a morphism of schemes of locally finite type over Spec⁡k\spec k. Then it induces a continuous map ϕan:Xan→Yan\phi^{\mathrm{an}}:X^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow Y^{\mathrm{an}}. And ϕ\phi is (1) separated, (2) injective, (3) surjective, (4) an open immersion and (5) an isomorphism if and only if ϕan\phi^{\mathrm{an}} has the same property. ([Ber, Proposition 3.4.6])

[00K2]
Theorem 2.95.

If XX is proper, then XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is Hausdorff and compact. ([Ber, Theorem 3.4.8])

[00N2]

3. Normed section algebra

In this section, one studies norms on graded linear series of a line bundle on a projective variety.

[00N3]

3.1. Basic setting

Let kk be a field equipped with a complete non-Archimedean absolute value |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert, which is not trivial. Let XX be an irreducible scheme of finite type over Spec⁡k\spec k. One denotes by XanX^{\mathrm{an}} the Berkovich analytic space associated with XX and by jX:Xan→Xj_{X}:X^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow X the map sending any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} to its associated scheme point.

  1. 1.

    Let V=⨁n∈ℕVnV=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{n} be a graded kk-algebra. Let ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert be an algebra seminorm on VV. For every n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, this algebra seminorm induces by restriction a seminorm on the kk-vector space VnV_{n}, denoted by ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}. As ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert is sub-multiplicative, these seminorms satisfy the property

    ∀(m,n)∈ℕ2,sm∈Vm,sn∈Vn,∥sm⋅sn∥m+n⩽∥sm∥m⋅∥sn∥n;∥1∥0=1\forall(m,n)\in\mathbb{N}^{2},s_{m}\in V_{m},s_{n}\in V_{n},\quad\lVert s_{m}\cdot s_{n}\rVert_{m+n}\leqslant\lVert s_{m}\rVert_{m}\cdot\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n};\quad\lVert 1\rVert_{0}=1

    Conversly, given a familly of ultrametric seminorms {∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} on kk-vector spaces VnV_{n} of VV satisfying these properties, the seminorm on the graded kk-algebra ⨁n∈ℕVn\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{n} defined by

    ∀s¯=(sn)n∈ℕ,⦀s¯⦀:=supn∈ℕ∥sn∥n\forall\underline{s}=(s_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}},\quad\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert:=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n}

    is submultiplicative, hence is an algebra seminorm on VV. In fact, let s¯=(sn)n∈ℕ\underline{s}=(s_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and t¯=(tn)n∈ℕ\underline{t}=(t_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be two elements of ⨁n∈ℕVn\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{n} and u¯=(un)n∈ℕ=s¯⋅t¯\underline{u}=(u_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}=\underline{s}\cdot\underline{t}, then one has

    un=∑(p,q)∈ℕ2p+q=nsp⋅tq.u_{n}=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}(p,q)\in\mathbb{N}^{2}\\ p+q=n\end{subarray}}s_{p}\cdot t_{q}.

    By using the fact that the seminorm ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} is ultrametric, one obtains that

    ∥un∥n⩽max(p,q)∈ℕ2p+q=n⁡∥sp⋅tq∥n⩽max(p,q)∈ℕ2p+q=n⁡∥sp∥p⋅∥tq∥q,\lVert u_{n}\rVert_{n}\leqslant\max_{\begin{subarray}{c}(p,q)\in\mathbb{N}^{2}\\ p+q=n\end{subarray}}\lVert s_{p}\cdot t_{q}\rVert_{n}\leqslant\max_{\begin{subarray}{c}(p,q)\in\mathbb{N}^{2}\\ p+q=n\end{subarray}}\lVert s_{p}\rVert_{p}\cdot\lVert t_{q}\rVert_{q},

    so ⦀u¯⦀\vvvert\underline{u}\vvvert is bounded from above by ⦀s¯⦀⋅⦀t¯⦀\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert\cdot\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert. Denote by V^(⦀⋅⦀)\widehat{V}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert) the separated completion of the seminormed algebra (⨁n∈ℕVn,⦀⋅⦀)(\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{n},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert).

    One denotes by Υ​(V∙​(L))\Upsilon(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)) the set of all power-multiplicative ultrametric algebra norms ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert which satisfies

    ∀(sn)∈V∙(L),⦀(sn)⦀=supn∈ℕ⦀sn⦀.\forall(s_{n})\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L),\ \vvvert(s_{n})\vvvert=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\vvvert s_{n}\vvvert.

    This last condition is equivalent to the orthogonality of {Vn}n∈ℕ\{V_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} as kk-linear subspaces.

  2. 2.

    For any invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module LL, one denotes by V∙​(L)V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L) the graded kk-algebra ⨁n∈ℕVn​(L)\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{n}(L) where Vn​(L):=H0​(X,L⊗n)V_{n}(L):=H^{0}(X,L^{\otimes n}). As XX is irreducible, V0​(L)=kV_{0}(L)=k.

    Let f:Y→Xf:Y\rightarrow X be a morphism of kk-schemes. The morphism of 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules L⊗n→f∗​f∗​(L⊗n)L^{\otimes n}\to f_{*}f^{*}(L^{\otimes n}) induces linear maps of kk-vector spaces Vn​(L)→Vn​(f∗​L)V_{n}(L)\rightarrow V_{n}(f^{*}L) and graded homomorphism of degree 00 of graded-kk-algebras V∙​(L)→V∙​(f∗​L)V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L)\rightarrow V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(f^{*}L). Denote by Vn​(LX|Y)V_{n}(L_{X|Y}) and V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}) the image vector space and image graded algebra.

    One denotes by T​o​t​(L∨)Tot(L^{\vee}) the scheme Spec⁡(Sym𝒪X⁡L)\spec(\sym_{\mathscr{O}_{X}}L) over Spec⁡k\spec k, by πX\pi_{X} the canonical morphism of schemes T​o​t​(L∨)→XTot(L^{\vee})\rightarrow X, and by 𝕆\mathbb{O} the reduced closed subscheme of zero section. If the graded kk-algebra V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) is of finite type, then one denotes by 𝟎\boldsymbol{0} the closed point of Spec⁡V∙​(L)\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) given by the maximal ideal V≥1​(L)V_{\geq 1}(L), and by pX​(𝟎)p_{X}(\mathbf{0}) the canonical blow-up morphism T​o​t​(L∨)→Spec⁡V∙​(L)Tot(L^{\vee})\rightarrow\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) along the sub-scheme 𝟎\mathbf{0}.

    Denote the integer dimkVn​(L)−1\dim_{k}V_{n}(L)-1 by dnd_{n}. If L⊗nL^{\otimes n} is globally generated, there is a morphism induced by Vn​(L)V_{n}(L)

    ιn:X→ℙ⁡(Vn​(L))≃ℙdn.\iota_{n}:\ X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}(V_{n}(L))\simeq\mathbb{P}^{d_{n}}.
  3. 3.

    Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module. Let ℱX\mathcal{F}_{X} be the sheaf of real-valued functions on XanX^{\mathrm{an}}. By pseudometric on LL one refers to a morphism of sheaves of sets ϕ:L→jX,∗​(ℱX)\phi:L\rightarrow j_{X,*}(\mathcal{F}_{X}) such that, for any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}}, the map |⋅|ϕ​(x):L⁡(x)→ℝ\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\phi}(x):L(x)\rightarrow\mathbb{R} induced by ϕ\phi is a seminorm on the one-dimensional vector space L⁡(x)L(x) over κ^​(x)\widehat{\kappa}(x). If, for any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}}, the map |⋅|ϕ​(x)\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\phi}(x) is a norm, one says that ϕ\phi is a metric.

    We say that a pseudometric ϕ\phi is (upper semi-)continuous if, for any Zariski open subset UU of XX and any section s∈Γ⁡(X,L)s\in\Gamma(X,L), the function (x∈Uan)→|s|ϕ​(x)(x\in U^{\mathrm{an}})\rightarrow|s|_{\phi}(x) is (upper semi-)continuous.

  4. 4.

    The pair (L,ϕ)(L,\phi) is called a pseudometrized invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module. For any ϵ∈ℝ\epsilon\in\mathbb{R}, the following subset of T​o​t​(L∨)anTot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}, equipped with induced topology

    {(x,e∨(x))∈Tot(L∨)an:|e∨(s)|(x)≤|s|ϕ(x)⋅eϵ(resp.<eϵ)}\{(x,e^{\vee}(x))\in Tot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}:\lvert e^{\vee}(s)\rvert(x)\leq\lvert s\rvert_{\phi}(x)\cdot\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon}\ (resp.<\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon})\}

    is called the dual closed (resp. open) disc bundle of radius eϵ\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon} of the pseudometrized pair (L,ϕ)(L,\phi), where ss is a local section of LL. We denote it by 𝔻¯∨​(L,ϕ,ϵ)\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\phi,\epsilon) (resp. OPEN𝔻∨​(L,ϕ,ϵ))\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi,\epsilon)).

  5. 5.

    Let f:Y→Xf:Y\rightarrow X be a morphism of separated kk-schemes of finite type. Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module, equipped with a pseudometric ϕ\phi. We define a pseudometric f∗​ϕf^{*}\phi on f∗​(L)f^{*}(L) such that, for any section ss of LL on a Zariski open subset UU of XX, one has

    ∀y∈f−1​(U)an,|f∗​(s)|f∗​ϕ​(y)=|s|ϕ​(fan​(y)).\forall\,y\in f^{-1}(U)^{\mathrm{an}},\quad|f^{*}(s)|_{f^{*}\phi}(y)=|s|_{\phi}(f^{\mathrm{an}}(y)).

    Since fan:Yan→Xanf^{\mathrm{an}}:Y^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow X^{\mathrm{an}} is continuous (Proposition 2.94), if the metric ϕ\phi is continuous, so is f∗​ϕf^{*}\phi. If YY is a subscheme of XX and if f:Y→Xf:Y\rightarrow X is the canonical immersion, the restricted metric f∗​ϕf^{*}\phi is also denoted by ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y}.

  6. 6.

    Any map f:Xan→ℝ∪{+∞}f:X^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\} determines a pseudometric τf\tau_{f} on 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} such that, for any regular function aa of XX on a Zariski open subset UU, one has (with the convention e−∞=0\mathrm{e}^{-\infty}=0)

    ∀x∈Uan,|a|ϕf​(x)=|a|​(x)⋅e−f⁡(x).\forall\,x\in U^{\mathrm{an}},\quad\lvert a\rvert_{\phi_{f}}(x)=|a|(x)\cdot\mathrm{e}^{-f(x)}.

    Note that f↦τff\mapsto\tau_{f} defines a bijection between the set of maps Xan→ℝ∪{+∞}X^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\} and that of pseudometrics on 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}, which maps the set of real-valued functions bijectively to that of pseudometrics on 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}. Moreover, a pseudometric ϕf\phi_{f} is continuous if and only if ff is continuous on XanX^{\mathrm{an}}. The trivial invertible sheaf 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} equipped with the pseudometric τf\tau_{f} is denoted by 𝒪X​(f)\mathscr{O}_{X}(f). The metric corresponding to the identically vanishing function is called the trivial metric on 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}.

  7. 7.

    Let ϕ1\phi_{1} and ϕ2\phi_{2} be two metrics on LL. The distance of these two pseudometrics is a generalized positive real number (in ℝ+∪{+∞}\mathbb{R}_{+}\cup\{+\infty\}) defined by

    dist⁡(ϕ1,ϕ2)=supx∈Xan|log⁡|ϕ1​(x)ϕ2​(x)|κ^​(x)|.\dist(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})=\sup_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}\Big|\log\Big|\frac{\phi_{1}(x)}{\phi_{2}(x)}\Big|_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\Big|.

    If XX is proper and ϕ1\phi_{1}, ϕ2\phi_{2} are continuous metrics, then dist⁡(ϕ1,ϕ2)∈ℝ+\dist(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}.

  8. 8.

    Let L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} be invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-modules, and ϕ1\phi_{1} and ϕ2\phi_{2} be pseudometrics on L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} respectively. The pseudometric ϕ1\phi_{1} and ϕ2\phi_{2} induce by passing to tensor product a metric on L1⊗L2L_{1}\otimes L_{2}, denoted by ϕ1+ϕ2\phi_{1}+\phi_{2}. For any Zariski open subset UU of XX and any (s1,s2)∈Γ⁡(U,L1)×Γ⁡(U,L2)(s_{1},s_{2})\in\Gamma(U,L_{1})\times\Gamma(U,L_{2}), one has

    ∀x∈Uan,|s1⋅s2|ϕ1+ϕ2​(x)=|s1|ϕ1​(x)⋅|s2|ϕ2​(x).\forall\,x\in U^{\mathrm{an}},\quad\lvert s_{1}\cdot s_{2}\rvert_{\phi_{1}+\phi_{2}}(x)=\lvert s_{1}\rvert_{\phi_{1}}(x)\cdot\lvert s_{2}\rvert_{\phi_{2}}(x).

    If ϕ1\phi_{1} and ϕ2\phi_{2} are continuous, then ϕ1+ϕ2\phi_{1}+\phi_{2} is also continuous.

    In particular, for any ϵ∈ℝ\epsilon\in\mathbb{R}, we denote by ϕ⁡(ϵ)\phi(\epsilon) the pseudometric ϕ+τeϵ\phi+\tau_{\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon}} on L⊗𝒪X=LL\otimes\mathscr{O}_{X}=L.

    Moreover, any metric ϕ\phi on LL determines by passing to its dual a metric −ϕ-\phi on L∨L^{\vee} such that, for any Zariski open subset UU of XX and any (s,α)∈Γ⁡(U,L)×Γ⁡(U,L∨)(s,\alpha)\in\Gamma(U,L)\times\Gamma(U,L^{\vee}), one has

    ∀x∈Uan,|α⁡(s)|​(x)=|α|−ϕ​(x)⋅|s|ϕ​(x).\forall\,x\in U^{\mathrm{an}},\quad\lvert\alpha(s)\rvert(x)=\lvert\alpha\rvert_{-\phi}(x)\cdot\lvert s\rvert_{\phi}(x).

    If the metric ϕ\phi is continuous, so is −ϕ-\phi.

  9. 9.

    Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module, and n∈ℕ∖{0}n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}. A pseudometric ϕ\phi on LL determines by tensor power a pseudometric on L⊗nL^{\otimes n} for any n∈ℕ∖{0}n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}, denoted by n​ϕn\phi. By convention, 0​ϕ0\phi denotes the trivial metric on L⊗0≅𝒪XL^{\otimes 0}\cong\mathscr{O}_{X} (see 6. above).

    Similarly, assume given a pseudometric ϕ\phi on L⊗nL^{\otimes n}. We denote by 1n​ϕ\frac{1}{n}\phi the pseudometric on LL such that, for any Zariski open subset UU of XX and any section s∈Γ⁡(U,L)s\in\Gamma(U,L), one has

    ∥s∥1n​ϕ=∥sn∥ϕ1/n.\lVert s\rVert_{\frac{1}{n}\phi}=\lVert s^{n}\rVert_{\phi}^{1/n}.

    If the pseudometric ϕ\phi is continuous, then also is 1n​ϕ\frac{1}{n}\phi.

  10. 10.

    Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module. For any nn such that L⊗nL^{\otimes n} is globally generated, let ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} be a norm on Vn​(L)V_{n}(L). For any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}}, the evaluation map

    Vn​(L)⊗kκ^​(x)⟶L⊗n​(x)V_{n}(L)\otimes_{k}\widehat{\kappa}(x)\longrightarrow L^{\otimes n}(x)

    induces a quotient norm of ∥⋅∥n,κ^​(x)\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n,\widehat{\kappa}(x)} on the κ^​(x)\widehat{\kappa}(x)-vector space L⊗n​(x)L^{\otimes n}(x), denoted by ∥⋅∥n,X|x\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n,X|x}. This gives rise to a metric on L⊗nL^{\otimes n}, which we call the Fubini-Study metric associated with ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} on L⊗nL^{\otimes n}, denoted by FS​(∥⋅∥n)​(x)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})(x). The metric 1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}) on LL is called the nn-th Fubini-Study metric associated with ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} on LL.

    In particular, let {sn,j}j∈{0,…,dn}\{s_{n,j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}} be a basis of Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) and let ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} be a ultrametric norm on V1​(L)V_{1}(L) with respect to which {s1,j}j∈{0,…,d1}\{s_{1,j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{1}\}} is an orthogonal basis. Such a metric FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}) is studied and heavily used in [CMor18], and is said to be diagonalizable in [BE18].

  11. 11.

    Similarly, let ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert be an algebra norm on V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L). For any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}}, the evaluation map induces a κ^​(x)\widehat{\kappa}(x)-algebra homomorphism

    V∙​(L)⊗κ^​(x)→⨁n∈ℕL⊗n​(x)=:V∙​(L)​(x)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)\otimes\widehat{\kappa}(x)\rightarrow\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}L^{\otimes n}(x)=:V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)(x)

    This algebra homomorphism induces a quotient algebra norm of the scalar extension ⦀⋅⦀κ^​(x)\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)} on V∙​(L)​(x)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)(x), denoted by ⦀⋅⦀X|x\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{X|x}. Let V^(L,⦀⋅⦀)(x)\widehat{V}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)(x) denote the separated completion of (V∙(L)(x),⦀⋅⦀X|x)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)(x),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{X|x}). Once a non-zero element e1​(x)∈L​(x)e_{1}(x)\in L(x) is chosen, the second algebra can be identified with κ^​(x)​[T]\widehat{\kappa}(x)[T] by sending e1​(x)e_{1}(x) to TT.

  12. 12.

    Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X} module. Let {∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be a familly of norms on {Vn​(L)}n∈ℕ\{V_{n}(L)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}. If the sequence of metrics {1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)}n∈ℕ\{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} converges pointwisely to a limit metric, we denote it by 𝒫⁡({∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ)\mathcal{P}(\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}) and call it the Fubini-Study envelop metric associated with {∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}.

    Note that if the convergence is uniform for x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}}, since Fubini-Study metrics {1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)}n∈ℕ\{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} are continuous, the envelop metric will also be continuous. Conversely, if XX is proper over Spec⁡k\spec k and the envelop metric is continuous, then the convergence is uniform in x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} as XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is Hausdorff and compact by Theorem 2.95. A metric ϕ\phi on LL is asymptotic Fubini-Study if it is a Fubini-Study envelop metric and the convergence is uniform for x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} (see [BE18, Definition 6.1]). Asymptotic Fubini-Study metrics are thus continuous. Note that asymptotic Fubini-Study property in this sense is equivalent to the notion of semipositive metric by the terminology of [CMor18]. We refer to [BFJ16, §5.4] and [BE18, §6.1] for a clear discussion of other various notions of semipositivity that have been proposed and studied in [Zha95], [Gu98], [Mor11], [BFJ16], [CLD12], [BMPS], [CMor18], [GM16] and literature therein.

    In particular, let ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert be an algebra seminorm on V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L), and let {∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be the associated familly of seminorms on {Vn​(L)}n∈ℕ\{V_{n}(L)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}. The seminorms {1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)​(x)}n∈ℕ\{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})(x)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} on L⁡(x)L(x) satisfy sub-multiplicative property, so they converges to a limit seminorm on L⁡(x)L(x). This gives rise to a pseuodometric on LL, called the Fubini-Study envelop pseudometric associated with ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. We denote it by 𝒫(⦀⋅⦀)\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert). It is not necessarily continuous.

  13. 13.

    Assume that XX is proper over Spec⁡k\spec k. Note that XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is then a compact Hausdorff space (see [Ber, Theorem 3.4.8]). Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module and ϕ\phi be an upper semicontinuous metric on LL (see 3. above). As XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is compact, any upper semicontinuous function on XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is bounded from above and attains its maximal value. In particular, for any s∈V1​(L)s\in V_{1}(L), one has

    ∥s∥ϕ:=supx∈Xan|s|ϕ​(x)<+∞.\lVert s\rVert_{\phi}:=\sup_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}\lvert s\rvert_{\phi}(x)<+\infty.

    Moreover, ∥⋅∥ϕ:V1​(L)→ℝ≥0\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi}:V_{1}(L)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} is a norm on V1​(L)V_{1}(L). This norm is ultrametric since the absolute value |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert on kk is non-Archimedean and LL is of rank 11. We denote by ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} the norm on the kk-vector space V∙​(L)V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L) defined as

    ∀s¯=(sn)n∈ℕ∈V∙(L),⦀s¯⦀ϕ:=supn∈ℕ∥sn∥n​ϕ.\forall\,\underline{s}=(s_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\in V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L),\quad\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert_{\phi}:=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}.

    Note that the kk-algebra V∙​(L)V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L) equipped with this norm forms a normed kk-algebra. In fact, since 0​ϕ0\phi is the trivial metric on 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}, one has ⦀𝟏⦀0​ϕ=1\vvvert\mathbf{1}\vvvert_{0\phi}=1, where 𝟏\mathbf{1} denotes the unit section of 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}. Moreover, for sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) and sm∈Vm​(L)s_{m}\in V_{m}(L), we have

    ∥sm⋅sn∥n​ϕ=supx∈Xan|sm|m​ϕ​(x)⋅|sm|m​ϕ​(x)⩽supx∈Xan|sm|m​ϕ​(x)⋅supx∈Xan|sn|n​ϕ​(x)=∥sm∥m​ϕ⋅∥sn∥n​ϕ\begin{split}\lVert s_{m}\cdot s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}=&\sup_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}\lvert s_{m}\rvert_{m\phi}(x)\cdot\lvert s_{m}\rvert_{m\phi}(x)\\ \leqslant&\sup_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}\lvert s_{m}\rvert_{m\phi}(x)\cdot\sup_{x\in X^{\mathrm{an}}}\lvert s_{n}\rvert_{n\phi}(x)=\lVert s_{m}\rVert_{m\phi}\cdot\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\end{split}

    Then ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is an algebra norm by 1.

    In addition, the familly of norms {∥⋅∥n​ϕ}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} satisfies the power-multiplicative property for homogeneous elements:

    ∀sn∈Vn​(L),∀m∈ℕ,∥(sn)m∥n​m​ϕ=(∥sn∥n​ϕ)m.\forall s_{n}\in V_{n}(L),\forall m\in\mathbb{N},\quad\lVert(s_{n})^{m}\rVert_{nm\phi}=(\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi})^{m}.

    In fact, the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is power-multiplicative also for non-homogeneous elements (see Proposition 3.1).

    Moreover, for every n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, there is a metric 1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n​ϕ)\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}) on LL, namely the nn-th Fubini-Study metrics on LL associated with ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}.

    One denotes by V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L,\phi) the separated completion of the normed kk-algebra (V∙(L),⦀⋅⦀ϕ)(V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}). More generally, if V∙V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} is a graded sub-kk-algebra of V∙​(L)V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}(L), by abuse of notation we still denote by ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} the restriction of the norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} on V∙V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet} and denote by V^∙​(ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\phi) the separated completion of the normed algebra (V∙,⦀⋅⦀ϕ)(V_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}). The restricted norm is also power-multiplicative.

    In particular, for any N∈ℕ∖{0}N\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}, if one takes V∙V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}} to be ⨁n∈ℕVn​N​(L)\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{nN}(L), denoted by V∙(N)​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L), we denote by V^∙(N)​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L,\phi) the separated completion of (V∙(N)(L),⦀⋅⦀ϕ)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}).

  14. 14.

    Assume that XX is proper over Spec⁡k\spec k. Let LL be an invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module and ϕ\phi be an upper semicontinuous metric on LL. Let f:Y→Xf:Y\rightarrow X be a morphism of kk-schemes of finite type. Let ∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y} be the quotient norm of ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi} on Vn​(LX|Y)V_{n}(L_{X|Y}). It is ultrametric. Let ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} be the quotient algebra norm of ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}). In fact,

    ∀t¯=(tn)n∈ℕ∈V∙(LX|Y),⦀t¯⦀ϕ,X|Y=supn∈ℕ∥tn∥n​ϕ,X|Y.\forall\underline{t}=(t_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\quad\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}=\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\in\mathbb{N}\end{subarray}}\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y}.

    One denotes by V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) the separated completion of the normed kk-algebra (V∙(LX|Y),⦀⋅⦀ϕX|Y)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{X|Y}}). In particular, for any N∈ℕN\in\mathbb{N}, we denote by V∙(N)​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L_{X|Y}) the graded kk-algebra ⨁n∈ℕVn​N​(LX|Y)\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}V_{nN}(L_{X|Y}). This is a sub-algebra of V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}). The restriction of ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} on this sub-algebra is still denoted by ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}. One denotes by V^∙(N)​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) the separated completion of (V∙(N)(LX|Y),⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L_{X|Y}),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}). In particular, if ff is the canonical immersion associated with a sub-scheme, we get a Banach kk-algebra V^∙(N)​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(N)}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}).

In the rest of the article, we make the following assumptions. For algebro-geometric data: let XX be an integral projective scheme over Spec⁡k\spec k of pure dimension dd, YY be a reduced closed sub-scheme of XX with its canonical closed immersion iY:Y→Xi_{Y}:Y\rightarrow X, and LL be an ample invertible 𝒪X\mathscr{O}_{X}-module. One can find M∈ℕM\in\mathbb{N} such that L⊗ML^{\otimes M} is very ample and for any n≥Mn\geq M, the restriction map from Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) to Vn​(L|Y)V_{n}(L|_{Y}) is surjective, so Vn​(L|Y)=Vn​(LX|Y)V_{n}(L|_{Y})=V_{n}(L_{X|Y}). For the metric data, let ϕ\phi be an upper-semicontinuous metric on LL.

[00N4]

3.2. Algebraic properties of normed section algebra

We show the power-multiplicativity of the supremum algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}, and that the normed section algebras are reduced Banach algebras.

[00K3]
Proposition 3.1.

The algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is power-multiplicative. Hence its spectral algebra seminorm is equal to itself, and it is an algbra norm.

[00K4]
Proof.

In fact, let s¯=(sn)n∈ℕ\underline{s}=(s_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}} be an element of V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) and m∈ℕm\in\mathbb{N}, let n0∈ℕn_{0}\in\mathbb{N} be the smallest integer for which ⦀s¯⦀ϕ=∥sn0∥n0​ϕ\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert_{\phi}=\lVert s_{n_{0}}\rVert_{n_{0}\phi}. By the ultrametricity of ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} and the power-multiplicativity of {∥⋅∥n​ϕ}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}, one has

⦀s¯m⦀ϕ⩽∥(sn0)m∥m​n0​ϕ=(∥sn0∥n0​ϕ)m=⦀s¯⦀ϕm.\vvvert\underline{s}^{m}\vvvert_{\phi}\leqslant\lVert(s_{n_{0}})^{m}\rVert_{mn_{0}\phi}=(\lVert s_{n_{0}}\rVert_{n_{0}\phi})^{m}=\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert_{\phi}^{m}.

By the choice of n0n_{0}, one has

∀(j0,…,jl)∈ℕl+1,∑i∈{0,…,l}i⋅ji=m​n0,∥∏i∈{0,…,l}(si)ji∥m​n0​ϕ≤∥(sn​0)m∥m​n0​ϕ\forall(j_{0},\dots,j_{l})\in\mathbb{N}^{l+1},\sum_{i\in\{0,\dots,l\}}i\cdot j_{i}=mn_{0},\quad\Big\lVert\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,l\}}(s_{i})^{j_{i}}\Big\rVert_{mn_{0}\phi}\leq\lVert(s_{n0})^{m}\rVert_{mn_{0}\phi}

and the equality holds if and only if (j0,…,jl)=(0,…,0,n0,0,…,0)(j_{0},\dots,j_{l})=(0,\dots,0,n_{0},0,\dots,0) where n0n_{0} is on the mm-th place, so by the definition of ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert and its ultra-metricity, one get

⦀s¯m⦀ϕ⩾∥(s¯m)m​n0∥m​n0​ϕ≥∥(sn​0)m∥m​n0​ϕ=⦀s¯⦀ϕm,\vvvert\underline{s}^{m}\vvvert_{\phi}\geqslant\lVert(\underline{s}^{m})_{mn_{0}}\rVert_{mn_{0}\phi}\geq\lVert(s_{n0})^{m}\rVert_{mn_{0}\phi}=\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert_{\phi}^{m},

hence there is an equality. ∎

[00K5]
Corollary 3.2.

Then the Banach kk-algebras V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi), V^∙​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}) and V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) are semi-simple. In particular, they are reduced.

[00K6]
Proof.

Let s¯∈V^∙​(L,ϕ)\underline{s}\in\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi) be an element in rad​(V^∙​(L,ϕ))\text{rad}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi)), then by Proposition 3.1, one has

0=⦀s¯⦀ϕ;sp=⦀s⦀ϕ,0=\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert_{\phi;\mathrm{sp}}=\vvvert s\vvvert_{\phi},

so

∀n∈ℕ,∥sn∥n​ϕ=0.\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\quad\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}=0.

By the assumption, all componets sns_{n} are zero sections. So s¯=0¯\underline{s}=\underline{0}, hence V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi) is semi-simple. Same arguments works for V^∙​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}).

Let t¯∈rad​(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))\underline{t}\in\text{rad}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})). Then tn∈rad​(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))t_{n}\in\text{rad}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})) for every n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}. For any m∈ℕm\in\mathbb{N}, there exists sn​m∈Vn​m​(L)s_{nm}\in V_{nm}(L) such that sn​m|Y=tnms_{nm}|_{Y}=t_{n}^{m} and

limm→∞∥sn​m∥n​m​ϕ1m=0.\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}m\to\infty\end{subarray}}\lVert s_{nm}\rVert_{nm\phi}^{\frac{1}{m}}=0.

As ∥tnm∥n​m​ϕ|Y≤∥sn​m∥n​m​ϕ\lVert t_{n}^{m}\rVert_{nm\phi|_{Y}}\leq\lVert s_{nm}\rVert_{nm\phi}, one has that

∀n∈ℕ,∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y=0\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\quad\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}=0

so t¯=0¯\underline{t}=\underline{0}. Hence V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) is semi-simple. ∎

[00K7]
Remark 3.3.

The reducity of closed sub-scheme YY is necessary for the semi-simplicity of the Banach kk-algebra V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}).

[00N5]

3.3. Spectrum of normed section algebra

We embed the Berkovich spectrum of normed section algebra into the analytification of the spectrum of the section algebra.

[00K8]
Lemma 3.4.

The homomorphism of inclusion of kk-algebras V⁡(L)→V^∙​(L,ϕ)V(L)\rightarrow\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi) induces a continuous map between topological spaces 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(L,ϕ))→(Spec⁡V⁡(L))an\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi))\rightarrow(\spec V(L))^{\mathrm{an}} which is closed. Moreover, the map is injective.

[00K9]
Proof.

This is clear by Proposition 2.88. ∎

[00KA]
Proposition 3.5.

There exist algebra norms ⦀⋅⦀ϕaff\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}^{\mathrm{aff}} on V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) and ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Yaff\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}} on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}) such that the separated completions of (V∙(L),⦀⋅⦀ϕaff)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}^{\mathrm{aff}}) and (V∙(LX|Y),⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Yaff)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}}) are affinoid algebras. Denote them by V^∙​(L,ϕaff)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi^{\mathrm{aff}}) and V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Yaff)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}}). Moreover, there exists a commutative diagram of homomorphisms of kk-algebras with σ\sigma and σY\sigma_{Y} being homomorphisms of Banach kk-algebras

V∙​(L)\textstyle{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}iY\scriptstyle{i_{Y}}V^∙​(L,ϕaff)\textstyle{\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi^{\mathrm{aff}})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}σ\scriptstyle{\sigma}iY​(ϕaff)\scriptstyle{i_{Y}(\phi^{\mathrm{aff}})}V^∙​(L,ϕ)\textstyle{\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}iY​(ϕ)\scriptstyle{i_{Y}(\phi)}V∙​(LX|Y)\textstyle{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Yaff)\textstyle{\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}σ|Y\scriptstyle{\sigma|_{Y}}V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\textstyle{\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})}

All homomorphisms (except iYi_{Y}) have dense images, and iYi_{Y} is surjective.

[00KB]
Proof.

As V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) is a finitely generated sub-kk-algebra of V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi) which is dense for the topology induced by Banach algebra norm, by Proposition 2.44, there exists an affinoid algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕaff\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}^{\mathrm{aff}} on V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) and a homomorphism of Banach algebras

σ:V^∙​(L,ϕaff)→V^∙​(L,ϕ).\sigma:\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi^{\mathrm{aff}})\rightarrow\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi).

One then takes ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Yaff\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}} on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}) to be the quotient norm of ⦀⋅⦀ϕaff\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}^{\mathrm{aff}}. By Example 2.42, this quotient norm is also an affinoid algebra norm. By this quotient construction, there exists a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras

σ|Y:V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Yaff)→V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\sigma|_{Y}:\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})\rightarrow\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})

which fits into a commutative diagram with iY​(ϕ)i_{Y}(\phi) and iY​(ϕaff)i_{Y}(\phi^{\mathrm{aff}}). ∎

[00KC]
Corollary 3.6.

The commutative diagram of homomorphisms of kk-algebras induces a commutative diagram of continuous maps of topological spaces

(Spec⁡(V∙​(L)))an\textstyle{(\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)))^{\mathrm{an}}}𝔐​(V^​(L,ϕaff))\textstyle{\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}(L,\phi^{\mathrm{aff}}))\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝔐​(V^∙​(L,ϕ))\textstyle{\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi))\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}σ∗\scriptstyle{\sigma^{*}}(Spec⁡(V∙​(LX|Y)))an\textstyle{(\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y})))^{\mathrm{an}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}iY∗\scriptstyle{i_{Y}^{*}}𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Yaff))\textstyle{\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}}))\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}iY​(ϕaff)∗\scriptstyle{i_{Y}(\phi^{\mathrm{aff}})^{*}}𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))\textstyle{\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}σ|Y∗\scriptstyle{\sigma|_{Y}^{*}}iY​(ϕ)∗\scriptstyle{i_{Y}(\phi)^{*}}

All maps are closed. If the algebra seminorm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is a norm, then all maps are injective.

[00KD]
Proof.

This follows from Proposition 2.26, Proposition 2.88 and Proposition 2.27. ∎

[00N6]

3.4. Fubini-Study metrics

We study distances between Fubini-Study metrics, and gives explicit expressions for Fubini-Study metrics admitting non-Archimedean orthogonal basis. Many of the results here are also obtained in [CMor18] or in [BE18, Section 6].

[00KE]
Lemma 3.7.

Assume that LL is globally generated. Let ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} be a norm on V1​(L)V_{1}(L) and let FS⁡(∥⋅∥1)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}) be the associated Fubini-Study metric. Then for any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} and e⁡(x)∈L⁡(x)∖0e(x)\in L(x)\setminus 0,

|e⁡(x)|FS⁡(∥⋅∥1)=infλ∈κ^​(x),s1∈V1​(L)s1​(x)=λ⋅e⁡(x)|λ|−1⋅∥s1∥.\lvert e(x)\rvert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1})}=\inf_{\begin{subarray}{c}\lambda\in\widehat{\kappa}(x),\ s_{1}\in V_{1}(L)\\ s_{1}(x)=\lambda\cdot e(x)\end{subarray}}\lvert\lambda\rvert^{-1}\cdot\lVert s_{1}\rVert.

(with the convention that 0−1=+∞0^{-1}=+\infty)

[00KF]
Proof.

This follows from Lemma 2.11. ∎

[00KG]
Lemma 3.8.

Let ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} be a norm on Vn​(L)V_{n}(L), then 1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}) is a continuous metric on LL. ([CMor18, Proposition 3.1])

[00KH]
Lemma 3.9.

Let ϕ1\phi_{1} and ϕ2\phi_{2} be two upper-semicontinuous metrics on LL, then

dist⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ1,∥⋅∥ϕ2)≤dist⁡(ϕ1,ϕ2).\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi_{1}},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi_{2}})\leq\dist(\phi_{1},\phi_{2}).

(see also [BE18, Lemma 6.10])

[00KI]
Proof.

For any s∈V1​(L)s\in V_{1}(L), if ∥s∥ϕ1≥∥s∥ϕ2\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{1}}\geq\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{2}}, let x1∈Xanx_{1}\in X^{\mathrm{an}} be a point where ∥s∥ϕ1\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{1}} is attained. One has

|log⁡∥s∥ϕ1∥s∥ϕ2|≤|log|​s⁡(x1)s⁡(x1)|κ^​(x1)|≤dist⁡(ϕ1,ϕ2).\Big|\log\frac{\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{1}}}{\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{2}}}\Big|\leq\Big|\log\Big|\frac{s(x_{1})}{s(x_{1})}\Big|_{\widehat{\kappa}(x_{1})}\Big|\leq\dist(\phi_{1},\phi_{2}).

Otherwise, let x2∈Xanx_{2}\in X^{\mathrm{an}} be a point where ∥s∥ϕ2\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{2}} is attained. Then

|log⁡∥s∥ϕ2∥s∥ϕ1|≤|log|​s⁡(x2)s⁡(x2)|κ^​(x2)|≤dist⁡(ϕ1,ϕ2).\Big|\log\frac{\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{2}}}{\lVert s\rVert_{\phi_{1}}}\Big|\leq\Big|\log\Big|\frac{s(x_{2})}{s(x_{2})}\Big|_{\widehat{\kappa}(x_{2})}\Big|\leq\dist(\phi_{1},\phi_{2}).

Hence the desired inequality holds. ∎

[00KJ]
Lemma 3.10.

Let ∥⋅∥\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert and ∥⋅∥′\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\prime} be two norms on V1​(L)V_{1}(L), then

dist⁡(FS⁡(∥⋅∥),FS⁡(∥⋅∥′))≤dist⁡(∥⋅∥,∥⋅∥′).\dist(\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert),\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\prime}))\leq\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\prime}).

(see also [BE18, Equation (6.2)])

[00KK]
Proof.

For any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}}, let e⁡(x)∈Lan​(x)∖{0}e(x)\in L^{\mathrm{an}}(x)\setminus\{0\}. Let s,s′∈V1​(L)s,s^{\prime}\in V_{1}(L) and λ,λ′∈κ^​(x)\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}\in\hat{\kappa}(x) be elements such that

s⁡(x)=λ⋅e⁡(x),∥e⁡(x)∥X|x=|λ|−1​∥s∥,s(x)=\lambda\cdot e(x),\ \lVert e(x)\rVert_{X|x}=\lvert\lambda\rvert^{-1}\lVert s\rVert,
s′​(x)=λ′⋅e⁡(x),∥e⁡(x)∥X|x=|λ′|−1​∥s′∥′.s^{\prime}(x)=\lambda^{\prime}\cdot e(x),\ \lVert e(x)\rVert_{X|x}=\lvert\lambda^{\prime}\rvert^{-1}\lVert s^{\prime}\rVert^{\prime}.

If ∥e⁡(x)∥X|x>∥e⁡(x)∥X|x′\lVert e(x)\rVert_{X|x}>\lVert e(x)\rVert^{\prime}_{X|x}, one has

dist⁡(∥e⁡(x)∥X|x,∥e⁡(x)∥X|x′)=|log⁡|λ|−1​∥s∥|λ′|−1​∥s′∥′|≤|log⁡|λ|−1​∥s∥|λ|−1​∥s∥′|≤dist⁡(∥⋅∥,∥⋅∥′).\begin{split}\dist(\lVert e(x)\rVert_{X|x},\lVert e(x)\rVert^{\prime}_{X|x})&=\Big|\log\frac{\lvert\lambda\rvert^{-1}\lVert s\rVert}{\lvert\lambda^{\prime}\rvert^{-1}\lVert s^{\prime}\rVert^{\prime}}\Big|\\ &\leq\Big|\log\frac{\lvert\lambda\rvert^{-1}\lVert s\rVert}{\lvert\lambda\rvert^{-1}\lVert s\rVert^{\prime}}\Big|\leq\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\prime}).\end{split}

Otherwise, one has

dist⁡(∥e⁡(x)∥X|x,∥e⁡(x)∥X|x′)=|log⁡|λ|−1​∥s∥|λ′|−1​∥s′∥′|≤|log⁡|λ′|−1​∥s′∥|λ′|−1​∥s′∥′|≤dist⁡(∥⋅∥,∥⋅∥′).\begin{split}\dist(\lVert e(x)\rVert_{X|x},\lVert e(x)\rVert^{\prime}_{X|x})&=\Big|\log\frac{\lvert\lambda\rvert^{-1}\lVert s\rVert}{\lvert\lambda^{\prime}\rvert^{-1}\lVert s^{\prime}\rVert^{\prime}}\Big|\\ &\leq\Big|\log\frac{\lvert\lambda^{\prime}\rvert^{-1}\lVert s^{\prime}\rVert}{\lvert\lambda^{\prime}\rvert^{-1}\lVert s^{\prime}\rVert^{\prime}}\Big|\leq\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert,\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert^{\prime}).\end{split}

Varying xx and taking the supremum, one gets the desired inequality. ∎

[00KL]
Proposition 3.11.

Assume that there exist a norm ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} on V1​(L)V_{1}(L) such that ϕ\phi is equal to FS⁡(∥⋅∥1)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}). Then for any n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, FS⁡(∥⋅∥n​ϕ)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}) is equal to n​ϕn\phi. ([CMor18, Proposition 3.3])

[00KM]
Proposition 3.12.

Assume that ϕ\phi is an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL, then the envelop metric 𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ)\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}) is equal to ϕ\phi. (see also [BE18, Theorem 6.15 (iii)])

[00KN]
Proof.

By assumption, there exists a familly of norms {∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} such that uniformly for x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}},

limn→∞1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)​(∗)​(x)=|∗|ϕ​(x),\quad\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\to\infty\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})(\ast)(x)=\lvert\ast\rvert_{\phi}(x),

so for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists N0∈ℕN_{0}\in\mathbb{N} such that for any n≥N0n\geq N_{0}

dist⁡(n​ϕ,FS⁡(∥⋅∥n))≤n​ϵ,\dist(n\phi,\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}))\leq n\epsilon,

hence by Lemma 3.9 and 3.10,

dist⁡(FS⁡(∥⋅∥n​ϕ),FS⁡(∥⋅∥FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)))≤n​ϵ.\dist(\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}),\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})}))\leq n\epsilon.

By Proposition 3.11, one has OPENFS⁡(∥⋅∥FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)))=FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})}))=\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}), so

dist⁡(FS⁡(∥⋅∥n​ϕ),FS⁡(∥⋅∥n))≤n​ϵ,\dist(\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}),\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}))\leq n\epsilon,

and

dist⁡(1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n​ϕ),1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n))≤ϵ.\dist(\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}),\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}))\leq\epsilon.

Taking limit for n→∞n\to\infty and then for ϵ→0\epsilon\to 0, one has

dist(𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ,ϕ)=0,\dist(\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi},\phi)=0,

so the two metrics are equal. ∎

If the ultrametric norm ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} admits an orthogonal basis, one can calculate explicitly the associated Fubini-Study metric FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}).

[00KP]
Lemma 3.13.

Let (K,|⋅|K)(K,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K}) be a complete ultrametric valued field extension of (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert). Then for any {rj}j∈{0,…,d}\{r_{j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}} elements in ℝ+\mathbb{R}_{+}, one has

inf∑j∈{0,…,d}κj=1maxj⁡{|κj|K⋅rj}=minj∈{0,…,d}⁡{rj},\inf_{\sum_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\kappa_{j}=1}\max_{j}\Big\{\lvert\kappa_{j}\rvert_{K}\cdot r_{j}\Big\}=\min_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\{r_{j}\},

where {κj}j∈{0,…,d}\{\kappa_{j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}} are elements in KK.

[00KQ]
Proof.

On the one hand, let j0∈{0,…,d}j_{0}\in\{0,\dots,d\} be an index such that rj0r_{j_{0}} is minimal. By taking κj=0\kappa_{j}=0 for j≠j0j\neq j_{0} and κj0=1\kappa_{j_{0}}=1, one sees that

inf∑j∈{0,…,d}κj=1maxj⁡{|κj|K⋅rj}≤rj0=minj∈{0,…,d}⁡{rj}.\inf_{\sum_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\kappa_{j}=1}\max_{j}\Big\{\lvert\kappa_{j}\rvert_{K}\cdot r_{j}\Big\}\leq r_{j_{0}}=\min_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\{r_{j}\}.

On the other hand, by the ultrametricity of |⋅|K\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K}, if ∑jκj=1\sum_{j}\kappa_{j}=1, then there exist at least one j1∈{0,…,d}j_{1}\in\{0,\dots,d\} such that |κj1|≥1\lvert\kappa_{j_{1}}\rvert\geq 1, so

inf∑j∈{0,…,d}κj=1maxj⁡{|κj|K⋅rj}≥inf∑j∈{0,…,d}κj=1|κj1|K⋅rj1≥inf∑j∈{0,…,d}κj=1rj1=rj1≥minj∈{0,…,d}⁡{rj}.\begin{split}\inf_{\sum_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\kappa_{j}=1}\max_{j}\Big\{\lvert\kappa_{j}\rvert_{K}\cdot r_{j}\Big\}&\geq\inf_{\sum_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\kappa_{j}=1}\lvert\kappa_{j_{1}}\rvert_{K}\cdot r_{j_{1}}\\ &\geq\inf_{\sum_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\kappa_{j}=1}r_{j_{1}}=r_{j_{1}}\geq\min_{j\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\{r_{j}\}.\end{split}

Hence the two sides are equal. ∎

[00KR]
Proposition 3.14.

Assume that L⊗nL^{\otimes n} is globally generated. Let {sn,j}j∈{0,…,dn}\{s_{n,j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}} be a basis of Vn​(L)V_{n}(L). Let ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} be a ultrametric norm on Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) with respect to which {sn,j}j∈{0,…,dn}\{s_{n,j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}} is orthogonal. Then for any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} and en​(x)∈L⊗n​(x)∖0e_{n}(x)\in L^{\otimes n}(x)\setminus 0,

|en​(x)|FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)=minj∈{0,…,dn}⁡{|en​(x)sn,j​(x)|κ^​(x)⋅∥sn,j∥n},\lvert e_{n}(x)\rvert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})}=\min_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}}\Big\{\Big|\frac{e_{n}(x)}{s_{n,j}(x)}\Big|_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}\Big\},

with the convention that 0−1=+∞0^{-1}=+\infty. (see also [CMor18, Lemma 3.3])

[00KS]
Proof.

For j∈{0,…,dn}j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}, let λj∈κ^​(x)\lambda_{j}\in\widehat{\kappa}(x) be such that sn,j​(x)=λj⋅en​(x)s_{n,j}(x)=\lambda_{j}\cdot e_{n}(x). By construction,

|en​(x)|FS⁡(∥⋅∥n)=infμj∈κ^​(x),∑μj⋅sn,j​(x)=en​(x)‖∑j∈{0,…,dn}μj⋅sn,j‖=infμj∈κ^​(x),∑μj⋅sn,j​(x)=en​(x)maxj⁡{|μj|κ^​(x)⋅∥sn,j∥}=infκj∈κ^​(x),∑κj=1maxj⁡{|κj⋅λj−1|κ^​(x)⋅∥sn,j∥}=infκj∈κ^​(x),∑κj=1maxj⁡{|κj|κ^​(x)⋅|λj|κ^​(x)−1⋅∥sn,j∥}=minj∈{0,…,dn}⁡{|λj|κ^​(x)−1⋅∥sn,j∥n}.\begin{split}\lvert e_{n}(x)\rvert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})}=&\inf_{\mu_{j}\in\widehat{\kappa}(x),\ \sum\mu_{j}\cdot s_{n,j}(x)=e_{n}(x)}\Big\|\sum_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}}\mu_{j}\cdot s_{n,j}\Big\|\\ =&\inf_{\mu_{j}\in\widehat{\kappa}(x),\ \sum\mu_{j}\cdot s_{n,j}(x)=e_{n}(x)}\max_{j}\Big\{\lvert\mu_{j}\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert\Big\}\\ =&\inf_{\kappa_{j}\in\widehat{\kappa}(x),\ \sum\kappa_{j}=1}\max_{j}\Big\{\lvert\kappa_{j}\cdot\lambda_{j}^{-1}\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert\Big\}\\ =&\inf_{\kappa_{j}\in\widehat{\kappa}(x),\ \sum\kappa_{j}=1}\max_{j}\Big\{\lvert\kappa_{j}\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lvert\lambda_{j}\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}^{-1}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert\Big\}\\ =&\min_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}}\Big\{\lvert\lambda_{j}\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}^{-1}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}\Big\}.\end{split}

The last equality is obtained with Lemma 3.13. ∎

[00KT]
Corollary 3.15.

With the same hypothesis as above, for en∨​(x)∈(L⊗n)∨​(x)∖0e_{n}^{\vee}(x)\in(L^{\otimes n})^{\vee}(x)\setminus 0, one has

|en∨​(x)|FS​(∥⋅∥n)∨=max⁡{|en∨​(x)​(sn,j)|κ^​(x)⋅∥sn,j∥n−1}.\lvert e_{n}^{\vee}(x)\rvert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})^{\vee}}=\max\Big\{\lvert e_{n}^{\vee}(x)(s_{n,j})\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}^{-1}\Big\}.
[00KU]
Proof.

It suffices to note that en∨​(x)​(sn,j)=λje_{n}^{\vee}(x)(s_{n,j})=\lambda_{j}. ∎

[00N7]

3.5. Dual unit disc bundle

Let ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert be an algebra norm on V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L), such that Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) are orthogonal subspaces for ⦀⋅⦀\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert. We relate the Berkovich spectrum of normed section algebra with the dual unit disc bundle with respect to the envelop metric.

[00KV]
Proposition 3.16.

Let z∈(Spec⁡V∙​(L))anz\in(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}} be a point. Let (x,e∨​(x))∈T​o​t​(L∨)(x,e^{\vee}(x))\in Tot(L^{\vee}) be the point (p​(𝟎)−1)an​(z)(p(\boldsymbol{0})^{-1})^{\mathrm{an}}(z). Then z∈𝔐(V^(L,⦀⋅⦀))z\in\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)) if and only if one of the following criteria holds

  1. (1)

    there exist C⁡(z)>0C(z)>0 such that

    ∀s¯∈V∙(L),|s¯|z≤C(z)⋅⦀s¯⦀.\forall\underline{s}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L),\quad\lvert\underline{s}\rvert_{z}\leq C(z)\cdot\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert.
  2. (2)

    there exist C⁡(z)>0C(z)>0 such that

    ∀s¯(x)∈V∙(L)(x),|s¯(x)|z≤C(z)⋅⦀s¯(x)⦀X|x.\forall\underline{s}(x)\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L)(x),\quad\lvert\underline{s}(x)\rvert_{z}\leq C(z)\cdot\vvvert\underline{s}(x)\vvvert_{X|x}.
  3. (3)

    there exist C′​(z)=1C^{\prime}(z)=1 such that

    ∀e1(x)∈V1(L)(x),|e1(x)|z≤⦀e1(x)⦀(X|x);sp,\forall e_{1}(x)\in V_{1}(L)(x),\quad\lvert e_{1}(x)\rvert_{z}\leq\vvvert e_{1}(x)\vvvert_{(X|x);\mathrm{sp}},

    where ⦀⋅⦀(X|x);sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{(X|x);\mathrm{sp}} is the spectral algebra seminorm of ⦀⋅⦀X|x\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{X|x}.

[00KW]
Proof.

The criterion 1 unfolds the definition of the fact that z∈𝔐z\in\mathfrak{M}. The criterion 2 is equivalent to the criterion 1, as ⦀⋅⦀X|x\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{X|x} is the quotient algebra norm of ⦀⋅⦀κ^​(x)\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)} for the evaluation map ev⁡(x)\mathrm{ev}(x). The criterion 3 is equivalent to the criterion 2: if 2 holds, then

∀n∈ℕ,|e1(x)|z≤C(z)1n⋅⦀e1⊗n(x)⦀X|x1n,\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\quad\lvert e_{1}(x)\rvert_{z}\leq C(z)^{\frac{1}{n}}\cdot\vvvert e_{1}^{\otimes n}(x)\vvvert_{X|x}^{\frac{1}{n}},

so 3 holds after a limit process for n→∞n\to\infty. Conversely, if 3 holds, then since Vn​(L)​(x)V_{n}(L)(x) is spaned by e1⊗n​(x)e_{1}^{\otimes n}(x) over κ^​(x)\widehat{\kappa}(x), one has

∀n∈ℕ,|sn|z≤⦀sn(x)⦀(X|x);sp≤⦀sn(x)⦀X|x,\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\quad\lvert s_{n}\rvert_{z}\leq\vvvert s_{n}(x)\vvvert_{(X|x);\mathrm{sp}}\leq\vvvert s_{n}(x)\vvvert_{X|x},

so 2 holds by the ultra-metricity of |⋅|z\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{z} and the orthogonality of ⦀⋅⦀X|x\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{X|x} for Vn​(L)V_{n}(L)’s. ∎

[00KX]
Corollary 3.17.

With the same notations as above, the algebra seminorm ⦀⋅⦀(X|x);sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{(X|x);\mathrm{sp}} on L⁡(x)L(x) is equal to |⋅|𝒫(⦀⋅⦀)(x)\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)}(x).

[00KY]
Proof.

For any x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} and any e1​(x)∈V1​(L)​(x)e_{1}(x)\in V_{1}(L)(x), we have

⦀e1(x)⦀(X|x);sp=limn→∞⦀e1⊗n(x)⦀X|x1n=limn→∞1nFS(∥⋅∥n)(e1(x))(x)=𝒫(⦀⋅⦀)(e1(x))(x).\begin{split}\vvvert e_{1}(x)\vvvert_{(X|x);\mathrm{sp}}&=\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\to\infty\end{subarray}}\vvvert e_{1}^{\otimes n}(x)\vvvert_{X|x}^{\frac{1}{n}}\\ &=\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\to\infty\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})(e_{1}(x))(x)=\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)(e_{1}(x))(x).\end{split}

∎

[00KZ]
Remark 3.18.

The resulting algebra seminorm |⋅|𝒫(⦀⋅⦀)(x)\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)}(x) gives rise to a pseudometric on LanL^{\mathrm{an}}.

[00L0]
Lemma 3.19.

The map p​(𝟎)anp(\mathbf{0})^{\mathrm{an}} induces a continuous map of topological spacecs

p​(𝟎)an:T​o​t​(L∨)an→(Spec⁡V∙​(L))an.p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}:Tot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}.

Moreover, it induces a homeomorphism

p​(𝟎)an:T​o​t​(L∨)an∖𝕆an→(Spec⁡V∙​(L))an∖𝟎an.p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}:Tot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\boldsymbol{0}^{\mathrm{an}}.
[00L1]
Proof.

By Proposition 2.94, the morphism p⁡(𝟎)p(\boldsymbol{0}) of schemes of finite type over Spec⁡k\spec k induces a continuous map betweeen the topological space of their analytification:

p​(𝟎)an:T​o​t​(L∨)an→(Spec⁡V∙​(L))an.p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}:Tot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}.

Since

p⁡(𝟎):T​o​t​(L∨)∖𝕆→Spec⁡(V∙​(L))∖𝟎p(\boldsymbol{0}):Tot(L^{\vee})\setminus\mathbb{O}\rightarrow\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))\setminus\boldsymbol{0}

is an isomorphism of schemes of finite type, its analytification induces a homeomorphism by Proposition 2.94

p​(𝟎)an:T​o​t​(L∨)an∖𝕆an→(Spec⁡V∙​(L))an∖𝟎an.p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}:Tot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\boldsymbol{0}^{\mathrm{an}}.

∎

[00L2]
Proposition 3.20.

The map p​(𝟎)anp(\mathbf{0})^{\mathrm{an}} induces a continuous map of topological spacecs

𝔻¯∨(L,𝒫(⦀⋅⦀),0)→(SpecV∙(L))an\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert),0)\rightarrow(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}

which induces a homeomorphism between

𝔻¯∨(L,𝒫(⦀⋅⦀),0)∖𝕆an→(𝔐(V^∙(L,⦀⋅⦀)))∖𝟎an.\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert),0)\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}}\rightarrow(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)))\setminus\mathbf{0}^{\mathrm{an}}.
[00L3]
Proof.

Starting with the continuous map in Lemma 3.19, we can determine the pre-image of 𝔐(V^∙(L,⦀⋅⦀))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)): let z∈(Spec⁡V∙​(L))an∖𝟎anz\in(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\boldsymbol{0}^{\mathrm{an}} be a point and (x,e∨​(x))(x,e^{\vee}(x)) be its unique pre-image under p​(𝟎)anp(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}, where x∈Xanx\in X^{\mathrm{an}} and e∨​(x)∈L∨​(x)e^{\vee}(x)\in L^{\vee}(x). By Lemma 3, if we fix a non-zero element e1​(x)∈L​(x)e_{1}(x)\in L(x), the point zz lies in 𝔐(V^∙(L,⦀⋅⦀))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)) if and only if

|e1(x)|z≤|e1(x)|𝒫(⦀⋅⦀)(x).\lvert e_{1}(x)\rvert_{z}\leq\lvert e_{1}(x)\rvert_{\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)}(x).

This condition is equivalent to

|e∨(e1)(x)|≤|e1(x)|𝒫(⦀⋅⦀)(x).\lvert e^{\vee}(e_{1})(x)\rvert\leq\lvert e_{1}(x)\rvert_{\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert)}(x).

Hence there exists a continuous surjective map

p(𝟎)an:𝔻¯∨(L,𝒫(⦀⋅⦀),0)→(𝔐(V^∙(L,⦀⋅⦀))).p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}:\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert),0)\rightarrow(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert))).

If we remove 𝕆an\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}} and 𝟎an\boldsymbol{0}^{\mathrm{an}} from the domain and image, the restricted map is indeed a homeomorphism. ∎

One can give a precise description of dual unit disc bundle for a Fubini-Study metric admitting orthogonal basis.

[00L4]
Proposition 3.21.

Let n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N} be an integer such that L⊗nL^{\otimes n} is globally generated. Let {sn,j}j∈{0,…,dn}\{s_{n,j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}} be a basis of Vn​(L)V_{n}(L). Let ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} be a ultrametric norm on Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) with respect to which this basis is orthogonal. Let (x,e1∨​(x))∈T​o​t​(L∨)(x,e_{1}^{\vee}(x))\in Tot(L^{\vee}) and z∈(Spec⁡V∙​(L))anz\in(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}} be it image under p​(𝟎)anp(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}, then (x,e1∨​(x))∈𝔻¯∨​(L,1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n))(x,e_{1}^{\vee}(x))\in\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})) (resp.𝔻∨​(L,1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n))\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}))) if and only if

∀j∈{0,…,dn},|sn,j​(z)|≤∥sn,j∥n​(resp.<∥sn,j∥n).\forall j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\},\ \lvert s_{n,j}(z)\rvert\leq\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}\ (\text{resp.}<\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}).

In particular, the image of 𝔻∨​(L,1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n))\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})) under p​(𝟎)anp(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}} is an open subset in (Spec⁡V∙​(L))an(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}.

[00L5]
Proof.

The assertion is clear if e1​(x)=0e_{1}(x)=0. For e1​(x)≠0e_{1}(x)\neq 0, let en​(x)=e1⊗n​(x)e_{n}(x)=e_{1}^{\otimes n}(x), note that

|e1∨​(x)|1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)∨=(|en∨​(x)|FS​(∥⋅∥n)∨)1n.\lvert e_{1}^{\vee}(x)\rvert_{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})^{\vee}}=(\lvert e_{n}^{\vee}(x)\rvert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})^{\vee}})^{\frac{1}{n}}.

By Corollary 3.15, one has

|en∨​(x)|FS​(∥⋅∥n)∨=max⁡{|en∨​(x)​(sn,j)|κ^​(x)⋅∥sn,j∥n−1}\lvert e_{n}^{\vee}(x)\rvert_{\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})^{\vee}}=\max\Big\{\lvert e_{n}^{\vee}(x)(s_{n,j})\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}^{-1}\Big\}

so

|e1∨​(x)|1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)∨=max⁡{|en∨​(x)​(sn,j)|κ^​(x)⋅∥sn,j∥n−1}1n.\lvert e_{1}^{\vee}(x)\rvert_{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})^{\vee}}=\max\Big\{\lvert e_{n}^{\vee}(x)(s_{n,j})\rvert_{\widehat{\kappa}(x)}\cdot\lVert s_{n,j}\rVert_{n}^{-1}\Big\}^{\frac{1}{n}}.

Tautologically, one has

sn,j​(z)=(e1⊗n)∨​(x)​(sn,j)=en∨​(x)​(sn,j),s_{n,j}(z)=(e_{1}^{\otimes n})^{\vee}(x)(s_{n,j})=e_{n}^{\vee}(x)(s_{n,j}),

so the criterion holds. By these defining equations, it is easy to see that the image of the open dual unit disc bundle is an open set. ∎

[00L6]
Corollary 3.22.

Let ϕ\phi be a continuous metric on LL. Then the image of 𝔻∨​(L,ϕ)\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi) under p​(𝟎)anp(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}} is an open subset of (Spec⁡V∙​(L))an(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}.

[00L7]
Proof.

As ϕ\phi is continuous, 𝔻∨​(L,ϕ)∖𝕆an\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi)\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}} is an open subset of T​o​t​(L∨)an∖𝕆anTot(L^{\vee})^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}}. By Lemma 3.19, under the map p​(𝟎)anp(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}, the image of 𝔻∨​(L,ϕ)∖𝕆an\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi)\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}} is an open subset of (Spec⁡V∙​(L))an∖𝟎an(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}\setminus\boldsymbol{0}^{\mathrm{an}}, so it is also an open subset of (Spec⁡V∙​(L))an(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}. It suffices to treat 𝟎an\boldsymbol{0}^{\mathrm{an}} which is the image of 𝕆an\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}}.

As LL is ample, there exist n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N} such that L⊗nL^{\otimes n} is globally generated. Let {sn,j}j∈{0,…,dn}\{s_{n,j}\}_{j\in\{0,\dots,d_{n}\}} be a basis and let ψ\psi be the Fubini-Study metric associated with some ultrametric norm ∥⋅∥n\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n} for which this basis is orthogonal. As both 1n​ψ\frac{1}{n}\psi and ϕ\phi are continuous and XanX^{\mathrm{an}} is compact, there exist α∈ℝ\alpha\in\mathbb{R} such that

∀x∈Xan,1n​ψ​(α)​(x)≤ϕ⁡(x),\forall x\in X^{\mathrm{an}},\ \frac{1}{n}\psi(\alpha)(x)\leq\phi(x),

so

p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻∨​(L,1n​ψ​(α)))⊆p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻∨​(L,ϕ)).p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\frac{1}{n}\psi(\alpha)))\subseteq p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi)).

the left hand side is an open subset of (Spec⁡V∙​(L))an(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}} by Lemma 3.21. Then

p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻∨​(L,ϕ))=p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻∨​(L,ϕ)∖𝕆an)∪p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻∨​(L,1n​ψ​(α)))p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi))=p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi)\setminus\mathbb{O}^{\mathrm{an}})\cup p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\frac{1}{n}\psi(\alpha)))

is an open set in (Spec⁡V∙​(L))an(\spec V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}. ∎

[00L8]
Corollary 3.23.

If 𝒫⁡(ϕ)\mathcal{P}(\phi) is continous, then for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, one has

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(L,ϕ))⊆IntV∙top​(𝔐⁡(V^∙​(L,ϕ⁡(ϵ)))),\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi))\subseteq\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}}(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi(\epsilon)))),

where IntV∙top\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}} denotes the topological interior as subspace of Spec⁡(V∙​(L))an\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L))^{\mathrm{an}}.

[00L9]
Proof.

By Proposition 3.20, the left hand side 𝔐​(V^∙​(L,ϕ))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi)) is identified with p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻¯∨​(L,ϕ))p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\phi)), which is contained in the open subset p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻∨​(L,ϕ⁡(ϵ)))p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\mathbb{D}^{\vee}(L,\phi(\epsilon))). This open subset is contained in p​(𝟎)an​(𝔻¯∨​(L,ϕ⁡(ϵ)))p(\boldsymbol{0})^{\mathrm{an}}(\overline{\mathbb{D}}^{\vee}(L,\phi(\epsilon))) which is identified with 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(L,ϕ⁡(ϵ)))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi(\epsilon))), hence this open subset is contained in the topological interior of the later, the right hand side. ∎

[00N8]

3.6. Comparison of algebra norms

We compare the quotient algebra norm and the supremum algebra norm on the restricted section algebra, and get directly a (non-uniform) extension theorem.

[00LA]
Proposition 3.24.

Let ϕ\phi be an upper-semicontinuous metric on LL. Then

𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ)|Y=𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y).\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi})|_{Y}=\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}).
[00LB]
Proof.

By definition, for any y∈Yany\in Y^{\mathrm{an}}, one has

𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ)(y)=limn→∞1nFS(∥⋅∥n​ϕ)(y),\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi})(y)=\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\to\infty\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi})(y),
𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y)(y)=limn→∞1nFS(∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y)(y).\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y})(y)=\lim_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\to\infty\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y})(y).

Since the kk-linear map Vn​(L)→Vn​(LX|Y)V_{n}(L)\rightarrow V_{n}(L_{X|Y}) is surjective for all large n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, and ∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y} is the quotient norm of ∥⋅∥n​ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}, one has

FS⁡(∥⋅∥n​ϕ)​(y)=FS⁡(∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y)​(y).\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi})(y)=\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y})(y).

Hence the two envelop metrics are equal. ∎

[00LC]
Lemma 3.25.

Let ϕ\phi be an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL. Then ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y} is an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on L|YL|_{Y}.

[00LD]
Proof.

Suppose that ϕ\phi is the pointwise limit on XanX^{\mathrm{an}} of {1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n)}\{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n})\}, where {∥⋅∥n}\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\} are norms on Vn​(L)V_{n}(L). Then L|YL|_{Y} is the pointwise limit of {1n​FS​(∥⋅∥n,X|Y)}\{\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n,X|Y})\} on YanY^{\mathrm{an}}. ∎

[00LE]
Proposition 3.26.

Let ϕ\phi be a asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL. Consider two algebra norms ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}} and ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}). Then the three metrics are equal

𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y)=𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y)=ϕ|Y.\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y})=\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}})=\phi|_{Y}.
[00LF]
Proof.

By Proposition 3.24,

𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y)=𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ)|Y=ϕ|Y.\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y})=\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi})|_{Y}=\phi|_{Y}.

It suffices to show the second equality. By Lemma 3.25, ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y} is an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on L|YL|_{Y}. By Proposition 3.12,

𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y)=ϕ|Y.\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}})=\phi|_{Y}.

∎

[00LG]
Corollary 3.27.

Let ϕ\phi be a asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL. Then on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}), the spectral algebra seminorm of ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} is equal to ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}. There exists a canonical homeomorphism

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))≃𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y)).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\simeq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y})).
[00LH]
Proof.

By Theorem 2.33, one has a homeomorphism

𝔐(V^∙(LX|Y,⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y;sp))≃𝔐(V^∙(LX|Y,⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y))=𝔐(V^∙(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)),\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y;\mathrm{sp}}))\simeq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}))=\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})),

by Proposition 3.26, one has

𝔐(V^∙(LX|Y,⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y;sp))≃𝔐(V^∙(LX|Y,⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y))=𝔐(V^∙(LX|Y,ϕ|Y)).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y;\mathrm{sp}}))\simeq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}))=\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y})).

By Proposition 2.30, the two power-multiplicative algebra seminorms ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}} and ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y;sp\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y;\mathrm{sp}} on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}) are equal since they are both supremum norms on the same spectrum. ∎

[00LI]
Theorem 3.28.

Let ϕ\phi be an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL, then for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, and any t1∈V1​(L|Y)t_{1}\in V_{1}(L|_{Y}), there exists nY∈ℕn_{Y}\in\mathbb{N} such that for any n≥nYn\geq n_{Y}, there exists sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) with sn|Y=t1⊗ns_{n}|_{Y}=t_{1}^{\otimes n} and

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅(∥t1∥ϕ|Y)n.\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot(\lVert t_{1}\rVert_{\phi|_{Y}})^{n}.
[00LJ]
Proof.

For any M≤m≤2​M−1M\leq m\leq 2M-1, we have t1⊗m∈Vm​(LX|Y)t_{1}^{\otimes m}\in V_{m}(L_{X|Y}). By Corollary 3.27, for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists Nm∈ℕN_{m}\in\mathbb{N} such that for l≥Nml\geq N_{m},

⦀t1⊗m​l⦀ϕ,X|Y1l/⦀t1⊗m⦀ϕ|Y≤ϵ.\vvvert t_{1}^{\otimes ml}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}^{\frac{1}{l}}/\vvvert t_{1}^{\otimes m}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}\leq\epsilon.

It is easy to see that there exists nY∈ℕn_{Y}\in\mathbb{N} such that the set of integers

{ml:l≥Nm,M≤m≤2M−1}\{ml:l\geq N_{m},M\leq m\leq 2M-1\}

contains a subset of form ℕ−{0,…,nY−1}\mathbb{N}-\{0,\dots,n_{Y}-1\}: the case M=1M=1 is clear; if M≥2M\geq 2, the fact that MM and M+1M+1 are coprime guarantees the existence of nYn_{Y}. Note that ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}} is power-multiplicative, so for any n≥nYn\geq n_{Y}, there exists sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) with sn|Y=t1⊗ns_{n}|_{Y}=t_{1}^{\otimes n} such that

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅∥t1⊗n∥n​ϕ|Y=en​ϵ⋅(∥t1∥ϕ|Y)n.\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{1}^{\otimes n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}=\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot(\lVert t_{1}\rVert_{\phi|_{Y}})^{n}.

∎

[00LK]
Remark 3.29.

This result is first obtained in [CMor18], by using approximation of ϕ\phi by model metrics. Here we give another proof. Note that a slight unsatisfactory point of this version of metric extension theorem is that the degree nYn_{Y} depends a priori on the choice of initial data, the restricted section t1t_{1}. We will remove this dependence in the following sections.

[00N9]

4. Geometric approximation

Recall that we shall compare two algebra norms ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} and ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}} on the restricted section algebra V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}), where

V∙​(LX|Y)=⨁n∈ℕIm⁡(Vn​(L)→|YVn​(L|Y)),V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y})=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathrm{Im}(V_{n}(L)\xrightarrow{|_{Y}}V_{n}(L|_{Y})),

the second being the spectral algebra norm of the first by Proposition 3.27. Some intermediate Banach algebra (with a uniform algebra norm) 𝒲\mathcal{W} is needed in the comparison.

For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, we begin approximating 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})) by a special domain WϵW_{\epsilon}, in order to construct a homomorphism of Banach algebras from V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) to 𝒲ϵ\mathcal{W}_{\epsilon}, the structural Banach algebra of WϵW_{\epsilon}, by a localization technique of holomorphic functional analysis. Now ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y} is bounded from above by ⦀⋅⦀Wϵ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{W_{\epsilon}} thanks to the continuity. Then we manage to include WϵW_{\epsilon} into 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ)))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon))), so that ⦀⋅⦀Wϵ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{W_{\epsilon}} is bounded by ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y​(ϵ)\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)} from above, as they are both supremum norms on the corresponding domains.

[00NA]

4.1. Localization of spectrum by affinoid domain covering

For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, one can identify 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ)))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon))) with 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ)X|Y))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon)_{X|Y})) by Corollary 3.27. Via this identification, one has

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))⊆𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ))).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon))).

By Corollary 3.6, they can be both identified with closed subsets in 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ)X|Yaff))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})), which itself can be identified with a closed subset in Spec⁡(V∙​(LX|Y))an\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}))^{\mathrm{an}}. We shall work in this fixed affinoid domain. We use notations Int𝔐top\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathfrak{M}} and IntV∙top\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}} to distinguish the topological interior in 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ)X|Yaff))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})) and in Spec⁡(V∙​(LX|Y))an\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}))^{\mathrm{an}}.

[00LL]
Lemma 4.1.

Assume that ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y} is asymptotic Fubini-Study. For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})) is contained in Int𝔐top​(𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ))))\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathfrak{M}}(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)))).

[00LM]
Proof.

By Proposition 3.26, 𝒫(⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y)\mathcal{P}(\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}) is equal to ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y}, so it is continuous. Hence for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, by Proposition 3.23, one has

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))=𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y))⊆IntV∙top​(𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ)))).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))=\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}))\subseteq\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}}(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)))).

By Proposition 2.88, the topology on 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ)X|Yaff))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})) coincides the induced topology from Spec⁡(V∙​(L|Y))an\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y}))^{\mathrm{an}}, hence the set IntV∙top​(𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ))))\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}}(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)))) which is open in Spec⁡(V∙​(L|Y))an\spec(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y}))^{\mathrm{an}} is also open in 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ)X|Yaff))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})). Therefore this set is contained in Int𝔐top​(𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ))))\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathfrak{M}}(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)))). ∎

[00LN]
Proposition 4.2.

Assume that ϕ|Y\phi|_{Y} is asymptotic Fubini-Study. For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exist a special domain WϵW_{\epsilon} such that

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))⊆Wϵ⊆𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ))).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\subseteq W_{\epsilon}\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon))).
[00LP]
Proof.

By Corollary 2.64, every point in 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ)X|Yaff))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})) has a neighbourhood system consisting of affinoid domains. Hence for any z∈𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))z\in\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})), there exists an affinoid domain neighbourhood V⁡(z)V(z). By Lemma 4.1, zz has an open neighbourhood Int𝔐top​(𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ))))\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathfrak{M}}(\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)))), so we can assume that each V⁡(z)V(z) is contained in this open set.

One forms a covering by open sets

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))⊆⋃z∈𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))Int𝔐top​V​(z).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\subseteq\bigcup_{z\in\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))}\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathfrak{M}}V(z).

Since the left hand side is a compact set by Proposition 2.21, there exist finitely many points {z1,…,zm}\{z_{1},\dots,z_{m}\} such that {Int𝔐top​V​(zi)}i∈{1,…,m}\{\text{Int}^{\mathrm{top}}_{\mathfrak{M}}V(z_{i})\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,m\}} form a covering of 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})). Let WϵW_{\epsilon} be the union of affinoid domains {V⁡(zi)}i∈{1,…,m}\{V(z_{i})\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,m\}}, then it is a special domain, and satisfies the desired inclusion conditions. ∎

[00LQ]
Remark 4.3.

One denotes by 𝒲ϵ\mathcal{W}_{\epsilon} the Banach kk-algebra of Γ⁡(Wϵ,𝒪Wϵ)\Gamma(W_{\epsilon},\mathscr{O}_{W_{\epsilon}}) equipped with supremum norm ⦀⋅⦀Wϵ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{W_{\epsilon}} (see Definition 2.70).

Geometric approximation𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))⊆Wϵ⊆𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ)))⊆𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y​(ϵ)aff)CLOSE\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\subseteq{\color[rgb]{0,0,1}W_{\epsilon}}\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon)))\subseteq{\color[rgb]{0.5,0,0.5}\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}(\epsilon)^{\mathrm{aff}})}
[00NB]

4.2. Localization of Banach algebra homomorphism

For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, by Theorem 4.2 for ϵ/2\epsilon/2, there exist a special domain Wϵ/2W_{\epsilon/2} such that

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))⊆Wϵ/2⊆𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2))).\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\subseteq W_{\epsilon/2}\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2))).
[00LR]
Proposition 4.4.

For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exist a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras

θ​(ϵ/2)Wϵ/2:𝒲ϵ/2→V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\theta(\epsilon/2)_{W_{\epsilon/2}}:\mathcal{W}_{\epsilon/2}\rightarrow\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})

which extends the identity map on the dense sub-kk-algebra V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}).

[00LS]
Proof.

By Proposition 3.5, there are homomorphisms of Banach algebras induced by the identity map on the dense V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}):

V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ/2)X|Yaff)→σ⁡(ϵ/2)|YV^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ/2)X|Y)→ι⁡(ϵ/2)V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y).\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon/2)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}})\xrightarrow[\sigma(\epsilon/2)|_{Y}]{}\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon/2)_{X|Y})\xrightarrow[\iota(\epsilon/2)]{}\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}).

Let τ⁡(ϵ/2)\tau(\epsilon/2) denote the composed homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras. It is a homomorphism from an affinoid algebra to a Banach algebra. It has dense image, so by Proposition 2.27 the induced continuous map

τ​(ϵ/2)∗:𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))→𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ/2)X|Yaff))\tau(\epsilon/2)^{*}:\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}))\rightarrow\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon/2)_{X|Y}^{\mathrm{aff}}))

is injective and is closed. As both spaces are compact and Hausdorff, this map is a homeomorphism from its domain to its image. So the homomorphism spectrum Στ⁡(ϵ/2)\Sigma_{\tau(\epsilon/2)} is homeomorphic to 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})), and is contained in Wϵ/2W_{\epsilon/2}.

One performs spectral calculus for the homomorphism τ⁡(ϵ/2)\tau(\epsilon/2) and the special domain Wϵ/2W_{\epsilon/2}: by Theorem 2.81, there exist a homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras

θ​(ϵ/2)Wϵ/2:𝒲ϵ/2→V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\theta(\epsilon/2)_{W_{\epsilon/2}}:\mathcal{W}_{\epsilon/2}\rightarrow\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y})

which extends the identity map on the dense sub-kk-algebra V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}). ∎

[00LT]
Theorem 4.5.

Let ϕ\phi be an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL. Then for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists nY∈ℕn_{Y}\in\mathbb{N} such that for any n≥nYn\geq n_{Y} and any tn∈Vn​(L|Y)t_{n}\in V_{n}(L|_{Y}), there exits sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) such that sn|Y=tns_{n}|_{Y}=t_{n} and

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y.\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}.
[00LU]
Proof.

Start from the homomorphism θ​(ϵ/2)Wϵ/2\theta(\epsilon/2)_{W_{\epsilon/2}} constructed in Proposition 4.4. The boundedness (continuity) of this homomorphism of Banach kk-algebras implies that there exists Cϵ>0C_{\epsilon}>0 such that

∀t¯∈V∙(LX|Y),⦀t¯⦀ϕ,X|Y≤Cϵ⋅⦀t¯⦀Wϵ/2=Cϵ⋅supz∈Wϵ/2⋅|t¯|z.\forall\underline{t}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\quad\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}\leq C_{\epsilon}\cdot\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{W_{\epsilon/2}}=C_{\epsilon}\cdot\sup_{z\in W_{\epsilon/2}\cdot}\lvert\underline{t}\rvert_{z}.

By Proposition 3.26, one has a canonical homeomorphism

𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ​(ϵ/2)X|Y))≃𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2)))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi(\epsilon/2)_{X|Y}))\simeq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2)))

from which one deduces

Wϵ/2⊆𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2))).W_{\epsilon/2}\subseteq\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2))).

Remember that since ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2)\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2)} is power-mutliplicative, by Theorem 2.30, it is the supremum norm on 𝔐⁡(V^∙​(LX|Y,ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2)))\mathfrak{M}(\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2))). Hence by comparing supremum norms on these two closed sets, we get

∀t¯∈V∙(LX|Y),⦀t¯⦀Wϵ/2≤⦀t¯⦀ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2),\forall\underline{t}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\quad\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{W_{\epsilon/2}}\leq\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2)},

therefore for any tn∈Vn​(LX|Y)t_{n}\in V_{n}(L_{X|Y}), one has

∥tn∥n​ϕ,X|Y=⦀tn⦀ϕ,X|Y≤Cϵ⋅⦀tn⦀Wϵ/2≤Cϵ⋅⦀tn⦀ϕ|Y​(ϵ/2)=Cϵ⋅en​ϵ/2⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y.\begin{split}\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y}&=\vvvert t_{n}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}\\ &\leq C_{\epsilon}\cdot\vvvert t_{n}\vvvert_{W_{\epsilon/2}}\\ &\leq C_{\epsilon}\cdot\vvvert t_{n}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}(\epsilon/2)}=C_{\epsilon}\cdot\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon/2}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}.\end{split}

Let nYn_{Y} be the integer max⁡{⌈log⁡(Cϵ)/(ϵ/2)⌉,M}\max\{\lceil\log(C_{\epsilon})/(\epsilon/2)\rceil,M\}, then for any n≥nYn\geq n_{Y} and any tn∈Vn​(L|Y)t_{n}\in V_{n}(L|_{Y}), there exists sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) such that

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y.\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}.

∎

[00NC]

5. Algebraic approximation

In this section, we approximate the Banach algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕX|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{X|Y}} by affinoid norms. This algebraic approximation exploits subtle consequences of existence of a ultra-metric orthogonal basis in (Vn​(L),∥⋅∥n​ϕ)(V_{n}(L),\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi}) for some n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}.

In this section (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) is assumed to be discretely valued. With this assumption, recall that d+1d+1 classes of real numbers {α⁡(p0),…,α⁡(pd)}\{\alpha(p_{0}),\dots,\alpha(p_{d})\} in ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) are said to be ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independent if there exists no (a0,…,ad)∈ℚd+1(a_{0},\dots,a_{d})\in\mathbb{Q}^{d+1} and no p∈H⁡(k,|⋅|)p\in H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) such that ∑i∈{0,…,d}ai⋅pi=p\sum_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}a_{i}\cdot p_{i}=p. Recall that thanks to the discreteness of |⋅|\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert, by Proposition 2.15, any finite dimensional ultrametric normed kk-vector space has an orthogonal basis.

[00ND]

5.1. Algebra norm induced by Fubini-Study metric

[00NE]

5.1.1. Case for (ℙd,𝒪⁡(1))(\mathbb{P}^{d},\mathscr{O}(1))

Let ϕ\phi be a metric on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1), one studies the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} on V∙​(𝒪​(1))V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1)). One would like to show that with various assumptions, it is a Gauss algebra norm, namely the standard affinoid algebra norm on the polynomial algebra. Then the normed section algebra (V∙(𝒪(1)),⦀⋅⦀ϕ)(V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1)),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}) will be a Tate affinoid algebra. (see Definition 2.38)

By Proposition 2.15, there exist an orthogonal basis {Ti}i∈{0,…,d}\{T_{i}\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}} for the normed vector space (V1​(𝒪⁡(1)),∥⋅∥ϕ)(V_{1}(\mathscr{O}(1)),\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi}). For any i∈{0,…,d}i\in\{0,\dots,d\}, one denotes by rir_{i} the value ∥Ti∥ϕ\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi}, and by 𝒓∈(ℝ+)d+1\boldsymbol{r}\in(\mathbb{R}_{+})^{d+1} the multi-radius (r0,…,rd)(r_{0},\dots,r_{d}). One fixes such an orthogonal basis, and identify the graded kk-algebra V∙​(𝒪​(1))V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1)) with k⁡[T0,…,Td]k[T_{0},\dots,T_{d}]. For any multi-index J=(j0,…,jd)∈ℕd+1J=(j_{0},\dots,j_{d})\in\mathbb{N}^{d+1}, one denotes by 𝑻J\boldsymbol{T}^{J} the monomial element ∏i∈{0,…,d}(Ti)ji∈V|J|​(𝒪⁡(1))\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}(T_{i})^{j_{i}}\in V_{\lvert J\rvert}(\mathscr{O}(1)).

Note that in general, the sub-spaces Vn​(𝒪​(1))V_{n}(\mathscr{O}(1)) are orthogonal with respect to ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} for different n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, while a Gauss algebra norm exhibits a much finer orthogonality: the sub-spaces generated by each mononial 𝑻J\boldsymbol{T}^{J} should be orthogonal for different J∈ℕd+1J\in\mathbb{N}^{d+1}.

First, on monomial elements, the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} resembles a Gauss norm.

[00LV]
Proposition 5.1.

For any J∈ℕd+1J\in\mathbb{N}^{d+1}, one has

∥𝑻J∥|J|​ϕ=∏i∈{0,…,d}∥Ti∥ϕji.\lVert\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\rVert_{|J|\phi}=\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi}^{j_{i}}.
[00LW]
Proof.

Take a complete non-Archimedean valued field extension (K,|⋅|K)(K,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{K}) of (k,|⋅|k)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{k}) such that

∀i∈{0,…,d},{ri}i∈{0,…,d}⊆|k×|K,\forall i\in\{0,\dots,d\},\quad\{r_{i}\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\subseteq\lvert k^{\times}\rvert_{K},

hence for any i∈{0,…,d}i\in\{0,\dots,d\}, there exist elements κi∈K\kappa_{i}\in K such that |κi|K=ri\lvert\kappa_{i}\rvert_{K}=r_{i}. One denotes by x⁡(𝒓)∈(ℙkd)anx(\boldsymbol{r})\in(\mathbb{P}^{d}_{k})^{\mathrm{an}} the point given by coordinates [κ0:…:κd][\kappa_{0}:\dots:\kappa_{d}].

[00LX]
Claim 5.2.

For any i∈{0,…,d}i\in\{0,\dots,d\}, one has

∥Ti∥ϕ=ri=|Ti|ϕ​(x⁡(𝒓)).\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi}=r_{i}=\lvert T_{i}\rvert_{\phi}(x(\boldsymbol{r})).

In other words, the maximum of the function |Ti|ϕ​(x)\lvert T_{i}\rvert_{\phi}(x) on (ℙkd)an(\mathbb{P}^{d}_{k})^{\mathrm{an}} is rir_{i}, and the maximum values of these d+1d+1 functions can be attained at the same point x⁡(𝒓)x(\boldsymbol{r}).

[00LY]
Proof.

By the orthogonality of the basis {Ti}i∈{0,…,d}\{T_{i}\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}, we can compute

|Ti|ϕ​(x⁡(𝒓))=inf(∑m∈{0,…,d}fm⋅Tm)​(x⁡(𝒓))=(Ti)​(x⁡(𝒓))(f0,…,fd)∈kd+1∥∑m∈{0,…,d}fm⋅Tm∥ϕ=inf∑m∈{0,…,d}fm​κm=κimaxm∈{0,…,d}⁡{∥fm⋅Tm∥ϕ}=inf∑m∈{0,…,d}fm​κm=κimaxm∈{0,…,d}⁡{|fm|​|κm|}=inf∑m∈{0,…,d}fm​(κm/κi)=1maxm∈{0,…,d}⁡{|fm|​|κm/κi|⋅|κi|}=|κi|=ri.\begin{split}\lvert T_{i}\rvert_{\phi}(x(\boldsymbol{r}))&=\inf_{\begin{subarray}{c}(\sum_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}f_{m}\cdot T_{m})(x(\boldsymbol{r}))=(T_{i})(x(\boldsymbol{r}))\\ (f_{0},\dots,f_{d})\in k^{d+1}\end{subarray}}\Big\lVert\sum_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}f_{m}\cdot T_{m}\Big\rVert_{\phi}\\ &=\inf\limits_{\sum_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}f_{m}\kappa_{m}=\kappa_{i}}\max_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\Big\{\lVert f_{m}\cdot T_{m}\rVert_{\phi}\Big\}\\ &=\inf\limits_{\sum_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}f_{m}\kappa_{m}=\kappa_{i}}\max_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\Big\{\lvert f_{m}\rvert\lvert\kappa_{m}\rvert\Big\}\\ &=\inf\limits_{\sum_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}f_{m}(\kappa_{m}/\kappa_{i})=1}\max_{m\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\Big\{\lvert f_{m}\rvert\lvert\kappa_{m}/\kappa_{i}\rvert\cdot\lvert\kappa_{i}\rvert\Big\}\\ &=\lvert\kappa_{i}\rvert=r_{i}.\end{split}

The last equality is obtained by Lemma 3.13. ∎

By this Claim, for any multi-index JJ, the function |𝑻J|ϕ​(x)\lvert\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\rvert_{\phi}(x) can attain its maximum value ∏i∈{0,…,d}riji\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}} at the point x⁡(𝒓)∈(ℙkd)a​nx(\boldsymbol{r})\in(\mathbb{P}_{k}^{d})^{an} as the product of maximum of factors of the monomial. By definition,

∥𝑻J∥|J|​ϕ=supx∈(ℙd)a​n|𝑻J|ϕ​(x)=∏i∈{0,…,d}riji=∏i∈{0,…,d}∥Ti∥ϕji.\lVert\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\rVert_{|J|\phi}=\sup_{x\in(\mathbb{P}^{d})^{an}}\lvert\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\rvert_{\phi}(x)=\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}}=\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi}^{j_{i}}.

∎

Second, one calculates the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} on any (homogeneous) combination of monomials. For a general metric, one needs a ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independence assumption to gain finer orthogonality.

[00LZ]
Proposition 5.3.

Assume that {α⁡(∥Ti∥ϕ)}i∈{0,…,d}\{\alpha(\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi})\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independent in ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert). Let S⊆ℕd+1S\subseteq\mathbb{N}^{d+1} be a finite set of multi-indices, then for any J∈SJ\in S any fJ∈kf_{J}\in k, one has

⦀∑J∈SfJ⋅𝑻J⦀=supJ∈S∥fJ⋅𝑻J∥|J|​ϕ.\Big\vvvert\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}J\in S\end{subarray}}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\vvvert=\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}J\in S\end{subarray}}\ \lVert f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\rVert_{|J|\phi}.

In other words, the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} on V∙​(𝒪​(1))V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1)) is a Gauss norm on k⁡[T0,…,Td]k[T_{0},\dots,T_{d}] of multi-radius 𝒓\boldsymbol{r}. The Banach kk-algebra V^∙​(𝒪​(1),ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1),\phi) is an affinoid algebra.

[00M0]
Proof.

By the ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independence assumption and Proposition 5.1, for any two distinct multi-index JJ and J′J^{\prime}, and any two non-zero coefficients fJf_{J} and fJ′f_{J^{\prime}} in kk, we have

∥fJ⋅𝑻J∥|J|​ϕ=|fJ|⋅∏i∈{0,…,d}riji≠|fJ′|⋅∏i∈{0,…,d}riji′=∥fJ′⋅𝑻J′∥|J′|​ϕ.\lVert f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\rVert_{|J|\phi}=\lvert f_{J}\rvert\cdot\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}}\neq\lvert f_{J^{\prime}}\rvert\cdot\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j^{\prime}_{i}}=\lVert f_{J^{\prime}}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J^{\prime}}\rVert_{|J^{\prime}|\phi}.

By Lemma 2.13, the elements {𝑻J}J∈S\{\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\}_{J\in S} form an orthogonal basis for the normed vector space (⨁J∈Sk⋅𝑻J,⦀⋅⦀ϕ)(\bigoplus_{J\in S}k\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J},\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi}). So the equality in the conclusion holds. ∎

[00M1]
Corollary 5.4.

With the same assumptions as above, the envelop metric 𝒫⁡(ϕ)\mathcal{P}(\phi) is a Fubini-Study metric induced by ∥⋅∥ϕ\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi}, and is continuous.

For a Fubini-Study metric, one does not need the ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independence. For any 𝜹=(δ0,…,δd)∈ℝd+1\boldsymbol{\delta}=(\delta_{0},\dots,\delta_{d})\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}, one constructs a perturbed metric ϕ⁡(𝜹)\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta}) as follows. Let ∥⋅∥ϕ⁡(𝜹)\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})} be the norm on V1​(𝒪​(1))V_{1}(\mathscr{O}(1)) such that {Ti}i∈{1,…,d}\{T_{i}\}_{i\in\{1,\dots,d\}} is an orthogonal basis with new norms

∀i∈{0,…,d},∥Ti∥ϕ​(𝜹)=eδi​∥Ti∥ϕ.\forall i\in\{0,\dots,d\},\quad\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{\delta})=\mathrm{e}^{\delta_{i}}\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi}.

Let ϕ⁡(𝜹)\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta}) be the metric FS⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ⁡(𝜹))\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})}) on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1). Let |𝜹|\lvert\boldsymbol{\delta}\rvert denote the number maxi∈{0,…,d}⁡|δi|∈ℝ+\max_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}\lvert\delta_{i}\rvert\in\mathbb{R}_{+}.

[00M2]
Lemma 5.5.

Assume that ϕ\phi is a Fubini-Study metric. For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists 𝜹∈ℝd+1\boldsymbol{\delta}\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1} with |𝜹|≤ϵ|\boldsymbol{\delta}|\leq\epsilon such that

∀n∈ℕ,dist⁡(∥⋅∥n​ϕ,∥⋅∥n​ϕ​(𝜹))≤n​ϵ.\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\quad\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})})\leq n\epsilon.
[00M3]
Proof.

Choose an arbitrary 𝜹\boldsymbol{\delta} with |𝜹|≤ϵ|\boldsymbol{\delta}|\leq\epsilon. Then

dist⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ,∥⋅∥ϕ⁡(𝜹))≤ϵ.\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})})\leq\epsilon.

By Proposition 3.12, we have

dist⁡(FS⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ),FS⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ⁡(𝜹)))=dist⁡(FS⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ),ϕ⁡(𝜹))≤ϵ,\dist(\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi}),\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})}))=\dist(\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi}),\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta}))\leq\epsilon,

by the assumption and Proposition 3.11,

FS⁡(∥⋅∥ϕ)=ϕ,\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{\phi})=\phi,

so the conlusion holds. ∎

[00M4]
Proposition 5.6.

Assume that ϕ\phi is a Fubini-Study metric. The conclusion of Proposition 5.3 holds without the assumption of ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independence of {α⁡(∥Ti∥1)}i∈{0,…,d}\{\alpha(\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{1})\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}.

[00M5]
Proof.

Since |⋅|k\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert_{k} is discrete, for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists 𝜹\boldsymbol{\delta} with |𝜹|≤ϵ|\boldsymbol{\delta}|\leq\epsilon such that the elements {α⁡(∥Ti∥ϕ⁡(𝜹))}i∈{0,…,d}\{\alpha(\lVert T_{i}\rVert_{\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})})\}_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}} are ℚ\mathbb{Q}-independent in ℝ/H⁡(k,|⋅|)\mathbb{R}/H(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert). By Proposition 5.5, for any n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N} and any sn=∑|J|=nfJ⋅𝑻J∈Vn​(𝒪⁡(1))s_{n}=\sum_{\lvert J\rvert=n}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\in V_{n}(\mathscr{O}(1)),

e−n​ϵ​∥∑|J|=nfJ⋅𝑻J∥n​ϕ​(𝜹)≤∥∑|J|=nfJ⋅𝑻J∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ​∥∑|J|=nfJ⋅𝑻J∥n​ϕ​(𝜹).\mathrm{e}^{-n\epsilon}\Big\lVert\sum_{\lvert J\rvert=n}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\rVert_{n\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})}\leq\Big\lVert\sum_{\lvert J\rvert=n}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\Big\lVert\sum_{\lvert J\rvert=n}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\rVert_{n\phi(\boldsymbol{\delta})}.

By Proposition 5.3, one has

max|J|=n⁡{e−n​ϵ​|fJ|​∏i∈{0,…,d}(eδi​ri)ji}≤∥∑|J|=nfJ⋅𝑻J∥n​ϕ≤max|J|=n⁡{en​ϵ​|fJ|​∏i∈{0,…,d}(eδi​ri)ji}.\max_{\lvert J\rvert=n}\Big\{\mathrm{e}^{-n\epsilon}\lvert f_{J}\rvert\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}(\mathrm{e}^{\delta_{i}}r_{i})^{j_{i}}\Big\}\leq\Big\lVert\sum_{\lvert J\rvert=n}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\max_{\lvert J\rvert=n}\Big\{\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\lvert f_{J}\rvert\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}(\mathrm{e}^{\delta_{i}}r_{i})^{j_{i}}\Big\}.

Fix nn and let ϵ→0\epsilon\to 0, one gets

∥∑|J|=nfJ⋅𝑻J∥n​ϕ=max|J|=n⁡{|fJ|​∏i∈{0,…,d}riji}.\Big\lVert\sum_{\lvert J\rvert=n}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\rVert_{n\phi}=\max_{\lvert J\rvert=n}\Big\{\lvert f_{J}\rvert\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}}\Big\}.

So one has

⦀∑|J|<∞fJ⋅𝑻J⦀n​ϕ=supn∈ℕmax|J|=n{|fJ|∏i∈{0,…,d}riji}=max|J|<∞{|fJ|∏i∈{0,…,d}riji}.\Big\vvvert\sum_{\lvert J\rvert<\infty}f_{J}\cdot\boldsymbol{T}^{J}\Big\vvvert_{n\phi}=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\max_{\lvert J\rvert=n}\Big\{\lvert f_{J}\rvert\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}}\Big\}=\max_{\lvert J\rvert<\infty}\Big\{\lvert f_{J}\rvert\prod_{i\in\{0,\dots,d\}}r_{i}^{j_{i}}\Big\}.

Hence ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is a Gauss norm of multi-radius 𝒓\boldsymbol{r} on V∙​(𝒪​(1))V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1)). ∎

[00NF]

5.1.2. Case for general (X,L)(X,L)

[00M6]
Proposition 5.7.

Assume that ϕ\phi is a Fubini-Study metric. If LL is very ample, then V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi), V^​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) and V^∙​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}) are affinoid algebras.

[00M7]
Proof.

By the assumption, the elements of V1​(L)V_{1}(L) induces an embedding

ι1:X→ℙkd1\iota_{1}:X\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{d_{1}}_{k}

such that ι1∗​𝒪​(1)=L\iota_{1}^{*}\mathscr{O}(1)=L with dimk​V1=d1+1\mathrm{dim}_{k}V_{1}=d_{1}+1. Moreover there exists a norm ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} on V1​(L)V_{1}(L) such that ϕ=FS⁡(∥⋅∥1)\phi=\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}). View ∥⋅∥1\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1} as a norm on V1​(𝒪​(1))V_{1}(\mathscr{O}(1)), we get a metric ψ=FS⁡(∥⋅∥1)\psi=\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{1}) on 𝒪⁡(1)\mathscr{O}(1). By construction ψ|X=ϕ\psi|_{X}=\phi.

By Proposition 5.6, the Banach algebra V^∙(𝒪(1),⦀⋅⦀ψ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(\mathscr{O}(1),\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\psi}) is an affinoid algebra. Hence the quotient Banach algebra V^∙(L,⦀⋅⦀ψ,ℙd1|X)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\psi,\mathbb{P}^{d_{1}}|X}) is an affinoid algebra.

By Proposition 3.27, the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is the spectral norm of ⦀⋅⦀ψ,ℙd1|X\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\psi,\mathbb{P}^{d_{1}}|X}. The later is an affinoid norm, hence is equivalent to its spectral norm by Proposition 2.58. So ⦀⋅⦀ϕ\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi} is also an affinoid algebra norm. Thus V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi) is an affinoid algebra.

Similarly, by Proposition 3.27, on V∙​(LX|Y)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}), the algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}} is the spectral norm of ⦀⋅⦀ϕ,X|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi,X|Y}, hence is itself an affinoid algebra norm. ∎

[00M8]
Corollary 5.8.

Assume that ϕ\phi is a Fubini-Study metric. If LL is just ample, then V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi), V^​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) and V^∙​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}) are affinoid algebras.

[00M9]
Proof.

By assumption, L⊗ML^{\otimes M} is very ample. So V^∙(M)​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L,\phi), V^∙(M)​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) and V^∙(M)​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}) are affinoid algebras. Since V∙​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) is integral and is finite over V∙(M)​(L)V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L), by Proposition 2.45, the Banach algebras V^∙​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L,\phi), V^​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) and V^∙​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}) are Banach finite over V^∙(M)​(L,ϕ)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L,\phi), V^∙(M)​(LX|Y,ϕX|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L_{X|Y},\phi_{X|Y}) and V^∙(M)​(L|Y,ϕ|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}^{(M)}(L|_{Y},\phi|_{Y}) respectively. Hence they are affinoid algebras. ∎

[00MA]
Proposition 5.9.

Assume that ϕ\phi is a Fubini-Study metric. Then there exist C⁡(ϕ,Y)>0C(\phi,Y)>0 such that for any t¯∈V∙​(LX|Y)\underline{t}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}), there exists s¯∈V∙​(L)\underline{s}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) with

⦀s¯⦀ϕ≤C(ϕ,Y,X)⋅⦀t¯⦀ϕ|Y.\vvvert\underline{s}\vvvert_{\phi}\leq C(\phi,Y,X)\cdot\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}}.

In particular, for any n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N} and tn∈V∙​(LX|Y)t_{n}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}), there exists sn∈V∙​(L)s_{n}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L) with

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤C⁡(ϕ,Y,X)⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y.\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq C(\phi,Y,X)\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}.
[00MB]
Proof.

By Corollary 5.8, the Banach algebra norm ⦀⋅⦀ϕX|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{X|Y}} is an affinoid algebra norm. By Proposition 2.58, there exists C⁡(ϕ,Y)>0C(\phi,Y)>0 such that

⦀⋅⦀ϕX|Y≤C(ϕ,Y,X)⋅⦀⋅⦀ϕX|Y;sp.\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{X|Y}}\leq C(\phi,Y,X)\cdot\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{X|Y};\mathrm{sp}}.

Since ⦀⋅⦀ϕX|Y;sp=⦀⋅⦀ϕ|Y\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi_{X|Y};\mathrm{sp}}=\vvvert\mathord{\cdot}\vvvert_{\phi|_{Y}} by Corollary 3.27, one gets the bounds. ∎

[00MC]
Remark 5.10.

With the metric finiteness properties of affinoid algebra norm, here the upper bound for metric extension of a Fubini-Study metric is much better than what was expected, compared to (3) or even to (2), for its (in)depence on n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}. This independence suggest that it would be reasonable to compare this affinoid algebra technique in this non-Archimedean setting with the use of Ohsawa-Takegoshi L2L^{2} extension technique in the complex analytic setting.

[00NG]

5.2. Algebra norm induced by asymptotic Fubini-Study metric

With the extra assumption of discreteness for the base valued field, one can give another proof of Theorem 4.5.

[00MD]
Theorem 5.11.

Suppose that (k,|⋅|)(k,\lvert\mathord{\cdot}\rvert) is discretely valued. Let ϕ\phi be an asymptotic Fubini-Study metric on LL. Then for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists nY∈ℕn_{Y}\in\mathbb{N} such that for any n≥nYn\geq n_{Y} and any tn∈Vn​(L|Y)t_{n}\in V_{n}(L|_{Y}), there exits sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) such that sn|Y=tns_{n}|_{Y}=t_{n} and

∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y.\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}.
[00ME]
Proof.

Recall that one can find M∈ℕM\in\mathbb{N} such that L⊗ML^{\otimes M} is very ample and for any n≥Mn\geq M, the restriction map from Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) to Vn​(L|Y)V_{n}(L|_{Y}) is surjective.

By the asymptotic Fubini-Study assumption, there exist norms {∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} on Vn​(L)V_{n}(L) such that ϕ\phi is given by 𝒫⁡({∥⋅∥n}n∈ℕ)\mathcal{P}(\{\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}). Let ψn\psi_{n} denote the metric 1n​FS​(∥⋅∥)n\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{FS}(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert)_{n} on LL. By the continuity assumption, the convergence to envelop metric is uniform (see §3.1 12.). So for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists M′≥MM^{\prime}\geq M such that

dist⁡(ψM′,ϕ)≤13​ϵ,\dist(\psi_{M^{\prime}},\phi)\leq\frac{1}{3}\epsilon,

hence for any n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, one has

dist⁡(∥⋅∥n​ψM′,∥⋅∥n​ϕ)≤13​n​ϵ,dist⁡(∥⋅∥n​ψM′,X|Y,∥⋅∥n​ϕ,X|Y)≤13​n​ϵ.\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\psi_{M^{\prime}}},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi})\leq\frac{1}{3}n\epsilon,\quad\dist(\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\psi_{M^{\prime}},X|Y},\lVert\mathord{\cdot}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y})\leq\frac{1}{3}n\epsilon.

By Corollary 5.8, the Banach algebra V^∙​(LX|Y,(ψM′)X|Y)\widehat{V}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y},(\psi_{M^{\prime}})_{X|Y}) is an affinoid algebra. By Proposition 5.9, there exists CM′​(X,Y,ϕ)>0C_{M^{\prime}}(X,Y,\phi)>0 such that

∀t¯∈V∙(LX|Y),⦀t¯⦀ψM′,X|Y≤CM′⋅⦀t¯⦀ψM′,X|Y;sp=⦀t¯⦀ψM′,Y.\forall\underline{t}\in V_{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}(L_{X|Y}),\quad\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\psi_{M^{\prime}},X|Y}\leq C_{M^{\prime}}\cdot\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\psi_{M^{\prime}},X|Y;\mathrm{sp}}=\vvvert\underline{t}\vvvert_{\psi_{M^{\prime}},Y}.

Combining this comparison with above estimates, one has that for every n≥nY:=⌈ln⁡(CM′)/(ϵ/3)⌉n\geq n_{Y}:=\lceil\ln(C_{M^{\prime}})/(\epsilon/3)\rceil

∥tn∥n​ϕ,X|Y≤e13​n​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ψM′,X|Y≤e13​n​ϵ⋅CM′⋅∥tn∥n​ψM′|Y≤e23​n​ϵ⋅CM′⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y≤en​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y.\begin{split}\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi,X|Y}&\leq\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\psi_{M^{\prime}},X|Y}\\ &\leq\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{3}n\epsilon}\cdot C_{M^{\prime}}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\psi_{M^{\prime}}|_{Y}}\\ &\leq\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2}{3}n\epsilon}\cdot C_{M^{\prime}}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}\\ &\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}.\end{split}

Hence there exists sn∈Vn​(L)s_{n}\in V_{n}(L) with ∥sn∥n​ϕ≤en​ϵ⋅∥tn∥n​ϕ|Y\lVert s_{n}\rVert_{n\phi}\leq\mathrm{e}^{n\epsilon}\cdot\lVert t_{n}\rVert_{n\phi|_{Y}}. ∎

References

  • [AB95] A. Abbes, T. Bouche. Théorème de Hilbert-Samuel ”arithmétique”. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 45 (1995), no. 2, 375–401.
  • [Ber] V.G. Berkovich. Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 33. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1990).
  • [BE18] S. Boucksom, D. Eriksson. Spaces of norms, determinant of cohomology and Fekete points in non-Archimedean geometry. arXiv:1805.01016.
  • [BFJ16] S. Boucksom, C. Favre, M. Jonsson. Singular semipositive metrics in non-Archimedean geometry. J. Algebraic Geom. 25, 77–139 (2016).
  • [BGR] S. Bosch, U. Güntzer, R. Remmert. Non-Archimedean analysis. A systematic approach to rigid analytic geometry. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 261. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
  • [BMPS] J-W. Burgos Gil, A. Moriwaki, P. Philippon, M. Sombra. Arithmetic positivity on toric varieties. Journal of Algebraic Geometry 25 (2016), 201–272.
  • [Bos01] J-B. Bost Germs of analytic varieties in algebraic varieties. Geometric aspects of Dwork theory. Vol. I, II, 371–418. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (2004)
  • [Bou] N. Bourbaki. Espaces vectoriels topologiques. Chapitres 1 à 5. Masson, Paris, 1981.
  • [BPS14] J.I. Burgos, P. Philippon, M. Sombra. Arithmetic geometry of toric varieties.Metrics, measures and heights. Astérisque No. 360 (2014),
  • [CLD12] A. Chambert-Loir and A. Ducros. Formes différentielles réelles et courants sur les espaces de Berkovich. arXiv:1204.6277.
  • [CMor18] H. Chen, A. Moriwaki. Extension property of semipositive invertible sheaves over a non-archimedean field. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 18, 241–282 (2018).
  • [EGA] J. Dieudonné, A. Grothendieck. Eléments de géométrie algébrique.
  • [FvdP] J. Fresnel, M. van der Put. Rigid analytic geometry and its applications. Progress in Mathematics 218 (2004). Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA.
  • [Gu98] W. Gubler. Local heights of subvarieties over non-Archimedean fields. Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 498 (1998), 61–113.
  • [GM16] W. Gubler, F. Martin. On Zhang’s semipositive metrics. arXiv:1608.08030.
  • [GR] H. Grauert, R. Remmert. Theory of Stein spaces. Classics in Mathematics (2004). Springer-Verlag.
  • [Man93] L. Manivel. Un théorème de prolongement L2L^{2} de sections holomorphes d’un fibré hermitien. Mathematische Zeitschrift 212, 107–122, (1993).
  • [Mor11] A. Moriwaki. Free basis consisting of strictly small sections. International Mathematics Research Notices. IMRN 6, 1245–1267 (2011).
  • [MP17] M. Maculan, J. Poineau. Notions of Stein spaces in non-archimedean geometry. arXiv:1711.04008.
  • [OT87] T. Ohsawa, K. Takegoshi. On the extension of L2L^{2} holomorphic functions. Mathematische Zeitschrift 195, 197–204, (1987).
  • [Ran06] H. Randriambololona. Métriques de sous-quotient et théorème de Hilbert-Samuel arithmétique pour les faisceaux cohérents. Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 590, 67–88 (2006).
  • [Ser55] J-P. Serre. Faisceaux algébriques cohérents. Ann. of Math. (2) 61, 197–278 (1955).
  • [Tem15] M. Temkin. Introduction to Berkovich analytic spaces. Berkovich spaces and applications, 3–66 (2015). Lecture Notes in Math 2119, Springer, Cham.
  • [Tia90] G. Tian. On a set of polarized Kähler metrics on algebraic manifolds. Journal of Differential Geometry 32, 99–130 (1990).
  • [Zha95] S.-W. Zhang. Positive line bundles on arithmetic varieties. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1995), 187–221.

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