ScalingStacks

3.2 Berkovich space, hybrid topology [00B6]

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

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

3.2 Berkovich space, hybrid topology

One problem with the dual intersection complex is that it involves a choice of an snc model. The snc models are highly nonunique: we can keep blowing up to get a directed set of snc models. One would like to extract intrinsic information about the degeneration family. There are two general strategies. First, one can analyze the relation between different models and seek an optimal choice using the minimal model program [36][37]; this usually leaves the snc world, and even the optimal choices may still be nonunique. Alternatively we can consider all (snc) models simultaneously, by the language of NA geometry. Good references can be found in [29, A] [3, Appendix][2, chapter 2,3].

An insight of Berkovich is that by thinking of points as multiplicative seminorms, one obtains a kind of geometry analogous to complex manifolds. Let K≃ℂ⁡((t))K\simeq\mathbb{C}(\!(t)\!) be equipped with its standard absolute value |⋅|0=e−o​r​dt|\cdot|_{0}=e^{-ord_{t}} where o​r​dtord_{t} is the valuation defined by the vanishing order. Its ultrametric property

|f+g|0≤max⁡{|f|0,|g|0}|f+g|_{0}\leq\max\{|f|_{0},|g|_{0}\}

gives the name ‘non-archimedean’ to the subject. Let XKX_{K} be a smooth, geometrically connected, projective scheme over Spec​(K)\text{Spec}(K); the main examples come from base changing an algebraic degeneration family XX over a punctured curve. Choose a finite cover of XKX_{K} by affine open sets of the form U=Spec​(A)U=\text{Spec}(A), where AA is a finitely generated KK-algebra. The space Ua​nU^{an} is defined as the set of all multiplicative seminorms |⋅|x:A→ℝ≥0|\cdot|_{x}:A\to\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} extending the absolute value of KK, endowed with the weakest topology so that the function x↦|f|xx\mapsto|f|_{x} is continuous for any f∈Af\in A. The Berkovich space XKa​nX_{K}^{an} is then obtained by gluing together Ua​nU^{an}; the notation stands for ‘analytification’. As a topological space XKa​nX_{K}^{an} is compact and Hausdorff. In the CY case, the point-set description of XKa​nX_{K}^{an} is meant to encode information about the base of the SYZ fibration; there is also a natural structure sheaf which encodes information about the complex structure [29].

Let R≃ℂ⁡[[t]]R\simeq\mathbb{C}[\![t]\!]. The concept of models over Spec​(R)\text{Spec}(R) is entirely analogous to the case over algebraic curves. The dual intersection complexes Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} for snc models over Spec​(R)\text{Spec}(R) can be compared with XKa​nX_{K}^{an} through two natural maps:

  • •

    There is a continuous embedding map e​m​b:Δ𝒳→XKa​nemb:\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\to X_{K}^{an}. Writing 𝒳0=∑bi​Ei\mathcal{X}_{0}=\sum b_{i}E_{i}, each divisor EiE_{i} defines v​a​lEi=o​r​dEibival_{E_{i}}=\frac{ord_{E_{i}}}{b_{i}} through the vanishing order o​r​dEiord_{E_{i}}, so that e−v​a​lEie^{-val_{E_{i}}} is a point in XKa​nX_{K}^{an}, called a divisorial point. More generally, given a point x=(x0,…​xp)x=(x_{0},\ldots x_{p}) in the interior of a face ΔJ⊂Δ𝒳\Delta_{J}\subset\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} corresponding to EJ=∩0pEiE_{J}=\cap_{0}^{p}E_{i}, we can associate a monomial valuation: expanding any local function ff around EJE_{J} in Taylor series,

    f=∑α∈ℕp+1fα​z0α0​…​zpαp,fα∈K⁡(EJ)f=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^{p+1}}f_{\alpha}z_{0}^{\alpha_{0}}\ldots z_{p}^{\alpha_{p}},\quad f_{\alpha}\in K(E_{J})

    then the monomial valuation is

    v​a​lx​(f)=min⁡{∑0pαi​xi|fα≠0}.val_{x}(f)=\min\{\sum_{0}^{p}\alpha_{i}x_{i}|f_{\alpha}\neq 0\}.

    Thus xx gives rise to a point e−v​a​lx∈XKa​ne^{-val_{x}}\in X_{K}^{an}. We shall regard Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} as a subset of XKa​nX_{K}^{an}.

  • •

    There is a continuous retraction map r𝒳:XKa​n→Δ𝒳r_{\mathcal{X}}:X_{K}^{an}\to\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}, which restricts to the identity on Δ𝒳⊂Xa​n\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\subset X^{an}. Any point e−v∈XKa​ne^{-v}\in X_{K}^{an} admits a center on 𝒳\mathcal{X}. This is the unique scheme theoretic point ξ∈X0\xi\in X_{0} such that |f|x≤1|f|_{x}\leq 1 for f∈𝒪𝒳,ξf\in\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X},\xi} and |f|x<1|f|_{x}<1 for f∈m𝒳,ξf\in m_{\mathcal{X},\xi}. Let J⊂IJ\subset I be the maximal subset such that ξ∈EJ\xi\in E_{J}. Then r𝒳​(x)∈Δ𝒳r_{\mathcal{X}}(x)\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} corresponds to the monomial valuation with the same value for −log⁡|zj|x,j∈J-\log|z_{j}|_{x},j\in J.

Remark 3.1.

The retraction map depends on the choice of the model. There are examples where two models 𝒳\mathcal{X} and 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime} define the same Δ𝒳\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} as a subset of XKa​nX_{K}^{an}, but the retraction maps are different [21, Appendix].

With these comparison maps, the Berkovich space XKa​nX_{K}^{an} is homeomorphic to the inverse limit of the dual intersection complexes of the snc models:

XKa​n≃lim←snc models⁡Δ𝒳X_{K}^{an}\simeq\varprojlim_{\text{snc models}}\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}

Conceptually, an snc model gives a finite approximation of the Berkovich space.

While dual intersection complexes depend strongly on the model, in the CY case the embedding image of the essential skeleton S​k​(𝒳)⊂XKa​nSk(\mathcal{X})\subset X_{K}^{an} as a set is independent of the model, so can be written as S​k​(X)Sk(X). This can be expected as S​k​(𝒳)Sk(\mathcal{X}) should support the limiting normalised CY measure, a property independent of the model choice. However, as we blow up snc models, the essential skeleton as a simplical complex can be subdivided.

We now indicate how NA geometry is unified with complex geometry. Consider an algebraic degeneration XX over a punctured curve. Let |⋅||\cdot| denote the usual absolute value for complex numbers. Given a ℂ\mathbb{C}-point z∈Xtz\in X_{t} for 0<|t|≪10<|t|\ll 1, inside some affine chart U=Spec​(A)U=\text{Spec}(A) of XX, we can define a multiplicative seminorm A→ℝ≥0A\to\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} (not non-archimedean!)

f↦e−log|f(z)|/log|t|=|f(z)|1/|log⁡|t||.f\mapsto e^{-\log|f(z)|/\log|t|}=|f(z)|^{1/|\log|t||}. (6)

As a sequence of points zz move towards t→0t\to 0, for any given meromorphic function f=∑ak​tkf=\sum a_{k}t^{k} on the base, limt→0log⁡|f⁡(z)|/log⁡|t|=o​r​d0​(f)\lim_{t\to 0}\log|f(z)|/\log|t|=ord_{0}(f) which is the standard NA valuation on KK. Thus the points on XKa​nX_{K}^{an} are natural limits of the multiplicative seminorms defined by ℂ\mathbb{C}-points on XtX_{t}. One can formalize this notion by introducing a hybrid topology on X⊔XKa​nX\sqcup X_{K}^{an}, so that XKa​nX_{K}^{an} takes the place of the central fibre [3, Appendix]. The functions f∈Af\in A then induce local continuous functions on X⊔XKa​nX\sqcup X_{K}^{an}.

The ‘hybrid’ space X⊔Δ𝒳X\sqcup\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} discussed in section 3.1 can be understood as a finite approximation. Given an snc model 𝒳\mathcal{X}, and take a sequence of ℂ\mathbb{C}-points qkq_{k} tending to e−v∈Xa​ne^{-v}\in X^{an}, whose image under the retraction map r𝒳r_{\mathcal{X}} is x=(x0,…​xp)∈ΔJ⊂Δ𝒳x=(x_{0},\ldots x_{p})\in\Delta_{J}\subset\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}. Tautologically qkq_{k} concentrate near EJE_{J}, and in the local coordinates z0,…​zpz_{0},\ldots z_{p}, we have log⁡|zi​(qk)|/log⁡|t|→v⁡(zi)=xi\log|z_{i}(q_{k})|/\log|t|\to v(z_{i})=x_{i}, which is equivalent to Log𝒳​(zk)→x=(x0,…​xp)∈ΔJ⊂Δ𝒳\text{Log}_{\mathcal{X}}(z_{k})\to x=(x_{0},\ldots x_{p})\in\Delta_{J}\subset\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}. Formally, the topology on X⊔XKa​nX\sqcup X_{K}^{an} is the inverse limit of X⊔Δ𝒳X\sqcup\Delta_{\mathcal{X}} by taking all snc models.

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