ScalingStacks

Proof of Theorem 1.1 . [00FA]

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

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

Proposition 4.1 gives us ω∈α\omega\in\alpha a smooth nonnegative representative, and βt∈αt\beta_{t}\in\alpha_{t} continuously varying Kähler forms, when t<1t<1, such that βt→ω\beta_{t}\to\omega as t→1t\to 1. Let’s assume first that the class α=c1​(L)\alpha=c_{1}(L) for some nef and big line bundle LL. As before, Theorem 2.1 gives a morphism f:X→ℙNf:X\to\mathbb{P}^{N} such that f∗​𝒪​(1)=k​Lf^{*}\mathcal{O}(1)=kL. Also by Theorem 2.2 the image of ff is a normal irreducible projective variety YY, f:X→Yf:X\to Y is birational and f∗​𝒪X=𝒪Yf_{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}=\mathcal{O}_{Y}. Then setting D0=0D_{0}=0 as Cartier divisors on YY, we have a​KX=f∗​D0aK_{X}=f^{*}D_{0} for some integer a>0a>0, so

f∗​(a​KX)=D0=0f_{*}(aK_{X})=D_{0}=0

holds as Weil divisors, but since ff is birational we also have f∗​(a​KX)=a​KYf_{*}(aK_{X})=aK_{Y} (as Weil divisors), hence a​KYaK_{Y} is Cartier and is equal to zero. So we have f∗​KY=KXf^{*}K_{Y}=K_{X} as ℚ\mathbb{Q}-divisors, which implies that YY has at most canonical singularities and is a Calabi-Yau model (see also Corollary 1.5 of [Ka1]).

Denote by Ω\Omega the smooth volume form on XX given by

Ω=ω0n∫Xω0n,\Omega=\frac{\omega_{0}^{n}}{\int_{X}\omega_{0}^{n}},

which satisfies ∫XΩ=1\int_{X}\Omega=1. We can write Ω=F​ωn,\Omega=F\omega^{n}, where F∈L1​(ωn)F\in L^{1}(\omega^{n}), F>0F>0. The following argument to show that actually F∈Lp​(ωn)F\in L^{p}(\omega^{n}) for some p>1p>1 is similar to Lemma 3.2 in [EGZ]. First of all 1/F1/F is smooth, nonnegative, and vanishes precisely on the exceptional set of ff. Fixing local coordinates (zi)(z^{i}) on a polydisc D⊂XD\subset X and a local embedding G:f⁡(D)→ℂmG:f(D)\to\mathbb{C}^{m}, we see that 1/F1/F is comparable to

|∂G∂z1∧⋯∧∂G∂zn|2\left|\frac{\partial G}{\partial z^{1}}\wedge\dots\wedge\frac{\partial G}{\partial z^{n}}\right|^{2}

on DD. But this is in turn comparable to

∑i=1r|gi|2,\sum_{i=1}^{r}|g_{i}|^{2},

where the gig_{i} are holomorphic functions on DD, and so Fε∈L1​(D,Ω)F^{\varepsilon}\in L^{1}(D,\Omega) for some small ε>0\varepsilon>0 that depends on the vanishing orders of the gig_{i}. Then

(4.2) ∫DF1+ε​ωn=∫DFε​Ω<∞.\int_{D}F^{1+\varepsilon}\omega^{n}=\int_{D}F^{\varepsilon}\Omega<\infty.

The compactness of XX gives F∈L1+ε​(ωn)F\in L^{1+\varepsilon}(\omega^{n}), and so we can apply Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 3.1 of [EGZ] (which rely on the seminal work of Kołodziej [Koł]) to get a unique continuous φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) such that

(4.3) (ω+−1​∂∂¯​φ)n=αn​Ω,(\omega+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi)^{n}=\alpha^{n}\Omega,

and supXφ=0\sup_{X}\varphi=0. Moreover we can see that φ\varphi descends to a function on YY: if VV is a fiber of ff, the restriction of φ\varphi to VV is a plurisubharmonic function, because ω|V=0\omega|_{V}=0. Desingularizing VV and applying the maximum principle we see that φ|V\varphi|_{V} has to be constant, and so φ\varphi descends to YY. Since ω\omega by construction is the pullback of a (singular) Kähler form on YY, we see that ω+−1​∂∂¯​φ\omega+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi is a singular Ricci-flat metric on YY, in the terminology of [EGZ]. On XX, the closed positive current ω1=ω+−1​∂∂¯​φ\omega_{1}=\omega+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi clearly lies in the class α\alpha and has continuous potentials. Intuitively, our goal is to get estimates in the open set where ω\omega is positive. This can be done rigorously in the following way, which was first used by H.Tsuji [Ts] (see also [TZ], [CL] for a recent revisiting of his approach). Since LL is nef and big, by Kodaira’s lemma (Example 2.2.19 in [L]) there exists EE effective Cartier divisor such that for all ε>0\varepsilon>0 small enough, α−ε​E=κε\alpha-\varepsilon E=\kappa_{\varepsilon} is Kähler. We’ll show that φ\varphi is smooth on X\EX\backslash E, and so ω1\omega_{1} is a smooth Ricci-flat metric there, and that the Ricci-flat metrics ωt\omega_{t} converge to ω1\omega_{1} in the C∞C^{\infty} topology on compact sets of X\EX\backslash E. Notice that the metric ω1\omega_{1} on X\EX\backslash E cannot be complete, since its diameter is finite by the result in section 3. Our argument is very similar to the proof of Theorem 3.5 in [EGZ] (see also [Y2]). Once this is proved, we can repeat the argument for any other EE given by Kodaira’s lemma, and by uniqueness we see that ω1\omega_{1} is smooth off E′E^{\prime}, the intersection of the supports of all such EE. We claim that E′E^{\prime} is equal to the null locus of LL, and by Nakamaye’s Theorem all we need to show is that it is equal to the augmented base locus of LL. If x∈Xx\in X is a point outside the augmented base locus, then there exist HH an ample divisor and k,mk,m large enough so that xx is not in the base locus of m​L−mk​HmL-\frac{m}{k}H. But this means that m​L−mk​H∼NmL-\frac{m}{k}H\sim N where NN is an effective divisor that doesn’t pass through xx, and moreover the cohomology class of L−1m​NL-\frac{1}{m}N is Kähler. So we can take ε=1m\varepsilon=\frac{1}{m} and E=NE=N, and we see that E′E^{\prime} is contained in the null locus of LL. Conversely, if xx belongs to the null locus, then there exists a subvariety VV through xx with dimV=k\dim V=k and (Lk⋅V)=0(L^{k}\cdot V)=0. Since the potentials for the current ω1\omega_{1} are continuous, the self-intersection ω1k\omega_{1}^{k} is a well-defined closed positive current [BT], which restricts to a nonnegative Borel measure on VV. The integral ∫Vω1k\int_{V}\omega_{1}^{k} is then equal to the cohomological intersection number (Lk⋅V)(L^{k}\cdot V) (see e.g. Corollary 9.3 in [De2]) which is zero. But if xx is not in E′E^{\prime} then ω1\omega_{1} is smooth and Kähler near xx and the volume of VV with respect to ω1\omega_{1} would be positive, which is a contradiction.

Fix once and for all an ε>0\varepsilon>0 small enough so that Kodaira’s lemma holds. First of all notice that the classes αt−ε​E=κεt\alpha_{t}-\varepsilon E=\kappa_{\varepsilon}^{t} are all Kähler when tt is close to 11. Choose a Kähler form χε∈κε\chi_{\varepsilon}\in\kappa_{\varepsilon}, let σ∈H0​(X,𝒪X​(E))\sigma\in H^{0}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(E)) be the canonical section, and fix a Hermitian metric |⋅||\cdot| on EE such that the following Poicaré-Lelong equation holds

(4.4) ω−ε⁡[E]=χε−ε​−1​∂∂¯​log⁡|σ|,\omega-\varepsilon[E]=\chi_{\varepsilon}-\varepsilon\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\log|\sigma|,

where [E][E] denotes the current of integration on EE. Then we have

βt−ε⁡[E]=χε+(βt−ω)−ε​−1​∂∂¯​log⁡|σ|,\beta_{t}-\varepsilon[E]=\chi_{\varepsilon}+(\beta_{t}-\omega)-\varepsilon\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\log|\sigma|,

and χεt=χε+(βt−ω)\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t}=\chi_{\varepsilon}+(\beta_{t}-\omega) is Kähler for tt close to 11. There are smooth functions φt\varphi_{t} solutions of

(4.5) ωtn=(βt+−1​∂∂¯​φt)n=αtn​Ω,\omega_{t}^{n}=(\beta_{t}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{t})^{n}=\alpha_{t}^{n}\Omega,

where the positive constants αtn\alpha_{t}^{n} approach αn\alpha^{n} as tt goes to 11, and supXφt=0\sup_{X}\varphi_{t}=0. We apply Theorem 2.1 and Proposition 3.1 of [EGZ] again, and get uniform estimates ‖φt‖C0≤C0\|\varphi_{t}\|_{C^{0}}\leq C_{0} independent of tt. Outside EE we have

βt=χεt−ε​−1​∂∂¯​log⁡|σ|,\beta_{t}=\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t}-\varepsilon\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\log|\sigma|,

so that the functions ψt=φt−ε​log⁡|σ|\psi_{t}=\varphi_{t}-\varepsilon\log|\sigma| solve

(4.6) (χεt+−1​∂∂¯​ψt)n=αtn​Ω=eFεt​(χεt)n(\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\psi_{t})^{n}=\alpha_{t}^{n}\Omega=e^{F_{\varepsilon}^{t}}(\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t})^{n}

there, for some appropriate smooth functions FεtF_{\varepsilon}^{t}, defined on the whole of XX. As tt approaches 11, the Kähler forms χεt\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t} are uniformly bounded in the smooth topology (with eigenvalues bounded away from 00 uniformly), and so are the functions FεtF_{\varepsilon}^{t}. Yau’s second order estimates [Y2] for the Monge-Ampère equation (4.6) give

(4.7) △t′​(e−A​ψt​(n+△t​ψt))≥e−A​ψt​(−C1−C2​(n+△t​ψt)+(n+△t​ψt)nn−1),\triangle^{\prime}_{t}(e^{-A\psi_{t}}(n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t}))\geq e^{-A\psi_{t}}\left(-C_{1}-C_{2}(n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t})+(n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t})^{\frac{n}{n-1}}\right),

where A,C1A,C_{1} and C2C_{2} are uniform positive constants, △t\triangle_{t} is the Laplacian of χεt\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t} and △t′\triangle^{\prime}_{t} is the Laplacian of χεt+−1​∂∂¯​ψt\chi_{\varepsilon}^{t}+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\psi_{t}. Now notice that on X\EX\backslash E we have

e−A​ψt​(n+△t​ψt)=|σ|A​ε​e−A​φt​(n+△t​φt−ε​△t​log⁡|σ|),e^{-A\psi_{t}}(n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t})=|\sigma|^{A\varepsilon}e^{-A\varphi_{t}}(n+\triangle_{t}\varphi_{t}-\varepsilon\triangle_{t}\log|\sigma|),

and

|△t​log⁡|σ||≤C,\left|\triangle_{t}\log|\sigma|\right|\leq C,

for some uniform constant CC. Hence the function e−A​ψt​(n+△t​ψt)e^{-A\psi_{t}}(n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t}) goes to zero when we approach EE, and so its maximum will be attained. The maximum principle applied to (4.7) then gives

n+△t​ψt≤C​eA⁡(ψt−infX\Eψt),n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t}\leq Ce^{A(\psi_{t}-\inf_{X\backslash E}\psi_{t})},

on the whole of X\EX\backslash E. But noticing that infX\Eψt≥infXφt−C\inf_{X\backslash E}\psi_{t}\geq\inf_{X}\varphi_{t}-C for a uniform constant CC, and recalling that |φt|≤C0|\varphi_{t}|\leq C_{0}, we get

n+△t​φt≤C+n+△t​ψt≤C⁡(1+|σ|−A​ε).n+\triangle_{t}\varphi_{t}\leq C+n+\triangle_{t}\psi_{t}\leq C(1+|\sigma|^{-A\varepsilon}).

This gives uniform interior C2C^{2} estimates of φt\varphi_{t} and ψt\psi_{t} on compact sets of X\EX\backslash E. Then the Harnack estimate of Evans-Krylov gives uniform C2,γC^{2,\gamma} estimates, for some 0<γ<10<\gamma<1, and a standard bootstrapping argument gives uniform Ck,γC^{k,\gamma} estimates for all k≥2k\geq 2, on compact sets of X\EX\backslash E, independent of t<1t<1. Thus the family (φt)(\varphi_{t}) is precompact Ck,γ′​(X\E)C^{k,\gamma^{\prime}}(X\backslash E) for any 0<γ′<γ0<\gamma^{\prime}<\gamma, and any limit point ψ\psi belongs to P​S​H​(X\E,ω)PSH(X\backslash E,\omega), it satisfies

(ω+−1​∂∂¯​ψ)n=αn​Ω(\omega+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\psi)^{n}=\alpha^{n}\Omega

on X\EX\backslash E, and is bounded near EE. Hence ψ\psi extends to a bounded function in P​S​H​(X,ω)PSH(X,\omega) and the above Monge-Ampère equation holds on XX because the Borel measure (ω+−1​∂∂¯​ψ)n(\omega+\sqrt{-1}\partial\overline{\partial}\psi)^{n} doesn’t charge the analytic set EE. Then by the uniqueness part of Theorem 2.1 of [EGZ], we must have ψ=φ\psi=\varphi. This implies that φt→φ\varphi_{t}\to\varphi in C∞C^{\infty} on compact sets of X\EX\backslash E, and that φ\varphi is smooth there.

If now we only have that α∈N1​(X)ℚ\alpha\in N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}} is nef and big, then k​α∈N1​(X)ℤk\alpha\in N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Z}} for some integer k≥1k\geq 1. Kodaira’s lemma still holds, the function FF is obviously still in Lp​(ωn)L^{p}(\omega^{n}), p>1p>1, and the reasoning proceeds as above.

If finally α∈N1​(X)ℝ\alpha\in N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{R}} then we use Kodaira’s lemma for big and nef ℝ\mathbb{R}-divisors (Example 2.2.23 in [L]) to get an effective ℝ\mathbb{R}-divisor EE such that for all ε>0\varepsilon>0 small enough, α−ε​E=κε\alpha-\varepsilon E=\kappa_{\varepsilon} is Kähler. The proof proceeds as above, once we show that FF is again in Lp​(ωn)L^{p}(\omega^{n}), p>1p>1. Recall from the proof of Proposition 4.1 that we can write

α=∑iai​γi,\alpha=\sum_{i}a_{i}\gamma_{i},

where ai∈ℝ>0a_{i}\in\mathbb{R}_{>0} and γi∈N1​(X)ℚ\gamma_{i}\in N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}} are nef and big. Moreover

ω=∑iai​δi,\omega=\sum_{i}a_{i}\delta_{i},

where δi∈γi\delta_{i}\in\gamma_{i} are smooth pointwise nonnegative forms. Then, by the previous case when α∈N1​(X)ℚ\alpha\in N^{1}(X)_{\mathbb{Q}}, we know that there exist (nonsmooth) positive functions FiF_{i} such that Ω=Fi​ain​δin\Omega=F_{i}a_{i}^{n}\delta_{i}^{n} and Fi∈L1+ε​(δin)F_{i}\in L^{1+\varepsilon}(\delta_{i}^{n}) for some ε>0\varepsilon>0. As in (4.2) we see that for every ii

∫XFiε​Ω=ain​∫XFi1+ε​δin<∞.\int_{X}F_{i}^{\varepsilon}\Omega=a_{i}^{n}\int_{X}F_{i}^{1+\varepsilon}\delta_{i}^{n}<\infty.

Then

Ω=F​ωn=F​(∑iai​δi)n,\Omega=F\omega^{n}=F\left(\sum_{i}a_{i}\delta_{i}\right)^{n},

and since for each jj the function

(∑iai​δi)najn​δjn\frac{(\sum_{i}a_{i}\delta_{i})^{n}}{a_{j}^{n}\delta_{j}^{n}}

is bigger than or equal to 11 a.e., it follows that F≤FjF\leq F_{j} a.e. for all jj. So

∫XF1+ε​ωn=∫XFε​Ω≤∫XF1ε​Ω<∞.\int_{X}F^{1+\varepsilon}\omega^{n}=\int_{X}F^{\varepsilon}\Omega\leq\int_{X}F_{1}^{\varepsilon}\Omega<\infty.

∎

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