ScalingStacks

4. Geometric approximation [00N9]

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

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.

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}}.

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)))).

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)))). ∎

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))).
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. ∎

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}})}

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))).
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}).

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}). ∎

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}}.
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}}.

∎

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