ScalingStacks

3.2 Piecewise linear structure [00TH]

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 Piecewise linear structure

Proposition 3.12.

The polyhedral complex ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} is homeomorphic to SnS^{n}.

Proof.

This is because ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} is the boundary of a convex polyhedron Δλ∨\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} with nontrivial interior. ∎

We now assign a a collection of charts to ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, whose transition functions are piecewise linear. (Some authors prefer the terminology ‘piecewise affine’.) These are closely related to the holomorphic charts on XsX_{s} in section 3.1.

Let w∈Nw\in N be the primitive integral outward normal vector to a facet F⁡(w)F(w) of Δ\Delta, and choose an integral basis m1,…​mnm_{1},\ldots m_{n} for {m∈M|⟨w,m⟩=0}\{m\in M|\langle w,m\rangle=0\}, suitably oriented to be compatible with (12). On the open subset of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee},

∂Δλ∨∩Uw∞={x∈∂Δλ∨|⟨m,x⟩+λ(m)<0,∀m∈Δℤ∖(F(w)∪{0})},\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}\cap U_{w}^{\infty}=\{x\in\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}|\langle m,x\rangle+\lambda(m)<0,\forall m\in\Delta_{\mathbb{Z}}\setminus(F(w)\cup\{0\})\},

we regard m1,…​mnm_{1},\ldots m_{n} as the affine linear coordinates, also written as xm1,…​xmnx^{m_{1}},\ldots x^{m_{n}}. Such charts cover ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. We denote S​i​n​g~\widetilde{Sing} as the subset of points on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} which do not lie on the interior of the top dimensional faces. It is easy to check that the transition functions on overlapping charts in ∂Δλ∨∖S​i​n​g~\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}\setminus\widetilde{Sing} lie in S​L​(n,ℤ)⋉ℝnSL(n,\mathbb{Z})\ltimes\mathbb{R}^{n}, so the volume form d​xm1∧…​d​xmndx^{m_{1}}\wedge\ldots dx^{m_{n}} is defined independent of the choice of charts. We call the associated measure d​μ∞d\mu_{\infty} the Lebesgue measure on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, with respect to which S​i​n​g~\widetilde{Sing} is a null set. The set S​i​n​g~\widetilde{Sing} has real codimension 1, and the transition functions are in general only piecewise linear.

Remark 3.13.

The affine structure on ∂Δλ∨∖S​i​n​g~\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}\setminus\widetilde{Sing} can be often extended to a subset of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} with codimension 2 complement. This in general involves a somewhat ad hoc choice of the singular locus. In the Fermat family case, due to the discrete symmetry, the barycentric subdivision provides a canonical choice. (cf. section 3.5).

We now examine the normalised canonical measure on XsX_{s}

d​μs=1(4​π​s)n​−1n2​Ωs∧Ω¯s.d\mu_{s}=\frac{1}{(4\pi s)^{n}}\sqrt{-1}^{n^{2}}\Omega_{s}\wedge\overline{\Omega}_{s}. (14)
Proposition 3.14.

As s→+∞s\to+\infty, the pushforward measure (Logs)∗​d​μs(\text{Log}_{s})_{*}d\mu_{s} converges to the Lebesgue measure d​μ∞d\mu_{\infty} supported on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. In particular

∫Xsd​μs→Vol​(∂Δλ∨)=∫∂Δλ∨d​μ∞.\int_{X_{s}}d\mu_{s}\to\text{Vol}(\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee})=\int_{\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}}d\mu_{\infty}. (15)

Morever, there is a uniform exponential measure decay estimate

d​μs​({z∈Xs:distℝn+1​(Logs​(z),∂Δλ∨)>s−1​Λ})≤C′​e−C​Λ,∀Λ>0.d\mu_{s}(\{z\in X_{s}:\text{dist}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}}(\text{Log}_{s}(z),\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee})>s^{-1}\Lambda\})\leq C^{\prime}e^{-C\Lambda},\quad\forall\Lambda>0. (16)
Proof.

(Sketch) Using Lemma 3.5 and the holomorphic volume form formula (13), the neighbourhood of the toric boundary near 𝒜λ,σ∞\mathcal{A}_{\lambda,\sigma}^{\infty} only contributes O⁡(s−l)O(s^{-l}) to the normalised measure, where l=dimN​CΔ​(σ)l=\dim NC_{\Delta}(\sigma). The same lemmas imply (16) by summing over contributions from boundary type regions. In the toric region corresponding to the neighbourhood of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, the convergence of the normalised volume measure follows from Prop. 3.2 and formula (12). ∎

Remark 3.15.

The measure convergence holds for much more general degenerating families by the work of Boucksom et al. [3]. The fact that the measure is concentrated along ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} justifies why we focus on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} rather than 𝒜λ∞\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}^{\infty}.

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