ScalingStacks

6.4. Skeletal mesures on Berkovich spaces [017K]

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

6.4. Skeletal mesures on Berkovich spaces

Now consider a residually metrized model metric ψ#\psi^{\#} on KXK_{X}. Pick any representative ℒ#=(ℒ,ψ0){\mathcal{L}}^{\#}=({\mathcal{L}},\psi_{0}) for ψ#\psi^{\#}, where ℒ{\mathcal{L}} is a model of KXK_{X} determined on a proper dlt model 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} of XX, and where ψ0\psi_{0} is a continuous metric on ℒ0:=ℒ|𝒳0{\mathcal{L}}_{0}:={\mathcal{L}}|_{{\mathcal{X}}_{0}}.

Definition 6.5.

The skeletal measure μψ#\mu_{\psi^{\#}} is the image of the measure μℒ#\mu_{{\mathcal{L}}^{\#}} under the embedding Δ⁡(ℒ)↪Xan\Delta({\mathcal{L}})\hookrightarrow X^{\mathrm{an}}. We view it as a positive measure on XanX^{\mathrm{an}}, supported on the skeleton Sk⁡(ψ#):=Sk⁡(ϕℒ)\operatorname{Sk}(\psi^{\#}):=\operatorname{Sk}(\phi_{\mathcal{L}}).

This definition makes sense, in view of the following result.

Lemma 6.6.

The skeletal measure μℒ#\mu_{{\mathcal{L}}^{\#}} is independent of the choice of representative ℒ#{\mathcal{L}}^{\#} for ψ#\psi^{\#}.

Proof.

Let 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} be proper dlt models of XX, with 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} via a proper birational morphism ρ:𝒳′→𝒳\rho\colon{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}}. Let ℒ#=(ℒ,ψ0){\mathcal{L}}^{\#}=({\mathcal{L}},\psi_{0}) be a residually metrized model of KXK_{X} consisting of a model ℒ{\mathcal{L}} of KXK_{X} determined on 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and a continuous metric ψ0\psi_{0} on ℒ0{\mathcal{L}}_{0}. Set ℒ′=ρ∗​ℒ{\mathcal{L}}^{\prime}=\rho^{*}{\mathcal{L}}, ψ0′=ρ∗​ψ0\psi^{\prime}_{0}=\rho^{*}\psi_{0} and ℒ′#=(ℒ′,ψ0′){\mathcal{L}}^{\prime\#}=({\mathcal{L}}^{\prime},\psi^{\prime}_{0}). We must prove that μℒ′#=μℒ#\mu_{{\mathcal{L}}^{\prime\#}}=\mu_{{\mathcal{L}}^{\#}}.

Let σ′\sigma^{\prime} be a top-dimensional face of Δ⁡(ℒ′)\Delta({\mathcal{L}}^{\prime}), Y′Y^{\prime} the associated stratum of 𝒳0′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0}, YY the minimal stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} containing ρ⁡(Y′)\rho(Y^{\prime}) and σ=σY\sigma=\sigma_{Y} the associated simplex of Δ⁡(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}). Then σ\sigma and σ′\sigma^{\prime} have the same dimension, and if we (somewhat abusively) identify σ\sigma and σ′\sigma^{\prime} with their images in Sk⁡(ϕℒ)⊂Xan\operatorname{Sk}(\phi_{\mathcal{L}})\subset X^{\mathrm{an}}, then σ′\sigma^{\prime} is a rational subsimplex of σ\sigma. It suffices to prove that μℒ′#​(σ′)=μℒ#​(σ′)\mu_{{\mathcal{L}}^{\prime\#}}(\sigma^{\prime})=\mu_{{\mathcal{L}}^{\#}}(\sigma^{\prime}).

Now ρ\rho restricts to a birational morphism of Y′→YY^{\prime}\to Y, so since λσ|σ′=λσ′\lambda_{\sigma}|_{\sigma^{\prime}}=\lambda_{\sigma^{\prime}} and bσ=bσ′b_{\sigma}=b_{\sigma^{\prime}}, it suffices to prove that ResY′⁡(ℒ′#)=ρ∗​ResY⁡(ℒ#)\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime}}({\mathcal{L}}^{\prime\#})=\rho^{*}\operatorname{Res}_{Y}({\mathcal{L}}^{\#}). But this is formal. Indeed, we have (ρ|Y)∗​(BY′ℒ′)=BYℒ(\rho|_{Y})_{*}(B_{Y^{\prime}}^{{\mathcal{L}}^{\prime}})=B_{Y}^{\mathcal{L}} and we can identify (ρ|Y)∗​K(Y,BYℒ)(\rho|_{Y})^{*}K_{(Y,B_{Y}^{\mathcal{L}})} with K(Y′,BY′ℒ′)K_{(Y^{\prime},B_{Y^{\prime}}^{{\mathcal{L}}^{\prime}})} in such a way that the restriction of ψ0′\psi^{\prime}_{0} to ℒ′|Y′=K(Y′,BY′ℒ′){\mathcal{L}}^{\prime}|_{Y^{\prime}}=K_{(Y^{\prime},B_{Y^{\prime}}^{{\mathcal{L}}^{\prime}})} coincides with the pullback under ρ|Y′\rho|_{Y^{\prime}} of the restriction of ψ0\psi_{0} to ℒ|Y=K(Y,BYℒ){\mathcal{L}}|_{Y}=K_{(Y,B_{Y}^{\mathcal{L}})}. ∎

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