ScalingStacks

3. More regularity [02DP]

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. More regularity

3.1. Measures with density

We now turn to the study of the complex Monge-Ampère equation

(ω+d​dc​φ)n=μ, when ​μ=f​ωn(\omega+dd^{c}\varphi)^{n}=\mu,\text{ when }\mu=f\omega^{n}

is a measure with density 0≤f∈Lp​(ωn)0\leq f\in L^{p}(\omega^{n}), p>1p>1.

Proposition 3.1.

Assume μ=f​ωn\mu=f\omega^{n} is a probability measure with density 0≤f∈Lp​(X)0\leq f\in L^{p}(X), for some p>1p>1. Then for any α>0\alpha>0, there exists Aα>0A_{\alpha}>0 such that μ\mu satisfies ℋ⁡(α,Aα,ω){\mathcal{H}}(\alpha,A_{\alpha},\omega).

Proof.

It is enough to establish ℋ⁡(α,Aα,ω){\mathcal{H}}(\alpha,A_{\alpha},\omega) for compact subsets, by regularity of μ\mu and C​a​pωCap_{\omega}. Let KK be a compact subset of XX. It follows from Hölder’s inequality that

0≤μ⁡(K)≤‖f‖Lp​(ωn)​[Volω​(K)]1/q,0\leq\mu(K)\leq||f||_{L^{p}(\omega^{n})}\left[\text{Vol}_{\omega}(K)\right]^{1/q},

where 1/p+1/q=11/p+1/q=1. Note that ‖f‖Lp​(ωn)=1||f||_{L^{p}(\omega^{n})}=1 since we assume μ\mu is a probability measure. We claim that

(4) Volω(K)≤Cωexp[−(Capω(K))−γω/n],\text{Vol}_{\omega}(K)\leq C_{\omega}\exp\left[-(Cap_{\omega}(K))^{-\gamma_{\omega}/n}\right],

for some constants Cω,γω>0C_{\omega},\gamma_{\omega}>0 that only depend on ω\omega. We will be done if we can prove (4) since we can then check by elementary computations that exp⁡(−x−δ)\exp(-x^{-\delta}) is dominated from above by Aα​xαA_{\alpha}x^{\alpha}, for all x∈[0,1]x\in[0,1].

The set of functions ℱ0:={φ∈PSH(X,ω)/supXφ=0}{\mathcal{F}}_{0}:=\{\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega)\,/\,\sup_{X}\varphi=0\} is compact in L1​(X)L^{1}(X) (see proposition 2.7, [GZ 1]). These functions have Lelong numbers ν⁡(φ,x)≤νω\nu(\varphi,x)\leq\nu_{\omega} bounded from above by a uniform constant. It follows therefore from Skoda’s uniform integrability theorem [Z], that

supφ∈ℱ0∫exp⁡[−2​φνω+1]​ωn≤C2<+∞.\sup_{\varphi\in{\mathcal{F}}_{0}}\int\exp\left[-\frac{2\varphi}{\nu_{\omega}+1}\right]\omega^{n}\leq C_{2}<+\infty.

Set γω:=2/(νω+1)>0\gamma_{\omega}:=2/(\nu_{\omega}+1)>0 and let

VK,ω∗(x):=(sup{φ(x)/φ∈PSH(X,ω),φ≤0 on K})∗V_{K,\omega}^{*}(x):=\left(\sup\{\varphi(x)\,/\,\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega),\,\varphi\leq 0\text{ on }K\}\right)^{*}

denote the Siciak extremal function of KK (see section 5.1 in [GZ 1]). Then

V​o​lω​(K)≤∫Xexp⁡(−γω​VK,ω∗)​ωn≤C2​Tω​(K)γω,Vol_{\omega}(K)\leq\int_{X}\exp\left(-\gamma_{\omega}V_{K,\omega}^{*}\right)\omega^{n}\leq C_{2}T_{\omega}(K)^{\gamma_{\omega}},

where Tω(K):=exp(−supXVK,ω∗)T_{\omega}(K):=\exp(-\sup_{X}V_{K,\omega}^{*}) denote the Alexander capacity of KK (see section 5.2 in [GZ 2]). It follows now from theorem 7.1 in [GZ 1] that

Tω(K)≤eexp[−Capω(K)−1/n],T_{\omega}(K)\leq e\exp\left[-Cap_{\omega}(K)^{-1/n}\right],

which yields (4). ∎

It follows therefore from theorem 2.1 that there exists a unique continuous function φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) such that

μ=f​ωn=(ω+d​dc​φ)n, with ​supXφ=−1,\mu=f\omega^{n}=(\omega+dd^{c}\varphi)^{n},\text{ with }\sup_{X}\varphi=-1,

when 0≤f∈Lp​(ωn)0\leq f\in L^{p}(\omega^{n}), p>1p>1, with ∫Xf​ωn=1\int_{X}f\omega^{n}=1.

Actually we will be interested in measures with LpL^{p}-density with respect to a positive definite volume form d​λd\lambda, while the smooth measure ωn\omega^{n} may vanish along a divisor. This does not make much difference, as follows from Hölder’s inequality:

Lemma 3.2.

Let VV be a nn-dimensional compact normal Kähler space and Ω\Omega be a smooth Kähler form on VV. Let π:X→V\pi:X\to V a resolution, ω=π∗​Ω\omega=\pi^{*}\Omega, and let d​λd\lambda be a positive definite smooth volume form on XX.

If μ=f1​d​λ\mu=f_{1}d\lambda, with f1∈Lp​(X,d​λ)f_{1}\in L^{p}(X,d\lambda) for some p>1p>1, then there exists p′>1p^{\prime}>1 such that μ=f​ωn\mu=f\omega^{n} and f∈Lp′​(X,ωn)f\in L^{p^{\prime}}(X,\omega^{n}).

Proof.

Observe that ωn=E​d​λ\omega^{n}=Ed\lambda for some smooth density E≥0E\geq 0 which vanishes along the exceptional divisor of π\pi, thus

μ=f1​d​λ=f​ωn, where ​f=f1/E.\mu=f_{1}d\lambda=f\omega^{n},\text{ where }f=f_{1}/E.

Fix local coordinates (zi)1≤i≤n(z^{i})_{1\leq i\leq n} on a polydisk 𝔻⊂X\mathbb{D}\subset X and a local embedding F:V→ℂmF:V\to\mathbb{C}^{m}. Note that EE is comparable to |∂F∂z1∧…∧∂F∂z1|2≃∑i=1r|fi|2|\frac{\partial F}{\partial z^{1}}\wedge\ldots\wedge\frac{\partial F}{\partial z^{1}}|^{2}\simeq\sum_{i=1}^{r}|f_{i}|^{2}, fif_{i} being holomorphic on 𝔻\mathbb{D}. Therefore E∈Ll​o​c∞​(𝔻)E\in L^{\infty}_{loc}(\mathbb{D}) and E−α∈Ll​o​c1​(𝔻,d​λ)E^{-\alpha}\in L_{loc}^{1}(\mathbb{D},d\lambda) for some 0<α<10<\alpha<1.

Choose 0<α′<α0<\alpha^{\prime}<\alpha such that 1p+1α=1α′\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{\alpha}=\frac{1}{\alpha^{\prime}}. Then fα′=f1α′​E−α′f^{\alpha^{\prime}}=f_{1}^{\alpha^{\prime}}E^{-\alpha^{\prime}} is the product of a function in Lp/α′​(d​λ)L^{p/\alpha^{\prime}}(d\lambda) and a function in Lα/α′​(d​λ)L^{\alpha/\alpha^{\prime}}(d\lambda), hence it is in Ll​o​c1​(𝔻,d​λ)L^{1}_{loc}(\mathbb{D},d\lambda) by Hölder’s inequality. A second application of Hölder’s inequality yields

∫𝔻f1+ε​ωn=∫𝔻fϵ​f1​𝑑λ≤(∫𝔻fϵ​q​𝑑λ)1/q​(∫𝔻f1p​𝑑λ)1/p<+∞,\int_{{\mathbb{D}}}f^{1+\varepsilon}\omega^{n}=\int_{\mathbb{D}}f^{\epsilon}f_{1}d\lambda\leq\left(\int_{\mathbb{D}}f^{\epsilon q}d\lambda\right)^{1/q}\left(\int_{\mathbb{D}}f_{1}^{p}d\lambda\right)^{1/p}<+\infty,

where qq denotes the conjugate exponent to pp. This shows that f∈Lp′​(ωn)f\in L^{p^{\prime}}(\omega^{n}) if p′=1+ε>1p^{\prime}=1+\varepsilon>1 is chosen so small that ε​q<α′\varepsilon q<\alpha^{\prime}. ∎

3.2. Hölder continuity

Proposition 3.3.

Assume ωφn=f​ωn\omega_{\varphi}^{n}=f\omega^{n}, ωψ=g​ωn\omega_{\psi}=g\omega^{n}, where φ,ψ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi,\psi\in PSH(X,\omega) are continuous and f,g∈Lp​(ωn)f,g\in L^{p}(\omega^{n}), p>1p>1. Then for all 0<γ<2/(2+n​q)0<\gamma<2/(2+nq),

‖φ−ψ‖L∞​(X)≤C​‖φ−ψ‖L2​(ωn)γ,||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{\infty}(X)}\leq C||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{2}(\omega^{n})}^{\gamma},

where q=p/(p−1)q=p/(p-1) denotes the conjugate exponent to pp.

Proof.

Fix ε>0\varepsilon>0 and α>0\alpha>0 to be chosen later. It follows from (2) and propositions 2.5, 3.1 that

‖φ−ψ‖L∞​(X)≤ε+C1​[C​a​pω​(|φ−ψ|>ε)]α/n.||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{\infty}(X)}\leq\varepsilon+C_{1}\left[Cap_{\omega}(|\varphi-\psi|>\varepsilon)\right]^{\alpha/n}.

Applying the refined version of lemma 2.2 which involves the uniform bound on ‖φ‖L∞​(X),‖ψ‖L∞​(X)||\varphi||_{L^{\infty}(X)},||\psi||_{L^{\infty}(X)} (see inequality (3)), we obtain

C​a​pω​(|φ−ψ|>ε)≤C2εn+2/q​∫X|φ−ψ|2/q​(f+g)​ωn.Cap_{\omega}(|\varphi-\psi|>\varepsilon)\leq\frac{C_{2}}{\varepsilon^{n+2/q}}\int_{X}|\varphi-\psi|^{2/q}(f+g)\omega^{n}.

It follows thus from Hölder’s inequality that

C​a​pω​(|φ−ψ|>ε)≤C3​‖f+g‖Lpεn+2/q​[‖φ−ψ‖L2​(ωn)]2/q.Cap_{\omega}(|\varphi-\psi|>\varepsilon)\leq\frac{C_{3}||f+g||_{L^{p}}}{\varepsilon^{n+2/q}}\left[||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{2}(\omega^{n})}\right]^{2/q}.

Choose now ε:=‖φ−ψ‖L2ω\varepsilon:=||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{2}}^{\omega} where 0<γ<2/(2+n​q)0<\gamma<2/(2+nq). Then

C​a​pω​(|φ−ψ|>ε)≤C4​[‖φ−ψ‖L2]2/q−γ⁡(n+2/q).Cap_{\omega}(|\varphi-\psi|>\varepsilon)\leq C_{4}\left[||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{2}}\right]^{2/q-\gamma(n+2/q)}.

We infer

‖φ−ψ‖L∞​(X)≤||φ−ψ||L2γ+C5​‖φ−ψ‖L2γ′, where ​γ′=αn​[2/q−γ⁡(n+2/q)].||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{\infty}(X)}\leq||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{2}}^{\gamma}+C_{5}||\varphi-\psi||_{L^{2}}^{\gamma^{\prime}},\;\text{ where }\gamma^{\prime}=\frac{\alpha}{n}\left[2/q-\gamma(n+2/q)\right].

We finally choose α>0\alpha>0 so large that γ≤γ′\gamma\leq\gamma^{\prime} and adjust the value of the constant CC: this yields the desired estimate. ∎

Being able to control the L∞L^{\infty}-norm of φ−ψ\varphi-\psi by its L2L^{2}-norm is a powerful tool. If for instance ψ=φj\psi=\varphi_{j}, φ\varphi satisfy the assumptions of proposition 3.2 – with φj\varphi_{j} being uniformly bounded –, and φj→φ\varphi_{j}\rightarrow\varphi in L1L^{1}, then φj→φ\varphi_{j}\rightarrow\varphi in L2​(ωn)L^{2}(\omega^{n}), hence (φj)(\varphi_{j}) actually uniformly converges towards φ\varphi. This yields the continuity of the map

f∈Lp​(ωn)↦φ∈𝒞0​(X),f\in L^{p}(\omega^{n})\mapsto\varphi\in{\mathcal{C}}^{0}(X),

where φ\varphi is the unique ω\omega-psh solution to (ω+d​dc​φ)n=f​ωn(\omega+dd^{c}\varphi)^{n}=f\omega^{n}, supXφ=−1\sup_{X}\varphi=-1. Thus Theorem A is proved.

We now give an application of this estimate, which is new even when the form ω\omega is Kähler, but requires the manifold XX to be homogeneous, i.e. such that its group of holomorphic automorphisms acts transitively on it.44 4 In particular, the cohomology class of ω\omega is Kähler and ω\omega itself can be supposed to be Kähler without loss of generality..

Theorem 3.4.

Assume XX is a homogeneous manifold. If μ=f​ωn\mu=f\omega^{n} is a probability measure with density 0≤f∈Lp​(ωn)0\leq f\in L^{p}(\omega^{n}), p>1p>1, then the unique solution φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)∈𝒞0​(X)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega)\in{\mathcal{C}}^{0}(X) to the normalized Monge-Ampère equation

(ω+d​dc​φ)n=μ=f​ωn,supXφ=−1,(\omega+dd^{c}\varphi)^{n}=\mu=f\omega^{n},\,\sup_{X}\varphi=-1,

is Hölder continuous of exponent γ>0\gamma>0, for all γ<2/(2+n​q)\gamma<2/(2+nq), where q=p/(p−1)q=p/(p-1) is the conjugate exponent to pp.

Proof.

When A​u​t​(X)Aut(X), the group of holomorphic automorphisms of XX, acts transitively on XX, one can regularize ω\omega-psh functions by averaging over the Haar measure of the connected component of the identity of A​u​t​(X)Aut(X). This is very similar to the way one regularizes psh functions in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} by using convolutions with an approximation of the identity for the convolution product. We refer the reader to [Hu] and the Appendix of [G] for more details.

Let φh\varphi_{h} be the ω\omega-psh function which is the translate of φ\varphi by an automorphism which is at distance hh from identity. We use the notation φh\varphi_{h} by analogy with the ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}-situation, where φh​(x)=φ⁡(x+h)\varphi_{h}(x)=\varphi(x+h). Since φ\varphi is bounded, it has gradient in L2L^{2}, hence

‖φh−φ‖L2≤C​|h|,||\varphi_{h}-\varphi||_{L^{2}}\leq C|h|,

by using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in a local chart. We can thus apply proposition 3.2 to obtain that

‖φh−φ‖L∞≤C′​|h|γ,||\varphi_{h}-\varphi||_{L^{\infty}}\leq C^{\prime}|h|^{\gamma},

for all γ<2/(2+n​q)\gamma<2/(2+nq). Since φh​(x)≃φ⁡(x+h)\varphi_{h}(x)\simeq\varphi(x+h) in a local chart, this precisely means that φ\varphi is Hölder-continuous of exponent γ\gamma. ∎

3.3. Regularity on the smooth locus

Theorem 3.5.

Let XX be projective algebraic complex manifold, ω0\omega_{0} a smooth semi Kähler form that is Kähler outside a complex subvariety S⊂XS\subset X, and fix Ω\Omega be a Kähler form on XX. Assume that ωon=D​Ωn\omega_{o}^{n}=D\Omega^{n}, where D−εD^{-\varepsilon} is in L1​(Ωn)L^{1}(\Omega^{n}), and that [ω0],[Ω]∈N​Sℝ​(X)[\omega_{0}],[\Omega]\in NS_{\mathbb{R}}(X).

Let s1,…,sps_{1},...,s_{p} (resp. t1,…,tqt_{1},...,t_{q}) be holomorphic sections of some line bundle LL (resp L′L^{\prime}) on XX. Fix k∈ℝ≥0k\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}, l∈ℝ≥0l\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} and F∈𝒞∞​(X,ℝ)F\in{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}(X,\mathbb{R}). Assume that

∫X1|t1|2​l+…+|tq|2​l​Ωn<∞​ and ​∫X|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k|t1|2​l+…+|tq|2​l​eF​Ωn=∫XΩn.\int_{X}\frac{1}{|t_{1}|^{2l}+\ldots+|t_{q}|^{2l}}\Omega^{n}<\infty\text{ and }\int_{X}\frac{|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k}}{|t_{1}|^{2l}+\ldots+|t_{q}|^{2l}}e^{F}\Omega^{n}=\int_{X}\Omega^{n}.

Then the unique continuous function φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω0)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega_{0}) such that

(ω0+d​dc​φ)n=|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k|t1|2​l+…+|tq|2​l​eF​Ωn​ and ​supXφ=−1(\omega_{0}+dd^{c}\varphi)^{n}=\frac{|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k}}{|t_{1}|^{2l}+\ldots+|t_{q}|^{2l}}e^{F}\Omega^{n}\,\text{ and }\sup_{X}\varphi=-1

is smooth outside B=S∪∩i{si=0}∪∩i{ti=0}B=S\cup\cap_{i}\{s_{i}=0\}\cup\cap_{i}\{t_{i}=0\}.

Remark 3.6.

This result should be compared with [Y], Theorem 8. Yau’s result is stronger in many respects (there is no projectivity/rationality assumption and it gives a more precise regularity theory); on the other hand the conditions on the poles of the L.H.S. is less optimal than here.

We expect the projectivity/rationality assumptions to be superfluous. We also expect that a finer regularity theory might be developed for singular KE metrics depending on a finer analysis of the klt singularities involved.

The rest of this subsection will be devoted to the proof of Theorem 3.5. For the reader’s convenience, we will treat two special cases before tackling the general case 55 5 Notice that apart from the 𝒞0{\mathcal{C}}^{0}-estimate with degenerate L.H.S., the methods used here are standard and in [Y], [Ts] and [Ko]. Higher regularity in [TZ] is treated along similar lines given the L∞L^{\infty}-estimate the authors announce.

Preliminary considerations

Thanks to Lemma 3.2 – here we use that D−ε∈L1D^{-\varepsilon}\in L^{1} – and Theorem 2.1, for every t∈[0,1]t\in[0,1] there is a unique continuous function φt∈P​S​H​(X,ω0+t​Ω)\varphi_{t}\in PSH(X,\omega_{0}+t\Omega) such that

(ωo+t​Ω+d​dc​φt)n=Ct​|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k|t1|2​l+…+|tq|2​l​eF​Ωn​ and ​supXφt=−1,(\omega_{o}+t\Omega+dd^{c}\varphi_{t})^{n}=C_{t}\frac{|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k}}{|t_{1}|^{2l}+\ldots+|t_{q}|^{2l}}e^{F}\Omega^{n}\text{ and }\sup_{X}\varphi_{t}=-1,

where Ct>0C_{t}>0 is an adequate normalisation constant and ‖φt‖𝒞0​(X)\|\varphi_{t}\|_{{\mathcal{C}}^{0}(X)} is uniformly bounded by a constant independant of t≥0t\geq 0.

We cannot use right away [Y], Theorem 8 p. 403, to ensure that (φt)(\varphi_{t}) be smooth outside BB for t>0t>0, since our integral condition is stronger than his. However we can use [Y], Thm 3, p 365 to conclude that, in case ∩i{ti=0}=∅\cap_{i}\{t_{i}=0\}=\emptyset, (φt)(\varphi_{t}) is smooth outside BB and d​dc​φtdd^{c}\varphi_{t} is a form whose coefficients are globally bounded on XX, hence φt∈𝒞1,1​(X)\varphi_{t}\in{\mathcal{C}}^{1,1}(X) for t>0t>0. Since this does not imply ellipticity if ∩i{si=0}≠∅\cap_{i}\{s_{i}=0\}\not=\emptyset, this does not imply higher regularity on the whole of XX.

The required uniformity in t>0t>0 is not proved in [Y]. To deal with this case, we use a nice trick due to H.Tsuji [Ts].

The simplest case

First, assume ∩i{si=0}∪∩i{ti=0}=∅\cap_{i}\{s_{i}=0\}\cup\cap_{i}\{t_{i}=0\}=\emptyset. Hence the family of equations under consideration can be rewritten as:

(ωo+t​Ω+d​dc​φt)n=Ct​eF​Ωn,(\omega_{o}+t\Omega+dd^{c}\varphi_{t})^{n}=C_{t}e^{F}\Omega^{n},

FF being smooth.

Tsuji’s trick is as follows. By Kodaira’s lemma, there exists EE an effective Cartier divisor of XX such that [ωo]=[κε]+ε⁡[E][\omega_{o}]=[\kappa_{\varepsilon}]+\varepsilon[E] where [κε][\kappa_{\varepsilon}] is ample, hence we may choose a representative κε\kappa_{\varepsilon} which is a Kähler form for every ε>0\varepsilon>0 small enough. We may actually assume EE contains BB and use a family of EE such that ∩S​u​p​p​(E)=B\cap Supp(E)=B, by Nakamaye’s theorem on base loci [Na].

Actually, despite the notation, it will NOT be necessary to let ε\varepsilon decrease to 00 66 6 This technical device could be useful to study finer regularity results and we will fix once for all such an ε>0\varepsilon>0.

Let σ∈H0​(X,𝒪X​(E))\sigma\in H^{0}(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(E)) be the canonical section vanishing on EE with the appropriate multiplicity. We can fix a smooth hermitian metric on this line bundle such that the Poincaré Lelong equation holds,

ωo=κε+ε⁡[E]−ε​d​dc​log⁡|σ|2.\omega_{o}=\kappa_{\varepsilon}+\varepsilon[E]-\varepsilon dd^{c}\log|\sigma|^{2}.

The function φt:=φt−ε​log⁡|σ|2\varphi_{t}:=\varphi_{t}-\varepsilon\log|\sigma|^{2} is smooth in X∖EX\setminus E and is a classical solution to the PDE

(κε+t​Ω+d​dc​φt)n=eFε,t​(κε+t​Ω)n,(\kappa_{\varepsilon}+t\Omega+dd^{c}\varphi_{t})^{n}=e^{F_{\varepsilon,t}}(\kappa_{\varepsilon}+t\Omega)^{n},

where (Fε,t)1≥t>0(F_{\varepsilon,t})_{1\geq t>0} is uniformly bounded in the 𝒞∞​(X){\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}(X)-topology of functions and κt=κε+t​Ω\kappa_{t}=\kappa_{\varepsilon}+t\Omega is uniformly bounded in the 𝒞∞{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}-topology of Kähler forms on XX.

We can use the result of the calculation in [Y], section 2. The important formula is (2.22) p. 351 and in a subsidiary fashion (2.21). In these formulae, at each point p∈X−Ep\in X-E, an adequate system of normal coordinates for κt\kappa_{t} is constructed and comparing the notations here and there, we substitute nn for mm, κt\kappa_{t} for gi​j¯g_{i\bar{j}}, κt+d​dc​φt\kappa_{t}+dd^{c}\varphi_{t} for gi​j¯′g_{i\bar{j}}^{\prime}, φt\varphi_{t} for φ\varphi and Fε,tF_{\varepsilon,t} for FF. The operator Δ\Delta is the Laplace operator (with the analyst’s sign) of κt\kappa_{t} and Δ′\Delta^{\prime} the Laplace operator of κt+d​dc​φt\kappa_{t}+dd^{c}\varphi_{t}. Also Ri​i¯​l​l¯=Ri​i¯​l​l¯tR_{i\bar{i}l\bar{l}}=R^{t}_{i\bar{i}l\bar{l}} is the holomorphic bissectional curvature of κt\kappa_{t} expressed in the above system of normal coordinates.

Since κt\kappa_{t} is uniformly bounded in the 𝒞2{\mathcal{C}}^{2} topology of Kähler forms then certainly there is constant C=CεC=C_{\varepsilon} independent of tt such that (2.21) holds and C′C^{\prime} also independent of tt such that C′>infRi​i¯​l​l¯tC^{\prime}>\inf R^{t}_{i\bar{i}l\bar{l}}.

After these substitutions are made, (2.22) p. 351 reads:

eC​φt​Δ′​(e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt))≥Δ⁡(Fε,t)−n2​C′−C​n​(n+Δ​φt)+e−Fε,tn−1​(n+Δ​φt)nn−1e^{C\varphi_{t}}\Delta^{\prime}(e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t}))\geq\Delta(F_{\varepsilon,t})-n^{2}C^{\prime}-Cn(n+\Delta\varphi_{t})+e^{-\frac{F_{\varepsilon,t}}{n-1}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t})^{\frac{n}{n-1}}

We can fix constants CiC_{i} independent of tt such that

ΔFε,t≥C1 and e−Fε,t/n−1≥C3>0.\Delta F_{\varepsilon,t}\geq C_{1}\;\;\;\;\text{ and }\;\;\;\;e^{-F_{\varepsilon,t}/n-1}\geq C_{3}>0.

Thus setting y=n+Δ​φty=n+\Delta\varphi_{t} yields

eC​φt​Δ′​(e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt))≥C5+C6​y+eC7​ymm−1.e^{C\varphi_{t}}\Delta^{\prime}(e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t}))\geq C_{5}+C_{6}y+e^{C_{7}}y^{\frac{m}{m-1}}.

Now by definition

e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt)=|σ|+C​ε​e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt+ε​Δ​log⁡|σ|2).e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t})=|\sigma|^{+C\varepsilon}e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t}+\varepsilon\Delta\log|\sigma|^{2}).

For each t>0t>0 the functions φt\varphi_{t}, ε​Δ​log⁡|σ|2\varepsilon\Delta\log|\sigma|^{2} and Δ​φt\Delta\varphi_{t} are bounded on XX. Hence the positive function e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt)e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t}) is continuous on XX, vanishes on EE and is smooth on X−EX-E. Its maximum is achieved at some point pt∉Ep_{t}\not\in E. It follows from the maximum principle that

0≥C5+C6​y+eC7​ynn−1​ at point ​y=y⁡(pt).0\geq C_{5}+C_{6}y+e^{C_{7}}y^{\frac{n}{n-1}}\text{ at point }y=y(p_{t}).

Therefore y≤C8y\leq C_{8} with a constant independent of t>0t>0. Now e−C​φt​(pt)=|σ⁡(pt)|+C​ε​e−C​φt​(pt)e^{-C\varphi_{t}(p_{t})}=|\sigma(p_{t})|^{+C\varepsilon}e^{-C\varphi_{t}(p_{t})}. Using the uniform 𝒞0{\mathcal{C}}^{0} estimate for φt\varphi_{t}, we get 0≤(n+Δt​φt)≤C9​e+C​φt0\leq(n+\Delta_{t}\varphi_{t})\leq C_{9}e^{+C\varphi_{t}}. Since |φt||\varphi_{t}| and ε​Δ​log⁡|σ|2\varepsilon\Delta\log|\sigma|^{2} are uniformly bounded by a constant independent of t>0t>0, we infer

(n+Δt​φt)≤C10​|σ|−C​ε=C10​|σ|−Cε​ε.(n+\Delta_{t}\varphi_{t})\leq C_{10}|\sigma|^{-C\varepsilon}=C_{10}|\sigma|^{-C_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon}.

This yields a tt-independent 𝒞0{\mathcal{C}}^{0}- estimate of d​dc​φtdd^{c}\varphi_{t} on the compact subsets of X−EX-E 77 7 Note that C=CεC=C_{\varepsilon} and that ε​Cε\varepsilon C_{\varepsilon} might blow up as ε\varepsilon goes to 00. .

Standard arguments of the theory of complex Monge-Ampère equations give an interior estimate of φt\varphi_{t} in 𝒞l​o​ck,α​(X−E){\mathcal{C}}^{k,\alpha}_{loc}(X-E) for every k≥2k\geq 2, α∈]0,1[\alpha\in]0,1[ which is independent of t>0t>0 (see for instance Theorem 5.1, p. 15 in [Bl2]). Hence the family (φt)t>0(\varphi_{t})_{t>0} is precompact in every 𝒞l​o​ck,α​(X−E){\mathcal{C}}^{k,\alpha}_{loc}(X-E). Its cluster values are cluster values in 𝒞O​(X−E){\mathcal{C}}^{O}(X-E) hence they are all equal to φ|X−E\varphi|_{X-E}. This implies φ∈𝒞l​o​ck,α​(X−E)\varphi\in{\mathcal{C}}^{k,\alpha}_{loc}(X-E), hence that φ∈𝒞∞​(X−E)\varphi\in{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}(X-E).

Case where ∩i{ti=0}=∅\cap_{i}\{t_{i}=0\}=\emptyset

88 8 It suffices to consider this case for constructing singular KE metrics on algebraic varieties with canonical singularities

We study here the equation

(ωo+t​Ω+d​dc​φt)n=Ct​(|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k)​eF​Ωn(\omega_{o}+t\Omega+dd^{c}\varphi_{t})^{n}=C_{t}(|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k})e^{F}\Omega^{n}

The first few steps of the preceding argument can be repeated without changes. Next we apply formula (2.22) in [Y] as earlier, except that we set F=Fε,t+log⁡‖s‖(2​k)F=F_{\varepsilon,t}+\log||s||^{(2k)}, where ‖s‖(2​k):=|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k||s||^{(2k)}:=|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k}. This yields

eC​φt​Δ′​(e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt))\displaystyle e^{C\varphi_{t}}\Delta^{\prime}(e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t})) ≥\displaystyle\geq Δ​Fε,t+Δ​log⁡‖s‖(2​k)−n2​C′−C​n​(n+Δ​φt)\displaystyle\Delta F_{\varepsilon,t}+\Delta\log||s||^{(2k)}-n^{2}C^{\prime}-Cn(n+\Delta\varphi_{t})
+(e−Fε,t‖s‖(2​k))1/(n−1)​(n+Δ​φt)nn−1\displaystyle+\left(\frac{e^{-F_{\varepsilon,t}}}{||s||^{(2k)}}\right)^{1/(n-1)}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t})^{\frac{n}{n-1}}

We recall the two preceding inequalities and observe two new ones that are available:

Δ​Fε,t≥C1\displaystyle\Delta F_{\varepsilon,t}\geq C_{1}\; and e−Fε,t/n−1≥C3>0;\displaystyle\;e^{-F_{\varepsilon,t}/n-1}\geq C_{3}>0;
Δ​log⁡‖s‖(2​k)≥C2\displaystyle\Delta\log||s||^{(2k)}\geq C_{2} and C4≥‖s‖(2​k).\displaystyle C_{4}\geq||s||^{(2k)}.

Setting as earlier y=n+Δ​φty=n+\Delta\varphi_{t}, we get

eC​φt​Δ′​(e−C​φt​(n+Δ​φt))≥C5+C6​y+eC7​ymm−1.e^{C\varphi_{t}}\Delta^{\prime}(e^{-C\varphi_{t}}(n+\Delta\varphi_{t}))\geq C_{5}+C_{6}y+e^{C_{7}}y^{\frac{m}{m-1}}.

After this point, the proof is entirely the same as before.

Remark 3.7.

In order to carry out the second order a priori estimate, one needs information that only depend on supXF\sup_{X}F and infXΔ​F\inf_{X}\Delta F. This is pointed out in [Y], p. 351, and it is the basis for the proof of [Y], Thm 3.

3.4. Formal reduction of the general case to the second case using smooth orbifolds

In order to carry out the present argument, which in essence is just a change of variables z↝ζ=z1/mz\rightsquigarrow\zeta=z^{1/m}, we need to use analysis on certain smooth orbifolds. We will not give complete definitions since they are in the recent reference [BGK], section 2 pp. 560-564, see also [MO] and the references therein.

Let (X,Δ)(X,\Delta) be a smooth orbifold pair. By this we mean that we have the prime decomposition Δ=∑i(1−mi−1)​Ei\Delta=\sum_{i}(1-m_{i}^{-1})E_{i} where mi∈ℕ∗m_{i}\in\mathbb{N}^{*} is an integer. We assume that s​u​p​p​(Δ)supp(\Delta) is a simple normal crossing divisor. Then, a classical construction surveyed in [BGK] enables to construct an orbifold [X,Δ][X,\Delta] with a 11-morphism of orbifolds c:[X,Δ]→Xc:[X,\Delta]\to X with the following properties:

  • •

    cc is the reduction to the coarse moduli space of [X,Δ][X,\Delta].

  • •

    cX−S​u​p​p​(Δ):U:=[X,Δ]×X→X−Supp(Δ)c_{X-Supp(\Delta)}:U:=[X,\Delta]\times_{X}\to X-Supp(\Delta) is an isomorphism. Hence UU is an open suborbifold of [X,Δ][X,\Delta] which is an old-fashioned manifold).

  • •

    For every open polydisk 𝔻⊂X\mathbb{D}\subset X with local coordinates z1,…,znz_{1},\ldots,z_{n} such that Supp(Δ)={∏j=1pzj=0}Supp(\Delta)=\{\prod_{j=1}^{p}z_{j}=0\} [X,Δ]×X𝔻=[𝔻′/Gl​o​c][X,\Delta]\times_{X}\mathbb{D}=[\mathbb{D}^{\prime}/G_{loc}].

    In this formula, the local isotropy group is Gl​o​c=∏j=1pℤ/mj​ℤG_{loc}=\prod_{j=1}^{p}\mathbb{Z}/m_{j}\mathbb{Z}, mjm_{j} is the integer multiplicity of the divisor EijE_{i_{j}} such that Eij∩𝔻={zj=0}E_{i_{j}}\cap\mathbb{D}=\{z_{j}=0\}, Gl​o​cG_{loc} acts on the polydisk 𝔻′\mathbb{D}^{\prime} by (ζ1,…,ζp).(z1′,…,zn′)=(ζ1​z1′,…,ζp​zp′,zp+1′,…)(\zeta_{1},...,\zeta_{p}).(z^{\prime}_{1},...,z^{\prime}_{n})=(\zeta_{1}z^{\prime}_{1},...,\zeta_{p}z^{\prime}_{p},z_{p+1}^{\prime},...) 99 9 The usual isomorphism of ℤ/m​ℤ\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} with the group of mm-th root of unity is used..

    The orbifold 11-morphism [𝔻′/Gl​o​c]→𝔻[\mathbb{D}^{\prime}/G_{loc}]\to\mathbb{D} is induced by ϰl​o​c:(z1′,..,zn′)↦((z1′)m1,…)\varkappa_{loc}:(z^{\prime}_{1},..,z^{\prime}_{n})\mapsto((z^{\prime}_{1})^{m_{1}},...).

  • •

    For sufficiently divisible ss, c∗​𝒪[X,Δ]​(s​K[X,Δ])=𝒪X​(s⁡(KX+Δ))c_{*}\mathcal{O}_{[X,\Delta]}(sK_{[X,\Delta]})=\mathcal{O}_{X}(s(K_{X}+\Delta)).

It is possible to define all the basic concepts of Kähler geometry on orbifolds such as smooth functions, Kähler metrics, etc… The principle is to think of ϰl​o​c−1\varkappa_{loc}^{-1} as a (multivalued) smooth coordinate chart.

A continuous function on [X,Δ][X,\Delta] is a continuous function on XX. A Radon measure on [X,Δ][X,\Delta] is a Radon measure on XX.

A smooth function ff on [X,Δ][X,\Delta] is a continuous function on XX such that for every local chart ϰl​o​c∗​f\varkappa_{loc}^{*}f is smooth. In particular ff is Hölder continuous.

A Kähler metric Ω[X,Δ]\Omega_{[X,\Delta]} on [X,Δ][X,\Delta] is a Kähler metric ΩX−S​u​p​p​(Δ)\Omega_{X-Supp(\Delta)} on X−S​u​p​p​(Δ)X-Supp(\Delta) with the property that ϰl​o​c∗​Ω\varkappa_{loc}^{*}\Omega extends to a smooth Kähler metric on 𝔻′\mathbb{D}^{\prime}. In particular, it also extends as a closed Kähler current on XX with Hölder potentials.

The pull back of a Kähler form on XX to [X,Δ][X,\Delta] is a semi-Kähler form that is actually cohomologous to a Kähler class1010 10 Here no reference can be given. But it is easy to extend the gluing methods for Kähler forms developed in [Dem 3] and [Pa] to orbifolds. Hence [DP] extends to Kähler orbifolds. .

Observe that ϰl​o​c∗​d​zl=mil​(zl′)mil−1​d​zl′\varkappa^{*}_{loc}dz_{l}=m_{i_{l}}(z^{\prime}_{l})^{m_{i_{l}}-1}dz^{\prime}_{l}, hence a smooth volume form on [X,Δ][X,\Delta] can be interpreted as a volume form vv on X−S​u​p​p​(Δ)X-Supp(\Delta) such that

v​ is comparable to ​∏l=1n(−1​d​zl∧d​z¯l)∏l=1p|zl|2​(1−1/mil).v\text{ is comparable to }\frac{{\prod_{l=1}^{n}(\sqrt{-1}dz_{l}\wedge d\bar{z}_{l})}}{\prod_{l=1}^{p}|z_{l}|^{2(1-1/m_{i_{l}})}}.

In case the pair (X,l−1​(t1))(X,l^{-1}(t_{1})) is an orbifold pair, the equation

(5) (ωo+d​dc​φt)n=Ct​|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k|t1|2​l​eF​ΩXn(\omega_{o}+dd^{c}\varphi_{t})^{n}=C_{t}\frac{|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k}}{|t_{1}|^{2l}}e^{F}\Omega_{X}^{n}

can be interpreted on [X,Δ][X,\Delta] as an equation of the form

(c∗​ωo+d​dc​φt)n=Ct​(|s1|2​k+…+|sp|2​k)​eF​Ω[X,Δ]n.(c^{*}\omega_{o}+dd^{c}\varphi_{t})^{n}=C_{t}(|s_{1}|^{2k}+\ldots+|s_{p}|^{2k})e^{F}\Omega_{[X,\Delta]}^{n}.

The method used to analyze the case where ∩i{ti=0}=∅\cap_{i}\{t_{i}=0\}=\emptyset extends with almost no changes to the orbifold case. Hence the unique continuous solution of equation (5) is smooth outside its singular locus if (X,1l​(t1))(X,\frac{1}{l}(t_{1})) is an orbifold pair.

Under the more general hypothesis that ∫X|t1|−2​l<∞\int_{X}|t_{1}|^{-2l}<\infty and 1l​(t1)\frac{1}{l}(t_{1}) is a divisor with simple normal crossings, then we can construct an orbifold pair (X,Δ)(X,\Delta) with 0≤1l​(t1)≤Δ0\leq\frac{1}{l}(t_{1})\leq\Delta and we are back to the previous case.

For the most general case, consider the ideal ℐ\mathcal{I} generated by the tit_{i} and fix μ:X′→X\mu:X^{\prime}\to X a log resolution of (X,ℐ)(X,\mathcal{I}). Then we are back to the previous case, with an equation on X′X^{\prime} . This ends the proof of Theorem 3.6.

In certain rare circumstances, there is a finite smooth covering Y→XY\to X such that Y/G=XY/G=X and [Y/G]=[X,Δ][Y/G]=[X,\Delta] and the argument we use here reduces to a GG-equivariant argument on YY.

Remarks 3.8.

If we start with ωo\omega_{o} Kähler, and the log-resolution is non trivial, μ∗​ωo\mu^{*}\omega_{o} is not Kähler anymore.

This method that dates back to [Ko] can be used to prove a variant of [Y], Theorem 7 p. 399 where the divisor of s2s_{2} is a simple normal crossing divisor, under the sole assumption that ∫M|s2|−2​k2<∞\int_{M}|s_{2}|^{-2k_{2}}<\infty.

Now, it could not have been used to prove Theorem 8 p. 403 in 1978 since log-resolutions force the use of Monge-Ampère equations with degenerate L.H.S, for which the 𝒞0{\mathcal{C}}^{0}-estimate proved here was not available then.

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