ScalingStacks

4. Tchebychev constants [033X]

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. Tchebychev constants

In this section we consider the case where ω\omega is (smooth and) represents the first Chern class of a holomorphic line bundle LL on XX.

Recall that a holomorphic line bundle LL on XX is a family of complex lines {Lx}x∈X\{L_{x}\}_{x\in X} together with a structure of complex manifold of dimension 1+dimℂX1+\dim_{\mathbb{C}}X such that the projection map π:L→X\pi:L\rightarrow X taking LxL_{x} on xx is holomorphic. Moreover one can always locally trivialize LL: there exists an open covering {𝒰α}\{{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha}\} of XX and biholomorphisms Φα:π−1​(𝒰α)→𝒰α×ℂ\Phi_{\alpha}:\pi^{-1}({\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha})\rightarrow{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha}\times\mathbb{C} which take Lx=π−1​(x)L_{x}=\pi^{-1}(x) isomorphically onto {x}×ℂ\{x\}\times\mathbb{C}. The line bundle LL is then uniquely (i.e. up to isomorphism) determined by its transition functions gα​β∈𝒪∗​(𝒰α​β)g_{\alpha\beta}\in{\mathcal{O}}^{*}({\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha\beta}), 𝒰α​β:=𝒰α∩𝒰β{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha\beta}:={\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha}\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\beta}, where

gα​β:=(Φα∘Φβ−1)|{x}×ℂ.g_{\alpha\beta}:=(\Phi_{\alpha}\circ\Phi_{\beta}^{-1})_{|\{x\}\times\mathbb{C}}.

Note that the gα​βg_{\alpha\beta}’s satisfy the cocycle condition gα​β⋅gβ​γ⋅gγ​α≡1g_{\alpha\beta}\cdot g_{\beta\gamma}\cdot g_{\gamma\alpha}\equiv 1, hence define a class [{gα​β}]∈H1​(X,𝒪∗)[\{g_{\alpha\beta}\}]\in H^{1}(X,{\mathcal{O}}^{*}). The first Chern class of LL is the image c1​(L)∈H2​(X,ℤ)c_{1}(L)\in H^{2}(X,\mathbb{Z}) of [{gα​β}][\{g_{\alpha\beta}\}] under the mapping c1:H1​(X,𝒪∗)→H2​(X,ℤ)c_{1}:H^{1}(X,{\mathcal{O}}^{*})\rightarrow H^{2}(X,\mathbb{Z}) induced by the exponential short exact sequence 0→ℤ→𝒪→𝒪∗→00\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}\rightarrow{\mathcal{O}}^{*}\rightarrow 0.

We let 𝚪⁡(𝐗,𝐋){\bf\Gamma(X,L)} denote the set of holomorphic sections of LL on XX: s∈Γ⁡(X,L)s\in\Gamma(X,L) is a collection s={sα}s=\{s_{\alpha}\} of holomorphic functions sαs_{\alpha} on 𝒰α{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha} satisfying the compatibility condition sα=gα​β​sβs_{\alpha}=g_{\alpha\beta}s_{\beta} on 𝒰α​β{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha\beta}. Similarly a (singular) metric ψ\psi of LL on XX is a collection ψ={ψα}\psi=\{\psi_{\alpha}\} of functions ψα∈L1​(𝒰α)\psi_{\alpha}\in L^{1}({\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha}) satisfying ψα=ψβ+log⁡|gα​β|\psi_{\alpha}=\psi_{\beta}+\log|g_{\alpha\beta}| in 𝒰α​β{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha\beta}. The metric is said to be smooth if the ψα′​s\psi_{\alpha}^{\prime}s are 𝒞∞{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}-smooth functions. A smooth metric always exists. The metric ψ\psi is said to be positive if the ψα\psi_{\alpha}’s are psh functions. In particular if s={sα}s=\{s_{\alpha}\} is a holomorphic section of LL on XX, then ψ={ψα:=log|sα|}\psi=\{\psi_{\alpha}:=\log|s_{\alpha}|\} is a positive (singular) metric of LL on XX. Note that we make here a slight abuse of terminology: differential geometers usually call ”metric” the non-negative (usually smooth and non vanishing) quantities e−ψ={e−ψα}e^{-\psi}=\{e^{-\psi_{\alpha}}\}.

Given a (singular) metric ψ={ψα}\psi=\{\psi_{\alpha}\} of LL on XX, we consider its curvature Θψ:=d​dc​ψα\Theta_{\psi}:=dd^{c}\psi_{\alpha} in 𝒰α{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha}. This yields a globally well defined real closed current on XX since d​dc​log⁡|gα​β|=0dd^{c}\log|g_{\alpha\beta}|=0 in 𝒰α​β{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha\beta}. It is a standard consequence of de Rham’s isomorphism that this current represents the image of the first Chern class of LL under the mapping i:H2​(X,ℤ)→H2​(X,ℝ)i:H^{2}(X,\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H^{2}(X,\mathbb{R}) (induced by the inclusion i:ℤ→ℝi:\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}). The line bundle LL is said to be pseudoeffective (resp. positive) if it admits a (singular) positive metric (resp. a smooth metric whose curvature is a Kähler form).

Fix h={hα}h=\{h_{\alpha}\} a smooth metric of LL on XX and set ω:=Θh\omega:=\Theta_{h}. Then P​S​H​(X,ω)PSH(X,\omega) is in 11-to-11 correspondence with the set of positive singular metrics of LL on XX. Indeed if ψ\psi is such a metric then φ:=ψ−h\varphi:=\psi-h is globally well defined on XX and such that d​dc​φ≥−ωdd^{c}\varphi\geq-\omega. Conversely if φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) then ψ={ψα:=φ+hα}\psi=\{\psi_{\alpha}:=\varphi+h_{\alpha}\} defines a positive singular metric of LL on XX. We can thus rephrase the pseudoeffectivity property as follows:

L​ is pseudoeffective ⟺P​S​H​(X,ω)≠∅.L\text{ is pseudoeffective }\Longleftrightarrow PSH(X,\omega)\neq\emptyset.

Given LL a pseudoeffective line bundle, it is interesting to know whether LL admits a positive metric which is less singular than any another. This notion has been introduced in [16] and happens to be related to very special extremal functions:

Proposition 4.1.

Let (L,h)(L,h) be a pseudoeffective line bundle on XX equipped with a smooth metric hh. Set ω:=Θh\omega:=\Theta_{h}. Then

hm​i​n:=h+VX,ω∗h_{min}:=h+V_{X,\omega}^{*}

is a positive singular metric of LL on XX with ”minimal singularities”. More precisely if ψ\psi is a positive singular metric of LL on XX, then there exists a constant CψC_{\psi} such that ψ≤hm​i​n+Cψ\psi\leq h_{min}+C_{\psi}.

Proof.

Let ψ\psi be a positive singular metric of LL on XX. Then ψ−h\psi-h is a globally well defined ω\omega-psh function. It is u.s.c. hence bounded from above on XX: we let CψC_{\psi} denotes its maximum. Then ψ−h−Cψ≤0\psi-h-C_{\psi}\leq 0 on XX, hence ψ−h≤VX,ω∗+Cψ\psi-h\leq V_{X,\omega}^{*}+C_{\psi}, which yields ψ≤hm​i​n+Cψ\psi\leq h_{min}+C_{\psi}. ∎

In the sequel we assume LL is positive and hh has been chosen so that ω:=Θh\omega:=\Theta_{h} is a Kähler form. For s∈Γ⁡(X,LN)s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}), we let ‖s‖N​h||s||_{Nh} denote the norm of ss computed with respect to the metric N​hNh: it is defined in 𝒰α{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha} by ‖s‖N​h:=|sα|​e−N​hα||s||_{Nh}:=|s_{\alpha}|e^{-Nh_{\alpha}}. The definition is independent of α\alpha thanks to the compatibility conditions.

For a given Borel subset KK of XX, we define its Tchebychev constants

MN​ω(K):=inf{supK||s||N​h/s∈Γ(X,LN),supX||s||N​h=1}.M_{N\omega}(K):=\inf\left\{\sup_{K}||s||_{Nh}\,/\,s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}),\,\sup_{X}||s||_{Nh}=1\right\}.

Note that an obvious rescaling argument shows that Md​ωM_{d\omega} remains unchanged if we replace hh by h+Ch+C so that it really depends on ω=Θh\omega=\Theta_{h} rather than on hh. Consider

Tω′​(K):=infN≥1[MN​ω​(K)]1/N.T_{\omega}^{\prime}(K):=\inf_{N\geq 1}[M_{N\omega}(K)]^{1/N}.
Theorem 4.2.

Let KK be a compact subset of XX. Then

Tω​(K)=Tω′​(K).T_{\omega}(K)=T_{\omega}^{\prime}(K).
Proof.

The core of the proof consists in showing that

VK,ω(x)=sup{1Nlog||s||N​h(x)/N≥1,s∈Γ(X,LN) and supK||s||N​h≤1}.V_{K,\omega}(x)=\sup\left\{\frac{1}{N}\log||s||_{Nh}(x)\,/\,N\geq 1,s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N})\text{ and }\sup_{K}||s||_{Nh}\leq 1\right\}.

Note that for any of the sections ss involved in the supremum, φ:=N−1​log⁡‖s‖N​h\varphi:=N^{-1}\log||s||_{Nh} belongs to P​S​H​(X,ω)PSH(X,\omega) and satisfies φ≤0\varphi\leq 0 on KK. Therefore φ≤VK,ω\varphi\leq V_{K,\omega}.

Conversely fix x0∈Xx_{0}\in X and a<VK,ω​(x0)a<V_{K,\omega}(x_{0}). Fix φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) such that supKφ≤0\sup_{K}\varphi\leq 0 and φ⁡(x0)>a\varphi(x_{0})>a. Regularizing φ\varphi (see Appendix) and translating, we can assume φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)∩𝒞∞​(X)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega)\cap{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}(X), supKφ<0\sup_{K}\varphi<0 and φ⁡(x0)>a\varphi(x_{0})>a. Fix ε>0\varepsilon>0. Let B=B⁡(x0,r)B=B(x_{0},r) be a small ball on which φ>a\varphi>a. We choose BB so small that the oscillation of hh is smaller than ε\varepsilon on BB. Let χ\chi be a test function with compact support in BB and such that χ≡1\chi\equiv 1 in B⁡(x0,r/2)B(x_{0},r/2). We can assume w.l.o.g. that B⊂𝒰α0B\subset{\mathcal{U}}_{\alpha_{0}} for some α0\alpha_{0} but B∩𝒰β=∅B\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\beta}=\emptyset for all β≠α0\beta\neq\alpha_{0}. This insures that χ\chi is a smooth section of LNL^{N} for all N≥1N\geq 1.

Let ψ1\psi_{1} be a smooth positive metric of LN1⊗KX∗L^{N_{1}}\otimes K_{X}^{*} on XX (this is possible if N1N_{1} is chosen large enough since LL is positive). Let ψ2\psi_{2} be a positive metric of LN2L^{N_{2}} on XX which is smooth in X∖{x0}X\setminus\{x_{0}\} and with Lelong number ν⁡(ψ2,x0)≥n=dimℂX\nu(\psi_{2},x_{0})\geq n=\dim_{\mathbb{C}}X (this is again possible if N2N_{2} is large enough, since LL is ample). Observe that ∂¯​χ\overline{\partial}\chi is a smooth ∂¯\overline{\partial}-closed (0,1)(0,1)-form with values in LNL^{N} (for all N≥1N\geq 1). Alternatively it is a smooth ∂¯\overline{\partial}-closed (n,1)(n,1)-form with values in LN⊗KX∗L^{N}\otimes K_{X}^{*}. Applying Hörmander’s L2L^{2}-estimates (see e.g. [15], chapter VIII) with weight ψN:=(N−N1−N2)​(φ+h)+ψ1+ψ2\psi_{N}:=(N-N_{1}-N_{2})(\varphi+h)+\psi_{1}+\psi_{2}, we find a smooth section ff of LNL^{N} such that ∂¯​f=∂¯​χ\overline{\partial}f=\overline{\partial}\chi and

∫X|f|2​e−2​(N−N1−N2)​(φ+h)−2​ψ1−2​ψ2​d​Vω≤C1​∫X|∂¯​χ|2​e−2​ψN​d​Vω.\int_{X}|f|^{2}e^{-2(N-N_{1}-N_{2})(\varphi+h)-2\psi_{1}-2\psi_{2}}dV_{\omega}\leq C_{1}\int_{X}|\overline{\partial}\chi|^{2}e^{-2\psi_{N}}dV_{\omega}.

Note that ∂¯​χ\overline{\partial}\chi has support in B∖B⁡(x0,r/2)B\setminus B(x_{0},r/2) where ψN\psi_{N} is smooth so that both integrals are finite. Since ν⁡(ψ2,x0)≥n\nu(\psi_{2},x_{0})\geq n, this forces f⁡(x0)=0f(x_{0})=0. The second integral is actually bounded from above by C2​e−2​N​(a−ε)C_{2}e^{-2N(a-\varepsilon)}, where C2C_{2} is independent of NN, since −φ<−a-\varphi<-a on BB and the oscillation of hh is smaller than ε\varepsilon on BB. Therefore s:=χ−f∈Γ⁡(X,LN)s:=\chi-f\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}) satisfies s⁡(x0)=1s(x_{0})=1 and

∫X|s|2​e−2​N​(φ+h)​d​Vω≤C3​e−2​N​(a−ε),\int_{X}|s|^{2}e^{-2N(\varphi+h)}dV_{\omega}\leq C_{3}e^{-2N(a-\varepsilon)},

where C3C_{3} is independent of NN. Now φ<0\varphi<0 in a neighborhood of KK, so the mean-value inequality applied to the subharmonic functions |sα|2|s_{\alpha}|^{2} yields for all xx in KK,

|s|2​e−2​N​h​(x)\displaystyle|s|^{2}e^{-2Nh}(x) ≤\displaystyle\leq Cδ​∫B⁡(x,δ)|s|2​(y)​e−2​N​[φ+h]​(y)​e2​N​[h⁡(y)−h⁡(x)+φ⁡(y)]​𝑑λ​(y)\displaystyle C_{\delta}\int_{B(x,\delta)}|s|^{2}(y)e^{-2N[\varphi+h](y)}e^{2N[h(y)-h(x)+\varphi(y)]}d\lambda(y)
≤\displaystyle\leq C4​e−2​N​(a−ε)\displaystyle C_{4}e^{-2N(a-\varepsilon)}

if δ\delta is so small that |supB⁡(x,δ)φ|>0|\sup_{B(x,\delta)}\varphi|>0 is bigger than the oscillation of hh on B⁡(x,δ)B(x,\delta). Therefore S:=C4−1/2eN⁡(a−ε)s∈Γ(X,LN)S:=C_{4}^{-1/2}e^{N(a-\varepsilon)}s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}) satisfies supK‖S‖N​h≤1\sup_{K}||S||_{Nh}\leq 1 and N−1​log⁡‖S‖N​h​(x0)≥a−ε−log⁡C42​NN^{-1}\log||S||_{Nh}(x_{0})\geq a-\varepsilon-\frac{\log C_{4}}{2N}. Letting N→+∞N\rightarrow+\infty, ε→0\varepsilon\rightarrow 0 and a→VK,ω​(x0)a\rightarrow V_{K,\omega}(x_{0}) completes the proof of the equality.

To conclude observe that by rescaling one gets

−log⁡Tω​(K)=supXVK,ω\displaystyle-\log T_{\omega}(K)=\sup_{X}V_{K,\omega}
=\displaystyle= sup{1NsupXlog||S||N​h/N≥1,S∈Γ(X,LN) and supK||S||N​h=1}\displaystyle\!\!\!\!\sup\left\{\frac{1}{N}\sup_{X}\log||S||_{Nh}\,/\,N\geq 1,S\in\Gamma(X,L^{N})\text{ and }\sup_{K}||S||_{Nh}=1\right\}
=\displaystyle= sup{−1NsupKlog||S||N​h/N≥1,S∈Γ(X,LN) and supX||S||N​h=1}\displaystyle\!\!\!\!\sup\left\{-\frac{1}{N}\sup_{K}\log||S||_{Nh}\,/\,N\geq 1,S\in\Gamma(X,L^{N})\text{ and }\sup_{X}||S||_{Nh}=1\right\}
=\displaystyle= −log⁡Tω′​(K).\displaystyle-\log T_{\omega}^{\prime}(K).

∎

Projective capacity. We assume here that X=ℂ​ℙnX=\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n} is the complex projective space and ω=ωF​S\omega=\omega_{FS} is the Fubini-Study Kähler form. We give in this context a geometrical interpretation of the capacity TωT_{\omega}. This will shed some light on the notion of projective capacity introduced by Alexander [1].

Let π:ℂn+1∖{0}→ℂ​ℙn\pi:\mathbb{C}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n} denote the canonical projection map. We let 𝔹n+1\mathbb{B}^{n+1} denote the unit ball in ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1}. Recall that the polynomially convex hull F^\widehat{F} of a compact set FF of ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1} is defined as F^:={x∈ℂn+1/|P(x)|≤supF|P|,∀P polynomial}\widehat{F}:=\{x\in\mathbb{C}^{n+1}\,/\,|P(x)|\leq\sup_{F}|P|,\,\forall P\text{ polynomial}\}.

The following result gives an interesting interpretation of the capacity TωT_{\omega}.

Theorem 4.3.

Let KK be a compact subset of ℂ​ℙn\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}. Then

Tω(K)=sup{r>0/r𝔹n+1⊂K0^},T_{\omega}(K)=\sup\{r>0\,/\,r\mathbb{B}^{n+1}\subset\widehat{K_{0}}\},

where K0=π−1​(K)∩∂𝔹n+1K_{0}=\pi^{-1}(K)\cap\partial\mathbb{B}^{n+1}.

Proof.

Let K,K0K,K_{0} be as in the theorem. Observe that K0K_{0} is a circled subset of ∂𝔹n+1\partial\mathbb{B}^{n+1}: if z∈K0z\in K_{0} then ei​θ​z∈K0e^{i\theta}z\in K_{0}, ∀θ∈[0,2​π]\forall\theta\in[0,2\pi]. For such compacts, the polynomial hull K0^\widehat{K_{0}} coincides with the ”homogeneous polynomial hull”,

K0^h:={x∈ℂn+1/|P(x)|≤supF|P|,∀P homogeneous polynomial}.\widehat{K_{0}}^{h}:=\{x\in\mathbb{C}^{n+1}\,/\,|P(x)|\leq\sup_{F}|P|,\,\forall P\text{ homogeneous polynomial}\}.

Indeed one inclusion K0^⊂K0^h\widehat{K_{0}}\subset\widehat{K_{0}}^{h} is clear, so assume z0∈K0^hz_{0}\in\widehat{K_{0}}^{h}. Let P=∑j=0dPjP=\sum_{j=0}^{d}P_{j} be a polynomial of degree dd decomposed into its homogenous components. Observe that Pj​(x)=(2​π)−1​∫02​πP⁡(ei​θ​x)​e−i​j​θ​𝑑θP_{j}(x)=(2\pi)^{-1}\int_{0}^{2\pi}P(e^{i\theta}x)e^{-ij\theta}d\theta. Therefore supK0|Pj|≤supK0|P|\sup_{K_{0}}|P_{j}|\leq\sup_{K_{0}}|P| since K0K_{0} is circled. Fix t∈]0,1[t\in]0,1[. Then

|P⁡(t​z0)|≤∑j=0dtj​|Pj​(z0)|≤11−t​supK0|P|.|P(tz_{0})|\leq\sum_{j=0}^{d}t^{j}|P_{j}(z_{0})|\leq\frac{1}{1-t}\sup_{K_{0}}|P|.

We infer t​z0∈K0^tz_{0}\in\widehat{K_{0}}. Letting t→1−t\rightarrow 1^{-} and using that K0K_{0} is closed we get z0∈K0^z_{0}\in\widehat{K_{0}}, whence K0^=K0^h\widehat{K_{0}}=\widehat{K_{0}}^{h}.

Fix now z∈ℂn+1z\in\mathbb{C}^{n+1} such that ‖z‖≤Tω​(K)||z||\leq T_{\omega}(K). Let PP be a homogeneous polynomial of degree dd. Then

(2) |P⁡(z)|=‖z‖d​|P⁡(z‖z‖)|≤Tω​(K)d​sup∂𝔹n+1|P||P(z)|=||z||^{d}\left|P\left(\frac{z}{||z||}\right)\right|\leq T_{\omega}(K)^{d}\sup_{\partial\mathbb{B}^{n+1}}|P|

Now set ψ⁡(z)=d−1​log|P⁡(z)|−log⁡‖z‖\psi(z)=d^{-1}\log|P(z)|-\log||z|| and φ=ψ−supKψ\varphi=\psi-\sup_{K}\psi. Then φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) with supKφ≤0\sup_{K}\varphi\leq 0 hence φ≤VK,ω\varphi\leq V_{K,\omega}. Therefore

Tω(K)d≤exp(−dsupℂ​ℙnφ)=supK0|P|sup∂𝔹n+1|P|.T_{\omega}(K)^{d}\leq\exp(-d\sup_{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}}\varphi)=\frac{\sup_{K_{0}}|P|}{\sup_{\partial\mathbb{B}^{n+1}}|P|}.

Together with (2)(2) this yields |P⁡(z)|≤supK0|P||P(z)|\leq\sup_{K_{0}}|P| hence z∈K0^h=K0^z\in\widehat{K_{0}}^{h}=\widehat{K_{0}}. Thus K0K_{0} contains the ball centered at the origin of radius Tω​(K)T_{\omega}(K).

Conversely since Tω​(K)=Tω′​(K)T_{\omega}(K)=T_{\omega}^{\prime}(K) (theorem 4.1), one can find homogenous polynomials PjP_{j} of degree djd_{j} such that sup∂𝔹n+1|Pj|−1/dj⋅supK0|Pj|1/dj→Tω(K).\sup_{\partial\mathbb{B}^{n+1}}|P_{j}|^{-1/d_{j}}\cdot\sup_{K_{0}}|P_{j}|^{1/d_{j}}\rightarrow T_{\omega}(K). Assume r​𝔹n+1⊂K0^r\mathbb{B}^{n+1}\subset\widehat{K_{0}}. Then

rdj​sup∂𝔹n+1|Pj|=supr​𝔹n+1|Pj|≤supK0|Pj|r^{d_{j}}\sup_{\partial\mathbb{B}^{n+1}}|P_{j}|=\sup_{r\mathbb{B}^{n+1}}|P_{j}|\leq\sup_{K_{0}}|P_{j}|

yields r≤Tω​(K)r\leq T_{\omega}(K). ∎

Remark 4.4.

Sibony and Wong [34] have been first in showing that if a compact subset KK of ℂ​ℙn\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n} is large enough then the polynomial hull of K0K_{0} contains a full neighborhood of the origin in ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1}. They used the (complicated) notion of Γ\Gamma-capacity. Their approach has been simplified by Alexander [1] who introduced a projective capacity which is comparable to TωT_{\omega} (see theorem 4.4 in [1]). The proof given above is essentially Alexander’s (see also theorem 4.3 in [36]).

This result has been used recently in complex dynamics (see [17],[23]).

Further capacities. In our definition of Chebyshev constants we have normalized holomorphic sections s∈Γ⁡(X,LN)s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}) by requiring supX‖s‖N​h=1\sup_{X}||s||_{Nh}=1. Given μ\mu a probability measure such that P​S​H​(X,ω)⊂L1​(μ)PSH(X,\omega)\subset L^{1}(\mu) and A∈ℝA\in\mathbb{R}, we could as well consider

MN,ωμ,A(K):={supK||s||N​h/s∈Γ(X,LN),∫Xlog||s||N​hdμ=A}.M_{N,\omega}^{\mu,A}(K):=\left\{\sup_{K}||s||_{Nh}\,/\,s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}),\,\int_{X}\log||s||_{Nh}d\mu=A\right\}.

This normalization has the following pleasant property: if s∈Γ⁡(X,LN)s\in\Gamma(X,L^{N}) and s′∈Γ⁡(X,LN′)s^{\prime}\in\Gamma(X,L^{N^{\prime}}) are so normalized then s⋅s′∈Γ⁡(X,LN+N′)s\cdot s^{\prime}\in\Gamma(X,L^{N+N^{\prime}}) again satisfies ∫Xlog⁡‖s​s′‖(N+N′)​h​𝑑μ=A\int_{X}\log||ss^{\prime}||_{(N+N^{\prime})h}d\mu=A. We infer MN+N′,ωμ,A≤MN,ωμ,A⋅MN′,ωμ,AM_{N+N^{\prime},\omega}^{\mu,A}\leq M_{N,\omega}^{\mu,A}\cdot M_{N^{\prime},\omega}^{\mu,A} so that

Tωμ,A​(K):=infN≥1[MN,ωμ,A​(K)]1/N=limN→+∞[MN,ωμ,A​(K)]1/N.T_{\omega}^{\mu,A}(K):=\inf_{N\geq 1}[M_{N,\omega}^{\mu,A}(K)]^{1/N}=\lim_{N\rightarrow+\infty}[M_{N,\omega}^{\mu,A}(K)]^{1/N}.

This yields a whole family of capacities which are all comparable to TωT_{\omega} thanks to proposition 1.7: there exists C=C⁡(μ,A)≥1C=C(\mu,A)\geq 1 such that

1C​Tω​(⋅)≤Tωμ,A​(⋅)≤C​Tω​(⋅).\frac{1}{C}T_{\omega}(\cdot)\leq T_{\omega}^{\mu,A}(\cdot)\leq CT_{\omega}(\cdot).

The projective capacity of Alexander [1] is precisely Tωμ,AT_{\omega}^{\mu,A} for X=ℂ​ℙnX=\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}, ω=ωF​S\omega=\omega_{FS}, μ=ωn\mu=\omega^{n} and A=∫ℂ​ℙn(log⁡|zn|−log⁡‖(z0,…,zn)‖)​ωn​([z]).A=\int_{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}}\left(\log|z_{n}|-\log||(z_{0},\ldots,z_{n})||\right)\omega^{n}([z]).

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