Proof.
We will use that the result holds when is compact [Gub98, Theorem 7.12].
Note that in [Gub98, §7], was assumed to be algebraically closed, but the
argument for [Gub98, Theorem 7.12] does not use this assumption and so we can use the result over any non-archimedean field.
Let and so that .
Hence replacing by or we can assume that .
We can work separately on the connected components of , hence we may assume that is connected.
As in the proof of Proposition 2.8, we can find a locally finite covering of made of compact strictly -analytic domains
with finite or countable. In the following, we assume . The finite case is similar and easier.
Applying a compactness argument to the ’s, we can find and
two locally finite coverings of by compact strictly -analytic domains of such that for all we have
.
Let us now fix and let us construct a family of piecewise -linear functions such that
- (i)
for all , and .
- (ii)
for all we have
on .
- (iii)
on .
Observe that this will conclude the proof of the proposition since then is a well defined piecewise -linear function such that
.
The rest of the proof is dedicated to construct inductively a family satisfying the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii).
Let us consider and let us assume that we are given piecewise -linear functions satisfying the above conditions.
We will now construct a piecewise -linear function such that satisfies the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii).
By the density result in the compact case [Gub98, Theorem 7.12],
we know that there exists a piecewise -linear function such that
| (2.13.1) |
|
|
|
Then by Lemma 2.11 applied to and , there exists a
piecewise -linear function which extends and with .
Then (2.13.1) becomes
| (2.13.2) |
|
|
|
Then we set
|
|
|
From this definition, we get that .
It is a piecewise -linear function by Proposition 2.10 (d) and it satisfies .
Now, (2.13.2) combined with the condition (iii) for yields
| (2.13.3) |
|
|
|
Also, since , we deduce from (2.13.2) that
| (2.13.4) |
|
|
|
On the other hand, since , the condition (ii) for yields
| (2.13.5) |
|
|
|
From (2.13.2), (2.13.3), (2.13.4) and (2.13.5), we deduce that
| (2.13.6) |
|
|
|
Lemma 2.12 applied to the non negative function and
to the compact -analytic domain yields a piecewise -linear function
such that and
| (2.13.7) |
|
|
|
We then set
|
|
|
By Proposition 2.10 (d), is a piecewise -linear function.
Since and we get that and we also get that for , .
This implies that .
Hence (i) is satisfied for .
Let us now prove that
| (2.13.8) |
|
|
|
Let .
We first suppose that .
Then by (2.13.7), we have
.
By definition of , we have
hence
|
|
|
If , then we have since , hence .
So by the condition (iii) for , we get
|
|
|
This proves (2.13.8), whence condition (iii) holds for .
Let us finally prove that
|
|
|
The right inequality has been proven in (2.13.8) so it only remains to prove the left inequality.
By (2.13.6), we have
| (2.13.9) |
|
|
|
and by construction (see (2.13.7) having in mind that ), we have
| (2.13.10) |
|
|
|
Hence (2.13.9) and (2.13.10) yield that
|
|
|
which proves condition (ii) for .
By induction, this proves the existence of a family satisfying conditions (i), (ii) and (iii).
∎