ScalingStacks

Proof. [05AP]

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

Proof.

Let W2=∑jmj​XjW_{2}=\sum_{j}m_{j}X_{j} be the decomposition of W2W_{2} into prime cycles and for each jj let (Xi​j)i∈Ij(X_{ij})_{i\in I_{j}} be the irreducible components of W1W_{1} with Xi​j⊆Xj∩W1X_{ij}\subseteq X_{j}\cap W_{1}. Then W1=∑j,imj​Xi​jW_{1}=\sum_{j,i}m_{j}X_{ij} is the decomposition of W1W_{1} into prime cycles. Furthermore, the intersection of any two irreducible components of W1W_{1} does not contain a Shilov point as it is of lower dimension and hence does not meet the support of the measures of interest. By linearity in the irreducible components we may therefore assume that W1W_{1} and W2W_{2} are irreducible and reduced. Let 𝔛2\mathfrak{X}_{2} be a formal model of W2W_{2} with reduced special fibre on which there exist formal models of L¯1,…,L¯n\overline{L}_{1},...,\overline{L}_{n}. Let 𝔛1\mathfrak{X}_{1} be a formal model of W1W_{1} which exists by paracompactness of W1W_{1}, see Remark 3.2. After possibly blowing up, the inclusion W1↪W2W_{1}\hookrightarrow W_{2} induces a morphism ι:𝔛1→𝔛2\iota:\mathfrak{X}_{1}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}_{2} ([Bos14, Theorem 8.4.3]). Let x∈W1∘x\in\overset{\circ}{W_{1}}. As both measures are discrete it is enough to show that they have the same mass at xx. Let Int⁡(Wi)\Int(W_{i}) denote the relative interior of WiW_{i} over KK in the sense of [Ber93, 1.5]. If x∈Int⁡(W2)x\in\Int(W_{2}) then x∈Int⁡(W1)x\in\Int(W_{1}) by [Ber93, Proposition 1.5.5 (ii)]. Conversely if x∈Int⁡(W1)x\in\Int(W_{1}) then there exists an affinoid neighbourhood VV of xx in W1W_{1} such that xx is in the relative interior of VV over KK. But VV is also a neighbourhood of xx in W2W_{2} as x∈W1∘x\in\overset{\circ}{W_{1}} and therefore x∈Int⁡(W2)x\in\Int(W_{2}). Hence x∈Int⁡(W1)x\in\Int(W_{1}) if and only if x∈Int⁡(W2)x\in\Int(W_{2}). If this is not the case then by definition of the measures and Corollary A.4, both of them are zero at xx. So assume that x∈Int⁡(W1)x\in\Int(W_{1}). Choose a locally finite cover (𝔘i)i∈I(\mathfrak{U}_{i})_{i\in I} of 𝔛1\mathfrak{X}_{1} by open affine formal subschemes and let 𝔘\mathfrak{U} be the union of all 𝔘i\mathfrak{U}_{i} which contain red⁡(x)\red(x). Then 𝔘\mathfrak{U} is an open and quasi-compact formal subscheme of 𝔛1\mathfrak{X}_{1}. Analogously choose a cover (𝔙i)i∈J(\mathfrak{V}_{i})_{i\in J} of 𝔛2\mathfrak{X}_{2} by open affine formal subschemes. As ι⁡(𝔘)\iota(\mathfrak{U}) is quasi-compact, there is a finite subcover of it. Let 𝔙\mathfrak{V} be the union of the sets in this subcover and add all 𝔙i\mathfrak{V}_{i} with red⁡(x)∈𝔙i\red(x)\in\mathfrak{V}_{i}. Then also 𝔙\mathfrak{V} is an open and quasi-compact formal subscheme of 𝔛2\mathfrak{X}_{2} and ι\iota induces a morphism 𝔘→𝔙\mathfrak{U}\rightarrow\mathfrak{V}. By [BL93, Corollary 5.4] there is an admissible formal blowing up 𝔙′→𝔙\mathfrak{V}^{\prime}\rightarrow\mathfrak{V} such that the induced morphism 𝔘′→𝔙′\mathfrak{U}^{\prime}\rightarrow\mathfrak{V}^{\prime} is an open immersion.
Let YY be an irreducible component of 𝔛~2\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}_{2} with corresponding divisorial point ζY=x\zeta_{Y}=x. Then Y⊆𝔙~Y\subseteq\tilde{\mathfrak{V}} by definition and hence we may calculate the mass of c1​(L¯1)∧…∧c1​(L¯n)c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\wedge...\wedge c_{1}(\overline{L}_{n}) at xx using 𝔙\mathfrak{V}. By Proposition 4.5 iii) we may also use 𝔙′\mathfrak{V}^{\prime}. So let Y′Y^{\prime} be the irreducible component of 𝔙~′\tilde{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} corresponding to xx. Since red⁡(x)∈𝔘~′\red(x)\in\tilde{\mathfrak{U}}^{\prime} we see that Y∩𝔘~′Y\cap\tilde{\mathfrak{U}}^{\prime} is an irreducible component of 𝔘~′\tilde{\mathfrak{U}}^{\prime}. Additionally, by Corollary A.4, Y′Y^{\prime} and Y′∩𝔘~′Y^{\prime}\cap\tilde{\mathfrak{U}}^{\prime} are proper and hence Y′=Y′∩𝔘~′Y^{\prime}=Y^{\prime}\cap\tilde{\mathfrak{U}}^{\prime} and it is an irreducible component of 𝔘~′\tilde{\mathfrak{U}}^{\prime}. It’s image in 𝔘~\tilde{\mathfrak{U}} is a proper irreducible component of 𝔘~\tilde{\mathfrak{U}} and hence also an irreducible component of 𝔛~1\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}_{1}. By the same argumentation as above we may use 𝔘′\mathfrak{U}^{\prime} instead of 𝔛1\mathfrak{X}_{1} to calculate the mass of c1​(L¯1|W1)∧…∧c1​(L¯n|W1)c_{1}\left(\overline{L}_{1}\Big|_{W_{1}}\right)\wedge...\wedge c_{1}\left(\overline{L}_{n}\Big|_{W_{1}}\right) at xx. This shows that the mass of the two measures is equal at xx in this case.
Conversely, if YY is an irreducible component of 𝔛~1\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}_{1} with corresponding divisorial point ζY=x\zeta_{Y}=x then Y⊆𝔘~Y\subseteq\tilde{\mathfrak{U}} by definition. Again we may use 𝔘′\mathfrak{U}^{\prime} to calculate the mass at xx and we denote the corresponding irreducible component by Y′Y^{\prime}. Then the closure Y¯′\overline{Y}^{\prime} of Y′Y^{\prime} in 𝔙~′\tilde{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} is an irreducible component of 𝔙~′\tilde{\mathfrak{V}}^{\prime} with corresponding divisorial point ζY¯′=x\zeta_{\overline{Y}^{\prime}}=x and hence by the above Y¯′=Y′\overline{Y}^{\prime}=Y^{\prime}. Therefore c1​(L¯1)∧…∧c1​(L¯n)c_{1}(\overline{L}_{1})\wedge...\wedge c_{1}(\overline{L}_{n}) and c1​(L¯1|W1)∧…∧c1​(L¯n|W1)c_{1}\left(\overline{L}_{1}\Big|_{W_{1}}\right)\wedge...\wedge c_{1}\left(\overline{L}_{n}\Big|_{W_{1}}\right) coincide at xx. ∎

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