ScalingStacks

Verified tagged author-source HTML · 1912.02360v1 · cited publication edition alignment unverified.

4.1 Harnack inequality

Consider a general possibly singular Kähler potential φ∈P​S​H​(Xs,s−1​ωF​S)\varphi\in PSH(X_{s},s^{-1}\omega_{FS}) on XsX_{s}, normalised to supXsφ=0\sup_{X_{s}}\varphi=0. We think of φ\varphi equivalently as a collection of local potentials {φ0,φm}\{\varphi_{0},\varphi_{m}\} as in section 3.3. In the region Uws⊂XsU_{w}^{s}\subset X_{s}, we can find m∈Δℤm\in\Delta_{\mathbb{Z}} with ⟨m,w⟩=1\langle m,w\rangle=1 and ℂ∗\mathbb{C}^{*}-coordinates zm1,…​zmnz^{m_{1}},\ldots z^{m_{n}} as in section 3.1. Recall d​μsd\mu_{s} is the normalised canonical measure induced by the holomorphic volume form.

00RA

Notation. Denote Xst​o​r​i​cX^{toric}_{s} as the union of all the toric regions Uw,δsU_{w,\delta}^{s} for various choices of mm and ww. It is tacitly understood that slightly shrinked domains correspond to a slightly larger choice of δ\delta, and we shall abusively use the same notation for shrinked domains.

00RB

Proposition 4.1. (Harnack type inequality) Suppose φ∈P​S​H​(Xs,s−1​ωF​S)\varphi\in PSH(X_{s},s^{-1}\omega_{FS}) with supXsφ=0\sup_{X_{s}}\varphi=0. Then the average integral

−∫Xst​o​r​i​c|φ|dμs≤C.\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{X^{toric}_{s}}|\varphi|d\mu_{s}\leq C.
00RC

Proof. (cf. proof of Prop. 3.1 in [2]) Consider the local potentials ϕ=φm\phi=\varphi_{m} on various coordinate charts in section 3.1, both of the toric type and of the boundary type. The charts can be chosen so that the Lebesgue measures thereof are uniformly equivalent to d​μsd\mu_{s} up to a scaling factor. We have |ϕ−φ|≤C|\phi-\varphi|\leq C uniformly on charts. Suppose a coordinate ball B⁡(p,3​R)B(p,3R) is contained in (the universal cover of) the local chart. Since ϕ\phi is psh and ϕ−C≤0\phi-C\leq 0, for z∈B⁡(p,R)z\in B(p,R),

ϕ(y)−C≤−∫B⁡(y,2​R)(ϕ−C)≲−∫B⁡(p,R)(ϕ−C),\phi(y)-C\leq\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B(y,2R)}(\phi-C)\lesssim\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B(p,R)}(\phi-C),

hence

−∫B⁡(p,R)|φ|≲1+infB⁡(p,R)(−φ).\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B(p,R)}|\varphi|\lesssim 1+\inf_{B(p,R)}(-\varphi).

To deduce the global version of the Harnack type inequality we need a transitivity property, namely we can connect the chart containing the maximum point of φ\varphi to any of the toric charts in Xst​o​r​i​cX_{s}^{toric} via a chain of O⁡(1)O(1) number of charts, such that infB⁡(p,R)|φ|\inf_{B(p,R)}|\varphi| on charts increase by only O⁡(1)O(1) in each step. This last fact is because we can choose the chains of successive charts B⁡(pi,5​Ri)B(p_{i},5R_{i}) such that the measure of the overlap occupies a nontrivial portion of the previous chart:

|B⁡(pi,Ri)∩B⁡(pi+1,Ri+1)|≳110​|B⁡(pi,Ri)|,|B(p_{i},R_{i})\cap B(p_{i+1},R_{i+1})|\gtrsim\frac{1}{10}|B(p_{i},R_{i})|,

which would force

infB⁡(pi+1,Ri+1)|φ|≤infB⁡(pi+1,Ri+1)∩B⁡(pi,Ri)|φ|≤−∫B⁡(pi+1,Ri+1)∩B⁡(pi,Ri)|φ|≲−∫B⁡(pi,Ri)|φ|≲1+infB⁡(pi,Ri)|φ|.\begin{split}\inf_{B(p_{i+1},R_{i+1})}|\varphi|\leq&\inf_{B(p_{i+1},R_{i+1})\cap B(p_{i},R_{i})}|\varphi|\leq\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B(p_{i+1},R_{i+1})\cap B(p_{i},R_{i})}|\varphi|\\ \lesssim&\mathchoice{{\vbox{\hbox{$\textstyle-$ }}\kern-7.83337pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle-$ }}\kern-6.11674pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.48965pt}}{{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle-$ }}\kern-5.31259pt}}\!\int_{B(p_{i},R_{i})}|\varphi|\lesssim 1+\inf_{B(p_{i},R_{i})}|\varphi|.\end{split}

∎

00RD

Remark 4.2. Notice this transitivity argument allows us to move from boundary type charts into toric charts, but not conversely, because the measure is much larger on toric charts.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.