ScalingStacks

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

4.4 Locally convex function

In section 4.2 we produced a collection of local average functions ϕ¯=ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}=\bar{\phi}_{m,w} on UwsU_{w}^{s} corresponding to various choices of ww and mm with ⟨m,w⟩=1\langle m,w\rangle=1. But the local coordinates xm1,…​xmnx^{m_{1}},\ldots x^{m_{n}} are naturally interpreted also as coordinates on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} (cf. section 3.2), so ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}_{m,w} can be alternatively viewed as a collection of convex functions on the charts Uw∞∩∂Δλ∨U_{w}^{\infty}\cap\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. (Notice these local functions are defined without the need to shrink the domain to Uw,δ∞U^{\infty}_{w,\delta}).

The intuition is that up to C0C^{0}-small error, the differences of these local functions agree with the cocycle {m−m′}\{m-m^{\prime}\}, or equivalently, up to some C0C^{0}-small fuzziness ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle glue to a locally convex function on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} in the sense of Definition 3.22. The more precise statement is

00RU

Lemma 4.12. On overlapping charts of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee},

|ϕ¯m,w−ϕ¯m′,w′+(m−m′)|≤Cs−1/2.|\bar{\phi}_{m,w}-\bar{\phi}_{m^{\prime},w^{\prime}}+(m-m^{\prime})|\leq Cs^{-1/2}.
00RV

Proof. Since we know the local L1L^{1}-oscillation estimate holds in every local region, in a log scale in UwsU^{s}_{w}, not necessarily in the shrinked region Uw,δsU^{s}_{w,\delta},

−∫|zmi|∼|zmi​(P)||φm−−∫φm|dμs≤Cs−1/2.\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_{|z^{m_{i}}|\sim|z^{m_{i}}(P)|}|\varphi_{m}-\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\varphi_{m}|d\mu_{s}\leq Cs^{-1/2}.

Since ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}_{m,w} is convex, a local L1L^{1}-bound implies a local L∞L^{\infty}-bound in a slightly shrinked region, so in the log scale,

|ϕ¯m,w−−∫φm|≤Cs−1/2.|\bar{\phi}_{m,w}-\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\varphi_{m}|\leq Cs^{-1/2}.

Likewise for ϕ¯m′,w′\bar{\phi}_{m^{\prime},w^{\prime}}. By definition the local potentials differ by

φm−φm′=⟨m′−m,Logs​(z)⟩\varphi_{m}-\varphi_{m^{\prime}}=\langle m^{\prime}-m,\text{Log}_{s}(z)\rangle

Notice that for a given point PP on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, the log scales on UwsU^{s}_{w} and Uw′sU^{s}_{w^{\prime}} around PP have a nontrivial percentage of overlapping measure. Thus

|ϕ¯m,w−ϕ¯m′,w′+(m−m′)|≲s−1/2+|−∫φm−−∫φm′+(m−m′)|≲s−1/2+−∫o​v​e​r​l​a​p|φm−φm′+(m−m′)|≲s−1/2.\begin{split}|\bar{\phi}_{m,w}-\bar{\phi}_{m^{\prime},w^{\prime}}+(m-m^{\prime})|&\lesssim s^{-1/2}+|\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\varphi_{m}-\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\varphi_{m^{\prime}}+(m-m^{\prime})|\\ &\lesssim s^{-1/2}+\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_{overlap}|\varphi_{m}-\varphi_{m^{\prime}}+(m-m^{\prime})|\\ &\lesssim s^{-1/2}.\end{split}

∎

00RW

Remark 4.13. The tropical version Uw∞U^{\infty}_{w} of UwsU^{s}_{w} is in general larger than Uw∞∩∂Δλ∨U^{\infty}_{w}\cap\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}; it typically contains also some subset stretching to infinity along the ww-direction. If we regard ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}_{m,w} as local functions on 𝒜λ∞\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}^{\infty} instead of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, then there is a delicate issue. The Lemma above does not imply that ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle for various choices of m,wm,w glue approximately on overlapping regions far from ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. The problem is that such overlapping regions have too small measure, which breaks down the proof.

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