ScalingStacks

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

4.5 Legendre transform, extension, regularisation

We restrict to the Fermat case, and consider a general 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, invariant under the symmetric group permuting the monomials Z0n+2,…,Zn+1n+2Z_{0}^{n+2},\ldots,Z_{n+1}^{n+2}. The goal of this section is to canonically patch together the local convex functions in section 4.4 approximately to produce a convex admissible function on Nℝ=ℝn+1N_{\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}^{n+1}. We will then induce a potential ψ∈P​S​H​(Xs,s−1​ωF​S)∩C0\psi\in PSH(X_{s},s^{-1}\omega_{FS})\cap C^{0} which is a regularisation of φ\varphi in the sense that it enjoys better a priori bounds than φ\varphi.

00RX

Proposition 4.14. There is an admissible convex function uu on NℝN_{\mathbb{R}}, such that on Uw∞∩∂Δλ∨U_{w}^{\infty}\cap\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee},

|u−(ϕ¯m,w+m)|≤Cs−1/2.|u-(\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+m)|\leq Cs^{-1/2}. (24)
00RY

Proof. The idea is to regard ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle as approximately defining a locally convex function on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee} in the sense of Def. 3.22, and then the problem is essentially to prove an effective version of the extension property (cf. Prop. 3.27). We will outline the main modifications.

We will produce uu by mimicking the Legendre duality construction in Prop. 3.19. For p∈Δp\in\Delta, define

u∗​(p)=supx∈∂Δλ∨{⟨x,p⟩−(ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩)},u^{*}(p)=\sup_{x\in\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}}\{\langle x,p\rangle-(\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle)\},

where it is tacitly understood that ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle is defined only over ∂Δλ∨∩Uw∞\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}\cap U^{\infty}_{w}, and the sup is taken over all choices of m,wm,w whenever ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}_{m,w} is defined. Since ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}_{m,w} are uniformly bounded on ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, we see ‖u∗‖C0​(Δ)≤C\left\lVert u^{*}\right\rVert_{C^{0}(\Delta)}\leq C. We then define a convex function uu on NℝN_{\mathbb{R}} by another Legendre transform

u⁡(x)=supp∈Δ{⟨p,x⟩−u∗​(p)},u(x)=\sup_{p\in\Delta}\{\langle p,x\rangle-u^{*}(p)\},

which is admissible because u∗u^{*} is bounded. By the same reasoning in Prop. 3.19, on ∂Δλ∨∩Uw∞\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}\cap U^{\infty}_{w},

u(x)≤ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩+Cs−1/2.u(x)\leq\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle+Cs^{-1/2}.

We are only left to show

u(x)≥ϕ¯m,w+⟨m,x⟩−Cs−1/2,u(x)\geq\bar{\phi}_{m,w}+\langle m,x\rangle-Cs^{-1/2},

which amounts to showing that there exists p∈Δp\in\Delta, such that for any y∈∂Δλ∨y\in\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee},

ϕ¯m′,w′(y)+⟨m′,y⟩≥ϕ¯m,w(x)+⟨m,x⟩+⟨p,y−x⟩−Cs−1/2.\bar{\phi}_{m^{\prime},w^{\prime}}(y)+\langle m^{\prime},y\rangle\geq\bar{\phi}_{m,w}(x)+\langle m,x\rangle+\langle p,y-x\rangle-Cs^{-1/2}.

Notice our setting enjoys the discrete symmetry. This last step is the effective version of Prop. 3.27, and the proof is basically the same. ∎

By construction uu has a number of additional properties:

00RZ

Corollary 4.15. The canonical extension uu satisfies an a priori Lipschitz bound

{|u−maxm⟨m,x⟩|≤C,∀x∈Nℝ,|u⁡(x)−u⁡(x′)|≤C​|x−x′|,∀x,x′∈Nℝ.\begin{cases}|u-\max_{m}\langle m,x\rangle|\leq C,\quad\forall x\in N_{\mathbb{R}},\\ |u(x)-u(x^{\prime})|\leq C|x-x^{\prime}|,\quad\forall x,x^{\prime}\in N_{\mathbb{R}}.\end{cases} (25)

Morever, in the region Star​(w)+ℝ≥0​w⊂Nℝ\text{Star}(w)+\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}w\subset N_{\mathbb{R}}, for any mm with ⟨m,w⟩=1\langle m,w\rangle=1, the function um=u−mu_{m}=u-m is constant upon translation in the ww-direction.

00S0

Proof. The first inequality is because the Legendre transform u∗​(p)u^{*}(p) is bounded on Δ\Delta as in the above proof, and the second is because ∇u∈Δ\nabla u\in\Delta. The morever statement is essentially identical to Cor. 3.28. ∎

By a small variant of Prop. 3.16, when we pullback the admissible convex functions uu via Logs\text{Log}_{s}, we obtain a torus invariant Kähler current on (ℙΔ,s−1​[Δ])(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},s^{-1}[\Delta]) with continuous local potentials. In details, we write ψ0=u∘Logs\psi_{0}=u\circ\text{Log}_{s}, and define

{ψ=ψ0−(n+2)2​s​log⁡(∑m′∈v​e​r​t​e​x​(Δ)e2n+2​⟨m′,Log​(z)⟩),ψm=ψ0−⟨m,Logs​(z)⟩=um∘Logs.\begin{cases}\psi=\psi_{0}-\frac{(n+2)}{2s}\log(\sum_{m^{\prime}\in vertex(\Delta)}e^{\frac{2}{n+2}\langle m^{\prime},\text{Log}(z)\rangle}),\\ \psi_{m}=\psi_{0}-\langle m,\text{Log}_{s}(z)\rangle=u_{m}\circ\text{Log}_{s}.\end{cases} (26)

By construction ψ∈P​S​H​(ℙΔ,s−1​ωF​S)∩C0\psi\in PSH(\mathbb{P}_{\Delta},s^{-1}\omega_{FS})\cap C^{0}, and ψ0,ψm\psi_{0},\psi_{m} are the local potentials of ψ\psi (cf. (19)). By Cor. 4.15, ‖ψ‖C0≤C\left\lVert\psi\right\rVert_{C^{0}}\leq C, and ψ\psi inherits the Lipschitz bound from uu. By a slight abuse of notation, the restriction to XsX_{s} will still be denoted as ψ∈P​S​H​(Xs,s−1​ωF​S)∩C0\psi\in PSH(X_{s},s^{-1}\omega_{FS})\cap C^{0}. We think of ψ\psi as a regularisation of φ\varphi.

00S1

Remark 4.16. As explained in section 2.3, on toric manifolds the Legendre transform arises from a limiting version of approximation by algebraic metrics, which in turn is a more standard way to regularise an arbitrary Kähler potential. Now XsX_{s} is not a toric manifold, but the toric symmetry holds approximately in generic regions, which motivates us to take the Legendre transform as a replacement of algebraic regularisation.

We now specify some subregions on Xst​o​r​i​cX_{s}^{toric} with coordinate descriptions. These are intimately related to ∂Δλ∨∖S​i​n​g\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}\setminus Sing, which is covered by the stars of the vertices and the interior of the top dimensional faces (cf. section 3.5).

00S2

Notation. (Star type regions on XsX_{s}) On the region Uws⊂XsU^{s}_{w}\subset X_{s}, recall the coodinates zmiz^{m_{i}} and regard xmi=s−1​log⁡|zmi|x^{m_{i}}=s^{-1}\log|z^{m_{i}}| as local coordinates also on Uw∞∩∂Δλ∨U^{\infty}_{w}\cap\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. Let Uws,∗⊂Uw,δsU^{s,*}_{w}\subset U^{s}_{w,\delta} be the subset where the xmix^{m_{i}} coordinates correspond to points in Star​(w)⊂∂Δλ∨\text{Star}(w)\subset\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. The tropical analogue of Uws,∗U^{s,*}_{w} is (Star​(w)+ℝ≥0​w)∩Aλ∞(\text{Star}(w)+\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}w)\cap A_{\lambda}^{\infty}.

00S3

Notation. (Face type regions on XsX_{s}) Consider a slightly shrinked subset of the interior of a given top dimensional face of ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}. This can be regarded as a subset of Uw,δ∞∩∂Δλ∨U_{w,\delta}^{\infty}\cap\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, where we regard xmi=s−1​log⁡|zmi|x^{m_{i}}=s^{-1}\log|z^{m_{i}}| as local affine coordinates. Let Uws,f​a​c​e⊂UwsU_{w}^{s,face}\subset U_{w}^{s} be the subset where the xmix^{m_{i}} coordinates correspond to points in this shrinked face. The tropical analogue of Uws,f​a​c​e⊂UwsU_{w}^{s,face}\subset U_{w}^{s} is the shrinked face.

The intuition is that when z∈Xsz\in X_{s} has Logs\text{Log}_{s} image close to ∂Δλ∨\partial\Delta_{\lambda}^{\vee}, or if this image approaches infinity in specific directions, then φ−ψ\varphi-\psi is bounded above by a very small number:

00S4

Proposition 4.17. (Local potential upper bound)

  • •

    Inside Uws,∗⊂XsU^{s,*}_{w}\subset X_{s}, for ⟨m,w⟩=1\langle m,w\rangle=1, the local potentials satisfy φm−ψm≤Cs−1/2,\varphi_{m}-\psi_{m}\leq Cs^{-1/2}, or equivalently φ−ψ≤Cs−1/2\varphi-\psi\leq Cs^{-1/2}.

  • •

    Inside Uws,f​a​c​eU^{s,face}_{w}, the local potentials satisfies φ0−ψ0≤Cs−1/2\varphi_{0}-\psi_{0}\leq Cs^{-1/2}, or equivalently φ−ψ≤Cs−1/2\varphi-\psi\leq Cs^{-1/2}.

00S5

Proof. In the star type region case, by Cor. 4.7, we have the upper bound φm−ϕ¯m,w≤Cs−1/2\varphi_{m}-\bar{\phi}_{m,w}\leq Cs^{-1/2}. By Prop. 4.14 and Cor. 4.15, in Uws,∗U^{s,*}_{w} we can replace ϕ¯m,w\bar{\phi}_{m,w} by ψm\psi_{m} up to an error bounded by Cs−1/2Cs^{-1/2}, hence the claim. The face type region follows the same argument, without the translational invariance statement of Cor. 4.15. ∎

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