ScalingStacks

4.2. Induced maps between dual complexes [015V]

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 Β· Original author HTML

4.2. Induced maps between dual complexes

Suppose 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} and 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} are snc models with 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} via ρ:𝒳′→𝒳\rho\colon{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}}. There is then an integral affine map

r𝒳​𝒳′:Δ⁑(𝒳′)→Δ⁑(𝒳),r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime})\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}),

defined as follows. Consider any simplex Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} of Δ⁑(𝒳′)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) and let Yβ€²Y^{\prime} be the corresponding stratum. There exists a unique minimal stratum YY of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} such that ρ⁑(Yβ€²)βŠ‚Y\rho(Y^{\prime})\subset Y. Let Οƒ=ΟƒY\sigma=\sigma_{Y} be the corresponding simplex. Let EiE_{i}, 0≀i≀p0\leq i\leq p (resp. Ejβ€²E^{\prime}_{j}, 0≀j≀pβ€²0\leq j\leq p^{\prime}) be the irreducible components of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} cutting out YY (resp. Yβ€²Y^{\prime}). Then

Οβˆ—β€‹Ei=βˆ‘j=0pβ€²ai​j​Ejβ€²,\rho^{*}E_{i}=\sum_{j=0}^{p^{\prime}}a_{ij}E^{\prime}_{j},

for 0≀i≀p0\leq i\leq p, where ai​jβˆˆβ„€>0a_{ij}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}.

We can realize the simplex Οƒ\sigma (resp. Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime}) as the subset {βˆ‘i=0pbiwi=1}βŠ‚β„+p+1\{\sum_{i=0}^{p}b_{i}w_{i}=1\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p+1} (resp. {βˆ‘j=0pβ€²bjβ€²wjβ€²=1}βŠ‚β„+pβ€²+1\{\sum_{j=0}^{p^{\prime}}b^{\prime}_{j}w^{\prime}_{j}=1\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{p^{\prime}+1}), where bib_{i} (resp. bjβ€²b^{\prime}_{j}) is the multiplicity of EiE_{i} in 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} (resp. of Ejβ€²E^{\prime}_{j} in 𝒳0β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0}). The restriction of r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} to Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is then given by

wi=βˆ‘j=0pβ€²ai​j​wjβ€².w_{i}=\sum_{j=0}^{p^{\prime}}a_{ij}w^{\prime}_{j}. (4.1)

for 0≀i≀p0\leq i\leq p. It is clear that r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} defines a continuous, integral affine map from Δ⁑(𝒳′)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) to Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}). Further, if 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} and 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} are snc models with 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominating 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}, and 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, then rπ’³β€‹π’³β€²βˆ˜r𝒳′​𝒳′′=r𝒳​𝒳′′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\circ r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}=r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}.

In general, it may happen that ρ⁑(Yβ€²)\rho(Y^{\prime}) is a strict subvariety of YY, and the linear map defining r𝒳​𝒳′|Οƒβ€²r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}|_{\sigma^{\prime}} could fail to be injective or surjective.

Definition 4.2.

With notation as above, we say that Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is active for r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} if the restriction ρ|Yβ€²:Yβ€²β†’Y\rho|_{Y^{\prime}}\colon Y^{\prime}\to Y is a bimeromorphic morphism and the β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-linear map defining r𝒳​𝒳′|Οƒβ€²r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}|_{\sigma^{\prime}} is an isomorphism. In this case, Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} and Οƒ\sigma have the same dimension, and r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} maps Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} homeomorphically onto a β„€{\mathbb{Z}}-subsimplex of Οƒ\sigma of the same dimension.

Denote by A𝒳​𝒳′A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} the union of all simplices in Δ⁑(𝒳′)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) that are active for r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}. Our goal in this subsection is to prove the following result.

Proposition 4.3.

Let 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} be snc models, with 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}. Then r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} maps A𝒳​𝒳′A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} homeomorphically onto Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}).

Corollary 4.4.

The images under r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} of the active simplices in Δ⁑(𝒳′)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) form a simplicial β„€{\mathbb{Z}}-subdivision of Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}). As a consequence, there exists a unique, β„€{\mathbb{Z}}-PA map i𝒳′​𝒳:Δ⁑(𝒳)→Δ⁑(𝒳′)i_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}}\colon\Delta({\mathcal{X}})\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) such that i𝒳′​𝒳​(Δ⁑(𝒳))=A𝒳​𝒳′i_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}}(\Delta({\mathcal{X}}))=A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} and rπ’³β€‹π’³β€²βˆ˜i𝒳′​𝒳=idr_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\circ i_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}}=\operatorname{id}.

When Ο€\pi, Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} and ρ\rho are projective, one can prove PropositionΒ 4.3 using the algebraic tool of valuations. Here we follow an ad hoc approach, based on LemmaΒ 4.1.

Lemma 4.5.

Suppose 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} and 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} are snc models, with 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominating 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}. Let Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} be a simplex of Δ⁑(𝒳′′)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}), and let Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} be the smallest simplex of Δ⁑(𝒳′)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) containing r𝒳′​𝒳′′​(Οƒβ€²β€²)r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}(\sigma^{\prime\prime}). Then Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} is active for r𝒳​𝒳′′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}} iff Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} is active for r𝒳′​𝒳′′r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}} and Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is active for r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}. As a consequence, A𝒳​𝒳′′=Aπ’³β€²β€‹π’³β€²β€²βˆ©rπ’³β€²β€‹π’³β€²β€²βˆ’1​(A𝒳​𝒳′)A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}=A_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\cap r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}^{-1}(A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}).

Proof.

To ease notation, set rβ€²:=r𝒳′​𝒳′′r^{\prime}:=r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}} and r:=r𝒳​𝒳′r:=r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}. Let Οƒ\sigma be the smallest simplex of Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) containing r⁑(Οƒβ€²)r(\sigma^{\prime}). Write YY, Yβ€²Y^{\prime} and Yβ€²β€²Y^{\prime\prime} for the strata of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}, 𝒳0β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0} and 𝒳0β€²β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}_{0} corresponding to Οƒ\sigma, Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} and Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime}, respectively. The restrictions rβ€²|Οƒβ€²β€²:Οƒβ€²β€²β†’Οƒβ€²r^{\prime}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\colon\sigma^{\prime\prime}\to\sigma^{\prime} and rΟƒβ€²:Οƒβ€²β†’Οƒr_{\sigma^{\prime}}\colon\sigma^{\prime}\to\sigma are given by β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-linear maps, and we have induced morphisms Yβ€²β€²β†’Yβ€²Y^{\prime\prime}\to Y^{\prime} and Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y.

First suppose that Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} is active for rβ€²r^{\prime} and Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is active for rr. Then rβ€²|Οƒβ€²β€²r^{\prime}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}} and r|Οƒβ€²r|_{\sigma^{\prime}} are given by β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-linear isomorphisms; hence so is the composition r𝒳​𝒳′′|Οƒβ€²β€²r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}. Similarly, the maps Yβ€²β€²β†’Yβ€²Y^{\prime\prime}\to Y^{\prime} and Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y are bimeromorphic morphisms; hence so is the composition Yβ€²β€²β†’YY^{\prime\prime}\to Y. It follows that Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} is active for r𝒳​𝒳′′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}.

Conversely, suppose Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} is active for r𝒳​𝒳′′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}. Since the map Yβ€²β€²β†’YY^{\prime\prime}\to Y is a bimeromorphic morphism, the map Yβ€²β€²β†’Yβ€²Y^{\prime\prime}\to Y^{\prime} (resp. Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y) must be injective (resp. surjective). In particular, dimY′′≀dimYβ€²\dim Y^{\prime\prime}\leq\dim Y^{\prime} and dimY≀dimYβ€²\dim Y\leq\dim Y^{\prime}. Similarly, since the β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-linear map defining r𝒳​𝒳′′|Οƒβ€²β€²=r|Οƒβ€²βˆ˜rβ€²|Οƒβ€²β€²r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}=r|_{\sigma^{\prime}}\circ r^{\prime}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}} is an isomorphism, the β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-linear map defining rβ€²|Οƒβ€²β€²r^{\prime}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}} (resp. r|Οƒβ€²r|_{\sigma^{\prime}}) must be injective (resp. surjective). In particular, dimσ′′≀dimΟƒβ€²\dim\sigma^{\prime\prime}\leq\dim\sigma^{\prime} and dimσ≀dimΟƒβ€²\dim\sigma\leq\dim\sigma^{\prime}. Now

dimYβ€²β€²+dimΟƒβ€²β€²=dimYβ€²+dimΟƒβ€²=dimY+dimΟƒ=nβˆ’1,\dim Y^{\prime\prime}+\dim\sigma^{\prime\prime}=\dim Y^{\prime}+\dim\sigma^{\prime}=\dim Y+\dim\sigma=n-1,

so we infer that dimYβ€²β€²=dimYβ€²=dimY\dim Y^{\prime\prime}=\dim Y^{\prime}=\dim Y and dimΟƒ=dimΟƒβ€²=dimΟƒβ€²β€²\dim\sigma=\dim\sigma^{\prime}=\dim\sigma^{\prime\prime}. This further implies that the maps Yβ€²β€²β†’Yβ€²Y^{\prime\prime}\to Y^{\prime} and Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y are bimeromorphic morphisms, and that the β„š{\mathbb{Q}}-linear maps defining rβ€²|Οƒβ€²β€²r^{\prime}|_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}} and r|Οƒβ€²r|_{\sigma^{\prime}} are isomorphisms. Hence Οƒβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime\prime} and Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} are active for rβ€²r^{\prime} and rr, respectively. ∎

Lemma 4.6.

Suppose 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} and 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} are snc models, with 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominating 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}.

  • (a)

    If r𝒳​𝒳′′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is surjective, then so is r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}).

  • (b)

    If r𝒳​𝒳′′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is injective and r𝒳′​𝒳′′:A𝒳′​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳′)r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) is surjective, then r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is injective.

  • (c)

    If r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) and r𝒳′​𝒳′′:A𝒳′​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳′)r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) are both surjective, then so is r𝒳​𝒳′′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}).

  • (d)

    If r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) and r𝒳′​𝒳′′:A𝒳′​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳′)r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}) are both injective, then so is r𝒳​𝒳′′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}).

Proof.

This is formal consequence of the relations r𝒳​𝒳′′=rπ’³β€‹π’³β€²βˆ˜r𝒳′​𝒳′′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}=r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\circ r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}} and A𝒳​𝒳′′=Aπ’³β€²β€‹π’³β€²β€²βˆ©rπ’³β€²β€‹π’³β€²β€²βˆ’1​(A𝒳​𝒳′)A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}=A_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\cap r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}^{-1}(A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}). For example, let us proveΒ (a). Pick any point wβˆˆΞ”β‘(𝒳)w\in\Delta({\mathcal{X}}). The assumption implies that we can find wβ€²β€²βˆˆA𝒳​𝒳′′w^{\prime\prime}\in A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}} with r𝒳​𝒳′′​(wβ€²β€²)=wr_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}(w^{\prime\prime})=w. Then wβ€²:=r𝒳′​𝒳′′​(wβ€²β€²)∈A𝒳​𝒳′w^{\prime}:=r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}(w^{\prime\prime})\in A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} and r𝒳​𝒳′​(wβ€²)=wr_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}(w^{\prime})=w. ThusΒ (a) holds. The proofs ofΒ (b)–(d) are similar and left to the reader. ∎

Lemma 4.7.

The assertions of Proposition 4.3 hold when ρ\rho is a simple blowup.

Proof.

This is well known (seeΒ e.g. Β [KS06, p.381]) but we supply a proof for the convenience of the reader. To simplify notation, we set r:=r𝒳​𝒳′r:=r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}, A:=A𝒳​𝒳′A:=A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}, Ξ”:=Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta:=\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) and Ξ”β€²:=Δ⁑(𝒳′)\Delta^{\prime}:=\Delta({\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}).

Let WW be the center of the blowup ρ\rho, and ZZ the smallest stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} containing WW. Let EiE_{i}, i∈Ii\in I be the irreducible components of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}, JβŠ‚IJ\subset I the subset such that ZZ is an component of EJE_{J}, and ΟƒZ\sigma_{Z} the simplex defined by ZZ. Let Eiβ€²E^{\prime}_{i}, i∈Ii\in I be the strict transform of EiE_{i} to 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}. Finally, let Eβ€²E^{\prime} be the exceptional divisor of ρ\rho. It corresponds to a vertex vβ€²=vEβ€²β€²v^{\prime}=v^{\prime}_{E^{\prime}} of Ξ”β€²\Delta^{\prime}.

First assume W⊊ZW\subsetneq Z. In this case, Ξ”β€²\Delta^{\prime} is obtained from Ξ”\Delta by β€œraising a tent over the simplex ΟƒZ\sigma_{Z}”. Let us be more precise. Consider a simplex Οƒ\sigma of Ξ”\Delta, corresponding to a stratum YY of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}. By the definition of a simple blowup, WW meets every irreducible component of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} transversely (if at all). It follows that YY cannot be contained in WW, so ρ\rho is a biholomorphism above a general point of YY. Thus the strict transform Yβ€²Y^{\prime} of YY defines a stratum of 𝒳0β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0} as well as a simplex Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} of Ξ”β€²\Delta^{\prime}, whose vertices correspond to the strict transforms of the vertices of Οƒ\sigma. In this case, rr maps Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} onto Οƒ\sigma, and ρ:Yβ€²β†’Y\rho\colon Y^{\prime}\to Y is a bimeromorphic morphism, so Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is active for rr.

This proves that r:Aβ†’Ξ”r\colon A\to\Delta is surjective. To prove injectivity, consider a stratum Yβ€²Y^{\prime} of 𝒳0β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0}, with corresponding simplex Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} of Ξ”β€²\Delta^{\prime}. If Yβ€²Y^{\prime} is not contained in Eβ€²E^{\prime}, then ρ\rho is a biholomorphism at the general point of Yβ€²Y^{\prime}, Y:=ρ⁑(Yβ€²)Y:=\rho(Y^{\prime}) is a stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} of the same dimension as Yβ€²Y^{\prime}, and Yβ€²Y^{\prime} is the strict transform of YY. Thus we are in the situation above. On the other hand, if Yβ€²Y^{\prime} is contained in Eβ€²E^{\prime}, then there exist irreducible components EiE_{i}, i∈Ji\in J of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}, having strict transforms Eiβ€²E^{\prime}_{i}, i∈Ji\in J, such that Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} has vβ€²v^{\prime} and viβ€²v^{\prime}_{i}, i∈Ji\in J as vertices. Since WW is not a stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}, the smallest stratum YY containing ρ⁑(Yβ€²)\rho(Y^{\prime}) is cut out by EiE_{i}, i∈Ji\in J. It follows that rr maps the simplex Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} onto the lower-dimensional simplex Οƒ\sigma, so Οƒβ€²\sigma^{\prime} is not active for rr. Hence r:Aβ†’Ξ”r\colon A\to\Delta is injective.

Now assume W=ZW=Z is stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}, defining a simplex Οƒ\sigma with vertices viv_{i}, i∈Ji\in J. In this case, Ξ”β€²\Delta^{\prime} is obtained from Ξ”\Delta by a barycentric subdivision of the simplex ΟƒZ\sigma_{Z}. Again, let us be more precise. The same argument as above shows that if YY is a stratum of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} that is not contained in WW, and Yβ€²Y^{\prime} is the strict transform, then the simplex ΟƒYβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime}_{Y^{\prime}} is active for rr and r⁑(ΟƒYβ€²β€²)=ΟƒYr(\sigma^{\prime}_{Y^{\prime}})=\sigma_{Y}. Further, ΟƒYβ€²β€²\sigma^{\prime}_{Y^{\prime}} is the unique simplex in 𝒳0β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0} that is active for rr and whose image under rr meets the interior of ΟƒY\sigma_{Y}.

It remains to consider strata of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} contained in ZZ. This becomes a toroidal calculation. Let YY be such a stratum, cut out by EiE_{i}, i∈Ki\in K, where JβŠ‚KJ\subset K. Then Οβˆ’1​(Y)\rho^{-1}(Y) consists of |J||J| strata Yiβ€²Y^{\prime}_{i}, i∈Ji\in J, each cut out by Eβ€²E^{\prime} and Ejβ€²E^{\prime}_{j}, j∈Kβˆ–{i}j\in K\setminus\{i\}. The restriction ρ|Yiβ€²:Yiβ€²β†’Y\rho|_{Y^{\prime}_{i}}\colon Y^{\prime}_{i}\to Y is a bimeromorphic morphism, and the the corresponding simplex Οƒiβ€²\sigma^{\prime}_{i} is active for rr and maps homeomorphically onto a simplex contained in ΟƒY\sigma_{Y}. Further, these simplices r⁑(Οƒiβ€²)r(\sigma^{\prime}_{i}) have disjoint interiors and cover ΟƒY\sigma_{Y}. Finally, if Yβ€²Y^{\prime} is a stratum of 𝒳0β€²{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}_{0} contained in E=Οβˆ’1​(Z)E=\rho^{-1}(Z), then Y=ρ⁑(Yβ€²)Y=\rho(Y^{\prime}) is a stratum contained in ZZ, hence Yβ€²=Yiβ€²Y^{\prime}=Y^{\prime}_{i} is one of the strata above. This completes the proof. ∎

Proof of PropositionΒ 4.3.

Since r𝒳​𝒳′r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} is continuous, A𝒳​𝒳′A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}} is compact, and Δ⁑(𝒳)\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is Hausdorff, it suffices to prove that r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is bijective.

Using LemmaΒ 4.6Β (c)–(d) and LemmaΒ 4.7, one proves by induction on the number of blowups that r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is bijective when 𝒳′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} is a composition of simple blowups.

Now consider the general case. Using LemmaΒ 4.1 we find an snc model 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominating both 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} and such that the morphism 𝒳′′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} is a composition of simple blowups. Thus r𝒳​𝒳′′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is bijective. By LemmaΒ 4.6Β (a), it follows that r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is surjective. Since 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} were arbitrary snc models with 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominating 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, it follows that r𝒳′​𝒳′′:A𝒳′​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is also surjective. It now follows from LemmaΒ 4.6Β (b) that r𝒳​𝒳′:A𝒳​𝒳′′→Δ⁑(𝒳)r_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}}\colon A_{{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}}\to\Delta({\mathcal{X}}) is injective, which completes the proof. ∎

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