ScalingStacks

Proof of Lemma 6.8 . [017T]

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 of Lemma 6.8.

Pick a closed point ξ′′∈Y′′̊\xi^{\prime\prime}\in\mathring{Y^{\prime\prime}} and set ξ=ρ⁡(ξ′′)∈Y̊\xi=\rho(\xi^{\prime\prime})\in\mathring{Y}. We use the notation at the end of §6.2 with p=dp=d. Namely, pick local coordinates (zi)0≤i≤n(z_{i})_{0\leq i\leq n} at ξ\xi and (zj′′)0≤j≤n(z^{\prime\prime}_{j})_{0\leq j\leq n} at ξ′′\xi^{\prime\prime} such that Ei={zi=0}E_{i}=\{z_{i}=0\} for 0≤i≤d0\leq i\leq d and Ej′′={zj′′=0}E^{\prime\prime}_{j}=\{z_{j}^{\prime\prime}=0\} for 0≤j≤d0\leq j\leq d. We have ρ∗​zi=ui​∏j=0d(zj′′)ci​j\rho^{*}z_{i}=u_{i}\prod_{j=0}^{d}(z^{\prime\prime}_{j})^{c_{ij}} for 0≤i≤d0\leq i\leq d, where ci​j∈ℤ≥0c_{ij}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} and ui∈𝒪𝒳′′,ξ′′u_{i}\in{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime},\xi^{\prime\prime}} is a unit. Further, by Lemma 5.13, the matrix (ci​j)(c_{ij}) has determinant ±eσ\pm e_{\sigma}, where eσ=m/gcd⁡(m,bσ)e_{\sigma}=m/\gcd(m,b_{\sigma}).

Set

Ω1:=d​z0z0∧⋯∧d​zdzdandΩ2:=d​zd+1∧⋯∧d​zn,\Omega_{1}:=\frac{dz_{0}}{z_{0}}\wedge\dots\wedge\frac{dz_{d}}{z_{d}}{\quad\text{and}\quad}\Omega_{2}:=dz_{d+1}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{n},

and define Ω1′′\Omega_{1}^{\prime\prime}, Ω2′′\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{2} similarly. Then Ω:=Ω1∧Ω2\Omega:=\Omega_{1}\wedge\Omega_{2} and Ω′′:=Ω1′′∧Ω2′′\Omega^{\prime\prime}:=\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{1}\wedge\Omega_{2}^{\prime\prime} are local ℚ{\mathbb{Q}}-generators of K𝒳logK^{\mathrm{log}}_{\mathcal{X}} and K𝒳′′logK^{\mathrm{log}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}} at ξ\xi and ξ′′\xi^{\prime\prime}, respectively. Further,

ResY⁡(Ω)=Ω2|YandResY′′⁡(Ω′′)=Ω2′′|Y′′.\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\Omega)=\Omega_{2}|_{Y}{\quad\text{and}\quad}\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime\prime}}(\Omega^{\prime\prime})=\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{2}|_{Y^{\prime\prime}}.

Now

ρ∗​Ω1=±eσ​Ω1′′+1z0′′​…​zd′′​Ω~1′′,\rho^{*}\Omega_{1}=\pm e_{\sigma}\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{1}+\frac{1}{z_{0}^{\prime\prime}\dots z^{\prime\prime}_{d}}\tilde{\Omega}^{\prime\prime}_{1},

where Ω~1′′\tilde{\Omega}^{\prime\prime}_{1} is a regular (d+1)(d+1)-form vanishing at ξ′′\xi^{\prime\prime}, and

ρ∗​Ω2=q​Ω2′′+Ω~2′′,\rho^{*}\Omega_{2}=q\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{2}+\tilde{\Omega}^{\prime\prime}_{2},

where q∈𝒪𝒳,ξ′′q\in{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}},\xi^{\prime\prime}} and Ω~2′′\tilde{\Omega}^{\prime\prime}_{2} is a regular (n−d)(n-d)-form at ξ′′\xi^{\prime\prime} satisfying Ω1′′∧Ω~2′′=0\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{1}\wedge\tilde{\Omega}^{\prime\prime}_{2}=0. On the one hand, this leads to

(ρ|Y′′)∗​ResY⁡(Ω)=(ρ|Y′′)∗​(Ω2|Y)=q​Ω2′′|Y′′=q​ResY′′⁡(Ω′′).(\rho|_{Y^{\prime\prime}})^{*}\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\Omega)=(\rho|_{Y^{\prime\prime}})^{*}(\Omega_{2}|_{Y})=q\Omega^{\prime\prime}_{2}|_{Y^{\prime\prime}}=q\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime\prime}}(\Omega^{\prime\prime}).

On the other hand, we also get

ρ∗​Ω=±q​eσ​(1+h)​Ω′′,\rho^{*}\Omega=\pm qe_{\sigma}(1+h)\Omega^{\prime\prime},

with qq as above and h∈𝒪𝒳′′,ξ′′h\in{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime},\xi^{\prime\prime}} vanishing along Y′′Y^{\prime\prime}.

Define Ωrel\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}} and Ωrel′′\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}} by d​tt⊗Ωrel=Ω\frac{d{t}}{{t}}\otimes\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}=\Omega and d​t′t′⊗Ωrel′′=Ω′′\frac{d{t}^{\prime}}{{t}^{\prime}}\otimes\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}}=\Omega^{\prime\prime}, respectively. Then

md​t′t′⊗ρ∗Ωrel=ρ∗(d​tt)⊗ρ∗Ωrel=ρ∗Ω=±qeσ(1+h)Ω′′=±qeσ(1+h)d​t′t′⊗Ωrel′′,m\frac{d{t}^{\prime}}{{t}^{\prime}}\otimes\rho^{*}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}=\rho^{*}(\frac{d{t}}{{t}})\otimes\rho^{*}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}=\rho^{*}\Omega=\pm qe_{\sigma}(1+h)\Omega^{\prime\prime}=\pm qe_{\sigma}(1+h)\frac{d{t}^{\prime}}{{t}^{\prime}}\otimes\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}},

so that

ρ∗​Ωrel=±eσm​q​(1+h)​Ωrel′′.\rho^{*}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}=\pm\frac{e_{\sigma}}{m}q(1+h)\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}}.

As a consequence,

ρ∗​|tκmin​Ωrel|ψ0=eσm​|q|​|(1+h)||(t′)κmin′​Ωrel′′|ψ0′.\rho^{*}|{t}^{\kappa_{\min}}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}|_{\psi_{0}}=\frac{e_{\sigma}}{m}|q||(1+h)||({t}^{\prime})^{\kappa^{\prime}_{\min}}\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}}|_{\psi^{\prime}_{0}}.

Since hh vanishes along Y′′Y^{\prime\prime}, this finally leads to

(ρ|Y′′)∗​ResY⁡(ℒ#)=(ρ|Y′′)∗​|ResY⁡(Ω)|2(ρ|Y′′)∗​|tκmin​Ωrel|ψ02=|(ρ|Y′′)∗​(Ω2|Y)|2eσ2m2​|q|2​|(t′)κmin′​Ωrel′′|ψ0′2=(meσ)2​|ResY′′⁡(Ω′′)|2|(t′)κmin′​Ωrel′′|ψ0′2=(meσ)2​ResY′′⁡(ℒ#′′),(\rho|_{Y^{\prime\prime}})^{*}\operatorname{Res}_{Y}({\mathcal{L}}^{\#})=\frac{(\rho|_{Y^{\prime\prime}})^{*}|\operatorname{Res}_{Y}(\Omega)|^{2}}{(\rho|_{Y^{\prime\prime}})^{*}|{t}^{\kappa_{\min}}\Omega^{\mathrm{rel}}|^{2}_{\psi_{0}}}=\frac{|(\rho|_{Y^{\prime\prime}})^{*}(\Omega_{2}|_{Y})|^{2}}{\frac{e^{2}_{\sigma}}{m^{2}}|q|^{2}|({t}^{\prime})^{\kappa^{\prime}_{\min}}\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}}|_{\psi^{\prime}_{0}}^{2}}\\ =\left(\frac{m}{e_{\sigma}}\right)^{2}\frac{|\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime\prime}}(\Omega^{\prime\prime})|^{2}}{|({t}^{\prime})^{\kappa^{\prime}_{\min}}\Omega^{{}^{\prime\prime}\mathrm{rel}}|_{\psi^{\prime}_{0}}^{2}}=\left(\frac{m}{e_{\sigma}}\right)^{2}\operatorname{Res}_{Y^{\prime\prime}}({\mathcal{L}}^{{}^{\prime\prime}\#}),

which completes the proof since eσ=mgcd⁡(bσ,m)e_{\sigma}=\frac{m}{\gcd(b_{\sigma},m)}. ∎

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