ScalingStacks

4.2. Closed ( 1 , 1 ) -forms [01F7]

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. Closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms

Recall that N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is the set of 𝐑\mathbf{R}-line bundles on a model 𝒳\mathcal{X} modulo those that are numerically trivial on the special fiber.

Definition 4.1.

The space of closed (1,1)(1,1)-forms on XX is defined as the direct limit

𝒡1,1​(X):=limβ†’π’³βˆˆβ„³X⁑N1​(𝒳/S)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X):=\varinjlim_{\mathcal{X}\in\mathcal{M}_{X}}N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S)

As with model functions, we say that ΞΈβˆˆπ’΅1,1​(X)\theta\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) is determined on a given model 𝒳\mathcal{X} if it is the image of an element ΞΈπ’³βˆˆN1​(𝒳/S)\theta_{\mathcal{X}}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). By definition, two classes α∈N1​(𝒳/S)\alpha\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) and Ξ±β€²βˆˆN1​(𝒳′/S)\alpha^{\prime}\in N^{1}(\mathcal{X}^{\prime}/S) define the same element in 𝒡1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) iff they pull-back to the same class on a model dominating both 𝒳\mathcal{X} and 𝒳′\mathcal{X}^{\prime}.

Remark 4.2.

The previous definition is directly inspired from [BGS95], where closed forms and currents are defined in the non-Archimedean setting. We choose however to work modulo numerical equivalence instead of rational equivalence. One justification for this choice is Corollary 4.5 below. The fact that each space N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S) is endowed with a natural topology as a finite dimensional vector space is another reason.

The isomorphism (4.1) shows that there is a natural map

Pic^​(X)→𝒡1,1​(X).\widehat{\Pic}(X)\to\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X).

The image of (L,βˆ₯β‹…βˆ₯)∈Pic^(X)(L,\|\cdot\|)\in\widehat{\Pic}(X) under this map is denoted by c1(L,βˆ₯β‹…βˆ₯)βˆˆπ’΅1,1(X)c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|)\in\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) and called the curvature form of the metrized line bundle (L,βˆ₯β‹…βˆ₯)(L,\|\cdot\|).

By definition, any model function Ο†βˆˆπ’Ÿβ‘(X)\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(X) is determined on some model 𝒳\mathcal{X} by some divisor D∈Div0⁑(𝒳)𝐑D\in\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}}. We set d​dc​φdd^{c}\varphi to be the form determined by the numerical class of DD in N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S). In this way, we get a natural linear map

d​dc:π’Ÿβ‘(X)→𝒡1,1​(X).dd^{c}:\mathcal{D}(X)\to\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X).

On the other hand, the restriction maps N1​(𝒳/S)β†’N1​(X):=N1​(𝒳K/K)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S)\to N^{1}(X):=N^{1}(\mathcal{X}_{K}/K) induce a linear map

{β‹…}:𝒡1,1​(X)=limβ†’β„³X⁑N1​(𝒳/S)β†’N1​(X).\{\cdot\}:\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X)=\varinjlim_{\mathcal{M}_{X}}N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S)\to N^{1}(X).

We call {ΞΈ}∈N1​(X)\{\theta\}\in N^{1}(X) the de Rham class of the closed (1,1)(1,1)-form ΞΈ\theta. Note that

{c1(L,βˆ₯β‹…βˆ₯)}=c1(L)\{c_{1}(L,\|\cdot\|)\}=c_{1}(L)

for each metrized line bundle (L,βˆ₯β‹…βˆ₯)∈Pic^(X)(L,\|\cdot\|)\in\widehat{\Pic}(X). The next result is an analogue of the d​dcdd^{c}-lemma in the complex setting.

Theorem 4.3.

Let XX be a smooth connected projective KK-analytic variety. Then the natural sequence

0β†’π‘β†’π’Ÿ(X)π‘βŸΆd​dc𝒡1,1(X)β†’N1(X)β†’00\to\mathbf{R}\to\mathcal{D}(X)_{\mathbf{R}}\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{dd^{c}}\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X)\to N^{1}(X)\to 0

is exact.

Remark 4.4.

The exactness of the exact sequence at 𝒡1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1},1(X) follows essentially fromΒ [Gub03, Theorem 8.9], where the result is proved over an arbitrary complete non trivially valued algebraically closed field.

The following equivalent reformulation is also familiar in the complex setting.

Corollary 4.5.

Let LL be a line bundle on XX. Then c1​(L)∈N1​(X)c_{1}(L)\in N^{1}(X) vanishes iff LL admits a model metric with zero curvature. Such a metric is then unique up to a constant.

This result is more difficult than its rather straightforward analogue (4.2), whose proof is valid without any assumption of the residue field. Here the existence of regular models is used. Exactness at π’Ÿβ‘(X)\mathcal{D}(X) follows from a rather standard Hodge-index type argument (compareΒ [YZ09, Theorem 2.1]), whereas exactness at 𝒡1,1​(X)\mathcal{Z}^{1,1}(X) is essentially a reformulation of a result by KΓΌnnemanΒ [KΓΌn96, Lemma 8.1]. We provide some details for the convenience of the reader.

Proof of Theorem 4.3.

We are going to prove the stronger assertion that

0→𝐑​𝒳0β†’Div0⁑(𝒳)𝐑→N1​(𝒳/S)β†’N1​(𝒳K/K)β†’00\to\mathbf{R}\mathcal{X}_{0}\to\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}}\to N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S)\to N^{1}(\mathcal{X}_{K}/K)\to 0

is exact for every regular model 𝒳\mathcal{X} of XX. We first prove the exactness at Div0⁑(𝒳)𝐑\Div_{0}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{R}}. Let 𝒳0=βˆ‘i∈Ibi​Ei\mathcal{X}_{0}=\sum_{i\in I}b_{i}E_{i} be the irreducible decomposition of the special fiber. We claim that 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} is connected. Since X≃𝒳KanX\simeq\mathcal{X}_{K}^{\mathrm{an}} is connected by assumption, the GAGA principle implies that 𝒳K\mathcal{X}_{K} is also connected. If 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} were disconnected then H0​(𝒳,π’ͺ𝒳)H^{0}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X}}) would split as a product by the Grothendieck-Zariski theorem on formal functionsΒ [Har77, Theorem 11.1], which would contradict the connectedness of 𝒳K\mathcal{X}_{K}. Since 𝒳\mathcal{X} is regular each EiE_{i} is Cartier. Pick any ample divisor π’œ\mathcal{A} on 𝒳\mathcal{X} and define a quadratic form qq on 𝐑I\mathbf{R}^{I} by setting

q(a):=βˆ’(βˆ‘iaiEi)2β‹…π’œdimXβˆ’1.q(a):=-\left(\sum_{i}a_{i}E_{i}\right)^{2}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{\dim X-1}.

We have qi​j≀0q_{ij}\leq 0 for iβ‰ ji\neq j, and the matrix (qi​j)(q_{ij}) is indecomposable since 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} is connected. ByΒ [BPV, Lemma 2.10] it follows that bb spans the kernel of qq. Now let D=βˆ‘iai​EiD=\sum_{i}a_{i}E_{i} be a vertical 𝐑\mathbf{R}-divisor whose numerical class on 𝒳0\mathcal{X}_{0} is 00. It follows that aa belongs to the kernel of qq, hence is proportional to bb, which precisely means that Dβˆˆπ‘β€‹π’³0D\in\mathbf{R}\mathcal{X}_{0} as desired.

Let us now turn to exactness at N1​(𝒳/S)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S), which amounts to the following assertion: every numerically trivial L∈Pic⁑(𝒳K)L\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}_{K}) admits a numerically trivial extension β„’βˆˆPic⁑(𝒳)𝐐\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}}.

Arguing as inΒ [KΓΌn96, Lemma 8.1], assume first that XX is one-dimensional. Let β„’βˆˆPic⁑(𝒳)𝐐\mathcal{L}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} be an arbitrary extension of LL to the regular model 𝒳\mathcal{X}. In the notation above we have βˆ‘ibi​(β„’β‹…Ei)=0\sum_{i}b_{i}(\mathcal{L}\cdot E_{i})=0 since β„’\mathcal{L} is numerically trivial on the generic fiber XX. Since b=(bi)i∈Ib=(b_{i})_{i\in I} spans the kernel of the intersection matrix (Eiβ‹…Ej)(E_{i}\cdot E_{j}), we may thus find a∈𝐐Ia\in\mathbf{Q}^{I} such that βˆ‘iai​Eiβ‹…Ej=β„’β‹…Ej\sum_{i}a_{i}E_{i}\cdot E_{j}=\mathcal{L}\cdot E_{j} for j∈Ij\in I, which shows that β„’βˆ’βˆ‘iai​Ei\mathcal{L}-\sum_{i}a_{i}E_{i} is a numerically trivial extension of LL to 𝒳\mathcal{X}.

We now consider the general case, again followingΒ [KΓΌn96, Lemma 8.1]. Given any SS-scheme YY we write 𝒳Y:=𝒳×SY\mathcal{X}_{Y}:=\mathcal{X}\times_{S}Y. Since LL is numerically trivial on 𝒳K\mathcal{X}_{K}, there exists a finite extension Kβ€²/KK^{\prime}/K such that the pull-back of LL to 𝒳Kβ€²\mathcal{X}_{K^{\prime}} is algebraically equivalent to 00Β [Mat57]. This implies that there exists a smooth projective Kβ€²K^{\prime}-curve TT, a numerically trivial 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-line bundle MM on TT and a (Cartier) divisor DD on 𝒳T\mathcal{X}_{T} such that

L=qβˆ—β€‹(pβˆ—β€‹Mβ‹…D)L=q_{*}\left(p^{*}M\cdot D\right)

in Pic⁑(𝒳K)𝐐\Pic(\mathcal{X}_{K})_{\mathbf{Q}}, where p:𝒳Tβ†’Tp:\mathcal{X}_{T}\to T and q:𝒳T→𝒳Kq:\mathcal{X}_{T}\to\mathcal{X}_{K} are the natural morphisms. Now let 𝒯\mathcal{T} be a regular model of TT over the integral closure Sβ€²S^{\prime} of SS in Kβ€²K^{\prime}, and consider the commutative diagram

(4.3) T\textstyle{T\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒳T\textstyle{\mathcal{X}_{T}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}p\scriptstyle{p}q\scriptstyle{q}𝒳K\textstyle{\mathcal{X}_{K}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒯\textstyle{\mathcal{T}}𝒳𝒯\textstyle{\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}p\scriptstyle{p}q\scriptstyle{q}𝒳\textstyle{\mathcal{X}}

where we also use for simplicity pp and qq to denote the natural projections 𝒳𝒯→𝒯\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}}\to\mathcal{T} and 𝒳𝒯→𝒳\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}}\to\mathcal{X}. By the one-dimensional case, MM extends to a numerically trivial 𝐐\mathbf{Q}-line bundle β„³βˆˆPic⁑(𝒯)𝐐\mathcal{M}\in\Pic(\mathcal{T})_{\mathbf{Q}}. Let also π’Ÿ\mathcal{D} be the closure of DD in 𝒳𝒯\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}}, which is a priori merely a Weil divisor. We may then set

β„’:=qβˆ—β€‹(pβˆ—β€‹β„³β‹…π’Ÿ).\mathcal{L}:=q_{*}\left(p^{*}\mathcal{M}\cdot\mathcal{D}\right).

Note that β„’\mathcal{L} belongs to CH1⁑(𝒳)𝐐=Pic⁑(𝒳)𝐐\CH^{1}(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}}=\Pic(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} since 𝒳\mathcal{X} is regular. It is clear that β„’\mathcal{L} extends LL, and it remains to show that deg⁑(β„’β‹…C)=0\deg(\mathcal{L}\cdot C)=0 for each vertical projective curve CC on 𝒳\mathcal{X}. Since 𝒳\mathcal{X} are regular, CH⁑(𝒳)𝐐\CH(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} is a graded commutative algebra with respect to cup-product, by [GS87, Β§8.3]. As in [GS92, Β§2.3] one can then define the cap-product Ξ±β‹…qΞ²\alpha\cdot_{q}\beta of α∈CH⁑(𝒳)𝐐\alpha\in\CH(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} and β∈CHβˆ—β‘(𝒳𝒯)𝐐\beta\in\CH_{*}(\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}})_{\mathbf{Q}}, which turns CH⁑(𝒳𝒯)𝐐\CH(\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}})_{\mathbf{Q}} into a graded CH⁑(𝒳)𝐐\CH(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}}-module such that both qβˆ—:CH⁑(𝒳𝒯)𝐐→CH⁑(𝒳)𝐐q_{*}:\CH(\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}})_{\mathbf{Q}}\to\CH(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}} and multiplication with Ξ²β€²βˆˆPic⁑(𝒳𝒯)𝐐\beta^{\prime}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}})_{\mathbf{Q}} are maps of CH⁑(𝒳)𝐐\CH(\mathcal{X})_{\mathbf{Q}}-modules. Applying this with Ξ²β€²=pβˆ—β€‹β„³βˆˆPic⁑(𝒳𝒯)𝐐\beta^{\prime}=p^{*}\mathcal{M}\in\Pic(\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}})_{\mathbf{Q}}, which is numerically trivial on the special fiber of 𝒳𝒯\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{T}}, we get

deg⁑(Cβ‹…β„’)=deg⁑(Cβ‹…q(Ξ²β€²β‹…π’Ÿ))=deg⁑(Ξ²β€²β‹…(Cβ‹…qπ’Ÿ))=0.\deg\left(C\cdot\mathcal{L}\right)=\deg\left(C\cdot_{q}\left(\beta^{\prime}\cdot\mathcal{D}\right)\right)=\deg\left(\beta^{\prime}\cdot\left(C\cdot_{q}\mathcal{D}\right)\right)=0.

Finally the surjectivity of N1​(𝒳/S)β†’N1​(𝒳K/K)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}/S)\to N^{1}(\mathcal{X}_{K}/K) is clear since N1​(𝒳K/K)N^{1}(\mathcal{X}_{K}/K) is spanned by classes of Cartier divisors on XX, the closures in 𝒳\mathcal{X} of which are also Cartier since 𝒳\mathcal{X} is regular. ∎

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