ScalingStacks

Continuous semi-positive metrics [01IY]

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

Continuous semi-positive metrics

Let us say that a continuous metric on a line bundle LL is semi-positive if it is the uniform limit of a sequence of smooth semi-positive metrics on the same line bundle LL. As in the complex case, we then say that a metrized line bundle is admissible if it can be written as L¯⊗M¯∨\overline{L}\otimes\overline{M}^{\vee}, for two line bundles LL and MM with continuous semi-positive metrics.

Let LL be a metrized line bundle, and let ‖⋅‖1\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1} and ‖⋅‖2\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2} be two continuous metrics on LL. It follows from the definition that the metrics ‖⋅‖min=min⁡(‖⋅‖1,‖⋅‖2)\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min}=\min(\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1},\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2}) and ‖⋅‖max=max⁡(‖⋅‖1,‖⋅‖2)\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\max}=\max(\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1},\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2}) are continuous metrics.

Moreover, these metrics ‖⋅‖min\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min} and ‖⋅‖max\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\max} are smooth if the initial metrics are smooth. Indeed, there exists a model 𝔛\mathfrak{X}, as well as two line bundles 𝔏1\mathfrak{L}_{1} and 𝔏2\mathfrak{L}_{2} extending the same power LeL^{e} of LL and defining the metrics ‖⋅‖1\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{1} and ‖⋅‖2\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{2} respectively. We may assume that 𝔏1\mathfrak{L}_{1} and 𝔏2\mathfrak{L}_{2} have regular global sections s1s_{1} and s2s_{2} on 𝔛\mathfrak{X} which coincide on XX, with divisors 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} and 𝔇2\mathfrak{D}_{2} respectively. (The general case follows, by twisting 𝔏1\mathfrak{L}_{1} and 𝔏2\mathfrak{L}_{2} by a sufficiently ample line bundle on 𝔛\mathfrak{X}.) The blow-up π:𝔛′→𝔛\pi\colon\mathfrak{X}^{\prime}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X} of the ideal ℑ𝔇1+ℑ𝔇2\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}}+\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{2}} ; it carries an invertible ideal sheaf ℑ𝔈=π∗​(ℑ𝔇1+ℑ𝔇2)\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{E}}=\pi^{*}(\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}}+\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{2}}), with corresponding Cartier divisor 𝔈\mathfrak{E}. Since 𝔇1\mathfrak{D}_{1} and 𝔇2\mathfrak{D}_{2} coincide on the generic fiber, ℑ𝔇1+ℑ𝔇2\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{1}}+\mathfrak{I}_{\mathfrak{D}_{2}} is already invertible there and π\pi is an isomorphism on the generic fiber.

The divisors π∗​𝔇1\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{1} and π∗​𝔇2\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2} decompose canonically as sums

π∗​𝔇1=𝔇1′+𝔈,π∗​𝔇2=𝔇2′+𝔈.\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{1}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}+\mathfrak{E},\quad\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}+\mathfrak{E}.

Let us pose

𝔇′=𝔇1′+𝔇2′+𝔈=𝔇1′+π∗​𝔇2=π∗​𝔇1+𝔇2′.\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}+\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}+\mathfrak{E}=\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}+\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2}=\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{1}+\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}.

An explicit computation on the blow-up shows that (𝔛′,𝔇′,e)(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime},\mathfrak{D}^{\prime},e) and (𝔛′,𝔈,e)(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime},\mathfrak{E},e) are models of ‖⋅‖min\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min} and ‖⋅‖max\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\max} respectively. In particular, these metrics are smooth.

Assume that the initial metrics are semi-positive, and that some positive power of LL is effective. Then, the metric ‖⋅‖min\left\|{\cdot}\right\|_{\min} is semi-positive too. By approximation, it suffices to treat the case where the initial metrics are smooth and semi-positive. Then, the previous construction applies. Keeping the introduced notation, let us show that the restriction to the special fiber of the divisor (D′)K~\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective. Let C⊂𝔛K~′C\subset\mathfrak{X}^{\prime}_{\tilde{K}} be an integral curve and let us prove that C⋅(D′)K~C\cdot\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}} is nonnegative. If CC is not contained in 𝔇1′\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}, then C⋅(𝔇1′)K~≥0C\cdot(\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1})_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0, and C⋅(π∗​𝔇2)K~=π∗​C⋅𝔇2≥0C\cdot(\pi^{*}\mathfrak{D}_{2})_{\tilde{K}}=\pi_{*}C\cdot\mathfrak{D}_{2}\geq 0 since (𝔇2)K~(\mathfrak{D}_{2})_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective ; consequently, C⋅(D′)K~≥0C\cdot\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0. Similarly, C⋅(D′)K~≥0C\cdot\mathfrak{(}D^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0 when CC is not contained in 𝔇2′\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}. Since 𝔇1′∩𝔇2′=∅\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}\cap\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{2}=\emptyset, this shows that C⋅𝔇K~′≥0C\cdot\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{\tilde{K}}\geq 0 in any case, hence (𝔇′)K~(\mathfrak{D}^{\prime})_{\tilde{K}} is numerically effective.

This last result is the analogue in the ultrametric case to the fact that the maximum of two continuous plurisubharmonic functions is continuous plurisubharmonic. However, observe that in the complex case, the maximum or the minimum of smooth functions are not smooth in general.

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