ScalingStacks

Proof of Theorem 1.1 . [024L]

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 Theorem 1.1.

By assumption, we can write T=ω|V+i​∂∂¯​φT=\omega|_{V}+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi for some L1L^{1} usc function φ\varphi on VV which has analytic singularities on VV. Our goal is to extend φ\varphi to a function Φ\Phi on XX with ω+i​∂∂¯​Φ\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\Phi a Kähler current.

Thanks to [6, Lemma 2.1], there exists a function ψ:X→[−∞,∞)\psi:X\rightarrow[-\infty,\infty) which is smooth on X\VX\backslash V, with analytic singularities along VV, and with i​∂∂¯​ψ⩾−A​ωi\partial\overline{\partial}\psi\geqslant-A\omega as currents on XX, for some large AA. Then, for δ\delta sufficiently small, we have that R=ω+δ​i​∂∂¯​ψR=\omega+\delta i\partial\overline{\partial}\psi is a Kähler current on XX with analytic singularities along VV. Fix one such δ\delta and define F=δ​ψF=\delta\psi.

Choose ε>0\varepsilon>0 small enough so that

T=ω|V+i​∂∂¯​φ⩾2​ε​ω|V,T=\omega|_{V}+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi\geqslant 2\varepsilon\omega|_{V},

holds as currents on VV. We can cover VV by finitely many charts {Wj}1⩽j⩽N\{W_{j}\}_{1\leqslant j\leqslant N} such that on each WjW_{j} there are local coordinates (z1,…,zn)(z_{1},\dots,z_{n}) and so that V∩Wj={z1=⋯=zn−k=0}V\cap W_{j}=\{z_{1}=\dots=z_{n-k}=0\}, where k=dimVk=\dim V. Write z=(z1,…,zn−k)z=(z_{1},\dots,z_{n-k}) and z′=(zn−k+1,…,zn)z^{\prime}=(z_{n-k+1},\dots,z_{n}) and define a function φj\varphi_{j} on WjW_{j} (with analytic singularities) by

φj​(z,z′)=φ⁡(z′)+A​|z|2,\varphi_{j}(z,z^{\prime})=\varphi(z^{\prime})+A|z|^{2},

where A>0A>0 is a constant. If we shrink the WjW_{j}’s slightly, still preserving the property that V⊂∪jWjV\subset\cup_{j}W_{j}, we can choose AA sufficiently large so that

ω+i​∂∂¯​φj⩾2​ε​ω,\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{j}\geqslant 2\varepsilon\omega,

holds on WjW_{j} for all jj. It will also be useful to fix slightly smaller open sets Wj′⋐Uj⋐WjW_{j}^{\prime}\Subset U_{j}\Subset W_{j} such that ∪jWj′\cup_{j}W_{j}^{\prime} still covers VV. Note that since φ\varphi is smooth at the generic point of VV, by construction all functions φj\varphi_{j} are also smooth in a neighborhood of the generic point of V∩WjV\cap W_{j}.

We wish to glue the functions φj\varphi_{j} together to produce a Kähler current defined in a neighborhood of VV in XX. This would be straightforward if the functions φj\varphi_{j} were continuous, thanks to a procedure of Richberg [13], but in our case the functions φj|V\varphi_{j}|_{V} have poles along

P=E+(T)=⋃j{φj=−∞}∩V.P=E_{+}(T)=\bigcup_{j}\{\varphi_{j}=-\infty\}\cap V.

We can still use the technique of Richberg to produce a Kähler current in an open neighborhood in XX which does not contain the polar set PP. An argument using resolution of singularities will then allow us to get a Kähler current in a whole neighborhood of VV.

The first step is to consider two open sets W1,W2W_{1},W_{2} in the covering with W1′∩W2′∩VW_{1}^{\prime}\cap W_{2}^{\prime}\cap V nonempty, and fix a compact set K⊂VK\subset V with (W1′∪W2′)∩V⊂K⊂(U1∪U2)∩V(W_{1}^{\prime}\cup W_{2}^{\prime})\cap V\subset K\subset(U_{1}\cup U_{2})\cap V. Let M1=K∩∂U2,M2=K∩∂U1,M_{1}=K\cap\partial U_{2},M_{2}=K\cap\partial U_{1}, so that M1M_{1} and M2M_{2} are disjoint compact subsets of VV. This setup is depicted in figure 1.

-250,-260)(250,50) (-60,-80)(120,120) (100,-120)(120,120) (-60,-80)(148,148) (100,-120)(148,148)

Figure 1. The setup for the local Richberg-type argument.

Pick θ1\theta_{1} a smooth nonnegative cutoff function which is identically 11 in a neighborhood of M2M_{2} in XX and θ2\theta_{2} a smooth nonnegative cutoff function which is identically 11 in a neighborhood of M1M_{1} in XX so that the supports of θ1\theta_{1} and θ2\theta_{2} are disjoint. Then, if we choose η>0\eta>0 small, the functions

(2.1) φ~j=φj−η​θj,\tilde{\varphi}_{j}=\varphi_{j}-\eta\theta_{j},

j=1,2j=1,2 have analytic singularities and satisfy ω+i​∂∂¯​φ~j⩾ε​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\tilde{\varphi}_{j}\geqslant\varepsilon\omega on WjW_{j}. Furthermore they are smooth in a neighborhood of the generic point of V∩WjV\cap W_{j}. On W1∩W2W_{1}\cap W_{2} we then define

φ~0=max⁡{φ~1,φ~2},\tilde{\varphi}_{0}=\max\{\tilde{\varphi}_{1},\tilde{\varphi}_{2}\},

which satisfies ω+i​∂∂¯​φ~0⩾ε​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\tilde{\varphi}_{0}\geqslant\varepsilon\omega and equals φ\varphi on V∩W1∩W2V\cap W_{1}\cap W_{2}. Consider now a neighborhood of M2\PM_{2}\backslash P in XX, small enough so that θ1=1\theta_{1}=1 and φ1,φ2\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2} are finite on it. Since φ1,φ2\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2} agree on VV and are smooth on this neighborhood, we see that there exists a possibly smaller such neighborhood where

φ~1=φ1−η<φ2=φ~2,\tilde{\varphi}_{1}=\varphi_{1}-\eta<\varphi_{2}=\tilde{\varphi}_{2},

so that φ~0=φ~2\tilde{\varphi}_{0}=\tilde{\varphi}_{2} there. Similarly, on any sufficiently small neighborhood of M1\PM_{1}\backslash P we have φ~0=φ~1\tilde{\varphi}_{0}=\tilde{\varphi}_{1}. Therefore there is an open neighborhood W0W_{0} of (K\((M1∩P)∪(M2∩P)))∩U1¯∩U2¯(K\backslash((M_{1}\cap P)\cup(M_{2}\cap P)))\cap\overline{U_{1}}\cap\overline{U_{2}} in XX such that φ~0=φ~1\tilde{\varphi}_{0}=\tilde{\varphi}_{1} on W0\U2¯W_{0}\backslash\overline{U_{2}} and φ~0=φ~2\tilde{\varphi}_{0}=\tilde{\varphi}_{2} on W0\U1¯W_{0}\backslash\overline{U_{1}}. Therefore we can define

W′=W0∪(U1\U2¯)∪(U2\U1¯),W^{\prime}=W_{0}\cup(U_{1}\backslash\overline{U_{2}})\cup(U_{2}\backslash\overline{U_{1}}),

which is a neighborhood of K\((M1∩P)∪(M2∩P))K\backslash((M_{1}\cap P)\cup(M_{2}\cap P)) in XX, and define a function φ′\varphi^{\prime} on W′W^{\prime} to be equal to φ~0\tilde{\varphi}_{0} on W0W_{0}, equal to φ~1\tilde{\varphi}_{1} on U1\U2¯U_{1}\backslash\overline{U_{2}} and equal to φ~2\tilde{\varphi}_{2} on U2\U1¯U_{2}\backslash\overline{U_{1}}. Then φ′\varphi^{\prime} satisfies ω+i​∂∂¯​φ′⩾ε​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi^{\prime}\geqslant\varepsilon\omega and equals φ\varphi on W′∩VW^{\prime}\cap V. Clearly, W′W^{\prime} contains (W1′∪W2′)∩(V\P)(W_{1}^{\prime}\cup W_{2}^{\prime})\cap(V\backslash P). We refer to W′W^{\prime} as a pinched neighborhood of KK, since in general it is not a neighborhood of the whole of KK and it might pinch off at points in M1∩PM_{1}\cap P and M2∩PM_{2}\cap P. We will later need to decrease the value of η\eta, which might change the set W′W^{\prime} slightly, but it will still remain a pinched neighborhood of KK.

We now deal with points in M1∩PM_{1}\cap P and M2∩PM_{2}\cap P. By symmetry, it suffices to consider a point p∈M2∩Pp\in M_{2}\cap P. Recall that R=ω+i​∂∂¯​FR=\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}F is a Kähler current on XX with analytic singularities exactly along VV. Choose a small coordinate neighborhood U⊂XU\subset X centered at pp, small enough so that θ1=1\theta_{1}=1 and θ2=0\theta_{2}=0 on UU. In particular at points in W′W^{\prime} sufficiently near pp we have φ′=φ~0=φ~2=φ2\varphi^{\prime}=\tilde{\varphi}_{0}=\tilde{\varphi}_{2}=\varphi_{2}. Since φ~1,φ~2,F\tilde{\varphi}_{1},\tilde{\varphi}_{2},F have analytic singularities, they can be expressed as (recall that φ~1=φ~2\tilde{\varphi}_{1}=\tilde{\varphi}_{2} on V∩UV\cap U)

(2.2) φ~1\displaystyle\tilde{\varphi}_{1} =δ1​log⁡(∑i|fi|2)+σ1−η=φ1−η,\displaystyle=\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|f_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{1}-\eta=\varphi_{1}-\eta,
φ~2\displaystyle\tilde{\varphi}_{2} =δ1​log⁡(∑i|f~i|2)+σ2=φ2,\displaystyle=\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|\tilde{f}_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{2}=\varphi_{2},
F\displaystyle F =δ3​log⁡(∑j|gj|2)+σ3,\displaystyle=\delta_{3}\log(\sum_{j}|g_{j}|^{2})+\sigma_{3},

near pp, where σk\sigma_{k}, k=1,2,3k=1,2,3 are local smooth functions, and fi,f~i,gjf_{i},\tilde{f}_{i},g_{j} are local holomorphic functions, with the functions gjg_{j} locally defining VV. Moreover, when restricted to VV, we have

δ1​log⁡(∑i|fi|2)+σ1=δ1​log⁡(∑i|f~i|2)+σ2\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|f_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{1}=\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|\tilde{f}_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{2}

since φ1,φ2\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2} both extend φ\varphi. Then by the above argument, the function φ′\varphi^{\prime} is defined at least on the set 𝒮⊂U\mathcal{S}\subset U given by

𝒮={δ1log(∑i|f~i|2)+σ2>δ1log(∑i|fi|2)+σ1−η}={φ~2>φ~1}∩U,\mathcal{S}=\left\{\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|\tilde{f}_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{2}>\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|f_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{1}-\eta\right\}=\{\tilde{\varphi}_{2}>\tilde{\varphi}_{1}\}\cap U,

where the strict inequality in particular requires φ~2\tilde{\varphi}_{2} to be finite. The idea is to show that the singularities of FF are comparable to those of φ~2\tilde{\varphi}_{2} on U\𝒮U\backslash\mathcal{S}. That is, for 0<ν<10<\nu<1 we consider the subset of UU given by

Eν={νδ3log(∑j|gj|2)+νσ3⩾δ1log(∑i|f~i|2)+σ2}={νF⩾φ~2}∩U,\begin{split}E_{\nu}&=\left\{\nu\delta_{3}\log(\sum_{j}|g_{j}|^{2})+\nu\sigma_{3}\geqslant\delta_{1}\log(\sum_{i}|\tilde{f}_{i}|^{2})+\sigma_{2}\right\}\\ &=\{\nu F\geqslant\tilde{\varphi}_{2}\}\cap U,\end{split}

where we now allow points where both sides of the inequality are −∞-\infty. In particular, we always have that p∈Eνp\in E_{\nu}. We can also subtract a constant to FF so that supXF⩽0\sup_{X}F\leqslant 0, and then we see that the sets EνE_{\nu} are decreasing in ν\nu.

Lemma 2.1.

There exists 0<ν0<10<\nu_{0}<1 such that for any 0<ν⩽ν00<\nu\leqslant\nu_{0}, the set Eν∪𝒮E_{\nu}\,\cup\mathcal{S} contains an open neighborhood of pp.

We refer the reader to figure 2 for the geometry of this local gluing problem.

-250,-260)(250,50)

Figure 2. The geometry of the local gluing problem near a pinched point. The shaded area corresponds to the set 𝒮\mathcal{S}, while the set EνE_{\nu} corresponds to the area above the upper dashed line, and below the lower dashed line

The proof of Lemma 2.1 requires several additional lemmas. The main technique we use is Hironaka’s resolution of singularities. Define an analytic set G⊂UG\subset U by

G=V∪E+​(ω+i​∂∂¯​φ1)∪E+​(ω+i​∂∂¯​φ2)∩U,G=V\cup E_{+}(\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{1})\cup E_{+}(\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{2})\cap U,

and let ℐG\mathcal{I}_{G} be its defining ideal sheaf. By shrinking UU if necessary, we may assume that every irreducible component of GG passes through pp. Let π:U~→U\pi:\tilde{U}\rightarrow U be a log resolution of ℐG\mathcal{I}_{G} obtained by blowing up smooth centers. In order to simplify the notation, we assume that we first blow up VV, to obtain a divisor DD, and then resolve the strict transform of GG. After resolving, we have that

π−1​(G)=V~+∑ℓDℓ\pi^{-1}(G)=\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}

is a sum of smooth divisors with simple normal crossings and V~\tilde{V} is the irreducible divisor containing π−1​(v)\pi^{-1}(v) for a generic point v∈Vv\in V (V~\tilde{V} is the strict transform of DD). If we can show that π−1​(Eν∪𝒮)\pi^{-1}(E_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{S}) contains an open neighborhood of V~+∑ℓDℓ\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}, then it would follow immediately that Eν∪𝒮E_{\nu}\,\cup\mathcal{S} contains an open neighborhood of pp.

Lemma 2.2.

The set π−1​(𝒮)\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{S}) contains an open neighborhood of V~\tilde{V}.

Proof.

Pick a point q∈V~q\in\tilde{V}. Since π\pi is a log resolution, there exists an open set Z⊂U~Z\subset\tilde{U} with a coordinate system (w1,…,wn)(w_{1},\dots,w_{n}) centered at qq such that V~={w1=0}\tilde{V}=\{w_{1}=0\} and π∗​exp⁡(φ1),π∗​exp⁡(φ2)\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{1}),\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{2}) are of the form

π∗​exp⁡(φ1)\displaystyle\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{1}) =U1​(w1,…,wn)​∏i=2n|wi|2​αi\displaystyle=U_{1}(w_{1},\dots,w_{n})\prod_{i=2}^{n}|w_{i}|^{2\alpha_{i}}
π∗​exp⁡(φ2)\displaystyle\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{2}) =U2​(w1,…,wn)​∏i=2n|wi|2​βi,\displaystyle=U_{2}(w_{1},\dots,w_{n})\prod_{i=2}^{n}|w_{i}|^{2\beta_{i}},

where UjU_{j} are smooth, positive functions on Z¯\overline{Z}, and αi,βi\alpha_{i},\beta_{i} are nonnegative real numbers. That w1w_{1} does not appear in the product follows from the fact that φ1,φ2≢−∞\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2}\not\equiv-\infty on V∩UV\cap U. By definition, we have

π−1​(𝒮)∩Z={w∈Z|U1​(w)​∏i⩾2|wi|2​αi<eη​U2​(w)​∏i⩾2|wi|2​βi}.\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{S})\cap Z=\left\{w\in Z\bigg|U_{1}(w)\prod_{i\geqslant 2}|w_{i}|^{2\alpha_{i}}<e^{\eta}U_{2}(w)\prod_{i\geqslant 2}|w_{i}|^{2\beta_{i}}\right\}.

Now, since φ1|V=φ2|V\varphi_{1}|_{V}=\varphi_{2}|_{V}, and wi|V~≠0w_{i}|_{\tilde{V}}\neq 0 for i⩾2i\geqslant 2, we clearly have that αi=βi\alpha_{i}=\beta_{i}, and that U1|V~=U2|V~U_{1}|_{\tilde{V}}=U_{2}|_{\tilde{V}}. Since eη>1e^{\eta}>1, the lemma is proved. ∎

By Lemma 2.2, it suffices to work on a compact set away from V~\tilde{V}. Fix a point q∈Dℓ∩π−1​(𝒮c)¯q\in D_{\ell}\cap\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{S}^{c})} and an open set Z⊂U~Z\subset\tilde{U} disjoint from V~\tilde{V}, with a coordinate system (w1,…,wn)(w_{1},\dots,w_{n}) centered at qq so that

(2.3) π∗​exp⁡(F)\displaystyle\pi^{*}\exp(F) =UF​(w)​∏i=1n|wi|2​γi,\displaystyle=U_{F}(w)\prod_{i=1}^{n}|w_{i}|^{2\gamma_{i}},
π∗​exp⁡(φ2)\displaystyle\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{2}) =U2​(w)​∏i=1n|wi|2​βi\displaystyle=U_{2}(w)\prod_{i=1}^{n}|w_{i}|^{2\beta_{i}}

where UF​(w)U_{F}(w) and U2​(w)U_{2}(w) are smooth, positive functions on Z¯\overline{Z}, and βi,γi\beta_{i},\gamma_{i} are nonnegative real numbers. Our goal is to find 0<ν<10<\nu<1 such that

(2.4) π−1​(Eν)∩Z={w∈Z|U2​(w)​∏i=1n|wi|2​βi⩽UFν​(w)​∏i=1n|wi|2​ν​γi}\pi^{-1}(E_{\nu})\cap Z=\left\{w\in Z\bigg|U_{2}(w)\prod_{i=1}^{n}|w_{i}|^{2\beta_{i}}\leqslant U_{F}^{\nu}(w)\prod_{i=1}^{n}|w_{i}|^{2\nu\gamma_{i}}\right\}

contains a neighborhood of 0∈ℂn0\in\mathbb{C}^{n}. First, we prove a lemma.

Lemma 2.3.

In equation (2.3), if γi>0\gamma_{i}>0 for some 1⩽i⩽n1\leqslant i\leqslant n, then βi>0\beta_{i}>0.

Proof.

Suppose for some ii we have γi>0\gamma_{i}>0 but βi=0\beta_{i}=0. Let {wi=0}=Dℓi\{w_{i}=0\}=D_{\ell_{i}}. Then βi=0\beta_{i}=0 means that π∗​exp⁡(φ2)≢0\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{2})\not\equiv 0 on DℓiD_{\ell_{i}}, while γi>0\gamma_{i}>0 means that π∗​exp⁡(F)≡0\pi^{*}\exp(F)\equiv 0 on DℓiD_{\ell_{i}}. We have that π⁡(Dℓi)⊂V∩U\pi(D_{\ell_{i}})\subset V\cap U, since FF is smooth outside VV. However, we can also expand

π∗​exp⁡(φ1)=U1​(w)​∏j=1n|wj|2​αj,\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{1})=U_{1}(w)\prod_{j=1}^{n}|w_{j}|^{2\alpha_{j}},

and the fact that φ1≢−∞\varphi_{1}\not\equiv-\infty on V∩UV\cap U again implies that αi=0\alpha_{i}=0. Since φ1|V=φ2|V\varphi_{1}|_{V}=\varphi_{2}|_{V}, and π⁡(Dℓi)⊂V\pi(D_{\ell_{i}})\subset V, we see again that

π∗​exp⁡(φ1)=π∗​exp⁡(φ2) on ​Dℓi.\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{1})=\pi^{*}\exp(\varphi_{2})\quad\text{ on }D_{\ell_{i}}.

Recall that 𝒮={φ2>φ1−η}∩U\mathcal{S}=\{\varphi_{2}>\varphi_{1}-\eta\}\cap U. This shows that π⁡(Dℓi)\pi(D_{\ell_{i}}) is contained in the interior of 𝒮\mathcal{S}, which is impossible because we assumed q∈π−1​(𝒮c)¯q\in\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{S}^{c})}. ∎

With these results in place, we can easily complete the proof of Lemma 2.1.

Proof of Lemma 2.1.

Thanks to Lemma 2.3, we can choose a small ν0>0\nu_{0}>0 so that βi>ν0​γi\beta_{i}>\nu_{0}\gamma_{i} for each ii such that γi>0\gamma_{i}>0. It follows from the description in (2.4) that for any 0<ν⩽ν00<\nu\leqslant\nu_{0}, the set π−1​(Eν)∩Z\pi^{-1}(E_{\nu})\cap Z contains an open neighborhood of the point q∈Dℓ∩π−1​(𝒮c)¯q\in D_{\ell}\cap\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{S}^{c})}. Repeating this finitely many times on a covering of ∑ℓDℓ∩π−1​(𝒮c)\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}\cap\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{S}^{c}), and using Lemma 2.2, we find ν0>0\nu_{0}>0 such that for any 0<ν⩽ν00<\nu\leqslant\nu_{0}, the set π−1​(Eν∪𝒮)\pi^{-1}(E_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{S}) contains an open neighborhood of V~+∑ℓDℓ\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}. This immediately implies that Eν∪𝒮E_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{S} contains an open neighborhood of pp, since π\pi is an isomorphism away from V~+∑ℓDℓ\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}. ∎

Furthermore, Lemma 2.1 holds with ν0\nu_{0} independent of the value of η>0\eta>0, which we are then free to decrease later on. We pick ν⩽ν0\nu\leqslant\nu_{0} so that

ω+i​∂∂¯​F⩾ν​ω,\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}F\geqslant\nu\omega,

holds as currents on XX. Since ω\omega is a Kähler metric, we have

ω+i​∂∂¯​(ν​F)⩾ν2​ω.\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\left(\nu F\right)\geqslant\nu^{2}\omega.

Recall that Eν={νF⩾φ~2}∩UE_{\nu}=\{\nu F\geqslant\tilde{\varphi}_{2}\}\cap U and 𝒮={φ~2>φ~1}∩U\mathcal{S}=\{\tilde{\varphi}_{2}>\tilde{\varphi}_{1}\}\cap U. It follows that on 𝒮\mathcal{S} we have φ~2>−∞\tilde{\varphi}_{2}>-\infty, and so if U′⊂UU^{\prime}\subset U is a slightly smaller open neighborhood of pp, then on (∂Eν)∩𝒮∩U′(\partial E_{\nu})\cap\mathcal{S}\cap U^{\prime} we have F>−∞F>-\infty and ν​F=φ~2\nu F=\tilde{\varphi}_{2}. In particular, ν​F>φ~2\nu F>\tilde{\varphi}_{2} in a neighborhood of (∂Eν)∩𝒮∩U′(\partial E_{\nu})\cap\mathcal{S}\cap U^{\prime} and so the function

(2.5) φν={ν​F, on ​Eνmax⁡{φ′,ν​F}, on ​𝒮\Eν,\varphi_{\nu}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\nu F,&\text{ on }E_{\nu}\\ \max\{\varphi^{\prime},\nu F\},&\text{ on }\mathcal{S}\backslash E_{\nu},\end{array}\right.

is defined in a neighborhood UpU_{p} of pp and satisfies ω+i​∂∂¯​φν⩾ν2​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{\nu}\geqslant\nu^{2}\omega (and the value of ν\nu does not change if we decrease η\eta, since the cutoff functions θ1\theta_{1} and θ2\theta_{2} are constant on UU). Furthermore, since FF goes to −∞-\infty on VV while φ′\varphi^{\prime} is finite on (V\P)∩W′(V\backslash P)\cap W^{\prime}, we have that φν\varphi_{\nu} equals φ′=φ\varphi^{\prime}=\varphi on Up∩(V\P)U_{p}\cap(V\backslash P).

Repeating this argument at every point p∈M2∩Pp\in M_{2}\cap P, as well as every point p∈M1∩Pp\in M_{1}\cap P, taking a finite covering given by the resulting open sets UpU_{p}, and taking the smallest ν\nu of the resulting ones, we conclude that there exists ν>0\nu>0 sufficiently small such that φν\varphi_{\nu} is defined in a whole neighborhood WνW_{\nu} of KK in XX, and satisfies the same properties. This completes the first step.

We then fix slightly smaller open sets Wν′⋐Uν⋐WνW^{\prime}_{\nu}\Subset U_{\nu}\Subset W_{\nu} such that ∪j⩾3Wj′∪W′ν\cup_{j\geqslant 3}W_{j}^{\prime}\cup W^{\prime}_{\nu} still covers VV. We replace W1W_{1} and W2W_{2} with WνW_{\nu}, and replace φ1\varphi_{1} and φ2\varphi_{2} with φν\varphi_{\nu}, and repeat the same procedure with two other open sets in this new covering. The only difference is that while the functions φ1,φ2\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2} have analytic singularities, this is not the case for φν\varphi_{\nu}, which is instead locally given as the maximum of finitely many functions with analytic singularities. We now explain what modifications are needed in the arguments above.

At any subsequent step, we will have two open sets Wa,WbW_{a},W_{b} with Wa′⋐Ua⋐WaW_{a}^{\prime}\Subset U_{a}\Subset W_{a} and Wb′⋐Ub⋐WbW_{b}^{\prime}\Subset U_{b}\Subset W_{b} and with Wa′∩Wb′∩VW^{\prime}_{a}\cap W^{\prime}_{b}\cap V nonempty. On WaW_{a} we have a function φa\varphi_{a} with ω+i​∂∂¯​φa⩾ε​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi_{a}\geqslant\varepsilon\omega, with φa=φ\varphi_{a}=\varphi on Wa∩VW_{a}\cap V, and similarly for WbW_{b}. Then exactly as before we obtain a function φ′\varphi^{\prime} on a neighborhood of K\((Ma∩P)∪(Mb∩P))K\backslash((M_{a}\cap P)\cup(M_{b}\cap P)), which is equal to φ′=max⁡{φ~a,φ~b}\varphi^{\prime}=\max\{\tilde{\varphi}_{a},\tilde{\varphi}_{b}\} on Wa∩WbW_{a}\cap W_{b}, where we picked cutoff functions θa,θb\theta_{a},\theta_{b} as before and defined φ~a=φa−η′​θa,φ~b=φb−η′​θb\tilde{\varphi}_{a}=\varphi_{a}-\eta^{\prime}\theta_{a},\tilde{\varphi}_{b}=\varphi_{b}-\eta^{\prime}\theta_{b}, where η′>0\eta^{\prime}>0 is small enough so that ω+i​∂∂¯​φ~a\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\tilde{\varphi}_{a} and ω+i​∂∂¯​φ~b\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\tilde{\varphi}_{b} are larger than ε′​ω\varepsilon^{\prime}\omega for some ε′>0\varepsilon^{\prime}>0. Because of the construction we just did, near a point x∈Mb∩Px\in M_{b}\cap P we can write

φa=max⁡{φ~i1,…,φ~ip,νa​F+ρa},\varphi_{a}=\max\{\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{1}},\dots,\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{p}},\nu_{a}F+\rho_{a}\},

for some p>0p>0, some 0<νa<10<\nu_{a}<1 and a smooth function ρa\rho_{a} (in general the maximum will contain several terms of the form νj​F+ρj\nu_{j}F+\rho_{j}, but since F⁡(x)=−∞F(x)=-\infty, up to shrinking the open set where we work on, only one of them contributes to the maximum). Here the functions φ~ik\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{k}} are defined in (2.1), so they have analytic singularities, and so does FF, and we can also assume that their values of the parameter η\eta are all equal and smaller than η′/2\eta^{\prime}/2. Similarly, we can write

φb=max⁡{φ~j1,…,φ~jq,νb​F+ρb}.\varphi_{b}=\max\{\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{1}},\dots,\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{q}},\nu_{b}F+\rho_{b}\}.

We work again on a small coordinate neighborhood UU centered at xx where θa=1\theta_{a}=1 and θb=0\theta_{b}=0. We proved earlier that φ′\varphi^{\prime} is defined at least on 𝒮={φ~b>φ~a}∩U\mathcal{S}=\{\tilde{\varphi}_{b}>\tilde{\varphi}_{a}\}\cap U. For 0<ν<10<\nu<1 we let Eν={νF⩾φ~b}∩UE_{\nu}=\{\nu F\geqslant\tilde{\varphi}_{b}\}\cap U. If we can show that there exists ν\nu such that Eν∪𝒮E_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{S} contains a neighborhood of xx, then we can complete this step exactly as before. For simplicity, we write

φ^a=max⁡{φ~i1,…,φ~ip},φ^b=max⁡{φ~j1,…,φ~jq}.\hat{\varphi}_{a}=\max\{\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{1}},\dots,\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{p}}\},\quad\hat{\varphi}_{b}=\max\{\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{1}},\dots,\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{q}}\}.

To prove this, we pick a log resolution π:U~→U\pi:\tilde{U}\to U of the ideal sheaf of

G=V∪⋃kE+​(ω+i​∂∂¯​φ~ik)∪⋃ℓE+​(ω+i​∂∂¯​φ~jℓ)∩U,G=V\cup\bigcup_{k}E_{+}(\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{k}})\cup\bigcup_{\ell}E_{+}(\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{\ell}})\cap U,

with π−1​(G)=V~+∑ℓDℓ\pi^{-1}(G)=\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell} as before. Now note that 𝒮\mathcal{S} contains the set 𝒜∩ℬ,\mathcal{A}\cap\mathcal{B}, where

𝒜={φ^b>φ^a−η′}∩U,ℬ={φ^b>νaF+ρa−η′}∩U.\mathcal{A}=\{\hat{\varphi}_{b}>\hat{\varphi}_{a}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U,\quad\mathcal{B}=\{\hat{\varphi}_{b}>\nu_{a}F+\rho_{a}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U.

The set 𝒜\mathcal{A} equals

⋃ℓ=1q⋂k=1p{φ~jℓ>φ~ik−η′}∩U.\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{q}\bigcap_{k=1}^{p}\{\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{\ell}}>\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{k}}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U.

Since φ~jℓ=φjℓ−η​θjℓ\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{\ell}}=\varphi_{j_{\ell}}-\eta\theta_{j_{\ell}} with 0⩽θjℓ⩽10\leqslant\theta_{j_{\ell}}\leqslant 1, and similarly for φ~ik\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{k}}, we see that

{φ~jℓ>φ~ik−η′}∩U⊃{φjℓ>φik−η′/2}∩U.\{\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{\ell}}>\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{k}}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U\supset\{\varphi_{j_{\ell}}>\varphi_{i_{k}}-\eta^{\prime}/2\}\cap U.

Thanks to Lemma 2.2, each of the sets π−1({φjℓ>φik−η′/2}∩U)\pi^{-1}(\{\varphi_{j_{\ell}}>\varphi_{i_{k}}-\eta^{\prime}/2\}\cap U) contains a neighborhood of V~\tilde{V}, and therefore so does π−1​(𝒜)\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{A}). On the other hand, we have that Eν={νF⩾φb}∩UE_{\nu}=\{\nu F\geqslant\varphi_{b}\}\cap U equals

⋂m=1q{νF⩾φ~jm}∩{νF⩾νbF+ρb}∩U.\bigcap_{m=1}^{q}\{\nu F\geqslant\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{m}}\}\cap\{\nu F\geqslant\nu_{b}F+\rho_{b}\}\cap U.

If we choose ν\nu small, then {νF⩾νbF+ρb}∩U=U\{\nu F\geqslant\nu_{b}F+\rho_{b}\}\cap U=U. Lemma 2.3 together with the proof of Lemma 2.1 shows that there exists ν>0\nu>0 small such that each set π−1({νF⩾φ~jm}∩U)\pi^{-1}(\{\nu F\geqslant\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{m}}\}\cap U) contains a neighborhood of

∑ℓDℓ∩π−1((∩k=1p{φ~jm>φ~ik−η′}∩U)c)¯.\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}\cap\overline{\pi^{-1}((\cap_{k=1}^{p}\{\tilde{\varphi}_{j_{m}}>\tilde{\varphi}_{i_{k}}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U)^{c})}.

Therefore, EνE_{\nu} contains a neighborhood of

∑ℓDℓ∩π−1((φ^b>φ^a−η′}∩U)c)¯=∑ℓDℓ∩π−1​(𝒜c)¯.\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}\cap\overline{\pi^{-1}((\hat{\varphi}_{b}>\hat{\varphi}_{a}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U)^{c})}=\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}\cap\overline{\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{A}^{c})}.

This means that π−1​(𝒜∪Eν)\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{A}\cup E_{\nu}) contains a whole neighborhood of V~+∑ℓDℓ\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}. On the other hand, the set Eν∪ℬE_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{B} equals

{νF⩾φ^b}∪{φ^b>νaF+ρa−η′}∩U={x}∪{νF>νaF+ρa−η′}∩U,\{\nu F\geqslant\hat{\varphi}_{b}\}\cup\{\hat{\varphi}_{b}>\nu_{a}F+\rho_{a}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U=\{x\}\cup\{\nu F>\nu_{a}F+\rho_{a}-\eta^{\prime}\}\cap U,

and if we pick ν\nu small enough then this set equals UU. This finally proves that π−1​(Eν∪𝒮)\pi^{-1}(E_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{S}) contains a neighborhood of V~+∑ℓDℓ\tilde{V}+\sum_{\ell}D_{\ell}, which implies that Eν∪𝒮E_{\nu}\cup\mathcal{S} contains a neighborhood of xx, and this step is complete.

After at most NN such steps, we end up with an open neighborhood WW of VV in XX with a function φ′′\varphi^{\prime\prime} defined on WW which satisfies ω+i​∂∂¯​φ′′⩾ε′​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\varphi^{\prime\prime}\geqslant\varepsilon^{\prime}\omega for some ε′′>0\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}>0, which equals φ\varphi on VV.

Now we have a Kähler current defined on WW. On ∂W\partial W the function FF is smooth, so we can choose a large constant A>0A>0 such that F>φ′′−AF>\varphi^{\prime\prime}-A in a neighborhood of ∂W\partial W. Therefore we can finally define

Φ={max⁡{φ′′,F+A} on ​WF+A, on ​X\W,\Phi=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\max\{\varphi^{\prime\prime},F+A\}&\text{ on }W\\ F+A,&\text{ on }X\backslash W,\end{array}\right.

which is defined on the whole of XX, it satisfies ω+i​∂∂¯​Φ⩾ε′​ω\omega+i\partial\overline{\partial}\Phi\geqslant\varepsilon^{\prime}\omega for some ε′>0\varepsilon^{\prime}>0. Since FF goes to −∞-\infty on VV, while φ′′\varphi^{\prime\prime} is continuous near the generic point of VV, it follows that Φ\Phi equals φ\varphi on V.V. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

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