ScalingStacks

Proof. [02UR]

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.

The statement (1) can be checked locally. Let σ\sigma be a cone of Σ\Sigma. Then

Xσ,H=Spec⁡(H⁡[Mσ])=Spec⁡(K⁡[Mσ]​⊗𝐾​H)=Spec⁡(H)​×𝐾​Xσ,K.X_{\sigma,H}=\operatorname{Spec}(H[M_{\sigma}])=\operatorname{Spec}(K[M_{\sigma}]\underset{K}{\otimes}H)=\operatorname{Spec}(H)\underset{K}{\times}X_{\sigma,K}.

This proves the first assertion. The commutativity of the diagram follows from the fact that the map XΣ,Han→XΣ,KanX_{\Sigma,H}^{{\text{\rm an}}}\to X^{{\text{\rm an}}}_{\Sigma,K} is given by the restriction of seminorms.

The statement (2) can also be checked locally. Let Λ\Lambda be a polyhedron of Π\Pi. Let Λ′=eK′/K​Λ\Lambda^{\prime}=e_{K^{\prime}/K}\Lambda. Then it is clear that

K∘​[𝒳Λ]​⊗K∘​H∘⊂H∘​[𝒳Λ′].K^{\circ}[{\mathcal{X}}_{\Lambda}]\underset{K^{\circ}}{\otimes}H^{\circ}\subset H^{\circ}[{\mathcal{X}}_{\Lambda^{\prime}}].

Since the right-hand side ring is integrally closed, the integral closure of the left side ring is contained in the right side ring. Therefore we need to prove that H⁡[M~Λ′]H[{\widetilde{M}}_{\Lambda^{\prime}}] is integral over the left side ring. Let (a,l)∈M~Λ′(a,l)\in{\widetilde{M}}_{\Lambda^{\prime}}. Thus (eH/K​a,l)∈M~Λ(e_{H/K}a,l)\in{\widetilde{M}}_{\Lambda}. Then the monomial χaϖ′∈lH∘[𝒳Λ′]\chi^{a}\varpi^{\prime}{}^{l}\in H^{\circ}[{\mathcal{X}}_{\Lambda^{\prime}}] satisfies

(χaϖ′)leH/K=(χeH/K​aϖl)∈K∘[𝒳Λ]⊗K∘H∘.(\chi^{a}\varpi^{\prime}{}^{l})^{e_{H/K}}=(\chi^{e_{H/K}a}\varpi^{l})\in K^{\circ}[{\mathcal{X}}_{\Lambda}]\underset{K^{\circ}}{\otimes}H^{\circ}.

Hence χaϖ′l\chi^{a}\varpi^{\prime}{}^{l} is integral over K∘​[𝒳Λ]​⊗K∘​H∘.K^{\circ}[{\mathcal{X}}_{\Lambda}]\underset{K^{\circ}}{\otimes}H^{\circ}. Since these monomials generate H∘​[𝒳Λ′]H^{\circ}[{\mathcal{X}}_{\Lambda^{\prime}}], we obtain the result.

To prove (3), let p′∈X0,Hanp^{\prime}\in X^{{\text{\rm an}}}_{0,H} and let p∈X0,Kanp\in X^{{\text{\rm an}}}_{0,K} be the corresponding point. Then valK⁡(p)=valH⁡(p′)eH/K{\operatorname{val}}_{K}(p)=\frac{{\operatorname{val}}_{H}(p^{\prime})}{e_{H/K}}. Therefore, if we write u=valK⁡(p)u={\operatorname{val}}_{K}(p) and u′=valH⁡(p′)eH/Ku^{\prime}=\frac{{\operatorname{val}}_{H}(p^{\prime})}{e_{H/K}}, we have

ψ∥⋅∥′(u′)=1λHlog∥s(p′)∥′=eH/KλKlog∥s(p)∥=eH/Kψ(u)=eH/Kψ(u′/eH/K).\psi_{\|\cdot\|^{\prime}}(u^{\prime})=\frac{1}{\lambda_{H}}\log\|s(p^{\prime})\|^{\prime}=\frac{e_{H/K}}{\lambda_{K}}\log\|s(p)\|=e_{H/K}\psi(u)=e_{H/K}\psi(u^{\prime}/e_{H/K}).

Finally, statement (4) follows directly from the definition of θΣ\theta_{\Sigma} because the horizontal arrow is given by the restriction of seminorms. ∎

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