This definition mimics the definition of the so-called ”Siciak’s extremal
function” usually defined for Borel subset of
that are bounded in , where
denotes some hyperplane at infinity.
This function was introduced and studied by Siciak in [35],[36]
(see also [38]).
One can indeed check that this definition coincides with the classical
one if one chooses to be the current of integration
along the hyperplane .
Similarly one could consider the case where is the current of
integration along a positive divisor on and let play the role of
infinity. This approach has been used by some authors working in Arakelov
geometry to define capacities on projective varieties (see [30],[9]
and references therein). However this forces them to consider only compact
subsets of and leads to less intrinsic notions of capacities.
In this article we always assume that the currents involved
admit continuous potentials.
This insures that the Monge-Ampère operator is well-defined
on extremal functions .
If , we shall denote
by its upper-semi-continuous regularization.
Theorem 3.2.
Let be a Borel subset of .
1) is -polar iff
iff .
2) If is not -polar then and
satisfies in the interior of ,
in and
|
|
|
Proof.
Assume . By a lemma of Choquet
(see lemma 4.23 in [15], chapter 1),
we can find an increasing sequence of functions
such that on and .
Extracting a subsequence if necessary, we can assume .
Set . These functions belong
to which is a compact subfamily of
(corollary 1.7).
Recall that if is a smooth volume form on
then there exists such that
for all .
Set . Then
as a decreasing limit of functions in
with .
Now for every we get
hence
, i.e. is -polar.
Conversely assume is -polar,
for some . Then for all ,
and on . Therefore ,
. This yields on
hence on
since has zero volume.
We have thus shown the following circle of implications:
.
Assume now that is not -polar. Then
(see proposition 1.6.2) and clearly satisfies
in the interior of .
If we show that
in then
|
|
|
as follows from Stokes theorem. Let be an increasing
sequence such that on and .
Fix a small ball in .
Let be the solution of the Dirichlet problem with
boundary values . Then ,
in (in particular
on hence ) and the sequence
is again increasing (theorem 2.12).
Since in and
, it follows from the continuity
of the complex Monge-Ampère on increasing sequences
that in . As was an arbitrarily small
ball in we infer
in .
∎
Proof.
Observe that .
Thus if is relatively compact then it is
uniformly bounded from above, hence , i.e.
is not -polar.
Assume conversely that is not -polar.
Let . Then
hence is uniformly
bounded from above. It follows from proposition 1.6 that is relatively
compact. Indeed it can not converge uniformly to since
(see proposition 1.6).
∎
Proposition 3.4.
Let be a Borel subset of .
1) If then
and . Furthermore when .
2) If then .
3) For all , .
4) If then
|
|
|
5) If is holomorphic then
|
|
|
In particular if is a -isometry then .
Proof.
That is decreasing follows straightforwardly from the
definition. Observe that when , hence
in this case. When is smooth (but not positive),
considering will be a useful way of constructing
a positive closed current with minimal
singularities (see section 4).
Assertions 2,3,4 are simple consequences of proposition 1.3.
The last assertion results from the following observation: if
is such that on ,
then belongs to and satisfies
on .
∎
Example 3.5.
Assume , is the Fubini-Study Kähler form and let
denote the euclidean ball centered at the origin and of radius
in . Then for ,
|
|
|
Indeed set , where
. Recall that the usual
Siciak’s extremal function of is
. Therefore
for .
On the other hand if then
hence
in .
Now let such that in .
Then . Since
in we infer
in
. Moreover
in hence in . This
shows on .
Proposition 3.6.
1) If is an open subset, then .
2) Let be a Borel subset and a -polar set. Then
|
|
|
3) Let be an increasing sequence of Borel subsets and
set . Then
if is Kähler.
4) Let be a decreasing sequence of compact subsets of
and set . Then
, hence
a.e.
5) Fix a non-pluripolar set.
Then there exists a decreasing sequence of
open subsets, , such that
.
Proof.
We write here for since is fixed and no
confusion can arise.
Let be an open subset of . Observe that on ,
hence on which is open. Therefore ,
whence equality. This proves 1).
Let , , and fix .
Fix a Borel subset of . Clearly hence
. Conversely let be
such that on . Then ,
satisfies
on , hence . Letting
we infer on ,
hence on . Thus .
Let be an increasing sequence of subsets of and set
. Let (the limit is
decreasing by 3.4.1). If is -polar then so are all the
s, hence . So let us assume
is not -polar.
Then since
(see proposition 1.6.3).
Observe that on the set ,
where . The latter is
called a negligible set. It follows from the local theory [5]
together with theorem 5.2 that is -polar.
Therefore by 2).
Let be a decreasing sequence of compact subsets and set
. Clearly . Fix and let
be such that on .
Then is an open set which contains all , for
large enough. Thus on , hence
. Taking the supremum over all such s
and
letting yields the reverse inequality
. The conclusion on the convergence
of the upper semi-continuous regularizations follows now from
proposition 1.6.
It remains to prove 5). By Choquet’s lemma, there exists an increasing
sequence such that on and
. Set . This defines a decreasing
sequence of open subsets containing . Observe that
, hence
. Therefore
.
∎