ScalingStacks

11.4 Construction of the modified sheaf π’ͺ B m ​ o ​ d ​ i ​ f [03WW]

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

11.4 Construction of the modified sheaf π’ͺBm​o​d​i​f{\cal O}^{modif}_{B}

For any point p∈Yp\in Y and a neighborhood UU satisfying conditions C1 and C2 we define the sheaf π’ͺUm​o​d​i​f{\cal O}^{modif}_{U} as the result of the identification of copies of the sheaf (π’ͺYc​a​n)|U\left({\cal O}^{can}_{Y}\right)_{|U} labeled by points x∈Uβˆ–Wβ„’x\in U\setminus W_{\cal L}, by isomorphisms ix,yi_{x,y}. It follows from formulas in Section 8 that near singular points one can identify canonically this sheaf with the restriction of the sheaf π’ͺ𝐑2m​o​d​e​l{\cal O}^{model}_{{\bf R}^{2}} to a punctured neighborhood of (0,0)βˆˆπ‘2(0,0)\in{\bf R}^{2}.

Proposition 6

For the modified sheaf π’ͺm​o​d​i​f{\cal O}^{modif} one has a canonical nowhere vanishing section Ξ©\Omega of the associated sheaf of KK-analytic 22-forms.

The KK-affine structure A​f​fK,YΞ©Aff^{\Omega}_{K,Y} on YY associated with Ξ©\Omega coincides with the initial one A​f​fK,YAff_{K,Y}.

Proof. Existence of Ξ©\Omega follows from the fact that all modifications associated with lines are symplectomorphisms. In order to finish the proof it suffices to check that the modification associated with a line does not change the KK-affine structure on YY. In local coordinates we may assume that Ξ©=dβ€‹ΞΎΞΎβˆ§d​ηη\Omega={d\xi\over\xi}\wedge{d\eta\over\eta} and the modification is of the form φ⁑(ΞΎ,Ξ·)=(ξ​f​(Ξ·βˆ’1),Ξ·)\varphi(\xi,\eta)=(\xi f(\eta^{-1}),\eta), where f⁑(z)=1+βˆ‘nβ‰₯1cn​zn∈K⁑[[z]]f(z)=1+\sum_{n\geq 1}c_{n}z^{n}\in K[[z]] is convergent in an appropriate domain. We need to check that the automorphism Ο†\varphi acts trivially on the quotient sheaf Ο€βˆ—β€‹(π’ͺXΓ—)/ker⁑pΞ©\pi_{\ast}({\cal O}_{X}^{\times})/\ker\,p_{\Omega} (see Section 7.2 for the notation). This check reduces to the calculation of

pΩ​(ξ​f​(Ξ·)ΞΎ)=exp⁑(OPENR​e​s​(Ω​log⁑(ξ​f​(Ξ·)/ΞΎ)))R​e​s​(Ξ©)).p_{\Omega}\left({\xi f(\eta)\over\xi}\right)=\exp\left({Res(\Omega\log(\xi f(\eta)/\xi)))\over Res(\Omega)}\right)\,\,.

The latter is equal to exp⁑(R​e​s​(Ω​log⁑(f⁑(Ξ·))))=1\exp\left(Res(\Omega\log(f(\eta)))\right)=1 because log⁑(f⁑(Ξ·βˆ’1))\log(f(\eta^{-1})) belongs to Ξ·βˆ’1​K​[[Ξ·βˆ’1]]\eta^{-1}K[[\eta^{-1}]] and therefore has no constant term. β– \blacksquare

Thus, we have a solution of the Lifting Problem under Assumptions A1 and A2.

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