ScalingStacks

Proof. [05C0]

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.

By [Ber04, Theorem 5.1.1] we know that |f⁡(x)|≠0|f(x)|\neq 0 and that φ\varphi is piecewise affine linear on Δ\Delta. By [Ber99, Theorem 5.2] we have φ≤φ∘p𝔛\varphi\leq\varphi\circ p_{\mathfrak{X}}. Assume there is a face τ\tau of Δ\Delta on which φ\varphi is not convex, i.e. there are x,y∈τx,y\in\tau and t∈(0,1)t\in(0,1) such that

δ:=φ⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)−t​φ​(x)−(1−t)​φ​(y)>0.\delta:=\varphi(tx+(1-t)y)-t\varphi(x)-(1-t)\varphi(y)>0.

By base change we can assume that KK is algebraically closed and then by density of the value group Γ\Gamma and continuity of φ\varphi that the coordinates of xx and yy are in Γ\Gamma. Choose a Γ\Gamma-rational polytopal subdivision of Δ\Delta which only has xx and yy as additional vertices. By Construction 2.6 we get an admissible formal model 𝔛′′\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime} of 𝔛an\mathfrak{X}^{\textup{an}} dominating 𝔛\mathfrak{X}. Choose an affine open U⊆𝔛~′′U\subseteq\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime\prime} which contains red⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)\red(tx+(1-t)y). By the stratum face correspondence (Proposition 2.8 and Corollary 2.9) the vertices xx and yy correspond to irreducible components of 𝔛~′′\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime\prime}. By taking out all other irreducible components we may assume that UU intersects only those corresponding to xx and yy. Then V:=red−1⁡(U)V:=\red^{-1}(U) is a strictly KK-affinoid domain by [Bos77, Theorem 3.1]. By [Ber99, Proposition 1.4] its canonical reduction has two irreducible components, namely those corresponding to xx and yy. Hence the Shilov boundary of VV is the set {x,y}\{x,y\} by [Ber90, Proposition 2.4.4] and we get |f⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)|≤max⁡{|f⁡(x)|,|f⁡(y)|}|f(tx+(1-t)y)|\leq\max\left\{|f(x)|,|f(y)|\right\}. Since x≠yx\neq y, by restricting to a building block 𝔘\mathfrak{U}, we can find a coordinate function g∈𝒪​(𝔘an)×g\in\mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{U}^{\textup{an}})^{\times} such that |g⁡(x)|≠|g⁡(y)||g(x)|\neq|g(y)|. Then we can find N∈ℕ>0N\in\mathbb{N}_{>0} and m∈ℤm\in\mathbb{Z} such that

|log|​fN​gm​(x)​|−log⁡|fN​gm​(y)||=|N⁡(φ⁡(x)−φ⁡(y))+m⁡(log⁡|g⁡(x)|−log⁡|g⁡(y)|)|<N​δ.\Big|\log|f^{N}g^{m}(x)|-\log|f^{N}g^{m}(y)|\Big|=\Big|N(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y))+m(\log|g(x)|-\log|g(y)|)\Big|<N\delta.

Since log⁡|gm|\log|g^{m}| is affine linear on τ\tau we get

log⁡|fN​gm​(t​x+(1−t)​y)|−t​log⁡|fN​gm​(x)|−(1−t)​log|fN​gm​(y)|=N​δ.\log|f^{N}g^{m}(tx+(1-t)y)|-t\log|f^{N}g^{m}(x)|-(1-t)\log|f^{N}g^{m}(y)|=N\delta.

Hence by replacing ff with fN​gmf^{N}g^{m} and δ\delta by N​δN\delta we can assume

δ:=φ⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)−t​φ​(x)−(1−t)​φ​(y)>0.\delta:=\varphi(tx+(1-t)y)-t\varphi(x)-(1-t)\varphi(y)>0.

and

|φ⁡(x)−φ⁡(y)|<δ.|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|<\delta.

Then

φ⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)=δ+t​φ​(x)+(1−t)​φ​(y)>t​φ​(x)+(1−t)​φ​(y)+|φ⁡(x)−φ⁡(y)|.\varphi(tx+(1-t)y)=\delta+t\varphi(x)+(1-t)\varphi(y)>t\varphi(x)+(1-t)\varphi(y)+|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|.

Now on the one hand we have

t​φ​(x)+(1−t)​φ​(y)+|φ⁡(x)−φ⁡(y)|≥t​φ​(x)+(1−t)​φ​(y)+t⁡(φ⁡(y)−φ⁡(x))=φ⁡(y)t\varphi(x)+(1-t)\varphi(y)+|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|\geq t\varphi(x)+(1-t)\varphi(y)+t(\varphi(y)-\varphi(x))=\varphi(y)

while on the other hand

t​φ​(x)+(1−t)​φ​(y)+|φ⁡(x)−φ⁡(y)|≥φ⁡(x)+t⁡(φ⁡(x)−φ⁡(y)).t\varphi(x)+(1-t)\varphi(y)+|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|\geq\varphi(x)+t(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)).

Together we get

φ⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)>max⁡{φ⁡(x),φ⁡(y)}.\varphi(tx+(1-t)y)>\max\left\{\varphi(x),\varphi(y)\right\}.

But this violates our previous observation that |f⁡(t​x+(1−t)​y)|≤max⁡{|f⁡(x)|,|f⁡(y)|}|f(tx+(1-t)y)|\leq\max\left\{|f(x)|,|f(y)|\right\}. This finishes the proof. ∎

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