Theorem 16.9.55.89B76134A3A3 Let $(\varphi _ j)_{j\in I}$ be a net in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ and $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. Then for any prime divisor $E$ over $X$, we have
D68651624DC9
16.9.56
89B76134A3A3Theorem 16.9.55.89B76134A3A3 Let $(\varphi _ j)_{j\in I}$ be a net in $\mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ and $\varphi _ j\xrightarrow {d_ S}\varphi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$. Then for any prime divisor $E$ over $X$, we have
D68651624DC9
16.9.56
Proof. First observe that since $d_ S$ is a pseudometric, it suffices to prove (16.9.56) when $I=\mathbb {Z}_{>0}$ as partially ordered sets.
By corollary 16.9.36, after adding a Kähler form to $\theta $, we may assume that the masses of $\varphi _ j$ and of $\varphi $ are bounded from below by a positive constant.
By theorem 16.9.49, we may assume that $\varphi _ j$ and $\varphi $ are both $\mathcal{I}$-model and hence model. When proving (16.9.56), we are free to pass to subsequences.
By proposition 16.9.17 and a sandwich argument, we may assume that the sequence $(\varphi _ j)_ j$ is either increasing or decreasing. In the increasing case, the Lelong numbers $\nu (\varphi _ j,E)$ decrease to a limit at least $\nu (\varphi ,E)$, while $L^1$-convergence gives the opposite inequality by upper semicontinuity of Lelong numbers. In the decreasing case, (16.9.56) follows from proposition 16.4.4. $\square$
Comments
Corrections, questions, and mathematical discussion are welcome. Sign in with GitHub to comment. Comments are public.