Proposition 18.16.2.9E5A9E7C5770 For the preceding data,
F57341993FE4
18.16.3
These identities also hold when some of the curve backgrounds have zero area.
9E5A9E7C5770Proposition 18.16.2.9E5A9E7C5770 For the preceding data,
F57341993FE4
18.16.3
These identities also hold when some of the curve backgrounds have zero area.
Proof. Write $e_ i=P_{\sigma _ i,F_ i}[u_ i]$. Sums of ordinary competitors in the separate coordinates are ordinary competitors on the product, and their regularized supremum is $\sum _ i e_ i\circ \pi _ i$. This gives the lower bound in the first identity.
For the upper bound we use induction on the number of factors, the case of one factor being trivial. Let $v\leq F$ be an ordinary competitor, so that $v\leq u+C$ for some constant $C$. Choose a constant $K$ with $u-K\leq F$ and replace $v$ by $\max (v,u-K)$. This preserves both bounds and ensures that the restrictions of $v$ to the slices used below are not identically $-\infty $.
Write $Y=Y'\times C_ m$, and on $Y'$ put $u'=\sum _{i<m}u_ i\circ \pi _ i$ and $F'=\sum _{i<m}F_ i\circ \pi _ i$. The regularized partial supremum
is $\sigma _ m$-plurisubharmonic by the local upper-envelope theorem of section 5.21: the functions $t\mapsto v(y',t)-F'(y')$ have the common upper bound $F_ m$, and at least one of them is not identically $-\infty $, by the lower bound $v\geq u-K$. The bound $v\leq u+C$ gives
Thus $a$ is a competitor for $e_ m$, and $a\leq e_ m$. If $u_ m(t)$ is finite, so is $e_ m(t)$, since a sufficiently low translate of $u_ m$ is a competitor for $e_ m$. The function $v(\cdot ,t)-e_ m(t)$ is then a potential in the product background on $Y'$, not identically $-\infty $, lying below $F'$ and at least as singular as $u'$. By induction, $v(\cdot ,t)\leq \sum _{i<m}e_ i\circ \pi _ i+e_ m(t)$. At a pole of $u_ m$, the bound $v\leq u+C$ already gives $v=-\infty $. Every competitor is therefore bounded by $\sum _ i e_ i\circ \pi _ i$, and taking the regularized supremum proves the ordinary identity.
For the ideal identity, put $B_ i=\int _{C_ i}\sigma _ i\geq 0$ and $\widehat\eta _ i=\eta _ i/A_ i$. By lemma 5.29.22, choose smooth functions $\chi _ i$ with
Let $E_ i$ be the atomic part of $\sigma _ i+\mathrm{dd}^{\mathrm{c}}u_ i$. If $B_ i>0$, apply lemma 20.3.20 to $u_ i+\chi _ i$ in the positive background $B_ i\widehat\eta _ i$. Subtracting $\chi _ i$ from the resulting atomic Green potential gives a $\sigma _ i$-plurisubharmonic function $g_ i$ such that
the second relation uses the smooth gauge bounds of proposition 18.5.1. If $B_ i=0$, lemma 5.29.22 gives $u_ i=-\chi _ i+c_ i$ for a constant $c_ i$, and $E_ i=0$; taking $g_ i=-\chi _ i$ gives the same conclusions. In either case,
Put $g=\sum _ i g_ i\circ \pi _ i$. Pullback and addition, lemma 5.37.7, lemma 5.37.4, give $g\sim _{\mathcal I}u$. The complex Hessian of $g$ is a countable sum of divisor currents supported on coordinate fibers, minus a smooth form. This divisor current has finite mass, because each coordinate fiber has constant mass for a fixed product metric and each $E_ i$ has finite mass. Thus lemma 5.38.5 applies, even when some $B_ i$ vanish. Every ideal competitor $v\leq F$ for $u$ therefore satisfies $v\preceq g$, and is bounded by $P_{\gamma ,F}[g]$.
Set $r_ i=P_{\sigma _ i,F_ i}[u_ i]_{\mathcal I}$. Invariance of the ordinary envelope under ordinary equivalence and proposition 18.12.2 give
By the ordinary identity already proved, applied to $g$, the ideal envelope of $u$ is therefore at most $\sum _ i r_ i\circ \pi _ i$. Conversely, each $r_ i$ lies below $F_ i$ and is multiplier-ideal equivalent to $u_ i$, again by proposition 18.12.2. Their sum is a $\gamma $-plurisubharmonic ideal competitor for $u$ below $F$, which proves the reverse inequality. No strict positivity of the backgrounds is needed in this comparison. $\square$
Comments
Corrections, questions, and mathematical discussion are welcome. Sign in with GitHub to comment. Comments are public.