Proof.
For the reference zero, $P_{\epsilon \theta }(0)=0$ for every $\epsilon >0$. Letting $\epsilon \downarrow 0$ in theorem 16.28.70 therefore gives
AFE1DD54089D
15.37.29
\begin{equation} \mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (w)(X)\geq v_-(\theta ) \qquad (w\in \mathcal E_0). \end{equation}
Positive exponent. By lemma 15.24.4, write $\mu =f\nu $ with $\nu =\mathrm{MA}_\theta (\psi )$, where $\psi \in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ is bounded and $0\leq f\in L^1(\nu )$. For positive integers $j$, let $f_ j=\min (f,j)$. These densities are bounded, and the measures $f_ j\nu $ are nonzero. By theorem 15.10.1 there are bounded $u_ j\in \mathrm{PSH}(X,\theta )$ with
\[ \mathrm{MA}_\theta (u_ j)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda u_ j}f_ j\nu . \]
These bounded potentials belong to $\mathcal E_0$ by proposition 16.28.62. Since $f_ j$ increases with $j$, exponential order (corollary 15.37.11) shows that $u_ j$ decreases; in particular $u_ j\leq u_1$. On the other hand, since $f_ j\leq f$,
\[ v_-(\theta )\leq \mathrm{MA}_\theta (u_ j)(X) \leq \mathrm{e}^{\lambda \sup _ Xu_ j}\mu (X), \]
so the suprema of the $u_ j$ have a common lower bound. Hence the decreasing limit $u$ is a $\theta $-plurisubharmonic function, not identically $-\infty $, and $u_ j\to u$ in $L^1(X)$. Moreover
\[ \mathrm{MA}_\theta (u_ j)\leq \mathrm{e}^{\lambda \sup _ Xu_1}\mu . \]
Applying theorem 15.37.19 with reference zero, we obtain $u\in \mathcal E_0$ and weak convergence of the Monge–Ampère measures to $\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (u)$. The right-hand sides converge in total variation to $\mathrm{e}^{\lambda u}f\nu $, since the functions $\mathrm{e}^{\lambda u_ j}f_ j$ converge $\nu $-almost everywhere and are bounded by $\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \sup _ Xu_1}f\in L^1(\nu )$. This proves the equation, and corollary 15.37.11 gives uniqueness.
Zero exponent. For each positive integer $j$, let $u_ j\in \mathcal E_0$ be the solution just constructed with exponent $1/j$. To bound the normalization, we compare with the solution $s\in \mathcal E_0$ for exponent one, so that $\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (s)=\mathrm{e}^ s\mu $. Set $H=\max (0,\sup _ Xs)$ and $w_ j=s+(j-1)H$. Then $w_ j/j\geq s$, and
\[ \mathrm{e}^{-w_ j/j}\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (w_ j) \leq \mathrm{e}^{-s}\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (s) =\mu =\mathrm{e}^{-u_ j/j}\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (u_ j). \]
Exponential order, now with exponent $1/j$, gives $u_ j\leq w_ j$. Put
\[ M_ j=\sup _ Xu_ j,\qquad v_ j=u_ j-M_ j, \qquad c_ j=\mathrm{e}^{M_ j/j}. \]
Then $\sup _ Xv_ j=0$ and $0<c_ j\leq \mathrm{e}^ H$, because $M_ j\leq \sup _ Xw_ j\leq jH$. By (15.37.29),
\[ v_-(\theta )\leq c_ j\int _ X \mathrm{e}^{v_ j/j}\, \mathrm{d}\mu \leq c_ j\mu (X), \]
so $c_ j\geq v_-(\theta )/\mu (X)>0$. After extraction, theorem 5.25.2 gives $v_ j\to v$ in $L^1(X)$, where $v\not\equiv -\infty $ and $\sup _ Xv=0$, and $c_ j\to c>0$.
By lemma 5.44.5, $a_ j=\mathrm{e}^{v_ j/j}\to 1$ in $L^1(\mu )$. Consequently
\[ \mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (v_ j)=c_ ja_ j\mu \longrightarrow c\mu \quad \hbox{in total variation},\qquad \mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (v_ j)\leq \mathrm{e}^ H\mu . \]
Applying theorem 15.37.19 again, we obtain $v\in \mathcal E_0$ and identify the limit as $\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (v)$; thus $\mathrm{MA}^{\mathrm{ext}}_\theta (v)=c\mu $. The scalar assertion of corollary 15.37.11, applied in both directions to two solutions, proves that $c$ is unique.
$\square$
Comments
Corrections, questions, and mathematical discussion are welcome. Sign in with GitHub to comment. Comments are public.