Proposition 16.5.22.E2221B6939BE Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{E}(X,\theta ;\phi )$. The following are equivalent:
0DF993971FDE$\varphi \in \mathcal{E}^1(X,\theta ;\phi )$;
4FACCBDBBADB$E^{\phi }_{\theta }(\varphi )>-\infty $.
E2221B6939BEProposition 16.5.22.E2221B6939BE Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{E}(X,\theta ;\phi )$. The following are equivalent:
0DF993971FDE$\varphi \in \mathcal{E}^1(X,\theta ;\phi )$;
4FACCBDBBADB$E^{\phi }_{\theta }(\varphi )>-\infty $.
Proof. Fix $\varphi \in \mathcal{E}(X,\theta ;\phi )$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\varphi \leq 0$. In particular, $\varphi \leq P_{\theta }[\varphi ]\leq P_{\theta }[\phi ]=\phi $.
2 $\implies $ 1. Assume 2. Using the plurifine locality of the non-pluripolar product proposition 13.11.4 1, we have that $\mathds {1}_{\{ \varphi >\phi -C\} } \theta _{\varphi \lor (\phi -C)}^ n=\mathds {1}_{\{ \varphi >\phi -C\} } \theta _{\varphi }^ n$ converges strongly2 to $\theta _{\varphi }^ n$ as $C\to \infty $ by the dominated convergence theorem. Therefore, for a fixed $D>0$,
Here the last but one inequality follows from (16.5.11) and the fact that $\varphi \lor (\phi -C)\leq \phi $. Letting $D\to \infty $, we conclude 1.
1 $\implies $ 2. Assume 1. Thanks to 16.5.16, we know that for each $C>0$,
Due to proposition 16.5.20, we have
so 2 holds. $\square$
Comments
Corrections, questions, and mathematical discussion are welcome. Sign in with GitHub to comment. Comments are public.