This paper extends the concept of adelic R-Cartier divisors to l1-adelic R-Cartier divisors and proves the continuity of the associated arithmetic volume function in this broader setting.
Contribution
It introduces l1-adelic R-Cartier divisors and establishes the continuity of the volume function on this extended space.
Findings
01
Introduction of l1-adelic R-Cartier divisors
02
Proof of volume function continuity in the new setting
03
Extension of previous notions to broader classes
Abstract
In the previous paper [7], we introduced a notion of pairs of adelic R-Cartier divisors and R-base conditions. The purpose of this paper is to propose an extended notion of adelic R-Cartier divisors that we call an l1-adelic R-Cartier divisors, and to show that the arithmetic volume function defined on the space of pairs of l1-adelic R-Cartier divisors and R-base conditions is continuous along the directions of l1-adelic R-Cartier divisors.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Meromorphic and Entire Functions · Geometry and complex manifolds
Full text
Adelic Cartier divisors with base conditions and the continuity of volumes
Hideaki Ikoma
Department of Mathematics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan
In the previous paper [7], we introduced a notion of pairs of adelic R-Cartier divisors and R-base conditions.
The purpose of this paper is to propose an extended notion of adelic R-Cartier divisors that we call an ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors, and to show that the arithmetic volume function defined on the space of pairs of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors and R-base conditions is continuous along the directions of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors.
Key words and phrases:
Arakelov theory, adelic divisors, base conditions, arithmetic volumes
In Arakelov geometry, it is essentially important whether or not an adelic line bundle has a nonzero small section.
The asymptotic number of the small sections of high powers of an adelic line bundle L is encoded in an invariant which we call the arithmetic volume of L and denote by vol(L).
The notion of arithmetic volume was first introduced by Moriwaki in a series of papers [11, 12, 14], where he proved that the arithmetic volume has many good properties such as the global continuity, the positive homogeneity, the birational invariance, etc.
A purpose of this paper is to give a generalization of Moriwaki’s arithmetic volume function, and study its fundamental properties.
Let K be a number field, and let OK be the ring of integers of K.
Let MKfin be the set of all the finite places of K.
For each v∈MKfin, Kv denotes the v-adic completion of K, and Kv denotes the residue field at v.
Let X be a normal projective K-variety, and let Rat(X) be the field of rational functions on X.
For each v∈MKfin∪{∞}, let Xvan be the associated analytic space over v (see section 3.1.2 for detail).
Let D be an R-Cartier divisor on X endowed with a D-Green function g∞ on X∞an.
To an OK-model (X,D) of (X,D), we can associate an adelic R-Cartier divisor
[TABLE]
We then define the ℓ1-distance of two such models (X1,D1) and (X1,D2) as
[TABLE]
For example, let v1,v2,… be a sequence in MKfin, and let Fi be the fiber of X over vi.
The sequence of OK-models
[TABLE]
is then a Cauchy sequence in the ℓ1-distance.
However, it does not have a limit in the space of adelic R-Cartier divisors.
A basic principle of functional analysis tells us that function spaces should be complete, so we decide to extend the notion of adelic R-Cartier divisors so as the above sequence is to converge.
For each v∈MKfin∪{∞}, we put C(Xvan) as the Banach algebra of R-valued continuous functions on Xvan endowed with the supremum norm.
If v=∞, we impose the condition that the functions in C(X∞an) are invariant under the complex conjugation map.
We define the space Cℓ1(X) of continuous functions on X as the ℓ1-direct sum of the family (C(Xvan))v∈MKfin∪{∞} endowed with the ℓ1-norm ∥⋅∥ℓ1.
We say that a couple D=(D,∑v∈MKfin∪{∞}gv[v]) of an R-Cartier divisor D and an adelic D-Green function ∑v∈MKfin∪{∞}gv[v] is an ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisor if there exists an OK-model (X,D) of (X,D) such that D−(D,g∞)adℓ1<+∞, and denote by DivRℓ1(X) the R-vector space of all the ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors on X.
There are several advantages of such an extension.
For example, the quotient space ClRℓ1(X) of DivRℓ1(X) by the R-subspace generated by principal adelic Cartier divisors admits an essentially unique norm that makes ClRℓ1(X) into a Banach space (see section 3.3), which should be a proper arithmetic analogue of the space of numerical classes of R-Cartier divisors in algebraic geometry.
In particular, any surjective natural homomorphism ClRℓ1(X)→ClRℓ1(Y) is automatically an open mapping.
We expect that such a formalism will open a way for applying the powerful machinery of functional analysis, such as the duality theory, the semigroup theory, the spectral theory, etc., to the study of adelic R-Cartier divisors.
In the previous paper [7], we introduced a notion of R-base conditions, and defined the arithmetic volumes for pairs of adelic R-Cartier divisors and R-base conditions.
An R-base conditionV on X is defined as a formal R-linear combination
[TABLE]
such that ν are normalized discrete valuations of Rat(X) and such that ν(V) are zero for all but finitely many ν.
A discrete valuation ν assigns to D an order of vanishing along ν defined as ν(f), where f is a local equation defining D around the center cX(ν) of ν on X.
We denote by BCR(X) the R-vector space of all the R-base conditions on X.
Given a pair (D;V) of D∈DivRℓ1(X) and V∈BCR(X), we can define
[TABLE]
as a nonnegative real number (see Proposition 3.12), and can define the arithmetic volume of (D;V) as
[TABLE]
(see Proposition 3.13).
We will establish the following result (Theorem 3.21).
Main Theorem**.**
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety.
Let V be a finite-dimensional R-subspace of DivRℓ1(X), let ∥⋅∥V be a norm on V, let Σ be a finite set of points on X, and let B∈R>0.
Given any ε>0, there exists a δ>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every D,E∈V with max{DV,EV}⩽B and D−EV⩽δ, f∈Cℓ1(X) with ∥f∥ℓ1⩽δ, and V∈BCR(X) with {cX(ν):ν(V)>0}⊂Σ.
This paper comprises two parts.
First, in section 2, after showing preliminary results on base conditions (section 2.1) and the change of norms (section 2.2), we prove in section 2.3 the fundamental estimate of numbers of small sections of pairs, which is the key step to show Theorem 3.21.
Next, section 3 will be devoted to introducing the notion of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors and showing Theorem 3.21.
After recalling basic facts on the adelically normed vector spaces (section 3.1.1), the Berkovich analytic spaces (section 3.1.2), and the D-Green functions (section 3.1.3), we will introduce basic definitions on the ℓ1-adelic setting in sections 3.2 and 3.3.
We will define the arithmetic volumes of pairs of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors and R-base conditions in section 3.4 and give a proof of Theorem 3.21 in section 3.5.
1.1. Notation and terminology
1.1.1.
Let R be a ring and let M be an R-module.
Given a subset Γ of M, we denote by ⟨Γ⟩R the R-submodule of M spanned by Γ.
In this paper, we adopt the dot-product notation, that is, for a=(a1,…,ar)∈Rr and m=(m1,…,mr)∈Mr, we write
[TABLE]
Moreover, for a=(a1,…,ar)∈Rr, ∥a∥1 denotes the ℓ1-norm of a:
[TABLE]
1.1.2.
A normed Z-moduleM:=(M,∥⋅∥) is a finitely generated Z-module M endowed with a norm ∥⋅∥ on MR=M⊗ZR.
For such an M, we set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let ∗=s or ss.
The following properties are fundamental.
(a)
Let M be a normed Z-module and let
[TABLE]
be an exact sequence of Z-modules.
We endow MR′ (respectively, MR′′) with the subspace norm ∥⋅∥sub (respectively, quotient norm ∥⋅∥quot) induced from M.
One then has
[TABLE]
In fact, if ∗=s, then the inequality is nothing but [11, Proposition 2.1(4)] and, if ∗=ss, then it follows from the ∗=s case by replacing ∥⋅∥ with eε∥⋅∥ for ε>0 and taking ε↓0.
2. (b)
Let M be a finitely generated Z-module, and let ∥⋅∥1,∥⋅∥2 be two norms on MR.
If ∥⋅∥1⩽∥⋅∥2, then
[TABLE]
5. (e)
Let ⟨⋅,⋅⟩1 and ⟨⋅,⋅,⟩2 be two Hermitian inner products on MC=M⊗ZC, and let ∥⋅∥1 and ∥⋅∥2 be the associated norms on MR, respectively.
Let e1,…,el be any basis for MC.
If ∥⋅∥1⩽∥⋅∥2, then
[TABLE]
(see [11, Proposition 2.1(2)]).
The right-hand side does not depend on a specific choice of e1,…,el.
The ∗=ss case follows by the same arguments as in (a) above.
We will also use the elementary inequalities
[TABLE]
for every n∈Z>0.
1.1.3.
Let k be a field endowed with a non-Archimedean absolute value ∣⋅∣.
We write
[TABLE]
1.1.4.
Let K be a number field and let OK be the ring of integers of K.
Let MKfin be the set of all the finite places of K and set
[TABLE]
Set K∞:=C and set ∣α∣∞:=αα for α∈C.
For v∈MKfin, we denote by pv the prime ideal of OK corresponding to v, by Kv∘=projlimn∈Z>0OK/pvn the v-adic completion of OK, and by Kv the quotient field of Kv∘.
We put
[TABLE]
We will write a uniformizer of Kv by ϖv.
We define the order of an α∈Kv∘ as
[TABLE]
and extend it to a map from Kv by linearity.
The (normalized) v-adic absolute value on Kv is defined as
[TABLE]
for α∈Kv.
2. Fundamental estimate
2.1. Base conditions
2.1.1.
Let F be a field.
A normalized discrete valuationν on F is a surjective map from F to Z∪{+∞} such that
(a)
ν(f)=+∞ if and only if f=0,
2. (b)
ν(f⋅g)=ν(f)+ν(g) for f,g∈F, and
3. (c)
ν(f+g)⩾min{ν(f),ν(g)} for f,g∈F.
We set Fν∘:={f∈F:ν(f)⩾0} and Fν∘∘:={f∈F:ν(f)>0}.
Since (Fν∘)×={f∈F:ν(f)=0}, Fν∘∘ is a maximal ideal of Fν∘.
We denote by V(F) the set of all the normalized discrete valuations on F.
2.1.2.
Let S be a reduced, irreducible, and separated scheme and let F:=Rat(S) be the field of rational functions on S.
We assume the condition that,
(⋆)
for every ν∈V(F), there exists a unique point cS(ν)∈S such that
[TABLE]
We call cS(ν) the center of ν on S.
By the valuative criterion of properness, if S is proper over Spec(Z), then S satisfies the condition (⋆).
Remark 2.1*.*
If S is a proper variety over a field k, then we always assume that a valuation ν∈V(F) is trivial on k.
In particular, such a valuation always has a unique center cS(ν) on S, and the condition (⋆) is satisfied.
An R-base conditionV on S is defined as a finite formal sum
[TABLE]
with real coefficients ν(V).
We denote by BCR(S) the R-vector space of all the R-base conditions on S.
We write V⩾0 if ν(V)⩾0 for every ν∈V(Rat(S)).
2.1.3.
Let S be a reduced, irreducible, and projective scheme over a field or Z.
Let L be a line bundle on S, let ν∈V(Rat(S)), and let η be a local frame of L around cS(ν).
Given any s∈H0(L)∖{0}, one can write scS(ν)=fηcS(ν) with f∈OS,cS(ν)∖{0}.
If η′ is another local frame of L around cS(ν), then η′/η is invertible in OS,cS(ν).
So, if we write scS(ν)=f′ηcS(ν)′ with f′∈OS,cS(ν)∖{0}, then f/f′ is invertible in OS,cS(ν) and ν(f)=ν(f′).
We define
[TABLE]
which does not depend on a specific choice of η.
The following properties are obvious.
(a)
If s∈H0(L) does not pass through cS(ν), then f is invertible around cS(ν) and
[TABLE]
2. (b)
For s,t∈H0(L) and ν∈V(Rat(S)),
[TABLE]
3. (c)
For two line bundles L,M on S, s∈H0(L), t∈H0(M), and ν∈V(Rat(S)), one has
[TABLE]
For a pair (L;V) of a line bundle L and a V∈BCR(S), we set
[TABLE]
2.1.4.
Let k be a field or Z.
Let S be a reduced, irreducible, normal, and projective k-scheme, and let \mathbb{K}=\text{\mathbb{R},\mathbb{Q},or\mathbb{Z}}.
A K-Cartier divisor on S is an K-linear combination
[TABLE]
such that ai∈K and such that Di are Cartier divisors.
We denote by DivK(S) the K-module of all the K-Cartier divisors on S.
If K=Z, we simply write Div(S):=DivZ(S) as usual.
Each ν∈V(Rat(S)) can extend to a map ν:Rat(S)×⊗ZR→R by linearity.
Given a D∈DivR(S) and a ν∈V(Rat(S)), we take a local equation f defining D around cS(ν), and define
[TABLE]
which does not depend on a specific choice of f (see [7, Definition 2.2]).
Given a pair (D;V) of an R-Cartier divisor D and a V∈BCR(S), we set
[TABLE]
and define
[TABLE]
2.1.5.
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety over Spec(Z); namely, X is a reduced and irreducible scheme projective and flat over Spec(Z).
Let X(C) be the complex analytic space associated to XC:=X×Spec(Z)Spec(C).
A continuous Hermitian line bundle on X is a couple (L,∣⋅∣L) of a line bundle L on X and a continuous Hermitian metric ∣⋅∣L on L(C).
Definition 2.1**.**
Let (L;V) be a pair of a continuous Hermitian line bundle L on X and a V∈BCR(X).
The Z-module
[TABLE]
is endowed with the supremum norm∥⋅∥supL defined as
[TABLE]
for s∈H0(L).
We will abbreviate
[TABLE]
for ∗=s and ss (see Notation and terminology 1.1.2).
2.2. Comparison of norms
Let T be a finite disjoint union
[TABLE]
of compact complex Kähler manifolds Ti of pure dimension d.
Let ω be a Kähler form on T and let Ω=ω∧d be the volume form on T associated to ω.
Let M=(M,hM) be a line bundle M on T endowed with a C∞-Hermitian metric hM.
The supremum norm of s∈H0(M) is defined as
[TABLE]
The L2-inner product of s1,s2∈H0(M) with respect to Ω is defined as
[TABLE]
and the L2-norm of s is ∥s∥L2M:=⟨s,s⟩L2M.
In the rest of this subsection, we study the effects of the change of norms to the numbers of small sections.
2.2.1.
The first one (Proposition 2.3) gives us a direct (not optimal) relation between the supremum norms and the subspace norms induced by a fixed nonzero section.
Let M=(M1,…,Mr) be C∞-Hermitian line bundles on T and let U be an open subset of T.
Assume that U∩Ti are nonempty for all i.
There then exists a positive constant C1⩾1 depending only on M, U, and T such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and s∈H0(a⋅M).
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let M=(M1,…,Mr) and E be C∞-Hermitian line bundles on T.
Fix an s0∈H0(E)∖{0}.
The C-vector space H0(a⋅M) is endowed with the two norms ∥⋅∥supa⋅M and ∥⋅∥sup,sub(s0⊗b)a⋅M+bE, where ∥⋅∥sup,sub(s0⊗b)a⋅M+bE is the subspace norm induced from (H0(a⋅M+bE),∥⋅∥supa⋅M+bE) via H0(a⋅M)⊗s0⊗bH0(a⋅M+bE).
There then exists a constant C2⩾1 depending only on M, (E,s0), and T such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and b∈Z⩾0.
Proof.
We choose a nonempty open subset U of T such that
[TABLE]
and such that Ti∩U=∅ for all i.
By Lemma 2.2, there is a C1⩾1 such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and s∈H0(a⋅M).
Hence
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r, b∈Z⩾0, and s∈H0(a⋅M).
∎
2.2.2.
Let T and Ω be as above, and consider the L2-norms with respect to Ω.
Let M=(M,∣⋅∣M) be a C∞-Hermitian line bundle on T, let V be a linear series belonging to M, and let e1,…,el be an L2-orthonormal basis for V.
We define the Bergman distortion functionβ(V;M,Ω) as
[TABLE]
for x∈T.
It is easy to see that β(V;M,Ω) does not depend on a specific choice of e1,…,el.
If V=H0(M), then we abbreviate
[TABLE]
for simplicity.
The distortion function has the following elementary properties.
(a)
If W is a linear series containing V, then β(V;M,Ω)⩽β(W;M,Ω).
2. (b)
For a c∈R>0, β(V;M,cΩ)=c−1β(V;M,Ω).
\suspendenumerate
Let A and B=(B1,…,Br) be C∞-Hermitian line bundles on T such that A and B are all ample and such that the Hermitian metrics are all pointwise positive definite.
Suppose that the volume form is given as Ω:=c1(A)∧d.
There then exists a constant C3>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z>0 and b∈Z⩾0r.
2.2.3.
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety over Spec(Z), let M and A be continuous Hermitian line bundles on X, and fix an s0∈H0(A)∖{0}.
The Z-module H0(M;V) is endowed with the supremum norm ∥⋅∥supM and the L2-norm ∥⋅∥L2M.
Let ∥⋅∥sup,sub(s0)M+A (respectively, ∥⋅∥L2,sub(s0)M+A) be the subspace norm induced via H0(M;V)⊗s0H0(M+A); namely,
[TABLE]
for s∈H0(M;V).
For ∗=s and ss, we write
[TABLE]
for short.
The next one plays a key role in showing the main estimate in section 2.3.
Theorem 2.5**.**
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety of dimension d+1 over Spec(Z).
We assume that the generic fiber XQ is smooth over Spec(Q).
Let L=(L1,…,Lr) and A be C∞-Hermitian line bundles on X, and fix an s0∈Γs(A)∖{0}.
If the Hermitian metrics of L1+A,…,Lr+A, and A are all pointwise positive definite, then there exists a constant C4>0 depending only on L, (A,s0), and X such that
[TABLE]
for ∗=s,ss, a∈Z⩾0r with ∥a∥1>0, b∈Z⩾0, and V∈BCR(X).
Proof.
We set the volume form as
[TABLE]
and consider the L2-norms with respect to Ω.
By Proposition 2.4, there exists a constant D1>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r with ∥a∥1>0 and V∈BCR(X).
We fix an L2-orthonormal basis e1,…,el for H0(a⋅L;V) in which the Hermitian form,
[TABLE]
is diagonalized.
By [11, Corollary 1.1.2], we can change the supremum norms to the L2-norms up to error term O(∥a∥1dlog∥a∥1) (see [12, Proof of Lemma 1.3.3]).
Since
[TABLE]
we can apply the inequality (1.5) and find a constant D2>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0 with ∥a∥1>0, b∈Z⩾0, and V∈BCR(X).
Since ∫X(C)(∣ei∣a⋅L)2Ω=1 for each i and s0 does not vanish identically on each connected component of X(C), one can apply Jensen’s inequality [15, Theorem 3.3] to the right-hand side of (2.15) and obtain
[TABLE]
∎
2.3. Main estimate: the case of models
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety over Spec(Z) of dimension d+1.
Given a family L:=(L1,…,Lr) of continuous Hermitian line bundles on X and an a=(a1,…,ar)∈Zr, we write
[TABLE]
and ∥a∥1:=∣a1∣+⋯+∣ar∣ as in Notation and terminology 1.1.1.
The purpose of this section is to show the following estimate.
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety of dimension d+1 over Spec(Z).
Assume that the generic fiber XQ is smooth over Spec(Q).
Let L:=(L1,…,Lr) be a family of C∞-Hermitian line bundles on X and let Σ be a finite set of points on X.
Let A be any continuous Hermitian line bundle on X.
There then exists a constant C>0 depending only on X, L, A, and Σ such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Zr with ∥a∥1>0, b∈Z, and V∈BCR(X) with
[TABLE]
Proof.
We divide the proof into five steps.
Step 1. We may assume V⩾0.
By considering ±L1,…,±Lr, and ±A, one can observe that it suffices to show the theorem for a∈Z⩾0r with ∥a∥1>0 and b∈Z⩾0.
Moreover, if the theorem is true for an A, then it is also true for any A′ with A′⩽A in place of A.
Hence we can assume without loss of generality that A has the following four properties.
(a)
A is ample on X.
2. (b)
The Hermitian metric of A is C∞, and the Hermitian metrics of L1+A,…,Lr+A, and A are all pointwise positive definite.
3. (c)
For every n≫1, ⟨Γss(nA)⟩Z=H0(nA) (see Notation and terminology 1.1.1 and [8, Lemma 5.3]).
4. (d)
There is a nonzero small section s0∈Γs(A) such that div(s0)Q is smooth and such that s0 does not pass through any point in Σ.
Step 2. For each k∈Z>0, we set
[TABLE]
For a∈Zr and b∈Z, we consider the Z-module
[TABLE]
endowed with the quotient norm ∥⋅∥sup,quot(X∣kY)a⋅L+bA induced from
[TABLE]
By abuse of notation, we will abbreviate, for ∙=sub(—), quot(X∣—), etc.,
[TABLE]
for simplicity, which in practice will cause no confusion.
By Snapper’s theorem [9, page 295], one can find a constant C>0 depending only on L, A, X, and Y such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and b∈Z⩾0 with ∥a∥1+b>0.
In the rest of the proof, the constant C will be fittingly changed without explicit mentioning of it.
Claim 2.7**.**
There exists a constant C>0 depending only on L, A, and Y such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and b∈Z⩾0 with ∥a∥1+b>0 and V∈BCR(X).
Proof.
It suffices to show the estimate
[TABLE]
for a∈Z⩾0r and b∈Z⩾0 with ∥a∥1+b>0.
Let Yhoriz be the horizontal part of Y, that is, the Zariski closure of YQ in X.
Let I (respectively, Ihoriz) be the ideal sheaf defining Y (respectively, Yhoriz) in X.
By the properties (a) and (c) of Step 1, one finds an n∈Z>0 and nonzero small sections ti∈Γs(nA−Li) for i=1,…,r such that each ti does not pass through any associated point of OX/Ihoriz and Ihoriz/I.
First, one finds a constant C>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and b∈Z⩾0 with ∥a∥1+b>0 (see for example [3, Theorem 2.8]).
Next, Ihoriz/I is a torsion sheaf having support of dimension ⩽d.
So, by Snapper’s theorem, one has
Step 4. We are going to estimate the middle term ℓquot(X∣bY)∗(a⋅L+bA;V) in the right-hand side of (2.22).
For each k∈Z>0, we identify −kA with an ideal sheaf of OX via the morphism −kA⊗s0⊗kOX.
The inclusions −(k+1)A⊗s0−kA⊗s0⊗kOX induce an injective morphism
[TABLE]
Claim 2.9**.**
For each k∈Z>0, σk induces a homomorphism
[TABLE]
Proof.
This is obvious because σk induces a homomorphism
[TABLE]
and the diagram
[TABLE]
is commutative.
∎
A commutative diagram of OX-modules:
[TABLE]
yields a commutative diagram of Z-modules:
[TABLE]
Since the right vertical arrow is an identity and the lower horizontal sequence is exact (see Claim 2.8),
one sees that the upper horizontal sequence of the diagram is also exact.
Applying (1.1) to the upper horizontal sequence, one obtains
[TABLE]
for every a∈Z⩾0r and b,k∈Z>0 with ∥a∥1+b>0 and k⩽b (see (2.18)).
Step 5. By applying [11, Lemma 3.4(2)] to the right square of the commutative diagram
[TABLE]
and by using Proposition 2.3, one can get a constant D with 0<D⩽1 such that
[TABLE]
on HX∣Y0(a⋅L+(b−k)A;V), where ∥⋅∥sup,quot(X∣(k+1)Y),sub(σk)a⋅L+bA is the subspace norm induced from
[TABLE]
via σk, and ∥⋅∥sup,sub(s0⊗k),quot(X∣Y)a⋅L+bA is the quotient norm induced from
[TABLE]
Hence, by (1.2), (1.4), (2.18), and Claim 2.7, one gets a constant C>0 such that
3. Arithmetic volumes of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors
3.1. Preliminaries
In this section, we recall definitions and basic properties of adelically normed vector spaces (section 3.1.1), Berkovich analytic spaces (section 3.1.2), and adelic Green functions (section 3.1.3).
3.1.1.
Let K be a number field.
Let V:=(V,(∥⋅∥vV)v∈MK) be a couple of a finite-dimensional K-vector space V and a collection (∥⋅∥vV)v∈MK such that each ∥⋅∥vV is a (Kv,∣⋅∣v)-norm on VKv=V⊗KKv and such that, if v∈MKfin, then ∥⋅∥vV is non-Archimedean.
For such a V, we set
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and ℓ∗(V):=log♯Γ∗(V) for ∗=s and ss.
Note that Γf(V) is a OK-submodule of V and ℓ∗(V) may be infinite.
Let V=(V,(∥⋅∥vV)v∈MK) be a couple of a finite-dimensional K-vector space V and a collection (∥⋅∥vV)v∈MK such that each ∥⋅∥vV is a (Kv,∣⋅∣v)-norm on VKv and such that, if v∈MKfin, then ∥⋅∥vV is non-Archimedean.
(a)
The following are equivalent.
(i)
For each s∈V, ∥s∥vV⩽1 for all but finitely many v∈MK.
2. (ii)
Γf(V)* contains an OK-submodule E of V satisfying EK=V.*
2. (b)
Suppose that V satisfies the equivalent conditions of (1).
The following are then equivalent.
(i)
Γf(V)* is a finitely generated OK-module.*
2. (ii)
Γs(V)* is finite.*
3. (iii)
Γss(V)* is finite.*
4. (iv)
emax(V)<+∞.
Proof.
(1) (a) ⇒ (b): For each s∈V, one can find an n⩾1 such that ∥ns∥vV=∣n∣v∥s∥vV⩽1 for every v∈MK by the condition (a).
Thus ns∈Γf(V), which implies V=Γf(V)K.
(b) ⇒ (a): For each s∈V, there exists an α∈OK such that αs∈E.
Hence ∥αs∥vV=∥s∥vV⩽1 for all but finitely many v∈MK.
For the assertion (2), we refer to [3, Proposition 2.4] and [2, Proposition C.2.4].
∎
Definition 3.1**.**
An adelically normed K-vector space is a couple (V,(∥⋅∥vV)v∈MK) satisfying the all conditions in Proposition 3.1(1),(2).
Notice that here the existence of an OK-model of V that defines ∥⋅∥vV except for finitely many v is not assumed while it is in the classical definition in [17, (1.6)] and in [4, Definition 3.1].
Let λ∈R and let v∈MK.
We define an adelically normed K-vector space V(λ[v])=(V,(∥⋅∥wV(λ[v]))w∈MK) as
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let λ∈R⩾0 and let v∈MKfin.
If we set pZ:=pv∩Z, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set
[TABLE]
We are going to show
[TABLE]
Suppose that s∈Γf(V(λ[v])).
Then
[TABLE]
Since λ+nλlog∣p∣v⩽0, we have pnλs∈Γf(V).
We apply (1.3) to the inclusion Γf(V)⊂Γf(V(λ[v])), and obtain
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety.
For v=∞, we denote by X∞an the complex analytic space associated to XC:=X×Spec(Q)Spec(C).
For v∈MKfin, we denote by (Xvan,ρv:Xvan→XKv) the Berkovich analytic space associated to XKv (see [1]).
For each x∈Xvan, we denote by κ(x) the residue field of ρv(x)∈XKv and by ∣⋅∣x the corresponding norm on κ(x).
Given a local function f on XKv defined around ρv(x), we write
[TABLE]
An OK-model of X is a reduced, irreducible, projective, and flat OK-scheme with generic fiber XK≃X.
Given an OK-model X of X, we set
[TABLE]
For each x∈Xvan, the morphism ρv(x):Spec(κ(x))→XKv∘ uniquely extends to a morphism Spec(κ(x)∘)→XKv∘ by the valuative criterion of properness.
We define rvX(x) as the image of the closed point of Spec(κ(x)∘).
Let U=Spec(A) be an affine open subscheme of XKv∘ with U∩Xv=∅, and set U=UKv=Spec(A).
We put
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.3**.**
(a)
Uv,Uan=(rvX)−1(U∩Xv).
2. (b)
Uv,Uan* is compact.*
Proof.
(1): If x∈Uv,Uan, then the image of the homomorphism A→κ(x) is in κ(x)∘, so rvX(x)∈U.
Conversely, if rvX(x)∈U∩Xv, then ρv(x)∈U and x∈ρv−1(U)=Uvan.
Since rvX(x)∈U, the image of the morphism Spec(κ(x)∘)→XKv∘ is in U, so f(ρv(x))∈κ(x)∘ for every f∈A.
(2): The map
[TABLE]
is injective and continuous, where I is endowed with the product topology.
By Tychonoff’s theorem, J:=∏f∈A[0,1] is a compact subset of I, and Uv,Uan=u−1(J).
Thus it suffices to show that u is a closed map.
Suppose that (u(xα))α is a net in I that converges to (λf)f∈A∈I.
For each f∈A, we set ∣f∣x:=λf.
Claim 3.4**.**
∣⋅∣x* extends to a multiplicative seminorm on A whose restriction to Kv is ∣⋅∣v.*
Since, for every α, ∣⋅∣xα satisfies the conditions:
•
∣a∣(xα)=∣a∣v for a∈Kv,
•
∣f−g∣(xα)⩽∣f∣(xα)+∣g∣(xα) for f,g∈A, and
•
∣fg∣(xα)=∣f∣(xα)∣g∣(xα) for f,g∈A,
we know that the limit ∣⋅∣x is a multiplicative seminorm on A.
For a general f∈A, we can take an n⩾0 such that ϖvnf∈A, and define
[TABLE]
which does not depend on a specific choice of n⩾0.
Then ∣⋅∣x is a multiplicative seminorm on A.
∎
By Claim 3.4, ∣⋅∣x corresponds to a point x∈Uvan.
Since ∣f∣xα→∣f∣x for every f∈A, the net (xα)α converges to x in the Gel´fand topology, and (λf)f∈A=u(x).
It implies that u is a closed map.
∎
Let Xv,gen be the set of all the generic points of irreducible components of Xv.
For each ξ∈Xv,gen, (rvX)−1(ξ) consists of a single point xξ given as
[TABLE]
for ϕ∈Rat(X).
We set Γ(Xvan):={xξ:ξ∈Xv,gen} (see also [1, Proposition 2.4.4 and Corollary 2.4.5]).
Lemma 3.5**.**
Suppose that A is integrally closed in A.
Then, for each f∈A,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since U∩Xv=∅, we have Γ(Xvan)∩Uv,Uan=∅.
The inequality ⩾ is obvious, so that we are going to show the reverse.
Choose a ξ0∈Xv,gen such that
[TABLE]
If we set n:=ordξ0(ϖv) and l:=ordξ0(f), then ordξ(ϖv−lfn)⩾0 for every ξ∈Xv,gen.
By [8, Lemma 2.3(3)], it implies ϖv−lfn∈A.
Hence
[TABLE]
for every x∈Uv,Uan.
∎
3.1.3.
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety, let \mathbb{K}=\text{\mathbb{R},\mathbb{Q},or\mathbb{Z}}, and let D be a K-Cartier divisor on X.
The support of D is a Zariski closed subset defined as
[TABLE]
(see [7, Notation and terminology 2]).
Let v∈MK.
A D-Green function on Xvan is a continuous map gv:(X∖Supp(D))van→R such that, for each x∈Xvan,
[TABLE]
extends to a continuous function around x, where f∈Rat(X)×⊗ZK is a local equation defining D around ρv(x) (see [14, Definition 2.1.1]).
If v=∞, we assume that a D-Green function is invariant under the complex conjugation map.
We then set
[TABLE]
An element D∈DivRtot(X) is called effective if
[TABLE]
and, for D,E∈DivRtot(X), we write D⩽E if E−D is effective.
Each gvD defines the supremum norm on H0(D) as
In the following, we impose on ν∈V(Rat(X)) a condition that the restriction of ν to K is trivial (see section 2.1).
Given a D∈DivRtot(X) and a V∈BCR(X), we set
[TABLE]
for ∗=f, s, and ss, and set ℓ∗(D;V):=log♯Γ∗(D;V) for ∗=s and ss (see section 3.1.1 and (2.10)).
An OK-model of a couple (X,D) is a couple (X,D) such that X is a normal OK-model of X and such that D is an R-Cartier divisor on X satisfying D∣X=D.
Given an OK-model (X,D) of (X,D) and a v∈MKfin, we define the D-Green function associated to (X,D) as
[TABLE]
where f′ is a local equation defining D around rvX(x).
Let \mathbb{K}:=\text{\mathbb{R},\mathbb{Q},or\mathbb{Z}}.
A couple D=(D,g∞D) on X such that (X,D) is an OK-model of (X,D) with D∈DivK(X) and such that g∞D is a D-Green function on X∞an is called an arithmetic K-Cartier divisor on X.
If X is smooth and g∞D is of C∞-type, then D is said to be of C∞-type (see [13, section 2.3]).
We denote by DivK(X) (respectively, DivK(X;C∞)) the K-module of all the arithmetic K-Cartier divisors (respectively, arithmetic K-Cartier divisors of C∞-type) on X.
If K=Z and — = a blank or C∞, we will abbreviate Div(X;—):=DivZ(X;—) as usual.
Given a couple (D;V) of a D∈DivR(X) and a V∈BCR(X), we abbreviate
[TABLE]
for ∗=s and ss (see Notation and terminology 1.1.2 and (2.10)), and define
[TABLE]
Moreover, the adelization of D∈DivR(X) is defined as
[TABLE]
which belongs to DivRtot(X).
3.2. The space of continuous functions
Let K be a number field, and let X be a projective and geometrically connected K-variety.
For each v∈MK, we denote by C(Xvan) the space of R-valued continuous functions on Xvan that are assumed to be invariant under the complex conjugation if v=∞.
We endow C(Xvan) with the supremum norm:
[TABLE]
for f∈C(Xvan), where ∣f(x)∣∞ denotes the usual absolute value of the real number f(x) (see Notation and terminology 1.1.4).
By elementary arguments, (C(Xvan),∥⋅∥sup) is a Banach algebra for every v∈MK.
We denote by
[TABLE]
the algebraic direct product of the family (C(Xvan))v∈MK, and by
[TABLE]
the algebraic direct sum of (C(Xvan))v∈MK.
The ℓ1-norm of an f∈Ctot(X) is
[TABLE]
where the sum is taken with respect to the net indexed by all the finite subsets of MK, and the ℓ1-direct sum of (C(Xvan))v∈MK is given as
[TABLE]
endowed with the ℓ1-norm.
For f,g∈Ctot(X), we write f⩽g if fv⩽gv for every v∈MK.
If f,g∈Cℓ1(X), then the entrywise product fg satisfies
[TABLE]
so fg∈Cℓ1(X).
By the same arguments as in [15, page 67, Theorem 3.11], one verifies that (Cℓ1(X),∥⋅∥ℓ1) is a Banach algebra.
Note that Ctot(Spec(K)) is just RMK and Cℓ1(Spec(K))=ℓ1(MK) is just the ℓ1-sequence space indexed by MK.
We will identify Ctot(Spec(K)) with the space of constant functions in Ctot(X).
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let f∈Cℓ1(X).
Given any ε>0, there exists a h∈C(X) such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since ∑v∈MK∥fv∥sup<+∞, there is a finite subset S⊂MK such that
[TABLE]
Hence h:=∑v∈Sfv[v] satisfies the required conditions.
∎
3.3. ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety.
The natural homomorphisms
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
form an exact sequence
[TABLE]
Let K and K′ be either R, Q, or Z.
Given a D∈DivKtot(X), we set
[TABLE]
We call D∈DivKtot(X) an adelic K-Cartier divisor if there exists an (X,D)∈ModR(D) such that D−Dad∈C(X).
Denote by DivK(X) the K-module of all the adelic K-Cartier divisors on X.
As before, we will write Div(X):=DivZ(X).
For a D∈DivR(X), there are a nonempty open subset U of Spec(OK) and an (X,D)∈ModR(D) such that gvD=gv(X,D) for every v∈U.
In this case, we call the couple (XU,DU) a U-model of definition for D (see [14, Definition 4.1.1] and [7, Notation and terminology 4]).
Given a D∈DivR(X) and a V∈BCR(X), we define
with ai∈R and prime Weil divisors Zi.
Let Zi be the Zariski closure of Zi in X′′.
Since
[TABLE]
are both vertical, one can find a nonempty open subset U⊂Spec(OK) such that (μ∗D)U=(μ′∗D′)U.
Hence we have (3.28).
(1) ⇒ (4): Set (0,f):=D−Dad.
By Lemma 3.6, there exists an fε∈C(X) such that fε⩽f and such that ∥f−fε∥ℓ1⩽ε.
Set
[TABLE]
Then Dε∈DivK(X), Dε⩽D, and D−Dεℓ1=∥f−fε∥ℓ1⩽ε.
∎
Definition 3.2**.**
Let \mathbb{K}=\text{\mathbb{R},\mathbb{Q},or\mathbb{Z}}.
We call an element D∈DivKtot(X) an ℓ1-adelic K-Cartier divisor on X if there exists an (X,D)∈ModR(D) such that D−Dadℓ1<+∞.
We denote by DivKℓ1(X) the K-module of all the ℓ1-adelic K-Cartier divisors on X.
If K=Z, then the subscript Z will be omitted as usual.
Moreover, we set
[TABLE]
Let PicX/K be the Picard scheme of X and let PicX/K0 be the neutral component of PicX/K.
Let Pic(X)=PicX/K(K) be the Picard group of X, and let
[TABLE]
be the Néron–Severi group of X.
By Severi’s theorem of the base, NS(X) is a finitely generated Z-module, and, since PicX/K0 is an abelian variety over K (see for example [10, Theorem 5.4]), PicX/K0(K) is also a finitely generated Z-module by the Mordell-Weil theorem.
Since
[TABLE]
we obtain an exact sequence
[TABLE]
Hence Pic(X) is also a finitely generated Z-module.
Let PR(X) (respectively, PR(X)) be the R-subspace of DivRℓ1(X) (respectively, DivR(X)) generated by the principal divisors (ϕ) (respectively, (ϕ)) for ϕ∈Rat(X)×.
Let PicR(X):=Pic(X)⊗ZR be the R-vector space of R-line bundles on X.
By [6, Proposition II.6.15], the sequence
[TABLE]
is exact.
So, if we set
[TABLE]
then ClR(X)=PicR(X) is a finite-dimensional R-vector space.
Definition 3.3**.**
We define
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.8**.**
The sequence
[TABLE]
is exact.
Proof.
Obviously, the sequence
[TABLE]
is exact.
If ζ(D)∈PR(X), then D=(ϕ) for a ϕ∈Rat(X)×⊗ZR or D=0.
Hence ζ−1(PR(X))=PR(X)⊕Cℓ1(X), which infers the required result.
∎
We fix a section ι:ClR(X)→ClRℓ1(X) of ζ and a norm ∥⋅∥ on the finite-dimensional R-vector space ClR(X).
We can then define a norm on ClRℓ1(X) as
[TABLE]
for D∈ClRℓ1(X), where we regard D−ι(D)∈Cℓ1(X).
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let ι:ClR(X)→ClRℓ1(X) be a section of ζ and let ∥⋅∥ be a norm on ClR(X).
(a)
(ClRℓ1(X),∥⋅∥ι,∥⋅∥)* is a Banach space.*
2. (b)
Let ι′:ClR(X)→ClRℓ1(X) be another section and let ∥⋅∥′ be another norm.
Then ∥⋅∥ι′,∥⋅∥′ is equivalent to ∥⋅∥ι,∥⋅∥.
Proof.
(1): If (Dn)n⩾1 is a Cauchy sequence in ClRℓ1(X), then (ζ(Dn))n⩾1 is a Cauchy sequence in ClR(X), and converges to an E∈ClR(X).
Set (0,fn):=Dn−ι(ζ(Dn)).
The sequence (fn)n⩾1 is then a Cauchy sequence in Cℓ1(X), and converges to a g∈Cℓ1(X).
The sequence (Dn)n⩾1 then converges to ι(E)+(0,g).
(2): It suffices to show ∥⋅∥ι′,∥⋅∥′⩽C∥⋅∥ι,∥⋅∥ for a C>0.
We choose a basis A1,…,Al for ClR(X) and set
[TABLE]
We can find a constant C1⩾1 such that ∥⋅∥′⩽C1∥⋅∥ and such that ∥⋅∥1⩽C1∥⋅∥.
We set (0,fi):=ι(Ai)−ι′(Ai) for each i, and set
[TABLE]
Then, for any D∈ClRℓ1(X) with D=a1A1+⋯+alAl,
[TABLE]
∎
3.4. Arithmetic volume function
The following is a key idea to introduce the notion of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors.
Lemma 3.10**.**
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected arithmetic variety over Spec(OK), and let D∈DivR(X).
Suppose that every irreducible component of D is Cartier.
Let U=U(X,D) be a nonempty open subset of Spec(OK) having the following properties.
(a)
πU:XU→U* is geometrically reduced and geometrically irreducible.*
2. (b)
For every v∈U, ordπU−1(v)(D)=0.
Then, for every v∈U and ϕ∈H0(D)∖{0}, one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
By assumption, every irreducible component of D∣XKv∘ is Cartier, so we can write
[TABLE]
with ai∈R and prime Cartier divisors Di.
We choose a finite affine open covering (Uλ)λ of XKv∘ such that Uλ∩Xv=∅ and Di∩Uλ is principal with equation fi,λ for each λ.
We set Uλ=Spec(Aλ) with finitely generated and integrally closed Kv∘-algebra Aλ, and set Uλ:=Spec(Aλ⊗Kv∘K).
We then have
attains its maximum at the single point in Γ(Xvan)∩(Uλ)v,Uλan that corresponds to the fiber Xv.
Let ϖv be a uniformizer of Kv.
Since
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
for every λ.
We have thus proved the lemma.
∎
Proposition 3.11**.**
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety and let μ:X→X be a resolution of singularities of X.
Let D∈DivR(X), and let a=∑v∈MKav[v]∈Ctot(Spec(K)) with a⩾0.
(I)
Let U be a nonempty open subset of Spec(OK) over which a model of definition for D exists.
\suspendenumerate
We choose an OK-model (X,D) of (X,μ∗D) such that (XU,DU) gives a U-model of definition for μ∗D and such that every irreducible component of D is Cartier.
\resumeenumerate
2. (II)
Let U(X,D) be a nonempty open subset of U such that π:XU(X,D)→U(X,D) is smooth and such that ordπ−1(v)(D)=0 for every v∈U(X,D).
3. (III)
Ua:={v∈MKfin:av<2log♯Kv}.
We set
[TABLE]
Then the following holds.
(a)
If a b∈Ctot(Spec(K)) satisfies b⩾a, then Ub⊂Ua.
2. (b)
For any V∈BCR(X), one has
[TABLE]
3. (c)
If ♯(MKfin∖Ua) is finite (in particular, if a is a bounded sequence), then ℓ∗(D+(0,a);V) is finite for every V∈BCR(X) and ∗=s, ss.
Proof.
The assertion (1) is obvious.
(2): Since a⩾0, the inclusion ⊃ is obvious.
Suppose v∈U(X,D)∩Ua; hence, in particular,
[TABLE]
If ϕ∈H0(μ∗D;V)∖{0}=H0(D;V)∖{0} satisfies
[TABLE]
for every x∈Xvan, then
[TABLE]
for every x′∈Xvan.
By Lemma 3.10 and (3.35), we have
[TABLE]
Hence ϕ∈Γf(D+(0,a);V) implies ϕ∈Γf(D+(0,a′);V).
If MK∖Ua is finite, then so is MK∖(U(X,D)∩Ua).
Hence, the assertion (2) implies the assertion (3) (see [14, Proposition 4.3.1(3)]).
∎
Proposition 3.12**.**
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety and let ∗=s or ss.
(a)
To each D∈DivR(X), one can assign a constant δ(D)>0, which depends only on D and X, such that
[TABLE]
for every f∈Cℓ1(X) and V∈BCR(X).
Moreover, one can assume that
[TABLE]
holds for every t∈R∖{0}.
2. (b)
For any (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X), Γ∗(D;V) is a finite set.
3. (c)
For any (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X), (H0(D;V),(∥⋅∥v,supD)v∈MK) is an adelically normed K-vector space.
Proof.
(1): Set
[TABLE]
For each v∈MKfin, we denote by pv the prime number satisfying pvZ=pv∩Z.
Let μ:X→X be a resolution of singularities of X and let U be a nonempty open subset of Spec(OK) over which a model of definition for D exists.
Let (X,D) be an OK-model of (X,μ∗D) such that (XU,DU) gives a U-model of definition for μ∗D and such that every irreducible component of D is Cartier.
We choose the two nonempty open subsets U(X,D) and Ua as in Proposition 3.11; namely,
•
U(X,D) is chosen to satisfy that U(X,D)⊂U, that π:XU(X,D)→U(X,D) is smooth, and that ordπ−1(v)(D)=0 for every v∈U(X,D), and
•
Ua:={v∈MKfin:av<2log♯Kv}.
We divide MKfin into three disjoint subsets: S1:=U(X,D)∩Ua,
[TABLE]
and S3:=MKfin∖(S1∪S2).
Note that only S1 is an infinite subset and S3 is contained in a finite subset
[TABLE]
which is determined only by U(X,D).
Put
[TABLE]
By Proposition 3.11(2), Lemma 3.2, and (1.2), we have
[TABLE]
We can estimate the sum with respect to S2 as
[TABLE]
and the sum with respect to S3 as
[TABLE]
Hence, if we set p∞:=1 and
[TABLE]
then we obtain
[TABLE]
by (3.39), (3.40), and (3.41).
Since the constant δ(D) depends only on U(X,D), we have δ(tD)=δ(D) for every t∈R∖{0}.
The assertion (2) is obvious from the assertion (1).
The assertion (3) follows from the assertion (2) and the fact that Γf(D;V) contains H0(D;V) for any (X,D)∈Mod(D).
∎
Proposition 3.13**.**
Let ∗=s or ss.
For any (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X),
[TABLE]
is finite.
Proof.
Take a D0∈DivR(X) such that ζ(D0)=ζ(D) and D0⩽D.
By Proposition 3.12(1), we have
for every D0∈DivR(X) with ζ(D0)=ζ(D) and D0⩽D.
Moreover, we can easily observe
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.14**.**
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety, let D=(D,∑v∈MKgvD[v])∈DivRℓ1(X), and let x∈X(K).
The infinite sum
[TABLE]
then converges, where the limit is taken with respect to the net indexed by all the finite subsets of MKfin, xw∈Xvan is a point corresponding to (κ(x),∣⋅∣w), and xσ∈X∞an is a point defined as Spec(C)σSpec(κ(x))xX.
Proof.
Let (X,D)∈Mod(D) and let (0,f):=D−Dad.
We write
[TABLE]
with ai∈R and effective Cartier divisors Di.
Then
[TABLE]
(see [14, section 2.3]).
Let ε>0.
Since f∈Cℓ1(X), one can find a finite subset S0⊂MKfin such that
[TABLE]
for every finite subsets S1,S2 of MKfin such that S1⊃S0 and S2⊃S0.
So, by completeness of R, Δ converges.
∎
Definition 3.5**.**
An ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisor D on X determines a height function hD:X(K)→R by
[TABLE]
which is well-defined by Proposition 3.14 above, and belongs, up to O(1), to the Weil height function corresponding to D.
Moreover, from the proof of Proposition 3.14, one deduces
[TABLE]
for every D,D′∈DivRℓ1(X) with ζ(D)=ζ(D′).
We abbreviate
[TABLE]
(see (3.3)), and define the essential minimum of D as
[TABLE]
where the supremum is taken over all the closed proper subvarieties of X.
Lemma 3.15**.**
For any D∈DivRℓ1(X), we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that emax(D)=min{λ∈R:Γs(D+(0,2λ[∞]))={0}} and
[TABLE]
by Fekete’s lemma.
Let λ∈R⩾0, let ϕ∈Γs(mD+(0,2λ[∞]))∖{0}, and let Z:=Supp(mD+(ϕ)).
For every x∈(X∖Z)(K), we have
[TABLE]
Hence we have the first inequality.
To show the second inequality, we write
[TABLE]
such that ai∈R, Di∈Div(X), f∈Cℓ1(X), and Di are all effective (see [13, Proposition 2.4.2(1)]).
We set
[TABLE]
By [3, Proposition 2.6], {x∈(X∖Σ)(K):hD′(x)⩽C} is Zariski dense in X for a constant C.
If x∈(X∖Σ)(K), then hD(x)⩽hD′(x)+∥f∥ℓ1.
Hence
[TABLE]
and the left-hand side is also Zariski dense in X.
It implies that the essential minimum is bounded from above by C+∥f∥ℓ1.
∎
Lemma 3.16**.**
For any (D;V)∈DivR,R(X), one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Gillet–Soulé’s formula [5, Proposition 6], we have
[TABLE]
for every m∈Z>0.
Therefore,
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 3.17**.**
Let (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X).
Let (Dn)n⩾1 be an increasing sequence in DivRℓ1(X) such that ζ(Dn)=D and such that D−Dnℓ1→0 as n→+∞.
One then has
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since (Dn)n⩾1 is an increasing sequence, we can assume Dn∈DivR(X) for every n⩾1 by Proposition 3.7.
Hence, by (3.44),
[TABLE]
as n→+∞.
∎
Proposition 3.18**.**
Let (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X).
For any f∈Cℓ1(X), we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let (Dn)n⩾1 be an increasing sequence in DivR(X) such that ζ(Dn)=D and such that D−Dnℓ1→0 as n→+∞, and let (fn)n⩾1 be an increasing sequence in C(X) such that ∥f−fn∥ℓ1→0 as n→+∞.
By the same arguments as in [14, Proposition 5.1.3], Lemma 3.2 implies
[TABLE]
By taking n→+∞, we have the required assertion by Lemma 3.17.
∎
3.5. Continuity of the arithmetic volume function
The purpose of this section is to establish the global continuity of the arithmetic volume function over DivR,Rℓ1(X) along the directions of ℓ1-adelic R-Cartier divisors (see Theorem 3.21).
To begin with, we show the homogeneity of the arithmetic volume function in the following form.
Lemma 3.19**.**
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety of dimension d+1 having smooth generic fiber XQ.
Let D∈DivQ(X;C∞) and let V∈BCR(X) with V⩾0.
For any p∈Z>0, one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
First, we note the following.
Claim 3.20**.**
It suffices to show that, to each D∈DivQ(X;C∞), one can assign a qD∈Z>0 such that the equality is true for all multiples of qD.
By Claim 3.20, it suffices to show the equality for every p∈Z>0 with
[TABLE]
We fix an E∈Div(X) such that E⩾0 and E±D′⩾0.
By Theorem 2.6, there is a constant C>0 such that
[TABLE]
for m∈Z>0 and n∈Z⩾0.
Hence, for each r=1,2,…,p−1, we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
∎
Theorem 3.21**.**
Let X be a normal, projective, and geometrically connected K-variety.
Let V be a finite-dimensional R-subspace of DivRℓ1(X) endowed with a norm ∥⋅∥V, let Σ be a finite set of points on X, and let B∈R>0.
For any ε∈R>0, there exists a δ∈R>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every D,E∈V with max{DV,EV}⩽B and D−EV⩽δ, f∈Cℓ1(X) with ∥f∥ℓ1⩽δ, and V∈BCR(X) with {cX(ν):ν(V)>0}⊂Σ.
We need the following.
Proposition 3.22**.**
Let X be a projective arithmetic variety of dimension d+1 such that XQ is smooth.
Let V=(V,∥⋅∥V) be a couple of a finite-dimensional R-subspace V of DivR(X;C∞) and a norm ∥⋅∥V on V, and let Σ be a finite set of points on X.
There then exists a positive constant CV,Σ>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every D,D′∈V and V∈BCR(X) with {cX(ν):ν(V)>0}⊂Σ.
Proof.
By extending (V,∥⋅∥V) if necessary, we may assume that V has a basis A1,…,Ar∈Div(X;C∞) such that A1,…,Ar are all effective.
We set
[TABLE]
for a1,…,ar∈R, and set
[TABLE]
If a′=0, then we can see vol(D;V)⩽C∥a∥1d+1 for
[TABLE]
by using Lemma 3.19, so that we can assume that both a and a′ are nonzero.
First, we assume a,a′∈Zr and b:=a′−a⩾0.
By Theorem 2.6, we get a constant C′⩾C depending only on A, Σ, and X such that
[TABLE]
for every m∈Z>0.
Hence
[TABLE]
For general a,a′∈Zr, we set a′′:=max{a,a′} and D′′:=a′′⋅A.
By (3.49)
[TABLE]
Therefore, by using Lemma 3.19, we can verify that the estimate is also true for every a,a′∈Qr.
Next, we show the estimate for every a,a′∈Rr.
Claim 3.23**.**
Let (p(n))n⩾1 be a sequence in Qr that converges to a∈Rr.
Then
We may assume that X is smooth.
In fact, let μ:X→X be a resolution of singularities of X, and regard V as an R-subspace of DivRℓ1(X) via DivRℓ1(X)→DivRℓ1(X).
Since X is normal, we have vol(μ∗D;V)=vol(D;V) for every D∈V and V∈BCR(X).
Let A1,…,Ar∈DivRℓ1(X) be a basis for V, put
[TABLE]
for a1,…,ar∈R, and suppose that ∥⋅∥V is given as ∥⋅∥1.
We can easily find a constant B′∈R>0 such that vol(D)⩽B′ for every D∈V with ∥D∥1⩽B.
We put
[TABLE]
and fix, for each i, (X,Ai)∈ModR(Ai) such that Ai∈DivR(X;C∞) and such that Ai−Aiadℓ1⩽δ′ by using the Stone–Weierstrass theorem and Proposition 3.7.
Proposition 3.18 implies that
[TABLE]
holds for every a∈Rr with ∥a∥1⩽B, f∈Cℓ1(X) with ∥f∥ℓ1⩽δ′, and V∈BCR(X).
Thanks to Proposition 3.22, there is a constant CA,Σ>0 such that
[TABLE]
for every a,a′∈Rr and V∈BCR(X) with {cX(ν):ν(V)>0}⊂Σ, so, if we set
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
for every a,a′∈Rr with max{∥a∥1,∥a′∥1}⩽B and ∥a−a′∥1⩽δ.
All in all, we have
For a (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X), the following are equivalent.
(a)
vol(D;V)>0.
2. (b)
For any A∈DivRℓ1(X) with vol(A)>0, there exists a t∈R>0 such that (D−tA;V)⩾0.
Corollary 3.25**.**
For any (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X) and p∈R>0, one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
We may assume that X is smooth.
Let V be a finite-dimensional R-subspace of DivR,Rℓ1(X) such that V has a basis A1,…,Ar∈DivQℓ1(X) and such that D=a⋅A∈V for an a∈Rr.
Let (b(n))n⩾1 be a sequence in Qr that converges to a.
By the Stone–Weierstrass theorem and Proposition 3.7, one finds, for each i, a sequence ((Xn,Ain))n⩾1 in ModQ(Ai) such that Ain∈DivQ(Xn;C∞), such that Ai1ad⩽Ai2ad⩽…, and such that Ai−Ainadℓ1→0 as n→+∞.
By Lemma 3.19,
[TABLE]
for p∈Q>0 and n⩾1.
Taking n→+∞ (Theorem 3.21), we obtain the equality for every p∈Q>0.
To show the corollary, we note that the inequality ⩽ is obvious.
We choose an decreasing sequence (qn)n⩾1 in Q>0 that converges to p.
Then
[TABLE]
for n⩾1.
By taking n→+∞, we conclude the proof by Theorem 3.21.
∎
Corollary 3.26**.**
For any (D;V)∈DivR,Rℓ1(X) and ϕ∈Rat(X)×⊗ZR, one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
We write ϕ=ϕ1a1⋯ϕrar with ai∈R and ϕi∈Rat(X).
Let V be the R-subspace of DivRℓ1(X) generated by ϕ1,…,ϕr.
For each i, we choose a sequence (bi(n))n⩾1 in Q such that bi(n)→ai as n→+∞.
By homogeneity (Corollary 3.25), we have
[TABLE]
for every n⩾1.
Taking n→+∞, we obtain the required assertion by Theorem 3.21.
∎
Corollary 3.27**.**
For each V∈BCR(X), the arithmetic volume function induces a continuous function ClRℓ1(X)→R⩾0, D↦vol(D;V).
Proof.
By using Corollary 3.26, we can obtain the required map.
To show the continuity, let q:DivRℓ1(X)→ClRℓ1(X) be the natural projection and fix a section ι′:ClR(X)→DivRℓ1(X) of ζ.
Let V be the image of ι′ and let ∥⋅∥ be a norm on ClR(X).
Set
[TABLE]
for D∈V⊕Cℓ1(X), and set ι:=q∘ι′.
We then have Dι′,∥⋅∥=q(D)ι,∥⋅∥ for every D∈V.
Hence the assertion results from Theorem 3.21.
∎
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K17559.
The author is grateful to Professors Namikawa, Yoshikawa, and Moriwaki and Kyoto University for the financial supports.
Bibliography17
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Vladimir G. Berkovich. Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields , volume 33 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990.
2[2] Enrico Bombieri and Walter Gubler. Heights in Diophantine geometry , volume 4 of New Mathematical Monographs . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
3[3] Sébastien Boucksom and Huayi Chen. Okounkov bodies of filtered linear series. Compositio Mathematica , 147(4):1205–1229, 2011.
4[4] Éric Gaudron. Pentes des fibrés vectoriels adéliques sur un corps global. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova , 119:21–95, 2008.
5[5] H. Gillet and C. Soulé. On the number of lattice points in convex symmetric bodies and their duals. Israel Journal of Mathematics , 74(2-3):347–357, 1991.
6[6] Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52.
7[7] Hideaki Ikoma. Adelic cartier divisors with base conditions and the Bonnesen–Diskant-type inequalities. preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02336 , 2016.
8[8] Hideaki Ikoma. Remarks on the arithmetic restricted volumes and the arithmetic base loci. Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences , 52(4):435Ð495, 2016.