2017
DOI: 10.1353/ajm.2017.0032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Mabuchi completion of the space of Kähler potentials

Abstract: Suppose (X, ω) is a compact Kähler manifold. Following Mabuchi, the space of smooth Kähler potentials H can be endowed with a Riemannian structure, which induces an infinite dimensional path length metric space (H, d). We prove that the metric completion of (H, d) can be identified with (E 2 (X, ω),d), and this latter space is a complete non-positively curved geodesic metric space. In obtaining this result, we will rely on envelope techniques which allow for a treatment in a very general context. Profiting fro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
124
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
7
124
0
Order By: Relevance
“…is indeed the unique bounded/weak geodesic joining u k t 1 and u k t 2 . The next result connects weak geodesics to the rooftop envelopes of Section 3.3: 46]). Suppose u 0 , u 1 ∈ PSH(X, ω) and t → u t is the weak geodesic connecting u 0 , u 1 .…”
Section: The Weak Geodesic Segments Of Psh(x ω)mentioning
confidence: 74%
“…is indeed the unique bounded/weak geodesic joining u k t 1 and u k t 2 . The next result connects weak geodesics to the rooftop envelopes of Section 3.3: 46]). Suppose u 0 , u 1 ∈ PSH(X, ω) and t → u t is the weak geodesic connecting u 0 , u 1 .…”
Section: The Weak Geodesic Segments Of Psh(x ω)mentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Remark 2.7. Condition (12) implies that H(u s , ·) : P → R vanishes on F s and in particular is constant. Then for all y ∈F s , we have…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fixing an affine invariant volume form dx = dx 1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx n , the labelling n ∈ N(P ) corresponds to a measure σ ∈ M(P ) as defined in §2.1.1. Observe that the Boundary Condition above (i.e condition (ii) namely (12),and (13)) implies that 2…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Proof. The argument is due to Darvas [15,16], see also [19,Theorem 3.10]. We can assume that d(u j , u j+1 ) ≤ 2 −j , j ≥ 1.…”
Section: Using the Definition Of D This Amounts To Showing Thatmentioning
confidence: 99%