6
$\begingroup$

Hi

In Mixed Hodge modules Saito computes the Verdier specialisation of a D-modules with respect to a monomial $g = x_1^{m_1}\ldots x_n^{m_n}$. This is a very nice result as I find such explicit computations are quite rare in the litterature but I'm having problems understanding his proof.

Let $X$ be a polydisc, $D_i = \{x_i = 0\}$, $D_I = \bigcap_{i\in I} D_i$. Consider $M$ a regular holonomic algebraic quasi-unipotent right D-module with characteristic variety contained in the union of the conormal bundles to the $D_I$. For $\nu = (\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_n)$, set $$ M^\nu := \langle u\in M ~|~ u(x_i\partial_i - \nu_i)^p = 0~~ \textrm{for $p\gg 0$} \rangle $$ We have $\bigoplus_{\nu \in \mathbb{Q}^n} M^\nu = M$.

Let $g:X\to S$, $S$ an open disk, given by $g=x_1^{m_1}\ldots x_n^{m_n} = x^m$ and $i_g:X \to X\times S$ its graph. The D-module $\tilde{M} = (i_g)_* M$ is $M[\partial_t]$ with the action of $D_{X\times S}$ given by:
$$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)x_i = ux_i\otimes \partial_t^j, \quad (u\otimes \partial_t^j)\partial_i = u\partial_i\otimes \partial_t^j - u(\partial_ig)\otimes \otimes \partial_t^{j+1} $$ $$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)t = ug\otimes \partial_t^j + ju \otimes \partial_t^{j-1} , \quad (u\otimes \partial_t^j)\partial_t = ux_i\otimes \partial_t^{j+1} $$

Theorem (3.4 p. 280): The V-filtration of $\tilde{M}$ along $t = 0$ is generated over $D_X$ by $$ M^\nu \otimes 1 ~~\textrm{with $\nu_i \leq m_i\alpha$} \quad \textrm{if $\alpha< 0$} $$ $$ M^\nu \otimes \partial_t^j ~~\textrm{with $\nu_i \leq m_i(\alpha-j)$} \quad \textrm{in general} $$

It is enough to check that the filtration defined in the theorem satifies the properties of the V-filtration. Saito says:

"We have $$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)x_i\partial_i = (u\otimes \partial_t^j)(N_i + \nu_i - m_i(s-j) ) \qquad \forall u \in M^\nu $$ where $s = t\partial_t$ and $(u\otimes \partial_t^j)N_i = u(x_i\partial_i-\nu_i)\otimes \partial_t^j$ if $u\in M^\nu$. Thus we get that $s-\alpha$ is nilpotent on $Gr^V_\alpha \tilde{M}$ and $V_\alpha \tilde{M}$ ar $V_0D_{X\times S}$-submodules."

I don't understand this last statement. $Gr^V_\alpha \tilde{M}$ is generated over $D_X$ by the $u \otimes \partial_t^j \in V_\alpha \tilde{M}$ with at least one $i$ so that $\nu_i = m_i(\alpha-j)$. For such $\nu$, the above equation reads
$$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)x_i\partial_i = (u\otimes \partial_t^j)(N_i - m_i(s-\alpha)) $$ Why would this imply that $s-\alpha$ is nilpotent?

Edit: I think I have found the answer. Consider $u\otimes \partial_t^j$ with $\nu_i \leq m_i(\alpha-j)$ forall $i$. Set $I := \langle i ~|~ \nu_i = m_i(\alpha-j),~ m_i\neq 0\rangle$. Then $$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)(\prod_{i\in I} x_i\partial_i) = (u \prod_{i\in I}x_i \otimes \partial_t^j) (\prod_{i\in I}\partial_i) $$
is in $V_{<\alpha} \tilde{M}$. So, by applying the relation above, we have $$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)\prod_{i\in I} (N_i - m_i(s-\alpha)) = (u\otimes \partial_t^j)(\prod_{i\in I} x_i\partial_i) = (u \prod_{i\in I}x_i \otimes \partial_t^j) (\prod_{i\in I}\partial_i) = 0 $$ in $Gr^V_\alpha \tilde{M}$. So $$ (u\otimes \partial_t^j)(s-\alpha)^{|I|} = (u\otimes \partial_t^j)(\sum_{k=0}^{k=|I|-1} \sigma_k(N_i/m_i)(s-\alpha)^k) ) $$ The operator on the right hand side is a polynomial in the $N_i$'s with coefficient in $Q[s-\alpha]$ and no constant term. So if $p_i$ is the nilpotency order of $N_i$ operatating on $u\otimes \partial_t^j$ and we elevate the relation to the power $\sum p_i$ we find that $(u\otimes \partial_t^j)(s-\alpha)^{|I|(\sum p_i)} = 0$. So $s-\alpha$ is indeed nilpotent.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ JS Milne is going to be very angry if he sees "associated to". It should be "attached to" or "associated with". =p $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2010 at 0:48

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.