Precise inversion of adjunction for minimal log discrepancies

From papers

Let PXP\in X be the germ of a normal variety, and let S+BS+B be an effective R\mathbf{R}-divisor on XX such that SS is a normal prime divisor not appearing in BB. Assume that (X,S+B)(X,S+B) is a pair, and write the adjunction formula

(KX+S+B)S=KS+BS,(K_X+S+B)|_S=K_S+B_S,

where BSB_S is the different on SS of BB. Precise inversion of adjunction. One has

mldP(X,S+B)=mldP(S,BS).\operatorname{mld}_P(X,S+B)=\operatorname{mld}_P(S,B_S).

This compares the minimal log discrepancy of a pair with that of its restriction by adjunction and is used in the paper to transfer the required equality to a lower-dimensional restricted pair.

Progress summary

Nothing recorded yet. Refresh searches the literature and the public web for attempts on this problem, and writes the first summary here.

Equivalent formulations 1

Other statements of this same problem, merged from separate entries. Each is equivalent to the statement above — proving any one settles them all.

  1. Precise inversion of adjunction for minimal log discrepancies

    Let (X,G+Δ)(X,G+\Delta) be a pair such that GG is a reduced divisor with no component in the support of the effective divisor Δ\Delta, and let ZZ be a closed subset of GG. Let ν ⁣:GνG\nu\colon G^\nu\to G be the normalisation and let ΔGν\Delta_{G^\nu} be the different on GνG^\nu. Precise inversion of adjunction. Then

    mldZ(X,G+Δ)=mldν1(Z)(G,ΔGν).\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,G+\Delta)=\operatorname{mld}_{\nu^{-1}(Z)}(G,\Delta_{G^\nu}).

    The source identifies this as the precise inversion of adjunction connected with the minimal-log-discrepancy conjecture; it does not provide a resolution status.

    source: Masayuki Kawakita, “Ideal-adic semi-continuity problem for minimal log discrepancies”, arXiv:1012.0395 (2010).

Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Masayuki Kawakita, “On equivalent conjectures for minimal log discrepancies on smooth threefolds”, arXiv:1803.02539 (2018).

Additional references

3 papers in this index state this conjecture (2006–2018). The statement above is taken from the most recent of them; the others are arXiv:0903.0418, arXiv:math/0611859.

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.