2109.04185
Geometric Methods in Holomorphic Dynamics
Romain Dujardin
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper explicitly states Theorem 1.1: if T is a strongly approximable geometric (1,1)-current in Ω ⊂ C^2 and S is a positive closed (1,1)-current with either bounded potentials or such that T∧S does not charge pluripolar sets, then T ∧ S is semi-geometric (see the definitions preceding (1.4) and Theorem 1.1) . The candidate’s solution follows the same established strategy: approximate T by uniformly geometric currents T^r with M(T−T^r)=O(r^2), use the geometric/leafwise wedge description (the semi-geometric formula (1.4)) and monotone convergence for bounded potentials, then treat unbounded potentials by truncation and the no-mass-on-pluripolar-sets hypothesis. These steps match the framework laid out in the survey around (1.3)–(1.4) and the strong approximability discussion (including the O(r^2) estimate obtained via cube subdivisions and projections) . The paper is a survey and does not supply a full proof on site, but it cites the correct sources; the candidate provides a coherent proof sketch in line with those references.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid
\textbf{Justification:}
The theorem audited is standard and accurately stated in the paper, with correct definitions and references; as a survey, it omits the proof. The candidate’s argument matches the canonical approach—nested uniformly geometric approximations, geometric/leafwise wedge for bounded potentials, and truncation plus non-pluripolar considerations otherwise—requiring only minor clarifications about markings and boundary control. Adding a short proof sketch or more pointed references would enhance self-containment without changing the substance.