format: text

text:
# A note on Toroidalization:the problem of resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category

$$𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤$$

§0. Introduction

§1. Formulation of toroidalization as resolution of singularities of morphisms in

the logarithmic category

§2. Algorithm for toroidalization

§3. Local analysis in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$

§4. Termination of the alogorithm in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$

§0. Introduction

0.1. $`𝕣𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕦𝕖`$. The purpose of this note is to discuss the following problem of “toroidalization”: Given a (proper) morphism $`f:XY`$ between nonsingular varieties, can we find sequences of blowups with smooth centers $`\pi _X:X^{}X`$ and $`\pi _Y:Y^{}Y`$ such that the induced map $`f^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ is a toroidal morphism (See §1 for the precise definition of a morphism to be toroidal.) ?

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}X& & \stackrel{\pi _X}{}& & X^{}\\ f& & & & f^{}& & \\ Y& & \stackrel{\pi _Y}{}& & Y^{}\end{array}$$

The problem of toroidalization evolved along with the problem of semi-stable reduction and with the problem of factorization of birational maps, among others. The motivation behind is that, via toroidalization, we should be able to reduce the original problem to a combinatorial one, utilizing the correspondence between the geometry of toric varieties (toroidal embeddings) and the combinatorics of convex bodies. As such, it may seem as though the problem of toroidalization is a mere working hypothesis. The theme of this note is, however, to recognize its intrinsic importance, by presenting and reformulating it as the problem of resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category. (See §1 for the precise meaning.) This view point was first communicated to the author by Prof. Dan Abramovich, though apparently it had been known to the experts for a while (cf. KatoAbramovich-Karu).

0.2. $`𝔸𝕟𝕒𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟`$. A naive question can be posed in the following way: Given a (proper and surjective) morphism $`f:XY`$ between nonsingular varieties, by choosing suitable “modifications” $`\pi _X:X^{}X`$ and $`\pi _Y:Y^{}Y`$, how “nice” can one make the induced morphism $`f^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ ? (We require that we choose modifications $`\pi _X`$ and $`\pi _Y`$ in such a way that $`f^{}`$ is a morphism, which a priori is just a rational map.) Of course, in order to make this question meaningful, one has to make explicit the mathematical specifications of the words “modifications” and “nice”.

When $`dimY=1`$ and we specify the morphism $`f^{}`$ to be “nice” if every fiber is reduced with simple normal crossings, while the modification $`\pi _Y`$ is restricted to a finite morphism (between nonsingular varieties) and the modification $`\pi _X`$ is restricted to a sequence of blowups with smooth centers (possibly via normalization after base change), the question becomes the problem of semi-stable reduction (over a base of dimension one).

When $`dimY=1`$ and we specify the morphism $`f^{}`$ to be “nice” if every fiber has only simple normal crossings, while the modification $`\pi _Y`$ is restricted to an isomorphism and the modification $`\pi _X`$ is restricted to a sequence of blowups with smooth centers, the question becomes the problem of (embedded) resolution of hypersurface singularities.

When $`f`$ is birational and we specify the morphism $`f^{}`$ to be “nice” if it is an isomorphism, while the modifications $`\pi _X`$ and $`\pi _Y`$ are restricted to sequences of blowups with smooth centers, the question is the strong factorization conjecture of birational maps.

It should be warned, however, that the way we pose our question is very naive: for certain choices of the specifications of the word “modifications” or “nice”, we often obtain a question to which the answer is no in general. This can be observed, for example, when we specify the morphism $`f^{}`$ to be “nice” if it is flat, while the modifications $`\pi _X`$ and $`\pi _Y`$ are restricted to sequences of blowups with smooth centers. This flattening process by blowups with smooth centers does not exist in general, even for a generically finite morphism between nonsingular surfaces $`f:XY`$, as is demonstrated by a famous example by Abhyankar for the failure of simultaneous resolution of singularities. (The reader is also invited to see an easy toric example by T. Katsura in Oda.) It is, meanwhile, an interesting question whether the above flattening process by blowups with smooth centers exists or not, under the extra condition that the original $`f`$ is a morphism with connected fibers. (The author does not know whether the answer is affirmative or negative.)

The problem of toroidalization appears as one form of the questions in the above setting, where we specify $`f^{}`$ to be “nice” if $`f^{}`$ is toroidal, while the modifications $`\pi _X`$ and $`\pi _Y`$ are restricted to sequences of blowups with smooth centers.

It should be mentioned and emphasized that Abramovich-Karu succeeds in making the morphism $`f^{}`$ toroidal, starting from a given proper morphism $`f`$, but by not restricting the modifications $`\pi _X`$ and $`\pi _Y`$ to be only sequences of blowups with smooth centers.

0.3. $`𝔸𝕝𝕘𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕞`$. The reformulation of toroidalization as log resolution, though simple and straightforward as it is, naturally leads one to the following algorithmic approach (See §2 for details.):

Step 1: Characterize the locus where the morphism is not toroidal as the logarithmic ramification locus, which can then be computed using the logarithmic differential forms.

Step 2: Choose the center of blowup downstairs on $`Y`$, which should be contained in the image of the logarithmic ramification locus under $`f`$.

Step 3: Apply an algorithm for canonical principalization to the pull-back upstairs on $`X`$ of the defining ideal of the center chosen in Step 2 downstairs on $`Y`$.

If the induced morphism is toroidal, then we stop. If not, we go back to Step 1 with the original morphism replaced by the induced one.

Termination: Show that the algorithm terminates after finitely many steps.

In fact, in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$, there is essentially no choice involved in the above algorithm and hence is uniquely determined. Thus the only remaining problem is to show termination. We accomplish this goal by providing a local analysis of the algorithm and then showing that the logarithmic ramification locus decreases (under certain order, with respect to which the descending chain condition is satisfied).

A discussion of the higher dimensional case will be published elsewhere.

0.4. $`𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕡𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕒𝕔𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕫𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕞`$. The problem of toroidalization was conceived as a possible approach to the (strong) factorization conjecture of birational maps (between nonsingular varieties into a sequence of blowups and blowdowns with smooth centers) in two steps:

Step I. Given a proper birational morphism $`f:XY`$ (if you start with a birational map $`f:XY`$, then use the elimination of indeterminacy by Hironaka to reach the stage where $`f`$ can be assumed to be a morphism), apply toroidalization to make $`f^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ toroidal.

Step II. Factor the toroidal birational morphism $`f^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ into a sequence consisting of blowups with smooth centers immediately followed by blowdowns with smooth centers, by applying the toroidal version of a combinatorial algorithm for strong factorization of toric birational maps.

(Today the strong factorization conjecture remains open, while the weak factorization conjecture, which is strong enough for most of the applications, is a theorem achieving Steps I and II in a slightly weaker sense:

Step I: Given a proper birational morphism $`f:XY`$, apply the theory of birational cobordism by Włodarczyk and torification by Abramovich-Karu-Matsuki-Włodarczyk to decompose $`f`$ as a composite of toroidal birational maps $`f_i:X_iY_i\text{ for }i=0,\mathrm{},l`$ (where $`X=X_0,Y_i=X_{i+1}\text{ for }i=0,\mathrm{},l1`$, and $`Y_l=Y`$).

Step II: Apply the toroidal version of the algorithm for weak factorization by Morelli (cf. Abramovich-Matsuki-RashidMatsukiWłodarczyk) to each toroidal birational map $`f_i:X_iY_i`$.

We fall short of realizing strong factorization, since in Step I the toroidal structures for $`f_i`$’s are not compatible with each other in general, and since in Step II we know only of the algorithm for weak (but not strong) factorization even for toric birational maps (in dimension three or more) for the moment.)

0.5. $`𝕎𝕠𝕣𝕜𝕠𝕗𝕊.𝔻.𝕦𝕥𝕜𝕠𝕤𝕜𝕪`$. Even at the time when, inspired by the work of A.J. de Jong, we could only daydream of the above approach to the problem of factorization, S.D. Cutkosky made a remarkable announcement of a proof for local factorization of birational maps in dimension 3. (The local version of the problem of factorization replaces a birational map between nonsingular varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$ with birational local rings dominated by a fixed valuation, and replaces blowups along smooth centers with monoidal transforms followed by localization subordinate to the valuation.) After Cutkosky gave a series of lectures on his breakthrough at Purdue University, we communicated our approach to global factorization via Steps I and II as above, suggesting that the local version of toroidalization may be called “monomialization” and that the first non-trivial and plausible test case of toroidalization should be checked when $`dimX=3`$ and $`dimY=2`$.

In a sequence of papers , Cutkosky brilliantly establishes the monomialization in arbitrary dimension, thus completing Step I in the local case.

Recently Karu succeeded in providing an algorithm for local strong factorization of toric (toroidal) birational maps in arbitrary dimension, extending the earlier work of Christensen in dimension 3.

Thus the local strong factorization of birational maps, known also as the Abhyankar conjecture, is now a theorem according to the general scheme of establishing Steps I and II.

Moreover, Cutkosky also establishes the global version, i.e., the toroidalization when $`dimX=3`$ and $`dimY=2`$.

0.6. $`𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤𝕠𝕗𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕡𝕒𝕡𝕖𝕣`$. The simple purpose of this paper is to give a proof of toroidalization in dimension 2, guided by the principle $`𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕠𝕚𝕕𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕫𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟=𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕝𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟`$, which has been the main point of our theme from the conception of the problem (cf. Abramovich-Karu-Matsuki-WłodarczykMatsuki). It is the belief (prejudice) of the author that only thorugh this reformulation the ultimate solution would be achieved by finding a much-sought-for inductional structure needed to prove the general case of toroidalization.

The contents of the paper are as follows.

In §1, we present our formulation of the problem of toroidalization as the problem of resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category. The key is the study of the behavior of the logarithmic differential forms. In §2, we present an essentially unique algorithm for toroidalization in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$. In §3, we present a proof for toroidalization in dimension 2. Several proofs are known for toroidalization in dimension 2 by now. However, all the existing ones use the strong factorization theorem of a (proper) birational morphism (via Castelnuovo’s contractibility criterion of a $`(1)`$-curve) in the process of verification. This has a fatal defect: not only one cannot hope to extend the process to higher dimension where the factorization of a proper birational morphism into blowups with smooth centers fails to hold, but also it would bring a logical loop in our approach to solving the problem of factorization through toroidalization, even in dimension 2. They also use the properness assumption of $`f`$ in an essential way, and as a result, their analysis is local on $`Y`$ but global on $`X`$ in nature. In contrast, we provide a detailed but rather elementary analysis of the algorithm, which is completely local both on $`Y`$ and on $`X`$. As a consequence, we show toroidalization in dimension 2 without the properness assumption of $`f`$. We do not use the strong factorization theorem in the process. Therefore, establishing Steps I and II of the general scheme, we give a new proof of the strong factorization of birational maps in diemsnion 2.

The way we show that the algorithm for toroidalization teminates is also guided by the principle, rather than setting up invariants in an adhoc way. We show that the logarithmic ramification locus decreases (under certain order, with respect to which the descending chain condition is satisfied) in the process.

0.7. $`𝔸𝕤𝕤𝕦𝕞𝕡𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕓𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕖𝕝𝕕`$. In this paper, we assume that the base field $`k`$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. The assumption of $`k`$ being algebraically closed is purely for the simplicity of the presentation: the “canonical” nature of our algorithm (and of the algorithm for principalization of ideals) implies that the process prescribed over $`\overline{k}`$ is equivariant under the action of the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)`$ even when $`k`$ is not algebraically closed, and hence that it is actually defined over $`k`$. Therefore, this assumption can be removed without much further ado. The assumption of $`k`$ being of characteristic zero, however, is essential, because the problem of toroidalization as we formulate is too restrictive in positive characteristic (Some easy counter examples to this restrictive formulation can be found in positive characteristic. See, e.g. Cutkosky-Piltant.) and hence needs modification.

0.7. $`𝔸𝕔𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨𝕝𝕖𝕕𝕘𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤`$. The author would like to thank Dan Abramovich for guidance and help in the subject. Thanks are also due to Kalle Karu and Jarosław Włodarczyk for many invaluable comments. The author would like to thank the organizers of the Barrett conference held at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in April 2002, especially Yasuyuki Kachi, Shashikant Mulay and Pavlos Tzermias, for providing a mathematically stimulating atmosphere through the excellent lecture series by Yujiro Kawamata and Yasutaka Ihara.

§1. Formulation of toroidalization as resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category

1.1. $`𝕆𝕦𝕥𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕠𝕗𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟`$. In this section, we formulate the problem of toroidalization and the problem of resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category, and show that a solution to the latter would imply a solution to the former. (It could be said that, modulo some minor technical points, the two problems are essentially equivalent.)

For this purpose, we define when a morphism $`f:XY`$ between nonsingular varieties is toroidal, or in the presence of the prescribed structures as nonsingular toroidal embeddings, when a morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ between nonsingular toroidal embeddings is toroidal (with respect to the given toroidal structures $`(U_X,X)`$ and $`(U_Y,Y)`$). We also define, in the presence of the logarithmic structures as nonsingular toroidal embeddings, when a morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ in the logarithmic category is (log) smooth. (In order to make a clear distinction between the notion of a morphism being “smooth” in the usual category and the notion of a morphism being “smooth” in the logarithmic category, we always use the word “log smooth” for the latter.) One of the main points of the section is, though it is quite straightforward, to show that the condition of $`f`$ being toroidal is equivalent to $`f`$ being log smooth.

1.2. $`𝔹𝕒𝕤𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤.`$

1.2.1. Logarithmic category.  An object in the logarithmic category (of nonsingular toroidal embeddings) is a nonsingular toroidal embedding $`(U_X,X)`$, i.e., a pair consisting of a nonsingular variety $`X`$ and a dense open subset $`U_X`$ such that $`D_X=XU_X`$ is a divisor with only simple normal crossings.

(A divisor $`D_X`$ with only simple normal crossings consists of smooth irreducible components and satisfies the condition that at any closed point $`pD_X`$ there exists an open analytic neighborhood $`pU_pX`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ such that

$$D_XU_p=\{\underset{mM}{}x_m=0\}$$

for some subset $`M\{1,\mathrm{},d=dimX\}`$.)

A morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ in the logarithmic category is a morphism between nonsingular toroidal embeddings such that:

(a) $`f:XY`$ is a dominant morphism between nonsingular varieties,

(b) $`D_X=f^1(D_Y)`$,

(c) $`f|_{U_X}:U_XU_Y`$ is a smooth morphism.

1.2.2. Definition of a morphism being toroidal.  Let $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ be a morphism in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings. We say $`f`$ is toroidal if for any $`pX`$ with $`q=f(p)Y`$ there exist a toric (equivariant) morphism $`\phi :(T_V,V)(T_W,W)`$ between nonsingular toric varieties with $`T_VV`$ and $`T_WW`$ indicating the tori, and points $`p_VV`$ and $`q_W=\phi (p_V)W`$, such that we have isomorphisms of the completions of the local rings

$`\sigma :\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\widehat{𝒪_{V,p_V}}`$
$`\tau :\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\widehat{𝒪_{W,q_W}}`$
with a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}& & \underset{𝜎}{\overset{}{}}& & \widehat{𝒪_{V,p_V}}\\ f^{}& & & & \phi ^{}& & \\ \widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}& & \underset{𝜏}{\overset{}{}}& & \widehat{𝒪_{W,q_W}}\end{array}$$

which induces, via inclusions, another commutative diagram among the ideals defining the boundary divisors

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\widehat{_{D_X,p}}& & \stackrel{}{}& & \widehat{_{D_V,p_V}}\\ f^{}& & & & \phi ^{}& & \\ \widehat{_{D_Y,q}}& & \stackrel{}{}& & \widehat{_{D_W,q_W}}.\end{array}$$

We say that a morphism $`f:XY`$ between nonsingular varieties is toroidal if we can introduce the structures $`(U_X,X)`$ and $`(U_Y,Y)`$ of nonsingular toroidal embeddings, i.e., we can find divisors $`D_X=XU_XX`$ and $`D_Y=YU_YY`$ with only simple normal crossings, such that $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ is a toroidal morphism in the logarithmic category.

We also invite the reader to look at Abramovich-Karu Kempf-Knudsen-Mumford-Saint-Donat for reference.

1.2.3. Definition of a morphism being log smooth.  Let $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ be a morphism in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings. We say $`f`$ is log smooth if the natural homomorphism

$$f^{}\{^{dimY}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}D_Y)\}^{dimXdimY}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}D_X)\}^{dimX}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}D_X)$$

is surjective.

1.3. $`𝔼𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕧𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕠𝕗\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕠𝕚𝕕𝕒𝕝\mathrm{"}𝕒𝕟𝕕\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕤𝕞𝕠𝕠𝕥𝕙\mathrm{"}.`$

###### Proposition 1.3.1

Let $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ be a morphism in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings. Then $`f`$ is toroidal if and only if it is log smooth.

###### Demonstration Proof

We only demonstrate a proof in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$. We make a further assumption that at the point $`pD_XX`$ of our concern two irreducible components of $`D_X`$ meet and also that at $`q=f(p)D_YY`$ two irreducible components of $`D_Y`$ meet. (In the terminology of §3, the points $`p`$ and $`q`$ are of type $`2_p`$ and $`2_q`$.) Though simple, the consideration of this typical case captures the essence of the idea. (We refer the reader to Kato for a general proof, though it is not so much more difficult to deal with the general case via local analysis than with the typical case.)

We choose a system of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ in an analytic neighborhood $`U_p`$ of $`p`$ (resp. $`(y_1,y_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$ in an analytic neighborhood $`U_q`$ of $`q`$) such that it is compatible with the logarithmic structure, i.e., $`D_XU_p=\{x_1x_2=0\}`$ (resp. $`D_YU_q=\{y_1y_2=0\}`$).

By condition (b) $`D_X=f^1(D_Y)`$ imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =ux_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a,b,c,d_0`$ and $`u,v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times `$ are units.

We compute

$`f^{}(d\mathrm{log}y_1d\mathrm{log}y_2)`$ $`=f^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1dy_2}{y_1y_2}}\right)`$
$`=d\mathrm{log}f^{}y_1d\mathrm{log}f^{}y_2`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}+a{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}+b{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}+c{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}+d{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=r_{\mathrm{log}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1dx_2}{x_1x_2}}`$
where

$$r_{\mathrm{log}}=det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]+(\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.=0\mathrm{at}\mathrm{p}).$$

Therefore, we conclude

$`f\mathrm{being}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{smooth}`$
$`R_{\mathrm{log}}:=\mathrm{div}(r_{\mathrm{log}})=0`$
$`(x_1,x_2)\&(y_1,y_2)\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =ux_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\mathrm{where}det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]0\mathrm{and}u,v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \mathrm{are}\mathrm{units}.`$
$`(x_1,x_2)\&(y_1,y_2)\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{t}.\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{where}det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]0`$
$`f\mathrm{being}\mathrm{toroidal}.`$
It is obvious that the third condition implies the second, while one can see that the second implies the third by replacing $`x_1`$ with $`u^\alpha v^\gamma x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ with $`u^\beta v^\delta x_2`$, where the equation

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \gamma \\ \beta & \delta \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$

has a (unique) solution $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right]M_2()`$ because $`det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]0`$.

This completes the proof.

1.4. $`𝔽𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕗𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕛𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕖𝕤`$.

1.4.1. Toroidalization Conjecture.  Let $`f:XY`$ be a dominant morphism between nonsingular varieties. Then there should exist sequences of blowups with smooth centers $`\pi _X:X^{}X`$ and $`\pi _Y:Y^{}Y`$ such that the induced map $`f^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ is a toroidal morphism.

1.4.2. Resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category. Let $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ be a morphism in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings. Then there exist sequences of blowups with permissible centers $`\pi _X:(U_X^{},X^{})(U_X,X)`$ and $`\pi _Y:(U_Y^{},Y^{})(U_Y,Y)`$ such that the induced map $`f^{}:(U_X^{},X^{})(U_Y^{},Y^{})`$ is log smooth. (Note that a center is called permissible if it is smooth and locally defined by a part of a system regular parameters compatible with the log structure.)

1.5. $`𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕝𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟`$. An affirmative solution to the problem of resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category implies an affirmative solution to the toroidalization conjecture.

In fact, let $`f:XY`$ be a dominant morphism between nonsingular varieties. If $`f`$ is smooth, we can take $`U_X=X`$ and $`U_Y=Y`$ for the assertion of the toroidalization conjecture. If $`f`$ is not smooth, we look at the natural homomorphism

$$f^{}\{^{dimY}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\}^{dimXdimY}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1_R^{dimX}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1^{dimX}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1$$

where $`_R`$ is the ideal defining the ramification locus $`R`$. We take a sequence of blowups with smooth centers $`\tau _Y:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ so that $`D_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}:=\tau _Y^1(f(R))`$ is a divisor with only simple normal crossings. Then we take a sequence of blowups with smooth centers $`\sigma _X:\overline{X}X`$ so that the induced rational map $`\overline{f}:\overline{X}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is a morphism. Finally, we take a sequence of blowups with smooth centers $`\tau _X:\stackrel{~}{X}\overline{X}`$ so that $`D_{\stackrel{~}{X}}:=\tau _X^1\overline{f}^1D_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ is a divisor with only simple normal crossings. We have now a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{f}:(U_{\stackrel{~}{X}}:=\stackrel{~}{X}D_{\stackrel{~}{X}},\stackrel{~}{X})(U_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}:=\stackrel{~}{Y}D_{\stackrel{~}{Y}},\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings. Now it is clear that a solution for resolution of singularities of the morphism $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ in the logarithmic category would imply a solution for toroidalization of the original morphism $`f`$ by construction.

§2. Algorithm for toroidalization

2.1. $`𝔸𝕝𝕘𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕞𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕠𝕚𝕕𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕫𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕔𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖dim𝕏=dim𝕐=\mathrm{𝟚}`$. The purpose of this section is to describe an algorithm for toroidalization of a dominant morphism $`f:XY`$ between nonsingular varieties in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$. We make a couple of remarks at the end of the section regarding possible algorithms in higher dimension.

2.1.1. Setting. As in the formulation of the problem of toroidalization in §1, let $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ be a morphism in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$, that is to say:

(a) $`f:XY`$ is a dominant morphism between nonsingular varieties of

$`dimX=dimY=2`$,

(b) $`D_X=f^1(D_Y)`$, and

(c) the restriction of $`f`$ to the open subset $`U_X`$, denoted by $`f|_{U_X}`$, is a smooth

morphism.

2.1.2. Description of the algorithm. Our algorithm for toroidalization proceeds as follows:

$`\overline{)\mathrm{Step}1}`$

We write down the natural homomorphism among the logarithmic differential forms

$`f^{}\{^{dimY}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(\mathrm{log}D_Y)\}^{dimXdimY}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}D_X)`$ $`_{R_{\mathrm{log}}}^{dimX}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}D_X)`$
$`^{dimX}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}D_X)`$
where $`_{R_{\mathrm{log}}}`$ is the ideal defining the logarithmic ramification locus.

Note that in our case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$, or more generally when $`f:XY`$ is a generically finite morphism, we have the usual logarithmic ramification formula between the log canonical divisors

$$K_X+D_X=f^{}(K_Y+D_Y)+R_{\mathrm{log}},$$

where $`R_{\mathrm{log}}`$ is the logarithmic ramification divisor (cf. Iitaka). The natural homomorphism above corresponds to the inclusion of line bundles

$`0𝒪_X(f^{}(K_Y+D_Y))`$ $`=𝒪_X(R_{\mathrm{log}}+K_X+D_X)`$
$`𝒪_X(K_X+D_X).`$
$`\overline{)\mathrm{Step}2}`$

We look at $`f(R_{\mathrm{log}})`$, the image of the logarithmic ramification locus.

$`𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕗𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕖,𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕔𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕠𝕗𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕦𝕞𝕡𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟dim𝕐=\mathrm{𝟚},`$

$`𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥𝕗(_{\mathrm{log}})𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕤𝕠𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕝𝕪𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪𝕡𝕠𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕤.`$

Blowup $`Y`$ with center $`f(R_{\mathrm{log}})`$ (or more precisely speaking, blowup $`Y`$ along the defining ideal $`_{f(R_{\mathrm{log}})}`$ of the image of the logarithmic ramification locus with the reduced structure).

$`\overline{)\mathrm{Step}3}`$

Apply an algorithm for canonical principalization (See Remark 2.2.2 for the precise meaning.) to the ideal $`f^1(_{f(R_{\mathrm{log}})})𝒪_X`$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}(U_X,X)=(U_{X_0},X_0)& & \underset{\mathrm{cp}_1}{\overset{\mathrm{canonical}\mathrm{principalization}}{}}& & (U_{X_1},X_1)\\ f=f_0& & & & f_1& & \\ (U_Y,Y)=(U_{Y_0},Y_0)& & \underset{\mathrm{bp}_1}{\overset{\mathrm{Blowup}f(R_{\mathrm{log}})}{}}& & (U_{Y_1},Y_1)\end{array}$$

Note that by the universal property of blowup for principalization, the induced rational map $`f_1`$ is guaranteed to be a morphism.

If the induced morphism $`f_1:(U_{X_1},X_1)(U_{Y_1},Y_1)`$ is toroidal, we end the algorithm.

If the induced morphism $`f_1:(U_{X_1},X_1)(U_{Y_1},Y_1)`$ is not toroidal, then we go back to $`\overline{)\mathrm{Step}1}`$ of the algorithm with $`f:=f_1`$ and repeat the process.

2.2. $`𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕤𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕘𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕞`$.

2.2.1. A morphism is always toroidal over $`Y`$ in codimension one. It is straightforward to observe that, if $`dimY=1`$, then $`R_{\mathrm{log}}=\mathrm{}`$ and hence also $`f(R_{\mathrm{log}})=\mathrm{}`$.

In fact, let $`pD_XX`$ be an arbitrary closed point with $`q=f(p)D_YY`$ its image. Let $`f^{}:\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ be the induced homomorphism between the completions of the local rings. We take some systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ and $`(y_1)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$, compatible with the logarithmic structures. (That is to say, for some analytic neighborhoods $`U_p`$ of $`p`$ and $`U_q`$ of $`q`$, we have

$`D_XU_p`$ $`=\{{\displaystyle \underset{mM}{}}x_m=0\}`$
$`D_YU_q`$ $`=\{y_1=0\}`$
for a subset $`M\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$.)

We observe

$`f\text{ is toroidal}`$ $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)\&(y_1)\text{ s.t.}`$
$`f^{}y_1=x_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_d^{a_d}={\displaystyle x_i^{a_i}\text{ with }a_i}0i\text{ and }\text{ }a_{i_o}0\text{ for some }i_o`$
$`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)\&(y_1)\text{ s.t.}`$
$`f^{}y_1=ux_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_d^{a_d}=u{\displaystyle x_i^{a_i}\text{ with }a_i}0i\text{ and }\text{ }a_{i_o}0\text{ for some }i_o,`$
$`\text{where }u\text{ is a unit.}`$
(It is obvious that the second condition implies the last, while one can see that the last condition implies the second by, e.g., replacing $`x_{i_o}`$ with $`u^{1/i_o}x_{i_o}`$, where $`u^{1/i_o}\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ exists because of the assumption of the base field $`k`$ being algebraically closed of characteristic zero.)

The last condition obviously holds by condition (b) $`D_X=f^1(D_Y)`$ imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category.

Therefore, $`f`$ is toroidal.

This observation immediately implies that, for an arbitrary dominant morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ in the logarithmic category, there is no locus of logarithmic ramification over a generic point of codimension one, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{codim}_Yf(R_{\mathrm{log}})2.$$

This is why $`f(R_{\mathrm{log}})`$ consists of finitely many points in the case where $`dimY=2`$.

2.2.2. Canonical principalization.  By an algorithm for canonical principalization, we mean a specific and fixed algorithm which, to a given ideal $``$ on a nonsingular toroidal embedding $`(U_X,X)`$ with support contained in the boundary divisor, i.e., $`\mathrm{Supp}𝒪_X/D_X=XU_X`$, assigns a uniquely determined sequence of blowups

$`(U_X,X)=(U_{X_0},X_0)`$ $`\stackrel{\pi _1}{}(U_{X_1},X_1)\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}(U_{X_{i1}},X_{i1})`$ $`\stackrel{\pi _i}{}(U_{X_i},X_i)\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`\stackrel{\pi _l}{}(U_{X_l},X_l)`$
with permissible centers $`Y_{i1}D_{X_{i1}}X_{i1}`$ (The adjective “permissible” means, by definition, that $`Y_{i1}`$ is smooth and that for any closed point $`pY_{i1}D_{X_{i1}}X_{i1}`$ there exists an analytic neighborhood $`U_p`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X_{i1},p}}`$ such that

$`D_{i1}U_p`$ $`=\{{\displaystyle \underset{mM}{}}x_m=0\}`$
$`Y_{i1}U_p`$ $`=_{mN}\{x_m=0\}`$
for some subsets $`M,N\{1,\mathrm{},d=dimX\}`$.)

We require as a result of principalization that the ideal $`\pi ^1𝒪_{X_l}`$ is principal (where $`\pi =\pi _l\mathrm{}\pi _1`$), i.e., for any closed point $`pX_l`$ there exists an analytic neighborhood $`U_p`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X_l,p}}`$ such that

$`D_lU_p`$ $`=\{{\displaystyle \underset{mM}{}}x_m=0\}`$
$`\pi ^1𝒪_{X_l}|_{U_p}`$ $`=({\displaystyle \underset{mL}{}}x_m^{a_m})`$
for some subsets $`M,L\{1,\mathrm{},d=dimX\}`$.

The adjective “canonical” is used to add the following two more requirements to the algorithm:

1. (Stability under pull-back by smooth morphisms) If $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ is a morphism in the logarithmic category between nonsingular toroidal embeddings with $`f:XY`$ being a smooth morphism (in the usual sense), then the process for principalization of the ideal $`_X=f^{}_Yf^{}𝒪_Y=𝒪_X`$ specified by the algorithm on $`(U_X,X)`$ should coincide with the pull-back (i.e., the one obtained by taking the Cartesian product “$`\times _YX`$”) of the process for principalization of the ideal $`_Y`$ specified by the algorithm on $`(U_Y,Y)`$.

It should be noted that this requirement of the algorithm for principalization being stable under pull-back by smooth morphisms implies equivariance: if a group (finite or algebraic) acts on $`(U_X,X)`$ and the ideal $``$ is invariant under the action, then the process of canonical principalization is equivariant, i.e., the action lifts to the blowups in the process. This can be seen easily by applying this requirement to the two smooth morphisms, $`pr:X\times GX`$ the projectition and $`\mu :X\times GX`$ the multiplication map representing the action, and by observing that the process of canonical principalization on $`X\times G`$ coincides both with the pull-back by $`pr`$ and with the pull-back by $`\mu `$.

2. (Analytic nature of the algorithm) Suppose that $`(U_{X_\alpha },X_\alpha )`$ with $`_\alpha `$ and $`(U_{X_\beta },X_\beta )`$ with $`_\beta `$ are gievn as above. Suppose that we have closed points $`p_\alpha X_\alpha `$ and $`p_\beta X_\beta `$ with an isomorphism between the completions

$$\widehat{𝒪_{X_\alpha ,p_\alpha }}=𝒪_{X_\alpha ,p_\alpha }\widehat{𝒪_{X_1,p_1}}\stackrel{}{}𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }\widehat{𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }}=\widehat{𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }}$$

which induces isomorphisms via inclusions

$`\widehat{_\alpha }=_\alpha \widehat{𝒪_{X_\alpha ,p_\alpha }}`$ $`\stackrel{}{}_\beta \widehat{𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }}=\widehat{_\beta }`$
$`\widehat{_{D_\alpha }}=_{D_\alpha }\widehat{𝒪_{X_\alpha ,p_\alpha }}`$ $`\stackrel{}{}_{D_\beta }\widehat{𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }}=\widehat{_{D_\beta }}.`$
Then the isomorphism

$$(U_{X_\alpha },X_\alpha )\times \mathrm{Spec}\widehat{𝒪_{X_\alpha ,p_\alpha }}\stackrel{}{}(U_{X_\beta },X_\beta )\times \mathrm{Spec}\widehat{𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }}$$

lifts to the isomorphisms between the blowups in the process of principalization for the ideal $`_\alpha `$ on $`(U_{X_\alpha },X_\alpha )`$, pulled back by $`\mathrm{Spec}\widehat{𝒪_{X_\alpha ,p_\alpha }}`$, and the blowups in the process of principalization for the ideal $`_\beta `$ on $`(U_{X_\beta },X_\beta )`$, pulled back by $`\mathrm{Spec}\widehat{𝒪_{X_\beta ,p_\beta }}`$.

3. (Avoidance of blowing up the points where the ideal is already principal) If the ideal $``$ is already principal at a closed point $`pX`$, then the algorithm for canonical principalization leaves a neighborhood of $`p`$ untouched.

An important consequence of requirements 1 and 2 is that if we apply the algorithm for canonical principalization to a toroidal ideal, then the blowups in the process of principalization are all toroidal as well as the ideals which are the total transforms of the original toroidal ideal.

In our special case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$, there is a unique algorithm for canonical principalization, namely, at each stage on $`X_{i1}`$ we only blow up the points where the total transform $`_{i1}`$ of the ideal is not principal.

2.2.3 Notation for the logarithmic ramification locus. Given a morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ in the logarithmic category, if we want to emphasize that the logarithmic ramification locus $`R_{\mathrm{log}}`$ is associated to the morphism $`f`$, we write $`R_{\mathrm{log},f}`$ instead of $`R_{\mathrm{log}}`$.

2.3. $`𝔽𝕦𝕣𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕤𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕘𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕞`$

2.3.1. Case where $`dimX>2`$ and $`dimY=2`$  Our algorithm formally makes sense even in the case $`dimX>2`$ as long as $`dimY=2`$, adopting any algorithm for canonical principalization, such as the one prescribed by Bierstone-Milman or Encinas-Villamayor among others, satisfying the above requirements. However, the author cannot show that the algorithm terminates even in the case $`dimX=3`$.

The major difference between the case where $`dimX>2`$ and the case where $`dimX=2`$ is that in the latter the defining ideal for the logarithmic ramification locus is always principal whereas in the former may not be. In fact, even when $`dimX>2`$, if the defining ideal for the logarithmic ramification locus happens to be principal, a combinatorial analysis very similar to the one in the case where $`dimX=2`$ would yield toroidalization. Therefore, one could try to formulate an algorithm where we first aim at principalizing the defining ideal for the logarithmic ramification locus. An interpretation of the monumental work by Cutkosky could be given from this point of view. Deatails will be published elsewhere.

2.3.2. Case where $`dimY>2`$  We are completely at loss in the case where $`dimY>2`$, even in the case where $`dimX=dimY=3`$ and hence the defining ideal for the logarithmic ramification locus is principal. The stalemate is a result of our (or rather, the author’s) lack of understanding of the expected inductional structure in the scheme of toroidalization, though the logarithmic category should be tailor-made for such an inductional scheme via adjunction.

§3. Local analysis in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$

3.1. $`𝕦𝕣𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕠𝕗𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟`$. The purpose of this section is to present a detailed local analysis of what happens in $`\overline{)\mathrm{Steps}1,2,3}`$ of the algorithm 2.1 for toroidalization in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$, under the same setting as in 2.1.1, i.e., $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ is a morphism in the logarithimic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$ so that

(a) $`f:XY`$ is a dominant morphism between nonsingular varieties of

$`dimX=dimY=2`$,

(b) $`D_X=f^1(D_Y)`$, and

(c) the restriction of $`f`$ to the open subset $`U_X`$, denoted by $`f|_{U_X}`$, is a smooth

morphism.

3.2. Type and Case Descriptions. Let $`pD_XX`$ be a closed point and $`q=f(p)D_YY`$ its image. In the following analysis, we always choose $`q`$ to be in the image of the logarithmic ramification locus, i.e., $`qf(R_{\mathrm{log}})`$.

We make our analysis sorting out the types and cases, based upon the following criteria:

$``$ The morphism $`f`$ is toroidal or not at $`p`$.

We put the letter $`T`$ when it is toroidal, and the letter $`N`$ when not.

$``$ Description of the boundary divisors at $`p`$ and $`q`$ and their behavior with respect

to $`f`$.

We have the following type descriptions on the boundary divisors at $`p`$ and $`q`$ (We take some systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ and $`(y_1,y_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$, compatible with the logarithmic structures, in analytic neighborhoods $`U_p`$ of $`p`$ and $`U_q`$ of $`q`$, respectively.):

$`2_p`$: The point $`p`$ is the intersection point of two irreducible components

$`G_1=\{x_1=0\}`$ and $`G_2=\{x_2=0\}`$ with $`G_1G_2=D_XU_p`$

for some analytic neighborhood $`U_p`$ of $`p`$.

$`1_p`$: The point $`p`$ belongs to only one irreducible component $`G_1=\{x_1=0\}`$

with $`G_1=D_XU_p`$ for some analytic neighborhood $`U_p`$ of $`p`$, while

$`G_2=\{x_2=0\}D_XU_p`$.

$`2_q`$: The point $`q`$ is the intersection point of two irreducible components

$`H_1=\{y_1=0\}`$ and $`H_2=\{y_2=0\}`$ with $`H_1H_2=D_YU_q`$

for some analytic neighborhood $`U_q`$ of $`q`$

$`1_q`$: The point $`q`$ belongs to only one irreducible component $`H_1=\{y_1=0\}`$

with $`H_1=D_YU_q`$ for some analytic neighborhood $`U_q`$ of $`q`$, while

$`H_2=\{y_2=0\}D_YU_q`$.

We have the following ten subcases (some of which, namely, Subcase $`2_p1_q0`$ and Subcase $`1_p2_q0`$, will be doomed impossible), where the third number indicates how many irreducible components of the boundary divisor map onto $`q`$:

Subcase $`2_p2_q0`$: Neither $`G_1`$ nor $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`2_p2_q1`$: Only one of $`G_1`$ or $`G_2`$ (say, $`G_1`$) maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`2_p2_q2`$: Both $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`1_p2_q0`$: $`G_1`$ does not map onto $`q`$ (and hence maps onto $`H_1`$ (or $`H_2`$))

Subcase $`1_p2_q1`$: $`G_1`$ maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`1_p1_q0`$: $`G_1`$ does not map onto $`q`$ (and hence $`G_1`$ maps onto $`H_1`$)

Subcase $`1_p1_q1`$: $`G_1`$ maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`2_p1_q0`$: Neither $`G_1`$ nor $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`2_p1_q1`$: Only one of $`G_1`$ or $`G_2`$ (say, $`G_1`$) maps onto $`q`$

Subcase $`2_p1_q2`$: Both $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$

3.3. Case by case analysis. Now we carry out a detailed analysis, in each (sub)case, of what happens when we blowup $`q`$ in $`\overline{)\mathrm{Step}2}`$ and when we take the canonical principalization of $`f^1_q𝒪_X=f^1m_q𝒪_X`$ in $`\overline{)\mathrm{Step}3}`$.

We provide:

A) Coordinate Expression

B) Descriptions of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and the induced

morphism $`f_1`$

C) Conclusion on the behavior of the logarithmic ramification divisor

It turns out that what weighs more, for the purpose of sorting out the subcases, is the type description of the point $`q`$ than that of $`p`$, and we regroup the subcases accordingly.

Remark on notation: When we write Subcases $`2_qT`$, we indicate that we are dealing with all the subcases of type $`2_p2_q0`$, $`2_p2_q1`$, $`2_p2_q2`$, $`1_p2_q0`$, $`1_p2_q1`$, collectively, with the extra condition that $`f`$ is toroidal at $`p`$.

When we write $`1_p2_q0`$ without mentioning whether $`f`$ is toroidal or not at $`p`$, we indicate that we are dealing with all the possibilities in the subcase without a priori putting the extra assumption on whether $`f`$ is toroidal or not.

3.3.1) Subcases $`2_q`$: These consist of the following subcases:

Subcase $`2_p2_q0`$

Subcase $`2_p2_q1`$

Subcase $`2_p2_q2`$

Subcase $`1_p2_q1`$

Subcase $`1_p2_q0`$: This subcase does not happen. In fact, say $`G_1`$ maps onto $`H_1`$ (and hence does not map onto $`H_2`$). Note that in a neighborhood $`U_p`$ of $`p`$ we have $`f^1(H_2)U_pf^1(D_Y)U_p=D_XU_p=G_1`$. Now since $`f^1(H_2)`$ is of pure codimension one, being the pull-back of a Cartier divisor, and since $`pf^1(H_2)`$, we conclude $`G_1U_p=f^1(H_2)U_p`$. But this would imply either $`G_1`$ maps onto $`q`$ or maps onto $`H_2`$, a contradiction!

3.3.1.A) Coordinate Expression

By the computation presented in the proof of Proposition 1.3.1, we conclude the following.

Subcases $`2_p2_qT`$: There exist systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ and $`(y_1,y_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$ compatible with the logarithmic structures such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}\text{where}\text{ }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]0.$$

Subcases $`2_p2_qN`$: There exist systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ and $`(y_1,y_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$ compatible with the logarithmic structures such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =ux_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}\text{where}\text{ }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]=0\text{with units}\text{ }u,v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times .$$

Subcases $`1_p2_q`$: There exist systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ and $`(y_1,y_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$ compatible with the logarithmic structures, as described in 3.2, such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =ux_1^a\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^c\hfill \end{array}\text{where }a,c_{>0}\text{ with units}\text{ }u,v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times .$$

3.3.1.B) Descriptions of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and the induced

morphism $`f_1`$

Subcases $`2_p2_qT`$: We observe that the ideal $`_q=m_q=(y_1,y_2)`$ is toroidal (in a neighborhood of $`q`$) in these subcases and that the ideal $`f^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X,p}=(x_1^ax_2^b,x_1^cx_2^d)`$ is also toroidal (in a neighborhood of $`p`$). Therefore, by remark 2.2.2, the blowup $`\mathrm{bp}_1:(U_{Y_1},Y_1)(U_{Y_0},Y_0)`$ is toroidal over a neighborhood of $`q`$, and so is the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1:(U_{X_1},X_1)(U_{X_0},X_0)=(U_X,X)`$ over a neighborhood of $`p`$. Since a composite of toroidal morphisms is again toroidal and so is a composite of a toroidal morphism with the inverse of a toroidal birational morphism (assuming that the composite is again a morphism, which is the case here), we conclude that $`f_1=\mathrm{bp}_1^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_1`$ stays toroidal on the locus of $`(U_{X_1},X_1)`$ which sits over a neighborhood of $`p`$.

Subcases $`2_p2_qN`$: In these subcases, as we observed, we have

$$det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]=0,$$

that is to say, the vectors $`(a,b),(c,d)_0\times _0`$ are linearly dependent. (We may choose $`(y_1,y_2)`$, without loss of generality, so that $`ac,bd`$. Note that $`(a,b)(0,0)`$ and $`(c,d)(0,0)`$.) This implies that the ideal $`f^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X,p}=(x_1^cx_2^d)`$ is already principal in a neighborhood of $`p`$. Therefore, by remark 2.2.2 the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ leaves a neighborhood of $`p`$ untouched. Also, by remark 2.2.2, in a neighborhood of $`p`$ the map $`f_1=\mathrm{bp}_1^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{bp}_1^1f_0`$ is a morphism.

Subcases $`1_p2_q`$: In these subcases, the ideal $`f^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X,p}=(x_1^a)`$ (We may choose $`(y_1,y_2)`$ without loss of generality so that $`ac`$ in the coordinate expression.) is already principal in a neighborhood of $`p`$. Therefore, by remark 2.2.2 the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ leaves a neighborhood of $`p`$ untouched. Also, by remark 2.2.2, in a neighborhood of $`p`$ the map $`f_1=\mathrm{bp}_1^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{bp}_1^1f_0`$ is a morphism.

3.3.1.C) Conclusion on the behavior of the logarithmic ramification divisor

In each of the subcases above, we conclude that over a neighborhood of the point $`q`$, since $`\mathrm{bp}_1`$ is toroidal,

$$K_{Y_1}+D_{Y_1}=\mathrm{bp}_1^{}(K_{Y_0}+D_{Y_0})\text{i.e.,}\text{ }^{dimY_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y_1}^1(\mathrm{log}D_{Y_1})=\mathrm{bp}_1^{}^{dimY_0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y_0}^1(\mathrm{log}D_{Y_0}),$$

and hence that the logarithmic ramification divisor stays intact, i.e.,

$$R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}=R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}.$$

3.3.2) Subcase $`1_p1_q0`$: $`G_1`$ does not map onto $`q`$ (and hence $`G_1`$ maps onto $`H_1`$)

3.3.2.A) Coordinate Expression

In this subcase, we show that $`f`$ is necessarily toroidal at $`p`$. (Although this is essentially due to Abhyankar’s lemma, we will not use it explicitly). We will show by some elementary calculation that there exist systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ and $`(y_1,y_2)`$ on $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y,q}}`$, compatible with the logarithmic structures, such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^a\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_2\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }a>0$$

using condition (c) $`f|_{U_X}`$ being smooth, imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category (cf. 1.2.1).

First, we start with some systems of regular parameters as described in 3.2. Then since $`f^1(D_Y)=D_X`$ where $`D_YU_q=H_1=\{y_1=0\}`$ and $`D_XU_p=G_1=\{x_1=0\}`$, we have

$$f^{}y_1=ux_1^a\text{for some unit }u\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{with}\text{ }a>0.$$

By replacing $`x_1`$ with $`u^{1/a}x_1`$, we may assume

$$f^{}y_1=x_1^a.$$

Set

$$f^{}y_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j,$$

where there exists $`j>0`$ with $`\alpha _{0j}0`$, since $`x_1`$ should not divide $`f^{}y_2`$ as $`G_1=\{x_1=0\}`$ does not map onto $`q`$ by the subcase assumption.

We set

$$j_o:=\mathrm{min}\{j;\alpha _{0j}0\}.$$

The basic point of computing the ramification is the simple observation that

$$d(x_1^ax_2^b)d(x_1^cx_2^d)=det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]x_1^{a+c1}x_2^{b+d1}dx_1dx_2.$$

We compute

$`f^{}(dy_1dy_2)`$ $`=df^{}y_1df^{}y_2`$
$`=d(x_1^a)d\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\right)`$
$`=d(x_1^a)d\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\right)`$
$`=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]\alpha _{ij}x_1^{a+i1}x_2^{j1})dx_1dx_2`$
$`=x_1^{a1}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^{j1}\right)dx_1dx_2.`$
Therefore, if $`j_o>1`$, then $`f`$ ramifies along

$$\{\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^{j1}\right)=0\}$$

other than along $`\{x_1=0\}`$, a contradiction to condition $`f|_{U_X}`$ being smooth! Therefore, we conclude

$$j_o=1.$$

By replacing $`x_2`$ with $`f^{}y_2`$, we obtain the desired systems of regular parameters.

Now since neither the divisor $`\{y_2=0\}`$ nor $`\{x_2=0\}`$ belongs to the boundary divisor defining the logarithmic structure, it is clear $`f`$ is toroidal at $`p`$ from the coordinate expression.

3.3.2.B) Descriptions of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and the induced

morphism $`f_1`$

We consider the 1st blowup $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, which is a sequence $`\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$ of blowups specified by the canonical principalization algorithm.

###### Diagram 3.3.2.B.1

###### Claim 3.3.2.B.2

a) The rational map $`f_{1,1}=\mathrm{bp}^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is well-defined (regular), that is to say, the ideal $`(f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X_{1,1}}`$ is principal, except possibly at $`p_1^{}`$.

b) At $`p_1^{}`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`1_{p_1^{}}1_q1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

a) Observe that the morphisms $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ and the ideal $`(y_1,y_2)`$ are toroidal, with respect to the modified logarithmic structures obtained by adding $`\{y_2=0\}`$ and $`\{x_2=0\}`$ to the original boundary divisors. From this it follows easily that $`f_{1,1}`$ is regular, except possibly at $`p_1`$ and/or $`p_1^{}`$.

Now at $`p_1`$, we have a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{x_1}{x_2},x_2)`$ with coordinate expression

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^{}y_1& =((\frac{x_1}{x_2})x_2)^a\hfill \\ \hfill (f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^{}y_2& =x_2,\hfill \end{array}$$

which immediately implies that the ideal $`(f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,1},p_1}}=(x_2)`$ is principal at $`p_1`$ and hence that $`f_{1,1}`$ is regular at $`p_1`$.

b) The verification for statement b) is immediate.

3.3.2.C) Conclusion on the behavior of the logarithmic ramification divisor

###### Claim 3.3.2.C.1

a) The coefficient of $`G_1`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor remains 0, i.e.,

$$\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0.$$

b) The strict transform of the exceptional divisor $`E_p`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p`$, does not appear in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$, i.e.,

$$\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0.$$

More generally, none of the irreducible components $`E`$ of the exceptional divisor for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ (i.e., none of the strict transforms of the exceptional divisors for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$) appear in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$, i.e.,

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

a) The verification for statement a) is obvious.

b) Take the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Then observing

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_p}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a10\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_p}(y_2)& =1>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

we conclude that the generic point of $`E_p`$ maps into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$.

Observe that the morphisms $`f_0,\mathrm{bp}_1,\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ are all toroidal with respect to the modified logarithmic structures obtained by adding $`\{y_2=0\}`$ and $`\{x_2=0\}`$ (and their pull-backs) to the original boundary divisors. The original logarithmic structures coincide with the modified ones in a neighborhood of the generic point of $`E_p`$ and in the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$. Therefore, $`f_{1,1}`$ is toroidal in a neighborhood of the generic point of $`E_p`$ with respect to the original logarithmic structures, and hence

$$\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0.$$

This proves the first part of statement b).

The second part of statement b) follows from Claim 3.3.2.B.2 b) and Claim 3.3.3.C.1 b).

3.3.3) Subcase $`1_p1_q1`$: $`G_1`$ maps onto $`q`$

3.3.3.A) Coordinate Expression

First, we start with some systems of regular parameters as described in 3.2. Then since $`f^1(D_Y)=D_X`$ where $`D_YU_q=H_1=\{y_1=0\}`$ and $`D_XU_p=G_1=\{x_1=0\}`$, we have

$$f^{}y_1=ux_1^a\text{for some unit }u\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{with}\text{ }a>0.$$

By replacing $`x_1`$ with $`u^{1/a}x_1`$, we may assume

$$f^{}y_1=x_1^a.$$

Set

$$f^{}y_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j,$$

where no term of the form $`x_2^j=x_1^0x_2^j(i=0,j>0)`$ appears, since $`x_1`$ has to divide $`f^{}y_2`$.

Now since $`f|_{U_X}`$ must be smooth by condition (c) imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category (cf. 1.2.1) and by computing the ramification $`f^{}(dy_1dy_2)/dx_1dx_2`$ as in 3.3.2.A, we conclude that $`f^{}y_2`$ must be of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_2& =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_s>0,j=0}\alpha _{i0}x_1^i\hfill \\ & +\alpha _{i_o,1}x_1^{i_o}x_2^1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o>0,j>0,(i,j)(i_o,1)}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }\alpha _{i_o,1}0,$$

where

$`i_o`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0\}`$
$`i_s`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0\}.`$
3.3.3.B) Descriptions of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and the induced

morphism $`f_1`$

Case $`i_si_o`$: In this case, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^a\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^{i_s}\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{unit},$$

which implies $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}=(x_1^a,x_1^{i_s})=(x_1^{\mathrm{min}\{a,i_s\}})`$ is principal. Therefore, $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$.

Case $`i_s>i_o`$: In this case, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^a\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_1^{i_o}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_s>0,j=0}\alpha _{i0}x_1^{ii_o}+\alpha _{i_o,1}x_2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o,j>0,(i,j)(i_o,1)}\alpha _{ij}x_1^{ii_o}x_2^j).\hfill \end{array}$$

Replacing $`x_2`$ by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_s>0,j=0}\alpha _{i0}x_1^{ii_o}+\alpha _{i_o,1}x_2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o,j>0,(i,j)(i_o,1)}\alpha _{ij}x_1^{ii_o}x_2^j)`$, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^a\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_1^cx_2\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }c=i_o.$$

Subcase $`a<c+1`$, i.e., $`ac`$: In this subcase, the ideal $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}=(x_1^a)`$ is principal. Therefore, $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$.

Subcase $`ac+1`$: We consider the 1st blowup $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, which is a sequence of blowups $`\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$ specified by the canonical principalization algorithm.

###### Diagram 3.3.3.B.1

###### Claim 3.3.3.B.2

The canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$, except under the subcase $`ac+1`$ in the case $`i_o>i_1`$. In the exceptional subcase, we claim:

a) The rational map $`f_{1,1}=\mathrm{bp}^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is well-defined (regular), that is to say, the ideal $`(f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X_{1,1}}`$ is principal, except possibly at $`p_1^{}`$.

b) At $`p_1^{}`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`1_{p_1^{}}1_q1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

The first part of the claim is already verified. So we have only to prove the assertions under the subcase $`ac+1`$ in the case $`i_o>i_1`$.

a) Observe that the morphisms $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ and the ideal $`(y_1,y_2)`$ are toroidal, with respect to the modified logarithmic structures obtained by adding $`\{y_2=0\}`$ and $`\{x_2=0\}`$ to the original boundary divisors. From this it follows easily that $`f_{1,1}`$ is regular, except possibly at $`p_1`$ and/or $`p_1^{}`$.

Now at $`p_1`$, we have a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{x_1}{x_2},x_2)`$ with coordinate expression

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^{}y_1& =((\frac{x_1}{x_2})x_2)^a=(\frac{x_1}{x_2})^ax_2^a\hfill \\ \hfill (f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^{}y_2& =((\frac{x_1}{x_2})x_2)^cx_2=(\frac{x_1}{x_2})^cx_2^{c+1}\hfill \end{array}$$

which immediately implies that the ideal $`(f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)=((\frac{x_1}{x_2})^cx_2^{c+1})`$ is principal at $`p_1`$ and hence that $`f_{1,1}`$ is regular at $`p_1`$.

b) The verification for statement b) is immediate.

3.3.3.C) Conclusion on the behavior of the logarithmic ramification divisor

###### Claim 3.3.3.C.1

a) The coeffcient of $`G_1`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor strictly drops. More precisely,

$$\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\text{if}\text{ }a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\hfill \\ & i_oa\text{if}\text{ }a<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}<i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

b) The canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$, except under the subcase $`ac+1`$ in the case $`i_s>i_o`$. In the exceptional subcase, the strict transform of the exceptional divisor $`E_p`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p`$, does not appear in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$, that is to say, the coefficient of the strict transform of the exceptional divisor $`E_p`$ is 0, i.e.,

$$\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0.$$

More generally, none of the irreducible components $`E`$ of the exceptional divisor for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ (i.e., none of the strict transforms of the exceptional divisors for $`\mathrm{cp}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{cp}_l`$), appear in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$, i.e.,

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

a) Firstly we compute the coefficient $`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ of $`G_1`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$.

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(x_1^a)}{x_1^a}}d\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o>0,j>0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\right)/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(x_1^a)}{x_1^a}}d(x_1^{i_o}x_2)/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)=i_o.`$
Secondly we compute the coefficient of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Subcase $`a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}{(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{y_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{G_1}(y_2)`$
$`=i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}<i_o.`$
Subcase $`a<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_1)& =a>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_2}{y_1})& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}a>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1^{}`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,\frac{y_2}{y_1})`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}d({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}})/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{G_1}(y_1)`$
$`=i_oa<i_o.`$
This completes the proof of the statement a).

b) We have only to consider the exceptional subcase $`ac+1`$ in the case $`i_o>i_1`$.

Take the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Then observing

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =ac>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_2)& =c>0\hfill \end{array}\&\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_p}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a(c+1)0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_p}(y_2)& =c+1>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

we conclude that the generic points of $`G_1`$ and $`E_p`$ maps into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$.

Observe that the morphisms $`f_0,\mathrm{bp}_1,\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ are all toroidal with respect to the modified logarithmic structures obtained by adding $`\{y_2=0\}`$ and $`\{x_2=0\}`$ (and their strict transforms) to the original boundary divisors. The original logarithmic structures coincide with the modified ones in neighborhoods of the generic points of $`G_1`$ and $`E_p`$ and in the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$. Therefore, $`f_{1,1}`$ is toroidal in neighborhoods of the generic points of $`G_1`$ and $`E_p`$ with respect to the original logarithmic structures, and hence

$$\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0$$

and

$$\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0<c=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

This proves statement a) and the first part of statement b).

The second part of statement b) follows inductively from the first part of the statement b) and Claim 3.3.3.B.2 b).

3.3.4) Subcase $`2_p1_q0`$: Neither $`G_1`$ nor $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$ (and hence both $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ would map onto $`H_1`$)

This subcase does not happen. (Although this is again essentially due to Abhyankar’s lemma, we will not use it explicitly). We will show by some elementary calculation that, in this subcase, $`f|_{U_X}`$ cannot be smooth and hence that we violate condition (c) imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category (cf. 1.2.1).

First, we start with some ystems of regular parameters as described in 3.2. Then since $`f^1(D_Y)=D_X`$ where $`D_YU_q=H_1`$ and $`D_XU_p=G_1G_2`$, we have

$$f^{}y_1=ux_1^ax_2^b\text{for some unit}\text{ }u\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{with}\text{ }a>0,b>0.$$

By replacing $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ with the ones multiplied by some appropriate units, we may assume

$$f^{}y_1=x_1^ax_2^b\text{with}\text{ }a>0,b>0.$$

On the other hand, since neither $`G_1`$ nor $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$, neither $`x_1`$ nor $`x_2`$ divides $`f^{}y_2`$ (Note that $`y_2`$ can be chosen in any way, irrelevant to the logarithmic structure, as long as $`(y_1,y_2)`$ form a system of regular parameters.), in the Taylor expansion of $`f^{}y_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j`$ we conclude that there exists $`i>0`$ such that $`\alpha _{i0}0`$ and that there exists $`j>0`$ such that $`\alpha _{0j}0`$.

We set

$`i_o`$ $`:=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{i0}0\}>0`$
$`j_o`$ $`:=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{0j}0\}>0.`$
Finally we compute

$`f^{}(dy_1dy_2)`$ $`=df^{}y_1df^{}y_2`$
$`=(ax_1^{a1}x_2^bdx_1+x_1^abx_2^{b1}dx_2)`$
$`(\alpha _{i_o0}i_ox_1^{i_o1}dx_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>i_o}\alpha _{i0}ix_1^{i1}dx_1`$
$`+d(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j>0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j>j_o}\alpha _{0j}jx_2^{j1}dx_2+\alpha _{0j_o}j_ox_2^{j_o1}dx_2)`$
$`=(b\alpha _{i_o0}i_ox_1^{i_o}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>i_o}b\alpha _{i0}ix_1^{ii_o}x_1^{i_o}`$
$`+x_1x_2h`$
$`+a\alpha _{0j_o}j_ox_2^{j_o}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j>j_o}a\alpha _{0j}jx_2^{jj_o}x_2^{j_o})`$
$`x_1^{a1}x_2^{b1}dx_1dx_2,`$
noting that

$$(ax_1^{a1}x_2^bdx_1+x_1^abx_2^{b1}dx_2)d(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j>0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j)$$

is divisible by $`x_1^ax_2^bdx_1dx_2`$ and can be written as

$$x_1x_2hx_1^{a1}x_2^{b1}dx_1dx_2\text{ for some }h\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}.$$

But this implies that $`f`$ ramifies along

$$\{(b\alpha _{i_o0}i_ox_1^{i_o}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>i_o}b\alpha _{i0}ix_1^{ii_o}x_1^{i_o}+x_1x_2h+a\alpha _{0j_o}j_ox_2^{j_o}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j>j_o}a\alpha _{0j}jx_2^{jj_o}x_2^{j_o})=0\}$$

other than possibly $`\{x_1=0\}`$ or $`\{x_2=0\}`$. This violates condition (c) $`f|_{U_X=X(\{x_1=0\}\{x_2=0\})}`$ being smooth imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category.

3.3.5) Subcase $`2_p1_q1`$: $`G_1`$ maps onto $`q`$ but $`G_2`$ does not map onto $`q`$

3.3.5.A) Coordinate Expression

First, we start with some systems of regular parameters as described in 3.2. Then since $`f^1(D_Y)=D_X`$ where $`D_YU_q=H_1`$ and $`D_XU_p=G_1G_2`$, we have

$$f^{}y_1=ux_1^ax_2^b\text{for some unit}\text{ }u\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{with}\text{ }a>0,b>0.$$

By replacing $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ with the ones multiplied by some appropriate units, we may assume

$$f^{}y_1=x_1^ax_2^b\text{with}\text{ }a>0,b>0.$$

Set

$$f^{}y_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j,$$

where no term of the form $`x_2^j=x_1^0x_2^j(i=0,j>0)`$ appears, since $`x_1`$ has to divide $`f^{}y_2`$ as $`G_1=\{x_1=0\}`$ maps onto $`q`$, and where there exists $`i>0`$ with $`\alpha _{i0}0`$, since $`x_2`$ should not divide $`f^{}y_2`$ as $`G_2=\{x_2=0\}`$ does not map onto $`q`$.

Now since $`f|_{U_X}`$ must be smooth by condition (c) imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category (cf. 1.2.1) and by computing the ramification $`f^{}(dy_1dy_2)/dx_1dx_2`$ as in 3.3.2.A, we conclude that $`f^{}y_2`$ must be of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_2& =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i,j)(i_s,j_s),det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\hfill \\ & +\alpha _{i_o,0}x_1^{i_o}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o>0,j0,(i,j)(i_o,0),det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j,\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }\alpha _{i_o,0}0,$$

where

$`i_0`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{i0}0\}`$
$`(i_s,j_s)`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{(i,j);\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0\}.`$
3.3.5.B) Descriptions of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and the induced

morphism $`f_1`$

Case $`i_oi_s`$ and $`i_oa`$: In this case, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^{i_o}\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{unit},$$

which implies $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}=(x_1^{i_o})`$ is principal. Therefore, $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$.

Case Otherwise, i.e., $`i_o>i_s`$ or $`i_o>a`$: We consider the 1st blowup $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, which is a sequence of blowups $`\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$ specified by the canonical principalization algorithm.

###### Diagram 3.3.5.B.1

###### Claim 3.3.5.B.2

The canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$, except under the case $`i_o>i_s`$ or $`i_o>a`$. In the exceptional case, we claim:

a) The rational map $`f_{1,1}=\mathrm{bp}^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is well-defined (regular), that is to say, the ideal $`(f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X_{1,1}}`$ is principal, except possibly at finitely many points on $`E_p`$.

b) At $`p_1`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_1}1_q2`$. At $`p_1^{}`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_1^{}}1_q1`$. At any other point $`p_1^{\prime \prime }(p_1,p_1^{})`$ on $`E`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`1_{p_1^{\prime \prime }}1_q1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Statements a) and b) are obvious.

3.3.5.C) Conclusion on the behavior of the logarithmic ramification divisor

###### Claim 3.3.5.C.1

a) The coefficient of $`G_1`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor strictly drops, while the coefficient of $`G_2`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor remains 0. More precisely,

$$\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\text{if}\text{ }a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\hfill \\ & i_oa\text{if}\text{ }a<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}<i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})$$

and

$$\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})=0.$$

b) The canonical principalization is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$, except under the case $`i_o>i_s`$ or $`i_o>a`$. In the exceptional case, the coefficient in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$ of the strict transform of the eceptional divisor $`E_p`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p`$, is strictly smaller than the maximum of the coefficients of irreducible components in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$ in a neighborhood of $`p`$. More precisely,

$$\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}\text{if}\text{ }a+b\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}\hfill \\ & i_o(a+b)\text{if}\text{ }a+b<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}<i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

More generally, the coefficient in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$, of any irreducible component $`E`$ of the exceptional divisor for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, is strictly smaller than the maximum of the coefficients of irreducible components in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$ in a neighborhood of $`p`$, i.e.,

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

a) Firstly we compute the coefficient $`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ of $`G_1`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$:

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(x_1^ax_2^b)}{x_1^ax_2^b}}d\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o>0,j0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\right)/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(x_1^ax_2^b)}{x_1^ax_2^b}}d(x_1^{i_o})/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)=i_o.`$
Secondly we compute the coefficient of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Subcase $`a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}{(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{y_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{G_1}(y_2)`$
$`=i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}<i_o.`$
Subcase $`a<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_1)& =a>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_2}{y_1})& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}a>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1^{}`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,\frac{y_2}{y_1})`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}d({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}})/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{G_1}(y_1)`$
$`=i_oa<i_o.`$
This completes the proof of statement a).

b) We have only to consider the exceptional case $`i_o>i_s`$ or $`i_o>a`$.

We compute the coefficient of (the strict transform of) the exceptional divisor $`E_p`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p`$, in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Subcase $`a+b\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_p}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a+b\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_p}(y_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}{(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{y_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{E_p}(y_2)`$
$`=i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}<i_o.`$
Subcase $`a+b<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_p}(y_1)& =a+b>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_p}(\frac{y_2}{y_1})& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s+j_s\}(a+b)>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1^{}`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,\frac{y_2}{y_1})`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}d({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}})/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{E_p}(y_1)`$
$`=i_o(a+b)<i_o.`$
This completes the proof of the first part of statement b).

In order to verify the second part of statement b), we look at the points where $`(f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X_{1,1}}`$ is (possibly) not principal.

At $`p_1`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_1}1_q2`$ with

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}})`$ $`=i_o`$
$`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}})`$ $`=i_o.`$
Therefore, by Claim 3.3.6.C.1 b) we have for any irreducible component $`E`$, other than (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$, which is exceptional for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and which maps onto $`p_1`$ under $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<\mathrm{max}\{\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}}),\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}})\}=i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

At $`p_1^{}`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_1^{}}1_q1`$ with

$$\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}})=i_o.$$

Therefore, by the first part of statement b) and by induction on the length of the sequence of blowups of points for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, we have for any irreducible component $`E`$, other than (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$, which is exceptional for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and which maps onto $`p_1^{}`$ under $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}})=i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

At $`p_1^{\prime \prime }E_p`$, other than $`p_1`$ or $`p_1^{}`$, the morphism $`(f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})`$ is in Subcase $`1_{p_1^{\prime \prime }}1_q1`$. Therefore, by Claim 3.3.3.C.1 b) we have for any irreducible component $`E`$, other than (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$, which is exceptional for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and which maps onto $`p_1^{\prime \prime }`$ under $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0<\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}})=i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

3.3.6) Subcase $`2_p1_q2`$: Both $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ map onto $`q`$

3.3.6.A) Coordinate Expression

First, we start with some systems of regular parameters as described in 3.2. Then since $`f^1(D_Y)=D_X`$ where $`D_YU_q=H_1`$ and $`D_XU_p=G_1G_2`$, we have

$$f^{}y_1=ux_1^ax_2^b\text{for some unit}\text{ }u\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{with}\text{ }a>0,b>0.$$

By replacing $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ with the ones multiplied by some appropriate units, we may assume

$$f^{}y_1=x_1^ax_2^b\text{with}\text{ }a>0,b>0.$$

Set

$$f^{}y_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i>0,j>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j,$$

where $`x_1x_2`$ divides $`f^{}y_2`$, since both $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ maps onto $`q`$.

Now since $`f|_{U_X}`$ must be smooth by condition (c) imposed on a morphism in the logarithmic category (cf. 1.2.1) and by computing the ramification $`f^{}(dy_1dy_2)/dx_1dx_2`$ as in 3.3.2.A, we conclude that $`f^{}y_2`$ must be of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_2& =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i,j)(i_s,j_s),det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\hfill \\ & +\alpha _{i_o,j_o}x_1^{i_o}x_2^{j_o}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o>0,jj_o>0,(i,j)(i_o,j_o),det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j,\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }\alpha _{i_o,j_o}0,$$

where

$`i_o`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0\}`$
$`j_o`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{j;\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0\}`$
$`\text{ with }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i_o& j_o\end{array}\right]0,\text{ and}`$
$`(i_s,j_s)`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{(i,j);\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0\}.`$
3.3.6.B) Descriptions of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ and the induced

morphism $`f_1`$

Case $`\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_oi_s\hfill \\ & j_oj_s\hfill \end{array}\right\}`$ or $`\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_oi_s\hfill \\ & j_oj_s\hfill \end{array}\&\begin{array}{cc}& i_oa\hfill \\ & j_ob\hfill \end{array}\right\}`$ or $`\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_oi_s\hfill \\ & j_oj_s\hfill \end{array}\&\begin{array}{cc}& i_oa\hfill \\ & j_ob\hfill \end{array}\right\}`$:

In this case, the ideal

$`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ $`=(x_1^{i_s}x_2^{j_s})\text{or}\text{ }(x_1^ax_2^b),`$
or
$`(x_1^{i_o}x_2^{j_o}),`$
or
$`(x_1^ax_2^b),\text{respectively},`$
is principal. Therefore, $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$.

Case Otherwise:

We consider the 1st blowup $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, which is a sequence of blowups $`\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$ specified by the canonical principalization algorithm.

###### Diagram 3.3.6.B.1

###### Claim 3.3.6.B.2

The canonical principalization is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$, except for the case where $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ is not principal. In the exceptional case, we claim:

a) The rational map $`f_{1,1}=\mathrm{bp}^1f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is well-defined (regular), that is to say, the ideal $`(f_0\mathrm{cp}_{1,1})^1(y_1,y_2)𝒪_{X_{1,1}}`$ is principal, except possibly at finitely many points on $`E_p`$.

b) At $`p_1`$ (resp. $`p_1^{}`$), the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_1}1_q1`$ (resp. $`2_{p_1^{}}1_q1`$). At any other point $`p_1^{\prime \prime }`$ on $`E_p`$, the morphism $`f\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$ is in Subcase $`1_{p_1^{\prime \prime }}1_q1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Statements a) and b) are obvious.

3.3.6.C) Conclusion on the behavior of the logarithmic ramification divisor

###### Claim 3.3.6.C.1

a) The coefficients of $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor strictly drop. More precisely,

$$\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\text{if}\text{ }a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\hfill \\ & i_oa\text{if}\text{ }a<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}<i_o=\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})$$

$$\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& j_o\mathrm{min}\{j_o,j_s\}\text{if}\text{ }b\mathrm{min}\{j_o,j_s\}\hfill \\ & j_ob\text{if}\text{ }b<\mathrm{min}\{j_o,j_s\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}<j_o=\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

b) The canonical principalization is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$, except for the case when $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ is not principal. In the exceptional case where $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ is not principal, the coefficient in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$ of the strict transform of the eceptional divisor $`E_p`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p`$, is strictly smaller than the maximum of the coefficients of the irreducible components in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$ in a neighborhood of $`p`$. More precisely,

$`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& i_o+j_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_1+j_1\}\text{if}\text{ }a+b\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_1+j_1\}\hfill \\ & i_o+j_o(a+b)\text{if}\text{ }a+b<\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_1+j_1\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}`$
$`<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}=\mathrm{max}\{\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}),\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})\}.`$
More generally, the coefficient in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$, of any irreducible component $`E`$ of the exceptional divisor for $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$, is strictly smaller than the maximum of the coefficients of the irreducible components in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$ in a neighborhood of $`p`$, i.e.,

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<\mathrm{max}\{\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}),\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})\}=\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

a) Firstly we compute the coefficient $`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ of $`G_1`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$.

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(x_1^ax_2^b)}{x_1^ax_2^b}}d\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_o>0,jj_o>0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_1^ix_2^j\right)/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(x_1^ax_2^b)}{x_1^ax_2^b}}d(x_1^{i_o}x_2^{j_o})/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)=i_o.`$
Symmetrically, we compute the coefficient $`\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ of $`G_2`$ in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$ to be

$$\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})=j_o.$$

Secondly we compute the coefficient of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ in $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Subcase $`a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}{(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{y_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{G_1}(y_2)`$
$`=i_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}<i_o.`$
Subcase $`a<\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{G_1}(y_1)& =a>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{G_1}(\frac{y_2}{y_1})& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o,i_s\}a>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`G_1`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1^{}`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,\frac{y_2}{y_1})`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{G_1}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}d({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}})/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{G_1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{G_1}(y_1)`$
$`=i_oa<i_o.`$
Symmetrically, we compute

$$\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& j_o\mathrm{min}\{j_o,j_s\}\text{if}\text{ }b\mathrm{min}\{j_o,j_s\}\hfill \\ & j_ob\text{if}\text{ }b<\mathrm{min}\{j_o,j_s\}\hfill \end{array}\right\}<j_o=\nu _{G_2}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}).$$

This proves statement a).

b) We compute the coefficient of (the strict transform of) the exceptional divisor $`E_p`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p`$, in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Subcase $`a+b\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_p}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a+b\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_p}(y_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}{(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{y_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{E_p}(y_2)`$
$`=i_o+j_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}.`$
Now we claim that

$$i_o+j_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}$$

unless $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ is already principal.

In fact, if

$$i_o+j_oi_s+j_s,$$

then

$$i_o+j_o\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}=0<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}.$$

Therefore, we may assume

$$i_o+j_o>i_s+j_s,$$

in which case we have

$`i_o+j_o`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}=(i_o+j_o)(i_s+j_s)`$
$`=(i_oi_s)+(j_oj_s)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}& (i_oi_s)(j_sj_o)<i_o\text{ if }j_sj_o\hfill \\ & (j_oj_s)(i_si_o)<j_o\text{ if }i_si_o\hfill \\ & \text{or}\hfill \\ & f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}=(x_1^ax_2^b,x_1^{i_s}x_2^{j_s})=(x_1^{\mathrm{min}\{a,i_s\}}x_2^{\mathrm{min}\{b,j_s\}})\hfill \\ & \text{ is principal }\text{ if }i_s<i_o\&j_s<j_o.\hfill \end{array}`$
Subcase $`a+b<\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_p}(y_1)& =a+b>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_p}(\frac{y_2}{y_1})& =\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}(a+b)>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`E_p`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1^{}`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,\frac{y_2}{y_1})`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}d({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}})/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}{(\frac{x_1}{x_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{E_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}\right)\nu _{E_p}(y_1)`$
$`=i_o+j_o(a+b).`$
Now we claim that

$$i_o+j_o(a+b)<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}$$

unless $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ is already principal.

In fact, we have

$`i_o+j_o(a+b)`$ $`=(i_oa)+(j_ob)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}& (i_oa)(bj_o)<i_o\text{ if }bj_o\hfill \\ & (j_ob)(ai_o)<j_o\text{ if }ai_o\hfill \\ & \text{or}\hfill \\ & f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}=(x_1^ax_2^b)\hfill \\ & \text{ principal }\text{ if }a<i_o\&b<j_o\hfill \\ & (\text{Note that }a<i_s\&b<j_s\hfill \\ & \text{ by the subcase assumption }a+b<\mathrm{min}\{i_o+j_o,i_s+j_s\}.)\hfill \end{array}`$
This proves the first part of statement b).

It remains to prove the second part of statement b).

Suppose $`p_kD_{X_{1,k}}X_{1,k}`$ is a closed point sitting over $`p=p_0D_X=D_{X_{1,0}}X=X_{1,0}`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,k}(p_k)=p.$$

We set

$$g_k=f(\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,k}).$$

Suppose that $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is not principal, and hence that we blowup $`p_k`$ to obtain the exceptional divisor $`E_{p_k}`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,k+1}`$, the $`(k+1)`$-th stage of the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1=\mathrm{cp}_{1,1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,k}\mathrm{cp}_{1,k+1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$.

At $`p_k`$, the morphism $`g_k`$ is either in Subcase $`1_{p_k}1_q1`$ or in Subcase $`2_{p_k}1_q2`$.

If $`g_k`$ is in Subcase $`1_{p_k}1_q1`$ at $`p_k`$, then by Claim 3.3.3.C.1 we have

$$\nu _E(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=0<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}$$

for (the strict transform of) any exceptional divisor $`E`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,k+1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{cp}_{1,l}`$ which maps onto $`p_k`$.

In order to analyze the case where $`g_k`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_k}1_q2`$, we prove the following inductive lemma.

###### Lemma 3.3.6.C.2

Let $`p_kD_{X_{1,k}}X_{1,k}`$ be a point, sitting over $`p`$, where $`g_k`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_k}1_q2`$. Assume that the ideal $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is not principal.

Suppose that we have the following two conditions:

$`(i)_k`$ There exists a system of regular parameters $`(x_{1,k},x_{2,k})`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$, compatible with the logarithmic structure, such that

$$()_k\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_k^{}y_1& =x_{1,k}^{a_k}x_{2,k}^{b_k}\text{with}\text{ }a_k>0,b_k>0\hfill \\ \hfill g_k^{}y_2& =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(i,j)(i_{s,k},j_{s,k}),det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0}\alpha _{ij}x_{1,k}^ix_{2,k}^j\hfill \\ & +\alpha _{i_{o,k},j_{o,k}}x_{1,k}^{i_{o,k}}x_{2,k}^{j_{o,k}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii_{o,k}>0,jj_{o,k}>0,(i,j)(i_{o,k},j_{o,k}),det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0}\alpha _{ij}x_{1,k}^ix_{2,k}^j\hfill \\ & \text{with}\text{ }\alpha _{i_{o,k},j_{o,k}}0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$`i_{o,k}`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{i;\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0\}`$
$`j_{o,k}`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{j;\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i& j\end{array}\right]0\}`$
$`\text{ with }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i_{o,k}& j_{o,k}\end{array}\right]0,\text{ and}`$
$`(i_{s,k},j_{s,k})`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\{(i,j);\alpha _{ij}0,det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0\}.`$
$`(ii)_k`$ One of the following four holds:

$$(\alpha )_k\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{o,k}& >i_{s,k}\hfill \\ \hfill j_{o,k}& <j_{s,k}\hfill \end{array}\right\}\text{with}\text{ }i_{o,k}i_{s,k}<i_o\text{and}\text{ }i_{o,k}a_k<i_o$$

$$(\beta )_k\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{o,k}& <i_{s,k}\hfill \\ \hfill j_{o,k}& >j_{s,k}\hfill \end{array}\right\}\text{with}\text{ }j_{o,k}j_{s,k}<j_o\text{and}\text{ }j_{o,k}b_k<j_o$$

$$(\gamma )_k\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{o,k}& i_{s,k}\hfill \\ \hfill j_{o,k}& j_{s,k}\hfill \end{array}\&\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{o,k}& >a_k\hfill \\ \hfill j_{o,k}& <b_k\hfill \end{array}\right\}\text{with}\text{ }i_{o,k}a_k<i_o,$$

$$(\delta )_k\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{o,k}& i_{s,k}\hfill \\ \hfill j_{o,k}& j_{s,k}\hfill \end{array}\&\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{o,k}& <a_k\hfill \\ \hfill j_{o,k}& >b_k\hfill \end{array}\right\}\text{with}\text{ }j_{o,k}b_k<j_o.$$

Then, $`E_{p_k}`$ being the exceptional divisor for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,k+1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p_k`$, we have

$$\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}.$$

Moreover, let $`p_{k+1}D_{X_{1,k+1}}X_{1,k+1}`$ be a point over $`p_k`$ where $`g_{k+1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_{k+1}}1_q2`$. Assume $`g_{k+1}^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}`$ is not principal. Then we have the conditions $`(i)_{k+1}`$ with coordinate expression $`()_{k+1}`$ and $`(ii)_{k+1}`$ (derived inductively from the conditions $`(i)_k`$ with coordinate expression $`()_k`$ and $`(ii)_k`$).

(Note that in the special case where in $`g_0^{}y_2`$ there is no term $`x_{1,0}^ix_{2,0}^j`$ with $`det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_0& b_0\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0`$ and hence where subsequently in $`g_k^{}y_2`$ there is no term $`x_{1,k}^ix_{2,k}^j`$ with $`det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_k& b_k\\ i& j\end{array}\right]=0`$, we set $`i_{s,0}=i_{s,k}=j_{s,0}=j_{s,k}=\mathrm{}`$ by convention.)

###### Diagram 3.3.6.C.3

###### Demonstration Proof

We compute the coefficient $`\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ of (the strict transform of) the exceptional divisor $`E_{p_k}`$ for $`\mathrm{cp}_{1,k+1}`$, obtained by blowing up $`p_k`$, in the logarithmic ramification divisor $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$. (We note that the computation is identical to the one given for $`\nu _{E_p}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})=\nu _{E_{p_0}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$, except that at the end we compare $`\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ to $`\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}`$ but not to $`\mathrm{max}\{i_{o,k},j_{o,k}\}`$.).

Subcase $`a_k+b_k\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_{p_k}}(\frac{y_1}{y_2})& =a_k+b_k\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_{p_k}}(y_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`E_{p_k}`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(\frac{y_1}{y_2},y_2)`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{E_{p_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}{(\frac{y_1}{y_2})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{y_2}}/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_{1,k}}{x_{2,k}})}{(\frac{x_{1,k}}{x_{2,k}})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{2,k}}{x_{2,k}}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{E_{p_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{1,k}}{x_{1,k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{2,k}}{x_{2,k}}}\right)\nu _{E_{p_k}}(y_2)`$
$`=i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}.`$
Now we claim that

$$i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}$$

unless $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is already principal.

In fact, if

$$i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}i_{s,k}+j_{s,k},$$

then

$$i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}=0<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}.$$

Therefore, we may assume

$$i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}>i_{s,k}+j_{s,k},$$

in which case we have

$`i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}=(i_{o,k}+j_{o,k})(i_{s,k}+j_{s,k})`$
$`=(i_{o,k}i_{s,k})+(j_{o,k}j_{s,k})`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}& (i_{o,k}i_{s,k})(j_{s,k}j_{o,k})<i_o\text{ if }j_{s,k}j_{o,k}\hfill \\ & (j_{o,k}j_{s,k})(i_{s,k}i_{o,k})<j_o\text{ if }i_{s,k}i_{o,k}\hfill \\ & \text{or}\hfill \\ & g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}=(x_{1,k}^{a_k}x_{2,k}^{b_k},x_{1,k}^{i_{s,k}}x_{2,k}^{j_{s,k}})=(x_{1,k}^{\mathrm{min}\{a_k,i_{s,k}\}}x_{2,k}^{\mathrm{min}\{b_k,j_{s,k}\}})\hfill \\ & \text{principal }\text{ if }i_{s,k}<i_{o,k}\&j_{s,k}<j_{o,k}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Remark that, under the assumption

$$i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}>i_{s,k}+j_{s,k},$$

when $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is not principal, we have

$`j_{s,k}j_{o,k}`$ $`(\alpha )_k(\text{and hence }i_{o,k}i_{s,k}<i_o)`$
$`i_{s,k}i_{o,k}`$ $`(\beta )_k(\text{and hence }j_{o,k}j_{s,k}<j_o).`$
Subcase $`a_k+b_k<\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}`$: In this subcase, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{E_{p_k}}(y_1)& =a_k+b_k>0\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{E_{p_k}}(\frac{y_2}{y_1})& =\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}(a_k+b_k)>0,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies that the generic point of (the strict transform of) $`E_{p_k}`$ maps under $`f_1`$ into the standard neighborhood of $`q_1^{}`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,\frac{y_2}{y_1})`$. Therefore, we compute

$`\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ $`=\nu _{E_{p_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}d({\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{y_1}})/{\displaystyle \frac{d(\frac{x_{1,k}}{x_{2,k}})}{(\frac{x_{1,k}}{x_{2,k}})}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{2,k}}{x_{2,k}}}\right)`$
$`=\nu _{E_{p_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{y_1}}dy_2/{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{1,k}}{x_{1,k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{2,k}}{x_{2,k}}}\right)\nu _{E_{p_k}}(y_1)`$
$`=i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}(a_k+b_k).`$
Now we claim that

$$i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}(a_k+b_k)<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}$$

unless $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is already principal.

In fact, we have

$`i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}`$ $`(a_k+b_k)=(i_{o,k}a_k)+(j_{o,k}b_k)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}& (i_{o,k}a_k)(b_kj_{o,k})<i_o\text{ if }b_kj_{o,k}\hfill \\ & (j_{o,k}b_k)(a_ki_{o,k})<j_o\text{ if }a_ki_{o,k}\hfill \\ & \text{or}\hfill \\ & g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}=(x_{1,k}^{a_k}x_{2,k}^{b_k})\hfill \\ & \text{ principal }\text{ if }a_k<i_{o,k}\&b_k<j_{o,k}\hfill \\ & (\text{Note that }a_k<i_{s,k}\&b_k<j_{s,k}\hfill \\ & \text{by the subcase assumption }a_k+b_k<\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\}.)\hfill \end{array}`$
Remark that, under the subcase assumption

$$a_k+b_k<\mathrm{min}\{i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}\},$$

when $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is not principal, we have

$`b_kj_{o,k}`$ $`(\gamma )_k(\text{and hence }i_{o,k}a_k<i_o)`$
$`a_ki_{o,k}`$ $`(\delta )_k(\text{and hence }j_{o,k}b_k<j_o).`$
Therefore, we conclude

$$\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}.$$

Finally, it remains to prove the assertions $`(i)_{k+1}`$ with $`()_{k+1}`$ and $`(ii)_{k+1}`$ on $`p_{k+1}D_{X_{1,k+1}}X_{1,k+1}`$, which is a point over $`p_k`$ and where $`g_{k+1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_{k+1}}1_q2`$. When we blow up $`p_k`$, there appear two points (lying over $`p_k`$) where $`g_{k+1}`$ is in Subcase $`2_{}1_q2`$, one having the standard neighborhood with a system of regular coordinates $`(\frac{x_{1,k}}{x_{2,k}},x_{2,k})`$ and the other having the standard neighborhood with a system of regular coordinates $`(x_{1,k},\frac{x_{2,k}}{x_{1,k}})`$. By symmetry, we have only to check the assertions on $`p_{k+1}`$ having the standard neighborhood with a system of regular coordinates $`(x_{1,k+1},x_{2,k+1})=(\frac{x_{1,k}}{x_{2,k}},x_{2,k})`$.

Firstly, by substituting

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& x_{1,k}=x_{1,k+1}x_{2,k+1}\hfill \\ & x_{2,k}=x_{2,k+1}\hfill \end{array}$$

into $`()_k`$, it is clear that the condition $`(i)_{k+1}`$ is satisfied with the system of regular coordinates $`(x_{1,k+1},x_{2,k+1})`$ providing the coordinate expression $`()_{k+1}`$.

Secondly, we check the condition $`(ii)_{k+1}`$, assuming that $`g_{k+1}^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}`$ is not principal.

Observe that

$`a_{k+1}`$ $`=a_k,`$
$`b_{k+1}`$ $`=a_k+b_k,`$
$`i_{o,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k},`$
$`j_{o,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}+j_{o,k},`$
$`i_{s,k+1}`$ $`=i_{s,k},`$
$`j_{s,k+1}`$ $`=i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}.`$
We analyze what happens at the $`(k+1)`$-the stage in each of the possibilities $`(\alpha )_k,(\beta )_k,(\gamma )_k,(\delta )_k`$ at the $`k`$-th stage.

$`(\alpha )_k`$: Suppose that we are in the case $`(\alpha )_k`$.

If $`j_{o,k+1}<j_{s,k+1}`$, then, since $`i_{o,k+1}=i_{o,k}>i_{s,k}=i_{s,k+1}`$, we are in the case $`(\alpha )_{k+1}`$. We also have

$`i_{o,k+1}i_{s,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}i_{s,k}<i_o`$
$`i_{o,k+1}a_{k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}a_k<i_o.`$
If $`j_{o,k+1}j_{s,k+1}`$, then, since $`i_{o,k+1}=i_{o,k}>i_{s,k}=i_{s,k+1}`$, we have

$$g_{k+1}^{}y_2=v_{k+1}x_{1,k+1}^{i_{s,k+1}}x_{2,k+1}^{j_{s,k+1}}\text{with}\text{ }v_{k+1}\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}^\times \text{unit}.$$

Therefore, the ideal

$`g_{k+1}^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}`$ $`=(x_{1,k+1}^{a_{k+1}}x_{2,k+1}^{b_{k+1}},x_{1,k+1}^{i_{s,k+1}}x_{2,k+1}^{j_{s,k+1}})`$
$`=(x_{1,k+1}^{\mathrm{min}\{a_{k+1},i_{s,k+1}\}}x_{2,k+1}^{\mathrm{min}\{b_{k+1},j_{s,k+1}\}})`$
is principal.

$`(\beta )_k`$: Suppose that we are in the case $`(\beta )_k`$.

If $`j_{o,k+1}>j_{s,k+1}`$, then since $`i_{o,k+1}=i_{o,k}<i_{s,k}=i_{s,k+1}`$ we are in the case $`(\beta )_{k+1}`$. We also have

$`j_{o,k+1}j_{s,k+1}`$ $`=(i_{o,k}+j_{o,k})(i_{s,k}+j_{s,k})`$
$`=(j_{o,k}j_{s,k})(i_{s,k}i_{o,k})<(j_{o,k}j_{s,k})<j_o`$
$`j_{o,k+1}b_{k+1}`$ $`=(i_{o,k}+j_{o,k})(a_k+b_k)`$
$`=(j_{o,k}b_k)(a_ki_{o,k})<(j_{o,k}b_k)<j_o.`$
(Note that under the case $`(\beta )_k`$ the inequality $`a_ki_{o,k}`$ would imply that $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}=(x_{1,k}^{a_k}x_{2,k}^{b_k})`$ is principal, being against the assumption. Thus we have $`a_k>i_{o,k}`$.)

If $`j_{o,k+1}j_{s,k+1}`$, then since $`i_{o,k+1}=i_{o,k}<i_{s,k}=i_{s,k+1}`$ we are in the case $`(\delta )_{k+1}`$, if $`g_{k+1}^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}`$ is not principal. We also have

$`j_{o,k+1}b_{k+1}`$ $`=(i_{o,k}+j_{o,k})(a_k+b_k)`$
$`=(j_{o,k}b_k)(a_ki_{o,k})<(j_{o,k}b_k)<j_o.`$
(See the note above.)

$`(\gamma )_k`$: Suppose that we are in the case $`(\gamma )_k`$.

Since, under the case $`(\gamma )_k`$,

$$i_{o,k}i_{s,k}\&j_{o,k}j_{s,k},$$

we have

$`i_{o,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}i_{s,k}=i_{s,k+1}`$
$`j_{o,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}=j_{s,k+1}.`$
Therefore, supposing $`g_{k+1}^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}`$ is not principal, we are in the case $`(\gamma )_{k+1}`$. We also have

$$i_{o,k+1}a_{k+1}=i_{o,k}a_k<i_o.$$

$`(\delta )_k`$: Suppose that we are in the case $`(\delta )_k`$.

Since, under the case $`(\delta )_k`$,

$$i_{o,k}i_{s,k}\&j_{o,k}j_{s,k},$$

we have

$`i_{o,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}i_{s,k}=i_{s,k+1}`$
$`j_{o,k+1}`$ $`=i_{o,k}+j_{o,k}i_{s,k}+j_{s,k}=j_{s,k+1}.`$
Therefore, supposing $`g_{k+1}^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k+1},p_{k+1}}}`$ is not principal, we are in the case $`(\delta )_{k+1}`$. We also have

$`j_{o,k+1}b_{k+1}`$ $`=(i_{o,k}+j_{o,k})(a_k+b_k)`$
$`=(j_{o,k}b_k)(a_ki_{o,k})<(j_{o,k}b_k)<j_o.`$
Therefore, Lemma 3.3.6.C.2 is proved.

Now observe that at $`p_0=p`$ where $`g_0=f`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_0}1_q2`$, conditions $`(i)_0`$ with coordinate expression $`()_0`$ and $`(ii)_0`$ clearly hold. Therefore, by Lemma 3.3.6.C.2, at any point $`p_k`$ (over $`p_0=p`$) where the morphism $`g_k`$ is in Subcase $`2_{p_k}1_q2`$, and where the ideal $`g_k^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X_{1,k},p_k}}`$ is not principal, we see that conditions $`(i)_k`$ with coordinate expression $`()_k`$ and $`(ii)_k`$ clearly hold, and that

$$\nu _{E_{p_k}}(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})<\mathrm{max}\{i_o,j_o\}.$$

This completes the proof of the second part of statement b).

This completes the local analysis of our algorithm 2.1 in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$.

§4. Termination of the algorithm in the case where $`dimX=dimY=2`$

4.1. $`𝕦𝕣𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕠𝕗𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟.`$ The purpose of this section is, based upon the local analysis in §3, to observe that the logarithmic ramification divisor decreases in the process of the algorithm, under some partial order which we introduce among the Weil divisors (on possibly different ambient spaces) and with respect to which the descending chain condition is satisfied. Thus the algorithm must terminate after finitely many steps, ending with the logarithmic ramification divisor being zero, i.e., achieving toroidalization of the given morphism.

4.2. $`𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕘𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕎𝕖𝕚𝕝𝕕𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕤𝕠𝕣𝕤.`$ Let $`R_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }a_iF_i`$ and $`R_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }b_jG_j`$ be Weil divisors on varieties $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$, respectively, where the $`F_i`$ and $`G_j`$ are distinct irreducible components with the coefficients in decreasing order, i.e.,

$`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{s1}a_s`$
$`b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_{t1}b_t.`$
Then we define the partial order among the Weil divisors so that

$$R_1R_2\text{if}\text{ }(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{s1},a_s)(b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_{t1},b_t),$$

where the second inequality is given with respect to the lexicographical order.

It is clear that the set

$$\{(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{s1},a_s)\}$$

satisfies the descending chain condition (i.e., there is no infinite strictly decreasing sequence) and that so does the set of Weil divisors (possibly on different ambient spaces).

4.3. $`𝕋𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕗𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕘𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕙𝕞.`$

###### Theorem 4.3.1

The algorithm 2.1 for toroidalization of a morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ in the logarithmic category, where $`dimX=dimY=2`$, terminates after finitely many steps.

More precisely, in the process of the algorithm

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}(U_X,X)=(U_{X_0},X_0)& \stackrel{\mathrm{cp}_1}{}& (U_{X_0},X_0)& \stackrel{\mathrm{cp}_2}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\mathrm{cp}_i}{}& (U_{X_i},X_i)& & \mathrm{}\\ f=f_0& & f_1& & & & f_i& & \\ (U_X,X)=(U_{X_0},X_0)& \stackrel{\mathrm{bp}_1}{}& (U_{X_0},X_0)& \stackrel{\mathrm{bp}_2}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\mathrm{bp}_i}{}& (U_{X_i},X_i)& & \mathrm{},\end{array}$$

(o) the logarithmic ramification divisor never increases (with respect to the order introduced in 4.2), i.e.,

$$R_{\mathrm{log},f_i}R_{\mathrm{log},f_{i+1}},$$

(i) we have no infinite sequence of consecutive blowups

$$\mathrm{bp}_j\mathrm{bp}_{j+1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{bp}_{j+i}\mathrm{}$$

where the centers are only points $`q`$ of type $`2_q`$,

(ii) every time we have a point $`q`$ of type $`1_q`$ in the center of $`\mathrm{bp}_i`$, the logarithmic ramification divisor strctly decreases (with respect to the order introduced in 4.2), i.e.,

$$R_{\mathrm{log},f_i}>R_{\mathrm{log},f_{i+1}}.$$

Therefore, by the descending chain condition on the partial order, the algorithm must terminate after finitely many steps.

###### Demonstration Proof

(o) In each of the subcases from 3.3.1 through 3.3.6, we conclude in the subsection C that

$$\text{either }R_{\mathrm{log},f_i}=R_{\mathrm{log},f_{i+1}}\text{ or }R_{\mathrm{log},f_i}>R_{\mathrm{log},f_{i+1}}.$$

(i) We may assume $`j=0`$ for the proof. Suppose that at the $`0`$-th stage, the center of $`\mathrm{bp}_1`$ consists only of points $`q`$ of type $`2_q`$. This means that $`f(R_{\mathrm{log},f_0})`$ consists only of points of type $`2_q`$.

Suppose $`pR_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$, i.e., $`f_0`$ is toroidal in a neighborhood of $`p`$. Then by 3.3.1.B, over a neighborhood of $`p`$, the morphism $`f_1`$ remains toroidal. That is to say, over this neighborhood of $`p`$, there is no intersection with $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Suppose $`pR_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$. Then by the local analysis in 3.3.1, we have coordinate expression

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =ux_1^{a_p}x_2^{b_p}\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^{c_p}x_2^{d_p}\hfill \end{array}\text{ where }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_p& b_p\\ c_p& d_p\end{array}\right]=0\text{ with units }u,v\widehat{𝒪_{X_0,p}}^\times ,$$

for some systems of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ and $`(y_1,y_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X_0,p}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒪_{Y_0,p}}`$, compatible with the logarithmic structures.

Remark that the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_p& b_p\\ c_p& d_p\end{array}\right]$$

is independent of the choice of the systems of regular parameters, up to the column change and row change, and that the set

$$\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_p& b_p\\ c_p& d_p\end{array}\right];pR_{\mathrm{log},f_0}\}$$

is a finite set.

By the local analysis 3.3.1.B, the canonical principalization $`\mathrm{cp}_1`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`pR_{\mathrm{log},f_0}`$.

We have two possibilities: either

$``$ $`pR_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$

or

$``$ $`pR_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$ where $`f_1`$ is in Subcases $`2_{q_1}`$ at $`p`$ with the corresponding matrix $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_pc_p& b_pd_p\\ c_p& d_p\end{array}\right]`$ (under the convention $`a_pc_p`$ and $`b_pd_p`$), since we assume that $`f_1(R_{\mathrm{log},f_1})`$ consists of points $`q_1`$ of type $`2_{q_1}`$.

But from this it follows that the length of the sequence could at most be

$$\mathrm{max}\{a_p+b_p+c_p+d_p;pR_{\mathrm{log},f_0}\},$$

proving statement (i).

(ii) Statement (ii) follows from the local analysis in the subsection C of each of the subcases from 3.3.2. through 3.3.6.

Now termination of the algorithm after finitely many steps is an easy consequence of statements (i) and (ii), combined with the descending chain condition on the set of the Weil divisors under the order introduced in 4.2.

4.4. $`𝕠𝕣𝕠𝕝𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕤`$

###### Corollary 4.4.1 (Resolution of singularities of morphisms in the logarithmic category in dimension 2)

Let $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ be a morphism in the logarithmic category of nonsingular toroidal embeddings with $`dimX=2`$. Then there exist sequences of blowups with permissible centers $`\pi _X:(U_X^{},X^{})(U_X,X)`$ and $`\pi _Y:(U_Y^{},Y^{})(U_Y,Y)`$ such that the induced map $`f^{}:(U_X^{},X^{})(U_Y^{},Y^{})`$ is log smooth.

###### Demonstration Proof

When $`dimY=0`$, there is nothing to prove. When $`dimY=1`$, it follows from 2.2.1 that $`f`$ is already log smooth. When $`dimY=2`$, the assertion is a consequence of Theorem 4.3.1.

###### Corollary 4.4.2 (Toroidalization in dimension 2)

Toroidalization conjecture holds for a dominant morphism $`f:XY`$ between nonsingular varieties with $`dimX=2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

This follows from 1.5 and Corollary 4.4.1.

4.5. $`𝔽𝕦𝕣𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕤`$.

###### Corollary 4.5.1 (Strong factorization of birational maps in dimension 2)

Strong factorization of birational maps in dimension 2 holds: Let $`\phi :XY`$ be a proper birational map between nonsingular varieties in dimension 2. Then there exist a sequence of blowups with points as centers

$$X=X_0\stackrel{\varphi _1}{}X_1\stackrel{\varphi _2}{}\stackrel{\varphi _{l1}}{}X_{l1}\stackrel{\varphi _l}{}X_l$$

and a sequene of blowdowns

$$X_l=Y_m\stackrel{\psi _m}{}Y_{m1}\stackrel{\psi _{m1}}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\psi _2}{}Y_1\stackrel{\psi _1}{}Y_0=Y$$

such that

$$\phi =\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _m\varphi _l^1\mathrm{}\varphi _1^1.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

The whole point of mentioning this well-known fact is to emphasize the way we prove it, according to the general strategy Step I, which we have now completed proving toroidalization in dimension 2, and step II, which is a consequence of an easy combonatorial fact of geometry of convex bodies in dimension 2 (See 0.4 and Abramovich-Matsuki-Rashid). We remark that the existing proofs for toroidalization use the factorization theorem of proper birational morphisms via Castelnuovo’s contractibility of a $`(1)`$-curve.

4.4.2. With the assumption of properness on $`f`$.

Suppose that in the setting of 2.1.1 for a morphism $`f:(U_X,X)(U_Y,Y)`$ in the logarithmic category, we put the properness assumption on the morphism $`f`$.

Then we have much less possibilities in 3.3.5) Subcase $`2_p1_q1`$ and 3.3.6) Subcase $`2_p1_q2`$: Let $`U_q`$ be an open neighborhood of $`q`$ with a system of regular parameters $`(y_1,y_2)`$ with $`H_1=\{y_1=0\}`$. Then since $`f`$ is smooth over $`U_qD_Y=U_qH_1`$, Abhyankar’s lemma tells us that the normalization $`\mu :\stackrel{~}{U_q}U_q`$ of $`U_q`$ in the function field $`k(X)`$ has a system of regular parameters $`(\stackrel{~}{y_1},\stackrel{~}{y_2})`$ such that $`\mu `$ can be written in these coordinate systems

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu ^{}y_1& =\stackrel{~}{y_1}^e\hfill \\ \hfill \mu ^{}y_2& =\stackrel{~}{y_2}.\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }b>0.$$

Now the factorization theorem of proper birational morphisms in dimension 2 tells us that $`g:f^1(U_q)\stackrel{~}{U_q}`$ is a sequence of blowups of points.

3.3.5) Subcase $`2_p1_q1`$: Since $`G_2`$ is not exceptional for $`f`$ and hence not for $`g`$, we see that there exists a system of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g^{}\stackrel{~}{y_1}& =x_1^a^{}x_2\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\stackrel{~}{y_2}& =x_1\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining the above two, we conclude

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_1\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }a=a^{}e,b=e.$$

3.3.6) Subcase $`2_p1_q2`$: Since both $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are exceptional for $`f`$ and hence for $`g`$, we see that there exists a system of regular parameters $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ such that we have either

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =x_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =x_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]0$$

where

$`ac\&bd,\text{ or}`$
$`ac\&bd.`$
or

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f^{}y_1& =ux_1^ax_2^b\hfill \\ \hfill f^{}y_2& =vx_1^cx_2^d\hfill \end{array}\text{with}\text{ }det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]=0\text{and}\text{ }u,v\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}^\times \text{units}.$$

The conclusion is that, under the properness assumption on $`f`$, in both 3.3.5) Subcase $`2_p1_q1`$ and 3.3.6) Subcase $`2_p1_q2`$ the ideal $`f^1(y_1,y_2)\widehat{𝒪_{X,p}}`$ is already principal, and hence that the canonical principalization is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`p`$.

Under the properness assumption on $`f`$, no new irreducible components appear in the logarithmic ramification divisor in the process. Moreover, identifying the strict transforms of the irreducible components in the logarithmic ramification divisors, we conclude (via the usual order among the Weil divisors)

3.3.1) Subcase $`2_q`$ $``$ $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}=R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$

3.3.2) Subcase $`1_p1_q0`$ $``$ $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}=R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$

3.3.3) Subcase $`1_p1_q1`$ $``$ $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}>R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$

3.3.4) Subcase $`2_p1_q0`$: Impossible

3.3.5) Subcase $`2_p1_q1`$ $``$ $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}>R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$

3.3.6) Subcase $`2_p1_q2`$ $``$ $`R_{\mathrm{log},f_0}>R_{\mathrm{log},f_1}`$.

Therefore, the proof of Theorem 4.3.1 (ii) becomes much simpler under the properness assumption on $`f`$.

$$𝔼𝔽𝔼𝔼𝔼𝕊$$

 S. Abhyankar, Simultaneous resolutions for algebraic surfaces, Amer. J. Math $`\mathrm{𝟟𝟠}`$ (1956), 761-790

 S. Abhyankar, On the valuations centered in a local domain, Amer. J. Math $`\mathrm{𝟟𝟠}`$ (1956), 321-348

 D. Abramovich and A.J. de Jong, Smoothness, semistability, and toroidal geometry, J. Alg. Geom. $`\mathrm{𝟞}`$ (1997), 789-801

 D. Abramovich and K. Karu, Weak semistable reduction in characteristic zero, Invent. Math. $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟛𝟡}`$ (2000), no. 2, 241-273

 D. Abramovich,K. Matsuki and S. Rashid, A note on the factorization theorem of toric birational maps after Morelli and its toroidal extension, Tohoku Math. J. (2) $`\mathrm{𝟝𝟙}`$ (1999), no. 4, 489-537

 D. Abramovich, K. Karu, K. Matsuki and J. Włodarczyk, Torification and factorization of birational maps, J. Amer. Math. Soc. $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟝}`$ (2002), 531-572

 S. Akbulut and H. King, Topology of algebraic sets, MSRI publications 25

 E. Bierstone and P. Milman, Canonical desingularization in characteristic zero by blowing up the maximum strata of a local invariant, Invent. Math. $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟚𝟠}`$ (1997), 207-302

 C. Christensen, Strong domination/weak factorization of three dimensional regular local rings, Journal of the Indian Math. Soc. $`\mathrm{𝟜𝟝}`$ (1981), 21-47

 S.D. Cutkosky, Local factorization of birational maps, Advances in Math. $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟛𝟚}`$ (1997), 167-315

 S.D. Cutkosky, Local monomialization and factorization of morphisms, Astérisque 260, Soc. Math. France (1999)

 S.D. Cutkosky, Monomialization of morphisms from 3-folds to surfaces, preprint math.AG/0010002

 S.D. Cutkosky and O. Piltant, Monomial resolutions of morphisms of algebraic surfaces, Special issue in honor of Robin Hartshorne, Comm. Algebra $`\mathrm{𝟚𝟠}`$ (2000), no. 12, 5935-5959

 S. Encinas and O. Villamayor, A course on constructive desingularization and equivariance, in Resolution of singularities (Obergurgl, 1997), Progress in Math. $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟠𝟙}`$ (2000), Birkhäuser, 147-227

 S. Encinas and O. Villamayor, A new theorem of desingularization over fields of characteristic zero, preprint (1999)

 H. Hironaka, Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero, Annals of Math. $`\mathrm{𝟟𝟡}`$ (1964), 109-324

 S. Iitaka, Algebraic Geometry (An introduction to birational geometry of algebraic varieties), Graduate Texts in Math. 76 (1982), Springer

 A.J. de Jong, Smoothness, semistability, and alterations, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. $`\mathrm{𝟠𝟛}`$ (1996), 51-93

 K. Karu, Local strong factorization of birational maps, preprint (2003)

 K. Kato, Toric singularities, Amer. J. Math. $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟙𝟞}`$ (1994), 1073-1099

 G. Kempf, F. Knudsen, D. Mumford and B. Saint-Donat, Toroidal embeddings I, Lecture Notes in Math. $`\mathrm{𝟛𝟛𝟡}`$ (1973), Springer

 H. King, Resolving singularities of maps, Real algebraic geometry and topology (East Lansing, Michigan, 1993), Contemp. Math. (1995), Amer. Math. Soc.

 K. Matsuki, Correction to “A note on the factorization theorem of birational maps after Morelli and its toroidal extension”, Tohoku Math. J. $`\mathrm{𝟝𝟚}`$ (2000), 629-631

 K. Matsuki, Lectures on factorization of birational maps, RIMS preprint $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟚𝟠𝟙}`$ (1999)

 K. Matsuki, Notes on the inductive algorithm of resolution of singularities by S. Encinas and O. Villamayor, preprint (2002)

 R. Morelli, The birational geometry of toric varieties, J. Alg. Geom. $`\mathrm{𝟝}`$ (1996), 751-782

 T. Oda, Convex bodies and algebraic geometry, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete $`\mathrm{𝟙𝟝}`$ (1988)

 J. Włodarczyk, Decomposition of birational toric maps in blow-ups and blow-downs (A proof of the weak Oda conjecture), Transaction of the AMS $`\mathrm{𝟛𝟜𝟡}`$ (1997), 373-411

 J. Wlodarczyk, Birational cobordism and factorization of birational maps, J. Alg. Geom. $`\mathrm{𝟡}`$ (2000), no. 3, 425-449

 J. Włodarczyk, Toroidal varieties and the weak factorization theorem, preprint math.AG/9904076

 O. Zariski, Algebraic surfaces, Springer-Verlag (1934)