Symplectic Topology. Ivan Smith
|
|
- Scot McBride
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Symplectic Topology Ivan Smith Lent 2006
2 L1: Introduction Riemannian geometry is the geometry of a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form: we equip each tangent space T x M of a manifold M with such a pairing. Symplectic geometry is the geometry of a non-degenerate skew-symmetric bilinear form, which moreover we insist is locally constant as we vary from tangent space to tangent space. Formally, fix the skew form (( ) ( )) Ω = diag on R 2n, i.e. this is the 2n 2n matrix which in 2 2 blocks just has these equal diagonal entries. The group Sp 2n (R ) GL 2n (R ) is the subgroup of matrices which preserve this form: A t ΩA = Ω. A symplectic manifold is a 2nmanifold with an atlas of charts for which the transition maps are diffeomorphisms of R 2n whose derivatives belong to Sp 2n (R ).
3 Examples: Euclidean space R 2n is trivially symplectic, and is the local model for all symplectic manifolds: there are no local invariants, in contrast to curvature in Riemannian geometry. Open subsets and products of symplectic manifolds inherit symplectic structures. Motivation: If a particle moves in R n with force Φ = U/ q, for a potential U, Newton s law is: q = U/ q. Letting H = U + q 2 /2 be total energy and p = q, Hamilton s equations: H/ p = q; H/ q = ṗ for (q, p) R 2n the position and momentum. We are used to conservation of energy: d dt H(p, q) = H q q + H p ṗ = 0 But the flow also preserves the symplectic structure of R 2n ; time evolution in classical mechanics is a map R Symp(R 2n ).
4 A symplectic matrix has determinant +1, so symplectic manifolds have canonically defined volume forms: measure the volume of a subset by covering it in patches and using the measure on R 2n. The choice of charts doesn t matter since changing charts U α φ αβ U β multiplies the local integrals by det(dφ αβ ) = 1. Theorem (Moser): (i) two such volume forms on a closed manifold are equivalent if and only if they have the same total volume; (ii) if U, V are open subsets of R k then there is a volumepreserving embedding U V if and only if vol(u) vol(v ). Theorem (Gromov): There is no symplectic embedding B 2n (R) B 2 (r) R 2n 2 if R > r. This is called the non-squeezing theorem. This amounts to saying symplectic geometry can t be reduced to volume-preserving geometry, and will come at the end of the course.
5 Motivations from symmetry: suppose we try and classify groups acting locally on R k for which (i) the group acts locally transitively (or we could just reduce dimension to an orbit) (ii) the group has no invariant foliation : it s not of the form (x, y) φ(x, y) = (f(x), g(x, y)) for R k = R l R k l (or simplify by φ f). Theorem (Lie): If such a symmetry group is finite-dimensional and compact it s SO(n), or SU(n) or SP (n) or one of a finite list of exceptions. [Drop compactness: get SO(p, q), SO(n, C ) etc, but still finitely many families.] Theorem (Cartan): If the symmetry group is infinite-dimensional it s Diff(R k ) or Vol(R k ), or Symp(R 2k ) or Cont(R 2k+1 ), or a conformal analogue, with no exceptional cases. Symplectic geometry, and it s odd-dimensional cousin contact geometry, are hence very natural, but we won t come back to this.
6 Motivations from topology: four-dimensional geometry is very special. For instance, R 2n has a unique smooth structure if n 2, but R 4 has uncountably many. In the world of closed simply-connected manifolds, in a given homeomorphism type in dimension k 4 there are at most finitely many diffeomorphism types and (complicated) homotopy invariants distinguish these but in dimension 4 there are often infinitely many diffeomorphism types, and no known homotopy interpretation of how to separate them. Conjecture (Donaldson): If X, Y are homeomorphic symplectic four-manifolds, then X is diffeomorphic to Y if and only if X S 2 and Y S 2 are deformation equivalent as symplectic manifolds. i.e. symplectic geometry in dimension 6 should at least, often does capture exotic smooth geometry in dimension 4.
7 Quantum cohomology: a symplectic manifold has a natural deformation of the ring structure in H (X, R ). Recall the intersection pairing in cohomology is non-degenerate so a cohomology class A is completely determined by giving A, c Z for every c. If now A is itself a cup-product A = a b then we see that the three-point function (a, b, c) a b, c Z completely determines the cup-product. Think of this via intersections of cycles: We re counting intersection points, i.e. maps P 1 X which are constant and have image inside C a C b C c. Generalise: count nonconstant holomorphic maps P 1 X which take 0 C a, 1 C b and C c. We think of this as a deformation: count maps with area N as terms of order ε N in an expansion...
8 Plan of the course: Part 1: Background differential forms on real and complex manifolds, almost complex structures, the first Chern class. Part 2: Moser methods basic symplectic geometry. What do symplectic manifolds look like locally? Which manifolds are symplectic What are special symplectic submanifolds? Part 3: Constructions how to build symplectic manifolds by surgery, and take quotients by group actions, and so forth. We ll state without proof a topological characterisation of symplectic manifolds. Part 4: Holomorphic curves invariants of symplectic manifolds, by counting certain minimal surfaces inside them. We ll prove the non-squeezing theorem, deduce a topological characterisation of symplectic diffeomorphisms, and define quantum cohomology.
9 L2: Differential forms We start with linear algebra. For a vector space E, the tensor algebra T (E) is i 0 E i (where E 0 = F is the underlying field). The tensor product is defined by saying there is a bilinear map E E E E, and the RHS is universal for this: all bilinear maps from E E factor through it. If v i, v i are bases for E and E then v i v j is a basis for E E. Quotient by the ideal v v to skew-symmetrise and obtain the exterior algebra Λ (E); Λ k E is universal for alternating multilinear maps E k U; equivalently Λ k E = E k /I with I = w 1 w k i j : w i = w j. T (E) is infinite-dimensional but if dim F (E) = n then dim F (Λ E) = 2 n ; if E = v 1,..., v n then Λ k (E) = v i1 v i2 v ik i 1 < i 2 < < i k has dimension ( ) n k. Why look at exterior powers of a vector space (or its dual)?
10 (i) Exterior powers play a big role in representation theory (if you know about this). (ii) By composition, a linear map A : E F induces linear maps Λ k (E) Λ k (F ), e.g. if k = 1, a 1-tensor is always skew so Λ 1 (E) = E. If E and F have dimension n, then Λ n E and Λ n F are one-dimensional vector spaces, and Λ n A is multiplication by a scalar, which is the determinant of A. [For any tensor S E p, we get a skew-symmetric tensor Alt(S) = π Sym p sgn(π)s π, where sgn(π) ±1 and we set S π (v 1,..., v p ) = S(π(v 1 ),..., π(v p )). If S is already skew, then Alt(S) = S; elements of Λ p are exactly tensors τ E p for which τ σ = sgn(σ)τ for all σ Sym p. Now think of A as a matrix, and the usual determinant formula!] (iii) Differential forms on a manifold M are sections of Λ k T M. If we integrate a function, and change co-ordinates, the determinant of the Jacobian enters; differential forms will give us a natural way to integrate on manifolds.
11 Given a vector field X Γ(T M) on a manifold, we get an operation on functions f X f : C (M) C (M), by differentiating f in the direction of the flow of X. Precisely, integrate X to a one-parameter family of diffeomorphisms {φ t : M M} t ( δ,δ), and consider the function X f : M R with value (X f)(x) = dt d (f φ t(x)) t=0. Everything here is local, so this defines d : C (M) = Ω 0 (M) Ω 1 (M) = Γ(T M) via df, X = X f. We will extend this map to a cochain complex, d 2 = 0, Ω 0 (M) d Ω 1 (M) d Ω 2 (M) d The complex ends Ω n (M) 0 since there are no (n + 1)-forms on an n-manifold. The associated de Rham cohomology theory HdR (M) agrees with e.g. singular cohomology.
12 Tensor product on T (E) descends to give wedge product : Λ k Λ l Λ k+l. (i) Wedge product is bilinear and associative (the second of these can take some work). (ii) If φ Λ k and η Λ l then φ η = ( 1) kl η φ. [Note: such a nice formula will not hold if we start with elements of Λ (E) which are not themselves of pure degree. Also, from the defining skew-symmetry, if v E then v v = 0, but this is not true for general v Λ (E).] We can do to vector bundles anything we can do to vector spaces, so now a vector bundle E M gives vector bundles Λ k E M. If E = T M we write Ω i (M) for the space of global sections of Λ i T M. The entire algebra (Ω (M), ) is called the de Rham algebra. It s important, e.g. for smooth algebraic varieties it determines the entire Q-homotopy type [this is not obvious].
13 A smooth map f : M N induces f : Ω (N) Ω (M), by (f φ) x = (df x ) (φ f(x) ), and df x the linear map dual to df x. Each of the following is easy to check. (i) f is linear, and f (φ θ) = f φ f θ; (ii) (f g) φ = g f φ; Now work in an open set R n = U M with coordinates x i, so we have dx i Ω 1 (U) which at every point x U gives the usual basis for Tx M, dual to the basis { / x i } for T x M. Similarly, {dx I = dx i1 dx ik } i1 <...<i k give a local basis for Λ k T U. Check: (i) φ : U R dφ = i φ x i dx i ; (ii) f : U V and φ = I a I dx I f φ = I(f a I )df I, with df i = j f i y j dy j ; The first of these formulae motivates the general definition for differentiating forms.
14 Let φ = I φ I dx I Ω k (M) be a k-form, in local co-ordinates, so φ I C (U). We define a (k + 1)-form dφ as follows: dφ = I dφ I dx I where dφ I is interpreted via the usual definition of d on functions. We should check this makes sense, i.e. is invariant under changes of coordinates. Hideous direct computation works, or more efficiently: (i) In the fixed co-ordinates, d satisfies d(φ 1 + φ 2 ) = dφ 1 + dφ 2 ; d(φ 1 φ 2 ) = dφ 1 φ 2 +( 1) k φ 1 dφ 2 if φ 1 Ω k ; d 2 = 0, i.e. d(dφ) = 0 d(f φ) = f (dφ). (ii) These properties characterise d; anything satisfying these four things and agreeing with d on functions must always agree with d. The proofs of (i) and (ii) are easy exercises: note d 2 = 0 is the symmetry of mixed derivatives, and enables us to define HdR as promised.
15 Poincaré Lemma: HdR l (U) = 0 for l > 0 and U R k any star-shaped open set. [Obviously HdR 0 (U) = R comprises only constant functions.] The proof is just as in other cohomology theories: we define ι : Ω k (U) Ω k 1 (U) for which d ι + ι d = id; this forces all closed forms [elements of ker(d)] to also be exact [elements of im(d)]: dω = 0 ω = d(ιω). Suppose U is star-shaped about 0 R n, write ω = I ω I dx I and define ι(ω) x as I k j=1 ( 1) j 1 ( 1 0 tk 1 ω I (tx)dt One computes that ((d ι + ι d)ω) x is 1 I 0 kt k 1 ω I (tx) + n l=1 ) x ij dx I\{ij } t k ω I (tx)x l dt dx I x l = I ( 1 0 d dt ( t k ω I (tx)dt )) dx I = ω x.
16 L3: Special forms Differential forms in abstract generality as an algebra Ω (M) are important, but some forms are more important than others. Here we ll try and be more down to earth. Oneforms are fairly intuitive: they eat tangent vectors, and encode directional derivatives of functions. The next important class of forms are volume forms. Let E be an n-dimensional real vector space and (e 1,..., e n ), (f 1,..., f n ) two ordered bases of V. These are equivalently oriented if the matrix A : E E taking e i f i has det(a) > 0. This defines an equivalence relation on ordered bases with two equivalence classes, called orientations of E. [If dim(e) = 0, so E = {0} is a point, an orientation is just an arbitrary choice of sign ±1 labelling the point.]
17 (i) If π : E B is a rank k vector bundle, an orientation of E is a coherent choice {or b } b B of orientations for the fibres E b of E, coherent in the sense that the local trivialisations µ : π 1 (U) = U R k should take all the or b to a fixed orientation of R k. (ii) An orientation of a smooth manifold is a choice of orientation for the tangent bundle T M (if this exists, and M is connected..., there are two such). If M is oriented, write M for the same smooth manifold with the opposite orientation. (iii) An orientation of M defines canonically an orientation of its boundary M, by declaring that a basis (e 1,..., e n 1 ) of T x ( M) is positively oriented if (n x, e 1,..., e n 1 ) is a positive basis of T x M, where n x is an outward pointing normal. (iv) If M is a compact oriented one-manifold then p M or(p) = 0, where or(p) {±1} is the orientation induced at the point p.
18 Recall from calculus, if f : U V is a diffeomorphism of open subsets of R k, then V ady 1... dy k = U (a f) det(df) dx 1... dx k where a L 1 (V ) is integrable and x det(df x ) is the obvious function on U. So integration of functions is not consistently defined: V a U (a f). This is obvious: diffeomorphisms distort volume, and the determinant exactly measures how. But this means that the change-ofvariables formula exactly measures the natural transformation of k-forms on R k : φ = ady 1 dy k f φ = (φ f) det(df)dx 1 dx k If f preserves orientation, so det(df) > 0 everywhere, we accordingly have V φ = U f φ. Using a partition of unity we immediately get: Lemma: if X is an oriented k-manifold, there is a well-defined integration map X : Ωk ct (X) R, defined on the subspace of forms with compact support.
19 Note: we can only integrate k-forms over oriented k-dimensional manifolds. A volume form on a manifold M k is a nowhere zero differential form of degree k. Since Λ k T x M is only one-dimensional, a volume form picks out a distinguished isomorphism Λ k T x M R for each x, hence trivialises Λ k T M. Clearly, M admits a volume form if and only if this real line bundle is trivial, if and only if M is orientable. The choice of orientation is equivalent to a choice of volume form, up to multiplication of the latter by everywhere positive functions. Volume forms are closed, as Ω k+1 (M) = 0; the Poincaré Lemma shows they can be zero, but this can t happen on a closed manifold: Stokes Theorem: M dω = M ω. Corollary: for a closed oriented k-manifold, X : Hk dr (X) R is onto (in fact an isomorphism, but this takes a bit more work).
20 Since it s so important, we should prove Stokes theorem. Both sides are linear in the form ω, so we reduce to working in a chart U R k + open in a half-space in M, with ω compactly supported in U. [Here R k + = {x R k x 1 0}.] (i) If U R k + =, then M ω = 0 trivially, whilst M dω = U dν where ν = (incl U ω). In the local basis of forms, we write ν = k j=1 ( 1) j 1 f j dx 1... dx ˆ j... dx k, and apply Fubini s theorem to write: ( + dν = f i dx i dx 1... dx ˆ i... dx k. R k i R k 1 x i and the bracket on the RHS vanishes. (ii) If U meets R k +, we apply the above to all terms except the x 1 -integral, which goes from 0 to and gives R dν = f 1(0, x 2,..., x k )dx 2... dx k. k R k 1 But x 1 0 on R k + dx 1 0 on R k +, so ν R k + = f 1 dx 2... dx k. Now note that e 1 is the outward unit normal to finish the proof. )
21 We can go and do lots of cohomology theory with HdR : prove Poincaré duality, use Stokes theorem to study cobordism, prove H k (M) = R if M is both closed and oriented and H k (M) = 0 otherwise, where dim(m) = k. But differential forms can do more geometric things than just define cohomology classes. Let p : P B be a fibre bundle (smoothly locally trivial; if M is compact, it suffices for p to be a submersion). The fibres look the same; how can we canonically identify them? One way is to choose a connexion, that is a splitting T p P = ker(dπ) p Hor p by a field of horizontal spaces. If the fibres are 1-dimensional a circle bundle we re choosing hyperplanes in all the tangent spaces T p P. Defining a hyperplane as ker(f) for a linear functional f, we see that the connexion is defined by a one-form, θ Ω 1 (P ) with ker(θ) p T p S 1 = {0} everywhere. Such connexion forms will be important later when we talk about quotients by circle actions.
22 A two-form φ Ω 2 (M) defines a natural map µ φ : T M T M from the tangent to cotangent bundle, by setting µ φ (u), v = φ(u, v) u, v T M The 2-form is called non-degenerate if this natural map is an isomorphism. Definition: A symplectic form ω is a closed non-degenerate 2-form. A choice of such a form on a manifold, up to pullback by diffeomorphisms, is called a symplectic structure. The non-degeneracy is a pointwise condition, but being closed is a kind of integrability constraint, and is local but can t be reformulated in terms of only pointwise information. Key fact: a function determines a flow: f df (µ ω ) 1 (df) = X f, which is a vector field so can be integrated. Since this is natural, the flow preserves ω (we ll prove this more carefully later) so symplectic forms have large spaces of symmetries, not like metrics.
23 Digression: A foliated manifold is one with an atlas of charts whose transition maps are diffeomorphisms of R n = R n k R k which preserve vertical slices : φ αβ = (f(x), g(x, y)). Tangent spaces to slices define a subbundle which is integrable. If F is a codimension one (k = 1) with trivial normal bundle T M/F, there is λ Ω 1 (M) s.t. λ F = 0 but m, λ m 0. Proposition: (i) Integrability dλ = η λ for some η Ω 1. (ii) Γ = η dη is a closed 3-form (iii) The class [Γ] HdR 3 (M) is an invariant of F, so independent of choices of λ and η. This is the Godbillon-Vey class. To prove (ii), note d(η λ) = 0 dη λ = 0. This means (check!) ξ Ω 1 s.t. dη = ξ λ. Now dγ = dη dη = 0. (iii) is a similar check: for η use η η = fλ and for λ use λ = gλ, for functions f, g on M. Thurston: for any t R, there is a 2d-foliation on S 3 with [Γ] = t H 3 (S 3 ) = R.
24 L4: Lie derivative A symplectic form is a closed non-degenerate 2-form. What does it look like? Pointwise, a non-degenerate skew-form ω Λ 2 V on a vector space V is one for which (i) ω(u, v) = ω(v, u) and (ii) ω(u, v) = 0 v u = 0. Example: ω 0 = n i=1 dx i dy i on R 2n (a 2-form with constant co-efficients). Define a matrix, with respect to the basis x 1,..., x n, y 1,..., y n, ( 0 In ) J 0 =. The group Sp I n 0 2n (R ) comprises linear maps A for which A ω 0 = ω 0, i.e. ω(av, Au) = ω(v, u), which says A t J 0 A = J 0. Lemma: if V, ω is a symplectic vector space there is a basis u 1... u n, v 1... v n of V such that ω u i 0, ω v j 0 and ω(u i, v j ) = δ ij. Such a basis is called a symplectic basis.
25 Before giving the proof, note if U (V, ω), there is a symplectic orthogonal complement U ω = {v V ω(v, u) = 0 u U} U is a symplectic subspace if U U ω = {0}, which means ω U is non-degenerate. Proof of Lemma: We induct on dim(v ). By definition ω is non-degenerate, so given u 1 V, there is v V such that ω(u 1, v) 0; let v 1 = v/ ω(u 1, v) so ω(u 1, v 1 ) = 1. Then U = u 1, v 1 is a symplectic subspace of V, so (by induction) there is a symplectic basis u 2,..., u n, v 2,..., v n for U ω, and this completes the proof. Corollary: a symplectic vector space has even dimension. ω is non-degenerate if and only if ω n 0 Λ n V. The second statement is true in the standard model (R 2n, ω 0 ). If ω is degenerate, ω(u, v) = 0 v, extend u to a basis u = u 1, u 2,... u 2n of V and note ω n (u 1,..., u 2n ) = 0.
26 Corollary: A two-dimensional manifold is symplectic if and only if it is orientable. The sphere S 2k is not symplectic if k > 1. Proof: if dim(m) = 2, a non-degenerate 2- form is a volume form, and any such is obviously closed. For the second statement, if M 2k, ω is symplectic, the 2-form defines a class [ω] HdR 2 (M). The k-th cup-product of this class with itself is pointwise at T x M the nonzero form ωx k, i.e. ωk is a volume form, hence non-zero in cohomology. So [ω] k 0 HdR 2k(M) (which is just R ), so all the even cohomology groups H 2i (M) have non-zero dimension. We can easily build more examples. For instance, products of symplectic manifolds are symplectic: (M, ω) (N, σ) = (M N, ω σ). The last notation is shorthand for πm ω + π N σ. So the family Σ g1 Σ gk gives (closed) examples in all possible dimensions.
27 At the end of the last lecture, we said a function on a symplectic manifold defines a flow f df (µ ω ) 1 (df) = X f = X {φ X t } t ( δ,δ). Being a canonical construction, we expect the flow to preserve the symplectic structure. Formally, we prove such statements using the Lie derivative. If X Γ(T M) is a vector field with flow {φ t }, defined at least locally for small time, and α Ω (M) is some differential form, then L X (α) = d dt (φ t α) t=0 is the Lie derivative of α with respect to X, and measures the way α changes along the flow. This is actually a much more natural differential operator than either covariant differentiation with respect to a connexion, or exterior differentiation of forms themselves: and L X (α) is the same kind of object as α itself. We can also differentiate covariant tensors (like vector fields) as well as contravariant tensors like forms: just replace φ t by φ t.
28 The interior product ι is defined by ι X ω, u = ω, X u for X Γ(T M), u Λ p (T M), ω Ω p+1 (M). Note ι X ω = µ ω (X) in our previous notation. The following formulae are often useful: (i) L X (f) = X f for f C (M) (ii) L X (Y ) = [X, Y ] for X,Y in Γ(T M) (iii) L X (dα) = d(l X α) for α Ω (M) (iv) L X = ι X d + d ι X [Cartan s formula] (v) dθ(x, Y ) = X θ(y ) Y θ(x) θ([x, Y ]) for vector fields X,Y and θ Ω 1 (M) (i) and (iii) are immediate from the definitions. For (iv), note ι X is an antiderivation: ι X (u v) = ι X u v + ( 1) deg(u) u ι X v So L X and ι X d + dι X are both derivations preserving degree & both commute with d. Hence it suffices to check the identity on functions. This reduces to ι X (df) = df(x) = X f. We shall not prove (v). Recall [X, Y ] = 0 iff the flows generated by X and Y commute, which would certainly imply that L X (Y ) = 0.
29 To prove (ii), first drink a large glass of grappa. Then we compute, by showing the two sides take the same value on any function f, at any point m. Suppose X integrates to {φ t } and Y integrates to {ψ s }. Now (L X Y )(f) m equals d ( (dφ t Y dt φt (m) ) d t=0) f = dt (Y φ t (m) (fφ t)) t=0 Define H(t, u) = f φ t ψ u φ t (m) Define K(t, u, s) = f φ s ψ u φ t (m) both defined in a neighbourhood of the origin. Then check: (i) 2 H (t,0) = Y φt (m) (f φ t) (ii) 12 (H) (0,0) = L X Y (f) m (iii) 12 (H) (0,0) = 12 (K) (0,0,0) 23 (K) (0,0,0) (iv) 2 K (t,0,0) = (Y f) φt (m) (v) 12 (K) (0,0,0) = (X (Y f)) m, similarly: (vi) 23 (K) (0,0,0) = (Y (X f)) m So L X Y = XY Y X = [X, Y ], as required. If you re not convinced, you didn t drink enough grappa.
30 Lemma: The Hamiltonian flow of a function on a symplectic manifold preserves the symplectic form, i.e. is through symplectomorphisms. Proof: Let f : M R be smooth, with associated vector field X = (µ ω ) 1 (df), with ω the symplectic form. Cartan s formula says L X ω = ι X dω + d(ι X ω) but dω = 0 as symplectic forms are closed; and ι X ω = µ ω (X) = df so d(ι X ω) = d 2 f = 0. Hence L X ω = 0, which exactly says ω is preserved by the flow of the vector field. Example: solving Hamilton s equations H p = q; H q = ṗ is exactly following the flow of X H = ( H p, H which satisfies ι XH ω 0 = dh. Hence, classical mechanical flows are through (not necessarily linear!) symplectomorphisms of R 2n. q ),
31 L4: Complex and Kähler manifolds A special class of smooth manifolds are those which admit a complex structure ones for which the transition maps, as diffeomorphisms of R 2n, are in fact biholomorphisms after identifying R 2n = C n. Equivalently, we demand that for charts (U α, φ α ) and (U β, φ β ) we have d(φ 1 β φ α) GL n (C ). If M is a complex manifold, its (co)tangent spaces are naturally complex vector spaces, Choose real co-ordinates x i, y j on M and write T M C = C x, i y. j We define: = 1 ( i ) ; = 1 ( + i ) z j 2 x j y j z j 2 x j y j dz j = dx j + idy j ; dz j = dx j idy j Then define T M C = (T M) 1,0 (T M) 0,1, where we set C dz j = (T M) 1,0 and C dz j = (T M) 0,1.
32 We can now decompose the complex-valued differential forms on the manifold according to their (p, q)-type with respect to the above decomposition of 1-forms. Set Ω l,m (M) = { J =l, K =m α JK dz J dz K } with the α JK smooth C -valued functions. More formally, we define an almost complex structure on a manifold to be an endormorphism J : T M T M of the real tangent bundle satisfying J 2 = 1. A complex manifold has a distinguished such, locally: J( / x i ) = / y i ; J( / y j ) = / x j This extends to T M C by taking J( / z j ) = i( / z j ); J( / z j ) = i( / z j ) Then Ω 1,0 = {α α(jv) = iα(v)} and Ω 0,1 = {α α(jv) = iα(v)} are the +i, respectively i, eigenspaces for J acting on Γ(T M C ), and Ω l,m = Γ(Λ l Ω 1,0 Λ m Ω 0,1 ).
33 Exterior derivative d : C (M, C ) Ω 1 (M, C ) splits in the decomposition Ω 1 C = Ω1,0 Ω 0,1 to give d = +. Lemma: f is holomorphic if and only if f = 0. More significantly, the splitting d = + persists to all degrees; d(ω p,q ) Ω p+1,q Ω p,q+1 There was no a priori reason for the Ω p+2,q 1 component to vanish: it holds because of the holomorphicity of the co-ordinates z j when we write a form as J,K a JK dz J d z K and perform the differentiation in local co-ordinates. Corollary: d 2 = 0 2 = 0, which leads to Dolbeault cohomology : the groups H,j (M) are the cohomology groups of the complex Ω,j 1 Ω,j Ω,j+1 These are complex, and not smooth (letalone homotopy), invariants of the manifold.
34 We won t develop Dolbeault theory, but for a special class of manifolds something remarkable happens. In general, Ω k (M, C ) = l+m=k Ω l,m but this doesn t imply anything about cohomology: why should a closed form be holomorphic? A Kähler manifold is one equipped with a (1, 1)-form, i.e. a 2-form of type (1, 1) in the splitting above, for which ω = 0 = ω, and which is locally given by 2 i hjk dz j d z k, where (h jk ) is positive definite. Theorem (Hodge): If X is Kähler, then there is an isomorphism HdR k (X) = i+j=k H i,j (X). Moreover, H i,j = H j,i are naturally conjugate subspaces, in particular of equal dimension. Hence if X is Kähler, any odd Betti number b odd (X) is necessarily even. Theorem (Lefschetz): for Kähler X, wedge product [ω] k : HdR n k (X) Hn+k dr (X) is an isomorphism.
35 Note: Kähler manifolds are symplectic! For, pointwise, the closed (1, 1)-form ω satisfies ( ) ω n i n = n! det(h jk ) (dz 1 dz 1 dz n dz n ) 2 where n = dim C (M). This is the most important class of closed symplectic manifolds. Where do we find Kähler manifolds? Say ρ : M R is (strictly) plurisubharmonic if the matrix ( 2 ) ρ z j z k is positive definite everywhere. In this case, 2 i ρ is a Kähler form on M. [Note M cannot be closed why?] Example: ρ = z 2 defines ω 0 on C n = R 2n. By contrast, ρ = log( z 2 + 1) defines a Kähler form Ω on C n of finite total volume. To check the function is plush, check it at (1, 0,..., 0) ω = i ( dzj dz j ( zj dz j )( ) z j dz j ) z j z j (1 + z j z j ) 2 and note Ω is invariant under the U(n) action on C n which is transitive on the set of directions S 2n 1.
36 Theorem: any complex projective subvariety X C P n is Kähler. Proof: Let U i P n be {[z 0,..., z n ] : z i 0}, which is isomorphic to C n via ( z0 [z 0,..., z n ],..., z i 1, z i+1,..., z ) n z i z i z i z i The transition map for 2 such charts is ( 1 φ : (u 1,..., u n ), u 2,..., u ) n u 1 u 1 u 1 which takes Ω = 2 i (log z 2 + 1) to { ( i 2 log( z ) + log z 1 2 )} but since (log z 1 ) = 0 = (log z 1 ) (these are (anti)-holomorphic functions), this means φ Ω = Ω and hence the local Kähler forms on the U i patch to give a global Kähler form. Hence P n is Kähler. Now write X = {z 1 = 0,..., z m = 0}, and note/check that ρ X is still plush on the open sets U i X.
37 The various classes of manifolds in play here are all distinct. Example: C 2 \{0}/(z 2z) is a complex manifold: the quotient of a complex space by a discrete holomorphic group action. Topologically, this is S 1 S 3, which has b 2 = 0 (trivial second cohomology group). So this complex manifold cannot be symplectic (or Kähler). Example: a projective algebraic variety always has lots of subvarieties take intersections with projective hyperplanes. But some Kähler surfaces contain no complex curves if no Kähler (1, 1)-form lies inside H 2 (X; Z) H 2 dr (X) the Kähler manifold cannot be projective. Deformations of degree 4 surfaces in C P 3 (called K3 surfaces) are like this.
38 L6: Almost complex structures To study general symplectic manifolds, rather than Kähler manifolds, it is helpful to extract the homotopy-theoretic essence of having a complex structure. An almost complex structure is a bundle automorphism J : T M T M with J 2 = I. If M is a complex manifold, with complex co-ordinates z j = x j + iy j, then there is a distinguished J defined by J ( x ) = y ; J ( y ) = x. The tangent spaces to M are naturally complex vector spaces, which carry multiplication by i. More generally, for almost complex (M, J), J extends complex-linearly to T M C, and splits this space into ±i-eigenspaces T M C = T 1,0 (M) T 0,1 (M). So T 1,0 (M) = R T M, and in the complex case can also be viewed as T 1,0 (M) = C z, with j z = j x i j y. If J j comes from a system of complex co-ordinates, we say it is integrable.
39 Definition: An a.c.s. J on (M, ω) is compatible with a symplectic form ω if ω(jv, Ju) = ω(u, v); ω(v, Jv) > 0 v 0 The symmetric bilinear form g(u, v) = ω(u, Jv) defines a Riemannian metric in this case. Proposition: (M, ω) admits a compatible J. Proof: First we show this is true for a symplectic vector space V. Choose some metric g on V, and define A by ω(u, v) = g(au, v). Then A = A so AA is symmetric positive definite: g(aa v, v) = g(a v, A v) > 0 v 0 Thus AA = B.diag(λ 1,..., λ 2n ).B 1 is diagonalisable, with λ i > 0, and AA exists and equals B.diag( λ 1,..., λ 2n ).B 1. Set: J = ( AA ) 1 A JJ = I and J = J Thus J 2 = I is an a.c.s. and ω(ju, Jv) = g(aju, Jv) = g(jau, Jv) = g(au, v) ω(u, Ju) = g( JAu, u) = g( AA u, u) > 0 so J is compatible. Use this construction on each T x M, since it s canonical it works globally.
40 The proof actually shows that the space of compatible J is the same as the space of metrics, which is convex, hence contractible. Thus introducing a compatible J involves essentially no choice. Definition: a symplectic vector bundle is a vector bundle π : E B such that each fibre E b has a linear symplectic form ω b, these form a smooth global section Ω of Λ 2 E, and locally in B things are trivial: (π 1 (U), Ω) = (U R 2n, ω 0 ) Corollary: such an E canonically admits the structure of a complex vector bundle. Hence, it has a first Chern class. This is a characteristic class ; we assign to each complex vector bundle E B an element c 1 (E) H 2 (B; Z) such that c 1 (f E) = f c 1 (E) is natural under continuous maps and pullback of vector bundles. Note that choices of a.c.s J on E are all homotopic, so c 1 (E) does not change as it lives in the integral cohomology which is discrete. If E = T M we write c 1 (M) for c 1 (E).
41 There are many definitions of c 1 (E): (i) The determinant line bundle Λ r E B is pulled back by a classifying map φ E : B BU(1) = C P, i.e. Λ r E = φ E L taut, and we know H (C P ; Z) = Z[c univ 1 ] is generated by an element of degree 2; set c 1 (E) = φ E (cuniv 1 ). (ii) Take a generic section s : B Λ r E which is transverse to the zero-section, which implies its zero-set Z(s) is a smooth submanifold of B of real codimension 2. Set c 1 (E) = PD[Z(s)]. (iii) Pick a connexion d A on E, given by a matrix of one-forms (θ ij ) w.r.t. a basis s j Γ(E) of local sections of E: d A : Γ(E) Γ(E T B); s j i s i θ ij The curvature F A = d A d A, locally dθ + θ θ, is a matrix-valued 2-form in Ω 2 (End(E)), so T r(f A ) Ω 2 (B) is a 2-form. The Bianchi identity says this is closed, so defines a cohomology class, and c 1 (E) = [T r(f A )/2iπ]. One can check this class is independent of choice of connexion d A.
42 We noted c 1 (E) H 2 (M; Z) is an integral class, so does not change as we vary J E continuously. Here are some other properties: (i) c 1 (E ) = c 1 (E); (ii) c 1 (E E ) = c 1 (E) c 1 (E ); given any short exact sequence 0 E E E 0, the same formula holds; (iii) c 1 (E F ) = rk(e).c 1 (F ) + rk(f ).c 1 (E); in particular for a line bundle c 1 (L k ) = kc 1 (L). (iv) If M is compact, there is an isomorphism {C vector bundles/m} c 1 H 2 (M; Z) Isomorphism If M is complex, this can fail holomorphically. Examples: (i) c 1 (Σ g ) = 2 2g. This is Gauss-Bonnet: on a surface, both c 1 and the Euler characteristic count (signed) zeroes of a generic vector field. (ii) c 1 (L taut C P n ) = [H] H 2 (C P n ) = Z H, where [H] = PD[C P n 1 ] is the hyperplane class; c 1 (C P n ) = n + 1, by considering poles of a holo c n-form (dz 0 dz n )/(z 0... z n ).
43 Adjunction formula: if C (X 4, J) is an almost complex curve in an almost complex surface, i.e. if J preserves T C T X, then 2g(C) 2 = c 1 (X) [C] + [C] 2 So the genus of an almost complex curve is determined by its homology class. Proof: We have a SES of complex v.bundles 0 T C T X C ν C/X 0 Now deduce c 1 (T X C ) = c 1 (T C) c 1 (ν C/X ) and evaluate the terms. A small (smooth, generic) displacement of C in X gives a section of ν C/X with exactly [C] 2 zeroes, to sign. A four-manifold X has a (non-degenerate, symmetric) intersection form on H 2 (X; R ). Let b + and b denote the number of positive and negative eigenvalues, so the signature σ(x) is the difference b + b, whilst b + +b = b 2 (X). Now give X an a.c.s J, defining c 1 = c 1 (T X, J). Signature theorem (Hirzebruch): c 2 1 = 2e(X) + 3σ(X) is a topological invariant.
44 Despite this, there are lots of possible c 1 s. Say M 4 is even if every class a H 2 (M) has even square. Algebraic topology shows (i) if M is even and H 2 (M; Z) has no 2-torsion, any h s.t. h 2 = 2e + 3σ and h 0 H 2 (M; Z 2 ) is c 1 of some almost complex structure, and (ii) for any a.c.s. c 2 1 σ (8). Corollary: if X 4 admits an a.c.s. then the selfconnect sum X X does not, X X X does, etc. Proof: The condition c 2 1 σ(8) & the signature theorem show 1 b 1 + b + must be even. But b 1 (X X) = 2b 1 (X), b + (X X) = 2b + (X) etc, so for X X we have 1 b 1 + b + is odd. S 4 was not symplectic since H 2 (S 4 ) = 0. Now we see C P 2 C P 2 is not symplectic since it has no a.c.s. The proof that C P 3 C P 3 C P 3 is not symplectic takes most of gauge theory and a few hundred pages. In dimension 2n > 4, there is no known example of a triple (X, [ω], J) with [ω] H 2 (X) s.t. [ω] n 0 and J an a.c.s. and X known to admit no symplectic structure.
45 L7: Darboux theorem Remember if V is a symplectic vector space and U V is any subspace, we have a symplectic orthogonal complement U V. (i) U U = {0} U is symplectic; ω U > 0 ; (ii) U = U U is Lagrangian; ω U 0. (iii) If dim(u) = 1 necessarily U U ; (iv) If codim(u) = 1 necessarily U U. Suppose Σ (M, ω) is a hypersurface. Then T Σ defines a line subbundle of T Σ, which is integrable (the condition [X, Y ] = 0 for X, Y F is trivial for rank one distributions F T Σ). So Σ has a distinguished line field. Lemma: if Σ = φ 1 (0) then the flow of the Hamiltonian field X φ is along the direction of this line field. Proof: v T Σ, dφ(v) = 0, since φ Σ = 0. But dφ = ι Xφ ω, so this says X φ T Σ, as required.
46 Corollary: For M connected, Symp ct (M, ω) acts transitively on points. Proof: Fix x y M and a path γ from x to y with nonzero tangent vector field γ. Let U t = γ(t) γ(t) be the orthogonal complement, and choose a hypersurface Σ M near γ for which T γ(t) Σ = U t for each t [0, 1]. Define f : N(γ) R, a smooth function defined on a nhood N(γ) of γ M, to be the distance to Σ in an arbitrary Riemannian metric, so Σ = f 1 (0) near γ; then extend f to a compactly supported function on M. By the previous Lemma, the flow of X f in N(γ) is tangent to γ, hence integrating the flow defines a (compactly supported) symplectomorphism taking x to y along γ. This says a symplectic manifold looks the same everywhere, but doesn t give a local model for what that same is in principle every symplectic manifold could have different local structure. The Darboux theorem gives the actual local model.
47 Theorem (Darboux): Symplectic manifolds are locally standard. If p (M, ω) there s a chart f : D(ε) M with f(0) = p s.t. f ω M = ω 0. Remark: this shows the closed non-degenerate 2-form definition of (M, ω) is the same as the atlas of charts with transition matrices having derivatives in Sp 2n (R ) definition, from L1. Moser s proof of this is cunning. Key idea: If d dt ω t = dσ t ψ t Diff(M) with ψ t ω t = ω 0 Why is this roughly true? Well if it s true, we could differentiate the diffeomorphisms and say d dt ψ t = X t ψ t for some vector fields X t. In this case, 0 = d ( ) dt ψ t ω t = ψt dωt dt + ι X t dω t + d(ι Xt ω t ) which is just ψt d(σ t + ι Xt ω t ). But the equation σ t +ι Xt ω t = 0 uniquely defines a vector field X t. So if the flow of this vector field is defined, it gives the ψ t we were after for the key idea.
48 Corollary of argument: (Moser stability) If we have {ω t } a family of symplectic forms on a closed manifold M with [ω t ] HdR 2 (M) constant, there is f : M M with f ω 1 = ω 0. Proof: the cohomology assumption says dω t dt = dσ t are all exact forms. On a closed M, we can integrate any vector fields for all time. Proof of Darboux: fix g : D M, so g ω M and ω 0 are both symplectic forms on a disc. Composing g with an element of Sp 2n (R ), we assume these agree at 0 D. For t [0, 1], let ω t = (1 t)ω 0 + tg ω M, a family of closed forms, symplectic in a sufficiently small nhood U D of 0. Since HdR 2 (D) = 0, there is σ with dω t dt = dσ, and we can suppose σ vanishes at 0; then so does the vector field X t with ι Xt ω t = σ. Since X t vanishes at the origin, for some ε > 0 and every p D(ε) D, the trajectory of p under the flow of X t stays inside U for all t [0, 1]; so on D(ε) we can integrate up and define {ψ t } with ψ 1 g ω M = ω 0 on D(ε).
49 Remark: in Moser-type theorems, it s crucial that the cohomology class does not vary. For example, consider M = C P 1 C P 1 with the Kähler forms Ω 1 = ω ω and Ω 2 = ω tω with t > 1. Gromov showed: (i) Symp(M, Ω 1 ) SO(3) SO(3); (ii) π 1 (Symp(M, Ω 2 )) is infinite. Here the symplectic topology changes drastically with an arbitrarily small perturbation of the symplectic form. McDuff: on the blow-up of S 2 T 2 S 2 S 2 along S 2 T 2 {(pt, pt)}, there are two cohomologous symplectic forms which are not diffeomorphic there s no interpolating {ω t }. Remark: even on manifolds with HdR 2 = 0, there can be interestingly different symplectic structures. For instance, there are exotic symplectic structures on R 2k for k 2, meaning symplectic structures with no embedding into (R 2k, ω st ), in particular not globally symplectomorphic to the standard structure.
50 The Darboux theorem gives the local model for (M, ω) near a point p. There are also neighbourhood theorems near entire symplectic submanifolds Q M. First a Poincaré-type lemma, which we leave as an exercise: Lemma: Let Q M be a closed smooth submanifold, and α 1, α 2 Ω k (M) be differential forms agreeing on T M Q. Then there is a form β Ω k 1 (U Q ) defined in an open nhood of Q and with dβ = α 1 α 2, and β 0 on T M Q. Note: we assume more than i Q α 1 = i Q α 2. Theorem: If Q (M, ω) is a symplectic submanifold, the symplectic structure near Q is determined by ω Q and the normal bundle ν Q/M. Note that the normal bundle of a symplectic submanifold is canonically the symplectic orthogonal complement ν Q/M = T Q T M. A metric defines an exponential map to a tubular neighbourhood exp : ν Q/M U Q as usual.
51 Proof: Precisely, suppose Q i M i are symplectic and we have φ : Q 1, ω 1 Q1 Q 2, ω 2 Q2 a symplectomorphism, and Φ : ν Q1 /M 1 ν Q2 /M 2 an isomorphism of symplectic normal bundles. Using metrics, we get a diffeomorphism φ = exp M2 Φ exp 1 M 1 : U Q1 U Q2 such that d φ = Φ on ν Q1 /M 1. Pulling back, we get ω 1 and φ ω 2, two symplectic forms on U Q1, agreeing on T M 1 Q1. By the Poincaré Lemma, we get a 1-form dσ on some smaller U Q 1, vanishing on T M 1 Q1, with dσ = ω 1 φ ω 2 on U Q 1. We can now apply Moser s method to the path ω t = tω 1 +(1 t) φ ω 2. Arguing as for Darboux, we can integrate the vector fields to time 1 in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of Q 1, and this builds the required symplectomorphism. Corollary: a nhood of a symplectic surface C (M 4, ω) is determined to symplectomorphism by g(c), the area C ω and the value [C]2 Z.
52 L8: Weinstein s neighbourhood theorem A submanifold L (M, ω) is called Lagrangian if ω L = 0. In many ways these are the most important objects in symplectic geometry. Example: a circle S 1 Σ in a surface is trivially Lagrangian. We call a product (S 1 ) n (C n, ω 0 ) a Clifford torus. By the Darboux theorem, such Lagrangian submanifolds exist in any symplectic manifold, in the trivial homology class (contrast symplectic submanifolds!). Consider R 2n = T R n with co-ordinates q j on R n and p j = dq j on the cotangent fibres. There is a one-form λ = p j dq j Ω 1 (T R n ); a diffeomorphism q q of R n induces a diffeomorphism of T R n which preserves this one-form: q j q k dq j = dq i ; p j i q = i q k j so p j dq j p j dq j. Hence for any manifold M there is a canonical λ can Ω 1 (T M) with dλ can Ω 2 (T M) a symplectic form. p k
53 Philosophical spinach: cotangent bundles and smooth algebraic varieties are the most important examples of symplectic manifolds, and most phenomena can be understood/motivated by thinking of one or the other. We can describe the canonical one-form on T M invariantly too: at a point (q, p) T M it takes the shape λ (q,p) : v p, dπ(v), where π : T M M is projection and v T (q,p) T M. (But to see dλ is symplectic, it s still easiest to write it out in local co-ordinates.) It has lots of nice properties: Lemma: If σ : M T M is a one-form, then σ λ can = σ Ω 1 (M); this property characterises λ can. Proof: Note λ m,φ : T m,φ T M R is φ dπ m,φ. If σ(m) = (m, σ m ) T M, at u T m M, (σ λ) m (u) = σ m dπ m,σm (dσ(u)) But dπ dσ = id, so (σ λ) m (u) = σ m (u).
54 Example: the zero-section M (T M, dλ can ) is a Lagrangian submanifold. (So are the fibres Tx M of the cotangent bundle.) The first example is universal, in the following sense. Theorem (Weinstein): If L (M, ω) is Lagrangian, then a nhood U(L) M of L in M is symplectomorphic to a nhood U (L) T L of the zero-section in T L. Proof: The proof is an application of Moser s method. Choose J on T M, compatible with ω, with metric g = ω(, J ). The g-orthogonal complement to T q L T q M is JT q L (Lagrangians are totally real ). Let Φ : T M T M be the isomorphism induced by g, so Φ(f) is defined by g(φ(f), v) = f(v). Then define: φ : T L M; (q, f) exp q (JΦ q (f)) Then from defining property of exp of a metric: dφ (q,0) (v, f) = v +JΦ q (f); (v, f) T q L (T q L) where we identify T q,0 (T L) = T q L (T q L).
55 Now: (φ ω M ) (q,0) ( (v, f), (v, f ) ) = ω M q ( v + JΦf, v + JΦf ) = ω M q (v, JΦf ) ω M (v, JΦf) = g q (v, Φf ) g q (v, Φf) = f (v) f(v ) = (dλ can ) (q,0) ( (v, f), (v, f ) ) So φ : T L M is s.t. dλ can and φ ω M agree over the zero-section, i.e. on T (T L) L. The Poincaré Lemma now gives us σ Ω 1 (T L) for which dλ can φ ω M = dσ, and we can apply Moser s theorem to the family of forms ω t = tdλ can + (1 t)φ ω M as usual. Corollary: a neighbourhood of a Lagrangian submanifold L M depends symplectically only on the smooth differential topology of L itself. Example: if L M is Lagrangian, it has selfintersection [L] 2 = χ(l). If L M 4 is a homologically trivial Lagrangian surface, then L is a torus or Klein bottle. If L is an oriented Lagrangian surface, [L] 2 = 2g(L) 2.
56 Two of the most important sources of Lagrangian submanifolds are the following: Proposition (i): if f : M M is a diffeomorphism, then f ω = ω, i.e. f is a symplectomorphism, if and only if Γ f (M M, ω ω) is Lagrangian. Here Γ f denotes the graph of f. Proposition (ii): if f : M M is antisymplectic, f ω = ω, then F ix(f) is Lagrangian (where it is smooth). j dz j dz j ]; hence The proofs are trivial. Example: the antidiagonal Γ id is Lagrangian (NB though obviously the diagonal M M with the usual product symplectic form is a symplectic submanifold). Example: complex conjugation on C P n is antisymplectic [recall ω F S = 2 i the real points X(R ) X(C ) of an algebraic variety X defined over R form a Lagrangian submanifold of its complex points.
57 Corollary: a neighbourhood of id Symp(M) is homeomorphic to a nhood of 0 in the space of closed 1-forms on M. In particular, Symp(M) is locally path-connected. Proof: if f is close to id then Γ f M M is close to the (Lagrangian) antidiagonal. By Weinstein s theorem we think of Γ f U for U T M a nhood of the zero-section, and Γ f becomes the graph of some 1-form σ on M. The graph of a 1-form is Lagrangian iff the 1-form is closed: σ dλ can = dσ λ can = dσ. Corollary: Suppose (M, ω) is compact and that H 1 dr (M) = 0. Every f Symp(M) C1 -close to the identity has at least 2 fixed points. Proof: if f is C 1 -close to the identity, Γ f T M is close to the zero-section Z, and can be written as the graph of a 1-form σ. But σ = dh as HdR 1 (M) = 0, and Γ f Z p dh p = 0 p Crit(h). Now M is compact, so h has at least one maximum and one minimum.
58 Remarks: (i) The last results fails if HdR 1 (M) 0; think of translation on the torus T 2 = R 2 /Z 2. (ii) A fixed point p Fix(f) is non-degenerate if df p has no eigenvalue equal to 1 (so this is generic). Morse theory and the previous argument show: f C 1 -close to id f has at least bj (M) fixed points. The Arnol d conjecture was that one could drop the assumption that f was C 1 -close to id, finally proved (circa 2000) by Fukaya-Ono, Li-Tian, Hofer-Salamon... (iii) If HdR 1 (M) 0, the same arguments apply to Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms, i.e. those which you get by flowing along X Ht for some (perhaps time-dependent) Hamiltonian function H t : M R. (iv) Fixed points are interpreted here as intersections between Γ f and, two Lagrangian submanifolds; Floer cohomology is a general theory built on the principle it s hard to displace a Lagrangian submanifold off itself by a Hamiltonian symplectomorphism.
59 L9: Blowing up The Darboux theorem lets us implant local surgeries for instance defined using the algebraic geometry of C n into any symplectic manifold; but the symplectic set-up often still retains some quirky features. A case in point is blowing up, a surgery best performed away from airport check-in desks. Definition: Z = {(z, l) C n P n 1 z l} is the blow-up of 0 C n. It has natural maps P n 1 p Z π C n with π 1-1 away from 0 but π 1 (0) = P n 1 the space of all lines at 0 C n. The map p : Z P n 1 is the total space of the complex line bundle with c 1, [P 1 ] = 1. The restriction of ω C n ω P n 1 to Z is Kähler. If we choose local C -co-ordinates p 1,..., p n at a point p of (X 2n, ω) we can form the blow-up X of X at p differentiably, i.e. as C manifold. Theorem: The blow-up X of X is symplectic.
60 Proof: Fix a chart φ : C n X s.t. 0 p with φ ω X = ω 0 (a Darboux chart). Let σ Ω 2 ( X) be closed and (i) Poincaré dual to E = P n 1 (the exceptional divisor ), and (ii) supported in the pullback U of the chart φ to X. Since H 2 dr (U) = R, we have [σ] = 1 π [ω Z], as these both give a line in E area 1. (Note E [P 1 ] = 1 as ν E/U = O( 1) is the tautological line bundle, of Chern class -1; and remember our Kähler form on P n gave a line P 1 P n area π.) Write σ = 1 π ω Z + dψ. Using cut-off functions, choose a 1-form ψ on X s.t. ψ U = ψ; then σ = σ d ψ is s.t. σ U is exactly 1 π ω Z, and still Poincaré dual to E. Set ω X = π ω X. Claim: for ε 1 sufficiently small, ω X + ε σ is globally symplectic on X. Prove this in three separate regions. (i) On X\U true by openness of non-degeneracy. (ii) Near E true since ω X E = 0 and σ is Kähler on E, hence on some nhood. (iii) So consider a compact shell between these.
61 Look at φd(δ)\ φd( 2 δ ). In this annular shell, ω X = π ω X is exactly π ω C n, and σ = π 1 ω Z is a Kähler form. These forms are compatible with the same (integrable) complex structure J = i. But this means their convex combinations are symplectic. Remark: The final trick is incredibly useful: if for some J both ω 1 and ω 2 satisfy ω i (u, Ju) > 0 whenever u 0, the convex combinations tω 1 + (1 t)ω 2 are symplectic for all t. Examples: blow up P 2 at a point p. The complex lines through p all become disjoint in X = F 1, the first Hirzebruch surface. The exceptional divisor E = P 1 is a 2-sphere of selfintersection 1 in F 1. Each complex line in P 2 lifts to a curve hitting E once; this structure shows F 1 P 1 is fibred by lines, and E is a section of the fibration. Precisely, the map P 2 \{[1, 0, 0]} P 1, [x, y, z] [y, z] extends to the blow-up F 1. Differentiably F 1 is a nontrivial S 2 -bundle over S 2 (F 1 is not even ).
62 Remark: Smale proved Diff + (S 2 ) SO(3), hence it has π 1 = Z 2. So [fill in details!] there are only two non-trivial S 2 -bundles over S 2 ; we ve shown they re both symplectic. Example: the singular variety {z 1 z 2 = 0} P 2 lifts in F 1 to a smooth disjoint union of 2 lines. Example: Take 2 smooth cubics f, g in P 2. Generically they intersect in 9 points e.g: {x 3 + y 3 + z 3 = 0}; {x 3 + y 3 + z xyz = 0} Near the 9 points the cubics {λf + µg} [λ,µ] P 1 all vanish, and this pencil of cubics looks like the family of lines in C 2 through 0. Blow up 9 times and the cubics become disjoint, so the result E(1) P 1 is again fibred (the rational [λ,µ] elliptic surface). Note some of the cubics are singular, e.g. [ 1, 1] {xyz = 0}. If we make one singular fibre {x 3 = y 2 z} = homeo S 2 then: Corollary: there is a symplectic four-manifold X containing a symplectic T 2 of square zero with π 1 (X\T 2 ) = 0. [We will use this later on!]
63 Blowing up holomorphically is natural : every biholomorphism C n f C n lifts to one Z f Z: { (z, l) f } { (f(z), [f(z)]) ; (0, l) f (0, df0 (l)) z 0 So the complex blow-up is well-defined as a complex manifold. Symplectically things are more subtle. Define a closed 2-form on Z by ω λ = π ω C n + λ 2 p ω P n 1 Lemma: for λ > 0, ω λ is Kähler and for δ > 0, and Z(δ) = {(z, l) Z z δ}, (Z(δ)\Z(0), ω λ ) =symp ( ) B( λ 2 + δ 2 )\B(λ), ω st Given the Lemma, we define the weight λ blowup of (M, ω) by symplectically embedding a standard ball φ : B((λ 2 + δ 2 ) 1 2) M for some δ > 0, and setting M = (M\im φ) Z(δ); ω λ = ω M\im φ ω λ The Lemma shows the forms agree on the overlap. NB: vol( M, ω λ ) = vol(m, ω) vol(b(λ)) so volume decreases under blowing up. }
L6: Almost complex structures
L6: Almost complex structures To study general symplectic manifolds, rather than Kähler manifolds, it is helpful to extract the homotopy-theoretic essence of having a complex structure. An almost complex
More informationLECTURE 5: COMPLEX AND KÄHLER MANIFOLDS
LECTURE 5: COMPLEX AND KÄHLER MANIFOLDS Contents 1. Almost complex manifolds 1. Complex manifolds 5 3. Kähler manifolds 9 4. Dolbeault cohomology 11 1. Almost complex manifolds Almost complex structures.
More informationLecture VI: Projective varieties
Lecture VI: Projective varieties Jonathan Evans 28th October 2010 Jonathan Evans () Lecture VI: Projective varieties 28th October 2010 1 / 24 I will begin by proving the adjunction formula which we still
More informationLECTURE 5: SOME BASIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN SYMPLECTIC TOPOLOGY
LECTURE 5: SOME BASIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN SYMPLECTIC TOPOLOGY WEIMIN CHEN, UMASS, SPRING 07 1. Blowing up and symplectic cutting In complex geometry the blowing-up operation amounts to replace a point in
More informationLecture III: Neighbourhoods
Lecture III: Neighbourhoods Jonathan Evans 7th October 2010 Jonathan Evans () Lecture III: Neighbourhoods 7th October 2010 1 / 18 Jonathan Evans () Lecture III: Neighbourhoods 7th October 2010 2 / 18 In
More informationSYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY: LECTURE 5
SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY: LECTURE 5 LIAT KESSLER Let (M, ω) be a connected compact symplectic manifold, T a torus, T M M a Hamiltonian action of T on M, and Φ: M t the assoaciated moment map. Theorem 0.1 (The
More informationComplex manifolds, Kahler metrics, differential and harmonic forms
Complex manifolds, Kahler metrics, differential and harmonic forms Cattani June 16, 2010 1 Lecture 1 Definition 1.1 (Complex Manifold). A complex manifold is a manifold with coordinates holomorphic on
More informationLECTURE 2: SYMPLECTIC VECTOR BUNDLES
LECTURE 2: SYMPLECTIC VECTOR BUNDLES WEIMIN CHEN, UMASS, SPRING 07 1. Symplectic Vector Spaces Definition 1.1. A symplectic vector space is a pair (V, ω) where V is a finite dimensional vector space (over
More informationM4P52 Manifolds, 2016 Problem Sheet 1
Problem Sheet. Let X and Y be n-dimensional topological manifolds. Prove that the disjoint union X Y is an n-dimensional topological manifold. Is S S 2 a topological manifold? 2. Recall that that the discrete
More informationHolomorphic line bundles
Chapter 2 Holomorphic line bundles In the absence of non-constant holomorphic functions X! C on a compact complex manifold, we turn to the next best thing, holomorphic sections of line bundles (i.e., rank
More informationLecture I: Overview and motivation
Lecture I: Overview and motivation Jonathan Evans 23rd September 2010 Jonathan Evans () Lecture I: Overview and motivation 23rd September 2010 1 / 31 Difficulty of exercises is denoted by card suits in
More informationCALCULUS ON MANIFOLDS. 1. Riemannian manifolds Recall that for any smooth manifold M, dim M = n, the union T M =
CALCULUS ON MANIFOLDS 1. Riemannian manifolds Recall that for any smooth manifold M, dim M = n, the union T M = a M T am, called the tangent bundle, is itself a smooth manifold, dim T M = 2n. Example 1.
More informationThe topology of symplectic four-manifolds
The topology of symplectic four-manifolds Michael Usher January 12, 2007 Definition A symplectic manifold is a pair (M, ω) where 1 M is a smooth manifold of some even dimension 2n. 2 ω Ω 2 (M) is a two-form
More informationKähler manifolds and variations of Hodge structures
Kähler manifolds and variations of Hodge structures October 21, 2013 1 Some amazing facts about Kähler manifolds The best source for this is Claire Voisin s wonderful book Hodge Theory and Complex Algebraic
More informationLECTURE 1: LINEAR SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY
LECTURE 1: LINEAR SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY Contents 1. Linear symplectic structure 3 2. Distinguished subspaces 5 3. Linear complex structure 7 4. The symplectic group 10 *********************************************************************************
More informationExercises in Geometry II University of Bonn, Summer semester 2015 Professor: Prof. Christian Blohmann Assistant: Saskia Voss Sheet 1
Assistant: Saskia Voss Sheet 1 1. Conformal change of Riemannian metrics [3 points] Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold. A conformal change is a nonnegative function λ : M (0, ). Such a function defines
More informationGEOMETRIC QUANTIZATION
GEOMETRIC QUANTIZATION 1. The basic idea The setting of the Hamiltonian version of classical (Newtonian) mechanics is the phase space (position and momentum), which is a symplectic manifold. The typical
More informationLecture XI: The non-kähler world
Lecture XI: The non-kähler world Jonathan Evans 2nd December 2010 Jonathan Evans () Lecture XI: The non-kähler world 2nd December 2010 1 / 21 We ve spent most of the course so far discussing examples of
More informationDIFFERENTIAL FORMS AND COHOMOLOGY
DIFFERENIAL FORMS AND COHOMOLOGY ONY PERKINS Goals 1. Differential forms We want to be able to integrate (holomorphic functions) on manifolds. Obtain a version of Stokes heorem - a generalization of the
More informationTHE NEWLANDER-NIRENBERG THEOREM. GL. The frame bundle F GL is given by x M Fx
THE NEWLANDER-NIRENBERG THEOREM BEN MCMILLAN Abstract. For any kind of geometry on smooth manifolds (Riemannian, Complex, foliation,...) it is of fundamental importance to be able to determine when two
More informationPoisson geometry of b-manifolds. Eva Miranda
Poisson geometry of b-manifolds Eva Miranda UPC-Barcelona Rio de Janeiro, July 26, 2010 Eva Miranda (UPC) Poisson 2010 July 26, 2010 1 / 45 Outline 1 Motivation 2 Classification of b-poisson manifolds
More informationLECTURE 28: VECTOR BUNDLES AND FIBER BUNDLES
LECTURE 28: VECTOR BUNDLES AND FIBER BUNDLES 1. Vector Bundles In general, smooth manifolds are very non-linear. However, there exist many smooth manifolds which admit very nice partial linear structures.
More informationMATH 4030 Differential Geometry Lecture Notes Part 4 last revised on December 4, Elementary tensor calculus
MATH 4030 Differential Geometry Lecture Notes Part 4 last revised on December 4, 205 Elementary tensor calculus We will study in this section some basic multilinear algebra and operations on tensors. Let
More informationB 1 = {B(x, r) x = (x 1, x 2 ) H, 0 < r < x 2 }. (a) Show that B = B 1 B 2 is a basis for a topology on X.
Math 6342/7350: Topology and Geometry Sample Preliminary Exam Questions 1. For each of the following topological spaces X i, determine whether X i and X i X i are homeomorphic. (a) X 1 = [0, 1] (b) X 2
More informationComplex line bundles. Chapter Connections of line bundle. Consider a complex line bundle L M. For any integer k N, let
Chapter 1 Complex line bundles 1.1 Connections of line bundle Consider a complex line bundle L M. For any integer k N, let be the space of k-forms with values in L. Ω k (M, L) = C (M, L k (T M)) Definition
More informationSYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY: LECTURE 1
SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY: LECTURE 1 LIAT KESSLER 1. Symplectic Linear Algebra Symplectic vector spaces. Let V be a finite dimensional real vector space and ω 2 V, i.e., ω is a bilinear antisymmetric 2-form:
More informationMath 225B: Differential Geometry, Final
Math 225B: Differential Geometry, Final Ian Coley March 5, 204 Problem Spring 20,. Show that if X is a smooth vector field on a (smooth) manifold of dimension n and if X p is nonzero for some point of
More informationEva Miranda. UPC-Barcelona. (joint with Victor Guillemin and Ana Rita Pires) Zaragoza, February
From b-poisson manifolds to symplectic mapping torus and back Eva Miranda UPC-Barcelona (joint with Victor Guillemin and Ana Rita Pires) Zaragoza, February 8 2011 Eva Miranda (UPC) Poisson Day February
More informationBACKGROUND IN SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY
BACKGROUND IN SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY NILAY KUMAR Today I want to introduce some of the symplectic structure underlying classical mechanics. The key idea is actually quite old and in its various formulations
More informationLECTURE 6: J-HOLOMORPHIC CURVES AND APPLICATIONS
LECTURE 6: J-HOLOMORPHIC CURVES AND APPLICATIONS WEIMIN CHEN, UMASS, SPRING 07 1. Basic elements of J-holomorphic curve theory Let (M, ω) be a symplectic manifold of dimension 2n, and let J J (M, ω) be
More informationReminder on basic differential geometry
Reminder on basic differential geometry for the mastermath course of 2013 Charts Manifolds will be denoted by M, N etc. One should think of a manifold as made out of points (while the elements of a vector
More informationNOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL FORMS. PART 5: DE RHAM COHOMOLOGY
NOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL FORMS. PART 5: DE RHAM COHOMOLOGY 1. Closed and exact forms Let X be a n-manifold (not necessarily oriented), and let α be a k-form on X. We say that α is closed if dα = 0 and say
More informationfy (X(g)) Y (f)x(g) gy (X(f)) Y (g)x(f)) = fx(y (g)) + gx(y (f)) fy (X(g)) gy (X(f))
1. Basic algebra of vector fields Let V be a finite dimensional vector space over R. Recall that V = {L : V R} is defined to be the set of all linear maps to R. V is isomorphic to V, but there is no canonical
More informationEilenberg-Steenrod properties. (Hatcher, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1; Conlon, 2.6, 8.1, )
II.3 : Eilenberg-Steenrod properties (Hatcher, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1; Conlon, 2.6, 8.1, 8.3 8.5 Definition. Let U be an open subset of R n for some n. The de Rham cohomology groups (U are the cohomology groups
More informationTopic: First Chern classes of Kähler manifolds Mitchell Faulk Last updated: April 23, 2016
Topic: First Chern classes of Kähler manifolds itchell Faulk Last updated: April 23, 2016 We study the first Chern class of various Kähler manifolds. We only consider two sources of examples: Riemann surfaces
More informationMath 550 / David Dumas / Fall Problems
Math 550 / David Dumas / Fall 2014 Problems Please note: This list was last updated on November 30, 2014. Problems marked with * are challenge problems. Some problems are adapted from the course texts;
More informationSYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS, GEOMETRIC QUANTIZATION, AND UNITARY REPRESENTATIONS OF LIE GROUPS. 1. Introduction
SYMPLECTIC MANIFOLDS, GEOMETRIC QUANTIZATION, AND UNITARY REPRESENTATIONS OF LIE GROUPS CRAIG JACKSON 1. Introduction Generally speaking, geometric quantization is a scheme for associating Hilbert spaces
More informationHyperkähler geometry lecture 3
Hyperkähler geometry lecture 3 Misha Verbitsky Cohomology in Mathematics and Physics Euler Institute, September 25, 2013, St. Petersburg 1 Broom Bridge Here as he walked by on the 16th of October 1843
More informationSurvey on exterior algebra and differential forms
Survey on exterior algebra and differential forms Daniel Grieser 16. Mai 2013 Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Exterior algebra for a vector space 1 1.1 Alternating forms, wedge and interior product.....................
More informationLECTURE 10: THE ATIYAH-GUILLEMIN-STERNBERG CONVEXITY THEOREM
LECTURE 10: THE ATIYAH-GUILLEMIN-STERNBERG CONVEXITY THEOREM Contents 1. The Atiyah-Guillemin-Sternberg Convexity Theorem 1 2. Proof of the Atiyah-Guillemin-Sternberg Convexity theorem 3 3. Morse theory
More informationSymplectic and Poisson Manifolds
Symplectic and Poisson Manifolds Harry Smith In this survey we look at the basic definitions relating to symplectic manifolds and Poisson manifolds and consider different examples of these. We go on to
More informationCOMPUTABILITY AND THE GROWTH RATE OF SYMPLECTIC HOMOLOGY
COMPUTABILITY AND THE GROWTH RATE OF SYMPLECTIC HOMOLOGY MARK MCLEAN arxiv:1109.4466v1 [math.sg] 21 Sep 2011 Abstract. For each n greater than 7 we explicitly construct a sequence of Stein manifolds diffeomorphic
More informationAs always, the story begins with Riemann surfaces or just (real) surfaces. (As we have already noted, these are nearly the same thing).
An Interlude on Curvature and Hermitian Yang Mills As always, the story begins with Riemann surfaces or just (real) surfaces. (As we have already noted, these are nearly the same thing). Suppose we wanted
More informationEXERCISES IN POISSON GEOMETRY
EXERCISES IN POISSON GEOMETRY The suggested problems for the exercise sessions #1 and #2 are marked with an asterisk. The material from the last section will be discussed in lecture IV, but it s possible
More informationA Crash Course of Floer Homology for Lagrangian Intersections
A Crash Course of Floer Homology for Lagrangian Intersections Manabu AKAHO Department of Mathematics Tokyo Metropolitan University akaho@math.metro-u.ac.jp 1 Introduction There are several kinds of Floer
More informationSOME HIGHLIGHTS OF SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY, SUMMER SCHOOL UTRECHT, GEOMETRY, AUGUST 16, 2017
SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF SYMPLECTIC GEOMETRY, SUMMER SCHOOL UTRECHT, GEOMETRY, AUGUST 16, 2017 FABIAN ZILTENER Overview Symplectic geometry originated from classical mechanics, where the canonical symplectic
More informationMath 868 Final Exam. Part 1. Complete 5 of the following 7 sentences to make a precise definition (5 points each). Y (φ t ) Y lim
SOLUTIONS Dec 13, 218 Math 868 Final Exam In this exam, all manifolds, maps, vector fields, etc. are smooth. Part 1. Complete 5 of the following 7 sentences to make a precise definition (5 points each).
More informationJ-holomorphic curves in symplectic geometry
J-holomorphic curves in symplectic geometry Janko Latschev Pleinfeld, September 25 28, 2006 Since their introduction by Gromov [4] in the mid-1980 s J-holomorphic curves have been one of the most widely
More informationCHARACTERISTIC CLASSES
1 CHARACTERISTIC CLASSES Andrew Ranicki Index theory seminar 14th February, 2011 2 The Index Theorem identifies Introduction analytic index = topological index for a differential operator on a compact
More informationSYMPLECTIC LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS ALEXANDER CAVIEDES CASTRO
SYMPLECTIC LEFSCHETZ FIBRATIONS ALEXANDER CAVIEDES CASTRO. Introduction A Lefschetz pencil is a construction that comes from algebraic geometry, but it is closely related with symplectic geometry. Indeed,
More informationLet V, W be two finite-dimensional vector spaces over R. We are going to define a new vector space V W with two properties:
5 Tensor products We have so far encountered vector fields and the derivatives of smooth functions as analytical objects on manifolds. These are examples of a general class of objects called tensors which
More informationLECTURE 4: SYMPLECTIC GROUP ACTIONS
LECTURE 4: SYMPLECTIC GROUP ACTIONS WEIMIN CHEN, UMASS, SPRING 07 1. Symplectic circle actions We set S 1 = R/2πZ throughout. Let (M, ω) be a symplectic manifold. A symplectic S 1 -action on (M, ω) is
More informationNOTES ON FIBER BUNDLES
NOTES ON FIBER BUNDLES DANNY CALEGARI Abstract. These are notes on fiber bundles and principal bundles, especially over CW complexes and spaces homotopy equivalent to them. They are meant to supplement
More informationRIEMANN SURFACES: TALK V: DOLBEAULT COHOMOLOGY
RIEMANN SURFACES: TALK V: DOLBEAULT COHOMOLOGY NICK MCCLEEREY 0. Complex Differential Forms Consider a complex manifold X n (of complex dimension n) 1, and consider its complexified tangent bundle T C
More informationHamiltonian flows, cotangent lifts, and momentum maps
Hamiltonian flows, cotangent lifts, and momentum maps Jordan Bell jordan.bell@gmail.com Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto April 3, 2014 1 Symplectic manifolds Let (M, ω) and (N, η) be symplectic
More informationCohomology and Vector Bundles
Cohomology and Vector Bundles Corrin Clarkson REU 2008 September 28, 2008 Abstract Vector bundles are a generalization of the cross product of a topological space with a vector space. Characteristic classes
More informationIntegration and Manifolds
Integration and Manifolds Course No. 100 311 Fall 2007 Michael Stoll Contents 1. Manifolds 2 2. Differentiable Maps and Tangent Spaces 8 3. Vector Bundles and the Tangent Bundle 13 4. Orientation and Orientability
More informationLECTURE: KOBORDISMENTHEORIE, WINTER TERM 2011/12; SUMMARY AND LITERATURE
LECTURE: KOBORDISMENTHEORIE, WINTER TERM 2011/12; SUMMARY AND LITERATURE JOHANNES EBERT 1.1. October 11th. 1. Recapitulation from differential topology Definition 1.1. Let M m, N n, be two smooth manifolds
More informationLagrangian Intersection Floer Homology (sketch) Chris Gerig
Lagrangian Intersection Floer Homology (sketch) 9-15-2011 Chris Gerig Recall that a symplectic 2n-manifold (M, ω) is a smooth manifold with a closed nondegenerate 2- form, i.e. ω(x, y) = ω(y, x) and dω
More informationSymplectic 4-manifolds, singular plane curves, and isotopy problems
Symplectic 4-manifolds, singular plane curves, and isotopy problems Denis AUROUX Massachusetts Inst. of Technology and Ecole Polytechnique Symplectic manifolds A symplectic structure on a smooth manifold
More informationi = f iα : φ i (U i ) ψ α (V α ) which satisfy 1 ) Df iα = Df jβ D(φ j φ 1 i ). (39)
2.3 The derivative A description of the tangent bundle is not complete without defining the derivative of a general smooth map of manifolds f : M N. Such a map may be defined locally in charts (U i, φ
More informationLagrangian knottedness and unknottedness in rational surfaces
agrangian knottedness and unknottedness in rational surfaces Outline: agrangian knottedness Symplectic geometry of complex projective varieties, D 5, agrangian spheres and Dehn twists agrangian unknottedness
More informationThe Strominger Yau Zaslow conjecture
The Strominger Yau Zaslow conjecture Paul Hacking 10/16/09 1 Background 1.1 Kähler metrics Let X be a complex manifold of dimension n, and M the underlying smooth manifold with (integrable) almost complex
More informationMILNOR SEMINAR: DIFFERENTIAL FORMS AND CHERN CLASSES
MILNOR SEMINAR: DIFFERENTIAL FORMS AND CHERN CLASSES NILAY KUMAR In these lectures I want to introduce the Chern-Weil approach to characteristic classes on manifolds, and in particular, the Chern classes.
More informationSOME EXERCISES IN CHARACTERISTIC CLASSES
SOME EXERCISES IN CHARACTERISTIC CLASSES 1. GAUSSIAN CURVATURE AND GAUSS-BONNET THEOREM Let S R 3 be a smooth surface with Riemannian metric g induced from R 3. Its Levi-Civita connection can be defined
More informationAN INTRODUCTION TO THE MASLOV INDEX IN SYMPLECTIC TOPOLOGY
1 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MASLOV INDEX IN SYMPLECTIC TOPOLOGY Andrew Ranicki and Daniele Sepe (Edinburgh) http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/ aar Maslov index seminar, 9 November 2009 The 1-dimensional Lagrangians
More informationNOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL FORMS. PART 3: TENSORS
NOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL FORMS. PART 3: TENSORS 1. What is a tensor? Let V be a finite-dimensional vector space. 1 It could be R n, it could be the tangent space to a manifold at a point, or it could just
More information0.1 Complex Analogues 1
0.1 Complex Analogues 1 Abstract In complex geometry Kodaira s theorem tells us that on a Kähler manifold sufficiently high powers of positive line bundles admit global holomorphic sections. Donaldson
More informationSymplectic geometry on moduli spaces of J-holomorphic curves
Symplectic geometry on moduli spaces of J-holomorphic curves J. Coffey, L. Kessler, and Á. Pelayo Abstract Let M, ω be a symplectic manifold, and Σ a compact Riemann surface. We define a 2-form ω SiΣ on
More informationDIFFEOMORPHISMS OF SURFACES AND SMOOTH 4-MANIFOLDS
DIFFEOMORPHISMS OF SURFACES AND SMOOTH 4-MANIFOLDS SDGLDTS FEB 18 2016 MORGAN WEILER Motivation: Lefschetz Fibrations on Smooth 4-Manifolds There are a lot of good reasons to think about mapping class
More informationNotes for Math 535 Differential Geometry Spring Francis Bonahon. Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California
Notes for Math 535 Differential Geometry Spring 2016 Francis Bonahon Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California Date of this version: April 27, 2016 c Francis Bonahon 2016 CHAPTER 1 A
More informationSpecial cubic fourfolds
Special cubic fourfolds 1 Hodge diamonds Let X be a cubic fourfold, h H 2 (X, Z) be the (Poincaré dual to the) hyperplane class. We have h 4 = deg(x) = 3. By the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem, one knows
More informationDEVELOPMENT OF MORSE THEORY
DEVELOPMENT OF MORSE THEORY MATTHEW STEED Abstract. In this paper, we develop Morse theory, which allows us to determine topological information about manifolds using certain real-valued functions defined
More information30 Surfaces and nondegenerate symmetric bilinear forms
80 CHAPTER 3. COHOMOLOGY AND DUALITY This calculation is useful! Corollary 29.4. Let p, q > 0. Any map S p+q S p S q induces the zero map in H p+q ( ). Proof. Let f : S p+q S p S q be such a map. It induces
More informationPICARD S THEOREM STEFAN FRIEDL
PICARD S THEOREM STEFAN FRIEDL Abstract. We give a summary for the proof of Picard s Theorem. The proof is for the most part an excerpt of [F]. 1. Introduction Definition. Let U C be an open subset. A
More informationDrawing: Prof. Karl Heinrich Hofmann
Drawing: Prof. Karl Heinrich Hofmann 1 2 Sylvester s Law of Inertia A demonstration of the theorem that every homogeneous quadratic polynomial is reducible by real orthogonal substitutions to the form
More informationTHE CANONICAL PENCILS ON HORIKAWA SURFACES
THE CANONICAL PENCILS ON HORIKAWA SURFACES DENIS AUROUX Abstract. We calculate the monodromies of the canonical Lefschetz pencils on a pair of homeomorphic Horikawa surfaces. We show in particular that
More information1. Classifying Spaces. Classifying Spaces
Classifying Spaces 1. Classifying Spaces. To make our lives much easier, all topological spaces from now on will be homeomorphic to CW complexes. Fact: All smooth manifolds are homeomorphic to CW complexes.
More informationDIFFERENTIAL TOPOLOGY AND THE POINCARÉ-HOPF THEOREM
DIFFERENTIAL TOPOLOGY AND THE POINCARÉ-HOPF THEOREM ARIEL HAFFTKA 1. Introduction In this paper we approach the topology of smooth manifolds using differential tools, as opposed to algebraic ones such
More informationMATH 263: PROBLEM SET 1: BUNDLES, SHEAVES AND HODGE THEORY
MATH 263: PROBLEM SET 1: BUNDLES, SHEAVES AND HODGE THEORY 0.1. Vector Bundles and Connection 1-forms. Let E X be a complex vector bundle of rank r over a smooth manifold. Recall the following abstract
More informationHodge Theory of Maps
Hodge Theory of Maps Migliorini and de Cataldo June 24, 2010 1 Migliorini 1 - Hodge Theory of Maps The existence of a Kähler form give strong topological constraints via Hodge theory. Can we get similar
More informationExotic spheres. Overview and lecture-by-lecture summary. Martin Palmer / 22 July 2017
Exotic spheres Overview and lecture-by-lecture summary Martin Palmer / 22 July 2017 Abstract This is a brief overview and a slightly less brief lecture-by-lecture summary of the topics covered in the course
More informationTHE EULER CHARACTERISTIC OF A LIE GROUP
THE EULER CHARACTERISTIC OF A LIE GROUP JAY TAYLOR 1 Examples of Lie Groups The following is adapted from [2] We begin with the basic definition and some core examples Definition A Lie group is a smooth
More informationGravitation: Tensor Calculus
An Introduction to General Relativity Center for Relativistic Astrophysics School of Physics Georgia Institute of Technology Notes based on textbook: Spacetime and Geometry by S.M. Carroll Spring 2013
More informationTHE EXISTENCE PROBLEM
THE EXISTENCE PROBLEM Contact Geometry in High Dimensions Emmanuel Giroux CNRS ENS Lyon AIM May 21, 2012 Contact forms A contact form on a manifold V is a non-vanishing 1-form α whose differential dα at
More informationConstructing compact 8-manifolds with holonomy Spin(7)
Constructing compact 8-manifolds with holonomy Spin(7) Dominic Joyce, Oxford University Simons Collaboration meeting, Imperial College, June 2017. Based on Invent. math. 123 (1996), 507 552; J. Diff. Geom.
More informationMORSE HOMOLOGY. Contents. Manifolds are closed. Fields are Z/2.
MORSE HOMOLOGY STUDENT GEOMETRY AND TOPOLOGY SEMINAR FEBRUARY 26, 2015 MORGAN WEILER 1. Morse Functions 1 Morse Lemma 3 Existence 3 Genericness 4 Topology 4 2. The Morse Chain Complex 4 Generators 5 Differential
More informationNOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL FORMS. PART 1: FORMS ON R n
NOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL FORMS. PART 1: FORMS ON R n 1. What is a form? Since we re not following the development in Guillemin and Pollack, I d better write up an alternate approach. In this approach, we
More informationHard Lefschetz Theorem for Vaisman manifolds
Hard Lefschetz Theorem for Vaisman manifolds Antonio De Nicola CMUC, University of Coimbra, Portugal joint work with B. Cappelletti-Montano (Univ. Cagliari), J.C. Marrero (Univ. La Laguna) and I. Yudin
More informationwith a given direct sum decomposition into even and odd pieces, and a map which is bilinear, satisfies the associative law for multiplication, and
Chapter 2 Rules of calculus. 2.1 Superalgebras. A (commutative associative) superalgebra is a vector space A = A even A odd with a given direct sum decomposition into even and odd pieces, and a map A A
More information12 Geometric quantization
12 Geometric quantization 12.1 Remarks on quantization and representation theory Definition 12.1 Let M be a symplectic manifold. A prequantum line bundle with connection on M is a line bundle L M equipped
More informationLecture 8: More characteristic classes and the Thom isomorphism
Lecture 8: More characteristic classes and the Thom isomorphism We begin this lecture by carrying out a few of the exercises in Lecture 1. We take advantage of the fact that the Chern classes are stable
More informationPatrick Iglesias-Zemmour
Mathematical Surveys and Monographs Volume 185 Diffeology Patrick Iglesias-Zemmour American Mathematical Society Contents Preface xvii Chapter 1. Diffeology and Diffeological Spaces 1 Linguistic Preliminaries
More informationGeometry Qualifying Exam Notes
Geometry Qualifying Exam Notes F 1 F 1 x 1 x n Definition: The Jacobian matrix of a map f : N M is.. F m F m x 1 x n square matrix, its determinant is called the Jacobian determinant.. When this is a Definition:
More informationBERGMAN KERNEL ON COMPACT KÄHLER MANIFOLDS
BERGMAN KERNEL ON COMPACT KÄHLER MANIFOLDS SHOO SETO Abstract. These are the notes to an expository talk I plan to give at MGSC on Kähler Geometry aimed for beginning graduate students in hopes to motivate
More informationTheorem 3.11 (Equidimensional Sard). Let f : M N be a C 1 map of n-manifolds, and let C M be the set of critical points. Then f (C) has measure zero.
Now we investigate the measure of the critical values of a map f : M N where dim M = dim N. Of course the set of critical points need not have measure zero, but we shall see that because the values of
More information4-MANIFOLDS: CLASSIFICATION AND EXAMPLES. 1. Outline
4-MANIFOLDS: CLASSIFICATION AND EXAMPLES 1. Outline Throughout, 4-manifold will be used to mean closed, oriented, simply-connected 4-manifold. Hopefully I will remember to append smooth wherever necessary.
More informationη = (e 1 (e 2 φ)) # = e 3
Research Statement My research interests lie in differential geometry and geometric analysis. My work has concentrated according to two themes. The first is the study of submanifolds of spaces with riemannian
More informationINSTANTON MODULI AND COMPACTIFICATION MATTHEW MAHOWALD
INSTANTON MODULI AND COMPACTIFICATION MATTHEW MAHOWALD () Instanton (definition) (2) ADHM construction (3) Compactification. Instantons.. Notation. Throughout this talk, we will use the following notation:
More informationFormality of Kähler manifolds
Formality of Kähler manifolds Aron Heleodoro February 24, 2015 In this talk of the seminar we like to understand the proof of Deligne, Griffiths, Morgan and Sullivan [DGMS75] of the formality of Kähler
More information