ScalingStacks

1 Introduction [03TC]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context Β· Original author HTML

1 Introduction

1.1

An integral affine structure on a manifold of dimension nn is given by a torsion-free flat connection with the monodromy reduced to G​L​(n,𝐙)GL(n,{{\bf Z}}). There are two basic situations in which integral affine structures occur naturally. One is the case of classical integrable systems described briefly in Section 3. Most interesting for us is a class of examples arising from analytic manifolds over non-archimedean fields which is discussed in Section 4. It is motivated by the approach to Mirror Symmetry suggested in [KoSo]. We recall it in Section 5. From our point of view manifolds with integral affine structure appear in Mirror Symmetry in two ways. One considers the Gromov-Hausdorff collapse of degenerating families of Calabi-Yau manifolds. The limiting space can be interpreted either as a contraction (see Section 4.1) of an analytic manifold over a non-archimedean field of Laurent series 𝐂⁑((t)){\bf C}((t)), or as a base of a fibration of a Calabi-Yau manifold by Lagrangian tori (with respect to the symplectic KΓ€hler 2-form). On a dense open subset of the limiting space one gets two integral affine structures associated with two interpretations, the non-archimedean one and the symplectic one. Mirror dual family of degenerating Calabi-Yau manifolds should have metrically the same Gromov-Hausdorff limit, with the roles of two integral affine structures interchanged.

Very interesting question arises: how to reconstruct these families of Calabi-Yau manifolds from the corresponding manifolds with integral affine structures? This question was one of the main motivations for present work.

1.2

Our approach to the reconstruction of analytic Calabi-Yau manifolds from real manifolds with integral affine structure can be illustrated in the following toy-model example. Let S1=𝐑/𝐙S^{1}={{\bf R}}/{{\bf Z}} be a circle equipped with the induced from 𝐑{{\bf R}} affine structure. We equip S1S^{1} with the canonical sheaf π’ͺS1c​a​n{\cal O}^{can}_{S^{1}} of Noetherian 𝐂⁑((q)){{\bf C}}((q))-algebras. By definition, for an open interval UβŠ‚S1U\subset S^{1} algebra π’ͺS1c​a​n​(U){\cal O}^{can}_{S^{1}}(U) consists of formal series f=βˆ‘m,nβˆˆπ™am,n​qm​zn,am,nβˆˆπ‚f=\sum_{m,n\in{{\bf Z}}}a_{m,n}q^{m}z^{n},\,\,\,a_{m,n}\in{\bf C} such that infam,nβ‰ 0(m+n​x)>βˆ’βˆž\inf_{a_{m,n}\neq 0}(m+nx)>-\infty. Here xβˆˆπ‘x\in{\bf R} is any point in a connected component of the pre-image of UU in 𝐑{\bf R}, the choice of a different component xβ†’x+k,kβˆˆπ™x\rightarrow x+k,\,\,k\in{\bf Z} corresponds to the substitution z↦qk​zz\mapsto q^{k}z. The corresponding analytic space is the Tate elliptic curve (E,π’ͺE)(E,{\cal O}_{E}), and there is a continuous map Ο€:Eβ†’S1\pi:E\to S^{1} such that Ο€βˆ—β€‹(π’ͺE)=π’ͺS1c​a​n\pi_{\ast}({\cal O}_{E})={\cal O}^{can}_{S^{1}}.

In the case of K3 surfaces one starts with S2S^{2}. The corresponding integral affine structure is well-defined on the set S2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}βŠ‚S2S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}\subset S^{2}, where x1,…,x24x_{1},...,x_{24} are distinct points. Similarly to the above toy-model example one can construct the canonical sheaf π’ͺS2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}c​a​n{\cal O}_{S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}}^{can} of algebras, an open 22-dimensional smooth analytic surface Xβ€²X^{\prime} with the trivial canonical bundle (Calabi-Yau manifold), and a continuous projection Ο€β€²:Xβ€²β†’S2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}\pi^{\prime}:X^{\prime}\to S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\} such that Ο€βˆ—β€²β€‹(π’ͺXβ€²)=π’ͺS2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}c​a​n\pi^{\prime}_{\ast}({\cal O}_{X^{\prime}})={\cal O}_{S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}}^{can}. The problem is to find a sheaf π’ͺS2{\cal O}_{S^{2}} whose restriction to S2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\} is locally isomorphic to π’ͺS2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}c​a​n{\cal O}_{S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}}^{can}, an analytic compact K3 surface XX, and a continuous projection Ο€:Xβ†’S2\pi:X\to S^{2} such that Ο€βˆ—β€‹(π’ͺX)=π’ͺS2\pi_{\ast}({\cal O}_{X})={\cal O}_{S^{2}}. We call this problem (in general case) the Lifting Problem and discuss it in Section 7. Unfortunately we do not know the conditions one should impose on singularities of the affine structure, so that the Lifting Problem would have a solution. We consider a special case of K3 surfaces in Sections 8-11. Here the solution is non-trivial and depends on data which are not visible in the statement of the problem. They are motivated by Mirror Symmetry and consist, roughly speaking, of an infinite collection of trees embedded into S2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\} with the tail vertices belonging to the set {x1,…,x24}\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}. The sheaf π’ͺS2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}c​a​n{\cal O}_{S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}}^{can} has to be modified by means of automorphisms assigned to every edge of a tree and then glued together with certain model sheaf near each singular point xix_{i}.

Informally speaking, we break S2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\} endowed with the sheaf π’ͺS2βˆ–{x1,…,x24}c​a​n{\cal O}_{S^{2}\setminus\{x_{1},...,x_{24}\}}^{can} into infinitely many infinitely small pieces and then glue them back together in a slightly deformed way. The idea of such a construction was proposed several years ago independently by K.Β Fukaya and the first author. The realization of this idea was hindered by a poor understanding of singularities of the Gromov-Hausdorff collapse and by the lack of knowledge of certain open Gromov-Witten invariants (β€œinstanton corrections”). The last problem is circumvented here (and in fact solved) with the use of some pro-nilpotent Lie group (see Section 10).

1.3

The relationship between K3 surfaces and singular affine structures on S2S^{2} is of very general origin. Starting with a projective analytic Calabi-Yau manifold XX over a complete non-archimedean local field KK one can canonically construct a PL manifold S​k​(X)Sk(X) called the skeleton of XX. If XX is a generic K3 surface then S​k​(X)Sk(X) is S2S^{2}. We discuss skeleta in Section 6.6. The group of birational automorphisms of XX acts on S​k​(X)Sk(X) by integral PL transformations. For X=K​3X=K3 we obtain an action of an arithmetic subgroup of S​O​(1,18)SO(1,18) on S2S^{2}. Further examples should come from Calabi-Yau manifolds with large groups of birational automorphisms.

1.4

We have already discussed the content of the paper. Let us summarize it. The paper is naturally divided into three parts. Part 1 is devoted to generalities on integral affine structures and examples, including Mirror Symmetry. Motivated by string theory we use term A-model (resp. B-model) for examples arising in symplectic (resp. analytic) geometry.

In Part 2 we discuss the concept of singular integral affine structure, including an affine version of Gauss-Bonnet theorem. The latter implies that if all singularities of an integral affine structure on S2S^{2} are standard (so-called focus-focus singularities) then there are exactly 2424 singular points. Part 2 also contains a statement of the Lifting Problem and discussion of flat coordinates on the moduli space of complex Calabi-Yau manifolds. We expect that under mild conditions on the singular integral affine structure there exists a solution of the Lifting Problem, which is unique as long as we fix periods (see Sections 7.3 and 7.4 for more details).

Most technical Part 3 contains a solution of the Lifting Problem for K3 surfaces. We construct the corresponding analytic K3 surface as a ringed space. The sheaf of analytic functions is defined differently near a singular point and far from the singular set. It turns out that the β€œnaive” candidate for the sheaf on the complement of the singular set has to be modified before we can glue it with the model sheaf near each singular point. This modification procedure involves a new set of data (we call them lines). We also discuss the group of automorphisms of the canonical sheaf which preserve the symplectic form. We use this group in order to modify the β€œnaive” sheaf along each line.

The paper has two Appendices. First one contains some background on analytic spaces, while the second one is devoted to Torelli theorem.

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Ilya Zharkov and Mark Gross for useful discussions. Second author thanks Clay Mathematics Institute for supporting him as a Fellow and IHES for excellent research and living conditions.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.