ScalingStacks

Remark 3.4 . [049F]

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 · Original author HTML

Remark 3.4.

If there are degree −2-2 self intersections of LL, then the choice of γ\gamma is only unique up to m1bm_{1}^{b} of some element in C​F−2​(L,L)CF^{-2}(L,L). The corresponding choice of 𝒞\mathcal{C} would be ambiguous by the boundary of an (n+2)(n+2)-dimensional integration current. As a closely related issue, our conditions on α,β\alpha,\beta are merely cohomological, so in general we can adjust α\alpha and β\beta by coboundary terms, which would affect 𝒞\mathcal{C} also by the boundary of an (n+2)(n+2) dimensional current. If we impose L,L′L,L^{\prime} to be almost calibrated, then there are no C​F−1​(L,L′)CF^{-1}(L,L^{\prime}) elements to begin with, and these phenomena do not happen.

On the other hand, 𝒞\mathcal{C} still depends on the choice of local systems and bounding cochains, which may contribute nontrivial holonomy factors. Gauge equivalent choices affect 𝒞\mathcal{C} by the boundary of an (n+2)(n+2)-dimensional current. One may naturally ask:

Question 3.

Up to gauge equivalence of bounding cochains and local systems, is there an optimal representative of 𝒞\mathcal{C}?

Question 4.

Given an exact isotopy with surgery between LL and L′L^{\prime} among unobstructed Lagrangians, is there a preferred choice of 𝒞\mathcal{C} (cf. Question 2)?

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