Hamiltonian deformations and transversality [04AP]
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
Hamiltonian deformations and transversality
We now consider the parametrized moduli space of holomorphic curves over the infinite dimensional space of Hamiltonian deformations for the Lagrangian . Infinitesimally around a holomorphic curve , we have a Hamiltonian vector field defined by , viewed as a -valued vector field over . We are interested in whether the Hamiltonian deformation kills the cokernel of the ordinary Cauchy-Riemann operator. This question was first addressed by Oh [64]. The following account follows a similar strategy but differs in details.
Recall the ordinary Cauchy-Riemann operator maps to . The effect of Hamiltonian deformation is to enlarge the domain of the operator, by including the vector fields for all the allowed Hamiltonians . The question is to analyze the pairing of with the dualized cokernel elements.
Proposition 3.20.
Let be a holomorphic disc which is immersed near some point with the boundary injectivity property . Let be a nonzero dualized cokernel element for the ordinary linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator. Then there is a Hamiltonian supported in any prescribed small ball on containing , such that .
Proof.
Since is a holomorphic 1-form valued in , Stokes theorem gives
where stands for the pairing between and . On , we can write for some vector field valued in , and is any local coordinate on . The cokernel element condition implies for any , so must in fact be valued in the Lagrangian subbundle . Thus
We suppose for contradiction, that this pairing vanishes identically for any supported in the prescribed ball.
By the holomorphicity of , its zeros are isolated, so without loss of generality does not vanish in the local portion of where is injective and immersed. Suppose first that is not tangent to the image of . Then we find some local function on a small ball in with and on the local portion of , and another cutoff function with along , supported in a small ball. Taking , then
This contradiction shows is tangent to the image of in the local portion of . We can write for some local function . Then requiring
for any compactly supported local function , implies that is constant in the local portion of . Thus up to multiplying by a nonzero constant, locally
| (29) |
We now produce holomorphic vector fields on . For holomorphic strips or polygons with corners, we select one input end as , and call the output as usual, and represent as a strip with boundary punctures. This perspective provides a natural translation vector field , which have exponential decay along the ends, but may not be near the other ends. Instead, by thinking about the ends as the origin in the upper half plane model, we see
for the characterizing angles at the Lagrangian intersection point. The part of is . Contracting this with the part of yields a 1-form on
which is also holomorphic, with boundary value along
| (30) |
Here since both vectors satisfy the boundary condition. Notably, the boundary condition of is real valued. In the upper half plane model, the Schwartz reflection principle allows us to extend meromorphically over .
At any of the ends, since , we know by holomorphicity , so in the upper half plane model, hence has no pole. At the ends, by the decay of the holomorphic and , we likewise infer that has no pole in the upper half plane model. In conclusion, the extension of over has no pole, so must in fact vanish. However, by (29)(30), on a local portion of
This contradiction proves the Proposition in the case.
Finally, for the teardrop curve case , we replace the holomorphic vector field by the Möbius vector fields vanishing at the corner, and the rest of the arguments are entirely similar. ∎
The upshot is that by the Sard-Smale theorem, provided we can always ensure ‘somewhere boundary injectivity’ for any holomorphic disc in a given moduli space, then generic Hamiltonian perturbation would be able to achieve regularity for the moduli space.
Remark 3.8.
In the exact setting there is no closed holomorphic curve. The failure of ‘somewhere boundary injectivity’ is often associated with multiple cover issues, namely may decompose into several domain components, each of which factorizes through a somewhere boundary injective holomorphic disc (cf. [50] for the case of Lagrangian boundary with no corners).
In the simplest case, if factorizes through another disc, then the corner points would be repeated several times on . This phenomenon does not happen for the curves appearing in the bordism current , which involve only one corner at and one corner at . Nor does this occur for teardrop curves, which have only one corner at a degree two self intersection point. This raises hope that the failure of ‘somewhere boundary injectivity’ may be highly nongeneric, or in certain situations can be ruled out altogether.