ScalingStacks

Cancellation of obstructions [04HC]

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

Cancellation of obstructions

To make sense of Floer cohomology one needs to cancel the obstructions by introducing bounding cochains b∈C​Fs​e​l​f1​(L,L)b\in CF_{self}^{1}(L,L), which represents a formal sum of bp∈Hom​(E+,E−)|p⊗|op|b_{p}\in\text{Hom}(E_{+},E_{-})|_{p}\otimes|o_{p}| associated to degree one intersection points p∈C​F1​(L+,L−)p\in CF^{1}(L_{+},L_{-}). We require

  • •

    The Novikov positivity condition fL+​(p)≥fL−​(p)f_{L_{+}}(p)\geq f_{L_{-}}(p) for each of the intersection points appearing in bb.

  • •

    The Mauer-Cartan equation

    m0b=m0+m1​(b)+m2​(b,b)+…=0∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L).m_{0}^{b}=m_{0}+m_{1}(b)+m_{2}(b,b)+\ldots=0\in CF_{self}^{2}(L,L). (72)

Geometrically, the coefficients of q∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)q\in CF_{self}^{2}(L,L) in the mk​(b,…​b)m_{k}(b,\ldots b) term represent the zero dimensional counts of holomorphic polygons with the inputs at the summands bpb_{p} of bb, and the output at qq, weighted by the holonomy and orientation factors. Using the Novikov positivity requirement of the bounding cochain, the topological energy formula (66) for the polygon then implies

∫Σω≤fL−​(q)−fL+​(q),\int_{\Sigma}\omega\leq f_{L_{-}}(q)-f_{L_{+}}(q),

where the boundary of Σ\Sigma passes from L+L_{+} to L−L_{-} at qq in the clockwise direction. By Gromov compactness, this uniform energy bound implies there are only finitely many terms involved in the Mauer-Cartan equation. When such a bounding cochain bb exists, we say (L,b)(L,b) defines an unobstructed Lagrangian brane. In this case, both the Akaho-Joyce and the Woodward-Palmer approaches assign self Floer cohomology groups H​F∗​((L,b),(L,b))HF^{*}((L,b),(L,b)), defined as the cohomology of a degree one operator

m1b:C​F∗​(L,L)→C​F∗+1​(L,L),m1b​(x)=∑k,k′≥0mk+k′+1​(b,…​b⏟k′,x,b,…,b⏟k).m_{1}^{b}:CF^{*}(L,L)\to CF^{*+1}(L,L),\quad m_{1}^{b}(x)=\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\geq 0}m_{k+k^{\prime}+1}(\underbrace{b,\ldots b}_{k^{\prime}},x,\underbrace{b,\ldots,b}_{k}).

This cohomology is invariant under global Hamiltonian deformations. Two bounding cochains b,b′b,b^{\prime} on LL are said to be gauge equivalent, if there is h∈C​F0​(L,L)h\in CF^{0}(L,L) satisfying the Novikov positivity condition, such that

b−b′=∑k,k′≥0mk+k′+1​(b′,…​b′,h,b,…​b).b-b^{\prime}=\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\geq 0}m_{k+k^{\prime}+1}(b^{\prime},\ldots b^{\prime},h,b,\ldots b).

Gauge equivalent bounding cochains give rise to isomorphic Floer cohomology.

Remark 6.13.

In the embedded case, there are no self intersections, so the Mauer-Cartan equation is vacuous, and the Lagrangian is automatically unobstructed, with zero bounding cochain. The unobstructed condition is not automatic in general for immersed Lagrangians, and a significant aspect of the Joyce program in [41] is that unobstructed Lagrangians ought to be better behaved in the LMCF.

Now suppose (L,b)(L,b) and (L′,b′)(L^{\prime},b^{\prime}) are two unobstructed Lagrangian branes, intersecting transversally avoiding the self intersections of LL and L′L^{\prime}. Then we can define the Floer cohomology H​F∗​((L,b),(L′,b′))HF^{*}((L,b),(L^{\prime},b^{\prime})). The Floer cochain space C​F∗​(L,L′)CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) is the same as in the embedded case, generated by the local system factor tensored with the orientation factor, associated to the transverse intersection points. The Floer differential is

m1b,b′​(p)=∑k,k′≥0mk+k′+1​(b′,…​b′,p,b,…​b),m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}}(p)=\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\geq 0}m_{k+k^{\prime}+1}(b^{\prime},\ldots b^{\prime},p,b,\ldots b),

where the sum has k′k^{\prime} insertions of b′b^{\prime}, and kk insertions of bb. The coefficient of q∈C​F∗+1​(L,L′)q\in CF^{*+1}(L,L^{\prime}) are morally defined by the weighted count of holomorphic polygons with boundary marked points mapping to the summands of b,…​p,b′,…,qb,\ldots p,b^{\prime},\ldots,q, arranged in clockwise order. A similar a priori energy bound argument shows the sum is finite.

It is instructive to see why (m1b,b′)2=0(m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}})^{2}=0. We consider the breaking of one dimensional moduli spaces, associated with p,r∈C​F∗​(L,L′)p,r\in CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) with deg⁡r−deg⁡p=2\deg r-\deg p=2. There are several mechanisms for disc bubbling and disc splittings:

  • •

    The polygon breaks into two parts, connected at a nodal point mapping to some q∈C​F∗​(L,L′)q\in CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) with deg⁡q−deg⁡p=1\deg q-\deg p=1. The sum of all such contributions give rise to ⟨m1b,b′​(p),q⟩​⟨m1b,b′​(q),r⟩\langle m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}}(p),q\rangle\langle m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}}(q),r\rangle, and summing over q,rq,r produces (m1b,b′)2​(p)(m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}})^{2}(p).

  • •

    The polygon bubbles off a teardrop curve at a self intersection point qq of degree 2 on either LL or L′L^{\prime}.

  • •

    The polygon splits into two parts, connected at a node mapping to a degree 2 self intersection point qq on either LL or L′L^{\prime}.

The combined effect of the last two contributions, is a sum of the weighted counts of polygons with boundary mapping to b,b,…​p,b′,…​q,b′​…​rb,b,\ldots p,b^{\prime},\ldots q,b^{\prime}\ldots r multiplied by the coefficient of qq in m0b′=m0+m1​(b′)+…∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L′,L′)m_{0}^{b^{\prime}}=m_{0}+m_{1}(b^{\prime})+\ldots\in CF^{2}_{self}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}) in the case of q∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L′,L′)q\in CF^{2}_{self}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}) (the case with q∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)q\in CF^{2}_{self}(L,L) gives an entirely similar contribution related to m0b∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)m_{0}^{b}\in CF^{2}_{self}(L,L)). By the unobstructed assumption m0b=0m_{0}^{b}=0 and m0b′=0m_{0}^{b^{\prime}}=0, so these contributions vanish. But the grand sum of all contributions from all boundaries of the moduli spaces should be zero, which implies (m1b,b′)2=0(m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}})^{2}=0.

The generalization to many Lagrangians is a matter of bookkeeping. We have the A∞A_{\infty} compositions

mkb0,…​bk:C​F∗​(Lk−1,Lk)⊗…​C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗​(L0,Lk)​[2−k],m_{k}^{b_{0},\ldots b_{k}}:CF^{*}(L_{k-1},L_{k})\otimes\ldots CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{k})[2-k],
mkb0,…​bk​(pk,…​p1)=∑ml​(bk,…​bk,pk,bk−1,…,pk−1,…,p1,b0,…​b0).m_{k}^{b_{0},\ldots b_{k}}(p_{k},\ldots p_{1})=\sum m_{l}(b_{k},\ldots b_{k},p_{k},b_{k-1},\ldots,p_{k-1},\ldots,p_{1},b_{0},\ldots b_{0}). (73)

In particular, this induces a product structure on Floer cohomology H​F∗​(L1,L2)⊗H​F∗​(L0,L1)→H​F∗​(L0,L2)HF^{*}(L_{1},L_{2})\otimes HF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to HF^{*}(L_{0},L_{2}) (with bounding cochains suppressed in the notation),

[β]∘[α]=(−1)deg⁡α​m2b0,b1,b2​(β,α).[\beta]\circ[\alpha]=(-1)^{\deg\alpha}m_{2}^{b_{0},b_{1},b_{2}}(\beta,\alpha).

We say two unobstructed Lagrangian branes L,L′L,L^{\prime} are isomorphic in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X), if there exist [α]∈H​F0​(L,L′)[\alpha]\in HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and [β]∈H​F0​(L′,L)[\beta]\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L), such that their compositions are the cohomological units: [β]∘[α]=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)[\beta]\circ[\alpha]=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) and [α]∘[β]=1L′∈H​F0​(L′,L′)[\alpha]\circ[\beta]=1_{L^{\prime}}\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}).

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