ScalingStacks

Remark 2.4 . [03ZU]

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 2.4.

We wish to amplify the idea that the smooth topology of the S1S^{1}-fibration map is subtle. Given a T2T^{2}-fibration M→ℬM\to\mathcal{B} say, the T2T^{2}-invariant smooth functions on MM descend into a sheaf of functions on the base, sitting between the sheaf of smooth functions on ℬ\mathcal{B} and the sheaf of continuous functions on ℬ\mathcal{B}. An example of such a function on our model space is μ12+a22​|η|2\sqrt{\mu_{1}^{2}+a_{22}|\eta|^{2}}. Had we chosen a different a22a_{22} to begin with, this sheaf would be different. This means assigning a smooth topology on the compactification of a torus bundle across the discriminant locus, is a problem which involves extra data. In general this sheaf depends on functions along 𝔇i\mathfrak{D}_{i}, so carries an infinite amount of information, and is therefore expected to be unstable under deformation. This subtlety is related to Joyce’s observation that special Lagrangian fibrations can fail to be given by smooth maps (cf. review Section 1.1.5 and Section 4.12).

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