ScalingStacks

Proof. [047Y]

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

Proof.

(Sketch) Assume the suppports do not coincide. After small Hamiltonian perturbations, we can ensure the perturbed Lagrangians L~,L~′\tilde{L},\tilde{L}^{\prime} have transverse intersections, and still define the same isomorphic objects in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X). Under the special Lagrangian assumption, through judicious choice of the Hamiltonian via Morse theory as in Thomas-Yau [66, Thm 4.3], or by using genericity arguments based on real analyticity as in Joyce-Imagi-Santos [40, section 4.3], one can ensure there is no intersection point L~∩L~′\tilde{L}\cap\tilde{L}^{\prime} of degree 0,n0,n, so in particular H​F0​(L,L′)≃H​F0​(L~,L~′)=0HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime})\simeq HF^{0}(\tilde{L},\tilde{L}^{\prime})=0. However, this implies the cohomological unit of H​F∗​(L,L)HF^{*}(L,L) is zero, so the Floer cohomology ring of LL is zero, namely LL is a zero object in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X), contradiction. ∎

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