ScalingStacks

The Floer theoretic obstruction condition [04B3]

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

The Floer theoretic obstruction condition

The following Floer theoretic obstruction will crucially require complex integrability and the almost calibrated condition. Assume L1→L→L2→𝛾L1​[1]L_{1}\to L\to L_{2}\xrightarrow{\gamma}L_{1}[1] be a distinguished triangle of unobstructed exact immersed Lagrangian branes with bounding cochains, such that L1,L,L2L_{1},L,L_{2} are all almost calibrated, and all intersections are transverse. In other words, the Lagrangian brane LL is isomorphic in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) to the immersed Lagrangian corresponding to the twisted complex (cf. section 3.1, 6.2)

L′≃((L2,b2)γ(L1,b1)).L^{\prime}\simeq\left(\begin{matrix}(L_{2},b_{2})&\\ \gamma&(L_{1},b_{1})\end{matrix}\right).

We obtain a bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} with ∂𝒞=L−L′=L−L1−L2\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L^{\prime}=L-L_{1}-L_{2}. In our generality, the domains of L1,L2,LL_{1},L_{2},L may have many connected components.

Theorem 3.21.

(Floer theoretic obstruction) Assume the automatic transversality and the positivity condition hold for the bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C}. Assume the destabilizing condition

θ^1=arg∫L1Ω>θ^2=arg∫L2Ω.\hat{\theta}_{1}=\arg\int_{L_{1}}\Omega>\hat{\theta}_{2}=\arg\int_{L_{2}}\Omega.

Then the Lagrangian phase angle of LL has a lower bound on its oscillation:

supLθL≥θ^1,infLθL≤θ^2,\sup_{L}\theta_{L}\geq\hat{\theta}_{1},\quad\inf_{L}\theta_{L}\leq\hat{\theta}_{2}, (31)

and morever the J-volume of LL (cf. section 2.9) has a nontrivial lower bound

VolJ​(L)=∫Le−i​θ​Ω≥|∫L1Ω|+|∫L2Ω|.\text{Vol}_{J}(L)=\int_{L}e^{-i\theta}\Omega\geq|\int_{L_{1}}\Omega|+|\int_{L_{2}}\Omega|. (32)
Proof.

At a holomorphic polygon Σ\Sigma in the universal family 𝒞\mathcal{C}, denote v1,…​vn−1v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1} as the first order deformation vector fields representing an oriented basis of tangent vectors to the moduli space. In the special case of holomorphic strips, the moduli space refers to the ℝ\mathbb{R}-translation quotient. We noted in section 3.3 that Ω⁡(⋅,v1,…,vn−1)\Omega(\cdot,v_{1},\ldots,v_{n-1}) restricts to a holomorphic 1-form on Σ\Sigma, so can be written as the differential of a holomorphic function FF by the simply connectedness of Σ\Sigma:

d​F=Ω⁡(⋅,v1,…,vn−1).dF=\Omega(\cdot,v_{1},\ldots,v_{n-1}). (33)

The corners on Σ\Sigma are arranged in clockwise order with the following possibilities:

  • •

    In the primary case, we encounter some degree one self intersections on LL from bounding cochains, a corner p∈C​F0​(L,L2)p\in CF^{0}(L,L_{2}), some degree one self intersections on L2L_{2}, a corner rr from γ∈C​F1​(L2,L1)\gamma\in CF^{1}(L_{2},L_{1}), some degree one self intersections on L1L_{1}, and a corner at q∈C​F0​(L1,L)q\in CF^{0}(L_{1},L). Notice the Lagrangian boundary follows L,L2,L1L,L_{2},L_{1} in clockwise order, and we cannot go reversely from L1L_{1} to L2L_{2} instead.

  • •

    In the secondary cases, the boundary data may miss either L1L_{1} or L2L_{2}. For instance, we may encounter some degree one intersections on LL, a corner p∈C​F0​(L,L2)p\in CF^{0}(L,L_{2}), some degree one intersections on L2L_{2} and a corner at q∈C​F0​(L2,L)q\in CF^{0}(L_{2},L). The Lagrangian boundary follows L,L2L,L_{2} in clockwise order. The alternative possibility of Lagrangian boundary along LL and L1L_{1} is entirely similar.

In all cases, there is precisely one corner pp at C​F0​(L,L′)CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and a corner qq at C​F0​(L′,L)CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L). We can normalize F⁡(q)=0F(q)=0 to fix the constant. In the primary case, there is a corner r∈C​F1​(L2,L1)r\in CF^{1}(L_{2},L_{1}), which is absent in the secondary cases. In general, the bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} receives contributions from many moduli spaces, and all three cases may arise depending on the generators of H​F0​(L,L′)HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and H​F0​(L′,L)HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L).

We can now define complex valued volume forms on the (n−1)(n-1) dimensional moduli spaces of holomorphic curves. Recall v1,…​vn−1v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1} represent the tangent vectors to the moduli spaces, and the holomorphic function FF depends on v1∧…​vn−1v_{1}\wedge\ldots v_{n-1}. In the primary case, we define

{Ω~L​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(p),Ω~L1​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(r),Ω~L2​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(p)−F⁡(r).\begin{cases}\tilde{\Omega}_{L}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(p),\\ \tilde{\Omega}_{L_{1}}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(r),\\ \tilde{\Omega}_{L_{2}}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(p)-F(r).\end{cases}

In the secondary cases, if the Lagrangian boundary lies on LL and L1L_{1}, then

{Ω~L​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(p),Ω~L1​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(p),Ω~L2​(v1,…​vn−1)=0.\begin{cases}\tilde{\Omega}_{L}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(p),\\ \tilde{\Omega}_{L_{1}}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(p),\\ \tilde{\Omega}_{L_{2}}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=0.\end{cases}

If the Lagrangian boundary lies on LL and L2L_{2}, then

{Ω~L​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(p),Ω~L1​(v1,…​vn−1)=0,Ω~L2​(v1,…​vn−1)=F⁡(p).\begin{cases}\tilde{\Omega}_{L}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(p),\\ \tilde{\Omega}_{L_{1}}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=0,\\ \tilde{\Omega}_{L_{2}}(v_{1},\ldots v_{n-1})=F(p).\end{cases}

The values of FF should be understood as the integral of d​FdF on the appropriate portions of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma. The key point is that since ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} sweeps out the cycle L−L1−L2L-L_{1}-L_{2}, we can write the period integrals as integrals on the (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional moduli spaces of holomorphic curves:

∫LΩ=∫ℳΩ~L,∫LiΩ=∫ℳΩ~Li,i=1,2.\int_{L}\Omega=\int_{\mathcal{M}}\tilde{\Omega}_{L},\quad\int_{L_{i}}\Omega=\int_{\mathcal{M}}\tilde{\Omega}_{L_{i}},\quad i=1,2. (34)

where ℳ\mathcal{M} is a shorthand for the weighted sum over contributions from all the (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional moduli spaces involved in the construction of 𝒞\mathcal{C}, cf. the Appendex 6.2.

Recall the positivity condition means that if v0v_{0} stands for a clockwise oriented tangent vector on ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, then v0∧v1​…∧vn−1v_{0}\wedge v_{1}\ldots\wedge v_{n-1} agrees with the orientation on LL, and is opposite to the orientation on L′L^{\prime}. The nonvanishing of v0∧v1​…∧vn−1v_{0}\wedge v_{1}\ldots\wedge v_{n-1} is a consequence of the immersion property from the automatic transversality (cf. Cor. 3.6, Prop. 3.8). The almost calibrated condition implies that Re​Ω>0\text{Re}\Omega>0 on the Lagrangians with respect to the orientation on LL and L′L^{\prime}. Thus

Claim 3.22.

(Monotonicity) Clockwise along ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, the function Re ​F\text{Re }F is increasing on the LL boundary portion, but decreasing on the L′=L1∪L2L^{\prime}=L_{1}\cup L_{2} boundary portion. In particular,

0=Re ​F​(q)≤Re ​F≤Re ​F​(p).0=\text{Re }F(q)\leq\text{Re }F\leq\text{Re }F(p).

More intrinsically, the real part of the complex volume forms on the moduli spaces are nonnegative.

The holomorphic function FF maps Σ\Sigma into a bounded region in the complex plane. The behaviour at the corners is specified in Remark 3.7. Since each vertical line intersects ∂F⁡(Σ)⊂ℂ\partial F(\Sigma)\subset\mathbb{C} at ≤2\leq 2 points by the monotonicity claim above, the boundary and corner local behaviours imply that

Claim 3.23.

(Image curve) The image F⁡(Σ)⊂ℂF(\Sigma)\subset\mathbb{C} lies above its L′L^{\prime} boundary portion, and below its LL boundary portion.

We turn to the proof of the Lagrangian phase angle inequality (31). For each curve that contributes nontrivially to Ω~L\tilde{\Omega}_{L}, by the monotonicity claim we can find a unique point r′r^{\prime} on the LL boundary of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, such that

{Re F(r′)=Re F(r),primary case,r′=q,secondary case, boundary on L and L2,r′=p,secondary case, boundary on L and L1.\begin{cases}\text{Re }F(r^{\prime})=\text{Re }F(r),\quad&\text{primary case},\\ r^{\prime}=q,\quad&\text{secondary case, boundary on $L$ and $L_{2}$},\\ r^{\prime}=p,\quad&\text{secondary case, boundary on $L$ and $L_{1}$}.\end{cases}

From the image curve claim, we always have Im​F​(r′)≥Im​F​(r)\text{Im}F(r^{\prime})\geq\text{Im}F(r) in the primary case. Integrating over the moduli space of holomorphic curves,

Re​∫ℳF⁡(r′)=Re​∫ℳΩ~L1=Re​∫L1Ω,Im​∫ℳF⁡(r′)≥Im​∫ℳΩ~L1=Im​∫L1Ω.\text{Re}\int_{\mathcal{M}}F(r^{\prime})=\text{Re}\int_{\mathcal{M}}\tilde{\Omega}_{L_{1}}=\text{Re}\int_{L_{1}}\Omega,\quad\text{Im}\int_{\mathcal{M}}F(r^{\prime})\geq\text{Im}\int_{\mathcal{M}}\tilde{\Omega}_{L_{1}}=\text{Im}\int_{L_{1}}\Omega.

We now introduce two almost everywhere defined functions χA1,χA2\chi_{A_{1}},\chi_{A_{2}} on LL. The recipe is that at any generic point P∈LP\in L, if an automatically transverse holomorphic curve in the universal family passes through PP on the boundary portion of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma joining qq to r′r^{\prime} (resp. r′r^{\prime} to pp), then it gives an additive contribution to χA1​(P)\chi_{A_{1}}(P) (resp. χA2​(P)\chi_{A_{2}}(P)) equal to the weighting factor of the curve. Intuitively χA1,χA2\chi_{A_{1}},\chi_{A_{2}} should be understood as the characteristic functions of weighted subsets A1,A2⊂LA_{1},A_{2}\subset L. The positivity condition gives χAi≥0\chi_{A_{i}}\geq 0, and ∂𝒞=L−L′\partial\mathcal{C}=L-L^{\prime} gives χA1+χA2=1\chi_{A_{1}}+\chi_{A_{2}}=1. Intuitively A1,A2A_{1},A_{2} give a (weighted) partition of LL.

The moduli space integrals now have target space interpretations:

∫ℳF(r′)=∫LχA1Ω=:∫A1Ω,∫ℳF(p)−F(r′)=∫LχA2Ω=:∫A2Ω.\int_{\mathcal{M}}F(r^{\prime})=\int_{L}\chi_{A_{1}}\Omega=:\int_{A_{1}}\Omega,\quad\int_{\mathcal{M}}F(p)-F(r^{\prime})=\int_{L}\chi_{A_{2}}\Omega=:\int_{A_{2}}\Omega.

Since LL is homologous to L1+L2L_{1}+L_{2}, we have ∫LΩ=∫L1Ω+∫L2Ω\int_{L}\Omega=\int_{L_{1}}\Omega+\int_{L_{2}}\Omega. Whence

Claim 3.24.

There is a weighted partition L=A1+A2L=A_{1}+A_{2} such that

Re​∫AiΩ=Re​∫LiΩ>0,Im​∫A2Ω≤Im​∫L2Ω,Im​∫A1Ω≥Im​∫L1Ω.\text{Re}\int_{A_{i}}\Omega=\text{Re}\int_{L_{i}}\Omega>0,\quad\text{Im}\int_{A_{2}}\Omega\leq\text{Im}\int_{L_{2}}\Omega,\quad\text{Im}\int_{A_{1}}\Omega\geq\text{Im}\int_{L_{1}}\Omega.

Consequently arg∫A2Ω≤arg∫L2Ω=θ^2\arg\int_{A_{2}}\Omega\leq\arg\int_{L_{2}}\Omega=\hat{\theta}_{2} and arg∫A1Ω≥arg∫L1Ω=θ^1\arg\int_{A_{1}}\Omega\geq\arg\int_{L_{1}}\Omega=\hat{\theta}_{1}, so in particular infLθL≤θ^2\inf_{L}\theta_{L}\leq\hat{\theta}_{2} and supLθL≥θ^1\sup_{L}\theta_{L}\geq\hat{\theta}_{1}.

Finally we deal with the J-volume lower bound (32). By the triangle inequality,

∫Le−i​θ​Ω=∫L|Ω|=∫A1|Ω|+∫A2|Ω|≥|∫A1Ω|+|∫A2Ω|.\int_{L}e^{-i\theta}\Omega=\int_{L}|\Omega|=\int_{A_{1}}|\Omega|+\int_{A_{2}}|\Omega|\geq|\int_{A_{1}}\Omega|+|\int_{A_{2}}\Omega|.

The RHS is at least |∫L1Ω|+|∫L2Ω||\int_{L_{1}}\Omega|+|\int_{L_{2}}\Omega|, due to an elementary numerical fact:

Lemma 3.25.

Let z,wz,w be complex numbers, with fixed real parts 0<Re​(z)<Re​(w)0<\text{Re}(z)<\text{Re}(w). Then as a function of Im​(z)\text{Im}(z), the function |z|+|w−z||z|+|w-z| is decreasing when arg⁡z≤arg⁡w\arg z\leq\arg w, and increasing when arg⁡z≥arg⁡w\arg z\geq\arg w.

This concludes the proof of (32). ∎

A few remarks are in order to clarify the relevance to special Lagrangian geometry:

Remark 3.10.

Recall that for LL to be a special Lagrangian, then its phase angle is constant, and its J-volume is

VolJ​(L)=|∫LΩ|<|∫L1Ω|+|∫L2Ω|,\text{Vol}_{J}(L)=|\int_{L}\Omega|<|\int_{L_{1}}\Omega|+|\int_{L_{2}}\Omega|,

using the triangle inequality, the homological relation [L]=[L1+L2]∈Hn​(X)[L]=[L_{1}+L_{2}]\in H_{n}(X) and the assumption that θ^1>θ^2\hat{\theta}_{1}>\hat{\theta}_{2}. Thus the conclusion of the theorem is a quantitative obstruction for LL to be special Lagrangian. In section 3.6 we will discuss the relation to Joyce’s LMCF program and the Bridgeland stability condition.

Remark 3.11.

If L1,L2L_{1},L_{2} are actually special Lagrangians, then the phase angle bounds (31) would be evident from the Floer degree formula (63) applied to the intersection points L∩L′L\cap L^{\prime}. One main feature of the theorem is that we do not need a priori knowledge on the existence of special Lagrangians, and the holomorphic volume form enters the obstruction criterion only through cohomological information.

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