ScalingStacks

Sign issues and brane structures [04H2]

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

Sign issues and brane structures

To go beyond mod 2 coefficients, we need to orient moduli spaces. Good references can be found in Seidel’s book [69] and Abouzaid [3, Appendix]. All Lagrangians are assumed to be graded, with second Stiefel-Whitney class equal to the restriction of a fixed class in H2​(X,ℤ/2)H^{2}(X,\mathbb{Z}/2), and we equip the Lagrangians with relative spin structures. At any transverse Lagrangian intersection point p∈L+∩L−p\in L_{+}\cap L_{-}, there is a unique up to homotopy path Λp\Lambda_{p} of Lagrangian planes in Tp​X≃ℂnT_{p}X\simeq\mathbb{C}^{n} with graded lift interpolating T​L+TL_{+} and T​L−TL_{-}. We fix a relative spin structure on Λp\Lambda_{p}, compatible with the relative spin structure on L±L_{\pm}. We can associate a vector space opo_{p} as the determinant line of the Cauchy-Riemann operator DpD_{p} on the upper half plane with boundary data Λp\Lambda_{p}. The dual of opo_{p} is denoted op∨o_{p}^{\vee}, namely op⊗op∨≃ℝo_{p}\otimes o_{p}^{\vee}\simeq\mathbb{R} canonically. The orientation line |oy||o_{y}| is the free abelian group generated by the two possible orientations of oyo_{y} with the relation that their sum vanishes. Furthermore, we equip the Lagrangians LL with (rank one) local systems EE, and write the Floer cochain complex as the graded vector space

CF∗(L,L′)=⊕p∈L∩L′Hom(E|p,E′|p)⊗|op|.CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime})=\oplus_{p\in L\cap L^{\prime}}\text{Hom}(E|_{p},E^{\prime}|_{p})\otimes|o_{p}|.
Remark 6.8.

There are some variants on the coefficient ring/field of the local system. The simplest case is the trivial local system, in which case we simply delete the Hom\Hom factor. Other popular choices have parallel transport in ℚ∗,ℝ∗,ℂ∗\mathbb{Q}^{*},\mathbb{R}^{*},\mathbb{C}^{*}, or the units in the Novikov ring.6363 63 The U⁡(1)U(1)-local systems are popular in the physics literature, but appear rarely in Floer theory. Different choices could in principle lead to slightly different versions of the derived Fukaya category. The smaller the coefficient ring/field, the more stringent is the notion of derived isomorphism of objects. For the purpose of extending the Solomon functional (cf. section 20) to be real valued, we require all coefficients to be at least contained in ℝ\mathbb{R}, so we will usually work simultaneously with ℝ\mathbb{R}, ℚ\mathbb{Q} and ℤ\mathbb{Z} local systems. On the other hand, it is claimed in [81, Remark 4.5] that in the exact setting the immersed Fukaya algebras can be defined over the integers. The specific advantage of working over integers, as discussed in the main text, is primarily that the bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} between Lagrangians is then an integral current, rather than ℝ\mathbb{R}-linear combinations of integral currents.

Given a holomorphic polygon u:Σ→Xu:\Sigma\to X, with inputs x1,…​xkx_{1},\ldots x_{k} and output x0x_{0} mapping to p1,…​pkp_{1},\ldots p_{k} and qq, the det line of the linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator DuD_{u} can be computed from gluing kernel and cokernels:

det(Du​#​Dpk​…​#​Dp1)≃det(Du)⊗opk​…⊗op1.\det(D_{u}\#D_{p_{k}}\ldots\#D_{p_{1}})\simeq\det(D_{u})\otimes o_{p_{k}}\ldots\otimes o_{p_{1}}.

The role of the relative spin structure, is to specify a homotopically unique choice of isotopy between the glued operator Du​#​Dxk​…​#​Dx1D_{u}\#D_{x_{k}}\ldots\#D_{x_{1}} and Dx0D_{x_{0}} (i.e. an isotopy between Lagrangian boundary conditions), hence a preferred isomorphism

detDu≃oq⊗op1∨⊗…​opk∨.\det D_{u}\simeq o_{q}\otimes o_{p_{1}}^{\vee}\otimes\ldots o_{p_{k}}^{\vee}.

The tangent space of the moduli space of holomorphic polygons ℳ⁡(p1,…​pk,q)\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q) involves not only the linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator, but also the variation of the complex structure of the domain of the polygon, controlled by the Stasheff associahedron ℛ¯k+1\overline{\mathcal{R}}_{k+1}. Denote λt​o​p​(V)\lambda^{top}(V) as the top wedge product of a vector space VV. Then there are preferred isomorphisms depending on the relative spin structure choice

λt​o​p​(T​ℳ​(p1,…​pk,q))≃λt​o​p​(ℛk+1)⊗oq⊗op1∨⊗…​opk∨.\lambda^{top}(T\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q))\simeq\lambda^{top}(\mathcal{R}_{k+1})\otimes o_{q}\otimes o_{p_{1}}^{\vee}\otimes\ldots o_{p_{k}}^{\vee}. (69)
Remark 6.9.

Fixing an orientation on LL, then C​F0​(L,L′)CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) is naturally dual to C​Fn​(L′,L)CF^{n}(L^{\prime},L). The local system factor Hom⁡(E,E′)\Hom(E,E^{\prime}) is naturally dual to Hom⁡(E′,E)\Hom(E^{\prime},E). Given a Lagrangian path Λp\Lambda_{p} associated to a Lagrangian intersection pp, the reverse path is also associated with a determinant line bundle, which can be identified with

op∨⊗λ⁡(T​L),o_{p}^{\vee}\otimes\lambda(TL),

since the two half planes with Lagrangian boundaries can be glued to a disk, such that the det line of the Cauchy-Riemann operator is canonically isomorphic to λ⁡(T​L)\lambda(TL).

For k≥2k\geq 2, when the moduli spaces are zero dimensional, so carry canonical orientations, then a universal orientation choice for λt​o​p​(ℛk+1)\lambda^{top}(\mathcal{R}_{k+1}) determines an operator

|cu|:|opk|⊗…⊗|op1|→|oq|.|c_{u}|:|o_{p_{k}}|\otimes\ldots\otimes|o_{p_{1}}|\to|o_{q}|.

In our degree conventions the corners x0,x1,x2,…​xkx_{0},x_{1},x_{2},\ldots x_{k} on the domain disc boundary are ordered clockwise, so a natural orientation on the Stasheff associahedron can be obtained by fixing x0,x1,x2x_{0},x_{1},x_{2} and allowing the other corner points to move in the clockwise orientation. The parallel transports along the local systems contribute another factor

Hom⁡(Ek−1,Ek)|pk⊗…​Hom⁡(E1,E2)|p2⊗Hom⁡(E0,E1)|p1→Hom⁡(E0,Ek)|q.\Hom(E_{k-1},E_{k})|_{p_{k}}\otimes\ldots\Hom(E_{1},E_{2})|_{p_{2}}\otimes\Hom(E_{0},E_{1})|_{p_{1}}\to\Hom(E_{0},E_{k})|_{q}.

Each pseudoholomorphic polygon contributes to the operation

mk:C​F∗​(Lk−1,Lk)⊗…​C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗​(L0,Lk)​[2−k]m_{k}:CF^{*}(L_{k-1},L_{k})\otimes\ldots CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{k})[2-k]

via the tensor product of the orientation factor |cu||c_{u}| and the local system factor, multiplied by another sign factor depending only on the degrees (cf. [69, equation (12.24)])

(−1)deg⁡p1+2​deg⁡p2+…​k​deg⁡pk.(-1)^{\deg p_{1}+2\deg p_{2}+\ldots k\deg p_{k}}.

In the case of holomorphic strips, we have a natural isomorphism

Tℳ(p,q)=ℝ(−∂s)⊕T(ℳ(p,q)/ℝ).T\mathcal{M}(p,q)=\mathbb{R}(-\partial_{s})\oplus T(\mathcal{M}(p,q)/\mathbb{R}). (70)

where −∂s-\partial_{s} is the translation vector field pointing towards the input point. When ℳ⁡(p,q)/ℝ\mathcal{M}(p,q)/\mathbb{R} consists of isolated points, it carries canonical orientations, whence by (69) we obtain

|cu|:|op|→|oq|.|c_{u}|:|o_{p}|\to|o_{q}|.

The local system parallel transport produces another factor

Hom⁡(E0,E1)|p→Hom⁡(E0,E1)|q.\Hom(E_{0},E_{1})|_{p}\to\Hom(E_{0},E_{1})|_{q}.

Each pseudoholomorphic strip contributes to the Floer differential

d:C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗+1​(L0,L1)d:CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*+1}(L_{0},L_{1})

by the product of these two factors. We write

m1:C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗+1​(L0,L1),m1=(−1)deg⁡p1​d.m_{1}:CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*+1}(L_{0},L_{1}),\quad m_{1}=(-1)^{\deg p_{1}}d.

When the signs and local system weighting factors are taken into account, the A∞A_{\infty}-relation reads

∑l=1k∑j=0k−l(−1)†​mk+1−l​(pk,…,pj+l+1,ml​(pj+l,…​pj+1),pj,…​p1)=0.\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-l}(-1)^{\dagger}m_{k+1-l}(p_{k},\ldots,p_{j+l+1},m_{l}(p_{j+l},\ldots p_{j+1}),p_{j},\ldots p_{1})=0. (71)

where †=j+deg⁡p1+…+deg⁡pj\dagger=j+\deg p_{1}+\ldots+\deg p_{j}. The Fukaya category for the compact embedded Lagrangians comprises of the following data:

  • •

    The objects are embedded Lagrangians (with additional brane data, such as grading, Lagrangian potential, orientation, relative spin structure, and local system).

  • •

    The morphisms Hom∗⁡(L,L′)\Hom^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) are the vector spaces C​F∗​(L,L′)CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) (where LL can coincide with L′L^{\prime}).

  • •

    The A∞A_{\infty}-composition maps are the multilinear maps mkm_{k} satisfying the A∞A_{\infty} relations.

The Fukaya category is an example of an A∞A_{\infty}-category.

In particular, the Floer differential squares to zero, so we can define the Floer cohomology groups H​F∗​(L,L′)HF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) for embedded exact Lagrangian branes. The Floer product on cohomology is given by

[p2]∘[p1]=(−1)deg⁡p1​m2​(p2,p1)[p_{2}]\circ[p_{1}]=(-1)^{\deg p_{1}}m_{2}(p_{2},p_{1})

which is associative.

Example 6.2.

(Floer products involving the identity, continued) In the context of Example 6.1, the orientation isomorphism (69) for the holomorphic triangle is determined by whether the isotopy of the Lagrangian boundary conditions respects the relative spin structure. Since the relative spin structure on ϕϵ​H​(L)\phi_{\epsilon H}(L) is induced from LL, this problem is equivalent to the corresponding isotopy problem for the limiting holomophic strip. The holonomy factor of the local systems for the holomorphic triangle, is also reduced to that of the limiting strip.

In the simplest case when we are given closed elements α∈C​F0​(L,L′),β∈C​F0​(L′,L)\alpha\in CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}),\beta\in CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L) each involving only one intersection point, the local systems are trivial, and only one holomorphic curve contributes to the Floer product, then β∘α=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) means that for the holomorphic strip from α\alpha to β\beta passing through a generically chosen point r∈Lr\in L, the Lagrangian boundary condition on the disk obtained by gluing T​L,T​L′TL,TL^{\prime} and the two Lagrangian paths at the two strip like ends, can be contracted to constant, respecting the prescribed relative spin structures on L,L′L,L^{\prime} and the two ends. More generally, many intersections points and holomorphic strips may contribute to the Floer product, and β∘α=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) means a weighted signed count of holomophic strips is equal to one.

Under sufficient transversality assumptions, we can form the (n−1)(n-1) dimensional moduli space of holomorphic strips from α\alpha to β\beta, and thereby produce an (n+1)(n+1)-dimensional universal family 𝒞\mathcal{C}, as in the main text section 3.1. Using the relative spin structures on L,L′L,L^{\prime} and the Lagrangian paths associated with the ends, we use (69)(70) and Remark 6.9 to induce a canonical orientation on the moduli space from β⊗α∈C​F0​(L′,L)⊗C​F0​(L,L′)\beta\otimes\alpha\in CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L)\otimes CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}). Using the complex orientation on the holomorphic curve Σ\Sigma, and inserting an extra minus sign, we obtain an orientation on 𝒞\mathcal{C}. This tricky minus sign accounts for the difference between the counterclockwise orientation of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma compatible with the complex orientation, and the clockwise orientation of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma compatible on the LL-boundary with the translation vector field −∂s-\partial_{s}. Putting everything together, β∘α=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) means in the sense of weighted counts, that ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} passes once through a generic point r∈Lr\in L in the same orientation as λ⁡(T​L)\lambda(TL). In other words, the LL-boundary evaluation of ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} sweeps out the oriented cycle LL.

The same argument says that if α∘β=1L′∈H​F0​(L′,L′)\alpha\circ\beta=1_{L^{\prime}}\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}), then the moduli space of holomorphic strips from β\beta to α\alpha produces a universal family 𝒞′\mathcal{C}^{\prime}, whose L′L^{\prime}-boundary evaluation map sweeps out the oriented cycle L′L^{\prime}. The subtle point is that due to the reversal of the ℝ\mathbb{R}-translation vector fields, 𝒞′\mathcal{C}^{\prime} has the reverse orientation as 𝒞\mathcal{C}. Therefore, the L′L^{\prime}-boundary evaluation of ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} sweeps out the oriented cycle −L′-L^{\prime} instead of L′L^{\prime}. Here ends the example.

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