ScalingStacks

The normal form [04LJ]

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 normal form

Consider the Lagrangian fibration ℱ\mathcal{F} produced in Lemma 7.6. If we let U=ℝ3−ΔU=\mathbb{R}^{3}-\Delta, then ℱ|U\mathcal{F}|_{U} is a stitched T3T^{3} fibration whose seam consists of three disjoint components. It is clear that ℱ|U\mathcal{F}|_{U} is a fibration of the type described in Example 6.18. The goal of this section is to show that ℱ|U\mathcal{F}|_{U} is in fact symplectically conjugate to a fibration which can be constructed with Theorem 6.19, maybe after restricting the latter to a smaller neighborhood of the vertex of Δ\Delta (see Remarks 6.16 and 6.20). Essentially, we need to show that the action coordinates, a priori defined only on a contractible open set, extend continuously to ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}. We need the following

Lemma 7.8.

Let (X,ω)(X,\omega) be the total space of the fibration produced in Lemma 7.6. Then ω\omega is exact on XX.

Proof.

Recall that the fibration produced in Lemma 7.6 is a perturbation of the one in Example 5.8, whose total space is an open set of ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3} with standard symplectic form, which is exact. One can see that the successive perturbations of this fibration have not modified the cohomology class of ω\omega. ∎

To describe the fibration ℱ\mathcal{F} we use the same notation of Example 6.18. Given b¯∈Γc\bar{b}\in\Gamma_{c}, there exists a basis γ={γ1,γ2,γ3}\gamma=\{\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2},\gamma_{3}\} of H1​(Fb¯,ℤ)H_{1}(F_{\bar{b}},\mathbb{Z}) with respect to which monodromy is generated by the matrices in (58) with m1=m2=1m_{1}=m_{2}=1. We can compute the action coordinates α:U−(Γe∪Γd)→ℝ3\alpha:U-(\Gamma_{e}\cup\Gamma_{d})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3} with respect to γ\gamma, normalized so that α⁡(b¯)=(0,0,0)\alpha(\bar{b})=(0,0,0) (cf. Proposition 6.5). From Lemma 7.8, there exists a primitive η\eta of ω\omega, such that for every b=(b1,b2,b3)∈U−(Γe∪Γd)b=(b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})\in U-(\Gamma_{e}\cup\Gamma_{d}) we have

α(b)=(−∫γ1​(b)η,−∫γ2​(b)η,−∫γ3​(b)η),\alpha(b)=\left(-\int_{\gamma_{1}(b)}\eta,\ -\int_{\gamma_{2}(b)}\eta,\ -\int_{\gamma_{3}(b)}\eta\right),

where γj​(b)\gamma_{j}(b) is a cycle in FbF_{b} representing γj\gamma_{j}. Clearly α\alpha is well defined and continuous on U−(Γd∪Γe)U-(\Gamma_{d}\cup\Gamma_{e}). Actually, we have:

Lemma 7.9.

The action coordinates map α\alpha extends continuously to ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}.

Proof.

We apply a similar argument to the one used in the case of the positive fibre (see Proposition 4.11). Clearly, since γ1\gamma_{1} is represented by the orbits of the S1S^{1} action

−∫γ1​(b)η=b1,-\int_{\gamma_{1}(b)}\eta=b_{1},

which is continuous. We now prove that, for j=2,3j=2,3

αj(b)=−∫γj​(b)η\alpha_{j}(b)=-\int_{\gamma_{j}(b)}\eta (77)

extends continuously to points in Γd\Gamma_{d} or in Γe\Gamma_{e}. As we did in Proposition 4.11, we can think of αj​(b)\alpha_{j}(b) as

αj​(b)=∫Sω,\alpha_{j}(b)=\int_{S}\omega,

where SS is a surface spanned by the cycles γj​(b′)\gamma_{j}(b^{\prime}) as b′b^{\prime} moves along a curve joining b¯\bar{b} and bb. Suppose b∈Γeb\in\Gamma_{e} (or Γd\Gamma_{d}), then we need to show that αj​(b)\alpha_{j}(b) is independent of the curve from b¯\bar{b} to bb, or equivalently that

∫S1−S2ω=0,\int_{S_{1}-S_{2}}\omega=0,

where S1S_{1} and S2S_{2} are the surfaces corresponding to two different paths from b¯\bar{b} to bb. The boundary ∂(S1−S2)\partial(S_{1}-S_{2}) is determined by monodromy. It is easy to see that ∂(S1−S2)\partial(S_{1}-S_{2}) is a multiple of γ1​(b)\gamma_{1}(b), therefore for some integer kk we have

∫S1−S2ω=−∫∂(S1−S2)η=k∫γ1​(b)η=0,\int_{S_{1}-S_{2}}\omega=-\int_{\partial(S_{1}-S_{2})}\eta=k\int_{\gamma_{1}(b)}\eta=0,

where the last equality follows from the fact that b∈Γdb\in\Gamma_{d} or Γe\Gamma_{e}. To show that α\alpha extends continuously also to points of Δ\Delta we can argue that (77) makes sense also over singular fibres, since both η\eta and γj​(b)\gamma_{j}(b) are well defined when b∈Δb\in\Delta. ∎

We also have:

Lemma 7.10.

The map α:ℝ3→ℝ3\alpha:\mathbb{R}^{3}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3} is a homeomorphism onto its image.

Proof.

Since α1​(b)=b1\alpha_{1}(b)=b_{1}, it is enough to show that, if for fixed t∈ℝt\in\mathbb{R} we let Ut={b1=t}U_{t}=\{b_{1}=t\}, then αt=α|Ut\alpha_{t}=\alpha|_{U_{t}} is a bijection onto its image. If λ2\lambda_{2} and λ3\lambda_{3} are the periods of the fibration corresponding to γ2\gamma_{2} and γ3\gamma_{3}, then αt\alpha_{t} is computed by taking primitives of λ2|Ut\lambda_{2}|_{U_{t}} and λ3|Ut\lambda_{3}|_{U_{t}}. If we let XtX_{t} denote the symplectic reduction of XX at tt and Gt:Xt→ℝ2G_{t}:X_{t}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{2} the reduced fibration, then it is not difficult to see that λ2|Ut\lambda_{2}|_{U_{t}} and λ3|Ut\lambda_{3}|_{U_{t}} are in fact periods of GtG_{t} (cf. [3]Lemma 5.9). Now the conclusion follows by simply observing that GtG_{t} is a proper Lagrangian submersion, i.e. an integrable system. The argument works also when t=0t=0.

An explicit computation of the periods was done in [3]Proposition 5.10 for the fibration in Example 5.8. There we found that

λ2\displaystyle\lambda_{2} =\displaystyle= β1​d​b1−e2​b2​d​b2,\displaystyle\beta_{1}\,db_{1}-e^{2b_{2}}db_{2},
λ3\displaystyle\lambda_{3} =\displaystyle= β2​d​b1−e2​b3​d​b3,\displaystyle\beta_{2}\,db_{1}-e^{2b_{3}}db_{3}, (78)

where β1\beta_{1} and β2\beta_{2} are functions depending only on b1b_{1}. The periods of the perturbed fibration obtained in Lemma 7.6 will have this same expression away from where the perturbation took place (i.e. away from the white region in Figure 15), for example in a neighborhood of the codimension 1 part of Δ\Delta. It is easy to see from this expression of the periods that α\alpha extends continuously to Δ\Delta and that it is a bijection. ∎

Corollary 7.11.

Let ℱ\mathcal{F} be the fibration constructed in Lemma 7.6 and let U=ℝ3−ΔU=\mathbb{R}^{3}-\Delta. The stitched fibration ℱ|U\mathcal{F}|_{U} is symplectically conjugate to a fibration constructed in Theorem 6.19.

Proof.

The fibrations constructed in Theorem 6.19 have smooth Lagrangian sections and the action coordinates extend continuously to the whole base. Since ℱ|U\mathcal{F}|_{U} also has a Lagrangian section (cf. Remarks 7.7) and the action coordinates extend continuously to the whole base, the statement easily follows from the results on stitched fibrations such as the existence of a normal form. The latter is found extending the maps f+f^{+} and f−f^{-} beyond all connected components of the seam and then using the Lagrangian section to normalize with the period map.

∎

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