ScalingStacks

6 The 2-torus [058C]

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

6 The 2-torus

Everything works rather simply on T2T^{2}; Grayson [G], building on work of Gage, Hamilton and others (e.g. [GH]), has shown that mean curvature flow for curves (of Maslov class zero) converges to straight lines and so we get the mirror symmetric analogue of Atiyah’s classification [At] of sheaves on an elliptic curve – they are basically all sums of stable sheaves. The only exceptions are the non-trivial extensions of certain sheaves by themselves; these correspond to thickenings of the corresponding special Lagrangian (giving fat SLags, as they are known in Britain, or multiply-wrapped cycles in physics speak).

( L 1 , 0 ) ( L 2 , / π 4 ) ( L 2 , / π 4 ) ( L 1 , π ) 0 → O → O ( p ) → O p → 0 ⊕ O O ( p ) ⊕ O [ - 1 ] O ( p ) 0 → O → E → O ( p ) → 0 hamiltoniandeformationdeformation ⁢ L 2 # L 1 [ 1 ] ⁢ L 1 # L 2 hamiltonian
Figure 3: L1​#​L2L_{1}\#L_{2} and L2​#​(L1​[1])L_{2}\#(L_{1}[1]), equivalent SLags, and their mirror sheaves

We give an example to demonstrate why one cannot form smooth unstable Lagrangians on T2T^{2} in Figure 3. First, giving L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} the gradings such that their phases are 0 and π/4\pi/4, we expect L1​#​L2L_{1}\#L_{2} to be stable, and indeed we see it is hamiltonian deformation equivalent to the slope 1/21/2 SLag mirror to the stable extension EE of 𝒪\mathscr{O} by 𝒪⁡(p)\mathscr{O}(p) (where pp is a basepoint of T2T^{2} with corresponding line bundle mirror to the diagonal SLag drawn).

If one then tries to form an unstable SLag L2​#​L1L_{2}\#L_{1}, the graded connect sum does not exist – the phase would become discontinuous. To form L2​#​L1L_{2}\#L_{1} we see from the diagram that we have to take the phase of L1L_{1} to be π\pi, thus reversing its orientation, and in fact forming L2​#​(L1​[1])L_{2}\#(L_{1}[1]). Then the stability inequality (3.3) is not violated, and in fact this Lagrangian is stable and hamiltonian deformation equivalent to the SLag in T2T^{2} represented by the vertical edge of the square (and so drawn with a little artistic license in Figure 3). Under the mirror map this corresponds to replacing the extension Ext1 class by a Hom (as we have shifted complexes of sheaves by one place) and taking the cone of this in the derived category; this is the cokernel 𝒪p\mathscr{O}_{p} of Figure 3.

As pointed out to me by Markarian and Polishchuk, one can play with lots of pictures of connect sums on tori to recover descriptions of certain moduli of sheaves, their special cycles (for instance where one connect-sum neck parameter goes to zero), and so forth, giving results similar to some of those in [FO].

This example can be extended to show that we cannot form the graded connect sum L1​#​L2L_{1}\#L_{2} of any two Lagrangians (via a class in H​F∗​(L1,L2)HF^{*}(L_{1},L_{2})) if ϕ⁡(L1)>ϕ⁡(L2)\phi(L_{1})>\phi(L_{2}). Namely, replace L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} by their hamiltonian deformation equivalent SLag representatives, which are straight lines of constant phase θi=ϕ⁡(Li)\theta_{i}=\phi(L_{i}). As Figure 3 shows, L1​#​L2L_{1}\#L_{2} can be compatibly graded about an intersection point if and only if we have the local inequalities

θ2>θ1>θ2−π.\theta_{2}>\theta_{1}>\theta_{2}-\pi.

Thus we require ϕ⁡(L2)>ϕ⁡(L1)\phi(L_{2})>\phi(L_{1}). (We will explain this kind of phenomenon more generally in [TY] in terms of the grading on Floer cohomology.) Each intersection point is Floer coclosed since the Floer grading is the same as the relative orientation of the Lagrangians, mod 2, and this is the same at each intersection point of the straight lines. So each possible connect sum of the SLags defines a class in H​F∗HF^{*}, and any other connect sum, defined on hamiltonian deformations of L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} by a class in H​F∗HF^{*}, will be hamiltonian deformation equivalent to the appropriate connect sum of the SLags, and so satisfy the same phase inequality.

If two smooth Lagrangians have the same phase then their representative SLags will either be the same or disjoint parallel SLags. Either way there are no connect sums (though as mentioned above to account for the mirror symmetry of bundles one should also include non-trivial thickenings of SLags in the Fukaya category).

So unstable Lagrangians do not exist, and by the result of [G] mentioned earlier, the conjecture is true on T2T^{2}.

Thus complex dimension 1 is too simple – in trying to make the phase of one Lagrangian become larger than the phase of another, the two must cross, thus reversing their relative orientations and changing the order of the connect sum. Far more complicated phenomena arise in 2 and 3 dimensions, however.

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