Relation between mirror symmetry, homological mirror symmetry, and SYZ conjecture











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
4












I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




  1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

  2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

  3. The SYZ conjecture


A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    8
    down vote

    favorite
    4












    I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




    1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

    2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

    3. The SYZ conjecture


    A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



    My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      4









      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      4






      4





      I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




      1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

      2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

      3. The SYZ conjecture


      A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



      My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?










      share|cite|improve this question















      I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




      1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

      2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

      3. The SYZ conjecture


      A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



      My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?







      complex-geometry sg.symplectic-geometry mirror-symmetry






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 9 at 1:54

























      asked Dec 9 at 1:32









      user2520938

      737512




      737512






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          7
          down vote













          Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



          According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that HMS implies Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




          when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




          I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            Dec 9 at 4:35






          • 1




            @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            Dec 9 at 4:40










          • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            Dec 9 at 4:46


















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Another relation between 2) and 3) is that 2) is an algebraic statement while 3) is a geometric statement. So if one obtains an SYZ mirror by dualizing a Lagrangian torus fibration, then one obtains a pair of manifolds and can then try to prove HMS on that pair. Specifically, the input needed for SYZ mirror symmetry is a Lagrangian torus fibration structure on the original symplectic manifold, and its mirror complex manifold is the dual fibration. Then one can aim to compute the categories on each side and show they match to prove HMS for that pair. Here is a nice set of notes on SYZ mirror symmetry i.e. T-duality (T for torus): https://math.berkeley.edu/~auroux/papers/slagmirror.pdf






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317220%2frelation-between-mirror-symmetry-homological-mirror-symmetry-and-syz-conjectur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            7
            down vote













            Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



            According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that HMS implies Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




            when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




            I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Some of FOOO are available
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:35






            • 1




              @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
              – Mike Miller
              Dec 9 at 4:40










            • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:46















            up vote
            7
            down vote













            Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



            According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that HMS implies Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




            when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




            I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Some of FOOO are available
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:35






            • 1




              @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
              – Mike Miller
              Dec 9 at 4:40










            • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:46













            up vote
            7
            down vote










            up vote
            7
            down vote









            Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



            According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that HMS implies Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




            when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




            I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



            According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that HMS implies Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




            when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




            I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 9 at 14:18

























            answered Dec 9 at 3:53









            S. S.

            414211




            414211












            • Some of FOOO are available
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:35






            • 1




              @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
              – Mike Miller
              Dec 9 at 4:40










            • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:46


















            • Some of FOOO are available
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:35






            • 1




              @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
              – Mike Miller
              Dec 9 at 4:40










            • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
              – AHusain
              Dec 9 at 4:46
















            Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            Dec 9 at 4:35




            Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            Dec 9 at 4:35




            1




            1




            @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            Dec 9 at 4:40




            @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            Dec 9 at 4:40












            Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            Dec 9 at 4:46




            Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            Dec 9 at 4:46










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Another relation between 2) and 3) is that 2) is an algebraic statement while 3) is a geometric statement. So if one obtains an SYZ mirror by dualizing a Lagrangian torus fibration, then one obtains a pair of manifolds and can then try to prove HMS on that pair. Specifically, the input needed for SYZ mirror symmetry is a Lagrangian torus fibration structure on the original symplectic manifold, and its mirror complex manifold is the dual fibration. Then one can aim to compute the categories on each side and show they match to prove HMS for that pair. Here is a nice set of notes on SYZ mirror symmetry i.e. T-duality (T for torus): https://math.berkeley.edu/~auroux/papers/slagmirror.pdf






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Another relation between 2) and 3) is that 2) is an algebraic statement while 3) is a geometric statement. So if one obtains an SYZ mirror by dualizing a Lagrangian torus fibration, then one obtains a pair of manifolds and can then try to prove HMS on that pair. Specifically, the input needed for SYZ mirror symmetry is a Lagrangian torus fibration structure on the original symplectic manifold, and its mirror complex manifold is the dual fibration. Then one can aim to compute the categories on each side and show they match to prove HMS for that pair. Here is a nice set of notes on SYZ mirror symmetry i.e. T-duality (T for torus): https://math.berkeley.edu/~auroux/papers/slagmirror.pdf






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                Another relation between 2) and 3) is that 2) is an algebraic statement while 3) is a geometric statement. So if one obtains an SYZ mirror by dualizing a Lagrangian torus fibration, then one obtains a pair of manifolds and can then try to prove HMS on that pair. Specifically, the input needed for SYZ mirror symmetry is a Lagrangian torus fibration structure on the original symplectic manifold, and its mirror complex manifold is the dual fibration. Then one can aim to compute the categories on each side and show they match to prove HMS for that pair. Here is a nice set of notes on SYZ mirror symmetry i.e. T-duality (T for torus): https://math.berkeley.edu/~auroux/papers/slagmirror.pdf






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Another relation between 2) and 3) is that 2) is an algebraic statement while 3) is a geometric statement. So if one obtains an SYZ mirror by dualizing a Lagrangian torus fibration, then one obtains a pair of manifolds and can then try to prove HMS on that pair. Specifically, the input needed for SYZ mirror symmetry is a Lagrangian torus fibration structure on the original symplectic manifold, and its mirror complex manifold is the dual fibration. Then one can aim to compute the categories on each side and show they match to prove HMS for that pair. Here is a nice set of notes on SYZ mirror symmetry i.e. T-duality (T for torus): https://math.berkeley.edu/~auroux/papers/slagmirror.pdf







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 10 at 21:13









                CatCan

                11




                11






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317220%2frelation-between-mirror-symmetry-homological-mirror-symmetry-and-syz-conjectur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                    Aardman Animations

                    Are they similar matrix