Deforming antiholomorphic involutions
$begingroup$
Let $(M,J)$ be a compact smooth almost complex manifold. We can "deform" $J$ as follows: if$A$ is a smooth section of the endomorphism bundle $mathrm{End}(TM)to M$ satisfying
$
AJ=-JA,
$
it follows that
$
Je^A=e^{-A}J,
$
where $e^A$ is the matrix exponential of $A$. It follows immediately that
$$
J':=Je^A
$$
is another almost complex structure on $M$.
Suppose $phi:Mto M$ is a diffeomorphism which is an anti-$J$-holomorphic involution, i.e. $$
Jcirc dphi=-dphi circ J qquad text{and} qquad phicirc phi =mathrm{id}.
$$
Question.
Can we deform $phi$ into an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution?
I think this will be true if there exist a vector field $etain Gamma(TM)$ such that the diffeomorphism $phi':Mto M$ defined by
$$
phi'(x)=(phicirc mathrm{exp}circ eta)(x)
$$
is an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution (here $exp$ is defined with respect to some Riemannian metric on $M$). How can I show the existence/nonexistence of $eta$?
differential-geometry riemannian-geometry complex-geometry symplectic-geometry
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $(M,J)$ be a compact smooth almost complex manifold. We can "deform" $J$ as follows: if$A$ is a smooth section of the endomorphism bundle $mathrm{End}(TM)to M$ satisfying
$
AJ=-JA,
$
it follows that
$
Je^A=e^{-A}J,
$
where $e^A$ is the matrix exponential of $A$. It follows immediately that
$$
J':=Je^A
$$
is another almost complex structure on $M$.
Suppose $phi:Mto M$ is a diffeomorphism which is an anti-$J$-holomorphic involution, i.e. $$
Jcirc dphi=-dphi circ J qquad text{and} qquad phicirc phi =mathrm{id}.
$$
Question.
Can we deform $phi$ into an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution?
I think this will be true if there exist a vector field $etain Gamma(TM)$ such that the diffeomorphism $phi':Mto M$ defined by
$$
phi'(x)=(phicirc mathrm{exp}circ eta)(x)
$$
is an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution (here $exp$ is defined with respect to some Riemannian metric on $M$). How can I show the existence/nonexistence of $eta$?
differential-geometry riemannian-geometry complex-geometry symplectic-geometry
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $(M,J)$ be a compact smooth almost complex manifold. We can "deform" $J$ as follows: if$A$ is a smooth section of the endomorphism bundle $mathrm{End}(TM)to M$ satisfying
$
AJ=-JA,
$
it follows that
$
Je^A=e^{-A}J,
$
where $e^A$ is the matrix exponential of $A$. It follows immediately that
$$
J':=Je^A
$$
is another almost complex structure on $M$.
Suppose $phi:Mto M$ is a diffeomorphism which is an anti-$J$-holomorphic involution, i.e. $$
Jcirc dphi=-dphi circ J qquad text{and} qquad phicirc phi =mathrm{id}.
$$
Question.
Can we deform $phi$ into an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution?
I think this will be true if there exist a vector field $etain Gamma(TM)$ such that the diffeomorphism $phi':Mto M$ defined by
$$
phi'(x)=(phicirc mathrm{exp}circ eta)(x)
$$
is an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution (here $exp$ is defined with respect to some Riemannian metric on $M$). How can I show the existence/nonexistence of $eta$?
differential-geometry riemannian-geometry complex-geometry symplectic-geometry
$endgroup$
Let $(M,J)$ be a compact smooth almost complex manifold. We can "deform" $J$ as follows: if$A$ is a smooth section of the endomorphism bundle $mathrm{End}(TM)to M$ satisfying
$
AJ=-JA,
$
it follows that
$
Je^A=e^{-A}J,
$
where $e^A$ is the matrix exponential of $A$. It follows immediately that
$$
J':=Je^A
$$
is another almost complex structure on $M$.
Suppose $phi:Mto M$ is a diffeomorphism which is an anti-$J$-holomorphic involution, i.e. $$
Jcirc dphi=-dphi circ J qquad text{and} qquad phicirc phi =mathrm{id}.
$$
Question.
Can we deform $phi$ into an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution?
I think this will be true if there exist a vector field $etain Gamma(TM)$ such that the diffeomorphism $phi':Mto M$ defined by
$$
phi'(x)=(phicirc mathrm{exp}circ eta)(x)
$$
is an anti-$J'$-holomorphic involution (here $exp$ is defined with respect to some Riemannian metric on $M$). How can I show the existence/nonexistence of $eta$?
differential-geometry riemannian-geometry complex-geometry symplectic-geometry
differential-geometry riemannian-geometry complex-geometry symplectic-geometry
edited Dec 22 '18 at 17:55
srp
asked Dec 22 '18 at 17:35
srpsrp
2728
2728
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
At least in the 2-dimensional case, your deformations of a given complex structure yield all complex structures on the given oriented surface. (A proof of this is a linear algebra exercise where you analyze endomorphisms of a 2-dimensional real vector space.) However, with few exceptions (among compact surfaces, the only exception is the sphere), a generic complex structure on a surface admits no anti-holomorphic automorphisms (see below). Hence, your $phi'$ generically does not exist.
Edit. Let us check that a generic smooth elliptic curve (aka a real flat 2-torus) has no antiholomorphic automorphisms. Let $T^2$ be a flat torus of unit area. An antiholomorphic involution $h$ of $T^2$ is an orientation-reversing isometry of the flat metric. If $h$ has nonempty fixed point set then it is a union of two parallel geodesic circles on $T^2$ which divide $T^2$ in two isometric annuli $A_1, A_2$ (swapped by $h$). The conformal type of $T^2$ is then uniquely determined by the modulus of $A_1$ which is a single real number. Hence, the space of flat tori of unit area which admit such an involution is real 1-dimensional. The second possibility is that $h$ acts freely on $T^2$ and the quotient is the Klein bottle. The moduli space of flat Klein bottles of fixed area is again real 1-dimensional. (Proving this is requires a tiny bit of work.) On the other hand, the moduli space of elliptic curves is complex one-dimensional. Hence, a generic elliptic curve admits no antiholomorphic involutions. (One can actually do better: The moduli space of $T^2$ is the complex line with two marked points corresponding to elliptic curves with groups extra holomorphic symmetries. Then the set of of elliptic curves which admit an antiholomorphic involution is the unique real line passing through these two marked points.)
The proof in the higher genus case is a similar dimension count. The moduli space of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ has dimension $3g-3$. On the other hand, if $h: Sto S$ is an antiholomorphic involution of a genus $g$ surface with nonempty fixed point set $F$, then $S$ is determined by the conformal type of one component $C$ of $S-F$. You have that $chi(S)=2chi(C)$. Then you compute the dimension of the moduli space of $C$, it equals $3g'-3+2p$ where $g'$ is the genus of $C$ and $p$ is the number of components of $F$. By the Euler characteristic formula above, you get: $2- 2g = 2(2g'-p+2)$.
Then make a computation and conclude that $3g'-3+2p$ is strictly less than $3g-3$. The proof when $h$ has no fixed points is a similar dimension count.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
add a comment |
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: "69"
};
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049668%2fdeforming-antiholomorphic-involutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
At least in the 2-dimensional case, your deformations of a given complex structure yield all complex structures on the given oriented surface. (A proof of this is a linear algebra exercise where you analyze endomorphisms of a 2-dimensional real vector space.) However, with few exceptions (among compact surfaces, the only exception is the sphere), a generic complex structure on a surface admits no anti-holomorphic automorphisms (see below). Hence, your $phi'$ generically does not exist.
Edit. Let us check that a generic smooth elliptic curve (aka a real flat 2-torus) has no antiholomorphic automorphisms. Let $T^2$ be a flat torus of unit area. An antiholomorphic involution $h$ of $T^2$ is an orientation-reversing isometry of the flat metric. If $h$ has nonempty fixed point set then it is a union of two parallel geodesic circles on $T^2$ which divide $T^2$ in two isometric annuli $A_1, A_2$ (swapped by $h$). The conformal type of $T^2$ is then uniquely determined by the modulus of $A_1$ which is a single real number. Hence, the space of flat tori of unit area which admit such an involution is real 1-dimensional. The second possibility is that $h$ acts freely on $T^2$ and the quotient is the Klein bottle. The moduli space of flat Klein bottles of fixed area is again real 1-dimensional. (Proving this is requires a tiny bit of work.) On the other hand, the moduli space of elliptic curves is complex one-dimensional. Hence, a generic elliptic curve admits no antiholomorphic involutions. (One can actually do better: The moduli space of $T^2$ is the complex line with two marked points corresponding to elliptic curves with groups extra holomorphic symmetries. Then the set of of elliptic curves which admit an antiholomorphic involution is the unique real line passing through these two marked points.)
The proof in the higher genus case is a similar dimension count. The moduli space of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ has dimension $3g-3$. On the other hand, if $h: Sto S$ is an antiholomorphic involution of a genus $g$ surface with nonempty fixed point set $F$, then $S$ is determined by the conformal type of one component $C$ of $S-F$. You have that $chi(S)=2chi(C)$. Then you compute the dimension of the moduli space of $C$, it equals $3g'-3+2p$ where $g'$ is the genus of $C$ and $p$ is the number of components of $F$. By the Euler characteristic formula above, you get: $2- 2g = 2(2g'-p+2)$.
Then make a computation and conclude that $3g'-3+2p$ is strictly less than $3g-3$. The proof when $h$ has no fixed points is a similar dimension count.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At least in the 2-dimensional case, your deformations of a given complex structure yield all complex structures on the given oriented surface. (A proof of this is a linear algebra exercise where you analyze endomorphisms of a 2-dimensional real vector space.) However, with few exceptions (among compact surfaces, the only exception is the sphere), a generic complex structure on a surface admits no anti-holomorphic automorphisms (see below). Hence, your $phi'$ generically does not exist.
Edit. Let us check that a generic smooth elliptic curve (aka a real flat 2-torus) has no antiholomorphic automorphisms. Let $T^2$ be a flat torus of unit area. An antiholomorphic involution $h$ of $T^2$ is an orientation-reversing isometry of the flat metric. If $h$ has nonempty fixed point set then it is a union of two parallel geodesic circles on $T^2$ which divide $T^2$ in two isometric annuli $A_1, A_2$ (swapped by $h$). The conformal type of $T^2$ is then uniquely determined by the modulus of $A_1$ which is a single real number. Hence, the space of flat tori of unit area which admit such an involution is real 1-dimensional. The second possibility is that $h$ acts freely on $T^2$ and the quotient is the Klein bottle. The moduli space of flat Klein bottles of fixed area is again real 1-dimensional. (Proving this is requires a tiny bit of work.) On the other hand, the moduli space of elliptic curves is complex one-dimensional. Hence, a generic elliptic curve admits no antiholomorphic involutions. (One can actually do better: The moduli space of $T^2$ is the complex line with two marked points corresponding to elliptic curves with groups extra holomorphic symmetries. Then the set of of elliptic curves which admit an antiholomorphic involution is the unique real line passing through these two marked points.)
The proof in the higher genus case is a similar dimension count. The moduli space of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ has dimension $3g-3$. On the other hand, if $h: Sto S$ is an antiholomorphic involution of a genus $g$ surface with nonempty fixed point set $F$, then $S$ is determined by the conformal type of one component $C$ of $S-F$. You have that $chi(S)=2chi(C)$. Then you compute the dimension of the moduli space of $C$, it equals $3g'-3+2p$ where $g'$ is the genus of $C$ and $p$ is the number of components of $F$. By the Euler characteristic formula above, you get: $2- 2g = 2(2g'-p+2)$.
Then make a computation and conclude that $3g'-3+2p$ is strictly less than $3g-3$. The proof when $h$ has no fixed points is a similar dimension count.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At least in the 2-dimensional case, your deformations of a given complex structure yield all complex structures on the given oriented surface. (A proof of this is a linear algebra exercise where you analyze endomorphisms of a 2-dimensional real vector space.) However, with few exceptions (among compact surfaces, the only exception is the sphere), a generic complex structure on a surface admits no anti-holomorphic automorphisms (see below). Hence, your $phi'$ generically does not exist.
Edit. Let us check that a generic smooth elliptic curve (aka a real flat 2-torus) has no antiholomorphic automorphisms. Let $T^2$ be a flat torus of unit area. An antiholomorphic involution $h$ of $T^2$ is an orientation-reversing isometry of the flat metric. If $h$ has nonempty fixed point set then it is a union of two parallel geodesic circles on $T^2$ which divide $T^2$ in two isometric annuli $A_1, A_2$ (swapped by $h$). The conformal type of $T^2$ is then uniquely determined by the modulus of $A_1$ which is a single real number. Hence, the space of flat tori of unit area which admit such an involution is real 1-dimensional. The second possibility is that $h$ acts freely on $T^2$ and the quotient is the Klein bottle. The moduli space of flat Klein bottles of fixed area is again real 1-dimensional. (Proving this is requires a tiny bit of work.) On the other hand, the moduli space of elliptic curves is complex one-dimensional. Hence, a generic elliptic curve admits no antiholomorphic involutions. (One can actually do better: The moduli space of $T^2$ is the complex line with two marked points corresponding to elliptic curves with groups extra holomorphic symmetries. Then the set of of elliptic curves which admit an antiholomorphic involution is the unique real line passing through these two marked points.)
The proof in the higher genus case is a similar dimension count. The moduli space of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ has dimension $3g-3$. On the other hand, if $h: Sto S$ is an antiholomorphic involution of a genus $g$ surface with nonempty fixed point set $F$, then $S$ is determined by the conformal type of one component $C$ of $S-F$. You have that $chi(S)=2chi(C)$. Then you compute the dimension of the moduli space of $C$, it equals $3g'-3+2p$ where $g'$ is the genus of $C$ and $p$ is the number of components of $F$. By the Euler characteristic formula above, you get: $2- 2g = 2(2g'-p+2)$.
Then make a computation and conclude that $3g'-3+2p$ is strictly less than $3g-3$. The proof when $h$ has no fixed points is a similar dimension count.
$endgroup$
At least in the 2-dimensional case, your deformations of a given complex structure yield all complex structures on the given oriented surface. (A proof of this is a linear algebra exercise where you analyze endomorphisms of a 2-dimensional real vector space.) However, with few exceptions (among compact surfaces, the only exception is the sphere), a generic complex structure on a surface admits no anti-holomorphic automorphisms (see below). Hence, your $phi'$ generically does not exist.
Edit. Let us check that a generic smooth elliptic curve (aka a real flat 2-torus) has no antiholomorphic automorphisms. Let $T^2$ be a flat torus of unit area. An antiholomorphic involution $h$ of $T^2$ is an orientation-reversing isometry of the flat metric. If $h$ has nonempty fixed point set then it is a union of two parallel geodesic circles on $T^2$ which divide $T^2$ in two isometric annuli $A_1, A_2$ (swapped by $h$). The conformal type of $T^2$ is then uniquely determined by the modulus of $A_1$ which is a single real number. Hence, the space of flat tori of unit area which admit such an involution is real 1-dimensional. The second possibility is that $h$ acts freely on $T^2$ and the quotient is the Klein bottle. The moduli space of flat Klein bottles of fixed area is again real 1-dimensional. (Proving this is requires a tiny bit of work.) On the other hand, the moduli space of elliptic curves is complex one-dimensional. Hence, a generic elliptic curve admits no antiholomorphic involutions. (One can actually do better: The moduli space of $T^2$ is the complex line with two marked points corresponding to elliptic curves with groups extra holomorphic symmetries. Then the set of of elliptic curves which admit an antiholomorphic involution is the unique real line passing through these two marked points.)
The proof in the higher genus case is a similar dimension count. The moduli space of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ has dimension $3g-3$. On the other hand, if $h: Sto S$ is an antiholomorphic involution of a genus $g$ surface with nonempty fixed point set $F$, then $S$ is determined by the conformal type of one component $C$ of $S-F$. You have that $chi(S)=2chi(C)$. Then you compute the dimension of the moduli space of $C$, it equals $3g'-3+2p$ where $g'$ is the genus of $C$ and $p$ is the number of components of $F$. By the Euler characteristic formula above, you get: $2- 2g = 2(2g'-p+2)$.
Then make a computation and conclude that $3g'-3+2p$ is strictly less than $3g-3$. The proof when $h$ has no fixed points is a similar dimension count.
edited Dec 25 '18 at 21:48
answered Dec 25 '18 at 18:07
Moishe CohenMoishe Cohen
47.9k344110
47.9k344110
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Why can a generic genus $g>0$ compact complex surface not admit any antiholomorphic automorphisms? I'd appreciate any references.
$endgroup$
– srp
Dec 25 '18 at 21:00
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049668%2fdeforming-antiholomorphic-involutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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