Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am a physicist and would like to understand the section 1 of this math paper, which explains how the SYZ conjecture implies topological mirror symmetry. I have some technical problem and would appreciate your help. My question is purely mathematical and nothing scary to most of you, I think.

The setting is the following; let $f:X\rightarrow B$ be a 3-torus $T^3$-fibration of a Calabi-Yau threefold (which has singular fibers). Since $X$ is a real sixfold, $B$ is a real threefold. Under certain technical assumption, using Leray spectral sequence, the author shows that the dual torus fibration gives another Calabi-Yau threefold with mirrored Hodge diamond.

My questions concern the Leray spectral sequence associated with $f$. First I don't quite understand why $E_2$ of the Leray spectral sequence looks like the diagram in the paper; how can we conclude that $$ H^{i}(B,R^{j}f_{*}\mathbb{R})=\mathbb{R} \ (i=0,3), \ \ 0 \ (i=1,2) $$ for $j=0,3$? My understanding is that roughly the direct image sheaves $R^{i}f_{*}\mathbb{R}$ are local system, so on a small open subset we have $R^{i}f_{*}\mathbb{R}\cong H^{i}(T^{3},\mathbb{R})$. How should we understand the computation above?

Secondly why $\pi_{1}(X)=0$ (or rather $H^{1}(X,\mathbb{R})=H^{5}(X,\mathbb{R})=0$) implies that $$ H^{0}(B,R^{1}f_{*}\mathbb{R})=H^{3}(B,R^{2}f_{*}\mathbb{R})=0? $$ I know that the problem is caused by my poor understanding of direct image sheaves. I hope to make my understanding clearer with this example.

I am afraid that my questions are elementary and this may not be a place to ask such a question. Any help, comments and reference suggestions will be appreciated.

Thank you,

share|improve this question
    
Gavin I could not open the link for the paper, I think it is not working. –  George Sep 3 '12 at 7:37
    
@George, the link seems working. Please try it again. @Tim, thank you for pointing out the typo. I fixed it. –  Gavin Sep 3 '12 at 17:41

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Edited following algori's comment.

In the context of the paper I think one can make these deductions on rather formal grounds - deep understanding of higher direct images is not needed.

Gross assumes that the base $B$ is a simply connected closed 3-manifold (i.e., it's $S^3$). Let $i\colon B_0\to B$ be the inclusion of the (open and dense) regular locus, and $f_0\colon f^{-1}(B_0)\to B_0$ the restricted fibration. Gross also tells us that $f$ is "simple", meaning that $i_*(R^jf_{0\ast} \mathbb{R})\cong R^j f_\ast \mathbb{R}$ for each $j$. In degree $j=0$, simplicity is automatic: the fibers of $f_0$ are connected, and since disconnectedness of a fiber is an open property on $B$, the fibers of $f$ are also connected. So $f_{0\ast}\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{R}$ and $f_{\ast}\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{R}$.

The fibers of $f_0$ are also oriented. Moreover, after choosing orientations for $X$ and $B$ we have a consistent notion of a "positive" fiber-orientation: one which, after wedging with the pullback of a positive orientation form on $B$, agrees with the orientation of $X$. Hence $R^3f_{0\ast}\mathbb{R}=\mathbb{R}$. By simplicity, $R^3 f_{\ast}\mathbb{R}\cong \mathbb{R}$. We can therefore complete the $0$th and $3$rd rows of $E_2$ - each is the de Rham cohomology of $S^3$: $$ \mathbb{R}\quad 0\quad 0 \quad \mathbb{R}.$$

The spectral sequence converges to $H^\ast(X;\mathbb{R})$, and we know that $E_2^{2,0}=0$. We must have $E_2^{0,1}=0$ because otherwise it would survive to $E_\infty$ and we would have $H^1(X;\mathbb{R})\neq 0$. Similarly, since $E_2^{1,3}=0$ and $H^5(X;\mathbb{R})=0$, we must have $E_2^{3,2}=0$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Tim -- the pushforward of a local syspem is in general certainly not a local system. However, the pushforward of a trivial local system from an open connected submanifold certainly is. In this case the triviality of $R^3 f\mathbb{R}$ restricted to $B_0$ amounts to the orientability of the fibration; our fibration is orientable since since the base and the total space are orientable; no dual fibration is necessary. Another remark: in general restrictions do not commute with direct images: some "base change" assumptions are necessary. In this case all works fine as $f$ is proper. –  algori Sep 3 '12 at 15:06
    
A couple of more typos: row 3 of $E_2$ is not zero: it is isomorphic to row 0; in the last sentence $H^5(X,\mathbb{R})=0$. –  algori Sep 3 '12 at 15:55
    
@algori. Thanks for the comments and noting the typos. I might make a more substantial edit later, but for now I'll correct the $H^5$ typo. I don't see a typo about row 3 though. –  Tim Perutz Sep 3 '12 at 16:10
    
Tim -- re " I don't see a typo about row 3 though": there is no typo there, sorry; I misread what you wrote. –  algori Sep 3 '12 at 16:18
    
Thank you for the detail answer. The vanishing of $E^{0,1}=E^{3,2}=0$ makes perfect sense. My problem is that are fibers are necessarily connected, especially on $B\setminus B_{0}$? Or should we argue over $B_{0}$ and use the simplicity assumption? As algori said, it seems the triviality of $R^{3}f_{*}\mathbb{R}$ also follows in this manner. Many thanks again. –  Gavin Sep 3 '12 at 18:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.