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

I have difficulty understanding Sarkar's maslov index formula in symmetric products from http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0609673.

If $D$ is an $n$-sided region with corner points $p_1,\ldots, p_n$ then it reads like

$\mu(D)= \mu_{p_1}(D)+\mu_{P_n}(D)+ e(D)-g(n-2)/2+\sum_{ 1< i< j \leq n} \partial_j(D) \cdot \partial_i(D)$

where $\mu_{P_i}$ and $e$ are the point and euler measures.

First of all it seems to treat $P_1,P_n$ different from other points. Secondly he says the euler measure of an $n$ sided region is $1-n/4$ which looks different from what Lipshitz says (which takes the accute and obtuse corners into account). Last but not least I don't understand the definition of the last term. It is defined by moving the two sides in 4 different directions in such a way that no endpoint of one is on another and then taking intersection points. It's not clear for me what these 4 directions are and why the result is not always zero.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

(1) Yes, $p_1$ and $p_n$ are treated different from other points. If you cyclically permute the indices $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ you do of course get the same answer, but it's not immediately obvious from Sarkar's formula that this is the case.

(2) The Euler measure of a region $R$ equals:$$e(R):=\chi(R)-\frac 14\#\{\text{acute corners}\}+\frac 14\#\{\text{obtuse corners}\}$$Usually one just talks about regions which are disks, so $\chi(R)=1$. Now every connected component of $\Sigma_g\setminus(\eta_1^1\cup\cdots\cup\eta_g^1\cup\cdots\cup\eta_1^k\cup\cdots\eta_g^k)$ has zero obtuse corners. With these two facts in hand one reduces to Sarkar's formula $1-\frac n4$ for an $n$-sided polygon.

(3) The arcs in $\partial_iD$ all lie inside the $\boldsymbol\eta^i$ circles, and they are considered moved in "both directions" along the $\boldsymbol\eta^i$ circles. If you indulge me as I create ugly ascii art, I can give a few examples. Here $|$ denotes $\partial_iD$ and $=$ denotes $\partial_jD$.

The following has intersection $1$: $$\begin{matrix} &|&\cr &|&\cr =&=&=\cr &|&\cr &|&\cr \end{matrix}$$ The following both have intersection $\frac 12$: $$\begin{matrix} &|&&&&|\cr &|&&&&|\cr =&=&&&=&=&=\cr &|&&&&\cr &|&&&&\cr \end{matrix}$$ The following all have intersection $\frac 14$: $$\begin{matrix} &|&&&&|\cr &|&&&&|\cr =&=&&&&=&=\cr &&&&&\cr\cr\cr &&&&&\cr &&&&&\cr &&&&&\cr =&=&&&&=&=\cr &|&&&&|\cr &|&&&&|\cr \end{matrix}$$

share|improve this answer

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.