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

Here's the problem I'm looking at:

$F$ is a perverse sheaf (or a regular holonomic D-module, or even a mixed hodge module) on $\mathbb{C}^2$ stratified by $z_1 = 0$, $z_2=0$. It can be caracterized by a quiver $$ \begin{array}{ccc} \psi_{z_1}\psi_{z_2}(F) & \leftrightarrows & \psi_{z_1}\phi_{z_2}(F) \cr \uparrow \downarrow & & \uparrow \downarrow \cr \phi_{z_1}\psi_{z_2}(F) & \leftrightarrows & \phi_{z_1}\phi_{z_2}(F) \end{array} $$
where arrows are the canonical and variation maps.

Consider $f(z_1,z_2) = z_1+z_2$ (or any curve passing through $(0,0)$ transverse to the axises).

How can we compute $$ can: \psi_f(F) \leftrightarrows \phi_f(F) : var $$ in terms of these data?

share|improve this question
    
Describing perverse sheaves on f = 0 in Deligne style, as representations of $\bullet \leftrightarrows \bullet$, I get $\psi_f F = [\psi \psi F \leftrightarrows \psi \phi F \oplus \phi\psi F]$. That's a nice-looking answer but I didn't arrive at it in a nice way. –  David Treumann Sep 9 '10 at 16:58
    
That is the obvious answer together with $\phi_fF = \phi \phi F$ but I can't find a nice proof. And the determination of can and var seems even trickier. –  YBL Sep 9 '10 at 18:00
    
This is quite frustrating as this is the simplest non trivial situation I can think of. –  YBL Sep 9 '10 at 18:01
1  
Great question! I also thought a bit about this without arriving at a rigorous or even elegant proof. It would be great if this question was answered! –  Jan Weidner Dec 6 '12 at 15:50

1 Answer 1

Here's the bottom line. If $F$ is a perverse sheaf or a D-module, there is an isomorphism between $\psi_fF$ and the complex $[\psi \psi F \to \psi \phi F \oplus \phi \psi F]$. The reason why we can't get to it in a nice way is that it is really non canonical.

To see it, consider a weight-filtrered perverse sheaf $(F,W)$ or an F-filtered D-module, the natual filtration on $\psi_f F$ does not correspond to the natural convolution filtration on $[\psi \psi F \to \psi \phi F \oplus \phi \psi F]$. Also the isomorphisms you get for perverse sheaves on one side and D-modules on the other side are not compatible with the Riemann-Hilbert correspondance. Non trival periods appear because integrals over the fibers $\int_{z_1+z_2 = 1} z_1^a z_2^b = B(a+1,b+1)$ are related to Euler's Beta function.

What is canonical (for $F$ bi-monodromic) is the isomorphism $\psi_f F = i_1^*Rf_*F$ between nearby cycles and the fiber over 1 of the direct image. The right way to approach the problem is to consider the additive convolution on the affine line as a new fundamental operation distinct from the tensor product.

In this way one can prove a general Sebastiani-Thom theorem: in a neighborhood of $f(x) = g(y) = 0$, the vanishing cycles of $\phi_{f\oplus g}(F\boxtimes G)$ is the additive convolution of $\phi_f(F)$ and $\phi_g(G)$ (where vanishing cycles are interpreted as monodromic sheaves on the normal cones with 0 fiber on the zero sections). If $F$ and $G$ are perverse sheaves (resp. D-modules) then the additive convolution is non canonically isomorphic to the tensor product (this was known to Deligne).

One has a similar result for nearby cycles and we can describe the canonical and variation morphism at $f(x) = g(y) = 0$. But I havent found how to describe the vertical monodromy of the nearby cycles yet.

PS: I should mention that when I finally understood all this over a year ago. I sent a preprint to Claude Sabbah who informed me than M. Saito had proved a similar result more than 10 years ago but never published it. I still hope I will find the time to write things down properly and publish my version as I find the problem is both elementary, very deep and interesting.

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.