Timeline for Kähler structure on cotangent bundle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2023 at 17:58 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Names of references, while this is on the front page
|
| Jan 8, 2017 at 3:33 | comment | added | Tim Perutz | @Ashley: No, this approach gives us no control over that, so far as I can see. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 23:47 | comment | added | Ashley | @TimPerutz Hope this isn't a silly question, but regarding "via the Lagrangian neighbourhood theorem, you can take the symplectic form to be the canonical one if you'll settle for a Kaehler structure only near the zero-section." Do you know if this Kahler form take on a nice form in holomorphic coordinates? I'm wondering because the usual form as $\sum_j dx_j \wedge dy_j$ will not come from holomorphic coordinates $z_j = x_j +i y_j$ unless the cotangent bundle is flat. | |
| Mar 7, 2013 at 22:27 | comment | added | Tim Perutz | Right, but Whitney proved that every smooth manifold is diffeomorphic to a real analytic manifold. Kai's answer is indeed a good one (I didn't know of the work he cited). | |
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:05 | vote | accept | Mohammad Farajzadeh-Tehrani | ||
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:04 | comment | added | Mohammad Farajzadeh-Tehrani | does not your first argument need M to be an analytic manifold? I found the papers mentioned by Zehmisch and the one in the comment below that interesting as well. | |
| Jun 2, 2010 at 13:17 | vote | accept | Mohammad Farajzadeh-Tehrani | ||
| Mar 7, 2013 at 19:04 | |||||
| Jun 2, 2010 at 4:18 | history | edited | Tim Perutz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Typo fixed, slight rephrasing.
|
| Jun 2, 2010 at 4:10 | history | edited | Tim Perutz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Fixed arxiv links
|
| Jun 2, 2010 at 4:01 | history | answered | Tim Perutz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |