Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 2, 2020 at 12:14 comment added Yaniv Ganor I think what Mohammed meant is that if one glues the node on a singly-pinched annulus (with two marked points) the two marked points will never be diametrically opposite, which now I don't actually understand why, I have to admit. Mohammed, could you please elaborate on that? @MohammedAbouzaid
Dec 1, 2020 at 15:54 comment added Luigi M @MohammedAbouzaid Sorry for commenting such an old post but I can't figure out what do you mean by "if there were only one component [...] The two marked points don't satisfy the required constraint". How do you encode in the moduli space that the two marked points must belong to different boundary components?
May 18, 2017 at 17:34 comment added Yaniv Ganor Thank you, Mohammed, it all makes sense now. also thanks for the reference to Liu's thesis, exactly the kind of exposition I needed.
May 18, 2017 at 17:32 vote accept Yaniv Ganor
May 18, 2017 at 12:57 comment added Mohammed Abouzaid Let me note the sentence just after Equation (C.8) requires that there be two marked points at $\{1,-r\}$. These are "diametrically opposite," which is why the limit breaks up into two discs. If there was only one component, then, after gluing the node, you would find that the two marked points don't satisfy the required constraint. If there were three or more components, then one of them would not carry any marked point, and hence would be unstable. Less importantly, since you link to the arXiv version, you should probably say that it's on p. 38.
May 18, 2017 at 7:41 answer added user_1789 timeline score: 4
May 18, 2017 at 5:33 history edited Yaniv Ganor CC BY-SA 3.0
Typos
May 17, 2017 at 19:26 comment added user21574 The right person to ask is Aleksey Zinger
May 17, 2017 at 19:02 history asked Yaniv Ganor CC BY-SA 3.0